Boston Police and AR15's

[LockedBreech]

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

I say give em the tools to do the job at hand.

That's really the key right there. Yes, it's nonsense that AR-type rifles are hard or impossible for non-police to own in Boston. That said, if a shooter manages to kill more people because the police aren't equipped to stop them quickly, someone will have died for political reasons, which is never okay.

[ClydeFrog]

Keep in mind the recent event with the US Navy(Washington DC area) spree shooter. He started with a 12ga sporting type shotgun, then stole a security officer's pistol & kept shooting.

After action reviews said a local federal LE special unit offered to responded but were told to stand down . edit: the police unit was the CERT or critical event response team from the US Capital Police. Four CERT members with ARs & other special weapons were turned away during the spree shooting.
To my knowledge, the LE supervisor who made that call was seriously reprimanded in the post-event investigation.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by ClydeFrog

I for one, would not wear a seat belt or restraint on duty. It's not uncommon for bad guys or traffic stops to turn very ugly very quickly. I would not want to be physically attached to a motor vehicle in a critical incident.

Clyde, that makes no sense at all. A seatbelt greatly increases your chances of surviving a car accident. An officer is FAR more likely to be in a potentially deadly traffic accident than they are to have their seatbelt hinder them in a firefight. I just found several articles about how police departments around the country are trying to save lives by changing their officers' wrong-headed approach of not wearing seatbelts. Here's one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...3a7_story.html

Originally Posted by ClydeFrog

A young police officer in my urban area was shot doing a traffic stop when two armed thugs bolted from a vehicle as the cop started the stop. He was hit in the lower abdomen & returned fire quickly(P226R 9x19mm; Ranger T/T Series 127gr +P+ JHP), wounding one of his attackers.

I would bet any amount of money that for every one situation where a cop was hindered by his seatbelt, there are MANY more where a cop was in a car accident and was saved by his seatbelt.

This reminds me of the people who are convinced that flying is dangerous so they drive everywhere instead. Even though your chances of getting in a deadly car accident are FAR greater than of dying in a plane crash.

[ClydeFrog]

While I agree that seat belts save lives & are a practical standard for liability or risk management reasons, I would fully understand why some sworn LE or union groups would not want them.
Modern LE vehicles come with better safety equipment than most standard vehicles sold to the general public. This is due in part because LE officers drive more & are in traffic more than most citizens.
A veteran police officer(22 years) I worked with in 11/2013 told me how he's had 13 traffic accidents & totalled 4 LE vehicles in his career. Is that high? Yes. Is that unusual for working LE officer? Not really.

Another deputy I worked with in the 2000s, told me how the highway patrol changed their SOPs & regulations because troopers would exit the patrol vehicle, put on & adjust their issued headgear(hat) then be attacked by motorists.

The new policy let sworn members choose when or where they would wear the straw uniform hat while on duty. This was a officer safety issue to the troopers.

[Sierra280]

We seem to be forgetting that police officers prevail in bad situations not because they are individually well armed, but because there are many of them! 10 men with pistols will always prevail over 1 nut with a long gun. Plus, that's the strategy! When a lone police officer charges into an active shooter situation it usually doesn't end well for the officer, no matter how well he is armed.

Also, enough with all the foolish seat belt/car safety talk. Even if it was illegal, I would always wear a seat belt, you would have to be crazy not to. The numbers on traffic fatalities are clear. And what's all this talk about police cars being 'better'?! In independent tests police cars always have worse acceleration and braking distances than the base cars they are built from. The ones I've worked on around here have upgraded shocks (still barely adequate for all the added weight; rear cage, lights, wiring, etc) and I fail to see how filling the passenger cabin with sharp angular objects (gun mounts, lap top & holder, radio controls, etc) makes them safer! Sorry to be the barer of bad news, but a new Charger SRT8 of the showroom floor is not only safer, but will accelerate faster and stop quicker than its patrol car cousins.

[ClydeFrog]

I disagree with several of the points in post #55.
A rifle can be very deadly in skilled hands. Read American Sniper or One Shot, One Kill.

As for the LE patrol vehicles, I stand by comments. They have improved brakes, engines, roll cages/safety equipment, DV camera systems, etc. The problems & lawsuits brought on by the Ford Crown Victoria line in the 1990s/2000s brought a lot of changes to modern era LE vehicles.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

As for the LE patrol vehicles, I stand by comments. They have improved brakes, engines, roll cages/safety equipment, DV camera systems, etc. The problems & lawsuits brought on by the Ford Crown Victoria line in the 1990s/2000s brought a lot of changes to modern era LE vehicles.
__________________

The Main reason for the improvements is because of high speed chases and accidents where extra protection was needed, but what your missing is that they are for use with the seatbelt and do nothing to stop a police officer from dying when going through a windshield. Which by the way kills many people in head on crashes.

Besides this is taking the thread off topic. All equipment, tools, and tactics are subject to change and that is the only thing they have in common with the OP.

Note: Most LE are trained to remove their seatbelt as they slow down before stopping to prevent it being in the way and when speeds are slower and seatbelts are ineffective.

As far as the AR15 being a good and often necessary tool to have for LE, all that Boston need is a good 1997 style LA shootout to happen and then decide whether they need them.(sarcasm) They can argue about when or how they are allowed to use them but not having them is just waiting to be behind the 8 ball before realizing they were playing pool IMO.

Seems silly to me that someone would have to think about it/ take at look at it to determine if it is necessary at some point and some way to have them. I am willing to bet he would give a different answer if he had it to do all over again.

[SmokeeatersE35]

I asked a Mass State trooper frined of mine why he didnt get and AR when they asked him to switch his remington 1100 out...he told me he would rather use his shotgun over the standard 55 grain FMJ bullets they issue to the troopers who have them issued...it may be more firepower but all depending on the situation is a 55 grain FMJ going to do what you need to to do? Or will your shotgun suffice? it all comes down to what your comfortable using i guess

[ClydeFrog]

Gun writer & tactics instructor Mas Ayoob wrote a few months ago that a contact in the main HQ of the Florida Highway Patrol informed him their new SOP for all sworn troopers was to allow certain brands/types of ARs/M4s if the troopers purchased and qualified with it.
That seems fair. Id get a .300AAC Blackout with a KAC(Knights Armament) or Surefire surpressor & EOtech scope. I might add a white light with strobe too if I were a working FHP trooper.
I'd want a surpressed rifle in a caliber larger than 5.56x45mm(5.56mmNATO) so the muzzle flash didn't give away my position in low light & I could hear better/yell commands without any deafness/hearing loss.

A 7.62 or 6.8x40mm wouldn't be bad, but that might be too much in a patrol rifle.

[Destructo6]

I'd want a surpressed rifle in a caliber larger than 5.56x45mm(5.56mmNATO) so the muzzle flash didn't give away my position in low light & I could hear better/yell commands without any deafness/hearing loss.

While having your pet setup would be nice, unless everyone is using the same stuff, you put yourself and your teammates at a disadvantage.

Using a unique caliber means that you cannot borrow nor loan ammo: more guns are better.

Suppressors are nice, so long as everyone is using one. The moment your buddy with the 870 or unsuppressed rifle takes a shot, your hearing is done.

I have my own pet loadouts and preferences, but use the standard, bone stock, stuff on duty, because if my partner goes down, I can use his stuff without much concern and vice-versa.

While I agree that seat belts save lives & are a practical standard for liability or risk management reasons, I would fully understand why some sworn LE or union groups would not want them.

The only reason I can think of is to cover an officer should he die in a traffic accident on duty, while not wearing a seatbelt. It's a real downer for an officer to die in a on-duty accident, then have the agency kick around the possibility of not paying his family death benefits because he wasn't wearing his seat belt (whether that would have saved him or not).

[imp]

Why don't we all just wear shock collars, that way the police can just push a button and shut down anyone they feel is a threat?

The 2nd amendment was designed to prevent a government monopoly on force, and because of a handful of nutcases we beg big brother to take care of us. I agree with the mayor, I see no reason to further militarize local police. As a former LEO, I understand the desire to have an advantage over potential adversaries. I also understand the oath sworn to uphold the law is taken once early on and quickly forgotten. In my humble opinion, your average Constable on Patrol should be an impartial mediator of the law, not the ultimate unstoppable crime fighter. There is a place for high speed, low drag operators. On patrol, in constant contact with the citizenry is not one of them.

I know I live in a fantasy world where people are responsible for their own actions and freedom has not been totally surrendered, but I do not believe that bigger, better guns stops the next Sandy Hook or LA Bank robbery.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Why wouldn't have an officer with an AR have stopped the North Hollywood incident sooner than actually happened?

The two guys were hit with multiple handgun rounds and continued firing.

Given that a rampage nut can kill tens of folks in a couple of minutes and we now expect officers to immediately engage - I'm quite alright with them engaging with a long arm. Like I said - my building is 100 yards long. Yep, if a plain old officer isn't trusted to engage at that distance with a long arm - the solution is to train them up to make 100 yard shots with a pistol. It has been done but why not make it easier.

If police culture is so warped by having a long arm that they become tyrants of the state, do having ARs make average folks into rampaging nutsos. That's the claim and I don't buy either.

[imp]

Why not set up 155mm howitzers and engage from across town?

As you put it, the expectation to immediatly engage, is a flawed concept. An officer with a rifle might have just forced them back into the bank to take shots from cover and execute hostages. There are numerous what-if's that could have had a worse ending.

And while I will be among the first to say that the while the vast majority of folks wearing a badge are fantastic, in many cases they already are a tool of state tyranny. By enforcing unconstitutional laws, warrantless searches and curfews ( the search for the Boston marathon bomber comes to mind again). I personally have had to make the choice between someone elses rights and my paycheck. Once you witness that ugliness, its hard to grant even more power and authority to an entity which uses them without nearly enough accountability.

Far more people are killed by over-zealous cops than cops that are killed by being out-gunned.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Prove that last assertion with figures and statistics.

Talk about ridiculous speculation to denounce officers. If the cops at North Hollywood had a rifle, it would have been over. They had hit the guys with their handguns to no effect. If they had hit with rifles, the bad guys weren't going inside.

[Tom Servo]

We're really not discussing gun-related issues so much as we are matters of public policy and law enforcement. Everyone's had their say, so I'm going to close this before it ventures any further off topic.