TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote: The statement I highlighted in red might be true in large degree. But I submit to you that in some places, the only people that are in control of the law enforcement agencies and their personnel are governors, mayors and chiefs-of-police with a very liberal-progressive ideology and authoritarian streak. You may say that those folks are accountable to the civilian populace, but it sure doesn't seem like it. Just another reason that I won't live in places such as New York (State or City), Chicago, or California.

The problem isn't that they are not accountable to the people it's that you dislike the people they are accountable too. All of which has little or nothing to do with the militarization of police. The argument in theory is that the police have gotten more militarized and less accountable and the opinion by Doug Deaton asserts that it just isn't so. You are stating why you are concerned about militarization while the argument on "IF" it is occurring is still going on.

EEllis wrote:Since the topic seems to be going one way only let me re-post a statement by a LEO on this subject. While this doesn't indicate that the Dept needs an armored vehicle it does address some claims about the "militarization" issue and makes some good points.

At a recent public hearing about the purchase of a Lenco Bearcat, a man identifying himself as retired Marine Corps Colonel Peter Martino described the acquisition of such vehicles as part of “building a domestic army.”

It’s unfortunate when good people rely on their military experience to bolster ignorant and irresponsible statements. One can only imagine how irritated combat veterans must become with cops who express ignorant opinions on “best practices” for multi-faceted military operations.

Though law enforcement and the military sometimes exchange concepts, significant differences exist among their governing authorities, legal standards, TTPs, and KSAs.

Being an expert in one field does not mean that one is well-informed about the other. Colonel Martino may not fully understand that regardless of their issued equipment, state and local law enforcement agencies are firmly under the control of the citizenry, not the DHS, FBI, or NSA.

Armored Vehicles Are Nothing New
Oft-repeated claims that armored vehicle use by police with special weapons is a recent phenomenon are simply mistaken.

Police departments were developing highly specialized vehicles thirty years before the mythical Mayberry appeared on television. Most critics are completely unaware that American police once openly deployed vehicles and weapons far more offensive than anything in regular use today. Modern armored vehicle use is based on decades of trial-and-error during the rescues of wounded citizens and police officers.

Despite hysterical tales to the contrary, police are not fielding “tanks” or vehicles with working main guns. A Bearcat in police hands is no more hazardous to freedom or safety than a fire truck. A police officer who cannot be trusted with an armored vehicle cannot be trusted with a .38 caliber revolver.

Like fire trucks and ambulances, armored vehicles enable emergency professionals to respond to life-threatening hazards, prevent further injuries, and rescue innocent citizens. They are not “assault vehicles” any more than an AR-15 is an “assault rifle.”

I live and pay taxes in the same county (population 782K) where I serve as a police officer. My wife works in a massive business complex surrounded by corporate headquarters employing tens of thousands of people. My children attend typical suburban schools with hundreds of other students. Like every other taxpayer and voter, I have a vested interest in the preparedness of the police agencies throughout the county where I live.

Four agencies in my county (including mine) have armored vehicles. Speaking as a taxpayer, father, and husband, I'm glad these vehicles are available in case of emergencies. Should my family ever need to be saved while bullets are flying, I want the police to arrive with enough personnel, weapons, and armor to conduct an effective rescue.

We Are Not at War With the American People
The same Sheriff who wrote a letter defending the Second Amendment has also defended his agency’s use of an armored vehicle http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20091 ... /911239983" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . His positions on both issues are shared by numerous cops across the United States, including me.

We are not building a “domestic army.” The combined force and capabilities of every SWAT officer and armored vehicle in America would still be inadequate to “assault” or “occupy” even one medium-sized American city.

We don’t have the ability to make war on the American people, and we don’t want to.

We are the American people. You are us. We are you.

http://www.policeone.com/police-product ... id=6401137" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ Image ]
Riot car used by policemen with powerful rifles hid behind steel plates with gun outlets, 1920 – 1929 (approximate). (Photo by Leslie Jones)
[ Image ]
Riot guns at Boston Police headquarters, 1934. (Photo by Leslie Jones)
[ Image ]
Superintendent Michael Crowley with machine gunners at headquarters. They are ready for big May Day riots, 1920. (Photo by Leslie Jones)
[ Image ]
“With the latest guns, Boston police will fear nothing. The “Reds” will be met severely in case the start anything”. 1919. (Photo by Leslie Jones)

JALLEN wrote:

Abraham wrote:What's the chief's rationale?

The Chief in the next town already has one, with the budget for operating it, maintaining it, training ops, two week sessions with Feds in Boca Raton at seminars and intel sessions, the adoring glances of fashionable fellow officers of the female persuasion, and bragging rights at the state COP Assoc. conventions.

IOW, it's cool!

OldCannon wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Want.

All these silly SWAT teams with their funny armored vehicles. Ever see what 30 angry people can do to an "armored" car?

Those things operate poorly when upside down.