facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Local departments add military vehicles,gear at no cost



Published: Tue, August 19, 2014 @ 12:05 a.m.

Authorities get surplus equipment for variety of uses at no cost

photo

The BAE Caiman sits in a Boardman Township shed waiting to be outfitted by the township police department. The $737,000 vehicle was obtained through the Law Enforcement Support Office at no cost.

By Peter H. Milliken

and ROBERT CONNELLY

news@vindy.com

YOUNGSTOWN

In the aftermath of unrest in Ferguson, Mo., and complaints about the “militarization” of police, area law-enforcement departments also have received free military-surplus vehicles and equipment.

But Valley police authorities reject the notion that local police forces are being militarized.

“A lot of this stuff is not being employed or deployed in a military fashion. ... A lot of this stuff is being used in a utility fashion,” said John Elberty, commander of the Mahoning Valley Crisis Response Team.

The Mahoning County Sheriff’s Office has received all-terrain military vehicles, a pickup truck, a van, a sport utility vehicle and one M-16 military rifle from the Department of Defense.

The rifle can be set to be used either as a semiautomatic or automatic weapon.

Law-enforcement officers are permitted to carry fully automatic rifles only after proper training, said Maj. William Cappabianca.

One of the Humvees was used for road patrol during heavy snowstorms during the past two winters, Cappabianca said.

The SUV is used to transport guns and ammunition to the firing range; the pickup truck and van are used in the day-reporting inmate work detail program; and the M-16 is assigned to the road-patrol division.

“Thank God, we’ve never had to use it,” Cappabianca said of the rifle.

The sheriff’s office has requested up to 30 more free M-16s from the DOD, but is still awaiting word as to whether that request will be granted, Cappabianca said.

The sheriff’s office would like the additional rifles so one can be placed in each patrol cruiser, Cappabianca said.

“It shoots [farther], and it’s more accurate” than shotguns, which are being phased out, the major said.

“I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it,” he said of the M-16.

Among the other surplus items the sheriff’s office has acquired free from the Defense Department are three safety and rescue kits, 104 empty military field bags, four digital cameras assigned to the detective and information technology divisions, 19 pairs of cold-weather gloves and 72 pairs of thermal underwear.

The county emergency management agency has not received any military-surplus items within the past five years, said Dennis O’Hara, EMA director.

Youngstown Police Chief Robin Lees said his department has about a dozen military-surplus assault rifles and some ballistic vests, but for the most part the department does not have a lot of military equipment.

The assault rifles are not carried by officers but are stored at the police department in case they are ever needed, Lees said.

Elberty, also a detective sergeant with Youngstown police, said the crisis response team obtained a BAE Caiman, a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle or MRAP. It was obtained through the Law Enforcement Support Office, and Boardman police also received a Caiman through the same office.

Austintown Detective Sgt. Shawn Hevener handles the military-surplus purchases for the township. He explained the Law Enforcement Support Office is sponsored by the DOD. “It’s a good source for law-enforcement agencies that want to save on their budget,” he said.

He added all agencies receiving equipment or vehicles from the LESO are required to maintain the parts, but can outfit them however they see fit. When departments no longer see a need with having something, they can put it back into the surplus system.

Both MRAPs are stored at a Boardman Township shed and neither has been outfitted for its intended use. The value of a Caiman is $737,000, and the sticker was still on one of the vehicles.

Elberty said both vehicles came by flatbed truck from Texas in April. He added, “We’re going to also kind of use it as a hardened bunker, command post and sit in there with negotiators and technical support.”

Boardman Police Chief Jack Nichols said the department plans to outfit the Caiman with emergency lights, seats to hold about 25 people and a new paint job, which will happen in the winter.

The new vehicle came at no cost.

Nichols said, “It was my understanding that if local law enforcement didn’t take them, they would just cut them up [and scrap them].”

The Caiman is much larger than Boardman’s black armored truck that was donated in 2011 by Brinks, a company known for transporting cash between banks.

The department also has six Humvees through the military surplus, which are primarily used for transporting equipment and people, such as officers going to a practice gun range. Nichols said officers usually go about three times a year.

Nichols said the MRAP would be used if there was an active-shooter scenario at a hospital, school or a shopping mall.

“This vehicle would put probably 25 people in the back of it and keep them safe. No bullets would be able to go through it,” Nichols said.

He did acknowledge the growing national concern over militarization of local police departments. “It’s nice to know it’s there, but I don’t foresee it being seen patrolling the streets of Boardman or anything. That’s not what it is for,” Nichols said.

“There’s really not a single negative about it — just the idea that it’s there and it can only help,” Nichols said.

Elberty said some people that have been involved with standoffs have told police once the vehicle moved out front, they decided to give up.

