Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Interesting article on changing police weapons/tactics.

Replies

  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    In truth, I have no real problems with LEOs being equipped with state-of-the-art weaponry...as long as they are qualified to run it...
    My experiences with some radical militia groups, gangs and active shooters shows the need to be able to respond to and overwhelm the threat...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    Patrol rifle in the car/truck (usually an AR), bulletproof armor, and a helmet are all good things. I know some jurisdictions require the use of undershirt armor, but a slip-on MOLLE armored vest with plates and extra ammo pouches is a good idea. Some water and rations on the vest would be good, too. The plates are especially good, IMO, for rural enforcement officers or wildlife officers, as they're more likely to go up against rifle-armed opponents.

    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.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    I have no problem with LEOs having top equipment in their hands but I would think use a fair portion to training and armory supplies. What good is the equipment if the end user doesn't have the proper training or tactical knowledge to handle it? $250,000 truck in Fargo might be better spent for a couple of REACT vehicles to support more area.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • joseph06joseph06 Member Posts: 133 Member
    I can't help but shake my head at the quote from the ACLU official, saying the job of LE is to investigate crimes after they've happened. Naturally, that's part of the job, but I'm pretty for that "crime prevention," is the ideal goal. I'm relatively confident in my ability to defend myself if needed, and I'll never advocate for relying on the police to come save you, but at the same time LE should be training to respond crimes in progress and stop them, as able.

    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.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,327 Senior Member
    Cheetoh734 wrote: »
    What say you fellas?

    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.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • Cheetoh734Cheetoh734 Senior Member Posts: 714 Senior Member
    I know this may stir the pot, but....I don't really buy into the conspiracy stuff and I hope this doesn't come across wrong. But... I have noticed myself in the Seattle area that every po-dunk outlying suburb has ARs in their car windows and armor in the trunk. And here in Seattle we have a lot of very young officers which seem (to me) to be having a difficult time adjusting from the sandbox to US cities the same sort of distrust and "us vs. them" mentality that was necessary in country doesn't really translate to an middle class suburb of a major city. I have had a few friends that got out recently and its not just the cops... I just can't help but notice that the police getting into the arms race business is coinciding with the average population of the country becoming more and more angry, disenfranchised and not seeing an end in sight. I'm not just talking about the occupy idiots, I mean the average Joe is pretty pissed off and most don't see an end in sight. This combined with DHS ramping up their "home grown terror" rhetoric in the last few years just gives me pause for thought. I support officers being able to protect themselves. But I don't believe in the police being a paramilitary organization. I know after the north Hollywood stuff they started having like 1 in 4 cars in the citys carry a rifle which seems more reasonable to me. I see both sides to the argument. Just pontificating.
  • 104RFAST104RFAST Senior Member Posts: 1,281 Senior Member
    which side will they be on when it hits the fan???
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    Cheetoh734 wrote: »
    . I support officers being able to protect themselves. But I don't believe in the police being a paramilitary organization. I know after the north Hollywood stuff they started having like 1 in 4 cars in the citys carry a rifle which seems more reasonable to me. I see both sides to the argument. Just pontificating.

    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...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    104RFAST wrote: »
    which side will they be on when it hits the fan???

    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...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    It's not only a matter of law enforcement, it's also a matter of self-defense. LE's should never find themselves with inadequate fire power, in comparison to the bad guys. AR-15s are necessary law enforcement tools, but note that the article refers to them as "assault weapons", and "military style assault weapons", which to me shows anti-gun bias. I mean, the Daily Beast is hardly something I view, except when its linked here.

    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:
  • 104RFAST104RFAST Senior Member Posts: 1,281 Senior Member
    You younger guys ( I'm 70) cant know that it didn't use to be necessary that LEO's needed SWAT and APC's. I know SWAT ect, is necessary in most larger cities. Whats
    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
    It's not only a matter of law enforcement, it's also a matter of self-defense. LE's should never find themselves with inadequate fire power, in comparison to the bad guys. AR-15s are necessary law enforcement tools, but note that the article refers to them as "assault weapons", and "military style assault weapons", which to me shows anti-gun bias. I mean, the Daily Beast is hardly something I view, except when its linked here.

    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:
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    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:

    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.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • QuinianQuinian Senior Member Posts: 707 Senior Member
    joseph06 wrote: »
    I can't help but shake my head at the quote from the ACLU official, saying the job of LE is to investigate crimes after they've happened. Naturally, that's part of the job, but I'm pretty for that "crime prevention," is the ideal goal. I'm relatively confident in my ability to defend myself if needed, and I'll never advocate for relying on the police to come save you, but at the same time LE should be training to respond crimes in progress and stop them, as able.

    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.

    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.
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    I can see a great need for a armored tank like vehicle, no large gun, but a highly mobile armored vehicle to allow going in under fire, and to rescue / recover injured LEO's by driving over them perhaps, also to provide cover and allow the designated marksman to get close in for a shot.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    Quinian wrote: »
    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?
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • Cheetoh734Cheetoh734 Senior Member Posts: 714 Senior Member
    Hawker,
    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...
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    I think that we also need to consider public image. A police officer with a hat, face you can see, and pistol at his or her side is preferable to even this:

    f3723b8ed5d0365bf106b5f5ac6d-grande.jpg

    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.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • Cheetoh734Cheetoh734 Senior Member Posts: 714 Senior Member
    BP,
    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.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    Cheetoh734 wrote: »
    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...

    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....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • Cheetoh734Cheetoh734 Senior Member Posts: 714 Senior Member
    BP, no. But your job description isn't the same. I am by no means trying to infringe upon someones rights. However rules and standards while in a workplace are not a new concept. And secondly a police officers job must, must be to protect yes, but to do so in such a way as to always de-escalate the situation first second and third. They are not there to engage a hostile force they are there to serve and protect. Serve first, as in serve the population. And 99.999% of that doesn't include even appearing to be an aggressive or confrontational force. The tools need to fit the job in any situation and having a sidearm has always been as much of a symbol as a tool. Having an AR in the window of your cruiser for everyone to see isn't a symbol of protection or service is a big don't F with me sign. Thats it.

    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.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    I guess....suppose you ought to try out that de-escalate thing with a strung out psychotic that's intent on killing you with his bare hands before you get to depending on it too much...doesn't really work all that well...sounds like you're suggesting we replace cops with counselors...

    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...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • QuinianQuinian Senior Member Posts: 707 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    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?

    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.
  • joseph06joseph06 Member Posts: 133 Member
    I just don't see the big problem--perhaps I'm just anesthitized to seeing folks geared up, but I don't have a problem with cops doing what they need to protect themselves. In a lot of places, putting on the badge is the same is sticking a target on yourself. If I can go buy it, or carry it, there's no reason LE shouldn't be able to either. I don't think any of the problems various police departments have had with officer misconduct have anything to do with gear, they have to do with people breaking rules. The logic that says cops with body armor and an AR are more likely to escalate a situation is the same logic that says I should only be allowed 10 rounds in my magazine.
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,970 Senior Member
    joseph06 wrote: »
    I just don't see the big problem--perhaps I'm just anesthitized to seeing folks geared up, but I don't have a problem with cops doing what they need to protect themselves. In a lot of places, putting on the badge is the same is sticking a target on yourself. If I can go buy it, or carry it, there's no reason LE shouldn't be able to either. I don't think any of the problems various police departments have had with officer misconduct have anything to do with gear, they have to do with people breaking rules. The logic that says cops with body armor and an AR are more likely to escalate a situation is the same logic that says I should only be allowed 10 rounds in my magazine.

    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).
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement