We're a spread-out city, and our police force (at least at the time of the Occupy Houston protests) was undergoing severe budget and pension cuts. We simply are not providing police the resources they need to create a solid and friendly community relationship, are not giving them the opportunity to be anything other than random thugs in Crown Vics.
Most of those toys are provided "free" by the federal government. Rifles that would cost the police a few thousand dollars can be purchased for (last time I looked, about a year ago) $20, as an example.
Wow - sounds like deliberate arming. But even if it doesn't cost the local department, it costs us in aggregate. (What's rational for the local government may still not be rational for the taxpayer)
Radley Balko, mentioned in the article, has been covering this story for several years now. He has repeatedly made the point that most SWAT teams receive very little additional training.
I'm out of my depth here. Perhaps someone good at hacking and analyzing government data can help?
The real comparisons seem:
1) If SWAT officers do regular policing too, then compare the incremental annual cost of their goodies versus the 1 year fully loaded (salary + pension + benefits + equipment) cost of a police officer. I won't pretend to know this answer, other than tanks seem expensive, but then again so are cops.
2) If SWAT officers don't do regular policing, or do significantly less, then you need to add that to the equation.
Slightly off-topic, I have to admit that seeing cops patrol the streets with machine guns is a little off-putting. It reminds me quite a bit of Israel.
We're a spread-out city, and our police force (at least at the time of the Occupy Houston protests) was undergoing severe budget and pension cuts. We simply are not providing police the resources they need to create a solid and friendly community relationship, are not giving them the opportunity to be anything other than random thugs in Crown Vics.