Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomschlick | Hacker News Reader

> MRAP's are for combat, not police work

While they were designed for combat, they are effectively the same thing that Brinks uses to transport money. They are meant to stop bad things from killing the people inside. They have 0 offensive weapons.

They are entirely defensive vehicles that have been used to rescue downed officers, civilians in harms way (gunfire), and multiple times in natural disasters where other vehicles would have gotten stuck.

While I get that they "look scary" to some people, they do have utility and come very cheap from the federal government that is trying to get them off their books. Local police pick them up because when there is a gunfight/hostage situation/disaster it's better to have one 5 mins away than an hour away.

I honestly don't get the outrage about them.

View on HN

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18543229.

They are not the same thing as a standard armored truck. The name itself gives that away (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected). Police do not need mine-resistant vehicles.

MRAPs have high maintenance and running costs. The simple fact that they are former military vehicles contributes to the military mindset of many police depts, something that should be avoided. Militarization of police forces is bad for citizens.

> Police do not need mine-resistant vehicles.

Serious eye roll here. You're discarding all of the other capabilities and suggesting that because it is ALSO mine resistant it must be bad.

> MRAPs have high maintenance and running costs.

That's assuming they are used all the time. Most departments have them parked at their HQs and only use them for call outs or training. Regular maintenance wouldn't reach the same levels of cost as buying a bearcat + maintaining that. Also as more depts get them, the maintenance costs will go down (excluding the OP comment here's area).

> contributes to the military mindset of many police depts

While I generally agree with that notion, I would much rather them buy the cheaper milsurp vehicle with more capability than buy one from Lenco, or not buy one at all and have to wait an hour during an active shooter.

> You're discarding all of the other capabilities and suggesting that because it is ALSO mine resistant it must be bad.

Having driven and gunned on an MRAP... yes, the mine resistance makes it bad. You resist mines by 1. moving away from them and 2. presenting armor at an angle. On a truck like an MRAPs, you mount it very high above the ground and for the size and weight, the interior space is limited because the chassis is sloped upwards.

For smaller depts that cant afford a custom Bearcat, I'm sure the smaller space and height burdens aren't too bad compared to not having armored cover at all.

Why do Americans seem to do everything they can about people with guns, except take away their guns?

Because we have a constitutional right to said guns so we don't take removing them lightly. That said if someone has any history of violence, crime, or mental disorder I'm 100% in favor of removing access to weapons.

There was no Constitutional right to carry a gun- or to own a gun- until 2005, and the 2005 Heller decision only covered keeping handguns in the home. Exactly how far the right extends beyond that is very much not settled law.

If only guns caused food poisoning; we don't even care about lead poisoning.

Well having much much ie approaching UK level of mandatory training for firearms officers would actually be better looking at it externally.

For most police departments it's a smart choice since it's armored, can be used to provide impenetrable cover, and has lower upfront costs than alternatives. For cash-strapped police departments, that's a great opportunity.

Here's the outrage:

if the police have armored vehicles, that means that they perceive a need for armored vehicles. When officers walk past them, they are reminded that they are needed. When officers are inside them, they feel simultaneously invulnerable and threatened -- all this armor means that someone must want to kill them.

From the other side, a community that sees MRAPs going past has to believe that there's a need for armored protection for the police -- so there must be a corresponding threat from armed criminals. The affluent parts of the community perceive more of a threat, and the disadvantaged part of the community has solid evidence that the police are an occupying military force, not protection.

In other words, the presence of the MRAPs creates a problem for everyone. It escalates tension.

So we are talking about perception above all else?

Great, but there are use cases for armored vehicles. Whether its an MRAP or a Bearcat.

There are always going to be barricaded persons, hostage situations, active shooters, riots, and natural disasters that need responding to and those seem to be the best tools for the job. The goal is to get as close to the subject as possible without anyone getting hurt. From there you can control the scene and use it as a position to de-escalate.

If these tools are being used inappropriately, I am all for legislation to curb that.

> So we are talking about perception above all else?

Perception resulting from conscious, deliberate actions; or, viewed another way, nonverbal communication. Yes, it's key to police work.

Perception is an important thing when it comes to interacting with a community.

The idea that first you roll up in a tank, and then you pretend that you're going to de-escalate, is inherently ludicrous.

"Barricaded person": doesn't need an MRAP, they need a therapist.

"Hostage situation": generally also doesn't need an MRAP, they need a specialized therapist.

"Active shooter": here's note from a company that really wants to sell you training on how to deal with an active shooter -- http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/10-lessons-learned-fro... -- note that even with their spin, they can't come up with any evidence that an MRAP would be helpful.

