|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 28, 2014, 09:13 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 668
|
I believe DoD pointed out recently that 95% of the equipment provided to law enforcement agencies is not specifically tactical in nature, but rather office supplies, furniture, and electronics.
|
August 28, 2014, 10:38 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
About a month ago there was a multiple home invasion incident in Las Vegas. It's so happened to be on my street. I was very happy to see officers walking by my window with A.R. 15's in that moment. Two people and a perp got killed.
The officers took him down with assistance of a helicopter and a couple of young officers with AR15s. There was no time for a SWAT team to arrive and deal with it, and these Las Vegas Metro PD officers performed spectacularly. It seems most of the objections to the so called militarization of police are to equipment that is primarily defensive, i.e. riot shields, full protective body gear, armored vehicles, etc. Tear gas is somewhat offensive, I suppose, though less than lethal. So what are we saying, that police officers don't have a right to whatever gear and equipment is necessary to keep them alive in the middle of out-of-control violence? I'm pretty sure no resident of Ferguson would object to using an armored police vehicle for cover to escape their own death. Why should they begrudge the same protection to the police? For that matter, if a lawful citizen (without ill-intent, and not for nefarious purposes) were so inclined to drive their own armored vehicle, and wear a gas mask and body armor, it might be odd, but I think they would have every right to do that as well. Neither the police nor citizens have any obligation whatsoever to make themselves vulnerable to lethal or nonlethal attacks. Isn't so called militarization more about the software than the hardware? Last edited by maestro pistolero; August 28, 2014 at 10:51 AM. |
August 28, 2014, 12:08 PM | #28 |
Member
Join Date: April 23, 2014
Location: poplarville,ms.
Posts: 78
|
weapons allowed
I have a question,ok everybody I'd saying that if the mob100's of people are rushing the police, they are not allowed to shoot,stand their ground.So here we have the national guard same situation ,are they allowed to fire ? If not what what is the purpose of being there ,when the mob can rush them an go on vandalizing or what ever.explain this
|
August 28, 2014, 12:19 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
Quote:
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
|
August 28, 2014, 12:23 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
Yes, the patrol rifle does have a place in modern policing. To paraphrase one of our truisms, "When seconds count, the SWAT Team is only minutes away!"
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
August 28, 2014, 12:35 PM | #31 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 1,085
|
Quote:
Even if a cop buys an Uzi with his own money, it is not his right to carry/use it in the course of his duties; it is his right to possess it as the civilian that he is, off the clock. The same goes for body armor, rifles, helicopters, MRAPS, and any other goodies gotten from the DoD or from bond elections. The people get to decide, and the police must convince the people that what they want (and let's be real, most of this is pure 'want') is what they should actually be given. Hence the constant cries of 'out of control violence' in this, the 30-year nadir of violence in our nation, and constant and continual cudgel of "The Police Guilt Trip." The latter of which I am rapidly losing respect for in light of the 'home safe' mentality on wide display everywhere (hint: conducting your actions so as to best guarantee your own survival regardless the consequences to others, is very nearly the definition of cowardice). The best 'home safe' guarantee is to quit being a police officer and let someone so inclined to risk themselves in the course of service to their community take the reigns. Quote:
TCB
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things." -- Alex Rosewater |
||
August 28, 2014, 02:01 PM | #32 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 24, 2006
Location: N.E. Oh.
Posts: 527
|
I served 22.5 yrs in police work. I was the SWAT commander.
We were available on drug raids, hostage situations, dangerous felon arrests but the public never saw us. We had 3 MP-5s, one supressed, no one knew that outside the department. I'm a firm believer in community policing. Get out of the squad car for a bit and talk to people. Be an ambassador of good will. Treat everyone as well as they will let you. I never saw a "frag" grenade. ALL grenades were CS or CN dust, commonly called tear gas. Our 1.5" bore grenade laucher was only for delivering tear gas. We had the wooden "knee knocker" rounds but never used them. One hot summder day there was a crowd disturbance, (flippin riot!). We had 7 patrol cars there that were targets for rocks & bottles. I showed up as command officer. My sgt. wanted to call in reserves, sheriff, township cops, etc. Know what I did? I sent ALL of my men away. No more targets for rocks & bottles. I went into the crowd of young aggitated blacks and talked to them by name. I knew many by name, knew thier aunts, uncles, preachers, parents. No one laid a hand on me. Not one. It wasn't a move out of bravdo, I was a bit apprehensive but it was the right move at that time. The crowd wasn''t having fun anymore so they melted away. Had we panicked & brought lots more police we'd have a a real bad riot to deal with. |
August 28, 2014, 02:05 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 13, 2013
Location: The East Coast
Posts: 477
|
I guess one of the problems I see is who is receiving these items? Franklin, VA, a small town not far from me just received an MRAP. Explain to me why a town of 8900 people needs one of these? I thought it was outrageous when the small, local towns received Dodge Chargers. And it is. We don't have any high-speed chases.
