P.O.2010 said:
As an active duty MP for some years now, and a part time peace officer in the civilian world before that, I can speak with some authority on the subject of policing versus soldiering. I am also intimately acquainted with the M-16, M-4, Remington 870, Mossberg 500 and many other similar weapons having carried them, and many others, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thanks for your service.
P.O.2010 said:
The problem here is one of escalation. Arguments are put forward on a regular basis that patrol officers and detectives need battle rifles to perform their duties. [Emphasis added]
I have yet to hear the argument made that these weapons are "needed." I HAVE heard the argument that they'd be safer if they had those tools. In this case we're not talking about FA weapons, just semi–autos.
P.O.2010 said:
If they don't have them, some say, a tragedy will result.
Here's the truth, a tragedy will result even if we have them. But it will be over sooner and with less loss of life and less injury to the police and to the public.
P.O.2010 said:
Do these things happen? Yes they do. There are two important things to remember, however. First, these events are exceedingly rare, winning the lottery jackpot rare.
Notice that many folks still play the lottery and somebody always wins.
P.O.2010 said:
Second, being a police officer is about keeping the peace and protecting individual rights not charging into battle on your faithful steed.
LOL. You're confusing a discussion of tactics with one of equipment. They are related but are not the same. And BTW sometimes it IS necessary to "charge into battle." Officers used to be trained to wait for the SWAT team on AS (active shooter) incidents. Now they're being taught to form an impromptu entry team with as few as 2-3 officers. It would facilitate a good ending if they were armed with rifles.
P.O.2010 said:
Are there valid reasons to carry an M-16 on patrol? Sure. There are also valid arguments that could be made in favor of patroling large urban areas using up-armored HMMWVs and MRAPs.
Now you're moving to an illogical conclusion. But at times those vehicle ARE useful. What happens to regular patrol vehicles when a mob celebrating the latest sport team loss (or even victory – can someone explain that to me) turns ugly. We've all seen this on TV and some may have lived it. They start setting fires, breaking windows and looting. When they bump into a police unit the occupants flee because they're so badly outnumbered and vulnerable and it gets set afire, sometimes it gets overturned.
What's wrong with having those vehicles (the cheaper ones like an up armored Humvee or an APC standing by, in the police garage for long term storage and then a few blocks away from such epicenters so they can be used for them. Perhaps you'd like regular uniformed Barney Fife's to march headlong into that crowd? No helmets. No less–lethal. No shin guards. No body barricades. No nothing. Just a bullet in their pocket!
P.O.2010 said:
After all, what happens if there is a terrorist attack using car bombs? What if sector adam is ambushed by gang members using rifles chambered for 7.62 x 51? What happens if the SWAT/ESU/SRT/ERU armored personnel carrier can't get to the scene of an active shooter in time to shield the wounded? Wouldn't it be better if every Officer drove one just so we'd be that much safer?
Another illogical conclusion.
P.O.2010 said:
I've heard this type of argument made by small, rural PDs that want an absurd amount of military hardware.
Yeah because nothing could ever happen in a "small, rural PD" right? Norco was a
nice sleepy little town about 30 years ago until five robbers decided to hit the Security Pacific Bank. When the gang exited the bank they were greeted by a lone police officer. He spent the next few minutes hiding under his dashboard as dozens of rounds hit around him. Think he might have been better served if he'd had a semi–auto M-16 that allowed him to stand off 75 yards and pick the suspects off as they fired at him? This incident continued for quite some time. Because they were clearly outgunned the police lost more officers and even had a helicopter shot down!
J's Restaurant in the
quiet little town of Newhall in 1970 was the scene of one of the worst massacres of LEO's up until that time. Four CHP officers were killed in a matter of minutes. Some of it we know realize was due to poor tactics, but some if it was the weapons they carried and how they'd been trained. They were stopping a vehicle with two suspects, one if whom was known to be armed with a handgun. The CHP had revolvers and SG's. Think they might have been better served if they'd had semi–auto M–16's and stood off 75 yards while ordering the suspects out of the vehicle?
Austin, TX was a
medium size college town in 1966 (population about 250,000) when Charles Whitman decided to climb a tower on the University campus and start shooting people. He managed to kill 14 and would 32 before he was stopped. Notably one of the officers who finally stopped Whitman was armed
with a borrowed rifle. I wonder how many fewer killed there'd be if the officers had semi–auto M–16's on hand when the shooting started?
To tell the truth P.O.2010 I'm quite disappointed in this "it won't happen here because we're a 'small rural' area" attitude. ALL of the above cited instances were safe "small rural areas" until … well they weren't so safe anymore. But I know that one day you'll make a fine police administrator. (With apologies to police admins who have not forgotten what LE is really about).
P.O.2010 said:
I've also heard the argument made by members of large urban departments that I've spoken to. I haven't seen any civilian PDs field belt- fed weapons yet but I get the impression that will be happening within the next five years.
I was around during both the Watts riots of 1965 and the LA riots of 1992 after the Rodney King verdict. BOTH TIMES we were very gratified to see the National Guard roll into town with their vehicle mounted belt-fed weapons. Somehow the citizens were put at ease, not made fearful by them. I see no reason why they too can't reside quietly in an armory in anticipation of such incidents occurring again.
P.O.2010 said:
If you as a civilian Police Officer have to go on routine patrol equipped as I was equipped in Baghdad then something is very wrong.
I agree and this is just more nonsense and rhetoric. If you think this is happening anywhere, please show us where.
P.O.2010 said:
SWAT should not be out on patrol wearing a ballistic helmet and outer tactical vest with a protective mask on one leg and a drop holster on the other cradling an M-4, MP5 or Mini-14 in arms with a balaclava concealing one's features. I've seen this nonsense in NYC and I've seen it in Las Vegas.
I doubt that you've seen this "out on patrol." I'd bet that you've seen special units doing special enforcement in areas inhabited by special crooks.
P.O.2010 said:
The criminals don't care, they just go somewhere else or come back later. The only thing that happens is that you intimidate ordinary, law abiding people.
"Going somewhere else" is the nature of the beast . If you don't know this yet your education as a police officer has been sorely lacking. And you're also wrong about ONLY the "ordinary, law abiding people" being "intimidated." If the crooks weren't intimidated, they wouldn't "go somewhere else? I've been part of such gang sweeps. While the "ordinary, law abiding people" are afraid at first, when they find out what's happening, they are grateful, even cheering the police as we escorted handcuffed crooks out of their homes. The neighbors invited us back in for cake and ice cream, and invited us to come back "ANYTIME!" The reality is quite different from the picture you paint.
P.O.2010 said:
The combat mentality has to stop and it has to stop now. There is no war on crime. There is no war on crime. Let me repeat it a third time. There is no war on crime.
Remember what I said just a while back about your education being lacking. Here's another example. But perhaps you mean something different when you say this. Instead of reciting homilies, why don't you explain further?
P.O.2010 said:
I am constantly amazed by how terrified so many Police Officers are. Really, the fear is extraordinary, bordering on the unbelievable. I can't count the number of times I've had civilian Police Officers tell me how "it's a battlefield out here" or "these people are animals" or some other equally paranoid, and dangerous, crap.
I wonder where you work that this is the way that officers talk? I've done (still do) police related seminars around the US and in three foreign countries. I've NEVER heard anyone express this.
BTW some fear is normal. People shooting at you, trying to stab you, should make one afraid. If not, there's something wrong with that person. BTW some areas ARE a "battlefield." There are many areas round here where police do not go unless there are at least four of them. BTW, some people ARE animals.
P.O.2010 said:
You've got to be able to turn the condition red on and off and I'm really shocked by just how many Police Officers I meet who cannot, or will not do that.
I've never met any who stayed in LE who could not turn this off and on. Short–timers, those who stay less than 3–5 years often have these sorts of issues but they don't stick around for long.
P.O.2010 said:
Frankly, I've also met far too many Police Officers who were wanna-be Special Forces, guys who wanted to run around in a ninja costume with a long rifle and play commando but didn't want to sign on the dotted line and go through the hell that is SFAS and the Q-Course. Instead they joined the local PD where they wouldn't have to deploy but could tool around the city in a Lenco Bearcat wearing $200 Oakleys mean mugging people.
I have no doubt that some of these fools exist. But to portray the majority of LE ( I know that you're not doing this but some here will multiply your comment exponentially) as of this ilk, is a dis–service to the rest.
P.O.2010 said:
This isn't intended to insult hard working civilian Police Officers or Sheriff's Deputies. I've had armed people do their best to murder me on the road, I've chased people through back yards in near total darkness and been forced to go into burglarized buildings without a second unit. I have people, young and old, military and civilian, black and white, give me the finger on patrol just because I'm driving in a police vehicle. Yet, I always show the maximum respect for the public when I am on the road and I make a real effort to find out how they feel and how I am perceived, both as a Soldier and as an MP. Trust me, the perception of law enforcement isn't doing so well.
I've always been more concerned with the reality than the perception. You seem to be overly concerned with image.
P.O.2010 said:
Bottom line: Boston PD doesn't need military firearms, semi-automatic or otherwise, because it isn't the military.
But civilian version, the AR–15, is OK? If you think so please tell us the difference between this rifle and the semi–auto M–16.
P.O.2010 said:
Why is need relevant here? Because as government employees we do have to show need on the basis of being subordinate to those who employ us. That AR-15 with 200 magazines (or whatever) that some poster chooses to show here is something he bought with his own money. Those M-16s are bought with taxpayer money. Yes, need must be shown.
Going by your thinking, if this was the case, no officer would ever need to carry more than the one magazine in his handgun. How often does
he need more than that? No officer ever
need carry a back–up gun. How often does
he need that? We should all be driving Prius'. How often do we
need to go faster than 55 mph? This is simply stupid thinking. It's impossible to predict when
a need for some police tool will arise. And so most of us carry more than one magazine, some of us carry back–up guns and we all (virtually all that is) drive cars that go faster than 55.
P.O.2010 said:
How many times were M-16s really needed in Boston last year? The year before? Show me the statistics in black and white. Compile the sworn testimony.
You sound more and more like an administrator and less and less like a street cop. Simply put there are no such statistics. But then there were also none before Norco, Newhall or the Austin Tower either.
P.O.2010 said:
Your average tax paying citizen is sick and tired of seeing the Police as an occupying Army that can't be bothered to help and which puts up that icy wall of reserve (and wears sunglasses indoors) to keep people away.
Please show us "the statistics in black and white" to support this statement. "Compile the sworn testimony" as you have said.
P.O.2010 said:
If you can't hear the discontent it's because you aren't listening.
If anyone is listening to you, they're listening to the wrong source. Oddly enough my experience after nearly 30 years of LE for two police departments is quite the opposite of yours. Perhaps you simply didn't hang around long enough or have enough experience as a "part time peace officer in the civilian world."