“But the Police Need…”

armed-4674072_1920
This is a stock picture, probably from a training exercise since that looks like a quick attaching blank firing adapter on the end of that rifle.

One of the great ironies of modern US politics is, in great measure, the same people talking about “defunding” or outright disbanding the police are also the ones who just recently were saying that only the police should have certain weapons, whether certain types of guns or guns in general.

This is utterly ridiculous.

My position: Police officers should be forbidden from using any weapons or equipment prohibited to ordinary citizens in their jurisdiction.

Justification: With the sole exception of folk going out to deliberately target police officers, a very small fraction of all the violent crime out there, every threat the police face is faced first by ordinary citizens. Any arguments about the police “needing” certain weapons applies equally well to the ordinary folk who face the threat first. As for other equipment, perhaps the police have a greater need for things like fingerprint kits and the like since the police are specifically tasked with investigations of crimes, it also doesn’t hurt anything to allow private citizens to have them as well. Laws against unnecessarily disturbing a crime scene (Doctrine of emergency applies against that) and tampering with evidence are all the shield against misuse that is necessary.

Note: My personal preference is to resolve the difference by reducing restrictions on what the law abiding “ordinary” citizens can have rather than restricting what the police may have. I simply worded this one to come at the concept from the other side.

4 thoughts on ““But the Police Need…””

  1. Nod, they also wouldn’t want a policeman on every corner which would be necessary for the police to stop the majority of violent crime.

    Like

  2. Our sheriff has an MRAP (Mine Resistant Armor Protected) vehicle. Because the local drug dealers have become so bold as to start planting IEDs in their driveways. It is ludicrous. Yes, I could have one if I wanted. No, they don’t need one.

    Like

    1. The difference is that if I want something, need or not, it’s on me to pay for it. If my locale gendarmes want one, it’s also on me to pay for it.

      I’d say the standard of proof of “need” needs to be higher. But if anyone is going to argue that I don’t need it, then, since every threat the police face, people like me face first, the police don’t need it either. If they want it anyway, they can pony up out of their own pockets (take a collection or hold a bake sale or something) and pay for it themselves rather than dipping their hands into my tax dollars.

      Like

      1. Hear, hear!

        (Alternatively, while they’d dipping into public money to buy themselves one, they can fork over to get a copy for me as well…)

        But as far as anything “man-portable?” If they need it, we need it more – we’re the true “first responders” in most situations, simply by dint of being actually there first. Conversely, if we don’t need it, THEY don’t need it – because disparities under the law are not to be tolerated (for this reason also, “hate crime” enhancements need to be struck down wholesale and out of hand. Or did you think I was stupid enough to think that you hanged that poor fellow from a tree because you LIKED him?) Anything that creates any sort of “protected class” under the law – however it is applied – merely fosters division, leading to an “us v. them” outlook.

        (As largely evidenced by white, straight males – since it’s pretty much “us v. everybody else,” as we simply don’t fit into any protected class out there…)

        But, I am curious, what changed? I kept my Emerson/Gerber Alliance (press-button deployment) folding knife from when I was in – but I cannot now carry it. I don’t understand the change – I’m no different now than I was then, am I? But, because I no longer wear a uniform, what was once something I carried as a matter of course without repercussion is now a felony – for no good reason. So you see, I’ve been on both sides of this argument – and I thought restrictions didn’t make sense when I wasn’t subject to them, either.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s