"We're building a domestic army..."

[Bolton Strid]

Image of a Bearcat, for those (like me) who didn't know what one is:
[ Image ]

Google Images: CLICK HERE

Oh. Nice ride for use against run-of-the-mill crooks but if the population went Mad Max it'd be a death trap. Many, many low-tech ways to score mobility kills.

[Bolton Strid]

What's the chief's rationale?

I think this is it:

Back to our topic:

Here's the story in a local paper. Looks like they stopped the chief from buying it.

Concord Stops Its Police Chief From Buying a Ridiculous Military Vehicle http://www.theatlanticcities.com/techno ... icle/6544/

"Last year, Concord Police Chief John Duval decided he wanted what other cities have."

MoOoOm!!! Billy has one! I want one too! Seriously though, what are those yankee states doing - building their own panzer divisions?

[talltex]

it's not just yankee states...it's happening in almost every county in Texas too...our Sheriff's dept. received a refurbished unit from the military under a DHS grant program last year. The department, consisting of 7 officers including the Sheriff, now has a Special Response Team Unit vehicle sitting in the parking lot. They didn't get it because they thought they needed one, but because the government was giving them away and "everyone else will have one".

[Bolton Strid]

it's not just yankee states...it's happening in almost every county in Texas too...our Sheriff's dept. received a refurbished unit from the military under a DHS grant program last year. The department, consisting of 7 officers including the Sheriff, now has a Special Response Team Unit vehicle sitting in the parking lot. They didn't get it because they thought they needed one, but because the government was giving them away and "everyone else will have one".

Wow - you must live in one of the sparser populated counties - could get the entire sheriff's department into that SRT, with room to spare for Opie and Aunt Bea.

[EEllis]

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;


Riot car used by policemen with powerful rifles hid behind steel plates with gun outlets, 1920 – 1929 (approximate). (Photo by Leslie Jones)

Riot guns at Boston Police headquarters, 1934. (Photo by Leslie Jones)

Superintendent Michael Crowley with machine gunners at headquarters. They are ready for big May Day riots, 1920. (Photo by Leslie Jones)

“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)

[K.Mooneyham]

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)

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.

[mayor]

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.

...state and local law enforcement agencies are firmly under the control of the citizenry, not the DHS, FBI, or NSA.
...

as witnessed by the council tabling the acquisition of the Lenco Bearcat.

[EEllis]

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.

[K.Mooneyham]

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.

I think you are slightly off in how you interpreted what I said. I don't think the law enforcement agencies in those places I named are accountable to the civilian populace at large; they are only accountable to a small, elite slice of that civilian populace. If a large percentage of the citizenry makes a stink about something concerning law enforcement in Fort Worth, I am confident that Mayor Betsy Price and Chief of Police Jeffrey Halstead would at least make some sort of an attempt to look at the reason behind it. I do NOT believe that to be true about Chicago or NYC. I truly believe that Rahm Emmanuel and Michael Bloomberg don't really care what the general populace in their cities think. I didn't mention militarization at all in response to that article, just talking about accountability. I can understand you getting upset if I was talking bad about your agency; I assure you I am not, I don't even know what agency you work for. If someone got upset with the practices of aircraft mechanics at one or two specific places, say Delta Airlines or Dyncorp (just for examples only), it would be a lot different than someone being ticked off with all aircraft mechanics in general. Not the exact same thing as the topic here, but I hope you can at least understand my analogy.

[EEllis]

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.

I think you are slightly off in how you interpreted what I said. I don't think the law enforcement agencies in those places I named are accountable to the civilian populace at large; they are only accountable to a small, elite slice of that civilian populace. If a large percentage of the citizenry makes a stink about something concerning law enforcement in Fort Worth, I am confident that Mayor Betsy Price and Chief of Police Jeffrey Halstead would at least make some sort of an attempt to look at the reason behind it. I do NOT believe that to be true about Chicago or NYC. I truly believe that Rahm Emmanuel and Michael Bloomberg don't really care what the general populace in their cities think. I didn't mention militarization at all in response to that article, just talking about accountability. I can understand you getting upset if I was talking bad about your agency; I assure you I am not, I don't even know what agency you work for. If someone got upset with the practices of aircraft mechanics at one or two specific places, say Delta Airlines or Dyncorp (just for examples only), it would be a lot different than someone being ticked off with all aircraft mechanics in general. Not the exact same thing as the topic here, but I hope you can at least understand my analogy.

I just disagree with your belief in the voters of certain areas. The politicians might not care, heck our Gov may be a great example of this, but they have to pretend and carry water like they do care to continue to be elected. In the end they are quite open about their positions and keep getting elected so saying they are not responsible to those that elected them, well in my mind they do what they said they would do so if that's what the voters want fine. A big reason I wouldn't live in SF for instance. All you have really said is you don't trust some people. So be it.

[Rex B]

I guess that's why they want the ones with the turret capable of mounting a machine-gun or grenade launcher. Its possible that someone is eventually not going to be able to resist the temptation to use such powerful hardware, very possibly over-reacting to something that doesn't necessitate the use of that sort of hardware. And it won't be very pretty when they do. Makes me feel a little ill thinking about it.

As has been said many times in these discussions: "Once you have a new hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail." If you've got it sitting out there, it's hard to justify the expense if you don't ever use it.

Burleson TX has one. I learned this sitting on a jury on a Crowley case for resisting arrest. They rolled out the Bearcat packed with SWAT team guys. Definitely overkill IMO

The Feds giving military hardware to PDs for free is the problem, as has been stated. I think that program came out of public outrage that expensive military gear was being sold for pennies or just scrapped.

[JALLEN]

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.

Some have asserted that there are black swans, and they see evidence of them. You have responded, in essence, by claiming that not to worry, all swans are white, and have always been white.

The trouble is that no matter how many white swans are observed, it does not prove that all swans are white, while observing one black swan disproves the assertion.

To continue, while it may be true that some very large police departments had some perhaps non-traditional equipment, a long time ago, that does not establish that the militarization of police, by means of DHS handing out heavy military gear to local PDs, is not occurring.

DHS buying up all the ammo, funding armored vehicles for local PDs, the increasingly common deployment of military style assault raids to serve warrants when simpler methods are not only safer but simpler, the growing attitude that it is important that the officers go home at the end of the shift, but if a few innocent civilians get shot up at the wrong house etc. well, these things happen, are disquieting to ordinary citizens and becoming more so.

[EEllis]

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.

Some have asserted that there are black swans, and they see evidence of them. You have responded, in essence, by claiming that not to worry, all swans are white, and have always been white.

LOL No I have responded by posting a different opinion by a LEO and haven't claimed crap myself.

The trouble is that no matter how many white swans are observed, it does not prove that all swans are white, while observing one black swan disproves the assertion.

Yes but that isn't the claim nor is it an accurate representation of the discussion.

To continue, while it may be true that some very large police departments had some perhaps non-traditional equipment, a long time ago, that does not establish that the militarization of police, by means of DHS handing out heavy military gear to local PDs, is not occurring.

the statement counters the claim that an armored vehicle is some new phenom and that they are representative of some greater "militarization" of police.

DHS buying up all the ammo, funding armored vehicles for local PDs, the increasingly common deployment of military style assault raids to serve warrants when simpler methods are not only safer but simpler, the growing attitude that it is important that the officers go home at the end of the shift, but if a few innocent civilians get shot up at the wrong house etc. well, these things happen, are disquieting to ordinary citizens and becoming more so.

This is simply not accurate and or spun to try and make your point rather than be honest. DHS had/has a contract that would allow them to purchase a certain number of rounds. They didn't purchase all of those rounds, that was intended to occur over several (10?) years so they didn't "buy up" all the ammo. DHS has grants that fund all kinds of things and for the most part it isn't armored vehicles because the cops are primarily getting those from the military just like they and fire depts have gotten other vehicles for 70 years. SWAT tactics are called "military" style tactics but they are not. Ask a SWAT guy who has been in the military. It's not the same thing. And what they dress like has little to nothing to do with if there is an increase in mistakes by police. Police have become better equipped and trained but that must mean they are militarized? Because when there was no swat and they just had random groups of cops rush houses they never got the wrong address, shot the wrong guys, made mistakes? Yeah OK.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

Some have asserted that there are black swans, and they see evidence of them. You have responded, in essence, by claiming that not to worry, all swans are white, and have always been white.

The trouble is that no matter how many white swans are observed, it does not prove that all swans are white, while observing one black swan disproves the assertion.

A VERY enlightening book: http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Improb ... black+swan

[The Annoyed Man]

Image of a Bearcat, for those (like me) who didn't know what one is:
[ Image ]

Google Images: CLICK HERE

Oh. Nice ride for use against run-of-the-mill crooks but if the population went Mad Max it'd be a death trap. Many, many low-tech ways to score mobility kills.

That's not what worries me. God forbid things ever degenerate to that point here in the U.S. and Texas, Iraq and Afghanistan have pretty much proven that vehicles like this can be defeated with pretty simple tech. In fact, I have previously stated that I don't have a problem with local SWAT departments and their equipment........as long as that is what the LOCAL people want. What worries me has more to do with the implications for the relationship between police and policed. I have a PROFOUND mistrust of DHS's methods and motives. I don't think local PDs ought to get themselves entangled in DHS's largess, as it surely does not come without strings. You local PD may have the best intentions, but when DHS is pulling the strings, what do those good intentions become worth?