'‘ye got it fehr… Willie!??’
8 Likes
Why do campus police even need a car?
4 Likes
Going to start off by saying that I don’t believe at all that this is an appropriate acquisition for the school police. The type of work they do doesn’t justify this purchase. Now that that’s out of the way, I can get on to the rest of my comment.
Here’s a link to another article from The Guardian. It makes a few points that really should be repeated in this discussion.
First, it points out that post-Fergusson, police forces found to be misusing acquired military equipment could be on hook for millions. Frustratingly, that means tax-payers will be on the hook for millions if their force misbehaves.
It also quotes a school board trustee who opposes the purchase, and definitely feels that the school police are overstepping.
“We should not have got it in the first place,” Scott Barnett, a unified school district board trustee, told the Guardian on Thursday before a press conference announcing his opposition. “It sends a wrong message, a message contrary to what we are. We’re an educational institution. We have more of a mentoring approach.”
Then, there’s this quote linking back to a comment from the KPBS article:
Other critics queried whether a vehicle which would lumber through traffic could reach the scene of a school shooting quickly enough to be of use.
Here’s the comment.
prof hazmatt • a day ago
Can we represent the cost of maintainace as teacher salaries of cost of textbooks?
And for use in a school shooting? How fast can that thing travel? San Diego is pretty large. Just imagine how hard a time hat would have driving after an earthquake…
What a ridiculous waste of money.
The truth is that some MRAPs can travel at a peak speed of 65mph. So while school police may not find use for them in emergencies - the National Guard and even the Red Cross may be able to use them, but that’s only true if the vehicles are worth the cost of upkeep.
Here’s some more information:
MRAPs left in Afghanistan were sometimes as scrap. Here’s an article about that. It was a better deal to sell them as scrap there than ship them all home.
In field practice, Humvees that were factory armored proved to be lighter, more cost effective, and the MRAPs weren’t much better at protecting soldiers. The MRAPs didn’t really work as well for the job at hand as expected. This article discusses problems in using and maintaining the vehicles.
It’s that last article I’d call most attention to - because it discusses why the vehicles aren’t a good buy in certain situations, and that should matter if you think you’re getting something on the cheap. Anyone investing in an MRAP should recognize its limitations: roll over, no travel on narrow roads, no travel on some bridges, need for specialized maintenance, and more.
I’ve previously defended one police station’s purchase of an MRAP. They got it to replace an existing vehicle, and they are located in one of the worst areas in the country for meth labs. Because they had a previous vehicle (over 20 years old) in use, and needing regular maintenance, their purchase made sense. It may actually save them money, and the vehicle already has a stated use.
I will only support those purchases that do make sense, and the SDSD police’s purchase just doesn’t. They were looking for a deal, but didn’t really read the fine print.
7 Likes
Well, given the modern penchant for coulrophobia, probably only the goth and metalhead kids love clowns. But, everyone needs a teddy-bear, so it’s still a win!
1 Like
Actually, that’s not true at all. Tanks have something really important that this vehicle lacks. They have a set of tracks instead of wheels. That’s the major change in vehicle design that allowed them to travel in snow.
Here’s a link to the Tankopedia. You’ll see from the silhouettes that all vehicles are tracked vehicles.
1 Like
Treads are, indeed, the only feature of traditional tanks that MRAPS don’t have. With a kit an MRAP can become a kind of redneck form of half-track. Given the roads and parking lots of America’s suburban dystopiscape, however, this is a detail rather than a categorical issue. They are big and heavy and intended to move and protect soldiers in a firefight.
1 Like
Look, I won’t sidetrack the thread for a really long time on this, but this isn’t a detail.
My dad painted military miniatures for most of his life, so I have some good info on military history. Part of the definition of what makes a tank into a “tank” is the inclusion of treads on the vehicle. They weren’t converted from cars, they were originally converted tractors.
The first line from the wikipage on tanks says this:
A tank is a large type of armoured fighting vehicle with tracks, designed for front-line combat.
Here’s another link to the history of tanks.
If you don’t believe me, there’s nothing else I can do, but you’re talking about the definition of the vehicle.
1 Like
In a military setting, I would agree with you, but in a strip mall this is as much a tank as any BTR. And given that’s it’s intended to survive IEDs, it’s more like an MBT than than most APCs.
2 Likes
This is so fucking insane I don’t even know how to respond. In contrast, my local police force had previously picked up an MRAP for their bomb unit, which is the responder for a major urban area, so it made a certain amount of sense. After Ferguson, however, they decided to actually get rid of the thing. They figured they didn’t need it that much, and they’d rather not contribute to the militarization of the police and the message that it sends.
12 Likes
An excellent reason for choosing wheels over tracks.
2 Likes
I dunno… Part of me is like, shit, I want an MRAP, and if I want an MRAP, I can see why the police might want an MRAP, because shit, who WOULDN’T want an MRAP?
But then maybe I just read too much Tank Girl while high as a kid.
6 Likes
There’s some cool to it, sure, but even at the height of the U.S. war mania in the nulldrums, Dodge never did follow through on their concept and start selling their 6x6 pickup. It’s the whole jetboat/race car/airplane thing. Neat toys which have gotten incredibly expensive since the 60s and 70s, the heydey of motorized recreation. It’s like multi-masted sailboats or physical editions of The Encyclopedia Britannica.
1 Like
Y’all should keep right on calling the tank a tank, just because it pisses off the gun nuts. Imbeciles.
4 Likes
[quote=“andy_hilmer, post:15, topic:40955”]
In one way or another, all armored vehicles have been called “tanks” for the past 90 years. [/quote]
Kewl. So when the guy from the Brinks armored truck stops to pick up the day’s cash, I’ll let him know the Internet has promoted him to “tank commander.” 
3 Likes
Uh, dude - I’m not a gun nut. I regularly get into arguments with them.
The reason it’s important to not get the two vehicles confused is this:
MRAPs are top-heavy and have the unhappy tendency to roll-over at high speeds.
Tanks are designed with a lower center of gravity. They’re safer for tight turns, and the alternating tracks can do that.
People think the two vehicles are interchangeable, but they’re totally different.
and what percentage of everyone gives a damn about the difference? can you guess?
ps. I love how you guys all seem to think you know what a tank is. Any of you tankers? or even ex-military? or ever ridden in a tank?
2 Likes
o_0 So unless you have first hand experience with something you can’t hope to attain real knowledge?
Seriously. Think about what you said for a second and apply that to everything else in your life.
8 Likes
Dude, with a kit my pickup truck can become a kind of red-neck form of half-track, too.
Heck, with a kit, almost any 'murrican-made vehicle from a Peterbilt down to a lawnmower can become “a redneck form of half-track.”
I’ve seen it done.
Doesn’t make 'em tanks.
2 Likes
What they are ‘‘totally’’, is inappropriate for any civilian law enforcement role.
Go argue semantics where it adds something to the discussion please?
2 Likes
