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.

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.

Careful, I never said it should be sold to the public, only that it could be sold.

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.

They aren't being sold, at no point do they cease to be property of the United States of America, some of the department budgets may get shifted around a little, but it is certainly not a financial where the MRAPs are passed from one party to another for the exchange of money or goods.

And why is everybody assuming that if you don't keep them for yourselves, you have to sell it to civilians? You could always sell it to Israel, I'm sure they would love some of that U.S. military hardware, hell we were dumb enough to buy F-35s off of you, why not sell it to us?

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

Not that I saw. The PDs were still purchasing them from the Govt, at well below market value of course but paying nonetheless.

Yes, they are selling to police departments. That's how the police are getting MRAPs. The military sells excess gear to the police, and they do it for very cheap. For the police, it's an absurdly good deal.



Going back to the complaints about police in Ohio in riot gear? https://trove.com/a/Ohio-State-football-revelers-set-fires-tear-down-goal-post.23e31 Students and fans set nearly 90 fires following the game and there were reports of gunfire. Yet your complaint about the situation is that the police "looked" too military-like because their gear was camouflaged? Seriously? That's actually the argument you're going to try and make, when sports fans are busy burning down the town? WTF?

Why are all these white people rioting, I thought that doesn't happen?

I wonder how much it would cost to refit them as fire trucks.

Im sure the fireies would like something safe to sit in if they get in trouble.

 DarkLink wrote:
Yes, they are selling to police departments. That's how the police are getting MRAPs. The military sells excess gear to the police, and they do it for very cheap. For the police, it's an absurdly good deal.

Yes, we get that. We are saying the military should sell them elsewhere. Because the Police do not need an MRAP.

 DarkLink wrote:
Going back to the complaints about police in Ohio in riot gear? https://trove.com/a/Ohio-State-football-revelers-set-fires-tear-down-goal-post.23e31 Students and fans set nearly 90 fires following the game and there were reports of gunfire. Yet your complaint about the situation is that the police "looked" too military-like because their gear was camouflaged? Seriously? That's actually the argument you're going to try and make, when sports fans are busy burning down the town? WTF?

Luckily for us, we can be upset about two things at once. yes, the students setting the fires were out of line. But why does that make it alright for the police to show up dressed in full military gear? What is wrong with them wearing police gear?

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

Boys gonna play with toys.

We disagree on many things, but you're 100% on point with this one. Plus its the "gotta keep up with sheriff's department just down the road" kind of thing.

Someone needs to point out more than one instance every decade where a police armored vehicle actually stopped some bullets (and not just parked all tacticool at a scene because they had it).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

no 155mm arty shells buried beneath roads in the US that I've heard of.

Well I have blown up several bathrooms I've visited after particularly spirited visits to the local Mexican restaurant.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Yes, they are selling to police departments. That's how the police are getting MRAPs. The military sells excess gear to the police, and they do it for very cheap. For the police, it's an absurdly good deal.

Yes, we get that. We are saying the military should sell them elsewhere. Because the Police do not need an MRAP.

I was simply clarifying for the guy who specifically asked about military sales to police.

You could clarify why police don't need MRAPs, though. I mean, police do have a need for armored vehicles. MRAPs are armored vehicles. No, they don't come with cannons or machine guns or crap like that. Would a police department buy an MRAP at full value? No. But if they need an armored vehicle to fill a hole in their emergency response repertoire, and someone is willing to give them an MRAP for the same price as a normal armored van, why wouldn't they? For all intents and purposes, they're the same thing.

The police have armored vehicles for the same reason they have SWAT or bomb squads. Hopefully none of them ever get used, but it's the police's job to be prepared in case they're needed. Your argument, on the other hand, amounts to little more than "but...military!" mixed with a little "but the police don't need to be able to deal with active shooters or bomb threats".

