Re: "Before we spend money to switch to armored patrol vehicles . . . blah,
blah."Cynically grinding a hackneyed, discredited,
poorly-reasoned axe, by blaming this incident on the police, on armed good
citizens, or on anyone but the vicious criminal perpetrator is childish and
particularly distasteful, in view of the sacrifice of the officers involved.Shame.
Which is espensive protection on patrol cars or Life Insurance. I rather live
than seeing my wife suffer the loss for the rest of her life as well to many
"RedShirt" I actually agree with you - my comment was meant to be a
satire on the tendency to blame guns for things like this, when in reality
it's the people who use guns, not the guns themselves. Apparently tone is
hard to portray in comments!
To "BostonLDS" if we are going to enact weird taxes, how about we raise
taxes on anybody convicted of violent crimes since they are the ones that commit
the crimes. What about knife manufacturers too. When criminals can't get
guns they get knives. Do we tax that next. Do we go the route of Japan and
require that knives and swords over a few inches in length be registered with
the police?When do stop? Do we turn the police over to the
bullet resistant windshields and side windows sounds good to me. Hard to
believe they must cost $15,000. $3,000 seems reasonable.
Maybe we could raise the taxes on guns to pay for the glass for the cop cars,
seeing as it's guns we're protecting the officers against... oh and
crazy people. Can't really tax crazy people though.
There has got to be a way to manufacture balistic glass or Lexan along with
ballistic plastic films that could stop or impede most caliber bullets and still
be thin enough for a windshield. As for the doors? Kevlar or its equivalent in
the door panels. That could be done fairly inexpensively.
I want to thank this officer and his family for the amazing support that they
have given our community and State. We need to help them out any way we can.
A question that I have that has never been addressed is, accoring to news
reports, Sgt. Wride was hit in the chest. Was he wearing a bullet proof vest?
In Sherwood's case it would not have mattered, but in Wride's case, if
the reports are correct, was he wearing a vest.
Before we spend money to switch to armored patrol vehicles for officers, we
would do well to consider all of the costs, as well as the risks of reenforcing
the "siege mentality" that permeates many police departments these days
-- the feeling that it's "us against them"; the "them"
being civilians in general. It presumes that being shot at is a frequent
occurrence for the average officer and that they should never leave the car
unless absolutely necessary. (To quote Apocalypse Now, "Never get out of the
boat.") In addition to the high costs for buying armored
vehicles, which have to be custom built, the additional weight means higher fuel
consumption, faster wear and tear on the vehicle, changes in high-speed handling
and performance, and a shorter usable life for the vehicle. It would also mean
that patrol cars couldn't be resold when they're replaced, as they
might fall into the wrong hands, so add that reduced revenue to the cost of
buying them. We may, however, have to just pay the extra millions as the cost
of living in a state where everyone is encouraged to be armed at all times.
Praise the Lord for his recovery and good fortune. Now, the sociological
questions must be asked. This ravaging of the country in general and police
officers in particular, is an induced cancer. It would appear that clever
politicians and law enforcement personnel in DC have "loosed the dogs of
I feel for this lady, but I don't think she fully understands that
bullet"proof" glass is not bullet"proof" in all situations. At
best it can be called bullet-resistant. The category of glass they would be
forced to put on these cars can and does fail, especially against high-caliber
firearms.The category of glass necessary to protect against all
calibers is extremely expensive, and most importantly, THICK and HEAVY, and
requires extensive custom re-working of the vehicle. The only glass they would
be able to get that wouldn't impact the performance of the vehicles would
only protected against low-caliber handguns.I think more training
would have been suitable. If Wride had kept his eyes on the truck, only glancing
away very shortly when necessary, he would have easily seen the driver moving
about in an disturbing way and opening the rear window.I think that
many Utah patrol officers, after years go by where nothing severe happens, get
too comfortable with traffic stops and let basic situational-awareness escape
The protection in the vehicles is an item that is/has been neglected ..and
should not be. There should be a comprehensive new policy on this beginning from
judicial procedures of an automatic ATTEMPTED MURDER charge for anyone who even
points a gun at an officer on duty, or assists in the process!What the
patrol car needs is windshield driver's side bulletproofing AND the
driver's side door also! Why the door? Because it gives the officer
protection and room to protect actively.If this would be part of national
standard the big automakers would soon be able to cut the price down to an
acceptable figure! Good luck! You are doing what should have been done YEARS
Why not have a one-time tax for all of us to pay to fund the bullet-proof
windshields? I would gladly pay for that.