Spotted, Heavy duty cop car in Marietta Ohio

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

ebonyandivory wrote:

dculberson wrote: Guys don't grow up, we all want the biggest and coolest toys. They're playing dress up. Cowboys and robbers! Weeee

Until one of them saves your neighborhood or your kids school.... But that'll NEVER HAPPEN in a place like Sandy Hook... Nahhhh I'm just paranoid! (Not meant as a knock on your post or you...)

Yeah, except most of the time they use this stuff to serve warrants, violently, without announcing themselves, at 3AM, at the wrong house. You are far more likely to be killed by the cops in this country than a crazed gunman or terrorists.

Do you have any statistics or links to back this up? I have a hard time imagining police in America have killed as many people as the two things you listed given the number of school shootings, mall/movie shootings andlarge casualty terrorist attacks in this country over the last 15 years

Will wrote: Police militarization is worth keeping an eye on. There are too many abuses of police power already, and the more power we allow them, the worse the potential for abuse becomes.

Very logical, this I can get behind.

irish44j wrote:

fasted58 wrote: I'd stop short of calling it the militarization of local police forces. The North Hollywood shootout in '97 changed things forever.

Die Hard 2: 1990 Though this one isn't very successful at its mission, lol

Dude, that was Die Hard.

"Oh look...the police have themselves an RV..."

If they have surplus equipment, it may as well be put to good use rather than being scrapped.

The real 'why' question is why is there so much surplus murder machinery sitting around doing nothing waiting to be scrapped even though it's apparently serviceable enough for continued murder? I wouldnt say it was a trick question, but my single-word "why" was as much fishing to see whether people are willing to acknowledge the rabbit hole, as it is a question of what is down it.

I'm glad these things are out there. And I'd have to say to anyone that's worried that the military/paramilitary is taking over: those soldiers/officers are Americans with families like the rest of us. They'd never participate in that sort if paranoid behavior. (Waco TX notwithstanding )

Holy irony, batman!

You are far more likely to be killed by the cops in this country than a crazed gunman or terrorists.

Im pretty sure that information causing cognitive dissonance could fall under our umbrella definition of WMDs (along with pressure cookers), so that statement makes you a terrorist. Just sayin.

The argument about "the only alternative is scrapping them" works only if these vehicles serve an actual need. Otherwise we may as well give the police all those F-4s rotting away at Davis-Monthan.

You're thinking in the past, man! Police UAVs is where it's at these days. My state has them! Just like their military counterparts, they are mostly used against poor brown people. Oh just brown people? Phew! I dodged a bullet on that one!

Do you have any statistics or links to back this up? I have a hard time imagining police in America have killed as many people as the two things you listed given the number of school shootings, mall/movie shootings andlarge casualty terrorist attacks in this country over the last 15 years

There is this thing that happens where large institutions dont do a good job counting up all the things that make them look bad. Some might say they surreptitiously suppress said accounting. But i dont know why anyone would say that. Hmm.

Waco and a true "police state" are very different things therefore no irony Robin.

Unless you believe that Waco can be extrapolated into the entire country being a police state in which case I give up trying to be reasonable.

And what's this crap about poor brown people?

Would it make you feel better if the drones circled my neighborhood looking for a teenager doing a burnout down by the bridge?

Did it ever occur to you that law enforcement might focus on high crime AREAS and not your "brown" strawmen?

I know I know, the U.S. sucks, I've heard it all before.

If they have surplus equipment, it may as well be put to good use rather than being scrapped.

The real 'why' question is why is there so much surplus murder machinery sitting around doing nothing waiting to be scrapped even though it's apparently serviceable enough for continued murder? I wouldnt say it was a trick question, but my single-word "why" was as much fishing to see whether people are willing to acknowledge the rabbit hole, as it is a question of what is down it.

Again, the military has always had tons of surplus equipment laying around. In the old days they'd just roll it off the back of a ship in the middle of the ocean or scrap it outright.

The term 'murder machinery' is kind of a stretch....those things are armored but the military removes all weapons before they're sent to surplus, so they're about as dangerous as a bulldozer.

Appleseed wrote:

irish44j wrote:

fasted58 wrote: I'd stop short of calling it the militarization of local police forces. The North Hollywood shootout in '97 changed things forever.

Die Hard 2: 1990 Though this one isn't very successful at its mission, lol

Dude, that was Die Hard. "Oh look...the police have themselves an RV..."

doh....I'm getting my fake german villains mixed up...

ebonyandivory wrote: Waco and a true "police state" are very different things therefore no irony Robin. Unless you believe that Waco can be extrapolated into the entire country being a police state in which case I give up trying to be reasonable. And what's this crap about poor brown people? Would it make you feel better if the drones circled my neighborhood looking for a teenager doing a burnout down by the bridge? Did it ever occur to you that law enforcement might focus on high crime AREAS and not your "brown" strawmen? I know I know, the U.S. sucks, I've heard it all before.

Perhaps he'd be more comfortable in someplace with no "police state" at all. I'm thinking you can do whatever you want without worry about government or police involvement in a place like Somalia, right?

LE in the US needs to have armored vehicles these days, IMO, because the general US populace is more heavily-armed than most smaller countries' military forces. Most criminals (and non-criminals) pretty much out-gun the typical police officer. Hell, most of them out-gun the typical SWAT team. The (legal) arsenals owned by some people I work with would be sufficient to make them warlords in many third-world countries...

Back to the topic, however....I hardly see how these armored SWAT vehicles are much different from someone driving a big-ass jacked up SUV/pickup. Except for the fact that the local police is unlikely to drive it much, where as bro-dawg is sitting on my rear bumper with his lifted F-350 dually in commuting traffic every day, with me hoping that he doesn't look down to text his 'ho when I'm coming to a red light....

And what's this crap about poor brown people? Would it make you feel better if the drones circled my neighborhood looking for a teenager doing a burnout down by the bridge? Did it ever occur to you that law enforcement might focus on high crime AREAS and not your "brown" strawmen? I know I know, the U.S. sucks, I've heard it all before.

An impenetrable defense! Murrica!

Do yourself a favor and dont ever look into what the US actually does in the world. You have more to lose by questioning your entire world view then we have to gain by cracking your hard shell of jingoism.

"High crime areas" are not something that 'just happen', in the same way that piles of excess murder machinery sitting around waiting to be scrapped don't 'just happen'. There are layers upon layers of policy decisions underlying them, and layers of assumptions about the world that those decisions are based on.

What's this crap about poor brown people? Objectivity. Not feeling the need to prop up the ethnocentrist imperial asshattery of my native country by selectively ignoring everything that challenges the lines we're fed. All you have to do is not have anything to lose by acknowledging the truth, and you will see it. It's completely obvious to the majority of the human population outside this country, who won't gain a damn thing by buying into the bullE36 M3 rhetoric and vocabulary we use in this country to train people into thinking that what we do is normal and acceptable. We live in and subsidize the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet and form a 300-million-strong bloc of unwitting double-speakers and spin doctors. But you've heard it all before, and it didn't work last time, so why do i bother?

Again, the military has always had tons of surplus equipment laying around

Yes, all the way back until the time when God created The Military complete with piles of excess from day 1, right?

I realize the whole "we MIGHT have more military stuff than we need" angle is kind of a dead end when you follow it to its logical conclusion, that the only thing we really use our military for is cracking open unexploited markets and converting the people with the greatest chance of disenfranchisement into less disruptive 'patriots'. Those are concepts that automatically cause the blast shield to pop down on most readers' helmets.

Vigo wrote:

And what's this crap about poor brown people? Would it make you feel better if the drones circled my neighborhood looking for a teenager doing a burnout down by the bridge? Did it ever occur to you that law enforcement might focus on high crime AREAS and not your "brown" strawmen? I know I know, the U.S. sucks, I've heard it all before.

An impenetrable defense! Murrica! Do yourself a favor and dont ever look into what the US actually does in the world. You have more to lose by questioning your entire world view then we have to gain by cracking your hard shell of jingoism. "High crime areas" are not something that 'just happen', in the same way that piles of excess murder machinery sitting around waiting to be scrapped don't 'just happen'. There are layers upon layers of policy decisions underlying them, and layers of assumptions about the world that those decisions are based on. What's this crap about poor brown people? Objectivity. Not feeling the need to prop up the ethnocentrist imperial asshattery of my native country by selectively ignoring everything that challenges the lines we're fed. All you have to do is not have anything to lose by acknowledging the truth, and you will see it. It's completely obvious to the majority of the human population outside this country, who won't gain a damn thing by buying into the bullE36 M3 rhetoric and vocabulary we use in this country to train people into thinking that what we do is normal and acceptable. We live in and subsidize the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet and form a 300-million-strong bloc of unwitting double-speakers and spin doctors. But you've heard it all before, and it didn't work last time, so why do i bother?

I'd discuss further, but my carpool for work just arrived, see ya (sometime in the pre-dawn morning)...

HAZZARD wrote:

yamaha wrote:

fasted58 wrote: The North Hollywood shootout in '97 changed things forever.

A 12ga slug would have incapacitated one of those idiots wearing body armor in one shot.....DERP

Exactly; the guys had AK's vs cops with pistols, with the largest round they were shooting being a 9mm. Want to get a home intruder to think twice and turn away, chamber a pump action 12gauge...universal signal for GTFO! 12ga for the WIN.

Some of them had 12ga shotguns, but as they are the LAPD(with one of the longest track records of excessive force/police brutality) they probably only had crushed rock salt and rubber bullets for them......I wouldn't be surprised if the LAPD has a fleet of these things too.

And for the record, my .45colt lever action is only to buy enough time to get the .30 carbine out........30rds of basically a .30 caliber magnum is my preference for home defense.....and that's only because I don't own a BAR yet.

irish44j wrote: LE in the US needs to have armored vehicles these days, IMO, because the general US populace is more heavily-armed than most smaller countries' military forces. Most criminals (and non-criminals) pretty much out-gun the typical police officer. Hell, most of them out-gun the typical SWAT team. The (legal) arsenals owned by some people I work with would be sufficient to make them warlords in many third-world countries...

In general, the populace has historically been more heavily armed than law enforcement......up until recently. You seem to forget that law enforcement officers are just civilians who have a job to protect other civilians from crime right? They should have no more access to things than the rest of us do.....because as civilians, they ARE NOT above the laws they are sworn to uphold......yet somehow get exempted from some.

pinchvalve wrote: I know Meth dealers are stupid, but even they can tell that's a cop from a mile away! Why not get the surplus Chrysler Sebrings/Dodge Stratus? With three hubcaps and a Calvin peeing sticker, they would assume it is a buyer rolling up until SWAT piled out.

I have seen drug busts. In all honesty I have never seen swat trucks used in them. I saw these:

As for finding facts to back the "police shoot more people than crazed gunmen/terrorists", it's kind of almost impossible to get a good number.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/deadly-force/142-dead-and-rising/national-data-shootings-police-not-collected

That shows ~410 "justified" PAC in 2010. How many people were shot that was not justified? Unknown. Police agencies are not required to report those. How many people were killed by a terrorist or ""crazed gunman" in the US in 2010? I would say likely less than 410.

Eb4Prez wrote: Govt is giving them away to law enforcement agencies instead of scrapping.

Translation: Corrupt crony government is wasting oodles of taxpayer money building new fleets to replace perfectly serviceable vehicles.

In reply to Bobzilla: Apparently in 2010 there where 31,000 gun deaths with 11,000 of those being homicides. I guess it would depend heavily on where you draw the line of crazed gunman if you would count all 11,000 or just some portion.

Wikipedia has a attempt at a list which seems to report similar 300-400/year.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States

Well. Looks like the cops here in SC missed a chance to shoot up some fugitives.

http://www.wistv.com/category/229633/video-landing-page?clipId=10020748&autostart=true

I must remember to write the sheriff of Newberry County and tell him his SWAT stuff wasn't used properly, they should have gotten a surplus Cobra and put a round in every square inch of the area. That way we'd all know how big his ding dong is. But nooooo, those wussies waited them out and captured them without a shot. Oh, wait; that's because they weren't brown.

Right?

For those lacking a sarcasm meter, it's off the scale. I do happen to have some knowledge of the area where these guys bailed and were hiding, a MRAP would have been perfect for fording the swamps etc.

Police typically show MUCH more restraint than the news media give them credit for. But there's always stuff like this: http://www.wistv.com/story/25189826/man-fatally-shot-by-deputies-in-york-co-after-pointing-gun-at-them

I can't wait for the armchair quarterbacking with 20/20 hindsight to start over that one. I suppose it would have been more suitable for the cops to wait for the guy to shoot one of them instead.

Right?

nocones wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: Apparently in 2010 there where 31,000 gun deaths with 11,000 of those being homicides. I guess it would depend heavily on where you draw the line of crazed gunman if you would count all 11,000 or just some portion. Wikipedia has a attempt at a list which seems to report similar 300-400/year. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States

I am a firm believer of the need to remove drug/gang murders from the normal violence reports......those alone make the rest of us look bad.

Vigo, maybe you can keep using what appears to be intellect for the good of us deluded sheep. You sure seem to have all the answers.

I got thinking last night (I know, rare for a patriotic American huh!)

I said to myself: "if there was a 95% Caucasian populated city with rampant crime located a few miles away from a 95% Brown-person (brilliant nickname btw, it's cool to lump people into a color-group as long as you feign compassion I see) city with very low crime rates, do you think the focus of law enforcement would be on the "brown-person's" city?

But then I thought "reading the fringe-like posts in this thread, of course he does!"

Look, I used a smiley-face emoticon to make it look like I'm open-minded and not a racist!

EDIT: I don't believe this country is free from blame, that "we" are perfect or that I agree with much of our foreign policy (very little actually) but come on man, let's be realistic here!

In reply to ebonyandivory:

Perhaps he snorted one too many lines of mysterious white powder(probably sun dried mold) that was discovered in an 80's Doge......

ebonyandivory wrote:

dculberson wrote:

ebonyandivory wrote:

dculberson wrote: Guys don't grow up, we all want the biggest and coolest toys. They're playing dress up. Cowboys and robbers! Weeee

Until one of them saves your neighborhood or your kids school.... But that'll NEVER HAPPEN in a place like Sandy Hook... Nahhhh I'm just paranoid! (Not meant as a knock on your post or you...)

"You can never be too careful!" is a statement I strongly disagree with.

The thing is... No one said that.

You don't need to say it, you can imply it. I think Sandy Hook would not have been prevented by the police there having one of these. Thus - in my opinion - they are being too careful to own equipment like this.

Gasoline wrote:

This picture proves my thesis that the '78 to '79 Trans Am redesign was the worst facelift since Joan Rivers.

dculberson wrote: "You don't need to say it, you can imply it. I think Sandy Hook would not have been prevented by the police there having one of these. Thus - in my opinion - they are being too careful to own equipment like this."

But it WOULD have been (well, likely would have been) prevented or minimized by armed, trained law enforcement personel stationed at the school.

But there are too many (well-intentioned?) people that decry even that as being "too careful" and over-the-top.

Who's job is it to draw that distinction? I pick the person that tends toward overkill rather than the guy with his head in the sand. At least that's how I feel looking at my childrens faces.

I'm not convinced AMRAPS are the best idea for some of the towns that have them but there is a time and a place for them.

Time will tell when or if they get used appropriately or were a total waste of funding.

All I do know is that hindsight SUCKS when innocent children lie dead in piles in a small town in Connecticut.

Edit: full disclosure. I've recently had two small children in elementary school when I got a reverse 911 call telling me they were in "lockdown" because an armed man was seen within sight if the children. He soon after committed suicide by shooting himself under the chin.

Is it possible next time he may run into the school to take a hostage? His own child? My child?

Who knows? Maybe this jaded me?

No, it's not possible that next time he'll do that since he's dead. ;-)

I think you confuse "head in the sand" and "wanting to live a life not monitored by armed guards 24/7." I have no interest in having a guard in my office with me even if I run the risk of a mad man running in here and gunning me down. So why do the same with your children?

In a nation of 330 million people, 26 people were killed in Sandy Hook. It was tragic and horrible but I do not want to use that incident exclusively as a model for how to live my life.

Putting armed guards in an elementary school is only one conclusion to come to in regards to "what must be done." I would argue it's the wrong conclusion.