Police Armament

[WC145]

The people here that say they don't need us, we don't need the tools, LEOs with AR15's are one step away from martial law and all of the other BS comments and inferences I'm reading are the first ones to piss and moan and whine when they call 911 and we're not there as fast as they think we should be or are unable to protect or serve them to the level that they feel they need or deserve. Until you're willing to put on a badge and do the job sit back, shut up and be glad that there's other men and women that are so you don't have to.

Why should we be undergunned or less well equipped than the bad guys? In this day and age how many of you would be willing to do the job with nothing but a .357 revolver on your hip and a 30-30? Give me a break.

 

[Hoploholic]

WC, since when does superior fire power equate faster response time?

As far as I am concerned, if i need to call you its only to fill out a report and to make a formal complaint of a crime. If that cannot be done by a professional that is mature enough to rise above an elitist attitude, then I can do without the report. Come and pick my body up if the bad guy's aim is better than mine. Thanks.

 

[gunrunner811]

I'm the Assistant Chief of a small rural police dept. and I can't see where the general public should be concerned with how many weapons I carry in my patrol car. My department issues both a shotgun and an ar-15. I think it is part of my responsibility as a public servant to be prepared for any situation that may arise. I work in a small rural dept as well. My back-up is often a half hour or more away. I am also a firearms instructor that arranges as much range time, as my budget will allow for all of the officers at my dept. I don't think an officer should be "looked down on" for simply being prepared. Just my 2 cents.

 

[junyo]

I don't have a problem with police having the correct tool for the job at hand. And as has been stated in rural areas with a dynamic situation and backup far away an officer might need to address a situation right then, as opposed to waiting for additional support/tools to arrive. However I think a lot of the unease that people are expressing comes from the fact that an officer is inherently better armed than most of the populace by the simple fact that an officer can call for an almost infinite amount of support since they have the force of the state on their side. When you now also factor in a direct and increasing individual weapon superiority by police, the increasing acceptance of the concept of a civilian/police distinction, the increased usage of military tactics in law enforcement, and the expansion of what makes one a criminal, this represents a palpable threat to even law abiding citizens. For all the excellent officers there are some that aren't, and having them in the community armed to the teeth on the tax dime isn't a conforting thought. Is it a huge threat? Probably not, depending on the leadership of the department and the mindset of the officers, but it's still a threat to some degree.

 

[Checkman]

WC145

The people here that say they don't need us, we don't need the tools, LEOs with AR15's are one step away from martial law and all of the other BS comments and inferences I'm reading are the first ones to piss and moan and whine when they call 911 and we're not there as fast as they think we should be or are unable to protect or serve them to the level that they feel they need or deserve. Until you're willing to put on a badge and do the job sit back, shut up and be glad that there's other men and women that are so you don't have to.

Why should we be undergunned or less well equipped than the bad guys? In this day and age how many of you would be willing to do the job with nothing but a .357 revolver on your hip and a 30-30? Give me a break.

Well said WC145. Now are we (the nasty old police) required to protect people? Well yes and no. No we are not required to leave a car outside your house because something bad might or might not happen.No we are not required to escort the night clerk when she/he walks from the business to her or his car.

That's unrealistic. My city has approximately 45,000 residents and my department has 52 sworn officers. I'd be willing to bet that there are probably at least one hundred women who are victims of domestic battery and have current No Contact Orders in effect. Then there are all the convicted sex offenders who live throughout the city. I'd bet there are at least a couple dozen of them. Exactly how does one expect us to protect those women and the people living next door to the sex offenders?

Sheer logistics alone dictates that we can't!If you took all the one million cops/detectives/Federal agents in the whole freaking country it couldn't be done. If you took everybody in the military both active and reserve it couldn't be done. There are 300,000,000 people living in this nation.

