Russell Neches of Davis has launched a change.org petition to “get rid of the police department’s armored vehicle.”
Mr. Neches writes the following:
The City of Davis Police Department has recently acquired a International MaxxPro MRAP vehicle through the 1033 Program of the Defense Logistics Agency, Law Enforcement Support Office (see David Greenwald’s article for more information). The MRAP, or Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, is a weapon system designed to protect ground forces from tactics used in guerrilla warfare.
Davis Police Chief Landy Black envisions this weapon system as a means for, in his words, “handling” a mass shooting incident. However, across the country, the use of these and other military weapon systems has done little to help, and much to harm, the relationship of trust between communities and their police. Most recently, the use of military weapons in Ferguson, MO, has breached public trust in local law enforcement. Whatever tactical advantage these weapon systems might have yielded has been obliterated by the strategic blunder they represent.
Furthermore, the manner in which police have deployed these weapons has demonstrated that they lack the training, discipline and supervision required for their use. In Ferguson, police are routinely training automatic weapons on unarmed, nonthreatening citizens. As Josh Weinberg, an Army veteran and security analyst for the Truman Project noted, this is exactly what the Army trains soldiers not to do. “To call this militarization doesn’t characterize the military very well,” says Weinberg.
This is not surprising. Police training does not make competent, effective soldiers, nor does military training make competent, effective police. Police work and the military demand vast reserves of personal integrity, but as far as training, doctrine and purpose, the jobs could hardly be more different. There are superficial similarities; soldiers and police usually need weapons to do their jobs, and there is a uniform to wear and a code of ethics attached to that uniform. Beyond that, little else overlaps. Even the criteria for doing a good job are fundamentally different. Mixing up these two roles has led many communities to sorrow.
There is also a practical matter to consider. The “active shooter” scenario envisioned by Chief Landy Black is not a military situation, and military training and equipment are not likely to be appropriate. For example, mass shootings typically occur inside buildings. Using an armored vehicle to respond to such an event simply means that police will get there more slowly, and that they will be more likely to run over innocent people on the way. Once on the scene, the vehicle would be of little use, as it must remain outside.
The Davis Police Department is a good police department. It employs competent, polite and professional officers who do their jobs well. They have a reputation for a calm, safety-focused approach to their work, and have played an important part in making Davis a safe place to live, work, study and play. The acquisition of military weapon systems is detrimental to the good work they do.
We, the undersigned, petition the Davis City Council and the City of Davis Police Department to:
[1] Destroy the armored vehicle. If it is not legal to destroy it, the vehicle must be disposed of in a manner that is most likely to keep it from being deployed against civilians.
[2] End participation in the unethical 1033 Program by revoking the language in Davis City Council Resolution 09-033 that authorized these acquisitions.
[3] Conduct a public review of all Police Department hardware, and dispose of systems incompatible with the role of our small-town police department.
[4] Allocate more resources, and seek additional resources, for community policing activities. This includes more foot patrols, bicycle patrols, school programs, workshops and programs to support officers who wish to live in the community they police.
Thanks but no tanks, Chief Black.
To sign the petition go here
The Bee cartoonist view on the “new” Davis PD:
http://www.sacbee.com/1564/index.html
i wish it read: D. Riot Bacon
“The MRAP, or Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, is a weapon system designed to protect ground forces from tactics used in guerrilla warfare.”
After a few google searches it appears Mr Neches is the only one referring to the MWRAP as a weapon. Is the intent to make people scared of this thing?
I’m sure the Davis Police Department appreciates his compliments on the calm and professional practices but how will the possession of an MWRAP going to be detrimental? Will it automatically create an impulse to be unprofessional, nervous, and rude? I’m sure the Davis Police Department possesses a few of the dreaded MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT WEAPONS. As scary as those dangerous guns are the police in Davis remain calm and professional.
I try very hard not to completely dismiss views I do not agree with but it is hard when misinformed people keep calling this thing a tank.
Yes Offering, they have to paint it as a weapon or a tank in order to push their hyperbole. Truth is the DPD already has many weapons that are much more dangerous than the MWRAP. The only way this MWRAP could hurt anyone is to run them over, otherwise it will be used for protection purposes.
Tiananmen Square.
I try very hard not to completely dismiss views I do not agree with but it is hard when misinformed people keep calling this thing a tank.
In this case two meanings of the word tank are being conflated.
A tank of course is a heavy military attack vehicle.
A tank is also a colloquial reference to an outsized heavy road vehicle. A Hummer or larger full-size pickup.
This vehicle definitely seems to fit the second definition. The fact that it convenient exaggerates the point is a bonus for those who question the acquisition.
Come on wdf1. You are going out of your way to defend this obvious hyperbole. These folks cannot win unless they gin up false moral outrage.
They would be better off focusing on the cost of ongoing maintenance as a reason to get rid of the vehicle.
Someone wrote:
This thing is no more a tank than a VW van is a clinic
wdf1 wrote:
When I lived in GB the term “Yank Tank” was common to describe anything big and American:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yank_tank
Offering Balance wrote:
> I try very hard not to completely dismiss views I do not agree with but it is hard
> when misinformed people keep calling this thing a tank.
Just like 90% of the people in America called my old “Toyota FJ” (and every old “Land Rover”) a “Jeep” most people call ALL armored military vehicles “Tanks”. If you Google “Littlefield Tank Auction” or “Littlefield Tank Collection” you will see plenty of photos of vehicles that are not technically tracked tanks.
http://www.auctionsamerica.com/events/all-lots.cfm?
SaleCode=LC14&CFID=87860073&CFTOKEN=b11b47fc266fb19a-EDF3CB97-9AB4-809C-FACF2D1586359348&jsessionid=8430f5278ae3e7a237b34c3d106a1b52c201
P.S. I got to tour the cool tank collection in Portola Valley before Jacque died and I’m fine if an eccentric billionaire wants to spend millions to buy and maintain military vehicles that are never used, I just don’t think that it is a great idea for Davis to spend a ton of money to store and maintain (I know we “only” paid $6K to get it here) a vehicle that will never be used (unless we want to get in the national press again by using it to spray pepper spray the next time we have a plastic bag protest or a few people mad about something else in town)…
P.P.S. We would be front page news on every paper in the WORLD if the Davis PD uses the MRAP to end a “protest” over the police getting military equipment…
Check out this GAO memo which clearly identifies that MRAP as being part of a weapon system:
http://tinyurl.com/dv-mrap-1
and from a couple paragraphs earlier:
http://tinyurl.com/dv-mrap-2
It is a weapon system if there are weapons installed on it. There are not.
Frankly, you don’t understand the word “system”. The mine-resistant vehicle is part of a larger system that is in its totality a “weapon system”.
“part of a weapon system”
So if you find the butt-stock of a gun laying in the dirt, do you call that a “weapon”?
It is a damn truck. Plain and simple. It is 100% defensive in nature and design when it does not have any armament installed on it. It is only to protect the lives of the police that would operate it.
Maybe that is your problem… you would prefer more cops get injured or die? Just asking the question because the opposition does not make any sense to me.
I think people simply do not like the idea and the ‘look’ of a military-style vehicle being used by our local police. It is very uncomfortable to us as Americans. And the fact that it seems unnecessary and possibly has costs of maintenance just adds to the problem.
It’s pretty clear to me that this thing should go.
Unless the issue is the cost of maintenance, symbolism, sensitivity and emotional response trumps common sense.
I get it. That sure makes for good public policy.
Most people don’t seem to think acquisition and maintenance of this vehicle exhibits common sense, either.
“It is a damn truck. Plain and simple. It is 100% defensive.”
If one of these rolled up on your front lawn (or towards a demonstration you were participating in) would you regard that as a defensive act? “Plain and simple” trucks don’t come with armored gun turrets. The whole point of an armored fighting vehicle is to fight, and anyone on the downrange end of that turret is going to understand it that way. You’re ignoring the obvious in trying to claim that this is just any old police vehicle.
Frankly, did you even *read* the GAO report in the links that I provided? Or are you just shooting from the hip here?
Really, Offering Balance, you are going to reduce this whole topic to a quibble over military nomenclature? That’s what you want to talk about right now, after I clearly an accurately identified the make and model of this weapon system? You’re going to quibble over a pun?
And yes, it is a weapon system. The F-35 is a weapon system too. I suppose you could argue that the F-35 isn’t a weapon system on the grounds that one generally attaches missiles and bombs to it, and then use THOSE to do the actual killing. I don’t think that argument will get much traction with anyone in the armed forces, though.
Fascinating, utterly fascinating!
I’ve been a long-time practitioner, trainer, and observer of public policy. How such policy is formed and altered is pattern that, through study, can be shown as often following very predictable paths. The current armored vehicle caper is a classic case-book example of a how something thought of as inherently beneficial is now widely depicted as being evil.
(In the interest of full personal disclosure, I think getting this item was unnecessary, based on probability of need alone. Yes, there exceedingly rare instances where an armored vehicle is desirable when a municipality needs to go into a “fire zone” for purposed of assault or rescue. In response, all that police agency has to do is call a regional armored car service used by banks and those folks will give you the pick of the litter, free. They will even give you a driver).
For the many, many, balanced-minded citizens out there, consider the following propaganda ploys:
The repeated and embellished references to Ferguson MO and its nexus to Davis. What is happening now in Ferguson lies ahead for Davis, because we now have a tank.
Yet, despite the hundreds of thousands of words expressed about this issue, not a single person has bothered to observe or note that no two communities are more dissimilar than Ferguson and Davis. Take standard comparison measurements of a municipality: economic, academic, cultural, educational, ethnicity, quality of local government, nowhere does Ferguson come within a whisper’s breath of Davis. Yet rolling a tank into Davis joins the two towns at the hip.
Oh, it’s not a tank, it’s an armored vehicle with no armament and no offensive capability. This was a characterization (and I’m certain it was a deliberate distortion) by the Mayor, and this vehicle will now forever more be a tank.
The petition was predictable, and will be successful in gathering a number of respondents. However, note the significant policy expansion beyond the idea of just getting rid of the tank; the examination of the complete inventory of the department, the sweeping conclusion that receiving military surplus is “unethical” and to be summarily abolished, and more money for specified police operations. No suggestion on how this million plus dollar program proposal would be funded. Perhaps another petition.
A vital component of effective public policy, not yet mentioned, is the most important. Timing. The greatest public policy ever created is doomed to failure if it is not introduced at the most opportune time. This is a skill and art of a practice public administrator that is difficult to teach. It’s really intuitive.
The armored vehicle acquisition evolved over a period of two years. What incredible bad luck for its supporters that the delivery of the tank happened when Ferguson was in turmoil. The rest, as they say, is history.
Phil Coleman: A vital component of effective public policy, not yet mentioned, is the most important. Timing. The greatest public policy ever created is doomed to failure if it is not introduced at the most opportune time. This is a skill and art of a practice public administrator that is difficult to teach. It’s really intuitive.
The armored vehicle acquisition evolved over a period of two years. What incredible bad luck for its supporters that the delivery of the tank happened when Ferguson was in turmoil. The rest, as they say, is history.
The timing component also involves a certain amount of luck, as you imply in the second paragraph.
Thanks for your comments. I was wondering what you thought of all this.
Phil: I appreciate your comments.
I want to respond to an interesting point that you make at the end, “The armored vehicle acquisition evolved over a period of two years. What incredible bad luck for its supporters that the delivery of the tank happened when Ferguson was in turmoil. The rest, as they say, is history.”
What is interesting is that the tank arrived well before Ferguson. I spoke to someone yesterday who saw the tank before Ferguson (questioned the need and politics of it) – but had the city rolled this out when it arrived, the reaction was have been in isolation to Ferguson.
That said, the concern about police militarization predates Ferguson. Radley Balko had his report last fall, the ACLU issued its report on June 24. But the two issue could have avoided conflation had the city been more transparent about the vehicle from the start and brought it to the council first.
Thanks for the clarification on timing of the arrival of the tank. While we are on that same topic, the element of timing had another manifestation when two members of the City Council found it necessary to wait 8 days after awareness before pronouncing that this was a bad idea.
To some extent that’s on the process. I learned about late last week, and wanted to have the photo in my possession and then an explanation from Chief Black before approaching council, so that took a few days to accomplish.
PhilColeman
I appreciate your perspective. However, based on evidence from our own community I see the issue differently. I think that the acquisition of the MRAP ( I will not in future posts erroneously refer to it as a “tank”) should have been put up for discussion prior to acquisition. In 2011 we had a real, not hypothetical case of pepper spray used from dispensers the use of which police were not properly trained and which were not intended to be used in the setting in which they were used. This is very recent, not distant history. What guarantees do we have that this “tool” or others obtained through this program will only be used appropriately ?
I think that the single most important thing in the acquisition of this vehicle may be is to alert the public to a practice that may or may not serve our best interests. I actually believe that this should lead to a public vetting of what the police have acquired through this program. I think that to claim that the acquisition of military equipment for local police use does not constitute
“militarization” of the local force is at best naive and at worst duplicitous. What else could it possibly mean but to convert a civilian protection service into a more “militarized” force. This device was designed for use in combat situations, not for maintaining peace and safety on the home front. If this were not true, we would be acquiring them from a vendor, not as military surplus.
I am not a signatory to the petition because I agree with your points about its emotional basis. However, I am adamantly opposed to the acquisition of this vehicle without thorough vetting of the evidence of need, efficacy and cost efficiency none of which appears to have been done by the police department, or if done, not presented publicly prior to acquisition.
While I do not believe that this vehicle in and of its self is a danger ( no guns in the turrets, etc ) I do believe that it changes the mind set of not only the citizens, but also of the police by reinforcing the idea of “the good guys vs the bad guys” which is already the predominant mind set as described by the police themselves. I do not believe that this in any way adds to the concept of community policing with protection of the citizenry as its goal. The last thing we need is further alienation between our police and our citizenry.
Personally, I do not object to all military surplus acquisitions. For example: binoculars.
Ferguson has nothing to do with returning the tank. Ferguson is unfortunate PR timing for supporters of the tank.
Ferguson has a great deal to do with returning this vehicle. Ferguson altered the public understanding of these vehicles in the same way the Birmingham protests changed how people thought about using firehoses or German Shepherds to control civil rights demonstrations. Two-thirds of Americans, whether liberal or conservative, now think our police forces have become too militarized. That alters how you can use this vehicle and that ought to influence our thinking on whether we keep this thing or return it. That’s not PR, it’s reality.
Ferguson was a factor, but the issue was gaining steam even before Ferguson, last fall Radley Balko had a very influencial article on the militarization of police and on June 24 the ACLU had an 88 page report on it.
I think your reading is a bit off.
First of all, you are incorrect that the vehicle does not have offensive capabilities. It is indeed a weapon system, designed to inter-operate with a number of other components, such as turret guns and antiaircraft guns. You could argue that it is a platform with the “sharp bits” removed, but that doesn’t do anything to change its function. Second of all, even without its turret gun, the MaxxPro is designed to crush people, cars and other obstacles. This is a good thing if you are being ambushed by insurgents and you would like to escape. This is a ridiculous, stupid thing otherwise.
Finally, I don’t think Davis is going to be the next Ferguson. I don’t think anyone seriously thinks that. Though, if you look at the crime statistics, Davis and Ferguson aren’t quite as different as you might expect. For example, Davis has far more sexual assaults than Ferguson. And indeed, Davis has experienced examples of police brutality that gained international attention.
Many people have been concerned about the very real, and very problematic, militarization of American police departments. Ferguson is the latest example of why it is so problematic. I don’t think any police department should have armored vehicles, tanks or otherwise, in any American city. That is what the Army is for. Distributing military hardware to police is an unethical, and possibly unconstitutional end-run around the Posse Comitatus Act. It may actually be worse than violating Posse Comitatus, because at least the military can be expected to be trained to use the hardware correctly. The Army doesn’t have to attend workshops on the latest strategies for diffusing domestic disputes involving Alzheimer patents, or memorize the finer points of the California Vehicle Code, or take night classes to improve their Spanish. The police do, because their job is already complicated as hell.
I don’t live in Ferguson, and I so I don’t see what right I have to tell them what steps should be taken in Ferguson. I figure I will worry about my own city, and hope that other people in other cities are thinking along similar lines. It seems likely that they are.
Check out this Last Week Tonight with John Oliver video clip, starting at the 7:55 mark, to get a feel for what it’s like to see a mine-resistant vehicle driving around in the city:
http://tinyurl.com/dv-mrap-3
Excellent link. As usual, good comedy gets at the crux of the matter without wasting a lot of hot air on justifications and rationalizations. Even one of these “dudes” gets it.
This vehicle can be a very useful tool for law enforcement. I hate to break it to you Tia but there are bad guys out there, so yes that is a proper mindset to have. Of course police do not view every citizen as a “bad guy” but to pretend they do not exist is dangerously naive. The MRAP for law enforcement purposes is used to safely deploy officers into a highly dangerous situation so that the situation can be safely and quickly be resolved. Of course there should be guidelines on when and how to use them, there are such guidelines for EVERY law enforcement tool.
I invite every outraged citizen to consider driving a Ford Crown Victoria (or your Prius if that makes it easier to relate) into the scene of an active shooter, or bank robbery, or homicide suspect search warrant.
