End (Defund) the Police; The Ugly Truth

[GMDino]

(11-21-2021, 11:18 AM)Sled21 Wrote: So basically a decoration much like you would see in front of VFW halls, public parks, etc. I guarantee the gun was disabled. So once again, I would like to see any state or local PD that possess and uses an operational tank.

So far I've only found armored trucks in Moundsville WV...population 9000.

And a couple places hoping to get their tanks BACK after Trump allowed it in 2017.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you will have a strict definition of "tank" that will be hard to meet though.  Although the level some small towns have seems a bit excessive even without an operational tank.

[masonbengals fan]

Looks like both of those cases involve armored vehicles that can carry police officers into situations where they are being fired upon. None of them had operational weapons that I could see nor described in the articles Can't speak for all cases & I'm by no means an expert, but if I had to arrest a group of armed criminals shooting at me I'd be glad to have the protection.

The last paragraph says it all.

"adding "the equipment itself doesn't make police militarized. It's what we do with the equipment that does or does not."

[Bengalzona]

(11-21-2021, 11:18 AM)Sled21 Wrote: So basically a decoration much like you would see in front of VFW halls, public parks, etc. I guarantee the gun was disabled. So once again, I would like to see any state or local PD that possess and uses an operational tank.

Well, it ran. They eventually stopped operating it because of the high expense to maintain. The main gun had a rod in it that was locked, but removable. Joe had it out at the Yuma Proving Grounds artillery range once to demonstrate that it could work (Sheriff Joe was never a person to miss a media opportunity). So, a little more than your typical VFW piece where they remove the engine and gun except for the barrel. But your point is fair: they never actually used it. Nor do I know of any other departments which have/had an actual tank.

Then again, one might ask why the Richland County Sheriff's office requires an M-2 .50 cal machine gun:

[Sled21]

(11-21-2021, 11:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: So far I've only found armored trucks in Moundsville WV...population 9000.

And a couple places hoping to get their tanks BACK after Trump allowed it in 2017.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you will have a strict definition of "tank" that will be hard to meet though.  Although the level some small towns have seems a bit excessive even without an operational tank.

That article is talking about a tank that is acually an APC. A tank is a tank. An armored vehicle is not a tank. 

[Sled21]

(11-21-2021, 01:40 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Well, it ran. They eventually stopped operating it because of the high expense to maintain. The main gun had a rod in it that was locked, but removable. Joe had it out at the Yuma Proving Grounds artillery range once to demonstrate that it could work (Sheriff Joe was never a person to miss a media opportunity). So, a little more than your typical VFW piece where they remove the engine and gun except for the barrel. But your point is fair: they never actually used it. Nor do I know of any other departments which have/had an actual tank.

Then again, one might ask why the Richland County Sheriff's office requires an M-2 .50 cal machine gun:

I'm not sure where Richland Co. is, but probably the same reason Texa DPS has their armored boats equipped with machine guns.



Look, I'm not wanting to get into the weeds about the argument over militarization on the police. I think it is a problem, and don't like officers on regular patrol looking like they are about to invade Fallujah. That said, whenever I hear someone in the press talking about some police depts. having tanks, I roll my eyes and think the same thing when I hear them talk about automatic semi automatics assault weapons. They have no clue what they are talking about. I doubt that M-2 is even functional, and if it is, I cannot imagine any circumstance where they would use it simply because of over penetration. Probably up there just for the photograph

[jj22]

(11-21-2021, 11:05 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Bull... As a rural resident of this country I know the police aren't going to get here in an emergency in time. It's simply too far from town. That being said I have never once heard anyone, friend, family member or stranger/anyone else ever even once say we don't need the police.

The left firmly owns that one. Have you not had a television available for the last few years?

From the political point yes, the left owns the narrative. But in reality, it's the pro gun community that make it very clear they don't need the police, can protect and police themselves, believes in vigilanties, and neighborhood watch people etc. I brought up defund the police in the thread title so everyone reading this already has the poltical tilt, but if you leave the political tilt out you will see they will like you said highlight they do not need the police for various reasons. 

Again, leaving politics out of it just ask next time the converstion comes up (if you can sneak it in without hinting to politics). They like you would find all kinds of reasons they can't rely on police, don't need them, and all they need is a good guy with a gun. 

In a fun fact, Trump (Republicans), during this whole defund the police debate was the only one to actually do it in their budget. 

[Sled21]

(11-21-2021, 11:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: So far I've only found armored trucks in Moundsville WV...population 9000.

And a couple places hoping to get their tanks BACK after Trump allowed it in 2017.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you will have a strict definition of "tank" that will be hard to meet though.  Although the level some small towns have seems a bit excessive even without an operational tank.

The small towns and counties are the one's that get the surplus military equipment, because that's all they can afford. Cities, with bigger budgets, buy Specialty built vehicles like Bearcats because they can afford them. When you work on a small department, you take what you can get. If that means an APC the military gave away, then that's all they have.

[masonbengals fan]

(11-21-2021, 02:03 PM)jj22 Wrote: From the political point yes, the left owns the narrative. But in reality, it's the pro gun community that make it very clear they don't need the police, can protect and police themselves, believes in vigilanties, and neighborhood watch people etc. I brought up defund the police in the thread title so everyone reading this already has the poltical tilt, but if you leave the political tilt out you will see they will like you said highlight they do not need the police for various reasons. 

Again, leaving politics out of it just ask next time the converstion comes up (if you can sneak it in without hinting to politics). They like you would find all kinds of reasons they can't rely on police, don't need them, and all they need is a good guy with a gun. 

In a fun fact, Trump (Republicans), during this whole defund the police debate was the only one to actually do it in their budget. 