“When that moves in, they kind of say, ‘I think I’m done with this.’”

Elberty said the CRT also has a Humvee and a trailer. That Humvee can be used for going to off-road marijuana-growing operations to transport authorities there, Elberty said.

The Austintown Police Department obtained two Humvees, one for their department and another one for the fire department, through the LESO.

The Austintown Fire Department spent $9,000 to outfit a 1992 Humvee for its needs, and area businesses donated services and time to help keep costs down. It will be used for search-and-rescue operations and brush fires.

Austintown Fire Chief Andy Frost III said the department handles about 30 brush fires a year and an additional 10 calls for EMS and rescue calls off paved roads. The new Humvee replaces two Jeeps that the department has been using for decades — a 1964 Jeep that was purchased from the Howland Fire Department in the 1980s and a 1966 Jeep.

Frost said the cost could have been between $90,000 to $120,000. “We know we can’t afford to purchase new equipment, so we have to make this equipment last as long as possible,” he said.

Austintown police Capt. Bryan Kloss said the department’s vehicle is being used the same way as Boardman’s: to transport equipment to a range. Hevener said they have used the LESO for other equipment in the past, but now the only item from the military surplus is the Humvee.

Austintown police haven’t spent any money to outfit the vehicle.

“We’re not going to spend the money to paint it. We’re just going to use it as is, as far as I know,” Kloss said.

Contributor: Reporter Joe Gorman.


Comments

1bcdevellin(8 comments)posted 1 month ago

In my opinion its money that could have been spent to really help people in our area. This extra equipment seems a little overkill to me. I respect and appreciate all that our local law enforcement do, and feel safe as is.

Suggest removal:

2ufosd(17 comments)posted 1 month ago

This process may seem innocent enough at the moment, and with all of the gangs we hear of coming across our border at present may even justify it even more,. The process still has the look of something sinister and should we watched closely by those who are concerned about the movement away from constitutional governance. Since the Patriot Act we have noticed a large drift toward a heavy handed policing in our neighborhoods and country as a whole.

Suggest removal:

3Photoman(1004 comments)posted 1 month ago

It sure does seem innocent and wonderful, doesn't it? And it's all free!
But wait, doesn't everything we've ever gotten "for free" from our government always ultimately end up with government imposing demands upon us at a later date? Perhaps maybe just a "smidgen" of freedom?

Suggest removal:

4tafy(86 comments)posted 1 month ago

Better to be prepared for a war and only end up in a street fight. The show of force is the best way to stop a problem in it's tracks. The use of assault rifles levels the playing field for the officers. But to phase out the shotgun is foolish. Both go hand in hand. Who ever has the bigger stick is usually the winner. Our police should be protected at all costs. We pay them to protect us. Nuff said!

Suggest removal:

5WarrenRicheyKid(167 comments)posted 1 month ago

The police need to get out of their patrol cars and walk a foot patrol. When they don't know the residents in the neighborhoods they patrol, they make all kinds of mistakes--some of them fatal. We really need to get back to the old foot beat patrols. We need Officer Friendly, not Officer Armageddon.

Suggest removal:

6YtownParent(324 comments)posted 1 month ago

The only problem with Police having and utilizing this equipment is accountability. That is easily solved by placing cameras and mics in every vehicle, but the police unions have fought against it. Until the cops willingly make their actions completely transparent, citizens can and should exercise their rights to record officers on their own cameras, cell phones, etc.

Suggest removal:

7YtownParent(324 comments)posted 1 month ago

What part of "is sponsored by the Department of Defense" don't you understand @Chessiedad? None of this equipment is "FREE". Taxpayers bought and paid for it all through Congress's military spending. Wait a minute, I'm wrong. We taxpayers didn't buy and pay for it, we borrowed money and put ourselves in debt to buy it for military purposes when we didn't need it. If the military had needed to purchase the stuff, it would be in use by the military not being given away and/or scrapped. It's just another bloated, wasteful government entitlement program. They only difference between it and EBT cards, Liar Care, etc. is who gets the goods.

Suggest removal:

8theguins(169 comments)posted 1 month ago

If we borrowed money and put ourselves in debt. Then why not our local authorities put it to use in their departments. If you don't break the law you don't have to worry about them using it on you...

Suggest removal:

9YtownParent(324 comments)posted 1 month ago

"If we borrowed money and put ourselves in debt. Then why not our local authorities put it to use in their departments?" Because it is against the law for the military to police our citizens. Lest you forget, we declared our independence form England and fought not one, but two wars against them (The American Revolution & The War of 1812) because we didn't want military actions taken against our populace. If local police want to skirt the law, then they are no different then any drug dealing gang-banger or terrorist despot.

Suggest removal:

10tafy(86 comments)posted 1 month ago

The departments need to go back to the ride alongs. Then the good citizens of the community can see first hand what the cops deal with every day. They can meet the "nice" people in their own neighborhoods. Then lets see if they want to walk the streets and give back the tanks. Take a nice walk with your kids down South Avenue some night. Lets see how that works out for you.

Suggest removal:

11FreedomTruth(28 comments)posted 1 month ago

@steivo: "Maybe we should take all guns out of the hands of the police, then we wouldn't have to worry about them shooting any criminals"...Umm There is a "war on terror / terrorists"... is there not??? Do you know you are 8 times (800%) more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist??? Shouldn't there be a war on cops???

"A lot of this stuff is not being employed or deployed in a military fashion. ... A lot of this stuff is being used in a utility fashion"... Nice PR, but I call bullpucky.

Law-enforcement officers are permitted to carry fully automatic rifles only after proper training, said Maj. William Cappabianca ... It's nice to call them "fully automatic rifles"..but didn't the President say that weapons of war don't belong on our streets???....... "proper training", by whom, and what are the qualifications??? Being sent to the Sand Box??? The citizens need a voice in this!!! Talk about the militarization of the police....Major??????? Really?

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle or MRAP? Really, h##l the Vindy or popo can't even get the acronym correct. MRAP (Mine Resistant Armored Personnel carrier)

Nichols said, “It was my understanding that if local law enforcement didn’t take them, they would just cut them up and scrap them.... So what? If the taxpayers have already paid for them, so what if they are scrapped....better that than to militarize the police!!! Why not give the equipment to citizens?????? I'm sure farmers could use the vehicles and equipment also!!

By the way, Police should not call people "civilians".......as they are civilians also...........unless they are in the military......They can't have it both ways.

Suggest removal:

12tafy(86 comments)posted 1 month ago

Wow! Enough of the bitching. If you don't like the police, don't do anything to bring them around. Oh yeah, and don't call them when you're in trouble. Call a taxpayer instead.

Suggest removal:

13FreedomTruth(28 comments)posted 1 month ago

@Stevivo & tafy: Nothing wrong with the police having better equipment than the criminals.......except they are, more often times than not, the criminals....... nowhere in the constitution does it exempt laws that are applied to the citizenry from applying to the police or government officials. Only the union contracts (FOP), exempt police from public scrutiny. Unfortunately, the courts are on the same side.

And tafy, in my neighborhood, we don't call 911.......we take care of ourselves.......PS if you didn't realize. recent court rulings have held that the police "have no duty to protect"......except themselves......

Suggest removal:

14YtownParent(324 comments)posted 1 month ago

"don't call them when you're in trouble. Call a taxpayer instead". You hit the nail right on the head @tafy. The local police forces are made up of officers who do not live in the cities they police and are not paying taxes in those cities either. The whole point of calling the police is that you are calling a fellow taxpaying citizen of the community you live in. Not anymore.

Again. Police officers are not the military. They are civilians. Any officer who acts like a soldier is breaking the law and is just as worthless to society as any other criminal. If you don't like it then you can move to a police state like Russia or China where you'll be more happy.

Suggest removal:

15tafy(86 comments)posted 1 month ago

You all forgot the part about just staying out of trouble. No trouble, No cops! Simple!

Suggest removal:

16YtownParent(324 comments)posted 1 month ago

"No trouble, no cops!" is overly simplifying it. But I'll give you the baseline of staying out of trouble means not breaking the law. The same goes for the police. If they don't want treated like criminals, then they shouldn't break the law like criminals.

Suggest removal:

17bunkpatrol(87 comments)posted 1 month ago

Plenty of dictatorships and banana republic coups would love to have you serving in their ranks, then, jerk.

But when you give up the rest of your freedoms, don't forget they'll behead you for talking about their president like you do ours.

All you fraidy cats and your popo and guns. You'll choke on antacids before you need the help of an MRAP.

So much for small government you hypocrites...wasted
$700,000 is by no means free.

Suggest removal:

18bunkpatrol(87 comments)posted 1 month ago

That wasn't aimed at you YTP. Sometimes the timing of comments posted on this site is way off....

Suggest removal:

19YtownParent(324 comments)posted 1 month ago

No posting here is "anti-police". The post have all been anti-criminal. Some posters realize that a cop who breaks the law is a criminal.

As for any arguments that it is needed equipment for the officers protection, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund's (www.nleomf.org) published reports, officer deaths have been steadily declining and deaths by shootings have fallen so much that cars killed more cops than guns. If you are sincerely concerned about the safety of officers@Chessiedad then cops should have cars that contain seatbelts & they should be required to use them. If you want to double or triple the fine for not moving over when and officer has another vehicle pulled over, I'm all for it. I'm not for cops using totalitarian tactics and you shouldn't be either because sooner or later you'll be the only one left to subdue.

