20 ms·

> Regardless, there is no need, ever, for police to have the automatic weapons, APCs, and "non-lethal" weapons they are buying from the military. https://en.wi

> Regardless, there is no need, ever, for police to have the automatic weapons, APCs, and "non-lethal" weapons they are buying from the military. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout is the catalyst for all of this. Police were heavily outgunned. The FBI would take hours to get there as FBI tactical teams are not in most cities and are not on call like normal SWAT teams are. APCs are purely defensive. Its effectively a Brinks armored money truck, but instead of money it carries people to/from gunfire safely.

slg 6y ago
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout is the catalyst for all of this. Police were heavily outgunned. And yet the only two people who died were the two bank robbers. It sounds like the police were able to eventually take control of the situation even while heavily outgunned. So does adding more firepower on the side of police actually provide more safety when this is an example of the worst case scenario?
- erik_seaberg 6y ago
  That was two guys on foot whose objective was only to escape. There are many worse scenarios than that.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > There are many worse scenarios than that. Then why aren't they the "here's why we need an APC" argument? Or are they largely theoretical?
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      I think most are a third option; not theoretical, but neither occurring in America. Consider something like the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 10 men with rifles and explosives terrorized an entire city causing hundreds of casualties. Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Against that sort of threat, I think the police having a few armored vehicles makes sense.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Mainly because gurs in general aren't hard to get in America. Any would-be shooter has to fear not only cops, but armed civilians. And if they are spanning an entire city and the police aren't able to keep up, you'd definitely get recreational hunters with their rifles trying to take them down.
        bigbubba 6y ago
        Maybe in a city like Dallas (I'm aware of the Charles Whitman case), but how many rifle-toting vigilantes could you really count on in San Francisco?
      - slg 6y ago
        >Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America I don't think this is the right question to ask. There are a lot of things that one can reasonably think could happen in America. Do we need to prepare every police department in the country for all those situations regardless of the odds of the worst happening? Do the costs, both literal monetary costs and the harder to measure societal costs, of militarizing our police departments outweigh the potential that an increase in police firepower will allow them to save lives in this extremely remote possibility actually happens? Maybe we are just better off leaving some of these extreme outliers as something to be dealt with by the military if it ever happens here.
        CydeWeys 6y ago
        It's a good point. Our largest and most targeted cities (e.g. NYC, DC) absolutely should have dedicated heavy weapons troops on call to respond in real time to a terrorist attack. Their equipment and training should be separate from workaday policing. Then most of the rest of the country just needs normal policing, because realistically, they're so unlikely to be a target. Look at all the big terrorist attacks that have happened in the past several decades. They've targeted huge international cities: DC, NYC, London, Paris, Mumbai. These are the kinds of targets (and the only kinds of targets) that plausibly need military-level policing on stand-by 24/7.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Seems unlikely, since 1033 started 7 years earlier, in tandem with the military buildup for Operation Desert Storm.
Steltek 6y ago
APCs are not "purely defensive". They're an intimidating presence which is by itself, a type of force. On top of that, it's becoming "a thing" to use vehicles to run over people you disagree with.
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  >APCs are not "purely defensive". They're an intimidating presence In that case, they can paint them pink.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    But they won't. Because they wouldn't look intimidating.
    - yeetawayhn 6y ago
      No, it's probably because you people would still complain about them.
      - mjayhn 6y ago
        > You people Us citizens?
        tekknik 6y ago
        Not all US citizens are complaining about them, just those who don’t understand what they are and what they’re used for.
        yeetawayhn 6y ago
        No, professional complainers.
    - tekknik 6y ago
      Yet they paint them tan when in military use. Honest question, why do you think black = intimidating?
JKCalhoun 6y ago
That sounds legit, but OP mentioned automatic weapons purchased from the military as well. Definitely not purely defensive of course.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  No but a used beater M4 is a whole lot cheaper than a new Mk18 or a new M4 and it's probably been maintained by military armorers it's entire lifespan. Though yes, the military firearms tend to be select fire. Probably not a useful feature for police but I can't imagine they use it with any frequency.
justinclift 6y ago
> APCs are purely defensive. Many APC's seem to have significantly powerful weaponry, compared to civilian/infantry weapons anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier In Western nations, APCs are frequently armed with the .50 calibre M2 Browning machine gun, 7.62mm FN MAG, or 40mm Mk 19 grenade launcher. In former Eastern bloc nations, the KPV, PKT and NSV machine guns are common options.
- tomschlick 6y ago
  You're looking at actual APCs. OP was saying APC but police actually get the MRAP varients similar to the Lenco Bearcats that they buy. Those have no offensive weapons. Its just armor and bullet resistant glass on a heavy truck frame. Thats it.
  - throw9872349872 6y ago
    Shh! There’s too many truth-facts in your comment. It doesn’t allow the horde to continue raging.
  - justinclift 6y ago
    Thanks, that does make a difference. :)
Gibbon1 6y ago
Notable though your using as evidence a law enforcement action that rates it's own Wikipedia entry.
ardy42 6y ago
> Police were heavily outgunned. I believe the problem wasn't so much that they were "outgunned," but that they lacked longer range weapons of any kind. So that problem could be entirely solved by issuing some fraction of officers hunting rifles to carry in their patrol car's trunk. No need to kit them out like infantry or give them APCs. The police's advantage in numbers and organization would take care of almost any other disadvantage WRT weaponry.
- pedalpete 6y ago
  The robbers were head-to-toe in kevlar and had armor piercing bullets, the police didn't.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > The robbers were head-to-toe in kevlar and had armor piercing bullets, the police didn't. No, that's not true. They didn't have head to toe armor, but they were armored where the police where trained to shoot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Deaths_of_the_gunmen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Death...: > After retrieving [a pistol that had been shot out of his hand], [Phillips] placed the muzzle under his chin and fired; he was simultaneously shot by a bullet fired by Officer John Caprarelli that severed his spine..... > Later reports showed that Mătăsăreanu was shot 29 times in the legs and died from trauma due to excessive blood loss coming from two gunshot wounds in his left thigh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Weapons_and_armor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Weapo...: > Following their training, the responding patrol officers directed their fire at the "center of mass", or torsos, of Mătăsăreanu and Phillips. However, aramid body armor worn by Phillips and Mătăsăreanu covered all of their vitals (except their heads), enabling them to absorb pistol bullets and shotgun pellets, while Mătăsăreanu's chest armor, thanks to a metal trauma plate, successfully withstood a hit from a SWAT officer's AR-15.
    - tekknik 6y ago
      What are you asking for here? Take a headshot? You can disable someone with leg shots, it takes time as per your own evidence. Depending on how the armored perp is standing there may not be a gap. Then trying to hit such a small target with any kind of range will be very difficult for most. And you best believe if a SWAT officer had a lethal shot with an AR they would’ve taken it. So what makes you think the unarmored opportunity presented itself prior to the it did moment? Also why are you questioning police owning an APC but it civilians owning body armor, which is most definitely legal.
e40 6y ago
is the catalyst for all of this I think excuse is the word you're looking for. As someone else pointed out, the 2 people that died were the robbers.
- justinclift 6y ago
  Several civilians and police officers were also injured though. :( It's not just deaths that count.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> APCs are purely defensive Er, no, they aren't. They are mostly offensive, since the point of them is to allow infantry to more effectively conduct offensive maneuvering in the presence of automatic weapons fire rather than being pinned down in static defensive positions. Military technology is almost never purely defensive.
Communitivity 6y ago
Your point about the FBI taking time and not being on call is good. New procedures and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) would need to be put in place, i.e. politics. But there are more tactical teams than people realize. The FBI openly admits that the FBI maintains SWAT teams at each of its 56 field offices throughout the country[1]. The field offices are distributed ideally, so they'd probably need additional field offices. For example, there are two in VA and two in PA, but none in WV. The reason I am so for the FBI doing this is that they watch their people much more closely, and have a higher psych bar to entry. Also, regarding distance for the North Hollywood incident, the FBI's LA Field Office is at 11000 Wilshire Blvd, along with our their office in Los Angeles, they have 10 satellite offices, known as resident agencies, in the area. The estimated travel time for the CIRG from the field office to incident site is 22 minutes by car. That doesn't count using sirens/lights, or using a helo. The problem was likely being asked to participate, and getting approval to participate. As with many things at scale, tactical or techie, politics is more often a root cause than a technical issue. [1] "Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG)". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 15 August 2020. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cirg https://www.fbi.gov/services/cirg

slg 6y ago

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout is the catalyst for all of this. Police were heavily outgunned. And yet the only two people who died were the two bank robbers. It sounds like the police were able to eventually take control of the situation even while heavily outgunned. So does adding more firepower on the side of police actually provide more safety when this is an example of the worst case scenario?

