I can't say I'm exactly surprised. If you ran a police department, you're not about to turn down a free tank -- I mean, how cool is that, toys for the boys?!?!
What's bothersome is that a police department is allowed to do this. That DoD rules don't prohibit selling/giving military equipment to police departments. That state legislatures don't prohibit it. A police department, like any organization, is always going to amass all the power/capability it can. Where are the people who are supposed to be limiting and regulating it?
The mayor is busy making speeches about how he's tough on crime. Things are gerrymandered enough that its a one party system where I live, so any speeches are a bit extreme, hoping to rise up in the party ranks, not appeal to anyone but extremists.
My little city has one of those tanks and used it down the street from my home a couple years ago. Couple broke up, guy goes out, gets drunk, comes home, mostly but not entirely passed out on couch, refuses to leave. There exists a deer hunting rifle in the closet, which never left the closet so far as I know, but she wanted him punished for his marriage transgression, so report goes out he's in the house, and there's a gun in the house. Next thing you know there's a swat team with a tank in the front lawn. Never turn down a good safe PR opportunity. Needless to say he's not leaving the house, he's not too happy about getting dumped and he's way too drunk to stand up anyway. They wait a couple hours until he passes out, then smash open the doors and windows and taze him repeatedly, pretty much just for fun, to be the bullies they are. Not the most inhumane thing imaginable but still pretty stomach churning to listen to his screams on the scanner. Those brave warriors sure had their "fun" with a semi-conscious unarmed drunk guy that day. Plenty of speeches later about defending the public and being tough on crime. This is not Detroit by the way... this is the second wealthiest suburb of what used to be the tenth largest city in the country (well, tenth largest a long time ago).
In the old days, the drunk driving would have been washed over, maybe, maybe not, and he'd cool off in the drunk tank overnight at jail. Probably a disturbing the peace ticket, unsure if the soon to be ex-wifey had a restraining order or not at that time. The modern way involves militaristic force and judge jury executioner style punishment. In all fairness the wifey got some punishment too as the cops smashed in "her" houses windows, and those aren't cheap.
I've also seen the tank used around town when serving warrants. It costs a lot to maintain, you need to use it as much as possible for budget justification. So here's your summons for skipping jury duty, delivered by APC. And I'm not kidding.
A year ago, SWAT bust into the house two doors down from mine. I live on a corner unit, and had been drinking when I saw these funny looking guys dressed up for what looked like a game of paintball or some kind of motorcycle night-rider gang, right outside my window. The window which was around the corner from the house two doors down, the bottom of which was about 6.5' about the sidewalk. In my intoxicated silliness, I decided to go ahead and tap on the window. Right then, one of them looked into the window, and I'm sure caught me with a wonderful "Oh Shit" face as I realized these guys were holding AR-15s and wearing military-style Go-Pros and LED headlamps on their helmets.
> What's bothersome is that a police department is allowed to do this.
Well, that's not too surprising. Every party along the chain that has the power to say Yes or No, from the weapon manufacturers, to the US legislature awarding funding, to the DoD, to the state legislatures, to the local police departments, have an obvious incentive to say Yes. The party that has the incentive to say No is the civilian population, but you're fooling yourself if you think they actually have political power. Maybe they should vote harder next time.
Who do you vote for? I vote.. But it doesn't seem to do anything. We have an illusion of choice in this country when it comes to anything that matters. Political parties, banks, oil/gas companies, electricity/natural gas/telecom/internet providers; everything that is critical to living a modern life, we have a handful of choices - sometimes just one. Shampoos, tooth paste, tomato sauce, everything else that doesn't really matter; we've got dozens or hundreds of choices.
Well you're always free to leave. But you don't. And you keep on not voting, and then wonder why your government doesn't represent you. And you know, eventually on that track, you're no longer free to leave either.
But you're indignation shall not brook political engagement! So that's...something.
His implicit assumption is that the act of me voting increases the extent to which government represents me enough to justify the time and effort spent voting (not to mention researching candidates and options). I think that assumption is demonstrably false.
That's a bit of a trick question, because I do not find political authority to be desirable. Thus there could not be a choice that would be acceptable to me.
I ever saw the option "Dissolve the government and just leave everyone to their own devices," on a ballot, I'd be pretty paranoid about it being a trap that would put anyone who voted for it on some sort of special list.
No, bothersome is the one above - that a police department chief is not about to turn down a free tank. If your police has such a mentality, you ought to be worried already.
Human nature is hard to change. Systems are (relatively) easy to change. Rather than worry about people being irresponsible, lazy, greedy, immoral, incompetent, etc, we should focus on building systems that work well and protect all involved despite all of that.
You nailed it. What also changes is people in authoritarian posts. The system has to be resilient to the occasional wrong guy being chosen for a powerful post. Also it doesn't make sense to fight individuals since it gives a fake sense justice. If the system allows injustice then it is bound to happen and abundantly so.
A very important part of a system that works well is making sure that the people with the worse character flaws don't get into power positions, and that the people in power get punished when they display those character flaws.
Or, in other words, stop blamming the system, and start making it work.
The problem is, that (at least today's) societies need some kind of immune system. As much as I liked the world to be without arms, I see the need for law enforcement.
I see the need of a society for people making harsh decisions. Sometimes the utilitarian greater good needs the suffering of the few to come into existence.
The problem is, when it is turned on its head, so that the greater majority suffers a little bit (financially, or otherwise) for the benefit of the smaller minority. And that is, what our current system of lobbying/economics/politics sadly seems designed to achieve.
Actually to parent's point, it's ensuring that even if the worst people got into positions of power, things would be structured enough and there'd be enough checks to keep them from doing any real damage.
This is one of those things that sounds nice but is mostly self-contradictory (or, at least, requires magic) -- if there is something checking to prevent "the worst people" from doing real damage in "positions of power", then:
1) The positions you are atalking about really don't have all that much power, and
2) Assuming that the checks aren't magical external impersoal forces, the people doing the checking actually exert the real power.
But I don't think this is a workable task in a political system. The views of the guy you voted for are going to be different from the one you didn't vote for. In a perfect system every person will be impartial in evaluating elected officials. In the real world, if you evaluate the guy you DID NOT elect you would be perceived as being biased. On the other hand, if you evaluate the person you DID elect you would be perceived as being biased as well. Both cases you would be perceived as being biased. So the only workable approach is to focus less on individuals and more on the system and its results.
I wonder if this stuff is surplus when bought, the M.O. of the military industrial machine seems to be financing a small group of firms for equipment and services we don't need. Just like NSA monitoring data centers and drones.
It's not completely free. They need to pay to store it, insure it, run it. They need to have staff (diverted from their other tasks) to maintain it and operate it and bureaucrat it.
There's a hit to their public image too. When your home or car is burgled you don't want to see a tank.
And, as toomuchtodo hints at, heavily arming a police force leads to those guns being used. Ignoring "bad guys" for a moment, shooting innocent dogs of innocent people is probably a bad thing. Shooting innocent bystanders is probably a bad thing.
True but it's really no different than a truck or existing police vehicles cost-wise. And it's free. In fact it looks pretty similar to police vehicles already in use: http://i.imgur.com/DQFJESy.jpg
>And, as toomuchtodo hints at, heavily arming a police force leads to those guns being used.
Perhaps, but this is a vehicle, not a gun. It's just a big bullet proof truck.
Nothing is ever free, it's paid for at some point. In this case, it's our tax dollars, which could be spent on something more worthy. I know for my state, if I could direct all that money towards trade programs for prisons, I think that would be a much better investment towards serving the same goals, even if it takes longer to pay out.
As the parent post mentioned, the shape of the tool shapes the perceptions of the user. Giving militarily designed equipment to police forces might influence them to behave less like peace officers and more like military officers.
Yes, I'm serious. Swat teams have been around forever, this isn't anything new. An armored vehicle of all things isn't particularly harmful. I would react differently if they gave them, say, a minigun or a guided missile or whatever. It's just a bullet proof truck.
The first SWAT team was established in 1964. They have grown considerably in the past few years and with their growth they are being used more and more for very simple reasons, to execute simple warrants for example.
This man had a SWAT team raid his house for gambling $2000 on a college football game, and he ended up dead. Was a friggin SWAT team needed for a gambling arrest!???
>Whats wrong with a police department having a tank? I'd say it's a waste of money, but if it's completely free there's no downside.
First, it's not all about the money. Second, the tools you use, shape your practice ("If you have a hammer", etc).
Those tanks only reinforce the idea of the militarization of the police forces. Next time, they'll be tempted to use it to crack down some student shit-down or such. Or go bust some small time drug dealer. Perhaps killing a few innoncents in the process.
Even if you were able to ignore the economic factors, the ability to use the show of force represented by the tank decreases the marginal utility of peaceful de-escalation, which most people would agree to be the superior tactic for community policing.
If you have a tank, you don't need to negotiate a peaceful surrender.
Think about how Icelandic cops are wringing their hands over killing their very first person ever, in their entire history. Now think about American cops driving tanks over someone's family dog on the way to punching a hole in a house and using flashbangs and tasers indiscriminately on the people inside.
It was a mistake to give Barney Fife even the one bullet.
Aside from them being an aggressive display of power (even Russia uses them only for riots), they are very expensive!
The military spends a massive amount of money for maintenance - now the police can do that, too! Very cool, except you pay for it and they'll need more money.
APCs use a lot more fuel, have more expensive parts and need special training to operate = more money from the local budget (= more taxes).
Next thing, they'll be buying jets and drones for $10 each and spending millions on their maintenance.
What's bothersome is that a police department is allowed to do this. That DoD rules don't prohibit selling/giving military equipment to police departments. That state legislatures don't prohibit it. A police department, like any organization, is always going to amass all the power/capability it can. Where are the people who are supposed to be limiting and regulating it?