Why do America's cops need an armored tank?

[LeviF]

It's a BearCat, not an armored tank. Could you paint a worse picture with the title?

That's why I said the article kind of sucked. It's not my title.

 

This is an armored tank. Linky for armored tank picture.

 

A BearCat is an armored car set up for SWAT / SRT operations. There are litterally hundreds (maybe thousands) of these all over the USA. Prior to BearCat building these designed for Police operations, departments used to get old armored cars (the kind used to haul money) to use.

 

What, no problem with Brinks driving around in Armored cars?

 

So in your mind, police officers that have to respond to barricaded armed suspect calls should just pull up and park out front in a regular patrol car?

 

Armored tank

My big issue, as I stated in my OP (which you conveniently ignored, but I could have predicted that) is this:

 

Other criminal justice experts have questioned whether police need minitanks, saying they're often used for mundane tasks such as serving warrants, and create a sense of police as military soldiers rather than neighbors.

Except I don't think it just creates "a sense" of police as military soldiers; I think that, in general, police forces are becoming groups that are more inclined toward military-like operations rather than keeping order and peace.

 

Also, your favorite line, is a command officer refering to his officers outside of a barricade situation.

And?

Edited July 11, 2011 by LeviF91

[Fingon]

That's why I said the article kind of sucked. It's not my title.

 

 

My big issue, as I stated in my OP (which you conveniently ignored, but I could have predicted that) is this:

 

 

Except I don't think it just creates "a sense" of police as military soldiers; I think that, in general, police forces are becoming groups that more inclined toward military-like operations rather than keeping order and peace.

 

 

And?

You can't have order and peace when you are fighting a war. We've given criminals a gift of a hundreds of billions a year, and now we have to fight them. The ironic part is that war is far worse than the consequences of not fighting it.

[BB27]

That's why I said the article kind of sucked. It's not my title.

 

 

My big issue, as I stated in my OP (which you conveniently ignored, but I could have predicted that) is this:

 

 

Except I don't think it just creates "a sense" of police as military soldiers; I think that, in general, police forces are becoming groups that are more inclined toward military-like operations rather than keeping order and peace.

 

 

And?

 

 

What is so wrong with police being in an armored vehicle when sitting outside a location where an armed suspect is barricaded inside who may have already taken shots at the police or other innocent persons. Should they sit in a car made of cardboard?

 

I freely admit, I am in law enforcement (federal), I have been on and commanded tactical teams (no longer, getting to old), and there were many situations where I would have loved to have had access to a vehicle like that. It may have been a game changer as well, can't get officers close to a suspect when they are unprotected. Sniper rounds are the only way to go, so an armored vehicle may have saved the bad guys life in these types of situations.

 

It isn't always a bad idea when law enforcement has good equipment.

[LeviF]

What is so wrong with police being in an armored vehicle when sitting outside a location where an armed suspect is barricaded inside who may have already taken shots at the police or other innocent persons. Should they sit in a car made of cardboard?

 

I freely admit, I am in law enforcement (federal), I have been on and commanded tactical teams (no longer, getting to old), and there were many situations where I would have loved to have had access to a vehicle like that. It may have been a game changer as well, can't get officers close to a suspect when they are unprotected. Sniper rounds are the only way to go, so an armored vehicle may have saved the bad guys life in these types of situations.

 

It isn't always a bad idea when law enforcement has good equipment.

I don't mind saying that when you need one of these things, you need it really badly. My problem with it is this: these things are also being used when they're most certainly not needed. Barricaded armed suspect? Fine. Serving an arrest warrant? I don't think so. There are situations that call for the police to act as a paramilitary force, but they are few and far between.

 

And Tom's post raised a question in my mind: why a combat car and not a Brinks truck? Aren't they both armored? Maybe you can answer that for me, BB27, being in law enforcement and all.

[Beerball]

$283,000 for a Bearcat

 

Obviously there is a price range depending on what a particular jurisdiction requests, but for the sake of argument let's assume that $283K is average. I can't believe that a typical 'bank' armored car would be significantly less.

[Booster4324]

$283,000 for a Bearcat

 

Obviously there is a price range depending on what a particular jurisdiction requests, but for the sake of argument let's assume that $283K is average. I can't believe that a typical 'bank' armored car would be significantly less.

 

Their website's recent news includes 3 (1 broken link) instances of their use dating back to December 27th 2008. A police site combines all Lenco Armored Vehicles and says it has been used to deflect rifle fire in more than two dozen incidents. One article suggested 660 million spent on them.

[BB27]

Serving an arrest warrant? I don't think so.

 

 

What about a murder warrant? Or a bombing suspect? Or a bank robbery warrant? How about any warrant where the subject of the warrant is know to be armed and dangerous?

 

Arrest warrants can quickly turn into barricaded subject calls.

 

Lots of LE officers are killed serving arrest warrants.

 

Difference between a bearcat and a brinks truck, brinks truck is designed to haul money and 1 or 2 guards, bearcat is designed to carry multiple officers and all the gear and equipment they might need during an operation. Also, it is designed to carry them safely.

 

I see these types of vehicles as a great tool that like no knock warrants get used at the wrong times in the wrong situations. A good threat matrix should be used to determine what SRT / SWAT should or should not be involved in.

 

I also have to say, that on more than one occasion, arrest warrants that scored extremely low on the threat matrix (no SRT / SWAT)had suspects armed to the teeth, while those that had scored extremely high (SRT / SWAT participation) had suspects completely compliant with no weapons found. Bottom line is that these types of situations (warrants) are never one size fits all, and they are always fluid dynamic and complex situations that are easy to second guess/ monday morning quarterback later by people with no experience or point of reference.

[DC Tom]

$283,000 for a Bearcat

 

Obviously there is a price range depending on what a particular jurisdiction requests, but for the sake of argument let's assume that $283K is average. I can't believe that a typical 'bank' armored car would be significantly less.

 

Basic Ford F-550 cash-in-transit armored car (same chassis as the Bearcat, it seems) looks like it goes for about $100k. SWAT versions will be more, since they require no small bit of retrofitting for law enforcement requirements. I've seen a couple news articles that quote them going for $150k.

 

So...yeah, looks like it might be significantly less. Of course, they may not be equivalent...but I have a hard time imagining that a CIT truck isn't going to be just as good as a Bearcat in 90% of the cases law enforcement would use one.

[Pete]

an absolute waste of tax dollars for a frivolous militant item. No wonder this country is broke

[LeviF]

I also have to say, that on more than one occasion, arrest warrants that scored extremely low on the threat matrix (no SRT / SWAT)had suspects armed to the teeth, while those that had scored extremely high (SRT / SWAT participation) had suspects completely compliant with no weapons found. Bottom line is that these types of situations (warrants) are never one size fits all, and they are always fluid dynamic and complex situations that are easy to second guess/ monday morning quarterback later by people with no experience or point of reference.

I realize this, and accept it (especially the hindsight bit), but this is where you and I will always fundamentally disagree. I do not think that the fear of the unknown, when it comes to your own citizens, justifies bringing military vehicles into the mix. I can see why you feel otherwise.

 

And thanks for the answer regarding the Brinks truck, it's appreciated.

[BB27]

an absolute waste of tax dollars for a frivolous militant item. No wonder this country is broke

 

 

No surprise there....

[DrDawkinstein]

Im historically liberal in my posting on law enforcement, but Im not too upset here. The bigger issue is the price tag, than the "military" vehicle. It's not a tank like the article says, its an armored truck. BIG difference.

 

If it ever gets to a point that the police do decide to take over in a military state, we'll all have bigger problems to deal with than these trucks.

 

It's a bit expensive, but the truck itself is no big deal, imo. Does every podunk town need one? Of course not. But it's probably a good idea to average 1 per county.

[Pete]

No surprise there....

What's that? That I would rather have tax dollars spent on education, health care, infrastructure, environment, etc - then have money wasted policing us with armored tanks. How radiical

[Wacka]

As someone else posted earlier, look up the Hollywood shootout.

[Rob's House]

Pete reminds me of Julianne Moore in The Lost World.

[Pete]

As someone else posted earlier, look up the Hollywood shootout.

Look up 9/11. By your logic- should we.buy police next generation fighter jets?

[BB27]

Look up 9/11. By your logic- should we.buy police next generation fighter jets?

 

 

Lame, so lame.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Lame, so lame.

Not hard at all to imagine where a armored vehicle would be necessary to a negotiating team in a armed standoff. Particularly if communication is by loud speaker. Are they going to stand in the road?

It's not as if it was armed with M2s. It's just protection.

[Jim in Anchorage]

I realize this, and accept it (especially the hindsight bit), but this is where you and I will always fundamentally disagree. I do not think that the fear of the unknown, when it comes to your own citizens, justifies bringing military vehicles into the mix. I can see why you feel otherwise.

 

And thanks for the answer regarding the Brinks truck, it's appreciated.

And how do you feel about Waco? This will be interesting. I assume from your posts [and I am open to correction] you would aprove a Clinton/Reno action.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Jim in Anchorage

[BB27]

Not hard at all to imagine where a armored vehicle would be necessary to a negotiating team in a armed standoff. Particularly if communication is by loud speaker. Are they going to stand in the road?

It's not as if it was armed with M2s. It's just protection.

 

 

You know what, you made me think about how much easier it was to communicate with barricaded subjects pre-cell phones. You used to be able to send a team up with a throw phone (after you cut all power and phones to the house) and then the only way the guy could talk was with that phone. Now, you really are left with loud speakers. Throw phones still get used, but you can't isolate a suspect like before. Your calling them, and they are talking to anyone on a cell phone.

 

I just don't get some of the peoples reactions to police using an armored vehicle to approach an armed subject. I also don't get how they could possibly refer to it as a tank (original article did this as well). A tank has a turret, and a really big gun that is designed to destroy other tanks......