As a favor to progressives who never want to be the last one to use the latest cliche, I give you this: Militarization of Police.
We can thank the tragedy of Ferguson, Missouri for the sudden appearance and flood of references to a police force that looks more like an army than, well, a police force. Broadly speaking, progressives allege that if you're among those who believe that police are here to protect, then you should be opposed to and troubled by the appearance of police in riot gear and weapons one would associate with an armed force. On the other hand, if you are convinced that the role of cops is to oppress minorities and the poor, then you see the militarization of the police as a good thing.
First, you can simultaneously believe that the role of the police is to protect and to think that they should be adequately protected against mobviolence and sufficiently armed to restore peace. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Second, I make no judgment here about the propriety of the local police in the Ferguson protests and looting. But it stretches reason to suggest that police should not be equipped to safely and effectively deal with threats to peace and their own safety. Sure, you can argue that the armed police look too much like a force armed for war. But in one way, looking like that makes some sense; it might scare some lawbreakers into a hasty retreat. But what it comes down to is not how the police look, but how they behave. If they go beyond the bounds of reasonable force, then that is wrong, seriously so.