As for your ride along idea, thankfully it's going to be a long wait until that opportunity arises. In Y-town, it has been 13 years since an officer was shot and killed in the line of duty. Of the 5 officers that were killed on duty in the past 50 years in Y-town 3 were by vehicles only 2 by guns. Outside of Youngstown, you have to go back to 1927 to find an officer killed by gunfire in Mahaoning county. All the others were by cars or health (aka heart attacks). By all means look at the YPD web page as well as the Officer Down page (odmp.org) and fact check me. Or just go along spewing the same hyperbole and propaganda that Stalin, Sadaam, Quadifi, et al. churned out to justify their tyranny.

Suggest removal:

20NBees(44 comments)posted 1 month ago

We are Americans... the psychological implications of military equipment to be used against Americans on American soil runs cross grain with everything America is supposed to be. Sure, some people may back down, give up when they see a show of military strength force. Others will be outraged, especially if military equipment is brought to events where Americans are exercising their constitutional rights of peaceful assembly and/or protest.

As for re-purposing military vehicles for off road search and rescue or to help fight brush fires, that is an excellent idea.

Suggest removal:

21walter_sobchak(1909 comments)posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago

This is all about extremes. We ask police officers to enforce the laws, arrest criminals, keep the streets safe AND return to their families safely at the end of their shift. As our "culture" has progressed over the years, the police have had to go from gangsters using pistols to organized gangs using weapons of war. It is absolutely necessary to resist a force with a greater force to prevail so we must provide law enforcement with the proper tools. It is quite possible that an MRAP could be necessary to quell a serious disturbance like in Ferguson, but these instances are not common in the US. If we can re-purpose it for use as a glorified ATV, it could make sense. Otherwise, wouldn't it be better for just one MRAP to be used on a county-wide basis and shared by the various law enforcement entities? Each police force can share the vehicle for training purposes but the unit could held by the sheriff. However, police work is best done on a community basis where the officers know their citizens, have contact with them, and use appropriate measures to enforce laws. Making the police force a quasi-military group is not very wise as it hints of military dictatorship. The power rests with the people and is given by them to the government. We are not to be lorded over!

Suggest removal:

22YtownParent(324 comments)posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago

@Chessiedad. First, I apologize for overlooking Officer Richard Becker. It wasn't intentional, I just forgot Poland Twp. when checking data, as the site lists death by individual departments & not counties. I provided the specific means to be fact checked because I know I am only human & subject to making errors, whether leaving out a department or in my math. I gave you the tools to correct any mistakes I made, so my data was not skewed. Cops should be responsible & humble enough to admit their imperfections too, instead of acting infallible.

Second, you overlooked the sarcasm in seatbelt comments. It is the law & police officers are supposed to be wearing safety belts too, as well as not texting while driving.

Third. I never said I was ok with any President's, Congress's, or government agent's abuses. This discussion is about local police departments being outfitted & deployed in the same manner as a military platoon. But just to clarify, The Patriot Act was awful when Bush was President. I was against it then because his predecessors could/would just expand the abuse. Obama proved I was right. Regardless of who becomes the next President, you can bet they'll make Obama's abuses look like Bush's. All the other abuses are just as foul. Republicans haven't challenged them in court & stopped them in their tracks because they want to keep those powers for themselves. The Democrats never challenged Bush or Reagan for the same reason.

There is a giant difference between "protective gear" like body armor, helmets & shields and offense weapons like machine guns. I might be able to stomach it if every officer was honest and forthright, but that is not the case. Check out the stats on police misconduct (http://www.policemisconduct.net/stati...). Please by all means provide any additional data I might not have found. Cops are humans and they are subject to falling prey to greed and power trips just like the rest of us. Too many use that equipment for their own gain. Too many departments and citizens excuse or overlook illegal police activity. Giving bad cops free reign with no oversight places good honest cops lives in danger. Unfortunately, the Robert Lodwicks of the police forces are more prevalent than the Officer Hartzells.

Suggest removal:

23FreedomTruth(28 comments)posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago

@Steivo, According to the Justice Department, "Although most crime is not committed,with guns, most gun crime is committed,with handguns." Accordingly, police killed by guns has been steadily declining. Please cite when the last time a machine gun was used against officers? Furthermore, weapons of war, whether machine guns, grenades, MRAPs should not be used on the streets of America. Citizens are not "enemy combatants" and should not be viewed as such.

Suggest removal:

24bunkpatrol(87 comments)posted 4 weeks ago

Chessiedad-

You sure know a lot about strangers you don't agree with.

Your posts are based on assumptions and fallacious arguments that have basis in emotion and not fact.

You attack posters rather than their statements.

I have seen the likes of you and have empathy for your struggles. But I won't continue discussion with you because you are obviously very personally attached to this matter and are unable to consider points of view objectively.

And I don't deserve your personal attacks. They are unfounded and suggestive of mental infancy.

Suggest removal:

25bunkpatrol(87 comments)posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

Funny that you are the one who brings race into the scenario and then categorize me as a race baiter.

Your agenda, not mine.

Michael Brown shooting not "officer involved" ?
Whatever-I give up.

I get your point. All cops good. Criminals guilty until proven innocent. Tanks for Mayberry. Fear black people. Villainize anyone who disagrees.

Suggest removal:

26FreedomTruth(28 comments)posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

I dunno.....I kind of have to side with bunkpatrol on this one. Did you know that you "intensive background investigations" also include IQ? Meaning that many "law" agencies exclude those applicants that have a higher than average IQ. Their "excuse" is that those people might become bored......where in truth, they have a tendency to question.

"due to his admitted drug use" Um, you might want to rethink this one. 1st, as part of the tacit lies plaguing the "drug war", the term "drug" is often inferred to mean an "illicit" substance...... in actuality, there isn't a person in this country that hasn't used drugs of one sort or another, be it cannabis, opioids,, caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, aspirin, etc. So, I guess you couldn't qualify either. 2nd, many "law agencies have decreased the amount of time to "admit" to using cannabis..... which, when you think about it, is less harmful than so-called "legal drugs".

Criminals are "guilty", or they wouldn't be "criminals", yet the police think they are judge, jury and executioner....... All people, regardless of past history are to be presumed innocent.....like it or not. I do, however, agree with you that a person caught in the act of "looting" or destroying property should be arrested until due process can take it's course.

"nobody is talking about "tanks" for local L.E. A "tank" is generally a "track-driven" vehicle with mounted canon or howitzers" Again, I guess it's a matter of semantics. The MRAP's (Mine Resistant Armored Personnel) vehicles many agencies obtain kind of look like tanks, though with tires instead of tracks. However they serve a similar purpose. They might not have cannons mounted on them, but they can be equipped with .50 caliber machine guns and have a rotating turret in the upper mast.

This is quite interesting in that I can't recall the last time an IED was used against the police.....for that matter a .50 cal or a 20mm cannon...... Again, weapons of war have no place on American streets.

However, if you still feel that this level of force or protection is needed on American soil, then the citizens themselves should have the same opportunity to acquire these products for self protection. Remember, " The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime". - Max Stirner

Suggest removal:

27bunkpatrol(87 comments)posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago

Live by the gun, die by the gun.

Suggest removal:

28bunkpatrol(87 comments)posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago

No-it's exactly what you are asking for by bringing the big military issue stuff to town.

You want Ferguson here ? Careful what you wish for because it's the same thing you're b*tching about.

Suggest removal:

29bunkpatrol(87 comments)posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" . BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

Suggest removal:

30theoldwrench(243 comments)posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago

@evio what is your definition of rebellion or are you unable to answerer that question too?????

Suggest removal:

31theoldwrench(243 comments)posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago

@Chessiedad Maybe you can answerer a question? Why weren't these same tactics not used at the Bundy ranch armed standoff???? Or are laws broken by a some people not same as others.

Suggest removal:

32thinkthentalk(260 comments)posted 3 weeks, 4 days ago

Mr Wrench. The answer is that when conservatives get something for nothing from the "bad ol" government, according to the Fox network, that is ok. You see, its ok for conservatives to use flimsy excuses to rebel and take what they want and not pay for it.

Remember when the BLM rangers were on that bridge facing down the out-numbering, out-gunning conservative militia? Thats ok. That was the prime example of big-ol government overreach. The big ol' govt shouldnt be enforcing the law there.

Could you imagine if mean ol' executive powers HUSSEIN ordered the BLM to roll up in MRAPs wearing the camo military uniforms. Hannity and Rushbo would have a field day!

Suggest removal:

33FreedomTruth(28 comments)posted 3 weeks, 4 days ago

@Chessiedad, ".....DON'T COMMIT ANY CRIMES!!!...and I'm pretty sure the Police won't "terrorize" you". So I guess you don't have an issue with "stop and frisk" policies, DUI checkpoints,(which have been outlawed in many states), or any other unconstitutional tactic the police use?

"FreedomTruth, I know you like your "cannabis", but dude, you gotta put down the pipe for a sec", Um, Just because I know that prohibition is unconstitutional, doesn't mean I personally use a product.....and why don't you put down your scotch and realize that thinking the government can tell me what I can or cannot put into MY body assumes that the government owns me....they do not! “If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny”. – Thomas Jefferson

"but I hope that my local Law Enforcement agency is hiring the "smartest" people they can find"....."hoping" doesn't make it so.... And to those whose first response is "call 911", “…those who rely on others for protection lose, in a great measure, the means and the will to protect themselves” (Nassau W. Senior (1790-1864) The ruse perpetrated by the belief that the police will protect you will unwittingly expose most here on this forum to harm. In 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled that the police have no duty to protect.

The bottom line is, FOP union contracts be damned (please research the "extra rights given to their members), the "police" are doing a job and should be held to the SAME legal accountability as an ordinary citizen...which, by the way, they are!

Suggest removal:

34FreedomTruth(28 comments)posted 3 weeks, 4 days ago

"I fully support "stop and frisk" procedures and DUI checkpoints and I feel their use should be increased dramatically". Actually, the counter-culture which you say you admire, based on your comments, is called Fascism.

I, on the other hand am an American which treasures liberty and freedom. Perhaps you need to re-read the 4th amendment of the US Constitution which says; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Or perhaps you would be interested in the Article 14 of the Ohio Bill of Rights: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the person and things to be seized".

Seems like plain English to me, but then again, I'm an American.

Suggest removal:

35theoldwrench(243 comments)posted 3 weeks, 4 days ago

@thinkdonttalk Thank you That is what I thought also I wonder what would happen if black militia was formed and did the same thing a white militia did at bundy? Evio There can only be one interpretation of the Constitution But I'm Sure in your extreme right wing bubble that only certain people have those rights and others don't.

Suggest removal:

36dmo8723(2 comments)posted 3 weeks, 2 days ago

a lot of fools in here.Father God only judges right or wrong not all that other bs you all talking about.whats right is that what city other than Chicago needs a fleet of military Humvees and a stock pile of weapons. and you say if you're not a criminal you should'nt be worried. that's a damn lie but it might start that way.when in U.S history has every policeman needed a m16 crime is dropping everywhere even in Youngstown.Every cop will say pull out the m16 when the criminals where teens with bb guns. Please don't act so innocent if there is someone who has not forgotten to wear their seatbelt,ran a light, speed every day to work let me know. I do know that most of us have committed a crime so the next time the police are looking for a white male or white female suspect and your kid fits the description but when the police approach them they have on head phones and they reach and their pocket for their cellphone and are killed then you will realize every murder victim or prison inmate that lost their life at the hands of police aren't criminals.My grandmother is the biggest Christian I know crime free and she really lives the word but hey every time the police gets behind her she gets nervous and checks for her seatbelt because she had friends killed and assaulted by police without any consequences. Oh and since im dealing with a whole lot of republicans i'll even bash Obama so you can get the point. It seems that some of you would love all police essentially become militarized well it just so happens Obama was involved in a U.N agreement to enforce a ban on certain guns, so militarizing the police force would be a great thing if you plan to take guns because except for these law abiding citizens who would give up guns certainly not the criminals. And ill post 10 links here real fast to show you how your good ole government voted on this bill already and even democrats voted against it did you know that straight and narrows.

Suggest removal:

37dmo8723(2 comments)posted 3 weeks, 2 days ago

1.FactCheck.org-Obama's gun ban

2.www.newsmax.com/US/Norris-Obama-guns-NRA
3 obamas real reason he wants your guns-top documentary films
4.http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
5.http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

Suggest removal:

38bunkpatrol(87 comments)posted 3 weeks, 2 days ago

While we're attacking grammar and spelling, perhaps you'll educate yourself on the appropriate use of "quotations".

High speed chases, shootouts, riot gear and tear gas. Often these angelic policemen's best intentions fly in the face of "public safety".

Suggest removal:

39L0L(660 comments)posted 3 weeks, 2 days ago

@bunkpatrol as well as all others... You're right. The police should just let all of the criminals run amuk. Forget chasing the guy who just robbed someone or broke into a house, or riot gear and tear gas when the animals decide to loot. They also should not have m16s available to them and ready at hand in the case of a school, theater or mass shooting incident.

Suggest removal:

40bunkpatrol(87 comments)posted 3 weeks, 2 days ago

Don't believe that's my position at all. In fact, that's the fallible slippery slope argument put in place of my argument of sound logic.

I have no problem with the police pursuing or apprehending. I have a problem with you all justifying the killing of a supposed robber. And the killing of said robber prior to any kind of trial. And then the brutal show of force used against those who protested such lack of justice. And the continued justification of the militarization of such brutal fascism due to racism and fear.

