Originally Posted by
VetteLS5
I think this reporter and many others are putting the cart a little before the horse:
Ferguson didn't "start" because a local police department went parading their military gear up and down the streets of the 'hood. It "started" when people used a shooting that is still under investigation as the impetus to destroy other people's property and toss molatov cocktails at police officers. Granted, it looks like the local cops might not be the most tolerant folks, but the equipment used to respond to riot situations didn't start anything.
That provocative photo in the story of sniper on top of truck? Standard ops for force protection in any riot situation. Does the gear look a little scarier nowadays? Yeah, maybe. But both my father and a good friend were on SWAT teams back in the day (god... I sound like Nitro), and they found themselves in that stance on more than one occasion. Just back then it was on top of a van that carried the response team to a situation.
The reporter also neglects to mention that many of the "militarized" vehicles have armor and other aspects removed before they end up in local department hands. I know this because (here I go as Nitro again), a friend is Capt. of a local dept. that just received that very same vehicle. The choice was to receive a well made, heavy duty vehicle designed to transport officers in the event of an emergency at basically no cost, or try and come up with the money to buy something. Nobody wants taxes raised = no new vehicle.
Right down to the camo uni's, I think a lot of this is local budget driven, not "organized militarization". Local depts. get quality built stuff on the cheap because it's surplus or not needed. (Weird thing though... through most the grants that handle the vehicles, if a local dept. decides they don't actually need it they can't give the damn things back or sell them!