@ISIDEWITHQuestionsCriminal IssuesStarted 4yrs agoActive 1yr ago

Should police departments be allowed to use military grade equipment?

Militarization of police refers to the use of military equipment and tactics by law enforcement officers. This includes the use of armored vehicles, assault rifles, flashbang grenades, sniper rifles, and SWAT teams. Proponents argue that this equipment increases officers’ safety and enables them to better protect the public and other first responders. Opponents argue that police forces which received military equipment were more likely to have violent encounters with the public.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 20k Sweden voters.

71%
Yes
29%
No
56%
Yes
24%
No
8%
Yes, but only in response to extreme situations
4%
No, extreme situations should be handled by higher agencies with specialized training and equipment
7%
Yes, but with strict training on how and when to use the equipment
0%
No, and abolish the police

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 20k Sweden voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 20k Sweden voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Sweden voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9K3983Qfrom Ohio  answered…1yr1Y

No police officers should use it except in situations where terrorists or sexual predators are being dealt with.

 @8YXZHWWanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes but only strict trainind police in extreme situations

 @9CKDKVVfrom Massachusetts  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but only in response to extreme situations and with strict training on how and when to use the equipment. It should be a very rare occurrence.

 @98GH535answered…2yrs2Y

Extreme situations should be handled by higher agencies with specialized training and equipment by elite police tactical unit.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Peace Over Party: Arab American Leaders Stun Democrats with Mass Trump Endorsement

Former President Trump earned endorsements from "highly respected" Muslim leaders and Imams during a campaign rally in the battleground state of Michigan. Trump, speaking to a crowd in Novi, Michigan, on Saturday afternoon, called the group of Muslim leaders "highly respected," before bringing them onstage."I’m thrilled to accept the endorsement of these highly respected leaders," Trump told the thundering crowd.The group of leaders cited Trump’s commitment to ending wars and ensuring global peace as a primary reason for their support, describing him as a leader who "promises peace, not war.""We, as Muslims, stand with President Trump because he promises peace, not war!" Imam Belal Alzuhairi said. "We are supporting Donald Trump because he promised to end war in the Middle East and Ukraine," Alzuhairi said. "The bloodshed has to stop all over the world, and I think this man can make that happen. I personally believe that God saved his life twice for a reason.""We're going to stop the wars, we're going to make the United States safe again, and we're going to make the world safe," Bazzi said."What a nice endorsement," Trump said after Bazzi’s speech. "These are great people."The Muslim leaders official endorsement came after Amer Ghalib, the mayor of the Detroit-area suburb Hamtramck, announced his support of Trump in a Facebook post on Oct. 20."Though it’s looking good, he may or may not win the election and be the 47th president of the United States, but I believe he is the right choice for this critical time," Ghalib wrote in Arabic on his Facebook page. "I’ll not regret my decision no matter what the outcome would be, and I’m ready to face the consequences. For this, and for many other reasons, I announce my support and endorsement for the former, and hopefully, the next President of the United States, Donald Trump."Ghalib’s endorsement of Trump comes after the two met in Flint earlier this week for a private 20-minute conversation. Ghalib told The Detroit News that Trump "knew a lot about me before the meeting." "We talked about various topics including the debates, the polls updates, the statistics of votes in Michigan and Wayne County, the Arab American concerns and the Yemeni Americans in particular. We also talked about the situation in Yemen," Ghalib said.

▲  622 replies

Active 22hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2019 replies5 agree1 disagree6