Tippecanoe Co.'s MRAP

[RobbyMaQ]

Godzilla sighting here:


...and here:


Takuma Sato's visor strip

 

[T.Lex]

Hey, since the fun has escaped this thread, here's a serious question.

Traditionally, part of the definition of "terrorism" is an attack on civilians. Military people are supposed to know they are targets, so technically, they can't be victims of terrorism. The IRA (as an example) broadened this to police targets, since Northern Ireland was basically a police state. The police were arguably para-military by the standards of the 70s and 80s, although they look pretty meek by today's standards.

So, those jurisdictions that have MRAPs and US military hand-me-down toys, can those terrorist targets still be considered "civilian"? At what point does the militarization of police make them legitimate targets for our enemies?

(N.B. I'm not saying they ARE legitimate targets. I'm also not saying our enemies necessarily care about the Rules of War. This is more of an intellectual exercise.)

 

[Fargo]

Hey, since the fun has escaped this thread, here's a serious question.

Traditionally, part of the definition of "terrorism" is an attack on civilians. Military people are supposed to know they are targets, so technically, they can't be victims of terrorism. The IRA (as an example) broadened this to police targets, since Northern Ireland was basically a police state. The police were arguably para-military by the standards of the 70s and 80s, although they look pretty meek by today's standards.

So, those jurisdictions that have MRAPs and US military hand-me-down toys, can those terrorist targets still be considered "civilian"? At what point does the militarization of police make them legitimate targets for our enemies?

(N.B. I'm not saying they ARE legitimate targets. I'm also not saying our enemies necessarily care about the Rules of War. This is more of an intellectual exercise.)

You think the Black and Tans and their successors, with paratrooper backing, were meek compared to the US today?

 

[T.Lex]

Post 1969? Are you thinking of the B Specials? Or the Ulster Defense Regiment?

It has been awhile, but I associate the Tans with the Irish War of Independence.

Overall, though, yeah, I think police are more militarized in the US than in NI in the 70s and 80s. Not just in equipment, but tactics, too. Certainly open to debating it, though.

 

[Fargo]

Post 1969? Are you thinking of the B Specials? Or the Ulster Defense Regiment?

It has been awhile, but I associate the Tans with the Irish War of Independence.

Overall, though, yeah, I think police are more militarized in the US than in NI in the 70s and 80s. Not just in equipment, but tactics, too. Certainly open to debating it, though.

The Tans were pre-WW2, but they kinda set the stage for policing in British occupied Ireland at least through Bloody Sunday.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I am unaware of any real constraints on the British backed "police" until well into the 80s if not 90s.

 

[vitamink]

Hey, since the fun has escaped this thread, here's a serious question.

Traditionally, part of the definition of "terrorism" is an attack on civilians. Military people are supposed to know they are targets, so technically, they can't be victims of terrorism. The IRA (as an example) broadened this to police targets, since Northern Ireland was basically a police state. The police were arguably para-military by the standards of the 70s and 80s, although they look pretty meek by today's standards.

So, those jurisdictions that have MRAPs and US military hand-me-down toys, can those terrorist targets still be considered "civilian"? At what point does the militarization of police make them legitimate targets for our enemies?

(N.B. I'm not saying they ARE legitimate targets. I'm also not saying our enemies necessarily care about the Rules of War. This is more of an intellectual exercise.)

I don't see focus of a terrorist effecting the definition of a terrorist (definition at the end). Terrorists have always had 2 focuses. The police/military as those are who they perceive would stop them from their main goal of hitting mass casualty soft target areas. Regarding "militarization". The police are less militarized now than they were when policing began in the united states. The uniform for an Indianapolis Police officer, when policing began in Indianapolis, was the exact same as a Union soldiers uniform. Today an IMPD street officer's uniform is not multicam, nor digi cam. Warrants served in the 1940s (WWII) by IPD officers were served while carrying BARs, 1911's, and FA Thompson sub guns. Today IMPD doesn't serve warrants with SAWs or M134s. Military vehicles were always loaned to police departments from the government. In the 40s police had the same armored vehicles used during WWII...In the 70s Police had APCs and V100s used in Vietnam...just as today cops have HMMWVs and MRAPs used in the current conflicts. Apparently the world just started paying attention.

The video below was filmed in 1954...note that 10,000 rounds were fired, 8 officers were shot, but they lived therefore it wasn't dangerous. The video starts after the worst of it as it took the media some time to arrive. Note the "tommy guns". IPD didn't have an armored vehicle at the time and luckily a bank loaned them an armored truck. Since all officers lived they do not deserve a vehicle to stop bullets as cop death is the only factor in determining need. Prior to Elder avenue nothing ever bad happened and ducks were mean. Elder avenue shouldn't change the need as no one died.
[video=youtube;lsDR-h76Vk4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsDR-h76Vk4[/video]




FBI definition:


"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I note for the record that Haughville is somehow NOT in Tippecanoe County.

