40S&W…Have you seen the deals?

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by The Verminator
I did provide two links that proved that the vast preponderance of this militarization happened well AFTER the 1980s and mostly after 9/11--involving billions instead of a few million dollars.

$1,000,000,000 in 2001, adjusted for inflation, would be equivalent to $619,209,039.55 in 1986 and $75,706,214.69 in 1934 based on the calculations run with this inflation calculator.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

The fact that the dollar amount spent on police has gone up over the years doesn't really tell us anything because the dollar amount spent on everything has gone up due to inflation. Also, an increase in police spending is not necessarily a direct indicator that they're becoming "more militarized" as police have a lot of equipment that's not arms or armor that simply didn't exist in the days of yore. Body-worn radios, body cameras, tourniquets, narcan, patrol-car computers, radar, and AED's are just a few examples of equipment that police have begun carrying in more recent years which do not make them more "militarized" but all still cost money, some of them quite a lot of money. Also, while still technically weapons, less-lethal weapons like pepper spray and tasers make the police, IMHO, less militarized yet they didn't exist in the days of yesteryear and still have to be paid for today. Pointing to the budget of police as direct evidence of "militarization" is grossly oversimplified.

Maybe your grasp of the history of policing is not quite as secure as you think?

Yet your own grasp dismisses the arming up of police, including he FBI, in the 1930's as "ancient history" and completely ignores the long history of the FBI buying automatic weapons from the 1940's through the 70's and the formation of SWAT teams beginning in the 1960's. You do realize that Agents McNeil and Grogan both began their careers with the FBI and served for several years under the directorship of J. Edgar Hoover himself until his death in 1972, right? Considering that Hoover was the director of the FBI from its formation in 1935 and had been director of it's predecessor organization, the Bureau of Investigation, since 1924, he was intimately involved with equipping the FBI's agents to deal with gangsters and motorized bandits. I very highly doubt that J. Edgar Hoover would have considered Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd, or the Barrow Gang to be "ancient history."

 

[The Verminator]

... you said that the report was flawed and are, in fact, still arguing about it. Just trying to figure out what point you are trying to make or if you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Well, I'll try to help you with a review.

What I clearly said (post #276) was:

Your linked report might be better described as official but flawed.

When it was written up they hadn't even interviewed all the survivors of the fight and a lot came out later.

Example: It does not include the fact that after Mireles empties his shotgun Platt came out of the FBI unit and fired three times at him at close range with a .357 and missed and then ran back to the FBI unit to again try to get it started (and that it would not start).

That's one of the things that "came out later."

It's not "arguing" it's just stating an example.

The FBI did include it in a training video that "came out later."

As I said, when that first official report was written they hadn't even been able to interview all the agents involved in the fight.

How could anyone expect that it would not be flawed.

Now........listen.........I told you I was done discussing this with you because of your utterly confused and snarky questions like the one above.

Edit: Just in case you are not aware........this was included in your last response to a statement I made:

Come on, no one is that stupid.

That's unacceptable, especially from "Staff."

So don't expect any more help from me.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by The Verminator
uote:
Your linked report might be better described as official but flawed.

When it was written up they hadn't even interviewed all the survivors of the fight and a lot came out later.

Example: It does not include the fact that after Mireles empties his shotgun Platt came out of the FBI unit and fired three times at him at close range with a .357 and missed and then ran back to the FBI unit to again try to get it started (and that it would not start).
That's one of the things that "came out later."

It's not "arguing" it's just stating an example.

The FBI did include it in a training video that "came out later."

As I said, when that first official report was written they hadn't even been able to interview all the agents involved in the fight.

How could anyone expect that it would not be flawed.

The "fact" that Platt left the FBI unit, fired at Mireles, and then returned to the FBI unit is not undisputed. That "fact" was based on the statements of a bystander, Sidney Martin, and were contradicted by Heckman, Risner, Orrantia, and Mireles himself as you can see here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070126055303/http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

Platt’s specific actions at this stage of the gunfight have been subject to controversy. Civilian witness Sidney Martin described Platt as leaving Grogan/Dove’s car and walking more than 20 feet to Mireles’ position and firing three shots from a revolver at almost point blank range at Mireles and then returning to Grogan/Dove’s car. Mireles does not recall this happening. McNeill recalls seeing what appeared to be bullets striking the pavement. Heckman does not remember Platt being outside the car, but he does recall Platt pointing a gun out the driver’s window at him and their eyes meeting. Risner and Orrantia, who were both across the street, state that they never saw Platt approach Mireles and fire at him.

The fact that the FBI's official report omitted an event that may have never actually happened hardly makes it flawed. The report was concerned with stating and examining the facts of what happened and as the factuality of the events you reference cannot be verified, there was no reason to include it in the report. Do you happen to have a link to this FBI Training Video that "came out later" so that we can see the context of how this event was supposedly portrayed in said video? Regardless, whether Platt exited Grogan and Dove's car or not, how does that particular detail have anything to do with how prepared or unprepared the agents in the taskforce were to deal with heavily armed and determined attackers? Whether or not Platt left the FBI vehicle is, for the purpose of this discussion, completely irrelevant.

Edit: Just in case you are not aware........this was included in your last response to a statement I made:

Quote:
Come on, no one is that stupid.
That's unacceptable, especially from "Staff."

So don't expect any more help from me.

If you're going to accuse people of "unacceptable" behavior, you should at least do them the courtesy of quoting the entirety of their statements. What John actually said was this:

Originally posted by JohnKSa
Quote:
I didn't see the official report listing mistakes the agents made, especially blaming them for deaths.

Come on, no one is that stupid. That is not only a strawman, it is a very bad one. The whole point of this part of the discussion is that the FBI went out of their way to avoid pointing out errors made by the agents. The errors made are there for anyone with eyes to see them, and many have been pointed out in this thread, but there isn't an official list of errors in the report--that's exactly the point--the FBI chose to focus on the performance of one bullet instead.

John wasn't calling you stupid, he was saying that you know very well why the official report didn't specifically list the agent's mistakes and are intentionally setting up a strawman argument and, I'd have to agree, a very bad one at that. Nobody thinks or has said that you're stupid, intellectually dishonest perhaps, but not stupid.

 

[dogtown tom]

Y'all being trolled.

 

[Pumpkin]

So, if you would like a nice deal on a 40S&W pistol the time is good for buying one.
Good ammo is also relatively affordable.

 

[tangolima]

So, if you would like a nice deal on a 40S&W pistol the time is good for buying one.
Good ammo is also relatively affordable.

That was the conversation. Gradually it turned into head clubbing tournament. We just run out of things to do.

Get conversion barrels too. I got 3 for my stupid Glock 23; 9mm, .357 sig, 22TCM.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[JohnKSa]

That's one of the things that "came out later."

It's not "arguing" it's just stating an example.

The FBI did include it in a training video that "came out later."

As I said, when that first official report was written they hadn't even been able to interview all the agents involved in the fight.

How could anyone expect that it would not be flawed.

Now........listen.........I told you I was done discussing this with you because of your utterly confused and snarky questions like the one above.

Edit: Just in case you are not aware........this was included in your last response to a statement I made:

Thanks for the review. Now that you have done the review, you will probably note, as I did on the first go-round, that absolutely none of that had anything to do with whether the agents were wearing vests during the shootout.

Which means it is zero help. Actually, it's worse than that because it wasted your time and everyone else's. You spend the time posting it again, people spent the time reading it again and yet it did nothing to answer the question you were ostensibly answering.

That's unacceptable, especially from "Staff."

What that is saying is that you are NOT that stupid, i.e. although you are pretending to misunderstand, that's not what's happening--what's happening is that you are being intentionally obtuse. And, in fact, that response is another perfect example of you doing the same thing again.

That was the conversation. Gradually it turned into head clubbing tournament. We just run out of things to do.

Discussions wander. It's sort of natural these days, for discussions about the decline of .40S&W in LE (which is what's primarily responsible for all the deals) to get into the reasons that happened.