Press freedom? Police target media, arrest and teargas reporters at Ferguson protests - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45695201]So first they're being armed by the military, now they're better armed than the military? I must've missed the part where the SLPD moved in with M1 Tanks and Gun Trucks.[/QUOTE] Their body armor is way better than anything a private would have gotten.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45695269]No you should use the bear cat because it's running costs, and aquisition costs are significantly less than the MRAP, also the bear cat is a family of vehicles: [URL]http://www.lencoarmor.com/law-enforcement/bearcat-variants/[/URL] (I actually rode around in them back in Washington, attached to marine security forces, they're pretty fucking nifty, require next to no maintenance, and over all are better than an MRAP in terms of ride and comfort.) The armor is thick enough to stop a .50bmg round. Which, in recorded police history, there have been no recorded incidents of someone actually using a .50bmg. Probably because the lightest guns that fire said projectile weigh close to 20 lbs. [editline]15th August 2014[/editline] There's a difference between being prepared and going against logic and statistics.[/QUOTE] Note the word variants. And why do you want police to use lower quality equipment anyways? If they can allot the funds for the maintenance of one, why should they not use one?

[QUOTE=SexualShark;45695261]by the logic of some people in this thread, if the military no longer wanted/needed these, the police should be able to have them. [img]http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/M1A2-with-TUSK.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I didnt know the an armored truck is the same as allowing police to have a military grade vehicle with a machinegun and cannon, oh wait they have been using demilitarized V-150s with the cannon swapped with an battering ram since the 80s.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;45695261]by the logic of some people in this thread, if the military no longer wanted/needed these, the police should be able to have them. [img]http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/M1A2-with-TUSK.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] there's a sheriff over arizona that has that and an M109 i believe [editline] 15 august 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=codemaster85;45695296]I didnt know the an armored truck is the same as allowing police to have a military grade vehicle with a machinegun and cannon, oh wait they have been using demilitarized V-150s with the cannon swapped with an battering ram since the 80s.[/QUOTE] i think he is talking about the usage of such devices more as an intimidation factor in the ferguson protests and to scare the media. that being said most i do believe most states have at least one of the wolverine variant M1 to help lay bridges. i honestly dont think that most law enforcement would use a v-150 or m1117 after the controversy it caused with waco

[QUOTE=deadoon;45695267]A round refers to any projectile, you know. Have you ever heard the phrase, "Better safe than sorry". When peoples lives are potentially on the line, why would you not go for the best you can afford? The thing is, try justifying deploying and maintaining a tank in your limited police budget(especially a gas turbine tank, those are maintenance heavy and specialised). They would never agree to one nor request one.[/QUOTE] not only did you miss the point of that but the "better safe than sorry" practice is so drawn out its hilarious.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45695292]The funny thing is a bear cat requires significantly less maintenance, and is a much cheaper vehicle than an MRAP, but the police managed to justify getting them..[/QUOTE] The maintenance costs for an Abrams would allow them to buy a bearcat and a half every year if they are only 100k. [URL]http://www.gao.gov/assets/220/213784.pdf[/URL] page 4 [QUOTE=ilikecorn;45695303]Because for the funds they allot to maintenance and acquisition they could afford 2 bear cats, or one bearcat and could completely outfit an entire squad. It's piss poor management.[/QUOTE] Acquisition is free, maintenance is marginally more due to being modified standard chassis vehicles [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Medium_Tactical_Vehicles[/url].

[QUOTE=SexualShark;45695261]by the logic of some people in this thread, if the military no longer wanted/needed these, the police should be able to have them. [img]http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/M1A2-with-TUSK.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] The MRAP doesn't have a 120mm gun, or a 7.62 MMG, or ERA, etc. The strongest gun the police might have are 7.62 sniper rifles. If you're gonna use the slippery slope, 7.62mm to 120mm is a hell of a tumble. [QUOTE=Crimor;45695284]Their body armor is way better than anything a private would have gotten.[/QUOTE] This isn't a video game, armour protection isn't designated by rank or experience. The military has standard-issue equipment that it gives out to all troops deployed in the combat area.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45695325]By the way, even the police are having the same issues with the MRAP that the military is: [URL]http://www.policeone.com/police-products/vehicles/specialty/articles/6735349-The-hidden-hazards-of-MRAPs/[/URL] Even my experiences with the MRAP were god awful. Sure they protect you from IED's; and that's great, but they fucking suck at pretty much anything else.[/QUOTE] How the hell did they fuck up the fuel economy on those so badly,now I see why the military wants to get rid of them. I could see keeping them around for higher threat responses and local usage, as it wouldn't be as much an issue by comparison. Combat locks would need to be fixed and the air assist doors need better maintenance( they need the assist due to the heavier door than the normal bearcat). Decided to look up the pricing of a bearcat, they range from 180k to over 300k.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45695339]The MRAP doesn't have a 120mm gun, or a 7.62 MMG, or ERA, etc. The strongest gun the police might have are 7.62 sniper rifles. If you're gonna use the slippery slope, 7.62mm to 120mm is a hell of a tumble.[/QUOTE] refer to my previous post

[QUOTE=SexualShark;45695371]refer to my previous post[/QUOTE] Yeah, switching to a whole different class of vehicles that isn't designed for personnel transportation is a slippery slope. If you were going to go with a slippery slope here bring out the Bradley.

[QUOTE=deadoon;45695384]Yeah, switching to a whole different class of vehicles that isn't designed for personnel transportation is a slippery slope. If you were going to go with a slippery slope here bring out the Bradley.[/QUOTE] hell yeah lets bring it out! [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/M2a3-bradley07.jpg[/img_thumb] Itd be an excellent riot control weapon. The M240 LMG and M242 chaingun would be an excellent way to suppress riots. The entire arguement for these things in the hands of local law enforcement has been "it saves lives" and "b-b-b-but just incase" and the best one yet is "but its freeeee" Corn has raised an excellent point. Now that they have these GIANT vehicles, do you have any clue how much its going to cost local departments to maintain them just in the off chance a angry group of super criminals wearing full body armor that are fully equipped with enough firepower to level a city block? Is that really all you have?

have any of the protestors or even the rioters used anything other than bottles? (i heard some were throwing molotovs) still doesn't seem to justify the amount of force being used especially since i don't think the molotov thing would have happened without police provocation

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;45695519]have any of the protestors or even the rioters used anything other than bottles? (i heard some were throwing molotovs) still doesn't seem to justify the amount of force being used especially since i don't think the molotov thing would have happened without police provocation[/QUOTE] the main justification i heard from the statement they made on NPR was that the protestors trashed and practically destroyed almost 17 squadcars.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;45695472]Corn has raised an excellent point. Now that they have these GIANT vehicles, do you have any clue how much its going to cost local departments to maintain them just in the off chance a angry group of super criminals wearing full body armor that are fully equipped with enough firepower to level a city block? Is that really all you have?[/QUOTE] The maintenance cost argument (if true) is the only argument I consider reasonable. Otherwise, who cares if they have a bullet [I]and[/I] explosion resistant vehicle? Why is it bad for them to be 'too protected'? There's nothing wrong with a little extra armour.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;45695472]hell yeah lets bring it out! [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/M2a3-bradley07.jpg[/img_thumb] Itd be an excellent riot control weapon. The M240 LMG and M242 chaingun would be an excellent way to suppress riots. The entire arguement for these things in the hands of local law enforcement has been "it saves lives" and "b-b-b-but just incase" and the best one yet is "but its freeeee" Corn has raised an excellent point. Now that they have these GIANT vehicles, do you have any clue how much its going to cost local departments to maintain them just in the off chance a angry group of super criminals wearing full body armor that are fully equipped with enough firepower to level a city block? Is that really all you have?[/QUOTE] Knowing the police, they'd drop the cannon, ammo is expensive you know, and they would need to have an even more secure container for it, being explosive and all. Likely swap it out for a mounted water cannon, a port for a teargas grenade launcher, or maybe mount one of those microwave guns on it. The tow launcher would however likely NOT be dropped, it would be useful for that rare killdozer or stolen tank incident(would only need to have a couple rounds in high security storage to load when needed). Limited speed will revert it to second response, so it would rarely be brought out. Armor is quite good and modular so if they need it it can deal with anything likely. The protection it provides it not quite on the level of a APC loaded striker though and that goes faster. Top mounted MG would likely stay though, don't see why not. It is tracked so pinpoint turns are an option. With some modifications, it wouldn't be bad from a capability standpoint. Price of maintaining might be out of the reach of many police departments to justify it's use or purchase(if they pay anything).

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45695178]Militarization of the police force doesn't just reference their equipment, but also their attitude. You don't see cops walking the streets anymore, they don't blend into the community, they sit in their car that is clearly labeled POLICE, and wait for people to break the law. You could ask a cop to name 3 people on their usual beat and they wouldn't be able to name a single one i'd bet. The cops aren't part of the community anymore, they oversee the community, which is fucking bullshit.[/QUOTE] I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I live in a pretty small city where pretty much all the residents commute to work. This means that you rarely see people walk the streets, so it makes sense that police officers just stay in their vehicle and watch people for breaking the law. I often see police officers inside restaurants and whatnot in uniform and I'm able to chat with them and get a cool sticker. I don't have much experience in big cities. In San Jose, what you say is correct; I never see police officers walking around the city. However in San Francisco, I do see police officers patrol the sidewalks, but very infrequently. So, I'm not sure if that would prove your point or not.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45695677]The maintenance cost argument (if true) is the only argument I consider reasonable. Otherwise, who cares if they have a bullet [I]and[/I] explosion resistant vehicle? Why is it bad for them to be 'too protected'? There's nothing wrong with a little extra armour.[/QUOTE] Because you instill the mentality that there's something they need to be protected from. You give a guy an assault rifle and an armored vehicle and he's gonna assume he needs to use it.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;45695261]by the logic of some people in this thread, if the military no longer wanted/needed these, the police should be able to have them. [img]http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/M1A2-with-TUSK.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] What sort of mental issue causes you to see an armored riot vehicle and a tank and think "Wow, this is exactly the same thing"? Do you not notice the big fucking cannon on the tank?

[QUOTE=paul simon;45695857]What sort of mental issue causes you to see an armored riot vehicle and a tank and think "Wow, this is exactly the same thing"? Do you not notice the big fucking cannon on the tank?[/QUOTE] I mean yeah it's a stupid example but that's not the point he was making. He was asking where the line for departments to have "better equipment" lies. Keep in mind that these aren't domestic terrorism units, they're local police. Once you deal with people who actually would have weaponry that calls for this kind of equipment the local police isn't even involved, it becomes a federal issue like Waco which involved the ATF.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;45694924]if you are overstocked you dont give it to local police departments- you dismantle, store it, or sell it off to an ally.[/QUOTE] Send them to afghanistan so the ANP and ANA we created have protection against the Taliban roadside bombs.

[QUOTE=Sailor Mars;45695870]I mean yeah it's a stupid example but that's not the point he was making. He was asking where the line for departments to have "better equipment" lies. Keep in mind that these aren't domestic terrorism units, they're local police. Once you deal with people who actually would have weaponry that calls for this kind of equipment the local police isn't even involved, it becomes a federal issue like Waco which involved the ATF.[/QUOTE] It isn't a very good way to display the point however, as he is comparing an APC to a tank. The tank can be used for no other purpose than for combat operations, while the APC can be used as an armored transport vehicle. Hence why I suggested he use the Bradley or some similar vehicle.

[QUOTE=deadoon;45695906]It isn't a very good way to display the point however, as he is comparing an APC to a tank. The tank can be used for no other purpose than for combat operations, while the APC can be used as an armored transport vehicle. Hence why I suggested he use the Bradley or some similar vehicle.[/QUOTE] That's totally a stupid nit-pick. The vehicle isn't even relevant. The question is at what point are we instilling too much into police officers this idea that they're part of a military operation in a "combat zone" and not something unfolding into their own community? It's important because communities aren't like countries you can invade. The US leaves countries after invading them all the time and they don't have to deal with the aftermath. Not a single US soldier has to deal with the structural consequences of the Iraq war. Nothing about the US military is structurally different after that. Not the same with communities. You kill a single kid, you destroy the relations between the police and the people and your job starts to change. Suddenly the community starts to work against you and every interaction is loaded with paranoia so now you feel like you need stuff to protect yourself from the community you police and the interactions become impersonal and violent.

Story about Ferguson riots. Facepunch goes on to rant about MRAP's fuel economy compared to other vehicles. Never change.

[QUOTE=Sailor Mars;45695933]That's totally a stupid nit-pick. The vehicle isn't even relevant. The question is at what point are we instilling too much into police officers this idea that they're part of a military operation in a "combat zone" and not something unfolding into their own community? It's important because communities aren't like countries you can invade. The US leaves countries after invading them all the time and they don't have to deal with the aftermath. Not a single US soldier has to deal with the structural consequences of the Iraq war. Nothing about the US military is structurally different after that. Not the same with communities. You kill a single kid, you destroy the relations between the police and the people and your job starts to change. Suddenly the community starts to work against you and every interaction is loaded with paranoia so now you feel like you need stuff to protect yourself from the community you police and the interactions become impersonal and violent.[/QUOTE] The swat van and the Bradley at least share something beyond the ability to move and are both armored, unlike the Bearcat and the Abrams. Passengers. Even you are missing the point by far. A tank is a specialized machine. The Bradley and the Bearcat are far from that. The Bradley is an all purpose machine, its a personnel and material carrier, a heavy weapons platform, and anti-tank all in one. The Bearcat is a personnel and material carrier. Less general purpose, but also very cheap by comparison to either it can carry twice as many people as the Bradley. Can you name a single situation that the Abrams can do in america that the Bradley cannot? [QUOTE=Wolf532;45696001]Story about Feralgan riots. Facepunch goes on to rant about MRAP's fuel economy compared to other vehicles. Never change.[/QUOTE] It is about the militarisation of police, which if you can read, the point against them is maintenance costs and mechanical issues is what we are arguing about. I believe if they can afford it and deal with the issues, they should use the better equipment.