"One time Godzilla attacked Haughville and give us money."

No, not anywhere near good enough. Show your work and not some silly Godzilla attack from another county.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't see focus of a terrorist effecting the definition of a terrorist (definition at the end).

Indeed, there is not consensus about the definition of terrorism.
Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FBI definition:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S

The FBI has political and legal reasons for defining terrorism as they do.

Regarding "militarization". The police are less militarized now than they were when policing began in the united states.

That's a hard case to make. When professional policing began, officers were low-paid, lowest-common-denominator type people. Guys who couldn't find a job doing other things.

Warrants served in the 1940s (WWII) by IPD officers were served while carrying BARs, 1911's, and FA Thompson sub guns.

Ah, the golden days pre-NFA. A bunch of the bad guys had those, too.

But, weapons do not a military make. I do not know the statistics of vets who were police officers back then, and I think it could go either way.

Today IMPD doesn't serve warrants with SAWs or M134s.

Yet. But, the FA M-4s/4geries are generally more than the baddies have nowadays.

But, I'm also talking training. There is more combat-style training now than ever before.

 

[Stang51d]

Terre Haute has an MRAP, and no one seems to care. Its as if they dont even know its there.

I think I have found out why this is.

They dont call it an MRAP,

They call it an "Unmarked police vehicle".

 

[Birds Away]

Hey, since the fun has escaped this thread, here's a serious question.

Traditionally, part of the definition of "terrorism" is an attack on civilians. Military people are supposed to know they are targets, so technically, they can't be victims of terrorism. The IRA (as an example) broadened this to police targets, since Northern Ireland was basically a police state. The police were arguably para-military by the standards of the 70s and 80s, although they look pretty meek by today's standards.

So, those jurisdictions that have MRAPs and US military hand-me-down toys, can those terrorist targets still be considered "civilian"? At what point does the militarization of police make them legitimate targets for our enemies?

(N.B. I'm not saying they ARE legitimate targets. I'm also not saying our enemies necessarily care about the Rules of War. This is more of an intellectual exercise.)

I personally believe that terrorism would extend to military members in a civilian environment because although the victims are military the intended victims, or those to be terrorized, are still civilians. The attack on military targets within the U.S. might serve to "terrorize" civilians even more than a direct attack on them.

 

[cobber]

I've been watching the Journal Courier, and not one letter criticizing Sheriff Richards for the MRAP or ballistic vests. Since officers don't get shot at in TC and there's no "risk formulation" to justify it.

Nor any letters stating that since crime consists of ducks stealing things, we actually don't need officers.

Maybe I just missed the paper that day?


How about mocking the guy in brown on a forum where he's likely to actually see it, and maybe give the OP the answers he seems to desire?

Or just keep up the duck arguments here on INGO. Because that is sure to change things.

 

[T.Lex]

Wait. Thread fun might be returning.

"A titan by any other name, would surely smell as sweet."

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
You have not. I have asked for past incidents of barricaded subjects shooting at the Sheriff.

I now ask yet again. It does not happen here. This is just an inane justification to play with a toy.
...

I haven't been following this thread, but I clicked into it today. I don't recall the year, but I believe it was 2002 or 2003, when the taser was first used in Tippecanoe County, by Sheriff Smokey Anderson's men. There was a man who was shooting out the back door of his house, with deputies in the woods behind.

I don't know that a MRAP would have been useful, but I don't know that it would not have. As I recall, it was many hours of "standoff" between them.

Sorry, Kirk. Yes, it DOES happen. That it happens only once in a great while does not mean that having the right tool for the job is not a good practice.

I have a specific type of splint on my ambulance, in adult and pediatric sizes. This splint is useful only in the event of a very specific fracture of the large bone of the upper leg (it's a "mid-shaft femur fracture", and the splint is called a "traction splint") There is no other use I know of for that splint, and yet the federal and state standards mandate I carry it. In almost three decades on an ambulance, I've used that splint less than five times. When I need it, though, it does a job nothing else can properly do in that setting.

If it's already been paid for and can be used appropriately, I'm not going to object to it. "Officer safety" is too often used as an excuse, but that doesn't mean they should stand up and walk like Superman into a hail of flying lead.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[actaeon277]

I haven't been following this thread, but I clicked into it today. I don't recall the year, but I believe it was 2002 or 2003, when the taser was first used in Tippecanoe County, by Sheriff Smokey Anderson's men. There was a man who was shooting out the back door of his house, with deputies in the woods behind.

I don't know that a MRAP would have been useful, but I don't know that it would not have. As I recall, it was many hours of "standoff" between them.

Sorry, Kirk. Yes, it DOES happen. That it happens only once in a great while does not mean that having the right tool for the job is not a good practice.

