Resolved: Demilitarization of the United States Police

Ask yourself: how many times have you seen a crime through the eyes of the police? Every video of a crime online is through the eyes of the perpetrator and only show the officer using force. What did the perpetrator do? We assume their innocence and are quick to blame the police simply because we never saw them in the act.A. HistoryHistory shows that long before police were militarized, they were harassing innocent and non-violent citizens based on their own prejudices and lusts for power. These aren’t just qualities of a heavily armed police state. Removing the armored vehicles and military weapons will help decrease the shock and shame of overly armed police, but the fact remains that violence begets violence and the state is inherently impotent to regulate itself. Change can only come when Americans–- currently jaded by and disenchanted with political engagement–- stop tolerating authority through force and develop a more skeptical attitude toward government while actively holding it accountable..B. DutyYou say that the police need to focus on their job "serving the needs of our citizens and protecting neighborhoods from all threats", and I do not disagree with that statement; but the facts are that it is very dangerous to be a police officer. My uncle a police officer in a large city, so he knew the dangers first hand. He knew the dangers when he became an officer, but at the end of every tour he wanted to go home to his family. He was tasked with the protection of the community, and that is a dangerous job where officers in the country have a higher chance of being killed than in any other first world country. He used these weapons from handguns to M-4 rifles and specialized uniforms (camouflage and tactical vests) to help him keep the members of community safe and keep his fellow officers safe. The military use the similar weapons and uniforms, but they are not the police. They are two very different entities that do two very different jobs, it just happens that some of the equipment is the same. The vast majority of police are good people who genuinely want to help the people in their communities. Bottom line; if the bad guys out there, who are preying on the weak, stop trying to kill police and stop using weapons themselves, then we can all put our guns away. The police have to live and work in the world we all live in, not the world you want this to be. WE CAN'T COMPARE OURSELVES TO EUROPEAN STATES LIKE BRITAIN AND FINLAND; HOW MANY OF THOSE COUNTRIES SHARE A LARGE BORDER WITH A COUNTRY LIKE MEXICO, WHERE GUNS AND DRUGS POUR IN BY THE KILOTONS? . . C. Cherry Picked Evidence We’ve all seen the pictures presented by those who decry the “militarization” of American police forces. Typically, these pictures juxtapose sophisticated police equipment and weaponry with a crowd that is peacefully demonstrating or just milling about. I understand and respect the arguments made by those who argue that some of our police forces have become “militarized.” However, I’ve seen no evidence that the fancy equipment possessed by these police forces has caused harm. There will always be incidents of police brutality and over-reaction. But has the “militarization” of the police led to more such incidents? Has the specific equipment that people object to the police now having been misused in ways that have caused more damage than the more traditional equipment that (I hope) is considered unobjectionable? Not that I’m aware of. As a general matter, I think it’s desirable for the police to possess overwhelmingly more force than those who may confront it. Arguments for proportionality in available force are less persuasive and fail, in my view, absent evidence of a pattern of abuse. . . Before I close my arguments, I'd like to press a burden upon the PRO: Is there a change in police demeanor between a demilitarized one and a more proteced one? Has the "militarization" led to more crimes? Has it caused more damage? To remove it, to demilitarize the police, you must have a reason that tells us why having more defences against the criminals (which will never go away, and will always find guns) is such a BAD thing. Thanks.