Why does FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL need this ???

[Rookie]

And there lies the voice of reason and common sense........from a person that has publicly both supported and denounced the police.


+1 and rep inbound

Fair warning, I will denounce inappropriate actions when I see them.

 

[UncleMike]

Fair warning, I will denounce inappropriate actions when I see them.

Spoilsport.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

It's OK, Joe, you can disagree with me. You have the right to be wrong.

All joking and sarcasm aside, the issue here is that people who happen to be police officers have rights as people/citizens. As representatives of government whose job is to enforce the law because it is the law, irrespective of whether or not it is right or wrong, those agents of government are invested with powers and authority, but not rights. Why is this significant? Because all it takes is for some bad or stupid (or both) law to be passed, and it is their job to enforce it. They are placed in the position of choosing whether to support their families OR to support their Constitution and morals and ethics, and it is not a position I envy them, because it is impossible to do both. Consider the example of Quartzsite or of Chicago or even of Canton: The Quartzsite cops who stood up for what is right are now divested of their arrest powers, on suspension, and not earning a living. I doubt that the banks holding the notes on their homes will be forgiving and understanding of the sacrifices they made for liberty. The Chicago cops have to make a choice between the US Constitution and the laws their city and state have emplaced, and it would seem that most (probably not all) have chosen to put food on the table. Finally, the officers in Canton initially circled the wagons around Harless. Some continue to do so, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Let me be completely clear about my above statement: As human beings, the people who have chosen the profession of law enforcement have rights. This is not in question, and amongst those rights is the right to go home safely after each shift. They have the right to use the powers and authority given them as a result of taking that job up to the level permitted Constitutionally and no farther. Powers do not supersede rights. There is a disconnect in there that is exceedingly difficult to locate and more so to define: This is a man with rights, but an agent of government without them in the same body. The agent of government has powers and authority. It is NOT his fault that his "superiors" have ordered this or that action if he is to keep his job. It is not his fault that his legislators have written stupid, unConstitutional "laws" which he is expected to enforce. Sadly, he is placed in the position of "do I do what's right or do I do what is expected?"

When a tool like this APC/IFV/whatever is made available (think "hammer") and those officers have a problem to solve, that problem and all others begin to look suspiciously like a nail: What happens when a law is passed that says that you cannot own an AR-15 rifle in Indiana and someone here has a picture of his somewhere on INGO? Will that vehicle be driven through his house to ensure that the officers don't get gunned down? How about a less potentially-violent scenario: You have a farm. You raise ducks. You sell duck eggs to an attorney who shall remain nameless. He comes on INGO to thank you publicly, while chastising Rhino. Some FDA official decides you don't have the permits to sell duck eggs and swears out a warrant for your arrest. Again, the APC crashes through your wall-why? Because it and the wall were both there and someone decided they had to get together.

Is this an absolute? Of course not. Of all the APCs government has given or sold at pennies on the C-note to LEAs, though, how many have vs. have not been put to other-than-necessary (and liberty-infringing) purposes?

Don't bother trying to answer that... it's meant rhetorically, as I'm sure those data do not exist... but isn't that yet another part of the problem?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Of all the APCs government has given or sold at pennies on the C-note to LEAs, though, how many have vs. have not been put to other-than-necessary (and liberty-infringing) purposes?

Depends on who you ask. Just look at the great Arizona Chicken Crush. The police, with a straight face, told you that riding around on a tank like Guderian was necessary to combat chicken crime.

For every bloody shirt the cops wave, you can wave a bloody chicken.

To me, stats matter not. The tanks serve as a springboard to other bad actions.

Change the culture and change the world. Change the culture of law enforcement. No more toys, no more looking like SS Das Reich replacements, ties, shoes that take a shine, Sam Browne's and revolvers. Things would change overnight.

 

[MTC]

Wanted to say thanks to many posters for sharing your viewpoints on this issue. Some of my favorite cops, my favorite lawyers, and others working related and unrelated occupations post on this site. We do not have to agree on every last detail of every last issue under the sun. Kirk has made very good points about basic governmental principles that must be adhered to by the citizens and taxpayers in our constitutional republic. His occasional sarcasm and facetiousness does not invalidate his argument.

The police officers here have also made solid arguments, and I appreciate them taking the time to post their views and experience. It boils down to, for me, the disbursement of taxpayer dollars and the placement of priorities.
Do not think for one minute I'm out to get you hurt or killed on the job. Skipped this thread earlier because I wasn't concerned about so-called "militarization of the police". Had, and still don't, any problem with appropriate body armor, patrol carbines, BDU cut trousers, shoes or boots ideal for foot pursuits, riot gear, or most other items that help accomplish the mission. My best friend is a police officer. We were talking about such things 15 years ago, and still do sometimes. Maybe some of the argument here stems from disagreement over what that mission is.

So long as officers are willing to accept that additional equipment and training, particularly those of a military nature, must add additional scrutiny to their actions, I have no problem with this.