For example, last years shooting in Roseville. A “bad guy” shot multiple officers and ran into a random house in an attempt to either elude officers or take hostages. Thank God the residents were able to flee out the back door before they were harmed or used as hostages. Davis PD’s SWAT team was one of the first regional tactical teams to arrive and assist Roseville PD. That house was surrounded with a perimeter and officers were safely moved into the area in….MRAPs. They were able to contain the suspect to that residence while safely housing their officers and avoiding deadly gunfire in…MRAPs. That situation was safely brought to an end without any additional officers or civilians being harmed. MRAP 1 bad guys 0.
As far as Ferguson goes, I am appalled. Appalled that there is more outrage at law enforcement for deploying officers in APC’s than there is outrage for demonstrators firing guns and lobbing Molotov cocktails at police. So, the MRAPs there were absolutely necessary to safely deploy and house officers being fired upon. Unless your argument is that the presence of MRAPs caused the protesters to grow violent and possibly deadly…then I can not help you, you are lost.
I have grown quite tired of the argument that police officers chose a dangerous profession so their safety means less.
I have grown quite weary of reading this bs:”I have grown quite tired of the argument that police officers chose a dangerous profession so their safety means less.”
On the job, cops are safer than tree trimmers, utility workers, aircraft mechanics, loggers, commercial fishermen. Taxi cab drivers are 8 times more likely to be murdered on the job.
Cops are overpaid, ridiculously in my opinion, for the little work that they do. Their union reps, Jack Webb and Paul Harvey, whose father was a police officer, killed in action, played the danger card, quite successfully over the decades, but it has never been less true than today.
;>)/
Police are safer than CalTrans workers who would be happy to have comparable benefits and retirement packages
theoherside
“The MRAP for law enforcement purposes is used to safely deploy officers into a highly dangerous situation so that the situation can be safely and quickly be resolved. Of course there should be guidelines on when and how to use them, there are such guidelines for EVERY law enforcement tool.”
I understand the rationale. I understand that there are dangerous people in the world. I understand that some of these dangerous people are criminals while some dangerous individuals are acting under the protection of their uniform. I understand that there are guidelines. And I understand that these guidelines are sometimes not adhered to, as in the example of the pepper spraying incident.
What I do not understand is why anyone would have thought it reasonable to acquire this vehicle without a thorough vetting with the city council ( if not the entire citizenry) including demonstration of need, efficacy in our setting and cost effectiveness. I also do not understand why anyone would object to an assessment based on these criteria.
I think those of us who are skeptical are concerned that it is far more likely to be misused or used in other ways from intention than ever be useful in dealing with a live situation in Davis. Given the cost of upkeep and training, I’m skeptical that it’s worth it.
Plus people are blind to political fallout and the harm that fall out can do for the faith and trust of the people in the council and the police department.
Given the small likelihood of use, it’s just not a good idea. If the fall out from this doesn’t convince you of that, I don’t know what to say.
With regards to Ferguson, I think many people, myself included, are more concerned about what the government and by extension the police as an arm of the government do rather than private citizens. We have legitimate remedies for dealing with citizens who breech laws and etiquette, but it is far more difficult to deal with the law when it goes rogue.
Law enforcement can’t even get proper training on the circumstances when pepper spray should be used. As evidenced in the lawsuit they lost. UCD lost money and the community was disgraced, with negative press, around the world.
Does anyone (besides Palin) believe they will use proper discretion with this tank?
I happen to have faith in my local police dept. I don’t think they’re the evil institution that many on here make them out to be. The over the top hyperbole is amazing, Tiananmen Square, Ferguson, tank, weapon, etc. It’s really all laughable. BTW, welcome back.
I have faith in them to. As I said in the petition, we have a very good department.
I would prefer to keep it that way. Police departments shouldn’t be asked to solve every problem. They should be asked to be very good at solving a limited number of problems.
As citizens, we are the boss here, and management ultimately falls to us. Part of being a good manager is making sure your employees have clearly defined jobs that they can do without burning themselves out. Sometimes, that means chasing them out of the office at five when they would prefer to to keep working, simply so that they get enough rest to do a good job the next day.
This is mission creep in its purest form. It’s not a nice thing to do to people.
There is no reason to be patronizing to Tia, and your use of good guys vs. bad guys is not the argument you want to use with her…
Patronizing? I do not see how I was being patroninzing. I was merely responding to a comment referencing her own words. But I am happy to take up the good guys v bad guys argument with anyone.
Fact is your Village has similar issues that everyone else has and to bury your head in the sand is not the answer. You can ride your bikes to Cafe Bernardo and ignore the fact that on the other side of town there are gang members and drug dealers. Those on the fringe of society that do not think twice about breaking into your house to take your jewelry. Those willing to sneak into your house in the middle of the night and stab you and your spouse to death. Those capable of drowning their own child then driving her to a relative’s house in her trunk.
Are you willing to send bicycle cops to Davis Senior High God forbid the day comes when there is an active shooter? Littleton CO did not have a need for APC’s or Officers with rifles on April 19th, 1999, but they sure did the following day. I dumbfounded at a community that gasps at a well trained well equipped Police Deaprtment.
I agree that an MRAP is a good vehicle to drive into a live shooter situation. The question is: How much money do we Davis taxpayers want to spend annually to keep such a vehicle up and ready for use for a situation that has, to date, never happened in Davis? How much money do we Davis taxpayers want to spend annually to provide effective mental health services to prevent someone from getting to the point of becoming a public shooter? Is there absolutely nothing that can be done to lessen the probability or likelihood of such an occurrence?
theotherside —
That is an interesting point. I wonder what they would have used if MRAPs had been unavailable? The kind of situation you describe has been happening with small variations for at least a hundred years in this country, and in most cases, the police have done their jobs admirably. As PhilColeman pointed out, armored cars can be used for this purpose, and often are. Armored cars are also street legal. MRAPs are not.
MRAPs are not street legal because they are so heavy they crush the roadbed. They are also prone to tip over. They are also difficult to see out of. They are also very wide. They do not have shrouded wheel wells. There are perhaps a hundred other ways that they fail to meet the California Vehicle Code. I’m not even sure it has functioning turn signals. Combine all of these, and you have a very hazardous vehicle to operate.
The entire class of vehicle was hastily cobbled together during the Iraq war to in response to the high numbers of casualties from improvised roadside bombs. If you ask soldiers who had to use them, the only fond memories you are likely to hear will be related to how well they stand up to high explosives. Other than that, they were pretty awful to work with.
If one were to design a vehicle for the tactical situation you describe, it wouldn’t be an MRAP. It would be an armored van, employed by American law enforcement agencies since Prohibition.
A CC member joking said to me that he/she thought that the tank should drive in next year’s Picnic Day Parade.
Maybe Santa can ride it, from the Davis Food Coop to E Street Plaza?
Get rid of it.
“Get rid of it.”
It’s doomed, and if we can find a way for everybody involved to safe face, all the better.
Cart it off to the nearest National Guard facility or “loan” it to a military museum. Say that re-activation of the notion will be discussed after, say, 20 years of further study.
I wouldn’t mind if this is what happened to it…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kplr_UDUIM
Oh, good, slacktivism to solve our tank problem.
May I remind everyone that 100,000 people signed a petition to get rid of Linda Katehi as UCD Chancellor. Who is the UCD chancellor after those 100,000 did so much to remove Katehi.
What those people did was — NOTHING. Signing an on-line petition is doing NOTHING.
I share your goal. My #1 goal is to TANK the TANK. Get the MRAP the F— out of Davis. Do something, ANYTHING, in addition or instead of signing a freaking on-line petition.
For more info: Google the word “slacktivism”.
Great. What do you suggest?
I observe that Linda Katehi is not answerable to voters. The City Council is.
Wrong, Alan. Katehi doesn’t have much political clout right now. She squandered it all — or most of it.
I think that makes me right; what political clout she has isn’t the issue. The issue is that she is still drawing her six-figure salary as a reward.
Let’s see what happens. She just now (this month) became vested in the UC pension system, so she might not want to stick around. That, plus she is in the process of being reviewed now.
The point is that you were wrong, Alan, to say that the petition meant nothing.
Thanks, it’s really nice to know your goal is point out I was wrong. I disagree with your assessment, I think you just like winning arguments when you are wrong. 11-18 was in 2011. The petition was in 2011. Those people wanted Katehi gone in 2011. It’s 2014, Katehi is still drawing six-figures and passing out cookies on the Quad. I win. I am right. You are wrong. Wasn’t that productive?
I can honestly say no, I wasn’t just trying to win an argument. Obviously, if I start out a comment saying “Wrong, Alan …”, then my purpose for the scope of that comment is to point out that you’re wrong, OK? Can we get along now?
The problem will be that THE POLICE will use this vehicle in ways THEY will justify as needed, in their minds, but which the vast majority of CITIZENS will find over-reactive. Basically the police will always bring out the biggest and scariest weapons on the excuse that the worst MAY happen. Problem is when they think and respond that way THE PEOPLE lose faith in their ability to balance any situation with respecting our rights. The police NOW see “us” as the enemy, in every interaction and their attitude and use of force proves that. When an officer stops you for even a minor traffic infraction (the most common reason you might interact) they look at you as a criminal to be taken down = YOU must be guilty of something. If you in any way “question their authority” even to ask a simple question you are on the path to big trouble = forget about your “rights” even when they are wrong.
This new MILITARY vehicle is just another indicator of how wrong the focus of police has become, especially in Davis. If the police feel they NEED this because they just want to be prepared then what is next ?? 105mm artillary, 20mm rapid gattling guns? I’m sure they could justify the POTENTIAL need and benefits.
Think avout it, every police car used to carry only a shotgun, now they all carry M16 style rifles and the pull them out immediately. THAT kind of action is what makes CITIZENS get angry with police behaviors especially when dealing with protestors = few people react well to having a loaded weapon pointed at them.
One very good thing that COULD come out of this is some public dialogue with DPD management and rank and file officers about what we citizens really want from our police. There is obviously a disconnect, even if it is innocently derived. I don’t assume their is any evil intent by the DPD, but acquisition of the MRAP is at odds with how the community views its needs and what it expects from our police force. Hope the City Council and Chief Black don’t let this opportunity pass without taking advantage.
Dave Hart
“public dialogue with DPD management and rank and file officers about what we citizens really want from our police.”
This is exactly what I am hoping for. It seems to me that there is a serious disconnect between the police vision of what it might mean to “protect” the community and at least what some segment of the community might perceive as the kind of “protection” that we want. I know that there will not be agreement from all, but surely we should at least have the discussion.
It would appear with this item having made the agenda as an informational item that the plan is not to let the opportunity to at least start the conversation.
Tia, I applaud your balanced approach. I agree that there appears to be a serious disconnect, and we as a community need to dialogue about the underlying causes of this disconnect.
Your level-headed, reasoned approach stands in stark contrast to the knee-jerk reactions that appeared early in yesterday’s comments on this same subject. Very little, if any community dialogue will be accomplished when the starting point of the conversation is, “I think it might be time to fire the chief of police. […] The purchase of the vehicle was “over the top,” and shows that the chief has developed too much of a police-centric view of law enforcement. We need someone with a broader vision.’
will there be any public viewings?
Hopefully the first and only public viewing will be of this thing chained down on the back of flatbed truck heading east on the Causeway.
iamalone
i don’t know about public viewing, but as of now it is on Tuesday’s City Council agenda.
Allan: “Tank the Tank.” What a great sign for my house, which is only a few feet from downtown?
Or, we could create a Davis Peace Museum, and park the tank by the front door as an exhibit highlighting the militarization of local police?
That tank looks lonely in the photo: sort of like a shaggy yellow mutt stray dog that is not housebroken?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/26/88894/police-fired-at-least-400-rounds.html
I wonder if these dead officers would agree that the MWRAP is not needed.
I recently read about a couple who accidentally fell off a cliff taking a selfie – perhaps if we had netting installed on all cliffs those tragedies could be avoided.
I would rather protect officers than interfere with natural selection.
The point is the expenditure of resources and energy on tragedies that are extremely unlikely.
It’s FREE. We’re being given a multi hundred thousand dollar vehicle that will hardly ever be used, but if it is ever needed it could be invaluable if it saves just one life. It has four wheels, not half tracks, so it can’t be that hard to train some of the staff to drive it. Since it won’t be driven many miles the maintenance can’t be that expensive. Probably just have to start it up once a month to keep things lubed and the battery powered. If the fire dept. was offered a free piece of equipment that was rarely used but could possibly save lives would we be having the same argument that it’s too expensive to train and maintain?
Barack Palin: “will hardly ever be used, but if it is ever needed it could be invaluable if it saves just one life.”
That sounds like the argument in favor of “four on an engine” in the recent fire department staffing debates.
Fresno County had an armored vehicle (shared among three SWAT teams) that was deployed in this situation after the first officer was shot and before the second officer was shot. A second vehicle arrived after that. So it seems that an MRAP was on the scene when the second officer was shot. (pp. 86-89 of report linked below).
A report on the incident prepared by 16 policing agencies (report’s term) concluded that Fresno County should acquire an “additional armored vehicle” (pp. 42-43), arguing that
“A second armored vehicle would address the following:
A second armored vehicle would
address the following:
• Enhance Public/Peace Officer Safety during Critical Incidents
• Provide More Options to the SWAT Commander
• Improve Availability for Simultaneous Critical Incidents
• Allow Multiple Armored Vehicle Deployment
• Provide a Vehicle for SWAT Training Exercises ”
http://www.breachbangclear.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/images_spoor_articles_Officer_Survival_Minkler%20Incident%20Full.pdf
The Minkler situation seems to support both the one-will-not-be-enough and mission-creep arguments of the anti MRAP/MWRAP side, and potentially the officer-safety arguments of the pro MRAP/MWRAP side. I didn’t see an explicit explanation in the report for how
oops, didn’t finish last sentence:
I didn’t see an explicit explanation in the report for how a second armored vehicle would enhande officer safety, so the report doesn’t really help us evaluate the substance of that argument. Of course, some will argue that we as generalist members of the public shouldn’t evaluate the substance of technical/tactical arguments.
BTW, “enhance,” not “enhande.” Also, should be explanation “of how.”
One thing I can agree with Frankly on is that it would be nice to be able to edit.
Let’s get the initializations straight:
MRAP = Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (vehicle)
MWRAP = Massively Wrong Resource Allocation (to) Police
I didn’t quite LOL, but I definitely smiled.
So it looks like a county of nearly a million people could use more than one armored vehicle to keep its officer safe. I’d agree with that.
Offering Balance
“I’d agree with that.”
Is this just a casual observation on your part, or do you feel that this in some way applies to the City of Davis
with its somewhere between 65 -75,000 population depending on whether or not you count the University and immediately
surrounding but unincorporated communities ?
Are you comparing this to Yolo County with its estimated population of approximately 205,000 ?
Are you supporting the idea that the need for armored vehicles to “keep its officer safe” should be based on a head count of the population or does composition of that population play some role in your needs assessment ?
Dr. Will, I generally like your comparison to doing the cost/benefit or risk/reward for a new piece of medical equiipment, but one thing makes me hesitate: would you want the Vanguard readership playing a role in your decision? I don’t want to reject arguments that this will help officer safety too quickly given that I am not an LE expert.
Although I’m pretty sure I disagree with the process here, I’m open to persuasion (or at least being persuaded to defer to LE expertise) on the substance, though leaning against.
BTW, I didn’t read that whole report on Minkler – I’m sure there’s a lot in there that I missed if anyone’s interested.
DavisVoter
I think that depends on what you mean by “playing a role”. If you mean that the Vanguard readership should be able to unilaterally veto the acquisition , my answer would be no.
But it seems to me that as residents of the community that the police are sworn to protect and defend, we should certainly have some say in the means by which that will be accomplished. I believe that there must be some kind of consensus about what are acceptable practices. For example, I doubt that many of us would be accepting of drones photographing who was coming and going from our homes 24/7 and displayed on constantly monitored screens although I am sure that an argument could be made by LE that this would be much “safer” for both us and them. What about monitors in each room of our homes which might conceivably have prevented the recent stabbings in Davis ? How far are we willing to move towards a fully militarized or fully monitored state in order to prevent the rare, but unthinkable travesty ? I personally believe that this is a discussion that needs to occur before a device such as this is acquired and only then after a thorough vetting of the pros and cons. We are an intelligent population. We have the ability to inform ourselves and decide whether or not we want this device. What I do not think that we should do is to blindly let LE make the decision for us unilaterally which is what has occurred here.
The denizens of the Porcine Pinnacle of Power like getting free stuff. They also like the sheep to distract themselves by engaging in entertaining, but ultimately irrelevant, debates of need, cost, and priorities while the free stuff keeps arriving with nice bows around it. Officer safety in an unlikely and hypothetical scenario balanced against the tangible reality of here and now free stuff is a no contest call. How about a nice submarine for Lake Berryessa to counter a terrorist infiltration from the west, and maybe a few predator drones to patrol the skies along the eastern flank? If it’s free stuff, why not bring it on? As long as the sheep stay in their pastures, what’s the difference?
Napoleon, are you jealous because the won’t drive??