![](https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DPD-Police-Vehicle-1024x768.jpg)
![MRAP](https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DPD-Police-Vehicle-1024x768.jpg)
Earlier this week, the venerable Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning proclaimed that the “MRAP debate (is) back on (the) front burner.”
Mr. Dunning acknowledges, “No, even if Davis hadn’t given away its Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected military surplus vehicle to Woodland, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome of last weekend’s horrific murder-suicide in West Davis … in fact, it appears nothing could have prevented this young killer from doing what he did, whether as part of a well-thought-out plan or a spur-of-the-moment decision …”
However, like many others, he argues that “had there still been an active shooter inside the home when the police arrived, an MRAP most certainly would have come in handy … those who have contended all along that Davis doesn’t need a MRAP are right — apparently we need two MRAPs … yes, before the night was over, the Davis PD had ordered up a MRAP from West Sacramento in addition to the former Davis MRAP from Woodland, though it turns out neither was actually necessary given the circumstances of this tragedy …”
He continues wondering if the Davis City Council will “now reprimand the Davis Police Department for bringing two MRAPs to town on the night in question.”
He concludes, “The bottom line here is that the MRAP was unceremoniously farmed out to Woodland not in the interest of public safety, or the safety of our police officers, but purely and simply to protect some sort of mythical image we have of ourselves … that decision, as this most recent tragedy has shown, was both sad and silly …”
I completely disagree with Mr. Dunning. The fact is that this incident shows that we do not need an MRAP. This was a murder-suicide. It was tragic and horrific and my heart goes out to the families, but as Mr. Dunning noted, there is nothing that could have been done by authorities to stop it. It was not an active shooter incident, we have not had an active shooter incident, and it is unlikely ‒ despite the fact that we know there are weapons in this town that are dangerous ‒ that we will have an active shooter incident.
Secondly, as I wrote this weekend, I am troubled that the city council specifically voted to get rid of the MRAP because it did not reflect the values and character of the town, but at the first sign of trouble, the Davis Police Department brings the MRAP back in – in fact, two of them.
It was just about six months ago that Mayor Dan Wolk said, “Our community is the kind of community that is not going to take well to having this kind of vehicle. We are not a crime-ridden city.”
The mayor added: “When it comes to help from Washington we, like most communities, have a long wish list. But a tank, or MRAP, or whatever you choose to call it, is not on that list.”
In October, Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis told Councilmember Brett Lee that he was willing to put resources into a vehicle that provides protection to the police, however, he argued that the MRAP is really not an appropriate vehicle for our community.
“I would be very willing to put resources into a vehicle that provided protection,” he said. “It’s not just that symbols matter, which they do. I tried to speak to that. Some people agreed with that perspective, some people didn’t.
“Fundamentally I don’t think the vehicle, the MRAP, is adapted to our situation,” he continued. “It does one thing well, it protects people inside.” Citing military literature, he argued, “There’s a lot of disagreement about the value of this vehicle.”
The values of this community are opposed to the use of military weapons and opposed to the militarization of the police. It is offensive to me that our city council would vote twice last year to return the vehicle, only to have the police bring it back in as though it were okay for the vehicle to be housed in Woodland and West Sacramento, but used here.
As I wrote, these none of these concerns expressed in the discussion last fall change if the vehicle is housed in Woodland and used here.
“I believe very personally that we need to create a very clear line of separation between military and police,” Robb Davis stated. He reiterated his trust and appreciation for the local police, but added, “I said it will hurt [that trust], it will, if we bring military equipment in.”
But we have not heard a word from the city council on this issue.
To those who argue that had there been high-powered weapons involved, there would have been a need for the MRAP. I disagree. I am not callous to the concerns of the police – they have money in their budget for new equipment and if they wish to bring in a BearCat as a civilian armored vehicle, I will not oppose it.
However, I continued to believe that the MRAP is largely unneeded in Davis, that having a military vehicle undermines our values, and, if anything, this incident shows how easy it will be for the police to deploy the vehicle.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How many of you who demanded that DPD get rid of the MRAP want the city to purchase a Bearcat for DPD? In other words you do not want DPD to have the MRAP but instead have no opposition to the acquisition of the Bearcat. In the spirit of transparency the Ferguson Police Department has a Bearcat and deployed it during the protests/riots in that town. This is the vehicle that David appears to be advocating that the city spend $350,000 on to acquire. As far as militarization of the police the whether the police have a Bearcat or MRAP is a distinction without a difference in my opinion.
My feelings exactly zaqzaq. We had a free vehicle that pretty much would serve the same functions as the Bearcat but our local activists couldn’t stand the fact that the MRAP came from the military so they cried. Now we may end up spending $350,000 for something we had for free. Asinine.
How do you rack up a sticker price of $350K for a BearCat G2? Is there a stealth version that you are thinking about?
