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.

Kinda Old News, but still good. My city is working on getting rid of theirs
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_26427806/san-jose-amid-militarization-furor-sjpd-jettisons-hulking?source=infinite

SAN JOSE -- Amid a national furor over police militarization, the San Jose Police Department has decided to get rid of a 15-ton armored vehicle it received earlier this year from a federal military surplus program.

San Jose's move comes right on the heels of similar plans by the city of Davis to jettison its mine-resistant, ambush-protected troop transport, or MRAP. Among the handful of other Bay Area agencies that own the hulking transports, Redwood City, South San Francisco and Antioch are standing by them.

In San Jose, the MRAP, designed to withstand improvised explosive devices used against U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been in an undisclosed storage garage in the city. It was being outfitted for street use when police brass -- already facing criticism for their recent purchase of a drone -- decided it wasn't worth the potential damage to the department's image and community relationships.


San Jose police spokeswoman Sgt. Heather Randol said internal department conversations about forfeiting the MRAP were already happening before the vehicles gained wide notoriety during the civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, where local police deployed them for crowd control and sparked a national conversation over their use on American streets.

"We've been going through the analysis process," Randol said. "It is a useful tool, but we realize it could be viewed by the community as the militarization of SJPD. It could create a divide, and we want the community's trust."

The decision to give back the vehicle is the second such move in Northern California this week: Tuesday night, the Davis City Council ordered their police chief to get rid of his department's MRAP.

"Symbol matters. We are a species that uses symbol, and this symbolizes the most destructive force on the planet, which is the U.S. military," Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis said at the Davis council meeting.

He added "this piece of equipment, because of its powerful symbolism, will hurt" trust between police and residents.

Several agencies in the Bay Area have some form of armored transport, but only a handful have an MRAP, with San Jose the only Santa Clara County city to have one. The vehicle, standing about 10 feet tall, dwarfs most fortified vehicles used by police, such as the more commonly used Bearcat.


(Jeff Durham / Staff illustration)
In addition to its size, the MRAP is designed to withstand the kinds of roadside bombs that killed scores of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. San Jose got the half-million dollar vehicle, manufactured by BAE Systems and known as a Caiman, for free through the Pentagon's 1033 program, which donates surplus equipment to law-enforcement agencies.

"It was acquired to provide protection to our bomb unit members," Randol said. "We are the regional bomb facility. We are a resource in the county and statewide."

Micaela Davis, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, credited police leaders for the decision but took issue with how it came and went with little public oversight, echoing protests from the organization over the department's acquisition, also earlier this year, of an unmanned aerial vehicle that is currently shelved pending the formation of a use policy and community input.

"The department should be commended for responding to concerns," Davis said of San Jose. "But it brings up questions about whether it was needed in the first place. It's why public hearings should be required on the front end."

The pending return of the MRAP is unpopular with much of the rank and file at SJPD, who are backed by Sgt. Jim Unland, president of the San Jose Police Officers' Association.

"This was politically expedient. I don't know why you wouldn't want the best equipment for your officers," he said. "You can't predict the hazards and dangers that will come in 10 or 20 years."

He noted the integration of military equipment in police work is long-standing.

"Helicopters were primarily a military vehicle. So are AR's (rifles), and so are the tactical vests and helmets we wear," Unland said. "Those come from military usage, have been incorporated in law enforcement, and save lives. If there are issues of trust with the community, explain the use, and create a firm policy of when we can use it and when we can't."

But LaDoris Cordell, the city's Independent Police Auditor and a retired judge, said community trust in police is threatened by the show of might that such an armored vehicle projects.

"SJPD, if it is to continue its efforts to build trust with the communities it serves, must not go down the path of militarization," she said.

In Redwood City, spokesman Malcolm Smith said police leaders are keeping those sensitivities in mind as they write guidelines for the transport's use, though it has already been rolled out for a major event -- the city's Fourth of July celebration.

South San Francisco says its MRAP has already come in handy.

"It has a horrible public perception, but in reality, this is designed just to protect the occupants," said Lt. Michael Remedios, SWAT commander for the South San Francisco Police Department.

Remedios said the vehicle can bring police and emergency personnel closer to a hostile scene to give immediate help to victims without waiting for an area to be secured. He also highlighted its ability to traverse broken streets and downed power lines after a disaster.

He also contended that the imposing nature of the vehicle can prevent violence. On three occasions since his department got the MRAP in October, South San Francisco police used it to serve high-risk search warrants.

