Likes Likes:  0
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Why SWAT Utilizes Armored Vehicles

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,178
    Likes (received)
    346

    Default Why SWAT Utilizes Armored Vehicles

    Often decried as "overkill," "too militaristic" and "too expensive," (on dog-and-pony shows I've had people screw their faces up and ask me "what in the world do we need a tank for...?" ) this incident in Wisconsin is proof positive of why police tactical units have a very real need for this kind of armor:

    http://www.lacrossetribune.com/artic...03standoff.txt

    While a somewhat extreme case, the basics - a suspect armed with a hunting rifle and explosives - are commonly encountered by police.
    Kit Leblanc

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    399
    Likes (received)
    6

    Default um

    Yep, one incident surely proves your position

    Anyway, i'm sure there might be cases where the use of such things is justified, but on a large scale I personally find it questionable that these things are needed regularly, surely not every case of "dude with gun" would require a freakin' tank.
    Last edited by ZachZinn; 14th April 2008 at 23:13.
    Zachariah Zinn

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,178
    Likes (received)
    346

    Default

    Yes - that's all there has been. One. Ever.

    Thanks for demonstrating the exact thing I refer to in the previous post.

    Maybe you simply have no experience with what one man in a fortified position with a rifle can do? I'm sure you wouldn't find it questionable if you were the one responding to those "man with a gun" calls.

    Or "man with bow and arrow?" I've personally experienced that. Thankful to have the armor when you hear arrows clanging off the sides!

    Or maybe its better if officers die for lack of one?

    http://policemag.com/Articles/2003/0...se-Street.aspx


    You are aware that these armored vehicles are not armed with cannons, right? They are for protection?

    Zach, your questioning is misplaced. Don't get me wrong, I get tired of the overkill I sometimes see with some wannabe Delta Force and cowboy commando cops I have heard about and even worked with, but if you think bringing armor to a man with gun call is questionable, you need to get out more, my friend.

    In that respect, I see you are just up the road from me. I am PM-ing you my office number. In the interest of educating you, if you so choose to be, I offer you an in person tour of our armored vehicles and can explain in detail the very reasons for why we make use of them. That should hopefully answer your questions as to why police may need armored vehicles in dealing with those "dudes with guns."
    Kit Leblanc

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    186
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hissho View Post
    I offer you an in person tour of our armored vehicles and can explain in detail the very reasons for why we make use of them. That should hopefully answer your questions as to why police may need armored vehicles in dealing with those "dudes with guns."
    Sounds fun. Can I come
    -John Nguyen

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Espoo, Finland
    Posts
    72
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hiya!

    In Finland a "dude with a gun" call is usually responded by regular cops first, but in the case of a barricaded suspect or with someone seen as a littlebit more dangerous than average like one of the rougher MC's or when a guns are suspected to be present, cops get support vehicles from the army.

    Most cases those are of the Sisu Xa type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisu_Pasi.

    It is not about "militarisation of the civilian law enforcement" or even overkill, it's a matter of officer safety. The usual gun in a barricaded suspect call is a heavy hunting rifle fit to take on a moose or bear. Cops rarely wear the level of bodyarmour to protect them against such artillery.
    A.J. Vedenkannas

    "A horribile Haccapaelitorum agmine libera nos, Domine."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,809
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I'm all for any equipment that can protect our LEOs. Wouldn't have a problem if it did have a mounted cannon either.
    David F. Craik

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    78
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    My Dad was a LEO in Philadelphia. So, I am all for the right tool for the job. Glad to see all LEO went home safe.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    19
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Arent there vehicles the ones made by Blackwater for PMC work ?

    James McDine
    James McDine

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Western NY
    Posts
    45
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZachZinn View Post
    Yep, one incident surely proves your position

    Anyway, i'm sure there might be cases where the use of such things is justified, but on a large scale I personally find it questionable that these things are needed regularly, surely not every case of "dude with gun" would require a freakin' tank.
    Easily said by a person who doesn't have to go and deal with the "dude with the gun".

    I'm not insterested in getting killed just so that other people can "feel better".

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    A gun and body armor are not always used or needed on every call an officer makes, but most people realize that it would be insane/idiotic for an officer to go on any call without them. They are accepted by the public as necessary.

    An officer may only use his sidearm once in his/her entire career, but the cost of not having one available on that one occasion justifies that officer carrying it every day for 20 - 25 years.

    It would be inexcusable for police not to be able to protect innocents from a barricaded gunman/active shooter or for them not to be able to apprehend him/her because that gunman/active shooter has bought more firepower than the police can deal with.

    One event can cost lives of innocents and officers if the officers do not have the proper equipment, and buying 10 armored cars after the incident doesn't bring one officer or innocent back.
    Michael Dailey

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    6,226
    Likes (received)
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZachZinn View Post
    ...i'm sure there might be cases where the use of such things is justified, but on a large scale I personally find it questionable that these things are needed regularly, surely not every case of "dude with gun" would require a freakin' tank.
    How would one know in advance which is which? Using that logic, should officers only wear body armor on the days when they're going to be shot? Do you only buckle up while driving when you know you're going to crash?

    Better to have it and not need, it than to need it and not have it.
    Yours in Budo,
    ---Brian---

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,178
    Likes (received)
    346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Owens View Post
    H...should officers only wear body armor on the days when they're going to be shot?
    Sometimes even wearing it doesn't help!
    Kit Leblanc

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •