Return to Mayberry (Service Revolvers)

mcb said:

"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet." -James Mattis

Click to expand...

Jeff White said:

What exactly does that mean? It sounds really good but it’s just chest thumping bravado, the kind of talk you hear from young soldiers. There is a lot more involved than owning a gun, being good on the square range and quoting pithy sayings.

Posting that can lead to terrible consequences for the poster.

Click to expand...

kBob said:

I would be willing to bet there are numerous “civilians” on this board with more training and by better instructors than 80 percent of LEOs at the Non federal level.

Click to expand...

GEM said:

The Mattis quote is something that will come up at your trial. Some training memes like that have been used in some trials to indicate blood lust in the defendant at a self-defense case, IIRC. The prosecution found such in the presentations of the defendant's gun classes.

Click to expand...

GEM said:

Again a touch of drift but here is an article by an ex-gun industry executive denouncing marketing practices in the industry: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/firearms-industry-marketing-mass-shooter/670621/

Click to expand...

Old Dog said:

I'd take that bet. I see comments such as this on the internet often.

What comments such as this don't recognize is that training occurs on the job, every shift, every day -- training as a law enforcement officer for using a firearm requires training in how to learn to avoid having to use a firearm, to be able to communicate with everyone you encounter, to be able to deescalate potentially volatile situations using verbal skills, to be able to use physical force without having to go up to lethal force.

Law enforcement "training" never stops. It's not solely the two weeks of initial firearms training one gets in a twenty-week academy, or the annual in-service review of use of deadly force and weapons re-qualifying. Cops learn more by being out on the street every day dealing with crap that most citizens not only will never have to deal with, but can't possibly even imagine.

So we've got a few members here who've gone through every Gunsite pistol course with its "world-renowned" instructor cadre or laughed at Mas' humor during the old LFI days or in MAG-40; I know at least a couple who've gone through Givens' great instructor courses. But carrying a handgun every day and going through some commercial training courses (even with some of the truly great instructors we've got out there now), putting a few hundred rounds downrange every month at your gun club or indoor range, even shooting IDPA every month -- does not teach you the other skills you need to be successful as a law enforcement officer.

I started in '79 with a S&W Model 19 revolver, wearing heavy brown pants with a black stripe down the leg, black leather oxford shoes with a thick rubber sole, tan shirt with black epaulets and pocket flaps, and a hat that looked like this:
View attachment 1092381

The pants and shirts didn't "breath," got sweat-soaked quickly in the summer, didn't stretch, the fabric quickly wore out and got shiny from having to be starched and pressed weekly, couldn't use the pockets. No one like these heavy stupid hats.

So by the time I retired from my last job, I was wearing breathable BDU-style pants, tons of practical pockets, with stretch waistband, stretch fabric and could put foam kneepads in if needed, comfortable Under-Armor 8" boots that were lightweight, breathable and I could run in, a lightweight cotton blend shirt to wear under body armor and a ball cap was optional. Yes, the duty belt sucked -- TASER, ASP baton, Mk4 OC pouch, flashlight pouch, glove pouch, key clip, mag pouch, cuff pouch, heavy Motorola radio, rigid holster (compared to a Sam Browne rig back in the day with a double speedloader holder, cuff pouch, MAGLITE ring, straight baton ring and a holster).

You want a "Return to Mayberry?" Don't want your street cops to be comfortable? Or protected with body armor? Or carrying "intimidating-looking" pistols: Sheesh.

Give some credit to the American people. Surely a few of 'em out there watch/read the news and know what their cops are facing.

Now, does a rural sheriff's office need an MRAP? That's a whole 'nother thread.

Click to expand...

Seedy Character said:

So, you approach a group of millennial, with their pants hanging off their azz, cap sideways, boom box thumping, differently than a group of 50+ year olds in business suits?

Click to expand...

kBob said:

I believe a Barney Fife gun looks less threatening to the vast majority of common folks

Click to expand...