The $737,000 Caiman is nothing more than big gov't waste and customizing it is throwing good money at bad. I have a huge issue with all of you hypocrites who can justify this as free and necessary while screaming of the evils of entitlement and big government.

Suggest removal:

41L0L(660 comments)posted 3 weeks, 2 days ago

Justifying the killer of a robber? The "robber" fought with the officer. The "robber" attempted to disarm the officer. Should the officer just let the "robber" kick his a$$? In what society is it acceptable to fight with an officer let alone try to take his gun? Attempting to disarm an officer alone is grounds for deadly force. Not too mention other factors such as offender/officer size, tiredness, weapon involved (in this case offender was attempting to take the officer's), and so on. Officers don't just go on the road and hold court and kill "robbers" before they go to court. Is what happened unfortunate? Yes, for both sides. However, I do not feel bad for the suspect for HIS actions that sparked the incident. I feel bad for his family.

As far as teh Caiman yes it may be the government's waste so Law Enforcement should turn their nose at it and not utilize it? Customizing it might be as simple as painting it so it doesn't look so "military" that all of you are whining about. There's people like you that no matter what the police do or government do it will be wrong. I know, I know, you're just trying to hold them accountable. Blah, blah, blah

Suggest removal:

42DACOUNTRYBOY(225 comments)posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago

TRUMP and I aint talkin bout Donald! Today's criminal rights "TRUMP" those of law enforcement. They get huge rewards after clashing with law enforcement paid for by the taxes of those that they continue to victimize. Can you say war zone?

Suggest removal:

43YtownParent(324 comments)posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago

Been too busy at work to do more than read the past week. I hope you don't get too emotional @Chessiedad, but nobody said " most Police Officers are sex offenders". After laying out the statistics of cops who are convicted of crimes and cops who are killed in the line of duty and where you can fact check stats, what I said, was: "Unfortunately, the Robert Lodwicks of the police forces are more prevalent than the Officer Hartzells." It is a statistical fact that more cops are convicted of crimes against the public than are killed by the public.

Again, that is officers who are "convicted", not officers who are complained about, not disciplined, not fired nor sued, but investigated by their law enforcement brothers, indited, tried and found guilty.
Both are ugly stats that in a perfect world would be zero. It is unfortunate that there are more convicted criminals than fallen officers.The only fortunate part of those stats is that combined they are only a microscopic percentage of police forces. Thankfully, most cops are not killed and most cops don't commit crimes. Those are the cops we should care about. Those are the cops you should get emotional about and vigorously question how department actions and policies help them.

Militarizing the police force doesn't help the large percent of cops who do their best for the communities they work in. It makes them more of a target, not just for criminals but everyday law abiding citizens. If criminals deserve to be treated like that, then all criminals deserve to be treated like that, including those in uniform. Yes, there are criminal cops. And no, I don't mean cops who make bad judgement calls or who are involved in shootings. Bad bad judgement calls and officer involved shootings usually don't end up in convictions. Yeah, I'm emotional about it because criminals cops endanger the lives of law abiding officers like my friends and neighbors.

Militarization has pragmatic drawbacks too. Police departments are surgical instruments designed to remove a specific threat without endangering the community. Military units are blunt instruments like chemotherapy that are designed to eradicate a whole area. The M16 is the perfect example. Rifles and hand guns are made to take out a single perp at a time. Automatic weapons were made to flood a whole area and take out as many targets as possible. Would you really want cops opening up fire on a school, movie, mall, etc shooter with automatic weapons & raining bullets down in a area where your children are? Or would you rather a marksman carefully setup a shot and take out a shooter only? If you are okay with the cops using weapons of war & literally waging war, then don't complain when someone you love becomes collateral damage.

Suggest removal:

44SheDevil(120 comments)posted 3 weeks ago

"Militarization has pragmatic drawbacks too. Police departments are surgical instruments designed to remove a specific threat without endangering the community......."

Very well said

Suggest removal:

45YtownParent(324 comments)posted 3 weeks ago

I'm not saying the bad guys are the good guys. What is bizarre is that so many argue that a badge magically makes a human being infallible and unable to commit crimes. So I guess Girard had better give Larry Neely his job back because it isn't a crime if a cop lets their underage child have parties and serve alcohol to other minors. Wonder what would happen if you did that Chessie. Warren had better give Rueben Shaw his job back too, because a cop taking someone else's car out of a locked garage isn't a crime.

Let's not forget Ray Greenwood, whose largest crime is lying not once or twice, but on four occasions to investigators. He's a cop so it's okay for him to commit perjury because he's gotta keep himself safe. Greenwood is the perfect example of how civil rights violations in the name of officer safety can become outright criminal behavior to save ones job. How many of the criminals Greenwood put away will soon be out and eligible to sue the taxpayers of Struthers because any testimony Greenwood ever gave & every shred of evidence he collected is now tainted by his perjury & has to be thrown out.

So my question for all the shoot first and ask questions later crowd is do you apply those same standards to everyone breaking the law? Do all those breaking the law deserve no civil rights. Does that apply to everyone breaking the law? Even cops? By your logic those former cops should have just been shot out right because they have guns and the police need to protect themselves from criminals with weapons.

Suggest removal:

46YtownParent(324 comments)posted 3 weeks ago

As for using Lodwick and Hartzell's name in the same sentence, they associated themselves with each other when they both put on the uniform. The Commanding officers and internal affairs morons that excused Lodwick's behavior with all the same rhetoric being used here to absolve all cops of whatever actions they take in uniform stained the memory of my friends on the force, including Mike Hartzell, who I know for a fact complained about Lodwick's conduct and attitude.

It's unfortunate that more cops die as criminals than heroes because those criminals in uniform stain every other officer who ever served. Giving cops more power (and power always corrupts) will only make the stain larger and darker.

Suggest removal:

47SheDevil(120 comments)posted 3 weeks ago

A dedicated community servant deserves courtesy and respect from other members of that community; someone who tells me to “just do what I tell you” doesn’t see me as a fellow citizen but a subject.

"Just do what I tell you", - sounds like phrase from East Berlin..

Suggest removal:

48bunkpatrol(87 comments)posted 3 weeks ago

From what I've learned in the comments here, you must hate ALL cops and love ALL criminals, SheDevil.

Commenters exaggerate your argument and then attack the misrepresentation.

That is because they are ignorant and incapable of producing a sound logical argument on their own.

Too bad the pundits they parrot can't be there to tell them the correct soundbites to utter when challenged by sound logical statements of fact.

Laughable-except the most powerless are manipulated to scream the loudest. Grumpy white entitled old men losing their grip. Or cops afraid of losing their toys, stooping to the level of defending bad cops.

So the argument devolves to name calling and messenger killing. Pathetic.

Suggest removal:

49SheDevil(120 comments)posted 3 weeks ago

@bunk
Inane rant

Suggest removal:

50bunkpatrol(87 comments)posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago

Well then I guess you've "earned" my "respect" and I can "trust" you "blindly" because you don't "seem" to have a "horse" in this "race".

Civil disobedience founded this country.

Fascist militarization fueled by fear and greed will be it's end.

Suggest removal:

51YtownParent(324 comments)posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago

"God help you and your loved ones if your neighborhood ever has an "active shooter" on the loose, and you need to evacuate. You'll be begging the Police to come get you in one of those "Caimans" or "armored-up" Humvees you hate so much." I don't think so. An active shooter in my neighborhood wouldn't be done firing before anyone dialed 911. Then the police would take me or one of my neighbors to jail & charge us with murder for eliminating the threat because they didn't get to play with their toys.

Suggest removal:

52YtownParent(324 comments)posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago

No, I am not advocating vigilante justice". I am advocating self-defense of your own life and/or the life of someone else. You made the statement "God help you and your loved ones if your neighborhood ever has an "active shooter" on the loose, and you need to evacuate. You'll be begging the Police to come get you in one of those "Caimans" or "armored-up" Humvees you hate so much. An active shooter is a whole lot different than a junkie or gang-banger walking down the street casing houses. An active shooter is someone who is "actively" pulling the trigger and sending bullets wizzing around. The law says anyone has a right to take that shooter out in defense of themselves or anyone else.

Are you really saying that if an active shooter is roaming your neighborhood firing bullets that could come through a window and hit you or a family member, you wouldn't stop the shooter if you had the means to do so? Are you telling me you'd want all your neighbors to let the shooter room around the neighborhood until the cops showed up? Even two minutes with a semi-auto weapon in a residential area would be enough for any novice psychopath to kill dozens.

Taking out an active shooter is self-defense. Grabbing a weapon and running after someone who looks like a junkie casing houses and shooting them is vigilante justice. Yes, I advocate an armed populace that will protect each other.

You'll probably have a hard complexity, so you'll call it a contradiction, when it's not. While I don't agree that police should be armed and operating like military units (mostly because police departments don't have the same discipline as military units), I do believe they have the same right to protect themselves as anyone else. I do think the police violated civil rights and were out of line in their response to protests in Ferguson, but I think the initial shooting of Brown was self-defense.

Suggest removal:

53bunkpatrol(87 comments)posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago

http://news.yahoo.com/how-does-a-poli...

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport