King county cop charged with prostituting wife and selling/obtaining guns illegally?

[EMNofSeattle]

http://theantimedia.org/small-town-in-florida-obtains-an-mrap-armored-vehicle/

I'm more concerned about the fuel expense, this vehicle carries no weapons, it's just a steal box, hell for 200,000 dollars you too can own an MRAP. All the bank and ATM guys (Garda, brinks, loomis, etc) drive vehicles like this and have been for years, yet no concern about armed private armies coming to empty to ATM at the grocery store...

The other primary comcern is if they overuse it on calls it's putting wear and tear on the streets and bridges I pay for.... However they have excellent traction, if the area is prone to floods and hurricanes a vehicle like this would be ideal for search and rescue.

 

[OC for ME]

...

Would any of you who demand that there be no highly trained officers availability please show up next time it happens and take care of the situation.

...

No one has stated that highly trained officers not be available, at least I have not, a separate unit known as SWAT must be disbanded. It would not be too difficult to have beat cops available to perform the duties of a separate SWAT unit. There is no need for a assault team that does nothing but destroy lives and property. Getting it wrong and seeking a redress does little to make amends. If a separate SWAT unit must be funded its use must be very narrowly defined and constrained.

I'm more concerned about the fuel expense, this vehicle carries no weapons, it's just a steal box, hell for 200,000 dollars you too can own an MRAP. All the bank and ATM guys (Garda, brinks, loomis, etc) drive vehicles like this and have been for years, yet no concern about armed private armies coming to empty to ATM at the grocery store...

Uh, no, Garda, Brinks, Loomis, etc do not use MRAPs to transfer vending machine change to and from the local bank.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Uh, no, Garda, Brinks, Loomis, etc do not use MRAPs to transfer vending machine change to and from the local bank.

Just another case of:

I dont know what the exact LEOFF benefits clasuses are. however [strike]my understanding is[/strike] I'll give a crazy opinion anyways

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No one has stated that highly trained officers not be available, at least I have not, a separate unit known as SWAT must be disbanded. It would not be too difficult to have beat cops available to perform the duties of a separate SWAT unit. There is no need for a assault team that does nothing but destroy lives and property. Getting it wrong and seeking a redress does little to make amends. If a separate SWAT unit must be funded its use must be very narrowly defined and constrained.

Uh, no, Garda, Brinks, Loomis, etc do not use MRAPs to transfer vending machine change to and from the local bank.

They use a vehicle that for all intents and purposes functions like one, they use vans with Diesel engines, that are impervious to small arms fire, have run flat tires, push bumpers on front, so maybe they won't stand up to an IED but unless you believe police officers should be killed with improvised explosive devices that's a moot difference, and if we get to the point where you need to kill cops with a rifle and IEDs, you'll be fighting the actual military with armed and armored vehicles and weapons far more powerful then what any police agency has in inventory

 

[OC for ME]

They use a vehicle that for all intents and purposes functions like one, they use vans with Diesel engines, that are impervious to small arms fire, have run flat tires, push bumpers on front, so maybe they won't stand up to an IED but unless you believe police officers should be killed with improvised explosive devices that's a moot difference, and if we get to the point where you need to kill cops with a rifle and IEDs, you'll be fighting the actual military with armed and armored vehicles and weapons far more powerful then what any police agency has in inventory

A Brinks truck is not a MRAP no matter how you wish it were so.

Claiming that killing cops with IEDs equates to disbanding SWAT units.

Your view is that SWAT units are a needed commodity, I do not. If a SWAT unit is to be maintained it must be used only for the most dire of situations. Busting student loan scofflaws and some pot heads is not what a SWAT unit is to be used for never was to be used for.

I'll give you this, you are consistent in your reverence for the state and their minions.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So what you are predicting is that when the police force becomes ineffective at controlling the citizens, the government will resort to using the National Guard and US Military.

If the government goes tyrannical they will use the military to quell dissenters without thought.

Wether or not the military obeys is one issue, but I would be far more worried about them then the police, I have a feeling simply using a unit of soldiers from Mass or Peurto Rico, or california will be more willing to round me up then the kitsap county sheriffs office who are the neighbors and friends of the people in the community....

 

[WalkingWolf]

If the government goes tyrannical they will use the military to quell dissenters without thought.