 DarkLink wrote:
Going back to the complaints about police in Ohio in riot gear? https://trove.com/a/Ohio-State-football-revelers-set-fires-tear-down-goal-post.23e31 Students and fans set nearly 90 fires following the game and there were reports of gunfire. Yet your complaint about the situation is that the police "looked" too military-like because their gear was camouflaged? Seriously? That's actually the argument you're going to try and make, when sports fans are busy burning down the town? WTF?

Luckily for us, we can be upset about two things at once. yes, the students setting the fires were out of line. But why does that make it alright for the police to show up dressed in full military gear? What is wrong with them wearing police gear?

Because the police gear the have is green instead of black? Of all the ways you could be complaining about police militarization, whining about the color of their gear is just about the dumbest, most inane way I can think of. They could literally whip out a can of spray paint and fix your imaginary problem. If you're going to protest police militarization, then stop wasting your time complaining about MRAPs that are pretty much just going to sit around collecting dust on the off chance they might possibly get used some day and go find an article about a SWAT team kicking down the wrong door or something.

 DarkLink wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Yes, they are selling to police departments. That's how the police are getting MRAPs. The military sells excess gear to the police, and they do it for very cheap. For the police, it's an absurdly good deal.

Yes, we get that. We are saying the military should sell them elsewhere. Because the Police do not need an MRAP.

I was simply clarifying for the guy who specifically asked about military sales to police.

You could clarify why police don't need MRAPs, though. I mean, police do have a need for armored vehicles. MRAPs are armored vehicles. No, they don't come with cannons or machine guns or crap like that. Would a police department buy an MRAP at full value? No. But if they need an armored vehicle to fill a hole in their emergency response repertoire, and someone is willing to give them an MRAP for the same price as a normal armored van, why wouldn't they? For all intents and purposes, they're the same thing.

The police have armored vehicles for the same reason they have SWAT or bomb squads. Hopefully none of them ever get used, but it's the police's job to be prepared in case they're needed. Your argument, on the other hand, amounts to little more than "but...military!" mixed with a little "but the police don't need to be able to deal with active shooters or bomb threats".

We have clarified why. Multiple times. You just seem to ignore what we say at pretty much every step. We are not saying we should take every last one of them away. They have uses. Not every pd needs an MRAP. Because things like this will be and have been abused before.

 DarkLink wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Going back to the complaints about police in Ohio in riot gear? https://trove.com/a/Ohio-State-football-revelers-set-fires-tear-down-goal-post.23e31 Students and fans set nearly 90 fires following the game and there were reports of gunfire. Yet your complaint about the situation is that the police "looked" too military-like because their gear was camouflaged? Seriously? That's actually the argument you're going to try and make, when sports fans are busy burning down the town? WTF?

Luckily for us, we can be upset about two things at once. yes, the students setting the fires were out of line. But why does that make it alright for the police to show up dressed in full military gear? What is wrong with them wearing police gear?

Because the police gear the have is green instead of black? Of all the ways you could be complaining about police militarization, whining about the color of their gear is just about the dumbest, most inane way I can think of. They could literally whip out a can of spray paint and fix your imaginary problem. If you're going to protest police militarization, then stop wasting your time complaining about MRAPs that are pretty much just going to sit around collecting dust on the off chance they might possibly get used some day and go find an article about a SWAT team kicking down the wrong door or something.

 DarkLink wrote:

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.

The cops got roflstomped during the LA shootout because they didn't have rifles. It had nothing to do with having an armored vehicle...the only thing an armored vehicle would have done was facilitate casualty extrication, which would have been far less pressing had the officers on seen been properly equipped (not with an MRAP, but with rifles). The team that eventually took down Matasareanu rolled up in a thin-skinned black and white. They did this using TACTICS. Like I said, you don't need a MRAP to deal with an active shooter. You need a rifle, ideally some friends with rifles, and a pair of balls.

I have zero problem with every patrol car having a couple off-the-shelf AR15s and plate carriers in the trunk.

I have EVERY problem in the world with SWAT kicking in someone's door (usually for a nonviolent crime like SUSPECTED drug activity) when it's completely unnecessary 99% of the time.

I agree the local PD dont really need it maybe 1 in case of a serious emergency

but where else would these things go? who would buy it?
We could always do the murican thing and sell them to 3rd world countries and regret it later

 Desubot wrote:
I agree the local PD dont really need it maybe 1 in case of a serious emergency

but where else would these things go? who would buy it?
We could always do the murican thing and sell them to 3rd world countries and regret it later

We could build a giant boneyard with them, to serve as a monument to runaway spending and poor foresight. That might have more value in the long run...

No no no. Destruction derbies.

Alternatively put some robot kit on them and its robot wars 2.0!*


*Centuries later, this email will be discovered as when Skynet first launched.

 Frazzled wrote:
No no no. Destruction derbies.

Alternatively put some robot kit on them and its robot wars 2.0!*


*Centuries later, this email will be discovered as when Skynet first launched.

They could bring back that one show where they built bots and then had them destroy each other! What was the name of that show?!

Robot wars or something. Yea thats what I meant.

Man that would be fun with military hardware

 Frazzled wrote:
Robot wars or something. Yea thats what I meant.

Wasn't sure if you were talking about that or something like Junkyard Wars.

I would be fine with both, honestly.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:

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.

The cops got roflstomped during the LA shootout because they didn't have rifles. It had nothing to do with having an armored vehicle...the only thing an armored vehicle would have done was facilitate casualty extrication, which would have been far less pressing had the officers on seen been properly equipped (not with an MRAP, but with rifles). The team that eventually took down Matasareanu rolled up in a thin-skinned black and white. They did this using TACTICS. Like I said, you don't need a MRAP to deal with an active shooter. You need a rifle, ideally some friends with rifles, and a pair of balls.

I have zero problem with every patrol car having a couple off-the-shelf AR15s and plate carriers in the trunk.

I have EVERY problem in the world with SWAT kicking in someone's door (usually for a nonviolent crime like SUSPECTED drug activity) when it's completely unnecessary 99% of the time.

Lets be fair here. Drug dealers are always armed in some fashion, often heavily. So serving a warrant for drug charges has a lot of risk to the officers inherent in it.

Maybe not for some guy who was caught with a couple joints, but the guy selling the stuff will be armed.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Lets be fair here. Drug dealers are always armed in some fashion, often heavily. So serving a warrant for drug charges has a lot of risk to the officers inherent in it.

Maybe not for some guy who was caught with a couple joints, but the guy selling the stuff will be armed.

100% agreed kicking in someone's door is dangerous...especially for homeowners who have done nothing wrong, as is often the case.

This is where tactics have to come into play - wait until the suspect leaves the house, pull him over, arrest then serve the warrant on an empty home without kicking in his door. It's a lot safer to pull someone over on the pretext of a routine traffic stop than it is to kick a door and walk straight into a fatal funnel. Obviously this is not a catch-all solution...if he NEVER leaves his house, you can't do this...but it's a hell of a lot safer than just defaulting to "Breach, bang and clear!" especially when they get the wrong house with startling frequency.

Something we can do to cut down on the latter is hold judges and officers responsible. Cops kick the wrong door? NO PROTECTIONS. Charge them with breaking and entering, or whatever you would call it if me and a bunch of my friends got jocked up and blew someone's door up for fun. Once a few judges go to jail for signing bad warrants, we'll see that hideous practice end real quick.

MRAPs are expensive to maintain, incur a training cost, and built to survive a specific threat. The threat is thankfully, one our police do not face at any real level that merits purchasing and maintaining expensive equipment designed to defeat it.

I'm glad some departments are deciding to get rid of them. I can see State level agencies perhaps maintaining a handful spread out in locations that make sense for that state. The hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers shows that there can be events where there is an increased risk of IED type devices for a short duration in a specific area, but those events remain very, very rare.

 CptJake wrote:
MRAPs are expensive to maintain, incur a training cost, and built to survive a specific threat. The threat is thankfully, one our police do not face at any real level that merits purchasing and maintaining expensive equipment designed to defeat it.

I'm glad some departments are deciding to get rid of them. I can see State level agencies perhaps maintaining a handful spread out in locations that make sense for that state. The hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers shows that there can be events where there is an increased risk of IED type devices for a short duration in a specific area, but those events remain very, very rare.

See, I wouldn't have a problem with a State agency having something like Caymans or similar style "MRAPs"... provided there is public record and clear cut circumstances where they can be used, and ONLY in those times be used... no grey areas. The Cayman, being one of the larger "school bus" style ones would be useful for moving casualties in a natural disaster... say, another earthquake in the Bay Area. But, yes, due to the maintenance costs, that is why I think that State level agencies should have them as I feel if you're pulling them out, it's usually in a State of Emergency anyhow.

 CptJake wrote:
MRAPs are expensive to maintain, incur a training cost, and built to survive a specific threat. The threat is thankfully, one our police do not face at any real level that merits purchasing and maintaining expensive equipment designed to defeat it.

I'm glad some departments are deciding to get rid of them. I can see State level agencies perhaps maintaining a handful spread out in locations that make sense for that state. The hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers shows that there can be events where there is an increased risk of IED type devices for a short duration in a specific area, but those events remain very, very rare.

^ That

 Desubot wrote:
but where else would these things go? who would buy it?

I'm sure many smaller NATO countries would be incredibly happy to get some top-shelf US hardware for a reasonable price. What with the recent Russian scare many of the Eastern European members are looking to invest a bit more into defense just in case. And these are still pretty light things, nothing to make the Russians think anyone is arming up for an invasion.

When the zombies/aliens/monsters show up you'll be glad that our police forces have military hhardware.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
When the zombies/aliens/monsters show up you'll be glad that our police forces have military hhardware.

You have a point. We need to see what we can do about getting the police forces fighter jets. We have all seen Independence Day!

 CptJake wrote:
MRAPs are expensive to maintain, incur a training cost, and built to survive a specific threat. The threat is thankfully, one our police do not face at any real level that merits purchasing and maintaining expensive equipment designed to defeat it.

I'm glad some departments are deciding to get rid of them. I can see State level agencies perhaps maintaining a handful spread out in locations that make sense for that state. The hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers shows that there can be events where there is an increased risk of IED type devices for a short duration in a specific area, but those events remain very, very rare.

EXACTLY


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
When the zombies/aliens/monsters show up you'll be glad that our police forces have military hhardware.

Incorrect. When the zombies comes the police will be glad they have Frazzled.

Wonder if the terror cells we have in the US are combat harden from Iraq and Afghanistan....

Pfft Iraq is nothing to the wrath of a pissed off soccer mom.

I know.


I KNOW!!!!

Yeah, the MRAP that was "stopped" by the hippies in Davis was given to the city of Woodland PD instead. Its a town 8 miles up the road.

LOL!

Those are nice vehicles and have a lot of uses.

The problem with the 'militarisation' of police is spin not reality. The current political climate doesnt help. It can see this as being a better form of transport for SWAT.
It's also a muscle vehicle, it can help with other matters police handle like pulling cars out of rivers, other rescue work etc. All it needs is a good tow attachment and I believe this vehicle can be equipped with one.
It can also reach harder to drive places.

The vehicles should have a make over and civic spin job, first give them as law enforcement blue and white colour scheme so they no longer look 'tanky' and their benefits expounded. Add minor attachments like a ladder on the side, the tow attachment and a searchlight on top, possibly also a minicrane. Expound on the search and rescue attachments and public safety, the vehicle is unarmed and this should be also especially be made clear. 'Paris' is a good word to use right now, terrorists can strike anywhere and can have armaments that rip through normal law enforcement vehicles. Police should have the option to deploy an inner containment team to a site safely. Also the major cartels often have heavy armament.

Its a political no win, if the vehicles are kept whiners will whine. If these vehicles are refused and are later needed, especially for a civic rescue situation people will whine at the City Hall for having them.
The naswer is to help change peoples minds by replacing the word 'tank' in their minds with '15 ton swiss army knife'