Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 117

Thread: Militarization of Police Appearance

  1. #21
    Member Zincwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Central Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Maybe I'm ignorant to the situation but stop fucking around with Federal buildings and you won't get jacked up by Federal agents... just saying...
    Logic has no place in an internet discussion.

  2. #22
    I personally don't care, but my question would be why would they want to wear Multicam or any other camo pattern for urban environments? Is there a benefit to it that I'm missing? Outside of hunting or Mil use, camo is kinda larpy, with the exception being certain groups within LE agencies like Border Patrol and Fish & Wildlife who are actually in places where it would provide concealment for the kind of work they do.

    I may not share their viewpoint, but I understand why some people draw the conclusion that cops in camo=militarized police force. It's ignorance based thinking. I don't know what color uniform would make them happy either. Black=covert ops black helicopters. Green=Army. I do think myself and probably most PF'ers who don't care what the uniform looks like are in the minority and the vast majority see it differently.

    Should the police care what the public thinks of their uniform choice? I don't know, probably. It's not like public perception isn't something that already factors into policy making when it comes to uniform standards and grooming/appearance. I don't care about tattoos or beards on cops either but a lot of departments have policies about them, so it stands to reason that if they don't let their officers have a beard or sick sleeve tats visible because of public perception the same should probably apply to uniforms.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Friday View Post
    I personally don't care, but my question would be why would they want to wear Multicam or any other camo pattern for urban environments? Is there a benefit to it that I'm missing? Outside of hunting or Mil use, camo is kinda larpy, with the exception being certain groups within LE agencies like Border Patrol and Fish & Wildlife who are actually in places where it would provide concealment for the kind of work they do.
    It's not uncommon at all for an urban-area team to have to work in a wooded/forest environment. I was on a city team, but we would routinely get mutual-aid calls from rural agencies for assistance, and find ourselves up in the mountains. To me, it makes sense to have one uniform for everything.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Friday View Post
    I personally don't care, but my question would be why would they want to wear Multicam or any other camo pattern for urban environments? Is there a benefit to it that I'm missing? Outside of hunting or Mil use, camo is kinda larpy, with the exception being certain groups within LE agencies like Border Patrol and Fish & Wildlife who are actually in places where it would provide concealment for the kind of work they do.

    I may not share their viewpoint, but I understand why some people draw the conclusion that cops in camo=militarized police force. It's ignorance based thinking. I don't know what color uniform would make them happy either. Black=covert ops black helicopters. Green=Army. I do think myself and probably most PF'ers who don't care what the uniform looks like are in the minority and the vast majority see it differently.

    Should the police care what the public thinks of their uniform choice? I don't know, probably. It's not like public perception isn't something that already factors into policy making when it comes to uniform standards and grooming/appearance. I don't care about tattoos or beards on cops either but a lot of departments have policies about them, so it stands to reason that if they don't let their officers have a beard or sick sleeve tats visible because of public perception the same should probably apply to uniforms.
    Even in a urban environment there can be a lot of foliage, and neutral colors are still best for breaking up your outline. Portland is a city with a lot of parks, green spaces, planted medians, etc. There is a high likelihood that a local officer in a tactical situation would need cover and concealment in foliage, even in a city.

    It's funny how this issue has evolved. Back in the early 2000's, during my brief LE career there was still a legit debate that nylon duty gear and thigh pockets on trousers were too military looking. Now most street patrol officers wear vests that would have been SWAT-only. In the end, it doesn't matter. These types of arguments just detract energy from more important discussions. Heck, maybe that's intentional.

  5. #25
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Edge of my lane at best.

    I suspect that all of the federal agencies are simply wearing the uniforms they have been issued/purchased as they are tailored, broken in, and have the properties needed ie. wicking and/or FR. They are running what they brung so to speak.

    ETA-I would want those FED LEOS wearing whatever they have that is the most fire resistant. If that means it is the exact same uniform as somebody in the Army overseas right now, so be it.

    Again, throw on some higher viz patches and drive on.
    Last edited by vcdgrips; 07-23-2020 at 02:03 PM.

  6. #26
    I'm not sure the color matters that much, but at least clear symbology would go a long way to head off the "secret police" vibe. You shouldn't have to have been in pistol-forum's STI thread and know who is issuing the DPP in order to identify US Marshalls.

