Character
Rules
Events
Map
RP Points
Proplimits
Statistics
Steam Group
Members
Hall of Fame
Team
Bans
Blacklists
Warnings
Changelog
Content
03-19-2018, 12:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:06 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Fixed Encoding
)
Given the fact that I am from the country in question, I will give my 2¢ on this.
The amount of mass shootings plaguing my country is unnerving to say the least. I find that with the growing number of mass shootings, the “military” style equipment is necessary to effectively respond to, secure, and diffuse situations like the Stoneman-Douglas shooting. I cannot stress enough that I personally believe that in a situation like that, a singular officer (who should be stationed at the school) on scene has a responsibility to hold off the assailent long enough to allow the proper resources to respond and deploy whilst ensuring that themselves and students are protected. Out-gunning the assailent is an intimidation technique which often times is used (and works) to force the suspect into surrendering. Police Departments may have to be all gung-ho at some points, however nobody likes the outcome when that happens. In essence, they are life-saving organizations, not life-taking ones. You don’t see officers strolling down the street carrying an assault rifle, you see a standard issue service weapon, holstered. The only time or place when you may see an officer openly carrying an assault rifle when there is not an active emergency is at a large scale event, such as the New Years festivities in Times Square each year, or whilst guarding a specific building or individual, such as the White House or President Trump.
For that reason, I disagree that the Police Force is being militarized. Just because they have the equipment at their disposal doesn’t mean it’s used.
The amount of mass shootings plaguing my country is unnerving to say the least. I find that with the growing number of mass shootings, the “military” style equipment is necessary to effectively respond to, secure, and diffuse situations like the Stoneman-Douglas shooting. I cannot stress enough that I personally believe that in a situation like that, a singular officer (who should be stationed at the school) on scene has a responsibility to hold off the assailent long enough to allow the proper resources to respond and deploy whilst ensuring that themselves and students are protected. Out-gunning the assailent is an intimidation technique which often times is used (and works) to force the suspect into surrendering. Police Departments may have to be all gung-ho at some points, however nobody likes the outcome when that happens. In essence, they are life-saving organizations, not life-taking ones. You don’t see officers strolling down the street carrying an assault rifle, you see a standard issue service weapon, holstered. The only time or place when you may see an officer openly carrying an assault rifle when there is not an active emergency is at a large scale event, such as the New Years festivities in Times Square each year, or whilst guarding a specific building or individual, such as the White House or President Trump.
For that reason, I disagree that the Police Force is being militarized. Just because they have the equipment at their disposal doesn’t mean it’s used.
Regards,
Reebs
Veteran
![[Image: zeVtdhR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/zeVtdhR.png)