I've long been an opponent of what I see as the increasing militarization of American law enforcement agencies with police often fielding SWAT teams that look more like light infantry units than part of law enforcement. So why not pull back, get rid of the armored vehicles for most law enforcement agencies and instead spend the resources on more mounted (horse) units? Though it probably wouldn't save money as trained horses and keeping up training for mounted officers would probably soak up the money not spent on maintaining even wheeled armored vehicles. But to my way of thinking some mounted police officers are far more palatable to the public than those officers riding around in an armored vehicle. And obviously the public image of police forces are important. And from a practical standpoint, according to what I've heard about mounted law enforcement, there are few things more effective than them when it comes to controlling an unruly mob. Opinions?
That's the whole point of defund the police movement. Stop considering the cops as soldier-lite and instead put the emphasis on peacekeeping and social outreach.
The problem is as much the laws as how those laws are enforced. Here's a thought that maybe never occurred to anyone: If you have fewer laws, maybe you will have fewer reasons for police to become involved in civilian affairs. I mean, let's think about this here, any time you send out armed men with guns to use force and try to basically kidnap people, there is the potential for something to go wrong. Sometimes I think those who constantly complain about police don't understand that government cannot just magically solve all the problems, and it is unreasonable to expect human beings to be able to carry out policies perfectly all the time. For every law you want enforced, there will be some unintended casualties. That is just an inherent thing. Especially when it comes to laws were an arrest is the first line of enforcement. (It's not like drug dealers are just issued a ticket and a court summons, for example) These people, out of ignorance and naivety, think that you can just pass a law and that law will automatically be enforced, and if something goes wrong it's all the fault of those who made a mistake while performing the task of enforcement. No! Part of the problem is the law itself. Did we really need that particular law to be there? If one person pays someone else to perform an illegal kidnapping, and the victim accidentally is killed during the act, do we place all the blame on the person who performed the kidnapping, and no blame for the death on the one who commissioned it? Of course not.
From a philosophical standpoint, the police should have access to the same equipment civilians do. As far as I know, its not illegal for me to own an MRAP or even an actual tank, so long as the armaments are removed or otherwise rendered permanantly inoperable. From a financial standpoint, MRAPs and tanks are extremely expensive to maintain, and few depts are ever actually going to need them. I agree the police should have less of them. But they should have a few here and there for extrenuating circumstances.
One of the issues was that the US military was offloading used military equipment to local police forces after the Iraq, and then Afghanistan wars. I don't entirely agree with you. Police forces in larger population areas usually maintain a special unit for hostage situations or bank robberies in progress. But usually these were only smaller units and were not commonly used, except as a response to those type of rare things.
But isn't that pretty much what I said: that they a few of those here and there for extrenuating circumstances?
Police to patrol on horseback as a serious proposition? Really? I suppose all that needs be done then is passing a law that required anyone committing a crime also be on horseback too. But, then, all that we need to do is to outlaw crime and with no crime we don't need any police, do we?
I agree that police should not be militarized nor generally need military equipment. I particularly oppose black and military style uniforms for SWAT. Large cities may need 1 or 2 armored personnel carriers as they are just vehicles so it doesn't matter one way or the other. Name anyone killed by a SWAT armored car? I oppose the appearance and resulting mindset of dressing officers up like special ops teams on military missions. They could have the same body armor and shields in police uniform and colors instead. But how does requiring police be in vehicles that no more stop bullets then tissue paper equate to eliminating police cars and replace them with horses? Horses are just a PR thing some departments use generally just for parades, nothing else other than maybe some particularly extremely remote areas and motorcycles, 4X4s and aircraft/helicopters have mostly eliminated that rare need as well. What animal I think police need more of are police dogs. Not for drug arrests but to run people down, preventing escapes since police can't shoot fleeing people generally and make it less likely police have to resort to deadly force. A person can argue and fight a police officer. Not so easy to do with a 100 pound German shepherd. The dog wins all arguments. Everyone knows ranting and shouting at a 100 pound dog is a mistake.
One of the better court ruling concerned police arresting a man for upsetting a police dog in a police cruiser by barking back at the dog. The court ruled that if dogs may bark at people, people may bark at dogs. LOL
I understand. I just see little use of horses and yes they are very expensive in terms of time demands, land space, transporting etc. I'm not fond of dogs a drug sniffing dogs because they'll "hit" any time the officer wants it too and see it little different than police using technology to look inside your house from outside.
Not a fan of horses on asphalt. Seems like a recipe for disaster. Turbo-charged segways maybe with a little pull behind basket to ride the arrested to the jail house. Our local oppressors have their War on Terror armor but they don't ride around in it. Their pudgy butts learned pretty quickly that it was torture being stuck in the back of one of those things on a hot day being tossed about like sardines so they ride to the shoot out in their comfy cars while someone drives the armor there to be seen in the post-raid press photo-ops.
I had horses for a while - and never, ever will again. They do not do well on concrete. They are extremely expensive to maintain. They are slow and uncomfortable. They are a HUGE target too. Of course, then there also is the costs of training police to ride a horse without busting his nuts too. If you're a guy and don't know how to ride a horse it can be a very painful experience. LOL
Not gonna happen. When the average John Q Citizen can legally own an AR with a 100-round drum mag, body armor, suppressor, and night vision, I'm sure that law enforcement isn't going to just stroll up to his home on horseback with no body armor and a revolver....
