Why does FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL need this ???

[phylodog]

Punishing? Who's on trial? I thought we were talking about budgets and enforcement policies.

Nobody's punishing you. Police shouldn't feel entitled to receive the coolest model of vehicle to drive around. The community provides equipment that they can justify in their city and in their budget. This provision is subject to constant scrutiny.

Like Public Servant said, if you want a tank, go buy one yourself.

That's well and good until someone is looking at you, and telling you that it is your duty to walk into the gunfire but you aren't allowed anything to protect yourself.

Then again, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about it. You've never served your community or country in any capacity that I've seen other than sitting back Monday morning quarterbacking and whining about how awful this country is.

I'll be done with this thread now after making an attempt (although I'm not sure why I bother) to help some understand. I've posted my work history before and I'll do it again.

I've been in LE for 12 years. 8 Years of that I've served with the SWAT team. I've been through hundreds of doors on warrants, I've made entries on barricaded subjects and suspects both. I have never, ever been accused of excessive force in any way, shape or form. I take pride in the work I do and the reasons I do it and there aren't a lot of guys willing these days. I've walked away from my daughter's birthday party, many family gatherings, several movie theaters and more meals than I can count when the pager goes off. Threads like this do nothing but make thinly veiled accusations that I cannot be trusted, am just waiting for an opportunity to violate the public trust and abuse my authority. I don't want my name in the paper for anything I've done well or for screwing up.

I also don't expect to be made out to be the bad guy, especially by someone who has chosen to make it their life's work to keep men who hurt people for money and/or profit on the streets.

 

[dross]

I stand by my post!
The arguments here, against the deployment of the APC, are nothing more than fear mongering ala The Brady Campaign.
Period!!
You'd think a bunch of Firearms enthusiasts who have heard that crap for decades would recognize that fact.
Of course, I wonder how many people posting here actually have an active interest in firearms. I'm betting there are several people here who's sole purpose is to stir the Political pot and drive a wedge between LEO's and everyone else.
It seems to be working pretty well too.

I'll never let those nasty pot-stirrers to come between us, UncleMike.

 

[jsharmon7]

The difference I see is that the Bradys want to restrict the rights of individual citizens... and would love nothing better than to use you good cops and a bit of misinformation or bad law to make that happen. For the record, I have not, do not now, and do not intend to start using the terms "untrustworthy" in re: LEOs, with the exception of those specific LEOs who choose to violate the trust they are given.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, with all due respect, UM and I aren't arguing the goal of the Brady campaign but rather their tactics. We can all agree that their goals are unconstitutional at best, so we can assume that everyone is on the same page here as far as that goes. What I'm arguing is that the logic (or lack of logic) behind their arguments is being employed here. A potentially useful tool should not be outlawed simply because there is a potential for misuse. The end goals of the Brady campaign aside, do you agree with the logic behind their argument that guns kill people and should therefore be outlawed? If not, how can you support the same argument here? The fact that it's the police in one situation and a private citizen in the other is truly irrelevant because it ignores the logic of the argument being made. So again I ask, do you agree with the logic in the argument that guns kill people and should be outlawed due to their potential misuse?

I hate when I disagree with you, Bill, because it's so very rare and I have such respect for you. Such is life.

 

[UncleMike]

I'll never let those nasty pot-stirrers to come between us, UncleMike.

 

[Denny347]

Did you not watch the news video from the UK website?

Oh, man, it is hysterical. Let's watch it again.

Hey, Stallone, grab me a drumstick and hand me another APFSDS round. Aikido military arts.

"Couldn't you just knock on the door?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BxPjDCuqjg&feature=related




Unless you are speaking of the government.

Ol' Joe is quite the controversial figure isn't he. Heck, I have heard quite a bit of support for him on these boards here. The voters seem to like him, he has been Sheriff since 1993 (I guess they don't have term limits like we do here). That BS falls square on his shoulders. I certainly do not agree with how they conducted themselves. We are police officers and as such we MIGHT ACTUALLY have to do something that could be dangerous, like knock and serve a warrant ourselves. Some departments and some officers forget that. We are big boys and girls and are capable of handling these things ourselves without the help of SWAT. They have a legit purpose but I think some officers are scared of their own shadow quite frankly.

 

[Fletch]

Equipment to keep people in dangerous occupations safe:

"Protect and Serve" morphing into soldier cosplay:

Where and how that line is crossed seems to be an endless debate around here.

 

[dross]

That's well and good until someone is looking at you, and telling you that it is your duty to walk into the gunfire but you aren't allowed anything to protect yourself.

Then again, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about it. You've never served your community or country in any capacity that I've seen other than sitting back Monday morning quarterbacking and whining about how awful this country is.

I'll be done with this thread now after making an attempt (although I'm not sure why I bother) to help some understand. I've posted my work history before and I'll do it again.

I've been in LE for 12 years. 8 Years of that I've served with the SWAT team. I've been through hundreds of doors on warrants, I've made entries on barricaded subjects and suspects both. I have never, ever been accused of excessive force in any way, shape or form. I take pride in the work I do and the reasons I do it and there aren't a lot of guys willing these days. I've walked away from my daughter's birthday party, many family gatherings, several movie theaters and more meals than I can count when the pager goes off. Threads like this do nothing but make thinly veiled accusations that I cannot be trusted, am just waiting for an opportunity to violate the public trust and abuse my authority. I don't want my name in the paper for anything I've done well or for screwing up.

I also don't expect to be made out to be the bad guy, especially by someone who has chosen to make it their life's work to keep men who hurt people for money and/or profit on the streets.

This is misplaced anger and to me, part of the problem. Your job is going to be the subject of speculation and criticism on the part of the people you serve. This thread isn't even criticizing officers, it's questioning whether certain kinds of equipment are needed (I've learned here that they are) and whether some of that equipment, training, and mindset tend to create excess.

How is this bashing? How is this impugning you? Why is this personal to you? Your job is under a microscope. I get to examine it because I'm a citizen who pays taxes and I get to wonder out loud what causes excesses, how we can stop them and all manner of other things.

What's out of bounds is if I insult you or insult you by implication because I say all cops are bad.

No one has done that here. Any careful reading of this thread shows that it is the LEOs who have escalated this thread to a battle.

 

[NYFelon]

I stand by my post!
The arguments here, against the deployment of the APC, are nothing more than fear mongering ala The Brady Campaign.
Period!!
You'd think a bunch of Firearms enthusiasts who have heard that crap for decades would recognize that fact.
Of course, I wonder how many people posting here actually have an active interest in firearms. I'm betting there are several people here who's sole purpose is to stir the Political pot and drive a wedge between LEO's and everyone else.
It seems to be working pretty well too.

Some of us have a keen interest in firearms of which we are divested of our right to pursue.

 

[jsharmon7]

Any careful reading of this thread shows that it is the LEOs who have escalated this thread to a battle.

A battle?? And here I thought we were having a point/counter-point discussion of whether these are viable tools for law enforcement. Let's hope it's not a battle though, the LEOs have APCs.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Battle?

I thought an objection was raised and we were arguing.

We are not some mob, dross.

The end goals of the Brady campaign aside, do you agree with the logic behind their argument that guns kill people and should therefore be outlawed?

Governments and citizens are not similarly situated.

If you give something, anything, to government it WILL be abused.

To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, "giving money and power to politicians is not giving whiskey and IFV keys* to teenage boys."




*I know, I know, making joke here.

 

[dross]

A battle?? And here I thought we were having a point/counter-point discussion of whether these are viable tools for law enforcement. Let's hope it's not a battle though, the LEOs have APCs.

Well, I thought so too, so we're on the same page.

Yep, you with your APCs and your jackboots and your pepperspray and tasers, and me with my little slingshot.

 

[dross]

Hey, how come everybody's yelling at me?! Someone yell at Phylodog, he started it!

 

[Fletch]

Well, I thought so too, so we're on the same page.

Yep, you with your APCs and your jackboots and your pepperspray and tasers, and me with my little slingshot.

Oh yeah, I forgot the part where I should be able to have an APC/IFV/XYZ too. Fair is fair.

 

[UncleMike]

Some of us have a keen interest in firearms of which we are divested of our right to pursue.

Since I'm unfamiliar with your situation I can only presume from your user name that you've been convicted of a felonious offense.
If you feel that your conviction was in error you have the right to petition the Governor of the State where the offense occurred to have your conviction set aside. (I'm sure you already know that)
In the mean time you are still free to study firearms, and any, and all, aspects of their use.

 

[Rocket]

Hey, I am all for recycling too. Where is my APC? I might need one some day. Lets see what the neighborhood Association has to say about one parked in my drive!

 

[public servant]

Where is my APC?

Here you go.

Armor Page 1

I like this little gem...only $9K. It would look awesome rolling through the streets of Mars Hill.

J-5 Tankett

 

[steveh_131]

I think they have the right to use whatever equipment they want in order to protect themselves. Just like the rest of us should. Whether a community wants to pay for it should be left up to the community.

Challenge the mindset, challenge the system, challenge the corrupt individuals and their actions.

But we task these people with protecting our liberty, by force if necessary. I don't see the point in denying them the right to use whatever equipment necessary to protect themselves while they perform this job. It's a shame that they sometimes use it unnecessarily and inappropriately, but that is the fault of the system and the individual, not the equipment.

Just my

 

[public servant]

I think they have the right to use whatever equipment they want in order to protect themselves. Just like the rest of us should. Whether a community wants to pay for it should be left up to the community.

Challenge the mindset, challenge the system, challenge the corrupt individuals and their actions.

But we task these people with protecting our liberty, by force if necessary. I don't see the point in denying them the right to use whatever equipment necessary to protect themselves while they perform this job. It's a shame that they sometimes use it unnecessarily and inappropriately, but that is the fault of the system and the individual, not the equipment.

Just my

Punish those that eff it up. Not the entire group as a whole.

If you're against it...elect like-minded officials.

 

[rambone]

For what purpose? Riot? I am not aware of ANY local department having that technology. Maybe I am misinformed.

This is from Pittsburgh. LRADs are becoming more common. The Feds of course give out grants to incentivize this kind of treatment of the public.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMyY3_dmrM[/ame]

It's the same argument the Brady campaign uses, plain and simple.

What I'm arguing is that the logic (or lack of logic) behind their arguments is being employed here. A potentially useful tool should not be outlawed simply because there is a potential for misuse.

What's being outlawed? Who wants APC's outlawed? We're talking about use of our tax dollars and scrutinizing the need for military equipment in Yourtown, USA.

More Brady arguments!!
Potential for harm does not equal actual harm.

Are you against victimless crime laws then, or just when just when it justifies spending tax dollars?

 

[steveh_131]

More Brady arguments!!
Potential for harm does not equal actual harm.

Are you against victimless crime laws then, or just when just when it justifies spending tax dollars?

+1.

UncleMike, where was this argument when we were discussing speeding legalities?

Consistency FTL.