Suffered perhaps, vexed is up for discussion.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Kirk Freeman: Our MRAP is better than Your MRAP
- Thread starter Alpo
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Suffered perhaps, vexed is up for discussion.
They are a law enforcement agency over here.
It's a bit like if you had the National Guard, State Police, FBI, and local PD all combined as the same agency.
They are also MP.
They can arrest a soldier on a military base or arrest a civilian for speeding on the highway.
They do traffic stops and everything a civilian police force does.
We don't have a civilian police department where I live.
If I call 911 the military shows up at my house, not the police.
Yeah that can't ever happen here as it's law that the military be separated from civilian enforcement. Posse comatatus (not sure if i spelled it riggt). But Sylvain probably,already knows this and many other things about America much better than many,American citizens who never take an interest in their own country
I know it's quite different in the US when you often hear about "militarization of police", which is not a thing here since our local law enforcement is already part of the military and already use the same gear.
Frankly it doesn't matter if the officer giving me a speeding ticket is a soldier wearing camo pants or a civilian wearing a blue uniform.
He can still be professional and respect my rights.
In the the US you have many cops who are ex-military, just because they trained in CQB wearing camo doesn't mean they will violate your rights when they stop you on the highway.
At the end of the day a MRAP in the hand of a civilian police force is just a tool.
If the police officer driving it respects his oath to protect the constitution he's not going to come for your guns with that vehicle.
Just like a soldier who took the same oath he's not going to turn his tank against his fellow citizens.
Police forces in the US since the early 1930's always had some kind of armored vehicles.It has never been a problem.
It is not a new trend like some people believe.
Cops don't like to be shot by criminals.They never liked that for some reason.
Local police departments having armored vehicles has never been a threat to people's rights.
We just need to make sure that we put good cops in them that we will use them for good.
And if you know anything about guerilla warfare you know those MRAPS are easy to disable, should they be used unlawfully against the people.
I think some people freak out because the new MRAPs are "military vehicles".
But they are just as bulletrproof as any truck the police has used for decades.
People never had a problem when they used commercial trucks like this.
Usually used money transport trucks.
They will protect police officers against criminals and small arms fire.Which is a good thing.
They will not protect a potential tyrannical goverment against the largest armed population in the world , even if every single city in America got a dozen of MRAPs.Which is a good thing.
It may "suck" stock, but when built up by a true performance shop they were an animal to contend with. They actually sounded about like a top-fuel dragster starting up... Why do you think the 6.5 sucks? MANY of them in Humvees chugging along quite well... You want real suck the naturally aspirated 6.2L predecessor sucked. It was absolutely gutless, my dad used to have a few farm & business trucks, you would be lucky to get over 60 mph and that's with the pumps turned up. Not to derail more but IMHO the only diesel worth having in a pickup is a Cummins. Dad's had them all, 6.2L, 6.5L, Duramax, 6.0 ford, 6.4 ford, 5.9 cummins, and 6.7 cummins. The only ones that actually hold up and don't milk the owner on maintenance is the cummins. He currently has a 6.4 ford, 5.9 cummins, and 6.7 cummins. The Ford is continuously in the shop; if he didn't have a huge sum of money sunk into the F-550 service truck he would have sent it down the road a LONG time ago.
That being said, I remembered the name and found a picture. This is an SRAT next to a RG-31 MRAP. I misremembered many of the details, it wasn't an independent suspension, and I don't see how they could get 19" travel on it, and I don't think it has a turret (they used CROWS on them if anything).
how does one turn up the pump on a humvee? Mine needs to go faster.
Last time I checked the US Constitution didn't say anything about sending federally extracted tax dollars to local jurisdictions for local police use. That is the job of the city/county and or state but not the job of Uncle Sam.
Feel free to show me in the US Constitution where its written and I'll buy you a lunch.
I'm pro police but I'm anti government overreach. I see no reason why we need to federalize the local police departments and the military loaner program is part of federalizing & militarizing our local police. If INDY cops don't have enough money or equipment then we need to fix that but we shouldn't be asking for federal tax dollars to do it. Doing that just justifies higher federal taxes and makes government less accountable. So yes, I'll be happy to argue against MRAPs on loan from the DOD
There's nothing in the constitution that says you have to wear clothes while taking a man out for a burger...and also I would like to buy you lunch.
As far as being federally extracted tax dollars, you've already paid them. The Mraps are sitting around and .Gov wants them moving. Police need bullet proof vehicles and are asking for bearcats. The government either gives them to the police, or destroys them. To put it in perspective, Imagine owning a Ferrari dealership where you've purchased 10 Ferraris and you can't seem to sell them. Your wife and kids approach and say "hey honey, we want you to buy each of us $60,000 red cameros as we want fast red cars that turn heads". You tell her, "you're in luck I have a really fast head turning red vehicle and you can all have one as I've already paid for them...btw if you don't take them there's a giant meteor that's going to strike the lot and take out all the cars. Also, if you have any sort of maintenance issue, I have a warehouse full of new engines, transmissions, seals, hoses, etc to fix it for free unlike your camero!"
You wife and kids reply, "we would rather all of the ferraris be destroyed and you buy us cameros"
This has been going on for decades and wasn't an issue until Mraps were involved. An Mrap is nothing more than a bullet resistant method of conveyance. Cops don't want to get shot. Cops want a Bearcat. The government says why BUY a bearcat when we'll give you an MRAP. It performs the same function, and all you pay for is paint, lights, gas and oil changes as for each MRAP we purchased we also purchased 10 engines, 100's of tires, seals, hoses, frames, etc. The government also says you're doing us a favor by keeping it moving. The longer it sits the more likely seals start to leak and repairs are required.
Whomever said they cost 25,000 a year to operate is incorrect. The government figured the cost of running an Mrap overseas (including fuel) is $2,500 a year (fuel has zero tax to .gov) . However, their figure includes maintenance, seals, hoses, etc which police departments don't pay for. What the police DO pay for is the labor to fix the thing with .govs parts.
It also costs $12,000 to destroy each Mrap. Say one day a meteor falls on the IMPD bearcat. They now need a new armored vehicle. Would you rather .gov give an MRAP to IMPD or would you rather pay $500,000 + $12,000 so they can destroy a brand new $733,000 vehicle that you've already paid for. That's just ludicrous to me.
If the day comes that an agency wants all police driving Mraps then I'll agree with "militarization". One armored vehicle for the police isn't that. I do have issue with government waste. They shouldn't have purchased as many Mraps and parts as they did. As you may know, I own a humvee. I can buy pallets (7) of 37" Kevlar reinforced brand new wheels for 5-700...each wheel new costs $450.00 from tire barn. I buy parts for pennies on the dollar since .gov purchased so many. A new 6.5 diesels can cost as low as $300.00. Mraps should be for sale to the public like anything else (I plan on purchasing a slightly used MATV whenever those become available).
As far as being federally extracted tax dollars, you've already paid them. The Mraps are sitting around and .Gov wants them moving. Police need bullet proof vehicles and are asking for bearcats. The government either gives them to the police, or destroys them. To put it in perspective, Imagine owning a Ferrari dealership where you've purchased 10 Ferraris and you can't seem to sell them. Your wife and kids approach and say "hey honey, we want you to buy each of us $60,000 red cameros as we want fast red cars that turn heads". You tell her, "you're in luck I have a really fast head turning red vehicle and you can all have one as I've already paid for them...btw if you don't take them there's a giant meteor that's going to strike the lot and take out all the cars. Also, if you have any sort of maintenance issue, I have a warehouse full of new engines, transmissions, seals, hoses, etc to fix it for free unlike your camero!"
You wife and kids reply, "we would rather all of the ferraris be destroyed and you buy us cameros"
This has been going on for decades and wasn't an issue until Mraps were involved. An Mrap is nothing more than a bullet resistant method of conveyance. Cops don't want to get shot. Cops want a Bearcat. The government says why BUY a bearcat when we'll give you an MRAP. It performs the same function, and all you pay for is paint, lights, gas and oil changes as for each MRAP we purchased we also purchased 10 engines, 100's of tires, seals, hoses, frames, etc. The government also says you're doing us a favor by keeping it moving. The longer it sits the more likely seals start to leak and repairs are required.
Whomever said they cost 25,000 a year to operate is incorrect. The government figured the cost of running an Mrap overseas (including fuel) is $2,500 a year (fuel has zero tax to .gov) . However, their figure includes maintenance, seals, hoses, etc which police departments don't pay for. What the police DO pay for is the labor to fix the thing with .govs parts.
It also costs $12,000 to destroy each Mrap. Say one day a meteor falls on the IMPD bearcat. They now need a new armored vehicle. Would you rather .gov give an MRAP to IMPD or would you rather pay $500,000 + $12,000 so they can destroy a brand new $733,000 vehicle that you've already paid for. That's just ludicrous to me.
If the day comes that an agency wants all police driving Mraps then I'll agree with "militarization". One armored vehicle for the police isn't that. I do have issue with government waste. They shouldn't have purchased as many Mraps and parts as they did. As you may know, I own a humvee. I can buy pallets (7) of 37" Kevlar reinforced brand new wheels for 5-700...each wheel new costs $450.00 from tire barn. I buy parts for pennies on the dollar since .gov purchased so many. A new 6.5 diesels can cost as low as $300.00. Mraps should be for sale to the public like anything else (I plan on purchasing a slightly used MATV whenever those become available).
This is probably one of the most egregious justifications for militarizing local police departments that has ever been constructed by an illogical mind.
I may not understand your arguement and for that I apologize. I tried to cover the broad range of arguments against it. Usual arguments against it have been:
They're expensive
Police don't need armored vehicles
Mraps look scary
The government has never given armor to police.
They're expensive
Police don't need armored vehicles
Mraps look scary
The government has never given armor to police.
The federal government should do what the federal government is charged with doing under the laws/guidelines set out by our Constitution. Using tax codes or other 'justifications' to expand the federal government into the lives (and pockets) of citizens should be fought at all times. Our city, county and state political employees (elected officials) are far more easy to hold accountable than the folks in Washington who are becoming a permenant ruling class.
From the need standpoint of MRAPs, there is virtually no need for small towns and cities to have these things. Perhaps some large cities can justify one? If so then it should be built into their budget and not the federal budget. But crimes where an MRAP are potentially useful are exceedingly rare, even in places like Chicago and L.A. So the actual need, based on actual crime data, where an MRAP would come into actual use, is negligible at most and nonexistent in the vast majority of jurisdictions where they are deployed.
From the cost standpoint, the annual maintenance on these vehicles is roughly $25,000 per year for the towns & cities who have these. Given the fact that they are most often used as 'parade' and 'crime night out' display vehicles, that is a lot of money from some small town budgets to waste on what is arguably a show piece that will never, and has never been used. So yes they are expensive for most of the jurisdictions, wastefully expensive when you consider some of these are located in rural towns with populations of only 20-to-30,000 people.
MRAPs look scary. Yes that is true. They are a visual sign of force that the police can crush the civilian population. We can have an emotional discussion about that but I'd prefer to stick with real/logic based need issues and legal issues where we discuss things like the enumerated powers, the 10th Amendment, the rights of the states, the division of authority, etc. On all those grounds it is dubious that any real argument can be made to support having the Dept of Defense, Homeland Security, etc to deploy these vehicles in our towns/cities.
CountryBoy19
Grandmaster
Sorry but if that's really what they're saying then somebody is running funny numbers. The facts don't lie.
Contractor (Man-Tech is who had most of the contracts while I was over there) makes ~$150k-200k per year over there. On our camp we had ~10 MRAP vehicles and a couple armored Humvees. The Man-Tech mechanic was ALWAYS busy, never had down-time, and that's working 10 hr days 6 days a week. The Humvees didn't get used much, it was mainly the MRAPs that got use and saw most of the maintenance. The actual government cost of that contract (just the labor) is probably about 200% of the mechanic's pay. So $300k-400k per year just in labor to maintain 10 MRAPS = $30k-40k per year maintenance.
Maintenance on an unused MRAP is most certainly going to be far less but there is no way it's $2500.
I reviewed one of the contracts for a town to get an MRAP and it required rust mitigation, repainting, full mechanical maintenance, tire replacement, etc. $25,000 is a good solid estimate for a police/sheriff loaner MRAP. Not by me, its been published many times as well.
Still unclear how anyone can defend small departments getting these. Not even sure its defensible for large departments. But can anyone cite me 2 or 3 legitimate (published in newspapers) examples of crimes in small towns that have been thwarted to show why a town like Beech Grove, or Michigan City or ??? needs one of these? And if not then why should the townspeople be burdened with the tax to pay for the upkeep?
CountryBoy19
Grandmaster
Plain & simple government waste... my county just spent $100k+ to relocate 0.15 miles of roadway to make an intersection safer. After that project was complete the commissioners decided unanimously that more needed to be done so they decided to put a 3-way stop at that intersection. #1 Couldn't that 3-way stop been done FIRST to avoid the $100k+ WASTE of taxpayer dollars? #2 the road is a rarely used road, I live on the road that it tees into, all my time driving down my road I've NEVER seen a car on that road they relocated and now determined needed a 3-way stop.
Was all of that really necessary? IMHO, absolutely stupid decisions get made when it's not your money and not your skin in the game.
As a guy who had a previous job working on intersection realignments - litigation and payouts from lawsuits stemming from accidents where there are poor intersections cost WAY more than $100k.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Not really, it's just typical bureaucratic empire building. It is crazy that I have to pay for it!
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Indeed so. Darth Vader would be proud!
OMG I think I missed a pretty good thread.
Wait. Judging from the crowd it looks like you have a Walmart. **** goes down at the Walmart.
Johnson County, Province Park, National Night Out.
You never know when those hotdog eating middle-aged parents will go out of control. Better to be safe than sorry.
Wait. Judging from the crowd it looks like you have a Walmart. **** goes down at the Walmart.