JohnKSa said:

From what I've seen in LE shootings--and shootings in general, people seem to have no idea how many rounds they have left in the magazine once they start shooting.

Click to expand...

sgt127 said:

https://www.police1.com/officer-sho...5-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job-clGBbLYpnqqHxwMq/

.

Click to expand...

UncleEd said:

What I found interesting about this report were two things.
The officer said he just didn't think to engage the shooter
by ramming him with his patrol car but emptied his
Glock at him through his windshield. OK, I can
understand he might have "panicked." I would have.

Next the officer says he exits his patrol car, going
into a run after the shooter while reloading his Glock.
He takes cover on the opposite side of the shooter's
car. Why he chose to put himself at car-distance
range I cannot figure. The story says the officer
was a tactical training officer.

Then finally the officer backs off into more distant
cover and takes carefully aimed shots.

With four rounds left in his primary Glock and
more in his Glock 26 backup, the story goes
on to say the officer became a believer in
carrying more ammo on his person than
he did that day.

My take away is that the officer had decided
after that shootout one never has too much
ammo in the possibility another "too tough
to die" criminal is encountered.

But what's chilling is how much ammo was
expended in a neighborhood residential
side street.

Click to expand...

westernrover said:

Criminal Justice Administration 101 informs us there are different policing styles appropriate for different communities. One style is the "watchman style." It's characterized by a distinction between the two mandates of policing: maintaining order and enforcing the law. There are some similarities to this style in Mayberry. Andy has the greater authority and he prioritizes maintaining order over enforcing the (letter of the) law. Barney's lower rank corresponds to his priority of law enforcement. In this style of policing, the individual officers have wide discretion about how to enforce laws. Because of this, it is vulnerable to exploitation and abuse in diverse communities. In smaller, more homogenous communities, it can be effective at achieving the primary goal of maintaining order even if some laws are not fully or consistently enforced. In Mayberry, however, Andy goes beyond simply ensuring the maintenance of order and serves his county in ways rarely expected today.

The opposite style is referred to as "legalistic style." It's the "by the book" style that large urban forces with a populous contingent of inexperienced officers are likely to prefer. It focuses on protocol development and training officers to follow those protocols uniformly. Enforcing the law takes priority over order maintenance. Some of the large cities where this style is employed don't have an expectation of maintaining order -- the expectation is more like chaos managed through enforcing as much law as possible. Officers have little discretion about how they enforce the law. There is a high level of surveillance and accountability for officer actions. This style promises to enforce laws more consistently and to reduce discrimination and prejudicial enforcement. It is not well received in communities where the population would prefer Andy Griffith.

The third style is the "service style." In this style, the emphasis is on serving the community over strict enforcement of the law. This is probably the most like Andy Griffith's style. It is the style that many low-crime, suburban departments have aspired to, but achieved with varied results. An example of this style would be an officer that finds kids out after curfew and instead of ignoring the non-threat to peace and order (watchman style) or arresting the kids and putting the case through the courts (legalistic style), the officer drives them home to their parents (service style). Needless to say, for high-crime cities with a high population-to-officer ratio, this style just isn't practical.

Besides the three departmental styles I've just described, there are also four individual officer styles: Professional, Reciprocator, Enforcer, and Avoider. The professional invokes the law only after thoughtful analysis of each situation. The reciprocator stimulates conformity by using psychological techniques in interaction with individual citizens. The enforcer rigidly applies the law in every circumstance. The avoider shuns frequent confrontations with citizens and intervenes only where threats to the community are obvious and serious.

We can see that compatibility must exist between the departmental style and individual styles within that department as well as their immediate supervisor. Not everyone is going to be the same, but some differences are more compatible than others.