I only say this because there are politicians who want the police to be a very well equipped military-lite equal to the National Guard at least in terms of training and equipment.

- in order to carry out their whims and edicts. And when those politicians (or the bureaucrats appointed by them) were duly elected, their bills can become law. So we're back to the age-old questions of who gives the orders, and who watches the watchers.

We maintain that the military must remain separate from the police, and vice-versa, so any additional space taken away from that separation must of necessity result in heavier scrutiny than before to ensure that what little room remains between the two stays between them. This will mean more criticism, valid and invalid.

I respect that officers can use this equipment for their own protection and the protection of the rights and lives of those they are sworn to serve, and I hope that these machines are never misused.

Very good post. Hope you don't mind that I added a little. It is still up to all of us to monitor those who make the laws (and spend the money) on the federal, state and local levels.

Thank you all again for posting your views.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Depends on who you ask. Just look at the great Arizona Chicken Crush. The police, with a straight face, told you that riding around on a tank like Guderian was necessary to combat chicken crime.

For every bloody shirt the cops wave, you can wave a bloody chicken.

To me, stats matter not. The tanks serve as a springboard to other bad actions.

Change the culture and change the world. Change the culture of law enforcement. No more toys, no more looking like SS Das Reich replacements, ties, shoes that take a shine, Sam Browne's and revolvers. Things would change overnight.

My work boots:

Just sayin'...

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Destro]

Just look at the great Arizona Chicken Crush. The police, with a straight face, told you that riding around on a tank like Guderian was necessary to combat chicken crime.

Wow...when did they say this?

 

[Cwood]

Wow...when did they say this?

Unfortunately when the sheriff was asked he said they didn't do it for Segal's show and that the APC's were necessary for officer safety

 

[lrahm]

Depends on who you ask. Just look at the great Arizona Chicken Crush. The police, with a straight face, told you that riding around on a tank like Guderian was necessary to combat chicken crime.

For every bloody shirt the cops wave, you can wave a bloody chicken.

To me, stats matter not. The tanks serve as a springboard to other bad actions.

Change the culture and change the world. Change the culture of law enforcement. No more toys, no more looking like SS Das Reich replacements, ties, shoes that take a shine, Sam Browne's and revolvers. Things would change overnight.

My shoes do need a shine (not hobnail) and I don't wear a tie.

 

[Rookie]

Bill, take a screw driver, heat it with a torch, and use it to round off the edges of the zip ties.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I've thought about that, Rookie, but... nah. They don't get in my way or anything. I've used the zip ties for lots of years and never had them snag when they shouldn't have. On occasion, I do have one break, but I'd rather have one of eight zip ties break than one of one lace.

Thanks for the idea, though!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Denny347]

What did you do before you had the toy?

Do that then.

No. YOU are advocating that we don't need them. YOU seem to
know what we need/ don't t need to safely do our jobs. YOU enlighten me.

 

[UncleMike]

What did you do before you had the toy?

Do that then.

No. YOU are advocating that we don't need them. YOU seem to
know what we need/ don't t need to safely do our jobs. YOU enlighten me.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Wow...when did they say this?

When he was interviewed.

Let's all watch Operation Chicken Crush together again.

Save the roosters!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJHiY2IEl9E[/ame]

No. YOU are advocating that we don't need them. YOU seem to
know what we need/ don't t need to safely do our jobs. YOU enlighten me.

What's need got to do with it? See supra.

I am saying you should not have them as any tool given the police WILL be abused. See supra.

Hey, is that Hans Guderian? No, it's the police

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If you want your toy and are able to convince the city council (county commissioners, what have you) that you should have it*, then tight SOPs must be drafted, including liquidated damages of losing the toy, so the police do not use it for chicken raids or serving warrants for Minor in a Tavern.



*I'm arguing my opinion but I realize I am likely the minority opinion.

 

[MTC]

Hey, is that Hans Guderian? No, it's the police

Your Excellency, I must respectfully point out that it's Heinz Guderian.
Bitte beachten Sie auf solche kleine Einzelheiten.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Meine Geschichtenprofessoren vurden beschamt sein!
Mein Fehler. Hans? Wer war I, das ungefahr denkt?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Like I was telling MTC, my history professors would be ashamed. Geez, Hans? It's not like I had to read his book or anything. Geez.

O.K., another thing, if you get the toy, then the cops go to school on it. Training=discipline=safer for everyone.

I will not have Sheriff Bobby Lee give Deputy Jasper and Cledus the tank and turn them lose. So, factor in school when you come with your request for a tank.

 

[MTC]

Meine Geschichtenprofessoren vurden beschamt sein!
Mein Fehler. Hans? Wer war I, das ungefahr denkt?

Verzeihung. Als Verteidigung, es war nur ein "typo".

 

[jeremy]

No. YOU are advocating that we don't need them. YOU seem to
know what we need/ don't t need to safely do our jobs. YOU enlighten me.

Actually, I think LEAs should be shackled just like the rest of us Civilians...
If a legal law abiding Citizen is not allowed to have it, then you should not have one either...