PDA

View Full Version : Appropriate gear and weaponry for cops....



John Hearne
08-17-2014, 01:12 PM
In another thread, someone did a good job of breaking down the many questions we've been discussing. I thought that it might be useful to address them in a separate thread. I thought I'd start here.


I think this whole debate gets muddled because we're really talking about a bunch of points at once:
1) The appropriate gear and weaponry for cops.

Whenever some discusses the so-called "militarization" of police, a common gripe is that police are carrying rifles and specifically AR-15 or M-16 pattern guns. This completely baffles me as most of the people complaining about it are strong second amendment supporting types.

To me, if I can go and purchase it as a citizen, then there is nothing wrong with me carrying it on duty. As long as we are willing to allow most anyone to buy an AR in Walmart, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the police to be able to counter that threat. One of the best ways to counter that threat to at least allow police to have the same weapon they are facing. Giving the officers the ability to counter these threats also goes a long way to stopping calls to ban assault weapons to "protect the police."

Another baffling concern I hear is that the rifles are coming from military surplus programs. These programs allow agencies to get the proper equipment for the threats they face without any additional burden on local tax payers. The rifles have already been paid for by the taxpayers once, how is recycling equipment and saving money a bad thing?

The concerns about rifles in the hands of police also seemed to be driven by a lot of ignorance. Folks seem to think that the police having rifles is some new trend when it is not. Rifles have been in the hands of police since modern police forces have existed. When police faced the motor bandits in the 1930's, they didn't fight them with just revolvers and pistols. The police used submachine guns (Thompsons), semi-automatic rifles (Remington Model 8's), and fully automatic rifles (BARs) to counter the threat. During the civil unrest of the late 60's and 70's there are plenty of pictures of officers with M-1 carbines.

Another point that shows the levels of ignorance involved in these debates are the claims that "high powered" military rifles are being used by the police. Hopefully, everyone on this board recognizes that the M-4 fires an intermediate cartridge. The reason the 223 is seen in the hands of the police is the cartridge is less powerful than 308's and more suited for urban environments because the rounds break up more quickly than anything else out there.

While I kinda understand the weaponry issues, I am completely baffled by the objections to armored cars (Bearcats) and MRAPs. The only reason to use these vehicles is to protect officers from incoming fire and to rescue people trapped in the open. The need for such vehicles has been demonstrated on numerous instances included the use of a commandeered armored car during the North Hollywood shootout. None of these vehicles have any offensive capabilities, they don't have cannons or machine guns, they don't shoot anything. The only thing they bring to the table is a significant defensive ability. There aren't' a whole lot of options for rescuing folks trapped in the open, if you object to armored vehicless are you OK with the police using large volumes of suppressing fire to effect a rescue?

(Speaking of armor, I don't know if it's still the case but LAPD used to have the front doors of their patrol cars armored for hits up to 7.62x39. There are multiple instances of that evil armor saving officers lives. Is this a bad thing? Is it wrong to allow police to patrol in armored vehicle? Doesn't that send the wrong message to the community they police? Isn't it better to lose a couple of cops so everyone can have the warm fuzzies?)

Again, I think that law enforcement having ready access to these vehicles helps mitigate the calls for more restrictive gun control. If the police can readily handle criminals armed with magazine fed semi-automatic rifles then one of the reasons for banning them is eliminated.

It has largely been forgotten now but several years ago there was a large shootout between outlaw motorcycle gangs in Laughlin, NV. Properly handling this event required a massive law enforcement response and it included armored vehicles. A major concern was that wounded from both sides were being evacuated to the same hospital and making the hospital as safe as possible became a major concern. Part of that response was to place an armored vehicle at the entrance to Emergency Room. Nobody cared at the time but guess who's evil military surplus armored vehicle and "SWAT team" secured the hospital - it was the National Park Service. Why was the National Park Service there? Because agencies don't keep enough officers on-duty to handle major incidents - just enough to answer typical call volume. When major events happen these days, the only way to handle them is to ask for help from everyone and be really grateful for whoever responds.

While we're on the topic of appropriate gear, let's address body armor. It made internet news and caused much consternation when the US Dept of Agriculture but out a bid soliciting body armor. While it didn't blip the RADAR, there have been solicitations for not just soft body armor but rifle rated hard plates by the National Park Service. If it had been known, I'm sure that every right-wing, yellow journalist would have been gnashing their teeth about the militarization of even our beloved Park Rangers.

Why on earth would Park Ranger need rifle rated body armor? How about the release of the investigation of our most recent line of duty death. One of the recommendations was the purchase, for every officer, a set of rifle rated body armor and (the horror, the horror) helmets. Why? Because our last three line-of-duty deaths were all caused by suspects armed with rifles. So do Park Rangers really need rifle rated body armor? Probably not, unless you're that guy responding to the call in which the suspect has a rifle and isn't afraid to use it.

So do the police need rifles, armored vehicles, rifle-rate body armor and helmets? Only if we expect them to handle the real-world problems that the relative freedom our society affords us without further constraining those freedoms.

Tamara
08-17-2014, 01:25 PM
I never have understood the flipping out over vehicles that are essentially tacticool Brink's trucks.

jlw
08-17-2014, 01:28 PM
Oh yeah, well what about drones?

JAD
08-17-2014, 02:13 PM
You mean like the ones amazon is going to use to deliver my ramen subscription?

Tamara
08-17-2014, 02:15 PM
Oh yeah, well what about drones?

Depends on what they're used for.

"Your Honor, {illegal activity A} was in plain view..." ...of the radio-controlled helicopter hovering outside the third floor window a hundred yards from the nearest public road.

Odin Bravo One
08-17-2014, 02:30 PM
The sad thing about the foil hat crowd is that if they spent half of their paranoia time learning the reality of this equipment as they do blogging and displaying their inner-tard, they would realize that M4/M16 rifles, MRAPs, and drones are easily enough defeated should push come to shove.

But you do have to have an IQ above 7, and be capable of rational thought.

Tamara
08-17-2014, 02:37 PM
I might not be very smart, but I try hard. :o

Odin Bravo One
08-17-2014, 02:50 PM
I'm not very smart, but I can lift heavy things.

If the "gun owner community" has such a high level of ignorance out for display, how do we expect those who don't own guns to be any less ignorant?

There is a thing on FB right now where some gunstore employee bashes on some cop as "tacticool", and goes into detail berating the set up of his DMR-type rifle..........and is 100% off the mark, showing the world (again) just how fucking stupid some gun owners are.


ETA....I do not know, for a fact, the person who captioned the photo is an actual gunstore employee...........but the mis-information being circulated is consistent with GSE behavior.

LittleLebowski
08-17-2014, 03:00 PM
I would encourage anyone that doesn't like cops using MRAPs or bearcats to visit Ferguson MO AKA FERGUDISHU tonight.

Tamara
08-17-2014, 03:06 PM
There is a thing on FB right now where some gunstore employee bashes on some cop as "tacticool", and goes into detail berating the set up of his DMR-type rifle..........and is 100% off the mark, showing the world (again) just how fucking stupid some gun owners are.

One of the gun blogs linked... approvingly, mind you ...to a thread at Reddit where all the gun otaku displayed their wisdom on that copper's Mega .308. The ignorance was breathtaking (or at least this former gun store employee thought so. ;) )

TheRoland
08-17-2014, 03:08 PM
I have no problem with police having easy access to anything I can buy as a regular citizen. For me, my concerns are about equipment being used in the wrong situation without training. If you have the budget for a whole team's worth of stuff but not enough training to avoid NDing into suspects, everyone might be better off without.

But on the equipment topic alone, is it possible to go too far? If my department has an M2 Browning that mounts on our BearCat, is everything still cool?

John Hearne
08-17-2014, 03:15 PM
Oh yeah, well what about drones?

Well since the police are currently not allowed to operate any aircraft for law enforcement purposes, I think that drones establish a dangerous precedent. ;)

Seriously, drones simply reduce the cost of aerial observation, something that police have already been doing. As with anything there is a potential for abuse but I think it is vastly overrated. There are some very good applications for drones, such as elevated crime scene scenery (think accident reconstruction) that seem very beneficial.

