COMMENTARY: The most frequently identified defense of the MRAP (mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle) has been that, while the vehicle figures to be used very rarely, if it ends up being used once to save an officer’s life in a live-shooter or other high risk situation, it will have been worth it. While that is certainly a legitimate argument, it makes the assumption that the only downside to the MRAP is mitigated through infrequent, if not unlikely, use.
In the last two days, two pieces have emerged that articulate why this is more of a problem than defenders of the policy might acknowledge.
The Sacramento Bee editorial board today writes an editorial entitled, “A healthy re-evaluation of the militarization of local police.” The editorial comes with a photo of the city of Davis’s MRAP.
“It took two weeks of civil unrest in Missouri, but the nation has started the hard and healthy discussion about the appropriateness of outfitting local law enforcement with military tools,” the Bee writes. “Images of Ferguson police officers clad in military gear and carrying assault rifles when confronting protesters angry after an officer fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown in August prompted a national outcry about the militarization of police.”
The Bee notes that the actions of Davis and San Jose, both of which are planning to get rid of their military trucks, together “signal an important shift in the public’s tolerance of militarized local police department for the first time since 9/11.”
They write, “On the eve of the 13th anniversary of that terrible tragedy, it’s a good time for a re-evaluation of whether we want Officer Friendly with a clipboard and pen or a GI Joe with camouflage and riot helmets patrolling our communities and neighborhoods.”
“The police had defended the new tool, saying it could be used to serve warrants on ‘high-risk’ people or if the city had an ‘active shooter’ situation. That’s what authorities call mass shooting incidents like Sandy Hook,” they continue. “Residents were appalled by the idea of a war machine on the streets of peaceful Davis. MRAPs were developed for use in theaters of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
The Bee adds, “We hope this gives other cities and police departments the courage to examine their own use of donated military equipment, especially armored trucks.”
“Certainly some police departments can justify the need for a bulletproof troop transport. Los Angeles, Chicago and New York police departments come to mind,” they add. “But probably not more than 600 cities.”
On Tuesday we learned that over a period of three years, Program 1033 has given 624 armored vehicles to local law enforcement agencies across the U.S., including about 12 communities with less than 10 full-time sworn officers.
“In other words,” the Bee writes, “Mayberry PD.”
The Bee never specifically articulates their objection but it appears to come down to what Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis referred to as “symbolism.” Mayor Pro Tem Davis said that “symbol matters,” and “we are a species that uses symbol” and “this symbolizes the most destructive force on the planet which is the US Military. I think we have to acknowledge that.”
He told the police chief, “I appreciate the trust that you’ve built in this community… this will hurt it.”
A very different take emerges from Phil Locke of the Ohio Innocence Project and Duke Law Wrongful Convictions Clinic, on the website, “The Wrongful Convictions Blog.”
Mr. Locke writes, “According to the latest data from the National Registry of Exonerations, 46% of wrongful convictions have ‘official (including police) misconduct’ as a contributing cause.”
He notes that the state bestows “official” “police powers” to the police and this makes “them very powerful.” He writes that “most police misconduct is manifested in the form of abuse of power, rather than simple error. In recent years, we have, increasingly, given the police not just ‘police power’ but ‘military power.’”
Mr. Locke references the Lord Acton quote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Mr. Locke writes, “Giving military power to police brings them that much closer to absolute power, and that power becomes easier and easier to misuse. This is compounded by the fact that the police have a demonstrated history of not being good at ‘policing’ themselves, and official police oversight is perfunctory.”
He continues, “Police departments will claim to have ‘internal affairs’ divisions. I submit this is like having the fox watch the henhouse, and they apparently don’t work, because police misconduct persists, and ‘official misconduct’ continues to contribute to 46% of wrongful convictions.”
Davis has, of course and as we note time and time again, gone through this battle before. In 2006, we had this debate and it was bloody and polarizing, and we emerged from it with a form of police oversight and better police administrative management that have greatly reduced the number of citizen complaints over the years.
But we need to be cautious rather complacent. A number of citizens who spoke two weeks ago noted that, while the current police administration is good, can we be assured that this continues into the future? Moreover, as we saw at UC Davis and indeed in 2006, sometimes the policies of the civilian leaders are the problem, not just the police.
It was only in July we had a councilmember appear to question the need for the police auditor position and, while they eventually supported the renewal of the contract, the discussion surrounding the police is enough to remind us that although we have a good system in place today to protect against abuses, it is neither permanent nor infallible.
Mr. Locke continues, “Everyone has recoiled at what has recently transpired in Ferguson, MO. A recent NY Times article relates events in Ferguson to the militarization of police: here.”
He writes, “This all started in 1990 with Section 1208 of the National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress. In 1996 Section 1208 was replaced with the Section 1033 DOD program, which is still in place today. And with the 1033 program in place, the wind down of the Iraq war opened the floodgates of military equipment available to police departments. See the Newsweek article How America’s Police Became an Army: The 1033 Program. See also the NY Times article War Gear Flows to Police Departments. While this was certainly well intentioned, the legislators failed to grasp the psychological impact this would have on the people who would actually be using the equipment.”
Mr. Locke argues that, while military equipment and fire power is scary, “all that stuff is really just an ‘enabler.’” He argues, “What’s really scary is what’s going on in the brains of the cops. They seem to be increasingly adopting a ‘battlefield’ mindset – vanquish the enemy – and giving them MRAP’s and M-16’s substantially reinforces that state of mind. Plus, if the police have all this stuff, of course they’re going to want to use it.”
That may seem over-the-top, and certainly in our community setting it might be. But there was the police officer in Ferguson caught on video threatening to shoot journalists, and then, of course, there was the local pepper spray. (This is an example that comes up because it is local, even though the police agencies were different).
Mr. Locke argues, “We’ve seen the evolution of excessive use of SWAT teams. SWAT teams have been around since the 1960’s, but SWAT teams are now commonly used to perform such routine functions as serving warrants and making simple arrests.”
He notes a recent debate between Radley Balko, Washington Post investigative reporter and author of “Rise of the Warrior Cop,” and Maricopa County (AZ) Attorney Bill Montgomery about the militarization of our domestic police.
During this debate, Mr. Montgomery stated, “These ‘elite’ officers have to stay sharp and on alert. They have to practice.” Practice by having a SWAT team storm a young mother’s home at 3:00 AM to serve a warrant and make an arrest? Might I suggest this is “over the top?”
Again, I do not believe that right now in 2014 there is a danger of such misuse from our local Davis police, but we cannot ignore the trend around the country, which is why you are seeing the pushback as articulated by the Sacramento Bee. Davis was just the first, but clearly will not be the last, to return their military vehicles.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Again, I do not believe that right now in 2014 these are a danger for our local Davis police, but we cannot ignore the trend around the country..”
Kevin Hughey can probably find cause for disagreement. As I have stated previously, its symbolic power was the MRAPs biggest weapon. The “police mentality” is them vs us. They don’t like us, don’t trust us, and are willing to kill us.
A Sketch of the Policeman’s Working Personality
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/17587-militarized-police-the-standing-army-the-founders-warned-about
http://www.lawenforcer.net/whycops/whycops.htm
;>)/
Biddlin my musical friend, I think you are afflicted with a certain dislike of authority. Why don’t you help paint the picture of your ideal society with or without law enforcement?
It is funny how I think of much of government as being them against us… them having a mentality that they don’t like us, they don’t trust us and they think we are stupid. But can’t say that I agree with your premise that that mindset transfers to law enforcement. I think law enforcement tends to focus a bit too much on that thin blue line of good and bad and sometimes is not blessed with the ability to make that optimum nuanced human decision during an encounter with citizens. But I understand that challenge… the need to make a split-second decision that, if wrong, can end in the officer or other citizens being harmed. No matter how good the training there will always be the potential for sub-optimized split-second decisions.
But there is a class of citizens that want to hold cops to some level of nuanced perfection and turn anti-cop when it does not happen. And many of this same class of people give their politicians and government officials 100% forgiveness for their mistakes even with them having the advantage of time and thousands of analysts on staff to help ensure an optimized decision.
I think I need to write a song about this… and I feel it would have to be the blues genre.
Here’s a tidbit, popular on all the cop fora, but I got it this time from:
Excerpts from “Why Cops Hate You” (The two I found suitable for all ages)
“It severely offends and deeply hurts cops when they administer a dose of good old fashioned street justice only to
have some bleeding heart do-gooder happen upon the scene at the last minute, when the hairbag is at last getting
his just desserts, and start hollering about police brutality. ”
“The best thing for civilians to do if they think they see the cops rough up somebody too much is to keep their
mouths shut at the scene, and to make inquiries of the police brass later on. There might be ample justification for
the degree of force used that just was apparent at the time of arrest. If not, the brass will be very interested in the
complaint. If one of their cops went over the deep end, they’ll want to know about it.
Most of this comes down to common sense, a characteristic the cops feel most civilians lack. One of the elements of
common sense is thinking before opening one’s yap or taking other action. Just a brief moment of thought will often
prevent the utterance of something stupid or the commission of some idiotic act that will, among other things,
generate nothing but contempt from the average street cop.”
http://www.lawenforcer.net/whycops/whycops.htm
There are plenty more, from cops all over America.
They all seem to agree that we are stupid and sufficiently inconvenient to warrant our execution.
;>)/
I don’t get the beat. Probably some underground anti-establishment genre that I am not familiar with.
By the way, I can find people with blustery ignorance in any industry. You need to do a better job providing that there are general problems if you are going to make such general negative claims about the police.
It would be like me saying that all guitar players are lazy drug users because I know a couple that are.
wasn’t kevin hugey west sac, not davis?
Yes he was not from Davis. If you do not remember he’s the guy that physically beat his 9 months pregnant wife. Then he grabbed the gun of the officer she called 911 to come rescue her. So yes, to answer your questions, not Davis.
I think Biddlin’s view is a bit out there. I think the Police like you just as much as anyone else, until it is time to act. To say they are out to kill you is just asinine.
I totally agree, you have some who will overlook the 9,999 good things cops do and just focus on the 1 in a 1,000 incident to attempt to make a point.
I concur with your sentiment BP.
U.S. News & World Report, 9/9/14: Pentagon Rethinks Giving MRAPs, Bayonets to Police
Hmmmm–under what circumstances would the police plan to deploy bayonets?
Possession of such weapons would seem to lend support the ‘paranoid conspiracy theory’ that the police are preparing to contain/quash massive civil unrest (which might occur after an economic crash or other disaster). A bayonet is clearly a military offensive weapon, designed for close quarters deadly combat (also is intimidating to a gunless opponent). How is this appropriate for a police tool? I certainly don’t want to see Davis foot patrols walking the ‘hood with bayonets!
I would agree more with this sentiment if we were giving the police “military” weapons, instead of “military” equipment that protects them from weapons.
how do you know we’re not, yolo county appears to have received quite a few automatic or semiautomatic rifles from the military, how do we know that some of those didn’t go to davis?
My view on whether the police you should get actual weapons from the military is very different from them getting protective equipment from the military.
Michelle wrote:
> I would agree more with this sentiment if we were giving the police “military”
> weapons, instead of “military” equipment that protects them from weapons.
The cops already have “military” weapons and now they have a “military” vehicle to shoot them out of.
Unless we are going to get a fleet of MRAPs and have the cops in them 24/7 the MRAP will do little to “protect them from weapons”.
Just like a sub for Stonegate lake this is nothing but a military “toy” that we don’t need that will suck up money.
That’s a pretty big blunder on the Sacramento Bee’s part where it says (in the photo caption) that the City of Davis is “considering getting rid of” the MRAP. Wrong! The City Council already decided that it must go. It’s just a question of *how* it will be gotten rid of, not whether.
I wouldn’t want to send Officer Friendly into a dangerous situation with only a clipboard and pen for protection.
and you wouldn’t be. they have guns, clubs, and tasers among other things.
So what should we be more concerned about? The weapons the police have or the protective equipment?
DP cannot answer that from any rational perspective. Because it is spot on. The MRAP is ONLY defensive and protective. That is the fundamental fact that sheds light on the anti-MRAP crowd being anti-cop or anti-law enforcement.
It is sad, but I think these folks really dislike cops so much that they don’t care if more get injured or killed in the line of duty. In their mind the cops are the real bad guys and everyone ending up in some type of encounter of confrontation with the cops is a victim or potential victim.
There is probably something psychological going on here… maybe some recoil against figures of absolute authority that has roots in past crucible events.
But then I was harassed a bit by Davis cops when I was young and had long hair and played in a rock and roll band. I looked like a drug user at that point even though I never touched the stuff. But I understood that looks are something that can cause suspicion in any reasonable person that calculates probability. Sure I was irritated, but I also understood.
I think what we see here in this anti-MRAP crusade is a big lack of understanding.
