# Should U.S. police be given excess military weapons? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938 "2017-08-28T15:06:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/81 "2017-08-28T20:43:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Thank you-I don’t know how I missed it. > To put it in perspective, [here is a link to the original Order 13688](https://ojp.gov/docs/LE-Equipment-WG-Final-Report.pdf) that this new order revokes. That should give us at least a rough idea of what is or isn’t allowed now. Yes, we’re now back to the same rules that applied to the program in 2014 and before. I have my issues with the nature of modern policing, but most of those aren’t going to be solved by fiddling in the margins of the 1033 program. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/82 "2017-08-28T20:47:53Z")
No. These weapons should only be used to kill foreigners who present no threat to anyone. If they are used domestically, people might care. Unless of course they are used against neo-Nazis, then we are all good on cops with tanks. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/83 "2017-08-28T20:56:09Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > No. These weapons should only be used to kill foreigners who present no threat to anyone. If they are used domestically, people might care. Unless of course they are used against neo-Nazis, then we are all good on cops with tanks. Is that what you think our military is doing with them? “kill[ing] foreigners who present no threat to anyone”? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/84 "2017-08-28T21:17:11Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Is that what you think our military is doing with them? “kill[ing] foreigners who present no threat to anyone”? I should say they presented no threat to anyone until their country was invaded and they took offense. This is simply another case of NIMBY, though I do agree these weapons should not find their way into the hands of local government enforcers. ETA: BTW I have no ownership claim over the military. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/85 "2017-08-28T21:41:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Not MY definition-the DICTIONARY definition. > > edited to add: I Googled “definition tank” and got [this.](https://www.google.ca/search?q=definition+tank&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=PGakWaPpLsSLjwSyoJGYCw) _A_ definition, others include things like ‘armed with cannon’ etc. The DoD Dictionary of Military Terms doesn’t have an entry for tank, because it’s too obvious. There is no vehicle now in US service where any knowledgeable pair of people would argue about whether it’s a tank or not. The M1 series are tanks, the M60 series was not so long ago, no other operational armored vehicle is. The last genuine argument whether an operational US military vehicle was a tank was the M551, Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle which it was officially incorrect but not ridiculous to call a ‘light tank’. The same would have been true of its replacement the M8 ‘Armored Gun System’ if it had entered service. Light tanks and certain tracked armored reconnaissance vehicles invited that debate in the WWII era and later. To a lesser extent the US heavy cannon armed rotating open top turret lightly armored ‘tank destroyers’ of WWII, which generally had common chassis and mechanical component components with contemporary US tanks, were called ‘tanks’ in the languages of some foreign armies which received them, though in US Army parlance the distinction was clear. But there have been scores or 100’s of types of armored vehicles since WWI worldwide and a very small % of them lend themselves to any debate among knowledgeable people which ones were or are tanks. And again among US Army equipment now, pretty much zero debate. And look at the context. The complaint is that military gear is being used in an inherently unsuitable civilian application. But we’re then going to apply a ‘poll tested ignorance’ civilian definition of this gear which it’s claimed only belongs in the military? There’s something wrong with that picture. It’s similar to ‘military style assault weapons shouldn’t be available to civilians’ when there’s no military definition of an ‘assault weapon’ and the guns aren’t assault rifles, albeit more closely related to them than an M113 is to an actual tank. This is innocent confusion at best, deliberate distortion for political effect at worst. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/86 "2017-08-28T21:53:03Z")
Holy fucking shit-overreact much? Not only did I point out that it was a common dictionary definition and not something I made up, I openly asked for a better definition if it was out there. Keep up with this “This is innocent confusion at best, deliberate distortion for political effect at worst” stuff, and people might begin to get the feeling that you are not really interested in talking about this civilly with anyone with that might have a differing opinion, or even with someone who doesn’t know as much as you. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/87 "2017-08-28T22:01:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Keep up with this “This is innocent confusion at best, deliberate distortion for political effect at worst” stuff, and people might begin to get the feeling that you are not really interested in talking about this civilly with anyone with that might have a differing opinion, or even with someone who doesn’t know as much as you. As I said, there’s already a history of this with ‘assault weapon’, which seems replicated in the Huff Post article from which ‘tank’ came. I wasn’t referring to you personally. You are the one overreacting. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/88 "2017-08-28T23:34:04Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > AIUI, not just any guns, but has to be something of big caliber, i.e., 80-120mm. There is also something that makes a tank different in definition than a mobile howitzer like a Paladin, but can’t quite figure out what. Enclosed armoured crew compartment and integral direct fire weapon(s)? The first would exclude various open topped mobile anti-tank gun AFVs, and the latter remaining self propelled artillery. While I suppose caliber of main gun could factor into a definition, historically there were AFVs that would have unambiguously been considered tanks that had nothing heavier than machine guns. (E.g. WWI Mark IV Female tank.) ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2017, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/89 "2017-08-29T00:02:04Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Holy fucking shit-overreact much? > Not only did I point out that it was a common dictionary definition and not something I made up, I openly asked for a better definition if it was out there. > Keep up with this “This is innocent confusion at best, deliberate distortion for political effect at worst” stuff, and people might begin to get the feeling that you are not really interested in talking about this civilly with anyone with that might have a differing opinion, or even with someone who doesn’t know as much as you. Big gun, direct fire, heavy armor, track, not designed to carry troops. Good enough for you? As pointed out there is not much debate when you are only talking US equipment. There is only one tank, the M1 Abrams. Which varient doesn’t really matter they all look the same. Look you were in the Navy if I remember correctly. This is like someone calling a Navy oiler an aircraft carrier just because they are both big and grey. Police departments are not getting tanks so you can just move past that. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2017, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/90 "2017-08-29T00:16:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > This roll-back allows for weaponized armored transport(and I can’t find anything that would disallow actual tanks-cite please?), so what kinds of military weapons can we expect to find on these vehicles? Most municipal streets cannot sustain the load of a Main Battle Tank, I daresay most county and state level roads can’t either. I’m not saying Abrams aren’t “off the table” for police departments; from a purely practical standpoint, the first time they’re deployed (to, say, Ferguson, MO), the damage to roads, and water & sewer lines, will far outstrip any effective benefit from having them. Also: the first time they have to fill one of them up at the gas station, the city or county comptroller is gonna plotz. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2017, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/91 "2017-08-29T00:27:04Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Also: the first time they have to fill one of them up at the gas station, the city or county comptroller is gonna plotz. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/a1Bx9nyw35w/maxresdefault.jpg "Red Dawn (4/9) Movie CLIP - Guerilla Warfare (1984) HD") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Bx9nyw35w) ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2017, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/92 "2017-08-29T01:07:30Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The military weapons are more a symptom of the problem than the problem itself. > > The problem is a warrior mindset employed against a community that doesn’t trust the police, and generally employed in a way that is ineffective at reducing violence where that is most needed. Military weapons reflect that problem, and to some extent make community trust worse, but it’s a pretty marginal factor in the problem. I more or less agree with this. I didn’t write the Wikipedia entry for the history of police militarization but it seemed to me that it was in response to the civil disturbances at some of the G20/WTO events, particularly the one in Seattle, in the late 1990s. I remember there were some anarchists in the Northwest around that time (proto-antifa). But 9/11 and natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina just took that response and put it on steroids. Suddenly homeland security was the chief priority and local governments had a hard time passing up free money and military toys. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2017, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/93 "2017-08-29T02:40:34Z")
I decided to check on what transpired surplus-military-gear wise before Obama’s executive order and found [this article from Jun 8, 2014.](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=0) It pointed out that, if given the toys, the police will find an excuse to play with them: > [@](#): > > The equipment has been added to the armories of police departments that already look and act like military units. Police SWAT teams are now deployed tens of thousands of times each year, increasingly for routine jobs. Masked, heavily armed police officers in Louisiana raided a nightclub in 2006 as part of a liquor inspection. In Florida in 2010, officers in SWAT gear and with guns drawn carried out raids on barbershops that mostly led only to charges of “barbering without a license.” As far as to whether or not heavily armored vehicles will come with mounted guns, well if the past points to the future, > [@](#): > > In South Carolina, the Richland County Sheriff’s Department’s website features its SWAT team, dressed in black with guns drawn, flanking an armored vehicle that looks like a tank and has a mounted .50-caliber gun. Capt. Chris Cowan, a department spokesman, said the vehicle “allows the department to stay in step with the criminals who are arming themselves more heavily every day.” Looking at the insane amount of military gear given to civilian police departments back then, just for the asking, I worry about how paranoia will guide what is asked for this time around. ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2017, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/94 "2017-08-29T03:27:49Z")
as much as I would love to see the real life version of “dominion tank police” anime series I don’t think its gonna happen But this was brought up during the LA crack wars and was shot down by most of the public even after they amended it to just the gang suppression unit because no one up to and including the fbi trusted CRASH … ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2017, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/95 "2017-08-29T03:46:25Z")
I think you are all concentrating on the wrong part. I think you should be more concerned about the loss of section 2 - pages 17 ff - with its strictures on training, reporting, and openness. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2017, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/96 "2017-08-29T03:48:21Z")
Does anyone think Trump actually read through it before repealing it? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2017, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/97 "2017-08-29T07:03:14Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Does anyone think Trump actually read through it before repealing it? No, but I kind of doubt Obama read through it before signing it either. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2017, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/98 "2017-08-29T08:54:57Z")
Uh…the whole tank/armored vehicle/whatever thing is a red herring. The real deal is the revocation of training requirements, oversight, and the exacerbated (and already negative) view of the LEA’s involved. Read the report on 13688 that **Czarcasm** cited in #80. No training required, no oversight…yep, sounds like a very Trumpian operation. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2017, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/99 "2017-08-29T09:15:47Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Is ‘the vast majority of people are ignorant on such matters’ ever a good reason for ignoring reality and coddling their ignorance? When the police come into a nonviolent situation like they’re the fucking Imperial Sardaukaur instead of human beings in uniforms, where the military draws the line between the definition of ‘tank’ and stuff that’s indistinguishable from a civilian POV hardly matters. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2017, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938/100 "2017-08-29T12:58:20Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I do not support the militarization of police forces, but I agree with other posters about the bayonet thing. > > A [standard issue bayonet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M7_bayonet) is specifically designed to double as a utility knife. When I joined the Army, during basic training I asked when we were going to do bayonet practice. The drill instructor said “We aren’t.” I asked “Why not, Sergeant?” He replied, “Private, your weapon can accurately kill a person from hundreds of metres away. If they get close enough to you for you to need bayonet practice, we didn’t teach you enough in rifle practice.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-police-be-given-excess-military-weapons/794938.md?page=6)