Why does Tampa Bay need an APC/tank?

This is a discussion on Why does Tampa Bay need an APC/tank? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I'm going to start saving up we can open carry here and it would be perfect....

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 104
Like Tree23Likes

Thread: Why does Tampa Bay need an APC/tank?

  1. #46
    Senior Member Array Maverickx50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LaCrosse Wisconsin
    Posts
    778
    I'm going to start saving up we can open carry here and it would be perfect.
    I carry to protect myself and my loved ones from the BG's. Not to solve societies problems. That said: if more carried the deterrent would only have a positive overall effect on those problems.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Distinguished Member Array INccwchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,786
    Collage campuses while they are regulated by the government are considered private property. Once you are told to move off the campus, and you refuse you are committing trespassing. Once you violate campus rules, you are guilty of committing trespassing. The use of pepper spray to disperse a crowd is justified to remove non licensed protestors from the campus grounds.
    "The value you put on the lost will be determined by the sacrifice you are willing to make to seek them until they are found."

  4. #48
    VIP Member Array 10thmtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,682
    So, those of you who decry police agencies using an unarmed APC to protect officers who respond to a dangerous situation are also going to get upset about police officers using body armor?

    They are exactly the same thing - defensive armor designed to protect an officer.

    If you ever get caught out in the open during an active shooter situation, you are going to pray to God himself that your local police show up in one of these things to shield your sorry butt while they evacuate you from the area.

    Really folks - of all the things to get worked up over...this ain't one of 'em.
    The more good folks carry guns, the fewer shots the crazies can get off.
    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org - member
    Glock 30, 19, 26; Ruger LCP (2), LCR, Mini 14; Remington 870; Marlin 336 .30-30
    CT Lasers

  5. #49
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    14,616
    Oh I don't know. The SWAT sniper running down the city block in a ghillie suit kind of makes me wonder what's going on. It just doesn't seem to blend in well with the asphalt and Yellow Cabs.
    Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone. Oh, to be young again.
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  6. #50
    VIP Member Array rammerjammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Posts
    3,223
    Come on, someone else hasn't figured this out yet.

    The APC is for no knock warrants.
    "Was there no end to the conspiracy of irrational prejudice against Red Ryder and his peacemaker?"

    Revolvers, “more elegant weapons for a more civilized age.”

  7. #51
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,384
    oakchas....not flaming you, just an observation....you start the thread specifically about the armored vehicle but then branch out into a 100 different topics
    I'll focus on the original item:
    its not a tank as others have said, and those that call it a tank are just trying to stir the pot
    so what if a PD/SO or state agency has a vehicle that will stop high powered rifle rounds? its to save officers as well as those they are trying to save, that is all, I don't care what it may LOOK like, what matters is what its for (yes they are used to run warrants, and people can argue that elsewhere as they have on this forum, but they are also used to save people)

    we have an F350 with armor all over cab, big armored box on the back with port holes to shoot out of if need be, I've heard people here call it our 'tank' and I correct them that its just a big pickup with armor so the idiot with a rifle won't shoot us like they can if we were in a patrol car, we've used it many times where we had barricaded suspects in order to clear people out of close by houses safely
    we shouldn't care if is "smacks so much of Waco"...that was a separate incident, and these type of vehicles are used daily around the country in perfectly legitimate situations

    again oakchas, not flaming, just friendly discussion.....you said you get "uneasy when local PDs resort to militarism"
    well I get uneasy reading about officers being killed because the dirtbag had more firepower/equipment than the officer did (nobody even mention me as a cop thinking that non-LEOs shouldn't have guns, not applicable with me)
    ......I get tired of people using the term militarized police, etc....whoever coined that phrase needs to copyright it since it gets used so much its ridiculous
    PDs are not militarizing, they are getting equipment to counter the dirtbags of society whether its semi-auto pistols, AR15s/M4s, or armored vehicles/body armor to keep from getting killed...its not militarizing;

    was this type of thinking around when LEOs around the country started getting body armor? when they started using semi-auto pistols instead of six-shooters? radios on their person instead of just in the car?
    a tool is a tool, and a tactic is just a tactic whether its in downtown Dallas or Iraq, a gangbanger with an AK in Dallas can kill a cop just as easy as a terrorist with an AK in Iraq can kill one of our troops
    I have night vision, body armor, AK and AR rifles at my house (NOT provided for or by the PD).....am I militarized? absolutely not
    people are too darned politically correct in their perception of a vehicle, rifle, or other piece of equipment
    "oh we can't have our police use that, it looks too much like the military"
    that EXACT statement was made years ago about police having AR-15s, including city management where I live, some departments got mini-14s instead.....same cartridge used, and other toys available to add on, but it was ok since it didn't LOOK military.....what BS that is, same concept used now for the armored vehicles and for anything else if the military has it

    as for the pepper spray incident that got brought up.....they were told to leave that particular area (on campus, they have no right to stay where they were if campus tells them), an officer tried to go hands on to arrest, but the person began to resist/pull away, none followed commands, OC was used and used in a perfectly legal manner, OC is the same as going hands on with force, and if hands on would get a protestor or cop injured then OC is the better tool, if officers had piled on each resisting protestor one at a time to get them in custody we would have seen video and heard all the supporters cry police brutality/they're beating them, etc
    oakchas mentioned he would rather they grab an ankle and begin to arrest rather than spray.....they tried
    I'd rather they follow the law and orders given by the university via the UC police than the officer be in that position in the first place
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer
    not enough space for list, main gear: duty-G17, S&W 642 bug, 870, RRA AR-15; G30 off-duty
    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  8. #52
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,384
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    I wrote my U.S. Senator last year about a particular law enforcement agency purchasing some 20 mm sniper rifles. He agreed with me that arming police with military weapons was nothing more than a back door approach to get around the prohibition against using the military against us.
    I see no problem with an APC in itself. I do have a problem with those who fail to see the potential danger of its use.

    Michael
    20 MM?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? wow, why on earth would a chief waste budget on that, the only thing I could think of would be for disabling a vehicle, but how often is that needed and there are a lot of other cheaper alternatives
    but, see my post above for my opinion on your senator's comments, he needs to watch the story/video of the hollywood shootout and he needs to go on an active shooter call or barricaded/hostage situation and see how much he would appreciate the vest, rifles, and armored vehicle with his butt on the line


    peckman28Sorry but there is no good reason for a militarized police force. They should not be driving around in APCs or using automatic weapons when the average civilian cannot. This trend towards statism, and this nonsense about how anyone who is peppered, tased, or shot by the police "should've complied quicker" and "if they don't want that to happen, don't be standing right there" is insulting to anyone who actually believes in a free society and bothers to think about it. These "Occupy" people are mis-guided, ignorant fools as far as I'm concerned, but until they commit violent acts or invade someone's private property no police force should lay a hand on them for expressing their opinions, however ridiculous they may be. That goes for anyone else in this country, and taking the peoples' money through taxes and buying armored vehicles that clearly look like tanks and rolling down the streets in them should not be tolerated.
    my previous post covers my thoughts on the militarization part of this

    as for the should have complied quicker....well yeah...thats what the law is, and cops are their to enforce it, when someone presents defiance and/or resisting its that person's fault that force had to be used,
    if thats insulting to you then so be it, but they should know that when they've messed up (according to the law or the property owner) its not the cop's fault when the cops are called in to do their job
    (and I do believe in a free society and think about it every day....I think about the free people that shouldn't have to allow other people to infringe on their private property, screw up things in public, or break the laws....those free people have the right not to put with the garbage from law breakers)
    I agree with you that the occupy people are what you say they are, but if they are told to move/leave by the property owner or by whoever is in charge of that property (mayor, college official, etc) then they need to do what is being requested of them
    the bolded portion of your statement above doesn't describe what happened at UC,
    when the police lay hands on its not because the police don't like their opinions, its because the police have been directed to enforce the law whether its because the university said they are blocking pathways or if the city says they are blocking the street/sidewalk illegally in that city
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer
    not enough space for list, main gear: duty-G17, S&W 642 bug, 870, RRA AR-15; G30 off-duty
    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  9. #53
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    I am probably going to get flamed for what I am about to say, but I too feel that the police are being more militarized as well. I am not please with the "storm troopers" out there. I read about abuses by law enforcement every other day and it is not always concerning OWS. Even if it was (OWS), the 1A right is the most protected right in the US but yet our fellow citizens are being intimidated and sometimes abused by the power of authority they posses. The posse comitatus act (which forbids local law enforcement and the military to engage its own citizens) was repealed in 2003 by GWB. Ohio national guard opened fire on Kent State protesters not too long ago (1970) and I fear that we are slowly getting to that point again but only with our local law enforcement first spear heading the way (bc its more user friendly to the public). When the SHTF it is going to be with our own government either it be repub or dem. Neither party governs this country of ours, only the rich and wealthy who pay our politicians for their protection as they rape our country and beat down anyone who speaks up and protests.

    jmo

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,542
    64 Zebra, thank you for your thoughts on this... and I do understand... The police should be able to protect themselves while upholding the law....

    I would rather the protestors follow the law and not have required LE to step in...

    That said, if the time should come when "The law" as enacted by our elected officials makes it illegal to own firearms... Or when the government decides that it has the right to make me cede what has been considered my property for decades and generations, then I suppose I will have to decide how best to combat a militarized police department, or an army...

    It has been done before, in this country and in foreign lands... and the people revolt.
    Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013.
    "You are elected to service, not power.
    Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
    Me, 9/11/13

  11. #55
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,384
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    64 Zebra, thank you for your thoughts on this... and I do understand... The police should be able to protect themselves while upholding the law....

    I would rather the protestors follow the law and not have required LE to step in...

    That said, if the time should come when "The law" as enacted by our elected officials makes it illegal to own firearms... Or when the government decides that it has the right to make me cede what has been considered my property for decades and generations, then I suppose I will have to decide how best to combat a militarized police department, or an army...

    It has been done before, in this country and in foreign lands... and the people revolt.
    you are correct in that....but what we're talking about here is way miniscule compared to what you're talking about now
    if and when a law is enacted that bars private ownership of guns, they are going to have a hard time finding LEOs in a lot of places to enforce it
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer
    not enough space for list, main gear: duty-G17, S&W 642 bug, 870, RRA AR-15; G30 off-duty
    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  12. #56
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    34,612
    The media conveniently "forgot" to show the entire video.

    There was a POLICE vehicle that need to get through.

    The protesters were blocking the way & each protester was told before hand that they would be subject to being pepper sprayed if they did not clear the road make clear passage.

    They were given a chance to move and still refused to move and they continued to sit there and they got pepper sprayed. As promised.

    That doggone news media....they are always just plumb forgetting to show the whole story.




    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    The viral you tube vid...


    And before you answer... I realize that police are there to enforce existing law... they were undoubtedly told to clear the "occupiers" from some public place... and that is the job... But, spraying those just sitting there... well I'd rather they just grabbed an ankle and started arresting... rather than walk up and down a line spraying the protesters just sitting there.



    Happens in the first 20 seconds here... and another video shows him turning back to one he may have thought he missed.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  13. #57
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by gunsnroses View Post
    I am probably going to get flamed for what I am about to say, but I too feel that the police are being more militarized as well. I am not please with the "storm troopers" out there. I read about abuses by law enforcement every other day and it is not always concerning OWS. Even if it was (OWS), the 1A right is the most protected right in the US but yet our fellow citizens are being intimidated and sometimes abused by the power of authority they posses. The posse comitatus act (which forbids local law enforcement and the military to engage its own citizens) was repealed in 2003 by GWB. Ohio national guard opened fire on Kent State protesters not too long ago (1970) and I fear that we are slowly getting to that point again but only with our local law enforcement first spear heading the way (bc its more user friendly to the public). When the SHTF it is going to be with our own government either it be repub or dem. Neither party governs this country of ours, only the rich and wealthy who pay our politicians for their protection as they rape our country and beat down anyone who speaks up and protests.

    jmo
    GNR - It might pay to fact check a tiny bit on this one... First, posse comitatus certainly does not prevent "local law enforcement...to engage its own citizens." Posse comitatus has no bearing on non-federal forces of any type. Second, there were some changes to the act that were enacted in 2006 (as part of a 2007 defense appropriations bill), basically adding to the reasons that the federal govt could deploy "troops:" natural disaster, terrorist attack, epidemic, and serious public health emergency were added to insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination and conspiracy as legitimate reasons for employing federal forces (all of these also requiring that state/local forces are overwhelmed or otherwise unable to handle the situation). Of course, these changes were entirely WIPED OUT in 2008 and the act went back to its original wording, which is how it stands today - fully in effect, never repealed, and still the law of the land.

    All opinions are fine, as long as they are educated opinions based on actual fact. Otherwise, well, the old adage about "opinions and you-know-what holes" comes into play.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  14. #58
    VIP Member Array Old School's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida Treasure Coast
    Posts
    3,211
    I see these vehicles driving up and down the roads every day and have no problem with them.

    Armored Trucks - autoevolution

    Why should there be a problem with their use in law-enforcement to protect and save lives ?

    In regards to the First Amendment,

    "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" ends when the assembly stops being peaceable and infringes on the rights of others to be able to freely go about their lawful business.

    Blocking access to others by sheer numbers, closing down public roadways, sidewalks and buildings is not "peaceable assembly".

    My opinion and mine only.

    OS
    WHEC724 and 64zebra like this.
    "Violence is seldom the answer, but when it is the answer it is the only answer".

    "A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves".

    http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

  15. #59
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by gunsnroses View Post
    You support abuse of powers by police officer's?
    Private property. Asked to leave. Refused. Warned of the consequences. Refused. Accepted the consequences of their actions. I bet if a bunch of hippies showed up on your lawn and refused to leave you would have a fit. the 1st amendment does not give you the right to violate private property rights.

  16. #60
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    OPFER- yes, you are correct. Posse C was re-enacted a year after it was mooted in 2003. It is still the law of the land today.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

a.p.c. tampa fl
,

apc tampa

,

military tanks in tampa

,
military tanks in tampa fl
,

police bearcat vehicles

,
tampa apc
,
tampa bay cops have tanks
,

tampa bay police tank

,
tampa ows tank
,
tampa pay police department tank
,
why do cops need apcs
,
why does tampa need a tank
Click on a term to search for related topics.