Why heavily arm the Police?

Status
Not open for further replies.
On the federal level, it seems that every agency has its own heavily-armed SWAT team simply because other agencies do. A sort of "keeping up with the Jones'" attitude. Plus, a SWAT team would seem to be an ego thing on the part of said agency, which states to all that the agency's authority is serious. For what possible reason would the EPA or FDA have a SWAT team? Someone is holding a bunch of bottles of unregulated "fat burner" pills hostage?
 
Yes tcsd1236 I want them to ALL rush in and be shot by BG's :rolleyes: . Obviously you didn't complete reading my post before you decided to flame. I make that statement about the parking lot after talking to a lot of people and hearing the same thing from them. I did not have the opportunity to attend the seminar that you did so I am not as well informed as you apperently are. I am only going off what I was able to catch on the news and as you may know that is usually limited and biased information.

Now as for your flaming my post, this forum is for the exchange of ideas and information. If you want to teach somebody then there is no need to do it in the manner you choose which has done nothing but get my blood boiling. And don't preach to me about the weight of body armor. I have done my fair share of that type of activity and all I have to say is DRINK WATER! I realized that there would be a few LEO's who would want to defend their comrades and their actions and I also stated that I know the reality of the situation and my fix was to get more training and ROE's for that type of situation. It wasn't intended to be a flame towards the officers there that day. That was a procedural blunder IMO and not human failure or lack of bravery by our men and women in uniform.

[This message has been edited by HukeOKC (edited April 27, 2000).]
 
Longshot,

As a census "enumerator" I have been told that we can not carry a gun while "on duty".

Uh, huh. Right. ;)

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
I am not a cop, but if I were, I would definitely want a rifle.

------------------
Get your 1911s and AR15s while you still can!
 
There is a need at times for police to have arms other than pistols. But part of the problem is indoctrination by ex-military trainers whose background is "us and them" thinking. I am alarmed at reading a comment by a military non-com who is getting out of the "namby-pamby army" so he can go into police work. He didn't add "and kill people" but it was certainly implied.

The mission of the military is to destroy the enemy and to destroy his means to resist. Capture of an enemy is secondary.

The mission of a law enforcement officer is to arrest those who are suspected of violating the law, and to protect innocent persons.

We don't need police armed with tanks, attack aircraft (BATF has A-10s), missiles, heavy machineguns, etc. Yet police have all these and constantly obtain more.

Yes, crooks are more heavily armed than they used to be. Yes, police do face danger and need protection. But once police begin to think that they are above the law and can kill people for the fun of it, they are worse than the crooks, because they operate under color of the law and can often kill with impunity.

Jim
 
Um, Jim, I believe the ATF has OV10 Broncos...propellor driven observation aircraft, unarmed, with FLIR. NOT A10 Thunderbolt II anti-armor jet fighters.
 
Thanks for the responses so far.

First, while it does seem implied, I'm not advocating that the police not have rifles. I could argue against machine guns (especially in urban areas), but rifles of the assault variety could be very useful.

BTW, did I actually say, "overly armed police?"

Second, it seems that one of the problems with the use of this heavier artillery is that it isn't as common as it appears to me. It is actually limited to special teams. The problem with preventing violence (as in the coke-head with rifles that was mentioned) is that it takes too long to get the team together. Therefore, the teams are more likely to be used in planned assaults where there is a protracted hold-up OR a planned raid on a location who isn't expecting it (the no-knocks and Elians).

Am I correct, or still missing something.
 
RikWriter:

You are correct in your aircraft recognition...OV-10 Broncos.

However, unarmed is only temporary with the OV-10 MILSPEC airframe, which those are. Hard points galore, ready for gun pods, 2.75 rockets, hard bombs...no armor to speak of, slow, but still...as a taxpayer, I would pay for some nice Cessna 184's, but why a military grade airframe?

For what it is worth, a while back the local news had footage of police training. Guys in SWAT/ninja uniforms, MP-5's, and USPS patches.

What does the Post Office have to do with SWAT? They must be preparing for great "rate hike riots"...

Alex
 
I was a cop in the 70's and 80's (retired now) and got to watch the evolution of the SWAT mentality. When I started nobody had SWAT teams (large departments had Tac Teams for high risk warrents, special operations, etc).

SWAT came along and filled a need but tied up resources and cost big chunks of the budget. The trend (and this was fueled mostly by police administrators) was to justify the expenduture of more and more of the budget by coming up with more and more for SWAT to do.

When I was a uniform deputy and later a detective, we served warrents, made felony arrests, and did building searches as a matter of routine (sometimes we even had back-up). Later I saw a trend to call out SWAT more and more often and for a much wider variety of calls.

Just my $.02 worth, but I think you are seeing the militrazation of our police, which is one of the first steps toward a police state. My former colleges aren't going to like hearing that, but it is a trend and I'm not the only former LEO who sees it.

Dave T (PCSD Ret)
 
Good point Dave...it used to be that SWAT teams were for big jobs like taking down a guy who was barricaded in a building with hostages, or a sniper holed up on a rooftop. Regular uniformed cops served warrants, busted in on drug dealers, etc...
Now, SWAT teams serve warrants, and when someone is barricaded in a building with hostages...NO ONE does ANYTHING! They let him sit there until he shoots himself or gives up. And uniformed cops get to write traffic tickets and take reports.
 
