Thursday, December 03, 2015

An Interesting Juxtaposition Regarding Police Armored Vehicles

On the one hand, in the wake of the Sudden Jihad Syndrome attack yesterday in San Bernardino we have images of Police armored vehicles being used to protect both police and citizens in the aftermath.

Now this today in the Detroit Free Press: Michigan cops fume over loss of U.S. military vehicles

The Obama administration may want to rethink that generalized recall of such vehicles that was an attempt to show they were "doing something" after Ferguson. After all, the vehicles may indeed be needed for their intended lawful and proper purpose.


B said...

There is a big difference between a Bearcat (as used in San Bernardino) and a Stryker.

Not the least is the cost to operate and maintain. Plus other than the armor, a stripped Stryker isn't good for much except intimidation.

Sorry to say that you are comparing apples to diapers here.

Aaron said...

Not sure wehre you're drawing the inapt comparison form. The articles doesn't mention stripped down strykers at all and the pictures is of an M113 type and it also discusses MRAPS.

The Michigan counties weren't getting Strykers but are having to send back the M113 APCs and MRAPS, which are pretty useful in these situations, so it's pretty apples to apples from here as far as I can tell.

Again they're tools, if they're used for their proper legitimate purpose such as cover in a hostage situation or terrorist attack it shouldn't be an issue and Obama knee-jerking them back to shows he was doing something wasn't very helpful.

B said...

Sorry we disagree. None of those are really good for what you suggest.

Up armored humvees? You bet. Bearcats? Yep. I'd support those. MRAPs and M113's are only really good for intimidation. They are labor intensive to keep operational, costly to operate, and are overkill (and too slow in repsonding to be useful, most of the time). But the sherrifs generally want the big toys to play with, so they get 'em.