I am still nursing a headache from the latest slayings of police officers which, inevitably, led to my jaw-clenched Saturday. Exacerbating the police tragedies, a friend of mine posted a thread condemning the aesthetics of specialty police vehicles, expressing his discomfort from seeing them in public. Invariably, the phrase “police state” and word “zealots” were bandied-about among pro/con commenters.
I’ve no idea if “E.J.” knew about the recent spate consisting of five more police casualties caused by murderous monsters intent on spraying bullets with unambiguous intent to kill, but I surmise he must have. After all, he professes his support and adoration for his “friends in blue.”
The following is what E.J. posted: “All due respect to my friends in Blue, I do not believe our police force should be a military. There are always justifications for anything, but a line has to be drawn. Bullet proof armor on police cars I’m okay with, we need to protect our friends and family in blue. Armored personnel carriers with battering rams, I’m not okay with. Tanks I’m not okay with. 15 years ago the police force was trying to find non-lethal deterrents and ways to save lives in tough altercations. Now it seems as if the police force is saying, we will kill you if you don’t comply. As an independent with conservative tendencies, with a love for our law enforcement community feels this way, it’s gone too far.”
“Now it seems as if the police force is saying, we will kill you if you don’t comply. As an independent with conservative tendencies, with a love for our law enforcement community feels this way, it’s gone too far.”
It unnerves when anyone goes direct for the jugular without the remotest sense of reality and qualified rationale. So a respondent countering E.J.’s contention said, “Your theory would work only if the bad guys didn’t have automatic weapons loaded with armor-piercing ammo. The bad guys raise the bar, we need to be ready to respond accordingly.” That reply came from “Armando” who also summarily stated, “I don’t worry about that equipment breaking down my door as I don’t give a reason to.” Ding-ding-ding!
A respondent named “Brandy” said “…it’s sad that we live in a world with so much violence. I can’t imagine if a bunch of terrorists decided to take over a school or college. I pray the police have access to something like this quickly. I won’t care if they kick into the fight response. I hope they do, and let this kind of vehicle take hits instead of humans. I understand you don’t want overkill, but there ARE situations where this is needed by police.”
“Police state” is defined as “a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens’ activities” per Oxford Dictionaries.
Wikipedia defined it this way: “‘Police state’ is a term denoting a government that exercises power arbitrarily through the power of the police force. Originally the term designated a state regulated by a civil administration, but since the beginning of the 20th century, the term has ‘taken on an emotional and derogatory meaning’ by describing an undesirable state of living characterized by the overbearing presence of the civil authorities.”
Here is how it unfurled: E.J. was at a Florida fuel station when he observed the following county sheriff specialty vehicle:
Although I admit the spikey tip of the pole portion could have been retracted (since it was in non-use and only refueling), the repurposed military surplus equipment is purposed to combat unorthodox and highly-toxic scenarios whereby an impenetrable mode of transport whose capacity to breach holed-up maniacs with weapons is ideal for the job. And that inarguable job is to save both police and civilian lives, including the maniacs themselves.
Perhaps that focal point is subjugated by political leanings or sheer inexperience or ego. The misguided media mindset? Maybe all of the aforementioned and more, who knows?
When I say “misguided media mindset” I am referring to a Business Insider article written by Henry Blodget in November 2011. Mr. Blodget wrote “…the Tampa police produced this vehicle to deal with some protesters.”
In the next line of his article, Mr. Blodget wrote, “Overkill, much?” Non-stymied, my first thought is Research, much?
Not so novel and yet ideal is journalists who do their homework. Had that been done (by anyone), it would have been readily recognized that the so-called “tank” was not a tank at all, but a mere armored transport vehicle designed to safely courier a group of folks from one point to the next while negating the potential for assault. No turret is attached. Nothing about this vehicle pivots like a true tank is engineered to do. And its graphic insignia reads “Rescue 2” so the clue is readily apparent. And no need to worry about bad-guy bullets riddling air-filled tires, either!
Some just hear a word and run with it: “tank.” I guess it can rally an audience, even if it is a total fallacy. Perhaps that is why he titled his work “Tampa Police Roll Out A TANK To Deal With A Few Dozen Protesters” (verbatim, including all caps), and seemingly got the idea from another media source, The Daily.
To be fair, Mr. Blodget amended his brief article (an eye-poke) with the following: “UPDATE: It’s not actually a “tank,” of course, though it certainly looks like one. It’s a ’12-ton armored personnel carrier.’ It is supposedly for ‘rescue’ operations, though why it needs to be armored to do that is not clear.” I’m not sure that even deserves a dignified response (although we provided one a few lines above). When the signs are right before your eyes and you feign ignorance, the thinly-veiled “update” is rather flimsy.
Conversely, these formidable machines are also excellent public relations “Wow!” tools. The Tampa, Florida police department uses their iron-clad rescue and breach vehicles in city events and parades (with the pole portion retracted):
The Tampa Police Department was fortunate and keen enough to acquire protective “rescue” vehicles, compliments of the federal government’s 1033 program coordinated by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). As mentioned, the media incorrectly label it a “tank” (it mobilizes via tracks) and that set-off the police-bashing and “police state” whines. I am referring to the cover photo heading this article. The most endemic fixture of a tank is its tracks and turret; the latter is absent in the context of our discussion.
“This vehicle is designed for quick, tactical, safe response. It shouldn’t matter what it looks like, only how it works.”
Like a police ballistic vest, it is not necessarily comfortable (Lord knows, I shed pounds while policing in the boiling Florida summers…and spent gobs on Febreze) but it is intended to save lives. SWAT operators are significantly weighted down by gear, but it is pivotal to accomplish the mission for which they are immobilized.
These military surplus vehicles, despite the pink pussycat sportscar visions some members of the public have for cops’ use, are paramount to officer safety. Each time the notion of protecting cops came up in E.J.’s thread, it was acknowledged yet kept coming back to “it looks too militaristic.” It actually veered left a turn or two, whereby commenters jumped on the can’t-they-just-use-a-pickup-or-something-simple bandwagon.
And about that “police state” gibberish, how does one publicly claim support for “friends in blue” while denouncing the tax-payer funded and entirely applicable vessels designed to keep cops safe/alive?
Yeah, that dumb drum beat persists. Narrow-mindedness and/or anti-police indoctrinations astound. Although I refrain from rhetoric (or try), I pervasively suggest to anyone: go for a police ride-along venture. Educate about the stark realities of police work so that informed decisions (and posts) can be legitimately weighted by reality and not mere speculations of a would-be sect of sideline judges ruling on cosmetic and aesthetic appeal while lacking even a granule of experience.
It equates to personal yet unbridled knee-jerk commentary: I’m not comfy by the sight of this or that so I am going to platform against it. Sounds like a certain political party lately, whereby if any tenet or factor does not perfectly fit with the odds and ends in their puzzle box, then upturn the table and rebuke loudly without even knowing why the assemblage was even under their noses and before their eyes.
It is like looking at the shell of any NASA space shuttle or exquisite craft engineered to safeguard the astronauts within while discounting the marvelously-engineered intensity of its thrusters effectuating mission accomplishments. We explore space as best possible because we wish to discover and advance quality of life and understanding. The only distinct difference is that NASA equipment is deployed up while police apparatus, appropriated to settle disorders safely, roll out from law enforcement compounds…all re-purposed for protection of the public.
It is customary for law enforcement agencies to park a deceased law enforcement officer’s assigned police vehicle at the doors to police HQ and/or at the funeral procession site. If you are aware of such an honorary practice, do you recall ever seeing one of the military surplus vehicles some folks seem offended by? Nope! That is because these vehicles are engineered to sustain a heck of a hit and keep on ticking…which also means all cops on-board go home one more day. Funerals are preempted!
Ascribing to the Wikipedia definition, the words “emotional” and “derogatory” blink like neon. Realistically, certain law enforcement equipment is not your everyday, vintage, commonplace item like, for example, a baton. Police robotics used to scope-out and safely-attain explosive devices (so humans are salvaged) are futuristic. Some folks are prejudiced against these instruments engendering the artificial intelligence (AI) icon we see more and more.
Like some of the latest fashion threads, it may not look good on everyone. Unlike fashion-design flops, police motility may be deemed grotesque and assuming, yet it caters solely to preservation of life. Mind you, any military surplus is granted to stateside law enforcement agencies for pennies on the dollar…if not outright free. Do we invest tax dollars to make them appear spiffy and suitable for Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood? I believe we have car shows to strum everyone’s particular fancy. But that lends to entertainment and fanaticism, not protections of the Constitution.
Is it a matter of acceptance and time to absorb rightly-placed police apparatus while filtering-away wrongly-adopted rhetoric born from other nations whose harsh regimes gave rise to the term “police state”?
Is it a matter of acceptance and time to absorb rightly-placed police apparatus while filtering-away wrongly-adopted rhetoric born from other nations whose harsh regimes gave rise to the term “police state”?
Wikipedia expounded on the so-called “police state” this way: “The inhabitants of a police state may experience restrictions on their mobility, or on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force that operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.”
