San Diego School District's New 18-Ton Armored Vehicle Creates Stir

[The Brain]

How about people who are holding students or administrators hostage, or who are attacking a school building.  Do you think we should gas them?

Would school cops really be qualified to handle a massive attack on a school building or a large scale hostage situation?

They got the MRAPs, they got the kids, they got the money too. Er, maybe.

[grumbler]

How about people who are holding students or administrators hostage, or who are attacking a school building.  Do you think we should gas them?

Would school cops really be qualified to handle a massive attack on a school building or a large scale hostage situation?

Not without the equipment and training, I shouldn't think.  Whether they should be spending money on that capability, or whether jurisdiction would pass to other police forces, is something that depends on the locality, I suppose (I'm assuming here that the terms "massive" and "large scale" were added to your post without any intent to imply that only massive attacks or large scale hostage situations are of concern). 

My question wasn't about the scale of the attack, but rather whether gas should be deployed on the perps in those situations.  Look at the comment I was responding to in order to understand my response.

[Malthus]

The regular po-po shouldn't be firing on crowds.

No more than anyone else.  But, sometimes, you just have to.

Rarely enough that having the governor sign off on it instead of some local sheriff isn't a bad idea.

Well, they are school police. Never know when recess can get out of hand.

[MadImmortalMan]

Wouldn't it be appropriate to call in the national guard or something like that if there's a situation that might call for those tactics?

[The Brain]

Wouldn't it be appropriate to call in the national guard or something like that if there's a situation that might call for those tactics?

Yeah. If you're a pussy.

[Malthus]

Wouldn't it be appropriate to call in the national guard or something like that if there's a situation that might call for those tactics?

Seems that, around here, if you question the value of crossing-guards owning tanks, someone will take issue with you. I mean, if some lunatics attack the kiddies with RPGs at the crosswalk, what's he gonna do, wave his STOP sign at them? 

[CountDeMoney]

Dispersing a crowd with gas is done from a distance, and that's what launchers are for.  Tossing gas by hand doesnt do you much good when it's blowing back in your face from 50 feet away.

Besides, in a crowd control and disperse scenario, you want your officers as far away as possible, lest there be nightsticking o' the darkies to be had by all.

[Maximus]

Or walking backward

[grumbler]

Wouldn't it be appropriate to call in the national guard or something like that if there's a situation that might call for those tactics?

I don't think that police forces just get to "call in the National Guard."  The NG works for the governor, who has to okay their deployment and their ROE.  I know of many situation where actual police have fired tear gas, so I don't think the solution is as simple as "call in the National Guard" when there are riots and riot control measures are called for; if it was, police forces would presumably be doing that a lot more often, rather than having their own SWAT teams, riot control gear, tear gas (and, presumably, the grenade launchers that fire it), and the like.

[grumbler]

Dispersing a crowd with gas is done from a distance, and that's what launchers are for.  Tossing gas by hand doesnt do you much good when it's blowing back in your face from 50 feet away.

Besides, in a crowd control and disperse scenario, you want your officers as far away as possible, lest there be nightsticking o' the darkies to be had by all.

Seems that, around here, if you question that police never need to use tear gas, someone will argue that this is simply recess getting out of hand.   And no police force ever, apparently, has needs for which they cannot afford the equipment and training; if they cannot afford it, they apparently don't need it.

[grumbler]

Or walking backward

Nope.  That's surrendering.

[Ed Anger]

Bring back the M79

Isn't that single-shot?  Can we afford to under-equip our police forces with single shot grenade launchers?

"Our" police forces Ivan?

[Malthus]

Dispersing a crowd with gas is done from a distance, and that's what launchers are for.  Tossing gas by hand doesnt do you much good when it's blowing back in your face from 50 feet away.

Besides, in a crowd control and disperse scenario, you want your officers as far away as possible, lest there be nightsticking o' the darkies to be had by all.

Seems that, around here, if you question that police never need to use tear gas, someone will argue that this is simply recess getting out of hand.   And no police force ever, apparently, has needs for which they cannot afford the equipment and training; if they cannot afford it, they apparently don't need it.

Grumbler and his "free is too expensive" theory. 

Is there any actual proof, not derived from thin air, that the school cops got rid of the three grenade launchers (that they got for free) because they could not afford them, rather than because they did not need them?

[The Brain]

What's the difference between not affording and not needing?

[Eddie Teach]

What's the difference between not affording and not needing?

Go to a Dollar Store and you'll find plenty of examples.