Wether or not the military obeys is one issue, but I would be far more worried about them then the police, I have a feeling simply using a unit of soldiers from Mass or Peurto Rico, or california will be more willing to round me up then the kitsap county sheriffs office who are the neighbors and friends of the people in the community....

A decade or so back a survey was taken on military members if they would shoot on citizens, overwhelmingly the answer was no. We already know that some police will shoot unarmed citizens, and even in one case torch a baby.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I'm more concerned about the fuel expense, this vehicle carries no weapons, it's just a steal box, hell for 200,000 dollars you too can own an MRAP. All the bank and ATM guys (Garda, brinks, loomis, etc) drive vehicles like this and have been for years, yet no concern about armed private armies coming to empty to ATM at the grocery store...

A MRAP is to a Brinks van what a rocket launcher is to a bolt action .308.

Both are just steel tubes that launch projectiles. So anyone should be able to buy either at their local gun store, right?


[pssst: "72 percent of the world's bridges cannot hold the MRAP." Oh wait, there's more; an average MRAP can weigh around 2x as much as the average armored car, but you already admitted you don't know much about... much]

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A decade or so back a survey was taken on military members if they would shoot on citizens, overwhelmingly the answer was no. We already know that some police will shoot unarmed citizens, and even in one case torch a baby.

What, they hung the baby upside down and worked him over with an acetylene torch?

 

[Dave_pro2a]

What, they hung the baby upside down and worked him over with an acetylene torch?

Or was it a broomstick in the anus.

Paramilitary organizations bread "us versus them" mentality. We are the 'them' and in their eyes we are the enemy already.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A MRAP is to a Brinks van what a rocket launcher is to a bolt action .308.

Both are just steel tubes that launch projectiles. So anyone should be able to buy either at their local gun store, right?


[pssst: "72 percent of the world's bridges cannot hold the MRAP." Oh wait, there's more; an average MRAP can weigh around 2x as much as the average armored car, but you already admitted you don't know much about... much]

I actually really don't care if you own a LAWW or an AT4 or whatever. They would be beyond the budget of most criminal except organized crime, and rich criminal enterprises can get what they want one way or another....

I think I already said I was concerned about wear on the bridges. I think however most bridges could handle one, there is no way that vehicle weighs 52 tons. I drive trucks loaded up to 40 tons for a living, haven't had a bridge fall on me yet.... They can take the weight, but they will become structurally weakened if the vehicle is driven on them too many times

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I think however most bridges could handle one, there is no way that vehicle weighs 52 tons.

0% = none
50% = half
100% = all

"Most" = more than half

49% = less than half
51% = more than half

Therefore, "less than most" MUST be less than 51%.

72% is more than 51%

Therefore MOST BRIDGES CANNOT SUPPORT AN MRAP! (I though that maybe if I say it louder you'd understand)

Effing math, how does that work anyways!

There arguments to make against that fact 72% of bridges cannot support an MRAP, but I'm not going to actually fight for you (because you're so effing wrong).

 

[EMNofSeattle]

0% = none
50% = half
100% = all

"Most" = more than half

49% = less than half
51% = more than half

Therefore, "less than most" MUST be less than 51%.

72% is more than 51%

Therefore MOST BRIDGES CANNOT SUPPORT AN MRAP! (I though that maybe if I say it louder you'd understand)

Effing math, how does that work anyways!

There arguments to make against that fact 72% of bridges cannot support an MRAP, but I'm not going to actually fight for you (because you're so effing wrong).

I drive on these bridges every day with 40 tons, an MRAP weights 14 at the most, the standard in the United States for commercial vehicle weights is no more then 10 tons per axle, 17 tons per tandem axle. The MRAP IS 14 tons total, and looks pretty evenly distributed weight wise, and the tires are huge so the weight is spread out. Any bridge built for motor vehicle traffic in the untied states will support the weight of an MRAP.

Your statement can only be true if you include like rope bridges in Peru or pedestrian only bridges, any bridge built for vehicles will support that weight. Most of our forest roads are built to support log trucks, those will support an MRAP as well. Your statement can only be true if you lump any structure at all as a bridge. 99.9 % of road bridges in this country will support one and I'm guessing other countries they will as well.

And how did the MRAP get to the agency? It was loaded on a flatbed truck and trailer combination that weight 28,000 pounds unloaded and driven that way on these bridges that won't support the weight....

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I drive on these bridges every day with 40 tons, an MRAP weights 14 at the most, the standard in the United States for commercial vehicle weights is no more then 10 tons per axle, 17 tons per tandem axle. The MRAP IS 14 tons total, and looks pretty evenly distributed weight wise, and the tires are huge so the weight is spread out. Any bridge built for motor vehicle traffic in the untied states will support the weight of an MRAP.

Your statement can only be true if you include like rope bridges in Peru or pedestrian only bridges, any bridge built for vehicles will support that weight. Most of our forest roads are built to support log trucks, those will support an MRAP as well. Your statement can only be true if you lump any structure at all as a bridge. 99.9 % of road bridges in this country will support one and I'm guessing other countries they will as well.

And how did the MRAP get to the agency? It was loaded on a flatbed truck and trailer combination that weight 28,000 pounds unloaded and driven that way on these bridges that won't support the weight....

Hey you can think (a little).

But nextt you'll say that they only tend to tip over from being top heavy because they are in the third world. That physics doesn't apply here. (40% of the nin IED caused accidents they get in result in tip over iirc)

And FYI: there are a LOT of roads/bridges that disallow loads over 28 tons (or even less). They better...

1) Have an updated GPS that included bridge weight limits
2) PRAY that there's never an emergency on the other side of such a bridge, that would require a few num-nuts in a big steel box to solve.
3) PRAY that the laws of physics are different in the 1st world versus the 3rd world.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Hey you can think (a little).

But nextt you'll say that they only tend to tip over from being top heavy because they are in the third world. That physics doesn't apply here. (40% of the nin IED caused accidents they get in result in tip over iirc)

And FYI: there are a LOT of roads/bridges that disallow loads over 28 tons (or even less). They better...

1) Have an updated GPS that included bridge weight limits
2) PRAY that there's never an emergency on the other side of such a bridge, that would require a few num-nuts in a big steel box to solve.
3) PRAY that the laws of physics are different in the 1st world versus the 3rd world.

County roads here are 6 tons per axle.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Hey you can think (a little).

But nextt you'll say that they only tend to tip over from being top heavy because they are in the third world. That physics doesn't apply here. (40% of the nin IED caused accidents they get in result in tip over iirc)

And FYI: there are a LOT of roads/bridges that disallow loads over 28 tons (or even less). They better...

1) Have an updated GPS that included bridge weight limits
2) PRAY that there's never an emergency on the other side of such a bridge, that would require a few num-nuts in a big steel box to solve.
3) PRAY that the laws of physics are different in the 1st world versus the 3rd world.

Weight limits, in my experience, are usually the funnel trucks and other big vehicles on other preferred routes, not because of the structural inability of the restricted route to handle weight. Sometimes limits are put on defeceint or ill maintained structures, but they'll probably too support the weight.

Tipping a vehicle is either an issue if the operator or extreme outside sources, you even mentioned that the vehicles tip in 40 % of incidents in which malicious people attacked them with explosives that's not normal in most cases.

 

[Grim_Night]

/snip

EMN... stick to topics you actually know something about. The old adage goes... "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

As a licensed commercial truck driver of 16 years, I can tell you flat out that you don't know what you are talking about. The reason for weight limits on roads is because heavier vehicles cause cracks even in the most well maintained streets. These cracks get filled with water which freezes which causes the cracks to widen. The now larger cracks then fill with more water, freeze and widen still further. The cycle continues. You know those potholes you see all the time? Guess how they happen. And it's not just freezing of water that causes this.

As for weight limits on bridges and overpasses, it's not that the weight of a single vehicle will cause damage, it's that the heavy vehicles put a cumulative strain on the support structures. As in it adds up. The reason for permits for oversized loads and overweight loads is because it's basically a fee to help cover the cost of repairs to said roads.

And just to prove my point, I will even provide links...

http://www.wisctowns.com/uploads/ckfiles/files/WI Transportation Bulletin #8 Weight.pdf

How heavy vehicles damage roads

Without adequate support, a pavement or gravel surface deflects too much under trucks carrying heavy loads, developing cracks or ruts. These then let more moisture penetrate, worsening the cycle until the road fails completely. The amount of damage a road sustains is directly related to the weight of the load and how often it is applied, according to tests by AASHTO (the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). Passenger autos and light duty vehicles are not a problem. It is trucks carrying legal weight loads of up to 80,000 GVW over weakened surfaces which do the damage. When trucks carry loads that are heavier than the statutory weight limit, the potential for damage is much higher.

http://www.statepermits.com/oversize-permit-services/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversize_load

Oversize loads present a hazard to roadway structures as well as to road traffic. Because they exceed design clearances, there is a risk that such vehicles can hit bridges and other overhead structures. Over-height vehicle impacts are a frequent cause of damage to bridges, and truss bridges are particularly vulnerable, due to having critical support members over the roadway. An over-height load struck the overhead beams on the I-5 Skagit River bridge in 2013, which caused the bridge to collapse.

Yes I know that this quote talks about over-height vehicles but it does explain that oversize vehicles do in fact put a cumulative strain on the infrastructure (roads and bridges) because they "exceed design clearances".

I drive on these bridges every day with 40 tons

If this is true then you should have received training to understand both state and federal DoT requirements and laws. This training would have covered the issues that I have just quoted. Since you obviously don't know these things, I doubt your claims.



NOW, to be back on topic... I hope they throw the book at this deputy, but I seriously doubt that they will.

Edit: to clarify

 

[sudden valley gunner]

He isn't going to disband the SWAT who were buying illegal substances from the deputy. If they were doing that who wants to bet they knew and did a lot more?


Just found out the recent SWAT raid here in Bellingham is not as reported. Makes me sick. They lied and killed a small man who was suing the government, and in doing so put the whole neighborhood in danger with their hyped up militarized war like actions.

 

[Maverick9]

What, they hung the baby upside down and worked him over with an acetylene torch?

MMmm, The other Other white meat.

(sorry).

Maybe he's kidding? This thread is pretty over the top now. Let's terminate it before someone gets offended. :uhoh:

 

[EMNofSeattle]

View attachment 11748

EMN... stick to topics you actually know something about. The old adage goes... "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

As a licensed commercial truck driver of 16 years, I can tell you flat out that you don't know what you are talking about. The reason for weight limits on roads is because heavier vehicles cause cracks even in the most well maintained streets. These cracks get filled with water which freezes which causes the cracks to widen. The now larger cracks then fill with more water, freeze and widen still further. The cycle continues. You know those potholes you see all the time? Guess how they happen. And it's not just freezing of water that causes this.

As for weight limits on bridges and overpasses, it's not that the weight of a single vehicle will cause damage, it's that the heavy vehicles put a cumulative strain on the support structures. As in it adds up. The reason for permits for oversized loads and overweight loads is because it's basically a fee to help cover the cost of repairs to said roads.

And just to prove my point, I will even provide links...

http://www.wisctowns.com/uploads/ckfiles/files/WI Transportation Bulletin #8 Weight.pdf



http://www.statepermits.com/oversize-permit-services/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversize_load



Yes I know that this quote talks about over-height vehicles but it does explain that oversize vehicles do in fact put a cumulative strain on the infrastructure (roads and bridges) because they "exceed design clearances".



If this is true then you should have received training to understand both state and federal DoT requirements and laws. This training would have covered the issues that I have just quoted. Since you obviously don't know these things, I doubt your claims.



NOW, to be back on topic... I hope they throw the book at this deputy, but I seriously doubt that they will.

Edit: to clarify

You just stated what I had set, that weight restricted roads will support heavy vehicles.... So occasional use of a SWAT vehicle will not damage the roadway. I am well aware about the reasons and needs for oversize/ overweight permits.

You basically made a 4 paragraph rant saying I don't know what I'm talking about while not disproving any one thing I said. I stated most bridges designed for road traffic in the United States will support vehicles much heavier then an MRAP. You have just stated that the bridge will but requires a permit used for road maintainance..... So if the bridge will not collapse from use of a swat vehicle, it will support the weight. Read closely what is actually said.

When I Said "these bridges" I was referring to bridges in general, I don't drive on weight restricted routes, except once and I was exempted because it was a "local delivery" at least according to the sign.