Brian Blackden August 07, 2013 at 08:21 PM
Please look at the attached photo where it shows the sizes of the normal personally owned firearm bullets versus the .50 caliber anti-aircraft or military sniper round. While citizens may purchase a .50 caliber rifle, it will cost them between 3 and 12 thousand dollars to shoot a six dollar bullet versus the standard hunting rifle or sporting rifle with calibers between .223 and .30-06 that cost between .50 cents and two dollars a round. Also included on the bottom is a poor attempt at art although a good example of how many protected officers there are in a BearCat versus proper level body armor tactically surrounding a bad guy in a house (Officers are the dots). The BearCat allows escape whereas the multitude of officers that could be used (up to 50 within the grant $ parameters) although 50 is not likely or logical/safe, it is used to show protectability.
@Concord Resident: I do not believe I am false in my statements. There are jurisdictional issues and the NHSP are in Concord on a daily basis whether it be stopping cars, chasing moose, or assisting in bar fights etc. A simple listening to the CPD and NHSP radio will explain that easily enough. It is fine for CFD to buy equipment as it is usually budgeted through capital expenditures and is earmarked through planning over the years by setting monies aside annually for future purchases. It is more than OK for CPD to do the same and we see that by the new cruisers recently put into use. Manchester has a better argument for a BearCat due to actual shootings, murder, 1st degree assaults and proximity to the NHSP Lenco in Concord. My issue is that I don't believe we need a BearCat in Concord. If we did, we could easily use the NHSP one that is minutes away. I actually spoke to Chief Duval about what I believe is foolish use of the money for the BearCat. He asked me what I would do instead. I told him it would be tactically better to have officers protected with body armor than a BearCat. This is my reasoning: If the BearCat pulls up to a shooting call and does not know where the shooter is, they have to exit the vehicle making themselves targets. If someone was armed with a 30-06 it would go through the standard level IIIA armor worn by most officers. Instead of being protected while only in a vehicle, for $265K you can outfit 50 officers with level IV armor which will stop the 30-06 round and smaller. This makes sense because most people don't have 3-12K to buy a .50 cal rifle but may have a few hundred to 1K to have a variety of rifle rounds from .223 to 30-06 that will penetrate standard issue body armor (Any normal hunting round will do this). So I think it is wiser to use the $265K grant expenditure on body armor that will protect many officers from the gunfire they should expect than a handful of officers from .50 cal gunfire they will likely never encounter but only if they stay inside the BearCat will they be safe from it anyway. This is solid tactical officer safety thinking, and if anyone does not think so they have misinformation or are on the bandwagon of just wanting an armored truck. I am therefore not a hypocrite at all, but actually someone who has thought this out and come up with reasonable solutions instead of angry kneejerk reactions. PS. Carl Drega used a .223 and he was in the woods where no BearCat would have been able to have access to him. So, I think my thoughts and logic by protecting 50 officers over 6-8 is well grounded and thought out. God Bless you anonymoous Concord Resident. Brian.
