Militarization of state and local police?

[carlfense]

In Tupelo, Mississippi, home to 35,000, the local police acquired a helicopter for only $7,500 through the surplus program. The chopper, however, had to be upgraded for $100,000 and it now costs $20,000 a year in maintenance.

[HSKR]

I'm guessing they have all seen them, since the cops spend most of the day joyriding around in them.

Eh?

 

That's what they got them for remember? Just another toy for the boys to drive around with. BTW, putting the wasteful spending argument aside for a moment, if anyone here doesn't think it would be cool to drive one around then all I can ask is what color of dress are you wearing today.

Would you guess that more minutes are spent just driving them around or actually using them for their intended purpose?

Of course, I saw one driving down my street just today. Just out cruising around.

[HSKR]

In Tupelo, Mississippi, home to 35,000, the local police acquired a helicopter for only $7,500 through the surplus program. The chopper, however, had to be upgraded for $100,000 and it now costs $20,000 a year in maintenance.

 

That's the retirement pension of one police chief in Omaha for one year. I'd say they got a good bargain. Thanks for sharing. Even your extreme examples are a drop in the bucket. Keep trying!

[carlfense]

Well, so far 1-0. I'm sure the next one will agree with you HSKR. Don't get discouraged.

[Yossarian]

Well, so far 1-0. I'm sure the next one will agree with you HSKR. Don't get discouraged.

 

As usual, it's hard to tell exactly how you disagree with anyone. Bragging about your job (whatever it is) and how important it is somehow always gets into the thread. I agree with HSKR. Saving lives is important...even if it's a border guard.

[carlfense]

Yos, you're a one trick pony. Whining about other people attacking the messenger and not the message . . . and then promptly attacking the messenger. Like clockwork.

 

The hypocrisy doesn't seem to bother you no matter how many times it's pointed out.

[HSKR]

Well, so far 1-0. I'm sure the next one will agree with you HSKR. Don't get discouraged.

 

I just find it funny how people like you are upset with the cost of this stuff but every time I bring up costs of those union pensions for police that the left so covets, not a word is mentioned. The hypocrisy never ceases. 1-0 baby!

[carlfense]

Well, so far 1-0. I'm sure the next one will agree with you HSKR. Don't get discouraged.

 

I just find it funny how people like you are upset with the cost of this stuff but every time I bring up costs of those union pensions for police that the left so covets, not a word is mentioned. The hypocrisy never ceases. 1-0 baby!

Actually, I think that the union pensions in places like Omaha are ridiculous and need to be reformed.

 

If you start a new thread about police and fire pensions I'll happily chime in.

[HSKR]

Well, so far 1-0. I'm sure the next one will agree with you HSKR. Don't get discouraged.

 

I just find it funny how people like you are upset with the cost of this stuff but every time I bring up costs of those union pensions for police that the left so covets, not a word is mentioned. The hypocrisy never ceases. 1-0 baby!

Actually, I think that the union pensions in places like Omaha are ridiculous and need to be reformed.

 

If you start a new thread about police and fire pensions I'll happily chime in.

 

That's good to know and maybe I will in the future if I see a current interesting article on it. Back to this topic, I still see absolutely nothing wrong with the NSP buying these armored vehicles for bargain prices and being able to use them in dire situations like what happened in Alliance. Even the helicopter story doesn't seem extreme for the price they paid. If they rescued just one person with it from a flood or some other disaster, that would justify the cost to me. We don't know the situations that they could use the equipment other then what was written in the obviously biased article. I'm sure in the end if they don't have the budget for these things, they don't buy it or get rid of it when they must. So in summary, the article and this thread is really much ado about nothing considering what else we are paying for in the country currently.

[carlfense]

That's good to know and maybe I will in the future if I see a current interesting article on it. Back to this topic, I still see absolutely nothing wrong with the NSP buying these armored vehicles for bargain prices and being able to use them in dire situations like what happened in Alliance. Even the helicopter story doesn't seem extreme for the price they paid. If they rescued just one person with it from a flood or some other disaster, that would justify the cost to me. We don't know the situations that they could use the equipment other then what was written in the obviously biased article. I'm sure in the end if they don't have the budget for these things, they don't buy it or get rid of it when they must. So in summary, the article and this thread is really much ado about nothing considering what else we are paying for in the country currently.

I'd like to see some evidence that they save lives instead of just assuming that they might. They just don't seem that useful. In most standoffs the perpetrator is usually barricaded in a building . . . and it's hard to fit an APC through a doorway. If there is evidence that these things are actually saving lives and are somewhat cost effective I could be persuaded otherwise.

 

Also, I would disagree about a town of 35,000 needing a police helicopter.

[HSKR]

That's good to know and maybe I will in the future if I see a current interesting article on it. Back to this topic, I still see absolutely nothing wrong with the NSP buying these armored vehicles for bargain prices and being able to use them in dire situations like what happened in Alliance. Even the helicopter story doesn't seem extreme for the price they paid. If they rescued just one person with it from a flood or some other disaster, that would justify the cost to me. We don't know the situations that they could use the equipment other then what was written in the obviously biased article. I'm sure in the end if they don't have the budget for these things, they don't buy it or get rid of it when they must. So in summary, the article and this thread is really much ado about nothing considering what else we are paying for in the country currently.

I'd like to see some evidence that they save lives instead of just assuming that they might. They just don't seem that useful. In most standoffs the perpetrator is usually barricaded in a building . . . and it's hard to fit an APC through a doorway. If there is evidence that these things are actually saving lives and are somewhat cost effective I could be persuaded otherwise.

 

Also, I would disagree about a town of 35,000 needing a police helicopter.

 

 

Can't be better evidence then watching the news and seeing them in use. Seen them plenty of times all over the country. I'm not sure you are ever going to find a case study about things like this. Thankfully we don't have those situations that are more common in larger cities but by no means does that mean they aren't useful in situations. Because you can't get them through a doorway they aren't useful? How about getting to the doorway in the first place? All I ask is for you to be a little more open minded about the bad situations that can happen. Once again the cost effectiveness is a weak argument because these were sold at discount price that allowed them to be bought in the first place and probably would have never been able to buy this stuff at full price. We aren't talking about buying new equipment directly from the manufacturer. It's great they are able to get this equipment instead of it going to waste.

 

You disagree about the helicopter yet you haven't stated anything about the town or its needs. I'd let that community decide whether it was needed or not vs message board heroes like us. They bought a helicopter for the price of an ATV. How many departments have those now? Heck, how much do larger departments spend on bicycles? Yes they spent $100K on upgrades but where did that money come from? Did they get grants? Did they have it already in seized drug money? Did the tax payer pay a penny of that upgrade? Worried about maintenance cost? Maybe all cops in Nebraska should drive hybrids instead of muscle cars, think of all the gas money they could save?

 

I guess if you want to see evidence it's useful, then show me evidence it's wasteful because I haven't any yet.

[carlfense]

I guess if you want to see evidence it's useful, then show me evidence it's wasteful because I haven't any yet.

Isn't that the opposite of fiscal responsibility? I.E. "We're paying for it unless you can prove that it's wasteful."

 

I sort of figured that your political leanings would have you fall on the opposite side of that discussion.

[HSKR]

I guess if you want to see evidence it's useful, then show me evidence it's wasteful because I haven't any yet.

Isn't that the opposite of fiscal responsibility? I.E. "We're paying for it unless you can prove that it's wasteful."

 

I sort of figured that your political leanings would have you fall on the opposite side of that discussion.

 

It has nothing to do with my political leanings and everything to do with you saying it's a waste without any evidence to back it up.

[carlfense]

I guess if you want to see evidence it's useful, then show me evidence it's wasteful because I haven't any yet.

Isn't that the opposite of fiscal responsibility? I.E. "We're paying for it unless you can prove that it's wasteful."

 

I sort of figured that your political leanings would have you fall on the opposite side of that discussion.

 

It has nothing to do with my political leanings and everything to do with you saying it's a waste without any evidence to back it up.

Yeah. I caught that . . . and it's why I said that I find your argument strange. You say that you're a fiscal conservative, correct?

 

You're saying that we should spend the money unless it can be proven that it's wasteful. I think we should prove that these items are useful before spending the money.

 

There are several examples in the article if you'd like to see reasons why they could be wasteful. If you need me to point them out for you I will do so.

[HSKR]

I guess if you want to see evidence it's useful, then show me evidence it's wasteful because I haven't any yet.

Isn't that the opposite of fiscal responsibility? I.E. "We're paying for it unless you can prove that it's wasteful."

 

I sort of figured that your political leanings would have you fall on the opposite side of that discussion.

 

It has nothing to do with my political leanings and everything to do with you saying it's a waste without any evidence to back it up.

Yeah. I caught that . . . and it's why I said that I find your argument strange. You say that you're a fiscal conservative, correct?

 

You're saying that we should spend the money unless it can be proven that it's wasteful. I think we should prove that these items are useful before spending the money.

 

There are several examples in the article if you'd like to see reasons why they could be wasteful. If you need me to point them out for you I will do so.

 

Probably more fiscally conservative then you could imagine. Maybe our difference in this conversation is what kind of price we put on a life and possibly protecting or saving said life. I never said said that we should spend money unless it can be proven that it's wasteful. You implied that as usual. I said I am glad they bought this stuff cheap because they think it is useful, e.g. armored vehicle and standoff in Alliance.

 

I don't want examples of that COULD be wasterful. I want examples that ARE. If they are, I will be more then glad to agree they are but have yet to see even one. If the author of the article was a good journalist he would have went into one of these towns and caught the local PD using it's armored vehicle at the local mud bogging competition but in the end all he wrote about was how these things could be misused and could be wasteful not how they actually are.

 

“If you can save one life,” said Lieutenant Tim Clouse of the Tupelo Police Department referring to a missing person they were able to spot thanks to the chopper, “it was very much worth it.” Pierce, from Cobb County, echoes the thought. “If it saves one life then it’s worth the money and the effort put into it.”

To me that sounds much more useful then using a chopper to watch game day traffic.