Ohio State University Police bring in military vehicle

Just means the bad guys use bigger weapons. Having a militarized civilian law enforcement system is treating the symptom and not the disease. And although one might think the disease is a disorderly, destructive public, I'm thinking more along the lines that the government is the disease.

QuantumCypher
reply to post by greencmp

 

I agree, but the point I was trying to make with this article is that this is the first time I have seen the military police pass off equipment to a college. Pardon my ignorance if I'm wrong, but campus police are NOT actually police officers? If I'm correct in this, that would mean this is a significant step. Arming police with this kind of weapon/vehicle is one thing, but campus security?

agreed..

almost feels like they're going to put campuses on 'lock down' soon..

they're 'gearing' for something..

reply to post by Xcathdra

/sarcasm
Oh yeah, I forgot that if something happens once that that not only justifies but necessitates taking military level precautions everywhere else it might POSSIBLY happen, especially college campuses.
/end sarcasm
You're not the only one who can use sarcasm as a weapon. Can we please keep this civil?

Secondly, you presume incorrectly I side with gun control. I thought it would have come across as clear by the tone of my OP, but my primary concern against this type of situation is having a civilian police force armed as a military unit while we the populace are disarmed. Rule of law through military force.

And you make my point for me. Even with the turret gone, it is easily identifiable as a military vehicle, which they have said they intend to trot out for the games. This has a distinct psychological effect on attendees, everything from intimidation to reinforcing the idea that things actually are as terrifying as the news says because the police NEED this MILITARY VEHICLE in plain sight.

Finally, in regards to your statements about armor, cars and the like and high power rifles, please see my first statement. If we continue to justify militarizing the police, how much longer until our cities look like militarized zones? It's a game of escalation the criminals will not stop, and the normal citizens are the one who face continually raising levels of danger for the polices' mistakes. When you train and equip the police like they are in a war zone, it's only a matter of time before they start to act like it.

Respectfully,
QuantumCypher

reply to post by Beartracker16

Trust me when I say we remember that day well here. I have relatives and friends who were there the first day.
Each state has it's own little incidents, it's own little "nerves" based on events that the general population remembers and they get edgy about. Maybe that's why this particular article hit home with me.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Thank you for that. That answered a few questions, but raised a few more. I would not be so displeased by this if they had given it to Columbus PD instead of campus. One of my primary concerns was where and how it would be stored, and what level of security would be involved in it's storage versus that of the local PD, and how easy it would be for a few industrious people to get their hands on it.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Not to mention the 1986 FBI shootout in Florida.

There are many examples of why these vehicles are a good idea, and they aren't limited just to shootouts either as Xcathdra has pointed out.

Really stop and think about how easy it is for the average American to amass an arsenal that could devastate a local police force responding to a shooting. I get that cops are pretty much despised on ATS, but your neighbors aren't going to try to come save you from an active shooter. The 'militarization' of police forces is a necessity in this age of cheap high powered rifles, mass shootings and yes, even potential terrorist attacks.

Cops don't carry revolvers anymore because of the North Hollywood incident and the Dade County incident. They were outgunned. There were WAY more cops than bad guys, but they were outgunned. By two people in both cases. They don't favor a shotgun anymore because the bad guys have AKs. AKs that are easy to convert to full auto. The kind of rifle that can easily pierce a squad or an ambulance.

Remember the 'Killdozer' some disgruntled douche built and went on a rampage with? Have we already forgotten about the latest mass shooting? Show up in a patrol car and try to rescue victims, end up with more victims bleeding out.

After all that I still think it's a little silly to give one to Campus PD. Give it to the Sheriff's Office or something. Then again response time is very important, and waiting 1/2 hour to have one of these things available could easily cost lives.

I would be pissed if little podunk towns were spending their budget on the things, but this is basically giving them a hand me down that would otherwise go to waste.

These things are not armed. Any American can purchase a tank off the internet. Calm down. An armored vehicle with decommissioned weaponry is just a truck. It's not there to steal your Freedum. Calm down, read your pocket constitutions and find something better to get angry about.

reply to post by Xcathdra

I understand the need for this kind of vehicle in certain situations. VERY limited circumstances. Please allow me to reiterate my primary concerns *with this particular scenario*.
It was given to a college campus, not the local PD, who would be better suited for most of those situations unless an event was happening on campus. And in that case, local PD could assist or hand the vehicle over.
They are going to drag it out and parade it around for every football game. This is not a necessary, and to me seems more than a little overboard. And I think the psychological effects of that are dangerous, whether by intention or not.
Finally, you did address my concern about it being rent-a-cops being the ones handling this.

reply to post by k21968

As I stated in my reply, those of us who live here do view it as a type of history, especially the ones that were there.
We don't see it as categorizing it as dangerous, we see it as a reminder of what CAN happen when you have militarized units being used against civilians, especailly demonstrators. It served as a wake-up call to a nation on a number of levels, and it still serves as the example of how NOT to let demonstrators and protesters be handled.

reply to post by Xcathdra

If LAPD had access to this type of vehicle the 44 minutes officers endured while involved in a shootout in North Hollywood would not have been 44 minutes long.

It also wouldn't have lasted 44 minutes had the police snipers been armed with armor piercing bullets. Something that should be standard issue in this day and age.

QuantumCypher
reply to post by Xcathdra


Finally, in regards to your statements about armor, cars and the like and high power rifles, please see my first statement. If we continue to justify militarizing the police, how much longer until our cities look like militarized zones? It's a game of escalation the criminals will not stop, and the normal citizens are the one who face continually raising levels of danger for the polices' mistakes. When you train and equip the police like they are in a war zone, it's only a matter of time before they start to act like it.



judging by some of the stories about police lately one could be forgiven for believing we are already well on our way down that path.....

reply to post by Domo1

Domo...been a while.
I stated above in some clarifications that I agree there are times this type of vehicle is needed. I gave my reasons above why I agree with you, it should have been given to the sheriff or the PD.
The point I keep trying to bring everyone back to is that they're trotting it out and putting it on display for the public on a regular basis. Please see my above posts. we can argue about whether I agree on the PD's getting these rigs in another thread.
And the condescending remark at the end? Not only rude, but please Domo, I expect better from you.

so what happens when they run into some motivated gad guys, like the fictional ones here.



what they call in the military, then do they get tanks next?

reply to post by hounddoghowlie

I brought that up, but I was also thinking of the fact it's a college campus...and college kids are legendary for their stupidity, especially in numbers...

QuantumCypher
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

I brought that up, but I was also thinking of the fact it's a college campus...and college kids are legendary for their stupidity, especially in numbers...

You make some interesting points, and I will come back when I have a bit more time and reply. I did want to point out, in my opinion, an oversight you and some others are making with regards to these types of vehicles and who should get them.

Military programs are usually based on a list of law enforcement agencies who are wanting access to the pass down items. If an agency is not on the list, they don't get the ability to participate. Once an agency is on the list, their placement on that list determines their order in getting items. If an agency is at the bottom of the list, then they get access to whatever remains that the agencies above them did not choose.

As for the discussion about Campus police not needing this item as opposed to the Sheriffs department -
If an incident occurs inside municipal boundaries, that municipality is responsible for the response unless they either:

A - Request assistance and cede jurisdiction to the other agency.
B - Are in a state where the State Police can assume jurisdiction regardless (not many states use this setup).

Generally speaking agencies plan based on their crime trends and not what other agencies are doing. I can easily see a need for this type of vehicle in a Campus / high population area than a rural setting. Sheriffs departments that contain large population cities within their county base their needs on the unincorporated areas, not the municipal areas.

While you and others view a campus scenario dealing with out of control college students, you guys seem to be ignoring the fact that mass shootings seem to be occurring in areas with higher people density - Malls, Marathons, Military Installations (and yes local law enforcement can be responsible for military installations), College Campuses.

As I pointed out an active shooter scenario can happen fast and the body count can run high (imo 1 death is one to many). If you have more than one person and their goal is simply nothing more than a high body count, then waiting any amount of time for an armored vehicle can be counted in body count. Schools / College campuses are by their nature weapons free zones, meaning Campus Police are the first line of defense so to speak. If a group of people storm a building / dorm and know how to set up kill zones it becomes extremely difficult to get officers near those areas on foot.

Another point is if Police are able to get into the area on foot, they the run into the problem of protecting civilians. The protocol is to get them out of harms way as soon as humanly possible. That becomes problematic when the officers have no other means to evacuate those students except on foot, which means officers will be required to oversee that evacuation while providing cover for them. The armored vehicle can resolve some of those man power issues.

Those vehicle can also be used to breach any type of roadblock (situation specific obviously but you get the idea) where the standard patrol car may not. Again the standard patrol car would become a major concern in terms of lack of protection while being in the option trying to breach a barrier.

The armored vehicle can level that playing field... They can be used for evacuation, locating resources, locating personnel, transport of medical personnel into an unsecured area where medical attention is critical. Also one can look at the cost factor.. Which item is going to hold up better - An armored vehicle built to specifications for use in extreme environments or a crown vic / dodge charger / ford interceptor?

How much damage can beer bottles / rocks do to an armored vehicle? How about damage to a crown vic / dodge charger / ford interceptor? People seem to ignore the fact that a marked vehicle / uniform is the first level of use of force. The goal is to deter by presence and go from there.

As for how they are stored Domo hit the nail on the head. Our vehicle contains no weapons, just communications equipment. Its secured in the same lot as our patrol vehicles.

Before slamming Campus Police for parading it during games maybe it would be prudent to see how they parade that vehicle and the manner in which they want to use it. I find it confusing for people to attack the police for wanting some military equipment and assuming the worst while at the same time criticizing the police for wanting to show that item to the community to let them A - know they have a new resource and B - letting the people get to see it and ask real questions about its use / purpose etc.

I would think if law enforcement had sinister intentions they would not be broadcasting their resources and letting the community at large see it.

just my 2 cents... btw my sarcastic response was just that and was based on the argument about military equipment being bad while people ignored the fact the Humvee started out military, is still used by them, used by law enforcement, and available to the general public.

I did not accuse you of advocating gun control.. What I did was to point out that law enforcement has needs based on the fact civilians can purchase military grade weapons. The choice there is to allow law enforcement the ability to counter those threats or to adopt a policy of disarming the population to the extent those weapons wont threaten law enforcement, removing the need for the military equipment.

My point is Law enforcement must be flexible to deal with those people who go for the military type weapons and use them on civilians / police. My concern are the criminals who are gunning for me with a high powered rifle / .50 cal, not the law abiding citizens whom I may very well depend on to assist me because they have military grade equipment when I do not.

Which is exactly what occurred in the North Hollywood shootout - LAPD had to rely on a private business for assault weapons to counter the assault rifles being used against them. LAPD had to rely on a private business for an armored vehicle to safely enter the scene to evacuate wounded / trapped civilians and law enforcement.

While it may seem like it worked out for the best, one must realize and understand the liability assumed when we commandeer civilian equipment for official actions.

One more thing to add since people are coming to an incorrect conclusion. These surplus vehicles are not generally sold to law enforcement - They are provided free of charge. In the rare instances they are sold the price for those items is extremely low. The reason behind that is to allow the smaller / mid size agencies who work on tight budgets the ability to obtain items they would not normally be able to afford on their own / obtain grant money for.

Are they higher maintenance - yes.
Why? because of their original intended purpose - combat zones.
Does that same cost principle apply to law enforcement agencies who obtain these items? Not really no.
Why? because they are not being used in a military capacity (ware and tare from combat etc).

Is the military the only entity that passes along their equipment to law enforcement? Nope.
There are several large Armored car companies who have lists of police agencies requesting their items. Those companies, when they rotate an armored car out of service, check with the interested agencies to see if they want to obtain the vehicle at an extremely reduced cost, before the vehicle is scrapped out.

There are organizations out there who help small / medium agencies acquire bullet resistant vests for their officers (not all agencies equip their officers with bullet resistant vests).

Again I completely support citizens keeping tabs on their government and the police in their areas. However, just because one moronic cop makes an idiotic decision does not mean all law enforcement is the same. Secondly people seem to ignore or don't understand that state laws are not uniform. What is a crime in one state may not be illegal in another (recent marijuana legislation / assisted suicide / and in Indiana their supreme court ruled a private individual can use force against law enforcement in certain limited scenarios). You then need to factor in Federal appeals courts, whose rulings affect only those states within its district.

Some examples for those wishing to research / see more info -
Miranda vs. Arizona
Arizona vs. Gant
Whren vs. United States

Tit for tat, I suppose. If the civilian authorities are so enamored with having these military-looking vehicles to parade in front of the public then I suppose they should understand why many firearms enthusiasts might desire to have AR-15's and such "assault rifles" to add to their collections as well. All this military gear does look rather "snazzy." A more pedestrian-looking rifle of good quality and similar capability could be just as effective and even more so, and the same would apply to police vehicles that might appear less menacing at a glance. Let people make of it what they will, political correctness be damned.

This all might come down to wanting a show of bravado with psychological impact to demonstrate the police authorities mean business. School campuses might be deemed an appropriate venue to begin relating that message.The same might be said for the American people to show their determination to protect what remains of their rights and privacies now vastly eroded.

We seem to be heading to a showdown between authority vs. liberty. Let the games begin.

Erongaricuaro
We seem to be heading to a showdown between authority vs. liberty.

I wonder if people can be any more paranoid / ignorant on this topic?

I find it amazing how you can speak about Liberty while at the same time demonizing law enforcement without actually having any evidence what so ever to support your wild claims.

Ironic how quickly you have charged, tried and convicted law enforcement without a shred of evidence.. You have done the very thing you accuse law enforcement of doing..

So much for innocent until proven guilty eh...

sad...

Erongaricuaro
We seem to be heading to a showdown between authority vs. liberty.

Xcathdra
I wonder if people can be any more paranoid / ignorant on this topic?

Don't be so wonder-struck, you're exemplifying the affirmative quite admirably.

I really am not sure what I may have said to arouse your ire, but then paranoia does not have to be based on any particular rationale.

I find it amazing how you can speak about Liberty while at the same time demonizing law enforcement without actually having any evidence what so ever to support your wild claims.

Ironic how quickly you have charged, tried and convicted law enforcement without a shred of evidence.. You have done the very thing you accuse law enforcement of doing..

Again, I am not sure what I may have said to lead you to believe I was demonizing law enforcement but I will go along with it if it pleases you.

Yes, it would be rather amazing if I had never seen a law enforcement officer nor had any dealings with any of them as they are so ubiquitous in the US. Yet, my life's course might suggest I would not have that experience given that my work with the US federal government entailed travelling prolonged and extensively outside the continental US. Yet so many occasions upon my return I would be greeted near immediately by the blue brigade to play a lovely game of 50 questions. I concede though, rarely would I be cited for anything. I often thought they might just have wanted a better look at my car. It might seem odd that I had never been stopped for anything in a foreign country, but then again I would typically be driving a rental or perhaps something from the motor pool - something somewhat pedestrian and not terribly 'snazzy.' I spent the final decade or so of my career working and living full-time remote duty on an island off the coast of California. Same thing on those rare weekends I would go to the mainland for supplies.

I am curious what "wild claims" you refer to. Would that be my wild statement about good quality but more 'pedestrian-looking' rifles and vehicles being as effective as those military style weapons? Or was it my claim that there could be a desireable show and feeling of 'bravado' with the military-style gear? You may be right. I was trained with the M-16 and sidearms though never owned anything similar. Not sure if a Brinks truck would be as useful as one of those fancy gun-turreted Rambo Lambos for the SWAT guys either. You might have me there.

My other "wild claims" could have to do with the psychological aspect of having militarized civil police, for one. I admit I felt a bit of a cold chill when watching the Boston Watertown videos when from a house window the soldier-clad civil cop "flashed" the camera dead-on with his military-style rifle. But perhaps that was not intentional nor done for effect. It works that way though. Intimidating, intentional or not.

Even retired as I am now I live outside my native country so may be clueless, not having set foot in the US since Bush was still in the White House, but I am not living as an expat for no reason. It does seem to me we lost a lot of our privacies since I grew up in the 50's, and that concerns me. With eyes open and ear to the ground I hear a lot of rumbling from others that they are not pleased with the way society is developing in the US with loss of liberties and an increasingly burdensome authoritarian police-like state. Perhaps you don't see that developing as you live in a police world where unquestioning obedience from the populace must play like sweet music for you.

Another claim I make is that rights and privacies have been vastly eroded. The sham Drug War has made a path into heartland America's living rooms and to have their vehicles searched while travelling and even to have their money confiscated if it appears they may be carrying a bit too much of it, whether or not contraband is found in that search. There are other examples of this that are too numerous to go into here at this moment, but just thumb through Posse Comitatus forum if you doubt me.

Lastly I wildly claim that the people seemingly appear to be to be heading to a showdown against authority to reclaim their liberties and privacies once again. However, there is a momentum going viral and global at this time that I am restricted from discussing openly on this site that might redeem our American values once again, a concession that may reverse the damage done over the past several decades if the process follows through. Once that freedom is restored we could again experience true "community" once more. I remain optimistic. The world will largely dispense with that burden, and The United States is on the vanguard of making that happen but I fear in an instant it will fall short and be left behind. Far too many Americans have misplaced their altruism to a false vision and will remain vocal perhaps to the detriment of a quieter majority.

Ironic how quickly you have charged, tried and convicted law enforcement without a shred of evidence.. You have done the very thing you accuse law enforcement of doing..

Lie down with the dogs you arise with fleas. War was declared against me decades ago and that war still lingers on utilizing increasingly brutal and invasive tactics. You have chosen to wear the uniform of those who selected me as their enemy and to be one of their enforcers.

I was involved before that war was declared and have seen the devastation it has caused many that were around me. If there is any good to come of that war it is at the expense of greater damage done by the war mechanism itself. And now we know it has been self-serving all along and tenaciously hangs on to its corrupt industry empire for its own self-enrichment.

Are you claiming you can select which battles you fight and which laws you wish to uphold? If so then how can I see your uniform and know if you could be trusted? I cannot. I have survived mostly unscathed by living impeccably. My livelihood required that. I have survived by understanding YOU have declared me the enemy and sworn to bring me to "justice." Should I praise you good deeds while knowing you could turn on me in a flash and take away everything I have struggled for in life?

Oh how easy life would be if I just would knuckle under in obedience and do as commanded. But our sense of community was taken away from us and I cannot abide by that. Yes, be active and change the law if it is bad, they say. I have been doing just that and it has taken decades but progress is just starting to be made now. And when it takes effect I will accept the truce and attempt to put the hatred behind me, forgive and forget. I have seen many destroyed needlessly though so as an old warrior I will just fade away and be thankful a victory was won at last.

So much for innocent until proven guilty eh...

Are soldiers held accountable for the wars their leaders thrust them into? When our freedoms and self-ownership has been returned community will be restored. Thus the war will end.

sad...

Yes, but there is light ahead.

I was trying to find a thread that my video and question can go... I believe this one fits the bill... Don't ask me why.. lol it seemed like an intelligent option at this time... Ha

First the video... Texas police Dept talks about where and when you should call police if you see a guy wearing a jacket and pack when it's 90' outside. "Obviously" he says... "These people don't belong." What I found interesting is a question an Alex Jones reporter asks... ( I like Alex... His good far out-weighs his bad... )

Anyways, the video




My question... If Swats going in to make warrant searches, arresting criminals ect... Do they have a right to cover their face due to being undercover? If a bunch of cops are going to arrest me I want names and badges in case anything goes wrong... Like my rights being violated.

I've never heard of under-cover making arrests, unless at that time they're ready to let the accused know who they are and what they have on them.
Soooo, is this crap they can cover their face??

tracehd1
My question... If Swats going in to make warrant searches, arresting criminals ect... Do they have a right to cover their face due to being undercover?

Yes and No.. What they wear is dependent upon their Department Policy / City Policy and court rulings in their respective county / state / Federal Appeals Courts.

If we look, in general, at the use of force continuum, people will see that a marked patrol vehicle and uniformed presence are a part of the continuum at the begining levels.

With that being said Police are not required to start at level 1 and work their way up. Its contingent upon the circumstances for that specific incident.

tracehd1
If a bunch of cops are going to arrest me I want names and badges in case anything goes wrong... Like my rights being violated.

Something that can be retreived - it just depends on the circumstances. Generally speaking, people want to argue with the wrong side. A person needs to make their case to a judge when it comes to legalities, not the law enforcement present. Law Enforcement is not part of the Judicial branch and as such is not in a position to determine a persons guilt or innocence. Its one of the reasons most states have laws that prohibit a person from resisting an arrest.

An arrest is lawful until a PA / Judge / Court says otherwise.

So while I understand the position on wanting names / ID's, demanding it during an arrest is not the time for it.

tracehd1
I've never heard of under-cover making arrests, unless at that time they're ready to let the accused know who they are and what they have on them.
Soooo, is this crap they can cover their face??

Using an undercover to make an arrest is rare, at least in my area. Our agency actually prohibits undercover / detectives from engaging in action where identification becomes a concern. If people check their respective state laws there should be something present that requires comissioned law enforcement to carry an actualy commission card. In my state of MO, our commission card and not our uniform / badge, is what establishes us as law enforcement.

IE they cannot do traffic stops in unmarked vehicles and on the rare occasions it occurs uniformed / marked units are immediately dispatched. If someone needs to be stopped / arrested they come to patrol and brief us in.

Have I ever had anyone ask for it? A few times over 10 years. Have I ever denied the request? Yes - for safety reasons for both me and the person I was dealing with. In the end, after it was said and done, it was provided.

Hope the answers help out some.. Most likely not what people are going to want to hear...