The continuing militarization of the police starting to gain press attention

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmm. Seems to me that would be the very militia mentioned in 2A, whose rights shall not be infringed. Thus completely eliminating the need for the police to have Humvees, etc.

Our second amendment rights and the police having humvees are not mutually exclusive. I am perfectly fine with the police having humvees, so long as they do not use them to infringe on my rights.
 
Here in my very low-crime college town, we had a SWAT call out last week that involved 15 units and a Bearcat armored vehicle for a guy with...a knife. He had threatened his roommates with it and they took off and called the cops.

There is no way this was a justified use of force and tax-payer funds. If you think it does, I don't know what to tell you.
 
I am perfectly fine with the police having humvees, so long as they do not use them to infringe on my rights.

You should ponder your statement a while.
 
I am perfectly fine with the police having humvees, so long as they do not use them to infringe on my rights.

You should ponder your statement a while.

I have. What I am saying is that it is not the humvees that cause the loss of my rights, it is simply the police department's use of them. They could do it with any other vehicle that they'd like and the result would be the same.

That is like blaming the gun for killing someone...
 
You guys realize that Humvees are just a big diesel truck right? They are not tanks. Most are not armored. Would we care if the newspapers read "Police get hand me down diesel Suburban from DOD"? I don't think anybody would care.
 
Maybe you don't know the police officers that I do. Not a single police officer that I know would help to enforce a gun grab, they would all quit before being forced into that position. And in addition to that, there are plenty of higher ranking LEO's that took a stand against possible government action against our second amendment rights.

That's what they say when they aren't being asked to do it. Wait until their paycheck and pensions are on the line.

Remember, it's all good, as long as they get to go home safely at night.

The militarization of the police goes beyond the equipment, the BDUs, body armor etc. it's the "us vs them" mentality. Referring to the people they serve as "civilians". Well, they are supposedly civilians too.
 
The problem is that there are so many examples of the shoot first ask later mentality. Think back to the police who shot up two vehicles because they thought they were Christopher Dorner. Those weren't warning shots. The occupants were not even ordered from their vehicles before the police opened fire upon them.

Let's not forget at least one of those vehicles was the wrong brand, the wrong color and had two Asian women inside that looked so much like a large black guy to the officers, they pumped about 100 rounds into it.

The only commonality to the vehicle they were searching for was that it was a pick up truck.
 
You guys realize that Humvees are just a big diesel truck right? They are not tanks. Most are not armored. Would we care if the newspapers read "Police get hand me down diesel Suburban from DOD"? I don't think anybody would care.

If the vehicles were painted black, then they would be more scary and the media and the conspiracy folks would take notice. Yep, they are only trucks, but because they are symbolic of something we don't like, we make a big deal of them. We liked it and still like it that Eisenhower militarized the US roadway system. So we don't complain about that.

The only problem I have with the cops having hummers is that they have a pretty notorious maintenance and repair history that results in sort of being saddled with an albatross around one's neck.

What I don't get is that when the fire departments get these, folks don't complain about the militarization of the fire department! :D
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...92QW97YGoBQ&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAQ&dur=1380#imgdii=_

Clinton called for a federal police force and so has Obama. That line could become blurred very quickly.

You mean like when a Republican President, Bush, pushed for and gets something like the Department of Homeland Security? How about Reagan's push to upgrade policing with military materials and training for the War on Drugs? You can't call out Democratic presidents and poison the well without revealing the fact that it isn't just a Democrat issue. Both sides have contributed to this and it doesn't matter if you think one has been worse than the other.
 
I am with 00Spy on the issue of many pieces of equipment. They aren't necessarily military, but they are extremely expensive. The base may be free, but refit is atrocious and almost all these things get terrible mileage and have other maintenance concerns.
My guess is the refit of that ?fire hummer? was over $100,000 dollars.
The militarization comes in when the locals have to substantiate the equipment. The only way to do that is use it when it isn't needed and give people military training(in most cases).
It is all political smoke and mirrors to substantiate military equipment replacement. I hate it when my local politicians start talking about "free" stuff from the federal government. I hate it even more when all the citizens around me start smiling and thanking them for getting it.
 
My guess is the refit of that ?fire hummer? was over $100,000 dollars.

I would say around 125k, since a vfd on the other side of town has a H1 (civilian hummer) brush truck. Plus they had to redo the bed on it, because no one there listened to others suggestions about weight transfer, and placement of the water tank (behind rear axle), so that was more cost. They wanted to get a free one from the military to outfit but found out their insurance carrier would not cover it, so they spent around 75k for a new H1. Total cost around 200k. Compare that to a basic 1 ton 4wd pickup truck price new (say 20k on state contract price?), and about 15k for a basic skid unit, then maybe 2k for a bar light, siren, so say 37k. A big amount of difference in cash between the two.

When dealing with a municipality though, they will generally have the ability to press in to service most anything they desire, since most are self insured, or are in a "league of municipalities" self insurance group

To me an important question is, how much oversight am I willing to endure? Because I know the more oversight of government, the more it will wind out costing me, as well as it will creep in to my life in other ways as well.
 
Equipment isn't the danger. The Weltanschauung is the danger. Anything that's not us is the enemy. If they come to believe that then we're all in a war we did not start.
 
You may say that the police have not been militarized, but considering they have military weapons, military uniforms, military vehicles, and short of calling in air strikes or artillery, use military tactics, I see it as a distinction with very little difference.
 
If the police are not controlled by, answer to or act under the auspices of the US Military.. it really isn't militarization. Police forces have always been quasi-military organizations but that doesn't make them military.

I don't understand how you get that. Just what would you call what they are becoming if it is not militarized?

The law prevented the federal government from using troops to control US citizens so the federal government created the FBI outside of the defense department. There's nothing definitive that says only the defense department is military.

From M-W.com:

Definition of MILITARY

1
a : of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war
b : of or relating to armed forces; especially : of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces
2
a : performed or made by armed forces
b : supported by armed force
3
: of or relating to the army

Our police are an armed force. That makes them military.

Also making them military is the war on drugs in which they have been for 40 years.

Also from M-W.com:

ar·my noun \ˈär-mē\
1
a : a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land
b : a unit capable of independent action and consisting usually of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary troops

There is the Army and then there are armies. The police are local, state, or federal armies. The only thing the police are not is part of the Department of Defense... Or are they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnBIGlEma0Q
 
You guys realize that Humvees are just a big diesel truck right? They are not tanks. Most are not armored. Would we care if the newspapers read "Police get hand me down diesel Suburban from DOD"? I don't think anybody would care.
I think you're completely missing the forest for the trees here. The issue with Humvees isn't so much their capability as the fact that many/most Americans understand them to be instruments of war and thus they are used for intimidation purposes, not to provide any particular capability that can't easily be gotten another way.

In my opinion that's the core motivation behind this militarization craze - the desire to intimidate the plain jane citizenry into cowering before them. And I for one am offended by and scornful of any "law enforcement" agency or officer that sees that as a legitimate goal. The purpose of law enforcement is in the service of the citizenry, not its subjugation.
 
A Humvee is not an instrument of war unless when it is unarmed, unarmored, and not used to make war on anyone or anything. It is a big diesel truck. Nothing more. If a bog diesel truck intimidates you, you should never leave the house. Painted black, blue or hello kitty pink, it is a big diesel truck. Nothing else.
 
A Humvee is also slow, extremely wide, and impractical for most parking spaces and narrower streets.

A 2500 or F250 would provide similar utility, at a more practical size and with much lower maintenance.

The only advantages to the Humvee would be:

1. Serious off-roading - which is not likely for most departments (and even where it is, the 22 degree incline capability may be undermined by a width too great for most wooded areas aside from logging roads;

or

2. The ability to easily accept modular back ends (such as command and control; gun mount; ambulance; etc) - but most of those modules are quite militaristic;

3. The ability to quickly convert to different fuel types - but how often do most departments need to convert from gas to diesel? This ability has more to do with extended military campaigns.

So, no, a Humvee is not merely a big truck.
 
Actually, yes it is. And if it is "free" from the DOD, it is better than going to the Ford dealer and laying out $40,000 for an F250. It can pull trailers, carry more weight than a Crown Vic, and go off road.

A neighboring agency from me has one. They pull the traffic control trailer ( lights, cones, barricades, etc.). They pull the town electric generator with it. They take it to the range loaded with ammo, targets, and supplies. They pull the speed trailer with it. They loan it to the FD to pull the search and rescue Gator with it.

They do not trample rights, or invade other countries, or scare the citizens with it. They use it as a diesel truck that can do things a cruiser can not.
 
And what did they spend to refurbish it? Or is it bare bones, no air conditioning, uncomfortable seats GI standard?

My guess would be their "free" vehicle was not really free, even before they started paying for fuel, parts, tires, and maintenance labor.

Edit: Besides, Conn Trooper, you are comparing new Ford/Chevy cost to a used (and most likely abused) DOD vehicle. Why not compare to a used F250?
 
Actually it was free. It certainly sucks to drive as it is GI standard. But it hasn't cost them a cent that I am aware of. The local body shop did paint it in the town cruiser colors, but they donated that.

I agree that an F250 would work better for most of the things it does, but they cost a ton of money. The Humvee was free. I pay taxes too, and I would prefer the town gets a free Humvee, and did not drop a ton of dough on a pickup truck.

http://woodbury-middlebury.patch.co...and-generator-put-to-use-during-hurb6d5c7c608

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151697387256060.1073741830.74601186059&type=3
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top