Sure. Now retired, I can outfit myself from my safe far better than I was in the service (guarding nuclear weapons) and better than when I was an LEO. I had to bust my but and train hard because my equipment was bean-counter specials. My first issue gun in 1972 was a Model 10 2" with RNL ammo. Everything we ever got we fought for and pushed the envelope for, and a few times I just 'brought my own' in violation of regs. We had great cars, radios, and office furniture, too. Not to mention the dancing girls.

------------------
 
Dave makes a very good point about the militrazation of the police force. Take a look at Waco. What happened? They didn't get all dressed up for nothing. Those tanks were going to pump that gas in that building no matter what happened. ATF agents firing blindly over their cars at the broadside of the building. Insanity.

Pour money into SWAT teams and you are forced to use them to justify their existance...propmpting you to use them in situations where that kind of force is, perhaps, unwarranted. Not that their existance isn't warranted. But the police-as-assault-team role is getting out of hand.

For what it's worth, I also don't think cops should be asked to write traffic citations. Why can't we get a nice little troop of sub-cops (read: metermaids) to do the traffic tickets? Cops pulling over everyday speeding citizens for traffic violations just creates ill-will towards the police department. Create another agency to handle that and let the cops go back to 'protecting and serving'. Let people's experience interacting with the police depatment be a positive one - saving people's asses, as opposed to handing out tickets. Nobody likes getting a ticket, and everybody gets them.

Just an idea.


- gabe
 
GRD,

Two of my best friends at our department were trained (North Western University) traffic investigators and spent a good part of their twenty years in the traffic unit. We got into many an argument over the pro's and con's of strict traffic enforcement, particularly speeding tickets with radar.

My argument was that more animosity toward law enforcement in general and personally toward cops came from traffic tickets than anything else. I bet for five years after retiring, when someone at a party or social gathering found out I used to be a cop, I had to listen to them bitch about some "unfair" traffic ticket they got.

Dave T
 
I don't know many cops (although hanging around here is sure changing that), but everybody has those stories. People feel violated getting a ticket. Everyone always thinks they were 'in control' when they got the ticket and it was a 'bum rap'. They never think 'thank god you caught me officer! Why....why...I could have killed someone!' :)

Only exception I know of was when I got pulled over for 47 in a school zone (20 zone at that time of day). I knew the cop (sheriff, actually: we still have a rain date to go shooting soon...) and he waited patiently while I pulled my head out my arse and graciously accepted my well deserved citation. But getting nailed for 65 on a 55 highway? Of course you're going to be pissed...and who better to be pissed at than the man handing you the ticket with the Oakley shades and the gun his hip while all your friends and neighboors drive by slowly. Do you touch your brakes when you see a cruiser parked by the side of the road? That little 'flip' in your chest happens even if you're not speeding. Why? Your initial reaction (at least mine) is fear. Fear of the police. Cops don't need that kind of bad press. The last thing law abiding citizens need is to fear the police.

And maybe a little less contact with the 'average joe citizen' when he's po'd about the ticket you're handing him would improve the cops attitude towards said joes. The most common (warning: assumption) contact between LE and the good people at large has everyone po'd at each other right out of the gate. There's got to be a better way! :) [imho, of course]


- gabe
 
The so called CENSUS bureau in my old country was in charge of the torture chambers and execution firing squads. Later, when I fought the was in Latin America, the CENSUS bureau, which happenned to have been created after and with the help of the US Census bureau was in charge of creating the Census profile they wanted. Social engineering meant killing off unwanted people. Do I really have to tell all. Unsaid.
 
Ever see the footage of the sniper when he blew the cylinder out of the BG's handgun at 300 yds.???? That should cover it.!!
 
The reason for the new breed of police having to be heavily armed is the poor quality of recruits. When you see the type of people they hire now they can't use brainpower so they have to resort to firepower. When you lack the ability to deal with problems in an intelligent manner you have to resolve them by force. Did you see the little fed during the Elian Raid running around like a chicken with his/her head cut off. That was funny. I don't think they even allowed "it" to carry a weapon. The quality of some of the officers hired today is just pathetic.
 
I have to agree with Dave T.

The focus has changed from tactical superiority to equipment oriented advantage.

I know the old guys tend to think everything was better "back in the day", but, as someone who comes from a long line of LEO's..., I have to agree with Dave. My Grandfather, Father and Uncles all served High-Risk warrants, did building searches and dealt with barricaded subjects, all while armed with "only" a .38 or .357 and a Remington 870. Wonder how they survived?

Those same men have always told me, since I was knee high to a frog, Your Brain is your best Weapon, everything else is just garnish.

We as LEO's need to get away from this "pull back, set up a perimeter and call SWAT" mentality.

As was stressed to my class in the academy several years ago, any line patrol man should be able to handle any thing the SWAT team is called out for. Line Patrol is first on the scene, how can we protect and serve when we are pulling back because,Line Patrol either doesn't know how to handle it without a SEAL teams armament or Line Patrol is restricted by management? At the time my instructors said it would only get worse and it has. Pull back, set up a perimeter is the rule of the day.

As Andy Stanford often preaches:
1)Mind Set
2)Tactics
3)Skill at Arms
4)Equipment

Sadly, too many recruits enter and leave the academy with an equipment oriented mind set. If they just have the latest greatest equipment everything will fall into place...,wrong.

A Patrol Man should be a serious student of tactics and human nature. Any officer properly trained is more than capable to handle any scenario with their sidearm and a long gun.



------------------
"There is a common thread between competition and combat shooting - only hits count" Keith Cunningham
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top