However if a person believes that there is a prowler around their house or someone is attempting to break into their house we will and do respond. Because a law is being violated. We are obligated to the citizenry. But I believe that many people get confused becasue we are often reacting after the fact. Well once again we do our best to catch the bad guys in the act, but logistics and the Constitution dicate what we can do. We can't just walk into your house because we suspect a crime is occurring. We can't stand guard in the bedroom on the off chance that a rape will occurr. And I can't cover my desiganted patrol area at the same time. One cop (me) many many parked cars,houses,etc. If I'm at the 2600 block of Iowa when somebody breaks into a car at the 1200 block of Colorado - well I'm sorry, but I'm not God.

Yes the individual is responsible for their own protection. Both of their person and their property. However we will intervene if we catch somebody breaking into you house - heck I've caught a couple burglars that way in the past. We will intervene if we witness one person just beating down another. We will respond if you call for help.

Sometimes that means we need to have tools that provide us flexibility. Personally I carry two Glocks, a can of Pepper Spray and a Taser on my person. I also wear body armor. In my car is a Remington 870. Of course I also have flares, a first aid kit, traffic cones, fingerprint kit, spare forms, couple flashlights, a computer, a camera, etc.

It's interesting how there are some who would deny us the proper tools to accomplish the job. I did a little research because of this thread. Found out that there wer many who roasted the cops over the fire after Charles Whitman and that sniper in New Orleans in 73. How come the cops didn't have the right weapons, training etc. Well we might be slow but we do learn. Now ther are those who don't want us to have the many tools we use.

Dammed if you and dammed if you don't. Nature of the beast I guess. Should have been a firefighter.

 

[Checkman]

Incidentally there are 52 officers in my department and 45,000 residents. Now this is Idaho so I'm willing to bet that there are at least a few thousand firearms in my city. Come on if we decided to become "jackbooted thugs" you don't think the good people of this city could handle us? Just that pesky logistics thing again.Sure it's an extreme scenario, but this thread is a little out there as well don't you think?

 

[X-Rap]

I don't think we're all a bunch of cop haters but you as LEO must understand that the pictures of the militarized police from virtually every corner of this country who participated in the disarming of LAWFULL CITIZENS in New Orleans made a strong statement. Now this can be a case of one ah sh%^ wipes out all the ataboys or it could be what we can expect when your boss says get em I don't know but we the people look back at Katrina, Elion Gonzales, Waco, Ruby Ridge and say it could happen to us.

 

[WC145]

The point of my comment was that the public has expectations of law enforcement as a whole, whether its response time or professionalism or ability to record a complaint. We try to live up to that expectation and in order to do so should be as well equipped as possible for whatever we may encounter. For someone to complain that an officer is over-armed is akin to complaining that the fire dept spends too much on hoses and extinguishers.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

I see no problem with officers being armed as well as they possibly can be and feel they should given every tool they need for their job because they never know what they may run into.

However it is statements like this that make people leery of the police.
I'm the Assistant Chief of a small rural police dept. and I can't see where the general public should be concerned with how many weapons I carry in my patrol car.

The general public can be concerned with anything they want to be when they pay the bills, you work for the general public and as a matter of fact you are part of the general public. The police and the military are not the same thing you are a civilian just like everybody else who's not in the military.

 

[Jeff White]

ozarkhillbilly said;

The police and the military are not the same thing you are a civilian just like everybody else who's not in the military.

Sorry my friend, but you aren't allowed to change the meaning of words to fit your particular point of view. I would like to point you toward the nearest dictionary and suggest that you look up the word civilian. Websters defines it as someone not in military, police or fire service. Use of the term civilian is correct in the english language to describe anyone who is not in the military, police or fire service. It's not an insult. It's the proper use of the word.

As for the so called militarization of the police, the police have used military weapons and have been quasi-military organizations since we first started having police departments. Everything from uniforms to firearms have loosely paralled what the military used.

Browning marketed a version of the M1918 BAR to police departments under the commercial name Monitor in the 1920s. The number of Thompson submachine guns, Reisings and other military weapons that are gathering dust in police armories nationwide would shock you. As for tactics, Bonnie and Clyde were killed in an ambush.

Jeff

 

[Hoploholic]

I can see your point WC. What I fear is incrementalism.

First it is AR-15's in the patrol car. Next it's black 511's and Danner boots. Well, since we are armed like a military outfit and look like a military outfit, why not roll like a military outfit. In come the APV's with M60's mounted in turrents. Heck, if we look like military forces, are armed like military forces and roll like military forces we should be able to conduct business like military forces, right? You say that there are no domestic military actions going on? Well, we better create some so all this hardware does not sit idle. Hey, wasn't the legislature talking about criminalizing all private ownership of firearms? I bet they will need help keeping the subjects in check and collecting all the contraband...you never know when you might roll up on an old lady barricaded in her home, trying to protect same with a pistol, that will need to be physically extracted.

Its going on as we speak. It is not comfortable to think about, but that does not make it any less of a threat. Once a machination like this is set in motion, it is a mother of a pain to get it into check again. The Founding Fathers had to traverse an ocean and fight a war away from their homeland to get out from under the yoke they let be placed upon their shoulders in England.

Food for thought people. We don't need to fight over this, but I think its great that we are having this conversation. There are some really hard thought responses coming through that shed light on all sides of the discourse.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

Jeff, you are correct, I guess I am just old school and believed anyone not in the military was a civilian. I do not have a problem with police carrying anything they can as I said on page two of this thread but I do have a problem with people who are paid by tax dollars acting like the general public shouldn't be concerned with the aspects of their jobs.

The vast majority of police are great men and women who should receive our full support and truly have the peoples best interest at heart and should be given any and all tools they need. I don't care if they are given full auto weapons if they feel they need them, I just don't like it when they say "how dare you question what I want you should not be concerned with what I want". Now if the officer wants to call the guy questioning if they need certain types of weapons a idiot well that’s fine, just do not think the idiot does not have the right to question.

Jeff, I hope what I said make sense to you.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I'm the Assistant Chief of a small rural police dept. and I can't see where the general public should be concerned with how many weapons I carry in my patrol car.

I have no problem with LEO's carrying vast assortments of weaponry in their patrol car-so long as I'm not hassled for what I carry in my personal vehicle (nothing illegal or NFA regulated)

 

[JLStorm]

As far as the civilian thing, if police didnt have military groups such as swat and other ERT type sections, all we would have is the national guard and with NG comes martial law, so be damn happy that the cops have found a way around begging for military type help when the crap hits the fan! On another note, a reason I never became a cop and chose to join the private sector is because I like picking and choosing my assignments and my clients, I have no desire to get paid less so I can try and keep to street thugs from killing each other. An officer does not have this choice, he has to try to get in the middle of both these worthless human beings to protect others, give him whatever he needs to do the job. Most of the time the cops are limited to lower caliber handguns than the criminals, in the name of "safety".

If you want to be unhappy about weapons and the police be upset about the lack of training police depts are willing to pay for and the women hired who are too weak or small to control some of these weapons or the criminals in the name of political correctness.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

The only thing I've ever worried about was the mindset of a LEO.

A JBT with a .357 and a .30-30 scares me a whole lot more than a good officer with all the aforementioned weapons, provided he/she is properly trained to use them effectively.

A heck of a whole lot more.

 

[Jeff White]

ozarkhillbilly,
I understand what you're saying. I don't understand the number of people who get upset over the use of the word civilian. It's been accepted language in it's proper form for as long as I can remember and withing the last year or so, it's become an issue with many members. I wish someone could explain this to me. It's not an insult.

Hoploholic said,

Next it's black 511's and Danner boots.

How are 5.11s and Danner boots evil? Police uniforms have always been designed after military uniforms and trends. Years ago the duty uniform in the military was usually a class B uniform which was a semi dress uniform often with a tie. The only time fatigues were worn was when a soldier was doing work that was exceptionally dirty. Police uniforms followed that example. Most police duty uniforms were of a cut and design similar to the military class B uniform.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s most military units changed their duty uniform, even for those working in many office environments to the fatigue and then the battledress uniform. In the late 1990s police departments began recognizing that patrol work wasn't exactly a white collar job and began trending to uniforms of a more practical design, these uniforms are more durable and cost effective. Very important if you buy your own, or get a small clothing allowance or for the taxpayer if the agency issues all the uniforms. Militarization has nothing to do with the trend.

