Languish.org

Looks like they're just giving this shit away to anyone.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/09/13/348242448/san-diego-school-district-s-new-15-ton-armored-vehicle-creates-stir

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

by Bill Chappell
September 13, 2014 4:36 PM ET

News that San Diego Unified School District has acquired an MRAP, or mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle, is adding a new facet to discussions about the practice of giving surplus military equipment to civilian agencies.

The six-wheel Caiman MRAP has an official value of around $733,000. But the San Diego school district paid only about $5,000 to transport it, according to inewsorce.org, a website that partners with NPR member station KPBS.

As inewsource's Joe Yerardi reported:

Quote
    "The school district got the MRAP for free as part of the U.S. Department of Defense's Excess Property Program. The program, commonly referred to as the 1033 Program, sends unneeded military equipment like weapons and body armor to local police forces for no cost."

The program was in the news recently for its role providing law enforcement agencies with heavy armored equipment like that rolled out by police in Ferguson, Mo., to confront demonstrators.

A day after the San Diego story came out, school board trustee Scott Barnett called the move a "misguided priority," saying the vehicle should be leased to police agencies. Barnett suggested the funds from a long-term lease could pay for new police cars. And he said the school board hadn't been notified about the acquisition.

The day before Barnett addressed the issue, San Diego Unified School District Police Chief Ruben Littlejohn held a news conference to say the MRAP isn't a tank, which early reports had compared it to. He also said it's not a sign of new militarization in schools.

"There will be medical supplies in the vehicle. There will be teddy bears in the vehicle," Littlejohn said. "There will be trauma kits in the vehicle in the event any student is injured, and our officers are trained to give first aid and CPR.

The school district has released two renderings of what the MRAP might look like after its tan military color is painted over. In one version, it's police blue; another depicts it as more of an ambulance, white with a red cross.

From KPBS:

Quote
    "The district plans to store $20,000 to $30,000 worth of medical supplies donated by partners in the medical industry in the vehicle. The MRAP arrived in April, and students at Morse High School's Auto Collision and Refinishing Program got to work painting it."

On the KPBS website, a reader questioned the message sent by the school district police with the vehicle.

"They can call it a 'love buggy,' a 'student patrol limo,' or a 'campus police fun bus' and then paint it pretty colors," a reader wrote, "but that doesn't change the fact it's a piece of military equipment that is unnecessary and sends the message that local officials are at war with students."

Today, San Diego resident Andy Hinds writes about the MRAP in an article for The Daily Beast that asks the question Why Does My Kids' Elementary School Need a Tank?

Saying that his daughters just started kindergarten in the school district, Hinds says his only complaints about their school had been that the playground needed more shade trees, and perhaps the school could do with another teacher.

"One thing I didn't realize we needed is a Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP)," Hinds writes. "But our school district now has one. Ours is the Caiman model, a 6x6 behemoth that weighs in at over 15 tons and makes Humvees shrivel up with feelings of inadequacy."

Hinds goes on to say that perhaps the vehicle was irresistible to school police officials who were taken with its price – nothing – and its promise of capability.

He writes:

"Despite the very long odds that this acquisition will ever be used, and the sometimes-clumsy way the surprise rollout has been handled, I appreciate the district trying to take advantage of programs that will bring assets to our schools on the cheap."

Speaking to inewsource earlier this week, San Diego Unified School District Police Capt. Joe Florentino said he understood the reaction to the vehicle's military heritage. But he said the department wants the Caiman as a way to cope with extreme situations, such as an active shooter on campus, or a fire or earthquake.

"I can totally see people thinking 'Oh, my God. Are they going to be rolling armored vehicles into our schools and what the hell's going on?'," Florentino said. "Hopefully, we'll never have to use it for the real deal."

San Diego isn't the only place where an MRAP is being placed into an educational setting. Last autumn, Ohio State University acquired its own MRAP, complete with armored siding and bulletproof glass, as the StateImpact project reported. School officials said they'd likely use it on football game days — but that before that happened, they would remove the vehicle's gun turrets.

And in Davis, Calif., the city council has ordered the police chief to get rid of an MRAP vehicle, with Mayor Dan Wolk telling The New York Times, "This thing has a turret — it's the kind of thing that is used in Afghanistan and Iraq."

They must have some rough schools over there. :o

How many of these MRAPs did the Pentagon order, to be giving them out like candy now?

A very large number in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a tens if billions of dollars contract.

And they're totally useless to the military now?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 15, 2014, 11:21:56 PM
Looks like they're just giving this shit away to anyone.

But if it saves only one child ....

Quick wiki reference says about $50 billion for some 12,000 vehicles

The idea that using old military surplus gear is somehow indicating that they are at war with the public is simply ludicrous.  They use old sea planes for fire fighting, reconciles rifles for preventing dangerous snow build up at ski lodges, and military radios and old helicopters everywhere.  If there is criticism to be had, it's whether this equipment is cost effective.  An armored truck has got to cost more to maintain then an ordinary one.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2014, 01:03:27 AM
And they're totally useless to the military now?

Probably figured we weren't going back to IED-prone places like Iraq/Afghanistan, and don't want to maintain them.

So, when does the first rural police department in the US get its own jet fighter? I am sure there must be some surplus jet fighters as well.

Quote
"There will be medical supplies in the vehicle. There will be teddy bears in the vehicle," Littlejohn said. "There will be trauma kits in the vehicle in the event any student is injured, and our officers are trained to give first aid and CPR.

:lol: So what if we got a tank?  It's not militarization- see?  It's got fuzzy dice!"

Even if they don't cost much to aquire how much do these things cost to maintain? Or even just burn through a tank of gas?

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 16, 2014, 06:20:36 AM
Even if they don't cost much to aquire how much do these things cost to maintain? Or even just burn through a tank of gas?

Enough that the Army doesn't want to keep them.

One would think that, as much bad press as the militarization of the police is getting, that more people would be outraged at this waste of taxpayers' money.

Hell, we'd get more mileage out of it all if we simply donated them to our favorite dictators;  at least they'd be used to suppress somebody else's pipples instead of our own. 
I'm sure there are allies with real needs regarding military hardware out there that could appreciate this shit, like the Philippines or Columbia.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2014, 06:40:47 AM
One would think that, as much bad press as the militarization of the police is getting, that more people would be outraged at this waste of taxpayers' money.

Hell, we'd get more mileage out of it all if we simply donated them to our favorite dictators;  at least they'd be used to suppress somebody else's pipples instead of our own. 
I'm sure there are allies with real needs regarding military hardware out there that could appreciate this shit, like the Philippines or Columbia.

Didn't you read the article?  Transportation costs amount to more than $5,000 per vehicle.  No way the PI or Colombia can afford more than a couple of these, at those prices.

Wacky idea I know, but might the Kurds not be in need of this sort of vehicle at the moment?  :unsure:

Quote from: mongers on September 16, 2014, 07:14:56 AM
Wacky idea I know, but might the Kurds not be in need of this sort of vehicle at the moment?  :unsure:

Heh, quite true! And the US is still waffling on giving weapons to the Kurds, using the broken process of giving to the Iraq government and having the govt. give weapons to the Kurds.

I was talking to cop friend about this and he said that these vehicles are usually for use by a group of police stations or a region, but that they have to be acquired and placed at one police station. So it looks like some town has an armored car but it's really meant for use by all the surrounding towns. I think that at least makes more sense than thinking that a town, especially some small, quiet town, needs this stuff just for them.

They need this as a mobile supply locker?

Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2014, 07:56:32 AM
They need this as a mobile supply locker?

When the C.H.U.D.s rise from the sewers to go after the LAV's supply of teddy bears you'll see that this was a wise move indeed.

Quote from: Zanza on September 16, 2014, 04:07:16 AM
So, when does the first rural police department in the US get its own jet fighter? I am sure there must be some surplus jet fighters as well.

Ooh!  Or Military vehicles for sporting events!

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fe7BjV4N.jpg&hash=3a33f669f133fbf44562d3bfc1ba147970ccc940)

Like this US helicopter used in Germany in 2006.

Looks like Ia Drang valley to me. :huh:

These are very, very specific use vehicles. They are designed to be a truck that can protect the crew from an IED.

They make massive compromises in all areas of things you want a truck to do in order to achieve that very narrow design goal. They are incredibly heavy, and destroy a lot of the roads they drive on. They use incredible amounts of gas. They are actually rather dangerous compared to any other vehicle intended for the same role...unless there is a chance someone might set off a few hundred ppounds of explosives under it.

They tend to roll over easily, because they have a ridiculously high center of gravity.

They are an incredibly shitty tool to do anything at all other than what they are very, very narrowly and specifically designed to do. But at some $700,000 a piece, I suspect the military wants to do *something* with the thousands of them bought now that we don't need them anymore.

A lot of them were really kind of badly designed, and I think the military mostly thinks there is a better solution, and I suspect they are keeping those and getting rid of the rest. This is was a "crash" program in many ways, and I think there was a lot of "A shitty design that saves troops lives is better than nothing - get it out there".

So yeah, we cannot give them to other militaries or allies because they don't want them - in 99.5% of cases they are vastly better off with a deuce and a half.

Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2014, 07:39:00 AM
I was talking to cop friend about this and he said that these vehicles are usually for use by a group of police stations or a region, but that they have to be acquired and placed at one police station. So it looks like some town has an armored car but it's really meant for use by all the surrounding towns. I think that at least makes more sense than thinking that a town, especially some small, quiet town, needs this stuff just for them.

The issue is that no towns, or groups of towns, actually need an armoured car for anything. Have they ever actually been used for anything, other than scaring the local population into thinking the cops have gone apeshit crazy?  :lol:

They look cool at displays.

Ignoring for the moment why the San Diego School District Police Department needs an armored vehicle....why does the San Diego School District need a police department???

Order must be maintained at all costs!

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 10:40:28 AM

Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2014, 07:39:00 AM
I was talking to cop friend about this and he said that these vehicles are usually for use by a group of police stations or a region, but that they have to be acquired and placed at one police station. So it looks like some town has an armored car but it's really meant for use by all the surrounding towns. I think that at least makes more sense than thinking that a town, especially some small, quiet town, needs this stuff just for them.

The issue is that no towns, or groups of towns, actually need an armoured car for anything. Have they ever actually been used for anything, other than scaring the local population into thinking the cops have gone apeshit crazy?  :lol:

Except for when they do, like in riot control situation or when gunmen have taken hostages and are shooting at on the street.  Banks use armored cars, don't they?  Banks don't strike me as buying frivolous things.

Quote from: Berkut on September 16, 2014, 10:39:50 AM
These are very, very specific use vehicles. They are designed to be a truck that can protect the crew from an IED.

They make massive compromises in all areas of things you want a truck to do in order to achieve that very narrow design goal. They are incredibly heavy, and destroy a lot of the roads they drive on. They use incredible amounts of gas. They are actually rather dangerous compared to any other vehicle intended for the same role...unless there is a chance someone might set off a few hundred ppounds of explosives under it.

They tend to roll over easily, because they have a ridiculously high center of gravity.

They are an incredibly shitty tool to do anything at all other than what they are very, very narrowly and specifically designed to do. But at some $700,000 a piece, I suspect the military wants to do *something* with the thousands of them bought now that we don't need them anymore.

A lot of them were really kind of badly designed, and I think the military mostly thinks there is a better solution, and I suspect they are keeping those and getting rid of the rest. This is was a "crash" program in many ways, and I think there was a lot of "A shitty design that saves troops lives is better than nothing - get it out there".

So yeah, we cannot give them to other militaries or allies because they don't want them - in 99.5% of cases they are vastly better off with a deuce and a half.

What ever happened to the idea of scrapping shit you don't need anymore?  Since so many are still in serviceable condition, I'm sure the DOD could get a decent ($0.10 - $0.15 on the dollar) deal selling these to someone to strip down and sell for parts.  Hell, it probably has parts in common with the deuce, LAV, and HEMTT; these things could be broken down to provide spares for those vehicles.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 11:13:59 AM
Except for when they do, like in riot control situation or when gunmen have taken hostages and are shooting at on the street.  Banks use armored cars, don't they?  Banks don't strike me as buying frivolous things.

Armored car companies (not banks) use armored cars to transport high value, easily stolen, easily liquidated items that are common targets for thieves.

Police forces do not need armored vehicles for riot control.  If a riot gets that bad, they call the National Guard.  While an armored vehicle might be useful on the off chance some gunman is going to start randomly shooting people on the street, a heavily-armored gun truck designed to resist an anti-tank mine or assault by an insurgent squad is wholly unnecessary.  An armored Suburban or cargo van would be both sufficient and more cost effective.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 16, 2014, 11:14:26 AM
What ever happened to the idea of scrapping shit you don't need anymore?  Since so many are still in serviceable condition, I'm sure the DOD could get a decent ($0.10 - $0.15 on the dollar) deal selling these to someone to strip down and sell for parts.  Hell, it probably has parts in common with the deuce, LAV, and HEMTT; these things could be broken down to provide spares for those vehicles.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that Congress doesn't allow the salvage of parts from these, for fear of losing jobs (and political contributions) from the companies that produce the LAV or deuce parts...

Other than that, you are correct (as is Berkut).  When idiots start toppling these MRAPs onto crowds of bystanders, the backlash is going to be severe, and I'm betting the lawsuits are filed against DoD and the vehicle manufacturers, more than against the likes of the San Diego School District.

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 10:40:28 AM

Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2014, 07:39:00 AM
I was talking to cop friend about this and he said that these vehicles are usually for use by a group of police stations or a region, but that they have to be acquired and placed at one police station. So it looks like some town has an armored car but it's really meant for use by all the surrounding towns. I think that at least makes more sense than thinking that a town, especially some small, quiet town, needs this stuff just for them.

The issue is that no towns, or groups of towns, actually need an armoured car for anything. Have they ever actually been used for anything, other than scaring the local population into thinking the cops have gone apeshit crazy?  :lol:

Yep.

Who do you think we are?

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 11:13:59 AM
Except for when they do, like in riot control situation or when gunmen have taken hostages and are shooting at on the street.  Banks use armored cars, don't they?  Banks don't strike me as buying frivolous things.

Huh? Banks hire companies who have armoured cars to carry around large amounts of easily-stolen cash. Police should not be carrying around large amounts of cash, unless they are on the take.

I can't think of a single instance of when an actual armored car would be useful for crowd control, other than to create a very negative photo-op. As for gunmen shooting stuff - has there been any actual cases in which armoured cars have proved necessary or useful for dealing with this menace?

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 12:16:26 PM
As for gunmen shooting stuff - has there been any actual cases in which armoured cars have proved necessary or useful for dealing with this menace?

Pack the whole town inside the armored car, everybody is safe.

Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2014, 11:31:17 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 10:40:28 AM

Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2014, 07:39:00 AM
I was talking to cop friend about this and he said that these vehicles are usually for use by a group of police stations or a region, but that they have to be acquired and placed at one police station. So it looks like some town has an armored car but it's really meant for use by all the surrounding towns. I think that at least makes more sense than thinking that a town, especially some small, quiet town, needs this stuff just for them.

The issue is that no towns, or groups of towns, actually need an armoured car for anything. Have they ever actually been used for anything, other than scaring the local population into thinking the cops have gone apeshit crazy?  :lol:

Yep.

They are used to mkae badass videos of SWAT teams roaring around a track.

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 12:16:26 PM
Police should not be carrying around large amounts of cash, unless they are on the take.

Depends on how many drivers with cash they pulled over during their shift.

Quote from: frunk on September 16, 2014, 12:21:20 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 12:16:26 PM
As for gunmen shooting stuff - has there been any actual cases in which armoured cars have proved necessary or useful for dealing with this menace?

Pack the whole town inside the armored car, everybody is safe.

I wondered if that's what school district is planning to do during active shooter event.

Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2014, 12:29:40 PM

Quote from: frunk on September 16, 2014, 12:21:20 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 12:16:26 PM
As for gunmen shooting stuff - has there been any actual cases in which armoured cars have proved necessary or useful for dealing with this menace?

Pack the whole town inside the armored car, everybody is safe.

I wondered if that's what school district is planning to do during active shooter event.

"OMG! An armed lunatic has taken a whole school full of kids hostage and is threatening to kill then one by one until his insane demands are met!"

"Good thing our cops are well protected inside an armoured car."

"Whew. That could have been a serious situation. "

;)

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 16, 2014, 11:24:30 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 11:13:59 AM
Except for when they do, like in riot control situation or when gunmen have taken hostages and are shooting at on the street.  Banks use armored cars, don't they?  Banks don't strike me as buying frivolous things.

Armored car companies (not banks) use armored cars to transport high value, easily stolen, easily liquidated items that are common targets for thieves.

Police forces do not need armored vehicles for riot control.  If a riot gets that bad, they call the National Guard.  While an armored vehicle might be useful on the off chance some gunman is going to start randomly shooting people on the street, a heavily-armored gun truck designed to resist an anti-tank mine or assault by an insurgent squad is wholly unnecessary.  An armored Suburban or cargo van would be both sufficient and more cost effective.

Tell that to the guys who were killed when they tried to storm Branch Davidians.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 12:37:23 PM

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 16, 2014, 11:24:30 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 11:13:59 AM
Except for when they do, like in riot control situation or when gunmen have taken hostages and are shooting at on the street.  Banks use armored cars, don't they?  Banks don't strike me as buying frivolous things.

Armored car companies (not banks) use armored cars to transport high value, easily stolen, easily liquidated items that are common targets for thieves.

Police forces do not need armored vehicles for riot control.  If a riot gets that bad, they call the National Guard.  While an armored vehicle might be useful on the off chance some gunman is going to start randomly shooting people on the street, a heavily-armored gun truck designed to resist an anti-tank mine or assault by an insurgent squad is wholly unnecessary.  An armored Suburban or cargo van would be both sufficient and more cost effective.

Tell that to the guys who were killed when they tried to storm Branch Davidians.

Huh? The guys who assaulted the Branch Dravidians were the Feds - and they had a pletora of weapons, includng armoured vehicles - and it lead to an infamous bloodbath.

Seems hardly what one wants from one's local police force.

QuoteBecause the Branch Davidians were heavily armed, the FBI's arms included .50 caliber (12.7 mm) rifles and armored CEVs. The assault took place on April 19, 1993. CEVs used booms to puncture holes in the walls of buildings of the compound so they could pump in CS gas ("tear gas") and try to flush out the Branch Davidians without harming them. The stated plan called for increasing amounts of gas to be pumped in over two days to increase pressure. Officially, no armed assault was to be made, and loudspeakers were used to tell the Branch Davidians that there would be no armed assault and to ask them not to fire on the vehicles. When several Branch Davidians opened fire, the FBI's response was to increase the amount of gas being used.[22]

FBI also delivered 40-millimetre (1.6 in) CS grenade fire from M79 grenade launchers; very early in the morning, the FBI fired two military M651 rounds at the Branch Davidian construction site. Around mid-morning, the FBI began to run low on 40mm Ferret CS rounds, and asked Texas Ranger Captain David Byrnes for tear gas rounds; the tear gas rounds procured from Company "F" in Waco turned out to be unusable pyrotechnic rounds and were returned to the Company "F" office after the fire.[61] 40mm munitions recovered by the Texas Rangers at Waco included dozens of plastic Ferret Model SGA-400 Liquid CS rounds, two metal M651E1 military pyrotechnic tear gas rounds, two metal NICO Pyrotechnik Sound & Flash grenades, and parachute illumination flares.[61][62] After more than six hours, no Branch Davidians had left the building, sheltering instead in a cinder block room within the building or using gas masks.[63] The FBI claimed that CEVs were used to punch large holes in the building to provide exits for those inside.

At around noon, three fires broke out almost simultaneously in different parts of the building and spread quickly. The government maintains the fires were deliberately started by Branch Davidians.[22][64] Some of the Branch Davidian survivors maintain that the fires were accidentally or deliberately started by the assault.[65][66] Only nine people left the building during the fire.[22][64] The remaining Branch Davidians, including the children, were either buried alive by rubble, suffocated by the effects of the fire, or shot. Many who suffocated from the fire were killed by smoke or carbon monoxide inhalation and other causes as fire engulfed the building.[64] According to the FBI, Steve Schneider—Koresh's top aide, who "probably realized he was dealing with a fraud"—shot and killed Koresh and then committed suicide with the same gun.[67] Footage of the blaze was broadcast live by television crews.

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 12:16:26 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 11:13:59 AM
Except for when they do, like in riot control situation or when gunmen have taken hostages and are shooting at on the street.  Banks use armored cars, don't they?  Banks don't strike me as buying frivolous things.

Huh? Banks hire companies who have armoured cars to carry around large amounts of easily-stolen cash. Police should not be carrying around large amounts of cash, unless they are on the take.

I can't think of a single instance of when an actual armored car would be useful for crowd control, other than to create a very negative photo-op. As for gunmen shooting stuff - has there been any actual cases in which armoured cars have proved necessary or useful for dealing with this menace?

Why can't banks just hire companies that don't have armored cars?  Wouldn't they be just as safe moving them by pizza delivery car?

What if some of the rioters shoot at the car?  An armored car would be handy to hide behind.  It also might more resistant to moltov cocktails.

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 12:32:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2014, 12:29:40 PM

Quote from: frunk on September 16, 2014, 12:21:20 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 12:16:26 PM
As for gunmen shooting stuff - has there been any actual cases in which armoured cars have proved necessary or useful for dealing with this menace?

Pack the whole town inside the armored car, everybody is safe.

I wondered if that's what school district is planning to do during active shooter event.

"OMG! An armed lunatic has taken a whole school full of kids hostage and is threatening to kill then one by one until his insane demands are met!"

"Good thing our cops are well protected inside an armoured car."

"Whew. That could have been a serious situation. "

;)

And bonus points for keeping the cops from having to walk backwards.

:lmfao:

If the SWAT team in Die Hard had had one of these instead of that stupid little RV things might have turned out differently for Hans and friends.

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 12:43:05 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 12:37:23 PM

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 16, 2014, 11:24:30 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 11:13:59 AM
Except for when they do, like in riot control situation or when gunmen have taken hostages and are shooting at on the street.  Banks use armored cars, don't they?  Banks don't strike me as buying frivolous things.

Armored car companies (not banks) use armored cars to transport high value, easily stolen, easily liquidated items that are common targets for thieves.

Police forces do not need armored vehicles for riot control.  If a riot gets that bad, they call the National Guard.  While an armored vehicle might be useful on the off chance some gunman is going to start randomly shooting people on the street, a heavily-armored gun truck designed to resist an anti-tank mine or assault by an insurgent squad is wholly unnecessary.  An armored Suburban or cargo van would be both sufficient and more cost effective.

Tell that to the guys who were killed when they tried to storm Branch Davidians.

Huh? The guys who assaulted the Branch Dravidians were the Feds - and they had a pletora of weapons, includng armoured vehicles - and it lead to an infamous bloodbath.

Seems hardly what one wants from one's local police force.

QuoteBecause the Branch Davidians were heavily armed, the FBI's arms included .50 caliber (12.7 mm) rifles and armored CEVs. The assault took place on April 19, 1993. CEVs used booms to puncture holes in the walls of buildings of the compound so they could pump in CS gas ("tear gas") and try to flush out the Branch Davidians without harming them. The stated plan called for increasing amounts of gas to be pumped in over two days to increase pressure. Officially, no armed assault was to be made, and loudspeakers were used to tell the Branch Davidians that there would be no armed assault and to ask them not to fire on the vehicles. When several Branch Davidians opened fire, the FBI's response was to increase the amount of gas being used.[22]

FBI also delivered 40-millimetre (1.6 in) CS grenade fire from M79 grenade launchers; very early in the morning, the FBI fired two military M651 rounds at the Branch Davidian construction site. Around mid-morning, the FBI began to run low on 40mm Ferret CS rounds, and asked Texas Ranger Captain David Byrnes for tear gas rounds; the tear gas rounds procured from Company "F" in Waco turned out to be unusable pyrotechnic rounds and were returned to the Company "F" office after the fire.[61] 40mm munitions recovered by the Texas Rangers at Waco included dozens of plastic Ferret Model SGA-400 Liquid CS rounds, two metal M651E1 military pyrotechnic tear gas rounds, two metal NICO Pyrotechnik Sound & Flash grenades, and parachute illumination flares.[61][62] After more than six hours, no Branch Davidians had left the building, sheltering instead in a cinder block room within the building or using gas masks.[63] The FBI claimed that CEVs were used to punch large holes in the building to provide exits for those inside.

At around noon, three fires broke out almost simultaneously in different parts of the building and spread quickly. The government maintains the fires were deliberately started by Branch Davidians.[22][64] Some of the Branch Davidian survivors maintain that the fires were accidentally or deliberately started by the assault.[65][66] Only nine people left the building during the fire.[22][64] The remaining Branch Davidians, including the children, were either buried alive by rubble, suffocated by the effects of the fire, or shot. Many who suffocated from the fire were killed by smoke or carbon monoxide inhalation and other causes as fire engulfed the building.[64] According to the FBI, Steve Schneider—Koresh's top aide, who "probably realized he was dealing with a fraud"—shot and killed Koresh and then committed suicide with the same gun.[67] Footage of the blaze was broadcast live by television crews.

I was thinking of the first assault, by the ATF which failed.  They didn't have armored vehicles I don't think.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 12:51:00 PM

I was thinking of the first assault, by the ATF which failed.  They didn't have armored vehicles I don't think.

But not because they were not available to them, simply because they chose not to use them.

And since the assault failed because they tried to breach the house, it is hard to see how an armored vehicle would help with that, unless they went straight to the "drive the tank into the house" approach, which seems unlikely.

Quote from: Berkut on September 16, 2014, 10:57:45 AM
Ignoring for the moment why the San Diego School District Police Department needs an armored vehicle....why does the San Diego School District need a police department???

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND :mad:

Quote from: Berkut on September 16, 2014, 12:53:44 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 12:51:00 PM

I was thinking of the first assault, by the ATF which failed.  They didn't have armored vehicles I don't think.

But not because they were not available to them, simply because they chose not to use them.

And since the assault failed because they tried to breach the house, it is hard to see how an armored vehicle would help with that, unless they went straight to the "drive the tank into the house" approach, which seems unlikely.

They were denied access to armored vehicles despite a request for them.  Several agents were wounded while hiding behind ordinary cars, I think one might have been killed.  But that's okay, they were only law enforcement.  So freedom prevailed at least.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 12:51:00 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 12:43:05 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 12:37:23 PM

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 16, 2014, 11:24:30 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 11:13:59 AM
Except for when they do, like in riot control situation or when gunmen have taken hostages and are shooting at on the street.  Banks use armored cars, don't they?  Banks don't strike me as buying frivolous things.

Armored car companies (not banks) use armored cars to transport high value, easily stolen, easily liquidated items that are common targets for thieves.

Police forces do not need armored vehicles for riot control.  If a riot gets that bad, they call the National Guard.  While an armored vehicle might be useful on the off chance some gunman is going to start randomly shooting people on the street, a heavily-armored gun truck designed to resist an anti-tank mine or assault by an insurgent squad is wholly unnecessary.  An armored Suburban or cargo van would be both sufficient and more cost effective.

Tell that to the guys who were killed when they tried to storm Branch Davidians.

Huh? The guys who assaulted the Branch Dravidians were the Feds - and they had a pletora of weapons, includng armoured vehicles - and it lead to an infamous bloodbath.

Seems hardly what one wants from one's local police force.

QuoteBecause the Branch Davidians were heavily armed, the FBI's arms included .50 caliber (12.7 mm) rifles and armored CEVs. The assault took place on April 19, 1993. CEVs used booms to puncture holes in the walls of buildings of the compound so they could pump in CS gas ("tear gas") and try to flush out the Branch Davidians without harming them. The stated plan called for increasing amounts of gas to be pumped in over two days to increase pressure. Officially, no armed assault was to be made, and loudspeakers were used to tell the Branch Davidians that there would be no armed assault and to ask them not to fire on the vehicles. When several Branch Davidians opened fire, the FBI's response was to increase the amount of gas being used.[22]

FBI also delivered 40-millimetre (1.6 in) CS grenade fire from M79 grenade launchers; very early in the morning, the FBI fired two military M651 rounds at the Branch Davidian construction site. Around mid-morning, the FBI began to run low on 40mm Ferret CS rounds, and asked Texas Ranger Captain David Byrnes for tear gas rounds; the tear gas rounds procured from Company "F" in Waco turned out to be unusable pyrotechnic rounds and were returned to the Company "F" office after the fire.[61] 40mm munitions recovered by the Texas Rangers at Waco included dozens of plastic Ferret Model SGA-400 Liquid CS rounds, two metal M651E1 military pyrotechnic tear gas rounds, two metal NICO Pyrotechnik Sound & Flash grenades, and parachute illumination flares.[61][62] After more than six hours, no Branch Davidians had left the building, sheltering instead in a cinder block room within the building or using gas masks.[63] The FBI claimed that CEVs were used to punch large holes in the building to provide exits for those inside.

At around noon, three fires broke out almost simultaneously in different parts of the building and spread quickly. The government maintains the fires were deliberately started by Branch Davidians.[22][64] Some of the Branch Davidian survivors maintain that the fires were accidentally or deliberately started by the assault.[65][66] Only nine people left the building during the fire.[22][64] The remaining Branch Davidians, including the children, were either buried alive by rubble, suffocated by the effects of the fire, or shot. Many who suffocated from the fire were killed by smoke or carbon monoxide inhalation and other causes as fire engulfed the building.[64] According to the FBI, Steve Schneider—Koresh's top aide, who "probably realized he was dealing with a fraud"—shot and killed Koresh and then committed suicide with the same gun.[67] Footage of the blaze was broadcast live by television crews.

I was thinking of the first assault, by the ATF which failed.  They didn't have armored vehicles I don't think.

The raid was a fuck-up because the branch dravidians were tipped off, by stupidity. The addition of armoured vehicles would not have transformed that fuck-up into a success. Note they did have helicopters, no doubt they could have had armour if they wanted it - but they didn't because the raid was supposed to be a surprise (they went ahead even after knowing the surprise was lost - again, stupidly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege#February_28

The fact that when armoured vehicles were later used, it lead to a total failure - killing all of the kids the raid was supposed to save - does not indicate that armour is the answer.

The better lesson from this sorry story is the need for secrecy, sound planning and flexability in execution of plans in dealing with such situations - not the need for greater firepower and armour. Indeed, one could reasonably draw the inference that greater firepower simply magnifies the downside of official stupidity when the above characteristics (secrecy, sound planning, flexibility) are absent.

Tipped off by the local gendarmes or not, they wouldve started shooting anyway.  Because, oh I dont know,
THEY WERE FUCKING NUTS

Only regret is ATF didnt have air support.

Quote from: Berkut on September 16, 2014, 10:57:45 AM
Ignoring for the moment why the San Diego School District Police Department needs an armored vehicle....why does the San Diego School District need a police department???

I never understood why there are different police departments for tiny areas of jurisdiction in the US anyway. One for the university, another for the underground, each small municipality has its own force, the highway has its own police, the harbor has its own police and so on. We have a decentralized police as well, but it is organized on the state level. The US seems to be overdoing it.

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 01:02:15 PM


The raid was a fuck-up because the branch dravidians were tipped off, by stupidity. The addition of armoured vehicles would not have transformed that fuck-up into a success. Note they did have helicopters, no doubt they could have had armour if they wanted it - but they didn't because the raid was supposed to be a surprise (they went ahead even after knowing the surprise was lost - again, stupidly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege#February_28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege#February_28)

The fact that when armoured vehicles were later used, it lead to a total failure - killing all of the kids the raid was supposed to save - does not indicate that armour is the answer.

The better lesson from this sorry story is the need for secrecy, sound planning and flexability in execution of plans in dealing with such situations - not the need for greater firepower and armour. Indeed, one could reasonably draw the inference that greater firepower simply magnifies the downside of official stupidity when the above characteristics (secrecy, sound planning, flexibility) are absent.

According to your link they requested armor and were denied.  They had a 45 minute gun fight were several officers were shot.  If they had armored cars to hide behind they may not have been shot.  But that's a small price to pay for police not having scary looking vehicles.  The people in there died because the Branch Davidians chose to burn down the building rather then give up.  I doubt a lack of armor would have prevented that from happening.  But maybe it would have, if we all just wished hard enough.

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 10:40:28 AM

Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2014, 07:39:00 AM
I was talking to cop friend about this and he said that these vehicles are usually for use by a group of police stations or a region, but that they have to be acquired and placed at one police station. So it looks like some town has an armored car but it's really meant for use by all the surrounding towns. I think that at least makes more sense than thinking that a town, especially some small, quiet town, needs this stuff just for them.

The issue is that no towns, or groups of towns, actually need an armoured car for anything. Have they ever actually been used for anything, other than scaring the local population into thinking the cops have gone apeshit crazy?  :lol:

I don't know - I'm not an advocate of tanks and mreps with the cops, but neutral either way. In a situation confronting a shooter they're useful to evacuate civilians out of harms way. That's one use my cop friend told me they'd use them. They can get up close to a situation, evacuate people and do whatever else cops need to do with one of the things. As added bonus, I'm sure they look great in the town parades and that sort of stuff.   ;)

I can definitely think of situations where an armoured vehicle would legitimately be useful to police.

However as soon as you have a vehicle, you have to maintain it and operate it.  I'm not as sure whether that cost would be "worth it" to your average police force.

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 01:12:36 PM
I can definitely think of situations where an armoured vehicle would legitimately be useful to police.

However as soon as you have a vehicle, you have to maintain it and operate it.  I'm not as sure whether that cost would be "worth it" to your average police force.

Average town?  Probably not.  I can see it for large cities.  For instance, a lot of police helicopters are civilian versions of military choppers or even military surplus.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 12:59:17 PM
They were denied access to armored vehicles despite a request for them.  Several agents were wounded while hiding behind ordinary cars, I think one might have been killed.  But that's okay, they were only law enforcement.  So freedom prevailed at least.

This kind of strawman garbage from you is really tiresome.  There have been many studies about the militarization of the police forces in both training and gear and clear catalogues of the negative impacts of this.  So because we care about impacts of training and equipment the police have and have concerns about some of its impacts we want law enforcement dead?  I want law enforcement trained and equipped properly to do their job to protect people and property.  I am not sure what the fuck you want, does it not concern you lives are being lost unnecessarily?  That it is having dangerous social impacts?  If the public stops trusting the cops and thinks they are the enemy can't you see how destabilizing that would be?

I do not really get bringing up the Brach Davidian thing, nobody is saying extremely specialized Federal Agencies shouldn't have this sort of thing going.  They are called in for very specific things not just general police work.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 01:15:04 PM
Average town?  Probably not.  I can see it for large cities.  For instance, a lot of police helicopters are civilian versions of military choppers or even military surplus.

I do not get the 'for instance' here.  Helicopters have always been an important part of police work.  I presume they do not have rockets attached to them or something.

Back in the 80s there was this police standoff/seige thing in Philadelphia where the Pennsylvania State Police actually dropped a bomb from a helicopter onto their compound. :wacko:

Not only did it kill a bunch of the kids the cops wanted to rescue and adults they wanted to arrest, but it burned down a couple of entire city blocks. :blush:

Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2014, 01:40:41 PM
Helicopters have always been an important part of police work.

:hmm:

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 01:48:13 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2014, 01:40:41 PM
Helicopters have always been an important part of police work.

:hmm:

Quoteall the modern things
like cars and such
have always existed

they've just been waiting in a mountain
for the right moment

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 01:48:13 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2014, 01:40:41 PM
Helicopters have always been an important part of police work.

:hmm:

:hmm: :hmm:

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 01:09:46 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 01:02:15 PM


The raid was a fuck-up because the branch dravidians were tipped off, by stupidity. The addition of armoured vehicles would not have transformed that fuck-up into a success. Note they did have helicopters, no doubt they could have had armour if they wanted it - but they didn't because the raid was supposed to be a surprise (they went ahead even after knowing the surprise was lost - again, stupidly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege#February_28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege#February_28)

The fact that when armoured vehicles were later used, it lead to a total failure - killing all of the kids the raid was supposed to save - does not indicate that armour is the answer.

The better lesson from this sorry story is the need for secrecy, sound planning and flexability in execution of plans in dealing with such situations - not the need for greater firepower and armour. Indeed, one could reasonably draw the inference that greater firepower simply magnifies the downside of official stupidity when the above characteristics (secrecy, sound planning, flexibility) are absent.

According to your link they requested armor and were denied.  They had a 45 minute gun fight were several officers were shot.  If they had armored cars to hide behind they may not have been shot.  But that's a small price to pay for police not having scary looking vehicles.  The people in there died because the Branch Davidians chose to burn down the building rather then give up.  I doubt a lack of armor would have prevented that from happening.  But maybe it would have, if we all just wished hard enough.

Most of the ones who were shot were injored or killed while actually entering the building - something ordinarily not done while inside an armoured car.

Given that the worst case scenario happened despite having access to whatever heavy weapons the Feds wanted (i.e., all thge kids were killed), I do not see this incident as making the point that heavy weapons are essential for local police work, for the following reasons:

(1) The majority of cops injured and killed were injured and killed doing stuff you can't do while inside an armoured car anyway;

(2) The cops in question were not local police forces, but federals - who could reasonably be expected to have access to more military type gear than local cops;

(3) Despite having whatever military gear, including armoured vehicles and heavy machine guns and other weapons, the net effect was that everyone the raid was originally supposed to protect - the kids - died.

I would think that if even the feds can't use all that heavy gear to good effect, it is rather a lot to expect your local cops in Podunk, New Jersey to do so. I can see a lot of downsides to this - the whole "we had to kill everyone to save them" mentality isn't a good thing to spread down to the local police level.

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 02:29:17 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 01:09:46 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 01:02:15 PM


The raid was a fuck-up because the branch dravidians were tipped off, by stupidity. The addition of armoured vehicles would not have transformed that fuck-up into a success. Note they did have helicopters, no doubt they could have had armour if they wanted it - but they didn't because the raid was supposed to be a surprise (they went ahead even after knowing the surprise was lost - again, stupidly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege#February_28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege#February_28)

The fact that when armoured vehicles were later used, it lead to a total failure - killing all of the kids the raid was supposed to save - does not indicate that armour is the answer.

The better lesson from this sorry story is the need for secrecy, sound planning and flexability in execution of plans in dealing with such situations - not the need for greater firepower and armour. Indeed, one could reasonably draw the inference that greater firepower simply magnifies the downside of official stupidity when the above characteristics (secrecy, sound planning, flexibility) are absent.

According to your link they requested armor and were denied.  They had a 45 minute gun fight were several officers were shot.  If they had armored cars to hide behind they may not have been shot.  But that's a small price to pay for police not having scary looking vehicles.  The people in there died because the Branch Davidians chose to burn down the building rather then give up.  I doubt a lack of armor would have prevented that from happening.  But maybe it would have, if we all just wished hard enough.

Most of the ones who were shot were injored or killed while actually entering the building - something ordinarily not done while inside an armoured car.

Given that the worst case scenario happened despite having access to whatever heavy weapons the Feds wanted (i.e., all thge kids were killed), I do not see this incident as making the point that heavy weapons are essential for local police work, for the following reasons:

(1) The majority of cops injured and killed were injured and killed doing stuff you can't do while inside an armoured car anyway;

(2) The cops in question were not local police forces, but federals - who could reasonably be expected to have access to more military type gear than local cops;

(3) Despite having whatever military gear, including armoured vehicles and heavy machine guns and other weapons, the net effect was that everyone the raid was originally supposed to protect - the kids - died.

I would think that if even the feds can't use all that heavy gear to good effect, it is rather a lot to expect your local cops in Podunk, New Jersey to do so. I can see a lot of downsides to this - the whole "we had to kill everyone to save them" mentality isn't a good thing to spread down to the local police level.

I don't see where the Wiki article mentions it, but the congressional report on Waco implies that the ATF request for Bradleys was withdrawn, not rejected:

QuoteATF's request for training of ATF agents by Special Forces soldiers went through several alterations before the actual training took place. Although ATF initially requested Bradley fighting vehicles, SOT/CQB training, on-site medical evacuation assistance and planning assistance, legal restrictions caused the ATF request to be scaled down.[105]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Activities_of_Federal_Law_Enforcement_Agencies_Toward_the_Branch_Davidians/Section_5#c._Pre-raid_military_assistance_requested_by_ATF_and_assistance_actually_received (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Activities_of_Federal_Law_Enforcement_Agencies_Toward_the_Branch_Davidians/Section_5#c._Pre-raid_military_assistance_requested_by_ATF_and_assistance_actually_received)

I Think that you are likely correct that the plan employed was obviously not one suitable for a force deploying in Bradleys.  The idea was to take the Branch Davidians by surprise, seize their weapons before they could pass them out, and thus compel them to surrender.  You can't do that from inside a Bradley, and just driving up in Bradleys would have been loud enough to eliminate the element of surprise.  The only type of attack that could employ Bradleys was the type that did employ Bradleys:  a frontal armored assault.  And we know THAT didn't end well.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2014, 02:10:41 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2014, 01:48:13 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2014, 01:40:41 PM
Helicopters have always been an important part of police work.

:hmm:

:hmm: :hmm:

You know, EPS have a police helicopter - two actually.  And in the right kind of case they are fucking amazing - you have this perfect airborne video of a police chase.

But the entire unit could go away and I don't think EPS's ability to fight crime would noticeably be degraded.

Probably a little different out there in the expanse of the tundra, but it's a little different here, where we have shit like buildings.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2014, 03:43:47 PM
Probably a little different out there in the expanse of the tundra, but it's a little different here, where we have shit like buildings.

:rolleyes:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gradstudies.ualberta.ca%2Fen%2Fstudents%2Fprospective%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2FFaculty%2520of%2520Graduate%2520Studies%2FImages%2FShared%2Fstudents%2Fprospective%2Fedmonton-skyline.jpg&hash=a947c02a82a942dab2ebdca0c3cfefc38a8814e0)

Sim City isn't real.

I am sitting in downtown Edmonton right now, and Seedy is right, it is just frozen tundra as far as the eye can see, broken up by the occasional gibbet with some poor French speaker dangling from it.

Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2014, 01:36:56 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 12:59:17 PM
They were denied access to armored vehicles despite a request for them.  Several agents were wounded while hiding behind ordinary cars, I think one might have been killed.  But that's okay, they were only law enforcement.  So freedom prevailed at least.

This kind of strawman garbage from you is really tiresome.  There have been many studies about the militarization of the police forces in both training and gear and clear catalogues of the negative impacts of this.  So because we care about impacts of training and equipment the police have and have concerns about some of its impacts we want law enforcement dead?  I want law enforcement trained and equipped properly to do their job to protect people and property.  I am not sure what the fuck you want, does it not concern you lives are being lost unnecessarily?  That it is having dangerous social impacts?  If the public stops trusting the cops and thinks they are the enemy can't you see how destabilizing that would be?

I do not really get bringing up the Brach Davidian thing, nobody is saying extremely specialized Federal Agencies shouldn't have this sort of thing going.  They are called in for very specific things not just general police work.

Ah well, many studies.  I had no idea.  Studies showing "Dangerous social impacts"?  Well, that should be enough for anyone.  Do we have studies that show how decrease these social impacts even further?  Perhaps by not having police and just having well intended mobs deal out justice.

You know what I dislike?  The knee-Jerk libertarian response of "oh my god, the government has scary looking tools!"

Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2014, 01:50:38 PM

Quoteall the modern things
like cars and such
have always existed

they've just been waiting in a mountain
for the right moment

:punk:

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 02:29:17 PM

Most of the ones who were shot were injored or killed while actually entering the building - something ordinarily not done while inside an armoured car.

Given that the worst case scenario happened despite having access to whatever heavy weapons the Feds wanted (i.e., all thge kids were killed), I do not see this incident as making the point that heavy weapons are essential for local police work, for the following reasons:

(1) The majority of cops injured and killed were injured and killed doing stuff you can't do while inside an armoured car anyway;

(2) The cops in question were not local police forces, but federals - who could reasonably be expected to have access to more military type gear than local cops;

(3) Despite having whatever military gear, including armoured vehicles and heavy machine guns and other weapons, the net effect was that everyone the raid was originally supposed to protect - the kids - died.

I would think that if even the feds can't use all that heavy gear to good effect, it is rather a lot to expect your local cops in Podunk, New Jersey to do so. I can see a lot of downsides to this - the whole "we had to kill everyone to save them" mentality isn't a good thing to spread down to the local police level.

The reason it makes a good example is that Branch Davidians were heavily armed and in this country you sometimes have very heavily armed loonies.  In cases like that, want law enforcement to have superior equipment, and there was no "we have to kill everyone to save them" mentality there.  The religious nuts had set the fire.  Actually the worst case scenario did not occur.  The worst case scenario would be the cultists waging their apocalyptic war (which was what they were preparing for with all those guns) on the public.

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 16, 2014, 06:20:36 AM
Even if they don't cost much to aquire how much do these things cost to maintain? Or even just burn through a tank of gas?

Interesting that you mention the fuel burn- I thought the EPA had banned sales of any military vehicle that didn't meet emissions standards, specifically targeting MRAPs.  Or is this one of those lawyery, douchey backdoor things where it doesn't count as a "sale" because the exchange of money for the cost of transporting doesn't count? :unsure:

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 04:36:26 PM
The reason it makes a good example is that Branch Davidians were heavily armed and in this country you sometimes have very heavily armed loonies.  In cases like that, want law enforcement to have superior equipment, and there was no "we have to kill everyone to save them" mentality there.  The religious nuts had set the fire.  Actually the worst case scenario did not occur.  The worst case scenario would be the cultists waging their apocalyptic war (which was what they were preparing for with all those guns) on the public.

Is there any evidence of this war upon the public?

Seems to me it would make better sense to choose as one's example a case in which use of armoured vehicles actually saved the day, rather than a notorious fuck-up which got all of the children (the safety of which was the alleged reason for the final raid) killed.

Quote from: Berkut on September 16, 2014, 04:17:24 PM
I am sitting in downtown Edmonton right now,

My condolences.

Quote from: Berkut on September 16, 2014, 04:17:24 PM
I am sitting in downtown Edmonton right now, and Seedy is right, it is just frozen tundra as far as the eye can see, broken up by the occasional gibbet with some poor French speaker dangling from it.

What marks the downtown anyway? A convergance of paths in the tundra? Increased frequency of francophone gibbets?  :hmm:

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 05:15:20 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 04:36:26 PM
The reason it makes a good example is that Branch Davidians were heavily armed and in this country you sometimes have very heavily armed loonies.  In cases like that, want law enforcement to have superior equipment, and there was no "we have to kill everyone to save them" mentality there.  The religious nuts had set the fire.  Actually the worst case scenario did not occur.  The worst case scenario would be the cultists waging their apocalyptic war (which was what they were preparing for with all those guns) on the public.

Is there any evidence of this war upon the public?

Seems to me it would make better sense to choose as one's example a case in which use of armoured vehicles actually saved the day, rather than a notorious fuck-up which got all of the children (the safety of which was the alleged reason for the final raid) killed.

They were buying a lot of weapons and black powder and thought there would be an apocalyptic war in the future.  In my book that makes that them dangerous loonies.  I used them as an example because they were dangerous loonies and the that officers who were shot may not have been shot had they had suitable armored vehicles to get behind.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 10:27:10 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 16, 2014, 05:15:20 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2014, 04:36:26 PM
The reason it makes a good example is that Branch Davidians were heavily armed and in this country you sometimes have very heavily armed loonies.  In cases like that, want law enforcement to have superior equipment, and there was no "we have to kill everyone to save them" mentality there.  The religious nuts had set the fire.  Actually the worst case scenario did not occur.  The worst case scenario would be the cultists waging their apocalyptic war (which was what they were preparing for with all those guns) on the public.

Is there any evidence of this war upon the public?

Seems to me it would make better sense to choose as one's example a case in which use of armoured vehicles actually saved the day, rather than a notorious fuck-up which got all of the children (the safety of which was the alleged reason for the final raid) killed.

They were buying a lot of weapons and black powder and thought there would be an apocalyptic war in the future.  In my book that makes that them dangerous loonies.  I used them as an example because they were dangerous loonies and the that officers who were shot may not have been shot had they had suitable armored vehicles to get behind.

The ATF is a specialized federal law enforcement agency. If we grant that they might have a use for armored vehicles once every twenty years or so, that doesn't suggest that all police forces need them.

That's fine.  I never said that all police forces need them.  In fact, I said that they probably don't.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/17/us-usa-california-school-weapons-idUSKBN0HC0N320140917

QuoteLos Angeles schools police to return grenade launchers to U.S.

Los Angeles schools' police said on Tuesday it would give up three grenade launchers it acquired for free through a federal program now facing mounting scrutiny for supplying local agencies with military-grade equipment, the L.A Times newspaper reported.

The move follows scrutiny over the Department of Defense's program, begun in 1991, which gives unused equipment to police forces across the U.S., including ones that serve school districts.

The Los Angeles School Police Department, which serves the nation's second-largest school system, would keep 61 rifles and an armored vehicle built to withstand roadside bombs, the newspaper said.

Reuters could not independently verify the report.

A police sergeant who declined to be named confirmed the department had the equipment and said it is needed "for the safety of staff, students, and personnel" but could not confirm what if anything the department was relinquishing.

The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, and the grenade launchers, would only have been used in "very specific circumstances," he added, without elaborating.

President Barack Obama ordered a review of the program out of concern at how such equipment had been used during racial unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting death of a black teen by a white policeman last month.

Images of police wielding military-style guns and armor flanked by armored vehicles as they clashed with protesters helped to fuel a national debate on policing tactics in the U.S.

Debate has also simmered in part over the extent to which an increase in armed police and school officials can prevent higher death tolls in shooting rampages at U.S. schools.

Civil rights and education groups called for an end to the program supplying school system police in a letter to the Department of Defense on Monday. The Los Angeles School Police Department assigns officers to school campuses and they also patrol the surrounding areas.

"Adding the presence of military-grade weapons to school climates that have become increasingly hostile due to their overreliance on police to handle routine student discipline can only exacerbate existing tensions," the letter said.

The Pentagon has transferred more than $4 billion of equipment including armored vehicles, tents, rifles and night- vision goggles to local and state agencies since 2006.

School districts in Texas, Michigan, Georgia, and other states have received equipment, U.S. media reported.

Other California schools districts have participated in the program, gathering supplies ranging from rifles to exercise equipment and televisions, the Times reported.

 :lol:

I am eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car ... but I am delighted to hear that they no longer require grenade launchers.  :lol:

Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2014, 08:28:21 AM
I am eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car

have you not seen kindergarten cop? You never know when an insane criminal and his mother might try to kidnap one of your students.

Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2014, 08:28:21 AM
but I am delighted to hear that they no longer require grenade launchers.  :lol:

I'd be pissed if I were a San Diego school cop.  Those things are fun to shoot-- even just with the chalk training rounds we used.

Quote from: derspiess on September 17, 2014, 08:42:17 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2014, 08:28:21 AM
but I am delighted to hear that they no longer require grenade launchers.  :lol:

I'd be pissed if I were a San Diego school cop.  Those things are fun to shoot-- even just with the chalk training rounds we used.

I wonder how fun it would be to lob one into a crowded playground.  I guess the San Diego cops may never find out, now. :lol:

Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2014, 08:28:21 AM
I am eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car ... but I am delighted to hear that they no longer require grenade launchers.  :lol:

Hey this wasn't a school board. It was the LA School Cops. :cool:

Ironically, the only school police department that would need grenade launchers would be LA's. :unsure:

Besides, there are 40mm smoke & tear gas grenades.  And we know riot cops never shoot those directly at individuals.

Yeah, the grenade launchers get a bad rap because of its name, but it's great when it comes to gas for crowd control.

Bring back the M79

And steel helmets with death cards in the band too plz.

Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2014, 09:22:04 AM
Bring back the M79

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

Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2014, 09:41:38 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2014, 09:22:04 AM
Bring back the M79

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

You can reload those sumbitches fast.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2014, 09:15:03 AM
Yeah, the grenade launchers get a bad rap because of its name, but it's great when it comes to gas for crowd control.

I don't think we should be gassing students. :unsure:

Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2014, 09:45:22 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2014, 09:15:03 AM
Yeah, the grenade launchers get a bad rap because of its name, but it's great when it comes to gas for crowd control.

I don't think we should be gassing students. :unsure:

What's the alternative, high explosives?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2014, 09:15:03 AM
Yeah, the grenade launchers get a bad rap because of its name, but it's great when it comes to gas for crowd control.

Kindergarden must be more exciting in your country.  :)

Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2014, 08:28:21 AM
I am eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car ... but I am delighted to hear that they no longer require grenade launchers.  :lol:

:huh:  Tear gas grenades fired from grenade launchers make some degree of sense.  Mine-resistant, ambush-proofed "armored cars" that tip over easily... a lot less.

Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2014, 09:45:22 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2014, 09:15:03 AM
Yeah, the grenade launchers get a bad rap because of its name, but it's great when it comes to gas for crowd control.

I don't think we should be gassing students. :unsure:

Under no circumstances?  :unsure:

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

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2014, 10:04:37 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2014, 08:28:21 AM
I am eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car ... but I am delighted to hear that they no longer require grenade launchers.  :lol:

:huh:  Tear gas grenades fired from grenade launchers make some degree of sense.  Mine-resistant, ambush-proofed "armored cars" that tip over easily... a lot less.

Why the "  :huh: :"? I said I'm "eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car". The implication is, I don't know any good reason why they would want one.

Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2014, 10:08:05 AM

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2014, 10:04:37 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2014, 08:28:21 AM
I am eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car ... but I am delighted to hear that they no longer require grenade launchers.  :lol:

:huh:  Tear gas grenades fired from grenade launchers make some degree of sense.  Mine-resistant, ambush-proofed "armored cars" that tip over easily... a lot less.

Why the "  :huh: :"? I said I'm "eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car". The implication is, I don't know any good reason why they would want one.

So, your post and my response only, in your mind, addressed the "armoured car" issue?  Neither of us said anything about grenade launchers, as far as you can see?

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2014, 10:24:04 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2014, 10:08:05 AM

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2014, 10:04:37 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2014, 08:28:21 AM
I am eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car ... but I am delighted to hear that they no longer require grenade launchers.  :lol:

:huh:  Tear gas grenades fired from grenade launchers make some degree of sense.  Mine-resistant, ambush-proofed "armored cars" that tip over easily... a lot less.

Why the "  :huh: :"? I said I'm "eager to learn why a school board needs an armoured car". The implication is, I don't know any good reason why they would want one.

So, your post and my response only, in your mind, addressed the "armoured car" issue?  Neither of us said anything about grenade launchers, as far as you can see?

I said I was delighted to hear that they no longer require them (commenting on the news story, that they were giving them up).  Your point being?  :hmm:

As far as I know, I never said anything like 'it makes sense to have armoured cars but not grenade launchers', which appears to be what you thought I was saying, given your response.

In point of fact, I think neither makes much sense for school police, but if I was pressed, I would agree with you that armoured cars make less sense, since there is at least some theoretic possibility of rioting students requiring tear gassing. 

Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2014, 10:34:20 AM
I said I was delighted to hear that they no longer require them (commenting on the news story, that they were giving them up).  Your point being?  :hmm:

The school system was giving up the grenade launchers, not eliminating the need for them.  I'm not sure why that is such a delightful thing.  That was the point.

Quote...here is at least some theoretic possibility of rioting students requiring tear gassing.

So, tear gas or smoke could only ever be used on students?  There is no "theoretic possibility" that tear gas or smoke could be used to protect or rescue school students or staff?

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2014, 10:42:08 AM

The school system was giving up the grenade launchers, not eliminating the need for them.  I'm not sure why that is such a delightful thing.  That was the point.

As you saying that the fact that they made the decision to give them up isn't a reasonable basis to believe that they themselves decided they weren't needed? What exactly are you basing this apparently irrational action on their part on?  :hmm:

QuoteSo, tear gas or smoke could only ever be used on students?  There is no "theoretic possibility" that tear gas or smoke could be used to protect or rescue school students or staff?

Sure. So?

Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2014, 10:50:47 AM
As you saying that the fact that they made the decision to give them up isn't a reasonable basis to believe that they themselves decided they weren't needed? What exactly are you basing this apparently irrational action on their part on?  :hmm:

I'm assuming nothing.  I am merely questioning your assumptions.  Sometimes people or organizations give things up because they are too expensive, not because they don't serve a purpose.  The US Navy gave up 31 Spruance class destroyers with an average of a decade of service life left; not because they didn't have a need for the ships, but because the decision sacrificed the least capability for the  budget reduction needed.  That sort of trade-off isn't even remotely "apparently irrational." :hmm:

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2014, 11:24:08 AM

Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2014, 10:50:47 AM
As you saying that the fact that they made the decision to give them up isn't a reasonable basis to believe that they themselves decided they weren't needed? What exactly are you basing this apparently irrational action on their part on?  :hmm:

I'm assuming nothing.  I am merely questioning your assumptions.  Sometimes people or organizations give things up because they are too expensive, not because they don't serve a purpose.  The US Navy gave up 31 Spruance class destroyers with an average of a decade of service life left; not because they didn't have a need for the ships, but because the decision sacrificed the least capability for the  budget reduction needed.  That sort of trade-off isn't even remotely "apparently irrational." :hmm:

Something they allegedly got for free is "too expensive" now?  :lol:

From thec article:

QuoteLos Angeles schools' police said on Tuesday it would give up three grenade launchers it acquired for free through a federal program ...

[emphasis]

You are not exactly undermining the assumption they did not need them with that argument.  :hmm:

Getting it for free =/  free maintenance for the life of your armored vehicle!

Somebody's gotta pay for the gas and the maintenance for a specialty vehicle.  Can't just take it to Jiffy Lube.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2014, 12:45:20 PM
Getting it for free =/  free maintenance for the life of your armored vehicle!

Somebody's gotta pay for the gas and the maintenance for a specialty vehicle.  Can't just take it to Jiffy Lube.

What does maintenance on a grenade launcher cost?

Quote from: sbr on September 17, 2014, 12:56:19 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2014, 12:45:20 PM
Getting it for free =/  free maintenance for the life of your armored vehicle!

Somebody's gotta pay for the gas and the maintenance for a specialty vehicle.  Can't just take it to Jiffy Lube.

What does maintenance on a grenade launcher cost?

Probably less than the maintenance for a heavy armoured vehicle.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2014, 12:45:20 PM
Getting it for free =/  free maintenance for the life of your armored vehicle!

Somebody's gotta pay for the gas and the maintenance for a specialty vehicle.  Can't just take it to Jiffy Lube.

Yeah, that's where you have guys who aren't thinking ahead.

Quote from: sbr on September 17, 2014, 12:56:19 PM
What does maintenance on a grenade launcher cost?

My WAG would be $200 - $300 per year, if you aren't using it.  The alternative, though, is $0 in maintenance and calling the LAPD on the off chance they actually need one.

:hmm:  That sounds a bit steep.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2014, 12:45:20 PM
Getting it for free =/  free maintenance for the life of your armored vehicle!

Somebody's gotta pay for the gas and the maintenance for a specialty vehicle.  Can't just take it to Jiffy Lube.

Not "armoured vehicle" (they kept that). Grenade launchers. You know, something one stores in an armoury.

I assume there will be some storage and maintenance involved, but hardly a cost to break the bank.

The idea that they really, really need those three launchers - but gosh-darnit, they just can't afford to store them - sounds rather like 'they don't need those launchers' to me.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2014, 09:15:03 AM
Yeah, the grenade launchers get a bad rap because of its name, but it's great when it comes to gas for crowd control.

So make sure the National Guard has some then.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 17, 2014, 01:10:53 PM

Quote from: sbr on September 17, 2014, 12:56:19 PM
What does maintenance on a grenade launcher cost?

My WAG would be $200 - $300 per year, if you aren't using it.  The alternative, though, is $0 in maintenance and calling the LAPD on the off chance they actually need one.

And then reimbursing the LAPD for whatever costs they want to charge you (unless the case has changed enough to make it fall in their jurisdiction).  It's all a trade-off.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 17, 2014, 01:59:34 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2014, 09:15:03 AM
Yeah, the grenade launchers get a bad rap because of its name, but it's great when it comes to gas for crowd control.

So make sure the National Guard has some then.

The National Guard having them is not the same as the force with jurisdiction having them.  The Guard won't part with them without a lot of paperwork, plus your guys aren't trained to use them.

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

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 17, 2014, 02:33:32 PM
The regular po-po shouldn't be firing on crowds.

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

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 17, 2014, 01:10:53 PM

Quote from: sbr on September 17, 2014, 12:56:19 PM
What does maintenance on a grenade launcher cost?

My WAG would be $200 - $300 per year, if you aren't using it.  The alternative, though, is $0 in maintenance and calling the LAPD on the off chance they actually need one.

They can also call in artillery support from Sheriff Arpaio.

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2014, 02:34:39 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 17, 2014, 02:33:32 PM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2014, 10:06:37 AM
How about people who are holding students or administrators hostage, or who are attacking a school building.  Do you think we should gas them? :huh:

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

Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2014, 02:41:12 PM

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2014, 10:06:37 AM
How about people who are holding students or administrators hostage, or who are attacking a school building.  Do you think we should gas them? :huh:

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.

Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2014, 02:41:12 PM

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2014, 10:06:37 AM
How about people who are holding students or administrators hostage, or who are attacking a school building.  Do you think we should gas them? :huh:

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.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 17, 2014, 02:39:39 PM

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2014, 02:34:39 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 17, 2014, 02:33:32 PM
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.

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?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 17, 2014, 03:24:33 PM
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.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 17, 2014, 03:24:33 PM
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?  ;)

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.

Or walking backward

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 17, 2014, 03:24:33 PM
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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2014, 04:07:56 PM
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.

Quote from: Maximus on September 17, 2014, 04:15:48 PM
Or walking backward

Nope.  That's surrendering.

Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2014, 09:41:38 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2014, 09:22:04 AM
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?

Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2014, 06:11:49 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2014, 04:07:56 PM
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.  :lol:

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?

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

Quote from: The Brain on September 18, 2014, 08:43:49 AM
What's the difference between not affording and not needing?

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

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2014, 08:49:42 AM

Quote from: The Brain on September 18, 2014, 08:43:49 AM
What's the difference between not affording and not needing?

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

Yeah? You are gay.

Quote from: Malthus on September 18, 2014, 08:35:29 AM
Grumbler and his "free is too expensive" theory.  :lol: 

Malthus and his "I don't understand the concept of sunk costs" theory.  :lol:  [/quote]

QuoteIs 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?

There is no evidence either way, which is why I questioned your assumption that you knew the answer without information. That's all that this discussion between us has ever been about; I am not saying they have a need for them or that they don't, while you are saying that they definitely don't.  We are working off the same information.  I will leave it to others to decide which of our positions is more reasonable.

Quote from: The Brain on September 18, 2014, 08:43:49 AM
What's the difference between not affording and not needing?

Opportunity cost.