“As far as militarization of the police the whether the police have a Bearcat or MRAP is a distinction without a difference in my opinion.”
There’s a difference between a military vehicle and a civilian vehicle.
David,
What is the difference between a military vehicle (MRAP) and a military vehicle (Bearcat). If I paint “police” on the side of one of them do they all of a sudden become civilian vehicles? Are you advocating for the purchase of the Bearcat used by military around the world and by the Furgeson Police Department in keeping the peace at protests/ riots over the MRAP used by the US Army in Iraq and police agencies all around our country? Exactly what is the difference between the two vehicles? Or is it the knee jerk reaction to having a vehicle used in Iraq the only issue. What if Bearcats were also used in Iraq? Maybe they were. See below.
From the Wikiepedia.
“The Lenco BearCat is a wheeled armored personnel carrier designed for military and law enforcement use. It is in use by numerous military forces and law enforcement agencies around the world.”
From the Lenco website:
“Lenco trucks can be used in a variety of missions. The BearCat, our best selling truck, may be used as a S.W.A.T. or Military Counter Attack and Rescue Vehicle and is often used in hostile Urban Environments or as a Patrol/Reaction Vehicle on a Military Base.”
So you’re arguing that we shouldn’t have a BearCat either because it’s also a military vehicle?
David,
No. You stated, “There’s a difference between a military vehicle and a civilian vehicle.” From your article the civilian vehicle you referred to is the Bearcat which is also in reality a military vehicle. So why is the Bearcat military vehicle better than the MRAP military vehicle. I have yet to see a detailed cost and use analysis comparing the two vehicles with regards to their use by DPD in our city. Or is the issue that we do not want a military vehicle used in Iraq but one used in France is ok?
Why don’t you take my little quiz below? What is your answer?
“A Davis resident calls the police and tells them that they heard loud arguing between a man and woman followed by what they thought were three gunshots coming from their next door neighbors home. All is now quiet next door. They also believe that the neighbor has rifles inside the home used for hunting elk and deer. Do you roll the MRAPs as part of a SWAT call up. If not what do you do? David, hop to the front of the line on this one.”
I was told the Bear Cat was a civilian vehicle, if it is not a civilian vehicle, then I will not support it’s use in Davis.
Wow! “I was told the Bear Cat was a civilian vehicle, if it is not a civilian vehicle, then I will not support it’s use in Davis.”
There are identical twin males. One grows up, becomes a doctor, risks his life, and helps save a village in West Africa from Ebola. The other grows up, becomes a soldier, risks his life, and saves a village in Iraq from ISIS.
So, the doctor brother is welcome to take up residence in Davis, and the soldier brother is not?
The BearCat is an armored vehicle built by Lenco Armor. There are several models including the G2 which are in common use by law enforcement agencies. All of the BearCat models are available in law enforcement, military and international versions. It is the equipment that determines how these trucks are used, not the basic vehicle. The BearCat model suggested by CC member Brett Lee is a very high-priced version: the BearCat Tactical SUV. This model is intended for use by diplomats, VIPs and Saudi princes and is very pretty. It is not a good choice for DPD or SWAT team use.
http://www.lencoarmor.com
Price considerations aside the BearCat is an armored vehicle that is much better designed for law enforcement agencies than an MRAP. The BearCats are faster, lighter, shorter and more maneuverable. Parts availability down the road will be much more accessible for the BearCat and finding parts custom-designed for the military will not be an issue.
The police had no idea what they were walking into with this incident. Calling in the MRAP’s was the smart thing to do. If it had been an active shooter incident and one of our cops had been killed I’m sure the outcry would’ve been “why didn’t they call in the MRAP, we have two close by”.
Saying we didn’t need the MRAP in this situation would be like saying that a town that lives near a bulging river that looks like it’s getting ready to flood and hurriedly puts up sandbags but later sees that the river never rose to the sandbag level so therefor that town doesn’t need sandbags. Ludicrous.
The reason that the members of the city council have not criticized and will not reprimand the Davis Police Department’s decision to bring in the MRAPs is because they are not stupid. Based on the information at hand the correct decision was made by the police. What firearms were found in the home? What gun was used in this double homicide? All the police will have to do is trot out a high powered rifle found in the residence or a picture of the killer with one of these weapons that can penetrate the police officer’ protective vests to justify the decision. It sounds like David’s litmus test for bringing the MRAP into town is to wait for a police officer to be shot with one of these weapons.
Even “Dan in a Bubble” who does not know the difference between an MRAP and a tank will not criticize the deployment of the MRAPs in this case. He is not that stupid. He has ambitions of running for higher office and that wold be a sound bite that would make him look stupid. What is Dan’s definition of “crime ridden”? Our murder rate is skyrocketing in recent years along with a significant increase in property crimes. The increase in the homeless population in this town has also lead to an increase in the types of crimes committed by these individuals. It does not look like the police or city are effectively doing anything to address these issues.
Here is my little quiz. A Davis resident calls the police and tells them that they heard loud arguing between a man and woman followed by what they thought were three gunshots coming from their next door neighbors home. They also believe that the neighbor has rifles inside the home used for hunting elk and deer. Do you roll the MRAPs as part of a SWAT call up. If not what do you do? David, hop to the front of the line on this one.
The prevailing theme by supporters for the acquisition of a mobile armored vehicle is that it affords a greater level of protection and safety of field officers. OK, got that. A nice sentiment, and appreciated by every law enforcement officer.
Then we have some astonishing expressions of support from the City Council arena that would be receptive to an allocation of upwards of $350, 000 to increase the level of personal safety for Davis patrol officers–to be used in a particular and infrequent circumstance of potential officer hazard. Note that last qualifier.
$350K is a tidy piece of change. Lots of wonderful things could happen to the Davis Police Department were it given a huge supplement like that. So, why don’t we put a MRAP, or its equivalent, in the context of “greatest need” and measure it in the larger perspective of overall police officer safety?
The City Manager tells the Police Chief, “Landy, the Council is willing to give you $350,000 to maximize the safety of your officers. Come back in two weeks with a detailed staff report on how you’d like to spend such a sum to meet a dictate of maximized officer safety for your people.”
I’ve been away from the police chief fray for a long, long time. But some things in police work don’t really change that much, and I’m betting a MRAP type vehicle would be completely missing from the imaginary staff report mentioned above.
PhilColeman, I get it that the DPD probably wouldn’t spend $350,000 on a Bearcat instead of other things if given a choice. But what if the DPD was offered an MRAP for free that would afford some safety to its officers? Don’t you think the DPD would jump on that? Oh wait, they already did but our local activists and council, in all their wisdom, overruled that decision.
The MRAP offers police departments armor, limited mobility and little else. It is a heavy, lumbering vehicle that was intended to protect US soldiers from being blown to smithereens by roadway IEDs. At one time IEDs caused up to 70% of the Coalition casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s why the MRAPs were built. Police departments can easily put $70K of improvements into a MRAP to make it functional for police work. That doesn’t include the paint job. I’ll admit $70K may be cheaper than $225 for a BearCat G2 but a MRAP equipped for local police duty is never going to work as well as purpose-built BearCat G2.
It seems that the MRAP is good enough for Woodland to own one and good enough for us to borrow it.
Second best is better than nothing but I would rather see DPD using the right equipment for the job.
Second best is good enough when you can’t afford the best.
Except for one problem – it’s not even second best and the police were forced by public outcry to give it up.
If DPD needs an armored vehicle for SWAT operations and cannot afford a BearCat G2 then a converted MRAP is a cheaper substitute. A repurposed MRAP will not be as fast, light and maneuverable as a BearCat. A MRAP driver’s door can weigh 200 lbs. so don’t slam this on anyone’s hand. The things are 10 feet tall. Just the paint job can cost $20K. MRAP is not free. I believe delivery costs are involved. We already paid for MRAP: the DOD paid $45B to have them built.
If the City of Davis cannot afford a BearCat or other similar commercial armored vehicle for its SWAT team then the DPD acquisition of a surplus MRAP was a smart move and handing it off to Woodland was a poor choice.
So they can allocate up to $70,000 for the MRAP improvements and $280,000 on other items, spend $350,000 on other items or get the Bearcat? I suspect they would go with the first option.
I am troubled that the city council specifically voted to get rid of the MRAP because it did not reflect the values and character of the town,
like the constant use of the term “justice”, “character” and “Values” are defined by whomever uses the term at that particular moment. My definition of justice ,character, values, community, …… or whatever the latest feel good buzz phrase is not the same as yours or necessarily anyone elses.
“How many of you who demanded that DPD get rid of the MRAP want the city to purchase a Bearcat for DPD?
“The City Manager tells the Police Chief, “Landy, the Council is willing to give you $350,000 to maximize the safety of your officers. Come back in two weeks with a detailed staff report on how you’d like to spend such a sum to meet a dictate of maximized officer safety for your people.”
As someone who strongly urged ( not demanded) that the MRAP be disposed of I would favor the purchase of a Bearcat if and only if the detailed staff report once submitted showed unequivocally and based on fact, not speculation, that the Bearcat would provide more protection for the police than any other use of the $350,000. I am betting along with Phil Coleman that other uses of this money might be better for maximization of officer safety, but I simply wouldn’t know without such information which we are very far from having seen at police presentations or in the local news.
What if the use of the $350,000 included the MRAP and other items as a better use of the money than just purchasing the Bearcat? Would you then support having the MRAP.
I will not under any circumstance support the MRAP. I believe that the militarization of police is dangerous to the liberty of American Citizens. I am willing to find civilian vehicles that will perform a need that the police believe they have. If they are not willing to spend the money required to purchase it, that’s then their choice.
