>>Its very obvious you have had your path cross with leo's and now have an ax to grind. Just obey the law and you will be fine.
On the contrary. I haven't. I just don't ever want to find myself in a situation where myself or someone I care about is at risk when someone who has NOT had sufficient training has a weapon of that sort when on a response in a first-world nation's cities and suburbs. I'd always thought "the police" were the men and women in blue and keepers of the peace, not shouting quasi-soldiers who dressed up in tactical-this-and-that and urban camo to respond to things like an unarmed bookie's questioning. As I pointed in that example:
"Culosi had emerged from his home to meet an undercover officer when a police tactical unit swarmed around him." - Do you REALLY think that was the appropriate force level for that situation? Especially since someone was so badly trained that they did a ND and killed the guy? If _I_ did a "screw up" like that, it'd be called "murder" or "manslaughter". He obeyed the law. He came out. He's dead.
Yes, I'm sure you train YOUR officers quite well, but there are a lot of PDs who do NOT..just look at how many "glock legs" there have been, all NDs, and how many other NDs. Look at the optometrist who got killed, there.
"Cops screw up" isn't good enough for me. If you can guarantee that ALL officers who are equipped with ARs and the like have an expert level of training, fine. But otherwise, keepers of the peace have done just fine for the better part of the century with pistols and a cruiser shotgun...and to me, a pistol-caliber carbine would be ideal for someone who might be just fine with a pistol, but unexpectedly needs a little longer range.
And it just seems like "obey the law and you'll be fine" tends to go out the window when you've got a bunch of amped-up people with rifles and tac gear responding to a situtation where that level of force isn't warranted, especially when those muzzles are pointed at people in the context of giving orders, rather than at clear threats. It would seem to me, just based on common sense and human psychology, that that'd scare noncombatants into a subconcious fight-or-flight response and escalate the situation, and is more likely than not to result in the violation of some law-abiding citizen's rights by someone with more adrenaline than training.
A NY cop got shot with no questions asked, first, for covering a suspect with his weapon as they arrived. What would happen if I was covering a criminal who had tried to kill someone, but they'd dropped their weapon and laid down..and though I'd called the police or asked someone to, I didn't see them arrive. I'd always thought that they'd yell to drop the weapon, which of course I would, and appear nonthreatening. But if they shoot first without asking? I was still obeying the law, but someone got jumpy.
"Cops screw up" isn't much consolation.
