"It's armored. It's heavy. It's intimidating. And it's free" - Page 2

seeker_two · November 29, 2013, 11:18 PM

I'm OK with PD's accepting these as rescue vehicles due to their armor & off-road capabilities. I draw the line at mounting weapons or using them for roadblocks or raids.

I'd much rather see these vehicles offered to rural fire and ambulance services.

Wyoredman · December 2, 2013, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimDandy

Sheriff John Q Public has an MRAP in the department garage for emergencies you're not going to create, and won't suffer from? If you want presumption of innocence, and the benefit of the doubt, maybe you should offer it to others too.

I understand the point you are making.

My point, though, is that certain POLICE CHIEFS [not elected Sheriff's] are appointed political lap dogs who are expected to tow the mayor's boat. POLICE chiefs controlling military equipment and using military tactics is a recipe for disaster. Elected sheriffs must answer to their electorate.

The difference between John Q. Public and his .45 vs. Jimmy Q Police Chief and his MRAP, is that the founders tried to write the Constitution so as to insure Mr. Public the freedom from Mr. Police Chief acting as a military unit and taking his freedoms away.

Formynder · December 3, 2013, 01:46 AM

Regarding the earlier comment about how we can ship things cheaply to Walmart from China, I would point out that Afghanistan has no ports. Not only that, but no country bordering Afghanistan has a port. There are also no railroads and plenty of mountains. Things have to be either trucked in through Pakistan or flown in, both of which are expensive and subject to political actions.

As for comparing your .45 on your hip to an MRAP, I'd say that who's paying for it is also a concern. If you buy a pistol for yourself, you only have to justify it to yourself (or possibly your spouse). But even when the departments get the MRAPS for free (or really cheap), the operating costs are still extremely high, especially when for the most part the jobs that are done with them could be accomplished by vehicles that cost a fraction of the price to purchase and/or operate.

Double Naught Spy · December 3, 2013, 08:22 AM

Quote:

I would point out that Afghanistan has no ports..

By port, I take it that you mean only water-type ports. Afghanistan does have airports.

Quote:

Not only that, but no country bordering Afghanistan has a port.

I had no idea that Iran, Pakistan, and China have no such ports. How do you think they get all that oil out of Iran? How do they actually ship all that stuff out of China and Pakistan? In fact, 3 of the 6 countries bordering Afghanistan do have ports and rely on them for international commerce.

In fact, check...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...,_Pakistan.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...,_Pakistan.jpg

carguychris · December 3, 2013, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Formynder

Not only that, but no country bordering Afghanistan has a port.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

...3 of the 6 countries bordering Afghanistan do have ports and rely on them for international commerce.

Formynder, I think you may have the country confused with Uzbekistan, which AFAIK is the world's only double-landlocked country, at least with regards to oceans. (It borders Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, both of which touch the Caspian Sea.)

Speaking of which, Afghanistan also borders Turkmenistan, and access to Caspian Sea ports. This actually gives access to the Mediterranean and Europe, albeit in a roundabout way that's largely controlled by Russia (Caspian Sea - Volga River - Volga-Don Canal - Don River - Sea of Azov - Black Sea - Bosporus - Sea of Marmara - Dardanelles - Aegean Sea - Mediterranean).

Formynder · December 3, 2013, 09:06 PM

And this is what happens when I post wayyy too late at night. Sorry!

JimDandy · December 4, 2013, 01:13 AM

Quote:

My point, though, is that certain POLICE CHIEFS [not elected Sheriff's] are appointed political lap dogs who are expected to tow the mayor's boat. POLICE chiefs controlling military equipment and using military tactics is a recipe for disaster. Elected sheriffs must answer to their electorate.

The difference between John Q. Public and his .45 vs. Jimmy Q Police Chief and his MRAP, is that the founders tried to write the Constitution so as to insure Mr. Public the freedom from Mr. Police Chief acting as a military unit and taking his freedoms away.

And what exactly is the difference between Police Chief Smith, as an appointed official responsible to the mayor, and Joint Chief Jones, an appointed official responsible to the President?

For that matter, what's the difference between a Chief of Police turning his city into a despotic dictatorship where you can't vote out his boss the mayor, or a Sheriff turning the county into one where you can't vote out the Sheriff?

And this still presupposes malignant malice on the part of this individual flying in the face of presumed innocence.

grizz223 · December 4, 2013, 10:20 AM

It is true that we get old military surplus like old Huey helicopters, M-16 rifles and we have an old armored car for our swat team. However all of are M-16 have been converted to semi-auto and are strictly accounted for as per the BATFE they are still automatic weapons. We have a Huey and enough parts for at least one more in our grave yard. But the last time I check we have not assaulted any beach fronts lately

. It's a dangerous world out there and we as law enforcement react to what we see going on. For all of those who do not feel that the PD or Sheriff's department need these things all you need to do is go back to the North Hollywood shoot out to see that even though the need is rare it does happen. Better to have it and not need than to need it and not have it. I agree that Law enforcement as a whole is being somewhat militarized but we are a set up in paramilitary manner from the get go at least in command structure. I for one would like to go back to the days where we were peace officers but it doesn't look like that going to happen.

JimDandy · December 5, 2013, 12:46 AM

I also suspect more than one police helicopter has been used for an emergency room visit as well.

carguychris · December 5, 2013, 10:59 AM

I don't think anyone is debating the usefulness of helicopters for LE. IMHO the need for a LE helo is a lot more obvious than the need for a LE MRAP, my earlier post notwithstanding. (My intent was to point out that some LE agencies had obtained OH-58's from the DoD for arguably duplicitous reasons, NOT to argue that LE helicopters are hard to justify in general, although they certainly may be hard to rationalize for a department with limited financial resources.)

jimbob86 · December 5, 2013, 04:47 PM

Quote:

I'm OK with PD's accepting these as rescue vehicles due to their armor & off-road capabilities. I draw the line at mounting weapons or using them for roadblocks or raids.

So, it's OK that they accept them as long as they do not use them?

I do not think "Peace Officers" need military equipment. If the situation calls for military hardware, then call out the National Guard.

"Police" =/= "Military".

The more they do, the more obvious it is to me that the "police" in question have lost their way ....

armoredman · December 5, 2013, 05:49 PM

grizz223, the North Hollywood shootout was aided by three civilian armored trucks that the company I worked for allowed to be used, although only one showed up on the media. Those domestic cash haulers are armored well enough to deal with any home grown robbery suspects, and are in fact tougher than they look - I was in a stationary truck rammed by a moving house, (mobile home transporter), and destroyed a good part of the home for a cost of a mirror.

Why do I disagree with these vehicles being given to LE? This quote comes to mind from the Liar In Chief...

Quote:

Washington: "Weapons of war have no place on our streets," US President Barack Obama said Monday at an event with law enforcement officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where gun violence among teens has declined by 40 percent.

Only weapons of war are allowed if controlled by the government, like the vehicles and firearms involved in the illegal Boston Lockdown, pointing rifles at people who happened to take pictures of the "event", AND having the terrosit located by an unarmed civilian who lost his boat to police gunfire as a thank you!
No, if you NEED an armored vehicle, you can apply for a donated cash transport truck, and YES, that IS done - I helped one small and cash strapped PD get one of our old trucks free for a SWAT vehicle. Check with your local armored company for more info.

MTT TL · December 5, 2013, 07:28 PM

Some small departments can fund a significant portion of their budget by getting the "free vehicle" and then selling it for good money after keeping it the required time. Most of the time the only time they move is when they are driven in the gates.

This keeps the local taxes down, makes the sheriff look good to supporters for bringing in resources and gives them a back up plan if the Boston Bomber pays a visit to their city. It is a whole MRAP full of win.

Looked at another way I would rather the local sheriff in every county had a few armored vehicles than the DOJ/ DHS have a whole bunch of them...

Bezoar · December 7, 2013, 05:26 AM

how can something be free if it was purchased with funds provided by us taxpayers?

The issue is this, when political appointees are giving military hardware that normally takes military hardware to stop it. How does someone know that when political doctrine changes, that the said political appontee wont be driving up and down the street to ensure you vote for "the correct political party come election time?"

JimDandy · December 8, 2013, 10:11 AM

The issue is this, when citizens who have done nothing wrong are carrying firearms on their person in a concealed manner, How does someone know that when they have a bad day, said citizen won't do something wrong with the firearm on their person?

Every time we bring up that hypocritical argument we're just weakening our own defense to things like FOIDs, May Issue, and so on because we will be hoist on our own petard. Additionally that argument carries more weight for them than for us to the undecided/general public. It's been 60 years since a local political boss tried to corrupt an election like that. We're barely 60 DAYS since the Navy Yard shooting- where someone who wasn't a firearm disabled criminal became one in a mass shooting.

Edit to Add: With that said, I'm all in favor of an ironic approach using that argument against police. Guns are bad, Police have guns, so obviously police should give up their guns given the long and full history of police convicted of murder. What's that you say? It's incredibly rare police are convicted of that sort of thing? etc. and so on.

MTT TL · December 8, 2013, 10:33 AM

Quote:

POLICE chiefs controlling military equipment and using military tactics is a recipe for disaster.

True, but not for the reasons you are implying. Most police departments barely can afford enough officers to patrol the streets and chase down the criminals. Putting together a military unit for an arbitrary purpose would be beyond the reach of nearly all departments. Trying to restrict freedoms in any meaningful way would be near impossible without an overwhelming voluntary compliance.

Quote:

The difference between John Q. Public and his .45 vs. Jimmy Q Police Chief and his MRAP, is that the founders tried to write the Constitution so as to insure Mr. Public the freedom from Mr. Police Chief acting as a military unit and taking his freedoms away.

Even if they could the effectiveness of acting as a military unit would be horrible. They simply don't have the resources (man power, logistics, infrastructure), training or skill set to operate as a military unit. They don't have any means to acquire these things either.

Quote:

I'd much rather see these vehicles offered to rural fire and ambulance services.

The off road capability of an MRAP leaves much to be desired.

Herluf · December 8, 2013, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Some small departments can fund a significant portion of their budget by getting the "free vehicle" and then selling it for good money after keeping it the required time. Most of the time the only time they move is when they are driven in the gates.

This keeps the local taxes down, makes the sheriff look good to supporters for bringing in resources and gives them a back up plan if the Boston Bomber pays a visit to their city. It is a whole MRAP full of win.

I hadn't thought of this. This sounds like a really good situation for small police departments.

I personally see little danger in police departments getting an armored truck as long as upkeep doesn't end up costing too much. Parts/wheels/etc can be quite expensive for such vehicles and that $ can often be used better elsewhere.

We live in a dangerous time where criminals have access to more and more dangerous equipment. I've got no problem with the Police/Swat getting an armored truck to roll in when going up against well armed criminals.

grizz223 · December 9, 2013, 08:14 AM

grizz223, the North Hollywood shootout was aided by three civilian armored trucks that the company I worked for allowed to be used, although only one showed up on the media.

armoredman
That is what our Swat team has is an old Armored car or as you call it a cash hauler. The LAPD also had to borrow AR 15s from a local gun dealer so they could put down some suppressive fire to get their wounded officers out.The community really came together that day to help. How Ironic that if the same thing happened today there would not be any AR15s because they are banned in California.

spacecoast · December 9, 2013, 08:51 AM

Quote:

I hope most see the difference between a free person owning a rifle and an appointed police chief controlling an MRAP!

Yes, absolutely. I don't think most police chiefs' Napoleon complexes need any more encouragement. Their purpose is not to fight wars.

Quote:

The issue is this, when political appointees are giving military hardware that normally takes military hardware to stop it. How does someone know that when political doctrine changes, that the said political appontee wont be driving up and down the street to ensure you vote for "the correct political party come election time?"

Excellent point.

Double Naught Spy · December 9, 2013, 10:13 AM

Quote:

armoredman
That is what our Swat team has is an old Armored car or as you call it a cash hauler. The LAPD also had to borrow AR 15s from a local gun dealer so they could put down some suppressive fire to get their wounded officers out.The community really came together that day to help. How Ironic that if the same thing happened today there would not be any AR15s because they are banned in California.

Those AR15s were never used in the fight. LAPD did borrow a local cash hauler to get out wounded officers. AR15s are not banned in California currently.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/6...compliant.html

Quote:

The issue is this, when political appointees are giving military hardware that normally takes military hardware to stop it. How does someone know that when political doctrine changes, that the said political appontee wont be driving up and down the street to ensure you vote for "the correct political party come election time?"

Quote:

Excellent point.

Not an excellent point. If you are worried about the mayor enforcing political solidarity with a truck, then you call the state police, federal government, etc. If you are afraid they are in on the deal, then it really doesn't matter anyway because they will just blow you up with a bomb from a stealth bomber.

Wyoredman · December 9, 2013, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTT TL

Most police departments barely can afford enough officers to patrol the streets and chase down the criminals.

I find this a bit disingenuous. I hear the funding shortage cry every year from the Chief in my small town of 7000 folks. Yet he has grown his department to 24 officers! One officer for every 292 people!

Also, since my town is the county seat, that number doesn't include the Sheriff's deputies, State Troopers, FBI (we are 3miles from the reservation), Federal Marshalls, and Federal Police stationed here!

So if one Police Officer per 292 citizens isn't enough to patrol the streets, you suggest that my town deploy military equipment and tactics to make up the shortfall?

I don't agree!

MTT TL · December 9, 2013, 10:50 AM

Quote:

So if one Police Officer per 292 citizens isn't enough to patrol the streets, you suggest that my town deploy military equipment and tactics to make up the shortfall?

I don't agree!

I don't agree either. That is why I did not say that.

BTW- 292 is below the average of 256 for the US as a whole. I imagine crime must be lower in your neck of the wood keeping the numbers down.

Wyoredman · December 9, 2013, 10:53 AM

I guess you didn't say that, but for some reason that's what I took from your prior post.

Internet conversations can be a bit tricky at times!

And, I am sure if you added all LEO presence in my town, the ratio would be near 1 per < 200 citizens. Given the fact that the FED has BLM, USFS, FBI, ATF, Reservation and Marshall Service officers located here along with the County Sheriff and his deputies and the State Troopers and the State Game Wardens!

MTT TL · December 9, 2013, 11:02 AM

Quote:

I am sure if you added all LEO presence in my town, the ratio would be near 1 per < 200 citizens. Given the fact that the FED has BLM, USFS, FBI, ATF, Reservation and Marshall Service officers located here along with the County Sheriff and his deputies and the State Troopers and the State Game Wardens!

Possibly, but I was using patrol officer numbers. Also are the Fed and state agencies there for "your town" or do they serve a regional area and are HQ'd in your town because that is where all the people and resources are?

armoredman · December 9, 2013, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Those AR15s were never used in the fight. LAPD did borrow a local cash hauler to get out wounded officers. AR15s are not banned in California currently.

There are California compliant AR-15s in California with ridiculous accessories like The Hammerhead grip stock to get around the insane laws in that goofy state.
We passed out Mini-14s to road blocks that day from our stock, as LAPD had no rifles. They weren't used, fortunately. BTW, LAPD didn't borrow the rig - we loaned it after moving all the currency up front - it was doing a stop nearby and just happened to be in the area when a cop hammered on the door asking if it was really bullet proof. The driver of the truck was an AT employee, not a SWAT officer. After that we started carrying forms for cops to sign if they needed a bullet blocker, stating they took legal responsibility for the liability inside the vehicle.
Back to the MRAP - if the off road capability sucks, then the only place we should be using them is maybe donating them to our allies in hot spots, like Israel. Hummers would work better for those rural area ambulances.
Question - a lot of people have stated the departments should accept them and then sell them - who are they selling them to?

November 29, 2013, 11:18 PM	#26
seeker_two Senior Member Join Date: August 31, 2002 Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX) Posts: 2,169	I'm OK with PD's accepting these as rescue vehicles due to their armor & off-road capabilities. I draw the line at mounting weapons or using them for roadblocks or raids. I'd much rather see these vehicles offered to rural fire and ambulance services. __________________ Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0......

December 4, 2013, 10:20 AM	#33
grizz223 Senior Member Join Date: February 19, 2013 Location: Fl Posts: 204	It is true that we get old military surplus like old Huey helicopters, M-16 rifles and we have an old armored car for our swat team. However all of are M-16 have been converted to semi-auto and are strictly accounted for as per the BATFE they are still automatic weapons. We have a Huey and enough parts for at least one more in our grave yard. But the last time I check we have not assaulted any beach fronts lately. It's a dangerous world out there and we as law enforcement react to what we see going on. For all of those who do not feel that the PD or Sheriff's department need these things all you need to do is go back to the North Hollywood shoot out to see that even though the need is rare it does happen. Better to have it and not need than to need it and not have it. I agree that Law enforcement as a whole is being somewhat militarized but we are a set up in paramilitary manner from the get go at least in command structure. I for one would like to go back to the days where we were peace officers but it doesn't look like that going to happen. __________________ NRA Life member. Deputy Sheriff.

December 5, 2013, 10:59 AM	#35
carguychris Senior Member Join Date: October 20, 2007 Location: Richardson, TX Posts: 7,523	I don't think anyone is debating the usefulness of helicopters for LE. IMHO the need for a LE helo is a lot more obvious than the need for a LE MRAP, my earlier post notwithstanding. (My intent was to point out that some LE agencies had obtained OH-58's from the DoD for arguably duplicitous reasons, NOT to argue that LE helicopters are hard to justify in general, although they certainly may be hard to rationalize for a department with limited financial resources.) __________________ "Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

December 5, 2013, 07:28 PM	#38
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	Some small departments can fund a significant portion of their budget by getting the "free vehicle" and then selling it for good money after keeping it the required time. Most of the time the only time they move is when they are driven in the gates. This keeps the local taxes down, makes the sheriff look good to supporters for bringing in resources and gives them a back up plan if the Boston Bomber pays a visit to their city. It is a whole MRAP full of win. Looked at another way I would rather the local sheriff in every county had a few armored vehicles than the DOJ/ DHS have a whole bunch of them... __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

December 9, 2013, 08:14 AM	#43
grizz223 Senior Member Join Date: February 19, 2013 Location: Fl Posts: 204	grizz223, the North Hollywood shootout was aided by three civilian armored trucks that the company I worked for allowed to be used, although only one showed up on the media. armoredman That is what our Swat team has is an old Armored car or as you call it a cash hauler. The LAPD also had to borrow AR 15s from a local gun dealer so they could put down some suppressive fire to get their wounded officers out.The community really came together that day to help. How Ironic that if the same thing happened today there would not be any AR15s because they are banned in California. __________________ NRA Life member. Deputy Sheriff.

December 3, 2013, 01:46 AM	#28
Formynder Member Join Date: April 21, 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 46	Regarding the earlier comment about how we can ship things cheaply to Walmart from China, I would point out that Afghanistan has no ports. Not only that, but no country bordering Afghanistan has a port. There are also no railroads and plenty of mountains. Things have to be either trucked in through Pakistan or flown in, both of which are expensive and subject to political actions. As for comparing your .45 on your hip to an MRAP, I'd say that who's paying for it is also a concern. If you buy a pistol for yourself, you only have to justify it to yourself (or possibly your spouse). But even when the departments get the MRAPS for free (or really cheap), the operating costs are still extremely high, especially when for the most part the jobs that are done with them could be accomplished by vehicles that cost a fraction of the price to purchase and/or operate.

December 3, 2013, 09:06 PM	#31
Formynder Member Join Date: April 21, 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 46	And this is what happens when I post wayyy too late at night. Sorry!

December 5, 2013, 12:46 AM	#34
JimDandy Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2012 Posts: 2,556	I also suspect more than one police helicopter has been used for an emergency room visit as well.

December 7, 2013, 05:26 AM	#39
Bezoar Junior member Join Date: October 19, 2004 Location: michigan Posts: 578	how can something be free if it was purchased with funds provided by us taxpayers? The issue is this, when political appointees are giving military hardware that normally takes military hardware to stop it. How does someone know that when political doctrine changes, that the said political appontee wont be driving up and down the street to ensure you vote for "the correct political party come election time?"

December 8, 2013, 10:11 AM	#40
JimDandy Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2012 Posts: 2,556	The issue is this, when citizens who have done nothing wrong are carrying firearms on their person in a concealed manner, How does someone know that when they have a bad day, said citizen won't do something wrong with the firearm on their person? Every time we bring up that hypocritical argument we're just weakening our own defense to things like FOIDs, May Issue, and so on because we will be hoist on our own petard. Additionally that argument carries more weight for them than for us to the undecided/general public. It's been 60 years since a local political boss tried to corrupt an election like that. We're barely 60 DAYS since the Navy Yard shooting- where someone who wasn't a firearm disabled criminal became one in a mass shooting. Edit to Add: With that said, I'm all in favor of an ironic approach using that argument against police. Guns are bad, Police have guns, so obviously police should give up their guns given the long and full history of police convicted of murder. What's that you say? It's incredibly rare police are convicted of that sort of thing? etc. and so on.

December 9, 2013, 10:53 AM	#48
Wyoredman Senior Member Join Date: September 6, 2011 Location: Wyoming Posts: 1,350	I guess you didn't say that, but for some reason that's what I took from your prior post. Internet conversations can be a bit tricky at times! And, I am sure if you added all LEO presence in my town, the ratio would be near 1 per < 200 citizens. Given the fact that the FED has BLM, USFS, FBI, ATF, Reservation and Marshall Service officers located here along with the County Sheriff and his deputies and the State Troopers and the State Game Wardens! __________________ Go Pokes! Go Rams! Last edited by Wyoredman; December 9, 2013 at 10:59 AM.