The CC sets the budget for the DPD. It is the CCs choice. Please take my quiz above. Thanks.
The cc sets the overall budget. The departments have some discretion within that budget as to what to purchase.
“I believe that the militarization of police is dangerous to the liberty of American Citizens.”
Let’s go back to those ‘founding’ beliefs. Police had no guns. Since the late 1700’s, we have “militarized” the police. They now have guns, including semi- and full-automatic weapons. They have “riot shields”. They have flash-bang grenades. They have bomb disposal apparatus. They have bullet-proof (resistant) vests. They have a hierarchial chain of command (using terms such as corporal, sargeant, lieutenant, captain). Much more. All came from military applications. Are you now saying we should “demilitarize the police” and throw that all aside?
No. But I am concerned with the militarization of the police, the use of increasingly military style weapons and equipment, and their link to heavy-handed, often ridiculously so, responses and the needless loss of civilian life.
Re: your latest post… “… heavy-handed, often ridiculously so, responses and the needless loss of civilian life.” Can you name three examples of this in the last 10 years, anywhere in the United States, or one example in Davis in the last 100 years? Unless you consider the criminal who was being pursued a “civilian”.
Waco doesn’t count… that was too weird.
Have you read the ACLU’s report: https://www.aclu.org/smart-justice-fair-justice/aclus-report-police-militarization-finds-weapons-and-tactics-war-used
David, re: your 10:16 post. Yes read, followed main link, yet only saw one reference, with no supporting details, to a civilian death related to a flash-bang grenade. Unless there was no valid reason to attack that house, even if innocents were also present, non-responsive. Yet you have not come out against the use of that, recently, in the city of Davis. I also followed the secondary link to the report. Saw no references to multiple deaths (or any actually) of civilians. Perhaps you posted incorrect link?
My criteria was 3 US, 1 Davis, and the assumption that it would be substantiated by a source other than a public advocacy group. Failure. Put up, or,…
zaqzaq
I do not support the use of a less than optimal piece of equipment for a job. I fully realize that this may be a function of my career as a surgeon, however, I will stand by this. I see a different analogy as being both timely and applicable and I have not seen this point discussed.
As a nation, due to the Ebola scare, we spent millions of dollars on preparations for isolations rooms and equipment that were never going to be needed because the probability of such an event was so low. Most people have been honest enough to admit that they really cannot name a time when the MRAP has been or definitely would have saved lives here in Davis. Not even the police. There have been descriptions of situations in which it might be useful, but no statistics or evidence to back up this claim. My opinion is that our resources should not be spent on the highly emotion provoking circumstances, but that we should also be taking into account the probability that the adverse event will actually occur. In my posts during the highly publicized events surrounding Ebola was that I was not in agreement to pour millions into screening for this condition in order to “feel” safer, when our risk from this disease was extremely low, while we had other epidemics actually occurring here in this country. I feel much the same way about the protection of the police and citizenry. Look at the types of events that are actually occurring, decide ones priorities with this in mind and allocate resources accordingly. If a particular kind of equipment is deemed necessary, buy what is designed and proven effective in our setting. If it is not proven effective in our setting, don’t get it.
Just the opinion of one doctor who cares very much about the health, safety and well being of all of our sons and daughters, police included.
“I completely disagree with Mr. Dunning. The fact is that this incident shows that we do not need an MRAP. ”
this incident shows we do not need to get rid of the MRAP- seeing as how the officers managed to field two in Davis without problems despite all the politically induced panic.
Bearcat if and only if the detailed staff report once submitted showed unequivocally and based on fact,
raising the bar eh? “if and only if?” “unequivocally?” rather than putting the bar to impossible heights, why don’t you just say you don’t want it and wont support it period. youre not fooling anyone.
LNB
And I am not trying to fool anyone. On the first evening of comment, when many people were objecting to the acquisition of the MRAP on emotional grounds, I spoke at public comment regarding the process involved with no evidence having been presented as to need, efficacy and alternatives prior to acquisition. It was the process, not the presence of absence of the MRAP I was addressing. If you don’t believe me, I am sure that the tape from that commentary is available.
I am not raising or changing any bar. I have consistently spoken in favor of a data, evidence based approach. The only people that I feel have presented any actual evidence who have a professional stake in the matter were the policemen who spoke at the community/police moderated session. It was at this public forum that Assistant Chief Pytel presented what I thought was the most convincing evidence when he reported on the differences between the MRAP and the Bearcat ( which are not “identical twins” although perhaps sibs). His comments closely mirrored those of DanH.
I am sure we would all agree that the technical knowledge of Darren Pytel probably exceeds that of either you or me.
One of our commenters stated that it took two hours for the first MRAP to arrive in Davis last week and that this delay was caused by lag time encountered between separate police agencies. If Davis needs an armored vehicle in a hurry it would be better to have a quicker response time.
There is no better way to train on new equipment than to use it in actual situations. I suspect this was one reason two MRAPs were sent to the West Davis tragedy.
Here is this free house. It is being offered to a community to be used for community events. The house isn’t perfect for the community, but it more than meets the needs for the uses intended. And since the community lacks the funds to afford a different house, it should be a welcome and celebrated offer.
However, some activist citizens become vocal critics of the house because the family that lived in it and owned it and are offering it to the city were soldiers. The soldiers had seen action in wars and wore their uniforms while living in the house. The activists demanded that the city reject the house offer because the house reminded them of war. They wanted the city to reject the house because of symbolism.
So a majority of city leaders voted to reject the house.
And then sought to find the money needed to buy a different house. One that the city cannot afford and one that would be really no different than the free house offered… except it would not remind those few sensitive activist types of war.
Sounds like the city might be controlled by fools.
Frankly (because you are)… you had me with your analogy, until the last, “throw-away” line. Pretty damn good analogy… implies that the house could be temporary, a perfectly adequate shelter, until the “dream home” could be afforded, found, and acquired. Really liked your analogy.
Your last line probably undercut your salient points, for many. As one whose comments, which I thought were worthy of thought/discussion, were completely dismissed because of my last “throw-away” line [another thread/subject], I offer this comment as someone who has made the same ‘tactical’ mistake, and ask you to consider whether you really want to shoot your arguments/rationale in the foot. Hope you have a good day.
hpierce, I accept, value and agree with your criticism. Sometimes I should be less frankly.
I “know” (but don’t “do”, often enough) that a draft is where you vent your thoughts… pause, take a break, revisit/reconsider words and their effectiveness, finalize, and THEN hit the send button. As to the failure to do so, been there, done that, and my spouse reminds me I have an over-abundance of t-shirts in the drawer.
Feel free to remind me when I forget that.
Yes, good advice. I often do that very thing. You should read some of the things I write but never send. Talk about frankly!!!
What I find troubling is the suggestion that because a “superior” alternative was not available that the police should have gone without the protection the MRAP afforded.
I’m actually a little stunned that this is being suggested.
I can see how an argument can be made that these types of situations are rare in Davis and thus may not warrant the possession of our own MRAP, but I did not think anyone would suggest that the police shouldn’t have used one at all when faced with the situation they were in last week.
Frankly
Too bad that you are only choosing to cite one of the objections, that of symbolism, and none of the other objections that have been put forth.
It offensive to you? I’m sure the police will take that into consideration the next time they send their officers into a scene, which they have been called to by a homicidal person who is in possession of a high powered rifle.
What is offensive is your suggestion that our officers did something wrong by using a vehicle that could offer them some protection in this potentially dangerous and life threatening situation.
“What is offensive is your suggestion that our officers did something wrong by using a vehicle that could offer them some protection in this potentially dangerous and life threatening situation.”
The Council voted 3-2 to return the MRAP. Each of those three made it clear that the MRAP did not fit within the values of Davis. And yet they brought not one, but two into Davis.
Are you suggesting that our city council, or at least the 3 who voted against keeping the MRAP, would have preferred that our officers enter this scene unprotected when an alternative option was available?
Based on your umbrage of PD bringing ‘not one, but two’ into Davis, and the ‘clear’ direction of the CC, why are you not calling for the discipline/dismissal of any and all PD staff involved in the decision or its implementation? Remember, “just following orders” is no excuse.
It did not fit with city values to own and retain an MRAP, or it did not fit city values to use an MRAP? I think you are making assumptions here as to the rationale used by the 3 CC members that voted to return the MRAP.
It sounds like you are advocating that Davis be an MRAP-free zone.
Here is my little quiz. You can be the Davis Police Chief for a day.
“A Davis resident calls the police and tells them that they heard loud arguing between a man and woman followed by what they thought were three gunshots coming from their next door neighbors home. They also believe that the neighbor has rifles inside the home used for hunting elk and deer. There is no answer to a phone call to the residence. Do you roll the MRAPs as part of a SWAT call up. If not what do you do?”
David, Tia, Lady…m, hop to the front of the line on this one.
The City Council voted to get rid of the MRAP and expressed concern about its fit with Davis values. To me that would have precluded the MRAP as an option.
I’ll repeat my question down here:
Are you suggesting that our city council, or at least the 3 who voted against keeping the MRAP, would have preferred that our officers enter this scene unprotected when an alternative option was available?
I think it’s better that I not put words in their mouths. I can speak for myself and say, that I believe that the police did not need the MRAP in this situation.
So, if you believed the police had needed it in this situation it would have not been offensive to you that they used it, even though council voted 3-2 not to keep it?
Are you against them using it, or only using it in situations you deem appropriate?