I see drones as potentially useful to an agency that can't afford a "real" aviation program. There are some situations, primarily vehicle and foot pursuits, in which an aircraft can greatly enhance the safety of the officers. If an LE agency has SAR responsibilities, there are some more potential life saving uses for lower cost aircraft capabilities.


Depends on what they're used for. ... "Your Honor, {illegal activity A} was in plain view..." ...of the radio-controlled helicopter hovering outside the third floor window a hundred yards from the nearest public road.

I think that come of these concerns would be alleviated if folks understood the large body of previous case law that limits the police use of technology. For instance, the Supreme Court has already ruled in 2001 that police can not use a FLIR device to search the exterior of a residence for evidence they are growing marijuana. The court found that the device's ability to provide such explicit information about the contents of the residence to be unreasonable without a search warrant. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States)

The Supreme Court's guidelines consider how much a particular technology enhances an officer's natural senses. One defense attorney argued that it was unreasonable for an officer to shine a flashlight into a vehicle to observe it's contents. The court found the flashlight was just allowing the officer to see what would have been visible in daylight. Conversely, using a parabolic mic to dramatically enhance one's hearing is not considered reasonable and requires a warrant.

Another factor that court considers is how common a technology is. If everybody and their brother already has something, it doesn't make much sense to exclude that same device from use by the government. For instance, the police use of binoculars is not unreasonable. Binoculars substantially enhance an officer's natural senses but anyone can own a pair.

The most problematic SCOTUS decision in this arena is a much older case (1986) that says if you want privacy, you need four walls and a roof. It originates from and EPA overflight of an industrial site. There is a 1989 case that specifically addresses helicopter surveillance of private property. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley)

Odin Bravo One
08-17-2014, 03:24 PM
I have no problem with police having easy access to anything I can buy as a regular citizen. For me, my concerns are about equipment being used in the wrong situation without training. If you have the budget for a whole team's worth of stuff but not enough training to avoid NDing into suspects, everyone might be better off without.

But on the equipment topic alone, is it possible to go too far? If my department has an M2 Browning that mounts on our BearCat, is everything still cool?

Looks to me like you answer your own question with your opening sentence............they are expensive, but for sale...........

TheRoland
08-17-2014, 03:25 PM
drones... snip

Drones might generate a thread all by themselves.

I think drones are particularly interesting due to something you noticed in your post; limits will have to be entirely based on a legal framework. There's no technological reason I can't fly a drone right up to your window.

What's also going to be interesting is that imaging devices grow increasingly effective and storage increasingly cheap. There's no technological reason I couldn't have a drone loiter above my town/city semi-continuously and image the entire area for later review. You'd be able to see literally everything that happens outside, going back for however long you feel like. There's a private company that does it now (with a regular private plane), if you have a large enough budget to pay for it. There's no technological reason that this isn't the future.

Tamara
08-17-2014, 03:32 PM
Seriously, drones simply reduce the cost of aerial observation, something that police have already been doing. As with anything there is a potential for abuse but I think it is vastly overrated. There are some very good applications for drones, such as elevated crime scene scenery (think accident reconstruction) that seem very beneficial.

Absolutely. Bear in mind that, back before lightweight, high quality digital cameras, let alone quadrotors that could lift them were a thing, I worked for a company whose primary business was aerial photography using film cameras suspended from an unpowered, tethered mini-blimp. Since a tethered balloon is (or was, this was the very early '90s and I don't know how the FAA's changed regs since then) good with no lights up to 300 feet, we could do photography work that would have been cost-prohibitive if it involved renting a Robinson.

MD7305
08-17-2014, 03:36 PM
Re: Armored Vehicles. In my area in 2011 we had a shooting involving almost an entire region of law enforcement. 2 deputies were killed, 2 were severely wounded (1 paralyzed) by a guy armed with an AR in an advantageous position (high ground, sun to his back). The closest Bearcat was about 1.5 hours away. It was obtained with DHS funds and labeled regional. By the time they arrived the BG was taken care of with several rounds of 00Buck. The Bearcat would have been perfect for the evacuation of the personnel wounded or under fire by the bad guy but nothing like that was available and fortunately the BG retreated. Now fast forward to today, several agencies that responded to that incident have obtained MRAPs or up-armored Hummers. Why? Not to "militarize" but they found a hole in their capability. The agency of the late-deputies has acquire much more training and assets because the situation magnified those areas were lacking. I can't fault an agency for wanting to be prepared.

John Hearne
08-17-2014, 03:40 PM
I think drones are particularly interesting due to something you noticed in your post; limits will have to be entirely based on a legal framework. There's no technological reason I can't fly a drone right up to your window.

This point is probably going to be really key in any decisions. If you can do it right now, then is there compelling reason to disallow the government from doing this? They are still trying to figure out if the FAA has authority but if they do, there are some minimums (400 or 600 feet AGL - maybe?) that might apply. This would limit the ability to lawfully plant one outside of someone's window.

Also, if you read the SCOTUS case I posted, the Justices were very concerned about altitude in the case. The court found that being 400' AGL was OK. I suspect that lower level flights would get bounced pretty quick. If you look at the very recent case about government searches of cell phones incident to arrest, you see the court is very willing to reign in the police in situations they previously has "green lights."

I also suspect that industry wanting access to cheap aerial surveillance will limit the extent of government regulations in this arena. Besides the stuff I already mentioned, drones have shown a lot of promise in other government domains from natural resource assessments to overflights of wildfires. The wildfire stuff is really promising to me because we lose pilots every year doing work that could probably be done by drones and without risk to human life.

jlw
08-17-2014, 03:41 PM
I was being facetious with the drone post. However, there does appear to be correlation with the folks that flip out over the subject matter at hand.

---
We have some sort of armored vehicle. It pre-dates my time with the agency. I only know it exists based on two reasons:

1- It is on our inventory list.

2- The guys tell a story about when it was delivered, the boss was told that it was bulletproof. Not to take someone's word such things, he pulled out a Winchester 94 and tested said bulletproofness; or at least the story goes. Supposedly, this happened in the SO parking lot.

John Hearne
08-17-2014, 04:21 PM
I have no problem with police having easy access to anything I can buy as a regular citizen. For me, my concerns are about equipment being used in the wrong situation without training. If you have the budget for a whole team's worth of stuff but not enough training to avoid NDing into suspects, everyone might be better off without.

From my casual observations, most officer shoot their long guns better than their pistols. They may not be able to keep them running but they do hit better with them. One year, I had everyone shoot our pistol course with their rifles (I shot it in reverse order so they didn't realize what was happening). A very large number of folks shot 100%, something they'd never do with their pistols. If I were unarmed and relying on the typical cop to end a threat with me in the area, I would prefer them to be armed with a M-4/AR-15.

Regarding your other question, I have a hard time seeing much use for anything belt fed. The only thing that comes to mind is some form of anti-aircraft role. The agencies that are doing aerial interception are using semi-auto 50 calibers rifles currently.

The only other situation that comes to mind is a massive Mumbai style attack with illegally imported belt feds and RPG's. Imagine what 100 jihadist could do with AK's, PKM's, and RPG's in a big east coast city. The Al Queda training tapes showed such hits on golf courses so it remains a remote possibility. I suspect that if it ever does happen posse comitatus would disappear real fast.

(Of course, since I will never be able to afford anything belt fed in this current environment, I'd like to see the manufacture of new machine guns for private consumption resume. It would level the playing field a bit.)

Alpha Sierra
08-17-2014, 04:28 PM
The sad thing about the foil hat crowd is that if they spent half of their paranoia time learning the reality of this equipment as they do blogging and displaying their inner-tard, they would realize that M4/M16 rifles, MRAPs, and drones are easily enough defeated should push come to shove.
True. Especially MRAPs.

LittleLebowski
08-17-2014, 04:30 PM
Who here would rather see MRAPs rusting in DRMO lots?

Tamara
08-17-2014, 04:42 PM
Who here would rather see MRAPs rusting in DRMO lots?

I'd rather see 'em auctioned off publicly. ;)

(You know that PD's aren't going to use all of them and that a metric buttload are going to wind up turned into razor blades or given to future enemies. But suggest letting some reenactor buy one and recoup at least a fraction of the taxpayers' investment, and the SWPLs would fill their trousers.)

LittleLebowski
08-17-2014, 04:43 PM
One of the gun blogs linked... approvingly, mind you ...to a thread at Reddit where all the gun otaku displayed their wisdom on that copper's Mega .308. The ignorance was breathtaking (or at least this former gun store employee thought so. ;) )

Link?

Tamara
08-17-2014, 04:50 PM
Link?

I had a hard time finding it because the link was at Vice (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/reddits-gun-community-take-aim-at-novice-over-militarized-police-in-ferguson-0814). I guess someone whose Twitter feed I follow linked it. Maybe BearingArms or Insty?

John Hearne
08-17-2014, 04:50 PM
I understood the idea of the armored car but thought that they were rarely used. When I started Goggling, I found a bunch of uses. A lot seemed to suggest that the armored vehicle allowed a lot more restraint by the responding officers as they took fire from frequently mentally disturbed suspects.

This really striking me as one of those - "Sure, it works in practice but how does it work in theory?" kinda issues.

Tamara
08-17-2014, 04:52 PM
I knew someone who might be alive today if they'd had a way to roll up behind armor on the disturbed individual blasting out the windows of a suburban Atlanta home with a deer rifle some 25 years ago. :(

pablo
08-17-2014, 04:59 PM
Who here would rather see MRAPs rusting in DRMO lots?

Or left in Iraq so that they could now be in the hands of ISIS.

I think MRAP's will end up being like a free ink-jet printer for most agencies. It seems like a good deal until an agency has to start paying repair cost.

A couple months ago, we had a suicidal subject that was holding a pistol to his head, in a car in the parking lot of an elementary school. Our SWAT team happened to be doing training nearby and was on scene with two armored vehicles in less than 10 minutes. The APC's were parked between the subject and the school. Over the next 30 minutes 4 more APC's arrived from other agencies and the subject was boxed in tight, the school was safely evacuated and the situation was resolved in about 6 hours with barely a blip on the media's radar and no one hurt. Without the APC's I don't see many outcomes to that situation that didn't involve the suicidal subject getting shot.

GardoneVT
08-17-2014, 05:42 PM
I find it amazing how people didn't care about police weaponry in the aftermath of the North Hollywood shootout.

For all the ink written about armed cops, I'm fascinated at the lack of attention being paid to the militarization of the criminal element.

SeriousStudent
08-17-2014, 05:54 PM
Or left in Iraq so that they could now be in the hands of ISIS.

I think MRAP's will end up being like a free ink-jet printer for most agencies. It seems like a good deal until an agency has to start paying repair cost.

A couple months ago, we had a suicidal subject that was holding a pistol to his head, in a car in the parking lot of an elementary school. Our SWAT team happened to be doing training nearby and was on scene with two armored vehicles in less than 10 minutes. The APC's were parked between the subject and the school. Over the next 30 minutes 4 more APC's arrived from other agencies and the subject was boxed in tight, the school was safely evacuated and the situation was resolved in about 6 hours with barely a blip on the media's radar and no one hurt. Without the APC's I don't see many outcomes to that situation that didn't involve the suicidal subject getting shot.

Outstanding work. If I was a parent with a child in that school, those officers would not be able to pay for beer for a long time.

LittleLebowski
08-17-2014, 05:57 PM
Or left in Iraq so that they could now be in the hands of ISIS.

I think MRAP's will end up being like a free ink-jet printer for most agencies. It seems like a good deal until an agency has to start paying repair cost.


Good points!

John Hearne
08-17-2014, 05:59 PM
I find it amazing how people didn't care about police weaponry in the aftermath of the North Hollywood shootout. ... For all the ink written about armed cops, I'm fascinated at the lack of attention being paid to the militarization of the criminal element.

If I were really snarky, I'd just post a link to the North Hollywood shooting whenever the topic came up. Especially the footage of the commandeered armored car being used.

My big concern with magazine fed semi-automatic rifles is not that they are available from sources like Walmart. My concern is people buying them and then not securing them properly and them ending up in the hands of criminals. I'm kinda surprised that the amount of long guns associated with LE deaths hasn't changed much. I would have bet it would have. I'm thinking that their inconvenient size is keeping them out of most criminal activity.

To be clear, I am not arguing for any restrictions but think that the average patrol guy needs to be ready for a bad guy with a stolen M-4or AK. This includes their own rifle (with relevant training) but also TEMS training/kits and rifle rated armor.

jlw
08-17-2014, 06:26 PM
My boss made national headlines and was praised by the "gun culture" for his stance on refusing to do business with a store that decided to stop selling self-loading rifles to the general public.

The most poignant piece of John's post to me is the notion that somehow parts of that same gun culture says that such rifles should not be issued to peace officers.

Wheeler
08-17-2014, 06:30 PM
People react emotionally to certain stimulus regardless of their political leanings. Images of the search for the Boston Bomber, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Elion Gonzalez come to mind when the militarization of cops is brought up. People see a cop in body armor and Kevlar nestled in the cupola of a Hummer pointing a rifle at a homeowner taking a picture from their window and become outraged. Or they see a guy in battle rattle pointing a MP-5 at a scared man holding a small child protectively. They read about no-knock raids conducted on the wrong house which resulted in the injury or death of an occupant and thousands of dollars of property damage, none of which the cops are liable for (damage,) and wonder just what sort of rights and protections they have.

There are two sides to the issue and there are shrill voices on both sides. Refusing to acknowledge how intimidating armored vehicles, armored people and big guns are is quite disingenuous. Declaring officer safety trumps public safety is downright insulting.

I personally don't care what cops arm themselves with. If they can get their job done with nothing more than a baton more power to them. If they use AR's and body armor that's cool too. Oif they roll up in a MRAP and Himmer because of a reported screaming arch then I'd say their interaction skills suck.

Riots are an entirely different matter. I was in the Ga National Guard and our riot training and April drill date always coincided with Freaknik. Dealing with large groups of angry people who want to break stuff requires a completely different set of interaction skills than dealing with a squabbling couple who might get violent.

Hopefully I didn't insult any badge toters but sometimes it doesn't hurt to hear an opposing view from outside your peers. You don't have to agree but you should at least respect it.

Beat Trash
08-17-2014, 06:37 PM
First off, Never underestimate the stupidity of the average individual. . .

As far as Military surplus armored vehicles being given to Law Enforcement, my ONLY issue is that I think many agencies applying for these are not prepared for the cost of upkeep and maintenance.

As for AR type of weapons, I have a personally owned, department approved AR sitting in the trunk of my marked car as I type this. The agency owns a few guns. I qualify and use my own, thereby leaving the few agency guns available to those who are trained, but don't own one of their own. I think many people would be surprised at how much the use of long guns by suspects has increased in many jurisdictions. It has over the last several years in mine.

As for drones? The media never seemed to mind LE owned, marked, and piloted helicopters. Even when they were equipped with FLIR. So a drone is a smaller helo that the pilot is physically located somewhere other than in the cockpit. I guess I don't get what the big fuss is. Maybe my tin foil hat is on backwards. I forget, is the shinny side of the foil supposed to be up or down?

I can tell you that over the last year there have been more than a couple of incidents where armed suspects, not actively pointing or shooting, were not wanting to comply with officers pointing pistols at them. I place them at gunpoint with my rifle and give them some choice verbal commands and presto, Compliance without shots fired. And should shots had been required, the odds of stray rounds would have been drastically decreased with the AR. Thereby reducing agency liability.

Sorry if this comes out like a rant. This is quickly becoming a sore subject for me.

Stephen
08-17-2014, 06:52 PM
My boss made national headlines and was praised by the "gun culture" for his stance on refusing to do business with a store that decided to stop selling self-loading rifles to the general public.

The most poignant piece of John's post to me is the notion that somehow parts of that same gun culture says that such rifles should not be issued to peace officers.

With regards to gun people decrying the militarization of the police, I think its largely an outlet for the anger and resentment over gun control. Most new gun control laws exempt police. When politicians say poorly trained cops can have guns regular civilians can't, that pisses people off. On top of that we have the Fraternal Order of Police and most big city Police Chiefs who are very outspoken against gun rights. Its the same reason the picture of Officer Numbnuts with the backwards optic went viral. I'm not saying backlash against all cops in general is right, I really think that's the root of it.

pablo
08-17-2014, 06:52 PM
There are two sides to the issue and there are shrill voices on both sides. Refusing to acknowledge how intimidating armored vehicles, armored people and big guns are is quite disingenuous. Declaring officer safety trumps public safety is downright insulting.


