Military Vehicles to small town police!!

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Ugly" post="1163611" timestamp="1404041963"][url="http://m.nationalreview.com/article/381446/barney-fife-meets-delta-force-charles-c-w-cooke"]http://m.nationalreview.com/article/381446/barney-fife-meets-delta-force-charles-c-w-cooke[/url][/quote] Excellent article.

[Pat]

It'd be a lot simpler for them if we could take care of our own darn self.

[Grunt67]

The more our police force appears to become "militarized", the more they become ostracized from the general public. I don't see this ending well for anyone.

 

 Greg, I agree. Have never liked this idea, weapons or dress. If you've got it, you're going to want to find a way to use it.

[TMF]

[quote name="tnhawk" post="1163641" timestamp="1404050828"]There is no place in local police departments for military vehicles. Also there is no reasonable use for drones in local police departments.[/quote] People shoot at police sometimes. I guess an alternative to police standoffs involving hostages we should just wish the hostages the best of luck and go home. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peejman]

There is no place in local police departments for military vehicles.  Also there is no reasonable use for drones in local police departments.

 

No reasonable use for drones?  You'd rather they spend $2000/hr of your tax money on a real helicopter?

[Chucktshoes]

No reasonable use for drones?  You'd rather they spend $2000/hr of your tax money on a real helicopter?

Yes. The costs involved can be prohibitive and are a great inhibitor against abuse. Because of the operational costs, LEAs have to have justifiable reason to use them. They generally don't drag them out on fishing expeditions.

[Gun Smith]

I just wonder if I could create my own little hometown police department and get my hands on one of these.   Sure would be fun to show up at some of the off roading trails.    Hmmmm......    :woohoo:

[tnhawk]

No reasonable use for drones?  You'd rather they spend $2000/hr of your tax money on a real helicopter?

Most police departments have helicopters, but they didn't get them from the military. 

Edited June 30, 2014 by tnhawk

[Chucktshoes]

I just wonder if I could create my own little hometown police department and get my hands on one of these.   Sure would be fun to show up at some of the off roading trails.    Hmmmm......    :woohoo:

You sure about that? Hate to break it to you, but they have a high center of gravity and make a ford explorer with firestone tires look glued to the road with the ease in which they can rollover.  :rofl:

Edited June 30, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[Ugly]

The po po won't get rid of the helos, how would the sheriff get to fundraisers and events? :)

[TMF]

These things really are garbage for waging war. A great tool for approaching a known hostile, armed individual in an urban setting though. Cops have to do really dangerous things sometimes. I don't have a problem with them being safe while they do it. I don't suppose there are many here who would volunteer to run into gunfire unarmored simply because it makes other people uncomfortable to have the right gear. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited June 30, 2014 by TMF

[peejman]

Yes. The costs involved can be prohibitive and are a great inhibitor against abuse. Because of the operational costs, LEAs have to have justifiable reason to use them. They generally don't drag them out on fishing expeditions.

Agreed.

Most police departments have helicopters, but they didn't get them from the military.

I think perhaps we have different ideas of what constitutes a drone. I'm not referring to something like a Predator, I'm thinking of the little RC planes or quadrotors. They could easily do a number of the tasks a regular helo does at drastically reduced cost without endangering people. Edited July 1, 2014 by peejman

[TN-popo]

These things really are garbage for waging war. A great tool for approaching a known hostile, armed individual in an urban setting though. Cops have to do really dangerous things sometimes. I don't have a problem with them being safe while they do it. I don't suppose there are many here who would volunteer to run into gunfire unarmored simply because it makes other people uncomfortable to have the right gear. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Within the last several months, my agency's SWAT and Crisis Negotiators responded to a barricaded suspect where rounds had been fired.

This was in a neighborhood.  It would have been a Hostage Situation, but the wife escaped out the front door.

Negotiations failed (I can't win them all).

 

I can tell you, when rounds started bouncing off the armored vehicle, the "armored" part was comforting. 

Also, without too much detail, the vehicle was instrumental in ending the situation without loss of life (ie, snipers were onscene and standing by as an option).

Edited December 25, 2014 by TN-popo

[TN-popo]

With that said, do some Departments go overboard with toys and militarization?  Absolutely.

But lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater with some of these blanket statements.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="TN-popo" post="1164508" timestamp="1404308872"]Within the last several months, my agency's SWAT and Crisis Negotiators responded to a barricaded suspect where rounds had been fired. This was in a neighborhood. It would have been a Hostage Situation, but the wife escaped out the front door. Negotiations failed. I can tell you, when rounds started bouncing off the armored vehicle, the "armored" part was comforting. Also, without too much detail, the vehicle was instrumental in ending the situation without loss of life (ie, snipers were onscene and standing by as an option).[/quote] As one of the more ardent critics of the militarization of LE, let me say that I think this is a just and proper use for this equipment & SWAT. Most folks I know don't have any problem with this kind of situation. What we object to is when the MRAP/Bearcat/APC and SWAT are brought out on narcotics raids or to serve warrants. That's not a proper use as instead responding to an imminent danger to innocent life, it creates it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Chucktshoes]

Sometimes the demonstrated tendency for abuse of a thing outweighs the possible benefits of it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[TMF]

[quote name="Chucktshoes" post="1164527" timestamp="1404315257"]Sometimes the demonstrated tendency for abuse of a thing outweighs the possible benefits of it.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD[/quote] I disagree with that sentiment. It is the same argument liberals use for gun control. They believe the mere ownership of a firearm will compel otherwise law abiding individuals to commit crimes with said weapon. I don't believe police are any more compelled to violate a person's civil rights simply because they have an aggressive tool to do so. There were dirty cops violating civil rights back when citizens were better armed than police, per capita and armor didn't exist. I understand what you're trying to say; that cops having a new toy are gonna be excited for an opportunity to use it. I'm sure that's true. I don't agree that driving an APC to serve a warrant as opposed to driving a golf cart violates any rights. Perhaps it makes them look scarier, but that is a policy issue that can be changed by the people if they engage the civilian leadership. Personally, I don't care if cops serve a warrant in chain mail on the back of a dragon. What matters is whether or not they violate a person's rights when the do it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="TMF" post="1164564" timestamp="1404320570"]I disagree with that sentiment. It is the same argument liberals use for gun control. They believe the mere ownership of a firearm will compel otherwise law abiding individuals to commit crimes with said weapon. I don't believe police are any more compelled to violate a person's civil rights simply because they have an aggressive tool to do so. There were dirty cops violating civil rights back when citizens were better armed than police, per capita and armor didn't exist.I understand what you're trying to say; that cops having a new toy are gonna be excited for an opportunity to use it. I'm sure that's true. I don't agree that driving an APC to serve a warrant as opposed to driving a golf cart violates any rights. Perhaps it makes them look scarier, but that is a policy issue that can be changed by the people if they engage the civilian leadership.Personally, I don't care if cops serve a warrant in chain mail on the back of a dragon. What matters is whether or not they violate a person's rights when the do it.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote] If we were talking about private individuals I would totally agree with you, but we are not. Now, if you remove qualified immunity from the equation entirely, I wouldn't care what LEAs equip themselves with to do the job as they would be on the hook not just collectively, but individually for what they did with it. That fact is that a SWAT team can drive their bearcat through someone's door at 3 am, shoot everyone and then when they find out that they raided the wrong house, the taxpayers get the bill for the settlement check to the next of kin. The officers don't go to jail for murder. They might get a couple of days of paid vacation and then the LEA releases a statement that while it was a tragic accident, "the officers acted within the guidelines of departmental policy." Then it is back to SOP and the next midnight raid/murder. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Edited July 2, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[peejman]

If we were talking about private individuals I would totally agree with you, but we are not. Now, if you remove qualified immunity from the equation entirely, I wouldn't care what LEAs equip themselves with to do the job as they would be on the hook not just collectively, but individually for what they did with it. That fact is that a SWAT team can drive their bearcat through someone's door at 3 am, shoot everyone and then when they find out that they raided the wrong house, the taxpayers get the bill for the settlement check to the next of kin. The officers don't go to jail for murder. They might get a couple of days of paid vacation and then the LEA releases a statement that while it was a tragic accident, "the officers acted within the guidelines of departmental policy." Then it is back to SOP and the next midnight raid/murder. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

 

I agree with this to the extent that there should be some personal responsibility when things go sideways. 

 

I'm an engineer who fixes aircraft engine parts.  If I make a bad decision that results in someone getting hurt, the FAA won't let me hide behind my employer, they'll haul my arse to jail.  Why is that not the case for the above?  It can be argued that the officers on the raid are merely the minions following orders, and I'm ok with that, but why aren't the guys who gave the orders personally responsible?  If I am, they should be too. 

[jtmaze]

My big question is,"what is the yearly upkeep of such vehicle?" Anyone who has more vehicles than drivers in their household knows that if you don't drive a vehicle it will fall apart sitting. That means if we have it we have to drive it and then there is the upkeep of driving it. We all know that the .gov is not the most responsible when faced with designing things that are easily maintained so where is the $ coming from to keep these "free" vehicles running. How much have we heard about municiple debt? Someone has to pay for it, and it ISN'T free!!!!! JTM We the People of the United States, in order to form a more Perfect Union...... Edited July 2, 2014 by jtmaze

[TMF]

[quote name="Chucktshoes" post="1164579" timestamp="1404321524"]If we were talking about private individuals I would totally agree with you, but we are not. Now, if you remove qualified immunity from the equation entirely, I wouldn't care what LEAs equip themselves with to do the job as they would be on the hook not just collectively, but individually for what they did with it. That fact is that a SWAT team can drive their bearcat through someone's door at 3 am, shoot everyone and then when they find out that they raided the wrong house, the taxpayers get the bill for the settlement check to the next of kin. The officers don't go to jail for murder. They might get a couple of days of paid vacation and then the LEA releases a statement that while it was a tragic accident, "the officers acted within the guidelines of departmental policy." Then it is back to SOP and the next midnight raid/murder.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD[/quote] Then the issue here remains accountability, not equipment. I do agree that there should always be accountability for such cases, and when a PD decides to go hot on a target and kill a bunch of innocents there should be responsible person(s) sitting in the defense chair. That is what we should be focusing on, not inanimate collections of metal and glass. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

Then the issue here remains accountability, not equipment. I do agree that there should always be accountability for such cases, and when a PD decides to go hot on a target and kill a bunch of innocents there should be responsible person(s) sitting in the defense chair. That is what we should be focusing on, not inanimate collections of metal and glass. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Accountability that won't ever come as long as the concept of qualified immunity exists in American jurisprudence.

While the equipment is less important than accountability, it is still an important issue. I know you are familiar with the concept "the clothes make the man." I remember it being used to great effect when I was in basic training. "Here is your uniform. You look like an Airman, now it is time to act like one!" This is the concept currently at work in the militarization of LE across the nation. LEAs are increasingly being equipped like military units, dressing like military units, using military terminology to describe themselves, recruiting former military personnel and using military tactics to carry out their missions. All of this engenders a war/combat mindset in the officers. Law enforcement is not a military mission. You and I have lightly touched upon this subject before. You don't object to the use of military hardware and tactics stateside, I do. While a 3am raid where you kick down a door of a structure and rush the occupants before they can respond in a clear headed manner may be an entirely appropriate tactic when the targets are enemy soldiers in a combat zone, it isn't in a US city when dealing with citizens. 

Edited July 2, 2014 by Chucktshoes