https://cbs2iowa.com/news/loca...-new-armored-vehicle

I thought these were a lot more money ,
I see that in very big cities , some P.D.'s are even using M.R.A.P.'s

That is so cool. I dig the flat black color. One I saw in Boone County, northern Kentucky was way bigger. You cant miss that monster on the road.

MRAPs are extremely poor choices as far as police work is concerned. The Bearcats are much better options.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
MRAPs are extremely poor choices as far as police work is concerned. The Bearcats are much better options.

True, but a lot of that choice comes down to budget.

If you can pick up a used MRAP at a .gov auction or through a program for 1/3 the cost...
Bearcats are, depending on options $200-$300 grand.

IIRC, I think the DOD was giving away a lot of MRAPs to LE agencies. Supposedly, the receiving agency only has to pay for the transport of the item to their department and the associated 'costs of ownership.'

If I remember correctly it's called a 1033 program. With what LE faces these days, give them whatever the military usually gives foreign countries.

Before I retired, the most we received were a few sleeping bags. What our SWAT guys would have given for an MRAP.

Cedar Rapids is a much bigger small city than I thought. I was all ready to call this a silly purchase, but a population of 250,000 is certainly big enough to need something like this from time-to-time. Hope it serves Linn County well.

Bearcat ARV are very accessible for medium and smaller agencies by way of grants. Bearcat themselves will assist agencies with writing grants for Homeland Security grants and the like. For us, the most expensive part of the bearcat, besides fuel, was getting a custom made cover.

Not concerned with them buying it however the source of funds stated is bad policy.

“The vehicle cost $297,061 and the sheriff's office says it will be paid by asset forfeiture money collected from illegal criminal activity.”

Law Enforcement should do just that, Enforce the Laws.

The City, State, and Federal Government should provide the necessary funds for Law Enforcement to perform their function.

Allowing Law Enforcement to raise funds from asset forfeiture opens the door for abuse.
All funds raised by Police should go directly back to the government (citizens) which fund them.

I am glad that PDs, large and small, are acquiring vehicles resistant to small arms fire. I know of an incident in the big city where there was a shots fired call one sunny afternoon. Officer rolls up into the area, location of possible shooter was unknown. Officer was immediately mortally wounded. Others were shot, but there was no way for responding units to get in and rescue the officer and others who were shot. Officers commandeered a cement mixer, hung soft body armor on the doors and used that to rescue those wounded and killed. Afterwards, the department acquired a USAF surplus Peacekeeper, later more modern armored vehicles to address potential future incidents.

Smaller town, a police chief contacted a person known to have mental issues. Individual shot the chief. Chief was down, but responding officers could not immediately determine if chief was still alive, he was not. They had no reasonably safe way to get in and aid the downed chief. It was soon learned that the individual had committed suicide after killing the chief. Years later the Dept., concerned about negative public perception, reluctantly required an MRAP. Why an MRAP? Because one was available through the DOD 1033 program at little cost, other than getting it to the Dept. Not because the Dept. needed a mine resistant vehicle, or wanted to "militarize" the Dept. Just the opposite. Public perception that PDs are acquiring "tanks" is of serious concern to chiefs, mayors, councils,etc.....

quote:

I know of an incident in the big city where there was a shots fired call one sunny afternoon. Officer rolls up into the area, location of possible shooter was unknown. Officer was immediately mortally wounded. Others were shot, but there was no way for responding units to get in and rescue the officer and others who were shot. Officers commandeered a cement mixer,

No armored car companies operating in that big city? (Who also sometimes will donate used trucks to the police).

MRAPs are very dangerous. They are very heavy (sometimes too much for normal roads/bridges/etc) and all of that weight is way up in the air due to the fact that it's designed to protect against road side bombs.

They do not have the same type of "safety" equipment as a regular vehicle, most of those driving them have zero experience behind the wheel, and they can roll over easily (in addition to getting stuck). There have even been instances of police operating these trucks where accidents have occurred involving innocents driving around them.

If you want a truck for hostage or armed standoff situations, buy a truck designed for that. They are lighter, more maneuverable, and immensely safer.

I kinda think I want one in Caterpillar yellow,
with a white roof , like the land rovers

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
If I remember correctly it's called a 1033 program. .

There's the 1033 and I believe there's the DRMO program (or something close to those initials). When Chicago started the Carbine Course a few years ago, we received a few crates of Mil-Surp M-16's (yeah M-16's, triangular hand guards, full auto giggle switch). I believe they were Del-Tonics. We picked them up for $33 a piece through that program.

A few friends at different departments tell me that they got night vision, thermal, first aid kits (not just the "individual" kits, but the large trauma kits as well) and other equipment for next to nothing prices.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
If I remember correctly it's called a 1033 program. .

There's the 1033 and I believe there's the DRMO program (or something close to those initials). When Chicago started the Carbine Course a few years ago, we received a few crates of Mil-Surp M-16's (yeah M-16's, triangular hand guards, full auto giggle switch). I believe they were Del-Tonics. We picked them up for $33 a piece through that program.

A few friends at different departments tell me that they got night vision, thermal, first aid kits (not just the "individual" kits, but the large trauma kits as well) and other equipment for next to nothing prices.

Yup, DRMO. Years ago, we got woodland BDU’s, M-16 mags (mostly well used but some like new ones) and some real deal M-4’s with brand new 14.5” barrels and M203 barrel profile. We had to defang them of course but when they arrived they were full giggle. Sure wish I could have hit the range with a couple thousand rounds before they were converted

When they were destroyed a few years back, I got to keep a couple of complete uppers which rather than having stupid looking “pistols”, I welded on BCM extended bird cages.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Not concerned with them buying it however the source of funds stated is bad policy.

“The vehicle cost $297,061 and the sheriff's office says it will be paid by asset forfeiture money collected from illegal criminal activity.”

Law Enforcement should do just that, Enforce the Laws.

The City, State, and Federal Government should provide the necessary funds for Law Enforcement to perform their function.

Allowing Law Enforcement to raise funds from asset forfeiture opens the door for abuse.
All funds raised by Police should go directly back to the government (citizens) which fund them.

I know that civil asset forfeiture is unpopular here and I understand why. Do you know anything about how the funds used in this case were obtained? Do you know anything about how the agency involved uses forfeiture funds? Who is to say that the funds are not solely tied to criminal convictions? Who is to say that the agency doesn't require approval from a governing body (county board of supervisors) to spend the money?

I ask these questions because my agency is extremely cautious with the use of forfeiture funds and purchases must be approved outside of the police department. I certainly am not claiming every agency is this way, but to assume that they are not is just that - an assumption.

When you say that forfeiture funds should go directly back to the government which funds the agency, does that not create the potential problem of the government body subsidizing their operation with forfeiture and with the officials in charge being incentivized to condition funding for the LE agency on generating forfeiture funds? Is this any better than the potential for abuse currently? One obvious answer is that doing it that way makes the elected officials accountable for the money, but so does (in this case) having the Sheriff spend it.

Bottom line is that asset forfeiture is an extremely complex issue and it is not suited for sound bite solutions.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

No armored car companies operating in that big city? (Who also sometimes will donate used trucks to the police).

MRAPs are very dangerous. They are very heavy (sometimes too much for normal roads/bridges/etc) and all of that weight is way up in the air due to the fact that it's designed to protect against road side bombs.

They do not have the same type of "safety" equipment as a regular vehicle, most of those driving them have zero experience behind the wheel, and they can roll over easily (in addition to getting stuck). There have even been instances of police operating these trucks where accidents have occurred involving innocents driving around them.

If you want a truck for hostage or armed standoff situations, buy a truck designed for that. They are lighter, more maneuverable, and immensely safer.

For a lot of agencies, raising the $300k to buy a Bearcat is simply out of the question. Our county has one. The first time it was used was to drive through flooded areas and evacuate people from their homes. It could have been done with a boat or several, but it was easier and safer with the MRAP. It also would not have worked with a Bearcat.

We can throw anecdotes back and forth all day long, but provided sufficient training (our agency sends MRAP drivers to two days off training with the national guard) and policy, these vehicles are much better than nothing.

quote:

The first time it was used was to drive through flooded areas and evacuate people from their homes.

Which is a perfect example of exactly what they were not designed to do, and whomever made that decision putting their officers and the public at risk.

I'll paint with a broad brush, because some versions are slightly better than others, but:

Pavement covered with water, especially moving water, is generally a weaker surface than when it's dry. Combine that with an excessively heavy truck. So you punch through the pavement, fall off the edge, and end up in a ditch. With all of that weight up top, rolling it is a very good possibility.

So how does that work for those inside, upside down, in a flooded area?

You know what works really good in those circumstances? 2.5 or 5 ton military cargo trucks. That's what they are built to do. Much lighter, and much less likely to roll. And if they do roll? You're not trapped inside of a machine where you can't get the doors open.

But again, I know why they take that risk. It's free, it has the agency's name painted down the side, and it's good publicity so long as nobody dies in it. Doesn't make it smart.

a1abdj, Thank you for your input. I was not trained to operate the MRAP and am not familiar with the MRAP's handling qualities. I was just reporting incidents I was aware of where some type of vehicle resistant to small arms fire would have been desirable, and vehicles two departments acquired to address the issue. Yes, an armored car would have been nice at the first incident I mentioned, but officers used what was available at the moment.

quote:

Do you know anything about how the funds used in this case were obtained?

Most likely at the point of a gun by a non-elected government employee during the course of his/her legal duties.

quote:

Do you know anything about how the agency involved uses forfeiture funds?

Yes. In this story it indicates they used forfeited funds to acquired a new BearCat G2 armored rescue vehicle.

quote:

Who is to say that the funds are not solely tied to criminal convictions?

Wow! I would hope so. Curious though, how else would funds be forfeited if not tied to criminal convictions?

quote:

Who is to say that the agency doesn't require approval from a governing body (county board of supervisors) to spend the money?

Ah! Good question. As stated civil asset forfeiture is unpopular here (and in many areas). As a minimum I think we can agree, that it is controversial. It would be wise for a Sheriff’s office to put in the press release that forfeited funds where authorized to be used for the purchase by (county board of supervisors, city council, or applicable government body). Agree or Disagree with how forfeiture funds are used is irrelevant. What is relevant is the knowledge of who authorized the funds. Sheriff? City Council? County Board of Supervisors?

quote:

When you say that forfeiture funds should go directly back to the government which funds the agency, does that not create the potential problem of the government body subsidizing their operation with forfeiture and with the officials in charge being incentivized to condition funding for the LE agency on generating forfeiture funds?

Absolutely. Which is why this caught my eye.
Years ago I attended a city council meeting (small town) where it was discussed where the Police should patrol more often to raise funds to replace a Police car. (Speed drop to 25 mph, not obviously necessary.)

quote:

Is this any better than the potential for abuse currently? One obvious answer is that doing it that way makes the elected officials accountable for the money, but so does (in this case) having the Sheriff spend it.

Yes it is better, in that the money is one step away from the agency which procured it.
More accountability for a controversial issue.

quote:

Bottom line is that asset forfeiture is an extremely complex issue and it is not suited for sound bite solutions.

And here we end in agreement.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
MRAPs are extremely poor choices as far as police work is concerned. The Bearcats are much better options.

Yeah. The only thing that the MRAP really has going for it is that it's available for nearly free (at least as far as initial acquisition costs).

I live in Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Iowa. FWIW, we have in the last 10 years or so, had a fairly large influx of criminal elements (gang type) from a larger city in the state to our East (Chicago in particular) which has caused a considerable increase in drug related crimes and shootings. So far it has pretty much been on a relatively small scale of one on one in general and confined to primarily the drug community. Homicides and threats have been generally confined to handgun confrontations. Of course the possibility of escalation does exist if a concerted effort to "take over" by a group should arise. Having this vehicle available to protect our officers and/or the public if needed is a plus in my eyes. Hopefully it is not something that will be required to be brought out on a more regular basis but it is there if needed. We do have trained special response teams but they are not often used so far. Most incidents are handled by CRPD but the Sheriffs department is available for mutual aid when needed. To the best of my knowledge the forfeiture instances have generally been dealt with in a reasonable manner by both departments. There have been few if any instances of unreasonable seizures to my recollection. My general take on this is that it is about the correct type of vehicle to deal with the types of situations that our officers might encounter in this area.