Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[KABA556]

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.

It's interesting, isn't it, that explosives were sold over the counter for decades and we've never had a suicide bombing attack on an airport, bus terminal, train station, etc.


There was that one guy in Michigan who blew himself [and his car] up while parked next to a school that he had a long-standing dispute with, but that's not quite the same thing as a mad man barreling down the road towards an object with people seeing him coming but being unable to stop him.

[Patrick Aherne]

You're right, that could never happen here. I feel so much better, now.

[SactoDoug]

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

He surrendered when LE tried something novel, negotiated with him.

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

No? You made it sound like you were in this post:

I know full well the problems they bring, I was certified as an MP-5 instructor and am certified to teach the patrol carbine in FA as well. Not every officer can handle them.

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.

It is about time you came around to some sense. I have been pointing you in this direction for a while. LE use their sidearm much more than their rifle or shotgun. Rifles and shotguns are in their patrol car while their sidearm is on them. Other than a standoff or raid, it is rare that the rifle or shotgun ever leaves the patrol car.

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.

I asked you what your definition of "outgunned" is since you dispute my definition. My definition is based on the totality of firepower brought to an engagement, not the type. Since you don't like my definition, what is yours?

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.

I made no determination as to whether rifles or pistols were used. My statement was based on the poor accuracy of the officers involved and your silly statement that you believe that if they had FA then they might been able to prevent the standoff. You got caught making a silly statement and now you are trying to deflect.

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

You realize this is written communication, right? I don't have to guess, I can read it plainly on my screen: 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.

[KABA556]

I'll wave at the dude driving for you if anything ever happens.

Glad to know that your "protect and serve" only applies to those who support you in 100% of things and agree with you in 100% of things.

[TRICKSTER]

Glad to know that your "protect and serve" only applies to those who support you in 100% of things and agree with you in 100% of things.

Wow, the twisted dishonesty in this response is really amazing.

[Q619]

I believe they should have the opportunity to have it, but I also believe the qual course should require a good deal of skill in order to pass and be able to patrol with a weapon capable of fa. Nothing short of expert in a more challenging course of fire imo. It seems to me there are a lot of le that are horrible shots. This to me is unacceptable. If you can't shoot in a low stress training environment, how much of a liability will you be in a high stress, real world scenario. My answer is more training, higher expectations.

Whether or not people choose to believe it, there are some groups like MS13 operating within the us. Some are highly trained and have the firepower to go with it. I believe we owe it to those serving us to give them the tools they need. They owe us skills and training with those tools so they don't become a danger to public safety when they need to deploy those tools.

People act as if leo's are this oppressive force threatening our liberty. Reality check: our elected officials/representatives are the ones threatening our liberty.....an extension of the people that put them in power. Most leo are just men and women that want to do something good for their community. Don't let the occasional badge heavy officer/agent sour your judgment on everyone. You get bad seeds everywhere, in all professions.

[jamesob]

no they dont. as a former l.e.o i have never seen a situation that called for that. dinuba p.d years ago did a raid on a house and a officer had a mp5. he shot a old man who had a knife at the end of the hallway. the old man who was checking to see what was going on, had no idea he was being raided. the officer had it on 3 rnd burst or full auto (cant recall ) and riddled the old man. the city payed out pretty hefty on that one.

[supersonic]

For rank and file officers? No.

For specialized units/swat? Possibly.

I would be surprised to find out that street cops get any where near full auto.

NO domestic LEO agency has any need for select fire weaponry.

SanPedroShooter - SURPRISE!!!! Listen throughout to how the LEO keeps saying how his rifle is "WAY cooler" than the ones the O.C. guys are carrying, THEN.........Look CAREFULLY @ 10:55 and keep watching.....

[stix213]

We should all get F/A, average joe and SWAT officers alike. /thread

[desrt2]

Back on topic.
We're fairly polarized on police vs private person.

I feel - and it's been stated here before - that any non-prohibited person should have the same access to select fire weapons (not crew served please - as law enforcement or military.

I think it's reasonable that anyone wanting to purchase and possess one should have a significant amount of training. Not rising to the level of operators but something that demonstrates control of the firearm, some proficiency (keeping rounds on target) and the additional responsibility.

In some ways - this is a generalization - select fire weapons are better suited to ranges that can handle them and recreational use then possession by LE. Probably because recreational use is so restricted/prohibited/expensive and you have to travel to find places.

I'll duck and cover but I bet there are very little accidents with legal civilian recreational use than LE and military.

I've taken "friendly fire" in combat. I was safe being in my Bradley and not taking greater than .50 BMG fortunately.

My old unit had 6 or so Bradleys and several M1 Abrams get hit by Apaches and a few other M1 Abrams. They didn't do so good against DU.
Back on topic.
I don't think LE should be hobbled and need the tools to do their job. But I have't seen a compelling argument yet.

Except a few coastal LE boat patrols taking on drug runners. And I think the LA Sheriff featured in Red Jacket probably didn't need a MK 19.

Some LE have mentioned a middle ground stating that long rifles are not necessarily appropriate but sub guns are. Not a bad argument for interior CQB work.
Still, handguns are equal to the task? Any LEO's have a perspective or real world experience as a reasonable argument?

I'm still listening with an open mind. I don't have an agenda to push. Just a perspective of the militarization of LE. Maybe it's not as bad as we think and special response teams just get more exposure because of the media and people's fascination with military and paramilitary.

Someone mentioned closing the thread. Please don't. We just need to stay on topic and refrain from ad hominem and straw man arguments.

*I'm not advocating restriction/ban. I despise the incrementalist and hard-core anti-gun morons as much as the rest of us here. I have plenty of Magpul standard capacity magazines and 4 and counting AR15's. Even if the restrictions went away, Hughes amoendment overturned and the cost of a select fire weapon falls to average firearm, I wouldn't be able to afford the ammo.

[SactoDoug]

I believe there is a philosophical difference at the heart of this argument. In the military, killing the enemy is the first goal, and capture is secondary. Civilian law enforcement is supposed to be the opposite: capture first, kill only if necessary to protect life.

In the military, FA weapons make sense. Put as much lead down range as possible to kill the enemy. LE is different in that they are not supposed to be the final arbiters of life and death. It is their job to apprehend a person to bring them to trial. Killing a suspect might be justified but it robs justice. It makes the officer judge, jury and executioner.

LE with such lethal weapons creates mental dissonance. LE is supposed to bring people to justice, not bring justice to people. That is why there is so much controversy every time there is a shooting of an unarmed suspect. That is why there is so much concern over the militarization of LE. When their primary mission changes from capture to kill, they become death squads instead of SWAT teams.

[bigger hammer]

You started in LE the year I was born.

I got the impression that I was a bit older than you. I'm probably one of the grandpa's on this forum.

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.

Thanks for the kind words. I understand that it's hard. Perhaps a bit of my background will put you a bit more at ease. I used to be what some cops refer to as an a**hole. I had long hair, about 6" below my shoulder. I wore a leather headband. I drove a VW bus with curtains and a bed. I was the guy that every mother warns her daughter about. And I knew that I did not have to give consent to a LEO to search my car or my person. And I refused a lot, because I got stopped a lot. My car was searched a lot back then, against my consent because the officer "smelled marijuana" or "saw a furtive movement after he turned on the lights." I got maced and batoned a couple of times while protesting the Vietnam war. I supported the soldiers but not the politicians. I punched a guy at LAX who spit on a vet who had just returned from Vietnam.

But a difference between us seems to be, that I didn't generalize to all cops when I encountered these guys who violated their oath and lied to get into my car. Many here have done just that.

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.

I worked in a very proactive department. When I wasn't handling calls I spent my time looking for crooks. That meant I made lots of car stops, often for very minor violations. This allowed me to look into many cars of people who fit the description of criminal acts in the city, and who gave me any of several "target indicators." That's what cops do, or at least, what they should be doing. It's the best way to interdict crime either before it happens or shortly thereafter. Lots of departments are so tightly controlled by policy and overly−strict administrators, that the cops don't want to do anything but handle radio calls. They've become "drive and wave" cops.

I'd guess that you're driving through an area where the cops are proactive and that's why you've been stopped for the violations that you mention, even though in the case of your license plate, it's functioning perfectly. (BTW, you might check that it's working all the time. I've made some stops for malfunctioning lights, only to find that they're working when the car was standing still. I'd guess that there was a short of a bad ground and so as the car "rattled down the road" it made intermittent contact. Many of those people were VERY irritated until I tapped the light and showed them that it worked "sometimes.")

The beads hanging from your mirror are a violation that will enable cops who are looking for something to do, to stop you at will. You probably won't ever get a ticket for it, but that's well within their discretion. If you don't want to get stopped for them, find a new place to hang them so they don't meet the criteria of "obstructing your vision." It's a technicality, but you can be stopped for it and you can be cited for it.

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.

I remember when BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) Police got started. They wore blazers so that they "looked professional." Problem is that such a uniform for a field cop is unsuitable. (bad pun intended). It didn't last too long. Perhaps if you stopped thinking of the gear that some cops wear these days as "warfighter garb" and just accepted it as more functional than what they used to wear, it would help with these feelings. For example I hate thigh holsters. They were developed so that the hand gun of people who were wearing heavy vests and whose primary weapon was a long gun, would still have a handgun. The idea was to have it hanging below the vest so it didn't interfere with it. But if the handgun is your primary weapon I don't think that they're a good choice. They flop aournd like crazy during foot pursuits and they've much slower to draw from when it's needed in a hurry, because it's so far from a cop's normal hand position (writing a ticket or an FI card for example) and you never know precisely where it is, because it's not rigidly attached to a fixed position on the belt, as is a belt holster. But since most of a cop's time is spent driving around, and the holster is much more comfortable than a holster that's worn on a belt, they came into favor. I'll concede that many LEOs these days will find themselves in a heavy vest, much more frequently than when I was working and so I don't protest them much. They also don't engage in foot pursuits as much these days, that's what K−9's are for.

On my belt I wore a 1911, 6 magazines, two sets of handcuffs, a multi−tool, a knife, a baton, and a portable radio. Many cops back in those days, got back injuries from wearing this gear every day. Nowadays, many agencies, in efforts to avoid these injuries, have allowed the wearing of LBV (load bearing vests) to spread out the weight. Many of them have molle straps to allow the user to customize the load to his needs and wants.

Even back in my day many of us wore body armor. Now that some departments are having their officers wear LBV's it only makes sense to put the armor there, instead of under a uniform shirt. It's much more comfortable and when report writing at the station, it's easily removed and put back on, if the officer needs to go into the field.

I don't care what color an officer's uniform is, whether it's blue, black, khaki or camo. So I don't understand the mentality that is put off by it.

Before Oakleys came along many officers wore Bausch & Lomb aviator style glasses, sometimes with mirrored lenses. I know of departments who have banned mirrored lenses for their officers due to feelings of some admins that they get more personnel complaints if they're wearing such glasses. I think they've seen Cool Hand Luke too many times. I looked at this and found no significant difference between the complaint rates of adjacent departments that did not have such a policy.

I don't know of any departments who have their patrol officers traditionally wear knee pads. Are there any?

All this is completely off topic but thanks for addressing my rants and your honesty.

You're welcome. I wish I could do this without writing a novel but I've never been able to do so.

[bigger hammer]

He surrendered when LE tried something novel, negotiated with him.

Yeah, I know. That's why I wrote that he surrendered.

Earlier you wrote,

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

And I responded,

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

No? You made it sound like you were in this post:

SactoDoug now cites this post of mine.

I know full well the problems they bring, I was certified as an MP-5 instructor and am certified to teach the patrol carbine in FA as well. Not every officer can handle them.

SactoDoug please tell us how being certified to teach the MP-5 and patrol carbine makes me an expert on, as you wrote, "what percentage of these "shooting situations" involve the officer using their AR vs their sidearm?" Of course this is a rhetorical question. It's apparent that you don't even remember the statements you made yesterday!

It is about time you came around to some sense.

If only the same could be said for you.

LE use their sidearm much more than their rifle or shotgun.

Yes, I know. Thirty years in LE, has taught me pretty well what police officers do. Do you have any personal experience in this area? If so, please detail it for us. I'd love to hear how you know what you state next.

Rifles and shotguns are in their patrol car while their sidearm is on them. Other than a standoff or raid, it is rare that the rifle or shotgun ever leaves the patrol car.

Not so. BOTH rifles and SG's are often used on felony stops. Both are often used in other situations where they may be useful, for example searching for an armed suspect who has run from the police, either from a crime scene or at the end of a vehicle pursuit. They're also quite useful in clearing buildings for armed suspects. The handgun gives more maneuverability and the rifle is used for "holding long." Due to the increase accuracy that a rifle brings, they're useful anytime the ranges are beyond the distance that an officer is accurate with his handgun. In select fire they allow an officer to deliver very quick follow-up rounds, faster than a hammer from a handgun and with much greater accuracy.

I asked you what your definition of "outgunned" is since you dispute my definition. My definition is based on the totality of firepower brought to an engagement, not the type. Since you don't like my definition, what is yours?

It can be EITHER OR BOTH the type of weapons that the crook has AND the type of weapons that LE has at the moment. In one instance in this discussion you dropped the number of officers at "50" when, in reality, most departments will NEVER have that number of officers present at any crime scene. And since most confrontations occur with only 1-4 officers present, that number of officers with handguns could easily be considered to be outgunned by ONE suspect with a semi−auto rifle if the conditions were right, for example if he was quite some distance away.

Earlier I wrote,

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.

I made no determination as to whether rifles or pistols were used.

Your statement "LOL. Those officers couldn't take done that one gun with semi-auto." It sure looks like you think that they had "semi−auto" rifles, especially when you follow it up with your next statement, "you think they are going to be more accurate with FA?"

My statement was based on the poor accuracy of the officers involved and your silly statement that you believe that if they had FA then they might been able to prevent the standoff.

Thanks for making my point. If they had been armed with select fire rifles, they would have been more accurate. They needn't have had the selector switch set on 'full,' they could just have easily set it on 'semi.' Or, if one of them was confident in his ability to use the 'full' setting he, as I said, might have been able to end the situation before the barricade took place. You may remember that I've written this, "I've said a couple of times that it's not necessary to use the "full" switch in many situations."

[bigger hammer]

I believe there is a philosophical difference at the heart of this argument. In the military, killing the enemy is the first goal, and capture is secondary. Civilian law enforcement is supposed to be the opposite: capture first, kill only if necessary to protect life.

In the military, FA weapons make sense. Put as much lead down range as possible to kill the enemy.

When it a threat to life comes present, the mission of an LEO is the same, except that death is not the desired result, stopping the threat is. The best way to do that is to "Put as much lead [into the threat] as possible to [stop the threat]."

LE is different in that they are not supposed to be the final arbiters of life and death.

The fact is that suspects make the decision as to what they do. When they do something that puts the life of an LEO or another person, at risk, the LEO AND the other person are permitted to use force to stop that threat. One of the most effective ways to do that is to shoot the suspect as many times as necessary, as quickly as possible, to stop the threat as soon as possible. This has absolutely nothing to do with "final arbiters of life and death." It's about stopping the threat as quickly as possible.

It is their job to apprehend a person to bring them to trial. Killing a suspect might be justified but it robs justice. It makes the officer judge, jury and executioner.

What nonsense. If the officer WAS as you so absurdly state, "judge jury and executioner." then he'd just pull his gun and execute anyone he thought "needed killing."[/i] The fact is that death is an unwanted outcome of a police shooting. We're only interested in stopping the threat as quickly as possible. But when the suspect decides to use deadly force, "apprehension" becomes secondary and saving lives becomes primary. As it's always been, it's the suspect who makes the decision as to what happens to him. Surrender quietly and voices will not even be raised. Create a situation where LEO's lives and those of others are in danger, and expect to be stopped as quickly as possible with whatever tools are the most efficient at that moment. Select fire rifles are much better at this than handguns. They provide more accuracy and quickly deliver more energy to the suspect at longer ranges, than do handguns.

LE with such lethal weapons creates mental dissonance.

Just as an evil black rifle in the hands of a private citizen does to a California legislator! Hoplophobia makes no sense on any level. Yet that's the agenda that you're pushing.

That is why there is so much controversy every time there is a shooting of an unarmed suspect.

There really isn't that much controversy, just because the suspect is unarmed, except among the ignorant and the uninformed. If the officer reasonably believed that his life, or that of another person, was in danger he's permitted to use deadly force to stop the threat. Some people are simply unable or unwilling to accept that fact.

That is why there is so much concern over the militarization of LE.

I don't accept the opinion that there is "so much concern" over this. But since the statement is intentionally vague, it really doesn't mean much.

When their primary mission changes from capture to kill, they become death squads instead of SWAT teams.

Jeez, what a load. This has NOTHING to do with the topic under discussion. When the time comes to fire a weapon at a suspect, it's because what he's doing is dangerous to the life of the LEO or another person. In that case, stopping what the suspect is doing as quickly as possible minimizes the threat. Having a select fire weapon gives both the accuracy necessary and allows for enough rounds to be fired in a short period of time, to do that.

[wobbleside]

Local law enforcement should have access to the same tools that their fellow citizens have access to. No more, no less.