[QUOTE=Wolf532;45696001]Story about Feralgan riots. Facepunch goes on to rant about MRAP's fuel economy compared to other vehicles. Never change.[/QUOTE] more so people misconstrue one point in an argument another was making of the upkeep of such a vehicle versus the already existing set of swat vans as being uneconomical as one of a rant of fuel economy in the comparison of comparable vehicles. the broader argument being the extent of military grade equipment as well as it's implementation in civil unrest and emergency.

[QUOTE=deadoon;45696019] Can you name a single situation that the Abrams can do in america that the Bradley cannot? [/QUOTE] I don't even know what an Abrams is and I don't care to know. Guns and tanks are stupid and I have 0 interest in comparing Abraham to anything else. The question is why is a local police force armed and equipped for situations they have no jurisdiction to deal with? Why is an armored vehicle involved with a dispute the local government should be looking to address, not suppress. The more and more these people bring out these ludicrous things manufactured by a contemptible military-industrial complex which pumps the nation full of weaponry the more and more the poignancy and necessity of the protest is heightened.

[QUOTE=deadoon;45696019]The swat van and the Bradley at least share something beyond the ability to move and are both armored, unlike the Bearcat and the Abrams. Passengers. Even you are missing the point by far. A tank is a specialized machine. The Bradley and the Bearcat are far from that. The Bradley is an all purpose machine, its a personnel and material carrier, a heavy weapons platform, and anti-tank all in one. The Bearcat is a personnel and material carrier. Less general purpose, but also very cheap by comparison to either it can carry twice as many people as the Bradley. Can you name a single situation that the Abrams can do in america that the Bradley cannot? It is about the militarisation of police, which if you can read, the point against them is maintenance costs and mechanical issues is what we are arguing about. I believe if they can afford it and deal with the issues, they should use the better equipment.[/QUOTE] why not a stryker instead? which is similar enough to the V150 which codemaster85 pointed out many forces already have. granted bradleys are great vehicles and i can surely see the combat engineering variants having a large amount purposes that a police department could use

[QUOTE=Sailor Mars;45696059]I don't even know what an Abrams is and I don't care to know. Guns and tanks are stupid and I have 0 interest in comparing Abraham to anything else. The question is why is a local police force armed and equipped for situations they have no jurisdiction to deal with? Why is an armored vehicle involved with a dispute the local government should be looking to address, not suppress. The more and more these people bring out these ludicrous things manufactured by a contemptible military-industrial complex which pumps the nation full of weaponry the more and more the poignancy and necessity of the protest is heightened.[/QUOTE] The tank he posted is an Abrams. The mrap(the spectrum of vehicles we were arguing about mind you) and the Bearcat(the generic swat van being used as an example due to it's prevalence) and the same type of vehicle, an armored personnel carrier. The Bearcat just happens to be a lighter armored with a few lingering issues from military service. [QUOTE=TheKingofBees;45696075]why not a stryker instead? which is similar enough to the V150 which codemaster85 pointed out many forces already have. granted bradleys are great vehicles and i can surely see the combat engineering variants having a large amount purposes that a police department could use[/QUOTE] It was an example, and the Stryker is as varied as a vehicle can be being everywhere from an APC to a forward command post to a tank destroyer. Also the Stryker family does not have the ability to turn in place and costs the same.

[QUOTE=deadoon;45696082]The tank he posted is an Abrams. The mrap(the spectrum of vehicles we were arguing about mind you) and the Bearcat(the generic swat van being used as an example due to it's prevalence) and the same type of vehicle, an armored personnel carrier. The Bearcat just happens to be a lighter armored with a few lingering issues from military service.[/QUOTE] Which vehicle is the cutest?

[QUOTE=deadoon;45696082]The tank he posted is an Abrams. The mrap(the spectrum of vehicles we were arguing about mind you) and the Bearcat(the generic swat van being used as an example due to it's prevalence) and the same type of vehicle, an armored personnel carrier. The Bearcat just happens to be a lighter armored with a few lingering issues from military service. It was an example, and the Stryker is as varied as a vehicle can be being everywhere from an APC to a forward command post to a tank destroyer. Also the Stryker family does not have the ability to turn in place and costs the same.[/QUOTE] true and anyways apparently a couple counties use the stryker but after reading up on the Bearcat newer models seem to handle the IED issue fine but are about 5x more expensive to purchase than a surplus MRAP or APC. anyways i have no qualms with it.