Now you don't think this image of mil gear on police is just silly? What was wrong with the stuff they used to wear? It suited them fine for all kinds of nonsense they would run into. The police depts got some kind of deal with one of our allies, to "teach" them military tactics and with the training they got gear too- actually it wasn't really "free" as we give that ally 4bil USD of our tax money each year.
There are more organizations that promote violence than years ago. There are more people willing to use violence than before. People are more heavily armed than before. People are more belligerent than they used to be. It's my observation that people from urban areas are so used to having anonymity in a sea of humanity that they never have to be accountable for their rude and threatening behavior. The closer a National Forest or National Park is to an urban area the more disrespectful some people are. When I lived in Arizona in the 1970's and worked on a National Forest in northern Arizona people from Phoenix were pretty nice and things have changed. I didn't used to get flipped off, tailgated and cut off like I do when I drive there now.
If you have not lined up to break up a violent or potentially violent crowd then who are you to call the officers lined up in the picture silly? How many belligerent people have you dealt with? How many citations have you written? How many times has a gun been aimed at you? How many times have you been shot at? How many times have you been hit by gunfire? How many times have you been the only officer at a recreation site where 1500 people are drinking and swimming in a creek? How many times have you faced a group and had some of them try to get behind your back? I've never had to face a full riot, but I know how skilled people are at hurting you.
Using your logic we could say that we did fine without seatbelts, air bags and side window safety curtains. We did just fine without the U.S. DOT and the Insurance Institute not crash testing vehicles. That gear the officers are wearing is designed to reduce the number of injuries suffered by officers over the years. Public employee on the job injuries are costly, sometimes causing early retirements. Are police agencies supposed to ignore the safety of their officers and the cost of on the job injuries? Would you face people in a riot with gear from the 1940's. Would you go on foot patrol without a handheld? The LAPD only had mobiles until the late 1970's or 1980's, so why should we spend the money to equip each officer with one, What was wrong with not carrying one? What was wrong with not having mobile data terminals in each vehicle? What was wrong with not having the National Crime Information Center?
What was wrong with not having computers to program our scanners? What was wrong with the old Radio Communications Monitoring Association where we would submit our information on notebook paper and everyone got to look at it 2 moths later? Heck, what was wrong with crystal scanners with 8 channels? Why do we have to have 12.5 kHz channel spacing? Seems to me that 25 kHz was working just fine.
In the recent past the U.S. Military received some training from civilian law enforcement agencies as warfare started to be fought street by street and door by door. I have a young friend of mine who is in the Navy's Sergeant at Arms organization and he told me this many years ago. Civilian law enforcement agencies have gotten some tips from the military, so what!
Have you forgotten the LAPD"s North Hollywood bank robbery shootout? Officer's were outgunned and lacked the defensive gear they needed. If you view video of the event you get to see a bunch of officers taking incredibly heroic actions protecting citizens and fellow officers, many who had already been wounded and were pinned down. They had to run down the street to a gun shop to get weapons to match the firepower of the suspects, but they didn't have the body armor the suspects. They didn't carry as much ammunition the suspects had. That event was a major benchmark in the history of U.S. law enforcement.
One other factor that hasn't been discussed is a basic principle of law enforcement. When presented with an obvious superior force many people and groups stop their aggressive actions. When this happens fewer law violators and officers are injured. One year when the L.A. Lakers won the NBA championship a riot ensued. The police were outnumbered and a lot of people got hurt and a lot of property was damaged. Police and civilian vehicles were turned over and burned. Some non-involved citizens were caught up in the rioting with many assaulted and others beaten. They were inadvertently in the wrong place at the wrong time. The next year the Lakers won the championship and far better planning and greater numbers of well outfitted police officers were present. There were far fewer injuries to officers, basketball fans and non-involved citizens. The LAPD had quite a few unmarked SUV type vehicles with long running boards on each side with four or five officers standing on each with full riot gear and long guns.
During my career I did some wilderness patrols on foot and some on a horse, including one very large Palomino. I liked being on foot as I didn't have to spend a few hours a day taking care of the horse, tack, ad nauseam. I could pick up trash (more of the aggressively apathetic crowd) and perform routine trail maintenance tasks quickly, without having to dismount and remount. However, when I was on that large Palomino and encountered belligerent people I got cooperation very fast in comparison to being on foot. A horse is the equivalent of ten people. Me being on a horse was a show of force, even though I was riding one, not for force, but to cover more ground. That big Palomino sure came in handy. By the way, on routine contacts I dismounted and took off my sunglasses as quickly as I could, once I could see there was no threat.
Finally, the easiest thing to do is be a hero in someone else's war.
