View Single Post
Old May 8, 2012, 05:23 PM   #69
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,460
Quote:
DNS: While there may be few times when supressive fire is useful for police, the vast majority of law enforcement situations are not those times.
Right, and I never said otherwise. However, the original claim was that it was a military tactic requiring full auto guns and that cops don't carry enough ammo. Without know the specific history, I would not doubt that it is a tactic orignal to the military, but otherwise, it can be useful to the cops, does not require full auto, and the ammo quantity isn't particularly relevant. Obviously, with the more ammo you have, the longer you can provide suppressive fire, but otherwise there is no quantity standard.

As you note, the vast majority of the time, this tactic would not be useful for the cops. I agree completely. That leaves the small amount of time when it is. From what is seen from various cop battles, it is used only in very limited number of situations....but is used.

Quote:
And every bullet has a lawyer attached....and an out-of-court settlement paid with taxpayer funds....

In fact, supressive fire may injure the very public that the police are supposedly protecting.
And every shot fired by the police has the potential to harm the public. Suppressive fire can be controlled and aimed so as to reduce said risk. With that said, police use of suppressive fire does not seem to be for the purpose of protecting the public in most cases, but protecting the cops in immediate danger.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03737 seconds with 7 queries