PDA

View Full Version : More police arming with assault rifles


berto
03-24-2008, 10:09 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/24/MNTRVP505.DTL

03-24) 04:00 PDT Boise, Idaho -- The 30-year-old mother of three jumped from her disabled SUV after a chase last fall, holding a gun to her head to keep police back. Officers fired a stun gun but the nonlethal weapon was foiled by her heavy coat.

When she pointed her handgun at the two nearest deputies, officers switched to assault rifles, hitting Sarah Marie Stanfield of Boise eight times with bullets designed to break apart on impact to increase internal damage. She died of multiple gunshot wounds.

Some jurisdictions across the United States have been arming rank-and-file officers with high-powered assault rifles for a decade or more. But law enforcement officials say that trend has accelerated in the last year because of greater numbers of shootouts, standoffs in which police were outgunned, rising officer deaths and mass shootings of civilians by heavily armed gunmen.

"If you get into a firefight, you want to be the winner," said Scott Knight, police chief of Chaska, Minn., and chairman of the firearms committee for the International Association of Chiefs of Police. "Our departments are moving to those weapons out of necessity across the country."

Chaska, 25 miles southwest of Minneapolis, is a town of only about 24,000, but earlier this month Knight ordered the department's first 10 assault rifles, each with two 30-round magazines.

Only patchwork information is available on how many other law enforcement agencies are outfitting deputies and patrol officers with assault rifles, the kind of firepower once reserved for specialized SWAT teams. But from Chaska to Miami to college campuses, agencies are acquiring AR-15s or M-4s, both close relatives of the military's M-16. The rifles fire bullets with enough velocity to penetrate some types of body armor and have greater accuracy at longer range than handguns.

Last year, Miami Police Chief John Timoney authorized his patrol officers to carry AR-15s because of an increase in assault rifle use by criminals.

"This is a national problem. Police agencies all over the U.S. are going to bigger weapons," said Timoney, whose agency now has about 50 AR-15s and expects to get 150 more. He blames the 2004 expiration of the federal ban on assault weapons for the escalation of heavily armed violence.

In 2007, according to preliminary numbers compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 69 officers were shot to death, up from 52 in 2006 and the most in five years. Last year included six shootings where two or more officers were killed in the same event, fund spokesman Kevin Morison said.

"There just seems to be more brazen, cold-blooded killers out there," he said.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said it understands the moves to assault weapons. "Police officers need to be able to defend themselves and the rest of us, and they need the weapons to do so," said spokesman Peter Hamm.

Law enforcement officials say the trend toward issuing assault rifles to regular patrol officers started in Los Angeles in the wake of a 1997 shootout after a botched bank robbery. Two heavily armed men wore body armor that stopped 9mm bullets fired by the handguns carried by police, 11 of whom were injured along with six civilians. The two robbers were eventually killed. The Los Angeles Police Department now issues AR-15s.

This article appeared on page A - 6 of the San Francisco Chronicle
__________________________________________________ ____________

Too bad the Brady clowns don't think we need to be able to defend ourselves and have the weapons to do so.

jdberger
03-24-2008, 10:14 AM
Nice for the Chronicle to finally notice.

Cops have been carrying rifles for some time, now.

Patriot
03-24-2008, 10:47 AM
He blames the 2004 expiration of the federal ban on assault weapons for the escalation of heavily armed violence.

:rolleyes:

savageevo
03-24-2008, 11:07 AM
After they get their ar15 I wonder if they will mount a 1919 on top of their car. I dont think any criminal in there right mind (I guess they are not in there right mind) would have a firefight with that on there roofs.

gose
03-24-2008, 11:24 AM
So, why didn't they mention that the same trend is happening in California where we still have an AW ban?

Suvorov
03-24-2008, 11:31 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/24/MNTRVP505.DTL

Law enforcement officials say the trend toward issuing assault rifles to regular patrol officers started in Los Angeles in the wake of a 1997 shootout after a botched bank robbery. Two heavily armed men wore body armor that stopped 9mm bullets fired by the handguns carried by police, 11 of whom were injured along with six civilians. The two robbers were eventually killed. The Los Angeles Police Department now issues AR-15s.

This article appeared on page A - 6 of the San Francisco Chronicle
__________________________________________________ ____________

Too bad the Brady clowns don't think we need to be able to defend ourselves and have the weapons to do so.


Too bad they always fail to mention the fact that part of the reason the shootout was brought under control is that officers went to nearby gun stores and pulled civilian AR-15s off the racks until SWAT was able to respond.

The bad guys had full-auto weapons obtained illegally (from Mexico I believe), the good guys had semi-auto weapons obtained at a local gun store. And yet the antis used this as ammunition to take the same weapons the police used away from the law abiding citizens. Only in the minds of a deranged liberal does this logic make sense. :rolleyes:

AfricanHunter
03-24-2008, 02:37 PM
"This is a national problem. Police agencies all over the U.S. are going to bigger weapons," said Timoney, whose agency now has about 50 AR-15s and expects to get 150 more. He blames the 2004 expiration of the federal ban on assault weapons for the escalation of heavily armed violence.

In 2007, according to preliminary numbers compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 69 officers were shot to death, up from 52 in 2006 and the most in five years. Last year included six shootings where two or more officers were killed in the same event, fund spokesman Kevin Morison said.

Hmmmmm, no mention if the shootings/killings involved so called "assault Weapons".....

bohoki
03-24-2008, 02:45 PM
So, why didn't they mention that the same trend is happening in California where we still have an AW ban?

shh they may find out that all firearms are assault weapons when used during an assault

elenius
03-24-2008, 04:27 PM
There's the "high-powered" phrase again, also used in the Iggy segment... Are the antis feeding these talking points to various journalists?

LECTRIKHED
03-24-2008, 08:56 PM
I think the cops just want better toys. I'm ok with them having ARs. They probably should have them. As long as we are allowed to have the same rifles as police I'm for this.

oaklander
03-24-2008, 09:02 PM
Yes - the Brady Bunch is trolling this same story around to various newspapers - they've been doing it for a few months now. Lazy editors soak it up.

There's the "high-powered" phrase again, also used in the Iggy segment... Are the antis feeding these talking points to various journalists?

Bizcuits
03-24-2008, 09:43 PM
The two robbers were eventually killed.

OMG! Is this a confession at last of the murder of Emil!? :eek:

sb_pete
03-24-2008, 10:10 PM
This dribble got top of the fold front page coverage in the local Santa Barbara News press. This stuff really bugs me.

Nevermind the rest of his factual SNAFUs, this guy doesn't even bother to cite any evidence whatsoever of some kind of arms race, he just notes that LE agencies have been issuing AR's. No news there, that's been going on for over a decade. He says that THEY are justifying it by saying that they need them to fight similarly armed criminals. Does he stop to investigate THAT claim? Of course not. Increased Patriot Act funding is why these agencies are getting all this new training and gear, plain and simple. The reporters may occasionally question why the po-dunk middle-of-nowhere PD in some midwestern state want a bomb-sniffing robot, but they take at face value the reason these guys want AR's. I have no problem with cops having AR's, but it would be nice if an agency as venerable as the AP would bother to fact check alarmist stuff like this dribble from Mr super-sleuth Keith Ridler. I wrote the News Press a letter. I doubt they'll publish it, but here it is. Keep in mind that I only had 250 words to respond to the article


Dear News Press,
On the front page of Monday, March 24’s News Press, you placed an article from Keith Ridler of the Associated Press titled “Police Step Up Arms Race With Criminals.”

_______________________
While this article sites evidence of a rise in the number of law enforcement officers shot in recent years, it provides no evidence that those shootings involved so-called assault weapons or any other forms of controversial weapons. Indeed, there is no evidence of a rise in the criminal use of semi-automatic rifles of any type. Law enforcement agencies nationwide have been increasing their use of semi-automatic rifles for more than a decade, pre-dating the 2004 expiry of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban by a wide margin. Increasing use of these weapons by police has also been concurrent with increased funding and training made available by the Patriot Act. It is irresponsible and alarmist to claim the existence of an arms race while providing no evidence of one.
While the hard-core, professional criminals involved in the 1997 North Hollywood shootout did use military rifles, these were illegally obtained and they even made their own body armor. Further, these criminals were only stopped by police after officers were able to procure legal semi-automatic rifles from a nearby gunstore. It is also worth noting that this event happened while the assault weapons ban was in place and that the criminals could have been stopped by the simple issuance of 12ga slugs for the shotguns already issued to those heroic officers. It is also worth noting that almost all rifle cartridges used in both hunting and target shooting will penetrate non-military style body armor. This capability is by no means unique.
______________________

Thank you for your time and have a great day,
......

Toolbox X
03-24-2008, 10:15 PM
In 2007, according to preliminary numbers compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 69 officers were shot to death, up from 52 in 2006 and the most in five years. Last year included six shootings where two or more officers were killed in the same event, fund spokesman Kevin Morison said.

HEY MR. JOURNALIST!!! YOU FORGOT THE PART WHERE IT SAYS THAT ONLY 2 OF THOSE 69 OFFICERS WERE KILLED WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!

Oh wait, you weren't trying to be impartial. Sorry, my bad.

Hopi
03-24-2008, 10:15 PM
This dribble got top of the fold front page coverage in the local Santa Barbara News press. This stuff really bugs me.


Good letter.

Only six people read that newspaper anymore, including you, for anything other than the classifieds. I think we are safe, people in SB don't want real news anyways. BS article none the less.

sb_pete
03-24-2008, 10:51 PM
Only six people read that newspaper anymore, including you...
LOL, so true...:rolleyes:

jacques
03-24-2008, 10:53 PM
Yes, SB PEte, I saw that article also, it bothered me too. I just didn't see where it was going, like it really wasn't news at all.

It opens up talking about how they blew away someones mother, with some sort of "high fragment "type bullet, who was out of her mind with a hand gun. Then they go on to blame it on the AW Ban. Really a ridiculous article.

sb_pete
03-28-2008, 02:07 PM
Well, small update. To their credit, the SB News Press did actually print my letter (post #13) in its entirety in the Thursday edition (http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=OPINIONS-LETTERS&ID=565269507149529122) of the paper. I guess that's something.
-Pete

Piper
03-28-2008, 10:49 PM
What they failed to mention while they demonized firearms, is how the CRIMINAL justice system is going light on sentencing for violent criminals. Plea bargaining needs to done a way with and commitment of BG's to the full term of their sentence needs to be mandatory. But hey, let's blame the inanimate object instead. :rolleyes:

tombinghamthegreat
03-28-2008, 11:26 PM
Idiot reporters. They think crime occurs because people are now legally able to have a pistol grip on their semi auto rifle? Maybe it could be because there is a "gun free zone" and since the police is not there to protect citizens criminals are able to hunt their prey with limited risk. Not to mention the last 40 years of domestic policies that has intruded individual rights(war on guns, war on drugs, controlling society and many other polices) has not only failed beyond belief, it has cost the tax payers 100's of billions of dollars, lead to many of our freedoms lost, ruined our society and has created more crime or as some people would say a blowback effect.

jacques
03-29-2008, 11:31 AM
Yes, that is what I keep trying to say on these posts. If it were up to the police, we would live in a police state. Unfortunatly, they are going to continue to whine about being out-gunned by criminals, and blame it on the laws that affect the people that aren't.

It is a grave lack of education to get the message through that the weapons bans and regulations do nothing to solve the problems that have been going on for well over 200 years. WHO HAS THE BIGGEST GUN AT THE GUN FIGHT!!!

This is nothing new. Weapons have been obtained illegally by criminals since the inception of weapons. There is a good link on this site http://www.gunfacts.info/ that dismisses all these myths the common propaganda machine portrays as facts.

Hopi
03-29-2008, 12:32 PM
Well, small update. To their credit, the SB News Press did actually print my letter (post #13) in its entirety in the Thursday edition (http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=OPINIONS-LETTERS&ID=565269507149529122) of the paper. I guess that's something.
-Pete

Nice.