"President Donald Trump plans to resume the transfer of surplus weapons, vehicles and other equipment from the nation’s military to its state and local law enforcement agencies, reviving a program that was sharply curtailed by President Barack Obama two years ago. The program launched in 1990 but was greatly limited after public reaction to images of heavily militarized police in the streets of Ferguson, Mo., and other sites of civil unrest."
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/08/27/trump-restores-program-sending-surplus-military-weapons-equipment-to-police/?utm_term=.5218ecc20d3c
You might think this is a good idea. You might think it is a bad idea. What do the "experts" think? And which experts are being interviewed?
In chapter 1 of your book, it is argued that these kinds of stories often feature the voices of police and politicians. Is that what you see in these news articles on the story?
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+military+weapons+law+enforcement&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiel8a8vvzVAhXJTSYKHdV7Bt4Q_AUICigB&biw=1064&bih=561&dpr=1.58
 |
| This is a local police officer! |
I do not understand why we need to give police MILITARY WEAPONS. There is absolutely no reason for this. If it's not easy enough as is for police to kill and get away with it, now we are supplying them with military weapons. Nobody needs military weapons unless they are fighting in war. In these news stories, people who are typically pro gun were interviewed and asked for their opinion on the policy. Of course people who support Trump and the conservative system are going to back these movements without questioning them or bringing up the fact that guns are the problem not the solution.
ReplyDeleteYou certainly see the reliance on official/law enforcement sources for the story. Attorney General Sessions is quoted in the WaPo article. He is claiming that the change in policy is going to free the officers to do their job.
ReplyDeleteYou also see the FOP and the National Sheriff's Association being cited in the article as well. The FOP claimed the Obama administration was more concerned with appearances rather than safety, which is false. Having a less-militarized police force is important for the protection of average citizens, physically and civically.
One Senator Rand Paul, a libertarian for the most part, was also quoted. He made a good point that this bill expands the power of the government, while also potentially costing more money. There's no real reason for local police forces to have military-grade equipment.
this made the news because it puts the fear of cops into the mind of readers. cops have had weapons such as AR-15s for many years. when the word military is placed in the title it makes them seem even scarier. The country is already on edge over police brutality and violence, and this does not help it. The police could possibly run into a situation where such a weapon could be needed. the "military grade weapons" are not carried as a primary fire arm and should not be worried about.
ReplyDelete