WA state sheriff deputy "We have a lot of Constitutionalists" to justify MRAP use.

WalkingWolf · Jan 15, 2015

Armored vehicles have been used by states for well over 50 years to suppress their citizens. USSR and China being very common, they are used more for a tool of oppression and violence than peace.

StanSwitek · Jan 15, 2015

For the purpose of this discussion I included ALL armored vehicles. MRAP is just a term that describes one of many types of armored vehicles.. When I use the term MRAP I include all armored vehicles.

utbagpiper · Jan 15, 2015

StanSwitek said:
No such requirement. Decision to deplay is dictated by department policy. Decision to deploy is a supervisory/management decision.

Thank you.

StanSwitek said:
The tactics of law enforcement are dictated by the rising threat [of terrorist and street gangs].

Certainly one would be foolish and negligent not to address this threat. Even as violent crime rates are at 50 year lows, it seems the risk of a particularly violent attack occurring could be rising.

In your experience does this threat, and the training to respond to it, affect how officers interact daily with the law abiding public, minor traffic infractions, and so on?

What effect does media coverage (both volume and "slant") have on the attitudes of police officers and is there an effect on how they interact with the public?

StanSwitek said:
Police have used armored vehicles for over 50 years. The MRAP is the the latest type that has become available.

Do you think armored vehicle ownership/use by departments has become more common? Or are the MRAPS simply more readily identifiable by the public as armored vehicles than were previous vehicles? Put another way, are MRAPs the armored vehicle equivalent of "black guns", "sportorized guns", "scary looking guns", or whatever other name one might apply to AR type platforms and other rifles with pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and other such features? Do MRAPs--like ARs--simply draw more attention because they are obviously of military origin whereas prior armored vehicles looked less military? Were the armored vehicles of prior generations less obvious, harder to identify as armored?

Charles

WalkingWolf · Jan 15, 2015

Primus said:
Rookie mistake....

The tab vehicle is NOT an MRAP. Its a HMMV. Completely different vehicle. The HMMV (or humvee) may not even be armored. If it was then probably a surplus M1198 or some variation.

Second vehicle was just a hatch from an armored vehicle. Couldnt see more to correct your misnomers.

Both pictures are military vehicles, most likely supplied by the feds, to assist some police officers in threatening the public. There are other incidents with them completely out of their vehicles threatening people who clearly are not a threat. And most of these incidents happen in hysteria/hyperbole incidents which is where a MRAP would most likely be used.

There is old saying that I have heard goes something like this. Give a child a hammer, and the child will find something to hammer with it.

SovereigntyOrDeath · Jan 15, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Stan,

I hope as might be received in the spirit of honest inquiry perhaps you could shed some light on a couple of things for me.

So far as you know, is there any requirement imposed by the feds or others, to show that armored vehicles or other military surplus is actually being used some minimal amount? And if so, does such a requirement encourage departments to use said equipment where it might not otherwise choose to do so?

In your experience, is the line between police methods of "keeping the peace" and military tactics of seeking and destroying the enemy becoming blurred? And if so, what effects do you see this having on, or what concerns do you have for the relationship between peace officers and the general public they are serving?

Thanks

Charles

I second that request. Good questions.

Also, I think it would be best for the National Guard or Militia of the state the incident occurs to handle the "big guns" and military equipment. Since the President can order the military to respond within the US to "emergencies", what is the point of militarizing local leo's? FBI & Homeland would be plenty too. The feds are ultimately responsible to protect the homeland. I would think that the military branches all have fast deployment units that can respond quickly.

StanSwitek · Jan 15, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Thank you.

Certainly one would be foolish and negligent not to address this threat. Even as violent crime rates are at 50 year lows, it seems the risk of a particularly violent attack occurring could be rising.

In your experience does this threat, and the training to respond to it, affect how officers interact daily with the law abiding public, minor traffic infractions, and so on?

What effect does media coverage (both volume and "slant") have on the attitudes of police officers and is there an effect on how they interact with the public?

Do you think armored vehicle ownership/use by departments has become more common? Or are the MRAPS simply more readily identifiable by the public as armored vehicles than were previous vehicles? Put another way, are MRAPs the armored vehicle equivalent of "black guns", "sportorized guns", "scary looking guns", or whatever other name one might apply to AR type platforms and other rifles with pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and other such features? Do MRAPs--like ARs--simply draw more attention because they are obviously of military origin whereas prior armored vehicles looked less military? Were the armored vehicles of prior generations less obvious, harder to identify as armored?
Charles[/QUOTE

utbagpiper said:

In your experience does this threat, and the training to respond to it, affect how officers interact daily with the law abiding public, minor traffic infractions, and so on?
Charles

Click to expand...

