Mine resistant vehicles more parade float than an enforcement tool 24%

By Ben Felder30%

12/8/2023, 10:46:47 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Optimism Bias, with Self-Serving Bias as the most egregious example at 12.2% saturation with 109 hits. Analysis detected 811 faulty-reasoning hits from 894 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.4% and a BS Rank of 24% (21,699 of 28,358 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.50% of the article peer group.

On a Sunday afternoon in late May, as protestors marched towards the Oklahoma City police department headquarters, many in the crowd turned their attention to the neighboring Oklahoma County Jail and the large black vehicle with “SPECIAL OPERATIONS” painted in yellow along the side. 
Originally built to withstand explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenade attacks, the armored vehicle was now patrolling an American city, where peaceful protests against police brutality were being staged. 
“It is strictly a defensive vehicle that our swat team members can use to  protect them from gunfire,” said Canadian County Sheriff Chris West, whose department operates two mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles, one of which was brought to the Oklahoma County jail during protests this summer. 
The Canadian County Sheriff’s Office has two of 27 mine-resistant vehicles in Oklahoma that have been obtained through a federal program that funnels used military equipment to local law enforcement agencies. 
But while these vehicles provide protection from gunfire and explosives, along with providing law enforcement with an intimidating display of force, they are just as often used for parades and community events, according to records obtained by The Frontier . 
Canadian County Sheriff Chris West. 
BEN FELDER/The Frontier 
Since 2014, the Canadian County Sheriff’s Office has used its two mine resistant vehicles a combined 106 times, according to usage logs obtained by The Frontier through an open records request. 
Forty-four percent of its use was for an official action, such as a “warrant service” or “tac team call out,” according to a usage log. 
The rest of the time the vehicles were used at a public event, such as a parade, conducting a training exercise or out of repair. 
On May 31, the day of a peaceful protest against police brutality that included a march from the state Capitol to downtown Oklahoma City, the usage log for Canadian County’s mine-resistant vehicles listed “riots” as the nature of the response. 
The Bixby Police Department, which serves a city of 27,000, received a mine-resistant vehicle through the federal program in 2014. 
Since then, it has used it to respond to seven official calls, such as serving a “high risk warrant,” according to travel logs. 
Above is a list of all military equipment received by Oklahoma law enforcement agencies through the 1033 program. 
Twenty times it was used for a community event, including the Bixby Christmas Parade. 
Bixby Police Chief Andy Choate told The Frontier he believed getting a chance to use the vehicle at community events is a great way to interact with the public. 
“I see it as a positive,” Choate said. 
In Bartlesville, the police department used its vehicle 22 times since 2014, according to the department’s deployment log. 
On July 16, 2014, it was used to execute a search warrant for a suspect believed to have explosives and “armed posted guards,” according to the travel log. 
On Oct. 9, 2018, the vehicle was also used to transport police officers to a firing range that required driving across a flooded bridge. 
Two-thirds of the time the vehicle was used for community events, including an Easter egg hunt at the park. 
However, most law enforcement agencies with a mine resistant vehicle told The Frontier they do not keep usage logs, once a requirement that President Donald Trump ended in 2017 . 
In Warr Acres, a city of 10,301 residents, Police Chief R.L. 
Patty said his department doesn’t keep usage logs, but told The Frontier it has been used three times since it was received in 2018, which includes two times this summer in response to protests in Oklahoma City. 
Referred to as the LESO or 1033 program, the Department of Defense transfers excess federal property to state and local law enforcement agencies. 
Since 2010, Oklahoma agencies have received more than $27.3 million worth of equipment, including firearms, trucks, aircraft and body armor. 
The value of mine-resistant vehicles distributed to Oklahoma agencies is more than $20 million, according to federal records . 
Sen. 
Jim Inhofe meets with law enforcement officials at Sundance Airport in Canadian County on Aug. 
11, 2020. 
BEN FELDER/The Frontier 
U.S. 
Sen. 
Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, who has been active in increasing law enforcement access to the LESO program, called it a “no brainer.” 
“It’s stuff that otherwise is going to go to West Africa or someplace else, and we don’t want that to happen when we have the need right here in Oklahoma,” Inhofe said. 
The use of military equipment by local police has received increased attention in recent years as police respond to protests and demonstrations across the country. 
“We’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people a feeling like there’s an occupying force, as opposed to a force that’s part of the community that’s protecting them and serving them,” President Barack Obama said during a 2015 speech . 
Following protests the previous year in Ferguson, Missouri, the Obama administration set restrictions on the use of some military equipment, including grenade launchers and bayonets. 
But Trump has removed those restrictions . 
“These restrictions went too far,” said Jeff Sessions, Trump’s former attorney general, announcing the reversal to a crowd of police officers in 2017. 
“We will not put superficial concerns above public safety.” 
The post Mine resistant vehicles more parade float than an enforcement tool appeared first on The Frontier . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.8%Ben Felder: 0.7%The Frontier: 2.3%Confirmation Bias2.8%This article: 4.4%Ben Felder: 1.6%The Frontier: 0.3%Anchoring Bias4.4%This article: 7.3%Ben Felder: 3.4%The Frontier: 1.7%Availability Heuristic7.3%This article: 3.1%Ben Felder: 0.8%The Frontier: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic3.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Ben Felder: 8.0%The Frontier: 2.7%Framing Effect7.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.7%Ben Felder: 1.9%The Frontier: 1.7%Optimism Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Ben Felder: 5.1%The Frontier: 9.9%Negativity Bias11.7%This article: 12.2%Ben Felder: 5.4%The Frontier: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias12.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.2%Ben Felder: 2.5%The Frontier: 0.6%Recency Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.6%Ben Felder: 0.9%The Frontier: 1.9%Appeal to Authority3.6%This article: 1.0%Ben Felder: 2.3%The Frontier: 0.9%False Dilemma1.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.2%Ben Felder: 0.8%The Frontier: 2.1%Hasty Generalization3.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.8%Ben Felder: 3.1%The Frontier: 2.6%Appeal to Emotion2.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.8%Ben Felder: 0.2%The Frontier: 0.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.8%Ben Felder: 0.7%The Frontier: 0.1%Appeal to Nature2.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.6%Ben Felder: 0.4%The Frontier: 2.2%Anecdotal1.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.5%Ben Felder: 1.1%The Frontier: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.3%Ben Felder: 1.3%The Frontier: 0.7%Unattributed Quote5.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.1%Ben Felder: 0.8%The Frontier: 5.4%Biased Writer Voice1.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.3%The Frontier: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.3%The Frontier: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Felder: 0.0%The Frontier: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

894 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers24%attributed speech682writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words12% of attributed speech46% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Biased Writer Voice-1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%President Barack Obama: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.