I have a specific type of splint on my ambulance, in adult and pediatric sizes. This splint is useful only in the event of a very specific fracture of the large bone of the upper leg (it's a "mid-shaft femur fracture", and the splint is called a "traction splint") There is no other use I know of for that splint, and yet the federal and state standards mandate I carry it. In almost three decades on an ambulance, I've used that splint less than five times. When I need it, though, it does a job nothing else can properly do in that setting.

If it's already been paid for and can be used appropriately, I'm not going to object to it. "Officer safety" is too often used as an excuse, but that doesn't mean they should stand up and walk like Superman into a hail of flying lead.

Blessings,
Bill

And once again, a Humvee would be better for that job.
A MRAPS claim to fame, is mines and IEDs. They are being gotten rid of cause the army is not fond of them.

 

[Denny347]

But, I'm also talking training. There is more combat-style training now than ever before.

Ahhh, as a firearms and combatives instructor, I love training. What military only training do you speak of?

 

[T.Lex]

Ahhh, as a firearms and combatives instructor, I love training. What military only training do you speak of?

Ah, since you're a firearms and combatives instructor, I love that you love training!

But seriously. When did IMPD create a role for a "Firearms and Combatives Instructor"? The "combat" training is kinda in the name, eh?

 

[vitamink]

Indeed, there is not consensus about the definition of terrorism.
Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The FBI has political and legal reasons for defining terrorism as they do.

What was the definition that you were using?

Regarding "militarization". The police are less militarized now than they were when policing began in the united states.
That's a hard case to make. When professional policing began, officers were low-paid, lowest-common-denominator type people. Guys who couldn't find a job doing other things.

I don't see the connection between police being more militarized because they made less money along time ago. I think "police are less militarized" is an easy case to make...and i think i made it. When you visit cop block, free thought project, Radley Balko they talk of the same few things that prove police militarization - Looks, Weapons/Equiment, and Attitude. They spend no time researching the history and spoon feed the masses with their BS.

LOOKS
As far as looks go, if the first police uniform in Indiana was the same military pants, military shirt, military hat, military belt, and military boots worn by the current soldier, then anything less than 100% today is less militarized. IE If a cop in indiana was wearing multicam crye precision knee pad pants, peltor comms, a jumpable plate carrier, hight cut helmet, night vision, face paint, carrying an M4 with a peq laser....if his uniform shirt has "hi i'm totally a cop" embroidered above the pocket he is less militarized than the first police officers in indiana. Balko used to do a slide show where he showed a cop or military guy and asked the audience to participate in figuring out which was which. He could do the same thing here and called it "Military, police, INGO open carry event, or second amendment rally?" with the same results.

EQUIPMENT
If the first police officers had XYZ from the current conflict then any deviation from that is notable. If in 1942 officers served warrants with BARs, FA Tommy guns, 1911s etc...then today they should serve warrants with SAWs, Full auto suppressed Scar heavy's with steel penetrators , etc. IPD only recently started allowing officers to carry semi auto ARs.

ATTITUDE
Training changes to fit the need. Just like there wasn't SWAT in the 1940s there was still a group of guys with scary military guns that performed the same task. Today its called SWAT. Training changes with the times for the military, for the police, and on the civilian side. Much like in the elder ave video the cops with the military training prevailed as they entered the house stacked up and immediately spread out dividing the guys attention. Prior to the current conflicts overseas, police department bomb squads had the edge over the military when it came to IEDs as any explosive incidents in the states were "improvised". The military mostly dealt with professionally manufactured explosives/mines/etc. A policeitization of the military occurred as they started training with police EOD units to better deal with improvised explosives. Now its the other way around as the police train with the military as their IED knowledge far surpasses anything in the states.

Training adapts. I remember when there were only a handful of options if a citizen wanted to learn how to shoot gun. Now you can learn defensive tactics and combat rolls from an actual 11B from the sandbox here in Indiana.





Ah, the golden days pre-NFA. A bunch of the bad guys had those, too.

But, weapons do not a military make. I do not know the statistics of vets who were police officers back then, and I think it could go either way

I'm not sure what you're saying but the numbers are pretty similar regarding ratio of ex military police officers to never been in the military police officers. For state police you have to have graduated college, or have been prior military.


Yet. But, the FA M-4s/4geries are generally more than the baddies have nowadays.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Cops have 3 options...if they're lucky...handgun, pump shotgun, or Ar15. Baddies have whatever they want. A baddy can rip 7.62 rounds through police cars while the cops shoot back with bullets designed to reduce over penetration. Take a look at IPD/IMPD history and you'll see a pattern of being outgunned. Look at your own collection. You probably have more rounds than any cop has. You probably have rounds with a steel core, hollow points, match grade etc. You probably have guns that shoot a bullet larger than a .22. I know I do ​I also have camouflage, night vision, high power scopes, IR lasers, suppressors, guns that can shoot 1 mile out, custom triggers, body armor that is better than the military and a HMMWV with supplemental armor designed for rounds up to a 308 which they don't carry. My shotgun will be an 8" semi auto saiga SBS with a 20rd drum...Now unlike many people, i don't have a Facebook page where i boast about such things and then say "hey guys, i'm leaving for Jamaica this friday!!!" but if i did... any baddie with an angle grinder could have all that stuff too. I can go to armslist right now and buy more firepower than any cop is packing. I can also trade a gun for a set of rims and a 5,000 watt stereo so that i can be deaf and look stupid while i outgun them.

But, I'm also talking training. There is more combat-style training now than ever before.

Yep see above.

And once again, a Humvee would be better for that job.
A MRAPS claim to fame, is mines and IEDs. They are being gotten rid of cause the army is not fond of them.

That's dependant on the mission. If you want a vehicle that you can extract folks with, the HMMWV sucks. You can barely fit in the drivers seat with any sort of gear on and you can fit a maximum of 4 people in it to be marginally protected. You are welcome to try mine. Also HMMWVs were not designed to have armor. Supplemental armor has several glaring weaknesses. Where HMMWVs are awesome is when winter hits hard. Cops can still get to runs in the unarmored ones as they don't lose their usefulness. The UP armored ones are about as snow/offroad capable as a pair of roller skates with the acceleration of a walmart mobility scooter. The MRAP is thick steel built around the frame of essentially a 5 ton truck, not an afterthought exoskeleton on an aluminum body.

I note for the record that Haughville is somehow NOT in Tippecanoe County.

"One time Godzilla attacked Haughville and give us money."

No, not anywhere near good enough. Show your work and not some silly Godzilla attack from another county.

The Haughville scenario could have been exactly what the police would have faced when that cop got her ass kicked and her rifle stolen. Luckily he surrendered, i assumed he wouldn't have given the lengths he went through to get away. The truth of the matter is Godzilla is isn't a quadriplegic with a flat tire and a dead battery. Godzilla likes to roam free and though everyone in TC is awesome it is possible for baddie from indy to make his way there to the promise land. IU bloomington is noticing a trend of Indy thugs causing issues there. BTW as it wasn't on the news. 2 days ago IMPD drove an armored vehicle up to a barricaded suspect with a rifle and gave commands over the loudspeaker. They then got the guy. They didn't have his phone number

 

[vitamink]

Ah, since you're a firearms and combatives instructor, I love that you love training!

But seriously. When did IMPD create a role for a "Firearms and Combatives Instructor"? The "combat" training is kinda in the name, eh?

It developed out of a need. Police officers need to hit the target so they learn how to shoot and keep their skills up. I'm sure you can identify with that. They need to shoot on the move, cover, concealment, force on force, etc as baddies aren't stationary paper targets. Cops also need to learn how to fight. Surprisingly when you tell someone they are going to jail, accept maybe in TC, some people disagree with your judgement physically. In the old days, combatives was grabbing something heavy and hitting them with it. Now you learn techniques that expend less energy and cause less damage along with classroom time to discuss legal issues.

 

[Denny347]

Ah, since you're a firearms and combatives instructor, I love that you love training!

But seriously. When did IMPD create a role for a "Firearms and Combatives Instructor"? The "combat" training is kinda in the name, eh?

Oh for **** sake. I am a firearms instructor and I am a Combatives Instructor (aka defensive tactics, survival tactics, hand to hand "combat"). 2 separate certifications. Both could keep you alive. Please answer my question. What military training do you speak of?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Sorry, Kirk. Yes, it DOES happen. That it happens only once in a great while does not mean that having the right tool for the job is not a good practice.

Great, give me that cause number and we'll look at it. I have been begging for an incident in Tippecanoe County but have not received a single one, just silly arguments about negotiators, bombs, and Haughville.

So, let's sit down, look at that cause number so we can pull the report and see if an MRAP would be useful and then run the formula for man hours worked in the history of the Tippecanoe County Sheriff.

Ahhh, public policy with math instead of the emotions of butthurt cops and the greed of piggy politicians. What a refreshing change!

The Haughville scenario could have been exactly what the police would have faced when that cop got her ass kicked and her rifle stolen.

Could have been? Well, if Godzilla attacks Battle Ground, Tippecanoe County COULD HAVE BEEN in trouble.

Bramlett posed such a danger people were roaming through the scene buying lottery tickets at the Village Pantry and getting beers at the open tavern next door. I know I for one was terrified for the safety of the pig two houses down. What a Tippecanoe Tragedy.

Enough of the childish speculation. Show me where the good Sheriff's fairy tale has happened here. I'll look up the cause number and then the police report so we can evaluate it as taxpayers.