Can you name a couple officer safety practices that don't also promote public safety? I'm curious, I've never done anything that made my job safer that made the public less, quite the contrary.

John Hearne
08-17-2014, 06:59 PM
People react emotionally to certain stimulus regardless of their political leanings. ... They read about no-knock raids conducted on the wrong house which resulted in the injury or death of an occupant and thousands of dollars of property damage, none of which the cops are liable for (damage,) and wonder just what sort of rights and protections they have.

I don't deny that people have emotional reactions. However, when we make policy decisions we are supposed to be something other than emotional and perhaps consider some objective facts. One of my great annoyances is that nowadays, people on the right emote and pout just as much as the leftists. Logic seems so passe.

I did not use the words "right-wing, yellow journalist" without historical appreciation for that "yellow" label. These propagandists are very deliberately skewing the public perception of the FREQUENCY of these events. Nobody is denying that these tragedies occur but the distortion of their frequency is being done to support a very particular agenda. This is no different than the bleatings about school shootings and their use to pass more restrictive gun control laws.


Refusing to acknowledge how intimidating armored vehicles, armored people and big guns are is quite disingenuous.

Yes, and refusing the acknowledge that the intimidating effect of these items frequently deescalates situations is just as disingenuous. The history of American law enforcement is replete with numerous instances of criminals quickly evaluating the capabilities of officers and finding them wanting, assaulting and murdering those officers. I am not aware of many instances of a suspect being confronted with overwhelming force and the certainty of their utter destruction and choosing to fight to the death. The few instances that match those descriptions do not involve rational criminal actors and are more akin to suicide by cop. If incidents can be settled in a way that avoids bloodshed and it involves a bit of intimidation - well, that is the nature of violence.


Declaring officer safety trumps public safety is downright insulting.

As a general rule, the two actually track really close together. Outside of our recent examples of police watching looting take place, when the police are safe in a given environment, the people are also safe in that environment. The ultimate form of guaranteed officer safety is to do nothing. To do no proactive work and only respond to calls like firemen and in a very delayed fashion to avoid any odds of confrontation with criminals. This is already happening and we don't need more of it.

I will agree with you absolutely one point - muzzle awareness. I find it unacceptable for anyone to casually cover others with the muzzles of weapons. If, in fact, the Boston SWAT guys were actually lasering people, then that is 1000% unacceptable. I suspect that this is some combination of poor training (in regards to what it actually costs time wise) and some sense that one's title as "SWAT" exempts one from the four rules. I would also point out that two dimensional photographs do not always accurately show where muzzles were pointed. Short of a straight view down a barrel, it is very hard to figure out where the muzzle is covering unless you are there.

joshs
08-17-2014, 07:07 PM
The only gear that I question the appropriateness of for law enforcement is, outside of very specific roles, the use of a camouflage uniform. I would prefer that law enforcement officers are easily identifiable as such, and the use of camouflage complicates identification. E.g., if I see a guy with a rifle in solid green, tan, blue, or black uniform with a clearly identified "POLICE" patch across his chest/back I'd have a lot less concern than seeing a guy with a rifle wearing camouflage, since camouflage complicates identification, especially at longer distances. I also think camouflage=military for a lot of the general public. This problem is even worse if the pattern something in extensive use by the U.S. military like MARPAT.

As far as rifles/armor, I don't understand the concern, especially if they can be had inexpensively through a DLA disposition program. As has been mentioned, I'd much rather have a responding LEO, especially one who isn't a gun person, have access to some type of rifle (and armor), if I or my family need help.

Wheeler
08-17-2014, 07:09 PM
Pablo, what comes to mind are the cops confiscating camera phones or video cameras citing 'officer safety'. I do realize those are isolated incidents but they do happen.

John, I don't disagree at all with your points. I just wanted to point out that for better or worse there are two sides and as I read through the thread I didn't see much acknowledgement of John Q. Public's point of view.

Lon
08-17-2014, 07:20 PM
Refusing to acknowledge how intimidating armored vehicles, armored people and big guns are is quite disingenuous.

Who said that? I readily admit that in a way, intimidation is the point. If I can get someone to submit peacefully because they see our Peacekeeper in front of their house and we tell them if they don't come out, we will gas them, that's the best possible scenario. They were intimidated enough to give up. Great for everyone. Same thing if I deploy my rifle, point it at someone, order them to the ground and they think "crap, he isn't kidding" and submit without any more force being used.

Even without the "militarized" gear, police presence is often intimidating enough to get people to stop doing whatever they were doing or planning on doing.


Declaring officer safety trumps public safety is downright insulting.

I don't think anyone here has said that.

Like many agencies, we only got an armored vehicle (Peacekeeper) AFTER we really needed it. Waiting for armor to show up when someone is shooting AK rounds at you sucks. Hopefully we never need to use it for that type of situation again, but at least we have it if it's needed.

Lon
08-17-2014, 07:23 PM
The only gear that I question the appropriateness of for law enforcement is, outside of very specific roles, the use of a camouflage uniform. I would prefer that law enforcement officers are easily identifiable as such, and the use of camouflage complicates identification. E.g., if I see a guy with a rifle in solid green, tan, blue, or black uniform with a clearly identified "POLICE" patch across his chest/back I'd have a lot less concern than seeing a guy with a rifle wearing camouflage, since camouflage complicates identification, especially at longer distances. I also think camouflage=military for a lot of the general public. This problem is even worse if the pattern something in extensive use by the U.S. military like MARPAT.


Excellent point and one I agree with. Our team uses black uniforms clearly marked with police or sheriff (multi jurisdiction team) with the exception of our snipers. They use camo.

pablo
08-18-2014, 01:33 AM
Pablo, what comes to mind are the cops confiscating camera phones or video cameras citing 'officer safety'. I do realize those are isolated incidents but they do happen.

John, I don't disagree at all with your points. I just wanted to point out that for better or worse there are two sides and as I read through the thread I didn't see much acknowledgement of John Q. Public's point of view.

There are rare occassions that officers do things they should not do, and instead of just admitting that they screwed up try to claim "officer safety".

Is it beyond belief that in the majority of those cases the person with the camera is doing a lot more than filming. Usually they lose the camera because they are interfering, inciting someone to resist arrest arrest or encouraging others to interfere. Taking the camera away and everyone's chance at 15 seconds of fame, can do a lot to calm the situation down.

I don't know what your definition of officer safety is, but if the police in the interest of "officer safety" take a camera away from someone that it trying to incite a violence against the officers, and as a result of taking the camera no officers or suspects are hurt or killed, I'd call that a good decision..

Trooper224
08-18-2014, 04:00 AM
Excellent point and one I agree with. Our team uses black uniforms clearly marked with police or sheriff (multi jurisdiction team) with the exception of our snipers. They use camo.

Twenty years ago I was one of the founding members of my agencies tactical unit. At the time we were told that black uniforms were a no go due to negative public perception. Woodland camo BDU's were the only thing allowed for quite some time. We did briefly experiment with what was known at the time as "urban" camo. Those consisted of a black, grey and white color scheme in the woodland pattern. We only wore them in training once and our captain told us he never wanted to see the stupid things again. We tried toning them down with blue dye, which only resulted in three shades of purple and that was even more special. ;)

JAD
08-18-2014, 05:47 AM
There are rare occassions that officers do things they should not do, and instead of just admitting that they screwed up try to claim "officer safety".

Is it beyond belief that in the majority of those cases the person with the camera is doing a lot more than filming. Usually they lose the camera because they are interfering, inciting someone to resist arrest arrest or encouraging others to interfere. Taking the camera away and everyone's chance at 15 seconds of fame, can do a lot to calm the situation down.

I don't know what your definition of officer safety is, but if the police in the interest of "officer safety" take a camera away from someone that it trying to incite a violence against the officers, and as a result of taking the camera no officers or suspects are hurt or killed, I'd call that a good decision..

That might be a little far. If someone is trying to incite a riot to a chargeable extent, arrest them. Take away their gear once they're at county -- but they better get it back unaltered.

Lon
08-18-2014, 06:02 AM
That might be a little far. If someone is trying to incite a riot to a chargeable extent, arrest them. Take away their gear once they're at county -- but they better get it back unaltered.

This. Seize a camera for evidence if it has evidence of an actual crime, get a warrant and download the video? But return it unaltered with the original content. Taking a camera and delete the video? Then give it back? I'm not good with that.

ford.304
08-18-2014, 06:10 AM
My personal opinion is that it's very similar to what Tam said on her blog about open carry. When you have a Glock on your bat belt, you're carrying a gun. When you've walking down the street with an AR slung in the front, you're carrying a gun *at* people. That tends to make people a little nervous, even though I have no more problem with police having AR's than I do Joe Citizen having AR's.

That said, I think it's mostly a real dumb distraction. As I've said before - if you have a problem with (for example) the pictures coming out of Ferguson... would you feel any better if the guns pointed at people were lever actions or shotguns? No - either the police are justified in using the threat of lethal force or they aren't.

Shellback
08-18-2014, 10:24 AM
This is a guess on my part, and I'm spitballing, but I think part of the problem boils down to their usage as compared to Joe Citizen. Look at NYC where you've got fully decked out cops who look like they came out of a 5.11 catalog, complete with slung AR, and Johnny non-badge gets arrested for a simple pocketknife trumped up to be some sort of "gravity knife". Non-connected citizens can't even have a CCW legally in NYC, typically. Same thing applies for NJ, CA, etc. so I do understand why someone in a place like that would see police is being "militarized" when they aren't able to enjoy those same freedoms.

While citizens may be able to own the same weapon, they don't enjoy the same amount of leeway in their usage, understandably so. But, if we're to be okay with the police standing around with slung weapons, as citizens, then we should expect the same response from police when someone has a long gun rather than being treated as an active shooter. Plenty of OC wing-nuts, with a slung rifle, have posted videos of themselves being treated like they were a hostage taker getting proned out, with a long gun coincidentally, rather than just a knucklehead looking for attention. So, police + AR = good guy using a tool, citizen + AR = nut with a gun.

To clarify, I don't want Johnny OC rolling around with long guns in Walmart, or down Main St, and I'm not advocating OC'ing. I also don't have an issue with the police utilizing AR's or the most effective tool for the job. I'm guessing that this may be part of the sentiment with the militarization crowd.

jlw
08-18-2014, 10:35 AM
This is a guess on my part, and I'm spitballing, but I think part of the problem boils down to their usage as compared to Joe Citizen. Look at NYC where you've got fully decked out cops who look like they came out of a 5.11 catalog, complete with slung AR, and Johnny non-badge gets arrested for a simple pocketknife trumped up to be some sort of "gravity knife". Non-connected citizens can't even have a CCW legally in NYC, typically. Same thing applies for NJ, CA, etc. so I do understand why someone in a place like that would see police is being "militarized" when they aren't able to enjoy those same freedoms.

While citizens may be able to own the same weapon, they don't enjoy the same amount of leeway in their usage, understandably so. But, if we're to be okay with the police standing around with slung weapons, as citizens, then we should expect the same response from police when someone has a long gun rather than being treated as an active shooter. Plenty of OC wing-nuts, with a slung rifle, have posted videos of themselves being treated like they were a hostage taker getting proned out, with a long gun coincidentally, rather than just a knucklehead looking for attention. So, police + AR = good guy using a tool, citizen + AR = nut with a gun.

To clarify, I don't want Johnny OC rolling around with long guns in Walmart, or down Main St, and I'm not advocating OC'ing. I also don't have an issue with the police utilizing AR's or the most effective tool for the job. I'm guessing that this may be part of the sentiment with the militarization crowd.

Now this type of criticism (for lack of a better word) is one that I can completely understand.

However, I don't think it is something that can be applied across the board to law enforcement in general. If the NYPD does something it shouldn't reflect on my agency. We are not one big autonomous body. There are roughly 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and the actions of one shouldn't be applied to the rest of us just like one gun owner going nuts and murdering people shouldn't be applied to all gun owners.

jlw
08-18-2014, 10:48 AM
A stand off lasting over 12 hours in our neighboring county just ended. It began with an armed robbery. Here are a couple of pictures:

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g472/chiefweems3102/5a6356f5-3f7f-4c7f-a2f8-7e318ffd1979_zps48758977.jpg?t=1408376624

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g472/chiefweems3102/63ff4e33-8d4c-4841-a9c0-ee6ac5892434_zps6d1806a5.jpg?t=1408376699


The second picture is of an officer providing a drink to a handcuffed armed robbery suspect. She is handcuffed.

LittleLebowski
08-18-2014, 10:50 AM
I do like the olive drab uniforms for police, for differentiating between police and military.

Shellback
08-18-2014, 11:19 AM
However, I don't think it is something that can be applied across the board to law enforcement in general. If the NYPD does something it shouldn't reflect on my agency. We are not one big autonomous body. There are roughly 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and the actions of one shouldn't be applied to the rest of us just like one gun owner going nuts and murdering people shouldn't be applied to all gun owners.

I couldn't agree with you more. But, I think the vast majority of the public sees police as being the police, they stereotype, and there's no difference in their mind. They don't realize there are different standards, practices, policies and laws that govern different departments and agencies throughout a city, state or a nation for that matter.

Personally, as a citizen, I think your blog and the subjects you address go along way to helping people understand some of the details that surround policing and the laws that pertain to the average person. I think that type of open communication and dialogue is rare and I'm not aware of anything quite like it in other areas, I probably just don't know about it. I think it helps break down communication barriers, helps answer routine questions, and is a great resource for the citizens in your area while making you more approachable and human, versus the automaton behind the mirrored lenses.

Personally, I'm a proponent of long guns for the police, I think they should have armor and plates, and I'm not opposed to specialized clothing for the good guys. But I think wearing MultiCam and MARPAT does look militarized and is typically unnecessary. When you can't tell the difference between the police officer and the guys raiding OBL's house they do look militarized in the public's general opinion, understandably so. I also think that SWAT types should wear name tags for accountability while in the field, even if subdued.

Glenn E. Meyer
08-18-2014, 11:26 AM
Interesting question, John - and folks are correctly pointing out the separation of the tactical issue, equipment issues vs. the appearance issues and their interaction.

My thoughts are that many folks have negative views of military appearing weapons (that's why modern sporting rifles is so stupid). This has been demonstrated in research studies and in actual equipment purchasing decisions. There are easily found city council arguments against buying ARs as it is too military in appearance for a given city. The popularity of Mini-14s in some locales was because of that. The Remington pump 223 and the pistol round carbines were sold with 'nice' non AR qualities as a selling point. One gun writer when pimping the PC-9 (after North Hollywood) said that the round was iffy but the carbine configuration would allow better leg shots.

Given the negative view of the guns and the American resentment of military use against civilians except in extremis - populations who feel discriminated against by the law and folks sympatico to them will not support the military appearance and equipment. Chasing down a specific criminal is different from patrolling the the streets in such. The picture of an officer with an impressive gun on bipod on a 'tank' will generate negative views.

One can also argue that carrying such primes aggressive ideation in some that makes it easier to act aggressively in some situations. Thus a police response may be overly aggressive as the gear primes such actions. Now, this is debatable given what is called the priming literature. It can be mitigated by proper training. However, the risk of an ill trained department in costume vs. a highly trained unit understanding the use of force is probably worrying some people.

This is my evaluation separate from just pure haters of police. As a side issue - we had a campus PD discussion of run, hide, flee and active shooters. Our local department is serious. Of course, I got into an argument with the school president on campus carry. He had a tantrum citing Kellerman, blah, blah. However, the PD brought out their ARs and some gentle faculty were shocked.

Shellback
08-18-2014, 11:52 AM
Good post Glenn. I think you hit a lot of the key points, if not all.

jlw
08-18-2014, 11:53 AM
In reference to the standoff mentioned earlier, here is the link to the story now with more photos uploaded:

http://onlineathens.com/breaking-news/2014-08-18/suspects-standoff-athens-police-surrender

ford.304
08-18-2014, 12:00 PM
Excellent post, Glenn. And I agree with IRISH, jlw, I love seeing the insight into how police work should, IMO, be done everywhere.

KevinB
08-18-2014, 12:13 PM
My department just adopted MultiCam for our Tactical Teams. It was felt by the command team (and officers) that it offered much better camouflage as opposed to the previous OD uniform We have a large rural area, and in low light you can blend in much better. We do use POLICE (a legal requirement in our OA) patches on our vests (front and back) and a Department patch on the shoulder sleeves. We do not use names - we have Call Sign boards on the arms -- mainly as some of our customer don't need to know our names.

One aspect many folks are missing about the "militarization" of police - is that since 9/11 the Military entities dealing with the terrorist threat have seen massive capability jumps - changes in tactics and equipment, and honestly it is in the publics best interest that these skills and equipment flow down to the LE arena, as it will increase public safety.

Shellback
08-18-2014, 01:36 PM
My department just adopted MultiCam for our Tactical Teams. It was felt by the command team (and officers) that it offered much better camouflage as opposed to the previous OD uniform We have a large rural area, and in low light you can blend in much better.
Area of operations definitely comes into play. Our guys use OD flight suits here in Vegas. Sometimes I think they'd be better off with neon signs and hookers as camouflage.


We do use POLICE (a legal requirement in our OA) patches on our vests (front and back) and a Department patch on the shoulder sleeves. We do not use names - we have Call Sign boards on the arms -- mainly as some of our customer don't need to know our names.
Completely understandable. I was thinking more in terms of the guys in Ferguson playing crowd control, not catching bad guys.


One aspect many folks are missing about the "militarization" of police - is that since 9/11 the Military entities dealing with the terrorist threat have seen massive capability jumps - changes in tactics and equipment, and honestly it is in the publics best interest that these skills and equipment flow down to the LE arena, as it will increase public safety.
Conversations like this help form the public's opinion and intelligent people will get it and help disseminate that information to others they know who don't get it. As an example, they released the autopsy results that said the guy in Ferguson got shot 6 times this morning and my wife seemed a little surprised and said that's not gonna help matters. But, a quick 2 minute conversation and the lightbulb went on. In turn she relays that info and similar to her soccer moms who can't grasp a lot of stuff related to self-defense, guns, etc. and then they get it.

Nothing earth shattering, I know. Just pounding the keys.

KevinB
08-18-2014, 01:48 PM
My wife works in Strategic Communications - and she points out that most times LE Agencies fail miserably at PR, other than fluff pieces many departments do not attempt to engage the population on the what why where's of their acquisitions and tactics.

Glenn E. Meyer
08-18-2014, 02:03 PM
I think the public has only a TV/movie appreciation of 'stopping power'. One shot - you fly through the air, etc. Thus, multiple shots are seen as quite extreme. They also think that a non-instantly fatal shot will cause someone to cease fighting. My wife was watching the news and is savvy enough to ask about the multiple shots and the rationale of such. Shooting someone in the leg or arm as a less than lethal option is part of popular gun culture.

The local police in Ferguson are not up to speed on informational tactics. The bit about Brown being the strong arm guy and suggesting that was the reason for the stop and then recanting on that a few hours later is not a smart move, to say the least.

Also, in a situation like this, someone said that the official state autopsy might not be released for months depending on a DA prosecution decision seems foolish. Too much like a Lincoln Lawyer novel plot. I supposed the Federal view will be out much quicker.

Transparency is probably the best move and the local police chief seemed stunned by it all.

The distance of the shots and posture of Brown need to be scientifically and quickly presented.

DocGKR
08-18-2014, 02:39 PM
Only someone completely ignorant of American history could possibly think that current U.S. law enforcement agencies are overly "militarized"...

American law enforcement agencies are governed by the Constitution, as well as Federal and State Law; as such, LE agencies are currently more restrained by court rulings and policy than at any time since the founding of our Nation.

Since 1776, most U.S. LE agencies have used a variety of equipment, uniform items, and small arms (particularly long guns) similar to those used by U.S. military personnel. This is NOT a new phenomena.

American LE agencies have used armored vehicles to protect personnel for over 100 years.

When someone documents American LE agencies that have artillery, gunships, attack aircraft, bombers, fully armed tanks with cannons (like an M1A1 or even an M2 Bradley), rockets, mines, or mortars and then we can begin to talk about "militarization" of the Police...

Glenn E. Meyer
08-18-2014, 03:27 PM
That historical perspective will have little persuasive on the current debate. It's a matter of commonly perceived features. Look at a soldier, look at a police officer standing side by side and geared up. It would be hard to differentiate them. It's the infantry!

Also heavily arming police that are in common contact with the public is pretty new. It wasn't till the 1890s that NYPD issued a standard 32 revolver and started some firearms training. The Model 10 took over for a long time.

The current appearance profile is more towards equipment and more weaponry. That's what's operative.

KevinB
08-18-2014, 04:45 PM
The current appearance profile is more towards equipment and more weaponry. That's what's operative.

Todays media and the ability of any idiot with net access to rant about it.

I'm guessing the "Wild West" would still be a nightmare if LE had to deal with today's media...

John Hearne
08-18-2014, 05:03 PM
Also heavily arming police that are in common contact with the public is pretty new. It wasn't till the 1890s that NYPD issued a standard 32 revolver and started some firearms training. The Model 10 took over for a long time. ... The current appearance profile is more towards equipment and more weaponry. That's what's operative.

Yes and no. First, a dedicated police force is itself a fairly new thing. Remember the police were originally formed because cavalry charges killed way too many rioters. Talk about bad press.

There is a long tradition of law enforcement using guns, including long guns, you just have to look to the West to see it more. LE has always "gunned up" when facing credible threats and as already noted, for most of American history, the police had more modern firearms than the U.S. military.

DocGKR
08-18-2014, 05:05 PM
"It's a matter of commonly perceived features. Look at a soldier, look at a police officer standing side by side and geared up. It would be hard to differentiate them. It's the infantry!"

Look at the Soldier:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b376/1angrychimp/3639_zpsaecc7129.jpg

Look at the police officer:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b376/1angrychimp/704995b559a5ec693cba239e79716ac2_zps381d0cae.jpg

It is hard to differentiate them via their commonly perceived features...




Policing is regional. Heavily armed police has periodically been very common in many parts of the U.S. over the past two centuries:

http://images30.fotki.com/v480/photos/4/42477/164986/BanditChaser1-vi.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-odCN0D82kXA/UaHcJQQIymI/AAAAAAAADHc/47ruXiBhapg/s1600/Old+Photos+of+Boston+Police+%283%29.jpeg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jXzTUvSSKjY/UaHcMBmhyxI/AAAAAAAADIg/0BnfKIXR2cQ/s1600/Old+Photos+of+Boston+Police+%2813%29.jpeg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LDPoIGa8o4Q/UaHcMxM63OI/AAAAAAAADI0/3y0ieEWWK5E/s1600/Old+Photos+of+Boston+Police+%2816%29.jpeg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1x3lwhWUb_E/UaHcK-TohhI/AAAAAAAADIA/pLICavtTRVE/s1600/Old+Photos+of+Boston+Police+%288%29.jpeg

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/09/26/springfield_10-84a81a506adc999702732b7bf75d1203fa115350-s6-c30.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x82/cat9x/snapshot20091117081411.jpg

https://bringmethenews.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/police-with-tommy-gun.png

John Hearne
08-18-2014, 05:31 PM
Let's not forget these:

http://goodsparkgarage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/riot_bike.jpg

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd276/champy12345/8x10%202011/IndianMotorcycleMachineGun8x10.jpg

http://www.auto-ordnance.com/images/Photo-Library/police3.gif

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yVmo-lG_Epk/UqzS7HEccJI/AAAAAAAALS4/tRWkqnRXQgw/s1600/Indian06.jpg

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/139860_v1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZOwouUYYxcs/UaHcJAR1bNI/AAAAAAAADHU/jU8R6BDhExw/s1600/Old+Photos+of+Boston+Police+(1).jpeg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5ZqDOZe8nfI/UqzS9Q7quMI/AAAAAAAALTc/nKYJDJN-g2g/s1600/Indian11.jpg

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/73/18/0b/73180bf35021e85e0e96621a696f6774.jpg

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/4b/3e/31/4b3e31d98f99c7fdb43dc93887487a11.jpg

jlw
08-18-2014, 06:18 PM
That historical perspective will have little persuasive on the current debate. It's a matter of commonly perceived features. Look at a soldier, look at a police officer standing side by side and geared up. It would be hard to differentiate them. It's the infantry!

Also heavily arming police that are in common contact with the public is pretty new. It wasn't till the 1890s that NYPD issued a standard 32 revolver and started some firearms training. The Model 10 took over for a long time.

The current appearance profile is more towards equipment and more weaponry. That's what's operative.

Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt issued the first standard firearm. That does not mean that NYPD officers were not armed. It just means that there wasn't a standard issued firearm. TR also instituted civil service boards and promotional testing. Prior to that, at one time there were actually two groups actually claiming to be "the" NYPD. The NY Municipal Police were founded in 1845. They were replaced in 1857 by the Metropolitan Police in a political coup.

The first full fledged police agency in the U.S. started in 1828 (Philly). The LAPD was founded in 1853. The Chicago PD was founded in 1837.

We were still adding states well into the 1900s. There are "major" agencies in the U.S. The Phoenix PD was founded until 1881.

Law enforcement in the U.S. is all fairly new.

Shellback
08-18-2014, 06:20 PM
My wife works in Strategic Communications - and she points out that most times LE Agencies fail miserably at PR, other than fluff pieces many departments do not attempt to engage the population on the what why where's of their acquisitions and tactics.

I think that's foolish on their part. Public perception, like it or not, is very important. Police derive their power through the consent of the governed, and if they perceive a problem, such as "militarization", then it becomes an issue for LE and the public. In fact, I heard Obama blathering on about it while driving in my car today...

I understand that law enforcement forum members get tired of people criticizing the actions of people in their profession. Sometimes it's warranted, other times it's not. I think when people use the "stay in your lane", "were you there?" and "how long have you been in LE? Then STFU!" type comments it does nothing but drive a wedge between citizens and the police. Typically it takes a few minutes to spell it out to people and if you don't have the time then why bother commenting? (Just a general comment, not directed at anyone) Or, if they're only seeking an argument then explain things nicely and carry on. Cops are used to people talking shit to them in person, get over it, use the ignore feature.

Personally, I enjoy debating things and am open to learning new things. I've had my mind changed on many occasions due to people who've taken the time to open my mind to a different point of view that I hadn't considered. I think it's worthwhile to put forth a little bit of effort to convert people into being pro-LE rather than having them think they're a badge heavy prick.

It's a discussion forum, not an echo chamber, so discuss things and help educate those who are ignorant of what it takes, how hard it is and what really happens on the job. Anyhow, I'm just running on.... I think you get the idea and none of this is directed at you or anyone lee specifically, mostly random thoughts on the topic. :)

jlw
08-18-2014, 06:22 PM
My wife works in Strategic Communications - and she points out that most times LE Agencies fail miserably at PR, other than fluff pieces many departments do not attempt to engage the population on the what why where's of their acquisitions and tactics.

That is a very accurate assessment.

GardoneVT
08-18-2014, 06:22 PM
I think that's foolish on their part. Public perception, like it or not, is very important. Police derive their power through the consent of the governed, and if they perceive a problem, such as "militarization", then it becomes an issue for LE and the public. In fact, I heard Obama blathering on about it while driving in my car today...

I understand that law enforcement forum members get tired of people criticizing the actions of people in their profession. Sometimes it's warranted, other times it's not. I think when people use the "stay in your lane", "were you there?" and "how long have you been in LE? Then STFU!" type comments it does nothing but drive a wedge between citizens and the police. Typically it takes a few minutes to spell it out to people and if you don't have the time then why bother commenting? (Just a general comment, not directed at anyone) Or, if they're only seeking an argument then explain things nicely and carry on. Cops are used to people talking shit to them in person, get over it, use the ignore feature.

Personally, I enjoy debating things and am open to learning new things. I've had my mind changed on many occasions due to people who've taken the time to open my mind to a different point of view that I hadn't considered. I think it's worthwhile to put forth a little bit of effort to convert people into being pro-LE rather than having them think they're a badge heavy prick.

It's a discussion forum, not an echo chamber, so discuss things and help educate those who are ignorant of what it takes, how hard it is and what really happens on the job. Anyhow, I'm just running on.... I think you get the idea and none of this is directed at you or anyone lee specifically, mostly random thoughts on the topic. :)

What's funny to me is how people didn't seem to care about "police militarization" when Eliot Ness and Co. were out and about with Thompsons intended for WWI trench use.

Shellback
08-18-2014, 06:28 PM
What's funny to me is how people didn't seem to care about "police militarization" when Eliot Ness and Co. were out and about with Thompsons intended for WWI trench use.

I have no idea... No internet, no 24 hour news, and I think (keyword) that the police were more glamorized chasing and fighting the bad guys in the media, comic books, etc.

Back then little boys could have a .22 rifle running around, play cops and robbers, etc. Different times, different people, different culture.

To clarify, I'm all for the good guys possessing, training with and utilizing the equipment they need to get the job done catching hardcore bad dudes.

ETA - Guns are "evil" now and our boys are neutered in public schools and a million other things but it's time for BJJ with my boys :)

My 3 year old wants to be just like his Uncle Paul, one of my best friends. This is him jumping on the couch, playing policeman a few weeks ago, with his badge and cuffs.

http://i61.tinypic.com/1zq6nmc.jpg

Coyotesfan97
08-18-2014, 11:46 PM
http://www.delawaretrooper.com/museum/images/1960riots.jpg

Delaware State Police in the 60s

Tamara
08-19-2014, 08:02 AM
If this was the 1930s, they would have already machinegunned the crowd. They were pretty quick to go weapons-free on commies or black folk back in the day, and if somebody was black and a commie? Well, shucks, Bill o' Rights weren't meant to apply to people like that! :rolleyes:

Glenn E. Meyer
08-19-2014, 09:16 AM
Yeah - there were the turn outs with tommy guns, etc. Maybe I'm just being influenced by the media. I just remember as a kid, not seeing an officer with tons of gear around their waists.

On the other hand, in the original King Kong - they called out the Riot Squad with Thompsons.

Alpha Sierra
08-19-2014, 09:20 AM
I just remember as a kid, not seeing an officer with tons of gear around their waists.
Saps and brass knuckles took up less space than a taser and OC canister.

John Hearne
08-19-2014, 09:22 AM
I just remember as a kid, not seeing an officer with tons of gear around their waists.

This is the part that drives me crazy. I do carry a ton of gear on my waist. Except for the portable radio that didn't exist back in the day, everything extra I'm carrying consist of non-lethal tools, designed to minimize harm to subjects who resist. The other extra stuff is a small, powerful flashlight and a pair of gloves so that I can render aid without fears of getting sick myself.

We have added stuff that genuinely makes people safer but it is perceived negatively. Do we really want cops walking around with just a pistol, some reloads, and wooden stick?

LtDave
08-19-2014, 09:39 AM
This is the part that drives me crazy. I do carry a ton of gear on my waist. Except for the portable radio that didn't exist back in the day, everything extra I'm carrying consist of non-lethal tools, designed to minimize harm to subjects who resist. The other extra stuff is a small, powerful flashlight and a pair of gloves so that I can render aid without fears of getting sick myself.

We have added stuff that genuinely makes people safer but it is perceived negatively. Do we really want cops walking around with just a pistol, some reloads, and wooden stick?

You just described my load out when I started in Law Enforcement in 1978. S&W Model 27, 18 rounds 158 FMJ RN .38 Special, straight baton and one pair of cuffs. Just looked and I still have 6 rounds of that ammo left.

TAZ
08-19-2014, 09:40 AM
What's funny to me is how people didn't seem to care about "police militarization" when Eliot Ness and Co. were out and about with Thompsons intended for WWI trench use.

I think Irish hit the nail on the head with regards to information access. While there were definitely Elliot Ness' running around with Tommy Guns the general public still associated police with the guy walking the beat in his neighborhood. The guy who maybe helped his wife with the groceries or played ball with his kid. Whether fact based or not the perception of the police was different then than now. Today we have a very limited source of information; yet at the same time it saturates the airwaves 24/7/365. Basically we have the view point of a few editors/producers that makes it out to EVERYONE all the time over and over and over. That type of indoctrination changes people perceptions pretty effectively. Couple that droning news message with a society who simply doesn't care or know how to actually discern fact from opinion and you can screw with people's minds jiffy quick.

