Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

CptJake wrote:
Since most hostage situations requiring that type of gear are multi-day affairs

100% wrong. You are confusing "most hostage situations" with "hostage situations that make the news/hostage situations in the movies"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you're not just talking about "calling the governor". You are talking about declaring a state of emergency. That is kind of a big thing that should not be happening just to respond to a single incident.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Buy some old Soviet BMPs. They're real cheap now. In fact GW should buy one. With a little plywood voila - Chimera!

MRAPs were invented because BMPs are too heavy for urban operations.

Not really accurate. They were invented and fielded because tracked vehicles were tearing up the streets and are expensive to keep fueled and maintained. Wheeled vehicles designed to keep crews alive don't tear up the roads and in theory the logistics of keeping them running is cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Since most hostage situations requiring that type of gear are multi-day affairs

100% wrong. You are confusing "most hostage situations" with "hostage situations that make the news/hostage situations in the movies"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you're not just talking about "calling the governor". You are talking about declaring a state of emergency. That is kind of a big thing that should not be happening just to respond to a single incident.

I'm not 100% wrong. Show me sources where hostage situations requiring armored vehicles were not multi-day affairs (CONUS). Also, show me where these situations did not make the news.

The reality is SWAT teams use the vehicles to execute warrants they consider dangerous a ton more than for any hostage situation. I suspect you are the one building your straw man from movie type hostage situations.

As for the gov, again, you are building strawmen. To use a federal agency and mobilize their gear is going to take longer and more coordination than a state agency using their gear in almost every case.

CptJake wrote:

As for the gov, again, you are building strawmen. To use a federal agency and mobilize their gear is going to take longer and more coordination than a state agency using their gear in almost every case.

Just for the record, You are alleging that of the following scenarios, the second one is slower?

1. A bomb or hostage situation arises on a runway requiring armor, DHS wakes up the governor, who declares a state of emergency at the airport. Then several hours of prep later, the closest guard armory sends an APC with some soldiers.

2. The airport DHS office wakes up their swat guys who drive to the airport and get in the APC which is already on site by the fire trucks.

Yeah, the second one sounds WAY longer.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Not to break out the tinfoil hat but when you have an organisation that seems to be blurring the line between a police and military force to become a paramilitary force, then that has a dangerous precedent.

Genuine question here from someone who just moved to the US recently but; What reason could the DHS have to acquire these, much less deploy them?

End of year budget blowout?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Buy some old Soviet BMPs. They're real cheap now. In fact GW should buy one. With a little plywood voila - Chimera!

MRAPs were invented because BMPs are too heavy for urban operations.

Not really accurate. They were invented and fielded because tracked vehicles were tearing up the streets and are expensive to keep fueled and maintained. Wheeled vehicles designed to keep crews alive don't tear up the roads and in theory the logistics of keeping them running is cheaper.

That is true however the weight is also a problem. The heavier MRAPs have been criticised for being too heavy and damaging roads and culverts, etc.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
End of year budget blowout?

Yeah that was my first thought but curiosity got the better of me

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The local swat team/bomb squad here has a mine resistant APC and they use it for basically every bomb scare callout.

They can be used as a wall between personnel and a potential bomb. They can even drive up and "sit on" a bomb until the robot gets there.

Sometimes it gets sent to a swat callout with a barricaded suspect. It means the swat guys can get it very close without risk to them. It can also open up a wall if it needs to.

Police uses for armored vehicles are pretty common. If I was DHS, I would definitely be interested in having one at the airport for the same. My local airport is pretty close to the police, though, so we don't really need one. But this is not true of all airports.

Yeah but if DHS is not a police force and lacks their powers it seems strange that they would attempt to take on some of their responsibilities, especially in such a litigious culture. Also unless the DHS operator has SWAT training and/or experience then it just seems like an almighty clusterfeth by adding another agency into a potentially volatile situation.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Yeah but if DHS is not a police force and lacks their powers it seems strange that they would attempt to take on some of their responsibilities, especially in such a litigious culture. Also unless the DHS operator has SWAT training and/or experience then it just seems like an almighty clusterfeth by adding another agency into a potentially volatile situation.

That's because the DHS IS a police force. They are a federal law enforcement agency.

I'm starting to get tired of explaining how the law works over and over itt. I'm out.

Could you explain it one more time? :-\

I'm not finding anything on them being police-esque.

i.e. Links and such not so that I can do some research on the topic?

It is a security agency, not a police force.

http://www.dhs.gov/mission

Of course, police forces also often act as security agencies.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Buy some old Soviet BMPs. They're real cheap now. In fact GW should buy one. With a little plywood voila - Chimera!

MRAPs were invented because BMPs are too heavy for urban operations.

yea but BMPS are cool!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is a security agency, not a police force.

http://www.dhs.gov/mission

Of course, police forces also often act as security agencies.

"security agency" is not a term with legal weight. Security agencies are law enforcement agencies. They refer to the same thing. "security agency", "law enforcement agency" and "police force" are terms which do not have distinct legal definitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Department_of_Homeland_Security_.28DHS.29


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is how you can tell if an agency is a LEA.

1. Is it an agency?
2. Does it employ sworn law enforcement officers?

You are done!

 Rented Tritium wrote:
It's just bizarre to me that people could worry about "black helicopters" and fascism and stuff, and then in the same breath PREFER that police action be carried out by the national guard.

Because there is control over the National Guard. The joys at the Department of Justice and the DHS have brought us such epic wins as selling guns to murdering cartels, and wasting dozens of people in compounds. I haven't seen the National Guard do that.

Again, what instance was ever about where the DHS needed one, not wanted one because LA SWAT has one and they want to be tacticool too, but actually needed one?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Not to break out the tinfoil hat but when you have an organisation that seems to be blurring the line between a police and military force to become a paramilitary force, then that has a dangerous precedent.

Genuine question here from someone who just moved to the US recently but; What reason could the DHS have to acquire these, much less deploy them?

LAPD has one and they want to keep up with the Jones's. Anything else is bureaucratic nonsense, and this is after I'm discounting the black helicopter paramilitary creep crowd.

It doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You're just going to come back and pretend I didn't answer for the third time.

You guys, federal law enforcement vs military authority and jurisdiction is pretty simple stuff. Please stop posting if you don't actually know anything about this.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Genuine question here from someone who just moved to the US recently but; What reason could the DHS have to acquire these, much less deploy them?

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The local swat team/bomb squad here has a mine resistant APC and they use it for basically every bomb scare callout.

They can be used as a wall between personnel and a potential bomb. They can even drive up and "sit on" a bomb until the robot gets there.

Sometimes it gets sent to a swat callout with a barricaded suspect. It means the swat guys can get it very close without risk to them. It can also open up a wall if it needs to.

Police uses for armored vehicles are pretty common. If I was DHS, I would definitely be interested in having one at the airport for the same. My local airport is pretty close to the police, though, so we don't really need one. But this is not true of all airports.

DHS aint SWAT. DHS is the blue shirt losers making you take off your belt at the airport, like that means something. Remember, pick up that can Citizen!

This is basically why I stopped posting in OT last time. I'm fine with people disagreeing, but if you refuse to even argue facts that exist, why should I waste my time with you?

I think the "issue" is rather not the DHS itself, but it's child agencies... Secret Service, TSA, Border Patrol, Emergency Management, Immigration Services, Customs, and the Coast Guard are all under the umbrella of the DHS (as are Grey Knights ). Out of all of those, I can only see... 2 agencies that might have reason to need these vehicles, the BP and Emergency Management (Coast Guard is a... maybe... but I'm hard pressed to find a reason for them to need one). Same goes with Secret Service, TSA, Immigration and Customs...

But I don't know anything, so I shouldn't be posting.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
It doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You're just going to come back and pretend I didn't answer for the third time.

You guys, federal law enforcement vs military authority and jurisdiction is pretty simple stuff. Please stop posting if you don't actually know anything about this.

Sorry, I'm not even in the US a year so the various agencies, jurisdictions etc. are pretty new to me. When I hear DHS I think of Customs and Border and USCIS because that's who I've been dealing with since 2011, and because I don't think either of those have power of arrest and prosecution I was trying to get some clarification. No offense was intended.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
It doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You're just going to come back and pretend I didn't answer for the third time.

You guys, federal law enforcement vs military authority and jurisdiction is pretty simple stuff. Please stop posting if you don't actually know anything about this.

Sorry, I'm not even in the US a year so the various agencies, jurisdictions etc. are pretty new to me. When I hear DHS I think of Customs and Border and USCIS because that's who I've been dealing with since 2011, and because I don't think either of those have power of arrest and prosecution I was trying to get some clarification. No offense was intended.

I apologize for my reaction, then.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I think the "issue" is rather not the DHS itself, but it's child agencies... Secret Service, TSA, Border Patrol, Emergency Management, Immigration Services, Customs, and the Coast Guard are all under the umbrella of the DHS (as are Grey Knights ). Out of all of those, I can only see... 2 agencies that might have reason to need these vehicles, the BP and Emergency Management (Coast Guard is a... maybe... but I'm hard pressed to find a reason for them to need one). Same goes with Secret Service, TSA, Immigration and Customs...

But I don't know anything, so I shouldn't be posting.

Unless something changed yet again, Coast Guard falls under DoT, unless in time of actual war (ya know, where Congress declares it and all) and then they fall under the Dept. of the Navy (like the marines always do)

IF an MRAP is going into the Hydra that is DHS, it obviously should be going to a place like Border Patrol, until of course, someone has the brilliant idea of Operation 2 Fast 2 Furious, and sells them to the drug cartels

The thing I have against ANY of these agencies getting them, is that other than the motor, and the armor, they are kinda crap... I can see people thinking they'd make great command vehicles, or even swat vehicles, but especially certain models, the ramps are too slow to really be used for that, theres not enough space on the inside for a "command presence", they are excessively loud on the interior while operating, they are top heavy and will roll fairly easily... I mean, I can go on and on, but I think you get the idea.


Also, they aren't needed at airports because generally speaking, each airport has a precinct within it from the local PD (ie. the LAPD has an office/precinct within LAX, specifically to cover and take over any issues that TSA can't handle)

 Rented Tritium wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Since most hostage situations requiring that type of gear are multi-day affairs

100% wrong. You are confusing "most hostage situations" with "hostage situations that make the news/hostage situations in the movies"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you're not just talking about "calling the governor". You are talking about declaring a state of emergency. That is kind of a big thing that should not be happening just to respond to a single incident.

Sorry when was the last hostage situation involving the DHS again? When was the last hostage situation involving the DHS requiring a tank? How did we manage to go since the 1920s without armored vehicles for the federales but suddenly need it now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

1. A bomb or hostage situation arises on a runway requiring armor, DHS wakes up the governor, who declares a state of emergency at the airport. Then several hours of prep later, the closest guard armory sends an APC with some soldiers.
If its on a runway its a local matter. Thats why airport have local police in them. Sorry.
What hostage situtaion requires armor again?

2. The airport DHS office wakes up their swat guys who drive to the airport and get in the APC which is already on site by the fire trucks.
It would be SWAT guys.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Yeah but if DHS is not a police force and lacks their powers it seems strange that they would attempt to take on some of their responsibilities, especially in such a litigious culture. Also unless the DHS operator has SWAT training and/or experience then it just seems like an almighty clusterfeth by adding another agency into a potentially volatile situation.

That's because the DHS IS a police force. They are a federal law enforcement agency.

I'm starting to get tired of explaining how the law works over and over itt. I'm out.

Some DHS are police- ATF - the guyys who go after people with illegal guns. You're not saying the DHS is arming the ATF with tanks are you, which you know, is exactly what the black helicopter crowd is arguing.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Unless something changed yet again, Coast Guard falls under DoT, unless in time of actual war (ya know, where Congress declares it and all) and then they fall under the Dept. of the Navy (like the marines always do)

They've been under the department of homeland security for 10 years now. Google is your friend.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
It doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You're just going to come back and pretend I didn't answer for the third time.

You guys, federal law enforcement vs military authority and jurisdiction is pretty simple stuff. Please stop posting if you don't actually know anything about this.

As soon as you know are aware of separation of Powers I'll agree with you.

You still haven't sighted when your Die Hard guy is going to need a tank to take down the bad guys, and has actual jurisidcition to do it, and why thats not better than an actual military unit do it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
It doesn't really matter what I say, does it? You're just going to come back and pretend I didn't answer for the third time.

You guys, federal law enforcement vs military authority and jurisdiction is pretty simple stuff. Please stop posting if you don't actually know anything about this.

As soon as you know are aware of separation of Powers I'll agree with you.

You still haven't sighted when your Die Hard guy is going to need a tank to take down the bad guys, and has actual jurisidcition to do it, and why thats not better than an actual military unit do it.

You want the "actual military" to engage in police actions and you want to lecture me about separation of powers.

It boggles the mind.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

CptJake wrote:

As for the gov, again, you are building strawmen. To use a federal agency and mobilize their gear is going to take longer and more coordination than a state agency using their gear in almost every case.

Just for the record, You are alleging that of the following scenarios, the second one is slower?

1. A bomb or hostage situation arises on a runway requiring armor, DHS wakes up the governor, who declares a state of emergency at the airport. Then several hours of prep later, the closest guard armory sends an APC with some soldiers.

2. The airport DHS office wakes up their swat guys who drive to the airport and get in the APC which is already on site by the fire trucks.

Yeah, the second one sounds WAY longer.

Damn you are good at the strawman scenarios.

1: So incredibly unlikely as to not be worth funding. Bomb disposal does not require armored vehicles and the municipality or county or state EOD that has jurisdiction is going to be closer and quicker and better equipped than a federal agency in almost evry case where time is critical (takes a lot of time to get FBI HRT folks or similar on hand in most cases).

2. 'Airport DHS' is the TSA, and they are not trained nor equipped for this crap.

Again, this is all within the purview of local/state LE. Yes, getting the Gov to call up guard is slower than getting state or local LE on site. I've never argued otherwise. You're the one coming up with scenarios out of a future Die Hard movie. And you have yet to give any real world examples that come close to your fantasy scenarios. Again, where are real world CONUS examples of Fed hostage rescue that required armored vehicles that were not multi-day affairs?

I think we need to get all weapons of war off our streets and out of our skies.

No drones or armored vehicles for LEOs federal or otherwise.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I apologize for my reaction, then.

No problem I imagine that the flag can cause some confusion.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I think the "issue" is rather not the DHS itself, but it's child agencies... Secret Service, TSA, Border Patrol, Emergency Management, Immigration Services, Customs, and the Coast Guard are all under the umbrella of the DHS (as are Grey Knights ). Out of all of those, I can only see... 2 agencies that might have reason to need these vehicles, the BP and Emergency Management (Coast Guard is a... maybe... but I'm hard pressed to find a reason for them to need one). Same goes with Secret Service, TSA, Immigration and Customs...

But I don't know anything, so I shouldn't be posting.

Unless something changed yet again, Coast Guard falls under DoT, unless in time of actual war (ya know, where Congress declares it and all) and then they fall under the Dept. of the Navy (like the marines always do)

According to Wikipedia USCG is Department of Homeland Security, which makes sense. You are right that the CG was originally under the DoT until legislation moved them under DHS in 2002 to help "protect American intersts" following Sept. 11th. But the rest of the information is useful, thanks

Why do you write to your congressman and get him to ask a question about why the DHS needs these vehicles?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you write to your congressman and get him to ask a question about why the DHS needs these vehicles?

er...what?

In the UK you would write to your MP who would ask a question in Parliament. The government would be compelled to answer.

Surely there is a system like that in the US.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the UK you would write to your MP who would ask a question in Parliament. The government would be compelled to answer.

Surely there is a system like that in the US.

Of course not, and don't call me Shirley!