TexasCHLforum.com

VoiceofReason wrote:
<SNIP>

I think it would be great if the PD could sell this truck and use the money to put bullet resistant glass in all patrol vehicles, along with steel panels in the doors and whatever else would be needed to protect the occupants to at least a 30.06.

<SNIP>

Oh well, I am just a tax payer. My function is to give them my money, their job is to waste it.

Years ago, I was selected (I still had my clearance) to edit and compose a video presentation for a military contractor who built armored vehicles for strike teams and VIP security; I had to work after hours so other personnel would not see it. What I learned was, when outfitting a "normal" looking car there were tradeoffs. To add armor and bullet resistant glass involved frame and suspension overhauls and often (depending on the package) larger engines. The tradeoff was often in loss of interior space. So the question is, would retrofitting a cruiser not cost almost as much, cost more to keep it fueled and then no handle like a regular cruiser?

The MRAP is just an armored car. Though I feel the police are militarizing and while I believe that is a means to an end run around the constitution, a selectively used armored car does not bother me. I am more worried about the tac teams becoming more heavily equipped and their increasing use in "ordinary" warrants.

E.Marquez wrote:<SNIP>
If you were the elected sheriff or were the local police chief...responsible for the citizens and officers in your district and a low/no cost piece of equipment became available to your department,, that would increase the safety of your officers and those you protect,, would YOU turn it down? If so,, Please tell us why and how you would explain your decision to your officers and the citizens.

I agree. There is MUCH more in the moves to militarize the police departments to get in a tizzy over than armored personnel carriers. Tactical service of low risk warrants for instance.