Police Militarization Wrong For Communities
One of the many things we’ve learned from the debacle in Ferguson, is that the police have become far too much of a military force with equipment and weapons that they just don’t need. Tim Devaney explains:
Since the 1990s, the Pentagon has provided local police with more than $5 billion worth of military equipment it no longer needs, such as assault weapons, body armor and even tactical vehicles.
The so-called “1033 program” administered by the Defense Department’s Law Enforcement Support Office was intended to help local police fight drug dealers and terrorists in their neighborhoods, according to the Defense Department. But some police forces use the equipment as a form of crowd control, which has angered critics who say Americans shouldn’t be treated like enemy combatants.
Devaney goes on to list seven types of military equipment now used by local police. If you have the equipment, you are going to use it. DOD needs to stop giving this equipment to localities.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
91 responses to Police Militarization Wrong For Communities
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Tom Ward August 20th, 2014 at 13:29
Stuart, you’re on a roll.
“DOD needs to stop giving this equipment to localities.”
The DOD needs to stop using our money to pay for most of this equipment in the first place.
Tom Ward August 20th, 2014 at 13:29
Stuart, you’re on a roll.
“DOD needs to stop giving this equipment to localities.”
The DOD needs to stop using our money to pay for most of this equipment in the first place.
Red Eye Robot August 20th, 2014 at 14:19
Now the left doesn’t like big government anymore? You guys were cheering the BLM when they showed up with uparmored humvees with belt fed machine guns on top at Bundy ranch. The USDA, (you know, the people who inspect meat and eggs), want to buy sub machine guns https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=9fc3a01217d03b0354e1e18b69aa7bad&tab=core&_cview=0 You guys never said a word. Welcome to the world you created
William August 20th, 2014 at 14:31
“You guys were cheering the BLM when they showed up with uparmored humvees with belt fed machine guns on top at Bundy ranch”.
could you please post a link to the Burea of land management uparmored humvees with belt fed machine guns on top
.
Thanks in advance.
Red Eye Robot August 20th, 2014 at 14:19
Now the left doesn’t like big government anymore? You guys were cheering the BLM when they showed up with uparmored humvees with belt fed machine guns on top at Bundy ranch. The USDA, (you know, the people who inspect meat and eggs), want to buy sub machine guns https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=9fc3a01217d03b0354e1e18b69aa7bad&tab=core&_cview=0 You guys never said a word. Welcome to the world you created
William August 20th, 2014 at 14:31
“You guys were cheering the BLM when they showed up with uparmored humvees with belt fed machine guns on top at Bundy ranch”.
could you please post a link to the Burea of land management uparmored humvees with belt fed machine guns on top
.
Thanks in advance.
William August 20th, 2014 at 14:21
Banning the availability of surplus military gear to State
and local agencies would be a terrible mistake. It does this old Orion flight
engineers heart good to see some of my old hardware bombing forest fires, and
saving life and property. The availability of armored vehicles is essential
when evacuating neighborhoods that are engaged in an armed standoff. This fact
is dear to me, as that happened near my granddaughter’s daycare center. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/03/31/gunman-dead-following-standoff-with-maine-police/
Bomb detecting robots and bomb suits are horribly expensive for the average municipality and yet available from military surplus. People, specifically children owe their lives to infrared cameras that locate them when lost in the wilderness. Everything from water purification kits to MRE’s can make a huge difference in times of disaster.
When my community lost power for 11 days one winter, that old surplus
generator provided power to feed and warm a lot of people at the fire station.
It’s our equipment,
we already paid for it. Police departments have been using surplus arms for
decades. There is use and misuse. Allowing knee jerk reaction to simply ban
everything with a mil-spec from finding a second life doing some good would be
a terrible mistake.
R.J. Carter August 20th, 2014 at 14:54
Usually comments go into pending because they used a naughty word.
I can only guess this one went there because you dropped a link to the F-site.
mea_mark August 20th, 2014 at 16:29
That is a naughty word.
mea_mark August 20th, 2014 at 16:36
I think tailoring the program back a little would be a good idea. It is the assault weapons that I think should go first. If a PD really thinks they need that, they should pay a premium. There is lots of used equipment that can be put to use and not just at PD but at fire departments and other departments especially in rural areas where roads are often not available or questionable.
R.J. Carter August 20th, 2014 at 16:43
The double-edged sword is that a police department doesn’t know if they need it — until they need it. Conversely, if they have it, they’re more likely to use it when they don’t need it.
mea_mark August 20th, 2014 at 17:17
That is why I think they should pay a premium for assault weapons or anything more heavy duty. It shouldn’t be easy to get there hands on that stuff and more restraint should be used when using it. If they have to borrow from someone when they really need it, it gives them a chance to think of other solutions, which they should be doing anyways.
William August 21st, 2014 at 01:08
” If they have to borrow from someone when they really need it, it gives them a chance to think of other solutions, which they should be doing anyway.” UNit 6 dispatch. Go head 6. Dispatch is there anyone that can lend me a rifle? We have a barricaded suspect who has shot two pedestrians at this time.
Standby unit 6, I’ll ask around.
mea_mark August 21st, 2014 at 12:15
Exactly, suspect is barricaded and not going anywhere. Time to think of alternatives and get plenty of back-up.
William August 21st, 2014 at 14:12
So you have no problem with officers responding to calls where they are outgunned?
mea_mark August 21st, 2014 at 16:54
I am not saying they have to engage. It might be possible to wait it out. I believe there are many solutions to problems. Which one is best should be thought about more before resorting to firepower. We are to quick to rely upon lethal force.
William August 22nd, 2014 at 01:53
“I am not saying they have to engage. It might be possible to wait it out”. That actually IS the preferred method. If there are no hostages and nobody within range of the bad guy, that’s exactly what you do. Cops have all the time in the world and can wait out the bad guy in shifts if needed. Eventually the bad guy must sleep. Without hostages or the ability to render harm to anyone else it’s simply an asshole with a gun holding himself hostage. Wait him out, grab him when he’s too tired to see straight and ask the court for restitution for the overtime.
William August 21st, 2014 at 14:31
This might be a good time to remember just why Officers now have access to such an arsenal of weapons.
It’s a terrible and violent reality that has bought us to this.
http://youtu.be/N2ZwIrIB1is
William August 21st, 2014 at 01:21
The last department had so called “assault weapons”, come to think of it every department I worked for since 1992 did. They were in some form or another military surplus. The old reisling submachine gun, WWII surplus found it’s way into many departments. The last so called “assault weapon” I qualified with was the mini-14. It fired the same round as the M-16, was not automatic, and adapted well to the limited space of cruiser mounted racks. Yes we had shotguns, but their lack of range and accuracy was unsuitable for many scenarios.
I suppose many departments acquired M-16’s because of the low cost, and familiarity of most officers.
The reality is this. The bad guys have high powered weapons and body armor.
mea_mark August 21st, 2014 at 12:12
That is why there should be tactical units. Not every officer should have access to high power assault weapons, only the most highly trained and emotionally and mentally stable should. An overabundance of weaponry leads to everyone having it.
William August 21st, 2014 at 14:08
Tactical teams are not actually a bunch of guys hanging around waiting for the call to come in. For the most part they are your basic 9 to 5 cop who has tactical team as a collateral duty. There are of course exceptions in very large cities. First you need to define what “high powered assault weapon” means. The M-16 fires a 22 caliber bullet at a very high speed. It’s actually not particularly “high powered”. Your basic deer rifle has a lot more wallop.
Tactical team screenings are generally stringent. It’s pretty much standard already that no officer carries any particular weapon unless he/she has qualified with that weapon.
The very first question in any shoot is usually “was the officer qualified with the weapon”.
As for me I think that the requirements of maturity, training and emotional stability for a rookie patrolman be just as stringent as that of the tactical team officer. Both officers must make critical decisions. Both carry weapons.
Robert M. Snyder August 21st, 2014 at 19:04
I agree with everything you’ve said. I would simply add that every police officer is someone’s employee. That means the employer has a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure workplace safety. People can disagree about what steps are reasonable, but the duty to protect officers in a crisis situation is something that no police chief can afford to neglect.
Rusty Shackleford August 20th, 2014 at 17:49
What about the tear gas, that we’re not even allowed to use in war, but will gladly fire upon our own citizens? Does that have a “humane” alternative use?
William August 21st, 2014 at 01:02
I’m sorry, but I don’t recall mentioning tear gas as one of the useful surplus items in my posting. Could you point that out for me?
Thanx.
Rusty Shackleford August 21st, 2014 at 01:13
That’s why I asked about it, since it’s a rather egregious oversight. You know, since it’s primarily the teargas, not the tanks, that’s upsetting people in Ferguson.
William August 21st, 2014 at 01:31
First of all, there are no police departments using “tanks”. I know of many who use armored personnel carriers to protect officers from fire, and evacuate civilians from dangerous situations. I sometimes forget that civilians will often label any tracked military vehicle as a tank.
I’ve tried very hard to leave emotion out and list very real benefits of surplus gear that cash strapped communities use. I’ve used this stuff myself, and was grateful for it.
I never mentioned tanks (which are not available to police departments) or tear gas.
We seem to be having this exchange on completely different planes. You wish to insert items into my post that I didn’t even consider.
That’s fine. Enjoy yourself.
Rusty Shackleford August 21st, 2014 at 01:59
You’re really gonna get hung up on semantics of what’s a tank and what’s a heavily armored vehicle when they’re rolling up on nonviolent protestors?
I asked you about tear gas specifically because you neglected to mention it, an egregious omission given current events. You still haven’t replied to it, by the way. Do you or do you not agree that police being armed with teargas that we’re not even allowed to use in war is excessive?
William August 21st, 2014 at 02:18
“asked you about tear gas specifically because you neglected to mention it” I also never mentioned flash grenades bayonets or bolt cutters. What’s your point? If you are trying to goad me into infecting my post about useful military surplus equipment with an endorsement of tear gas, it’s not going to happen.
BTW, the U.S. military uses tear gas on recruits routinely. It’s part of gas mask training. I’ve been tear gassed twice. I prefer it to pepper spray.
If you’re trying to paint me as some sort of militant who approves of violence simply because I like municipalities having access to surplus equipment, that’s your right, but you are (like your knowledge of tear gas, and tanks) ill equipped to do so.
Rusty Shackleford August 21st, 2014 at 03:03
Police haven’t been firing flash grenades, bayonets, or bolt cutters at nonviolent protestors in Ferguson. Like I said multiple times now, it is an egregious omission because tear gas has been the dominant weapon in the demonstrations of police brutality that this article is about.
Recruits may be trained for BEING tear gassed, but they are not allowed to USE it against any enemy nation that has also signed the Geneva Protocol, as we did. This is not a military surplus weapon, it’s a police weapon for use on US civilians.
For someone who claims to not endorse its use, you sure are evasive about saying so. It was a simple question, and I would have gladly taken that answer, but instead you chose to dodge and weave.
Herb Sarge Phelps August 21st, 2014 at 14:55
Joe Arpaio has a tank that thankfully doesn’t work, but knowing his methods as well as I do, he would love to use it on his infamous raids. You live with a maniac like him as your sheriff you will soon learn how a law officer can and will abuse such equipment. He isn’t the only one in this state either, we have several in this state lining up to be the next Arpaio.
William August 22nd, 2014 at 02:06
Joe Arpaioi a horses ass, and should be dismissed if for nothing else than letting a Hollywood actor play cop and driving an armored vehicle into somebody’s home. I hope this moron gets the snot sued out of him.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/31/actor-steven-seagal-sued-for-driving-tank-into-arizona-home-killing-puppy/
BTW that idiotic thing Arpaioi has is actually a self propelled howitzer. I understand it’s disabled and meant to be a static display. No doubt it cost a fortune to transport and paint. It would have just been cheaper if the taxpayers had bought him some Viagra. http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/sites/529/assets/98WZ_RP_hunt_arizona_tank.jpg
Herb Sarge Phelps August 22nd, 2014 at 14:03
Don’t dismiss Arpaio for one section. I live in his area and see what he does to the people, and his crazy gang that supports him. We have Baboo in the county next to us, who is just a militaristic, and others striving to be the next Arpaio. We see many in Louisiana and Mississippi where I lived until 2007 who are doing heavy handed things and admire Arpaio. Don’t dare under-rate Arpaio because he is dangerous.
William August 23rd, 2014 at 09:28
Sorry. Nomenclature error here. When I say dismissed, it’s my way of saying “fired”.
fancypants August 21st, 2014 at 17:51
First of all, there are no police departments using “tanks”.
————————————
tampa florida AND Doraville ga.
Now you know
William August 22nd, 2014 at 01:33
Not a single one of those vehicles is a tank. In fact some are simply armored cars.
THIS is a tank
Now you know.
William August 22nd, 2014 at 01:37
Here is Tampa’s “tank”. …”
http://www.infowars.com/tampa-police-roll-out-a-tank-to-deal-with-a-few-dozen-protesters/
From the article
UPDATE: It’s not actually a “tank,” of course, though it certainly looks like one. It’s a “12-ton armored personnel carrier.”
Now you know.
fancypants August 22nd, 2014 at 20:11
so if you don’t have a huge gun hanging out the front of an armored vehicle ? its not a tank…got it
William August 23rd, 2014 at 10:14
There is more to it than that. An armored personnel carrier is essentially a big armored van. It’s purpose is to transport soldiers to and from battlefields, protecting them from small arms fire during the process. The vital part of an apc’s duties involves evacuating the wounded. Some apcs are equipped with air filtration systems (NBC biological warfare stuff). Great for hazmat events and fires. BTW 12 tons is not particularly heavy (a loaded tractor trailer weighs 40 tons). Simply put,armored personnel carriers are not offensive weapons.
I think people not familiar with military hardware tend to think of big boxy vehicles with crawler tracks as “tanks”
Something snow groomers might find offensive eh?
fancypants August 23rd, 2014 at 21:34
I don’t think snow groomers weigh 12 tons ? but who knows …in todays world their might someday be a need to bullet proof them
William August 23rd, 2014 at 10:20
Pretty much. There are exceptions of course.
fancypants August 22nd, 2014 at 20:12
info wars ? lol do you go there often, if so how long
William August 23rd, 2014 at 09:39
Actually my search engine found the sight. (search words Tampa, tank) First time I’ve seen it. It’s hysterical, and I plan on going back.
William August 22nd, 2014 at 01:41
The Doraville Ga. Police department has an armored personnel carrier.
http://www.doravillepolice.us/media/news-releases/helping-to-clear-the-roads-in-the-icy-weather
Now you know.
fancypants August 22nd, 2014 at 20:15
so Doraville shows up with this 12 ton vehicle only during ice storms ? im glad I don’t pay taxes in Doraville ga.
William August 23rd, 2014 at 09:36
Georgia is not known for their vast inventory of snow and ice removal equipment. They improvised. How is that a problem?
fancypants August 23rd, 2014 at 21:31
for me ? not at all, you might want to ask the georgia taxpayers if they want versatile highway equipment or something that is bullet proof ?
Herb Sarge Phelps August 21st, 2014 at 14:52
Not all equipment should be banned just that which has no practical use and especially weapons that have been banned in warfare. The teargas has been ban in warfare so why should we allow police to use it? It seems logical if it can’t be used in what is the worse part of human interaction then it certainly shouldn’t be used in crowd control. I don’t see how using a cannon to kill a fly is sensible and in truth that is what using this war equipment has done. It is, in my opinion, cruel and inhumane and excessive.
R.J. Carter August 20th, 2014 at 14:54
Usually comments go into pending because they used a naughty word.
I can only guess this one went there because you dropped a link to the F-site.
mea_mark August 20th, 2014 at 16:29
That is a naughty word.
mea_mark August 20th, 2014 at 16:36
I think tailoring the program back a little would be a good idea. It is the assault weapons that I think should go first. If a PD really thinks they need that, they should pay a premium. There is lots of used equipment that can be put to use and not just at PD but at fire departments and other departments especially in rural areas where roads are often not available or questionable.
R.J. Carter August 20th, 2014 at 16:43
The double-edged sword is that a police department doesn’t know if they need it — until they need it. Conversely, if they have it, they’re more likely to use it when they don’t need it.
mea_mark August 20th, 2014 at 17:17
That is why I think they should pay a premium for assault weapons or anything more heavy duty. It shouldn’t be easy to get there hands on that stuff and more restraint should be used when using it. If they have to borrow from someone when they really need it, it gives them a chance to think of other solutions, which they should be doing anyways.
William August 21st, 2014 at 01:08
” If they have to borrow from someone when they really need it, it gives them a chance to think of other solutions, which they should be doing anyway.” UNit 6 dispatch. Go head 6. Dispatch is there anyone that can lend me a rifle? We have a barricaded suspect who has shot two pedestrians at this time.
Standby unit 6, I’ll ask around.
mea_mark August 21st, 2014 at 12:15
Exactly, suspect is barricaded and not going anywhere. Time to think of alternatives and get plenty of back-up.
William August 21st, 2014 at 14:12
So you have no problem with officers responding to calls where they are outgunned?
mea_mark August 21st, 2014 at 16:54
I am not saying they have to engage. It might be possible to wait it out. I believe there are many solutions to problems. Which one is best should be thought about more before resorting to firepower. We are to quick to rely upon lethal force.
William August 22nd, 2014 at 01:53
“I am not saying they have to engage. It might be possible to wait it out”. That actually IS the preferred method. If there are no hostages and nobody within range of the bad guy, that’s exactly what you do. Cops have all the time in the world and can wait out the bad guy in shifts if needed. Eventually the bad guy must sleep. Without hostages or the ability to render harm to anyone else it’s simply an asshole with a gun holding himself hostage. Wait him out, grab him when he’s too tired to see straight and ask the court for restitution for the overtime.
William August 21st, 2014 at 14:31
This might be a good time to remember just why Officers now have access to such an arsenal of weapons.
It’s a terrible and violent reality that has bought us to this.
http://youtu.be/N2ZwIrIB1is
William August 21st, 2014 at 01:21
The last department had so called “assault weapons”, come to think of it every department I worked for since 1992 did. They were in some form or another military surplus. The old reisling submachine gun, WWII surplus found it’s way into many departments. The last so called “assault weapon” I qualified with was the mini-14. It fired the same round as the M-16, was not automatic, and adapted well to the limited space of cruiser mounted racks. Yes we had shotguns, but their lack of range and accuracy was unsuitable for many scenarios.
I suppose many departments acquired M-16’s because of the low cost, and familiarity of most officers.
The reality is this. The bad guys have high powered weapons and body armor.
mea_mark August 21st, 2014 at 12:12
That is why there should be tactical units. Not every officer should have access to high power assault weapons, only the most highly trained and emotionally and mentally stable should. An overabundance of weaponry leads to everyone having it.
William August 21st, 2014 at 14:08
Tactical teams are not actually a bunch of guys hanging around waiting for the call to come in. For the most part they are your basic 9 to 5 cop who has tactical team as a collateral duty. There are of course exceptions in very large cities. First you need to define what “high powered assault weapon” means. The M-16 fires a 22 caliber bullet at a very high speed. It’s actually not particularly “high powered”. Your basic deer rifle has a lot more wallop.
Tactical team screenings are generally stringent. It’s pretty much standard already that no officer carries to particular weapon unless he/she has qualified with that weapon.
The very first question in any shoot is usually “was the officer qualified with the weapon”.
As for me I think that the requirements of maturity, training and emotional stability for a rookie patrolman be just as stringent as that of the tactical team officer. Both officers must make critical decisions. Both carry weapons.
Robert M. Snyder August 21st, 2014 at 19:04
I agree with everything you’ve said. I would simply add that every police officer is someone’s employee. That means the employer has a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure workplace safety. People can disagree about what steps are reasonable, but the duty to protect officers in a crisis situation is something that no police chief can afford to neglect.
Rusty Shackleford August 20th, 2014 at 17:49
What about the tear gas, that we’re not even allowed to use in war, but will gladly fire upon our own citizens?
William August 21st, 2014 at 01:02
I’m sorry, but I don’t recall mentioning tear gas as one of the useful surplus items in my posting. Could you point that out for me?
Thanx.
Rusty Shackleford August 21st, 2014 at 01:13
That’s why I asked about it, since it’s a rather egregious oversight. You know, since it’s primarily the teargas, not the tanks, that’s upsetting people in Ferguson.
William August 21st, 2014 at 01:31
First of all, there are no police departments using “tanks”. I know of many who use armored personnel carriers to protect officers from fire, and evacuate civilians from dangerous situations. I sometimes forget that civilians will often label any tracked military vehicle as a tank.
I’ve tried very hard to leave emotion out and list very real benefits of surplus gear that cash strapped communities use. I’ve used this stuff myself, and was grateful for it.
I never mentioned tanks (which are not available to police departments) or tear gas.
We seem to be having this exchange on completely different planes. You wish to insert items into my post that I didn’t even consider.
That’s fine. Enjoy yourself.
Rusty Shackleford August 21st, 2014 at 01:59
You’re really gonna get hung up on semantics of what’s a tank and what’s a heavily armored vehicle when they’re rolling up on nonviolent protestors?
I asked you about tear gas specifically because you neglected to mention it, an egregious omission given current events. You still haven’t replied to it, by the way. Do you or do you not agree that police being armed with teargas that we’re not even allowed to use in war is excessive?
William August 21st, 2014 at 02:18
“asked you about tear gas specifically because you neglected to mention it” I also never mentioned flash grenades bayonets or bolt cutters. What’s your point? If you are trying to goad me into infecting my post about useful military surplus equipment with an endorsement of tear gas, it’s not going to happen.
BTW, the U.S. military uses tear gas on recruits routinely. It’s part of gas mask training. I’ve been tear gassed twice. I prefer it to pepper spray.
If you’re trying to paint me as some sort of militant who approves of violence simply because I like municipalities having access to surplus equipment, that’s your right, but you are (like your knowledge of tear gas, and tanks) ill equipped to do so.
Rusty Shackleford August 21st, 2014 at 03:03
Police haven’t been firing flash grenades, bayonets, or bolt cutters at nonviolent protestors in Ferguson. Like I said multiple times now, it is an egregious omission because tear gas has been the dominant weapon in the police brutality that this article is about.
Recruits may be trained for BEING tear gassed, but they are not allowed to USE it against any enemy nation that has also signed the Geneva Protocol, as we did. This is not a military surplus weapon, it’s a police weapon for use on US civilians.
For someone who claims to not endorse its use, you sure are evasive about saying so.
Herb Sarge Phelps August 21st, 2014 at 14:55
Joe Arpaio has a tank that thankfully doesn’t work, but knowing his methods as well as I do, he would love to use it on his infamous raids. You live with a maniac like him as your sheriff you will soon learn how a law officer can and will abuse such equipment. He isn’t the only one in this state either, we have several in this state lining up to be the next Arpaio.
William August 22nd, 2014 at 02:06
Joe Arpaioi a horses ass, and should be dismissed if for nothing else than letting a Hollywood actor play cop and driving an armored vehicle into somebody’s home. I hope this moron gets the snot sued out of him.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/31/actor-steven-seagal-sued-for-driving-tank-into-arizona-home-killing-puppy/
Herb Sarge Phelps August 22nd, 2014 at 14:03
Don’t dismiss Arpaio for one section. I live in his area and see what he does to the people, and his crazy gang that supports him. We have Baboo in the county next to us, who is just a militaristic, and others striving to be the next Arpaio. We see many in Louisiana and Mississippi where I lived until 2007 who are doing heavy handed things and admire Arpaio. Don’t dare under-rate Arpaio because he is dangerous.
William August 23rd, 2014 at 09:28
Sorry. Nomenclature error here. When I say dismissed, it’s my way of saying “fired”.
fancypants August 21st, 2014 at 17:51
First of all, there are no police departments using “tanks”.
————————————
tampa florida AND Doraville ga.
Now you know
William August 22nd, 2014 at 01:33
Not a single one of those vehicles is a tank. In fact some are simply armored cars.
THIS is a tank
Now you know.
William August 22nd, 2014 at 01:37
Here is Tampa’s “tank”. …”
http://www.infowars.com/tampa-police-roll-out-a-tank-to-deal-with-a-few-dozen-protesters/
From the article
UPDATE: It’s not actually a “tank,” of course, though it certainly looks like one. It’s a “12-ton armored personnel carrier.”
Now you know.
fancypants August 22nd, 2014 at 20:11
so if you don’t have a huge gun hanging out the front of an armored vehicle ? its not a tank…got it
William August 23rd, 2014 at 10:14
There is more to it than that. An armored personnel carrier is essentially a big armored van. It’s purpose is to transport soldiers to and from battlefields, protecting them from small arms fire during the process. The vital part of an apc’s duties involves evacuating the wounded. Some apcs are equipped with air filtration systems (NBC biological warfare stuff). Great for hazmat events and fires. BTW 12 tons is not particularly heavy (a loaded tractor trailer weighs 40 tons). Simply put,armored personnel carriers are not offensive weapons.
I think people not familiar with military hardware tend to think of big boxy vehicles with crawler tracks as “tanks”
Something snow groomers might find offensive eh?
fancypants August 23rd, 2014 at 21:34
I don’t think snow groomers weigh 12 tons ? but who knows …in todays world their might someday be a need to bullet proof them
William August 23rd, 2014 at 10:20
Pretty much. There are exceptions of course.
fancypants August 22nd, 2014 at 20:12
info wars ? lol do you go there often, if so how long
William August 23rd, 2014 at 09:39
Actually my search engine found the sight. (search words Tampa, tank) First time I’ve seen it. It’s hysterical, and I plan on going back.
William August 22nd, 2014 at 01:41
The Doraville Ga. Police department has an armored personnel carrier.
http://www.doravillepolice.us/media/news-releases/helping-to-clear-the-roads-in-the-icy-weather
Now you know.
fancypants August 22nd, 2014 at 20:15
so Doraville shows up with this 12 ton vehicle only during ice storms ? im glad I don’t pay taxes in Doraville ga.
William August 23rd, 2014 at 09:36
Georgia is not known for their vast inventory of snow and ice removal equipment. They improvised. How is that a problem?
fancypants August 23rd, 2014 at 21:31
for me ? not at all, you might want to ask the georgia taxpayers if they want versatile highway equipment or something that is bullet proof ?
Herb Sarge Phelps August 21st, 2014 at 14:52
Not all equipment should be banned just that which has no practical use and especially weapons that have been banned in warfare. The teargas has been ban in warfare so why should we allow police to use it? It seems logical if it can’t be used in what is the worse part of human interaction then it certainly shouldn’t be used in crowd control. I don’t see how using a cannon to kill a fly is sensible and in truth that is what using this war equipment has done. It is, in my opinion, cruel and inhumane and excessive.
fancypants August 21st, 2014 at 18:09
there should be warnings posted
fancypants August 21st, 2014 at 18:09
there should be warnings posted
CharlieMA August 25th, 2014 at 12:44
I would like to invite everyone to go to the ATF.gov , FBI.gov, Cbp.gov, and DOJ.gov sites. Read what is really going on out there if one isn’t up to snuff on it.. When the bad guy has AR-15s and other automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and when they can create bombs like in Oklahoma and the Boston Marathon bombings, then we would depend upon the police to eradicate the threat. Should they use pea shooters or slingshots?
Par4TheCourse August 25th, 2014 at 12:44
I would like to invite everyone to go to the ATF.gov , FBI.gov, Cbp.gov, and DOJ.gov sites. Read what is really going on out there if one isn’t up to snuff on it.. When the bad guy has AR-15s and other automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and when they can create bombs like in Oklahoma and the Boston Marathon bombings, then we would depend upon the police to eradicate the threat. Should they use pea shooters or slingshots?
All the police have families too that they would like to see after their shifts just like anyone else.. Oh! As to the sites.. read them for about a week.. then let me know how you would protect yourself and through protecting yourself, protect the citizens if you didn’t have the weapons to neutralize the threats by those who would kill a child or other family members.