8 ms·

> MRAP's are for combat, not police work While they were designed for combat, they are effectively the same thing that Brinks uses to transport money. They are

> MRAP's are for combat, not police work While they were designed for combat, they are effectively the same thing that Brinks uses to transport money. They are meant to stop bad things from killing the people inside. They have 0 offensive weapons. They are entirely defensive vehicles that have been used to rescue downed officers, civilians in harms way (gunfire), and multiple times in natural disasters where other vehicles would have gotten stuck. While I get that they "look scary" to some people, they do have utility and come very cheap from the federal government that is trying to get them off their books. Local police pick them up because when there is a gunfight/hostage situation/disaster it's better to have one 5 mins away than an hour away. I honestly don't get the outrage about them.

yarrel 8y ago
I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one. If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. They are civilian vehicles and all of the tasks you list are civilian tasks. Militarization of the police force is a very, very, very bad idea.
- tomschlick 8y ago
  > I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one. Anecdotal opinions. I know plenty of vets who don't think MRAPs are a big deal at all. > If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. Armored cars cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy and outfit from companies like Lenco. MRAPs are bought for ~$1k (transport costs) from the federal government. > Militarization of the police force is a very, very, very bad idea. If the vehicles do the same tasks, in mostly the same way, what's the difference?
  - sdenton4 8y ago
    It's exactly the riot cop problem. On the cop side, the more armor you have, the less you see and the more hostile the world /seems/; this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation. On the civilian side, you get to feel like you live in a goddamned war zone, with the police as combatants. It's not a nice feeling. My own approach is to treat cops as large, gun-wielding wild animals: maybe they'll be fine, but in any interaction there's a chance they'll fuck up your life permanently. And that's a direct consequence of having police on 'war footing' with the community, where the default reactions to problems are either violence or long-term imprisonment. And the ethics of this extends beyond my own interactions: if I see something illegal happening, calling the cops means putting people in extreme danger. As a result, I'm not going to call the cops for anything less than assault. Thus, police militarization works against actual enforcement of the law, because it estranges police from the population. (For a whole lot more, go listen to season 3 of the Serial podcast...)
    - tomschlick 8y ago
      > this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation. I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people. If people are rioting (actually rioting, not protesting) then I honestly don't care how the presence of a MRAP makes them feel. It's the police's job to stop the riot and they need tools to do that. > I'm not going to call the cops for anything less than assault. I'm glad you're not the majority. Because the world would be pretty shitty if all the police responded to was physical assaults and above.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - sdenton4 8y ago
        > I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people. Most of the time, police aren't being shot at. And they tend to react to peaceful protest exactly as if it were a riot. This is well documented. Here's an example I was present for: Peaceful protest at the university. Cops in riot gear show up, fly around in helicopters, etc. One of the cops pushes/bumps a girl who then bounces into another cop, who slams her against the hood of cop car, arrests her, charges her with assault, and tries to get her expelled from the university. (The same department, six months later, gave us this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4 ) > I'm glad you're not the majority. Because the world would be pretty shitty if all the police responded to was physical assaults and above. If that's not the world you like, let's fix the police!
        tomschlick 8y ago
        > Most of the time Key phrase there. We expect our police to be equipped for any situation. So what happens when something like the North Hollywood shooting happens again and you have pinned cops/civilians? In that case officers had to commandeer actual money trucks and raid gun shops to get the equipment they needed to stop the shooters. > Here's an example I was present for If that's true then I'm all for punishments / legal action against officers that do wrong. > If that's not the world you like, let's fix the police! I'm all for police reform where evidence shows it can help.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > If the vehicles do the same tasks, in mostly the same way, what's the difference? The difference is that the 1033 program comes with a use-it-or-lose-it utilization requirement, which means that the cheap transfer of military equipment has a built in incentive to overuse it. They are often suitable for tasks that police rarely face, which at a steep discount makes them seem like good deals anyway. But then they must be used soon to be kept. So they get used in less appropriate circumstances as a direct consequence of the terms of transfer.
    - tomschlick 8y ago
      > The difference is that the 1033 program comes with a use-it-or-lose-it utilization requirement It's my understanding that the requirement is a stop-gap for a single dept ordering 500 of these vehicles and parking them in a warehouse or selling them off. Basically if they use it for training and have it at the ready for call-outs then they satisfy the requirement.
- briandear 8y ago
  However, the French Gendarmes are a paramilitary police force. It’s part of the French military and under interior ministry control. Does France have concerns about this military-style police force? Just saying militarization is a “bad idea,” seems to be an opinion based on emotion rather than facts. It seems like any police force can be bad or good; the militarization doesn’t seem to have much to do with that. French Gendarmes are reasonably respected. Actual armed soldiers patrol tourist areas in France, and that hasn’t led to any particular oppression unique to militarization. It does however make French tourist sites vastly safer than most places in the world that don’t have such patrols. It’s really a question of training rather than equipment or appearance.
  - tomschlick 8y ago
    Exactly. Even NYC has the "Hercules" team which is effectively a SWAT team that shows up at high risk locations as a show of force to deter terrorism. Last time I was in Time Square some of them were lining up for photos with the general public. The crowd seemed pretty at ease knowing that if shit went down those guys were there to stop it.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      In most cities in US, SWAT and local police are the same people wearing slightly different uniforms. This is not so in Europe, where there's a clear distinction between beat cops (who don't get MRAPs) and special forces.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    Yes I think the fragmented nature of having hundreds if not thousands of "police" forces of various levels of training and background checks.
  - incangold 8y ago
    Sure. But the French police barely use their guns, whereas the US police famously kill lots and lots of people. So for the purposes of the topic at hand, giving the US police military equipment is probably a bad idea. At least until there’s been an institutional culture shift, which will take decades at least.
chrisseaton 8y ago
Right - an MRAP is a 'battlefield taxi' - it's a basic vehicle to move around a hostile area - it's defensive. You aren't doing anything offensive from inside an MRAP unless it has a remote weapons station on top. Great for collecting casualties.
- Fomite 8y ago
  "Battlefield." "Hostile area". "Collecting Casualties". Cannot imagine why people might be concerned about its use in law enforcement.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    You’re being unnecessarily snarky and sarcastic. In active shooter situations, which are not uncommon in suburban US areas, you have hostile areas and need to collect casualties in a defended vehicle while possibly under fire.
    - King-Aaron 8y ago
      > In active shooter situations, which are not uncommon in suburban US areas Also not uncommon in warzones. Uncommon, however, almost everywhere else in the world.
  - assblaster 8y ago
    From Wikipedia: "The November 2015 Paris attacks were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks that took place on Friday, 13 November 2015 in Paris, France and the city's northern suburb, Saint-Denis. Beginning at 21:16 CET, three suicide bombers struck outside the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, during a football match. This was followed by several mass shootings and a suicide bombing, at cafés and restaurants. Gunmen carried out another mass shooting and took hostages at an Eagles of Death Metal concert in the Bataclan theatre, leading to a stand-off with police. The attackers were shot or blew themselves up when police raided the theatre." As you can see, the streets of Paris did indeed become a battlefield, filled with hostile attackers, leading to many casualties. It's easy to see why even Paris was not immune to terrorism/armed assailants and needed to have armored vehicles.
electrograv 8y ago
Perhaps concerns about 'the over-militarization of police' is essentially a concern for situations where an extreme power imbalance exists between police and civilians, creating a much higher risk of totalitarian abuse and oppression by police in situations where the police force in question becomes corrupt or 'bad' in some way. (Disclaimer: I'm not making an anti-LEO argument; quite the contrary, I'm very pro-LEO, and in many cases I see, LEOs are disrespected very unfairly.) The problem isn't where police are good; the point is to design a system that inherently protects against abuse by the very small percentage of LEOs that do become corrupt and abuse their special powers that civilians do not have. How do we protect against this? Perhaps the simplest and most robust way to protect against this abuse is simply to limit the magnitude of power imbalance between the government and the people! One could argue that this principle applies to physically defensive equipment as much as it does to computer and information systems, and any other mode of power. Additionally, this notion is encoded into our country's constitution at least in some ways. Therefore, this leads to the question: Can a civilian buy an MRAP? If so, I think your argument works very well -- especially since they're defensive machines. If a civilian cannot buy one though, I could see the argument against police using them gaining favor.
- tomschlick 8y ago
  > Can a civilian buy an MRAP? If so, I think your argument works very well Yes you can if you found one for sale (not sure what that market looks like). Civilians can also buy decommissioned tanks, Two ton trucks, humvees, etc.
  - electrograv 8y ago
    In that case, I'm definitely convinced to your side of the argument! If a civilian can buy it, I see no reason why a police force shouldn't be able to as well. That said, I'd love to hear any counter-arguments to this notion, if they exist.
    - ssully 8y ago
      The counter argument would be police departments rarely buy this equipment - it's given to them as part of a program between the Pentagon and law enforcement. They get the vehicles (and lots of other military grade equipment) for a huge discount or free. There is also the fact that even if a civilian could technically buy one, it's not really feasible to actually do so.
driverdan 8y ago
They are not the same thing as a standard armored truck. The name itself gives that away (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected). Police do not need mine-resistant vehicles. MRAPs have high maintenance and running costs. The simple fact that they are former military vehicles contributes to the military mindset of many police depts, something that should be avoided. Militarization of police forces is bad for citizens.
- tomschlick 8y ago
  > Police do not need mine-resistant vehicles. Serious eye roll here. You're discarding all of the other capabilities and suggesting that because it is ALSO mine resistant it must be bad. > MRAPs have high maintenance and running costs. That's assuming they are used all the time. Most departments have them parked at their HQs and only use them for call outs or training. Regular maintenance wouldn't reach the same levels of cost as buying a bearcat + maintaining that. Also as more depts get them, the maintenance costs will go down (excluding the OP comment here's area). > contributes to the military mindset of many police depts While I generally agree with that notion, I would much rather them buy the cheaper milsurp vehicle with more capability than buy one from Lenco, or not buy one at all and have to wait an hour during an active shooter.
  - ben509 8y ago
    > You're discarding all of the other capabilities and suggesting that because it is ALSO mine resistant it must be bad. Having driven and gunned on an MRAP... yes, the mine resistance makes it bad. You resist mines by 1. moving away from them and 2. presenting armor at an angle. On a truck like an MRAPs, you mount it very high above the ground and for the size and weight, the interior space is limited because the chassis is sloped upwards.
    - tomschlick 8y ago
      For smaller depts that cant afford a custom Bearcat, I'm sure the smaller space and height burdens aren't too bad compared to not having armored cover at all.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
markdown 8y ago
> While I get that they "look scary" to some people . That's more than enough reason not to deploy them. It changes "we're here to serve and protect" to "we will crush you if you step out of line".
- tomschlick 8y ago
  > That's more than enough reason not to deploy them. No it's not. These vehicles can, and have saved lives. I have yet to hear of an MRAP killing someone in the US. > "we will crush you if you step out of line" Better wording would be "if you throw rocks or shoot at us we are still going to arrest you".
  - markdown 8y ago
    > These vehicles can, and have saved lives. Citation needed. Police all over the world do their jobs without these tanks. Is there any data proving crime goes down in cities where they are deployed? Is there any data proving that less lives are lost when these tanks are deployed in US cities? > Better wording would be "if you throw rocks or shoot at us we are still going to arrest you". People have been throwing rocks at and shooting at US police for two centuries. How does having a tank help in arrests? Officers can't arrest from inside the tank. They have to get out of it and approach on foot. How is this different from stepping out from behind a building or any other vehicle and approaching on foot? They could drive to the scene in a yellow school bus and the result would be the same. They have to exit the bus and approach on foot.
    - x220 8y ago
      You could look up videos on YouTube of police deploying an AMRAP to an area with an active shooter (a shooter with military-grade rifles and armor) and using it for cover. That's how they save lives.
    - tomschlick 8y ago
      > Citation needed. Several active shooter situations where they need to retrieve downed officers / civilians without exposing the rescue team to gunfire. Most recently in the Pittsburgh shooting it was reported they used an armored vehicle to get to injured officers outside. > Police all over the world do their jobs without these tanks. First of all they are not tanks. They have no offensive capabilities so they would be classified as armored personnel carriers. Second, these exist all over the world, here are some image results: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=european+riot+vehicle&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http%3A%2F%2Fc8.alamy.com%2Fcomp%2FEH1TYX%2Fpsni-armoured-vehicles-set-alight-by-petrol-bombs-during-riots-in-EH1TYX.jpg https://duckduckgo.com/?q=european+riot+vehicle&t=ffab&iar=i... > People have been throwing rocks at and shooting at US police for two centuries. How does having a tank help in arrests? Allows officers to take cover behind it while the vehicle moves forward. When it reaches the people throwing rocks they can move to effect the arrest. For shootings it allows them to much closer to barricaded subjects and make sure they cant escape / provides a platform to negotiate peaceful surrender.
dsr_ 8y ago
Here's the outrage: if the police have armored vehicles, that means that they perceive a need for armored vehicles. When officers walk past them, they are reminded that they are needed. When officers are inside them, they feel simultaneously invulnerable and threatened -- all this armor means that someone must want to kill them. From the other side, a community that sees MRAPs going past has to believe that there's a need for armored protection for the police -- so there must be a corresponding threat from armed criminals. The affluent parts of the community perceive more of a threat, and the disadvantaged part of the community has solid evidence that the police are an occupying military force, not protection. In other words, the presence of the MRAPs creates a problem for everyone. It escalates tension.
- tomschlick 8y ago
  So we are talking about perception above all else? Great, but there are use cases for armored vehicles. Whether its an MRAP or a Bearcat. There are always going to be barricaded persons, hostage situations, active shooters, riots, and natural disasters that need responding to and those seem to be the best tools for the job. The goal is to get as close to the subject as possible without anyone getting hurt. From there you can control the scene and use it as a position to de-escalate. If these tools are being used inappropriately, I am all for legislation to curb that.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > So we are talking about perception above all else? Perception resulting from conscious, deliberate actions; or, viewed another way, nonverbal communication. Yes, it's key to police work.
  - Fomite 8y ago
    Perception is an important thing when it comes to interacting with a community.
  - dsr_ 8y ago
    The idea that first you roll up in a tank, and then you pretend that you're going to de-escalate, is inherently ludicrous. "Barricaded person": doesn't need an MRAP, they need a therapist. "Hostage situation": generally also doesn't need an MRAP, they need a specialized therapist. "Active shooter": here's note from a company that really wants to sell you training on how to deal with an active shooter -- http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/10-lessons-learned-from-the-new-fbi-study-on-active-shooters http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/10-lessons-learned-fro... -- note that even with their spin, they can't come up with any evidence that an MRAP would be helpful. "Riots" -- There's a list on Wikipedia. What percentage were caused by the police murdering people? 12 of 29 in the last ten years. "Natural disasters": don't require tanks. Heavy trucks? Rugged 4WD? More investment in firefighting equipment? Sure. Hauling around tons of armor on a vehicle with a high center of gravity? Silly.
dang 8y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18543229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18543229.

yarrel 8y ago

I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one. If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. They are civilian vehicles and all of the tasks you list are civilian tasks. Militarization of the police force is a very, very, very bad idea.

tomschlick 8y ago
> I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one. Anecdotal opinions. I know plenty of vets who don't think MRAPs are a big deal at all. > If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. Armored cars cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy and outfit from companies like Lenco. MRAPs are bought for ~$1k (transport costs) from the federal government. > Militarization of the police force is a very, very, very bad idea. If the vehicles do the same tasks, in mostly the same way, what's the difference?
- sdenton4 8y ago
  It's exactly the riot cop problem. On the cop side, the more armor you have, the less you see and the more hostile the world /seems/; this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation. On the civilian side, you get to feel like you live in a goddamned war zone, with the police as combatants. It's not a nice feeling. My own approach is to treat cops as large, gun-wielding wild animals: maybe they'll be fine, but in any interaction there's a chance they'll fuck up your life permanently. And that's a direct consequence of having police on 'war footing' with the community, where the default reactions to problems are either violence or long-term imprisonment. And the ethics of this extends beyond my own interactions: if I see something illegal happening, calling the cops means putting people in extreme danger. As a result, I'm not going to call the cops for anything less than assault. Thus, police militarization works against actual enforcement of the law, because it estranges police from the population. (For a whole lot more, go listen to season 3 of the Serial podcast...)
  - tomschlick 8y ago
    > this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation. I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people. If people are rioting (actually rioting, not protesting) then I honestly don't care how the presence of a MRAP makes them feel. It's the police's job to stop the riot and they need tools to do that. > I'm not going to call the cops for anything less than assault. I'm glad you're not the majority. Because the world would be pretty shitty if all the police responded to was physical assaults and above.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - sdenton4 8y ago
      > I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people. Most of the time, police aren't being shot at. And they tend to react to peaceful protest exactly as if it were a riot. This is well documented. Here's an example I was present for: Peaceful protest at the university. Cops in riot gear show up, fly around in helicopters, etc. One of the cops pushes/bumps a girl who then bounces into another cop, who slams her against the hood of cop car, arrests her, charges her with assault, and tries to get her expelled from the university. (The same department, six months later, gave us this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4 ) > I'm glad you're not the majority. Because the world would be pretty shitty if all the police responded to was physical assaults and above. If that's not the world you like, let's fix the police!
      - tomschlick 8y ago
        > Most of the time Key phrase there. We expect our police to be equipped for any situation. So what happens when something like the North Hollywood shooting happens again and you have pinned cops/civilians? In that case officers had to commandeer actual money trucks and raid gun shops to get the equipment they needed to stop the shooters. > Here's an example I was present for If that's true then I'm all for punishments / legal action against officers that do wrong. > If that's not the world you like, let's fix the police! I'm all for police reform where evidence shows it can help.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If the vehicles do the same tasks, in mostly the same way, what's the difference? The difference is that the 1033 program comes with a use-it-or-lose-it utilization requirement, which means that the cheap transfer of military equipment has a built in incentive to overuse it. They are often suitable for tasks that police rarely face, which at a steep discount makes them seem like good deals anyway. But then they must be used soon to be kept. So they get used in less appropriate circumstances as a direct consequence of the terms of transfer.
  - tomschlick 8y ago
    > The difference is that the 1033 program comes with a use-it-or-lose-it utilization requirement It's my understanding that the requirement is a stop-gap for a single dept ordering 500 of these vehicles and parking them in a warehouse or selling them off. Basically if they use it for training and have it at the ready for call-outs then they satisfy the requirement.
briandear 8y ago
However, the French Gendarmes are a paramilitary police force. It’s part of the French military and under interior ministry control. Does France have concerns about this military-style police force? Just saying militarization is a “bad idea,” seems to be an opinion based on emotion rather than facts. It seems like any police force can be bad or good; the militarization doesn’t seem to have much to do with that. French Gendarmes are reasonably respected. Actual armed soldiers patrol tourist areas in France, and that hasn’t led to any particular oppression unique to militarization. It does however make French tourist sites vastly safer than most places in the world that don’t have such patrols. It’s really a question of training rather than equipment or appearance.
- tomschlick 8y ago
  Exactly. Even NYC has the "Hercules" team which is effectively a SWAT team that shows up at high risk locations as a show of force to deter terrorism. Last time I was in Time Square some of them were lining up for photos with the general public. The crowd seemed pretty at ease knowing that if shit went down those guys were there to stop it.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    In most cities in US, SWAT and local police are the same people wearing slightly different uniforms. This is not so in Europe, where there's a clear distinction between beat cops (who don't get MRAPs) and special forces.
- walshemj 8y ago
  Yes I think the fragmented nature of having hundreds if not thousands of "police" forces of various levels of training and background checks.
- incangold 8y ago
  Sure. But the French police barely use their guns, whereas the US police famously kill lots and lots of people. So for the purposes of the topic at hand, giving the US police military equipment is probably a bad idea. At least until there’s been an institutional culture shift, which will take decades at least.

chrisseaton 8y ago

Right - an MRAP is a 'battlefield taxi' - it's a basic vehicle to move around a hostile area - it's defensive. You aren't doing anything offensive from inside an MRAP unless it has a remote weapons station on top. Great for collecting casualties.

Fomite 8y ago
"Battlefield." "Hostile area". "Collecting Casualties". Cannot imagine why people might be concerned about its use in law enforcement.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  You’re being unnecessarily snarky and sarcastic. In active shooter situations, which are not uncommon in suburban US areas, you have hostile areas and need to collect casualties in a defended vehicle while possibly under fire.
  - King-Aaron 8y ago
    > In active shooter situations, which are not uncommon in suburban US areas Also not uncommon in warzones. Uncommon, however, almost everywhere else in the world.
- assblaster 8y ago
  From Wikipedia: "The November 2015 Paris attacks were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks that took place on Friday, 13 November 2015 in Paris, France and the city's northern suburb, Saint-Denis. Beginning at 21:16 CET, three suicide bombers struck outside the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, during a football match. This was followed by several mass shootings and a suicide bombing, at cafés and restaurants. Gunmen carried out another mass shooting and took hostages at an Eagles of Death Metal concert in the Bataclan theatre, leading to a stand-off with police. The attackers were shot or blew themselves up when police raided the theatre." As you can see, the streets of Paris did indeed become a battlefield, filled with hostile attackers, leading to many casualties. It's easy to see why even Paris was not immune to terrorism/armed assailants and needed to have armored vehicles.

electrograv 8y ago

Perhaps concerns about 'the over-militarization of police' is essentially a concern for situations where an extreme power imbalance exists between police and civilians, creating a much higher risk of totalitarian abuse and oppression by police in situations where the police force in question becomes corrupt or 'bad' in some way. (Disclaimer: I'm not making an anti-LEO argument; quite the contrary, I'm very pro-LEO, and in many cases I see, LEOs are disrespected very unfairly.) The problem isn't where police are good; the point is to design a system that inherently protects against abuse by the very small percentage of LEOs that do become corrupt and abuse their special powers that civilians do not have. How do we protect against this? Perhaps the simplest and most robust way to protect against this abuse is simply to limit the magnitude of power imbalance between the government and the people! One could argue that this principle applies to physically defensive equipment as much as it does to computer and information systems, and any other mode of power. Additionally, this notion is encoded into our country's constitution at least in some ways. Therefore, this leads to the question: Can a civilian buy an MRAP? If so, I think your argument works very well -- especially since they're defensive machines. If a civilian cannot buy one though, I could see the argument against police using them gaining favor.

tomschlick 8y ago
> Can a civilian buy an MRAP? If so, I think your argument works very well Yes you can if you found one for sale (not sure what that market looks like). Civilians can also buy decommissioned tanks, Two ton trucks, humvees, etc.
- electrograv 8y ago
  In that case, I'm definitely convinced to your side of the argument! If a civilian can buy it, I see no reason why a police force shouldn't be able to as well. That said, I'd love to hear any counter-arguments to this notion, if they exist.
  - ssully 8y ago
    The counter argument would be police departments rarely buy this equipment - it's given to them as part of a program between the Pentagon and law enforcement. They get the vehicles (and lots of other military grade equipment) for a huge discount or free. There is also the fact that even if a civilian could technically buy one, it's not really feasible to actually do so.

driverdan 8y ago

They are not the same thing as a standard armored truck. The name itself gives that away (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected). Police do not need mine-resistant vehicles. MRAPs have high maintenance and running costs. The simple fact that they are former military vehicles contributes to the military mindset of many police depts, something that should be avoided. Militarization of police forces is bad for citizens.

tomschlick 8y ago
> Police do not need mine-resistant vehicles. Serious eye roll here. You're discarding all of the other capabilities and suggesting that because it is ALSO mine resistant it must be bad. > MRAPs have high maintenance and running costs. That's assuming they are used all the time. Most departments have them parked at their HQs and only use them for call outs or training. Regular maintenance wouldn't reach the same levels of cost as buying a bearcat + maintaining that. Also as more depts get them, the maintenance costs will go down (excluding the OP comment here's area). > contributes to the military mindset of many police depts While I generally agree with that notion, I would much rather them buy the cheaper milsurp vehicle with more capability than buy one from Lenco, or not buy one at all and have to wait an hour during an active shooter.
- ben509 8y ago
  > You're discarding all of the other capabilities and suggesting that because it is ALSO mine resistant it must be bad. Having driven and gunned on an MRAP... yes, the mine resistance makes it bad. You resist mines by 1. moving away from them and 2. presenting armor at an angle. On a truck like an MRAPs, you mount it very high above the ground and for the size and weight, the interior space is limited because the chassis is sloped upwards.
  - tomschlick 8y ago
    For smaller depts that cant afford a custom Bearcat, I'm sure the smaller space and height burdens aren't too bad compared to not having armored cover at all.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

markdown 8y ago

> While I get that they "look scary" to some people . That's more than enough reason not to deploy them. It changes "we're here to serve and protect" to "we will crush you if you step out of line".

tomschlick 8y ago
> That's more than enough reason not to deploy them. No it's not. These vehicles can, and have saved lives. I have yet to hear of an MRAP killing someone in the US. > "we will crush you if you step out of line" Better wording would be "if you throw rocks or shoot at us we are still going to arrest you".
- markdown 8y ago
  > These vehicles can, and have saved lives. Citation needed. Police all over the world do their jobs without these tanks. Is there any data proving crime goes down in cities where they are deployed? Is there any data proving that less lives are lost when these tanks are deployed in US cities? > Better wording would be "if you throw rocks or shoot at us we are still going to arrest you". People have been throwing rocks at and shooting at US police for two centuries. How does having a tank help in arrests? Officers can't arrest from inside the tank. They have to get out of it and approach on foot. How is this different from stepping out from behind a building or any other vehicle and approaching on foot? They could drive to the scene in a yellow school bus and the result would be the same. They have to exit the bus and approach on foot.
  - x220 8y ago
    You could look up videos on YouTube of police deploying an AMRAP to an area with an active shooter (a shooter with military-grade rifles and armor) and using it for cover. That's how they save lives.
  - tomschlick 8y ago
    > Citation needed. Several active shooter situations where they need to retrieve downed officers / civilians without exposing the rescue team to gunfire. Most recently in the Pittsburgh shooting it was reported they used an armored vehicle to get to injured officers outside. > Police all over the world do their jobs without these tanks. First of all they are not tanks. They have no offensive capabilities so they would be classified as armored personnel carriers. Second, these exist all over the world, here are some image results: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=european+riot+vehicle&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http%3A%2F%2Fc8.alamy.com%2Fcomp%2FEH1TYX%2Fpsni-armoured-vehicles-set-alight-by-petrol-bombs-during-riots-in-EH1TYX.jpg https://duckduckgo.com/?q=european+riot+vehicle&t=ffab&iar=i... > People have been throwing rocks at and shooting at US police for two centuries. How does having a tank help in arrests? Allows officers to take cover behind it while the vehicle moves forward. When it reaches the people throwing rocks they can move to effect the arrest. For shootings it allows them to much closer to barricaded subjects and make sure they cant escape / provides a platform to negotiate peaceful surrender.

dsr_ 8y ago

Here's the outrage: if the police have armored vehicles, that means that they perceive a need for armored vehicles. When officers walk past them, they are reminded that they are needed. When officers are inside them, they feel simultaneously invulnerable and threatened -- all this armor means that someone must want to kill them. From the other side, a community that sees MRAPs going past has to believe that there's a need for armored protection for the police -- so there must be a corresponding threat from armed criminals. The affluent parts of the community perceive more of a threat, and the disadvantaged part of the community has solid evidence that the police are an occupying military force, not protection. In other words, the presence of the MRAPs creates a problem for everyone. It escalates tension.

tomschlick 8y ago
So we are talking about perception above all else? Great, but there are use cases for armored vehicles. Whether its an MRAP or a Bearcat. There are always going to be barricaded persons, hostage situations, active shooters, riots, and natural disasters that need responding to and those seem to be the best tools for the job. The goal is to get as close to the subject as possible without anyone getting hurt. From there you can control the scene and use it as a position to de-escalate. If these tools are being used inappropriately, I am all for legislation to curb that.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > So we are talking about perception above all else? Perception resulting from conscious, deliberate actions; or, viewed another way, nonverbal communication. Yes, it's key to police work.
- Fomite 8y ago
  Perception is an important thing when it comes to interacting with a community.
- dsr_ 8y ago
  The idea that first you roll up in a tank, and then you pretend that you're going to de-escalate, is inherently ludicrous. "Barricaded person": doesn't need an MRAP, they need a therapist. "Hostage situation": generally also doesn't need an MRAP, they need a specialized therapist. "Active shooter": here's note from a company that really wants to sell you training on how to deal with an active shooter -- http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/10-lessons-learned-from-the-new-fbi-study-on-active-shooters http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/10-lessons-learned-fro... -- note that even with their spin, they can't come up with any evidence that an MRAP would be helpful. "Riots" -- There's a list on Wikipedia. What percentage were caused by the police murdering people? 12 of 29 in the last ten years. "Natural disasters": don't require tanks. Heavy trucks? Rugged 4WD? More investment in firefighting equipment? Sure. Hauling around tons of armor on a vehicle with a high center of gravity? Silly.

dang 8y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18543229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18543229.