    And the Marshalls' shoulder patch is an order of magnitude more legible than BORTAC and others.

  7. #27
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    Of course don't forget this famous complaint about Federal agent uniforms:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...t-guns/318915/

    1995: The government is full of jack-booted thugs in bucket helmets. "It doesn't matter to them that the semi-auto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us," LaPierre wrote in an NRA fundraising letter, according to the April 28, 1995 Washington Post. "Not too long ago, it was unthinkable for federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens... In Clinton's administration, if you have a badge, you have the government's go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens," he wrote. "Even murder" was underlined. A rival, more radical NRA official suggested LaPierre respond, "If the jackboot fits, wear it." He later tried and failed to oust LaPierre, according to the May 1997 American Spectator.)
    See it's a issue for whomever the evil doers come for!

    Just remembered this and searched.

  8. #28
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRoland View Post
    I'm not sure the color matters that much, but at least clear symbology would go a long way to head off the "secret police" vibe. You shouldn't have to have been in pistol-forum's STI thread and know who is issuing the DPP in order to identify US Marshalls.

    And the Marshalls' shoulder patch is an order of magnitude more legible than BORTAC and others.
    To that end, our tactical guys generally wear white-on-black placards with their ranger green plate carriers; front, back, and also at least one sleeve. In addition, unit patch on one sleeve, individual designator on the other. Belt badge generally worn as well, though not always. Ranger green Crye combat pajamas.

    Our current issued placard for regular agents is white-on-green with green armor carriers. Used to be black-on-coyote with a coyote carrier. Lots of variations floating around depending on when you got hired, though.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  9. #29
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Friday View Post
    I personally don't care, but my question would be why would they want to wear Multicam or any other camo pattern for urban environments? Is there a benefit to it that I'm missing? Outside of hunting or Mil use, camo is kinda larpy, with the exception being certain groups within LE agencies like Border Patrol and Fish & Wildlife who are actually in places where it would provide concealment for the kind of work they do.

    I may not share their viewpoint, but I understand why some people draw the conclusion that cops in camo=militarized police force. It's ignorance based thinking. I don't know what color uniform would make them happy either. Black=covert ops black helicopters. Green=Army. I do think myself and probably most PF'ers who don't care what the uniform looks like are in the minority and the vast majority see it differently.

    Should the police care what the public thinks of their uniform choice? I don't know, probably. It's not like public perception isn't something that already factors into policy making when it comes to uniform standards and grooming/appearance. I don't care about tattoos or beards on cops either but a lot of departments have policies about them, so it stands to reason that if they don't let their officers have a beard or sick sleeve tats visible because of public perception the same should probably apply to uniforms.
    Blue, Khaki and Green police uniforms all derive from military uniforms of the 19th and 20th century. They are inherently paramilitary, they are just 50 or 100 years behind the times.

    USBP has worn green since it's inception in 1924.

    Black sucks for many reasons, its hot, gets dirty but for tac teams it is a target indicator - it's rare in nature and attracts the eye. It's even worse under IR/NV.

    MC is not suitable for regular uniforms but what is suitable for regular duty and what is suitable for tactical team use are two separate things.

    Other than downtown areas most of what we think of as "urban" or "suburban" actually has a fair amount of trees, shrubs etc. MC blends in with this and even for other areas it has the benefit of being irregular which reduces visibility. Most teams do a lot more barricaded subjects and surround and call outs than anything else. Being a little less visible is useful when your barricaded subject decides to take pot shots at the police.

    The federal courthouse has been set on fire and the Agents there have arrested subjects with / attempting to use Molotov cocktails so what is available as Fire Resistant gear is an issue.
    Last edited by HCM; 07-23-2020 at 02:38 PM.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRoland View Post
    I'm not sure the color matters that much, but at least clear symbology would go a long way to head off the "secret police" vibe. You shouldn't have to have been in pistol-forum's STI thread and know who is issuing the DPP in order to identify US Marshalls.

    And the Marshalls' shoulder patch is an order of magnitude more legible than BORTAC and others.
    So what type of "clear symbology" do you propose?

    Also, they're Marshals. One of them might be named Marshall, though.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •