Most of this debate is spurred by the images from Ferguson Mo showing cops in body armor with AR's and armored vehicles.
It is nothing but an attempt to divert attention from the fact that certain segments of society think that supporting a larcenous, stoned, thug is a legitimate reason to burn and pillage, while others like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are ever ready to justify any action that gets them on TV and the so called "President" is OK with all of it.
The fact that the riots continued for a week and eventually required the National Guard suggests that perhaps the police were not militarized enough since it took an actual military force to restore order.
The real issue you should be looking at if you are worried about "police state tactics", are things like "No knock" searches, and forfeiture laws .
Saying that cops "Don't need" military equipment is the same mentality as saying no one "needs" hi capacity magazines.
It is a typical liberal "zero responsibility" mindset that blames the equipment instead of looking at the rules governing its use.
Also, This did not start "since Reagan". It started after WWII with the Army providing vehicles to Fire Depts for forestry use, it spread to Police forces in the 60's in the face of civil rights and anti war rioting, and expended under the so called "War on Drugs".
The problem is not the equipment, it is the legal infringement of our rights and the badge heavy mentality of a certain percentage who would enforce any law no matter how unjust.
Remember, Hitler's Gestapo were originally made of regular German cops.
For me, the images of Boston after the marathon bombing were I watched video of citizens being marched out of their homes with several weapons pointed at them, including those on the SWAT vehicles. They exited the home with their hands on their heads and some were barefoot, not given the time to dress fully. All this because of one single fugitive on the loose.
And True, the equipment is not the problem, but it is used to encourage and solidify the "attitude".
And that Badge Heavy Mentality, it does not matter how large or small a percentage entertain it, but the companions attitude of not calling a brother officer on their illegal behavior.
First I noticed a shifting it attitudes, and that does not mean they did not exist prior, was the first Gulf War....just after Reagan's last term. There were two occurrences, both of which triggered concerns about police militarization.
One was that several police officers I had contact with were unusually , in my view. excited about the possibility that their police department might be deployed to support the war. I assume they would be used to supplement MP companies. But what struck me was the "Mall Ninja"esk "strutting" and bravado. My thought was "Warrior Wannabes"
The other, another small item, was the proliferation of "1*" (one ass to risk) uniform patches that seemed to be appearing. While all first responders to put their lives on the line when preforming their duty. it was accompanied with the attitude that their "ass" was more valuable than everyone else's "ass".
Neither of those two points are harmful standing alone, but I watched them grow and blossom into the "Us vs Them" attitude.