Militarization of Police--Necessary?
- Thread starter Powderman
- Start date
The "justification" for military weaponization and tactics being purported here (much of which emanates from LE types) tends to be little more than smoke, as is much of the accompanying "dangerous job - necessitates it" rhetoric.
50 law enforcement officers were killed with firearms in 2005 (the most recent year stats are available for from the FBI).
3 officers were killed with rifles; 2 of them with 7.62x39mm and 1 with a .223.
42 were killed with handguns; 10 with .40 S&W, 7 with 9mm and 7 with a .38 Special. Numbers for other calibers decrease from there.
5 were killed with shotguns; 4 with 12 gauges and 1 with a 16 gauge.
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/
The numbers are from the FBI (see link).
Where ARE the numbers that might justify carrying MP5's, AR-15's or M4 automatic rifles?
With some 450,000 officers out there, only THREE were killed with rifles in 2005 (The LOWEST number recorded since before 1996, when the FBI data tapers off), but citizens are supposed to get used to the idea that each patrol officer must be armed with scoped rifles, select fire SMG's and combat styled rifles?
And so are incidents like the Hollywood Bank Shootout, Columbine, Tacoma Mall shooting and whatever other oddball incidents have been raised in this thread.
I will concede that officers "killed" does not equate to officers "being fired upon", but I imagine the statistics of criminals using such weaponry against law enforcement officers is by far the exception and not the rule.
In fact, there were 2,145 TOTAL firearm related assaults on police officers in 2005.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/table68.htm
Since the vast MINORITY of police firearm deaths emanate from rifle use by criminals (especially noteworthy because longarms tend to be more lethal than handguns), it is axiomatic that the minority of these firearm related assaults were committed using long guns.
Let's take a look at officers killed by longarms in 2006 (All are rifle unless shotgun is noted):
Sergeant Henry Prendes – Las Vegas
Sergeant Prendes and several officers responded to a report of a man beating a woman with a stick in the front yard, and breaking windows on vehicles and a house on Feather Duster Court. When Sergeant Prendes and other officers arrived, they located the woman, who was the suspect's girlfriend. Her mother and her brother were with her, but the suspect had gone inside the home.
Sergeant Prendes approached the door of the home when the suspect opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle, striking him. Sergeant Prendes fell on the sidewalk, but officers could not reach him because the suspect continued firing with his weapon. The suspect fired approximately 50 rounds and kept the officers pinned behind cars and walls.
Trooper Joseph A. Longobardo – New York
Trooper Joseph Longobardo succumbed to a gunshot wound inflicted two days earlier when he and another trooper were ambushed while searching for an escaped convict in Chautauqua County
Earlier, the escapee had shot and wounded a New York State trooper on June 10, 2006, during a traffic stop.
The escapee was the focus of a manhunt since the initial shooting and had been receiving assistance from friends and family in an effort to evade arrest. Trooper Longobardo and his fellow trooper were conducting surveillance on the home of a relative of the escapee when the convict shot them both with a high powered rifle. The wounded trooper was shot in the back, with the bullet penetrating his vest and exiting from his abdomen. Trooper Longobardo suffered a severed artery when he was shot in the leg.
Detective Kieran T. Shields – New Jersey (Shotgun)
Detective Kieran Shields was shot and killed while involved in a foot pursuit of a suspect in a residential area.
He had responded to the area to investigate reports of gunfire at approximately 11:30 pm and was shot while attempting to take a suspect into custody.
Constable Dale Geddie - Texas
Constable Dale Geddie was shot and killed while he and a deputy from the Smith County Sheriff's Department responded to a domestic disturbance on Pine Springs Drive.
The male subject opened fire on both officers with a rifle, fatally wounding Constable Geddie and severely wounding the deputy.
The suspect barricaded himself in the home for several hours. He was shot and killed by members of the Tyler Police Department SWAT team as he emerged from the home with the rifle.
Master Police Officer Michael E. Garbarino and Detective Vicky Armel – Virginia (also the incident claimed to be justification for police militarization that began this thread)
Master Police Officer Michael Garbarino succumbed to gunshot wounds sustained 9 days earlier when a suspect opened fire on him and other officers in the parking lot of the Sully District Station on Stonecroft Boulevard in Chantilly. Detective Vicky Armel was shot and killed when a suspect opened fire on her and other officers in the parking lot of the Sully District Station on Stonecroft Boulevard in Chantilly.
The suspect had carjacked a van moments earlier and drove into the police station's back parking lot. The suspect exited the vehicle and opened fire with a hunting rifle on Officer Garbarino , who was sitting in his patrol car, striking him five times.
Police Officer Gary Skerski – Philadelphia (Shotgun)
Officer Gary Skerski was shot and killed while responding to an armed robbery call at a café near the intersection of Arrott and Adams Avenues.
A patron in the café had called 911 to report the robbery. Officer Skerski, who was working an overtime detail for the department, responded to the scene. As he approached the door he was confronted by the suspect, who was exiting the café. The suspect immediately opened fire, striking Officer Skerski in the neck, and then fled on foot.
Trooper Kevin C. Manion - Virginia
Trooper Kevin Manion was accidentally shot and killed while assisting another trooper investigating a single vehicle automobile accident on Route 649 in Clarke County.
The automobile accident occurred when a pickup truck went into a ditch and overturned. During the accident investigation a rifle inside the pickup truck discharged as the pickup was being moved. The round struck Trooper Manion in the chest in an area not protected by his vest.
A grand total of 5 shooting incidents with rifles, one of which was an accidental discharge.
The weapon of choice by these criminals?
A 30.06. Typically, a hunting rifle.
Arguably, in none of the above shootings, would the officers armament have made a difference. In fact situational awareness, might have actually spared these officers lives.
From the thread initiation:
The suspect drove into a police station parking lot. And you want to use this as an example of why patrol officers ought be armed to the teeth? You might have an argument were you to have posited that police stations have accessible wares to counter such an occurrence (not really - see ensuing question). How would patrol officers have mitigated or eliminated this incident? How often do police precincts come under assault in such fashion?
Always the beginning of a liberal argument...
Bad justification.
I'd venture to say that more police issued rifles and SMG's were stolen from officers vehicles and ended up in the hands of criminals than criminals used longarms to kill officers in any given year in the last decade.
It is a fact that more officers are killed on duty in traffic accidents than during assaults with firearms.
Where are the cop commandos screaming for safer patrol vehicles?
50 law enforcement officers were killed with firearms in 2005 (the most recent year stats are available for from the FBI).
3 officers were killed with rifles; 2 of them with 7.62x39mm and 1 with a .223.
42 were killed with handguns; 10 with .40 S&W, 7 with 9mm and 7 with a .38 Special. Numbers for other calibers decrease from there.
5 were killed with shotguns; 4 with 12 gauges and 1 with a 16 gauge.
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/
The numbers are from the FBI (see link).
Where ARE the numbers that might justify carrying MP5's, AR-15's or M4 automatic rifles?
With some 450,000 officers out there, only THREE were killed with rifles in 2005 (The LOWEST number recorded since before 1996, when the FBI data tapers off), but citizens are supposed to get used to the idea that each patrol officer must be armed with scoped rifles, select fire SMG's and combat styled rifles?
And so are incidents like the Hollywood Bank Shootout, Columbine, Tacoma Mall shooting and whatever other oddball incidents have been raised in this thread.
I will concede that officers "killed" does not equate to officers "being fired upon", but I imagine the statistics of criminals using such weaponry against law enforcement officers is by far the exception and not the rule.
In fact, there were 2,145 TOTAL firearm related assaults on police officers in 2005.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/table68.htm
Since the vast MINORITY of police firearm deaths emanate from rifle use by criminals (especially noteworthy because longarms tend to be more lethal than handguns), it is axiomatic that the minority of these firearm related assaults were committed using long guns.
Let's take a look at officers killed by longarms in 2006 (All are rifle unless shotgun is noted):
Sergeant Henry Prendes – Las Vegas
Sergeant Prendes and several officers responded to a report of a man beating a woman with a stick in the front yard, and breaking windows on vehicles and a house on Feather Duster Court. When Sergeant Prendes and other officers arrived, they located the woman, who was the suspect's girlfriend. Her mother and her brother were with her, but the suspect had gone inside the home.
Sergeant Prendes approached the door of the home when the suspect opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle, striking him. Sergeant Prendes fell on the sidewalk, but officers could not reach him because the suspect continued firing with his weapon. The suspect fired approximately 50 rounds and kept the officers pinned behind cars and walls.
Trooper Joseph A. Longobardo – New York
Trooper Joseph Longobardo succumbed to a gunshot wound inflicted two days earlier when he and another trooper were ambushed while searching for an escaped convict in Chautauqua County
Earlier, the escapee had shot and wounded a New York State trooper on June 10, 2006, during a traffic stop.
The escapee was the focus of a manhunt since the initial shooting and had been receiving assistance from friends and family in an effort to evade arrest. Trooper Longobardo and his fellow trooper were conducting surveillance on the home of a relative of the escapee when the convict shot them both with a high powered rifle. The wounded trooper was shot in the back, with the bullet penetrating his vest and exiting from his abdomen. Trooper Longobardo suffered a severed artery when he was shot in the leg.
Detective Kieran T. Shields – New Jersey (Shotgun)
Detective Kieran Shields was shot and killed while involved in a foot pursuit of a suspect in a residential area.
He had responded to the area to investigate reports of gunfire at approximately 11:30 pm and was shot while attempting to take a suspect into custody.
Constable Dale Geddie - Texas
Constable Dale Geddie was shot and killed while he and a deputy from the Smith County Sheriff's Department responded to a domestic disturbance on Pine Springs Drive.
The male subject opened fire on both officers with a rifle, fatally wounding Constable Geddie and severely wounding the deputy.
The suspect barricaded himself in the home for several hours. He was shot and killed by members of the Tyler Police Department SWAT team as he emerged from the home with the rifle.
Master Police Officer Michael E. Garbarino and Detective Vicky Armel – Virginia (also the incident claimed to be justification for police militarization that began this thread)
Master Police Officer Michael Garbarino succumbed to gunshot wounds sustained 9 days earlier when a suspect opened fire on him and other officers in the parking lot of the Sully District Station on Stonecroft Boulevard in Chantilly. Detective Vicky Armel was shot and killed when a suspect opened fire on her and other officers in the parking lot of the Sully District Station on Stonecroft Boulevard in Chantilly.
The suspect had carjacked a van moments earlier and drove into the police station's back parking lot. The suspect exited the vehicle and opened fire with a hunting rifle on Officer Garbarino , who was sitting in his patrol car, striking him five times.
Police Officer Gary Skerski – Philadelphia (Shotgun)
Officer Gary Skerski was shot and killed while responding to an armed robbery call at a café near the intersection of Arrott and Adams Avenues.
A patron in the café had called 911 to report the robbery. Officer Skerski, who was working an overtime detail for the department, responded to the scene. As he approached the door he was confronted by the suspect, who was exiting the café. The suspect immediately opened fire, striking Officer Skerski in the neck, and then fled on foot.
Trooper Kevin C. Manion - Virginia
Trooper Kevin Manion was accidentally shot and killed while assisting another trooper investigating a single vehicle automobile accident on Route 649 in Clarke County.
The automobile accident occurred when a pickup truck went into a ditch and overturned. During the accident investigation a rifle inside the pickup truck discharged as the pickup was being moved. The round struck Trooper Manion in the chest in an area not protected by his vest.
A grand total of 5 shooting incidents with rifles, one of which was an accidental discharge.
The weapon of choice by these criminals?
A 30.06. Typically, a hunting rifle.
Arguably, in none of the above shootings, would the officers armament have made a difference. In fact situational awareness, might have actually spared these officers lives.
From the thread initiation:
The suspect drove into a police station parking lot. And you want to use this as an example of why patrol officers ought be armed to the teeth? You might have an argument were you to have posited that police stations have accessible wares to counter such an occurrence (not really - see ensuing question). How would patrol officers have mitigated or eliminated this incident? How often do police precincts come under assault in such fashion?
Always the beginning of a liberal argument...
Bad justification.
I'd venture to say that more police issued rifles and SMG's were stolen from officers vehicles and ended up in the hands of criminals than criminals used longarms to kill officers in any given year in the last decade.
It is a fact that more officers are killed on duty in traffic accidents than during assaults with firearms.
Where are the cop commandos screaming for safer patrol vehicles?
Last edited:
The majority of cops are shot with their own guns.
I'm not sure I like the direction my country is taking regarding the militarization of police departments, federal training and centralization of training.
I certainly don't like the recent rulings regarding private property and no-warning, no-warrant entries.
I think you'll see more incidents like what happened in New Orleans. Forced gun confiscation and a suspension of civil rights.
Federal troops used in local law enforcement training and participating in enforcement operations.
I think the Patriot act goes a long way to insure this takes place.
I'm not sure I like the direction my country is taking regarding the militarization of police departments, federal training and centralization of training.
I certainly don't like the recent rulings regarding private property and no-warning, no-warrant entries.
I think you'll see more incidents like what happened in New Orleans. Forced gun confiscation and a suspension of civil rights.
Federal troops used in local law enforcement training and participating in enforcement operations.
I think the Patriot act goes a long way to insure this takes place.
Jager, a question for you:
First of all, I have no question about the validity of your statistics. However, there is one statistic that is missing--perhaps because it probably has never (to the best of my knowledge) been compiled:
How many times has the PRESENCE of weaponry, other than the service pistol or revolver, prevented an armed suspect from firing on law enforcement officers, or upon the public?
Moreover, I submit that your position against advanced armaments for police are flawed in this aspect: they are the same arguments that the anti-gun crowd uses to argue against carrying concealed weapons.
Most people who CCW will never draw them in anger. So, why do they carry them? Because if the situation DOES arise, the person wants to be prepared.
I also submit that the term "militarization" is misused.
Police officers are guided by a diverse set of laws and departmental regulations. When it comes to the use of force continuum, the guidelines are similar between all departments in this country concerning the use of deadly force.
And, if this amounts to "smoke", then consider this scenario:
You are going to a home where there is an armed suspect, who has displayed his firearms--whether it is pistol or rifle is immaterial at this point--and has even fired shots from the residence.
Your job is to apprehend this subject. You have two choices on your method of approach to this scenario:
1. Approach the home with your sidearm drawn, with other units or officers backing you up. This will expose you to hostile gunfire, and you have a VERY high probability of being hit.
2. Set up a perimeter, take cover behind your vehicle, or other available hard cover with your patrol rifle, assist in containment and wait for a negotiator.
During this time, regardless of the approach you take, the subject exits the house with the weapon in his hand. According to the scenario you choose, you either:
a. Find yourself at close range with an armed, hostile subject. If the subject opens fire, there is a high probability that you or one of the other officers will be hit, or:
b. Acquire the subject in your sights from behind cover with your patrol rifle. The training you have received gives you the confidence to know that if the subject raises the firearm or fires shots you can engage them with aimed rifle fire from behind cover.
Which one would YOU take?
Here's a video you need to see:
Do a search for Deputy Kyle Dinkheller, and watch the video with audio.
Now, ask this question: What would have happened if the Deputy had, during the time the subject was loading and making ready a M1 Carbine, secured an AR15, instead of depending on pistol fire?
First of all, I have no question about the validity of your statistics. However, there is one statistic that is missing--perhaps because it probably has never (to the best of my knowledge) been compiled:
How many times has the PRESENCE of weaponry, other than the service pistol or revolver, prevented an armed suspect from firing on law enforcement officers, or upon the public?
Moreover, I submit that your position against advanced armaments for police are flawed in this aspect: they are the same arguments that the anti-gun crowd uses to argue against carrying concealed weapons.
Most people who CCW will never draw them in anger. So, why do they carry them? Because if the situation DOES arise, the person wants to be prepared.
I also submit that the term "militarization" is misused.
Police officers are guided by a diverse set of laws and departmental regulations. When it comes to the use of force continuum, the guidelines are similar between all departments in this country concerning the use of deadly force.
And, if this amounts to "smoke", then consider this scenario:
You are going to a home where there is an armed suspect, who has displayed his firearms--whether it is pistol or rifle is immaterial at this point--and has even fired shots from the residence.
Your job is to apprehend this subject. You have two choices on your method of approach to this scenario:
1. Approach the home with your sidearm drawn, with other units or officers backing you up. This will expose you to hostile gunfire, and you have a VERY high probability of being hit.
2. Set up a perimeter, take cover behind your vehicle, or other available hard cover with your patrol rifle, assist in containment and wait for a negotiator.
During this time, regardless of the approach you take, the subject exits the house with the weapon in his hand. According to the scenario you choose, you either:
a. Find yourself at close range with an armed, hostile subject. If the subject opens fire, there is a high probability that you or one of the other officers will be hit, or:
b. Acquire the subject in your sights from behind cover with your patrol rifle. The training you have received gives you the confidence to know that if the subject raises the firearm or fires shots you can engage them with aimed rifle fire from behind cover.
Which one would YOU take?
Here's a video you need to see:
Do a search for Deputy Kyle Dinkheller, and watch the video with audio.
Now, ask this question: What would have happened if the Deputy had, during the time the subject was loading and making ready a M1 Carbine, secured an AR15, instead of depending on pistol fire?
I certainly agree with this statement. To me, the "militarization" of police is less about weapons and more about attitude. If police had every weapon listed in Powderman's first post - and more - in their cruisers, it would not cause their actions to be militarized. However, even if police were limited to carrying ancient service revolvers, they could still over-react to situations, particularly with respect to weapons use.
Powderman, with all due respect, this is a terrible example. The least of Deputy Dinkheller's problems was weaponry. He lacked the will to survive, period. He very well could have had a roof mounted chain gun, and he would still be dead.
The deputy let the man advance on him, then he let him retreat to his vehicle. Once he got there, he allowed the suspect to not only retrieve the carbine from behind the seat, but to load it. The weapon Dinkheller had is completely irrelevant, as he did not use what he had in a timely manner, and when he did use it, he did not do so effectively.
I am 100% in support of us having the tools we need to do the job required of us. However, I do not believe that weaponry can overcome tactics or intelligence. Whether we need fully automatic weapons is irrelevant to me, as I will not carry nor utilize one until the common citizenry is allowed to do so, as a right secured to them by the Constitution of these United States.
The fact remains that the tools we utilize are likely the most insignificant factor in performing our duties effectively. I feel that we must have the mindset to use what we have at our disposal, most importantly, our minds. A reasonable man, who remembers where he came from, and might be tomorrow, armed with a six shot revolver, is much more equipped to do his job than a arrogant thug with a badge, and a trunk mounted arsenal.
By the way, I carry my 1911 and an 870 in the roof rack. I will soon store a Remington 700 in Coopers Scout clothing in the trunk. I cannot think of a single circumstance that this selection of weaponry, combined with my ability to use them, cannot suitably solve the issue.
I am familiar with the video. As lilysdad has already astutely stated, the Deputies problem was tactical, not weapon related. Your examples continue to fall short, predominantly because they are so far and few between to attempt to be used as justification for arming patrol officers as you see fit.
I believe you answered your own question early on:
Betting with no proof. Arguing with no rationale. A trend?
Really? First, not all states permit CCW. Second, CCW is typically limited to handguns.
All states permit the formation of SWAT teams and choice of armaments/training for both them and patrol officers.
Just a slight difference, don’t you think? A difference that begins and ends with hypocrisy.
Statistics support that CCW holders (read - law abiding citizens) kill or injure far fewer people erroneously on an annual basis than police officers. Of course, this has very little to do with armaments, but rather has more to do with a militaristic mindset.
Just one example:
In a combat situation, yes. How many combat situations do patrol officers encounter annually? I believe I have discounted that notion thoroughly. Or did the FBI and other police organizations miss something that only you picked up on?
The BEST firearms for achieving FIRE SUPPRESSION (which is what police should be targeting) are well-aimed firearms in the hands of extensively trained professionals.
Most departments (even you confess to this) train their patrol officers little with regard to these military styled weapons.
It is not my argument that is flawed. It is yours. I am well aware of the anti-gun crowds arguments against CCW. It pretty much states that CCW will have citizens settling scores by the score. Well, we've seen just the opposite nationwide. Casting that net yields you little with me, I assure you.
Now, how is that working out on your side of the fence? Do I need to link to the police officers caught in possession of automatic weapons? Amadou Diallo? How hard do you believe it would be for me to provide extensive proof of police officer abuses that would highlight the fact that, sans extra firepower, police officers do a fine job of killing and injuring citizens with simple sidearms?
How often does this occur where SWAT cannot be deployed? As I have provided statistics that even you refuse to dispute, why must you go for the "end-all" scenario. It reeks of desperation. Really. Reminiscent of "SHTF" scenarios and "Mall Ninja" mentality. Leaving off the "What if..." at the beginning of your interrogative makes it no less a grasp at straws in defense of your position.
Here we are in agreement. But you are pushing for some additional concession from me that even you disagree with. Are you attempting to convince me, or yourself? I'm not the one exhibiting duplicity here.
Disparity. No new select fire weapons are being manufactured for civilian sale. Naturally, this makes ownership cost prohibitive. Police departments are able to purchase these firearms at much reduced cost with the availablity alone a stark contrast when compared with the average citizen making a similar wage. Why should civil government employees enjoy MORE protection than the citizens that employ them?
Because they "ride to the sound of the guns"?
Really? How often would that be?
Again, the disparity is hypocritical. Statist. Elitist. Flawed.
Read BillCA’a comments on page one (That I believe were the best summation on the topic I've ever read) and get back with your counter.
There are two things I will address in your quote.
First of all, we ALL are the common citizenry. None of us are any more viable, special, vital, or important than anyone else. This is the underlying greatness of our Nation--that it is a recognized fact that all men are created equal.
I think that the best illustration that I can give is a quote from an article written by a correspondent, in which he (or she, I can't remember) asks Marine General Krulak what his specific job was. His reply:
"I am a Marine Rifleman; currently serving as Commandant of the Marine Corps." Well said!
Second, I decry the fact that we, collectively, have become a nation of whiners.
In Washington State a few years back, an initiative was fielded that, if passed, would have completely gutted the RKBA in this State. The provisions were indeed draconian.
When this came to a vote, however, it was smashed down in defeat so thoroughly that (to the best of my knowledge) NO anti-gun legislation has even showed up for a vote since then. How did this happen?
THE VOTE.
We, as a Nation, CAN MAKE OR REPEAL ANY LAW WE WANT. This is the power enumerated by the Constitution, and a power that we have full access to.
If we were to make a concerted effort--pass petitions about, collect signatures, and then present them to the Congress of the United States declaring that they be made law immediately, they would have no recourse but to obey. They are OUR servants, not the other way around.
For instance, we can repeal part or all of GCA '68. I personally like the NICS system, and want it to stay. Non-mailing of firearms? Gone. Permits to carry? Gone. Every law-abiding citizen of the United States should be able to carry the arm of their choice, whenever and wherever they want.
Restrictions on the type of firearm? Nope! Gone. Since our Nation was founded on a Citizen Army (the Militia) we should have available the small arms available to our Armed Forces.
(Of course, I also would support mandatory 3 year enlistments for all single males AND females from age 18 to 21, too. But that's just me.)
We can do all of this, AND MORE. But, do we? Sadly, no.
Far too many posters on this and other bulletin boards sit and declare that, "They'll never take MY gun away!" "I'll give it to them bullets first!!"
Yet, a good portion of them won't even get out and VOTE when the time comes.
And also, congratulations on your choice of duty firearms. I still say that you might want an AR, specifically carbine length, for deployment in urban areas where overpenetration might be a concern.
Had an AR, didn't need it, really no use for it, IMO. Anything I need to do can be done with a 12ga or a .308. This is neither here nor there, however.
In your last post, you made a valid point, which has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Yes, in theory, we can repeal any law. However, politics never operate on theory, only narcissistic reality.
As for the NICS check, I feel it it is not only unconstitutional, but that it is but the first rung on ladder toward total weapons registration. It should be abolished, and all funding for this sort of nonsense should go to where it can be used for a meaningful purpose, to the taxpayers.
Secondly, I don't recall a time when I stated we were not the common citizenry. However, in this specific avenue of debate, we are not. We are treated differently than the common taxpayer in regards to weapons use. Granted, in this narrow view, separating the police from the common man is far, far from an elitist attitude, in my opinion, it is an insult. Never should ones profession, noble or otherwise, entitle one to special privileges regarding one's inherent, God-given rights. When one has to ask permission and pay a tax to utilize a right, it is no longer a right, but a granted privilege, which the government is able to rescind at any whim.
In your last post, you made a valid point, which has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Yes, in theory, we can repeal any law. However, politics never operate on theory, only narcissistic reality.
As for the NICS check, I feel it it is not only unconstitutional, but that it is but the first rung on ladder toward total weapons registration. It should be abolished, and all funding for this sort of nonsense should go to where it can be used for a meaningful purpose, to the taxpayers.
Secondly, I don't recall a time when I stated we were not the common citizenry. However, in this specific avenue of debate, we are not. We are treated differently than the common taxpayer in regards to weapons use. Granted, in this narrow view, separating the police from the common man is far, far from an elitist attitude, in my opinion, it is an insult. Never should ones profession, noble or otherwise, entitle one to special privileges regarding one's inherent, God-given rights. When one has to ask permission and pay a tax to utilize a right, it is no longer a right, but a granted privilege, which the government is able to rescind at any whim.
Wow, I sure kicked over a hornet's nest, didn't I?
I addressed your post with courtesy, and attempted a polite discussion. You don't have to agree with me; makes for lively courteous discussion.
You responded with 5 separate slams in the same post. Thanks! I appreciate it!
Especially the roll-eyes smiley at the comment I made about riding to the sound of the guns. Tell me, what ELSE is a cop supposed to do? Does that make me stupid, somehow? Perhaps a fireman is also stupid--they run INTO burning buildings when other people are running OUT.
Since you're obviously an authority on the subject, please list, in your expert opinion, what the typical law enforcement officer SHOULD be armed or equipped with.
Also, could you mention your specific law enforcement experience? Thank you.
Powderman, my brother, take this as you will.
In my opnion, you did not make the initial post in order to intelligently discuss the very real issue of the militarization of the modern police force. You posted it in an attempt to basically say "Hey, look what I carry, how cool am I?", and "Lets start bashing cops, so I can make sound liek the good guy defending my actions." Whether intentional or not, this is the way it appears to me.
In my opnion, you did not make the initial post in order to intelligently discuss the very real issue of the militarization of the modern police force. You posted it in an attempt to basically say "Hey, look what I carry, how cool am I?", and "Lets start bashing cops, so I can make sound liek the good guy defending my actions." Whether intentional or not, this is the way it appears to me.
Ever been to the Central Valley in California? I have. Many times. Dinuba is a bump in the road town with it’s primary resident population being truck drivers due to it’s proximity to Bakersfield and Fresno. Their militarization and crappy mindset bankrupted the city:
The tiny town of Dinuba, California (population 15,000), created a SWAT unit in the
spring of 1997. A few months later an innocent man, Ramon Gallardo, was killed by the SWAT team when it raided his home looking for one of his teenage sons. The SWAT unit rushed into the Gallardo household at 7 a.m. wearing hoods and masks, yelling “search warrant.” Gallardo and his wife were awakened by the ruckus, but before they could determine what was happening, Ramon was shot 15 times. A police brutality lawsuit was later brought against the city. At trial, the police said they had to shoot in self-defense because Gallardo had grabbed a knife. Gallardo’s wife testified that the knife on the scene did not belong to her husband and alleged that the police had planted it there to legitimize the shooting. The jury awarded the Gallardo family $12.5 million. Because the whopping verdict exceeded the small town’s insurance coverage, the city is now in financial straits. After Gallardo’s killing, the city fathers of Dinuba disbanded the SWAT unit and gave its military equipment to another police department.
Smart move, in retrospect.
Now, what is the population on the Puyallup reservation? With all of it’s sprawling 104 acres in the greater Tacoma area? Wikipedia states:
The reservation has a land area of 73.935 km² (28.547 sq mi), and a 2000 census resident population of 41,341 persons. Over 72 percent of its residents are Caucasian only, and only 3.2 percent claim to be of solely Native American heritage.
How about first things first? Like how about a jail to house all of those gun-toting maniacs in Puyallup? Guess all that casino revenue ($126 million last year net) was spent on cool gear?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002979437_tribes08m.html
Neat pic:
http://www.cityofpuyallup.org/files/library/a93a003db8835d76.jpg
Here is an excerpt from an interview with a cop, discussing the necessity for an armed populace:
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Horn/Policeman's_Advice_Stay_Armed,_Stay_Free.htm
Q: According to Dave Kopel, among others, law enforcement agencies should not be militarized. Militarization will lead (and actually leads) to lots of abuses, like Ruby Ridge and Waco. Do you agree with such a statement?
A: Yes I do. The militarization of American local law enforcement is an issue I have been in opposition to for years. I call these guys ninja wannabes. The Military mindset is to kill the enemy and wreck his infrastructure. Waco and Ruby Ridge were military operations with devastating results. Then they lied to Congress and gave themselves medals for shooting a 14 year old kid, his dog, and his mother holding a baby (Ruby Ridge) and they lied again and gave themselves medals for burning down a church where time was on their side, killing all inside except the few they shot down when they tried to escape the flames. Then they drove a tank into and over the remains and ground up some of the bodies with the tracks of the tanks.
It was a day of great shame.
Score:
US Gov: 87 men, women, children and a dog
Constitution: 0
The sad thing about these events is that too many people decided to see American law enforcement as a paramilitary enemy that is above the law, and I don't know how to repair that or if it can be repaired.
Now, with much of the anecdotal evidence aside, with the actual statistics presented, with the realities evidenced and the “what-if’s” discounted, where are we?
I doubt I have convinced you of anything. You believe Puyallup (and neighboring Tacoma) are teetering at the precipice of criminal violence and anarchy. You believe that all patrol officers should be armed in accord with your personal preferences without regard for the burgeoning lack of evidence for an actual need. You will certainly discount these accounts of police abuse, murder, cover-up and ill judgments by claiming they all should be prosecuted and sued and what do we have?
Citizens bearing the horrifically painful burden of placing too much of the public trust in the undeserving. While indulging many of these personalities with destructive tools beyond the capacity of their demeanor or skill.
Your attempt at claiming that my arguments are similar to the anti-gun proponents comments regarding CCW is grossly ineffectual. CCW holders, in similar number to officers nationwide, have mistakenly murdered how many people over the last decade or so? I’m not claiming that CCW holders bear more scrutiny. In fact, just the opposite, as their record is quite stellar.
I am asking for more oversight of police, especially when it comes to the militarization of police. Something that you disagree with, apparently.
It's been made by several people here. Any thoughts?
The tiny town of Dinuba, California (population 15,000), created a SWAT unit in the
spring of 1997. A few months later an innocent man, Ramon Gallardo, was killed by the SWAT team when it raided his home looking for one of his teenage sons. The SWAT unit rushed into the Gallardo household at 7 a.m. wearing hoods and masks, yelling “search warrant.” Gallardo and his wife were awakened by the ruckus, but before they could determine what was happening, Ramon was shot 15 times. A police brutality lawsuit was later brought against the city. At trial, the police said they had to shoot in self-defense because Gallardo had grabbed a knife. Gallardo’s wife testified that the knife on the scene did not belong to her husband and alleged that the police had planted it there to legitimize the shooting. The jury awarded the Gallardo family $12.5 million. Because the whopping verdict exceeded the small town’s insurance coverage, the city is now in financial straits. After Gallardo’s killing, the city fathers of Dinuba disbanded the SWAT unit and gave its military equipment to another police department.
Smart move, in retrospect.
Now, what is the population on the Puyallup reservation? With all of it’s sprawling 104 acres in the greater Tacoma area? Wikipedia states:
The reservation has a land area of 73.935 km² (28.547 sq mi), and a 2000 census resident population of 41,341 persons. Over 72 percent of its residents are Caucasian only, and only 3.2 percent claim to be of solely Native American heritage.
How about first things first? Like how about a jail to house all of those gun-toting maniacs in Puyallup? Guess all that casino revenue ($126 million last year net) was spent on cool gear?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002979437_tribes08m.html
Neat pic:
http://www.cityofpuyallup.org/files/library/a93a003db8835d76.jpg
Here is an excerpt from an interview with a cop, discussing the necessity for an armed populace:
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Horn/Policeman's_Advice_Stay_Armed,_Stay_Free.htm
Q: According to Dave Kopel, among others, law enforcement agencies should not be militarized. Militarization will lead (and actually leads) to lots of abuses, like Ruby Ridge and Waco. Do you agree with such a statement?
A: Yes I do. The militarization of American local law enforcement is an issue I have been in opposition to for years. I call these guys ninja wannabes. The Military mindset is to kill the enemy and wreck his infrastructure. Waco and Ruby Ridge were military operations with devastating results. Then they lied to Congress and gave themselves medals for shooting a 14 year old kid, his dog, and his mother holding a baby (Ruby Ridge) and they lied again and gave themselves medals for burning down a church where time was on their side, killing all inside except the few they shot down when they tried to escape the flames. Then they drove a tank into and over the remains and ground up some of the bodies with the tracks of the tanks.
It was a day of great shame.
Score:
US Gov: 87 men, women, children and a dog
Constitution: 0
The sad thing about these events is that too many people decided to see American law enforcement as a paramilitary enemy that is above the law, and I don't know how to repair that or if it can be repaired.
Now, with much of the anecdotal evidence aside, with the actual statistics presented, with the realities evidenced and the “what-if’s” discounted, where are we?
I doubt I have convinced you of anything. You believe Puyallup (and neighboring Tacoma) are teetering at the precipice of criminal violence and anarchy. You believe that all patrol officers should be armed in accord with your personal preferences without regard for the burgeoning lack of evidence for an actual need. You will certainly discount these accounts of police abuse, murder, cover-up and ill judgments by claiming they all should be prosecuted and sued and what do we have?
Citizens bearing the horrifically painful burden of placing too much of the public trust in the undeserving. While indulging many of these personalities with destructive tools beyond the capacity of their demeanor or skill.
Your attempt at claiming that my arguments are similar to the anti-gun proponents comments regarding CCW is grossly ineffectual. CCW holders, in similar number to officers nationwide, have mistakenly murdered how many people over the last decade or so? I’m not claiming that CCW holders bear more scrutiny. In fact, just the opposite, as their record is quite stellar.
I am asking for more oversight of police, especially when it comes to the militarization of police. Something that you disagree with, apparently.
It's been made by several people here. Any thoughts?
Last edited:
Six posts, none of which were related to the topic and one post that had only a peripheral relationship were deleted. That left 1 post that was related to the topic of the militarization of the police and one post that asked a question.
Jager, you are not free to turn this topic into a cop-bashing thread. It is an important topic. One that can be discussed with dignity, honesty and thoughtfulness.
We do not need to resort to the broad brush that paints everyone the same. That accomplishes nothing except to widen the already too wide gulf between police and common citizens.
Think Twice, Post Once.
Jager, you are not free to turn this topic into a cop-bashing thread. It is an important topic. One that can be discussed with dignity, honesty and thoughtfulness.
We do not need to resort to the broad brush that paints everyone the same. That accomplishes nothing except to widen the already too wide gulf between police and common citizens.
Think Twice, Post Once.
BreacherUp!
New member
I suspect that this "militarization of police" type thread will never be resolved. I too carry a 1911. No officer walks around with an AR or similar long gun. I too am on a swat team in a large CA city. The areas we bring our weaponry to often have AKs, SKSs, MAC-10/11s, etc. The average citizen cannot own these weapons in CA, but the gangs do.
Secondly, who said you have to go tit-for-tat with a BG?! If he has a knife, am I supposed to take him on with my Emerson? Nonsense.
Third, shoulder fired weapons are inherently more accurate. They are a steadier platform, carry more ammo, and extend the range of safe distance. And, they often end deadly encounters quicker than pistols. How many threads have been generated, on this very forum, that decries the stopping power of a pistol?! So why on earth would you carry a pistol when you have the option, and advantage to carry a long gun?
Secondly, who said you have to go tit-for-tat with a BG?! If he has a knife, am I supposed to take him on with my Emerson? Nonsense.
Third, shoulder fired weapons are inherently more accurate. They are a steadier platform, carry more ammo, and extend the range of safe distance. And, they often end deadly encounters quicker than pistols. How many threads have been generated, on this very forum, that decries the stopping power of a pistol?! So why on earth would you carry a pistol when you have the option, and advantage to carry a long gun?