In militarized police news
A third amendment case: Homeowner says SWAT came in her home without permission
3 Responses to “In militarized police news”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 11th, 2014 at 12:18 am
Here’s a copy of the WSJ article with no paywall:
http://money.msn.com/investing/post–towns-say-no-tanks-to-militarized-police
February 11th, 2014 at 7:50 am
Used to be, stuff like Weasels and M-113’s went to private military vehicle collectors, who kept them up at their own expense and would always make them available, often with driver, on a sheriff’s-posse basis for a public emergency.
So the first thing you notice here is a major policy change at significant cost to taxpayers. It’s a Brecht-down of faith in the people by government.
February 12th, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Good city governments realize that once you are given the vehicle, you have to pay for its gas, oil changes, tires, etc., not to mention putting a roof over it and paying for drivers and insurance.
It isn’t quite a situation of “give a mouse a cookie.”
It isn’t quite paying Danegeld and still having the Danes around.
I guess it is pretty much like the corn mill owner who bought an elephant from the traveling circus to solve his mouse problem.