"It's armored. It's heavy. It's intimidating. And it's free"
- Thread starter Wyoredman
- Start date
- Status
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Access to parts is not part of the deal. It's like buying a used car from an unknown private seller ... as-is, no warranty expressed or implied. PD in the adjacent town got one of the surplus Humvees. I took a citizens' police academy course there last year. They showed us the Humvee, and mentioned that it hadn't been running for a year. Sure, mechanics who can work on a diesel Humvee can be found -- but the department has no contract with such people, no mechanism to pay them, and no money to maintain the thing. If the local Public Works truck mechanic can't fix it, it doesn't get fixed.DNS said:
I'd like to know why these things are surplus. Is the military still buying MRAPS? If so, why are we buying new ones while giving the ones we have to police departments who have no use for them?
Last edited:
I just saw a report from Afghanistan regarding Afghan government forces taking over fighting the Taliban.
As we draw down our forces, these afghans are fighting...and getting killed. They are patrolling in US supplied unarmored Ford pick ups.
These are people who could use MRAPS.
As we draw down our forces, these afghans are fighting...and getting killed. They are patrolling in US supplied unarmored Ford pick ups.
These are people who could use MRAPS.
Double Naught Spy
New member
LOL, they could not get their hummer to run? That is too funny. I know folks who own H1s. Even our little town used them, retrofitted, for brushfire vehicles.
If the departments don't have mechanics that can handle a diesel engine, that is on them. The materials and people are out there to handle the problem even if access to parts is not part of the deal. Access to powerplant aspects of the vehicles isn't restricted.
If the departments don't have mechanics that can handle a diesel engine, that is on them. The materials and people are out there to handle the problem even if access to parts is not part of the deal. Access to powerplant aspects of the vehicles isn't restricted.
Wyoredman said:
I wish you saw the similarity of the argument. Why should John Q Public care if you have a .45 on your hip, if you're a law abiding citizen and not going to do anything wrong with it? Why should you care of 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.
seeker_two
New member
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.
I'd much rather see these vehicles offered to rural fire and ambulance services.
JimDandy said:
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.
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.
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
New member
By port, I take it that you mean only water-type ports. Afghanistan does have airports.
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/F...icles_while_pierside_in_Karachi,_Pakistan.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...earl_Harbor_(LSD_52)_in_Karachi,_Pakistan.jpg
Last edited:
carguychris
New member
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.)Formynder said:
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).
Last edited:
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.
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.
. 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.carguychris
New member
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.)
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
New member
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...
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.
Why do I disagree with these vehicles being given to LE? This quote comes to mind from the Liar In Chief...
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.
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...
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...
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?"
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?"
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.
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.
- Status