Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics
Cheetoh734
Senior MemberPosts: 714 Senior Member
Interesting article on changing police weapons/tactics.

I found this article interesting. What say you fellas?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-ready-for-war-with-homeland-security-funded-military-weapons.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-ready-for-war-with-homeland-security-funded-military-weapons.html
Replies
My experiences with some radical militia groups, gangs and active shooters shows the need to be able to respond to and overwhelm the threat...
I do wonder about armored assault vehicles and drones, however. What use is it? If there's a need, the money is well spent. However, if there's no need, why spend the money? However, much of this gear is bought with homeland security (read federal grant) dollars, so it's not costing the local taxpayers much, as the costs have been externalized to the nation as a whole. But, like Jayhawker said, training is key. Unfortunately some grants are "equipment" and not "training" grants, and don't allow reappropriation.
- George Orwell
I don't have a problem with cops using military style gear, if can save officers lives and get bad guys off the street. Is it needed, everywhere? Probably not, but I'd hate to be the rural sheriff who loses an officer in the line of duty because I didn't think he needed the same equipment as a big city cop.
Typical sheeple response. They want police protection, but lack the stomach to accept the realities of the actions that protection sometimes requires. They've rapidly forgotten the Texas Tower and North Hollywood, which could have easily been barely perceived historical footnotes if we had the Patrol Rifle programs that so many agencies have adopted as a result. Pistols and buckshot are excellent tools that may solve 90% of your problems, but when a single malcontent can hold an entire department at bay with careful selection of ground and a $100, 100 year-old bolt action, it's obvious the tool box is lacking.
While I don't think Mooseboff, Idaho necessarily needs an M1 Abrams, or departments outside of major port cities need belt-feds, denying officers the most basic tools (rifles) needed for fire & maneuver tactics is just asking to get those officers killed.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
So what happens when you're in one of those three cars that doesn't have a patrol rifle and you need it...right now?
I mean Jeez...I keep an AR in my truck and I'm not a cop! Times change and the needs of our LEOs change with them...
Some of them have already shown their stripes in that respect...witness the aftermath of Katrina...
However egregious their action were, I still believe the bulk of the LEs out there would put their foot down were they ordered to take similar actions, especially with the enactment of state and federal laws making such actions patently illegal...
The sheriff here just purchased an armored vehicle of sorts for about $250,000 using money from drug bust confiscations, and no one blinked an eye, in a relatively tame county. Too many LEs are getting murdered in Florida, and I'm all for any equipment that may save lives. Armored cars means LEs can safely get in close to a crazed shooter and end the threat ASAP. :up::up:
disturbing to me having grown up in Miami when Cops only had 38 revolvers and did just fine is its all an indication of the disintegration of our culture and way of life.
You younger guy's have learned to live with it because to you its always been that way. I'm having trouble seeing LEO's looking and acting like Warriors. To me it means
we failed somewhere along the way.IMHO
You are close enough the Tampa and with I-75 for the drug runners, I can see it especially if you remember the late 1980's and ealry 1990's with Ex-Broward County Sheriff Nick Navarro. Like him or not he took the money from the busts (along with cars, boats, a helicopter and other property) and used it to fund his department which he more than doubled in budget. Yeah, he had a ego and was a main player on the 1st season of COPS but he did get his department up to date with equipment.
- George Orwell
I know I'm gonna catch it for this but.. I agree with the ACLU on that one. Police are supposed to be REactive not PROactive. They are supposed to investigate then track down the bad guy. Patrol officers are technically military or militarized police which constitutes a standing army. They can not be used to police civilians it violates posse comitatus. There would be no need for patrol officers if the sheeple would quit being a buncha whiney cowards and take responsibility to pretect themselves and their neighbors.
Society has degraded into a bunch of wussy little sheeple who want the gov (local state or fed) to do and give them everything. On one hand I like the police having all the latest goodys. If they are going to be out patrolling they should have the gear to do so. On the other hand it scares the poo out of me because I see roided out jerks in up armored cars, body armor, ARs, and drones having way too much potential for abuse.
Soooo...you're saying that police should stand by and let bank robberies, school and workplace shootings, domestic violence,etc etc etc just go down as they will...and then investigate the aftermath while they clean up the mess and track down the perpetrators at their leisure........hell, sounds like a plan to me... What are you thinkin Dude?
what you say makes sense to a point. However, for instance here in Seattle we have had some major egg on our city's face because of overly aggressive LEOs abusing power and getting caught on camera doing some very uncool stuff. My only concern is that with the police's job being to be a reactionary force by nature that if they become some sort of rapid response paramilitary force where everyone is rolling around in uparmored assault vehicles armed to the teeth and itching to use their sweet new Tackleberry cannon that that might be a problem. Especially because in this day and age the use of deadly force whether by a police officer or by a civilian needs to be a last, last, last resort. The law is the the law, they cant be any quicker to kill than you or I. Having only one rifle in 3-5 cars might help in not overreacting to simple situations with massive force, a few more eyes and brains on scene and maybe blasting away with large amounts of small arms fire becomes not the best idea for enforcing public SAFETY. I can't tell you how many times these days you see on the news or even on COPS or something, at the first sign of trouble you have 14 LEOs running for their cars to break out their patrol rifles because someone somewhere might have a freaking Saturday night special in .380...
But some folks go crazy over a SWAT cop with a facemask. God forbid they wear a chest rig with ammo pouches, mace, radio, etc. Nevermind that'll give the officer better protection and be easier on their body at the end of a long day or after a physical pursuit.
That's like arguing that because bank tellers have a possibly hazardous job that they should be allowed to carry a mall ninja'd out MP5 strapped to them behind the counter because its their right. Yes, when not at work it is. But the bank owner can tell that employee that that is not the image that he wishes to show his/her customers. Police are employees they should have the same restrictions on dress, actions, and accessories that any other employee has while at work. Police forces are designed to be in close proximity to the average population and the vast, vast majority of their daily tasks will never and SHOULD never require for them to be in possession or have access to military style small arms that is why SWAT teams were implemented and those make sense, turning every officer into a high strung rapid tactical unit is something else. When you have specific rifle cars and specific trained units then you have more control on the individual level more eyes more brains. If it is a one unit rural town and they are it for miles then by all means have at it. But every cop in middle class suburbs shouldn't have that option.
It sounds like you're advocating equal or less levels of force. If a perpetrator is armed with a .380 Saturday Night Special (or a .22 for that matter) and has displayed a propensity for using it and I were tasked to go after him, I'd want all the edge I could get....so I'd be grabbing an AR or a shotgun....this ain't about a "fair" fight...
By nature, law enforcement work is pretty much reactive....so you're behind the curve from minute one...
Deal with the over-aggressive morons as they come along...(fire them)...but to handicap and entire police force because of the actions a few? It kinds of sounds like gun-grabber logic...l"lets ban guns in private hands becasue too many criminals are using them to commit crimes....
Hawker,
Not less force, if at all possible no force. De-escalate, not antagonize. The Seattle cops in my area that were just in some serious hot water were trying to get a couple of Mexicans on a bogus traffic stop from Yakima to take a swipe at them so they could open a can. And even in my limited experience with law enforcement about half of officers were rude, detached and somewhat antagonistic but I still don't believe that is the norm. I want them all to come home safe but arming them for combat at work makes people aware that that is an option.
Bottom line...it sounds like you have a serious problem in YOUR community with your police force..something you, as a citizen should get active in correcting...
but that's going on there doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the country...
To an extent, yes. Lets assume for a second that every customer and employee in the place doesn't put a stop to it right then and there because they have quit being a bunch of whiney little turds and take some responsibility and the robbers made off with the loot. Send out the LEOs to grab em. Sounds a little like the old west right? The REAL old west not hollywoods verson. Well that's because that's exactly what I'd prefer. Even with the OK Coral event Tombstone had an average of 3 murders a year and very little anything else because everyone knew you better behave yourself or someones gonna shoot you.
Of course that also was a result of people having good manners and being raised right. Not many people even thought to do the crap that happens today... that'll never happen in this day and age.
This pretty much sums up my opinion on things. If I can have it, I feel a LEO should be able to have and use it (purchased privately if need be). I feel that a LEO prone to power tripping and abusing their authority would do it regardless of if they were armed with a Colt .36 Navy or an M4 w/ M203 attachment. I question the purchase of armored vehicles and such not because I fear them becoming a paramilitary group, but because I question the practicality of spending tax dollars on such things that could go towards a patrol rifle or shotgun for every patrol car, or more extensive training (both in shooting, tactics, and physical fitness).
"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski