From the NE Portland War Front
Jason Evans
In all of the footage from NE Portland today from the manhunt for an alleged killer from Beaverton, one interesting piece of footage was apparently not recorded. I'll let this picture do the talking:
Yes, folks, they brought in a tank. My partner took this photo this morning.
I suppose that murderous tweaks really are that unpredictable. The S.W.A.T., Portland and Beaverton police teams could probably have handled him, but it's always good to have back up.
Turns out the suspect walked up to police at the scene of the crime later in the afternoon...in Beaverton.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
8:16 p.m.
Sep 23, '04
I didn't think it was a tank, it looked more like an armored SWAT truck when I was watching the footage on KATU. They assumed he was hiding out at his girlfriend's place (a woman who also sounded/looked as if she has some issues) and that's why they strayed so far from the crime scene in Beaverton.
Regardless of the handling of the situation by police (which was, perhaps, over-the-top - I only know what I saw on the news), it's a sad, sad story of a kid with a drug problem and a dad who was just trying to help. Luckily no one else was hurt.
You can watch the video of the coverage here.
Sep 23, '04
That settles it, I'm moving from Seattle to Portland where I can finally be safe!
Sep 23, '04
Actually, cc, there were two such vehicles used. There was the vehicle which was shown in the news footage, the armored S.W.A.T. vehicle parked in front of the apartment that they fired tear gas into. The vehicle in my posted picture was a SECOND vehicle, which my father-in-law (retired Army) describes as a "fighting vehicle, smaller than a Bradley but like a Bradley". In fact, my partner even asked one of the policemen if he could pick up one of those tanks at the local Hummer dealer.
8:38 p.m.
Sep 23, '04
On closer look, I guess they are different vehicles. My mistake. My cold has clouded my vision (that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. ;-)). What did they use that one for? They were shooting tear gas from the one that I mentioned.
I think I'd like one of those tank-like thingies. I live in Wash. Co. and people drive like maniacs out here... definitely could use something that could drive over them. Not that I would... I'd just like to scare 'em a bit.
9:39 p.m.
Sep 23, '04
Since cc raised the question of owning one of these weapons... I pose a question to one of the many Red Oregonians that has graced our presence in recent days... In your analysis, does the right to keep and bear arms extend to these "fighting vehicles" that issue tear gas and are "smaller than a Bradley"?
And if not, why not? And if so, doesn't that make the restrictions on ownership of particular kinds of weaponry a question of reasonable legislative policy-making - not constitutional absolutism?
I'm reminded of the time that former Congressman Jim Bunn voted (while in the state legislature) against restrictions on the personal possession of hand grenades. (He lost that vote, 59-1.)
10:54 p.m.
Sep 23, '04
Oooh, excellent question Mr. Chisholm.
For the record, I'd like to buy the one that doesn't have tear gas. It'd be just my luck the little tear gas launching mechanism would get stuck and I'd wind up gassing myself, y'know, if I ever actually needed the tear gas launcher to hold vigil against some tyranical regime. Though it might be a quick way to clear out a Starbucks on a busy morning. Otherwise, I'd just use it (the tank-like thingie) to scare those people with Ford F350s who think they're bigger than everyone else. I'd show them... ;-) I wonder what the gas mileage is on one of those puppies. Think it just runs on unleaded or would I need diesel? I bet they're a bitch to parallel park.
Anyway, I can't wait to hear what folks have to say in the vehicles-as-weapons-protected-under-the-second-amendment arena.
Oh and Jim Bunn is a moron.
Sep 24, '04
well, the picture isn't terribly conclusive, but if i had to hazard a guess, what you're looking at is a FV721 Fox armored reconnaisance vehicle (the recon part should be a dead giveaway her e-- the armor is so thin as to basically stop not much more than rifle fire. a RPG would likely cause serious damage.) calling one of those is like calling a hummer a sports car -- there is superficial resemblance (in as much as both have 4 wheels), buy that's about where it stops.
now, i'm pretty sure most SERT/SWAT units employ a version of this vehicle that has had it's main turret gun replaced with a fixed forward ram. it's usually meant tobe used in situations where gunfire is exchanged and the police decides to storm the building -- officers would ride up inside or behind the vehicle (which is a bullet shield, obviously) and then have the ram punch out a door or a hole in the wall and in they go.
my guess is that since the SERT team was called out, it was brought out as a matter of tactical operation planning -- you might not want it or need it, but if you do want it or need it, it's better to be handy than wait 35 mins for it to come on up.
anyway, if it is a fox, i think it looks far more menacing than it actually is. a M113 APC would be a far more tank-like vehicle (and i know some police units do have some -- i think the LAPD does). using a bradley in urban police situations would be total overkill.
Sep 24, '04
My cousin is on the Portland SERT team. I'd rather have him in or behind a tank (or some other armored vehicle) when they have to storm some building, than out in the open where he could get shot.
My two cents.
9:01 a.m.
Sep 24, '04
I don't know what the hell that thing is, but when Bush visited the U of P last year, there were more than one of 'em, and they were ringed with a crown of bristling, black-suited riot cops. It was a creepy sight--which I'm sure is the intention.
God forbid that I should try to see my own president...
Sep 24, '04
Agreed. Employing these military-type vehicles to intimidate the peaceful masses is entirely inappropriate and contrary to fundamental democratic ideals.
But I don't think that was the case in the situation described in the original post.
Sep 24, '04
Hey -
I'm the guy who took the picture... I wish I had a closer shot but the camera was off and took too long to boot up. (We live in an age where our cameras, phones, and yes, even light switches, have to boot up...)
Thanks Kurt, for posting some suggestions as to what it could be.
However, I don't think it is either of those... not an FV721 or an M113, because it was more wedge shaped on the sides than what I can see in pics of those models... unless of course it is an alternate version or has had extensive modifications:
FV721 Recon Vehicle http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/recon/Fox.html (Straight sides)
M113 APC http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm (All versions pictured here have treads and straight sides)
Any other possibilities?
Sep 24, '04
This discussion raises some really good questions about how Portland goes about its military operations, um, I mean its "community policing". If only there were a mayoral election going on to ask about these tactics...
Hey, there is!
So are there any supporters of 'the great unknown' Potter or 'swinging' Jim who could enlighten us to their positions about putting armored vehicles on our streets?
Sep 24, '04
Of course it does. Not only that, but it covers nuclear missiles and chemical weapons. I need mutually assured destruction with my neighbor to ensure that he trims those damn blackberries.
</sarcasm>
Sep 24, '04
Brett -
Your comment reminds me of a topic for debate that I use from time to time, just for the sake of fun..
Posit: The government should be free to ban any weapon, so long as the government itself can't have that weapon either.
Example 1: Govt says citizens can't own nukes. Therefore, the govt. must rid itself of all nukes.
Example 2: Govt says it wants tanks. Therefore, citizens may also own tanks.
Discuss.
1:33 a.m.
Sep 25, '04
Brett, I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic. If, in fact, you're arguing that nuclear missiles and chemical weapons are not protected arms under the 2nd Amendment - then that right isn't absolute, correct? And if so, then the question of gun control (and assault weapons bans) are reasonable questions in the political sphere; not constitutional ones.
I get so damn tired hearing the pro-gun people go on and on suggesting that the constitutional right is an absolute one - when almost none of them (except maybe Jim Bunn) would actually argue that point of view.
6:17 a.m.
Sep 25, '04
I'm with you, Kari. I knew no one would step up to answer your question because then they'd have to say that there is a line and then they'd even have to say where it's drawn.
Most of us "anti-gun" folks want you "pro-gun" folks to be able to shoot deer and protect yourselves and your homes should you choose to do so with firearms. It is a right protected under the Second Amendment whether we like it or not and we just hope that you do so as safely and as intelligently as possible. I'm personally of the belief that we can't outlaw guns because then only the bad guys would have them.
But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. That line was drawn in 1994 and it was a completely reasonable line. Nobody needs an Uzi. Nobody needs a friggin' grenade launcher - any more than I need a "tank-like thingy."
I'm not well-versed enough in firearms to know where that line should be drawn but I think that where it was drawn was an excellent start. Nobody needs assault weapons. They just don't.
As comedienne Elayne Boozler once said "Congress doesn't want to outlaw automatic weapons because they say it might infringe on some hunting weapons. I think if you need a hundred rounds to kill a deer, maybe hunting isn't your sport."
1:15 p.m.
Sep 25, '04
CC, before the Red Oregonians go postal, it's worth pointing out that automatic weapons have been banned in the USA since 1934. Timeline.
1:25 p.m.
Sep 25, '04
i wrote that at 6AM. i wasn't even awake yet. thanks for the correction. lol.
Sep 28, '04
I'm with Chris Rock. I think we should tax the hell out of bullets. Make them cost $50 each. Nobody would want to waste them, but you'd obviously pay $50 to protect yourself or your family.
Oct 11, '04
caddilac-gage V150 or a newer V600. Not a FV721 Fox.
the V150s have no armament or turret in which to mount one. i believe the police only use them as hard cover to hide behind.