[2dogs]

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0325/news-dawdy.php

THE CITY
Make Their Day
When SPD brought a semiautomatic assault rifle to a downtown protest, what were they expecting?

by Philip Dawdy


"The AR-15 is the semiautomatic civilian version of the fully automatic M-16. Seattle police have about 100 of them."

Protesters gathered in downtown Seattle on June 2 to call attention to the seemingly secretive Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU), which was holding a conference in town, and to make noise about what they see as creeping police statism in America. What protesters got, in two instances, was overkill by law enforcement that many say proved their point.
In one case, an activist videotaped a Seattle police officer toting a machine gun at the initially peaceful demonstration—an object no one Seattle Weekly talked to can remember seeing at recent Seattle protests. In the other case, a protester suffered a head injury, allegedly at the hands of Seattle police officers, and says she did not get sufficient medical attention.

IN RECENT YEARS, police around the country have turned to the AR-15 family of semiautomatic assault rifles, largely as a reaction to an infamous North Hollywood, Calif., bank robbery, when the would-be robbers used assault weapons to pin down cops who were armed with little more than handguns and shotguns. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's fully automatic M-16. It's an accurate, reliable weapon, with a much greater range than service pistols, which lose much of their accuracy beyond 25 yards. Seattle police have about 100 AR-15s and issue them to officers with special training; the weapons were first deployed in 1998.

So why would a Seattle police officer have an assault rifle at a street demonstration involving 500 protesters? Did police have intelligence about an armed person in the crowd? Why have one at this event when assault rifles have not been visible at protests of the past?

Jim Pugel, an assistant chief of police, says the weapons have, in fact, been at protests for several years. "It's not a new policy. They've always been around," usually out of sight, says Pugel. The AR-15 is necessary on the scene in case a weapon appears in the crowd or if there is an armed threat against a police officer, he says. There was no specific intelligence that called for the AR-15-toting SWAT sergeant to be more visible at the June 2 protest, and Pugel doesn't expect to see the weapon play a very visible role at future protests. "You're not going to see 20 officers in crowd control with these darn things," he says.

For its part, Mayor Greg Nickels' office initially responded with laughter when asked to comment on the presence of the AR-15 at the protest. "I'm not going to have the mayor comment on a police operational matter," said Marianne Bichsel, a spokesperson for the mayor's office.

When it was pointed out that a cop carrying such a weapon at a lawful gathering was a rather potent symbol of the very thing protesters allege—an increasing militarization of police—Bichsel questioned whether there had even been an officer carrying an assault rifle. Seattle Weekly e-mailed her a still picture from video shot by an activist, lawyer Paul Richmond, which clearly shows an officer holding an AR-15. Bichsel later amended her statement to say that Nickels was "very pleased" with how police handled the protest, citing flag burnings, among other things, as justification for the police's forceful response. (Flag burning is constitutionally protected free speech.)

FEW OTHERS ARE quite so sanguine. "That's a big problem, police carrying machine guns," says City Council member Nick Licata, who plans to write police Chief Gil Kerlikowske about the matter. Says Larry Gossett, a King County Council member: "It's absurd and uncalled for. Whoever is responsible for making that decision to send that kind of armory out onto the streets needs to be held accountable."

Don van Blaricom, former police chief of Bellevue, says he's puzzled as to why police would turn out with an assault rifle at a protest. "That's certainly not a crowd-control weapon," says van Blaricom, who now is a law-enforcement consultant. "It's certainly not something you use on crowds. You'd want some intelligence to indicate persons in the crowd are likely to be armed, or I don't know why you'd use it."

Jackie Helfgott, an associate professor of criminal justice at Seattle University, says that, on one level, she can understand why police would turn out with an assault rifle if they were concerned about a repeat of Seattle's massive 1999 World Trade Organization protest or the rowdy Mardi Gras incident of 2001, in which one person was beaten to death. Indeed, the June 2 protest got rowdy (who's to blame is a matter of debate), but police had no need for bullets. And Helfgott has her doubts about displaying such firepower. "It adds this element of danger and raises this question: Is this a necessary display of force in a community?" Helfgott says.

Also searching for answers is Laurel Smith, 21, an organizer with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in Olympia. She was at the June 2 protest and would like to know why, as she alleges, she suffered a head injury at the hands of police and, later, while in a confused daze, was discharged from jail.

Around 8:30 p.m. that evening, police opened up on protesters with a fusillade of pepper spray and nonlethal grenades in front of the Red Lion Hotel on Fifth Avenue. Soon after, cops pushed protesters away from the hotel to Union Street.

Somewhere in the melee that ensued, Seattle police allege that Smith approached an officer and spit on his safety glasses and left arm, according to a police incident report. Smith was taken to the ground, the report says, but tucked her hands under her torso. An officer was able to extract them. Smith was arrested and charged with assault and obstructing a public-safety officer, both misdemeanors, and transported to the King County Jail.

Smith also was pepper-sprayed, she says. She declined to answer questions about circumstances surrounding her arrest except to say, "No provocation on my part deserved what happened to me."

What makes this arrest unusual is that Smith wound up with a head injury and contusions to her skull, according to medical records. Smith, who says she's never been arrested before, says that police repeatedly slammed her head against the pavement while placing her under arrest and that she briefly blacked out. She says she suffered a concussion as a result and bled from her forehead. At the jail, she says she was not examined by a nurse until several hours after she was booked—and only after she made repeated demands for medical attention. The nurse, she says, told her she didn't have a concussion and that she should take some aspirin.

At 3:30 a.m., Smith was released from jail. She says she spent the next several hours wandering around downtown and Capitol Hill in what she calls a concussed daze. When she later returned to Olympia, she went to the emergency room at Capital Medical Center, where Constance Vasek, an emergency-room physician, examined her. In her report, Vasek wrote that Smith had a "closed" head injury, multiple contusions, and several scrapes elsewhere on her body. Vasek attributed the head injury to a blow from a police baton.

Seattle police Capt. Mike Sanford, incident commander at the protest, said he had no information about how Smith could have been injured. Typically, when police use force in making an arrest, a supervising sergeant fills out a use-of-force report. Sanford says no report was filed in Smith's case and that, based on what he knew, the level of force used on Smith was "typical."

Parker McLaughlin, a friend of Smith's who witnessed her arrest, says that he saw police dragging her by her ankles along the street.

HOW MUCH CARE Smith received at the King County Jail is not clear. Jail officials insist that everyone gets standard medical screening before being placed in a cell. If they require further attention, a nurse sees them. "That absolutely did not happen," says Smith. "I was taken directly to a cell. Other women were making a fuss over me, saying, 'There's something wrong with that girl in the cell.'"

Citing confidentiality laws, Bette Pine, interim director of corrections health care for King County, wouldn't answer questions about what examination Smith received or how one of her nurses missed what was later diagnosed as a head injury.

Smith was to appear in King County Municipal Court on Tuesday, June 17.

[Tamara]

The Minister of Irony was unavailable for comment... ;)

[cameroneod]

OMG! You mean cops have guns now? What is the world coming to?

These people are idiots, its called deterence, and it works like a champ. :D

[seeker_two]

So why would a Seattle police officer have an assault rifle at a street demonstration involving 500 protesters?

Ask the Benton Harbor PD. They'd probably recommend M2 .50BMG's about now...

Stupid liberal wussies...:rolleyes:

[2dogs]

Stupid liberal wussies

But, but, don't you understand..........................seeing those big ol "machine guns" made them feel bad.

Now apologize.:rolleyes:

[geekWithA.45]

And I saw a state cop with an AR-15 strapped to his shoulder. The case deflector didn't have a single brass streak, it was as pure as the driven snow.

That means that either:


The state cops know something I don't about how to clean the brass stains off, or

That rifle had never been fired since it left the factory. :what:


Now, I obviously have no problem with big scary guns, they're the only kind I own, but I would like to know that the feller walking around with one knows what he's doing with it. :cuss:

[TheOtherOne]

The AR-15 is necessary on the scene in case a weapon appears in the crowd or if there is an armed threat against a police officer, he says.
Nah, they have them because they just think they look alot cooler with them. :D

But hey, that's not a problem with me as long as they don't have a problem with me carrying mine around!

[Gastonite]

Here's a letter I wrote to the author, and his response.

Everyone ping him at pdawdy@seattleweekly.com :cuss:



>From: Philip Dawdy <pdawdy@seattleweekly.com>
>To: Brent xxxxxxxx<xxxxxxxxx@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: article re: police armed with AR15s
>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:25:05 -0700
>
>brent:
>
>thanks. you know that's quite the idea you have there--maybe you ought to
>post it on the indymedia and get people thinking about what kind of
>'theatrical' response they can have toward the police show of force. god
>knows, in sf, they'd probably show up at the next protest with mimes totting
>machine guns and doing choreographed moves.
>
>regards
>
>philip
>
>
>
>on 6/19/03 10:55 AM, Brent XXXXXXXX@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Your article was really quite refreshing. It seems that perhaps some of the
> > traditionally anti-gun folks at the Seattle Weekly are finally understanding
> > the reason our founding fathers and constitutional framers developed the 2nd
> > Amendment - to provide a resource for resistance to an oppressive
> > government. Undoubtedly, I think we all wish the 1st Amendment was adequate
> > enough.
> >
> > Perhaps its time for local protesting citizenry to march with UNLOADED
> > rifles thru downtown to exercise not only our 1st Amendment rights, but also
> > our 2nd Amendment rights. This may stand as a stark reminder to government
> > (and the city council) that the people will not tolerate oppressive
> > government, and there still remain the checks and balances to deal with
> > them. While some may see this as "radical" or "extremist", it is, after all,
> > perfectly legal and within our rights as Americans.
> >
> > Food for thought.
> > Brent

[alan]

Three things about this story come to mind.

1. Unless the "AR-15" had SELECTIVE FIRE CAPABILITY, AR-15's don't, it wasn't an ASSAULT RIFLE.

2. Unless the rifle had SELECTIVE FIRE CAPABILITY, it wasn't a MACHINE GUN. See item 1 above.

3. It seems that the display of such firearms was also a display of rather questionable taste, not to mention that it also displayed the poorest of judgement, IMHO.

[Monkeyleg]

"And Helfgott has her doubts about displaying such firepower."

Oh my! I'm sure she'd feel much better if the officer was carrying a 30-06 "deer rifle." Unless, of course, she was shot with it.

[Lord Grey Boots]

Folks this is the Seattle Weekly newspaper! Its a free "alternative" newspaper, where the "reporters" all consider themselves columnists, and they load their articles with their own hard left socialist/environmentalist/liberal/radical opinions.

There is no reason to believe that anything in that article is true.

[Solinvictus70]

I'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate here and ask this question: does the growing militarization of the local LE officials concern anyone here?

[Boats]

It concerns me. I am about to start a thread on it this weekend.

[Sir Galahad]

So, you can have an AR-15 and feel you should be permitted to carry it anywhere (which I support), but not the cops? More any-port-in-a-storm anti-police BS. Some people need to get a life and forget the traffic ticket they got in high school.:rolleyes:


"Those darn cops! I hate them! They cost me $25! I'll show them! I'll post anti-cop stuff on the internet! I'm unstoppable! I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! You hear that, you darn cops! I'm going to tear the tags of my pillows! AND my mattress, too! Don't try and stop me! I'm going to return rented videos without rewinding them and strike a blow for freedom! See if I don't! I am one bad mother---what? Oh, nothing, mom! I wasn't calling you..."

[Tamara]

Some people need to get a life and forget the traffic ticket they got in high school.:rolleyes:

Out of curiousity, do you really think that's what it's all about, or was this an attempt at being sardonic? I'm asking in all honesty. :confused:


(BTW: Do you not see anything even slightly amusing in rifle-toting cops and beaten-up protestors at a protest regarding the militarization of LE and police brutality? Right, wrong, whatever; that's just funny as heck to me... ;) "I'm not brutal and paramilitary! And if you say that again, I'll give you a horizontal butt-stroke in the mouth with my HK!" :D I couldn't make up stuff that good! :) )

[alan]

Boats:

I believe that the problems of/with the militerization of police depts. has been discussed here before, however if you believe that you have something worth while to add, I believe that the problem is serious and becoming more so, then have at it.

[.45Ruger]

I do believe that as police departments become more militan it serves to rienforce the US vs. THEM attitude of many cops toward the general public. The thing is, the police and all honest citizens should be on the same side against criminals, and politicians, oh wait same thing, just kidding.

[Sir Galahad]

Tamara, I have been harrassed by police on several occasions in the past. At one point, stopped by a plainclothes "task force" car and questioned at length about my RELIGION because I had a Pentacle decal on my truck. You think I didn't almost crapped my pants on that one? :confused: How many here have been questioned at length by police, indeed, pulled over by them, for religious haranguing? Didn't get an apology from their chief until I threatened to call the ACLU and then made an enemy by that remark. Finally had to get out of that town. I'll name names, too. Simi Valley, California PD. Somewhere, LAPD has a Field ID/"gang member" card with a description of my tattoos on it because, you know, all gang members are tattoed and all tattoed people are gang members. I've been frisked by cops so many times, some of them handled my private parts more than my doctor. My vehicle had been searched so many times, I just left everything on the floorboards to save time. This after I served my country in the army. This is the treatment I got. Because I had tattoos and long hair. Because I looked "different". Think that's fair? Think that's right? Never collected a day of welfare in my life and they treated me like a POS. "Let me see your arms"---got to check for needle marks. "When's the last time you used meth?" "I don't use meth." BULLSH*T!! Don't lie to me, boy! No one is THAT skinny unless they use crank! Now quit lying!!" Think I feel good about that? I stil cringe when I see cops. But I don't hate them. I don't blame ALL cops for the actions of those thugs. Since I've moved here to Arizona, I've met nothing but great cops. There are cops on this board that are great guys. So, I can't blame all cops for the actions of a few jerks. I think I have a LOT more reason to fear, hate, loathe, mistrust, and despise cops than just about anyone on this board who's complaining about them again and again. But, time passes and it is time to let the past be the past. Check my reply in the Non-Firearms Weapons section about ASPs and see what I say about police. I do not support everything police do. I WILL call them on things. But I keep seeing the same things, over and over, in this forum about "cops are doing this, cops are doing that". Geez, it's freakin' old! I see the same people blasting the cops. You know, lumping everyone into a stereotype is what THOSE BAD COPS DID TO ME. They said, "All tattoed longhairs are druggies!" And that's how I was treated. So, here are folks saying, basically, "All cops are jackboots!" No different than saying "All Mexicans are lazy, all blacks eat watermelon, etc., etc." You should say, "I fear what SOME police are doing". But to lump them all together as "THE cops", why you're no different than the jackboots you claim to be so against.

[Duncan Idaho]

Thank you God, for delivering me - your humble, but unworthy servant - from the liberal swine-dogs that infest New England, and for putting that wonderful moat full of saltwater between me, and the swine-dogs in Seattle.

Amen

P.S. If you so choose to unleash a pestilence and/or plague on the above mentioned swine-dogs; you do so with my full support.

[Gastonite]

Perhaps my statement about carrying UNLOADED rifles in a street protest was misinterpreted by some.

I have no beef with Law Enforcement carrying AR15s, MP5s, AKs, whatever. There are situations that merit those types of weapons. If I were an LEO, I'd certainly want as much firepower as possible. My Seattle Police buddy, Bothell Police buddy, and two Pierce County Sherrif buddies (they're brothers) all share the same sentiment.

However, if government organizations (ie: police, FBI, BATF) are going to have that kind of hardware, so should Joe-Citizen. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Framers intended for us to be able to "outgun" the government. Am I off base here? NO!

Also, before someone dings me on this from another state, it is legal in WA state to walk down the street with an UNLOADED rifle. You will get lots of stares and be questioned by the police who will want to inspect it, but it is legal. Just don't point it at anyone or threaten anyone, or its jail time.

I actually think organizing Northwest gun owners for a peacable arms march thru downtown would be an excellent idea. Let's just make sure they're UNLOADED. :cool:

[Tamara]

You should say, "I fear what SOME police are doing". But to lump them all together as "THE cops", why you're no different than the jackboots you claim to be so against.

I trust this is the Editorial "You" you're using. ;)

Obviously I don't think all cops are badevilnastyJBT's. I don't even believe most cops are badevilnastyJBT's. Besides, "cops" is such a broad term in the modern lingo; it can be used to describe the friendly Smallville town constable, the Bigcitycounty SERT team, and the ATF's kitten-stomping unit.

I may sometimes say things like "the cops shot Donald Scott to confiscate his ranch", but only because it would be incorrect to say "the Florida Marlins shot Donald Scott to confiscate his ranch" or "the interior decorators shot Donald Scott to confiscate his ranch". I hope most folks can draw the meaning from my words.

(If I'm coming across as a cop-basher, does that mean I need to have Knox Co. tear up my app? ;) )

[jsalcedo]

Power is addictive and corrupting.

Cops have quite a bit of power over civilians and some handle it better than others.

I've been treated badly on occasion and I have met some cops that were good ole boys as well.

I agree with the folks that police in general have an us vs them
attitude but haven't they always?

I also agree that if a police officer can carry a loaded AR15 then I should be able to as well.

[c_yeager]

Lets not forget that every time the city of Seattle lets all this liberals gather in one place they either start fires or get into fist fights. It makes perfect sense to me if they want to carry a rifle. Just for the record the only ar-15 varient ive ever seen the SPD carrying is a 9mm.

[Gastonite]

c_yeager,

that's a .223 mag

[HBK]

If she spit on the guy, she deserved to have her ??? beat. Uncalled for. Militarization of police is getting to be a problem, but it's idiots like her that make it worse.

[paul]

Golly, what bologna...
I expect the local law-enforcement chaps to show up at any gathering of that many protesters with their standard arms in tow...To do otherwise is an invitation to trouble...
This idea that we are massively outgunned by the local police is pure BS...

[Marko Kloos]

So, you can have an AR-15 and feel you should be permitted to carry it anywhere (which I support), but not the cops? More any-port-in-a-storm anti-police BS. Some people need to get a life and forget the traffic ticket they got in high school.

It's not quite that clear-cut, Sir Galahad.

This is in a state where the peasantry may not own the weapons that were ostentatiously displayed by the police. Why are you surprised at the resentment some people feel when they're told that "ARs are for me, not for thee"? To top it all off, not only are the Californians told under threat of 10 years imprisonment that they may not own an AR, but they're also forced to pay for the ARs of their local PD...

It's quite ironic (and unsettling) that the "militarization of police" is usually most pronounced in the most gun-restrictive States.

The 1994 Crime Bill has a LEO exception, as do the California "assault weapons" laws. I can understand the anger some people feel when they're told that pistol-gripped autoloading rifles and >10 round magazines are evil and a no-no, and possession of these items will send you to the hoosegow for 10 years...unless you wear a badge.

When you deny the ownership and carrying of arms to one segment of the population while permitting it to another, you effectively create a two-class society. Don't be surprised if some people feel like the lower class they've been made into by legislative fiat...and if they start to resent the "upper class" and sometimes make generalizations.

I really wish every police officer in this country was like LawDog or our other resident LEO mods, but I know that for every LawDog there are three or four LEOs of all age groups who are perfectly comfortable with the idea that "only police should own/carry arms". Granted, those are usually native to regions where such a mindset has been actively supported by a nanny-like State government, but the fact remains that there are plenty of LEOs out there who fully support a caste system when it comes to gun ownership.

I have no issue with any LEO carrying any weapon they deem necessary for their job. I do take exception to chiefs arming their PDs with the use of tax money, and then openly supporting the restricting of those very arms to the average Joe out on the street.

[geekWithA.45]

This is in a state where the peasantry may not own the weapons that were ostentatiously displayed by the police. Why are you surprised at the resentment some people feel when they're told that "ARs are for me, not for thee"?

And that, my friends, is the heart of the problem.

2A is explicitly about the armament superiority of the People compared to the "standing army", which we may interpret to include "all armed agents of the State".


This extended interpretation is justified because organized, armed police forces are a relatively modern concept that did not exist at the time of the founding, and the army was a multi use force often applied to police purposes.

The intent of 2A was to provide the People with at least both theoretical and actual armament parity, if not superiority to the State.

Given the realities of modern mechanized, electronicised combat, the People haven't had even theoretical parity since WW I, and considering that the forces of darkness are trying to jumpstart a national debate* on semi-automatic firearms, which a mere 15 years ago was an unremarkable feature of firearm design, I can safely say that something has gone very badly wrong here.....





*a debate that wouldn't be possible without the AWB, btw, thank you very much, clinton.

[TheeBadOne]

1st Seattle riot- "The Police should have done more, the failed to be ready.....they didn't have enough presense....etc etc etc"

Now-"How come there are so many cops....why do they have gas, guns, barricades...."

The cops are in a loose loose situation. If things go to crap they "Weren't prepared". If they're prepared they are "JBT's"...:rolleyes:

[Drjones]

Don van Blaricom, former police chief of Bellevue, says he's puzzled as to why police would turn out with an assault rifle at a protest. "That's certainly not a crowd-control weapon," says van Blaricom, who now is a law-enforcement consultant. "It's certainly not something you use on crowds. You'd want some intelligence to indicate persons in the crowd are likely to be armed, or I don't know why you'd use it." Not a crowd control weapon? You wanna make a bet? Do you want to make an (deleted by moderator) bet???

And WHY would the police have and use them?

You see Don, liberals have a LONG track record of rioting and turning into destructive (murderous in some cases) mobs when they congregate in numbers.

With that in mind, YOU tell ME why the police would want such weapons around.

:rolleyes:

Idiot. :cuss:

[jsalcedo]

Did police even shoot into crowds during the civil rights protests of the mid to late 60's?

The last time I remember a battle rifle used for crowd control was kent state.

During the LA riots of 92 the police and national guard did little or nothing for crowd control, looting or arson.


A bunch of liberals with a protest permit marching against police militarization is not going to fit the bill for the use of lethal force
unless they turn into mutant flesh eating zombies.

[Drjones]

A bunch of liberals with a protest permit marching against police militarization is not going to fit the bill for the use of lethal force
unless they turn into mutant flesh eating zombies.

You obviously missed all the stories of anti-"war" protests that turned into riots.

In SF those "liberals with a permit" started dragging people out of their cars, beating them up, trashing their cars, and otherwise rioting.

They confiscated hordes of weapons from the "harmless liberals with a permit" as well as finding a backpack full of molotov cocktails.

Yeah...that doesn't "fit the bill for use of lethal force."

:rolleyes:

[cordex]

I have no issue with any LEO carrying any weapon they deem necessary for their job. I do take exception to chiefs arming their PDs with the use of tax money, and then openly supporting the restricting of those very arms to the average Joe out on the street.
Thank you, lendringser. I couldn't have said it better.

[jsalcedo]

Dr Jones

You are correct the protesters have done all these things
but the police don't use lethal force.

I've been following reports of violent protest in the US since
at least 1985 and I haven't seen a single report of police firing live ammo into a crowd of rioters.

What I meant to say was: What is the trigger for cops to use an AR 15 on a crowd?

What does it take for the cops to consider firing at a protest gone bad?

From what I've seen the bar must be really high.

[sw442642]

I'm certainly in favor of police having such weapons available. The wisdom of carrying them to a demonstration escapes me unless you just want to bash folks who excercise their 1st Amend. rights. Yes, the cops took a risk that maybe someone would open up from the crowd with an UZI or two. That's part of life.

The militarization of law enforcement gave us Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Such weapons should be save for the extreme and not used to intimidate free speech.

[Tharg]

OK

I guess the difference is ... is it a peaceful protest? Or are they looting stores/trashing cars/beating-killing people? ARE they openly saying F you to the police who are trying to control them, knowing its a losing battle when its 5000 against even 200... Whens the last time you went up to a policeman and spit in his face? I'd be willing to bet never. I mean A - its stupid :D B - its not right. That person who did that - prolly got what she was after... the same thing i'd get if i walked up to billy bob bad butt and spit in his face... a good whoopin. :evil:

Ya know i've got my own dislikes for police... but for the most part they are good guys who are just trying to do thier job... and I have to tell you that if i was a policeman, i'd be scared as hell at the people in front of me causing random rash distruction, distruction to property and persons that are not thiers. aka - against the law, i'd be willing to bet the founders wouldn't take to kindly to the actions either. One of my friends said the riots in LA could have been done so much quicker if ya saw cops pop one or two of em. Instead you had people being drug out of thier cars that had nothing to do w/ anything, they just happened to be near the area.

Police are given arms in order to use them during the time of thier duty to enforce laws. I'm not sure how they are more "militarized", last time i checked there wasn't a whole lot a rifle could do to a tank, or the last time i saw a civilian w/ the training of the special forces. The constitution gives us the right to be armed... as it should be. By the same token, our tax dollars go to police to police our streets and highways and etc... Would you want them any less armed than you??!?!

bleh - i blather again

[Solinvictus70]

But the issue with the militarization of federal LE is that they DO have access to tanks, attack copters and other military vehicles. If I remember correctly, the ATF nearly got a couple of Ospreys for its inventory. On a local level, I have only seen the APC's active when there is a perceived threat. About a ten days ago, rumor has it we were about to be in for some rioting like they're having in Michigan. At the time, the city was SWARMED with tourists for an annual music festival. The city PD here brought out tac units, a couple of paddy wagons, and their APC. In my view, this was rational.

[jimpeel]

So if one guy in the crowd fires a weapon the guy with the full-auto simply opens up in his direction and if 30 people are killed -- so what.

Perhaps we should hear what the antis have to say about this as they always bring up the "spray-fire" argument.

VPC Study Explains Assault Weapons' Spray-Fire Design (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24535)

From http://www.vpc.org/studies/hoseone.htm

6. Civilian assault weapons keep the specific functional design features that make this deadly spray-firing easy. These functional features also distinguish assault weapons from traditional sporting guns.

8. "Spray-firing" from the hip, a widely recognized technique for the use of assault weapons in certain combat situations, has no place in civil society. Although assault weapon advocates claim that "spray-firing" and shooting from the hip with such weapons is never done, numerous sources (including photographs and diagrams) show how the functional design features of assault weapons are used specifically for this purpose.

From: http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosethree.htm

Assault weapons did not "just happen." They were developed to meet specific combat needs. All assault weapons—military and civilian alike—incorporate specific features that were designed to provide a specific military combat function. That military function is laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, also known as "hosing down" an area. Civilian assault weapons keep the specific design features that make this deadly spray-firing easy. These features also distinguish assault weapons from traditional sporting firearms.

Apparently they see no problem with the cops "spray-firing" or "hosing down" a crowd. They only have a problem with anyone else who, in their imagination, might do so.

[alan]

jimpeel:

With reference to items that you posted, is one to assume that "civilian assault weapons" are also SELECTIVE FIRE WEAPONS, which is the defining characteristic of real assault weapons? This appears to be what those nice folks over at the VPC are saying.

Of course, "assault weapons" didn't just happen, they were designed/developed for particular purposes, based on the experience of military organizations. Assault Weapons, at least the military type, provided under the ageis of THE GOVERNMENT, do incorporate one specific feature, selective fire capability, something that is conspiciously absent in the "civilian assault weapon", that the VPC and it's fellow travellers have so much to say regarding.

[jimpeel]

The links were clear -- perhaps I wasn't.

The first one addresses:Bullet Hoses Documents History of Assault Weapons, Shows That Widely Available Civilian Assault Weapons Incorporate Specific Military Design Features for "Laying Down a High Volume of Fire Over a Wide Killing Zone"
Washington, DC - The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released a new study, Bullet Hoses: Semiautomatic Assault Weapons -- What Are They?

The second and third are to the same page and address:Semiautomatic Assault Weapons—What Are They? What's So Bad About Them?

They know the difference between semi and full auto. They simply want you to think that there is no difference.

Since the police are using MP-5's etc for routine patrols I assumed that this guy would also have a full-auto firearm. See http://www.hkpro.com/hkaction8.htm for the following pictures.

http://www.hkpro.com/action8mcyclemp5.jpg
CAPTION: Here's something that you don't see every day, especially on a motorcycle, and especially in California. Torrance, California motor officer with MP5SF riding "subgun." Paul Hern photo.

http://www.hkpro.com/action8mcyclemp5s.jpg
CAPTION: Another shot of the motor officers from Torrance, California. Though not plainly visible on this photo, far right officer has MP5A5 with burst trigger group, while officer in the middle has MP5SF. I would venture a guess that some officers are SWAT, and have select-fire. Paul Hern photo.

[Lord Grey Boots]

f she spit on the guy, she deserved to have her ??? beat. Uncalled for. Militarization of police is getting to be a problem, but it's idiots like her that make it worse.

As I stated, the source article is the Seattle Weekly. Its an extremely slanted view of one side of the incident.

[brownie0486]

sw442642:
lendringser:
HBK:
.45Ruger:

There is no militarism of the police in America.
See my post on "why do we allow militarism" where the word militarism [ in particular paramilitary ]is defined and then explained why the police can not be defined as such.

The swat types came first, the military took their urban techniques from the domestic training developed by swat units.

To think the cops have become a paramilitary unit or mindset would have to presume they got their tactics and training from the mil types, but it reality, it's the other way around.

Brownie

[Sir Galahad]

Tamara, if the "you" fits, wear it. If not, don't. The "you" refers to the same people I see showing up at EVERY co-bash thread with the same remarks. My "editorial" stands. You asked, I answered. Don't see the need to interpret.

[alan]

jimpeel:

You are right, the links are clear, possibly I should have read through them before posting.

What it seemingly boils down to is the following. If it goes BANG, the VPC and similar organizations will find something about it to complain over. The rate of fire is to high, therefore inaccurate. Next will come a ban on those deadly accurate, slow firing bolt action rifles. Then some are to large, while others are to small. Then comes the fact that gun fire is to loud, or if "silenced", isn't loud enough, and when almost all is said and done, they are either to powerful, or not sufficiently powerful. There is simply no pleasing those people.

Actually I got a good laugh at their reference to "minor differences" between the M-16 service arm, and the AR-15 commercial semi-automatic rifle, where the former has selective fire capability, and therefore is a machinegun, while the latter doesn't and therefore isn't.

As to the lies of the gun industry, and the cosmetic changes VPC criticizes, essentially the problem that VPC has is that the gun makers didn't vanish during the night. Next day, when the sun rose, they the gun makers, were still there. Of course, even more interesting is their reference to "cosmetic changes". Given that VPC seems to admit that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban dealt with cosmeic features, they being defined as non-functional considerations, exactly what did they expect gun makers who wished to continue to serve a particular market to do, other than to make such cosmetic changes as would satisfy the requirements of the law?

Actually, I do believe that you are correct, respecting your observation to the effect that VPC operates on the basis that people do not know the difference between full automatic and semi-automatric fire capability.

The term "cyclic rate of fire", used to get a large play from the anti-gunners, though it isn't much heard these days. Of course, this might be due to the fact that many people began to recognize what the term cyclic rate ment, a theoretical rate of fire, assuming an unnbroken supply of ammunition. Given that even a belt fed machine gun exhausts the cartridges in it's ammunition belt, which has to be replaced, cyclic rate of fire, and actually attainable rates of fire are two different animals. This becomes especially obvious, perhaps even interesting, when one realizes that magazines have to be changed. Of course, one might then consider the concept known as "aimed fire", which really slows things down, but that is another thing altogether.

In-so-far as you might be aware, has anyone ever determined the "cyclic rate of fire" attainable from the bolt action rifle, assuming that one could ignore operator fatigue, and that arrangements for a continuous supply of ammunition were made?

[brownie0486]

Alan:
Your last question should be a survey.

I remember an Amtrak employee at counter-sniper training who could beat a semi auto PSG-1 in shots fired accurately on plates at 100 meters/scoped of course.

The number would be high I think.

Brownie

[alan]

brownie0486:

O.K. with me, consider it a "survey", one that anyone can respond to.

[jimpeel]

The Warren Commission determined that Lee Harvey Oswald could acuarately fire three rounds in 5.6 seconds. Of course "zero" was set by the first round fired so, in reality, he fired two accurate shots in that time frame. This extrapolates to a little over 21 (21.428571428571428571428571428571 approximately ;) ) rounds per minute.

See http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id180.htm for a dissertation on this cyclic rate of fire.

[alan]

jimpeel:

Wonder if the fact that Oswald was firing Arlen Specters "magic bullets" had anything to do with the seemingly high attained rate of fire, particularly with a p.o.s. rifle like he used?

Thank you for the link. I'll get to reading it later.