No.

utbagpiper said:

Do you think armored vehicle ownership/use by departments has become more common? Or are the MRAPS simply more readily identifiable by the public as armored vehicles than were previous vehicles? Put another way, are MRAPs the armored vehicle equivalent of "black guns", "sportorized guns", "scary looking guns", or whatever other name one might apply to AR type platforms and other rifles with pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and other such features? Do MRAPs--like ARs--simply draw more attention because they are obviously of military origin whereas prior armored vehicles looked less military? Were the armored vehicles of prior generations less obvious, harder to identify as armored?
Charles[/QUOTE

Several factors. These tools are being more readily available. We are seeing an increased level and threat of violence as I have described previously. The public is increasingly concerned about the threat and expect public leadership and those they elect to take proper steps to protect the public. This is part of the process.

Click to expand...

marshaul · Jan 15, 2015

StanSwitek said:
Those engaging in violent always have the option to surrender peacefully. By the very nature of their mindset they frequently chose to go out in a "blaze of glory."

James Boyd, Ryan Frederick, Randy Weaver and countless others might take issue with this assessment.

I realize there are a few irrational people here that will take exception to whatever I say. They are misinformed, paranoid, cop haters or all of those things.

Again with the substitution of personal attacks and impugnment of character in the place of actual argument. I hope you realize this discredits you more than it does your opponents.

MAC702 · Jan 15, 2015

Have any of these "surplus" vehicles been offered for sale to the American public?

StanSwitek · Jan 15, 2015

SovereigntyOrDeath said:
I second that request. Good questions.

Also, I think it would be best for the National Guard or Militia of the state the incident occurs to handle the "big guns" and military equipment. Since the President can order the military to respond within the US to "emergencies", what is the point of militarizing local leo's? FBI & Homeland would be plenty too. The feds are ultimately responsible to protect the homeland. I would think that the military branches all have fast deployment units that can respond quickly.

As a general rule the NG (with a few exceptions) does not train for law enforcement type missions. Time to deploy in an emergency is lengthy. Many of your SWAT guys are and street cops are in the NG, reserves or have previously served. Changing uniforms would not make a difference. I can hear the public now screaming about using the military against it's own citizens. Simply not a workable solution. NG in a supporting role in some situations? It's been done before. As first responders in a tactical situation? Not going to happen, ever.

WalkingWolf · Jan 15, 2015

marshaul said:
James Boyd, Ryan Frederick, Randy Weaver and countless others might take issue with this assessment.

Again with the substitution of personal attacks and impugnment of character in the place of actual argument. I hope you realize this discredits you more than it does your opponents.

Let's not forget about the two unarmed, non criminal, Hispanic ladies shot multiple times by police in CA because they were looking for a black man/Dorner.

OC for ME · Jan 15, 2015

A DHS "MRAP" may not be parked near by. DoD assets are problematic and a slippery slope. If the use of DoD assets is to be used because a cop yells terrorist then you will have soldiers trained far differently than cops engaging a threat where innocent civilians may be at risk. Soldiers are trained to break things and kill the enemy, collateral damage is a unfortunate element of completing the mission.

I'd much rather have cops in MRAPs than grunts in MRAPs when addressing a "terrorist."

marshaul · Jan 15, 2015

Re: negligence.

Considering that police have no duty to protect, it's ludicrous to suggest that it's "negligent" to fail to prepare for every possible threat.

Charles erroneously gave me a hard time recently on the basis of his mistaken impression that I was using words for their emotional impact rather than their semantic content (the word was "fraud").

I now levy the same criticism here.

The police prepare for whatever subset of threats the people view as justified by cost/benefit analysis in light of the fact that we pay for everything they do. The police don't get to decide to breathlessly overreact to every imaginary threat they can possibly conjure, and self-declare negligence for the failure to do so, as a justification for forcing us to pay for their every whim. That's not how it works.

You serve us.

StanSwitek · Jan 15, 2015

Using your logic we do away with police and let anarchy prevail.

marshaul said:
Re: negligence.

Considering that police have no duty to protect, it's ludicrous to suggest that it's "negligent" to fail to prepare for every possible threat.

Charles erroneously gave me a hard time recently on the basis of his mistaken impression that I was using words for their emotional impact rather than their semantic content (the word was "fraud").

I now levy the same criticism here.

The police prepare for whatever subset of threats the people view as justified by cost/benefit analysis in light of the fact that we pay for everything they do. They police don't get to decide to breathlessly overreact to every imaginary threat they can possibly conjure and self-declare negligence for the failure to do so. That's not how it works.

You serve us.

SovereigntyOrDeath · Jan 15, 2015

StanSwitek said:
Several factors. These tools are being more readily available. We are seeing an increased level and threat of violence as I have described previously. The public is increasingly concerned about the threat and expect public leadership and those they elect to take proper steps to protect the public. This is part of the process.

If the process involved a vote be the constituents of the district to militarize local leo's, then the controversy would be settled. If I am not mistaken, the military equipment is being unilaterally acquired by departments who think they need or want them.

Where do we draw the line? What if fully armed Apache helo's become available? Bradley's, M1A1's, shoulder fired rockets?

Personally, I would want all of it to fight the jihad. Overwhelming firepower!

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Would you start using the equipment for bank robberies? Responding to domestic violence? Drug busts?

I think they eventually would.

WalkingWolf · Jan 15, 2015

OC for ME said:
A DHS "MRAP" may not be parked near by. DoD assets are problematic and a slippery slope. If the use of DoD assets is to be used because a cop yells terrorist then you will have soldiers trained far differently than cops engaging a threat where innocent civilians may be at risk. Soldiers are trained to break things and kill the enemy, collateral damage is a unfortunate element of completing the mission.

I'd much rather have cops in MRAPs than grunts in MRAPs when addressing a "terrorist."

I disagree, soldiers injuring or killing civilians is held to a much higher standard than the police. There is NO QI for a soldier who screws up. Plus surveys have shown that soldiers are less likely to shoot the people because they are told to. In fact during Obama former soldiers are considered people that the government does not trust. So it is likely they do not trust current ones. I live among soldiers and the attitude they have his not them against us. They are one of us.

Post Katrina NG units refused to confiscate guns, while police willingly abused rights.

StanSwitek · Jan 15, 2015

You seen to think you have all the answers. What is your excuse for not becoming actively involved in law enforcement or running for public office and becoming involved in policy making decisions. Many departments even have public advisory committees. What is your excuse?

I pose that question to all of you who think you have all the answers.

marshaul said:
Re: negligence.

Considering that police have no duty to protect, it's ludicrous to suggest that it's "negligent" to fail to prepare for every possible threat.

Charles erroneously gave me a hard time recently on the basis of his mistaken impression that I was using words for their emotional impact rather than their semantic content (the word was "fraud").

I now levy the same criticism here.

The police prepare for whatever subset of threats the people view as justified by cost/benefit analysis in light of the fact that we pay for everything they do. The police don't get to decide to breathlessly overreact to every imaginary threat they can possibly conjure and self-declare negligence for the failure to do so as a justification for forcing us to pay for their every whim. That's not how it works.

You serve us.

marshaul · Jan 15, 2015

StanSwitek said:
You seen to think you have all the answers. What is your excuse for not becoming actively involved in law enforcement or running for public office and becoming involved in policy making decisions. Many departments even have public advisory committees. What is your excuse?

I pose that question to all of you who think you have all the answers.

Franky, I believe that enforcement of a great many laws presently on the books is unjustifiably immoral.

You're asking me to sacrifice my soul for political expediency. Would you do the same?

Anyway, this is another underhanded discussion tactic. Someone should really come up with a name for this informal fallacy. Maybe we can call it "argument by 'oh yeah, and what have you done lately!?'".

StanSwitek · Jan 15, 2015

What a complete cop out. I call total BS.

Have you ever taken a police science class at community college? Availed yourself to a citizens police academy to learn more about law enforcement? Volunteered with your local PD?

Of course not!!!

Much easier to sit there tapping on your computer whining about the system. Don't like it? Get off you ass and make a difference.

This message is for all you complainers. You do nothing but complain. You do nothing to make a difference.

marshaul said:
Franky, I believe that enforcement of a great many laws presently on the books is unjustifiably immoral.

You're asking me to sacrifice my soul for political expediency. Would you do the same?

Anyway, this is another underhanded discussion tactic. Someone should really come up with a name for this informal fallacy. Maybe we can call it "argument by 'oh yeah, and what have you done lately!?'".

marshaul · Jan 15, 2015

StanSwitek said:
Using your logic we do away with police and let anarchy prevail.

Actually, I'd be OK with getting rid of the vast majority of cops. I'd keep investigators (homicide, larceny, rape, etc.) and I might even let some of the big cities keep a SWAT team. But the vast majority of "proactive policing" serves to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of arbitrary criminality, the primary purpose of which is to fuel the police arm of the parasitic public service industry.

But that's not what I argued, and you know it. What I argued is that we (the people) get to decide what threats you (our servants) prepare for, and when you're negligent for the failure to do so. We might deign to take your expert advice into consideration. But then again, we might not.

We do it through a process of discussion (like this one right here). Maybe it turns out that most folks wants a lot more cops than I do. So long as we live in a "representative" society, then so be it. But in neither event does it consist of you imperiously informing us how much money we need to render unto you. (Or maybe it does, but then we promptly undercut your request by as much as we please, like any boss.)

StanSwitek · Jan 15, 2015

Nightmare said:
I was charter member of citizens advisory/review committee. I was elected supervisor to the board that hired our second cop. I rue that I voted with the majority. Do I have credence now, beyond a public servant?

At least your tried to make a difference and became involved. I respect that. I hope you chose to become involved again in the future. That seems to be a great deal more than some people here.

WA state sheriff deputy "We have a lot of Constitutionalists" to justify MRAP use.

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Banned