I was told today the Concord City Council will hold a public hearing August 12, 2013 at 7:00 PM, and one agenda item is the discussion and acceptance of a grant of nearly $260,000.00 for an armored military vehicle that will be used by the police department for serious police matters.
In previous letters, statements, and discussions with the Concord Police Chief, he justified the grant request as a much needed item by the police for officer safety and he used examples of where similar vehicles have been used or needed prior in New Hampshire, including a shooting in Concord. One additional flawed reason was the failed Greenland incident in which police officers were shot, and one killed. Let this be my prime example.
The Chief states that such a vehicle is needed to protect police from up to .50 caliber bullets and is to be used to get police up close and personal to incidents and protect them. First, when was the last time someone had a $3-12,000.00 rifle that shot an anti aircraft round or up to 2 mile sniper round (Approximately 1/2"x2" projectile in an overall 5 1/2" casing) at NH Police? (I can't recall one.) Second, the Chief used one incident where police may have been able to drive such a vehicle up to an incident where someone had shot a firearm in order to get closer. What were they supposed to do when they got there? Stay in the vehicle or get out? If they were to get out, then the protection of their Bearcat is no longer a protective tool. It may eventually be a rescue rig or cover and concealment, but he negated the cover and concealment desire for being inside the Bearcat.
The Chief also used the Greenland shooting of police officers as a show of need for such a vehicle. The police HAD the ability to have a vehicle just like it there, but never called one in until AFTER the shooting. We may all have an opinion as to why, but I will try to not digress from my point. My point is that the vehicle, if they used it, would have gotten them up close and that is it. Then what comes into play is that the officers were not shot with a .50 caliber rifle, and the Greenland Chief was killed by a fluke handgun shot. What the officers needed, which they did not have or were not wearing was proper ballistic body armor. Now I will get into the meat of my point.
The Chief states he thinks this $260K +/- is a great grant for officer safety. With a mutual aid agreement with the State Police in place, the Concord Police could easily call for the NH State Police Bearcat that is already in Concord. Is it because we NEED one of our own or WANT one of our own that is in play here.
If the NHSP already have one in town, why not share? It can't reallistically be in use that much in NH, now can it be?
Using very liberal math, I have put together a list of NIJ Level III and IV ballistic rifle body armor and shields that comes close to $260,000.00. The body armor in that amount would outfit just over 50 officers and have about 12 safety rescue shields put into the equation.
In reality, the officers, once dismounting from their armored Bearcat are not protected from some of the most common fatal rounds, a hunting rifle that are plentiful in NH, as we saw in the Carl Drega murders. They are generally only protected up to an NIJ level IIIa vest which protects from most handguns and shotguns. If an officer is going to surround a threat inside a house or building, 360 degrees, they can not do it from inside a Bearcat, they need the PROPER military grade rifle round protective body armor for high risk situations.
Find out what's happening in Concordwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
I think more study is warranted into what is really NEEDED for the officers of the Special Reaction teams. Personally I would rather see 50 officers protected with military grade rifle round protection than 6-10 officers protected inside a Bearcat from a very unlikely round until they exit the vehicle.
The math is simple-protection for many, or vehicle for intimidation and show.
