Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Poll: Just 28 percent say police should have military weapons and vehicles

Posted in:

Illinois
Polls

* The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute polled Illinoisans on a topical question…

Should local police forces have military weapons and vehicles, such as assault rifles and tanks, or should these kinds of weapons be reserved only for the military and National Guard?

Should have 27.8%
Only military 63.8%
Don’t Know 8.3%

* From the Institute…

Democrats and liberals are the strongest opponents, both topping 70 percent. Over half of Republicans and conservatives shared that opinion.

Among racial groups, seven of ten black respondents say such weapons should be returned to the military, compared with 61.9 percent of white respondents. Geographically, opposition to police militarization was strongest in Chicago (69.5 percent) and its suburbs (67.2 percent), while downstate the opposition to militarization was still a majority (54.5 percent).

You can read the whole poll, with crosstabs, by clicking here.

There’s a bunch more interesting stuff in there, including questions like: My local police department represents the racial makeup of my community…

* How would you rate your local police department on police protection?…

* How would you rate your local police department on the ability to respond quickly to calls for help and assistance?…

* Should the racial makeup of a community’s police department be similar to the racial makeup of that community as a whole, or isn’t it necessary?…

* My local police department responds to the needs of all members of the community…

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 12:24 pm

Comments

I favor demilitarization of our local rent-a-cops.

Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 12:36 pm
Charles Whitman. If you’re not old enough to remember the response to him, Google it. Cops need to be able to respond to all types of crazies out there. Armor up.

Comment by Big Muddy Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 12:42 pm
Kind of a stupid question. There is a big difference between assault weapons and tanks. Do I think any police force needs a tank? No. But do I think police, especially SWAT teams, need assault weapons? Unfortunately yes.

Comment by Jaded Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 12:48 pm
So when some guy starts popping off rounds at the cops with an AK-47 the police are supposed to do what exactly? I think most people responding to the question don’t know the weaponry the police are facing day in and day out.

Comment by Mac Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 12:48 pm
Some of these responses make me think of this, “Many whites say they would be happy to live in an integrated community, but define ideally integrated as around 10% black and 90% white.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Ffergusons-experience-offers-lessons-on-integration-1408751208&ei=PE5mVNyWGsWzyATXOw&usg=AFQjCNH-StsiDl58xQgqFFl0VJWfBGGA1A&sig2=rFLBLvsWvcYCwy2xWK-T7g&bvm=bv.79142246,d.aWw

Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 12:49 pm
Why go to a gun fight without the appropriate weapon? or something better?

Comment by flea Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 12:52 pm
police professionals should decide. and that includes discussions with national professional organizations which are good at gauging the needs, and during discussions re Ferguson we saw that there was much discussion of when and how to deploy the big stuff. if we let some members of the public decide on the military, for example, many would prohibit certain weapons. it’s up to legislatures and councils to decide on providing dollars for protection of the forces fighting against those who would break laws and attack us.

Comment by Amalia Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 12:59 pm
I would like to see the same poll after the current situation in Ferguson is out of the news.

Comment by FormerParatrooper Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:00 pm
The question is whether police need military weapons to repond to everything. When you give cops military gear, evry situation seems to justify a military-type response.

Read “The Warrior Cop” by Radley Balko. You will be shocked. You will then oppose the militarization of local police departments. Cops are suppose to serve abd protect, not treat citizens as war opponents. Yes, police face risks, but not risks that require a military response.

Comment by Concerned Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:01 pm
While I understand the need for police to not be outgunned, I have less of an understanding of the need for tanks and other military vehicles. There are local police departments with tanks, and it makes it seem like we are occupied in a lawless country rather than aided by a helpful independent police force.

Comment by AC Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:05 pm
Such a non-issue, and these numbers would shift in an instant if there’s a terrorist attack in downtown Chicago or the suburbs.

Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:06 pm
so what will ILEAS, the shadowy “blackwater” distributor of military equipment to local law enforcement, do without toys to hand out? break up a few more labor demonstrations or student street parties?

Comment by in the know Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:08 pm
If you dress them up like they are military, don’t be shocked when they start acting like the military.

They are civlian law enforcement officers not a paramilitary ogranization. Different missions entirely. That doesn’t mean you can’t have SWAT teams and other specialized training and tools, but you don’t deploy those for crowd control then, do you?

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:12 pm
“police professionals should decide.”

“The Police Are Still Out of Control — I should know.” by Frank Serpico
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-police-are-still-out-of-control-112160.html

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:16 pm
If the bad guys have military grade hardware, I’m not sure why the cops *shouldn’t* have military grade hardware.

Am I missing something?

Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:25 pm
I feel there should be tighter restrictions on the distribution of surplus armored vehicles (not tanks, poor word choice for the survey question) and weapons, but not a complete ban. The size of towns should be limited and there should be a demonstrable and verifiable need. Those restrictions should apply to only armored vehicles and military grade weapons, not the variety of other surplus equipment the military disposes of to local governments. In fact given all the blizzards, floods and miscellaneous other natural disasters our state faces annually, I think every rural sheriffs department should try to get their hands on at least 1 humvee. Or ILEAS could maintain a few around Illinois for use in mutual aid situations.

Comment by MyTwoCents Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:26 pm
Quite a racial divide. Here’s another, according to Pew.

U.S. incarceration rate, per 100,000:

White: 678
Hispanic: 1,775
Black: 4,347

Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:26 pm
===Am I missing something? ===

Yeah, how many bad guys have tanks?

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:29 pm
Google “North Hollywood Bank Robbery! If you want to see some outgunned police!

Comment by Greg Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:31 pm
I think people misunderstood the question-i.e., there is a big difference between carrying and showing military weapons daily and having them at your disposal when necessary.

Comment by Soccertease Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:39 pm
Ever try retrieving a downed officer or firefighter while being shot at? Those armored vehicles come in pretty handy. Police use to carry a six shot revolver. What changed? Criminals with more firepower than the police. 9/11 not only changed policy and training but equipment as well. Having said that policy should dictate their use.

Comment by Empty Suit Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:42 pm
Counting “fair” alongside “poor” and “very poor” seems like an odd decision.

As for the military weapons in the hands of police? There is no reason police need a tank on the streets of any city in America. If gang and drug-related violence continues escalating, they may one day need assault weapons and reinforced patrol vehicles, but tanks and similar vehicles are unnecessary.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:47 pm
47th Ward says it well.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:47 pm
Plenty of victims of police militarization serving search warrants for nonviolent drug crimes. There should be some separation between the local beat cop, the SWAT team, the National Guard and the branches of military, once they all start to look the same they will start to act the same and then we have all citizens viewed as potential threats. Once all citizens are viewed as potential threats instead of citizens with inalienable rights the Rules of Engagement will inevitably be changed for the worse for all Americans. Beefing up the local police force arsenal brings us one step closer to eroding the “innocent until proven guilty” ideal our justice system is supposed to be based on.

Comment by Abraham Froman Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:48 pm
- Rich Miller - Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:29 pm:

===Am I missing something? ===

Yeah, how many bad guys have tanks?

Obviously you’ve never played Grand Theft Auto.

Comment by ChrisB Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:57 pm
The police should not be allowed to have any weapons civilians cannot have.

Comment by Chicago Gunowner Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 2:08 pm
I am withholding my opinion until we see how dangerous the crazy people get following the Ferguson grand jury report.

Comment by southwest Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 2:21 pm
===Am I missing something? ===

Yeah, how many bad guys have tanks?

—

Okay — fair enough. But how many villages or cities have tanks? I mean, like real tanks?

Does Chicago proper have a tank at its disposal? Armored vehicle — okay. But that ain’t a tank.

Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 2:48 pm
An armored personnel carrier with either a 30 or 50 caliber machine gun? Come on. The reason they have this weaponry is because the military gives it away for pennies on the dollar and there are enough police who are soldier wanna-bees. Too much armor and too little training coupled with a general lack of accountability have not made us any safer.

I’m not saying disarm or disable the police. How about appropriate levels of response and more training dollars. Forget the army surplus weaponry.

Comment by Old and In The Way Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 3:14 pm
- Rich Miller - Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 1:29 pm:

===Am I missing something? ===

Yeah, how many bad guys have tanks?-

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Comment by Nick Name Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 3:42 pm
The question is worded poorly.

There is a huge difference between a military assualt rifle and a semi-automatic rifle (aka between banned rifles and legal rifles). There is never ever a need for the police to have automatic weapons a semi-automatic patrol rifle such as an Ar-15 or Springfield armory M-1 is completely reasonable. Even if a drug dealer was to posess a fully automatic rifle proper training and marksmanship with a patrol rifle the officer will not be outgunned. It comes down to responsibility it is the height of irresponsibility for a peace officer to fire multiple rounds at a suspect without doing all that he can to ensuure the lives of innocents behind the intended target.

As for the armored vehicles still have a hard time finding the need for an MRAP in a town of 3000 people. Yes it may be easier to retrieve a fallen officer but if you haven’t had an officer injured in decades it’s probably not something you need.

As a question to anyone who might know why is the ISP authorized silencers?

Comment by Mason born Friday, Nov 14, 14 @ 4:17 pm