@ISIDEWITHQuestionsCriminal IssuesStarted 4yrs agoActive 12mos 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 x  Social Liberalism

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 1.7k Social Liberalism voters.

63%
Yes
37%
No
44%
Yes
31%
No
10%
Yes, but only in response to extreme situations
6%
No, extreme situations should be handled by higher agencies with specialized training and equipment
9%
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 1.7k Social Liberalism voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 1.7k Social Liberalism voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

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

 @9K3983Qfrom Ohio  answered…12mos12MO

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…2wks2W

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies