CDZ A Problem With Police

[320 Years of History]

It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Explain to me exactly how it is that it would be cheaper for a police department to continue having and using equipment such as a "bear-cat"

Does this type of equipment seem cheaper to maintain and operate that this?
View attachment 82517
Or even this?
View attachment 82518

Yes, they are because they are acquired from the military without the up front cost.

Red:
That must be one hell of a huge discount the local cops get on those bear-cats. Those darn things run from ~$190K to $300K or so bought new.

I think for the assertion that it's comparatively less expensive to use (1) bear-cats than to use modified Crown Vics, Chargers, Tauruses, Impalas, etc., and (2) to stop using bear-cats, you're going to need to put some credible figures out to show the accuracy of your claim.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's quite hard accept that you are right as goes the accounting points of fact -- objectively cheaper/not cheaper -- you've made.

It really is not a 'discount.' It is quite literally free.

1033 program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Police departments are responsible for paying for shipment and storage of material acquired, but do not pay for the donation."

All they have to do is pay to get it to them and that can be as simple as sending an officer to go get it. The operating costs are more but the up front cost is tens of thousands less. That is a lot of gas.

I wasn't aware of the 1033 Program. TY for sharing that info. Bear in mind that the info you've provided speaks to purchase costs and not to operating and maintenance costs, which is what the other member asked about.

Having been made aware of 1033, I looked into it a tiny bit to see what quantitative info I could quickly (3 minutes) find about the material the Feds donate to police departments.

Premises:

• ~8000 police departments participated in/benefit from the 1033 program as of 2014.
• ~12% of the equipment is considered tactical, and may include (but is not limited to) weapons, night vision equipment, and tactical vehicles.
  • Assumption: 10% of the "tactical equipment" are vehicles bear-cata or functional equivalents.
• $449M in property was transferred to law enforcement agencies in 2013.
  • Assumption: All of those recipients are local (county or city; not state, not FBI, not Park Police, not Secret Service) police forces.
  • Assumption: The same $-sum was transferred in 2014.
• Value per tactical vehicle (bear-cat) ranges from $190K - $300K. (based on earlier comment)

Objective data:

• Operating/Maintenance Costs:
  • According to one writer, operating costs for a Bear-cat are quite high: ~$20K/year. Forbes cites it at "acute."
  • Tire: $500/each...good for 5K miles each.
  • Fuel: $160/fill up at 10/mpg.
  • Broken windshield: $1500
• Qualitative Observation: The Bear-cat is based on a Ford F-550, which weighs about 9K pounds, whereas the Bear-cat weighs in at 16K pounds. It's thus reasonable to expect some stuff, brakes (pads/rotors), will need replacing more often.

Inferences:

• The 1033 program transferred between 240 and 151 tactical vehicles in 2014. (2% inflation rate used since the per unit costs cited are from 2016)
• Common sense: Operating and maintenance costs of tactical vehicles is notably higher than to that of conventional police vehicles.
• Common sense: Tactical vehicles are not interchangeable with conventional police vehicles as goes carrying out the routine duties of police officers -- or at least police department don't appear to use them interchangeably -- so police forces must possess both types of vehicle.

Conclusion/Questions:

• Purchase costs: The cash disbursement -- ~$30K for a typical cruiser -- to obtain the 1033 equipment is effectively $0.00, or, more appropriately, close enough to it to not be relevant at this level of discussion.
• Operating and maintenance costs:
  • It's highly implausible that the cost to operate and maintain conventional cruisers (sedan or SUV) plus however many tactical vehicles be lower than the cost to operate and maintain conventional cruisers and no tactical vehicles.
  • The cost to operate a Bear-cat is greater than that of operating a conventional cruiser.

Do you have any info that specifically addresses operating and maintenance costs sufficiently enough to show that the cost of operating both types of vehicle can be less dear than operating only cruisers?

Do you have any info that supports the plausibility of the cost to operate and maintain a Bear-cat is less than that of a vehicle police departments might use in place of a Bear-cat?

 

[320 Years of History]

Explain to me exactly how it is that it would be cheaper for a police department to continue having and using equipment such as a "bear-cat"

Does this type of equipment seem cheaper to maintain and operate that this?
View attachment 82517
Or even this?
View attachment 82518

Yes, they are because they are acquired from the military without the up front cost.

Red:
That must be one hell of a huge discount the local cops get on those bear-cats. Those darn things run from ~$190K to $300K or so bought new.

I think for the assertion that it's comparatively less expensive to use (1) bear-cats than to use modified Crown Vics, Chargers, Tauruses, Impalas, etc., and (2) to stop using bear-cats, you're going to need to put some credible figures out to show the accuracy of your claim.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's quite hard accept that you are right as goes the accounting points of fact -- objectively cheaper/not cheaper -- you've made.

It really is not a 'discount.' It is quite literally free.

1033 program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Police departments are responsible for paying for shipment and storage of material acquired, but do not pay for the donation."

All they have to do is pay to get it to them and that can be as simple as sending an officer to go get it. The operating costs are more but the up front cost is tens of thousands less. That is a lot of gas.

"Hey, Joe. Run to Washington and pick up that tank they're giving us!"

While it seems the police departments may not pay for some of the equipment, it's also apparent from your wiki link that the free items are more mundane...

Interesting, I found this as one of the sources cited:

The real reason Ferguson has military weapons (Opinion) - CNN.com

No, it is apparent that they are getting a lot of mundane items along with those military vehicles (and clothing BTW is not all mundane).

The FACTS are that they receive this equipment free from the military - period. You are all over the place trying to avoid that fact because you were incorrect.

There's no question that non-vehicle gear is among the stuff received via the 1033 program. The topic of this particular thread line, however, is the cost of operating the tactical vehicles vs. that of operating non-tactical vehicles. That is the point of the imagery presented in the beginning of this line of discussion isn't it?

 

[FA_Q2]

It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Explain to me exactly how it is that it would be cheaper for a police department to continue having and using equipment such as a "bear-cat"

Does this type of equipment seem cheaper to maintain and operate that this?
View attachment 82517
Or even this?
View attachment 82518

Yes, they are because they are acquired from the military without the up front cost.

Red:
That must be one hell of a huge discount the local cops get on those bear-cats. Those darn things run from ~$190K to $300K or so bought new.

I think for the assertion that it's comparatively less expensive to use (1) bear-cats than to use modified Crown Vics, Chargers, Tauruses, Impalas, etc., and (2) to stop using bear-cats, you're going to need to put some credible figures out to show the accuracy of your claim.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's quite hard accept that you are right as goes the accounting points of fact -- objectively cheaper/not cheaper -- you've made.

It really is not a 'discount.' It is quite literally free.

1033 program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Police departments are responsible for paying for shipment and storage of material acquired, but do not pay for the donation."

All they have to do is pay to get it to them and that can be as simple as sending an officer to go get it. The operating costs are more but the up front cost is tens of thousands less. That is a lot of gas.

I wasn't aware of the 1033 Program. TY for sharing that info. Bear in mind that the info you've provided speaks to purchase costs and not to operating and maintenance costs, which is what the other member asked about.

Having been made aware of 1033, I looked into it a tiny bit to see what quantitative info I could quickly (3 minutes) find about the material the Feds donate to police departments.

Premises:

• ~8000 police departments participated in/benefit from the 1033 program as of 2014.
• ~12% of the equipment is considered tactical, and may include (but is not limited to) weapons, night vision equipment, and tactical vehicles.
  • Assumption: 10% of the "tactical equipment" are vehicles bear-cata or functional equivalents.
• $449M in property was transferred to law enforcement agencies in 2013.
  • Assumption: All of those recipients are local (county or city; not state, not FBI, not Park Police, not Secret Service) police forces.
  • Assumption: The same $-sum was transferred in 2014.
• Value per tactical vehicle (bear-cat) ranges from $190K - $300K. (based on earlier comment)

Objective data:

• Operating/Maintenance Costs:
  • According to one writer, operating costs for a Bear-cat are quite high: ~$20K/year. Forbes cites it at "acute."
  • Tire: $500/each...good for 5K miles each.
  • Fuel: $160/fill up at 10/mpg.
  • Broken windshield: $1500
• Qualitative Observation: The Bear-cat is based on a Ford F-550, which weighs about 9K pounds, whereas the Bear-cat weighs in at 16K pounds. It's thus reasonable to expect some stuff, brakes (pads/rotors), will need replacing more often.

Inferences:

• The 1033 program transferred between 240 and 151 tactical vehicles in 2014. (2% inflation rate used since the per unit costs cited are from 2016)
• Common sense: Operating and maintenance costs of tactical vehicles is notably higher than to that of conventional police vehicles.
• Common sense: Tactical vehicles are not interchangeable with conventional police vehicles as goes carrying out the routine duties of police officers -- or at least police department don't appear to use them interchangeably -- so police forces must possess both types of vehicle.

Conclusion/Questions:

• Purchase costs: The cash disbursement -- ~$30K for a typical cruiser -- to obtain the 1033 equipment is effectively $0.00, or, more appropriately, close enough to it to not be relevant at this level of discussion.
• Operating and maintenance costs:
  • It's highly implausible that the cost to operate and maintain conventional cruisers (sedan or SUV) plus however many tactical vehicles be lower than the cost to operate and maintain conventional cruisers and no tactical vehicles.
  • The cost to operate a Bear-cat is greater than that of operating a conventional cruiser.

Do you have any info that specifically addresses operating and maintenance costs sufficiently enough to show that the cost of operating both types of vehicle can be less dear than operating only cruisers?

Do you have any info that supports the plausibility of the cost to operate and maintain a Bear-cat is less than that of a vehicle police departments might use in place of a Bear-cat?

No, I specifically stated that they were more to maintain but the massive savings up front is what makes them cheaper. 30K will go a long way in maintenance, particularly when you consider that they have to maintain the other vehicle as well. This is compounded by the fact that they tend to replace the vehicle at around 100K miles (or less if they can).

That is what the police force is looking at and how they are saving money with the acquisition of these vehicles.

However, your assumption that they are not using them interchangeably is false at least in some cases:



The man calls it a tank but that is sensationalized. This is also shows some of that more 'mundane gear' that would qualify as cloths. Tactical gear and an unarmored vehicle used to pull over someone for essentially offending the police. This is an example of the inane process of supplying our police with military gear. There is exactly 0 situations where the police (including SWAT) require military gear. We purchase, deploy and use this gear for 2 purposes - to kill people and break things. That is not the primary purpose of the police.


Overall, I could care less if they are more or less money. In the end, the police serve a different purpose than the military and the two should not be intermingled. It intimidates the public and gives the police the wrong idea of what they are.

 

[Howey]

Explain to me exactly how it is that it would be cheaper for a police department to continue having and using equipment such as a "bear-cat"

Does this type of equipment seem cheaper to maintain and operate that this?
View attachment 82517
Or even this?
View attachment 82518

Yes, they are because they are acquired from the military without the up front cost.

Red:
That must be one hell of a huge discount the local cops get on those bear-cats. Those darn things run from ~$190K to $300K or so bought new.

I think for the assertion that it's comparatively less expensive to use (1) bear-cats than to use modified Crown Vics, Chargers, Tauruses, Impalas, etc., and (2) to stop using bear-cats, you're going to need to put some credible figures out to show the accuracy of your claim.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's quite hard accept that you are right as goes the accounting points of fact -- objectively cheaper/not cheaper -- you've made.

It really is not a 'discount.' It is quite literally free.

1033 program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Police departments are responsible for paying for shipment and storage of material acquired, but do not pay for the donation."

All they have to do is pay to get it to them and that can be as simple as sending an officer to go get it. The operating costs are more but the up front cost is tens of thousands less. That is a lot of gas.

I wasn't aware of the 1033 Program. TY for sharing that info. Bear in mind that the info you've provided speaks to purchase costs and not to operating and maintenance costs, which is what the other member asked about.

Having been made aware of 1033, I looked into it a tiny bit to see what quantitative info I could quickly (3 minutes) find about the material the Feds donate to police departments.

Premises:

• ~8000 police departments participated in/benefit from the 1033 program as of 2014.
• ~12% of the equipment is considered tactical, and may include (but is not limited to) weapons, night vision equipment, and tactical vehicles.
  • Assumption: 10% of the "tactical equipment" are vehicles bear-cata or functional equivalents.
• $449M in property was transferred to law enforcement agencies in 2013.
  • Assumption: All of those recipients are local (county or city; not state, not FBI, not Park Police, not Secret Service) police forces.
  • Assumption: The same $-sum was transferred in 2014.
• Value per tactical vehicle (bear-cat) ranges from $190K - $300K. (based on earlier comment)

Objective data:

• Operating/Maintenance Costs:
  • According to one writer, operating costs for a Bear-cat are quite high: ~$20K/year. Forbes cites it at "acute."
  • Tire: $500/each...good for 5K miles each.
  • Fuel: $160/fill up at 10/mpg.
  • Broken windshield: $1500
• Qualitative Observation: The Bear-cat is based on a Ford F-550, which weighs about 9K pounds, whereas the Bear-cat weighs in at 16K pounds. It's thus reasonable to expect some stuff, brakes (pads/rotors), will need replacing more often.

Inferences:

• The 1033 program transferred between 240 and 151 tactical vehicles in 2014. (2% inflation rate used since the per unit costs cited are from 2016)
• Common sense: Operating and maintenance costs of tactical vehicles is notably higher than to that of conventional police vehicles.
• Common sense: Tactical vehicles are not interchangeable with conventional police vehicles as goes carrying out the routine duties of police officers -- or at least police department don't appear to use them interchangeably -- so police forces must possess both types of vehicle.

Conclusion/Questions:

• Purchase costs: The cash disbursement -- ~$30K for a typical cruiser -- to obtain the 1033 equipment is effectively $0.00, or, more appropriately, close enough to it to not be relevant at this level of discussion.
• Operating and maintenance costs:
  • It's highly implausible that the cost to operate and maintain conventional cruisers (sedan or SUV) plus however many tactical vehicles be lower than the cost to operate and maintain conventional cruisers and no tactical vehicles.
  • The cost to operate a Bear-cat is greater than that of operating a conventional cruiser.

Do you have any info that specifically addresses operating and maintenance costs sufficiently enough to show that the cost of operating both types of vehicle can be less dear than operating only cruisers?

Do you have any info that supports the plausibility of the cost to operate and maintain a Bear-cat is less than that of a vehicle police departments might use in place of a Bear-cat?

No, I specifically stated that they were more to maintain but the massive savings up front is what makes them cheaper. 30K will go a long way in maintenance, particularly when you consider that they have to maintain the other vehicle as well. This is compounded by the fact that they tend to replace the vehicle at around 100K miles (or less if they can).

That is what the police force is looking at and how they are saving money with the acquisition of these vehicles.

However, your assumption that they are not using them interchangeably is false at least in some cases:



The man calls it a tank but that is sensationalized. This is also shows some of that more 'mundane gear' that would qualify as cloths. Tactical gear and an unarmored vehicle used to pull over someone for essentially offending the police. This is an example of the inane process of supplying our police with military gear. There is exactly 0 situations where the police (including SWAT) require military gear. We purchase, deploy and use this gear for 2 purposes - to kill people and break things. That is not the primary purpose of the police.


Overall, I could care less if they are more or less money. In the end, the police serve a different purpose than the military and the two should not be intermingled. It intimidates the public and gives the police the wrong idea of what they are.

I think that, despite our back and forth, we agree on this matter.

 

[Abishai100]

The Brute

The biggest problem with the police today is the abuse of anabolic steroids.

This is actually a rather ironically poignant statement.

Look at these two problems in American culture:

1. inner-city gangs are supplied with more arms than the police
2. athletes on performance-enhancing steroids exhibit aggression (possibly leading to a deformed mind-state)

What can the police do???