Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[bigger hammer]

There is a mounting backlash in this nation and when the reforms are over you'll be lucky if you are left with a whistle and a wooden stick.

Interestingly I asked for "some reliable, verifiable source to support" a similar statement a few posts back. SOMEHOW you failed to supply it. I'll try asking again. Do you have a "reliable, verifiable source" to support your opinion? I think it's wrong.

[bigger hammer]

I vote against anything that has to do with funding for police.

I believe John Lott did a multiple year long study and concluded that we could reduce the rate of rape, murder, carjacking, and armed robbery by about 50% if we armed 20 million American adults with handguns.


Police have almost no impact on the rates of- kidnapping, murder, rape, burglary, armed robbery, domestic abuse, child abuse, etc.

In one city they doubled the number of police on the street over a six month period and it had no impact on murder, rape, kidnapping, or armed robbery, but it did decrease car theft and vandalism by about 40-50%, but at the cost of doubling the number of police on the street. In other words, not the return realized did not justify the expenditure.

The typical straw man argument that is so often seen in this forum.

This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. BTW I'm all for arming anyone who wants to be armed.

[KABA556]

And down the anti−police rabbit hole we go. Any chance of a return to the topic with some reasonable discussion? I'm doubtin' it.

I suppose it is perfectly rational for 63 cops to join a pursuit after being explicitly and repeatedly told not to join it and not to give chase, yes SIXTY THREE, and then for 13 of those cops to fire 137 rounds at and into a vehicle, hitting some of their fellow officers' vehicles in the process.

It has to be anti-police, because any sane person would have behaved the same way, and only an anti-police hater would question such normal and rational behavior.


It makes perfect sense, defy the orders of a superior officer, participate in a chase you're ordered not to participate in, pursue a suspect you're ordered not to pursue, and then fire 137 rounds at the suspect's vehicle, striking the suspect's vehicle, both occupants of the vehicle, and the vehicles of fellow officers.


Any reasonable person would have behaved the same way!

[KABA556]

Interestingly I asked for "some reliable, verifiable source to support" a similar statement a few posts back. SOMEHOW you failed to supply it. I'll try asking again. Do you have a "reliable, verifiable source" to support your opinion? I think it's wrong.

You just said it "your opinion."


If my opinion is that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream and you shout "cite your source" that is utterly insane and ridiculous. I don't need a source for MY OPINION because it is MY OPINION.

If I claim that "captain XYZ of the Byzantine Army betrayed the city of Constantinople in 1453 and helped open that crucial gate" then I would need to cite a source, because that would be a claim. If I say, "oh I really like cane sugar root beer, but I don't like any of the modern corn syrup root beers" I don't need to cite any source, it is my opinion, deal with it.

My estimation of the situation in the USA is that the police have basically worn out any goodwill they had and that the right and left are growing united in opposition to the police.

Gone are the days when the hardcore right wing types, the John Birchers, the militia, the right-wing patriots, the 1950s-1970s era right-wing patriots, have bumper stickers calling on people to support the police. Basically the 1% right-wing "fringe" is on the same page as the 1% left-wing fringe, the right-wing patriots finally understand why the hippies detested the police 40-50 years ago.

It is even going mainstream with the "stop snitching" campaign and the "don't talk to the police" the websites such as copblock, the videos all over youtube about people challenging checkpoints along the interstates and within 50-100 miles of the southern border.

[westcoastfrog]

all politics aside...the answer is no. in all me deployments i have never needed full auto on an m4.

[SactoDoug]

Yes, they certainly can. And GIVEN ENOUGH TIME they might actually arrive before the situation is over.

In other words, they might arrive before the officers on the scene can shoot the suspect dead.

Not really. Rather your proposal "ignores what actually happens." In real life, barricaded situations that go on for hours are VERY rare. Most shooting situations are over in less than a few minutes. Rarely is there time to wait for large numbers of backup officers to arrive. In such situations, a select fire rifle may save the day.

Since you are the expert, roughly what percentage of these "shooting situations" involve the officer using their AR vs their sidearm?

You made many statements. Among them was this one. "... I don't believe that LE is "outgunned" even if they go up against criminals with FA weapons."

It seems that the definition of the word "outgunned" has eluded you.

Then what is your definition? It appears that you think that even dozens of officers with semi-auto weapons vs a single criminal with FA, the officer are "outgunned".

Those "dozens of officers" didn't arrive until AFTER the initial confrontation. If those officers had select fire weapons at that time, there may not have been a barricaded suspect situation at all.

LOL. Those officers couldn't take done that one gun with semi-auto. You think they are going to be more accurate with FA? Spray and pray much?

What exactly would those officers have done with FA? There was a fleeing suspect. No need for suppression fire or room clearing. And it is in a highly populated residential area. That is an opportunity to use FA in your opinion. That is a scary thought in itself.

LOL. Do you think that really has any affect on the armament that LE has? Let me be the first to let you know that it does not. I'm reminded of the uproar among the citizens when LAPD went to hollow−point ammunition and again when they went to semi-auto handguns. Guess what, they're still carrying both, despite many changes in City Council and the office of Mayor. Let's not forget that they also have select fire rifles, .50BMG rifles, an APC, and a piece of construction equipment meant for the piece−by−piece demolishing of buildings.

That is LA. If the change comes, it will be at the state and national level. LA is too corrupt for any real reform.

You're right that I dismiss such nonsense. And I don't believe that, as you claim, "it is becoming more wide spread on both the political Left and Right." Do you have some reliable, verifiable source to support this statement?

Dismiss away.

[jarhead714]

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'm concerned because fear and intimidation is the wrong way to go about garnering respect. That's what you want right? Respect doesn't always come with the badge anymore. It's supposed to. It's LEO's fault. Just like chivalry is dead and women are the ones who did it in. I don't dislike cops, it sometimes is a thankless job and I want to say right here and now, "Thanks for all the work you do gents." I just wish you were the same as you used to be and garnered the same respect you used to get and still deserve. Back then you rated it, now it has to be earned with every stop.

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.

Just off putting that's all. Look me in my eyes when you give me the bull**** reason you just pulled me over. Then we can play games ALL DAY LONG. I'll make time.

[Patrick Aherne]

How would I handle physical barrier security for stationary targets that might be attacked?

I would hire experts in the field of physical barrier security and consult with civil engineers and mechanical engineers and decide what the likely threats are, what is reasonable to defend against, and what is affordable. I am sure if we throw enough money at an airport they could build defenses to deal with an attack by an armored battalion or helicopter gunships but those are not realistic threats and the likelihood of an incident involving a tank or a helicopter gunship would not justify the expenditure.


I don't believe anything would be helped by bringing in dozens of police armed with belt-fed weapons.


Besides, if society has fallen to the point where people actually feel they need police in M113s sporting M2 Brownings outside of the airport to make the airport safe, I don't want to live in that society and I want nothing to do with those people.


This is supposed to be the USA, not Mexico, not Somalia, not Brazil.


America is well on its way to becoming just another third world failed state with militarized police and internal security units spread across the cities and other areas held by gangs, cartels, militants, etc.

Ok, aside from your FEELINGS, basically a non-answer because they are not going to spend the money to put up barriers at 20+ frontage roads and delivery exits, etc. I didn't bring up M113s and M2s. You did. All those guys in Iraq and Afghanistan must have been doing it wrong with the M240s mounted on their vehicles at VCPs?

K-rail, dumptrucks with sand in the bed, and a beltfed would work. However, I know that it will be just me or one of my officers with an ANSI II compatible reflective vest, flares and flashing rear ambers the next time we have to close the airport. I'll wave at the dude driving for you if anything ever happens.

[raitheslacker]

Some contributers to this thread sound just like the bureaucrats that write these nonsense laws based on personal feelings than sound logic. The very same bureaucrats that have made California the messed up state that it is today. Bullet buttons... Ten round mags. Pretty soon semi auto will be banned and everyone will have to go to bolt action since they personally feel semi auto isn't a luxury one should have.

Can a mod please close this thread? Thanks.

[bigger hammer]

You just said it "your opinion."

Yes, you're right. What I stated WAS CLEARLY my opinion. What you stated was NOT stated as opinion and it was not obvious that it was your opinion. To remind you,

There is a mounting backlash in this nation and when the reforms are over you'll be lucky if you are left with a whistle and a wooden stick.

You stated this as a fact, and so I asked you for some support for this statement. NOW you tell us that it's merely your opinion. You are entitled to whatever opinion you like. You're not entitled to your own facts.

If my opinion is that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream and you shout "cite your source" that is utterly insane and ridiculous. I don't need a source for MY OPINION because it is MY OPINION.

As long as you tell us that you're stating your opinion. Saying that "vanilla ice cream is better ..." is OBVIOUSLY your opinion. But when you say "There is a mounting backlash in this nation and when the reforms are over you'll be lucky if you are left with a whistle and a wooden stick." It's NOT clear that it's your opinion. Had you stated it as such, you'd just have been disagreed with and not asked for a source. Since it appears that you think it's a fact, you were asked for support for that "fact." NOW you tell us that it's just your opinion. And so my response, is, "I disagree." And I think that it's a very small minority who would agree with you.

My estimation of the situation in the USA is that the police have basically worn out any goodwill they had and that the right and left are growing united in opposition to the police.

And I'll state that my opinion is that this is nonsense.

Gone are the days when the hardcore right wing types, the John Birchers, the militia, the right-wing patriots, the 1950s-1970s era right-wing patriots, have bumper stickers calling on people to support the police. Basically the 1% right-wing "fringe" is on the same page as the 1% left-wing fringe, the right-wing patriots finally understand why the hippies detested the police 40-50 years ago.

This sounds like it's MORE of your opinion. More nonsense.

It is even going mainstream with the "stop snitching" campaign

That's not a "campaign." At least not as I understand the meaning of the word. It's neighborhood fear of retaliation from organized gangs. And more than likely it's a function of where you live and what you use as your source of news.

and the "don't talk to the police" the websites such as copblock, the videos all over youtube about people challenging checkpoints along the interstates and within 50-100 miles of the southern border.

YouTube and the Internet are a relatively new phenomenon. They didn't exist to any large extent 20 years ago. Now we have them and at the same time, "the me generation" is spreading like wildfire. Everyone is looking for their "15 minutes of fame" and now with the Net, it's much easier to find. As many others are, you're suffering from "cumulative memory" where you remember such things. Before they didn't exist, so naturally, you think they are on the rise. They're not, they're about the same. Again, my opinion, as is yours.

I've been a member of WeTip, an organization that receives and forwards anonymous tips of criminal activity, for quite a few years. Several members of the BOD tell me that the rate of tips roughly follows the crime rate. Right now they're down from the 1990's when crime in the US peaked. But that's understandable and as it should be.

[bigger hammer]

In other words, they might arrive before the officers on the scene can shoot the suspect dead.

Oddly enough in the situation that you used as the example, the Roseville incident, the suspect surrendered.

Since you are the expert

Nice straw man argument. I've never claimed to be an expert on this. I doubt that such an animal exists.

roughly what percentage of these "shooting situations" involve the officer using their AR vs their sidearm?

Since such numbers are not collected, there's no way to give an accurate response. Most people surrender no matter what types of gun are pointed at them. I doubt that many of them care whether it's a handgun or a rifle. Where it makes a difference is when they don't surrender and guns come into play. Then common sense and observation tells us that a rifle will have more accurate results and since generally, they are more powerful than a handgun, when hits are made, they're more effective.

Then what is your definition? It appears that you think that even dozens of officers with semi-auto weapons vs a single criminal with FA, the officer are "outgunned".

Please show me what statement I made that leads you to believe this. There exists no formula that states that X number "of officers with semi−auto weapons" equals Y number of "criminal[s] with FA" weapons. And AGAIN when the incident that you used as reference started, there WERE NOT "dozens of officers" present. That didn't happen for quite some time.

LOL. Those officers couldn't take done that one gun with semi-auto. You think they are going to be more accurate with FA? Spray and pray much?

Please tell us how you know that the officers in the Roseville incident were using rifles at the outset of that incident. I did not see any mention made of this fact. And so I'd bet that they were using handguns. Had they been using rifles, it might have ended without the barricade situation.

What exactly would those officers have done with FA?

I've said a couple of times that it's not necessary to use the "full" switch in many situations.

There was a fleeing suspect. No need for suppression fire or room clearing.

I’m sorry that you think that these are the only uses for select fire weapons. But that's your failing, not mine.

That is an opportunity to use FA in your opinion. That is a scary thought in itself.

What's really scary is you 'guessing' what my opinion would be without asking. You're wrong.

After you wrote,

Actually, the public does get the final say so. Like it or not, ultimately LE's actions are rewarded or punished at the ballot box.

I responded,

LOL. Do you think that really has any affect on the armament that LE has? Let me be the first to let you know that it does not. I'm reminded of the uproar among the citizens when LAPD went to hollow−point ammunition and again when they went to semi-auto handguns. Guess what, they're still carrying both, despite many changes in City Council and the office of Mayor. Let's not forget that they also have select fire rifles, .50BMG rifles, an APC, and a piece of construction equipment meant for the piece−by−piece demolishing of buildings.

That is LA. If the change comes, it will be at the state and national level. LA is too corrupt for any real reform.

ROFL. I'll disagree with your opinion that "LA is too corrupt for any real reform" and say that LA has had more reform than just about any place in the country. It's not that there is more corruption or wrong−doing here, it's because this is the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court, the most liberal circuit court in the US and coincidentally, the one that's most often reversed by SCOTUS. It's highly amusing that you think that "the state and national level" are not "corrupt" but that LA is.

Earlier I wrote,

You're right that I dismiss such nonsense. And I don't believe that, as you claim, "it is becoming more wide spread on both the political Left and Right." Do you have some reliable, verifiable source to support this statement?

Dismiss away.[/QUOTE]

I'll still dismiss it. You're listing sources like the Huffington Post, Radley Balko and John Whitehead, radical leftists all. NONE of them meet my criteria for a "RELIABLE, VERIFIABLE source." These sources cite each other as sources for their statistics. They love, for example, to tell us how the number of SWAT served search warrants has climbed to (I think the figure they toss around) is 87,000/year. Problem is that there is no central repository for such information. They're making it up.

Thanks for playing.

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

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'm concerned because fear and intimidation is the wrong way to go about garnering respect.

I have no idea why anyone would be "fear[ful or] intimidated" because an officer is wearing "thigh holsters, kneepads, molle straps, body armor, tactical urban camo, and Oakley's." No one that I know is bothered by it. Perhaps you're just a tad too sensitive?

That's what you want right? Respect doesn't always come with the badge anymore.

I started in LE in 1975. Back then the popular slur against us was "pigs." People who don't like us, have NEVER liked us. It has nothing to do with "anymore." Some people have always respected LEO's and some have NEVER done so. I've seen nothing to convince me that there's a big swing away from LE.

It's LEO's fault.

Law enforcement has been pretty much the same throughout history. Those who obey the law generally like us and those who don't, don't. Radicals at either ends of the scale, including the law abiding ones, don't either.

Just like chivalry is dead and women are the ones who did it in.

Ya see a statement like this is just an opinion and one that, due to being absolute, is wrong. It would be accurate to say that "[WITH SOME PEOPLE] chivalry is dead." I still open doors for women and the elderly, (although I'm getting closer to the latter group every day) and they still thank me for it.

I don't dislike cops, it sometimes is a thankless job and I want to say right here and now, "Thanks for all the work you do gents." I just wish you were the same as you used to be and garnered the same respect you used to get and still deserve. Back then you rated it, now it has to be earned with every stop.

Having been in LE for 30 years, I'll disagree. My opinion is quite different. There's no time to "earn respect" at every stop. And I saw no need to do so. I didn't need your respect to do my job. I behaved professionally at the outset of every contact, if that wasn't enough, tough.

Earlier I wrote,

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.