"It looks intimidating," Remedios said. "If we roll out to an armed-and-dangerous person's house, they're less likely to engage police officers."

MRAP......civilian LEO use.......roll over waiting to happen

Aye... After 0911 US police have been receiving a lot of military hardware. And as with any huge gun people entrusted with it will be looking for an excuse to use it. Granted there might be some very rare case where an APC is needed, but as I understand it it's mostly about representatives being able to say they've managed to get this much more money for their local PD.

When your police looks exactly like your army (except in blue instead of camo) something has gone wrong. Very wrong. That's not to "protect and serve", it's intimidation and fear.

What, are you afraid that if you ever try and shoot a police officer, they'll be in a bulletproof vehicle? A lot of the complaining about militarized police forces is either poorly informed or nonsensical.


On topic, though, I just found this on reddit, thought it was worth sharing:http://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/2s4rn1/cop_breaks_down_and_cries_after_being_forced_to/

Except it isn't in the job title of police to roll around in military vehicles. So I'm cool with them giving it back.

They should give it back. It's completely unnecessary.

Apropos (from 6:40 onwards):

 KingCracker wrote:
Except it isn't in the job title of police to roll around in military vehicles. So I'm cool with them giving it back.

Agreed, this is a good mover. I'm ok for regional jurisidctions to have a few vehicles, in case of argnaized cat rebellions. Bit for the local jurisdiction- sorry but there is no need for such.

If there is a need, its only from cartels, and we should shut the borders and deal with that situation NOW.

 KingCracker wrote:
Except it isn't in the job title of police to roll around in military vehicles. So I'm cool with them giving it back.

It is in the job title of the police to deal with active shooters and/or bomb threats, in which case having an armored vehicle is not only useful but often extremely important. The only thing special about MRAPs are that they are heavily armored. Your only complaint is based purely on an arbitrary and nonsensical idea that if the military uses something, then absolutely no one else ever should use it.

If we were talking abould police carrying around M249s, or raiting a house with an Abrams, then sure, I'm with you. Otherwise, you're complaining about nothing more than your personal perception of what the police should be.

The only thing special about an MRAP is that its heavily armed for attacks from RPGs and IEDs, is expensive to maintain, and why again is it important that Dumpwater PD has armored vehicles? Really?

 Frazzled wrote:
The only thing special about an MRAP is that its heavily armed for attacks from RPGs and IEDs, is expensive to maintain, and why again is it important that Dumpwater PD has armored vehicles? Really?

We live in a country where a EFP IED can be made

Edit

Getting the material and equipment to produce a EFP is easy

Edit

EFP is Explosive Formed Penetrator

Its that concave copper IED

And as noted earlier I'm ok with a higher level entity having something (like a state agency). I'm not ok with Fresno PD having a tank.

Thats not policing. Thats occupation.

 DarkLink wrote:
What, are you afraid that if you ever try and shoot a police officer, they'll be in a bulletproof vehicle? A lot of the complaining about militarized police forces is either poorly informed or nonsensical.

Police are being shot at less than they were in previous decades by far, they have less practical need for such equipment than they have in decades. The military vehicles are simply one aspect of an increasingly militarized police that is making more and more people increasingly concerned over this state of affairs.

Military units make poor police units, this isn't a spectacularly secret concept. That said, another issue is that police forces have much looser RoE's than military forces often do. When you get a military mentality and equipment into civilian police forces that aren't under the same restrictions, that makes people nervous.

Just today, on the BBC's news site, there was a big picture of riot police in Ohio following a football game. When you've got police officers in military armor and fatigues, with military camo, looking very similar to soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, rolling out for something that's happened on college campuses for decades and was no worse than thousands of other such events over the years, that's unsettling to say the least.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
What, are you afraid that if you ever try and shoot a police officer, they'll be in a bulletproof vehicle? A lot of the complaining about militarized police forces is either poorly informed or nonsensical.

Police are being shot at less than they were in previous decades by far, they have less practical need for such equipment than they have in decades. The military vehicles are simply one aspect of an increasingly militarized police that is making more and more people increasingly concerned over this state of affairs.

Military units make poor police units, this isn't a spectacularly secret concept. That said, another issue is that police forces have much looser RoE's than military forces often do. When you get a military mentality and equipment into civilian police forces that aren't under the same restrictions, that makes people nervous.

Just today, on the BBC's news site, there was a big picture of riot police in Ohio following a football game. When you've got police officers in military armor and fatigues, with military camo, looking very similar to soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, rolling out for something that's happened on college campuses for decades and was no worse than thousands of other such events over the years, that's unsettling to say the least.

Wo. Why the heck are they in camo? Again, seriously?

 Jihadin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The only thing special about an MRAP is that its heavily armed for attacks from RPGs and IEDs, is expensive to maintain, and why again is it important that Dumpwater PD has armored vehicles? Really?

We live in a country where a EFP IED can be made

Edit

Getting the material and equipment to produce a EFP is easy

Edit

EFP is Explosive Formed Penetrator

Its that concave copper IED

Well then, shouldn't all Police drive MRAP's then, just in case an IED goes off? Can I get one? You are making me worried.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
What, are you afraid that if you ever try and shoot a police officer, they'll be in a bulletproof vehicle? A lot of the complaining about militarized police forces is either poorly informed or nonsensical.

Police are being shot at less than they were in previous decades by far, they have less practical need for such equipment than they have in decades. The military vehicles are simply one aspect of an increasingly militarized police that is making more and more people increasingly concerned over this state of affairs.

Military units make poor police units, this isn't a spectacularly secret concept. That said, another issue is that police forces have much looser RoE's than military forces often do. When you get a military mentality and equipment into civilian police forces that aren't under the same restrictions, that makes people nervous.

Just today, on the BBC's news site, there was a big picture of riot police in Ohio following a football game. When you've got police officers in military armor and fatigues, with military camo, looking very similar to soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, rolling out for something that's happened on college campuses for decades and was no worse than thousands of other such events over the years, that's unsettling to say the least.

Wo. Why the heck are they in camo? Again, seriously?

They're just hiring and promoting anyone these days

I don't think the police are using MRAPs because they are resistant to IEDs. They're using them because they're resistant to bullets.

I just think they use them because they can.

Boys gonna play with toys.

 d-usa wrote:
I just think they use them because they can.

Boys gonna play with toys.

There are times when an armored car (which is basically what an MRAP is - it is not a tank) could be legitimately useful to a police force.

I think most police forces should have a couple armored vehicles in case they need to respond to a situation where they would need to extra protection.

MRAPs are total overkill in that regard, but than again its either scrap the vehicles or sell them to other countries.

I'd be fine with PDs getting a limited number of MRAPs if they are also made available to the public to purchase.

This is a problem that goes a lot higher than local police. Post 911 any law enforcement, intelligence or defense agency got buckets of money thrown at it because no politician wants to look "weak on terrorism". The problem being ANY law enforcement agency. So we have thing like the Police Department for Eagan Minnesota, where the worst crimes are illegal fireworks and underage drinking, being outfitted with assault rifles and MRAPs. No sensible police department is going to turn money or equipment,

I don't have any issue with LAPD or the FBI getting some military gear, but not your local police departments. I personally think US Law Enforcement needs to be centralized, get rid of all these ineffective competing agencies and bring it together, it would allow for better resource allocation and more effective enforcement.

This country would go nuts if a MRAP gets taking out. Pretty much get an schematics to make a EFP on the internet

 Vaktathi wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
What, are you afraid that if you ever try and shoot a police officer, they'll be in a bulletproof vehicle? A lot of the complaining about militarized police forces is either poorly informed or nonsensical.

Police are being shot at less than they were in previous decades by far, they have less practical need for such equipment than they have in decades. The military vehicles are simply one aspect of an increasingly militarized police that is making more and more people increasingly concerned over this state of affairs.

Military units make poor police units, this isn't a spectacularly secret concept. That said, another issue is that police forces have much looser RoE's than military forces often do. When you get a military mentality and equipment into civilian police forces that aren't under the same restrictions, that makes people nervous.

People get nervous over all kinds of stupid things. That doesn't mean that police still don't still sometimes deal with active shooters, that they don't get shot at, that they don't get bricks and bottles thrown at them, or that if the military offers to basically give them an MRAP for free that the police chief won't think "huh, why not".

 Vaktathi wrote:

Just today, on the BBC's news site, there was a big picture of riot police in Ohio following a football game. When you've got police officers in military armor and fatigues, with military camo, looking very similar to soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, rolling out for something that's happened on college campuses for decades and was no worse than thousands of other such events over the years, that's unsettling to say the least.

Huh, never realized that pepper spray was as militaristic as carrying fully automatic weapons. I'll make a note of that. Learn something new every day. And sure, I guess the threatening digital green of those uniforms is so important compared to when they wore those exact same uniforms except in black.

That was sarcasm, by the way. In case you couldn't tell.

This is a problem that goes a lot higher than local police. Post 911 any law enforcement, intelligence or defense agency got buckets of money thrown at it because no politician wants to look "weak on terrorism". The problem being ANY law enforcement agency. So we have thing like the Police Department for Eagan Minnesota, where the worst crimes are illegal fireworks and underage drinking, being outfitted with assault rifles and MRAPs. No sensible police department is going to turn money or equipment,

I don't have any issue with LAPD or the FBI getting some military gear, but not your local police departments. I personally think US Law Enforcement needs to be centralized, get rid of all these ineffective competing agencies and bring it together, it would allow for better resource allocation and more effective enforcement.

AR-15's (which are not assault rifles, btw) are standard issue for virtually every police force nation-wide ever since the North Hollywood Shootout. They very rarely get used, but on those rare occasions the police do absolutely need to be able to have the tools to handle the situation. The FBI also doesn't have a magical teleporter that allows them to deep strike special SWAT teams at a moments notice across the nation. Active shooter situations rarely last very long, certainly not long enough for the FBI to pack up their gear and drive for ten hours to Podunk Idaho or wherever to handle things for the local police.

The military is sitting on huge numbers of MRAPs that are now effectively useless. Unless you want to invent a time machine to go back and reallocate those resources to something more useful, we might as well let them sit in the police SWAT garage on the off chance the police might actually need a bullet resistant vehicle. I mean, it's not like they're going to be performing traffic stops with these things.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The only thing special about an MRAP is that its heavily armed for attacks from RPGs and IEDs, is expensive to maintain, and why again is it important that Dumpwater PD has armored vehicles? Really?

We live in a country where a EFP IED can be made

Edit

Getting the material and equipment to produce a EFP is easy

Edit

EFP is Explosive Formed Penetrator

Its that concave copper IED

Sure but if Average Ahmed is going to IED some cops, he's not going to wait for them to bust out the armored vehicle. He's going to do it to a patrol car.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think most police forces should have a couple armored vehicles in case they need to respond to a situation where they would need to extra protection.

MRAPs are total overkill in that regard, but than again its either scrap the vehicles or sell them to other countries.

I'd be fine with PDs getting a limited number of MRAPs if they are also made available to the public to purchase.

This. LEOs are NOT MILITARY. And to be quite honest, if you need a fething MRAP to do police work, you're doing it wrong.

In some VERY limited cases I can understand SWAT in a major city wanting an armored vehicle (e.g., North Hollywood shootout). That said, SWAT stands for Special Weapons AND TACTICS. Like I said before, if your police work requires an MRAP you're doing it wrong. Time to exercise some of those "AND TACTICS" that appear on every T-shirt, yet are hardly ever skillfully applied by LEOs. Less breach bang & clear and more "wait in the bushes and nab the bad guy when he comes out for smokes."

 DarkLink wrote:
The military is sitting on huge numbers of MRAPs that are now effectively useless. Unless you want to invent a time machine to go back and reallocate those resources to something more useful, we might as well let them sit in the police SWAT garage on the off chance the police might actually need a bullet resistant vehicle. I mean, it's not like they're going to be performing traffic stops with these things.

Or you could just do what most people do when they have excess stuff lying around, by which I mean you sell it and recoup as much of your (failed/unnecessary) investment as you can.

Yeah, the US military needs to do more selling of old equipment to the public. While there aren't a ton of people who will buy this kind of thing, there are enough to make a worth your while.

They be in storage for quite awhile and as IED's evolve the upgrades on the MRAPS will upgrade to. Besides I do know there's a huge market for them in some eastern European countries

Krellnus wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
The military is sitting on huge numbers of MRAPs that are now effectively useless. Unless you want to invent a time machine to go back and reallocate those resources to something more useful, we might as well let them sit in the police SWAT garage on the off chance the police might actually need a bullet resistant vehicle. I mean, it's not like they're going to be performing traffic stops with these things.

Or you could just do what most people do when they have excess stuff lying around, by which I mean you sell it and recoup as much of your (failed/unnecessary) investment as you can.

Oh, hey, you mean like how they're selling MRAPs to police departments? Or should they just sell them to civilians? I thought the general idea from the left side of the aisle was that the public shouldn't have access to anything military.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The only thing special about an MRAP is that its heavily armed for attacks from RPGs and IEDs, is expensive to maintain, and why again is it important that Dumpwater PD has armored vehicles? Really?

We live in a country where a EFP IED can be made

Edit

Getting the material and equipment to produce a EFP is easy

Edit

EFP is Explosive Formed Penetrator

Its that concave copper IED

Sure but if Average Ahmed is going to IED some cops, he's not going to wait for them to bust out the armored vehicle. He's going to do it to a patrol car.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think most police forces should have a couple armored vehicles in case they need to respond to a situation where they would need to extra protection.

MRAPs are total overkill in that regard, but than again its either scrap the vehicles or sell them to other countries.

I'd be fine with PDs getting a limited number of MRAPs if they are also made available to the public to purchase.

This. LEOs are NOT MILITARY. And to be quite honest, if you need a fething MRAP to do police work, you're doing it wrong.

In some VERY limited cases I can understand SWAT in a major city wanting an armored vehicle (e.g., North Hollywood shootout). That said, SWAT stands for Special Weapons AND TACTICS. Like I said before, if your police work requires an MRAP you're doing it wrong. Time to exercise some of those "AND TACTICS" that appear on every T-shirt, yet are hardly ever skillfully applied by LEOs. Less breach bang & clear and more "wait in the bushes and nab the bad guy when he comes out for smokes."

WTF? You know what tactics win a shootout? Calling in an airstrike. Barring that, have more buddies with more guns and more armor than the other guy. SWAT can't really call in airstrikes, so they perform the latter. Or, should the police at the North Hollywood Shootout have waited for the gunmen to stop for a smoking break so they could sneak up on them Rambo style and take them out? Heck, someone a few posts above yours was complaining about police wearing camouflage. So first the police aren't supposed to use good tactics and equipment, now they're supposed to sneak around and karate-chop bad guys on the back of the neck? And based on the nature of your comment, I'd be fairly confident betting that you don't actually really know anything about police tactics beyond what you think you've gleaned from news headlines.

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, the US military needs to do more selling of old equipment to the public. While there aren't a ton of people who will buy this kind of thing, there are enough to make a worth your while.

What I find funny is that in a different thread, there would be all kinds of rage over the very idea that the public could own anything "military" related.

 DarkLink wrote:

Krellnus wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
The military is sitting on huge numbers of MRAPs that are now effectively useless. Unless you want to invent a time machine to go back and reallocate those resources to something more useful, we might as well let them sit in the police SWAT garage on the off chance the police might actually need a bullet resistant vehicle. I mean, it's not like they're going to be performing traffic stops with these things.

Or you could just do what most people do when they have excess stuff lying around, by which I mean you sell it and recoup as much of your (failed/unnecessary) investment as you can.

Oh, hey, you mean like how they're selling MRAPs to police departments? Or should they just sell them to civilians? I thought the general idea from the left side of the aisle was that the public shouldn't have access to anything military.

So, were you being sarcastic there like you were earlier? Because I missed the part where he was talking about selling them to civilians.

I think you are missing the point. Not every police department needs mine resistant vehicles. How many police vehicles in the US get hit by IEDs?

 DarkLink wrote:

People get nervous over all kinds of stupid things.

By which you are implying this is a "stupid" thing, many would disagee.

That doesn't mean that police still don't still sometimes deal with active shooters

Exceedingly rarely (at least in any situation where they'd have time to retrieve such a vehicle and get it to where its needed and where they're not dealing with someone holed up inside a building), and they have other equipment that will take on that role that isn't military hardware. It certainly isn't needed for rocks and bricks. I certainly can't recall the last time police dealt with any sort of IED that would require an MRAP, no 155mm arty shells buried beneath roads in the US that I've heard of.

Huh, never realized that pepper spray was as militaristic as carrying fully automatic weapons. I'll make a note of that. Learn something new every day. And sure, I guess the threatening digital green of those uniforms is so important compared to when they wore those exact same uniforms except in black.

That was sarcasm, by the way. In case you couldn't tell.

Thanks for missing the point, rather intentionally apparently.

The point was that police are not supposed to be the military. When they dress like the military, ride military vehicles, they tend to act like the military. That's not good for anyone.

Also, as you apparently didn't notice, there was a grenade launcher and multiple firearms present in the picture as well.

Sending what are effectively soldiers to deal with a college football bash looks and feels exceedingly awkward, and there's a reason for that.

I thought the Federal program gave MRAPs to police forces, not sold them to police forces.