Should the police be able to defend themselves? Absolutely. But if something happens that the police departments can't handle, there are other channels in place to do so. The LA riots, when the unrest was too much for the police department to handle they sent in the National Guard. Hurricane Katrina, the same thing. The last line of defense is us, the citizens. |
August 28, 2014, 02:21 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
August 28, 2014, 03:18 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
Tam wrote a great piece concerning the militrization of police.
My concern isn't that Deputy Dog has an AR-15 with an ACOG on it. Hell, Frank Hamer used a BAR more than I shoot my carry gun. My concern is that Deputy Dog is dressed like Delta Force Dog about to take down an IED Factory in Mosul. And has an "us versuses them" attitude to match it. Local police should act as if they are to "serve and protect" their local community. Sir Robert Peel wrote a pretty good book about it. I understand a tie and a service jacket aren't practical these days. And I understand combat boots make a pretty good choice of foot where over the patent leather low quarter. And, as a veteran, I certainly get body armor. But you're really gonna have to explain to me the need for MARPATs or ACUs, an MRAP, and a group of guys who look like the Blackhawk catalog serving a search warrant for a couple of ounces of pot.
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
August 28, 2014, 04:30 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2013
Posts: 456
|
On one side you have the conservatives who hate government to include the police. On another side you have the liberals who believe the police are racists. In yet another corner you have all the people still mad about their speeding tickets. The media hates the police. Reporters who never spent one day as an officer casting a shadow upon their work.
If the police are unprepared you complain. If they show up overprepared than its the militarization of police. So the police cant win these message board discussions. |
August 28, 2014, 10:45 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 864
|
I don't see what the "militarized police OMG" crowd is getting excited about...
What are we really talking about here... scary looking black rifles? scary looking trucks? scary looking clothes? Police brutality, when it happens, is independent of the tools and weapons the police have. Brutality with a nightstick and a 38 revolver is not any less brutal than brutality with a flash bang, tear gas, and an AR-15. Are we really making the argument that the presence of tactical gear at the police station causes the police to become more "militaristic"... The mere possession of a scary looking weapon can change a persons behavior for the worse? Really? I thought that was Bloomberg's argument for gun control? Are we now agreeing with the anti-gun nuts? Jim |
August 29, 2014, 11:31 AM | #38 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 668
|
Quote:
The fact that some percentage of the public thinks one way or another is quite honestly irrelevant. When enough people consider it to be an important political issue, eventually they will elect legislators who agree, and changes will be made. This process is (intentionally) glacially slow on the national level but can happen quite quickly on the local level. Plenty of communities have, in fact, decided that they don't want their local PD to have an MRAP. Others have decided otherwise. That's the way it should be. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Given that law enforcement requires making daily split-second decisions regarding life, death, civil rights, and community relations without necessarily having complete or even accurate information necessary to make the perfect decision every time, and given that you also feel officers should not have body armor, rifles, helicopters, or armored vehicles... ...where do you think you are going to find "someone so inclined to risk themselves in the course of service to their community" while you are waiting in the wings to sue or imprison them? |
|||||
August 29, 2014, 04:54 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2013
Posts: 456
|
I own a compliant non-NFA Uzi and its MUCH safer than any Glock pistol any officer carries. I would argue that rifles and Uzi pistols are much safer than any pistol. More accurate and wont just go off with a misplaced finger. Just because the Uzi looks scary doesnt mean that its less safe than the Glock.
Last edited by johnelmore; August 29, 2014 at 05:03 PM. |
August 29, 2014, 05:13 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
The problem doesn't lie with whether or not the Uzi is anymore or any less safe than a Glock or Patrol Carbine. I have no problem with, nor do I think anyone does, with police officers carrying enough gun for the task at hand, or any task they may encounter.
The problem lies when concerns for officer safety morph into an attitude of "us vs. them" instead of community policing. That's when the MRAPs, ACUs, and face masks become the marks of an occupying force instead of a group of people trying to help their local community. In Afghanistan, we were specifically forbidden from wearing bacalavas, covering our mouths with our ever present Keffiyehs unless the wind or sand was really bad. In dealings with local leaders, we doffed our kevlar. Just saying.
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
August 29, 2014, 09:13 PM | #41 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 864
|
So we really ARE talking about scary clothing.
Quote:
The "marks" of an occupying force are the actual actions of the occupying force and the oppression that ensues. It is not the clothing and gear. And let's bring the conversation back to reality... Any casual study of 20th century history will enlighten us on what TRUE oppression looks like. There are countless examples of authoritarian governments that brutally ruled their people. Talk to an immigrant from Russia, or Croatia, or Nicaragua, or just about any African nation. There is just no way a person can talk about US police as an "occupying force" if they are familiar with true oppression. So I am sorry that the Cop's scary black clothing frightens and offends some folks. I am sure that my AR-15 frightens and offends some folks too. Certainly there are examples where the police used tactical gear and weapons when it was unnecessary. Certainly there are examples of the police using absolutely poor judgment. But it is not the gear that is the problem, it is a lack of competence. Competence problems can be solved by selectively firing the poor performers. Don't blame the tools which 99% of cops use appropriately. Quote:
Jim Last edited by btmj; August 30, 2014 at 10:14 AM. |
||
August 29, 2014, 10:41 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2013
Posts: 456
|
Ok when was the last time you saw an MRAP patrol your community? You will never see them on patrol because they are horrible to drive, terribly uncomfortable and require lots of maintenance. The MRAP will only be taken out in special situations which call for it. As for patrol, the everyday officer wants a Ford Explorer. They dont want to drive an armored vehicle because its terrible to drive.
I know the county where I live owns armored vehicles, but I have never seen one. |
August 30, 2014, 12:43 AM | #43 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Quote:
On those rifles converted to semi-auto, it may be $75 in parts to convert, but the armory doesn't run on hopes and dreams. I don't believe it is mandatory to convert. In fact I know of several departments with rifles that are still full auto. |
|
August 30, 2014, 02:18 AM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2013
Posts: 101
|
Johnwilliamson,
Your statement regarding something I said as being false, was in itself false. If you have no personal experience with such things, then you have no room to make such an uniformed FALSE claim. A cost to procure any piece of equipment is just that, the cost. Maintaining or modifying that equipment is another story. Get your facts straight before you imply other people are making false statements. |
August 30, 2014, 10:25 AM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
August 30, 2014, 10:40 AM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Madcap_Magician Wrote;
Quote:
The "immunity" enjoyed by Police is a huge part of the militarization debate IMO.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
August 30, 2014, 11:13 AM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
*ETA: Habersham County refuses to pay the medical bills of a baby they almost killed with a grenade a couple of month ago in a botched drug raid -- that found nothing illegal.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth Last edited by zxcvbob; August 31, 2014 at 09:17 PM. |
|
August 30, 2014, 12:25 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2013
Posts: 456
|
That right there is the problem. Many of you have made your decisions based on the media reports which are terribly one sided or not accurate. Why not wait until the facts are hashed out in official reports and the courts? Obviously these agenda oriented reporters are not going to deliver the truth.
No one knows both sides of the story. The one real fact is that if the law was obeyed and the officer was not assaulted than this would not have happened. If you assault an officer, Im not going to feel any pity for you. Just stand still and be quiet. How hard is that? |
August 30, 2014, 12:35 PM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
My *initial* reaction in Ferguson was that the cop murdered Brown, but it wasn't racially motivated. I wasn't married to that opinion, and I've come to believe it was a justified shooting, *also* not racially motivated. Might change my mind again before it's all over
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
August 30, 2014, 09:56 PM | #50 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
I believe only one can be true. But which? A scary, dangerous world is good business for the media, and for the people who make and sell things to use in that world. Means money for police, and everyone one else with a finger in that pie. On the other hand, would the FBI lie to us about crime statistics? When the assault weapon hysteria first peaked in the early 90s, the official crime statistics did not support the image of terror that the anti gun bigots wanted, so were simply ignored. Statistics showing how only something like 1.5% of the crimes were committed with rifles, and only about 1.5% of those crimes were done with what could be loosely called an assault weapon, simply didn't fit their master plan. What we had was a tiny number of highly publicized mass shootings. And, of course the murder of children. Shown and talked about over and over, and over until the overall impression is that these things are happening constantly, day in and day out all over the country. Which was simply not the truth. But we got more restrictive laws, anyway...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|