Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[IrishJoe3]

Why is the bank's money more important than your house and your possessions?

Police seem to be able to respond to a bank robbery within minutes, sometimes less than 90 seconds. How long does it take police to respond to a report of a burglary?


Let the banks defend their own money. Why should taxpayers have to pay for a police force that exists essentially to protect corporate property?

Oh my. Didn't I see you at the last Occupy protest?

A burglary-in-progress is a very hot call that is responded with with extreme priority. A cold call burglary, (ie "someone broke my back window and took my TV") is a low priority call and is responded to after the hot calls are handled.

[KABA556]

Oh my. Didn't I see you at the last Occupy protest?

A burglary-in-progress is a very hot call that is responded with with extreme priority. A cold call burglary, (ie "someone broke my back window and took my TV") is a low priority call and is responded to after the hot calls are handled.

At least the occupy protests are calling attention to the wrongs of giving trillions of taxpayers dollars to the banks which are "too big to fail."

I only agree with the Occupy crowd on about 10% of their stuff, mostly in regards to the bogus nature of bailouts and how the banks are pillaging the national treasury and robbing the taxpayers.

There aren't many mainstream voices on the right denouncing the bailouts.

[bigger hammer]

If that dude had full auto he would have dumped a mag (30 rounds fired)

In reality you have no idea how many rounds he might have fired. PURE speculation.

and a **** ton of them would have missed (hitting god knows what)

More speculation. You have no idea whether he would have had the selector set to 'full' or to 'semi.' He seems to be a pretty fair shot. I didn't see any rounds hitting the ground or the wall behind the suspect or the car. Can you point out any that missed the suspect? And given that he fired immediately upon drawing, that is, he did not have his gun out and aimed before he fired, that was some pretty fair work. If he'd have had a rifle, his accuracy would have BEEN BETTER than with a handgun and he would have delivered more energy to the suspect with each round.

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.

WOW! Your guessing really has no limits! AGAIN this is nothing but anti−cop speculation. Many departments are carrying anti−personnel ammunition in their AR's, such as Hornady's TAP rounds that penetrate LESS than HP ammunition from a handgun. Do you know what kind of ammunition this department carries in their AR's or if they even have AR's?

[bigger hammer]

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.

I'd say that "the applications for it are somewhat limited ... " And I'd bet that your experience in how select−fire is useful to LE is also "extremely ... limited." It I'm wrong in this, please let us know.

The oft repeated example of when this would have been useful is the North Hollywood Incident. But as those who advocate the carrying of handguns all the time, myself included, as the saying goes, "Better to have it and not need it .......... "

However, the separate rules for LE and other civilians I think are BS.

Many, if not most, LEOs here will agree.

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.

Notice that Barrett refuses to sell guns to or service the guns of LEAs in California. Have you seen any changes in the law as a result? Didn't think so. Why people think that this will have any effect on the laws in this, or any state, is a mystery. The legislators don't give a darn about it. In fact, they probably like it. When those weapons need repair, to them, it's one less functioning gun in the state.

No jealousy here.

Yeah, I'm gonna disagree. I think your "separate rules" comment belies this statement.

[bigger hammer]

I've never seen a cop with a submachine gun.

Perhaps and perhaps not. Did you ever see the cover of Newsweek showing the cop opening the closet with the young Cuban kid hidden in it? Second row, second photo

https://www.google.com/search?q=elian+gonzalez&num=50&newwindow=1&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=W_J6Uos0z8uQB_nTgaAD&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=578

There are lots of others. The MP−5 used to be the most common entry gun carried by SWAT teams in the US. As SBR's became available to LE, they've fallen from favor for the reasons that you state below.

It seems that everyone is so worried about body armor these days so subguns are falling out of favor and select fire M4 type weapons seem to be popping up in the hands of LE more and more.

[bigger hammer]

Yeah because we had Thunderdome in 1810...

ROFLMFAO. We didn't have drug problems of the nature that we have today, in 1810. We didn't have gang problems of the nature that we have today, in 1810. We didn't have rapid international travel in 1810. We didn't have terrorists in 1810. Earlier I pointed out "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." Guess what, it's also not 1810!

When the cops stop doing their job and they're not around to protect criminals, we'll have armed citizens cleaning up their towns.

Oh yeah, that's going to work. Most people these days aren't even sure which end of the gun the bullets come out of, but you think that they're going to band together "cleaning up their towns." BTW guess what, if this were to happen, THEY would be the new police officers on the beat and you'd be whining all over again.

I'd have no problem banding together with other citizens and cleaning up the town.

Then others with the same distorted view of reality that you have, would be whining about YOU! LOL. "We have met the enemy and he is us!" – Pogo.

Pirates were historically declared enemies of humanity and were to be killed on sight. I believe that gang members could reasonably be declared "enemies of humanity" meaning if you're strutting around town "representing" with gang tattoos and gang colors from MS-13, you're shot on sight, no questions asked, because you're a pirate, an enemy of humanity.

Yeah, forget that "innocent until proven guilty" crap, it's just a waste of time and sooooooo bothersome.

Your posts get more and more preposterous, revealing more of your aberrant and perverse thought processes, as we go along.

Until about the 1860s and 1870s, most arrests were handled by private citizens acting on a warrant issued by a local judge.

Those "private citizens" became the lawmen (read that as LEOs) of that era. Just one example, Wyatt Earp, famous for his work in LE, was at various times before he pinned on the badge, a freight hauler, a railroad worker, a boxer, a gambler, a horse thief, a pimp, a brothel owner, and a miner, in short, a "private citizen."

http://www.biography.com/people/wyatt-earp-9283338

No one, then or now, is born a LEO. We all start out as "private citizens."

Don't you dare patronize me and expect me to believe that police protect children, wives, electronics... Warren v District of Columbia (1981) the court ruled that police have no duty to even answer calls for assistance.

The Warren case protects LEOs from being sued when they don't take action for various reasons. I don't think much of you but I doubt that you're so stupid that you don't believe that LEOs don't do the things you mentioned. But I'm well past the point where I "expect [you] to believe" any such facts. Anyone with a shred of common sense combined with a sense of honesty knows that LEOs do exactly these things, "protect children wives, electronics ... " and many more things. We're far from perfect but to pretend that we don't do these things is irrational. But based on the downhill slide that your posts are taking, I'm not surprised.

I have never had a police car parked outside of my house even when I was faced with death threats from a certifiably insane individual who had spent time in a mental asylum.

I’m sorry that you have not received the level of service that you thought you deserved. Later on you tell us "WE DO NOT NEED YOU!" Now you're sniveling that we weren't there when you thought that your life was in danger! There simply aren't enough policemen so that we can "park outside [the] house" of everyone who claims that his life is in danger. And even if we did, you'd be crying about "police states" and "invasion of your privacy." "Park[ing] outside [your] house" wouldn't ensure your safety in any case. Besides didn't you just tell us that you're capable of defending yourself? Why would you want, what you claim are ill trained, inefficient, poor shots, guarding you?

Police also tend to lack teleportation devices so in the event I were to call for help, they're at least 10-20 minutes away on any given day, so much for helping me...

Yeah, we're working on that. But with all the negative things that you've been saying, why on earth, would you ever need to, or want to call us?

We don't need you anywhere near as much as you need us. You need us to fund your projects, pay for your equipment, pay for your pension.

It takes a village.

You'd have us believe that YOU are the only thing standing between our families and a gang of 30 crack dealing rapists who want to gang rape all the women of the house.

Nah, not hardly. Ever been told that you have a flair for extravagant exaggeration that moves well into the absurd? ROFL.

Society functioned for centuries without professional police.

Nonsense. Police have been around pretty much since we moved out of caves. Courageous private citizens did the work and eventually became "professional police."

WE DO NOT NEED YOU!

Can you name a modern society that does not have police, or the equivalent?

[bigger hammer]

Basically this is you-

There's that flair for extravagant exaggeration that moves well into the absurd again.

Obviously we're going to have a major disagreement,

"[W]e're going to have a major disagreement?" LMAO. I'm pretty sure that we're well into a "major disagreement."

you're an authoritarian personality

Actually I'm pretty easygoing. I just know a few things about LE that you don't. You have a vivid imagination and there are many things that you think that you know, that you really don't.

aspiring to have a tyranny in this nation

Nah, I'm a "less government is better government" kinda guy. But in your persistent ranting, you'd never find that out.

and I believe that if the people simply embrace basic civic virtue then the professional police class becomes unnecessary and indeed dangerous to the nation. Really, we don't need you.

Keep on dreamin'. No nation in history has gotten along for any significant length of time without police or some entity fulfilling that role.

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

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

Bank tellers are FIRED for opposing robbers...

Your point?

So you want to take DISCRETION on my part and recast it as cowardice because you're an authoritarian monster who is going to smear, with ad hominems, anybody who dares to breathe a word against your corrupt value system.

I said nothing of your courage, or lack thereof. I was clearly alluding to the fact that perhaps the reason that you didn't take action was that you've not capable of it. YOU assumed that I was referring to your courage. Actually I was referring to you ability to handle yourself in a fight. And it was a question, not a statement. You use lots of big words and pretend to be very intelligent, but this sort of statement belies all that.

And my "value system" is just fine, thank you. LOL

What do you THINK [if you're capable of thinking that hard]

Says the man who's been whining about ad hominem attacks from others!

would happen to a retail clerk who leaps across the counter to attack a customer who just threatened to come back into the store with a weapon and begin killing people if the product doesn't function as the package states it is supposed to function.

Perhaps if you weren't selling crap, and NOT contributing to the GDP such things wouldn’t happen to you. But when I worked in retail sales and someone said something like this, I figured that he was kidding. Couldn't you just, as you recently said, "simply embrace basic civic virtue?"

Maybe with your "logic" you respond to everything with violence, knowing the FOP has your back, I didn't have that luxury.

I always started every contact with courtesy and professionalism. But if the person wanted it to go another way, I was always able to go down that street too. It had nothing to do with my Association, it's just the way that proper LE work is done.

Some of us have to process a situation and decide on the best course of action,

Yeah because retail clerks are SO OFTEN called upon to make split second decisions.

Most cities seem to have policies where they won't hire applicants for a cop job if they score ABOVE a certain number on an IQ test.

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/5876-court-oks-barring-high-iqs-for-cops

You have provide such a news story for ONE LEA. Please provide support to show that as you claim, "MOST cities ... " Somehow, like EVERY other one of my requests for you to provide supporting evidence for your nonsense, this one won't be answered. You'll simply pretend that such evidence was never asked for. But the readers have seen your lack of ability to provide support for such statements, and as long as you keep writing such garbage, I'll keep pointing it out.

I'm not surprised that many cities refuse to hire anybody with an IQ above 125 for a cop job, or that the national average for police is 104, slightly above average... Smart enough to know how to fill out reports, document a crime scene, testify in court, and follow orders...

AGAIN, please provide support for your claim that "many cities ... " The reasoning of the LEA , "New London police interview only candidates who score between 20 and 27, 'on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training,' " Is probably true for a small, quiet place like New London, CT. The population is about 28k and it's only about 11 square miles. Not lots of work there.

Not smart enough to begin philosophizing and pondering major issues about the Constitutionality of being tasked with breaking up a peaceful demonstration and pepper spraying people.

I'd guess that you're referring to the incident at UC Davis where the police pepper sprayed a crowd of Occupy people who were barring their way and threatening to lynch their prisoners. No constitutional violations occurred.

Not smart enough to begin philosophizing and pondering major issues about the morality or Constitutionality of confiscating guns from law-abiding disaster victims in the aftermath of a massive hurricane.

Oddly enough, just about every LEO on this forum has agreed that they'd not take part in such a confiscation.

That's just how the big city political machines want them, smart enough to read and write, not smart enough to ask questions or dare to challenge authority.

Yep, that's what some "big city political machines want" But in reality FEW LEO's work for such entities. In CA, as I've pointed out, the average police department is 11 officers. Hardly a "big city political machine."

Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, they would have been miserable failures if they had been professional police officers. They think too much and ask too many questions.

Instead they were legislators. Making the laws that the LEO equivalent of that day enforced. These days legislators, don't even seem to be as smart as the 104 IQ LEOs.

[bigger hammer]

Why is the bank's money more important than your house and your possessions?

Police seem to be able to respond to a bank robbery within minutes, sometimes less than 90 seconds. How long does it take police to respond to a report of a burglary?

Response times for many police departments are often available with a request to their PIO, (Public Information Officer) But they are not collated by type of call except to separate them into "emergency calls" and "non-emergency calls. What is the source for your figures on this? And why do I know that you won't respond to this question? ROFL.

There are several reason why a response to a bank robbery is faster than to a burglary. First is that many bank robberies are reported either when the robbery is in progress or immediately afterwards. Burglaries are usually reported after the crook is long gone. People wake up, return from work or a vacation, and discover that they've been victimized. But perhaps you're talking about in−progress burglaries?

In any case, robberies, including bank robberies involve a face−to−face confrontation between suspect and victim. There is a very large opportunity for violence. Burglaries involve very few such confrontations. Robbery suspects who enter a bank with a gun, or a note claiming that they have one, a bomb, or a note claiming that they have one, are much more dangerous to the citizenry than is a burglar, most of whom don't even want to be seen.

But responses to any emergency call are dependent on many factors. How many officers are available at the moment of the call? What are they doing at the moment that they get the call? How far are they from the scene? What is traffic like between their location and the crime scene? I know many officers who used to race to all reports of in-progress crimes. But complaints from citizens, probably who think along the same lines that you do, that they were driving above the speed limit or that they rolled stop signs or red lights, made them slow down. And so the response time for all calls goes up.

Let the banks defend their own money. Why should taxpayers have to pay for a police force that exists essentially to protect corporate property?

Actually it's your money. Banks these days are insured by the FDIC, (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). Your tax dollar hard at work!

[bigger hammer]

They didn't need full auto, they needed rifles. The problem was going against guys in body armor when they were armed with pistols and shotguns, calibers that have little to no effect on rifle plates.

Supposedly the story I heard was they borrowed semiautomatic ARs from a local FFL to take the guys down. Full auto would have only made that situation worse IMO.

It's foolish economy for LEAs to pay top dollar for semi−auto rifles when they can get select−fire weapons from the military for 1/3 the cost, or at times for free! And if they encounter a situation where 'full' is appropriate, they're ready for it.

IN REALITY the North Hollywood robbery was resolved by SWAT officers who responded WITH SELECT−FIRE AR PATTERN RIFLES. AND they used the 'full' setting to end the situation.

[bigger hammer]

I was trained to fire three rounds, pause, reassess the situation and continue firing only if needed.

Could you tell us where and when you received this training please? Who was the instructor(s).

bigger hammer says he can reassess the situation as he is pulling the trigger as fast as possible.

First, I wouldn't be "pulling the triggers as fast as possible." I'd be pulling the trigger as fast as I could shoot accurately.

Second, anyone can do this if they've been trained properly. You're looking at the front sight (or you should be), but the suspect is right behind it. If he stops attacking or flees, it's right there in front of you. I did it after firing one shot once, and thousands of times when it wasn't necessary to shoot at all. Based on your comments, you are not capable of this. Perhaps if you'd been properly trained initially or had taken a modern class recently?!

Now that takes superhuman split second decision making literally as each round is squeezed off in .2-.3 seconds.

That's why we get the big bucks. ROFL. Seriously though, it's not all that hard. You're looking right at the suspect and so it's easy to see what he does. YOU OTOH are going to fire three rounds, no matter what he does. If he surrenders or flees after the first round, you're still going to shoot him twice more. If he's still fighting during your "pause and assess period" he might kill you.

The video you quoted shows how well "firing until they stop" works at killing a person. That officer fired most of his rounds as the man was on the ground.

Yes, he was on the ground and your perception was that he was "writhing in pain." My perception was that he was trying to get to his feet to continue the attack. And he tried this at least twice. The DA's office agrees with my assessment, not yours. They said that they officers acted properly.

That guy might have lived if he only had three holes in him instead of 11.

That's entirely possible. It's just as possible that with your mad skills, he'd not have survived.

It doesn't take superhuman split second decision making to wait to see if the guy is going to stay down or is going to try to get up and come after you.

Sure looks to me as if he's "try[ing] to get up and come after" the officer.

It appears that "until they stop" in LE lingo means dead or unconscious.

Really not that hard to figure out. At the initial stop the officer said, "Hands up. Hands up Ernie. Don't you move." But Mr. Duenez does not put his hands up and he does move! Then the officer says, "Ernie don't you move or I'll shoot you. Hands up. Now, drop the knife now." But Mr. Duenez does not comply. And so, the officer rightly perceiving that Mr. Duenez was a threat to his life, fires. After about 5 shots are fired, Mr. Duenez falls to the ground but he tries several times to get back up. Any reasonable person in that situation would assume that he was going to continue his attack, and so the officer fires some more. Even after he fires his last round, Mr. Duenez tries to get up again, but the officer, perceiving that the threat does not exist any longer, DOES NOT FIRE AGAIN.

In that video, the guy was on the ground, not moving towards the officer anymore, but he was still moving as more rounds were pumped into him. So he was not "stopped" yet, or at least his heart was not.

It's amazing how people who have next to no knowledge of the dynamics of such situations think they have it all figured out. He needn't be moving towards the officer to still be a threat.

[bigger hammer]

After SactoDoug linked us to an obviously unskilled shooter firing a select fire AR pattern rifle, I wrote,

It appears that you missed the part where he says "Seems to work EITHER WAY!" ROFLMFAO.

It appears you missed the part where he says "Got 3 of them out of 30 rounds."

Yes, he does get three hits out of 30 rounds. Because he, as an unskilled shooter apparently untrained in using a select−fire rifle, sprays a pattern of rounds across the hillside where the targets are spread out, firing many of the rounds into the ground between them. Someone trained in FA fire would not do this. Instead he'd aim at each target and would them fire only 2-3 rounds at each of them, getting hits with all of the rounds in about 1/3 the time that it takes this shooter in the video to do the same thing with semi−auto fire.

Watch the video again and see how much longer it takes him to hit the targets, I think he misses at least once, when he tries it on semi−auto.

[falar]

Notice that Barrett refuses to sell guns to or service the guns of LEAs in California. Have you seen any changes in the law as a result? Didn't think so. Why people think that this will have any effect on the laws in this, or any state, is a mystery. The legislators don't give a darn about it. In fact, they probably like it. When those weapons need repair, to them, it's one less functioning gun in the state.

No changes, you're right. For now its just one company and someone else will gladly step in to take their money instead.

I think it would be a different story though if MOST companies took that stance instead of just one.

[falar]

Tell that to the 2 SWAT guys that cut off his escape with their vehicle blocking his path and he unloaded a beta mag full at them through the front windshield. They crawled out of the car and then engaged and neutralized him by firing underneath their vehicle and hitting the suspect in the ankle.

You are correct they needed rifles and they did get them from B&B guns as the incident developed. It changed policy for a lot of Departments after this incident as far as deployment of rifles in the field.

You just proved my point.

A whole beta mag and they hit nothing. If I get engaged in a shootout with someone, I hope full auto and spray and pray from the hip hollywood style are the exact tactics they deploy.

[falar]

In reality you have no idea how many rounds he might have fired. PURE speculation. This is just a guess on your part.



More speculation. You have no idea whether he would have had the selector set to 'full' or to 'semi.' He seems to be a pretty fair shot. I didn't see any rounds hitting the ground or the wall behind the suspect or the car. Can you point out any that missed the suspect? And given that he fired immediately upon drawing, that is, he did not have his gun out and aimed before he fired, that was some pretty fair work. If he'd have had a rifle, his accuracy would have BEEN BETTER than with a handgun and he would have delivered more energy to the suspect with each round.



WOW! Your guessing really has no limits! AGAIN this is nothing but anti−cop speculation. Many departments are carrying anti−personnel ammunition in their AR's, such as Hornady's TAP rounds that penetrate LESS than HP ammunition from a handgun. Do you know what kind of ammunition this department carries in their AR's or if they even have AR's?

Plenty of agencies get cheap leftover M193/M855 also...........so what is your point?