Just off putting that's all. Look me in my eyes when you give me the bull**** reason you just pulled me over.

I probably pulled you over for some traffic violation that you committed. You're free to wear your sunglasses if you like. I see no reason to remove mine, and there are sound reasons, that I've given you, why I don't. There are more, but it's not necessary to go into them here.

Then we can play games ALL DAY LONG. I'll make time.

If I can't tell that you are the person on the CDL photo, and you're wearing sunglasses, I'll politely ask you to remove them. I probably won't remove mine. If you ask why, I'll tell you. But if you refuse to remove them, I'll ask you to remove them again, this time without "the please." If you still refuse I'll order you to remove them. If you still refuse, I'll give you no choice in the matter. I would not consider this a "game" and booking you won't take "ALL DAY LONG," just an hour or so. I'd prefer to get things done the easy way, but if you decide to go some other way, (for example by demanding that I remove my sunglasses before you remove yours) that's OK with me.

It's a shame that you're "put off" by my wearing sunglasses when I T−stop you, but there are sound reasons why I keep them on. You're not required to accept them. You can stay "put off" if it makes you happy.

Wondering, are you this petty in other areas of your life?

[tvfreakarms]

The country is turning into a militarized police state

[TRICKSTER]

The country is turning into a militarized police state

[jarhead714]

Earlier I wrote,



I have no idea why anyone would be "fear[ful or] intimidated" because an officer is wearing "thigh holsters, kneepads, molle straps, body armor, tactical urban camo, and Oakley's." No one that I know is bothered by it. Perhaps you're just a tad too sensitive?



I started in LE in 1975. Back then the popular slur against us was "pigs." People who don't like us, have NEVER liked us. It has nothing to do with "anymore." Some people have always respected LEO's and some have NEVER done so. I've seen nothing to convince me that there's a big swing away from LE.




Law enforcement has been pretty much the same throughout history. Those who obey the law generally like us and those who don't, don't. Radicals at either ends of the scale, including the law abiding ones, don't either.



Ya see a statement like this is just an opinion and one that, due to being absolute, is wrong. It would be accurate to say that "[WITH SOME PEOPLE] chivalry is dead." I still open doors for women and the elderly, (although I'm getting closer to the latter group every day) and they still thank me for it.



Having been in LE for 30 years, I'll disagree. My opinion is quite different. There's no time to "earn respect" at every stop. And I saw no need to do so. I didn't need your respect to do my job. I behaved professionally at the outset of every contact, if that wasn't enough, tough.

Earlier I wrote,



I probably pulled you over for some traffic violation that you committed. You're free to wear your sunglasses if you like. I see no reason to remove mine, and there are sound reasons, that I've given you, why I don't. There are more, but it's not necessary to go into them here.



If I can't tell that you are the person on the CDL photo, and you're wearing sunglasses, I'll politely ask you to remove them. I probably won't remove mine. If you ask why, I'll tell you. But if you refuse to remove them, I'll ask you to remove them again, this time without "the please." If you still refuse I'll order you to remove them. If you still refuse, I'll give you no choice in the matter. I would not consider this a "game" and booking you won't take "ALL DAY LONG," just an hour or so. I'd prefer to get things done the easy way, but if you decide to go some other way, (for example by demanding that I remove my sunglasses before you remove yours) that's OK with me.

It's a shame that you're "put off" by my wearing sunglasses when I T−stop you, but there are sound reasons why I keep them on. You're not required to accept them. You can stay "put off" if it makes you happy.

Wondering, are you this petty in other areas of your life?

You started in LE the year I was born. If I had more experiences with seemingly well thought out and spoken cops like you, perhaps my attitude may be different. It's hard though. Getting pulled over for things like a license light that's out (even though it's as bright as the day it was new) or rosary beads hanging from my rearview mirror (obstructing my view) multiple times in one's life gets real old. As for all the warfighter garb, it just looks unprofessional for a policeman to step out of a patrol car on a gridded city street looking as though he's about ready to take Mt. Suribachi. All this is completely off topic but thanks for addressing my rants and your honesty.