 I didn't say that I couldn't rely on them only that the response would be delayed. I've never once in my life heard any conversations where anyone said they didn't need the police. 

[Bengalzona]

(11-21-2021, 02:03 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I'm not sure where Richland Co. is, but probably the same reason Texa DPS has their armored boats equipped with machine guns.



Look, I'm not wanting to get into the weeds about the argument over militarization on the police. I think it is a problem, and don't like officers on regular patrol looking like they are about to invade Fallujah. That said, whenever I hear someone in the press talking about some police depts. having tanks, I roll my eyes and think the same thing when I hear them talk about automatic semi automatics assault weapons. They have no clue what they are talking about. I doubt that M-2 is even functional, and if it is, I cannot imagine any circumstance where they would use it simply because of over penetration. Probably up there just for the photograph

It sounds like we agree on more than we disagree. Honestly, my comment on 'tanks' was just sort of thrown out there tongue-and-cheek. I don't mind getting called on it. And I understand that a lot of departments no longer use the APC's because the cost to operate and bad optics (evidence that the vast majority of departments do care about how they are perceived).

The M-60's on the Highway Patrol boat don't bother me so much. As you know, the M-2 is a little different because of the caliber. Back in the old days, we were told they were to be used against equipment and vehicles and cautioned that using them against personnel violated the Geneva Convention (with a wink, of course, because in combat you use whatever you have). So the old joke was: "I wasn't aiming at the guy, I was aiming at the rucksack he was wearing.".

I'm pro 2nd Amendment and have relatives in law enforcement. Despite running into a couple of 'bad' cops over the years, I have a lot of respect for the blue line. In fact, I trust them so much here that I don't feel the need to have a firearm.

[Sled21]

Not to mention what tracked vehicles do to streets. Any Dept. that can afford it in any shape would much prefer to have this. But depending on how they are outfitted, they are 200-300 thousand each.

https://www.lencoarmor.com/model/bearcat-g3-police-government/

[*michaelsean*]

This is just completely made up. Sounded good in your head? Police can rarely protect people. They just can’t be everywhere and events happen in seconds.

[jj22]

(11-22-2021, 08:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  Police can rarely protect people. They just can’t be everywhere and events happen in seconds.

A reasons my fellow citicizens on the right say they don't have a need for them. They can protect themselves. A good guy with a gun is always there. 

So I've heard this argument througout this thread even as people refuse to say the actual words that they don't need them. So do we need all the funding just for them to manage traffic? 

[*michaelsean*]

(11-22-2021, 09:45 PM)jj22 Wrote: A reasons my fellow citicizens on the right say they don't have a need for them. They can protect themselves. A good guy with a gun is always there. 

So I've heard this argument througout this thread even as people refuse to say the actual words that they don't need them. So do we need all the funding just for them to manage traffic? 

Am I being punk’d? Do you actually not know the role police play?

[BigPapaKain]

(11-22-2021, 10:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Am I being punk’d?  Do you actually not know the role police play?

The same as a locked door. Or a Brinks Home Security sign. Or a beware of dog sign.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-23-2021, 12:24 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: The same as a locked door. Or a Brinks Home Security sign. Or a beware of dog sign.

And do you think using those things is saying we don't need police? But yes they do engage in crime prevention. Anything else?

[jj22]

Crime prevention when you just said they can't be everywhere, can rarely protect people etc.

It's just interesting that people are quick to say all of this about police, but we can't trigger them by highlighting their lack of need for police and faith in arming all Americans (which they say is the best crime prevention).

I know this triggers some people, but the truth is the far right, pro gun, pro open carry community I won't say are "anti police", but they surely don't believe they have a need for them, will act like they are useless (can't be everywhere, can rarely protect people) and have worked for decades to highlight this.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-23-2021, 02:13 PM)jj22 Wrote: Crime prevention when you just said they can't be everywhere, can rarely protect people etc.

It's just interesting that people are quick to say all of this about police, but we can't trigger them by highlighting their lack of need for police and faith in arming all Americans (which they say is the best crime prevention).

I know this triggers some people, but the truth is the far right, pro gun, pro open carry community I won't say are "anti police", but they surely don't believe they have a need for them, will act like they are useless (can't be everywhere, can rarely protect people) and have worked for decades to highlight this.

If you aren't going to educate yourself on the role of police then you probably shouldn't be making topics about them.  They do engage in crime prevention.  They keep order when necessary.  They protect when possible.  They investigate crimes.  They arrest suspects.  They assist people in need.  Your premise is flawed beyond argument. Wherever you got this idea, stop watching/reading that source.

[BigPapaKain]

(11-23-2021, 12:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And do you think using those things is saying we don't need police?  But yes they do engage in crime prevention. Anything else?

Plenty else, which you already posted so I won't bother. But at their base, they're a deterrent. Which is fine and amicable - but reactors tend to lose to actors. Thus, crime. 

I'm not trying to shit on the service the police provide, so don't take what I'm saying as that.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-23-2021, 02:42 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Plenty else, which you already posted so I won't bother. But at their base, they're a deterrent. Which is fine and amicable - but reactors tend to lose to actors. Thus, crime. 

I'm not trying to shit on the service the police provide, so don't take what I'm saying as that.

No I didn’t think that. Yes reactors lose most of the time because the actors have all the advantage. Then the police step in.

[BigPapaKain]

(11-23-2021, 02:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No I didn’t think that. Yes reactors lose most of the time because the actors have all the advantage. Then the police step in.

And the police aren't infallible. People go to jail while innocent, guilty people go free because of botched investigations, occasionally an innocent gets merc'd. Still, society is better with police than without them.

Now if only we could stop those unions from protecting the piece of shit cops and get rid of qualified immunity so there'd be repercussions for some cop's shitty behavior, we'd be getting somewhere.