Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHAnswersCriminal IssuesStarted 6yrs agoActive 2yrs ago

Yes, but only in response to extreme situations

+
Expand
+ Settings

Expert Pundits

These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of

@BC6PFG4
#1 Expert Pundit

Informed Voters

These active users have achieved an understanding of common concepts and the history regarding the topic of

@9TYJFHK
#1 Informed Voter

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of

@Cuz-I-Know-Stuff
#1 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

19 Replies

 @9G3PBHW  from Utah  disagreed…3yrs3Y

This is already the case; police are trained to only use military equipment in extreme situations. That doesn't prevent any deaths.

 @9G3R7TM from Florida  agreed…3yrs3Y

Police shouldn't have access to military equipment at all. And the perspective on what counts as an extreme situation is one sided apparently given how many times it's been used in non extreme situations.

 @9TYJFHK from Illinois  disagreed…2yrs2Y

#1 Informed Demilitarize the Police

So something like radios or ATAK(a smartphone on a vest) should be off limits?

Or do you only mean the "military equipment" which you arbitrarily consider too dangerous?

 @9G3R4DZ from New York  agreed…3yrs3Y

Police should not use military equipment, who gets to decide what an emergency is, and how can you possibly say this one prevent deaths every single person who has ever died from police intervention could’ve been prevented

 @9GRFKWX from Minnesota  disagreed…3yrs3Y

I think the police should not have access to any military weapons unless it is a VERY extreme situation

 @9GN2ZL4 disagreed…3yrs3Y

What defines extreme to everyone is different, as an armed bank robbery can be deemed extreme, but it's not a hostage situation, which is also extreme. The lines feel too blurry to use as a way to prevent something bad from happening.

 @9GSYDFD from Michigan  disagreed…3yrs3Y

no, maybe some police if they use there job just as an excuse for things, or if they are doing the job wrong, or other things, but if a police is actually doing there job right then why remove them.

 @9GR8QW3 from Illinois  disagreed…3yrs3Y

truthfully, anytime you say yes you should back up whatever it is everytime. its not just a yes because of whatever you might think. you should give examples of what this really is.

 @9GG4G4Z from Texas  disagreed…3yrs3Y

In the case of an extreme event i would rather have trained soldiers or reserve/ guard members who actually go through months of proper training not weeks.

 @9GJZFWK from New York  disagreed…3yrs3Y

The police need to conduct themselves and behave as peace keepers first. They are not an occupying force, nor are they an offensive force. If a situation is grave enough to require that level of interaction then we need to rethink who handles what. States have the national guard, let us rethink how they are used or determine some other more logical course of action. Police already wear too many hats and missions get jumbled as a result. Let's demilitarize the community police and work on solutions that make sense.

 @9G4X3PG from California  disagreed…3yrs3Y

The police need to be demilitarized because there are too many corrupt cops in the system and they will be used in the wrong hands.

 @9GH8373 from Wisconsin  disagreed…3yrs3Y

Proper training and de-escalation techniques should enable police to handle even an extreme situation with a civillian.

 @9GGBLB5 from Nevada  disagreed…3yrs3Y

What extreme situations do we need police to have military grade equipment, If it gets that bad we have the national guard and the actual military to do this

 @9G2KHQB from Utah  disagreed…3yrs3Y

Even if the police force is put in those extremes situations once in that situation they'll feel more more scared and will feel like they're in huge danger causing them to panic even with training because they wouldn't be used to that type of situation.

 @9G3SL8R from Washington  disagreed…3yrs3Y

those more extreme situations can be handled by other institutions like the military, there is no situation in which normal police needs access to things like armored trucks.

 @9GRCWWT from Virginia  disagreed…3yrs3Y

Police shouldn't have military equipment unless, with extensive training and knowledge of when to use it.

 @9GNV3CP from Virginia  disagreed…3yrs3Y

There is no way to make sure there is no abuse of power with these military weapons and that they are used in the intended situations.

 @9GMDLPRDemocrat from New York  disagreed…3yrs3Y

A problem is that the police will define what they mean by "extreme situations" which may include peaceful protests or criminals that they overestimate the dangerousness of.

 @9GKKD55 from Alabama  disagreed…3yrs3Y

They use there power to kill. They most likely always get away with unlawful murder so demilitarizing them will just encourage them to do bad things .

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies