but for video...

[Spartanmack]

So where were the armored vehicles that were used to take down the San Bernardino shooters from? Hard to say from the pictures if they were local, county or vehicles from multiple jurisdictions (looks like there were at least 4). What's the gripe with police and armored vehicles? I for one am glad those officers were so well protected. Is it not fair to the criminals that the cops have an edge in those situations - an edge in protection as none of the vehicles have heavy weapons/artillery capabilities? Are any of you people whining about police "militarization" going to tell the spouses and children of those officers that they should have to take on heavily armed shooters in regular police cruisers? What's the reason for that?

 

[Gulo Blue]

So where were the armored vehicles that were used to take down the San Bernardino shooters from? Hard to say from the pictures if they were local, county or vehicles from multiple jurisdictions (looks like there were at least 4). What's the gripe with police and armored vehicles? I for one am glad those officers were so well protected. Is it not fair to the criminals that the cops have an edge in those situations - an edge in protection as none of the vehicles have heavy weapons/artillery capabilities? Are any of you people whining about police "militarization" going to tell the spouses and children of those officers that they should have to take on heavily armed shooters in regular police cruisers? What's the reason for that?

This post is like the facebook thing I described elsewhere. IF there were military grade vehicles that actually provided some benefit here (and I'm skeptical that that's the case) then of course, you'd be glad in hindsight that they were available in this case. But generally speaking, no, we shouldn't be pushing to live in a militarized society. What kind of Hunger-Games-loving person wants that?

Pointing to this as justification is like suggesting that handguns reduce murders because people can defend themselves. A fantasy argument you can only buy into if you hold up a handful of positive anecdotes and completely ignore the negatives.

 

[Gulo Blue]

And that doesn't mean the situation is the same for Chicago, Illinois, and Boise, Idaho, either.

 

[Spartanmack]

Show me one picture of a police force with any military assault vehicles with any more offensive capability than a water cannon. They don't exist and if anyone has a problem with cops having a former military armored personnel carrier stripped of any weapon systems so it's nothing more than an armored truck just because it's a "military" style vehicle, they're being foolish.

Cops can get used vehicles stripped of their weapons from the government for a lot less than it costs to buy a new non-military armored vehicle. The argument put forward by some here during the Ferguson riots that the presence of such vehicles incite people to riot is ridiculous.

 

[Spartanmack]

This post is like the facebook thing I described elsewhere. IF there were military grade vehicles that actually provided some benefit here (and I'm skeptical that that's the case) then of course, you'd be glad in hindsight that they were available in this case. But generally speaking, no, we shouldn't be pushing to live in a militarized society. What kind of Hunger-Games-loving person wants that?

Pointing to this as justification is like suggesting that handguns reduce murders because people can defend themselves. A fantasy argument you can only buy into if you hold up a handful of positive anecdotes and completely ignore the negatives.

This is ridiculous. The vehicles saved lives and discounting that or saying it can't be used as evidence to support the need for them is dumb. By that logic, there can be no justification for this life saving equipment because you say that proven reality is fantasy.

 

[sggatecl]

So where were the armored vehicles that were used to take down the San Bernardino shooters from? Hard to say from the pictures if they were local, county or vehicles from multiple jurisdictions (looks like there were at least 4). What's the gripe with police and armored vehicles? I for one am glad those officers were so well protected. Is it not fair to the criminals that the cops have an edge in those situations - an edge in protection as none of the vehicles have heavy weapons/artillery capabilities? Are any of you people whining about police "militarization" going to tell the spouses and children of those officers that they should have to take on heavily armed shooters in regular police cruisers? What's the reason for that?

My gripe wasn't with the fact that they have military grade vehicles and weaponry. My gripe was that they manage to find the funds/reasoning for these things but can't manage to have body/vehicle cameras. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Spartanmack]

My gripe wasn't with the fact that they have military grade vehicles and weaponry. My gripe was that they manage to find the funds/reasoning for these things but can't manage to have body/vehicle cameras. It doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe you don't recall the Ferguson riot threads where several people here blamed the police and the presence of their "military" vehicles for the riots. They whined ad nauseum about the militarization of police crying that cops have no need for such equipment.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Show me one picture of a police force with any military assault vehicles with any more offensive capability than a water cannon. They don't exist

 

[Gulo Blue]

This is ridiculous. The vehicles saved lives and discounting that or saying it can't be used as evidence to support the need for them is dumb. By that logic, there can be no justification for this life saving equipment because you say that proven reality is fantasy.

1st, what evidence is there that they saved a life? I've only read a couple articles, but they didn't say the vehicles were hit with bullets.

Maybe they did. But even if they did, how often have they actually helped?

Their existence isn't even the real problem. If they were tucked away in large and some medium sized cities and never seen except in situations like this one, then fine. But police forces breaking them out for protesters is crazy. Smaller cities with little crime having this stuff is crazy.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Maybe you don't recall the Ferguson riot threads where several people here blamed the police and the presence of their "military" vehicles for the riots. They whined ad nauseum about the militarization of police crying that cops have no need for such equipment.

Are you telling me you wouldn't react any differently if you felt someone had dealt with you with a heavy hand?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Show me one picture of a police force with any military assault vehicles with any more offensive capability than a water cannon. They don't exist

http://www.mintpressnews.com/arizona-has-more-military-gear-than-some-small-countires/197137/

 

[Gulo Blue]

It's the same with police as the rest of the populations. If you feed them fear mongering all the time, they're going to act accordingly. You train your police to react is if they are in a war zone, they're more likely to react as if they're in a war zone. There are a few places in the country that need SWAT teams like this.

Doraville, GA, population 8,500 with no murders since 2009, doesn't need this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kajhu7qgojU

And a terrorist incident where armor may have been useful doesn't change that.

 

[sggatecl]

Maybe you don't recall the Ferguson riot threads where several people here blamed the police and the presence of their "military" vehicles for the riots. They whined ad nauseum about the militarization of police crying that cops have no need for such equipment.

They =! Me

 

[Spartanmack]

http://www.mintpressnews.com/arizona-has-more-military-gear-than-some-small-countires/197137/

Fail. That's not armed. That cop is holding an ordinary police issue rifle. At one time, when it was the property of the military, that vehicle may have had a .50 caliber gun mounted on the turret but now it's just an armored personnel carrier which as we just saw comes in quite handy for force protection. And I'd bet my house cops get these vehicles used from Uncle Sam a whole lot cheaper than if they were to buy highly customized trucks on their own. Win-win.

 

[Spartanmack]

They =! Me

So then my post does apply to you.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's the same with police as the rest of the populations. If you feed them fear mongering all the time, they're going to act accordingly. You train your police to react is if they are in a war zone, they're more likely to react as if they're in a war zone. There are a few places in the country that need SWAT teams like this.

Doraville, GA, population 8,500 with no murders since 2009, doesn't need this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kajhu7qgojU

And a terrorist incident where armor may have been useful doesn't change that.

A lot of folks probably would have said something similar about San Bernardino, CA a week ago and plenty have said the same about Ferguson, MO. Of course, they're incorrect.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Fail. That's not armed. That cop is holding an ordinary police issue rifle. At one time, when it was the property of the military, that vehicle may have had a .50 caliber gun mounted on the turret but now it's just an armored personnel carrier which as we just saw comes in quite handy for force protection. And I'd bet my house cops get these vehicles used from Uncle Sam a whole lot cheaper than if they were to buy highly customized trucks on their own. Win-win.

And you accuse me of literal technicality BS...

 

[Spartanmack]

And you accuse me of literal technicality BS...

I asked you to show me a vehicle armed with more than a fire hose (i.e. cannon or a big machine gun) and you show me a vehicle with a bunch of cops and their guns. The vehicle is not equipped with big guns or artillery. If you don't see the difference, that doesn't make it a technicality.

 

[Thumb]

Fail. That's not armed. That cop is holding an ordinary police issue rifle. At one time, when it was the property of the military, that vehicle may have had a .50 caliber gun mounted on the turret but now it's just an armored personnel carrier which as we just saw comes in quite handy for force protection. And I'd bet my house cops get these vehicles used from Uncle Sam a whole lot cheaper than if they were to buy highly customized trucks on their own. Win-win.

How do you know what kind of rifle it is from the 2 1/2 inches of barrel poking out past the bullet shield?

Just because it's not a .50 cal BMG does not mean it's not some kind of mounted LMG.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I asked you to show me a vehicle armed with more than a fire hose (i.e. cannon or a big machine gun) and you show me a vehicle with a bunch of cops and their guns. The vehicle is not equipped with big guns or artillery. If you don't see the difference, that doesn't make it a technicality.

That's a load of crap. A fire hose isn't 1 step down from a cannon or a big machine gun. A rifle is more than a fire hose.

Why do you need a rifle on a tripod on a vehicle in a town of protesting and rioting?