"Riots" -- There's a list on Wikipedia. What percentage were caused by the police murdering people? 12 of 29 in the last ten years.

"Natural disasters": don't require tanks. Heavy trucks? Rugged 4WD? More investment in firefighting equipment? Sure. Hauling around tons of armor on a vehicle with a high center of gravity? Silly.

> When officers are inside them, they feel simultaneously invulnerable and threatened -- all this armor means that someone must want to kill them.

And cars have airbags and seatbelts because other drivers actively want to crash onto your car?

Perhaps concerns about 'the over-militarization of police' is essentially a concern for situations where an extreme power imbalance exists between police and civilians, creating a much higher risk of totalitarian abuse and oppression by police in situations where the police force in question becomes corrupt or 'bad' in some way. (Disclaimer: I'm not making an anti-LEO argument; quite the contrary, I'm very pro-LEO, and in many cases I see, LEOs are disrespected very unfairly.)

The problem isn't where police are good; the point is to design a system that inherently protects against abuse by the very small percentage of LEOs that do become corrupt and abuse their special powers that civilians do not have. How do we protect against this?

Perhaps the simplest and most robust way to protect against this abuse is simply to limit the magnitude of power imbalance between the government and the people! One could argue that this principle applies to physically defensive equipment as much as it does to computer and information systems, and any other mode of power. Additionally, this notion is encoded into our country's constitution at least in some ways.

Therefore, this leads to the question: Can a civilian buy an MRAP? If so, I think your argument works very well -- especially since they're defensive machines. If a civilian cannot buy one though, I could see the argument against police using them gaining favor.

> Can a civilian buy an MRAP? If so, I think your argument works very well

Yes you can if you found one for sale (not sure what that market looks like). Civilians can also buy decommissioned tanks, Two ton trucks, humvees, etc.

I would add the question of, can a civilian buy it and use it on the streets? Just owning one in a garage doesn't really mean anything.

I have personally seen Humvee's driving on the roads so I dont see why not.

Basically an MRAP is just a big truck so as long as it didn't break any traffic laws (too wide, too heavy, etc) then I'd assume its fine. Would depend per state though.

Anecdote from 6 months ago: Humvees are often sold without title for $4K to $8K in GA. Titled vehicles (the ones that can legally drive on public roads) go for $22k for a beater on up.

Why the huge disparity? Is it that hard to get them title?

In that case, I'm definitely convinced to your side of the argument! If a civilian can buy it, I see no reason why a police force shouldn't be able to as well. That said, I'd love to hear any counter-arguments to this notion, if they exist.

I've read that police departments were literally given these vehicles. I challenge someone to call BAE up and actually get a price quote and delivery timeline, here's the website to get you started. https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/rg33-mineresistant-amb...

My point, is these were given to the police. While a civilian may technically be eligible to buy one for $500k (bulk pricing) but we realistically have no opportunity to purchase. So the parent's comment applies.

Well in USA civilians can buy automatic rifles and high caliber armor piercing sniper rifles... that does not necessary mean that its a good idea.

It is an excellent idea. An armed populous is an excellent deterrent of tyranny. And with the way the US is headed, an armed populous may be the only thing that stands between freedom and absolute tyranny.

Upvoting for historical reasons.

Nitpick: you can buy automatic rifles made before 1986 (might be off on the date but you get the idea). You can't go buy a brand new automatic.

* you can however buy a modern rifle that's made to have its automatic mode disabled, but my understanding is that it's trivial to modify to become automatic (but it will no longer be legal)

> You can't go buy a brand new automatic.

Also the ones that are on the market (pre-86) go for tens of thousands of dollars to start. They are basically coveted by rich collectors who show them off at designated "machine gun shoot" days at specialty ranges.

> but my understanding is that it's trivial to modify to become automatic

It's not trivial. Requires decent gun-smithing skill, the ability to craft an auto sear, and some extra parts. To my knowledge no one has been confirmed to have done that and convicted of it in recent history.

It is trivial. You don't need to craft an auto sear - you can just buy one.

https://www.newfrontierarmory.com/shop/m-16-full-auto-lpk/

The reason why it's legal is because these will only fit in a full auto receiver, which is the regulated part. But most semi-auto lower receivers can be converted to accept said full auto trigger group simply by drilling a single hole in the receiver. Which is also fairly trivial, given that you're drilling aluminum, and jigs are readily available:

https://www.newfrontierarmory.com/shop/m-16-drilling-jig/

If you ever hear references to the "third hole" in gun context, or see the meme linked below, that's what it is about.

https://i.imgur.com/HgPfXdl.jpg

> It's not trivial.

I had an old 12-gauge semi that you could break a match stick off in the breach, and it would unload the entire magazine automatically with one pull of the trigger. That was pretty trivial.

The counter argument would be police departments rarely buy this equipment - it's given to them as part of a program between the Pentagon and law enforcement. They get the vehicles (and lots of other military grade equipment) for a huge discount or free.

There is also the fact that even if a civilian could technically buy one, it's not really feasible to actually do so.

> The counter argument would be police departments rarely buy this equipment - it's given to them as part of a program between the Pentagon and law enforcement. They get the vehicles (and lots of other military grade equipment) for a huge discount or free.

> There is also the fact that even if a civilian could technically buy one, it's not really feasible to actually do so.

Keep in mind that these vehicles were originally bought by the Pentagon using civilians' money (tax money). So far for feasibility.

Civilians can buy heavily armored vehicles, yes. They can also buy military vehicles, provided they are certified (like not carrying weapons) but it is definitely possible to be rolling around in a MRAP style machine completely legally.

You can buy armored vehicles with many kinds of weapons, too. But then you'll need to register them as destructive devices with ATF, pay the NFA tax etc.

Look up "The Big Sandy Shoot" on YouTube. All vehicles and artillery pieces you see there are privately owned.

Hmm.. are you sure? Don't they have to be street legal to drive on the street? You can probably buy one to drive on private land but that's about it.

I don't see how an MRAP would be any less street legal than one of those large dump trucks. At worst you would need a CDL based on the weight but probably not in most states.

Yes, and they can be. It's really about what certifications you get regarding weapons, weight and noise, but it completely possible.

LEO = law enforcement officer (not Low Earth Orbit)

Right - an MRAP is a 'battlefield taxi' - it's a basic vehicle to move around a hostile area - it's defensive. You aren't doing anything offensive from inside an MRAP unless it has a remote weapons station on top. Great for collecting casualties.

"Battlefield." "Hostile area". "Collecting Casualties".

Cannot imagine why people might be concerned about its use in law enforcement.

From Wikipedia:

"The November 2015 Paris attacks were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks that took place on Friday, 13 November 2015 in Paris, France and the city's northern suburb, Saint-Denis. Beginning at 21:16 CET, three suicide bombers struck outside the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, during a football match. This was followed by several mass shootings and a suicide bombing, at cafés and restaurants. Gunmen carried out another mass shooting and took hostages at an Eagles of Death Metal concert in the Bataclan theatre, leading to a stand-off with police. The attackers were shot or blew themselves up when police raided the theatre."

As you can see, the streets of Paris did indeed become a battlefield, filled with hostile attackers, leading to many casualties. It's easy to see why even Paris was not immune to terrorism/armed assailants and needed to have armored vehicles.

You’re being unnecessarily snarky and sarcastic. In active shooter situations, which are not uncommon in suburban US areas, you have hostile areas and need to collect casualties in a defended vehicle while possibly under fire.

> In active shooter situations, which are not uncommon in suburban US areas

Also not uncommon in warzones.

Uncommon, however, almost everywhere else in the world.

SWAT teams use them as rams on wheels to bust through walls.

Oh, and they do that to serve no-knock warrants on weed possession, no violent crimes involved.

I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one.

If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. They are civilian vehicles and all of the tasks you list are civilian tasks.

Militarization of the police force is a very, very, very bad idea.

However, the French Gendarmes are a paramilitary police force. It’s part of the French military and under interior ministry control. Does France have concerns about this military-style police force? Just saying militarization is a “bad idea,” seems to be an opinion based on emotion rather than facts. It seems like any police force can be bad or good; the militarization doesn’t seem to have much to do with that. French Gendarmes are reasonably respected. Actual armed soldiers patrol tourist areas in France, and that hasn’t led to any particular oppression unique to militarization. It does however make French tourist sites vastly safer than most places in the world that don’t have such patrols.

It’s really a question of training rather than equipment or appearance.

Exactly. Even NYC has the "Hercules" team which is effectively a SWAT team that shows up at high risk locations as a show of force to deter terrorism.

Last time I was in Time Square some of them were lining up for photos with the general public. The crowd seemed pretty at ease knowing that if shit went down those guys were there to stop it.

In most cities in US, SWAT and local police are the same people wearing slightly different uniforms. This is not so in Europe, where there's a clear distinction between beat cops (who don't get MRAPs) and special forces.

Sure. But the French police barely use their guns, whereas the US police famously kill lots and lots of people.

So for the purposes of the topic at hand, giving the US police military equipment is probably a bad idea. At least until there’s been an institutional culture shift, which will take decades at least.

Yes I think the fragmented nature of having hundreds if not thousands of "police" forces of various levels of training and background checks.

> I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one.

Anecdotal opinions. I know plenty of vets who don't think MRAPs are a big deal at all.

> If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks.

Armored cars cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy and outfit from companies like Lenco. MRAPs are bought for ~$1k (transport costs) from the federal government.

> Militarization of the police force is a very, very, very bad idea.

If the vehicles do the same tasks, in mostly the same way, what's the difference?

It's exactly the riot cop problem. On the cop side, the more armor you have, the less you see and the more hostile the world /seems/; this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation.

On the civilian side, you get to feel like you live in a goddamned war zone, with the police as combatants. It's not a nice feeling.

My own approach is to treat cops as large, gun-wielding wild animals: maybe they'll be fine, but in any interaction there's a chance they'll fuck up your life permanently. And that's a direct consequence of having police on 'war footing' with the community, where the default reactions to problems are either violence or long-term imprisonment. And the ethics of this extends beyond my own interactions: if I see something illegal happening, calling the cops means putting people in extreme danger. As a result, I'm not going to call the cops for anything less than assault. Thus, police militarization works against actual enforcement of the law, because it estranges police from the population. (For a whole lot more, go listen to season 3 of the Serial podcast...)

> this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation.

I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people.

If people are rioting (actually rioting, not protesting) then I honestly don't care how the presence of a MRAP makes them feel. It's the police's job to stop the riot and they need tools to do that.

> I'm not going to call the cops for anything less than assault.

I'm glad you're not the majority. Because the world would be pretty shitty if all the police responded to was physical assaults and above.

> I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people.

Most of the time, police aren't being shot at. And they tend to react to peaceful protest exactly as if it were a riot. This is well documented.

Here's an example I was present for: Peaceful protest at the university. Cops in riot gear show up, fly around in helicopters, etc. One of the cops pushes/bumps a girl who then bounces into another cop, who slams her against the hood of cop car, arrests her, charges her with assault, and tries to get her expelled from the university. (The same department, six months later, gave us this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4 )

> I'm glad you're not the majority. Because the world would be pretty shitty if all the police responded to was physical assaults and above.

If that's not the world you like, let's fix the police!

> Most of the time

Key phrase there. We expect our police to be equipped for any situation. So what happens when something like the North Hollywood shooting happens again and you have pinned cops/civilians? In that case officers had to commandeer actual money trucks and raid gun shops to get the equipment they needed to stop the shooters.

> Here's an example I was present for

If that's true then I'm all for punishments / legal action against officers that do wrong.

> If that's not the world you like, let's fix the police!

I'm all for police reform where evidence shows it can help.

If they only used that stuff when called for, that would be nice.

In practice, most of the time, all that gear is used to serve no-knock warrants on non-violent offenders (usually involving drugs).

Maryland used to publish statistics for their use of SWAT teams; look that up, and note the breakdown on kinds of circumstances they were called in for, and whether it was no-knock or not. No-knock generally means busting doors and sometimes ramming walls (with those very MRAPs), throwing flashbangs etc.

It really depends on the exact location of the cops. As a younger person I personally witnessed local police use those vehicles in ways that were very much overkill. I've also personally winessed those same police officers lie " on the stand" in court to " make" thier case and the judge always buys it. Doesn't take a genius to understand that there is a huge problem with law enforcement in the US. Isn't this a thread about Google?

>I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people.

I mean, not only is it required by law, as per Graham v. Connor, but the current trend in national standards for dealing with riots is trending towards implementing de-escalation techniques and other measures designed to protect the sanctity of life rather than using escalating violence to disperse the crowd.

You seem to be conflating two issues there. If there is a shooting there is no negotiation until they can deem the situation under control.

For riots, obviously using other dispersion tactics is preferable and should be used before physical force is employed.

> > I'm not going to call the cops for anything less than assault.

> I'm glad you're not the majority. Because the world would be pretty shitty if all the police responded to was physical assaults and above.

Only ancentotal, I know, but every time I have called the cops for any reason in my life, the situation was arguably made worse for everyone present... In some cases, severely so.

In m several cases, the threat of deadly force was brought into cases where nothing but a stern hand was needed. In one, it almost resulted in the death of the person that was actually doing the most to help the situation.

I will never again call the police for any reason unless I think with some certainty that a life will be lost if I dont.

> I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people.

So the best option is to go to the other extreme, and give our police military weapons, vehicles, and armor--except that police get a looser RoE, they investigate themselves, and have a great history of murdering civilians.

> If people are rioting (actually rioting, not protesting) then I honestly don't care how the presence of a MRAP makes them feel. It's the police's job to stop the riot and they need tools to do that.

These vehicles show up at protests. Someone else here suggested we look them up on YouTube so we can see how they SAVE LIVES when police use them. Except the only video that I found in my admittedly short YouTube search was the police using these at a protest, lol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71-R2D0-wOI&t=3462s I'm so glad the police had all of that protection there. Phew. Saved so many police lives.

How do you know they’re not the majority?

Because outside the bubble of HN, people generally support their community police and don't feel threatened to call them when a crime is occurring to them / in front of them.

> If the vehicles do the same tasks, in mostly the same way, what's the difference?

The difference is that the 1033 program comes with a use-it-or-lose-it utilization requirement, which means that the cheap transfer of military equipment has a built in incentive to overuse it. They are often suitable for tasks that police rarely face, which at a steep discount makes them seem like good deals anyway. But then they must be used soon to be kept. So they get used in less appropriate circumstances as a direct consequence of the terms of transfer.

> The difference is that the 1033 program comes with a use-it-or-lose-it utilization requirement

It's my understanding that the requirement is a stop-gap for a single dept ordering 500 of these vehicles and parking them in a warehouse or selling them off. Basically if they use it for training and have it at the ready for call-outs then they satisfy the requirement.

> While I get that they "look scary" to some people .

That's more than enough reason not to deploy them.

It changes "we're here to serve and protect" to "we will crush you if you step out of line".

Here's a great example of how the police have failed to live up to 'serve and protect'.

Here is an EU police car. Note it's bright colours to be easily spotted. Dare I say this car looks friendly. http://cdn1.blog.powerblocktv.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10...

Now, here's a US police _interceptor_. The front grill looks like it's ready to ram me. http://s3.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/2011-F...

The MRAP's to your point only exacerbate existing problems in the US police state. I don't see why the police (and some folks here) can't see that.

That grill is designed for ramming, shoving, and a hammer-head maneuver that destabilizes the target vehicle.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIT_maneuver [1] https://youtu.be/OjvBYk8_8HI?t=19

It's pretty disconcerting watching that video. The news and commentary make it feel i'm watching a sports hunting game.

The UK police manage to PIT vehicles (and, in a recent turn of events, mopeds) without needing to fit metalwork to their police cars.

What does the body damage look like?

Wouldn't a Ford Focus wagon be limiting for many police duties in the US? Police have to be able to handle many rough situations, so a vehicle designed with utilitarian prowess should be essential for that job.

Maybe it could get a cute paint job like the Focus and split the difference?

> That's more than enough reason not to deploy them.

No it's not. These vehicles can, and have saved lives. I have yet to hear of an MRAP killing someone in the US.

> "we will crush you if you step out of line"

Better wording would be "if you throw rocks or shoot at us we are still going to arrest you".

> These vehicles can, and have saved lives.

Citation needed. Police all over the world do their jobs without these tanks. Is there any data proving crime goes down in cities where they are deployed? Is there any data proving that less lives are lost when these tanks are deployed in US cities?

> Better wording would be "if you throw rocks or shoot at us we are still going to arrest you".

People have been throwing rocks at and shooting at US police for two centuries. How does having a tank help in arrests? Officers can't arrest from inside the tank. They have to get out of it and approach on foot. How is this different from stepping out from behind a building or any other vehicle and approaching on foot?

They could drive to the scene in a yellow school bus and the result would be the same. They have to exit the bus and approach on foot.

You could look up videos on YouTube of police deploying an AMRAP to an area with an active shooter (a shooter with military-grade rifles and armor) and using it for cover. That's how they save lives.

> Citation needed.

Several active shooter situations where they need to retrieve downed officers / civilians without exposing the rescue team to gunfire. Most recently in the Pittsburgh shooting it was reported they used an armored vehicle to get to injured officers outside.

> Police all over the world do their jobs without these tanks.

First of all they are not tanks. They have no offensive capabilities so they would be classified as armored personnel carriers.

Second, these exist all over the world, here are some image results: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=european+riot+vehicle&t=ffab&iar=i...

> People have been throwing rocks at and shooting at US police for two centuries. How does having a tank help in arrests?

Allows officers to take cover behind it while the vehicle moves forward. When it reaches the people throwing rocks they can move to effect the arrest.

For shootings it allows them to much closer to barricaded subjects and make sure they cant escape / provides a platform to negotiate peaceful surrender.

Would you please add a link to your narrative description of a citation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com