The military equipment is free under the federal grants.

Military equipment is provided under the federal grants. It is only "free" in the sense that it isn't being paid for by local taxes. That means that local police need to be defunded of federal funds as well as local funds.

It's not really federal funds either. It's surplus equiptment. Perhaps there's a more accurate term rather than defund.

Sounds like it would be more socially responsible to decommission it properly, rather than using untrained, irresponsible, and reckless police as a dumping ground for surplus equipment.

What peices of this surplus equiptment are socially irresponsible? This equipment is defensive, administrative, or less lethal. If anything, it should provide more options before things turn lethal.

Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as there is less worry of harm. Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as it is a social signal that you come prepared to enact violence. Less lethal equipment promotes escalation, as it has a perception of being harmless and more acceptable to use in non-violent situations. The solution is to stop escalating, not to provide more methods by which to escalate while decreasing the risks involved in escalating.

Also, you know, tanks. https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/towns-dont-need-...

> Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as there is less worry of harm.

I think there's a conversation about law enforcement and civil rights that people in the US need to have. But its awfully hard to have a real conversation when people don't want police to use lethal force and also don't want cops to have access to things that allow them to do their job with less reliance on lethal force.

> Also, you know, tanks. https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/towns-dont-need-...

Actually those are not tanks. And the US military has no problem using .50 cal on personnel. Which are just nitpicks but they illustrate how hard it is to talk about these subjects when the people making the criticisms are so profoundly ignorant about the facts of the matter.

Community trust and support is what lets police be able to police without lethal force. Treating it as a war between police and other citizens destroys that trust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

I can agree with that. How do you propose to deal with the criminal element?

"Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as there is less worry of harm."

Yeah, and safer cars increase reckless driving for the same reason...

"Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as it is a social signal that you come prepared to enact violence."

It's being used in response to a suspect's social cue that they are there to commit violence. What should we do, just lay down?

"Less lethal equipment promotes escalation, as it has a perception of being harmless and more acceptable to use in non-violent situations."

This is false. The use of less lethal force is not viewed as harmless and any training will show that. That training will also contain use of force education.

I'm not aware of any of it being free. (at least not in TX)

They pay for it and in fact if they dont USE it, it will be confiscated and not refunded.

so not only do they get very big brutal hammers, but for contractual reasons they are FORCED to use them or lose they money they paid for them.

Its not free, it's expensive to maintain and deploy.

The vehicles, sure. But they get orher, simple equipment too.

But what is the purpose of an MRAP (for one example)?

In the incredibly rare event you have an active terrorist attack and can move the MRAP to it before it's over, it may provide the benefit of movable cover.

The rest of the time you have to park it (in two parking spaces likely), train people with it, fuel it, clean it, maintain it. It's just a huge distraction that sends a terrible message to the people you are supposedly serving.

I'm a person that it serves and don't see it sending a bad message. They can use it in inclement weather to deliver supplies, such as after hurricanes. They also tend to deploy the armor at events that are high risk prior to an attack.

An MRAP is not going to be any better at delivering supplies than a few 4x4 trucks. They're not built for cargo and they're very heavy.

And what events in the US are at high risk of attack by IEDs and mines?

They have better ground clearance and should still be operational after say a tornado or hurricane.

A truck with high ground clearance costs more than an order of magnitude less than an MRAP to maintain.

Do you have the numbers for that?

Also, a regular truck will not stand up to storm debris in strong winds.

it allows LEOs and medical personnel to approach an area that is in danger of lethal force by criminals.