Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[North Bay Guy]

No
No Select fire, (full or burst)
No off roster guns for off duty
No standard cap mags for off duty
No 's

Whether or not they need FA, I don't know. Do I want them to have FA stuff nope.

[jarhead714]

Thigh holsters, kneepads, molle straps, body armor, tactical urban camo, and Oakley's hiding the eyes are more of a concern to me than an extra position on the selector. I'll take my glasses off and look you in the eye when you show me the same courtesy thank you.

[1CavScout]

^^^ LE have been wearing Oakleys since at least the early 90's when I went through the academy. I don't recall to many soldiers wearing them when I was in the Army back then. Thigh rigs and other similar gear was worn by specialized units at my agency. Regular patrol guys don't wear that stuff. When I was in a special unit my stuff was kept in the trunk unless I had a call out.

[Artema]

I'd like to point out that going after their gear is what the Democrats are doing also. If you have a problem with over militarization you should go after the tactics that escalate violence, rather than having the right gear to get the job done.

[SactoDoug]

I'd like to point out that going after their gear is what the Democrats are doing also. If you have a problem with over militarization you should go after the tactics that escalate violence, rather than having the right gear to get the job done.

Do you have any ideas to share or examples?

[bigger hammer]

Thigh holsters, kneepads, molle straps, body armor, tactical urban camo, and Oakley's hiding the eyes are more of a concern to me than an extra position on the selector.

Why would you, or anyone for that matter be "concern[ed]" with "thigh holsters, kneepads, molle straps, body armor, tactical urban camo, and Oakley's" It's not a fashion show. What do you care how a police officer is dressed? Shouldn't you be more "concern[ed]" with the officer's attitude, how he behaves, and how he enforces the law? Forest, trees, and all that.

I'll take my glasses off and look you in the eye when you show me the same courtesy thank you.

I've asked people to take off their sunglasses so that I can compare their face to the photo on their CDL. Since you aren't doing the same, I'll keep my glasses on and my hands free, in case you turn out to NOT be the honest, decent citizen that you know you are, but that I know nothing about. I'm also working into the night and keeping my sunglasses on during the daylight hours of my shift, helps to preserve my night vision.

[Germz]

You know, I bet if the OP was LE, he/she wouldn't be whining about whether or not they have select fire.

honestly your proposed questions are just as sickening as when a dem says

"do you really need 30 round clip magazine death devices"?
"do you really need an ar-15 evil black rifle"?

they have a job to do like anyone else. Except theirs involves them putting their lives on the line DAILY. so who are you to question what they use for self defense? furthermore, select fire is just that, selective; not every officer is going to go scarface every chance they get.

Does that mean it won't happen? never say never...but that applies to everything.

[SactoDoug]

You know, I bet if the OP was LE, he/she wouldn't be whining about whether or not they have select fire.

honestly your proposed questions are just as sickening as when a dem says

"do you really need 30 round clip magazine death devices"?
"do you really need an ar-15 evil black rifle"?

they have a job to do like anyone else. Except theirs involves them putting their lives on the line DAILY. so who are you to question what they use for self defense? furthermore, select fire is just that, selective; not every officer is going to go scarface every chance they get.

Does that mean it won't happen? never say never...but that applies to everything.

I have an answer to this post and others like it. Just because criminals use certain weapons does not mean LE should use those same weapons.

First, I don't believe that LE is "outgunned" even if they go up against criminals with FA weapons. LE get to choose when/if they respond. LE also chooses the amount of force used to respond. You can't argue that 50 officers armed with AR's body armor, sniper rifles, armored vehicles, CS gas and various other weapons is "outgunned" by one guy with a M16.

Criminals use various drugs during the commission of crimes. Should LE be drugged up on duty?

Criminals use explosives. Should LE be allowed to blow up criminals?

Criminals use poison. Is LE "outgunned" if they don't use poison?

Criminals use extortion and terrorism. Should LE be allowed to use those tactics?

Criminals use arson. Should LE be allowed to burn down buildings?

It comes down to justification. Since LE is supposed to be answerable to the public, they should have to justify everything they do and every dollar spent.

[KABA556]

You know, I bet if the OP was LE, he/she wouldn't be whining about whether or not they have select fire.

honestly your proposed questions are just as sickening as when a dem says

"do you really need 30 round clip magazine death devices"?
"do you really need an ar-15 evil black rifle"?

they have a job to do like anyone else. Except theirs involves them putting their lives on the line DAILY. so who are you to question what they use for self defense? furthermore, select fire is just that, selective; not every officer is going to go scarface every chance they get.

Does that mean it won't happen? never say never...but that applies to everything.

For most of the history of this nation, policing has never even made it into the top 10 for most dangerous occupations. I believe last year it finally made #10 for most dangerous.


If you want to talk about people putting their lives on the line on a daily basis maybe we should begin by talking about commercial fishermen, lumberjacks, ranchers, etc.

[AceGirlsHusband]

No, they should not have automatic weapons since it will not improve their accuracy. However, they should carry much larger magazines to compensate for their marksmanship skills.

Ah, you're thinking of NYPD!

[AceGirlsHusband]

For most of the history of this nation, policing has never even made it into the top 10 for most dangerous occupations. I believe last year it finally made #10 for most dangerous.


If you want to talk about people putting their lives on the line on a daily basis maybe we should begin by talking about commercial fishermen, lumberjacks, ranchers, etc.

Tight rope walking and professional bungee jumping is up there, too. However, I can't think of a single instance where a crab has actually plotted and tried to kill the fisherman.

[raitheslacker]

This thread just opened up a can of worms.

[bigger hammer]

I have an answer to this post and others like it. Just because criminals use certain weapons does not mean LE should use those same weapons.

First, I don't believe that LE is "outgunned" even if they go up against criminals with FA weapons. LE get to choose when/if they respond. LE also chooses the amount of force used to respond. You can't argue that 50 officers armed with AR's body armor, sniper rifles, armored vehicles, CS gas and various other weapons is "outgunned" by one guy with a M16.

It's a very rare police department that can have 50 officers deploy to one incident. Last time I checked in CA, the average PD was only 11 officers.

One is not "armed" with "body armor."

Most departments will not have "sniper rifles, armored vehicles, [or] CS gas" available to the average patrol officer.

It's not so much a matter of being "outgunned." It's a matter of having the right tool for the job. Sometimes, that's a select fire AR type.

It comes down to justification. Since LE is supposed to be answerable to the public, they should have to justify everything they do and every dollar spent.

Nope sorry. "The public"

[bigger hammer]

For most of the history of this nation, policing has never even made it into the top 10 for most dangerous occupations. I believe last year it finally made #10 for most dangerous.

If you want to talk about people putting their lives on the line on a daily basis maybe we should begin by talking about commercial fishermen, lumberjacks, ranchers, etc.

OK, let's do that. I don't think that "commercial fisherman" should be allowed to use treble hooks. Single hooks should be good enough for them. Treble hooks give them an unfair advantage. "Lumberjacks" should not be allowed to use double bitted axes. Single bit axes are plenty enough. The trees don't stand a chance. Don't even get me started on chain saws! Ranchers should not be allowed to drive trucks. Their ancestors did it from horseback and that should be good enough for today's ranchers.

On a serious note, no one saying that LE is the most dangerous job, or that other jobs are not dangerous. But I can't think of another job (other than the military) where people are targeted by a large segment of the population just because they're in that profession. There aren't "fisherman killers, lumberjack killers, or rancher killers." But there are "cop killers."

[KABA556]

Tight rope walking and professional bungee jumping is up there, too. However, I can't think of a single instance where a crab has actually plotted and tried to kill the fisherman.

Your dismissive attitude towards the very real dangers faced by commercial fishermen is rather telling.