Obama: Time to review local police militarization

[hunterfreakhd]

Next will be the deMilitarization of the military.

[jgalt]

.

[jgalt]

The Richland County (S.C.) Sheriff's Department has acquired an armored personnel carrier complete with a turret-mounted .50-caliber belt-fed machine gun for its Special Response Team.
http://m.policemag.com/news/1564/s-c-sh ... achine-gun
A belt fed gun? Seems excessive what scenario would they ever use that in?

?? Cat in a tree??

Don't be effen' ridiculous - cat in a tree clearly calls for a flamethrower. Or maybe a grenade launcher.

Alternatively, they could use one of those non-tank ( ) battering rams to just take down the tree. This both solves the current problem (cat in tree) as well as any future problems (cat - or anyone else - in tree)...

[Thunder71]

http://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A

[farmerj]

The Richland County (S.C.) Sheriff's Department has acquired an armored personnel carrier complete with a turret-mounted .50-caliber belt-fed machine gun for its Special Response Team.
http://m.policemag.com/news/1564/s-c-sh ... achine-gun
A belt fed gun? Seems excessive what scenario would they ever use that in?

I could care less about a belt fed.


Wtf do they need a 50 cal for?

[20mm]

I could care less about a belt fed.


Wtf do they need a 50 cal for?

Shooting down jets that terrorists have taken over.

[Ironbear]

I could care less about a belt fed.

Wtf do they need a 50 cal for?

That question just seems to keep coming up again and again... doesn't it?

http://www.mnguntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=4475&p=46446#p46446

[george]

The Richland County (S.C.) Sheriff's Department has acquired an armored personnel carrier complete with a turret-mounted .50-caliber belt-fed machine gun for its Special Response Team.
http://m.policemag.com/news/1564/s-c-sh ... achine-gun
A belt fed gun? Seems excessive what scenario would they ever use that in?

I thought it was preparation to picking up your guns but they couldn't make it materialize.

[Lumpy]

If it situation requires armor and heavy machine guns, isn't that what the National Guard is for?

[xd ED]

If it situation requires armor and heavy machine guns, isn't that what the National Guard is for?

I have no problem with a P.D. owning a .50 bmg, were it a precision bolt gun; useful for disabling a vehicle, and penetrating a barricade. But yeah, when it's a MaDuece on an APV... that's not a civilian weapon.

[xd ED]

The Richland County (S.C.) Sheriff's Department has acquired an armored personnel carrier complete with a turret-mounted .50-caliber belt-fed machine gun for its Special Response Team.
http://m.policemag.com/news/1564/s-c-sh ... achine-gun
A belt fed gun? Seems excessive what scenario would they ever use that in?

?? Cat in a tree??

Don't be effen' ridiculous - cat in a tree clearly calls for a flamethrower. Or maybe a grenade launcher.

Alternatively, they could use one of those non-tank ( ) battering rams to just take down the tree. This both solves the current problem (cat in tree) as well as any future problems (cat - or anyone else - in tree)...

I'm a bit more sensitive about my carbon footprint. Plus I'm something of a treehugger.

[Lumpy]

Civilians should be able to own anything the police can. They should also be able to obtain the same military surplus.

Seems reasonable, since police are civilians...

Quite awhile ago on the MN Carry Forum, I asked whether in fact this could be the basis for a court case challenging laws restricting certain weapons like full-autos to the police and National Guard. I made out an argument based on the US Constitution's "Compact Clause" (Article One, Section Ten, Clause 3) that such laws could be challenged as an unconstitutional establishment of state "troops". If I won the Lottery I'd pursue such a claim.

[redaudi]

This ain't a tank??:

Nope.

it's a tracked armored personnel carrier.

If we're going to be very deliberate with terminology, such as the difference between a magazine and a clip, or a suppressor vs a 'silencer', or a sporting rifle versus an assault rifle, then let's not play the game of using 'scary' terms for things.

[xd ED]

This ain't a tank??:

Nope.

it's a tracked armored personnel carrier.

If we're going to be very deliberate with terminology, such as the difference between a magazine and a clip, or a suppressor vs a 'silencer', or a sporting rifle versus an assault rifle, then let's not play the game of using 'scary' terms for things.

Not that the military would ever obfuscate using terminology, the point being it is military combat equipment now in the hands of a civilian police force.

That's not 'scary'?

[farmerj]

This ain't a tank??:

Nope.

it's a tracked armored personnel carrier.

If we're going to be very deliberate with terminology, such as the difference between a magazine and a clip, or a suppressor vs a 'silencer', or a sporting rifle versus an assault rifle, then let's not play the game of using 'scary' terms for things.

Not an armored personnel vehicle either. Totally different mission. Its a command track. Setup mainly for radio operations.