Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:35 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
Anyone else see this coming? "Police Response To San Bernardino Stokes Militarization Fears"
When I was watching the live coverage of San Bernardino, and saw those armored vehicles approaching
that bullet-riddled black SUV on the scene of the shoot-out, it made me go: "hmmm .. THIS must be what all that military gear and armored tanks are for." Sad to say -- thanks to the NRA, ISIS and their ilk -- I suspect the military gear is probably here to stay. ![]() ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * Police Response To San Bernardino Stokes Militarization Fears by Martin Kask * December 4, 2015 * NPR On the day of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., the city's SWAT team was training for an active shooter situation just minutes away from the scene of the massacre. "We were just working through scenarios when this call went out," says Lt. Travis Walker, the SWAT team commander. Walker says they'd decided to train on Wednesday in part to learn some lessons from the deadly shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., last week. This response isn't unique to San Bernardino; in the weeks since the terrorist attacks in Paris, local law enforcement agencies around the country have been preparing for the possibility of more challenging attacks. In San Bernardino on Wednesday morning, Walker was running his officers through scenarios with volunteers playing the role of shooters. "We'd just finished a training scenario that involved multiple shooters at multiple locations within a small confined area," he says. And then they were off — to the scene of a real-life multiple-shooter attack. They didn't get there in time to stop it, but the suspects were killed in a shootout later in the day. Walker and his team were there for that, too, using armored vehicles to get close. ![]() That scene was meaningful because those were the very same kind of armored vehicles that for the past year or so have become a symbol of what some people call police militarization, something that's gotten a bad rap since the Ferguson, Mo., protests last year. Walker says now people can see why they have the heavy gear.
|
27 replies, 2390 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
99th_Monkey | Dec 2015 | OP |
randys1 | Dec 2015 | #1 | |
99th_Monkey | Dec 2015 | #3 | |
Mojorabbit | Dec 2015 | #11 | |
Egnever | Dec 2015 | #2 | |
99th_Monkey | Dec 2015 | #4 | |
magical thyme | Dec 2015 | #5 | |
ljm2002 | Dec 2015 | #6 | |
99th_Monkey | Dec 2015 | #9 | |
TeeYiYi | Dec 2015 | #14 | |
Marrah_G | Dec 2015 | #18 | |
ljm2002 | Dec 2015 | #20 | |
Marrah_G | Dec 2015 | #22 | |
malthaussen | Dec 2015 | #7 | |
951-Riverside | Dec 2015 | #8 | |
boston bean | Dec 2015 | #10 | |
TwilightGardener | Dec 2015 | #12 | |
99th_Monkey | Dec 2015 | #13 | |
librechik | Dec 2015 | #15 | |
branford | Dec 2015 | #26 | |
Igel | Dec 2015 | #16 | |
Agnosticsherbet | Dec 2015 | #17 | |
linuxman | Dec 2015 | #19 | |
99th_Monkey | Dec 2015 | #21 | |
linuxman | Dec 2015 | #23 | |
99th_Monkey | Dec 2015 | #24 | |
branford | Dec 2015 | #27 | |
Crunchy Frog | Dec 2015 | #25 |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:40 PM
randys1 (16,286 posts)
1. Those tank like vehicles closing in ever so slowly on the SUV looked very ominous.
Sadly I think the militarization of our police is meant to deal more with civil unrest than these situations.
And civil unrest to one person may be fear of others while it may be expression of a right to life for others (like BLM). |
Response to randys1 (Reply #1)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:44 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
3. I suspect you are correct as to what the military gear is intended for,
yet it's difficult to argue that it didn't "come in handy" when dealing with active shooters.
|
Response to randys1 (Reply #1)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:09 PM
Mojorabbit (16,020 posts)
11. I read a DOD report years ago re climate change
and they expect mass migration of people and lots of civil unrest. I believe that that is the why. The report read like a doomsday novel and I took notice. I look at Syria and our response to taking in any refuges and wonder if it will be any different when areas start to flood on our coasts and people try to migrate inland.
|
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:43 PM
Egnever (21,506 posts)
2. Um no
Walker is reading that all wrong in my opinion.
Maybe it is just me but I am horrified that the police apparently fired more than 350 times at these guys. No it does not make me feel the least bit better that they have all that heavy gear in fact it makes me feel worse. I would much rather they trained better with their weapons so that they didn't have to spray lead all over the place to take down two people. It is even worse when they were heavily armored and still had to fire that many times. |
Response to Egnever (Reply #2)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:49 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
4. I don't disagree with your feelings, in fact I share them.
This whole "militarization" of everything in sight, but esp. our police, is disgusting,
out-of-place, and runs counter to everything civil society is supposed to be about. No argument there. |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:50 PM
magical thyme (14,881 posts)
5. the bearcat came in very handy at PP
it enabled them to evacuate people while they were still chasing the gunman. They drove it right through a wall into the building.
![]() |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:51 PM
ljm2002 (10,751 posts)
6. I watched the live stream...
...of a local ABC station, from their news helicopter. Honestly I thought they looked ridiculous, inching forward in that special vehicle with an armor shield on the front of it, as if they were going to be facing fire from several armed shooters. Did they really think anyone was still alive in a vehicle that looked like it had at least 100 bullets fired into it? The person speaking from the helicopter said several times that there had been no motion from within the SUV. (He also noticed right away, when they got the body from the back seat, that this one looked like a female -- which was verified later in a presser.)
The first thought that occurred to me watching all this was, okay, they will use this to justify their use of armored vehicles. |
Response to ljm2002 (Reply #6)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:02 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
9. Yep. We had a very similar experience, watching it unfold.
Whatever happened to the 'good old days" of cops & robbers shoot-outs,
sans military hardware? Color me nostalgic. |
Response to ljm2002 (Reply #6)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:21 PM
TeeYiYi (8,028 posts)
14. I listened to the whole thing live,...
...from beginning to end, while it was playing out on the police scanners.
One of the cops involved in the shootout said that a suspect in the back seat was still breathing and had an "AR strapped to his chest." That's why they stayed so far away from the SUV and why they eventually brought in the armored vehicle. TYY |
Response to ljm2002 (Reply #6)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:47 PM
Marrah_G (28,581 posts)
18. The armored vehicles were because they feared the SUV was booby trapped
Response to Marrah_G (Reply #18)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:54 PM
ljm2002 (10,751 posts)
20. If the SUV had been booby trapped...
...don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the hundreds of rounds fired into the vehicle, shattering every window in it (except the windshield, which merely had a bunch of bullet holes in it) -- would have set off the booby trap? Or would have caused any ordnance in the vehicle to explode?
Well I'm no expert, and I do not object to law enforcement using caution. But that specialized armored vehicle creeping forward just looked silly to me. They do have robots nowadays to deal with bombs, so humans are not put at risk. Maybe they should have brought one of those along with the armored vehicles. |
Response to ljm2002 (Reply #20)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:57 PM
Marrah_G (28,581 posts)
22. I've trashed this thread and am stepping away
Law enforcement is so wrong, so much of the time. If we cannot acknowledge when they do something right then we have crossed the line of illogical thinking.
|
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:54 PM
malthaussen (15,018 posts)
7. There would seem to be something particularly futile...
... in the SWAT team riding on the outside of the armored vehicle. Not that I want to suggest that the purpose is theatre, or anything...
-- Mal |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:55 PM
951-Riverside (7,234 posts)
8. Gun humpers want citizens to have unfettered access to military grade weapons so...
The police need military grade armor and gear to protect themselves against that.
Sorry gun humpers but you can't decry militarized police while stockpiling military weapons. |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:03 PM
boston bean (34,924 posts)
10. You can thank the gun fetishists for this.
making us all just a little less free every week.
|
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:13 PM
TwilightGardener (46,416 posts)
12. I honestly could not give a crap about "police militarization" as an issue.
Not with events like these. There are too many nutcases with too big of arsenals at their disposal--that's where my concern is directed. Not how it "looks" when police and SWAT show up. I'll bet Colorado Springs victims in the PP building were pretty fucking glad the CSPD had a Bearcat to punch holes in the building and rescue them.
|
Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #12)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:17 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
13. You illustrate my point well. It's not a simple issue
given to simplistic thinking or simple solutions.
I have strong feelings on BOTH sides of this one. |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:23 PM
librechik (30,231 posts)
15. shoot to kill, not detain and arrest
that is the universal philosophy nowadays. That's ok in war, but NOT in our neighborhoods in "the homeland"
|
Response to librechik (Reply #15)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:10 PM
branford (4,462 posts)
26. Are you implying that the police in San Bernadino didn't act properly?
I hope not, they are overwhelmingly being lauded as heroes. If any elected Democrat ever publicly uttered anything close to such a sentiment, it would be electoral suicide even in some of the bluest areas of the country.
Moreover, police don't "shoot to kill," they shoot to stop, and in unquestionably dangerous situations the safety of innocents and law enforcement always supersedes escaping suspects, and that's without concerns such as IED's and booby traps. As to the OP. those who favor increased supply of local law enforcement with military surplus gear and other militarization of local police couldn't have asked for better visuals to support their cause than police fighting terrorists in San Bernadino with such equipment. |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:49 PM
Igel (32,635 posts)
16. Fears.
Fear is a great way of controlling people. However, I'm not sure that the police intend for us to fear their Bearcats and APCs.
Mostly they want them for the occasional high-risk task. All the rest boils down to optics (which, again, is mostly fear rooted in suspicion) and the very serious question about misuse. Most of the misuse is also fear: If there's a protest and the APC's called out, it's viewed as police intimidation and threat. There's a cop on duty where I work. I walk past her every once in a while; she walks down the hall where my "place" is every once in a while. Some students are intimidated; some are fearful; some basically ignore her, and others greet her like they would anybody else. Her reaction is pretty consistent: She's paid to be there, smiles at nearly everybody, and is pretty much bored out of her mind because she's really there for doing something she's needed for for perhaps 2, 3 hours a week. And that's in a bad week. |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:39 PM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
17. The alternativ is to have the military handle the increasing number of heavily armed and armored
killers bent on causing mass casualties to create political change or because they are nuckin futs.
We live in a nation where almost any weapon short of a tank is available. The police must arm for the conflict they find themselves in. |
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #17)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:52 PM
linuxman (2,337 posts)
19. Where can I find these weapons just shortbof a tank?
No, really?
|
Response to linuxman (Reply #19)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:54 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
21. I think they're called "Gun Shows" -nt-
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #21)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:01 PM
linuxman (2,337 posts)
23. Hmm.
I must go to the wrongbones, just pistols, rifkes, shitgubs, beef jerky, and overpriced ammo.
Damn. Must have walked right past the machineguns, grenades, c4, claymores, rocket launchers, pipe bombs and all those other tank destroying weapons . it's not fair, dammit. Gun grabbers are always telling me these gun shows are a regular bakarra market full of crazy shit. They must have bought it all before I got there. Typical gun grabbers.. |
Response to linuxman (Reply #23)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:04 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
24. I think all machineguns, grenades, c4, claymores, rocket launchers, etc. were sold on Black Friday
You snooze, you lose.
|
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #17)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:14 PM
branford (4,462 posts)
27. Tanks and even fighter jets are actually legal in the USA,
and some people own them. However, the paperwork for such a purchase is quite onerous, and the cost outrageous.
Considering our rate of tank-related crime is 0, I don't believe there's much impetus to change the current regulations. |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:10 PM
Crunchy Frog (26,028 posts)
25. But, but, but...
Gunz is going to saves us from gub'mint tyrrany. I've been assured of this fact my many on DU.
|