Michelle you got no substantive response to this- Plain and simple. David Greenwald has decided that police shouldn’t have it because that doesn’t fit in with what he has decided “community values are.” Some blogger behind a screen knows whats what about police tactics and their usage in the field.
“Some blogger behind a screen knows whats what about police tactics and their usage in the field.”
that’s an interesting point that opens a can of worms. i’ve had over 30 years as an attorney and i have had countless police officers on the stand and there are times you end up just shaking your head as to what police officers are trained to do or claim they are trained to do. i’m not really sure that police’s judgment should go unquestioned in the way you’re suggesting. there is far too much evidence to the contrary.
“i’m not really sure that police’s judgment should go unquestioned in the way you’re suggesting.”
Im’ not really sure a 30 year attorney’s judgment should go unquestioned either.
I belive DP would be the first to acknowledge that point.
I say “roll” (fun cop talk) the MRAPs. Even if the MRAPs are not needed it is worth rousting the SWAT team in hurry for training purposes. Besides, it allowed a great photo op for the words “WEST SACRAMENTO POLICE RESCUE VEHICLE” to light up in reflective paint on a converted MRAP.
zz…I also note David’s deflection… I’ll take a swipe from my perspective, which is NOT as a public safety person…
I’d try to keep the ‘reporter’ on the line… only ‘boots on the ground’ I have. I’d respond 3-4 officers, no siren/lights, to get nearby, but not so close as to get them or the folk involved or nearby in further danger. More boots on the ground. They would be ordered to observe and keep command informed. Assuming ‘nothing new’, I’d have the officers contact adjacent residents to confirm ‘reporter’s’ story, get additional “intel”, and possibly to get them to ‘lay low’ or evacuate. While this is happening, I’d activate my SWAT team. To get them close, on the scene, but take no action immediately. Barring any other ‘symptoms’, I’d notify whoever has “armor” that it might be needed, but instruct to stand off at a distance out of sight of the incident. That could be at the City limits, to satisfy the squeamish.
Barring anything to the contrary, I’d have an officer, well covered, approach the residence and ring the doorbell. If no response, I’d have the officer withdraw, and use a PA system to attempt to contact (remember I’ve already provided for warnings to adjacent residents). If still no response/contact, not sure, but my next step would NOT be driving an MRAP in front of the house. Whoever enters the house will not be inside an MRAP. They will be exposed. MRAP’s don’t arrest people/secure a suspect, “people” do.
zz… don’t hold your breath waiting for David to directly respond. I like ‘blue’, but not that shade.
The Enterprise article I read stated that there was no way to cover an officer in this scenario, which is why they choose to what for a protective vehicle to arrive before attempting to approach the house.
From the Enterprise:
Michellle… under my scenario (made up), the residence has been observed for some time. Unless the MRAP drove up to where its doors were under the eaves of the house (which are not bulletproof to, say, worst case, 50 mm gun, officers were going to be exposed. Only questions (which I didn’t speculate on) is how far, how long. They guy who was shooting from a tower in Texan (on a university campus), years ago… hell yes, MRAP would be a good/necessary thing.
I do not believe PS employees should be exposed to more risk than is necessary. I had no objection to the MRAP, except on-going costs. I think it’s good to be risk-adverse, but to make “risk-free” a ‘floor’ is quixotic. At best. My view was ‘aquiesence’.
Fact of the matter is, someone would have to prove to me that an MRAP would have changed things @ Columbine (school), Aurora (cinema), Sandy Hook (school), Twin Towers (NY), SF City Hall (murders by former cop), Boston Marathon (major public event), Murrah Center (OK), to convince me we NEED one. But saying that, I have no problem having one, and have no problem with a Bearcat, if we can do the cost/benefit thing.
To clarify, I’m not arguing, right now anyway, about whether or not we should have kept the MRAP, or whether our police force needs an MRAP/Bearcat type vehicle).
I’m arguing that in this particular instance it was completely appropriate for the police to use the MRAP in order to provide additional safety to their officers. In fact I would argue that it would have been negligent on their part not to use protective equipment that was available to them.
I find it more then a little disturbing that anyone would suggest otherwise in this particular instance, especially given the fact that they believed that two people may have been been shot and in need of medical attention.
you realize that you’re quoting the police on a carefully worded and contrived statement meant to justify their actions?
Sorry I didn’t go far enough up on the thread to realize what you were talking about my Enterprise quotes, I did that like an hour ago and my short my memory is not what used to be.
What do they need to justify actions that they took to protect themselves?
“What do they need to justify actions that they took to protect themselves?”
i think this was a move by the leadership to justify getting an mrap. but i could be wrong. it seems like a thin reed of a rationale that wouldn’t stand up in any court. they brought in two. and then they tried to sell it to the public.
Until I’m proved wrong, I’m going to go under the assumptions that the police, given they fact that it was reported to them that two people had been shot, would be trying to gain access as quickly as possible to the house. Given this assumption, if they could have done so safely without having access to the MRAPs they would have. My guess is that there is deep regret among those police officers present that they were not able to get to the victims sooner.
To suggest they waited in order to make some point that they needed an MRAP is an awful accusation to make.
That would be a terrible, disgusting and false accusation if someone is making it.
i’m making it. just as when royal oak they made it a point to note that the armored vehicle broke down, here they made it a point to send in two mraps.
On our county road a few weeks back, somebody called in about gunshots fired. Very likely that the residents have multiple weapons. The response was several squad cars from various agencies making a perimeter, officers working from behind the vehicles with loudspeaker, then entry and arrest. No MRAPs.
but this is not the county road a few weeks back.
And luckily no high powered rounds came through the cars and injured or killed the officers…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJFhIiomoKw
especially since there were no high powered weapons
And how would cops always know that? Because they cannot afford to be wrong once… unless you are ok with a few dead cops over sensitivity to symbolism.
I don’t understand how the MRAPs were used or how they would benefit officers in a situation like this. They still had to eventually enter the house.
After Columbine, it was my understanding that tactics were changed and police were to enter public buildings immediately upon arrival as soon as three officers were on site. At Columbine, many people died while police set up parameters and organized themselves. People were told to hide in place until someone came to get them. Now people are being taught to run, escape through windows, etc., while police enter and hunt down the shooter. Maybe a home is different and the MRAP was used to get the officers closer to the door, before entering.
I believe much of the concern about the MRAP was the process by which it was acquired; a seeming unilateral decision by the Police Department, without the involvement of the policy makers. I would suspect the same criticism may exist, if the PD were to run out and acquire a Bearcat, without involving the Council. The Council made the decision that the MRAP should go; I’m not sure that the decision was based solely on community values, as opposed to ensuring that processes are respected. That’s a policy choice.
But when it gets down to proper tactics to to approach and enter a dwelling, where an individual may be holed up and armed, I’m going to defer to the Police Department. This was not a use of military hardware to confront individuals exercising their First Amendment rights. In a tactical situation, as opposed to “crowd control,” my assumption is that they have the training, skills, proficiency, and vested self-interest in doing it right, and protecting themselves. If, in their discretion, they believe that an armored vehicle is necessary, then I’m not sure any of us are authoritative enough to demand that they put themselves at greater risk by adopting an alternative.
I understand the concerns about militarization of the police. But much of the equipment used is, in fact, based upon military designs. The rifles are a version of the M-16; the pistols used were designed by companies like Glock and Sig-Sauer, originally for military contracts, and are often common issue around the world. The fact that a Bearcat may have dual use doesn’t mean it represents militarization of the police; any more than a pickup truck, or suv, used by the police is a militarization because that vehicle currently serves as a CUCV or LSSV in the US Army, as well.
I think it’s important to look at the context in which a particular piece of equipment is used, or intended to be used.
“… exercising their First Amendment rights.” Check that referent. “Second”?
No, meant First: “[t]his was not a use of military hardware to confront individuals exercising their First Amendment rights,” as in, it’s not like the MRAP was used to confront a protest.
some of the concern was certainly a process issue. but then again, we have a process issue here as well. the council voted to remove the mrap only to have the police department backdoor it back in without consulting the council.
Did City Council make a policy regarding use of MRAPs from neighboring communities? To the best of my knowledge CC voted to get rid of a vehicle and did not discuss shared use of MRAPs or any other armored personnel carrier from outside agencies. CC had a perfect opportunity to do so at the meeting last October.
while they didn’t make an explicit policy, they did make it clear they saw the mrap as being incompatible with community values. that should be hold whether it is davis’ or visits from davis. that at least strongly suggests that they should have clarified with council before using it.
If CC wanted a MRAP or armored vehicle prohibition they should have written and passed a specific ban. Best not to leave these “community values” issues up to vague inference.
Is it possible to hook up speakers to the outside of the MRAP, and blast some Rap? Might make it more amenable.
you’re trying to be funny?
If the MRAP is used in Davis and parked 15 miles away and deployed by another agency, all we have is A) Davis with a MRAP; and B) A MRAP with a poor response time. This is the worst possible situation whether you are pro-MRAP or anti-MRAP.
Nice “solution” that pleases nobody, oh great Powers that Be.
Yep.
Boy, I’m sure staying out of this fight. Taking on barricaded suspects with armor no greater than a woolen shirt is far safer than this little war.
But there was a question posed multiple times that deserved an answer. And the answer just might afford an alternative to the notion of, if we can’t have an armored vehicle, what then?
The question was: Ignoring the means to get to the front door of a bad guy’s house, how do the police proceed further without risking exposure? The answer is ballistic shields. Ballistic shields are incredible things. Picture a Roman Legion, only with full-length shields that can stop just about everything short of a rocket-launched grenade. Ballistic shields give a lot of protection to an individual officer going into a dwelling containing a suspect with high-velocity firearms.
Maybe this would make everybody happy. The shields are considerably less than $350,000 each, require no maintenance, are easily and discreetly stored, not particularly threatening in appearance, and quite probably do not offend the Davis community’s sense of values, whatever the hell that is.
You have tried twice now Phil, and I commend you for it, but clearly there is no place for logic in this discussion.
Phil
I have another question for you. I have recently read a bit about the use of drones for search and rescue purposes. This implies to me that drones can be fitted with cameras that can be angled for extensive views of areas which may be remote and with obstacles to direct sight. What, if anything do you know about drones that could be remotely steered to windows or outfitted so as to be able to break through glass for a closer look ?
Sorry, I’m not qualified to answer anything about drones. All along I thought they were male bees.
This seems like a superior solution in this circumstance, is there are reason our police force is not utilizing this type of equipment, or is there some disadvantage to it that makes an MRAP type vehicle preferable?
Let’s do a Kickstarter for them.
From what I understand about this situation, which I’ll admit is limited, by the fact that I only read about and am not a police officer, this equipment seems like it would have served a very useful function in last weeks awful and tragic shooting. From appearances it looks like this equipment would have allowed officers to enter the building in relative safety and secure the scene so that other rescue workers could get to the victims who needed medical attention much sooner then they were able to.
Radio controlled micro quadcopters (drones) have gone a long way in the past couple of years. These can be as small as six inches in diameter. They can carry 1080p video cameras with FPV. FPV (first person view) allows the pilot to control the quad by watching live video from the onboard camera in the controller box or by using video goggles. With a top quality controller these quads may be flown right through an open or broken second story window and into a house for surveillance or through an open door into the house, up the stairs and right into a room assuming doors have not been closed. Hobbyist versions of these quadcopters are available for under $200. http://www.aeroboticsolutions.com/products/hubsan-x4-fpv-mini-w-camera-h107d
DanH
Thank you for taking me seriously and taking the time to post this. What I am wondering is, for the price of the Bearcat or even the cost + maintenance of the MRAP we could have a veritable army of surveillance drones ready to be deployed to “peer” into potentially dangerous situations. Does anyone have any knowledge of the use ( experimental or otherwise ) of these devices in urban policing ? To me very naive in this setting mind, it looks like a very good alternative solution when it is deemed to dangerous to send in an individual.
Quadcopter and other multi-rotor RC aircraft are being used a lot in the professional video business but I don’t have knowledge of them being used by law enforcement. I would be surprised if they haven’t tried it.
The primary function of the MRAP and other armored law enforcement vehicles is to protect the occupants from bullets, projectiles, etc. A quadcopter can’t replace an armored vehicle although an armored vehicle is useful for safely deploying robots and drones at dangerous locations.
Many good comments in spite of the basic problem of Law Enforcement being ignored.
Since Style is so important, the CC will immediately lay off anyone with a Veteran Status, and disarm and immediately post that any armor, even vests, are not to be worn, no matter what. Weapons will be removed, and are banned from wearing on duty.
Second, the Press release: The Mayor announced today the PD is being disbanded due to lack of crime in the City of Davis, since the layoff of the entire Police Department has resulted in no arrests, even for parking. “We are truly the first City in America to wipe out Crime,” said Mayor Wolk.
If the Chief of Police and the Mayor did not understand each other when the MRAP was sent away, the CC did not make it clear it was never to come back?
I’m with David about the MRAP. Surprise, surprise. I’m as predictable as the un-named who want it, no doubt. Our police have been militarized as has our entire society for most of the period after WWII. It’s not good and not healthy and not good for our liberty as David so well said. An interesting comparison was made yesterday on a blog to the effect that police forces in the U.S. have killed more people just in this month, March, 2015 than have been killed in the U.K. since 1900 http://tinyurl.com/mtcek5g. That’s astounding. What is not astounding is that if you bring the tools and training of war into our civil society, the police will make war on the citizenry. There is an arms race on both sides of the police lines. People (mostly men, but some women are infected too) are militarized in their heads whether they have ever served or not. More militarization is not the policy any of us should be supporting, unless you’re an advocate of fascist dictatorship. That’s why I’m opposed.
DanH
“The primary function of the MRAP and other armored law enforcement vehicles is to protect the occupants from bullets, projectiles, etc. A quadcopter can’t replace an armored vehicle although an armored vehicle is useful for safely deploying robots and drones at dangerous locations.”
True, but my thought was not regarding taking the place of the MRAP, but rather determining whether or not an armored vehicle was necessary. In this case, might having been able to see inside the apartment have demonstrated that both the victim and the shooter were down and therefore direct entry could be effected immediately ? Maybe a little sci-fi like the “spiders” used in The Minority Report, but certainly safer for all concerned if effective.