It's not unpopular nowadays for people to lament the legalistic departmental styles and enforcer individual styles, with a preference for highly discretionary watchman or service styles and avoider or reciprocator individual styles. People in a lot of communities don't want to feel "over-policed." On the other hand, when there is perceived bias and inconsistency in enforcement, people complain about the lack of a legalistic departmental style and strictly professional individual styles. Officers themselves have complaints and preferences based probably on their individual style's compatibility with their supervisors and department.

One factor that I hear discussed infrequently is the effect of our culture's assignment of occupational prestige and social class to law enforcement. We know an element of our society hates the police, and another element treasures them as the only thing holding our civilization together. Most people's opinion is probably based on their immediate needs. But prestige and class are not based on individual opinions.

Police officers have lost an immense amount of occupational prestige in our society over the last century. They used to be near the top, and now they rank very low -- practically swapping places with firefighters. The low occupational prestige of law enforcement has the most serious effect on recruitment. People are not attracted to careers in law enforcement unless they're willing to suffer low prestige. Not only is that a deterrent to people that would be good candidates, it also results in a candidate pool of less desirable recruits.

Police work is predominantly assigned to the lower social class. Sometimes it's referred to as the "working class" or the "blue-collar workers." Most police occupations don't require a university education, the badge of the middle-class. More significantly, police work is done at risk of physical harm to the individual doing it. This, more than anything else, distinguishes it as an occupation of the lower class. Middle class people don't have to contend with being in a vehicle collision, a physical altercation with another person, or being shot at in the course of their occupation. Risk of physical harm is the domain of construction workers, soldiers, machinery operators, firefighters, and cops. Firefighters have more occupational prestige than plumbers, as already mentioned, but neither are occupations of the upper class. There are only a few roles in police work that qualify as middle-class -- maybe the elected Sheriff, and some investigative roles particularly in financial crimes. Note that middle-class social status has nothing to do with income. A sergeant around here often makes over $200K in annual compensation (including overtime and benefits). Hookers can make even more. Social class is not how much a person makes, but what they have to do to make it.

One way to patronize the poor schmuck that's got to do a dirty job is to give them some fancy equipment to boost their self esteem. This is where the "militarization" of the police comes in. The infantry soldier and the cop have the equally indignant duty to risk their necks. To ask them to do this with anything perceived as less than the most adequate tools for the job available is gravely insulting. Therefore, we, as a society, make available to them whatever they perceive as the best to equip them for the task. To date, no equipment has been sufficient to mitigate all of the risk involved, but it won't do to withhold anything that could meaningfully improve their chances. Some officers can't credibly claim they're facing the degree of risk that others do and they're not likely to deploy on patrol with the full load-out their department's SWAT team uses. On the other hand, some officers face risk daily that my county's SWAT team sees once or twice a year at most.

The "commando" style isn't just about risk mitigation. It can be about esteem. Whatever style uniform an officer wears, he wants to wear it with the expectation of receiving esteem -- self-esteem, the esteem of his peers, and the esteem of the public. He's not promised all that esteem, but I can't think of why an officer would want to wear a uniform that makes him feel like a clown. The "commando" style or "militarized" style commands esteem in enough segments of our society that we see it even where it might not appear to be "necessary." It is not the only style that officers and the public esteem. Some people have greater admiration for more classic styles. I have a friend who's a retired motor cop of 37 years and finds himself esteemed best in the traditional cropped-mustache motor cop identity. He'd have no desire for the special-forces look if he was still serving. But some of the more traditional looks aren't highly esteemed among newer generations.

Bottom line is we cannot expect people in an occupation with low prestige and low social-class to adopt less competent equipment just to project an aesthetic that's perceived as degrading.

Click to expand...

JohnKSa said:

The point is that once you start scoring good hits on the other guy your chances of winning go way up. There's good reason to believe that the reason the cop was able to slow down and make those controlled shots without getting killed in the process was because the other guy was in bad shape from the 14 holes in him, 6 of which were essentially fatal wounds. In other words, getting a lot of rounds off early and making those shots count and then still having rounds left to be able to finish things was what kept the cop alive.

Click to expand...