erik_seaberg 6y ago
That was two guys on foot whose objective was only to escape. There are many worse scenarios than that.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > There are many worse scenarios than that. Then why aren't they the "here's why we need an APC" argument? Or are they largely theoretical?
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    I think most are a third option; not theoretical, but neither occurring in America. Consider something like the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 10 men with rifles and explosives terrorized an entire city causing hundreds of casualties. Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Against that sort of threat, I think the police having a few armored vehicles makes sense.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Mainly because gurs in general aren't hard to get in America. Any would-be shooter has to fear not only cops, but armed civilians. And if they are spanning an entire city and the police aren't able to keep up, you'd definitely get recreational hunters with their rifles trying to take them down.
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        Maybe in a city like Dallas (I'm aware of the Charles Whitman case), but how many rifle-toting vigilantes could you really count on in San Francisco?
    - slg 6y ago
      >Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America I don't think this is the right question to ask. There are a lot of things that one can reasonably think could happen in America. Do we need to prepare every police department in the country for all those situations regardless of the odds of the worst happening? Do the costs, both literal monetary costs and the harder to measure societal costs, of militarizing our police departments outweigh the potential that an increase in police firepower will allow them to save lives in this extremely remote possibility actually happens? Maybe we are just better off leaving some of these extreme outliers as something to be dealt with by the military if it ever happens here.
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        It's a good point. Our largest and most targeted cities (e.g. NYC, DC) absolutely should have dedicated heavy weapons troops on call to respond in real time to a terrorist attack. Their equipment and training should be separate from workaday policing. Then most of the rest of the country just needs normal policing, because realistically, they're so unlikely to be a target. Look at all the big terrorist attacks that have happened in the past several decades. They've targeted huge international cities: DC, NYC, London, Paris, Mumbai. These are the kinds of targets (and the only kinds of targets) that plausibly need military-level policing on stand-by 24/7.
alisonkisk 6y ago
Seems unlikely, since 1033 started 7 years earlier, in tandem with the military buildup for Operation Desert Storm.

Steltek 6y ago

APCs are not "purely defensive". They're an intimidating presence which is by itself, a type of force. On top of that, it's becoming "a thing" to use vehicles to run over people you disagree with.

yeetawayhn 6y ago
>APCs are not "purely defensive". They're an intimidating presence In that case, they can paint them pink.
- darkerside 6y ago
  But they won't. Because they wouldn't look intimidating.
  - yeetawayhn 6y ago
    No, it's probably because you people would still complain about them.
    - mjayhn 6y ago
      > You people Us citizens?
      - tekknik 6y ago
        Not all US citizens are complaining about them, just those who don’t understand what they are and what they’re used for.
      - yeetawayhn 6y ago
        No, professional complainers.
  - tekknik 6y ago
    Yet they paint them tan when in military use. Honest question, why do you think black = intimidating?

JKCalhoun 6y ago

That sounds legit, but OP mentioned automatic weapons purchased from the military as well. Definitely not purely defensive of course.

vorpalhex 6y ago
No but a used beater M4 is a whole lot cheaper than a new Mk18 or a new M4 and it's probably been maintained by military armorers it's entire lifespan. Though yes, the military firearms tend to be select fire. Probably not a useful feature for police but I can't imagine they use it with any frequency.

justinclift 6y ago

> APCs are purely defensive. Many APC's seem to have significantly powerful weaponry, compared to civilian/infantry weapons anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier In Western nations, APCs are frequently armed with the .50 calibre M2 Browning machine gun, 7.62mm FN MAG, or 40mm Mk 19 grenade launcher. In former Eastern bloc nations, the KPV, PKT and NSV machine guns are common options.

tomschlick 6y ago
You're looking at actual APCs. OP was saying APC but police actually get the MRAP varients similar to the Lenco Bearcats that they buy. Those have no offensive weapons. Its just armor and bullet resistant glass on a heavy truck frame. Thats it.
- throw9872349872 6y ago
  Shh! There’s too many truth-facts in your comment. It doesn’t allow the horde to continue raging.
- justinclift 6y ago
  Thanks, that does make a difference. :)

Gibbon1 6y ago

Notable though your using as evidence a law enforcement action that rates it's own Wikipedia entry.

ardy42 6y ago

> Police were heavily outgunned. I believe the problem wasn't so much that they were "outgunned," but that they lacked longer range weapons of any kind. So that problem could be entirely solved by issuing some fraction of officers hunting rifles to carry in their patrol car's trunk. No need to kit them out like infantry or give them APCs. The police's advantage in numbers and organization would take care of almost any other disadvantage WRT weaponry.

pedalpete 6y ago
The robbers were head-to-toe in kevlar and had armor piercing bullets, the police didn't.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > The robbers were head-to-toe in kevlar and had armor piercing bullets, the police didn't. No, that's not true. They didn't have head to toe armor, but they were armored where the police where trained to shoot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Deaths_of_the_gunmen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Death...: > After retrieving [a pistol that had been shot out of his hand], [Phillips] placed the muzzle under his chin and fired; he was simultaneously shot by a bullet fired by Officer John Caprarelli that severed his spine..... > Later reports showed that Mătăsăreanu was shot 29 times in the legs and died from trauma due to excessive blood loss coming from two gunshot wounds in his left thigh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Weapons_and_armor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Weapo...: > Following their training, the responding patrol officers directed their fire at the "center of mass", or torsos, of Mătăsăreanu and Phillips. However, aramid body armor worn by Phillips and Mătăsăreanu covered all of their vitals (except their heads), enabling them to absorb pistol bullets and shotgun pellets, while Mătăsăreanu's chest armor, thanks to a metal trauma plate, successfully withstood a hit from a SWAT officer's AR-15.
  - tekknik 6y ago
    What are you asking for here? Take a headshot? You can disable someone with leg shots, it takes time as per your own evidence. Depending on how the armored perp is standing there may not be a gap. Then trying to hit such a small target with any kind of range will be very difficult for most. And you best believe if a SWAT officer had a lethal shot with an AR they would’ve taken it. So what makes you think the unarmored opportunity presented itself prior to the it did moment? Also why are you questioning police owning an APC but it civilians owning body armor, which is most definitely legal.

e40 6y ago

is the catalyst for all of this I think excuse is the word you're looking for. As someone else pointed out, the 2 people that died were the robbers.

justinclift 6y ago
Several civilians and police officers were also injured though. :( It's not just deaths that count.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> APCs are purely defensive Er, no, they aren't. They are mostly offensive, since the point of them is to allow infantry to more effectively conduct offensive maneuvering in the presence of automatic weapons fire rather than being pinned down in static defensive positions. Military technology is almost never purely defensive.

Communitivity 6y ago

Your point about the FBI taking time and not being on call is good. New procedures and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) would need to be put in place, i.e. politics. But there are more tactical teams than people realize. The FBI openly admits that the FBI maintains SWAT teams at each of its 56 field offices throughout the country[1]. The field offices are distributed ideally, so they'd probably need additional field offices. For example, there are two in VA and two in PA, but none in WV. The reason I am so for the FBI doing this is that they watch their people much more closely, and have a higher psych bar to entry. Also, regarding distance for the North Hollywood incident, the FBI's LA Field Office is at 11000 Wilshire Blvd, along with our their office in Los Angeles, they have 10 satellite offices, known as resident agencies, in the area. The estimated travel time for the CIRG from the field office to incident site is 22 minutes by car. That doesn't count using sirens/lights, or using a helo. The problem was likely being asked to participate, and getting approval to participate. As with many things at scale, tactical or techie, politics is more often a root cause than a technical issue. [1] "Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG)". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 15 August 2020. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cirg https://www.fbi.gov/services/cirg