Thanks, Obama

In reply to Ian F:

New drivers should never drive fire engines on the street. Closed course until they know what they are doing.

Then...well then they know what they are doing.

In reply to SVreX:

No argument there... but I can imagine it's hard to say No when on the face of it the Govt is practically giving them away.

It's like if someone wanted to give me a Ferrari. I'm pretty sure I couldn't afford to even own one - regardless of how attained, but it would be damn hard to say, "no thanks..."

In reply to SVreX:

Yes - but new drivers STILL do non-emergency drives in traffic before they are given the job of running with the sirens on (usually the lights are always on - at least around here).

In reply to Ian F:

So you are saying the Feds are irresponsibly giving equipment away to local authorities who are not properly trained in its use, and the Feds are not monitoring the use of their equipment, but that is the fault of the local law enforcement agencies?

Sound to me like the Feds suck at handling their toys in an appropriate manner, and they'd rather blame the people they give them to then to step up and accept responsibility.

This is more media BS. It makes the news, because it is a picture that leaves a strong impression. In rushes a politician to save the day, control a few people, and win some votes.

In reply to Ian F:

It's not like giving you a Ferrari. A Ferrari is not a military weapon.

It's more like giving you an attack drone, then blaming you if you actually blow something up with it, or fly it around just to show you can.

In reply to SVreX:

Yes and no. In the wake of 9-11, it seemed like a good idea. The military had extra equipment. Maybe civilian police forces could use them in lieu of scrapping it. Maybe a few things like training and how they would be used was glossed over a bit. E36 M3 happens.

Why is it such a big deal to take a look a few years later and say, "Hmm... maybe this wasn't such a good idea..." and admit it might have been a mistake? But we wouldn't have known if the program hadn't been tried. I don't have a problem with that.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Strike_Zero: But my question stands. WHO should respond to extreme situations, and is a show of force EVER worthwhile?

Most LE divisions have a SWAT unit that respond to those extreme situations. There are usually addt'l officers that go throught the training as well for back-fill purposes.

Regarding a show of force . . . Why would community interfacing LEO need to have a display of force? One thing they can do (with the climate created from all of police brutality headlines), is have a ‘serve and protect' presence in the community. Due to the mentioned climate, a show of force isn't the proper direction go. It's almost as extreme as sending a SWAT van loaded with tactically geared officers to serve a restraining order.

There is a time and place for everything. Those MRAPs (as cool as they may be) subliminally says "we need heavy duty, warzone designed equip to protect your neighborhoods." If they need that to protect my neighborhood, then is it more WAAAAAAAYYYY dangerous then I thought . . .

The MRAPs and tactical gear screams "we are an anonymous force to bring order to regions of chaos and disorder" . . . IMHO from a former soldier . . .

In reply to Strike_Zero:

Let me point out that SWAT has used tactical gear from its inception(hence the acronym Special Weapons And Tactics).......some bigger departments even used armored vehicles for SWAT prior to 9-11. This is all a media overreaction, just the same as the whole "assault rifle" nonsense. They just want to shout "BAN IT BECAUSE ITS SCARY LOOKING!!!!" SMDH

In reply to yamaha:

I think you and I are in the same page.

I am NOT suggesting a "show of force" means parading around everybody in a blue uniform riding in an MRAP and wearing tactical gear for the Christmas pageant.

But SWAT is local law enforcement, right?

So, it seems to me that there could be appropriate times and places for specialized equipment to be used by peoe with appropriate training.

I sure as heck don't want the military responding whenever there is an out of control crowd.

In reply to SVreX:

Yes, you and I are on the same page here.

In reply to Ian F:

I don't have a problem reassessing the situation.

I just don't think we have yet identified if in fact a mistake was made at all.

Just because CNBC can roll some footage that makes some people uncomfortable because they don't like looking at military equipment doesn't mean any real assessment has been made.

The only thing I cant stand worse than politicians playing to the crowd is when the crowd just rolls over and plays along.

Actually, I take that back.

Politicians are SUPPOSED to play to the crowd. That's their job.

But citizens aren't supposed to just kiss their azzes. We are supposed to demand real info and legitimate assessment from our elected officials.

Why is it wrong for me to expect some leadership from my leaders instead of spineless political pandering?

