Now just why should cops have these weapons? After all, some places are immune from crime. Aren't they?
After all, nobody ever asked why it took so long to stop the shooter on a rampage. Right?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...apons_in_mass/
Printable View
Now just why should cops have these weapons? After all, some places are immune from crime. Aren't they?
After all, nobody ever asked why it took so long to stop the shooter on a rampage. Right?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...apons_in_mass/
Smart Police Chief IMO. To equate an AR-15 to a bazooka or cannon just demonstrates the ignorance and lack of understanding that many folks (without a clear understanding of facts) have.
Deleted.
Delete me.
Anybody still remember the Bank of America hold-up in Florida where the cops were outgunned? Besides, it's one way to get around a possible re-do of the "Assult Weapons ban"...I mean if you're a member of the Police force... well they get my vote!
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...violent018.gif
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...violent069.gif
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...violent012.gif
Whenever I read something like that the first thing I always ask myself is, "What if I were the responding officer?" I would want something MORE lethal than I was up against. Nothing less lethal, that's for certain. The M4 gives that department a good number of alternative configurations, high capacity mags and an ability to neutralize or disable an opponent. They may never need it. Then again.....
Makes me think of that show I watched with the two guys suited up in body armor. They could barely walk around, but had fully automatic rifles, and the officers bullets couldn't touch them. A grenade launcher in that situation would have been a blessing. Even if it didn't kill them, they'd be like turtles on their back trying to stand back up.
Judging by the comments I think the police up there need a better public to serve and protect. Mac
I was going to say Now that there's funny - I don't care who you are, but decided against it. If I had, one of the good citizens of that small town probably would have taken offense, joined the forum and scolded me for it. I don't think I could handle the pressure.
It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
I'm curious, why does the police have to disclose to the public what kinds of weapons they have?
I'm sure budgets are a matter of public record since it is tax payer money that is funding them.
I think the grenade launchers mentioned in the article were only intended to be used by departments to fire tear gas, not actual antipersonnel grenades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoobywan
lol. This was the part that tickled me the most, the way the article kept bringing up the fact that, "none of the departments mentioned to their communities that they had these weapons." Uuuh, why would they?Quote:
Originally Posted by doren
The Mayberry Police Department released the following tactical information today.
Total Number of deputies = 1
Total number of Handguns = 1
Total number of rounds available for handguns = 1
No one would ever take advantage of that kind of information.
Apples and oranges. Scoobywan was referring to a differeint incident, not the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdraino
Trying to drive a railroad spike with a tackhammer makes more sense. No offense but I doubt if any LEO has the training and judgment unless they are a recent combat vet. Most small towns that I've been in don't pay squat for LEOs, and you're gonna get what you pay for. I know I'm gonna rub some folks the wrong way on this but unless you are well trained, which small depts can't afford or had recent military training some weapons are best left to the experts. Most small towns usually have an officer/hunter that with a scoped 308 can shoot the eye out of a gnat at 200yrds and not kill or wound half the population. Guess I am now an ex member of the NRA, but if you don't know how to use it, you don't need it.
State standards mandate that officers be trained and qualified with any weapons they are issued. Such training is generally free to law enforcement.
As for "recent combat vets," comparing a war zone scenario to a law enforcement scenario is definitely apples and oranges. Experience in one does not qualify a person for the other, and vice-versa.
Weapons like those described are simply tools, let's not overcomplicate things. If an officer has the judgement to even do law enforcement, then they have the judgement to operate one of these tools while doing it.
They just halted the program.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...urther_review/
If something happens in that small town where the police needed the firepower of those rifles and didn't have it I'm willing to bet that those whiney idiots will be the first to complain and ask "why didn't they do something?"
Massachusetts, go figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken
Gotta disagree Sgt. I have seen many small town LEOs that their cousin the mayor gave them a job. Weapons may be tools to some but like the old saying having a hammer doesn't make you a carpenter. I have worked in many small & large towns East of MS long enough to get to know the "locals". Most tried to impress me, usually in the local restaurant while trying to eat breakfast. I just don't impress easily, which seems to come across. The mayor's cuz would have everything but a SAM in his car and wanted to show me. If all like that I ran into weren't dumb they should all be actors. You should know like Ron White says" you can't fix stupid". I had a small town "officer" tell me if I didn't slow down he would ram his new cruiser into my van with his foot on the bottom rung of a ladder that I was on. I told the "big brave man" to remove his foot or I would place it in a handy spot. When I unbelted he walked or ran to his cruiser. Now would you trust someone like that with a full auto weapon? Training only gets you so far, your common sense and fear level makes a man do stupid things. I don't want to get the mayor's cuz mad at me and get a SAM up the tailpipe for doing 30 in a 25 zone.:sneaky2:Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdraino
What year was this? Law enforcement as a field has become more and more structured, with more and more oversight by state and federal goverment. More and more training is required, without which certifications get yanked, and departments get shut down. Besides which:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ole WV Coot
"Any LEO," you say. That is a really big generalization that is not even close to the truth. Perhaps you have a personal beef with officers? Sure, it's true that there are some idiots in any field. That goes for law enforcement, and it certainly goes for the armed forces as well. But by and large, I believe most are very competent. Being a recent combat vet does not automatically mean someone is cut out for law enforcement. My best buddy in the academy was an ex-marine with combat experience, who harbored a secret fear that once he was an officer, going into a potentially dangerous call his Marine training would override his cop training, and he would just start shooting anything that looked remotely threatening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ole WV Coot
Officers are trained to use firearms in a law enforcement setting, maintaining awareness that innocent civilians are around, and that bullets can go through things. A weapon such as an M-16 is just another kind of firearm capable of throwing bullets farther, and maybe a little bit faster. It is not a magic wand that immediately turns a cop into an idiot. It really isn't rocket science. In point of fact, many departments are currently equipped with weapons like these now. Have they yet managed to "kill or wound half the population?"
In fact, can you come up with even a single instance of an innocent civilian being accidentally shot by cops armed with such a weapon?