Why do America's police need an armored tank?
- Thread starter Lucky Forward
- Start date
- Status
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
High risk drug warrants on barricaded labs. It allows the officers to get close without being put at risk. Makes sense to me for certain jurisdictions, based on needs and threats.
Let's not also forget a Mumbai like situation.
Let's not also forget a Mumbai like situation.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
ivedoneyourmom said:
Do you legalize Mumbai too?
That aside there are certain drugs you can't legalize like meth or crack.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
ivedoneyourmom said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks
NYPD Trains for New Type of Attack
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704138604576029860668093114.html
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
Yeah I have no idea if the amount being manufactured is only to support "legitimate" needs but I can definitely see police officers preferring to have this car if they are trying to arrest people involved in drugs or who are just heavily armed. Outside of metropolitan areas, I don't think this would get a lot of use.Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
As for the intimidation factor, it's not like they'll patrol random areas with this car. Mounted police have the same effect, effectively making a 10 foot tall police officer, but they at least can be used in pedestrian heavy areas like parks where cars and bikes can't really go.
So I can see the justification for sending this vehicle to officers dealing with high risk cases but I don't see any reason to just randomly hand them out. Since they say that the vast majority of these are given to SWAT teams, I don't think there would be a lot of room for it to be abused like serving traffic tickets or whatever.
Lucky Forward
Member
Unknown One
Member
So an armored vehicle is a tank now?
That thing is a failed design imo. Those tires are way too exposed. A a high caliber bullet would disable the thing. It looks like armored plates bolted on top of a Ford F-550. The car should be made of that metal, not "shielded" by it. It would probably save weight that way. The headlights should be protected by bulletproof glass, a couple shots would leave the driver blind on a night run. the government could of gotten better quality for $300,000.
just sayin. :x
just sayin. :x
Buckethead
Banned
Maybe they don't but America is helping fight a legitimate drug war in Mexico.
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Oooh, okay, I understand now.
Yeah, religious fanatics, what can you do?
The US is easier, we just need better education, but how do we educate the people that didn't grow up here.
I guess we do need things like this for certain situations, however I think cutting down on the available number of weaponry here would be a start at least.
spermatic cord
Member
Never forgetlunarworks said:
BobTheFork
Member
The main reason they need one: Escalation
The main reason it's a bad idea: Escalation
The main reason it's a bad idea: Escalation
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
There have been armored vehicles with exposed wheels like the stryker. They probably put run flat tires on the lenco bearcat like the stryker has.Bad_Boy said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker
I'd imagine it's easier and less expensive to use an existing chassis rather than build the car from the ground up and have it approved as road legal. For comparison, this truck weighs about as much as the presidential limousine.
TheKaeptain
Banned
wienke said:
When it comes to the police and military they usually go cheapest route.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
Plus, that's not a tank. It's an armored car. My local police have an old M113. It's not a tank either, it's an APC.
There's nothing wrong with spending money to keep police officers alive.
Plus, that's not a tank. It's an armored car. My local police have an old M113. It's not a tank either, it's an APC.
There's nothing wrong with spending money to keep police officers alive.
ivedoneyourmom said:
Education and prevention take time, armored car works right now. Plus, any money being spent by anyone to manufacture anything in America is a good thing. If we really want to start fixing our money situation, we need to stop importing things and start manufacturing things again.
To be clear, I support education and prevention. I just support armored cars, too. You can't prevent everything.
Devolution
Member
Found a legit reason for tanks:
BobTheFork
Member
Either that or we use that actual military to make raids. I'm not sure that's preferable.elrechazao said:
Something Wicked
Member
For 300K, you could get that... or you could get something like:
BobTheFork
Member
phhhss let's see that tin piece of shit take street sweeper fire.Something Wicked said:For 300K, you could get that... or you could get something like:
Air Zombie Meat
Member
BobTheFork said:
wow, even street sweepers are armed in america? crazy.
BobTheFork
Member
They're union too, so they get you coming and going.Air Zombie Meat said:
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Defense contactors have the country bent over and giving it to us raw for the past few decades. The militarization of the police force is a natural occurrence as is the erosion of civil liberties. Anything to keep the coffers full. That and most people don't want to appear soft on crime so they willingly go along with buying armored vehicles for the police. Anything to keep the streets safe!
Thetallywacker
Banned
Where I live the police are a big part of the community. They stop and play hockey or basketball with the children. Have tons of information events. Stop by the elderly homes to see if they need anything before winter storms. They keep track of medical information on people who find themselves going to the ER a lot. They live here and have the same desire to keep the neighborhood safe. I'd love them to get a couple of these. In the end they will be the ones protecting me from an out of control government.
BobTheFork
Member
Well, I don't think a militarized police force was created before they needed one 'just because'. As I said, it's a problem of escalation IMO, so they are both to be blamed and blameless.The Experiment said:
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
Read the article. The vast majority go to SWAT teams. Whether they need it or not is up to debate but it's clear that if a SWAT team is called in to help with what is probably a dangerous situation, then this would serve a defensive role.The Experiment said:
I don't know if it is as necessary as something like kevlar vests but I highly doubt it's going to make anybody be intimidated into surrendering their civil liberties to the military industrial complex.
MetalAlien
Banned
The option would be a wait and see approach. Wait until we need them and then commission them to be built. That plan sucks.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
You looking at this, House?
It's going to a county (Warren Va) that is low crime too.
industrian said:
It's going to a county (Warren Va) that is low crime too.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
And when they fight amongst themselves people caught in the crossfire get hit. So, again, should the police not better protect themselves when going up againsnt gangs armed to the teeth?racooon said:
Vilix said:
At the expense of what? Where does this justification end? Your logic here is "Police should have access to any amount of lethal and protective equipment if it helps prevent them from dying." Humanity isn't judged on a case-by-case basis.
One needs to examine the ethics of each step, not just the ends.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
You're saying that police officers shouldn't have things like "protective equipment" since they may abuse their force?mkenyon said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked