Sheriff Gayer and his MRAP

[Indy_Guy_77]

Just read online yesterday that Johnson Co has an MRAP, too....

 

[Liberty Sanders]

So just how long until the county cannot afford to keep it running? It's not like you can go down to Autozone and buy a part for the MRAP. Not to mention the money wasted on training/fuel, regular maintenance. Perhaps if we were in central LA or Detroit, it would be understandable. But after living just south of Winamac for my entire life I cannot recall any single instance when a MRAP would have been needed. What a waste of funds.

You have hit on a significant point here.

I can envision scenarios where civilian law enforcement would have legitimate use for an armored vehicle. The problem is that when the feds give something like this to a town that may go for years or even decades without experiencing such a scenario, the tail begins to wag the dog. Like here in Carmel, agencies begin to lower the bar. I can honestly envision a day in the future where some agencies will use SWAT for traffic stops.

The answer is to spread out the responsibility so that no one agency feels constant pressure to justify possession of SWAT personnel and equipment by constantly employing in scenarios where it is not only NOT needed but where it is employed so thoughtlessly and frivolously that it amounts to domestic terrorism. Areas that have infrequent violent crime should have REGIONAL SWAT teams with equipment such as these vehicles shared amongst a sufficient number of agencies so that they can be usefully employed rather than trotted out to massage the egos of eager young cops who want to see action, even if it's only simulated action.

Of course this would require that only one agency be put in charge of the stuff and each head of each agency would naturally consider himself the most qualified to do that, so it will never happen.

 

[Trigger Time]

You have hit on a significant point here.

I can envision scenarios where civilian law enforcement would have legitimate use for an armored vehicle. The problem is that when the feds give something like this to a town that may go for years or even decades without experiencing such a scenario, the tail begins to wag the dog. Like here in Carmel, agencies begin to lower the bar. I can honestly envision a day in the future where some agencies will use SWAT for traffic stops.

The answer is to spread out the responsibility so that no one agency feels constant pressure to justify possession of SWAT personnel and equipment by constantly employing in scenarios where it is not only NOT needed but where it is employed so thoughtlessly and frivolously that it amounts to domestic terrorism. Areas that have infrequent violent crime should have REGIONAL SWAT teams with equipment such as these vehicles shared amongst a sufficient number of agencies so that they can be usefully employed rather than trotted out to massage the egos of eager young cops who want to see action, even if it's only simulated action.

Of course this would require that only one agency be put in charge of the stuff and each head of each agency would naturally consider himself the most qualified to do that, so it will never happen.

once again you hit the nail on the head

 

[Denny347]

The thought of an MRAP does not scare me, it just seems to be a waste. I liken it to the administrators trying to force a square peg into a round hole. They want an up-armored vehicle and try to force this beast into that mold. There are no rocket launchers, heavy machine guns, other weapons on it so it doesn't frighten me. It's just a big, cumbersome, clumsy armored vehicle that drinks fuel like it's going out of style, with parts that are hard to replace. Not that long ago our department finally retired the Cadillac Peacekeepers that we were given by the USAF 30 or so years ago. Those were given to the PD the same way the MRAPs were but the Peacekeepers made more sense as they were standard chassis with armor on them. We replaced them with a couple of Bearcats. Intimidation factor is fine with me, used appropriately. Nothing like a barricaded suspect refusing to give up until the Bearcat arrives and parks in front of the house...then they are quick to come out peacefully. The MRAPs are just too much armor for a department to keep running.

 

[jblomenberg16]

The thought of an MRAP does not scare me, it just seems to be a waste. I liken it to the administrators trying to force a square peg into a round hole. They want an up-armored vehicle and try to force this beast into that mold. There are no rocket launchers, heavy machine guns, other weapons on it so it doesn't frighten me. It's just a big, cumbersome, clumsy armored vehicle that drinks fuel like it's going out of style, with parts that are hard to replace. Not that long ago our department finally retired the Cadillac Peacekeepers that we were given by the USAF 30 or so years ago. Those were given to the PD the same way the MRAPs were but the Peacekeepers made more sense as they were standard chassis with armor on them. We replaced them with a couple of Bearcats. Intimidation factor is fine with me, used appropriately. Nothing like a barricaded suspect refusing to give up until the Bearcat arrives and parks in front of the house...then they are quick to come out peacefully. The MRAPs are just too much armor for a department to keep running.

Thanks for weighing in from the Law Enforcement perspective. Speaking of the armored portion of the MRAP...does it serve a practical purpose for a typical small town PD / SWAT team? Referencing my earlier question, is the time spent en route a typical threat to the reponding team to where the armor can help provide safety? Or is it more for the on site safety to where they can use it for cover if necessary?

I'm with you...seems like a very impractical solution and other than the wow factor it will draw, I'm failing to see what it can do better than a couple of SUV's, perhaps with some armor upgrades if deemed necessary, that are easier to maintain.

 

[Denny347]

Thanks for weighing in from the Law Enforcement perspective. Speaking of the armored portion of the MRAP...does it serve a practical purpose for a typical small town PD / SWAT team? Referencing my earlier question, is the time spent en route a typical threat to the reponding team to where the armor can help provide safety? Or is it more for the on site safety to where they can use it for cover if necessary?

I'm with you...seems like a very impractical solution and other than the wow factor it will draw, I'm failing to see what it can do better than a couple of SUV's, perhaps with some armor upgrades if deemed necessary, that are easier to maintain.

I'm not on our SWAT team but our Bearcats make great onsite cover, been there for that. Position it between the suspect and officers. We have had several incidents over the years where officers were pinned down with .30cal rifle fire. The armor is priceless for this.

 

[tonybia]

Apparently the government has 13,000 of these earmarked for local government agencies. They cost the local agencies nothing but transport costs and upkeep. Also interesting is that they are not owned by the local departments but ownership is retained by the Department of Defense.....keeping there hands of control on them.....

 

[Jludo]

"It's just badass, look at how cool I look driving this thing" - Sheriff Gayer

 

[hornadylnl]

"It's just badass, look at how cool I look driving this thing" - Sheriff Gayer

What separates this sheriff from the stolen valor douches?

 

[Henry]

[video=youtube_share;BojmU75rKhY]http://youtu.be/BojmU75rKhY[/video]

 

[csnoski]

I read somewhere recently that maintenance is an issue because some of this equipment has classified parts. Thought it was this article by Balko in yesterday's Wapo, it wasn't, but am providing the link because it was a good read.

This idea of “whatever we need to do to go home safe at night” has essentially replaced “protect and serve” as the primary mantra in many law enforcement agencies. It’s a mentality more suited for a battlefield than for a peace officer. Sheriff Cox’s job, in fact, is to protect and serve the people of Johnson County. It is to keep them safe, and to protect their rights. Keeping his officers safe is of course important, but it’s secondary. And if the two conflict, the citizens’ rights and safety take priority. Now, there’s a debate to be had about whether using equipment designed for war in domestic policing jeopardizes the rights and safety of U.S. citizens. But we can’t really even have that debate if law enforcement leaders believe that citizens’ rights are secondary to the safety of police officers.

War comes to Pulaski County, Indiana

 

[yepthatsme]

I submitted the following letter to the Star in response to this asshat's remarks:

To The Editor;
As a retired law enforcement command officer I was dismayed to read the remarks of Pulaski County Sheriff Michael Gayer, who said, “The United States of America has become a war zone. There’s violence in the workplace, there’s violence in schools and there’s violence in the streets.”

During my tenure in law enforcement there was violence in those places too. But it did not motivate us to transform from public servants and peacekeepers into warriors, taking weapons that were designed for foreign battlefields and turning them on the American people.

We were reluctant to deploy SWAT teams, fully realizing the violent response that such a display could provoke and employing such tactics only in the most extreme circumstances. Law enforcement agencies are now eager to deploy such teams even in a total absence of demonstrated need.

Here in my own city of Carmel, an incident occurred, reported in these pages, wherein a SWAT team deployed and terrorized a local family, jamming guns in their faces and dragging them away in handcuffs, based on nothing more than a single, unverified, uncorroborated phone call that a shooting had taken place. The report proved to be false.

This would have been simply impossible in my day. When we received such a phone call we sent officers to the location, and we knocked on the door! Wow! What a revolutionary concept!

No, Sheriff Gayer…The United States of America is NOT a war zone. It is the place where Americans work, live and play. Law enforcement officers who are trained that America is a war zone do not regard citizens as individuals with rights to be protected, but as an enemy to be subjugated. And if the law enforcement profession does not wake up and change this attitude, we, the people, will be forced to call on our legislators to rein you in.

Lieutenant Harry Thomas

I will repeat what others have said - Great Post!

 

[jblomenberg16]

I'm not on our SWAT team but our Bearcats make great onsite cover, been there for that. Position it between the suspect and officers. We have had several incidents over the years where officers were pinned down with .30cal rifle fire. The armor is priceless for this.

Thank you...I can see where an armored vehicle would be useful for that.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

They printed it, with minor edits.

 

[Warrior]

While I am all for LEO safety, the trampling of individual liberties can not continue.

 

[Denny347]

While I am all for LEO safety, the trampling of individual liberties can not continue.

How is an MRAP doing that

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

How is an MRAP doing that

You mean like the one that had the LRAD mounted on it blaring down the residential Pittsburgh street during the G8 (I think it was ) summit ? The video is on here somewhere.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

How is an MRAP doing that

AND , with all the videos /articles of officers chainsawing through the wrong doors , entering houses because the doors weren't locked , shooting peoples dogs , shooting into mini vans full of kids , flash banging babies , ETC FREAKIN ETC , you seriously think for one second these vehicles won't get used inappropriately?

 

[Denny347]

AND , with all the videos /articles of officers chainsawing through the wrong doors , entering houses because the doors weren't locked , shooting peoples dogs , shooting into mini vans full of kids , flash banging babies , ETC FREAKIN ETC , you seriously think for one second these vehicles won't get used inappropriately?

Ah so what you are saying is that the police should not be able to own these inanimate objects because there are SOME officers who use them inappropriately? Hmmmmmm

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ah so what you are saying is that the police should not be able to own these inanimate objects because there are SOME officers who use them inappropriately? Hmmmmmm

I would say that the problem is the increasing disparity in the balance between the government and people and the police having access to equipment not available to the rest of us. Taking this with the tendency for abuse is unsettling.

Denny, I will have to remind you that while I would trust YOU with one, this trust isn't universal. You are a good man and a good officer in a good department. I am not, however, willing to gamble my future as a free citizen on quite a few others 'getting religion' on the subject and rising to the standard set by you and others of similar quality.

I would also have to revisit the fact that through our history until 1934 anyone could own anything he could afford to buy. So far as I am concerned, this is the real problem issue. The NFA was the beginning of an inversion of the balance of power between the government and the people which is reprehensible in every fashion.

Incidentally, I am opposed to the police having anything not commonly available. Our founders were very clear on the importance of the balance of power resting with the people rather than the government and for their purposes the modern concept of police departments would differ little from the dangers of which they spoke pertaining to standing armies.