Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[Patrick Aherne]

I don't value the job so I'm not going to pay for it and I don't care if you do it or if nobody does it.


I think that's the problem, there are people who simply do not value what you do and you cannot accept that there are people who are not tripping over themselves to stage a parade in your honor and vote you a pay raise.


Certain occupations add value to society, factory workers, farmers, engineers, technicians, bricklayers, ranchers, people who contribute products that impact GDP.


Military, Police, and Security, have no way to quantify their benefit to society. If a factory worker assembles 200 gas generators each year, that can be quantified.

Police can say that their presence stops Ted Bundy and Osama Bin Laden copycats from going wild in town, but the presence of an armed citizenry might be what is achieving that. You cannot disprove a negative.

If police insist that their presence in a community prevents serial killers and rapists from roaming the streets, there is no way to empirically prove or disprove that.

At the end of the day, money spent on policing is basically money that is lost, it does not produce further wealth, it is not capital that generates a constant return, it is money that is simply lost.


So now you resort to ad hominems and you call me a coward when you don't know squat about me.

I think I know all I need to know about you. I brought up a couple of scenarios where full-auto could be useful and laid out the problem. You brought up other solutions that will not be implemented due to cost. You don't want me to have full-auto on the job, I get it. I don't need it 99% of the time. I was not wrong that you will not be out there with me on the frontage road. Your choices, desires, and theories about law enforcement aside; the job will still have to get done.

I'm all for your ability to own NFA items, however.

There is no honest discussion possible with you. You know everything and cannot be persuaded of another's point of view.

I think it's best if we agree to disagree.

[TRICKSTER]

I don't value the job so I'm not going to pay for it and I don't care if you do it or if nobody does it.


At the end of the day, money spent on policing is basically money that is lost, it does not produce further wealth, it is not capital that generates a constant return, it is money that is simply lost.


So now you resort to ad hominems and you call me a coward when you don't know squat about me.

On this particular subject, I starting on a civil liberties stand that LEO's should have the same access to weapons as the average citizen. After reading the responses from various LEO's in this thread, including one self professed instructor, I am dead set against it. If the posters in this thread are any indication, they are reckless and dangerous. I question whether they should be allowed to have any weapons at all.

And now the real truth is exposed. They see not what is, but only what their bias lets them see. As shown by their refusal to answer questions related to their comments, they display very rigid thinking and have problems adapting to real world situations. Discussion is futile. Just quit responding and let them rant.

[KABA556]

What a ridiculously ignorant statement. Do you know how much "theft and fraud" in all forms across a broad spectrum affects the price you pay for things on a daily basis? Do you realize how your small business (producing those 200 generators) livelyhood is affected if you have it in a high crime area that is not policed properly? Do you realize how many traffic accidents are prevented through through traffic enforcement which again affects the price you pay for insurance? How about auto theft and the price of cars and auto insurance? I could go on and on and on about how crime and the proper policing of such directly impacts the average person even though they were never directly involved or the victim of the crime(s) being perpetrated. There is a direct connection and correlation that has an impact on GDP also and if you can not see it then you need to pull your head out of the sand and look around.

Just repeat after me- "Do you realize just how many alcohol related crimes were prevented by the enforcement of prohibition?"

[KABA556]

I think I know all I need to know about you. I brought up a couple of scenarios where full-auto could be useful and laid out the problem. You brought up other solutions that will not be implemented due to cost. You don't want me to have full-auto on the job, I get it. I don't need it 99% of the time. I was not wrong that you will not be out there with me on the frontage road. Your choices, desires, and theories about law enforcement aside; the job will still have to get done.

I'm all for your ability to own NFA items, however.

There is no honest discussion possible with you. You know everything and cannot be persuaded of another's point of view.

I think it's best if we agree to disagree.

There's always the solution advised by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson read the Koran when he wanted to learn more about the Barbary Coast pirates and why they were raiding American merchant ships. He concluded that America could not come to any understanding with Islam and that Islam must be kept out of America.


Islamic terrorism isn't possible in a nation that refuses to allow Muslisms to enter into the nation and expels anybody who converts to Islam.

Even still, if it wasn't Islam it would be the "war on drugs" or some other nonsense... After 40 years of the "war on drugs" and the resulting massive increase in drugs in the nation, they had to move on to something new, the "war on terror" for which there is no end in sight.


There is no precedent for a nation as diverse as the USA being able to maintain freedom. Austria-Hungary [with 11 official languages and at least as many ethnic groups] was hardly free... The same goes for the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, etc.


Nations where people are united by similarities, heritage, history, culture, language, religion, basic values, are usually very peaceful nations. Nations where there are multiple groups that all have competing visions for how to run the nation, how to divide resources, which set of laws should govern, tend to be nations that exist with ongoing insurgencies, they suffer civil war, and they are usually fragmented through war.

America has over 200 ethnic/racial groups and at least as many language groups represented across the nation, some more so than others. There are also at least a five or six major religions in the USA, perhaps a dozen or more, hundreds if you break them down by specific sect/denomination.


In short, America is basically a larger version of Yugoslavia, and you cannot hold a Yugoslavia together by consent because there is no common ground amongst the people and there is no shared heritage/culture from which to derive codified laws and social rules. A Yugoslavia has to be held together by force or the implied threat of force.


America is 1810 was held together by consent.

America in 1910 was still mostly held together by consent, although the terrible war between the states forced multiple states to remain in a union that they sought to leave.

America in 2013 is held together by force. One out of 300 citizens is involved in policing, 1.5 out of 300 citizens is in the military in some capacity [active/reserves], and the military is one of the largest standing armies in the history of the world, in addition to spending more than every other nation combined in regards to military spending, it is the best funded and perhaps best equipped military.


A peaceful Republic does not need a standing army, let alone one of the largest and the best funded in the world. An Empire that has made dozens of enemies abroad and has no mandate from the citizenry at home, needs a standing army to keep the citizenry in line and awe them into submission with the implied threat of force.

[bigger hammer]

Full auto is "accurate". LOL

It appears that you missed the part where he says

Seems to work EITHER WAY!

ROFLMFAO.

[bigger hammer]

I don't value the job so I'm not going to pay for it

Aren't you one of those who paid my salary? Do you live off the grid and never pay taxes?

and I don't care if you do it or if nobody does it.

If we don't, no one will be introducing criminals into the court system. The jails and prisons that are now holding thousands of criminals, will open up and they'll be free to again victimize the public. I'd guess that you want to think that because you have a gun and the mindset to use it, that you won't have to worry about that happening because you'll be able to defend yourself. But when you're at work, you're not guarding your kids, your wife, or your TV set.

If you think it's armed citizens who keep gangs in check, you don't have a clue. When the cops stop doing their job, we'll have Thunderdome.

I think that's the problem, there are people who simply do not value what you do

Not many. The overwhelming majority of people throughout history has seen a need for, and had, those chosen to enforce the laws.

and you cannot accept that there are people who are not tripping over themselves to stage a parade in your honor

To expand on your narrow statement ... there are people who ARE tripping over themselves to become LEO's When I got started there were 300 applicants for one opening on a small PD. When LAPD opens up for applications, thousands show up. The line wraps around the building, several times.

and vote you a pay raise.

These days, the public doesn't "vote [LEOs] a pay raise." They come from contract negotiations with the governing entity.

Certain occupations add value to society, factory workers, farmers, engineers, technicians, bricklayers, ranchers, people who contribute products that impact GDP.

Military, Police, and Security, have no way to quantify their benefit to society. If a factory worker assembles 200 gas generators each year, that can be quantified.

Many professions are defined as "service occupations." This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Police can say that their presence stops Ted Bundy and Osama Bin Laden copycats from going wild in town, but the presence of an armed citizenry might be what is achieving that. You cannot disprove a negative.

Uh, it wasn't "an armed citizenry" that took down Ted Bunch or Osama Bin Laden. In the first case it was LEOs and in the second it was the military. Two organizations that as you pointed out, don't "impact [the] GDP" and whose work product "can['t] be quantified."

If police insist that their presence in a community prevents serial killers and rapists from roaming the streets, there is no way to empirically prove or disprove that.

Just as there is "no way to empirically prove or disprove" that it's an armed citizenry that keep them down. Especially in states like CA where the citizenry is not armed to any significant degree outside their homes.

At the end of the day, money spent on policing is basically money that is lost, it does not produce further wealth, it is not capital that generates a constant return, it is money that is simply lost.

What nonsense. Just because it's "not producing further wealth," hardly means that " it's lost." The service has been rendered. The pay that goes to the baggage handler at the airport who puts your bags on the plane has not been "lost." You get to have your bags at the end of the plane trip. The pay that goes to the waitress who brings your food at the restaurant has not been "lost." You've gotten your lunch. The pay that goes to the bus driver has not been "lost." People get to their jobs.

You propose one absurd argument after another and throw in a few off−topic examples for effect. Let's see, in this discussion there have been "lumberjack killers," "criminals ...target[ing] liquor store clerks," rather than the money they control, a guess as to the type of weaponry that was used in an ambush, in the complete absence of any support for that guess, a description of an incident in Cleveland where AGAIN there is no indication that select−fire weapons were in use, an unsupported, unverified statement (that we later found out was nothing but your opinion) about a "mounting backlash in this nation." There are several more examples of such gibberish from you.

So now you resort to ad hominems and you call me a coward when you don't know squat about me.

I don't think that saying that you "don't have the courage to do the job yourself" comes anywhere near "call[ing you] a coward." I know that when I call someone a "coward" it looks like this ... "You're a coward!" Rather than saying that you don't have the courage to do something. I'd bet that Mr. Aherne is much the same way.

[bigger hammer]

Back in the 1960s and 1970s you could take a pistol on an airplane at the discretion of each individual airline...

Do you believe TSA has done anything to make air travel safer?

Air travel is safer, in part due to the TSA, as well as new policies that have been put in place.

Anybody could buy explosives in the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s, but aside from gangsters/mobsters bombing each other, and anarchists attacking big corporate leaders [rare], there were no attacks on citizens running marathons.

Don't look now, but it's not "the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s [or] 1960s and 1970s" anymore. Times have changed. Warfare has changed. LE has changed.

Most terrorist attacks are perpetrated by the government against the citizens to justify the expansion of the police state and the erosion of citizens rights.

Oh GAWD. One of those. We've just entered an entire new echelon of stupid statements. This is several quantum leaps above "the sky is falling." True colors AGAIN. You just made my signature and not in a good way.

[bigger hammer]

You've also managed to shoot at least three individuals on the job, which seems odd when most police somehow make it through their career without shooting anybody. By your own admission you've put holes in at least three individuals, which suggests to me that you're just the sort of individual we don't want running around with a fully automatic weapon. Maybe it isn't you, maybe you were just working in a bad area, I can't say for sure, but it seems odd to be involved in so many shootings.

Not odd at all. It depends on many factors, the area in which one works, the assignments one works, and what sorts of crooks inhabit the environment. Judging by "just the numbers" is ignorant.

[bigger hammer]

I started the personal attacks. LOL

Yes you did.

It is about time you came around to some sense.

ANOTHER logical fallacy from you. In the incident referred to "7 rounds WAS enough to stop the threat." ROFLMFAO

[bigger hammer]

Just be glad you are separated by a computer monitor...

I'm VERY glad.

They say they won't step back when they are verbally challenged or disrespected.

Who is "they?" Somehow I've missed any LEO in this thread or on this forum making such a statement.

When I was young and I worked retail

This sounds like a service job where you did not contribute to the GDP and so money paid you was "lost?" Did I get that right?

I had to deal with very difficult customers, some who were so upset by the product that they threatened to harm me, harm my co-workers, damage store property, etc.

So not only did you not contribute to the "GDP" and so your pay was "lost," you were selling a piece of crap that made some "customers ... so upset ... that they threatened to harm [you]?"

I was not empowered to leap across the counter and begin assaulting them, even if they had just threatened great bodily harm, so I had to calm them down and talk them down.

Could it be that you don't have the wherewithal to do anything BUT "talk them down?"

But when you have the force of the law behind you, sometimes it makes people people feel empowered to the point where they assault people for merely "showing disrespect" and we have a lot of that in the USA today...

Yep there are always gonna be LEOs who do the wrong thing. I'm sorry but we're human. But you have no idea of how much idiocy we take from idiots and DON'T respond with such force as you seem to think is the rule rather than the exception.

Question their authority, don't give them the respect they believe they are automatically entitled by virtue of their position, and you're going to get hurt, that's what it boils down to.

Of the millions of police contacts that occur EVERY DAY, there will be some that go this way. But they're far less numerous than similar things that go on outside the LE profession.

[bigger hammer]

I have seen both good and bad LEO's over the years.

Me too.

The ones that have contempt for the public are the ones that tend to be the bad apples. Those kinds of officers are the ones that demand respect and often abuse their authority.

You'll find that just about every cop on this forum has no love for "the bad apples."

I have also met and dealt with a few good officers too. They do their job, serve the community and have a good attitude about it.

They far outnumber the "bad apples."

One thing that is troublesome is the "circle the wagons" mentality that they have. The good cops will protect the bad ones.

I'll assume that this is opinion and I'll disagree. Having spent 30 years inside the job, I think I have a better idea of how prevalent this is than you do.

I always applaud any officer that reports poor behavior from other officers. It shows there is hope to get rid of the bad apples.

I'm personally responsible for the firing of half a dozen officers who did the wrong thing.

On this particular subject, I starting on a civil liberties stand that LEO's should have the same access to weapons as the average citizen.

I'll disagree. BOTH LEO and citizens should have access to the same weapons as the average infantry soldier.

After reading the responses from various LEO's in this thread, including one self professed instructor,

I'll guess that this is me. I'm HARDLY a "self professed instructor." I was certified by Heckler & Koch as an MP−5 operator/instructor. I was certified by the FBI as a handgun, carbine and shotgun instructor/Rangemaster, and I regularly teach for a school that trains both LE and private citizens to use firearms. I have been teaching this sort of thing for decades.

I am dead set against it. If the posters in this thread are any indication, they are reckless and dangerous. I question whether they should be allowed to have any weapons at all.

Such a comment is simply too stupid to bother responding to with reason or logic.

I was taught that self defense ends when the threat ends

That's true.

Fire three rounds at a time and reassess whether the threat still exists after each group of three.

Your training was either faulty initially or is out of date. While you're "reassess[ing]" if the person is still a threat, he can kill you. There should be no interruption in attempts to stop him. Your philosophy makes no sense. There's nothing magic about "three rounds."

Even if all three rounds miss, the "threat" might stop or flee when met with gunfire.

If he "stops of flees" then you stop shooting NO MATTER HOW MANY ROUNDS YOU'VE FIRED! You are programmed to fire three times and THEN assess the threat. If he's "stop[ped] or fle[d]" after your first round you will fire two more, because that's your training. You don't "reassess" until AFTER THE THIRD ROUND. With the proper system, as I've discussed, the assessment is taking place every moment.

These officers are purposefully trained to fire as many rounds as quickly as they can into the "threat".

I'll call this your opinion, rather than what you think is a fact, because if it was the latter it would be a lie. If it was true EVERY officer in EVERY shooting would empty his gun, reload and do it again, until he ran out of all ammunition that he was carrying.

I know of no training facility or trainer who teach ANYONE, LEO or citizen to shoot "as quickly as they can." EVERY instructor for either LEO or citizens that I know of, teaches students to shoot as quickly as they can fire accurately. No one shoots in a real situation as well as they can on the calm, quiet atmosphere of a square range.

My training was to preserve life if at all possible.

Actually not so much as you'd like to pretend. You're firing three shots automatically and THEN you're assessing the threat. Under the current philosophy "shoot until the threat is no longer a threat," the assessment is taking place at every moment. That includes before the first shot is fired and as every shot is fired as well. You "shoot three and THEN look."

Their training is reckless.

ANOTHER opinion. If it was stated as fact, it would be a lie. And my opinion is the opposite. YOURS is the reckless training. The current training is far more likely to result in less injury than yours. Our assessment of the threat starts before the first round and then at every moment until the threat ceases. Yours doesn't even start until AFTER three rounds have been fired.

It reminds me of this video where about 2/3's of the rounds fired were made after the "threat" was on the ground writhing in pain. Yes, the initial rounds were justified, but the majority of the round IMO were not.

ACTUALLY you have no idea of what is in the suspect's mind. After he's on the ground you characterize his behavior as "writhing in pain." It's entirely possible that he's trying to get up to continue his assault. The fact that the officer does not fire any longer demonstrates that he realizes that the threat no longer exists. IF HE WAS BEING RECKLESS (as you claim), he'd have emptied his gun (after all that's what you tell us he's trained to do, just a few paragraphs earlier). But he does not, Instead he holds his fire! Thanks for posting this video. It clearly supports what I've been saying all along.

Getting back on the topic, and off the anti−police paranoid rant ... If he had been armed with a select−fire rifle, he might have only fired 1-3 shots, instead of the many more that were fired. He'd have known that each one delivered far more power than his handgun and therefore would have been more effective at stopping the threat.



Here's a couple of news stories about this incident.

http://www.workers.org/articles/2013/09/26/family-demands-justice-police-killing-ernest-duenez-jr/

As Duenez [mother] explained to this reporter: “My son was considered a parolee at large, because he had tested dirty on a drug test, after he had been clean for almost a year. He was a new father, and was really trying to do his best. [yeah, except for that drug use]. He was only two months from being off of parole for good. The cops ran with the drug test as a personal vendetta. The parole officer had put out a warrant for his arrest because of the drug test. [Which is it Mom? Did the officer have a "personal vendetta" or did your son's parole officer "put out a warrant for his arrest?"] Ernest had told me, ‘I promise I will turn myself in after the baby’s first birthday.’ "

Yep. He'll turn himself in right "after the baby's first birthday." "SWAMPLAND AND A BRIDGE FOR SALE −−−−- CHEAP"


Here's my favorite news story on this incident. It's dated December 19, 2012.

The event happened on June 8th, 2011 but it was only a week ago that the San Joaquin County District Attorney office cleared any wrongdoings of Manteca Police Officer, John Moody in the killing of known gangbanger and ex-convict Ernest Duenez Jr.

Duenez was a wanted parolee for various gruesome crimes. He has been CONVICTED of the following:

• Statutory Rape
• Burglary
• Possession of controlled substances
• Possession of stolen vehicles
• Felony for evading arrest
• Assault with a deadly weapon
• Gang membership

Duenez was no model citizen but rather another gang-banging scum on this Earth.

The incident occurred around 6:42pm and it happened quickly. Moody was able to catch Duenez and his party driving onto the driveway. The officer called out Duenez to have his hands up in the air.

Moody yelled, “Hands up! Hands up, Ernie! Don’t you move! Or I will shoot you! Hands up now! Drop the knife now!”

Instead of obeying the officer, Duenez jumped out of the truck, looked at the officer and started to hop and was seen lunging [misspelled in the story] for something in the vehicle. As an officer, you must expect the worst. The officer assumed it was a knife so he did what was best in the situation and shot down Duenez.

Thirteen shots and 4.2 seconds later, Duenez is on the ground, dead from his gunshot wounds as his girlfriend stood over the motionless body.

Moody’s act was well-justified. He did what was needed and we all should applaud him for protecting people from further harm and crimes by Duenez.

However, unsurprisingly the Duenez family disagrees and has hired well-known civil rights attorney John Burris to represent the $34 million case against Manteca police. The family claimed that he had his foot caught in the seat belt. However, the DA office has found that there was indeed a knife present and Moody did what was necessary. [Emphasis Added]

[falar]

We used machine guns mainly for suppression or for targets generally beyond the range of an M4.

I can't really think of any time that LE has had to face any kind of situation where they would need them. If it wasn't for NFA '34 I probably wouldn't care as much but if we "don't need them" and can't have them (yes, transferrables exist but will continue to dwindle) then why should they?

[bigger hammer]

I can't really think of any time that LE has had to face any kind of situation where they would need them. If it wasn't for NFA '34 I probably wouldn't care as much but if we "don't need them" and can't have them (yes, transferrables exist but will continue to dwindle) then why should they?

Another member said it waaaay better than I can.

let's be honest, most of the "cops shouldn't have full auto" is based PURELY on jealousy. The VAST, VAST amount of arguments against LEOs having full auto really does come down to I can't have one so they should be able to either. ...

[falar]

I have seen both good and bad LEO's over the years. The ones that have contempt for the public are the ones that tend to be the bad apples. Those kinds of officers are the ones that demand respect and often abuse their authority.

I have also met and dealt with a few good officers too. They do their job, serve the community and have a good attitude about it.

One thing that is troublesome is the "circle the wagons" mentality that they have. The good cops will protect the bad ones. I always applaud any officer that reports poor behavior from other officers. It shows there is hope to get rid of the bad apples.

On this particular subject, I starting on a civil liberties stand that LEO's should have the same access to weapons as the average citizen. After reading the responses from various LEO's in this thread, including one self professed instructor, I am dead set against it. If the posters in this thread are any indication, they are reckless and dangerous. I question whether they should be allowed to have any weapons at all.

I was taught that self defense ends when the threat ends Fire three rounds at a time and reassess whether the threat still exists after each group of three. Even if all three rounds miss, the "threat" might stop or flee when met with gunfire. These officers are purposefully trained to fire as many rounds as quickly as they can into the "threat". My training was to preserve life if at all possible. Their training is reckless.

It reminds me of this video where about 2/3's of the rounds fired were made after the "threat" was on the ground writhing in pain. Yes, the initial rounds were justified, but the majority of the round IMO were not. The officer either failed to reassess the threat, or didn't care. He kept shooting, even slowed his shots towards the end to almost ensure that they were lethal.



They need full auto.

If that dude had full auto he would have dumped a mag (30 rounds fired) and a **** ton of them would have missed (hitting god knows what) and assuming it is a full auto AR we are talking about the ones the hit him (depending on ammo type) could have passed through and done more damage also.

[falar]

Another member said it waaaay better than I can.

If full auto were like it was before 1934 yes, I would own them. But it would be purely for fun. The applications for it are extremely limited from my experience.

However, the separate rules for LE and other civilians I think are BS. I applaud the companies that don't sell products to LE that their states ban (like Barrett) and wish everyone would follow suit so that we can get more gun laws repealed.

No jealousy here.