[jomamaxx]

While it is odd that a sheriff might lack some self-awareness on this issue, it's not really an issue WRT police cameras.

That the cops have a 'bullet proof vehicle' is not necessarily a problem in and of itself. It's presence does not violate anyone's rights, moreover - there actually may be circumstances in which such gear might be useful that we are not aware of.

For example : a couple of times a year, a group of officers may be sent to 'take down' some very violent and armed people. Imagine if your 'daily job' required to you to face massively armed and violent bad guys. Wouldn't it make sense that your employer provide you with the basic means to protect yourself.

I'm not entirely justifying it, rather pointing out that 'having an armed vehicle' is largely outside the issue of whether or not cops change their behaviour, or whether civilians change their behaviour - when they know there are cameras present.

[soVeryTired]

>For example : a couple of times a year, a group of officers may be sent to 'take down' some very violent and armed people. Imagine if your 'daily job' required to you to face massively armed and violent bad guys.

Surely there are special forces to deal with that sort of situation? I know there are in the UK.

[dec0dedab0de]

Yes and no. It depends on the urgency/severity of the situation, and how remote of a location it is. Either way I would much rather have police driving around in obvious armored vehicles, than in unmarked cars.

[int_19h]

SWAT is supposed to be for that kind of thing.

The problem is that most places don't have the funds to run a completely separate dedicated SWAT. So what they do is place a bunch of regular cops on it, so that they end up sharing their time between SWAT training and door-busting, and regular policing. Needless to say, it doesn't go well, because SWAT training and practice instills the kind of us-vs-them "warzone" mentality that is extremely detrimental to day-to-day policing.

The other problem is that once SWAT is there, cities start using it everywhere on the basis that they have already paid a lot for it, and might as well get their money's worth. This is encouraged from below (i.e. by the officers) too, because raids are more "fun", but also because civil asset forfeiture proceeds from a well-timed raid can be immense, and goes towards the police budget - from which they can buy more SWAT toys like APCs, battering rams or .50 BMG rifles... which then become things begging for an excuse to use, and so the cycle closes.

[hueving]

No, not in smaller cities (i.e. The one with a 50k pop I lived in).

[talmand]

If you live in the US I bet your state police does.

[hueving]

The state police swat team could be hundreds of miles away. That's unacceptable to respond to an active shooting/robbery.

[talmand]

You work with what you have. But, I would be curious if the state doesn't have different teams to cover different sections of the state to alleviate that problem. If they don't, then they're doing a bad job of it.

I would hope that if the local police force has decided to not budget in a response team of that nature then likely they don't need one. But, if they needed one and don't have the budget, then that's a different problem.

[hueving]

That's why it's easier to just outfit the cops with the equipment necessary to respond to someone with a gun. Do you realize the population density of places like the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana (the area I'm talking about)? Having enough swat teams to respond within even 15 minutes of every small town is completely unsustainable.

[lutorm]

The police, ie the R.U.C, rode around in precisely that kind of vehicles in the part of the UK called "Northern Ireland", didn't they?

[Chris2048]

As an aside, UK police in Northern Ireland drive armored vehicles, though regular police aren't usually armed.