Anon
” Fact: the Davis police now have to go into situations involving high-powered weapons without sufficient protection”
I was with you on your facts until you got to this one. This is not true even per Chief Black’s assessment. When asked about the alternatives to having our own armored vehicle, he stated that one possible option was to share with other communities. You are attempting to frame the issue as “our own MRAP” or nothing which not even the police claim is the case. Your analysis completely ignores whether other alternatives might not leave us with a more nimble, responsive force. The police chief made no presentation of pros/cons, alternatives. He merely stated that he thought it was a good idea. With two years in which to present a compelling case for this as the best alternative this just comes down to “because I say so”. This would never be acceptable if I were requesting to use a highly technical piece of surgical equipment in a new setting for which it was not designed, and it should not be the case for law enforcement.
I agree with your plea to deal with this on the basis of facts, and believe that we should hold our police to the same standard.
Frankly
“It is sad, but I think these folks really dislike cops so much that they don’t care if more get injured or killed in the line of duty”
Something that I see as sad is your unwillingness to listen to what others who do not share your opinion are actually saying and are willing to make up reasons why their opinion might differ from yours. This postulation on your part is frankly disgusting to say nothing of false.
I await any factual evidence that this particular piece of equipment, designed to be used in an entirely different situation ( war) has proven useful in a setting such as that we have here in Davis. I guess your point is that facts and evidence matter only when they are presented by the citizens, but that the police just get a free ride to operate on their “opinion” only, unsupported by any evidence.
It’s time someone says it: the police need protection at all times and we must invest whatever it takes to make it so. Police cars are outdated and can be penetrated by automatic weapons fire. All Davis police cars need to be replaced with armored vehicles, and I don’t mean tomorrow, I mean now. In addition, police should no longer interact with the public without protective shielding. Therefore, all officers must enter their armored vehicles whenever they depart the fortified police station compound, and make all public contact from within the vehicles. If anyone flees, they will simply be squashed. Furthermore, officers are at risk leaving the police compound and on their way home, so they must either go home in their armored vehicles or be escorted home. Furthermore their families are in danger at all times and all family members must have protection from the Secret Service. This is just common sense. And if you don’t agree, you hate cops.
A.M.: It’s time someone says it: the police need protection at all times and we must invest whatever it takes to make it so…. This is just common sense. And if you don’t agree, you hate cops.
Maybe there is at least some tentative justification for a MRAP, in part because I don’t want to be accused of hating cops. But this is the same program that is distributing bayonets and grenade launchers. I’m having a hard time understanding how grenade launchers and bayonets would improve my safety or the safety of police officers.
Bayonets, grenade launchers given to local law enforcement
It is time that we reform the police to a modern progressive model. From here on out, all police will ride bikes. Motorized vehicles can be a weapon and are menacing and dangerous. The bikes will also have tassels on the handlebars and playing cards in the spokes to illicit smiles from the citizens. And police will not wear uniforms of any kind… because a uniform is symbolic to warfare and oppression. Police will wear kakis and loud Hawaiian shirts or button down oxford shirts. In the summer they will wear sandals and in the winter they will wear closed-toed casual dress shoes. Boots symbolize warfare and oppression and hence will be disallowed. And no weapons will be carried by police. Weapons worn and brandished by police have been proven to actually cause bad behavior that leads to crime. So, police will only be allowed to carry a clipboard and pen. Lastly, no police officer can shave his head or maintain a buzz-cut. The military has this hair policy and we don’t want out police looking anything like our military. Long hair and dreadlocks will be encouraged because the world likes people with long hair and dreadlocks and considers them more socially acceptable.
Alan: when my kids ride their bikes I make them wear a helmet. Would their head be safer if I made them wear a helmet all the time? Sure. But I believe in reasonable safety precautions. When police are knowingly entering a situation that they have a high risk of being shot at, I’d prefer they enter that situation with appropriate safety precautions.
“It is time that we reform the police to a modern progressive model . . . ”
Frank Lee you will receive the first place trophy for the Alan C. Miller touché snark-upon-snark award for September 2014.
“Alan: when my kids ride their bikes I make them wear a helmet.”
At least you let them ride a bike. I asked a friend what the hell was going on near one of the schools in town when I got stuck in a traffic jam mid-day a couple of different days. I was shocked to learn that the new paradigm is for parents to drive their kids to school, even in Davis. Why? I was told fear of predators was a top reason.
Which is worse? The very low probability of a predator snatching a kid off a bike in Davis, or the gas burned by the car and the lack of exercise for the kid?
I remember building dangerous ramps on pavement and the neighborhood kids launching off these, sometimes crashing. I don’t recall anyone in all the years I was in school ever landing on their head.
With national news feeds we get predators and kids landing on their heads. Are we better for all the precautions? Are we better with mandatory helmets? Civilian MRAPs? Kids being hand-delivered by SUV to school?
A war machine? If by that the author means a machine that is designed to protect soldiers in war time I guess it is an appropriate name. Is the argument that this machine will over protect our police officers, so we shouldn’t use it?
The peaceful streets of Davis? Yes for the most part the streets are safe. What are not always so safe are the “scenes” that police officers enter on a daily basis. Unlike the rest of they are putting themselves into potential dangerous situations all the time. If there is equipment that makes them safer when doing so I’d like to see them have access to it.
and how is this vehicle going to change that michelle? they aren’t planning to drive around in the vehicle on a daily basis, so what’s your point?
The Bee editorial paints the picture of this vehicle patrolling our safe streets. Do I think we need it for that? No. If the police are going into a situation where there is a high enough probability that they are going to get shot at, then I would like them to have access to a vehicle that offers them protection.
Michelle
“When police are knowingly entering a situation that they have a high risk of being shot at, I’d prefer they enter that situation with appropriate safety precautions.”
And so would I. So, when Chief Black or his designee provides actual evidence, not just opinion, that this vehicle provides “appropriate safety precautions” for our community that are better than available alternatives, then I would be inclined to
accept it. Until then, not so much so.
When has a cop in Davis ever been shot and that would not have happened had the officer approached the scene inside a MRAP?
It is not smart to be risk-averse when the levels of risk are very low. Police officers today–like our whole society–is far less willing to take modest physical risks than used to be the case. That is a huge part of the reason so many kids get so little exercise: Their parents are paranoid that their children might get hurt if they go out with other children and play rough games by themselves. Little do those parents realize the high price their children will pay by not risking a few broken bones along the way. Boys, especially, become men by engaging in rough and tumble games.
Alan Miller noted in this thread that some parents won’t let their kids ride bikes on their own because those parents are worried about the terribly low risk of their child being molested by a stranger. I was told by several people in Davis recently that they won’t let their kids ride their bikes because they are afraid of piles of leaves in the bike lanes, which might cause a kid to fall down. That is why those same folks are pushing this horrible idea of forcing homeowners on side streets with no bike lanes to containerize their lawn clippings.
What always shocks me is how very rare it is I ever see a group of boys, with no parents hovering over them, playing games that they make up and they organize. When I was a boy in Davis, a day did not go by that every park and empty lot all over town, plus in farm fields along the edges of town, were not covered with kids racing each other on bikes, playing tackle football, boxing, playing tennis or soccer, playing war with pretend guns, etc., etc. Violent crime rates, back then, were much higher then than they are now. However, the difference today is kids are not allowed to play on their own because our society has become averse to all physical risks, even though the result can be overweight and under-exercised children. And even if a kid still gets a good amount of exercise in organized sports, where his parents lord over his every move, not letting kids out to play harms a child in removing the real sense of adventure and self-direction that children need to grow up.
“Violent crime rates, back then, were much higher then than they are now.”
FWIW, I am completely convinced by the argument that removing lead from gasoline is why violent crime rates have fallen over the last 20 years in every country across the globe which had leaded gasoline and switched to unleaded:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/lead-crime-connection
Rich–good points, I agree. Seems to me that police policies are getting out of balance; overly cautious policies by police, including increased use of SWAT are leading to more property damage and rude treatment and roughing up of civilians, even non-threatening civilians that are generally cooperative. I’ve noticed a distinct shift in police treatment of civilians comparing “COPs” episodes from about 20 years ago to more recent “COPS” episodes–lots more rough takedowns and rather brutal (as well as rude) treatment of civilians–I think this is justified if the civilian is behaving violently or resisting arrest; but even civilians that are generally cooperative often get this rude/brusque/rough/brutal treatment–even cooperative, normal acting civilians are often treated like dangerous psychotic aniimals. Personal judgement or evaluation of a situation by the cop seems minimal in regard to their manner of arrest; instead they go (according to department policy I’m sure) with a one-size-fits-all policy for rather rough arrest treatment.
One other thing which is related to the MRAP story is the acquisition last year of 15 high powered military rifles, M-14s and M-16s, by the Davis Police Department. They don’t NEED those weapons. Those guns fire gigantic cartridges, designed to penetrate through buildings to kill people at a long distance. But if you buy into this, take-every-precaution-possible mentality, no matter how highly unlikely it is to offer any real help to the police mission in Davis, you will favor our cops having these weapons of war, just in case.
I see this kind of tactic as more of the same risk-aversion. Rather than doing what cops are supposed to do–use intelligence and take some reasonable risks to maintain public order–they will now stand back some 1,000 meters and fire these massive guns, so they are 100% safe from “the bad guys.”
This is exactly what played out a couple of years ago when the cops in Sacramento killed a carjacker (who was very much a bad guy, no irony intended). They could have run him down on foot as he fled under the Causeway. But they cops would take no chances in a foot chase. So they let him get away, which gave him time to assault two more innocent people and hijack two more cars. When the police finally found him, they stood back hundreds of yards and shot and killed him with an M16. In my opinion, and the opinion of several retired cops I spoke with, everyone would have been better served if the cops would have conducted a foot chase after he jumped 12 feet off the Causeway into the mud. But the 45 cops who saw him running did nothing. They were too afraid of getting hurt jumping into the mud. And the public was stuck for 14 hours as more cops stood around doing nothing “investigating” the scene at the Causeway where he first crashed one of the cars he stole.
They were too afraid of getting hurt jumping into the mud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojvHyQCHhVc&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DojvHyQCHhVc&has_verified=1
So we should deny our current police force, who we trust, access to free equipment that increases their safety because some hypothetical future police force may misuse it?
yes we should.
And how exactly to you see this piece of protective equipment being misused in a way that puts the public at risk?
Michelle, you’re making way too much sense and are putting forth arguments that can’t be refuted.
Michelle
You seem to be making a good point about the problems inherent in decision making based on some “hypothetical future” scenario. This is exactly how I feel that the decision to acquire the MRAP in the first place was made.
The questions that Chief Black should have addressed ( preferably prior to the acquisition, but certainly when called upon to make his formal presentation) were the number of incidents that we have had in Davis in which an armored vehicle would have been needed for the protection of officers. What he gave us were three possible scenarios in which the vehicle “might” have been helpful, and a total of none, comparable to our community in which one had been helpful.
So I agree with you that decision should not be made based on hypotheticals, either on the part of the citizenry, but equally on the side of the police.
“And how exactly to you see this piece of protective equipment being misused in a way that puts the public at risk?”
You and I have had this conversation in person and here in print. Any piece of equipment can be used in both helpful and harmful ways be it a scalpel, or a canister of pepper spray, a weapon, or a piece of equipment designed to protect its occupants.
This particular piece of equipment has significant potent ion for intimidation. Once occupied by armed individuals, this becomes a very formidable piece of equipment. You are making the assumption that it will only be used exactly as described. And yet I have named at least four situations in our own country in which equipment has been used against citizens in harmful ways for which it was never intended. In each case, there was a scramble to justify what had already occurred based on a chain of mistaken judgements both on the part of civilian leadership and the police charged with carrying out their orders. In each case, their was shock and horror on the part of civilians that “something like this could happen here”.
Prior to the use of pepper spray on the UCD campus, I am quite sure that most of us would not given much credibility to it happening here. And yet it did. This is fact, not speculation or a hypothetical. Anyone who has talked with me or read my posts here knows that my concern is the potential for the inappropriate use of this vehicle in suppression of legitimate protest as has happened in a number of documented cases in our country.
I am a strong believer in fact and evidence. If Chief Black had presented instances in which such a vehicle had been useful here in Davis, or giving him a wide berth, even in any other comparable community, I was ready to listen with an open mind. This did not occur. Given that he had two years to present his evidence, I am left thinking that perhaps he did not present it because it does not exist. Once again, I would be completely willing to be proven wrong.
Tia: Should we rid the police of every piece of equipment that they carry that has the potential to be mis-used? And should we start with the ones that offer them protection?
Michelle
No. Each piece of equipment should be judged on its own merits. I would guess that Chief Black could make a very strong case for his police having batons, handcuffs and firearms. He made no case at all for the utility of the MRAP in our community. He did not even try to do so. For instance how about starting with the number of times within the past 10 or 20 years when the armored vehicle that we had was essentially in saving the lives of police or civilians ? I would have loved to hear the actual facts.
I think it would have been great to have these facts before council voted to return the MRAP.
I challenge the notion that this equipment is “free.” We have yet to see a competent budget for acquisition and maintenance beyond the $6k transport expense. There are credible reports of civilian conversion cost (which I consider to be part of acquisition) in the $20k to $70 range, and at least one department has returned its MRAP due to exorbitant maintenance and operation costs.
Fact and evidence? Open mind? News flash,Tia. You were stridently opposed to the MRAP before Chief Black ever said anything. You went apeshit with the very first VG article on the subject. The written record is quite clear on this point.
-Michael Bisch
DT
Check out my comments at City Council.
So your argument, Jim, is we don’t know.
-Michael Bisch
My argument is that we do know it’s not “free,” despite efforts of the PD to characterize it as such. What we don’t know — and now may never know — is just how “not free” it is.
Sure seems like a tempest in a teapot. Seems like we have a pretty level-headed police force in Davis.
Equipment like this isn’t necessarily intended to address the problems we regularly encounter – it is being distributed around the country for incidents which we may not be able to easily imagine today, but which might arise tomorrow.
ISIS, the junior varsity, for example. Living in the shadow of the leading researchers and designers of GMO’s. Living just down the street from the capitol of the ninth largest nation state in the world which just honored Hollywood’s own, “The Terminator”. Our region could easily become a target of a violent, extremist group which detests our values and wants to make a statement. Don’t think we’re on that list?
Borders like a porous sieve.
As they say: “Shit happens”
If this, relatively inexpensive piece of equipment could help in protecting against these unforeseen threats – anywhere in the Sacramento Region – it doesn’t seem unreasonable for our law enforcement department to be the region’s safekeepers.
Well said.
I have a life insurance policy that I hope I never have to use. But I have it. And I would be considered irresponsible if I rejected having a life insurance policy. I think our majority CC was irresponsible on the MRAP decision.
“I think our majority CC was irresponsible on the MRAP decision.”
They were irresponsible for their decision and for caving to the local loud liberal activists.
BP
Your statement is not factually true, as all three of the votes to dispense with the MRAP were from council members who came to the meeting having already stated their preferences and I believe were waiting, as was I , for some compelling data from Chief Black that would outweigh their objections. They did not receive any such information and thus I believe from personal communications with all three, decided to carry out their initial intent.
To me the epitome of responsible decision making is to formulate your opinion based on the facts available, your own values and beliefs while maintaining an open mind so that if at the end of the information gathering, nothing is presented to contradict your view, you will then vote according to the best information available. This is what I believe that all the council members did. Three saws no compelling reason to change their opinions, two wanted more time for further discussion. I believe that all acted responsibly. Some of us were pleased with the outcome, some not. This does not make either side irresponsible and I cannot consider it “caving” just because the majority happens to hold the same position at which you have arrived.
Frankly
I will be so bold as to postulate that your life insurance policy could never be used to transport highly armed individuals into a situation that they might or might not completely grasp the true danger and might or might not appreciate that the only truly dangerous force in play was themselves.
This for me was the crux of the issue at the time of the UCD pepper spraying. A militarized force was sent forth to clear a few students tents because of the fear ( completely unsubstantiated) that someone might rape a student. So the UCD police themselves caused actual harm in a futile attempt to prevent hypothetical harm. But of course, that couldn’t happen “here” !
used to transport highly armed individuals into a situation that they might or might not completely grasp the true danger and might or might not appreciate that the only truly dangerous force in play was themselves.
Tia – with all due respect, I have to ask if you really read and think about what you write. It does not make any sense to me.
Related to this comment please explain the different between the MRAP and a standard police vehicle.
Frankly
I am always happy to explain when unclear.
The recent pepper spraying incident happened because of failures of the civilian leadership to accurately assess the “dangers” of the situation into which they were sending the police. The police either did not corroborate the information provided to them by the civilian leadership ( perhaps they did not see that as their job ) but instead acted as though they were moving into a truly dangerous situation, when in fact, the worst action against the police was shouting a few obnoxious phrases which were rapidly quelled by the protest leaders. There was no danger to the police. They were the only dangerous individuals on the quad that day.
Now, I know from hours and hours of watching the clips from a variety of angles, that the Davis police were not directly involved in the use of excessive force, but it also appears from the tapes that they did nothing active to prevent it either. I believe that this was a mistake in the assessment of the degree of danger and in the assessment of what type of response was indicted. If it could happen at UCD and in Seattle, by the police chief’s own assessment, do you really think that it could not happen here ?
What I hear you saying in the above question Tia is that the only measurement criteria that is satisfactory is perfection. Since we are dealing with human beings, who make human judgments and human errors, there is 100% chance that “it could happen here” and therefore, based on those criteria the decision is preordained. However, the death of a policeman as a result of weapons fire also “could happen.” That leaves us as a society to weigh which is a more powerful argument “could happen #1” or “could happen #2.”
In many problem solving analyses one of the steps in looking at various possible scenarios is a “fatal flaw analysis.” It this case it may be an apt term.
Tia – You are still not addressing the question. If your problem is the risk of bad judgment by the police (and I won’t even get into the fact that your assessment of what is good or bad judgment is likely different than is police best-practices in many instances), then again, what is the difference between a patrol car carrying police to the scene of some incident or an MRAP?
Can you do the delta analysis? With MRAP or without MRAP… you commented that your problem was that the MRAP could transport highly armed individuals into a situation that they might or might not completely grasp the true danger and might or might not appreciate that the only truly dangerous force in play was themselves.
But then if not the MRAP, it will be something else doing the same. The rejection of the MRAP does not change the fact that some vehicle will transport armed police to the scene of some conflict or crime that the police believe is justified.
Let me help you out. I only see two differences.
1. The MRAP keeps the police being transported safer, and it also provides more potential utility to save citizens in harm’s way.
2. It symbolizes military and war to some people.
Anything else?
And if you don’t have anything else, then we get back to the point that we allowed our hypersensitivity over symbolism to cause us to make a decision that means less potential protection for police and citizens.
Does the MRAP emit pepper spray?
“Seems like we have a pretty level-headed police force in Davis.”
i used to practice law in yolo and that hasn’t always been the case. saw some crazy police work coming out of davis.
I take great offense to the term “militarization of police”.
[edit — contact the moderator or the blog owner if you have concerns about moderation actions or policies on the Vanguard. — Don]
At this time in US history, as in other times in US history, the population is war-wary. “Militarization” has a profound negative connotation because we are all sick of it. In our American Idol don’t-worry-be-happy pop culture, there is a strong pull to rid ourselves of all the downers… and war is probably the biggest downer of humanity. But even though we are all sick of war and want to rid ourselves of the symbolism of war, it is highly inappropriate, especially at this time in our war-weary history, to label police as being war-like. It is in fact a highly inflammatory label. And it is clearly meant to promote the anti-law enforcement agenda by painting the police as something they are not.
The police are no more war-like than they were 50-years ago.
So, the term “militarization of police” is in fact a lie, propaganda, a pejorative term against a specific class of people. It is meant to be provocative and inflame. It comes from a certain heat of anger and frustration from those more prone to distrust or dislike the police.
If the police have in fact become more militarized, then the burden of proof for the use of that label falls on those using it. And since it cannot be proven that the police have become any more militarized over the last 50+ years, the term should not be used.
The MRAP is not a tank. The police are not militarized or becoming militarized. The police are tasked to do a job. And that job requires certain tools, training and protocol. How about focusing on the tools, training and protocol and stop using terms that are just meant to demean one group at the glee of another?
better complain to the new york times, newsweek, time, radley balko, and most of the national press then.
You mean the liberal mainstream press that is infested with people owning a dislike of law enforcement?
So based on this point I should be able to use any label as long as I can connected it to other publications?
DP, that sounds like Barack Palin’s argument about global warming. Given the overwhelming effect of (other countries on global warming) or (the new york times, newsweek, time, radley balko’s use of the term “militarization of police”), we should simply not try and do anything about that here in Davis because our efforts will go unnoticed on the world-wide/national stage. Those two arguments appear equivalent to me.
If we are going to be fair and balanced, shouldn’t we also be having a discussion about the militarization of the criminal element?
Matt, funny but I don’t seem to remember that. Is that something maybe Peabody or John read?
Don’t remember what BP? If it is the quote to which I referenced here is one example:
I’m reasonably sure that John read whatever you are referring to as well. I can speak for John because the legal prohibition on seeing the name Matt Williams in public has expired, but you are going to have to find out from Peabody whether she read the something that you are referring to. I can’t speak for her.
Matt – I don’t think you can use the term “criminal element”, because that de-humanizes those people that just make mistakes in life, or that have some mental or psychological challenges.