Do you see any part of that definition in our current societal climate? E.J. was free to visit that gas station. He was also within his right to speak freely his expressions regarding police military surplus vehicles. He was free to leave as surely as he was to pull up, brandish his cell phone, and take a picture of the sheriff’s office vehicle. “Secret police” force? I fail to see any covert actions or camouflage or attempts to blanket the sheriff’s transport from public view.
My answer to all this is actually a question: To what extent do we leverage our ostensible offended natures and embrace the humans who operate for the right to speak about things some know nothing about? Those Citizens Police Academies (CPAs) are a marvelous progression offered by police agencies. CPAs offer real-life police personnel exhibiting their equipment while explaining How, Why and When uses are beneficial. And to think, it is all for taxpayers who essentially own all cop stuff.
My angst from this diatribe posted to social media is not from discomfort but from the degradation and devaluation of each and every cop whose mode of transport somehow assaults the senses of…some folks. Staying alive to fight again shouldn’t be open for debate, but it is so.
Rather myopically, “Randy” sees it this way: “Training is important in every profession. It should be critically important when it comes to ‘public safety’ officers. Well trained personal don’t need to knock down walls and rely on deadly force.” Sure, assuming communication works every…single…time. For whatever reason(s), it doesn’t! The very nature of problems that arise stem from humans who have no interest in listening to logic or the police or Mr. Magoo. They desire the conflagration at all costs. Police showing up in a Stuart Little car is useless in such circumstances. Sometimes big guns are necessary.
It is also E.J.’s failsafe opinion that words always work. “I know too many great police officers who never have to pull their weapon because they know how to communicate with people under stress,” he claimed. That’s quaint yet unrealistic. A counterclaim of mine is I know police officers whose communication values were pushed against the ropes, and they went down…never to get back up again. Proverbial “If only…” questions ensued, such as protective equipment against volatile suspects who care not to listen to reason.
“J.M.,” implored the use of battering ram vessels: “These vehicles are utilized for armed barricaded suspects that want to kill us. Usually an agency, like ours, has at least one of these vehicles for those situations that unfortunately happen more often than people realize. It’s one of those, ‘better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it’ tools.”
Despite any contentious debate regarding “police state” assertions or insinuations, E.J. at least included the following to conclude his post: “On a side note, I would love to drive this through a brick wall and see what it can really do.” Perhaps there is hope so that clarity and mutual understanding can be inferred.
“J.M.” answered the What can it do? query: “This vehicle’s battering ram pokes a hole in the wall and drops gas in the house, or flash bangs. It allows officers to hopefully detain the suspect without lethal force.” That is clear-cut state of police protocol versus the “police state” mindset.
I’d hate to think that any of the surviving loved ones of the recent police murders are told “We may have saved him had we an armored transport or battering ram vehicle among our crime-fighting fleet.” Police state, my ass!
I admire E.J. for his ambitious freedom of speech. I respect his right to expound on what unsettles him. I reminisce about some projects we worked on together. I revere any human who states they embrace their “friends in blue.” But that last factor seems to have a fissure in its exterior, and I harbor hope that a change of heart does not evolve from a tragic instance whereby a police specialty vehicle shows up to save the day and all parties in it. Sometimes doing is better than reading about it or listening and forwarding someone else’s jaded rant about police culture and protocols.
One last thing: for anyone so boldly offended by the sight of an extraordinary police vessel in-transport during ordinary times (thanks to the 1033 program), the season to run for Congressional office is ripe at this juncture in our political history, and the Capitol environs have vacancy. Take it to the House floor and dissect it fervently, including mass interviews of cops who were salvaged thanks to the tough exterior of a non-sleek-looking tax-funded vehicle.
Incidentally, E.J.’s thread engendered some respondents who argued the cost to taxpayers for these military surplus specialty vehicles. There is no other dignified reply to that ilk other than to ask: What price would you place on a police officers life? What if it were your police spouse or son or daughter?
My jaw eased-up and my headache is just about evicted…until the next baseless “police state” prophet takes the pulpit. No worries though, we are equipped for the next breakthrough.
Indeed a line has to be drawn, and any criminal culprit who dares to cross it ought to be met with absolute vigor so as to put their mayhem to bed in definitive fashion.
Do these military surplus units bother you the way E.J. and his agreeing followers express?
“J.M.”, one of E.J.’s “friends in Blue” encapsulated it quite well, laying to rest any would-be debate: “This vehicle is designed for quick, tactical, safe response. It shouldn’t matter what it looks like, only how it works.” Works for me. You?
