Why does Tampa Bay need an APC/tank? - Page 5

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; Originally Posted by azchevy Private property. Asked to leave. Refused. Warned of the consequences. Refused. Accepted the consequences of their actions. I bet if a ...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 104
Like Tree23Likes

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

  1. #61
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    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.
    What are you talking about? I don't care if you like hippies or not.

    Do you support abuse of powers by police officers? Its a cut and dry question.

    Are you saying that you support Ofc Pike as he walked up and down the sidewalk pepper spraying innocent people exercising their god given rights like he was the Orcan Man spraying for roaches?

    What about the aftermath of Katrina when Mayor Neigan and the police chief ordered all his storm troopers to confiscate all the guns from citizens within the city limits of New Orleans while crime and looting was ramped? He (they) took away the peoples right to defend themselves and their property/neighborhood but in the same breath said that "the police cant be everywhere." Is this okay with you...or is it only hippies or hippies with guns?

    This is not "apples and oranges." This is government doing whatever they want...1A or 2A it doesn't matter. These are the rights of the people, your people, my people, even if we all don't agree with one another.

    This nations military can not be used against its own citizens by law. I guess someone got the bright idea to militarize the police that cAN be used against its citizens.

    And BTW, yes...there was a sheriff in Texas that purchased a drone. I will post that cite tomorrow.


  2. #62
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    This is really easy with me.....either support the constitution or not! Don't be a hypocrite and pick and choose what you defend or not! Just because its the local or imposed law at the time and it supports your point of view doesn't make it right (and in most cases even legal).

  3. #63
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    They violated private property rights. They had adequate notice. They made the choice. They broke the law. They were not innocent.

  4. #64
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    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.
    I understand who the Act is supposed to control. The problem comes when the line between the State and Federal becomes blurred.
    When the Federal Government sends money to the States and Cities with instructions to use it to purchase military type weapons. When they then tell them how it can or cannot be used as a condition for receiving the funds. When they send Federal military instructors to train the recipients in the use of these weapons.
    We then have a problem. The State and local governments have become paid surrogates of the Federal Government skirting the intent of the law.

    If this is really necessary lets change the law to reflect that need. At least then we would be following the strict intent of the law. Like it or not there would be no question then as to what is going on.

    Michael
    Last edited by mlr1m; November 29th, 2011 at 07:48 PM. Reason: I made an oopsie

  5. #65
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    They violated private property rights. They had adequate notice. They made the choice. They broke the law. They were not innocent.
    Oh yeah. A campus (UC Davis) as having a reputation of being a "open campus" since the 1960's finally decides to be private property? Anyway, the incident didn't happen within the "legal" surveyed boundaries of the campus, but rather within the jurisdiction of the UC Davis campus police (which is also the jurisdiction of the City of Davis Police) Claiming private property is a far reach and will never stand.

  6. #66
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    Quote Originally Posted by gunsnroses View Post
    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.
    It was never "mooted," and the minor changes that did take effect were enacted in 2006/7. Adding natural disaster, terrorist attack, or medical pandemic so serious that the local law enforcement establishment cannot handle it to the language of the Act hardly "moots" it. GNR, I understand your support of the 1A, and I echo it whole heartedly. However, when you base your assumptions on blatant and demonstrably false "facts" it undermines that argument and casts suspicion over everything else you might say. Tread carefully.

    And, again, the right to free speech does not supersede private property rights, nor does it grant absolute freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want. If you are in violation of the law, are told that you are in violation of the law, and have explained to you what your continued violation of the law will bring about, you have very little sympathy from me when you get what has been very carefully explained to you is coming. If you believe the law is unjust or ill-informed, vote for legislators that will change the law or, better yet, run for office yourself. Until the law is changed, it IS the law, and breaking it has consequences. I know for a FACT that I'd rather be pepper sprayed than have the police go "hands on" to effect my removal. I've done both. Aerosolized vegetables are much preferable to the alternatives.
    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.

  7. #67
    Distinguished Member Array INccwchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by gunsnroses View Post
    Oh yeah. A campus (UC Davis) as having a reputation of being a "open campus" since the 1960's finally decides to be private property? Anyway, the incident didn't happen within the "legal" surveyed boundaries of the campus, but rather within the jurisdiction of the UC Davis campus police (which is also the jurisdiction of the City of Davis Police) Claiming private property is a far reach and will never stand.
    UC Davis has the right to decide when and how open they want to be. They decided to tell the protestors to leave, the protestors did not want too, the protestors got sprayed, cause and effect. Its like if I was the guy in the neighborhood who always had people hanging out in his yard and did not mind, then suddenly changing my mind and telling everyone to leave. Would you have a problem with me throwing them out of my yard and OC'ing them if they refused to leave? It is not a far reach. The complex I work is private property, but its open enough that someone could walk in. You going to tell me that I have no right to stop someone I know does not live on property from being on property?
    "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."

  8. #68
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,978
    Quote Originally Posted by gunsnroses View Post
    Do you support abuse of powers by police officers? Its a cut and dry question.
    I guess that would depend on who defines "abuse of powers"
    Are you saying that you support Ofc Pike as he walked up and down the sidewalk pepper spraying innocent people exercising their god given rights like he was the Orcan Man spraying for roaches?
    I'm sorry, you must have seen something I didn't. Where are the innocent people? I did see a group of people who were at minimum violating sections 407 and 409 of the California Penal Code.
    What about the aftermath of Katrina when Mayor Neigan and the police chief ordered all his storm troopers to confiscate all the guns from citizens within the city limits of New Orleans while crime and looting was ramped? He (they) took away the peoples right to defend themselves and their property/neighborhood but in the same breath said that "the police cant be everywhere." Is this okay with you...or is it only hippies or hippies with guns?
    Which is why many states since then have passed laws specifically prohibiting such confiscation.
    This is not "apples and oranges." This is government doing whatever they want...1A or 2A it doesn't matter. These are the rights of the people, your people, my people, even if we all don't agree with one another.
    This is government doing whatever they want within the law. Which they can do, just like you and I.
    This nations military can not be used against its own citizens by law. I guess someone got the bright idea to militarize the police that cAN be used against its citizens.

    And BTW, yes...there was a sheriff in Texas that purchased a drone. I will post that cite tomorrow.
    Yes the Montgomery County Sheriff just bought a drone a couple weeks ago. Basically a little radio controlled airplane with cameras on it. A lot cheaper than a helicopter. But it also is much more limited. I think it can only fly for about half an hour before it runs out of fuel.

    So far (at least in Houston) those occupy folks have been smart and stayed on public property. Once they venture onto private property it is a whole new bag of marbles. While they are on public property they have some rights, and the police will observe them. Once they venture onto private property they get to deal with contract security. The Constitution does not apply to them. Only thing restricting them is the penal code. And use of force under that is guided by the actors "reasonable belief".
    64zebra and WHEC724 like this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #69
    Ex Member Array gunther71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    greenville
    Posts
    159
    Police wearing digital cammies, driving armored vehicles that look like tanks, and having silencers on fully auto guns?

    sounds cut and dry to me.

  10. #70
    Moderator
    Array buckeye .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by gunther71 View Post
    Police wearing digital cammies, driving armored vehicles that look like tanks, and having silencers on fully auto guns?

    sounds cut and dry to me.
    What do digi cammies have to do with it? Digi patterns tend to work better than traditional camo, but for a swat team that does work in a forested area, I see no issue. I have yet to see a department where every officer wears cammies. So you take offense to officers using the best possible camo to keep themselves safe?

    They don't look like a tank, at all really. The similarities between most police armored vehicles and tanks begin and end at the armored part. A tank is an offensive weapon. Find a police armored vehicle with lethal offensive weaponry.

    Silencers are nice to have, they mean you can shoot indoors and save your hearing, while not needing to handicap yourself with earplugs (a big drawback in a lethal scenario, you need to be able to hear everything).
    Fortes Fortuna Juvat

    Former, USMC 0311, OIF/OEF vet
    NRA Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun/Reloading Instructor, RSO, Ohio CHL Instructor

  11. #71
    Distinguished Member Array skysoldier29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Miami Florida / Michigan
    Posts
    1,260
    APCs are cool. Only the cool PDs have APCs and it looks like TPD is pretty dang cool. The Tampa Bay area is a major metro area which has a pretty high crime rate. I don't know the numbers of how many SWAT type callouts there are, but a APC would give those officers a tactical advantage allowing them to get closer to their objective without coming under fire. Also during an extended active shooter situation it could be used to provide cover to both LEOs and civilians that might need to be evaced from an area and would have to cover a large open area which would make them targets for gun fire. Also it (SHOULD) scare the crap out of a BG who would do harm and might make them give up. As long as they don't replace the light bar with a M2 machine gun I wouldn't be too worried about it.

  12. #72
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    Its funny, I only have three people on my ignore list and bang, bang, bang....they all show up right in a row, one exactly right after the another, then another.

  13. #73
    Distinguished Member Array skysoldier29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Miami Florida / Michigan
    Posts
    1,260
    I'm being ignored?
    buckeye .45 likes this.

  14. #74
    Ex Member Array gunther71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    greenville
    Posts
    159
    [QUOTE=buckeye .45;2103011]What do digi cammies have to do with it?

    Each branch of the military has their own camofluage patterns with their respected regulations on how to wear them, not all slopped on like some of these swat teams.

    So you take offense to officers using the best possible camo to keep themselves safe?

    I take offense to disrespecting actual military men and women, that is their every day uniform not some part time get up or to look like wannabe military

    The similarities between most police armored vehicles and tanks begin and end at the armored part. A tank is an offensive weapon.
    Obviously you have never sat in the defense when rounds were being exchanged and tanks were in that defensive position with you.

    Silencers are nice to have, they mean you can shoot indoors and save your hearing, while not needing to handicap you
    We used silencers as first shot weapons if we didnt use an explosive breaching technique, or when we were behind enemy lines,
    Obviously you have never had multiple rounds fired at you, it is also hard to hear when rounds are zinging at you

  15. #75
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,452
    Quote Originally Posted by gunther71 View Post
    Each branch of the military has their own camofluage patterns with their respected regulations on how to wear them, not all slopped on like some of these swat teams.
    You're right, each branch has their own patter and regs.....what does that have to do with a swat team
    they are wearing these to aid in their concealment in a high risk situation, what part of this do you not understand? what the heck does this have to do with military regulations....they are not military and not wanting to be or wanting to act like it, they are just doing a job

    Quote Originally Posted by gunther71 View Post
    I take offense to disrespecting actual military men and women, that is their every day uniform not some part time get up or to look like wannabe military
    no disrespecting taking place, my dad and father-in-law were in the military during Vietnam and neither of them ever thought this way
    they are wearing clothing to aid in concealment...do you think swat teams should wear bright yellow/orange?!?!?!?
    yes they wear these only part time as you put it, only when they are on a call out, I guarantee you swat members have absolutely no mindset or intention of being wannabe military, just lke me driving a chevy lumina doesn't mean I'm a nascar driver wannabe

    Quote Originally Posted by gunther71 View Post
    Obviously you have never sat in the defense when rounds were being exchanged and tanks were in that defensive position with you.
    obviously you missed the entire point of what he said, in that the vehicles used by swat don't have cannons/machine guns, they are used to protect the people inside, get them into position, evacuate injured people, both LEO and non-LEO, I know tanks protect the people inside from a lot of rounds, etc, but thats a separate issue in military vs swat

    Quote Originally Posted by gunther71 View Post
    We used silencers as first shot weapons if we didnt use an explosive breaching technique, or when we were behind enemy lines,
    Obviously you have never had multiple rounds fired at you, it is also hard to hear when rounds are zinging at you
    ok, so you were in the military and used silencers for other reasons/in other ways....I fail to understand why you make a big deal of swat using suppressors if it saves their hearing, gives them a tactical advantage when needed, etc
    I take it from you post you are offended that anything swat has is disrespecting the military, or they are acting like wannabes...I can say that is not the case on any accounts. If anyone respects the military its LEO...especially swat. There is no impersonation or wannabe taking place just because they use clothing to mask their movement (do deer hunters offend you? same logic, same camo in a lot of cases), the use of a vehicle with thick metal is to stop rounds from entering the vehicle and disabling it or harming the LEO....period, no wannabe taking place
    I don't know how else to put it. I have the utmost respect for the military (numerous family/friends are vets) as do my brothers in blue. I'm sorry you feel offended at the sight of a swat member in camo clothing. There is not insult or disrespect intended.
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    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?

Page 5 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
,
tampa pd tank
,
why do police need apc's for?
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors