L/rain
47°
L/rain
Hi 54° | Lo 36°

Letter: BearCat keeps protectors safe

I have become increasingly concerned by my hometown newspaper’s seemingly one-sided view of the Concord Police Department possibly receiving a BearCat. Though different opinions from the readership are printed, I want to see a bit more balance from within. I wonder if the press surrounding this vehicle is tainting the image of the Concord police.

What is a BearCat? Here’s the acronym: Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck. This vehicle would be obtained through a federal grant, and used to preserve life at no initial taxpayer expense. Preserving life, after all, is what law enforcement personnel are trained to do. In crisis situations the stakes are high. Unlike old Western movies, people don’t always come out with their hands up and a white flag in the air. A peaceful resolution is always the goal. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always turn out that way and other means need to be considered. Let’s keep in mind that public safety personnel are responders to a situation. Don’t we wish them to be safe? Do we give consideration to their families who pray they will come home at the end of the day?

Through proper training, and the availability of equipment designed to counter an attack, we increase our ability to help those in crisis, protect our protectors and, in doing so, to preserve life for all of us.

If only one life is saved, is it not worth it? What cost do you place on a life? I respect the opinions of those opposed to this, but if it is your life at stake do you really care what your savior is driving?

KRAIG EMERY

Boscawen

Legacy Comments13

Again. What is one life worth?

I think, that what was meant by this letter, was to voice an opinion that Law Enforcement should be kept safe. I enjoy, and respect, the diverse opinions on the subject. I agree that there is equipment in place that will protect, though only to a degree. Perhaps a 'dump truck' between the subject and the official would be ample protection? The'no initial taxpayer' expense comment simply meant that it was a 'grant and then we would then suffer the cost of maintenance if the Bear-cat were approved. We all have opinions, and the feedback is great. The 'more angry people with guns comment' is ridiculous. I know that we just wish to go home, as you do, to our family at the end of the day. The 'WACO' comment is way of topic in this case. Research how much the situation was negotiated, and blame Koresh for his role before blaming Law Enforcement, though mistakes were made, for theirs.

QUOTE: ".... obtained through a federal grant, ......at no initial taxpayer expense" ...does anybody see a problem with that kind of thinking

Understood. Clearly, what was meant, was it was through a grant. Let's not over-think this. Maintenance of such would be ours. Come on!

I remember an incident many years ago that only by the Grace of God did a Hopkinton Officer not lose his life. The Young Hopkinton Officer was providing assistance to Bow after a 15 year old boy armed with 13 hi-powered rifles and close to 2000 rounds of ammo was blasting at anything that moved at about 10:00 AM on a sunny May morning. The Officer had to constantly move away from his cover to get the attention of other drivers, finding himself in the open often. Finally a shot from a 30 caliber rifle hit him in the chest, the bullet being stopped by the two vests he was wearing. The next shot however struck him just below the left leg, causing the Hopkinton Officer to fall and unable to move. The shooter kept the officer pinned down and the police had no way to extricate the Officer. Here would have been the perfect opportunity to save a life by using the Bearcat, The two hour delay in removing the Officer resulted in additional lifelong injuries that could have been avoided, a delay that did not prove fatal on that day but may prove so in the future. We owe it to our Officers to keep them alive at all costs, even if it ruffles a few feathers!!

Current SWAT gear would have worked. Hell - moving a garbage tuck between the criminal the would have worked great. We don't need to militarize a force not bound by the posse comitatus (prohibits using the military on US citizens). However - we all need to think outside nthe box sometimes. Any number of commercially available trucks or heavy equipment, already right in the area, could have been used to protect that officer.

More angry people with guns means more violence. It is all vey well to name roads after dead police men. But how about doing all we can to protect them against violent criminals before they are killed? I don't hear many people complaining about "free or not free" when they are talking about more weapons or Humvees for the military.

"no initial taxpayer expense" - when people make statements that are flat out not true the rest of their argument comes into question. Each of the dollars spent are dollars a person pays out of their pocket for taxes, there are no FREE tax dollars. This is the mentality that has the US at a ~~$17 Trillion debt and every state deep in debt. Everybody wants something but nobody wants to pay for it..... As for this Bearcat - if someone could show me some cases in NH of "officers" being attacked while riding “to” a crime scene or a shootout where the officers could have hidden behind the doors then I might say it is necessary. The Greenland example does not even fit as the officers were at the front door, not behind their vehicles so what they drove in with does not matter. Personally rather than having 5 or 6 officers behind the Bearcat shooting it out with someone in a house, I would like to see one well trained sniper at 400 yards expend ONE bullet. NO million dollar trial, NO life time cost in jail. If the person is shooting then that person sounds guilty to me.

I am sure it will be as protective as WACO Texas. 82 men/women/children burned to death w/o arrest or trial on international TV. This is what happens when police get and use military equipment and tactics - they use them. They are supposed to be peace keepers - not an aggressor force. They already have plenty of SWAT level technology, tactics and teams - largely unused. Another strawman threat to "justify" building a military type force to use against citizens.

There were mistakes made in WACO. No question. Not the least of which was a manipulating 'leader' who raped underage girls. If you will be his advocate, have at it. No situation is perfect, though we wish it would be. What I was saying is that it is another tool for responder safety. Again, the RESPONDERS, not the aggressors. I respect your opinion, but to make WACO your soap box out of this is ludicrous.

Kraig, So at WACO, murdering them all helped any of the abused? They were trapped - couldn't get away -there was no need for the police to become an aggressor force. This phenomenon is reported more frequently as police look for excuses to use military equipment & tactics. A rapidly growing paramilitary force (not bound by the posse cometatus act) bodes ill-well for citizens.

Senator Tom Couburn of Oklahoma said it best. If you use the web, navigate to his official Senate website. Along the top, far right, is the icon "oversight and investigations"; if you click on that, it will open a page which includes hs report to the country called "safety at any price". Everybody should take a few minutest read it. I say this not as a big fan of Senator Couburn in general. I tend to not agree with his viewpoints. But in his report he presents information about those DHS grant program that every thinking taxpayer should be aware of.

Thanks for the reference. Coburn makes a lot of sense. Most Federal government grants should be eliminated because bad decisions are made when the cost of something looks to be "free" or 20% of the actual cost. The "unfree" portion is a hidden tax that shows up in our tax bills or our national debt which will be a big burden for our children.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.