Damm what the hell, two more cops got ambushed in Iowa no less. This crap pisses me off and I blame the current denizen in the White House. he has been fomenting a war on cops since he got elected. The clown hasn't gotten past his "community Organizer" roots to realize that he is supposed to be President of all the people, not the select groups that form the base of the democrat party.
I am glad that my Dad retired as a Chief of PoPo a few years ago. This constant war on the cops and I wonder if it will be somebody from the BLM movement or some of the unvetted refugees that got dumped over there. I am dismayed, I haven't ever seen it this bad, In the 60's the government supported the Law and Order types and the Police and now you have segments of the government supporting the troublemakers and this will not end well. I pray for the families during this time that they find the peace that they will need through the trying time ahead.
DES MOINES, Iowa --
Two
police officers were shot to death early Wednesday in ambush-style
attacks while they were sitting in their patrol cars, authorities said.
Officers
responded to a report of shots fired at 1:06 a.m. and found an
Urbandale Police Department officer who had been shot. Authorities from
several agencies saturated the area after that shooting, and about 20
minutes later discovered that a Des Moines officer had been shot in a
patrol car at an intersection, Des Moines Sgt. Paul Parizek said. The
shootings happened about 2 miles apart.
"There's somebody out
there shooting police officers. We hope to find him before somebody else
gets hurt," said Parizek, who became emotional at times during a news
conference.
Authorities are developing suspect information but
there was nothing that they were ready to share with the public, Parizek
said. Officers are now doing patrols in pairs to better protect
themselves, he said.
Parizek said he didn't have any more information about the shootings.
Urbandale is a city in the Des Moines metro area with about 50 officers.
I saw this on Yahoo Finance, I am slightly annoyed, I am a big believer in this app, it is the only app that I use all the time. Everytime I drive, I use this app, it is nice to know what is going down the road. This app has saved me numerous times from bad traffic and the occasional revenue generation speed traps and I swear by it. I have equated this app to driving with twitter.
I am annoyed that several police groups are wanting to remove this feature and they are citing "officer safety" for the reason. I understand the possible concern but they are rolling out that term for everything, and I and many others are getting"officer safety" burnout. it is used to excuse any and all police interaction with the public that usually results in a citizen getting shot, beaten or harassed. Usually the perp deserves it by doing something stupid, but there are many examples of police overreacting and it is all over you-tube. And the supervisors excuse it by "Officer Safety" and the police that break the rules get a "get out of jail free" card. The average person is starting to resent the double standard that this will entail.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sheriffs are
campaigning to pressure Google Inc. to turn off a feature on its Waze
traffic software that warns drivers when police are nearby. They say one
of the technology industry's most popular mobile apps could put
officers' lives in danger from would-be police killers who can find
where their targets are parked.
Waze,
which Google purchased for $966 million in 2013, is a combination of
GPS navigation and social networking. Fifty million users in 200
countries turn to the free service for real-time traffic guidance and
warnings about nearby congestion, car accidents, speed traps or traffic
cameras, construction zones, potholes, stalled vehicles or unsafe
weather conditions.
To Sergio Kopelev, a reserve deputy sheriff in Southern California, Waze is also a stalking app for law enforcement.
There
are no known connections between any attack on police and Waze, but law
enforcers such as Kopelev are concerned it's only a matter of time.
They are seeking support among other law enforcement trade groups to
pressure Google to disable the police-reporting function. The emerging
policy debate places Google again at the center of an ongoing global
debate about public safety, consumer rights and privacy.
Waze
users mark police presence on maps without much distinction other than
"visible" or "hidden." Users see a police icon, but it's not immediately
clear whether police are there for a speed trap, a sobriety check or a
lunch break. The police generally are operating in public spaces.
A Waze spokeswoman, Julie
Mossler, said the company thinks deeply about safety and security. She
said Waze works with the New York Police Department and others around
the world by sharing information. Google declined to comment.
"These relationships keep citizens safe, promote faster emergency response and help alleviate traffic congestion," Mossler said.
Google has a
complicated relationship with government and law enforcement. The
company worked closely with the Obama administration to defend itself
against hacking by China's government, and it is regularly compelled to
turn over to police worldwide copies of emails or other information
about its customers. Last year, after disclosures that the National
Security Agency had illicitly broken into Google's overseas Internet
communication lines, Google and other technology companies rolled out
encryption for users, which the U.S. government said could hamper law
enforcement investigations. Also last year, Google and other companies
sued the U.S. to allow them to more fully disclose to customers details
about how much information they were required to hand over each year.
Sheriff
Mike Brown of Bedford County, Virginia, said the police-reporting
feature, which he called the "police stalker," presents a danger to law
enforcement.
"The police
community needs to coordinate an effort to have the owner, Google, act
like the responsible corporate citizen they have always been and remove
this feature from the application even before any litigation or
statutory action," said Brown, who also serves as the chairman of the
National Sheriffs Association technology committee.
Nuala
O'Connor, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington
civil liberties group, said it would not be appropriate for Google to
disable the police-reporting feature.
"I
do not think it is legitimate to ask a person-to-person communication
to cease simply because it reports on publicly visible law enforcement,"
she said. She said a bigger concern among privacy advocates is how much
information about customers Waze shares with law enforcement, since the
service necessarily monitors their location continually as long as it's
turned on.
Brown and
Kopelev raised concerns during the meeting of the National Sheriffs
Association winter conference in Washington. They pointed to the
Instagram account of the man accused of shooting two NYPD officers last
month. Ismaaiyl Brinsley posted a screenshot from Waze on his Instagram
account along with messages threatening police. Investigators do not
believe he used Waze to ambush the officers, in part because police say
Brinsley tossed his cellphone more than two miles from where he shot the
officers.
Kopelev said he
hadn't heard about the Waze app until mid-December when he saw his wife
using it. Afterward, Kopelev said he couldn't stop thinking about the
app and was motivated to act by the NYPD shooting. While attending the
funeral of one of the officers in New York, he spoke with Brown, his
former boss. Brown asked Kopelev to discuss Waze at the upcoming
sheriffs' association conference. Kopelev refers to his efforts as his
"personal jihad."
The executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, Jim Pasco, said his organization has concerns, too.
"I
can think of 100 ways that it could present an officer-safety issue,"
Pasco said. "There's no control over who uses it. So, if you're a
criminal and you want to rob a bank, hypothetically, you use your Waze."
This
is not the first time law enforcement has raised concerns with these
types of apps. In 2011, four U.S. senators asked Apple to remove all
applications that alert users to drunken driving checkpoints. Nokia
removed the sobriety check tracking function of one of the most popular
apps, Trapster, according to Trapster founder Pete Tenereillo. Trapster
was eventually discontinued at the end of last year due to Waze's
popularity.
Victim: Officer, officer! That man just stole my purse!
Officer: Good morning ma'm, or does that pronoun offend you. If so,
please advise me of the correct pronoun I may use in order to not....
victim: Officer, you're not listening to me! That man stole my purse.
officer: That gentleman across the street?
Victim: Yeah, that's him.
officer: Okay, let me go talk to him.
victim: He's a big guy, don't you want some help?
Officer: Oh no, anything that might give the appearance of a show of force isn't allowed.
Officer leaves to talk to the alleged suspect and then returns:
Officer: Is it a red purse with black trim and brass colored clasp with the initials MS on the side?
Victim: That's it, my name is Mary Smith and those are my initials. That's my purse.
Officer: I figured it was yours, he doesn't look like the purse type. The problem is he doesn't want to give it back.
Victim: Well, arrest him, he robbed me of that purse. He punched me,
knocked me down and then took my purse. Look at this bruise on my arm,
and I'm bleeding from my forehead.
Officer: I'm afraid I can't do that. He said he wouldn't allow me to
arrest him. I can call the EMS folks though to treat you for your
injuries. There will be a fee of course.
Victim: What??!! You have to arrest him. He committed a robbery and I'm the victim. I demand you arrest him.
Officer: I'm afraid I can't do that. He said he would fight if I
tried to arrest him and our new Rules Of Engagement don't allow us to
confront a hostile suspect.
Victim: Rules Of Engagement? What the hell is that?
Officer: Basically it means if the alleged suspect offers any
resistance, or even says he will resist, our Rules Of Engagement say we
shall not "engage". It's really quite simple and it makes our job
much simpler. No more fights, no violence involved and everyone is
much safer that way aren't they?
Victim: But he robbed me and he's standing right there, you mean you can't do anything?
Officer: Oh, whether or not I could do something doesn't matter. I'm
not allowed to confront a possibly hostile suspect. Perhaps you could
talk to him and see if he will come down to the precinct house and turn
himself in.
Victim: That's it? That's all you can do?
Officer: Well, I can give you our website and you can make a report of
this alleged crime. It's a really neat website, designed by the same
folks that did that Affordable Care Act site. And I'd be glad to give
you the office
phone numbers for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Eric Holder.
Victim: Will they do anything?
Officer: Not really, they're only interested if I do something.
Victim: Well did you at least get his name so I know who the bad guy is when I make this report?
Officer: No, he didn't want to give me his name, and gosh all I can do is ask.
Victim: This is incredible. He's just standing over there like he knows nothing will be done about this.
Officer: I know. Happens all the time now. Well, have a nice day and call any time, we're here to help.
Victim: But officer....
Officer: You'll have to excuse me, I have to go apologize to that gentlemen for disrupting his day.
I ripped this off from another website and expanded on it. Unfortunately it does sounds very prophetic.
I saw this from a news paper article I had gotten earlier today. I haven't had time to to talk about it until now. I have a severe issue with this, they now say that a police in Pennsylvania don't need a warrant to search a vehicle. How long before this spreads to the other 49 states because they will use it under the guise of "fighting crime" and push it through. Here in Georgia and many other states, the car is an extension of your home, the Police have to have a warrant to search, unless they have justifiable probable cause to do a search. The justifiable probable cause has to be explained before a judge if something is found in the subsequent search or all the whatever they found is tossed. This is great news for the central government statist that we have.
How many people will be hassled by a police officer during a traffic stop? there are a lot of professional cops that are a credit to their oath and their uniform. but there are some bad ones that will use this opportunity to bully the citizenry, those are the ones that will get off on this kinda stuff. I have had dealings with both.
I work at night and I was on the way home and got caught up at a D.U.I checkpoint and I was still in my work uniform and the officer that was checking the vehicles wanted to search my car in the interest of "officer Safety" and I politely refused, the Police Officer started to try to bully me at this point and I respectfully again stated that I will not give my consent. He started talking about putting me in cuffs and and I again was very polite replied "No sir, I will not consent to being cuffed or having my car searched." It did go downhill, the police officer angrily stated, that I will be placed under arrest for obstruction. I very politely stated that he better call his watch commander first before pursuing such action because if he places me under arrest, he must have probable cause to do so and he doesn't have it, the arrest will be thrown out and I will file charges in both the court system and through the internal investigative procedure of the county police. I will also contact the media and the ACLU and any body else I can find and cause a stink. He stormed off and contacted the Sgt running the D.U.I checkpoint and the Sgt came over and asked me what was going on, I being polite told him. He then turned to the other police officer and stated " the citizen is correct, you cannot detain him or search him or his vehicle with out probable cause." He then told me that I was free to go about my way. As I was leaving, I overheard the Sgt telling the angry officer that "you screwed up, you let your ego do the talking, that will put your badge in jeopardy".
I was relieved that it did go that way, I wasn't trying to be difficult, I just know my rights. I have seen many people get screwed over by the court system and I will not give the state an easy opportunity to throw me under the bus.
I have blogged many times about the militarization of the Police, I understand that there is almost a bunker attitude with the police, it is a "us vs them" attitude. It used to not be that way. My dad is a retired police officer and he told me several times, if you have any dealings with the police, make use of your 5th amendment rights and keep your mouth shut, especially if there is an interview process going on. Get a lawyer, a Lawyer will keep you from going to jail.
Now there is a disconnect between the Police and the citizenry. The police represent the state and instead of being sheepdogs to use their analogy, they reflect the state, the one that keep overreaching on individual rights, and instead are starting to rule with imperial fiat, look at what is going on in the Northeast Corridor, you have Police threatening to go into citizens houses and seize their lawfully purchased firearms. The divide between the Police and the citizens that they swore an oath to represent and protect is getting wider and wider and I don't know what will fix it.
As far as the militarization of the Police, this concerned me also, they are getting surplus MRAPS from the Military, and they suit up and call swat for many calls,instead of the high value calls and there have been quite a few documented instances where they hit the wrong house and the homeowner got killed or shot, the house ransacked and the family pet gets shot all in the name of "officer Safety" And there is no repercussions for the bad calls so the guilty parties keep doing the same thing and the attitude spreads. .
Don't misunderstand me, I am not piling on the Police themselves, it is an attitude that has infected the government in general where they view us as little more than vassals or wage slaves that exist for the support of our "betters". The vast majority of the Police do a great job, they really serve the community, but the trend is troubling to say the least and the loss of more of our rights as American Citizens. Soon if things continue as they have in the past, all we will be is little more than slaves to the system and the great experiment that was the United States will be in the history books.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Police Chief: US Heading Towards ‘Police State’ (Videos)
I ran across a piece at This Can't Be Happening,
that is disturbing to say the least, where not only are police
shootings of unarmed civilians discussed, so is the militarization of
our local police forces in the US, with statistics that should drop the
jaw of anyone reading it. While
those statistics tell a story, perhaps the most damning statements
about the US becoming a police state comes from the Chief of Police in
Upper Dublin, PA., Terrence Thompson, who states that he understands the
need for more powerful weapons to counter the weapons now used by
criminals, but points out how SWAT, for example, is being used in a
manner that it was not created for and how high powered weapons are
being utilized in situations where there is no need.Chief Thompson also lets the public know exactly where he sees the US heading:
Thompson decries what he calls “camo creep” in policing, a trend he says
is at least partly driven by “politicians who don’t see where this is
going.” And where is that? “I don’t like the idea of a police state, but that’s where we seem to be heading,” he says.
My only disagreement with Chief
Thompson would be that we are not heading towards being a police state,
as the videos below clearly show, we are already there.
YouTube is full of videos showing this police state mentality, I wrote about this just the other day where a Nazi-like cop was busted lying on her "officer narrative," after multiple footage captured by the family she abused became public. Another
example can be seen with the recent total FAIL of the NYP in their
Twitter campaign #myNYPD which was meant to show how much NY citizens
loved their police force, but which backfired spectacularly when user
after user started posting images, videos and statements about NYPD's
police brutality, as discussed in the first video below at the 1:20
minute mark.
For the record, I believe
wholeheartedly there are many, many more good cops vs bad cops, to put
it simply, but these examples shown below make it harder for those "good
guys," because the brutality and abuse by the bad cops endanger the
lives of those that truly did join to serve and protect.
Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:55 am
|
Updated: 2:52 pm, Wed Apr 30, 2014.
Pennsylvania police officers no longer need a warrant to search a
citizen’s vehicle, according to a recent state Supreme Court opinion.
The high court’s opinion, released Tuesday, is being called a drastic change in citizens’ rights and police powers.
Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s
request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a
warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.
That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.
The ruling, passed on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.
Local police and legal professionals are calling the opinion “big news.”
“This is a significant change in long-standing
Pennsylvania criminal law, and it is a good one,” Lancaster County
District Attorney Craig Stedman said Wednesday afternoon.
Under prior law, an officer who smells marijuana
inside a car, for example, could only search the car with the driver’s
consent — or if illegal substances were in plain view.
(Federal officers, like FBI or ATF agents, can search, regardless.)
Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with a search without a warrant.
“The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a
motor vehicle is probable cause to search,” McCaffery writes in the
opinion. “We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows
police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause
to do so...”
Previously, a warrantless search was only allowed if “exigent circumstances” existed, the opinion states.
“This case gives the police simpler guidelines to
follow and (it) finally and clearly renders our law consistent with
established federal law,” Stedman said.
“It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as
they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs,” New
Holland police Lt. Jonathan Heisse said Wednesday.
While police rejoice over what’s been a lasting issue, citizens might not be as thrilled.
“It’s an expanding encroachment of government
power,” defense attorney Jeffrey Conrad said Wednesday morning, while
reviewing the 62-page opinion. “It’s a protection we had two days ago,
that we don’t have today. It’s disappointing from a citizens’ rights
perspective.”
Christopher Patterson, another veteran defense
lawyer, said: “I am concerned that we are on a slippery slope that will
eliminate personal privacy and freedom in the name of expediency for law
enforcement.”
Shiem Gary filed the Philadelphia appeal, arguing
that police didn’t have probable cause to search his vehicle on Jan.
15, 2010. Officers found two pounds of marijuana stashed under the
vehicle’s hood.
Lancaster defense attorney Michael Winters noted
that police still need good reasons to pull over a vehicle and conduct a
search.
“This does not mean that they may search every
vehicle they stop,” Winters said. “They must still develop probable
cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a
warrant.”
In the Gary case, probable cause for the vehicle
stop was window tint the officers believed to be illegal. Officers
smelled marijuana and asked about it; Shiem then told an officer there
was “weed” in the vehicle. A search ensued.
“This case does not eliminate the need for the police to have probable cause to search,” Stedman said.
The district attorney said the ruling puts Pennsylvania in line with federal law and many other states.
Locals stressed that probable cause to stop a vehicle does not equate with probable cause to search it.
A driver can still refuse if an officer asks for
consent to search a car. The officer can then only search if he/she has
probable cause to do so, or a warrant. A driver refusing consent, alone,
does not give a police officer probable cause to search.
Christopher Lyden, another local defense lawyer,
believes if an officer wants to search a vehicle without consent, they
should have to get approval from a judge — as they do in searches of
homes.
“Judicial oversight of vehicle searches, just like residential searches,” he said, “helps maintain a free society.”
Chief Supreme Court Justice Ronald D. Castille
and Justices J. Michael Eakin and Thomas G. Saylor joined McCaffery in
the majority.
Justices Debra McCloskey Todd and Max Baer opposed it.
This is what is in store for us as the culture changes in the United States. just having the suspicion of possibility that you might have pot in the house, the stack shows up and roust the owners...Oh Snap..they got their information wrong. The patsy Judge signed off on this warrant with incomplete or fabricated erroneous information. Ain't judges supposed to help safeguard the bill of rights? These people have a lawsuit in...Usually governments have immunity from lawsuits so I am curious what will happen. I saw this on Yahoo News.
View PhotoAssociated
Press/Orlin Wagner - Bob Harte stands next to his now shut down indoor
garden in the basement of his home in Leawood, Kan., Friday, March 29,
2013. Harte and his wife Adlynn, who are former CIA employees, …more
LEAWOOD, Kan. (AP) — Two former CIA employees whose Kansas
home was fruitlessly searched for marijuana during a two-state drug
sweep claim they were illegally targeted, possibly because they had
bought indoor growing supplies to raise vegetables.
Adlynn and Robert Harte sued this week to get more information about why sheriff's deputies searched their home in the upscale Kansas City suburb of Leawood
last April 20 as part of Operation Constant Gardener — a sweep
conducted by agencies in Kansas and Missouri that netted marijuana
plants, processed marijuana, guns, growing paraphernalia and cash from
several other locations.
April 20 long has been used by marijuana enthusiasts to celebrate the illegal drug and more recently by law enforcement for raids and crackdowns. But the Hartes' attorney, Cheryl Pilate,
said she suspects the couple's 1,825-square-foot split level was
targeted because they had bought hydroponic equipment to grow a small
number of tomatoes and squash plants in their basement.
"With little or no other evidence of any illegal activity, law
enforcement officers make the assumption that shoppers at the store are
potential marijuana growers, even though the stores are most commonly
frequented by backyard gardeners who grow organically or start seedlings
indoors," the couple's lawsuit says.
The couple filed the suit this
week under the Kansas Open Records Act after Johnson County and Leawood
denied their initial records requests, with Leawood saying it had no
relevant records. The Hartes
say the public has an interest in knowing whether the sheriff's
department's participation in the raids was "based on a well-founded
belief of marijuana use and cultivation at the targeted addresses, or
whether the raids primarily served a publicity purpose."
"If this can happen to us and we
are educated and have reasonable resources, how does somebody who maybe
hasn't led a perfect life supposed to be free in this country?" Adlynn Harte said in an interview Friday.
The suit filed in Johnson County District Court said the couple and
their two children — a 7-year-old daughter and 13-year-old son — were
"shocked and frightened" when deputies armed with assault rifles and
wearing bulletproof vests pounded on the door of their home around 7:30
a.m. last April 20.
"It was just like on the cops TV shows," Robert Harte told The
Associated Press. "It was like 'Zero Dark Thirty' ready to storm the
compound."
During the sweep, the court filing said, the Hartes were told they
had been under surveillance for months, but the couple "know of no basis
for conducting such surveillance nor do they believe such surveillance
would have produced any facts supporting the issuance of a search
warrant."
Harte said he built the hydroponic garden with his son a couple of
years ago. He said they didn't use the powerful light bulbs that are
sometimes used to grow marijuana and that the family's electricity usage
didn't change dramatically. Changes in utility usage can sometimes lead
authorities to such operations.
When law enforcement arrived, the family had just six plants — three
tomato plants, one melon plant and two butternut squash plants — growing
in the basement, Harte said.
The suit also said deputies "made rude comments" and implied their
son was using marijuana. A drug-sniffing dog was brought in to help, but
deputies ultimately left after providing a receipt stating, "No items
taken."
Pilate said no one in the Harte family uses illegal drugs and no
charges were filed. The lawsuit noted Adlynn Harte, who works for a
financial planning firm, and Robert Harte, who cares for the couple's
children, each were required to pass rigorous background checks for
their previous jobs working for the CIA in Washington, D.C. Pilate said
she couldn't provide any other details about their CIA employment.
Pilate said any details gleaned from the open records suit could be used in a future federal civil rights lawsuit.
"You can't go into people's homes and conduct searches without probable cause," Pilate said.
Leawood City Administrator Scott Lambers said Friday that he couldn't
comment on pending litigation. The sheriff's office also had no
comment.
"Obviously with an ongoing lawsuit we are not able to talk about any
details of it until it's been played out in court," said Johnson County
Deputy Tom Erickson.
-You have the bladder capacity of five people combined. -You have restrained someone and it was not a sexual experience.
-You believe that 50 per cent of people are a waste of good air. -Your idea of a good time is a "man with a gun" call.
-You conduct a criminal record check on anyone who seems friendly towards you. -You support aerial spraying of Prozac and birth control pills.
-You disbelieve 90 per cent of what you hear and 75 per cent of what you see. -You have your weekends off planned for a year.
-You believe the government should require a permit to reproduce. -You refer to your favourite restaurant by the intersection at which it's located.
-You have ever wanted to hold a seminar entitled: "Suicide: Getting it right the first time". -You ever had to put the phone on hold before you begin laughing uncontrollably.
-You think caffeine should be available in IV form. -You know anyone who says "I only had two beers" is going to blow at least a .15
-You find out a lot about paranoia just by following people around. -Anyone has ever said to you "There are people killing other people out there and you are here messing with me".
-People flag you down on the street and ask you directions to strange places... and you know where they're located. -You can discuss where you are going to eat with your partner while standing over a dead body.
-You are the only person introduced at social gatherings by profession. -You walk into places and people think its high comedy to grab their buddy and shout "They've come to get you, Bill".
-You do not see daylight from November until May.
-People shout "I didn't do it!" when you walk into a room and think they're being hugely funny and original. -A week's worth of laundry consists of five T-shirts, five pairs of socks, and five pairs of underwear.
-You've ever referred to Tuesday as "My weekend". -You've ever written off guns and ammunition as a business deduction.
I still see a lot of Crown Vics here in GA, But I have seen more Chargers lately. As a former Ford Employee I want these new cars to be a success. I still have stock and drive Fords....and the best part...? They didn't take the bailouts like GM and Chrysler.
Ford has begun producing the company's two new Police Interceptor models. According to Ward's Auto, both the Taurus and Explorer-based cruisers are rolling off of the line at the automaker's Chicago Assembly Plant. All told, the sedan variant has accounted for around 60 percent of orders so far. Currently, the law enforcement market is Ford's to lose: Dearborn has controlled up to 70 percent of police car sales in the U.S. with its now defunct Crown Victoria in the past, but General Motors has made it clear it wants a larger slice of that pie.
GM has given law enforcement agencies an alternative to the two Interceptors from Ford with its Caprice PPV and Tahoe law enforcement SUV. Even so, Ford remains confident it will stay on top of the police market. The company says that early orders indicate it will remain the segment leader.
With a turbocharged, direct-injection 3.5-liter V6 engine in place of the old 4.6-liter V8 found in the Crown Victoria, Ford also says its new Interceptor models should be capable of returning 20 percent better fuel economy – an attribute that should salve relationships somewhat with fleet orderers who were fond of the anvil-like reliability and simplicity of the old Crown Vic.
By BRETT HAMBRIGHT | Staff Writer.jpg)
