Why does FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL need this ???

[jsharmon7]

My rights cannot be affected by government.

The police work for us and we get to have a say in what they do and what they have.

While true that the taxpayers have a vested interest in the police department, it avoids the issue I brought up. Do you agree with preventing someone from having a useful tool simply because they might misuse it?

The militarization of our police. From playing dress up to their gear to their toys. Outside of the Third World, the police and the military have different roles. These roles should be preserved and defended.

Our Militarized Police Departments - Reason Magazine

Is it your contention that police wearing military-style gear makes them act like the military? Normally I wear BDUs when I'm on duty. It's not that I want to be all super secret squirrel DeltaSealRanger, it's that it's more comfortable and practical than the traditional uniform. I'm not seeing these departments owning APCs to reenact Patton's charge across Europe. It appears, as PS and phylodog have illustrated, they have a practical use in limited situations. I see no reason in "preserving and defending" the difference between LE and military simply for the sake of it. If the military has something that is practical for LE then I think they should adopt it. It's like saying that your Audi shouldn't have paddle shifters because race cars have them. We need to preserve and defend the differences between street cars and race cars after all. You might forget that you're a street driver instead of a race car driver and kill somebody when you cruise around 465 at 180mph.

 

[RockofStrength]

Well someone has to be willing to do what most will not. I apologize if the fact that there is a cost associated with it offends you. The vehicle we have like the one pictured in the OP cost the taxpayers of Indianapolis nothing. It was gifted to the city and completely rebuilt by a private citizen so that we could use it.

I won't be baited into a discussion about abolishing SWAT. Too much testosterone in such endeavors.

An APC is a tank when compared to a civilian weapon, which I imagine is comforting to officers who get to ride inside. It is not comforting to those of us who know how hard it would be for the legislature to pass a few totalitarian laws and suddenly I'm a criminal facing the almighty wrath of the State Police APC. The police should not ever be stronger in terms of firepower than what the citizenry could be able to handle if they had to combat said police force.

 

[jsharmon7]

An APC is a tank when compared to a civilian weapon, which I imagine is comforting to officers who get to ride inside. It is not comforting to those of us who know how hard it would be for the legislature to pass a few totalitarian laws and suddenly I'm a criminal facing the almighty wrath of the State Police APC. The police should not ever be stronger in terms of firepower than what the citizenry could be able to handle if they had to combat said police force.

Do you think that if the Government ever went completely nuts to the point you're referring that they wouldn't use the military against the citizens anyway? The Government will always have higher firepower than the citizenry with today's technology. The local police and their lone unarmed APC will be small potatoes in that situation.

 

[gunman41mag]

An APC is a tank when compared to a civilian weapon, which I imagine is comforting to officers who get to ride inside. It is not comforting to those of us who know how hard it would be for the legislature to pass a few totalitarian laws and suddenly I'm a criminal facing the almighty wrath of the State Police APC. The police should not ever be stronger in terms of firepower than what the citizenry could be able to handle if they had to combat said police force.

I like that, If the POLICE can have, so should I

 

[Ravenous]

The blue-hair drivers in Florida are pretty bad, this is to protect the officers from them.

I find it to be a disturbing trend of the ever-increasing militarization of police forces.

 

[jsharmon7]

I like that, If the POLICE can have, so should I

Fine with me as long as I'm issued LAW anti-tank rockets should you ever lose your mind and go rogue.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Do you agree with preventing someone from having a useful tool simply because they might misuse it?

If that someone works for the government, then most emphatically I agree that having a useful tool means they WILL misuse it.

However cool, the cops shouldn't have all the toys that the politicians throw at them.

 

[UncleMike]

If that someone works for the government, then most emphatically I agree that having a useful tool means they WILL misuse it.

However cool, the cops shouldn't have all the toys that the politicians throw at them.

Is that some secret Lawyer insider knowledge, or can you provide some evidence to back your wild claim up??

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is it your contention that police wearing military-style gear makes them act like the military?

BDU pants with all their cool pockets for all the cool gear so when you run and then stop you sway like a tactical kiosk at the mall (thank you, Brent Wheat)? No.

Matching helmets, armour, rucks, yes (it goes to mindset, heck, I don't even like them wearing boots), but that does not concern me as much as the big toys, e.g. the IFVs.

We need to preserve and defend the differences between street cars and race cars after all.

1. How do you know I have an Audi? Did rhino tell you? Do you run a 27 or something?

2. I do not work for the police. If I did, the citizens get to tell me what to drive and when. The government does not tell me what I get to drive, I tell them.

 

[RockofStrength]

Do you think that if the Government ever went completely nuts to the point you're referring that they wouldn't use the military against the citizens anyway? The Government will always have higher firepower than the citizenry with today's technology. The local police and their lone unarmed APC will be small potatoes in that situation.

Posse Comitatus. Besides the obvious conditioning to a police state that seeing an APC rolling around whenever needed offers, that principle is in place to keep the mindset of the officers from becoming "eliminate threats and keep my buddies safe" instead of "I'm willing to spend my life to protect the rights and lives of these innocents". The former is appropriate for a battlefield, the other for an domestic violence or hostage situation.

I've no doubt that the government could indeed crush individual armed resistance like a very loud bug, but it is better for the sheeple if you can just park a few APCs outside and call them "crazed militants". All governments, no matter how powerful, fear a large uprising. Using the military to smash things is a good way to do that: using the police gives an air of legitimacy.

EDIT: having further considered the matter, I would also be fully supportive of civilians being able to own fully functional combat equipment that the military uses. Not just firearms, obviously...I would love to drive an Abrams to work in the morning, and a few LAWs and Javelins wouldn't be amiss either.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is that some secret Lawyer insider knowledge, or can you provide some evidence to back your wild claim up??

No, Uncle Mike, no secret knowledge. Maybe common knowledge. If you give the government a hammer, they won't just drive nails with it. After a while they will hit you with the hammer.

If you want a parade of horribles as to governmental abuses of taxpayer monies and civil rights, then we'll need more bandwidth.

 

[UncleMike]

BDU pants with all their cool pockets for all the cool gear so when you run and then stop you sway like a tactical kiosk at the mall (thank you, Brent Wheat)? No.

Matching helmets, armour, rucks, yes (it goes to mindset, heck, I don't even like them wearing boots), but that does not concern me as much as the big toys, e.g. the IFVs.



1. How do you know I have an Audi? Did rhino tell you? Do you run a 27 or something?

2. I do not work for the police. If I did, the citizens get to tell me what to drive and when. The government does not tell me what I get to drive, I tell them.

You haven't been paying attention to the news today.
The new requirements for mileage came out.
With a 55 mpg requirement you'll be driving a effing moped in a few years.

 

[gunman41mag]

Fine with me as long as I'm issued LAW anti-tank rockets should you ever lose your mind and go rogue.

As long as we're even, everything is OK, whatever the POLICE has we should be able to have it also. That will make the police humble & respectful of the public

 

[gunman41mag]

No, Uncle Mike, no secret knowledge. Maybe common knowledge. If you give the government a hammer, they won't just drive nails with it. After a while they will hit you with the hammer.

If you want a parade of horribles as to governmental abuses of taxpayer monies and civil rights, then we'll need more bandwidth.

You left out that the government will pay $500 for the hammer that is made in CHINA

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You haven't been paying attention to the news today.
The new requirements for mileage came out.

Oh, vey, don't remind me!

You left out that the government will pay $500 for the hammer that is made in CHINA

Chinese, Mexican, regardless of where the hammer comes from they will still hit you with it.

 

[UncleMike]

No, Uncle Mike, no secret knowledge. Maybe common knowledge. If you give the government a hammer, they won't just drive nails with it. After a while they will hit you with the hammer.

If you want a parade of horribles as to governmental abuses of taxpayer monies and civil rights, then we'll need more bandwidth.

I didn't say anything about overall Government abuses.
(Good use of misdirection Counsel )
I asked for EVIDENCE that anyone associated with the Government WILL misuse "useful tools" as you claim in your post.
I presume you know what a Declarative Statement is?
You made it.
Now back it up!!

 

[gunman41mag]

You haven't been paying attention to the news today.
The new requirements for mileage came out.
With a 55 mpg requirement you'll be driving a effing moped in a few years.

I'm sure my 2008 F-250 6.4 DIESEL SUPER-CAB, LONG-BED will be excempt

 

[jsharmon7]

Posse Comitatus. Besides the obvious conditioning to a police state that seeing an APC rolling around whenever needed offers, that principle is in place to keep the mindset of the officers from becoming "eliminate threats and keep my buddies safe" instead of "I'm willing to spend my life to protect the rights and lives of these innocents". The former is appropriate for a battlefield, the other for an domestic violence or hostage situation.

I've no doubt that the government could indeed crush individual armed resistance like a very loud bug, but it is better for the sheeple if you can just park a few APCs outside and call them "crazed militants". All governments, no matter how powerful, fear a large uprising. Using the military to smash things is a good way to do that: using the police gives an air of legitimacy.

I must have misunderstood what you meant when you referred to totalitarian laws that would put you at the receiving end of a police APC. If we get to the point where we're concerned with not being able to take out a police APC, we've got bigger fish to fry. I'm not so sure at that point that the police will be our biggest problem.

BDU pants with all their cool pockets for all the cool gear so when you run and then stop you sway like a tactical kiosk at the mall (thank you, Brent Wheat)? No.

Matching helmets, armour, rucks, yes (it goes to mindset, heck, I don't even like them wearing boots), but that does not concern me as much as the big toys, e.g. the IFVs.

I'm still missing something. If a department as large as IMPD has an APC laying around, this will somehow militarize the mindset of all 1600+ members? Having helmets and body armor in case of a riot in a major city like Indianapolis will somehow do that as well? If we're worried about militarization, that happened long ago when they started having military ranks like Captain and Lieutenant and such. You know, mindset and all.

1. How do you know I have an Audi? Did rhino tell you? Do you run a 27 or something?

2. I do not work for the police. If I did, the citizens get to tell me what to drive and when. The government does not tell me what I get to drive, I tell them.

Geez, are you a lawyer or something? You ignored the meaning of what I said. I was simply stating that if something from group A could work well for group B then group B should use that technology. I'm also saying that group B using group A's technology doesn't necessarily turn group B into group A. The police having an APC at their disposal no more encourages a military mindset than paddle shifters on a street car encourages a race car driver mindset. Wearing a Peyton Manning jersey doesn't make me think I'm a professional quarterback and using aluminum foil (or aluminium as you may call it) originally developed by NASA doesn't encourage me to build a rocket either.

 

[RockofStrength]

I must have misunderstood what you meant when you referred to totalitarian laws that would put you at the receiving end of a police APC. If we get to the point where we're concerned with not being able to take out a police APC, we've got bigger fish to fry. I'm not so sure at that point that the police will be our biggest problem.

You don't generally use the military to enforce laws when your police force is a military unto itself. As I said, it keeps the sheeple in line because you have an air of legitimacy. "The cops arrested a known gun-owner, which under Executive Order #45675 is equated with terrorism" sounds better than "The National Guard was busy today, as they slaughtered another group of crazed militants."

 

[j706]

Wow where does all these paranoid, tin foil hat wearing people come from?