So why do the cops need a tank?

[Savannahmann]

The Dallas cops just got a tank worth more than half a million dollars for free.

Dallas County sheriff's deputies traveled to Fort Hood earlier this month and picked up their very own International MaxxPro MRAP. This particular truck has never seen any actual combat, having only been deployed stateside for training exercises, so it doesn't have any cool battle scars, but with the dealer's $600,000 price tag knocked down to nothing, and with just 10,000 miles on it, the deal was too good to pass up.

Gee, if only it had cool battle scars right? Seriously, why do the police need a vehicle intended to fight a war? Are they expecting to get shot at by RPG's? Are they expecting roadside bombs to go off on a daily basis?

So why do the cops need a tank? What's next? Why not give the Police Department an Apache Helicopter? I mean, imagine how fast they could serve warrants and raid drug houses with an armed attack helicopter. Imagine how short those shootouts would be if they could call in fire from a 20MM cannon that is circling overhead to provide assistance.

Is there no end to this nonsense?

[darkangel218]

1. To play cowboys and indians when on a coffee break?

[Duckhunter935]

2. Well 1st its not a tank

"A tank is a tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities."

I think it is stupid and they will regret the maintenance costs of this. It was like when they were getting rid of old military APC's in the past.

[snappyturtle]

3. It will make it easier to blend in with the military....just in

case of an 'emergency'.

[Cooley Hurd]

4. There is NO earthly reason for police to have such vehicles

This is a terrible trend.

Of course, something similar happened after WW2 - surplus DUKW's (i.e. "Ducks&quot were given to fire departments for use in search and rescue. But, they were un-armed and were used to SAVE people, not suppress them.

One such vehicle pulled my Dad out of the lake after he drowned in 1968.

[TeeYiYi]

64. (((((((Cooley Hurd)))))))

TYY

[Cooley Hurd]

70. Thank you!

((((((TeeYiYi)))))))

[Pterodactyl]

89. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said no "earthly" reason.

I'm not at liberty to explain fully, so it will have to suffice to say that we're going to have to deal with something not "earthly" in the near future. If you know what I mean.

[HereSince1628]

5. To support the scoopers...

[eppur_se_muova]

88. .

[intaglio]

6. Misleading headline

Please amend. It is an armoured personnel carrier and police departments have had them for years. Ir is unnecessary, that is true, because not many US police departments need mine resistant technologies -

- but it is not a f'n tank

[HereSince1628]

14. The purpose of that vehicle is primarily protection from landmines?

Maybe but I don't think that's really likely to be a meaningful part of the calculus. I think the purpose of that vehicle lies elsewhere.

And somehow that shielded gun mount on top speaks to me. This thing's purpose seems to me to be deliver and extract an armored coaxial mounted machine gun and a small number of mounted troops to, and from, a point of conflict.

[intaglio]

22. It is still not a tank

If you want to be technical it is an MRAP. It is still not a tank no matter how much you might wish it to be and it remains a misleading title to the OP.

[HereSince1628]

32. I think it's not worth getting hung up on such things, tank was a slang term

that came about because in communication codes of WWI, the armored fighting vehicles were referred to as 'water tanks' to hide their actual purpose.

I do understand how anything and everything weaponized gets an aura that requires people to spew technical jargon about military designation numbers, length weight, munitions and optional points for attachment of accessories.

I suppose it could be argued that it's got some specific designation that sees it as a light armored fighting vehicle/wheeled.

But the point of the OP is what possible rationale is there for so many of them owned by municipal police forces. There are very few circumstances where a coaxial mounted large caliber machine gun is needed. Even mounted with a noise weapon, there are few circumstances that qualify as rationally justifiable, short of having every city ready to film movies about repelling 'the thing from Venus'.

[intaglio]

36. Firstly it is not now a slang term

and, secondly, in this headline it is not meant to be understood as a slang term.

The headline is a deliberate attempt to sell a particular world view. In essence it is part of a word redefinition project that the outrage junkies on DU are using to sell their conspiracy theories.

[HereSince1628]

43. and I think you're using it as a strawman to avoid addressing the central point of the post.

Get hung up on that if you wish.

[intaglio]

46. Read my original post in this sub-thread

I did not avoid the issue, and this is not a straw man (please check what that term means) because I am pointing out where the substance of the OP is at variance from reality. I am saying that the likely reason for this is to incite a particular response and speaks directly to a fraudulent use of the language.

[wercal]

104. I think people just don't know any better

I saw an actual media headline yesterday....and the word 'tank' was in the headline.

I'm an ex tank crewman, so I know the term is mis-used....

...but still, I'm more than a little bit curious as to why a police department needs such a vehicle....and I don't think I'm an 'outrage junkie'. I understand that there may be rare occasions when law enforcement need this type of hardware - but odds are the state of Texas already has this type of equipment at the state level (and likely stored near the Dallas metro), and odds are Homeland Security has one of their rapid response units' equipment (similar to this) parked somewhere near a large metro area like Dallas already. So, this is yet another layer of law enforcement that will be outfitted with military hardware.

And I don't think its a complete conspiracy theory to believe that the police are getting increasingly militaristic. Forfeiture laws signed into law by Bush Sr. have spawned a generation of police who buy 'goodies' with forfeited drug money. Why this money doesn't go into a community's general fund, I will never know. Instead, the department keeps it, and has to find ways to spend it. The result: Remember the TV show 'Adam 12', with the two clean cut guys in polyester police uniforms? Now picture them with shaved heads, Kevlar helmets, AR-15's, and BDU style uniforms. Gradually, many police are developing an 'us vs them' mentality against the community they are 'serving'. I don't think the addition of this type of hardware does anything to slow that process down...and it probably accelerates it.

[Savannahmann]

33. I posted below, but I'll reiterate here.

It has more armor than a Bradley, which has tracks, and has a cannon, but the various people will say it isn't a tank. I saw a Sheridan once, and was informed haughtily that it wasn't a tank either. I was informed by a crewmember that it was an armored reconnaissance vehicle. That was explained to me that it could not survive a shot from another tank, which meant it wasn't a tank.

This is the vehicle being tossed from an airplane that isn't a tank either.



This is a Bradley.



That technically isn't a tank either right?

How about this? Is it a tank?



The armored vehicle we are discussing, has more armor than all of those. So other than the absence of tracks, why isn't it a tank? Why aren't those vehicles considered tanks when they have the aforementioned tracks?

[intaglio]

39. More armour - what do you mean by that?

Thicker armour is not necessarily "more" and in any event that extra armour is applied to the base, hence the technical name of MRAP. It also has large windows which on a true tank would render it dead in any tank battle, the "turret" is not a turret as it is open at the top and does not mount heavy ordinance.

Essentially you are attempting to redefine a word to incite outrage. This redefinition is a lie and you are, probably, fully aware of that lie.

[Savannahmann]

50. By more armor I mean resistance ability

The MRAP has the ability to resist RPG's, or Rocket Propelled Grenades, which is an anti-tank weapon. The Bradley, M-551 Sheridan, and the BMP pictured do not have the ability to resist RPG's. So the vehicle which the Dallas County Sheriff's department has just picked up has MORE armor than a those tanks. I'll call them tanks in deference to the demands above that tanks have tracks.

One of the things you have not addressed is the reason that the Dallas County Sheriff's department, or really any law enforcement agency would need a vehicle (tank) like this. Why do they need the ability to mount a machine gun or automatic grenade launcher on the roof behind armored shields?

Notice the windows again. Notice how they all have bars across them. That is to help detonate an RPG far enough away where the explosive force is diminished from the window. The window is also extremely thick, and is rated to stop a .50 Cal round.



So how much protection do they give?

On 19 January 2008 a 3rd Infantry Division U.S. Army soldier operating as the exposed turret gunner, was killed in a Navistar MaxxPro MRAP vehicle by an ANFO IED estimated at 600 lb.[67] It is unknown whether the gunner was killed by the explosion or by the vehicle when it rolled over after the blast. However, the vehicle’s v-hull was not compromised. The crew compartment also appeared to be uncompromised in the attack, and the three other crew members who were inside the vehicle survived; one with a shattered left foot, a broken nose and several broken teeth; one with a fractured foot; and the third unhurt.[67][68][69][70] Although this was reported as the first MRAP combat death, later reports clarified that several soldiers had been killed by IEDs in RG-31s and by EFPs in Buffalos before this incident.[71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP

So this vehicle, the exact same sort that the Dallas County Sheriff's office just picked up, survived an explosion of over 600 lbs of the same explosive that took out the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Timothy McVeigh used 4800 lbs of explosive. That means that the vehicle survived an eighth of the explosive that did this to a concrete and steel building.



Are you sure that you don't want to call the bloody thing a tank? Because they call the armored limo that the President rides in the Presidential Tank. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=presidential+tank&qpvt=presidential+tank&FORM=IGRE

But perhaps you should run around and inform the Press, and everyone on the Internet that it's not a tank, because it doesn't have tracks. We aren't sure about the cannon of course.

[intaglio]

60. So you have the ability to look up the reality

but you are unable and unwilling to inform others about that reality. Words have meanings but they are not the meanings that you choose to apply for that.

What this leads me conclude is that you deliberately used an inflammatory word to incite the less controlled members of this site.

[Savannahmann]

71. I think there is something deliberate going on.

I believe it is your deliberate effort to avoid the point of the post. No matter how I defend my choice of words, you don't like it. Fine, enjoy yourself. Enjoy your pedantic celebration. Yet, I've pointed out that many vehicles that are tanks, including the Sheridan, are not tanks according to others, including the tank crewmembers. I've pointed out that they call the Presidential Limo a tank, and suggested that you let the folks know that thousands of websites have it wrong. You instead go back to your original point, utterly ignoring the discussion. That is deliberate, and that is also dishonest.

The point remains, the militarization of our police is out of control, and there is no reason that the Dallas Sheriff's department needs this tank, armored vehicle, oversized armored SUV, or Urban Assault Vehicle, depending on what you choose to call it.

Since you have avoided that point, I will assume you concede it, and therefor declare that part of the debate won. You can walk around and shout that I used the wrong word, that is in common usage for wheeled vehicles, again proven by links and demonstrable evidence.

Perhaps you should mention it to Warner Brothers.

1:55 into the clip. The "Tank" mentioned was an armored limousine.

[intaglio]

94. I did not avoid the point of the post originally

Please read.

I am objecting to those who are attempting to incite fear and hatred by abusing the language.

[Posteritatis]

40. I don't buy for a second that that thing has more armor than modern AFVs. (nt)

[Savannahmann]

45. Perhaps you might want to rethink that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle

In the Iraq War, the Bradley proved somewhat vulnerable to improvised explosive device (IED) and rocket propelled grenade (RPG) attacks, but casualties were light—the doctrine being to allow the crew to escape at the expense of the vehicle. As of early 2006, total combat losses included 55 Bradleys.[15] By 2007, the Army had stopped using the M2 Bradley in combat, instead favoring more survivable MRAPs.[5]

It's pretty cheap to buy that truth, but expensive to deny it.

[intaglio]

48. The MRAP is an APC designed to stop a particular type of ordinance

The M2 Bradley is designed to be a light armoured fast tank.

[Paulie]

58. The Bradley was designed to be an APC

Then over the course of 20 years it became something unique with its high profile, turret and aluminum (flammable/spall-able armor. Also became a supplemental fuel supply for our thirsty jet powered MBT, something else it wasn't designed for but was used as.

Eventually perhaps you'll stop worrying about tanks and why urban civilian peace officers need such equipment.

[intaglio]

63. Not unique, the Scorpion light tank is a similar beast

and that was in service from 1973

I do worry about police officers having these vehicles, as I said originally, but I also object to DU members deliberately inciting outrage by the false claims

[Paulie]

67. That's how it is here with any kind of weapon or weapon system

Someone going to say a point defense system is a machine gun, it just doesn't matter. If they put on at the steps of the peoples house you better believe people will use whatever vernacular like robotic drone machine gun buzz saw BFG. Because that's what it is.

But here we have a thread that is half about terminology and not about the militarization of our police forces. Just like the arguments about clips, magazines and cartridges. Caring about minutia instead of policy.

[intaglio]

92. If people generalise and use false descriptions

Personally I believe they are lying.

Attempting to incite fear and hatred by deliberately lying is demagoguery.

[sakabatou]

62. They can be, but it's usually troop transport.

[GreenStormCloud]

109. Coaxial machine gun? Not even. You don't know what you are talking about.

A coaxial MG is one that is mounted so that it always points in the same direction as another gun, usually the vehicle's cannon.

[Logical]

61. LOL, their is always some literal genius on the DU who misses the whole point of a post! n-t

[intaglio]

65. No there are persons trying to incite outrage

I'm no genius but I always object to inflammatory posts.

[Logical]

66. There should be outrage. You just are too hung up on one word. I get it. n-t

[intaglio]

93. I'm "hung up" on people lying

and deliberately deceiving.

[Logical]

98. LOL, sure you are! nt

[TexasProgresive]

7. Maybe they were inspired by the scene in "Michael Collins"

at Croke Park. This scene was fictional but it showed "Black and Tans" exacting revenge against the Irish with an armoured car. In reality the "Tans" were on foot. The director wanted a more dramactic scene. I'm sure some in the DPD would creme their pants for something like this:

[MineralMan]

8. That is not a tank. It's an armored personnel vehicle.

Why do they need it? I don't know, but it would enable a group of officers to enter an area where there is the probability that someone or multiple shooters will fire on any police vehicle.

A tank is something completely different.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. They want to use it for serving warrants. Really.

The page the OP came from:

OK. Pretty cool. But let's back up for a moment. There's a very glaring, very fundamental question we haven't yet addressed: Why in holy hell does Dallas County need an armored military vehicle built to withstand a minor apocalypse?

The underlying reason seems to be that military trucks are fucking cool, but no one's actually saying that. The sheriff's office is touting it as a tool that will help them better serve warrants.

"Having a tactical vehicle will not only provide warrants execution with the equipment to assist in performing their jobs but will provide an overall safety arch," Chief Deputy Marlin Suell wrote to commissioners.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/dallas_county_now_has_its_very.php

I'm not quite sure how you serve a warrant from inside an armoured vehicle - do you stick it to the front of it before you start, ram a building, and then declare through a loudspeaker into the rubble "consider yourselves served, motherfuckers!"?

[leveymg]

9. Zombie Apocalyse.

Just drive over, under or through them. Just keep driving . . .

[Renew Deal]

10. It's not a tank, and for free, the price is right

I'm against the militarization of the police, but it's hard to pass up free.

[Duckhunter935]

11. care and maintenance

are not free, they will find out soon enough

[RandiFan1290]

12. They want to be "Boston Stong" too!

[lpbk2713]

13. The Chief and the Mayor can wave to the peasants from it in parades.

Other than that ... there's no practical use for it, never was.

[1-Old-Man]

15. You may recall that at Waco they had to wait until the Army supplied then with Tanks

Now they don't have to wait.

[RedCappedBandit]

107. Gee, what could go wrong?

[Stinky The Clown]

16. So they can defend the morons who do this sort of shit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023745055

[jsr]

17. It's for when they see little women and old folks make a 'sudden movement'

[DefenseLawyer]

18. Barney would have loved the tank

Of course when Andy was in charge he knew just how foolish and ultimately counter productive it was to militarize the police force. Unfortunately Andy is no longer the sheriff; Barney was left in charge.

[Taitertots]

19. All the evidence suggests that the government believes that it is at war with the populace

Mass detention of peaceful protesters
Mass surveillance
Police Checkpoints
Detention for refusal to show papers
Wide spread police violence and abuse of power
Attempts to prevent to populace from filming police crimes

[Live and Learn]

56. +1 Very sad, but I fear you are right.

I would be loathe to call the police in nearly any situation these days. It wasn't always like this.

[RedCappedBandit]

108. The very way cops refer to 'civilians' is evidence enough.

[mopinko]

20. this is why the pentagon eats half our taxes.

they just give away armored vehicles?

[demwing]

21. One word...

Heisenberg!



Say my name!

[penultimate]

23. As many others said, it's not a tank... But here in the US, it might as well be

I don't think the police get IEDs and landmines thrown in their way too often here. It seems unneeded and counter productive to what community policing should be.

[Savannahmann]

24. I find it interesting don't you?

The point many rush to make is that an armored vehicle with mounts for heavy weapons including but not limited to Heavy Machine Guns, is not a tank. It is protected against an RPG, which means an anti-tank weapon can't harm the occupants, but it's not a Tank because it has wheels instead of tracks.

So why else isn't it a tank? Well it doesn't fire explosive rounds, but it can have a Mark 19 40MM Grenade Launcher mounted on it, which fires explosive rounds machine gun fashion. But it's not a tank. A Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicle is not a tank, but it has tracks, and a cannon. An assault rifle is not a machine gun because it doesn't fire from belted ammunition, but does fire from a box magazine. But, the SAW that infantry units have fires from belted ammunition, but can fire from boxed magazines if belted ammunition is unavailable.

This Armored Vehicle actually has more armor than a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which has tracks, and a cannon, but still isn't a tank.

My point is this gang. If you can't shoot it with anything less than an anti-tank rocket, and hope to penetrate it, it's a tank. I'm not even sure a LAW or Light Anti-Tank Weapon will penetrate the armor on that thing. That was developed to deal with the light armored vehicles of the Soviets.

It is designed and built to withstand battlefield level explosions, mine blasts are deflected away from the occupants, and the sides are hardened against anti-tank weapons. The objection from many is not that the police have no god damned reason to have one, but that I have misled the people by calling it a tank. Call it whatever you want, but anything built to defeat anti-tank weapons, is a tank. Anything that fires fully automatic is a machine gun. Things are what they are.

[pangaia]

26. Looks like a tank to me. :>))

Savannahmann, you may call it anything you wish.

[penultimate]

37. It seems similar to why people get corrected when they use the term battleship instead of warship...

It's not that it really changes the point of their story/argument , but the terms do have specific meanings. As you said, even a Bradley IFV isn't considered a tank. Although, I will say if police departments start acquiring M2 Bradelys, most people wouldn't have any issues with calling them tanks, but they are mounted with deadly weapons. Take those weapons off an M2 you have an armored vehicle.

Anyway, I'd say calling it a tank or an APC or an armored fighting vehicle or whatever here on DU isn't much of an issue, since most us probably agree with the main points you're making... That such vehicles should not be given to police forces for many different reasons. But when discussing it with people who may not have the same line of thinking, I find it works best to use the accepted definitions of terms (warship vs battleship, tank vs armored vehicle)

[Savannahmann]

44. Battleships during the 19th Century

Had less firepower than Destroyers of today. In fact the first time the term is sort of used is to describe the three deck 74 gun ships that Admiral Nelson used. They were called "Line of Battle Ships."

A Tank was originally called a land destroyer by the man who came up with the idea, or at least proposed it to the Government. That was First Lord of the Admiralty Churchill. It should be noted, that the presence of a big gun on this is probably a matter of minutes.

You can easily mount a .50 Cal machine gun on that vehicle. You can mount .30 cal Machine guns, even if they use the 7.62mm designation instead of .308 cal. You can even mount a 40mm Grenade Launcher that fires automatically, or a "mini gun" which fires thousands of rounds per minute.

What is a tank? A tank is a vehicle that is designed to punch holes in the enemy lines, and destroy all enemy vehicles. To that end, the M1A2 tank has heavy and medium machine guns, it not being needed to fire a big round at smaller less armored vehicles. This thing can destroy any car on the road depending on which weapon is mounted up on top. You could get an armored car from Brinks, and this thing could destroy it in a second. That means it's an urban tank. Especially when you consider that the Bradley and the BMP and the Sheridan pictured above all have thinner armor and are susceptible to the RPG's which this is not.

[oldhippie]

59. Some people don't care about the precision of their language ....

... Others do. That's the difference.

[pangaia]

25. "Is there no end to this nonsense? "

Unfortunately, no. There isn't.

[aikoaiko]

27. To get in between shooters and victims.

[orpupilofnature57]

28. MIC plying their goods, nothing more .

[thatgemguy]

29. Ohio State University recently got one too.

In case things get rowdy at a football game??? Why???

[winter is coming]

74. That's *The* Ohio State University to you, buddy.

And they'll be sending their "tank" around to remind you of it.

[Thor_MN]

30. The LEOs don't need it, but the manufacturer's love the tax writeoff.

Anything that keeps them making war equipment is good for their business. They give away some for the tax writeoff and before long they will be selling them to other cities that want to keep up with the Joneses. Don't forget the training and maintenance costs, and replacement cost once the police departments get used to having them.

[canuckledragger]

31. To manufacture...

and justify a reason to use it?

Don't worry, they'll find a peaceful protest somewhere to escalate with violence, thereby requiring and justifying this purchase.

[Lithos]

34. Several reasons...

First, it's not a tank, it's an Armored Personnel Carrier.

Second, they use this to move close to situations where people are shooting at them. You read DU, you know how many people have autos, semi-autos and the like. There are even people who have mortars and improvised explosives (think militias).

Back in 1965 during the Whitman tower sniping incident, Austin PD were forced to commandeer armored trucks to *rescue* victims still out in plain view. The LAPD would have liked this back during the bank robbery where the robbers had semi-autos and their police had pistols and shotguns.

L-

[penultimate]

41. At most, each county should have an armored vehicle...

It seems redundant for every law enforcement agency to have their own little collection of armored vehicles. What are the chances of multiple instances requiring such a vehicle happening at one time? Why do small towns with less than 25,000 people need to buy these things? Usually it's just 'cause they can because they got a shit load of money from the US government that they have to spend... I worked for a county government recently and their emergency services had four of armored vehicles. Some of them were older, but still.. Why get new ones? They aren't used everyday in a war zone and need to be replaced due to wear and tear.

Also, I haven't heard of many situations in which police were attacked with mortars and RPGs... And I'd think if they were moving in on a group of people like that, it probably wouldn't just be a local issue.

[Savannahmann]

47. Ludicrous

If the vehicle is stored in a central location, say the main Police Station, it would take time, several minutes for officers to go and get the thing. Then it would take time to roar across however much distance to the location of the mass shootings. It could take an hour, or more, to get the bloody thing to the site of a problem. So it is useless in that instance, because in an hour, all the victims in the open would be dead ten times over.

It has one function in which it would be useful, and that is an overwhelming show of force in raiding houses. And there aren't many uses for that in reality. It is an excuse to have a tank, call it whatever you want, I'll call it what it is. It is an excuse to have a vehicle that is little use outside of a warzone. If you tell me that the police expect to find themselves in a warzone, I'll ask what nation we are talking about. Because that doesn't happen here. Lone gunmen are not a warzone.

In nearly every other shooting, the tank would be useless. From Columbine to the Navy Yard, the shootings have taken place indoors, which means unless you want to run the "armored vehicle" through a wall, something it is perfectly capable of doing I might add, it would be as useless as a screen door on a submarine.

It is designed as a fire suppression vehicle, hence the turret up top for the large machine gun.

[Lithos]

84. Completely disagree

LOL,

I'll just agree to disagree with you. You can cherry pick all you want here, but there are many cases where standoffs occur which do not make the news. It is useful to have a large, armored vehicle which can operate in such an environment.

Example:

http://4gwar.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/homeland-security-detoit-p-d-use-apc-for-forcible-entry/

<<Detroit averages 45 barricaded gunman calls a year, Johnson told the Military Vehicles Exposition and Conference in Detroit’s Cobo Center today (Thursday). “Instead of putting officers in harm’s way,” he explained, the APC is used to take down the door. Usually after that, “the individual elected not to play with us,” Johnson added.
The APC has also been used to rescue Detroit cops trapped behind a car or building by hostile fire, to pick up a wounded citizen lying in the street during a gunbattle and to serve search warrants on the fortified lairs of drug and outlaw motorcycle gangs, said Johnson. The aging APC requires a lot of maintenance, he said, adding “we have had some challenges” keep it running.>>

[gejohnston]

69. I see what you are saying but,

first, the guys in LA had full autos, but I digress. LAPD could have ended it with a spotter and a sharpshooter with a scoped bolt action and two rounds instead of the hundreds if not thousands fired. There is no body armour that I know of that will stop a common .30-06 hunting round.

[rhett o rick]

35. I assume the question is rhetorical. nm

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. Blame the second amendment.

I can well believe that the police occasionally need bulletproof vehicles, I'm afraid.

[orpupilofnature57]

51. And a band-aid from time to time, What's your point ?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. That outrage about this purchase is probably misplaced. N.T.

[reddread]

42. so they can do what they did in Fresno in 91

The SWAT cops and their cohorts drove their buggy around the very sizable protests that erupted at Shaw and Blackstone.
That was over 20 years ago, and purely an act of intimidation. well, it might have been had it worked.
A militarized police force is no different from unleashing the US Army on stateside citizens.
same as it ever was.

[NuclearDem]

49. To deescalate highly tense situations and calm everyone down, of course!

[grasswire]

52. follow the dollar

Someone, somewhere, is getting even richer.

[aristocles]

53. It's not a tank...it's a truck. EOM

[CrispyQ]

55. To intimidate the People, pure & simple. We are the terrorists, now.

The 1% is who the police really protect & serve.

[JEFF9K]

57. The oil companies are behind it. It gets 0.5 miles per gallon.

[jmowreader]

96. Close. Very close.

They actually get three miles per gallon, which is horrific.

[Hoyt]

68. Right or wrong -- to keep up with the increasingly armed populace, and militia loons.

I would not want to pull up in a squad car to confront groups like this:

[davekriss]

72. Why? To quell the masses from agitating ...

... for social justice and equality. There is no other reason for it.

[jmowreader]

73. Because...

Back in January, one of the sporting goods stores in Coeur d'Alene, ID, had a series of "freedom rallies." A "freedom rally" is where a shitload of armed teabaggers show up carrying the largest weapons they had, to listen to speeches decrying the fast-approaching Gun Confiscation in America. I can't find the picture, but we ran a shot of a group of four men with Barrett .50-cal sniper rifles at sling arms. (They claim they use them to hunt wolves. I have to wonder, are you hunting them from two counties away?)

Dallas probably has fewer teabaggers per capita than Coeur d'Alene, but there's 1.2 million capitae in Dallas as opposed to 45,000 of 'em in Cd'A and more people there have enough money for luxuries like $12,000 guns.

On edit: I know someone will add that criminals don't buy guns like that. Why buy them when you can burglarize their owners' houses?

[Savannahmann]

75. And if they were a serious threat

Every cop would be driving such a vehicle. Seriously, we've seen these idiots before, they hold up in a cabin after committing a crime, and swear that the law has no legal authority. Then eventually they either come out, or get gunned down. Again, there is no reason to have an armored car, tank, Urban Assault Vehicle, whatever you want to call it, in the hands of peace officers.

[jmowreader]

83. I'm going to disagree with you on this

Teabaggers, "patriots," militiamen and other assorted RWNJs are NOT a constant threat to the safety of the populace, so there's no reason to routinely put cops on the streets in cars you can't see out of, that get three miles to the gallon. (Seriously. These things sop up diesel so fast you'd think there was a hole in the tank...but the really sick part is, that's only twice the fuel consumption of a Humvee.) Some of them have enough guns to arm an infantry company, and if those guys decide it's time to put aside the ballot box for the bullet box, it will definitely be time to put cops on the streets in these.

Very simple scenario in which this vehicle would be useful without needing to be in a gun battle: New Orleans floods again. (I know this one's in Dallas. Follow along.) There are people taking refuge on top of their homes. MRAPs have fording capability - you can drive them in deep water - and there are personnel hatches on the roof. Throw a 20-foot extension ladder on the roof of an MRAP, put two paramedics in the back, and you've got a hell of a rescue vehicle.

[Pterodactyl]

76. Technically, it is NOT a tank. It is an armored vehicle. Not that I'm saying they need one.

It's just that I care very deeply about tanks and it hurts me when the term is misused.

[Savannahmann]

80. Check out some of the replies upthread

That issue has been covered quite well. I still say pfui on that one.

[A HERETIC I AM]

85. You should change your username.

Perhaps "Bulldog" would be more appropriate.

Why? Because you have sunk your teeth into something and you'll be damned if you are going to let it go.

It ain't a fucking tank, man.

No matter how you try and spin the definition, it ain't a god damned tank.

Your larger point is valid, but your nomenclature is wrong. But that just doesn't matter to you, does it?

You might as well call the Cessna built, single engine police spotter planes that are so common in this country 747's. Yeah, they're both airplanes, but one has nothing to do with the other.

[jazzimov]

77. Have you ever BEEN to Dallas?

That's not a tank, but I've been there a couple of times and they definitely NEED one!

[ljm2002]

78. Well, since we don't allow use of our military for domestic enforcement...

...this is the next best thing: just transfer military hardware to domestic law enforcement. Police state, here we come!

No, there is no end to this nonsense until We The People say so. Sadly, We The People are in disarray, not seeing our common interests, hating each other for various reasons, while the .01% roll merrily along becoming more and more engorged with their ill-gotten gains, and using the apparatus of the state to enforce their will on the rest of us.

And the longer it takes for We The People to recognize what is going on, the harder the fall will be. We know this from history, it is one of the few things in human affairs that can be viewed as a natural law: when enough people become hungry and desperate, they revolt. It's a pity the .01% is too stupid to learn that lesson.

[PDJane]

79. The official did say they were going to deliver warrants with it.

It's for intimidation; I mean, how would you like to see that thing parked in your driveway? It's supposed to provide an 'overall safety arch.'

Apparently, they're expecting armour piercing rounds to come from the civilian population, or something.


Quote from Dallas Observer, here: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/dallas_county_now_has_its_very.php

[Savannahmann]

81. Perhaps they're afraid that Batman will come to Dallas.

Oh, for you Pedantic types, they call that a tank too. Damned movies misusing the term.

[Rex]

82. That ain't even a APC.

That is just a jacked up hummer with some body armor and a gun mount. They've had those for decades now.

THIS IS A TANK;



I will start freaking out when LEOs get THAT.

[Iggo]

86. Boi-oi-oi-oi-oing.

That's why.

[Alkene]

90. It's not a balloon ... It's an airship.

Herr Zeppelin - it's wonderful! It's put ballooning right back on the map.

Zeppelin: It's not a balloon! D'you hear?... It's not a balloon ... It's an airship ... an airship ... d'you hear?

Well, it's very nice anyway.

Tell me, what is the principle of these balloons?

Zeppelin: It's not a balloon! You stupid little thick-headed Saxon git! It's not a balloon! Balloons is for kiddy-winkies. If you want to play with balloons, get outside.


Aaaaaaaaaghhh!

[Warren DeMontague]

91. Because granny might be smoking a joint in her kitchen.

[Recursion]

95. So that they can approach bad guys without getting shot

Maybe I'm missing your question? It seems pretty obvious to me.

[Enthusiast]

97. They need an armored personnel vehicle

because Occupy might stage a protest. Can't have that, you know.

[lonestarnot]

99. Last time I looked, that ain't no tank. That's to cart around some pigliCON governor somewhere.

[klyon]

100. We got one like that here a few years ago only has more wheels

Arlington Virginia
They need it for crowd control when the people rise up and try to over throw the government.
Tea Party beware, your guns won't stop this vehicle. I guess the tires can be shot out but that won't stop it.

[Savannahmann]

102. You seem to approve

You seem to approve of the idea of using this against our political enemies. However, what is to say they turn it against us? Imagine this, three years from now a Republican wins the election. I know, it's unthinkable here, but it is still possible. Then the authorities belong to THEM. We go and start to protest the asshole's war wherever, or his policy about Abortion, or you name it. They can turn that damned thing on us just as easily as it is used on them.

I never forget that the difference between President Clinton, and President Bush was just a few months. I will also never forget that both Presidents stood by while the police fired rubber bullets, used long clubs, gas and pepper spray, and water cannon on peaceful protesters. Police use horses to intimidate the crowd at large gatherings. If you raise your hand to halt the horse from coming forward because you can't go anywhere, you are beaten and then arrested for assaulting a police officer, the horse. The crowd prevented you from going anywhere, you wanted to live, but the badge wins.

It's not to stop the tea party. Nor is it to fight the handful of militia nuts, nor is it for the mass shootings. it is strictly for intimidation. The mass shootings tend to take place inside buildings. This armored vehicle (tank) is for one purpose only, to make the police even more immortal as they intimidate the citizens that pay their salaries. From within, they police can fire into whatever gathering they want to. Oh they'll have excuses like the National Guard did at Kent State, someone from within the crowd fired at them was the excuse. No choice really, they had no choice but to mow the crowd down.

You celebrate the idea of turning this thing loose on the political enemies. I worry about the day when we are again the political enemies of those in power.

[klyon]

105. I think you read too much into my post

I was just stating the facts. I am completely non-violent. I think all guns should be banned including police. It should be illegal to turn the military on the people of this country.
The vote is how you change things not guns. The baggers seem to think they can win a war with the government. Which is just silly and this armored vehicle is just another example of what they would be up against if they tried to over throw the government. But thanks for your concern I'm not advocating anarchy.
Also horsed are great for crowd control, they will move you along.

[AngryAmish]

101. THe same reason middle aged men get corvettes

[One_Life_To_Give]

103. Magic Word "FREE"

Not a question of need, it's offered up like free candy. They all run to fill out grant requests for free stuff from DHS. Need or utility doesn't factor in when they don't have to give up anything else for it. And if it hits the scrapyard in 2 or 3 years so what, it was "Free".

If we offered it to them for 10cents on the dollar. We would see a huge drop in such programs. But the vehicle manufacturers have lobbyists. The serfs like us

[kentauros]

106. As soon as the technology allows for it,

this is what they'd really like to have:

[GreenStormCloud]

110. The Apache's chain gun is a 30mm, not a 20mm. N/T