[marssaxman]

There are all kinds of extreme and extremely implausible situations which could be used to justify extreme firepower, but it is not a good idea to use a military force as a police service. Ergo, we must accept that the right call will sometimes be "back away and negotiate".

[tomschlick]

Is an active shooter a "back away and negotiate" situation? What about when rioters are throwing 5lb chunks of concrete at firefighters/police like they did in baltimore this past week?

I can't be in the minority here thinking that armored vehicles have a use case and that we should dictate those use cases by policy. Removing them all removes the ability to stop those shit hits the fan scenarios in a timely manner.

[diyorgasms]

I can't possibly imagine an instance in which the police arriving in an armored vehicle would deescalate a situation, and I believe deescalation ought to be the aim of police showing up at disturbances. Especially at protests and anti-police riots, like what happened in Baltimore this past week. Rolling around with military gear is antagonistic toward the people who already believe you exist only to oppress them. Perhaps that is not the best move to make.