PDA

View Full Version : Superior Police Department spends 733K for a MRAP



Triple C
11 May 14,, 13:30
Superior police get a vehicle fit for combat | Duluth News Tribune (http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/content/superior-police-get-vehicle-fit-combat)

SPD says they will use the MRAP as an armored ambulance. :confu:

The DoD probably has a lot of these that they want to get rid of and they are getting paid for it.

S2
11 May 14,, 16:35
Didn't see where it said Superior was paying anything more than the cost of transportation-$4500. That's it.

This would have been laughable ten years ago but there isn't a city in this nation which hasn't undergone serious contingency training for active shooter scenarios. Nevermind riots and any other major civic disorder where something like this would be valuable.

Sure hope the military have retained a goodly corps of these vehicles for their own light contingency operations going forward. I'm sure there's a real inclination at DA, for instance, to suggest we're out of the COIN business for good but I adhere to the rule of "...never saying 'never'".

zraver
11 May 14,, 22:10
Citizens shooting police are at historic lows, in the mean time, cops have killed more citizens (non-military) since 9-11, than died on 9-11. We have too many cops, with too many guns enforcing too many laws with too little oversight.

TopHatter
12 May 14,, 00:41
Not going to say that cops haven't screwed up in terrible ways (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/11/texas-cop-who-fatally-shot-93-year-old-is-fired/8966087/) (although discharging a firearm in the presence of a police officer is not a good way to engender a peaceful and productive dialogue).

But the police have had armored vehicles and heavily-armed SWAT teams for years. And all it takes is one incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Pittsburgh_police_shootings) where the cops are hideously, ridiculously out-gunned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America_shootout) by criminals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout) that police forces are going to demand equalization.

Albany Rifles
12 May 14,, 01:36
S2, trust me....Lots of MRAPs are around in storage.

DonBelt
12 May 14,, 01:37
Superior police get a vehicle fit for combat | Duluth News Tribune (http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/content/superior-police-get-vehicle-fit-combat)

SPD says they will use the MRAP as an armored ambulance. :confu:

The DoD probably has a lot of these that they want to get rid of and they are getting paid for it.

Problem is, DoD has a lot of them -in Afghanistan, but doesn't want to pay to bring them back.

Scrap Heap of War: Billions in equipment being left behind in Afghanistan | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/04/billions-in-equipment-supplies-being-left-behind-in-afghanistan/)
Pakistan eyes U.S. military equipment in Afghanistan - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistan-eyes-us-military-equipment-in-afghanistan/2014/03/16/0478d99f-8d6a-4f08-b3df-b6fe8599cc9e_story.html)

Zad Fnark
12 May 14,, 13:22
S2, trust me....Lots of MRAPs are around in storage.

I can attest...

I live in Neenah WI, just 10 miles north or Oshkosh where they're built. Once I saw several score of them lined up along the access road around Whittman airport. I even saw one sitting on a flatbed on a farm somewhere. With things winding down, Oshkosh Truck will be going through some layoffs.

I'm surprised Superior, of all places is getting one. Nothing significant happens there. I wasted 9 years of my life living there after high school.

Neenah's getting one too, which made headlines last week.

Ed-

Albany Rifles
12 May 14,, 14:56
If one were to look at places like FT Irwin, FT Polk, Sunnypoint, NC, Sierra Army Depot, Red River Army Depot they would see quite of few of these.

And we don't need the ones in Afghanistan...let the Afghanis have them.

zraver
13 May 14,, 03:42
Not going to say that cops haven't screwed up in terrible ways (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/11/texas-cop-who-fatally-shot-93-year-old-is-fired/8966087/) (although discharging a firearm in the presence of a police officer is not a good way to engender a peaceful and productive dialogue).

But the police have had armored vehicles and heavily-armed SWAT teams for years. And all it takes is one incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Pittsburgh_police_shootings) where the cops are hideously, ridiculously out-gunned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America_shootout) by criminals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout) that police forces are going to demand equalization.

Cops have been screaming for it for years... Other than the LA Bank shootout I can't recall an incident where they really needed it though. I'm not opposed to cops have battle rifles. But they should also wear cameras and mics that are specifically open to FOIA (other than narcs and some undercover ops), be subject to citizen boards impaneled as grand juries (police should not police the police) and being a law enforcement officer should be an aggravating offense for violent acts ruled unjustified by aforementioned panels. Police unions should not be able to shield cops from prosecution or firing for criminal acts. SWAT should only be used for real hard cases, no-knock warrants should be done away with for run of the mill criminals, addresses should be confirmed, CI information alone should not be enough for a warrant. Testilying and use of notebooks (not previously given to the defense as part of discovery. In many areas such notes are protected work product and not turned over and are used on the stand) in Court should be aggressively prevented and punished. Finally, any cop that helps another cop cover up a crime should be charged with conspiracy and the crime they helped cover up in order to break the thin blue line of lies.

DonBelt
13 May 14,, 05:05
Here is good reason for police to have armored vehicles.
Home Explosion Follows Reported Police Shooting in Brentwood, N.H. - New Hampshire news - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new-hampshire/2014/05/12/report-reported-shooting-brentwood/N3Iy5KZzZx4svDxkYlHjlO/story.html)

The police responded to a domestic disturbance, the occupant shot the officer at the door and proceeded to shoot at the back up that responded to retrieve the initial officer. He then proceeded to burn the house down and blow himself up. Intentionally or not intentionally makes no difference. If a police force wanted a Carl Gustav, or M-2 or an armed armored vehicle like a tank or mortars, I might be worried. An armored vehicle to allow officers to be withdrawn from a hazardous scene or be able to approach a hazardous scene or to breach a barrier does not seem unreasonable to me.

TopHatter
13 May 14,, 14:04
Cops have been screaming for it for years... Other than the LA Bank shootout I can't recall an incident where they really needed it though.
You didn't notice the other two examples I embedded? And that was after literally 30 seconds on Wiki.


I'm not opposed to cops have battle rifles. But they should also wear cameras and mics that are specifically open to FOIASure that would certainly help and I'm totally in favor of it, but it's not always going to be practical (not talking about undercovers either)

Police unions should not be able to shield cops from prosecution or firing for criminal acts. Totally agree


SWAT should only be used for real hard cases, no-knock warrants should be done away with for run of the mill criminalsTherein lies the problem. Cops go to a "run of the mill criminal" to serve a warrant or what have you...and the house explodes with small arms fire like it's Fallujah. Cops and innocent bystanders are cut down like fresh-mowed grass, the next-of-kin/public/media all jump on the PD with lawsuits for not being ready and prepared to deal with an obvious hardened criminal. Rinse, lather, repeat.


Finally, any cop that helps another cop cover up a crime should be charged with conspiracy and the crime they helped cover up in order to break the thin blue line of lies.No question about the first part of what you said, but the bolded part? Really? :rolleyes:

zraver
13 May 14,, 23:48
You didn't notice the other two examples I embedded? And that was after literally 30 seconds on Wiki.

Even if we add them and the NH house fire and a few others we are talking less than .0001% of use of force incidents.

Raids gone wrong

http://www.cato.org/raidmap


Sure that would certainly help and I'm totally in favor of it, but it's not always going to be practical (not talking about undercovers either)
Totally agree

Respecting rights isn't based on the practicality of it to the government agent.


Therein lies the problem. Cops go to a "run of the mill criminal" to serve a warrant or what have you...and the house explodes with small arms fire like it's Fallujah. Cops and innocent bystanders are cut down like fresh-mowed grass, the next-of-kin/public/media all jump on the PD with lawsuits for not being ready and prepared to deal with an obvious hardened criminal. Rinse, lather, repeat.

More like the cops run to the media and politicans. You don't see firefighters screaming for silver suits to fight wild land fires... Cops need to stop substituting tech for talent.


No question about the first part of what you said, but the bolded part? Really? :rolleyes:

Yup, accessory after the fact is used against civilians all the time. I don't know of it ever being used against a cop or group of cops since at least the Rampart Scandal. The idea that cops deserve special protection from prosecution for crimes committed is offensive. They are authorized to kill and should be held to a higher, not lesser standard of conduct.

zraver
13 May 14,, 23:52
Here is good reason for police to have armored vehicles.
Home Explosion Follows Reported Police Shooting in Brentwood, N.H. - New Hampshire news - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new-hampshire/2014/05/12/report-reported-shooting-brentwood/N3Iy5KZzZx4svDxkYlHjlO/story.html)

The police responded to a domestic disturbance, the occupant shot the officer at the door and proceeded to shoot at the back up that responded to retrieve the initial officer. He then proceeded to burn the house down and blow himself up. Intentionally or not intentionally makes no difference. If a police force wanted a Carl Gustav, or M-2 or an armed armored vehicle like a tank or mortars, I might be worried. An armored vehicle to allow officers to be withdrawn from a hazardous scene or be able to approach a hazardous scene or to breach a barrier does not seem unreasonable to me.

Sorry but a 10' tall. 8' wide roll over prone vehicle wont make a very good tactical ambulance. On many rural streets it wont fit down the street due to low hanging wires and branches. It will sink through thin surface streets, and god forbid you try and use it for hi-water rescues in a flash flood or go off road with it...

DonBelt
14 May 14,, 05:33
I'm saying that the police needing an armored vehicle is not a threat- not that that particular type is suitable for certain areas or roads or is better than another. My feeling is that a manufacturer could come up with a specific type -if it's not already available- that would fill the police need without putting a tank on the road. Even a modified bank truck might work.

As far as the police being a threat to freedom- that's too big and broad a statement. There are certainly police that abuse their authority the same as there are soldiers who exceed what the laws of war allow or teachers that abuse authority to push their beliefs on students or sexually abuse them, or any number of people that abuse or misuse authority or power that they are given. There is also a mission creep that all govt bureaucracies possess, where they look to expand their budgets and fiefdoms for a myriad of reasons. I would not accuse all officers or agencies of this, nor would I deny officers materials that they may need to do their job. If it doesn't violate the Constitution or make a situation worse (such as using aerial bombs like the Philly police did in the 85 raid on MOVE) and the police can show a legitimate need and use for it, and their constituency allows the expense, I see no reason to deny it to them. The truck in the article is not armed and has no firing ports so you cannot fight from it and it was free to them thru a govt program (other than shipping costs) which is why I suspect they settled on it.

The analogy of a firefighter not crying for a proximity suit to fight wildfires doesn't fit nor apply. A proximity suit would kill a firefighter trying to work a wildland blaze- it is too hot and heavy and cumbersome and the firefighter would be unable to function. Firefighters do however constantly ask for newer and better gear to protect them selves when it is appropriate, starting with scba's, better turnout gear, gas meters, tic's, safer trucks and they also fight for laws restricting what home builders can use to build their homes, like laminated structural beams, lightweight truss, metal truss plate connectors, forcing people to install sprinklers, smoke detectors against their will.
So, yes, firefighters do scream for things to protect them and allow them to go home at the end of the day. In fact, since the recent firefighter shooting in NY, there are even some firefighters calling to have body armor or to be allowed to carry firearms. (none of which I agree with).

As far as whether or not there is an excessive use of swat teams forcing entry to private residences, I think you should look at whether a writ for forceable entry or no-knock warrant was justified. If it was, I have no problem with police using a swat team. If the warrants aren't justified, then you need to look at the courts, not the police. If police lie to courts or present false evidence to get a no knock warrant, then a crime has been committed and the police officer that committed perjury should be prosecuted.

Monash
14 May 14,, 12:02
Z,
I think we have discussed this topic before. MRAPS are effectively being given away for free to local US law enforcement. In urban environments the number of times they can be usefully deployed will be strictly limited given current rate of the 'high intensity' violent crime that would warrant their deployment in the US. Local LEAs would have to suspect in advance that their deployment was warranted before deploying them during search warrant execution, failing that it would require a siege situation to warrant the cost. They mightt get more use in rural settings where they have room to maneuver but not much more. Give one to every fifth county PD in the US to be shared around with their immediate neighbor counties in an emergency and they would still end up gathering dust most of the time.

Bottom line is MRAPS cost money to run and most cash strapped local PDs would have to be given one for free before they would even consider deploying them. The US could offer every Police force in the country spare M1A1s or C130s and the story would be the same. Capital assets like this are only usefull as long as their utility outweighs their acquisition and operating costs.

zraver
14 May 14,, 13:57
Monash, and yet police departments around the country are lining up for these things including at least 2 in Arkansas.

Triple C
14 May 14,, 15:16
But what is the rationale behind choosing MRAPs instead of up-armored civilian vehicles? MRAPs are not only the rifle-proof armored vehicle options and the capabilities of the V-shaped hull is basically wasted on American cities, while the police departments operating them must deal with their drawbacks (I don't want to ever see Chicago Police Department cops driving those monsters in winter). If the DoD is giving them away I can see low cost being the attraction.

Albany Rifles
14 May 14,, 15:36
If the DoD is giving them away I can see low cost being the attraction.

You answered your own question.

Surplus to military needs.

Stitch
14 May 14,, 20:34
Z,
I think we have discussed this topic before. MRAPS are effectively being given away for free to local US law enforcement. In urban environments the number of times they can be usefully deployed will be strictly limited given current rate of the 'high intensity' violent crime that would warrant their deployment in the US. Local LEAs would have to suspect in advance that their deployment was warranted before deploying them during search warrant execution, failing that it would require a siege situation to warrant the cost. They mightt get more use in rural settings where they have room to maneuver but not much more. Give one to every fifth county PD in the US to be shared around with their immediate neighbor counties in an emergency and they would still end up gathering dust most of the time.

Bottom line is MRAPS cost money to run and most cash strapped local PDs would have to be given one for free before they would even consider deploying them. The US could offer every Police force in the country spare M1A1s or C130s and the story would be the same. Capital assets like this are only usefull as long as their utility outweighs their acquisition and operating costs.

Yes, we did: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/american-politics-economy/63743-why-earth-do-they-need-these.html

Albany Rifles
14 May 14,, 22:01
Yes, we did: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/american-politics-economy/63743-why-earth-do-they-need-these.html

What a dark place that was!!!

But is was nice to read some of Whiskie's comments again.

I miss my old friend.

Doktor
14 May 14,, 22:03
What a dark place that was!!!

But is was nice to read some of Whiskie's comments again.

I miss my old friend.

Same here. Almost an year.

zraver
14 May 14,, 23:32
Yes we did have that conversation, but I was then under the impression that they would be decent high water vehicles, they are not.

Monash
15 May 14,, 14:07
Monash, and yet police departments around the country are lining up for these things including at least 2 in Arkansas.

Yes but as noted before that's because they are being offered for free. Since local PDs don't have to pay the acquisition cost of the asset, just the operating expenses they can afford to take one on spec. Moreover given those operating and maintenance costs are undoubtedly the equivalent of at least 4 or 5 standard GD patrol cars they will almost certainly spend most of their time in the police garages under a dust cloth. No doubt they will be wheeled out for things like Veterans Day parades and the Police display at local count fairs but excluding training ops and the rare tactical deployment they won't see the light of day.

If Homeland Security was offering these things at anywhere near the market value we probably wouldn't even have this thread because so few PDs would be interested. Long story short the DoD overestimated how many they would need for Iraq and Afghanistan (either that or the manufacturers greased the wheels in Washington) and now they have to off-load them in a way that looks even vaguely plausible to voters. Your tax dollars at work.

Stitch
15 May 14,, 18:22
Yes but as noted before that's because they are being offered for free. Since local PDs don't have to pay the acquisition cost of the asset, just the operating expenses they can afford to take one on spec. Moreover given those operating and maintenance costs are undoubtedly the equivalent of at least 4 or 5 standard GD patrol cars they will almost certainly spend most of their time in the police garages under a dust cloth. No doubt they will be wheeled out for things like Veterans Day parades and the Police display at local count fairs but excluding training ops and the rare tactical deployment they won't see the light of day.

If Homeland Security was offering these things at anywhere near the market value we probably wouldn't even have this thread because so few PDs would be interested. Long story short the DoD overestimated how many they would need for Iraq and Afghanistan (either that or the manufacturers greased the wheels in Washington) and now they have to off-load them in a way that looks even vaguely plausible to voters. Your tax dollars at work.

In fact, a majority of the "surplus" MRAP's in Afghanistan are going to be disposed of in-country; the DoD has decided it's too expensive to ship a bunch of MRAP's back to the States, so they will be destroyed/scrapped/sold in Afghanistan. I'm guessing the MRAP's that the DoD are giving away are the ones that didn't make it onto a ship before the draw-down in A-stan.

This NPR segment is almost a year old, but not much has changed since then:

U.S. Army To Scrap $7 Billion In Equipment In Afghanistan : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/20/193978665/u-s-army-to-scrap-7-billion-in-equipment-in-afghanistan)

Tamara
28 May 14,, 17:22
I can attest...
....................
I'm surprised Superior, of all places is getting one. Nothing significant happens there. I wasted 9 years of my life living there after high school.
...................
Ed-

Well, that kind of thinking sort of makes one an ideal target. What reduces the odds of one being a target is the foe knowing that it won't be an easy hit.

Looking at Wiki alone, it doesn't seem like it would be high on the selection for primary targeting (not sure how it would rank for a Beslan situation)......but anything could serve as a diversionary to a primary. Especially when a foe doesn't have to waste that much effort, of his resources, to draw attention to the secondary while he moves on the primary.

Mind you, I am talking just from the standpoint to counter the line of thought "We have nothing to protect here!". Whether or not someone needs this or that is another discussion that goes back and forth.