I don't have a problem with the occasional MRAP; there are times where I can see they'd be useful. IIRC the Columbia PD has used that one to yank brodozers out of the swamps around here. OTOH, I don't think there's a lot of use for this:

That's Richland County sheriff Leon Lott with the 'Peacemaker'. That thing would destroy any pavement and IMHO would be less useful than the MRAPs. The SWAT team would benefit from that body armor etc although I couldn't see wearing it under other circumstances; it would be a lot like That Guy who shows up at the morning meetup for an autocross wearing a driving suit. To be fair to the RCSD, their usual attire is a dark blue uniform with a Taser, pistol etc and a lot of them wear a ballistic vest under the shirt. It says 'authority figure' without being all military.

OBTW: there was a company called Force Protection (now a division of General Dynamics) in Summerville that's a manufacturer of MRAPs.

This is the file photo for the headline "Pizza delivery man robbed" in a small town just south of here. The suspects had already fled having taken a small amount of cash. They interviewed him. What is the rifle for?

If you have the toys... you can't not use them ALL THE TIME right?

In reply to yamaha:

I'm aware of SWAT, their tactics and gear, and how it is used.

I think the point I'm driving at is being missed . . . So I'll use this quote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to yamaha: I think you and I are in the same page. I am NOT suggesting a "show of force" means parading around everybody in a blue uniform riding in an MRAP and wearing tactical gear for the Christmas pageant. But SWAT is local law enforcement, right? So, it seems to me that there could be appropriate times and places for specialized equipment to be used by peoe with appropriate training. I sure as heck don't want the military responding whenever there is an out of control crowd.

The gear and SWAT tactics are derived from . . . The military. Even basic things like formation, reporting, communication, and police academy is based off of a military structure and procedures.

Some basic LEO uniforms are tactical, military style. So their already out their with "military-type" uniforms and "military-style" processes . . . Add in the MRAPs (again a vehicle designed for a warzone), you seriously can't blame people for thinking that is show of force . . .

Again, why would LEOs need an MRAP??? We have bad roads in SC, but I don't remember land mines or IEDs littering the roadways to require the need for one . . .

So the question now becomes, where/when are they going to use this??

The answer is:

If you have a fast car, you will, one day test how fast it is . . . And it probably won't be on a race track . . . .

To clarify, I am for equipment that will allow LEOs to be safe and perform their duties . . . I do not see a MRAP as a piece equipment they need to perform their duties.

I guess it's a matter of dollars and cents. Police chief: 'You know, the SWAT step van is getting long in the tooth. It would be a real bad deal if it broke down at the worst possible time. A new one is $75,000 and will need some other stuff to make it useable. Let's put together a budget proposal so I can go beg the City Council for money.'

Assistant: 'Chief, we can get a surplus MRAP for free'.

(silence in the office)

Chief: 'What was that last word again?'

In reply to Strike_Zero:

OK, now I see what you're saying, but at the same time, I don't understand some points. While MRAPS are certainly not ideal for situations when you might need something armored, they still have most capabilities and are certainly less expensive to obtain than an alternative.

In reply to GPS: As to why, well....on the beat cops started getting rifles again(they all used to have them long ago) after the infamous north Hollywood shootout. Something something rifle > pistol something something.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

I would have no problem if that was the response to the questions when they put it on display for all to say . . . . But that wasn't the answer they gave.

I don't like scared cops. I don't want a guy thinking I'm gonna blow him away while sitting in my vehicle for a speeding ticket, just as I don't want a tank rolling over my house because my neighbor thinks I'm a crazy socialist.

I'm perfectly ok with police having military style protective equipment, but I see no need for military style firepower. At what point does a shootout with a domestic criminal go from civilian police action to domestic terrorism, and should National Guard or other federal agency respond when a suspect is using firepower or weaponry beyond the capabilities of an LEO/SWAT?

I think in most cases the militarization of local law enforcement is usually in terms of armored unarmed vehicles and surveillance, neither I have much of an issue with.

I'm more worried about the tough guy attitudes versus public servant.

In reply to yamaha:

IF the LEO Capt said: We have MRAPs because it was a cheaper alternative to replacing our aged equipment. Replacing the armored van cost $xxxx . . . Getting a MRAP costs $xxx.

Instead they said on the form

LEO Capt said: . . . protect our officers and the public during high risk counter drug and counter terrorism operations within the city of Columbia and the state of South Carolina.

In reply to Strike_Zero:

And they can protect during those uses as well. For all we know it replaced a tracked APC.

In reply to PHeller:

FWIW, the citizenry is usually the first that could respond, followed by the local police, and then after a several hour delay, national guard. The Guard has to be called up, which is not a snap of the finger deployment.

Oh the old saying, "when you have seconds, the police are minutes away" needs to be amended to include "and the national guard is hours away" to answer your comment.

A lot of what's wrong here is that the police have to have some sort of 'presence' to separate them from the average guy on the street. I mean, if you were to get stopped at night for speeding and the guy who came to your window was wearing Levis and a polo shirt, what would you think? Yeah. Thought so. It also pisses people off that they can get a ticket for speeding or some other infraction of the law; rather than work to get the law changed (if it needs changing) they'd rather crap on the messenger.

So it's necessary for them to have a presence which bolsters their position of authority and some people just have a problem with that. So IMHO that's more a problem of perception than reality. Not much, if anything, can be done to change that. Having them all look like Andy Griffith is no longer a solution in today's world. Nor is the old thing of the sheriff and deputies dressing just like everybody else and wearing a brass star like in the old Westerns. That's not gonna work any more; just forget it.

MRAPs? Like anything in life, you never can tell what's needed. Look at the bikers in Waco thing for a perfect recent example; I bet that thing sat idle in storage until it was needed but boy oh boy was it essential in the end.

I could really understand the 'militarization of cops' complaints if every cop was driving an MRAP dressed in full SWAT gear, but they aren't. Around here they drive Crown Vics, Chargers and Suburbans (that last is sorta jarring still; looks funny to see a lowered Suburban with a big light bar on it). They wear uniforms, we've already covered that. They carry sidearms and Tasers, necessary that they have them just in case. Don't have a problem with that.

I think a lot of this 'militarization of the cops' thing comes from their 'hope for the best but prepare for the worst' approach to riots such as the ones in Ferguson last year. I read that 'list of demands' from one of the leaders of the protests, basically they wanted unarmed cops there. Not gonna happen, particularly not when they are outnumbered 25-50 to 1. So the news media publishes and posts a bunch of sensationalistic pics which are NOT representative of the day to day operations, next thing you know it's freak out time.

I'm not saying that reforms aren't needed; that shooting in North Charleston is a prime example that oh yes there needs to be some things changed. The hardheads need to be straightened out or shown the door, there needs to be body cameras on cops when on active duty which cannot be turned off (this is to protect the cops from fake accusations as much as it is to protect civilians). That 'Peacemaker' thing Sheriff Lott is standing in front of is as useless as tits on a boar hog and the next time I see him (yes I do know him) I will tell him as much. Will he listen? Hell, I don't know.

I just don't see Barney Fife uniforms as the 'fix'.

Strike_Zero wrote: In reply to yamaha:

IF the LEO Capt said: We have MRAPs because it was a cheaper alternative to replacing our aged equipment. Replacing the armored van cost $xxxx . . . Getting a MRAP costs $xxx.

Instead they said on the form

LEO Capt said: . . . protect our officers and the public during high risk counter drug and counter terrorism operations within the city of Columbia and the state of South Carolina.

On this: I don't recall exactly when the city got that MRAP, but please remember that back in the mid 00's there was still a LOT of consternation over 9/11 and possible terrorist attacks. That fancy schmancy new bridge down in Charleston? The two old bridges had a lot of steel superstructure and, if dropped in the shipping channel with explosives, would have taken a long time to clear. No big deal, right? Actually yes, it would have bottled up the Navy yard (more accurately the NNPTC, the shipyard has finally closed). The city keeps mumbling about expanding commercial port operations down there. That has a lot to do with how the new bridge is built (cable stayed) and why it was done so fast; it'll be a bitch to drop with explosives and if it was accomplished removing the cables would be a lot easier/faster than the previous steel superstructure.

Those same bridges are why the Navy moved their sub operations to Kings Bay, Ga., even the new bridge could conceivably bottle up boomer subs if it was dropped into the bay.

So there's a lot of things which changed thanks to 9/11. Cities like New York, New Orleans, Los Angeles, etc had to start looking at things a lot differently and police forces were only one of many places to look at long and hard. Didn't even have to be terrorism; look at Hurricane Katrina. MRAPs down there would have gotten aid to people a lot faster; as it was there was much criticism of the 'slowness' of rescue efforts. That's because the damn equipment was 500-1000 miles away. Local police with MRAPs could have done a lot of good quickly.

So, giving cops surplus military equipment was originally seen as a good thing, clobbered two birds with one stone. Thanks to overhyped slanted media coverage cops are now seen as the enemy for that same reason. Was it right? Was it wrong? A strong case can be made either way.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

The good uses are outweighed because they're scary looking......its the same sensationalist media slant against scary looking "assault rifles"