In come the APV's with M60's mounted in turrents.

You'll be happy to know that DOD is giving away M113 APCs. But the funny thing is, we use armored vehicles in situations where a military unit would use suppressive fire. Perhaps you'd rather we put down a high volume of suppressive fire if we needed to rescue a downed officer or a civilian from a place where the bad guys had the area covered with their fire?

My personal opinion is that the police are more in check and eficient then at any time in our history. Read some history of the good old days and see how the police enforced the law back then.

Jeff

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Error = Focus On The Weapons

I talk with the local LEOs.

When I run into one in the local gun store (occasionally also working part time behind the counter) or in other casual settings, I ask them what they're seeing out there. I ask them what's changing in their job and equipment requirements. I ask them what's coming our way from other, larger cities.

I try to get a grasp of the mindset.

So far, I haven't run into anything alarming in these conversations -- except that they are chronically under-equipped.

I believe that one of the comments mentioned that (paraphrasing) by using the budget for personnel instead of equipment, staffing ratios could be significantly improved.

Assuming $50k/annum for Joe Friday, one could equip 50-ish officers with effective, durable, ergonomic, well-supported rifles for that dosh. Yeah, they have to be maintained and repaired and supplied with rifle food but, again, the annual cost is still way less than adding another Joe Friday.

Basically, one can improve the tool set of a modest department for substantially less than it costs to add to the head-count.

That, however, is not the point.

Mindset is the point.

If the constabulary adopts the jack-booted-thug mentality, it won't matter how they're equipped. They would be able to use superior numbers to overwhelm the innocents they mean to abuse.

If the constabulary adopts the "sheepdog" mentality, then you could have rolling units towing a Ma Deuce or howitzer and it wouldn't be a threat to the social order.

I know how _I_ would use an AR15. I trust myself with it.

If I can't trust an LEO with an AR15, the rifle is not the problem. The mindset is the problem.

If you want to worry about what the cops are doing, then the object of that concern should be their training, rules of engagement, and standing orders.

Don't worry about the weapons.

If the man is right, the work will be right.

 

[Mikebnice]

I traditionally bad mouth cops (I grew up in NY/ nypd got me that way)
I think a cop should be able to carry what ever he/she need to do his/her job as long as they use it responsibly and without the power trip. wow did I say that
A gun is just one of the tools of their trade and just like a good trademan they should have the best. anything short of a tank. except NYPD they should get water pistols filled with green koolaid

 

[DRMMR02]

I know how _I_ would use an AR15. I trust myself with it.

If I can't trust an LEO with an AR15, the rifle is not the problem. The mindset is the problem.

If you want to worry about what the cops are doing, then the object of that concern should be their training, rules of engagement, and standing orders.

Don't worry about the weapons.

If the man is right, the work will be right.

That is one of the best points in this thread. If you can't trust the cop with an AR, you probably shouldn't trust him with a Glock, or a squad car, or a badge. But if you can trust him, than it shouldn't matter what tools he has. It's the men that matter, not the tools.

Isn't that exactly what we say about ourselves too? "gun laws only stop criminals" ? You can either be trusted with deadly weapons, or not. It shouldn't matter what kind they are.

 

[Logan5]

The number of Thompson submachine guns, Reisings and other military weapons that are gathering dust in police armories nationwide would shock you.

It's really sad that there's not really a legally practical way to sell them off even though they've appreciated massively. Imagine what being able to put a half dozen transferable Thompsons on gunbroker could do for a budget! What's a decent estimate, like $150,000?
Since that's not going to happen, I have to wonder, what are the reasons that they can't be put back into service? A BAR in the right hands could have put a quick stop to the infamous North Hollywood bank robbery. Certainly there are better designs available on the open market today, but that's dependant on 18 to 24 months of federal homeland security grant money roulette, followed by state and county level allocation battles, and you're just as likely to end up with the funding going for gas masks, an EOC and a CERT team. (not at all bashing, just saying.)
I can't help but think that there was a huge public relations coup missed by state level law enforcement agencies after 9/11. Instead of sending the National Guard to the airports with empty rifles, they could have sent State Police with reissued Thompson SMG's. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think that would send an entirely different message while achieving at least the same, or possibly a better result.
Then again, I'm on THR; I'm a firearms enthusiast... I read a lot into what someone is carrying and why, and it's probably unfounded. I'm actually still angry about the MAP program that gave all those Garands to Haiti over twenty years before I was born. By the same token, I can't begin to pretend that if as an LEO I had the options of AR, 870, Sidearm, or all of the above I'd even think about going with just the sidearm and pepper spray.
Lots of problems can be solved or avoided with a winning smile, a quick wit, and the right demeanor, but then there are the ones that can't, and I'd take all that gear and keep my fingers crossed for more and better besides if I thought I was going to have to stand between even your below average violent felony defendant and someone's family. God bless, and enjoy the AR's, but please, don't tease us about what's slowly oxidizing in the armory.

 

[Jeff White]

Logan5 said;

It's really sad that there's not really a legally practical way to sell them off even though they've appreciated massively. Imagine what being able to put a half dozen transferable Thompsons on gunbroker could do for a budget! What's a decent estimate, like $150,000?

Many departments have sold off their old transferable Title II weapons. My old department sold two transferable M16s for enough money to almost re-equip a 23 man department with S&W 5906s.

Unfotunately many of the weapons in police armories aren't on the NFA list. They can be registered on a Form 10, but then they are only transferrable to an authorized government entity.

The 1986 machine gun ban strikes again.

Jeff

 

[junyo]

I understand what you're saying. I don't understand the number of people who get upset over the use of the word civilian. It's been accepted language in it's proper form for as long as I can remember and withing the last year or so, it's become an issue with many members. I wish someone could explain this to me. It's not an insult.

Jeff, I've seen this point said here before and quoted as fact, and I respectfully disagree. Civilian is from the Latin civilis, from civis or citizen. Growing up around the military, 'civilian' always included all nonmilitary, including civil government employees such as the police. When local cops referred to others as civilians it always got a chuckle. I believe the DOD still makes this distinction. I believe police are civilians under the Geneva Convention. Police work for civil agencies/authorities. And a decent percentage of the dictionary definitions still say non-military.

Fine, in the commonly accepted usage today, "civilians" doesn't include police. But this is mainly because of the police's disdain for the term. Why does there need to be a further distinction (outside of the uniform, car, training, and arrest powers) between "citizen" and "officer"? And what is it supposed to say the rest of us when the police are so adamant that such a distinction be defined, that you not be lumped in with the rest of us?

 

[mp510]

I'm not an LEO, but I'll tell you what my town (pop 70,000) issues out:

Glock 17, 1 mag in the weapon, 2 on the belt. Some officers (esp females and detectives) carry Glock 19's. Many officers also carry X26 TASERS, and some have earlier models.

A neighboring suburb:
.40 S&W Glock (Glock 22 IIRC), SBS in the patrol car, between the seats, vertically mounted.

 

[steveracer]

I am not an LEO,

I am in the Military. I am pretty well prepared day-in and day-out for most circumstances. Most of my fellow squids are. When off-base, were I to get into trouble, and needed help, I can't get on the phone with a SEAL team. Doesn't work that way. There's no dispatcher for SPECWAR. I call 911, there is good reason for me to expect professional, well-trained, individuals to arrive on-scene with the equipment needed to support the needs of the engagement. Think LA bank robbery. Cops with handguns against BGs with full-auto weapons, fully armored. The rural cop with a good bolt gun could take those two with two rounds in the teeth. Want to take his rifle away? Do you have a .308 in your trunk? Are you prepared to run into the building people are fleeing to face the BGs yourself? Are you equipped to do so?
Cops are sworn to protect and to serve, and in my experience are damn good at it. Calling to remove any piece of equipment and/or training that helps them do just that is villainy. Any poster who does should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Pgrl]

Great post, Steveracer.