I see a problem. Give me one reason LEO's need this.

Status
Not open for further replies.
TBM the question is always "where to draw the line".

IE: Anthrax spores, Nuclear device, Ricin, Rocket Launcher, Claymore mine, belt fed .50 machine gun, all could be a "want" and the fact remains the items by themselves are not the problem, but their use (misuse) is.

Some draw the line earlier, some draw it later, and the two shall never meet.

jmho
 
I'm talking about a device (or an amalgam of devices) that is defensive in nature and you're giving me examples of devices (or agents) that are offensive and for the most part non-directional in nature. The comparison just doesn't work. But you are correct that the point is their misuse is the problem. Those who would ban citizens from owning these suits simply because of their potential to be used for nefarious purposes are no different than Sarah Brady and Barbara Boxer who would ban handguns if they could.

No peace officer should have any equipment that is illegal for the citizenry.
 
There has been some debate about weather LE clad in para military gear violates the Posse Comitatus Act. I see street LEOs wearing parachute pants etc looking like military special forces. Using appropriate gear in a riot/street war scenario is understandable. A rookie LEO wearing paramilitary gear, I believe, emboldens him/her to believe their role extends beyond what their day to day role really is.
 
Quote: "Im not a cop and I have a conceptual problem with it....

Why does mr Average need it?"

Mr. Avereage needs it, to defend himself against a tyranical, abusive government, when disarmed, and at the mercy of a military police force, such as occured in the following countries, resulting in the loss of millions of inncocent lives:

Poland, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Russia, East Germany, Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, China, Korea, Iraq, Kuwait, or any number of your favorite South American or South African slaughter centers.
 
Military Scientists Help Build Better Police Gear
By Paul Eng

June 4 - Batman would be jealous.

Real-life crimefighters could soon be getting high-tech, military-style outfits that would rival anything the caped crusader had in his fabled Bat suit and utility belt.

The new gear, dubbed LECTUS for Law Enforcement/Corrections Tactical Uniform System, comes courtesy of researchers at the U.S. Army's National Protection Center at the Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Mass., where they have been working for years to modify some of the latest military innovations for use by police on the home front.

Equipped with a LECTUS outfit, cops would be able to see in the dark, absorb bullets and blows without harm, communicate with others with a simple whisper, see through the eyes of remote team members, and walk through clouds of noxious chemicals or smoke without missing a step.

"This could all happen with the blink of an eye," said Rita Gonzalez, director of NPC. "We're so close it's not even funny."

A Suit for the Blues

LECTUS was conceived as a modified version of the military's so-called Land Warrior system — a project that equips soldiers with high-tech communications gear, sensors and weapons. And much of the proposed LECTUS gear, say researchers, has already been field-tested in combat by troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One part of the LECTUS uniform is an improved helmet called the MICH, or Modular Integrated Communications Helmet. The head gear contains an improved communication setup that does away with the traditional microphone. Instead, MICH uses a "bone-conducting" system that picks up vibrations from the skull when the wearer speaks.

Audio from the radio is produced from built-in headphones that also act as "active protectors." Microphones on the outside of the helmet monitor for sharp, loud noises — gunshots, explosions from flash-bang grenades — and automatically mute before they can shatter an officer's hearing.

Future versions of the helmet, say military researchers, would add more capabilities. A built-in GPS unit, for example, would provide officers with precise location information. Meanwhile, a small infra-red camera attached to the side would allow police to search darkened rooms or through smoke without requiring a bulky flashlight. Data such as the live video from other LECTUS-equipped officers can be displayed on a tiny screen that floats in front of the wearer.

Sleek and Supple

The material for LECTUS' uniform is nothing extremely exotic for now. Until "smart fabrics" can be identified and created, the shirts and pants of the uniform are mixtures of Cordura nylon and Spandex sections that allow for flexibility and more mobility for the wearer. Standard body armor made of Kevlar and ceramic plates offers protection against 9mm bullets. Eventually, as smart nanotechnology materials are developed, they could be incorporated into the LECTUS design. The fabric, composed of thin strands of tubes filled with magnets that automatically stiffen against impacts, would offer better protection while saving weight and bulk. Gonzalez says that traditional tactical uniforms worn by SWAT teams and prison guards aren't the best for certain situations. She notes, for example, that sometimes SWAT teams are called to perform in tough and tight spaces, such as airplanes. "The [Boston Police] that got the shoe bomber off the airplane two years ago were wearing outfits that were very bulky," says Gonzales. "LECTUS streamlines the operator to get in and out of airplanes and vehicles quickly."

Input From the Boys in Blue

LECTUS equipment and technology is still in the developmental phase. But some of the technology, such as the MICH helmets, are already being tested by some law enforcement agents, says Lawrence Kosiba, president of the Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization, a part of the Justice Department's that is working with the NPC towards modifying military technology.

And other developments, such as new LECTUS uniform materials, are being tested constantly. One such development, a new chemical suit, was recently field-tested in a mock prison riot drill at an annual OLETC gathering in Wheeling, W.Va. The suit, says Kosiba, was designed to be semi-permeable and allows the wearer's body heat and sweat to escape, while keeping out harmful chemical agents such as tear gas — a much needed improvement over what riot officers and prison guards now wear.

"I'm from a fire and military background with 27 years of experience," said Kosiba. "And I've worn some of the charcoal rubber suits, like the old Gulf [War] apparel, that couldn't let out the heat and steam and wasn't breathable. Those were monsters."

Still, Kosiba admits that LECTUS still has plenty of ways to go. "We found some [military] equipment that just wasn't suitable," he said. For example, for the Land Warrior program, the military had developed a system that would allow soldiers to instantly track where other members were. Such "situational awareness" capabilities are designed to prevent friendly fire incidents. While such a system could be beneficial for SWAT members and prison guards that need to storm an occupied building from multiple entrances, it was impractical since it was the size of a backpack. "And it wouldn't work for correctional officers because if an inmate got a hold of it, it could be dangerous for fellow officers," said Kosiba.

War Dividend

But he says that since OLETC is working with the NPC and military researchers, he's confident that law enforcement agencies could really benefit from the technologies. "This is one of the federal programs that makes sense," said Kosiba. "You are already spending the tax dollars to develop this technology for the military, why not put it to good use?" And NPC's Gonzalez says the feedback from OLETC is also helping to fuel further developments on the military side as well.

"As far as we're all concerned, one agency just can't do this all alone," said Gonzalez. "It will take a collaboration of users and agencies and teams to make it happen."

Since LECTUS is still in conceptual testing stage, researchers haven't been able to say how much a fully integrated police uniform may cost. But researchers are confident that costs will be significantly lower than any military Land Warrior system, a program that the military has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on over the last decade.

"Let's just say that creating the LECTUS won't cost as much," said Gonzalez. "It's not even close to [being] a multimillion-dollar program."

And since the technology development is shared with the existing Land Warrior program, LECTUS could be ready for law enforcement agents as soon as 2005.

Now, THAT is cool.
 
I'm talking about a device (or an amalgam of devices) that is defensive in nature and you're giving me examples of devices (or agents) that are offensive and for the most part non-directional in nature. The comparison just doesn't work.
I wasn't trying to do a compairson. As noted in the 2nd 1/2 of your reply, you got my intent, and that was all it was about.

TBO
 
They need it the same reason I as a private CCW holder carries a G19, S&W642, a surefire, and a spyderco. It's been safe than sorry. Why does anyone need body armor? You don't get shot on a daily basis but it's better safe than sorry.
 
I don't need it, I just want it. Is that not enough?

Nope. I want a suitcase nuke. Can I have one?

And I understand the defensive, offensive argument but thewre comes a point where the need just isnt there

Mr. Avereage needs it, to defend himself against a tyranical, abusive government, when disarmed, and at the mercy of a military police force, such as occured in the following countries, resulting in the loss of millions of inncocent lives:

Bullpucky....

They need it the same reason I as a private CCW holder carries a G19, S&W642, a surefire, and a spyderco. It's been safe than sorry. Why does anyone need body armor? You don't get shot on a daily basis but it's better safe than sorry.

Sorry, unless you live in a war zone, you dont need it...nor two guns for that matter.

I am on day 12 of being unarmed. I still live.

WildeventhoughihavegunseverywhereAlaska
 
WildAlaska said:
I don't need it, I just want it. Is that not enough?"
Nope. I want a suitcase nuke. Can I have one?

And I understand the defensive, offensive argument but thewre comes a point where the need just isnt there.
If you understand the defensive/offensive argument, why do you use the example of a suitcase nuke?

You say that the need isn't there - guess what - I agree with you! The Second Amendment isn't based on the need to bear arms, it is based on the right. The same argument applies to this as well.


WildAlaska said:
Bullpucky....
Now *there's* a compelling argument... :rolleyes:


WildAlaska said:
Sorry, unless you live in a war zone, you dont need it...nor two guns for that matter.
Are you saying that you would restrict people to one gun unless they live in a war zone?

:confused: I thought you supported the Second Amendment. :confused:

Do you not understand that one does not have to demonstrate a need in order to exercise a right. You don't have to need that cheeseburger, you only have to want it. I have no power to restrict you from having seconds either...

-Dave
 
What's with this whole 'need' arguement? Nobody 'needs' anything more than a loincloth and a pointy stick, and the loincloth is iffy. The second amendment is not based on what we 'need', which seems to be determined very subjectively. Neither the police, nor average citizens 'need' stealth supersuits. So lets be done with this nonsense.
 
Sorry, unless you live in a war zone, you dont need it...nor two guns for that matter.

It sounds like you have been reading and agreeing with those at democraticunderground.com. Many over there would say the same about 1 gun.

If we ever find ourselves in a "war zone" it will be a little late for body armor and additional weapons don't you think.:rolleyes:

Nope. I want a suitcase nuke. Can I have one?

Well lets see...You could cause the death of hundreds with a "suitcase nuke"... How does body armor = suitcase nuke??

NEED?????
 
You say that the need isn't there - guess what - I agree with you! The Second Amendment isn't based on the need to bear arms, it is based on the right. The same argument applies to this as well.

Au contraire, the 2a protects a right to bear arms in either an individual or collective sense that is either untrammelled or subject to reasonable regulation...all of which of course are to be determined.

Body armor isnt in the constituion.

Now *there's* a compelling argument

About as compelling as the old "omygodthegovernmentwilltossusuintocampsifwedonthavebodyarmor" argument

Are you saying that you would restrict people to one gun unless they live in a war zone?

Nope. Within the limits of the law folks can do what they want

I thought you supported the Second Amendment.

I do..my view of it evidently differs from yours. As I have said many times before, reasonable regulation is lawful under the 2ndA even under its most expansive (and correct I may add) reading as an indidual right.

WildanotherdayunarmedAlaska
 
Uhh, EXCUSE ME????

Didn't you, like, VOLUNTEER to be a cop?
Don't you have the ability to say "no" when told you "must go out and protect them..." even if it means quitting your job?

You're a cop, you put yourself in harms way, and now you cry about it and call US "morons" because you can't have the latest ninja toy that lets you do stuff to us with impunity?

Get real.

Who funds these purchases? WE do. Yet you want to use this stuff against us in the name of "officer safety".

Again, get real.

The only purpose of this sort of gear in the hands of Law Enforcement is intimidation. One wonders why our law enforcement servants hate & fear us so much that they "need" this sort of equipment.

How do you go out in the morning when you live in so much fear?

I conclude you would rather that more law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty, then. By the way...I pay taxes. What do I pay for?

Truly you are ignorant and uninformed.

Oh...Wildcard...I have one easy question for you. Why do you want officers to be killed? Sounds like you are prejudiced against one specific class of 'citizens'. Interesting. How do you feel about blacks, or gays...or females, for that matter?

You know...now I'm curious as well. What is your specific LE background, and why are you so afraid to reveal it?
 
As for "Officer Safety", I want LEOs safe for sure. They do go into harms way. One dead LEO costs far more than the cost of some body armor (in mere dollars and cents, not including the obvious emotional loss).

The problem from my experience is SOME LEOs abuse this and use it as an excuse to violate people's rights. These incidents have shrouded the whole "Officer Safety" claim in a negative light for some (me included).
 
As for "Officer Safety", I want LEOs safe for sure. They do go into harms way. One dead LEO costs far more than the cost of some body armor (in mere dollars and cents, not including the obvious emotional loss).

The problem from my experience is SOME LEOs abuse this and use it as an excuse to violate people's rights. These incidents have shrouded the whole "Officer Safety" claim in a negative light for some (me included).
How the heck does an LEO wearing body armor violate someones' rights? :confused:
 
WildAlaska said:
Body armor isnt in the constituion.
:rolleyes:

Please tell me you don't believe that we only have the right to what is listed in the constitution... You can check the Ninth Amendment and The Federalist No. 84 before you answer. :)

I did not make the "omygodthegovernmentwilltossusuintocampsifwedonthavebodyarmor" argument, so I won't defend it. I am simply saying that the government has no compelling reason to ban citizens from owning this.

All I should need to own this suit is enough money to pay for it. Just like all I should need to buy two guns from you is enough money to pay for them. Except it sounds like you would only sell me one since I'm not in a war zone...

-Dave
 
The body armor does not violate peoples rights. I am not against LEOs having good body armor. I do have somewhat a problem with the "para-military" look for street LEOs. (As I stated in a previous post in this thread)

My point is SOME LEOs claim improper acts were done in the scope of the generic claim "Officer Safety". I had a personal experience with this.
 
The body armor does not violate peoples rights. I am not against LEOs having good body armor. I do have somewhat a problem with the "para-military" look for street LEOs. (As I stated in a previous post in this thread)

My point is SOME LEOs claim improper acts were done in the scope of the generic claim "Officer Safety". I had a personal experience with this.

What was it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top