IMO the equipment is but a single overt symptom of the problem. Having grown up in a true police state I can 100% tell you that equipment don't matter. The LEO in Romania didn't go around with AK's and armor and MRAP's. They had a Makarov (maybe some walked around with empty holsters) in a wooden holster, a billy club and a whistle. No comms. The AK's were handled by the local military who every once in a while came out to handle something the cops couldn't. I only heard stories of their presence; never witnessed them out in force thank God. Even with those simple implements the police and government were truly oppressive. The LEO never lived in the community they policed so they never had to face the music or get to know anyone. Hard to "arrest" your neighbors daughter so she can service the local politburo members needs if you actually gave a shit about her and her family. Because there was no attachment to the community the LEO were arrogant asses who not only considered themselves above the mere "civilians"; but in fact they were a protected class. They could do no wrong. Even if they stepped on their dicks and decided to jump up and down on it they weren't wrong. The only way they got in trouble was to mess with the wrong person, mostly politburo members or informants... They got preferential treatment for food, housing, cars. They were exempt for laws the rest had to deal with. Additionally, they considered everyone else guilty of something till they proved otherwise; so basically everyone was treated like shit and looked down upon. Im sure there are a million other things I missed, but there are my experiences.

Fast forward to the USA in 2014.
Everyone refers to non LEO as civilians when in fact both LEO and non LEO are civilians.
LEO are exempt from certain laws.
LEO higher ups are often actively supportive of laws that strip citizens rights (no AR's, no mags over 10 RDS...)
LEO higher ups ignore laws (HPD statement that they will confiscate guns in cars even though laws changed allowing for people to have loaded guns in cars; stop recording what we do...)
LEO wrong doings covered by immunity claims.
LEO isolated from community.

The parallels are striking. Now a lot of those parallels are perception based that could be changed with some good PR, but some aren't.

Focusing on the equipment side is like treating a heart attack with pain killers and claiming you've solved the problem.

Glenn E. Meyer
08-19-2014, 09:42 AM
This is off topic a touch but I've seen different kinds of mag pouch positions - horizontal vs. vertical. I have an officer on the campus force who is a friend - the other day, I notice his mag was rounds pointed backwards. Since that isn't what I learned, I asked why and he said no one ever brought up the issue. Sorry to divert. I feel that way as a FOG - should I put on the Surefire, Glock, mags, knife, bug, cell phone, OC or just go out the door with the keys and the snubby.

Alpha Sierra
08-19-2014, 09:45 AM
I feel that way as a FOG - should I put on the Surefire, Glock, mags, knife, bug, cell phone, OC or just go out the door with the keys and the snubby.
I'm not sure what that question has to do with anything or the price of tea in China.

Don't worry too much what others use to do their job, or look at them to decide what it is that you need.

LittleLebowski
08-19-2014, 09:55 AM
I'm not sure what that question has to do with anything or the price of tea in China.

Don't worry too much what others use to do their job, or look at them to decide what it is that you need.

I think it boils down to individual training level of the officer. It's no secret that many LE need more training, just like most CCW holders.

Alpha Sierra
08-19-2014, 10:14 AM
I think it boils down to individual training level of the officer. It's no secret that many LE need more training, just like most CCW holders.
I was just replying to Glenn (who I gather is a university prof), to not worry too much about what cops carry to work.

LSP972
08-19-2014, 10:16 AM
You just described my load out when I started in Law Enforcement in 1978. S&W Model 27, 18 rounds 158 FMJ RN .38 Special, straight baton and one pair of cuffs.

Yup; same year for me, but it was a 4" M-66, 18 rounds of "magnums", one pair of cuffs, and a Buck 110 in a .45 mag pouch. Didn't wear a stick normally, but I had a PR24 and SL20 available... both of which christened more than a few recalcitrant skulls.

Oh, and I also carried a J frame BUG from Day One. Still got both of the Null ankle rigs I wore, and plan to pass them down to my son-in-law if his wish to join LSP is realized.

I look at these guys (and gals) nowadays, humping all that stuff around; Jeez, Louise, my back hurts just thinking about it.

.

Jay Cunningham
08-19-2014, 10:17 AM
Or perhaps you can leave the moderating to the moderators, Alpha Sierra.

Tamara
08-19-2014, 10:23 AM
Didn't wear a stick normally, but I had a PR24 and SL20 available... both of which christened more than a few recalcitrant skulls.

Every time someone gets worked into a lather about tasers or OC, I try and remind them that the prior equivalent was a hickory shampoo. You're not gonna fix a depressed skull fracture with an eyewash station.

Alpha Sierra
08-19-2014, 10:32 AM
Or perhaps you can leave the moderating to the moderators, Alpha Sierra.
I was replying to a post directed at me.

jetfire
08-19-2014, 10:48 AM
Every time someone gets worked into a lather about tasers or OC, I try and remind them that the prior equivalent was a hickory shampoo. You're not gonna fix a depressed skull fracture with an eyewash station.

Police brutality is okay as long as they're not wearing camo or driving around in MRAPs.

LittleLebowski
08-19-2014, 11:02 AM
I was just replying to Glenn (who I gather is a university prof), to not worry too much about what cops carry to work.

It's fine to discuss such things here.

LSP972
08-19-2014, 02:30 PM
Every time someone gets worked into a lather about tasers or OC, I try and remind them that the prior equivalent was a hickory shampoo. You're not gonna fix a depressed skull fracture with an eyewash station.

True enough. StreamLight SL20s and SL35s have done enough of that sort of damage to spawn the infamous plastic versions. Trust me; an aluminum SL20 with a battery stick in it is just as effective as a sap.

.

John Hearne
08-19-2014, 02:41 PM
SL35s

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

That was the ultimate distraction tool. I can't tell you how many folks I had staring at that "petite" flashlight with a look of "I hope he doesn't hit me with that" as it was perched on my shoulder. I just stopped using mine in the last couple of years.

KeeFus
08-19-2014, 03:40 PM
True enough. StreamLight SL20s and SL35s have done enough of that sort of damage to spawn the infamous plastic versions. Trust me; an aluminum SL20 with a battery stick in it is just as effective as a sap.

.

Truth. I used to get strange looks when I exited my car in broad daylight with my SL 20. Now everybody just snickers...they work very well.

ETA: They haven't mandated Tasers yet for each officer...but I fear that day is around the corner. I'm the only person on my shift that doesn't carry one.

LSP972
08-19-2014, 04:17 PM
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
I just stopped using mine in the last couple of years.

My old SL20, which I purchased the day after I got out of the academy, has been back to Germantown twice for a re-build over its useful life… and looks it. I still have a couple of extra bulb modules. Even though you learned pretty quick not to use it as an impact weapon when the switch is on (okay if the switch is off- those older models are pretty much bullet-proof), sometimes… the military calls it "exigent circumstances" :D … you gotta do what you gotta do. I blew two modules in one night during the Manville paper mill riots in the mid-80s. Those union mill hands got some hard heads…

Anyway, it now sits on my desk at the lab; a reminder that I was, at one time, a real cop.;)

.

Tamara
08-19-2014, 04:23 PM
Even though you learned pretty quick not to use it as an impact weapon when the switch is on (okay if the switch is off- those older models are pretty much bullet-proof)...

Part of my Surefire® sales pitch used to be to suddenly, without telling the customer what I was about to do, turn around with my old incandescent Z2 Combatlight with the GG&G TID on it and whale on the wooden shelf behind me three or four times like I was trying to drive nails... with the light on the whole time.

The light only let me down once when I was doing that. :D

LittleLebowski
08-19-2014, 04:31 PM
Did anyone answer if cops with tommychoppers are less intimidating than cops with AR15s?

John Hearne
08-19-2014, 04:40 PM
Did anyone answer if cops with tommychoppers are less intimidating than cops with AR15s?

Don't know about intimidating but the Thompsons sure are classier.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk

LSP972
08-19-2014, 04:53 PM
Don't know about intimidating but the Thompsons sure are classier.


Indeed. But I sure wouldn't want to hump one of those heavy suckers (and an adequate supply of loaded magazines) very far.;)

.

Alpha Sierra
08-19-2014, 04:54 PM
Did anyone answer if cops with tommychoppers are less intimidating than cops with AR15s?
They were wearing dress blues with white shirts, ties, and 12 point covers, so no.

Tamara
08-19-2014, 05:37 PM
Did anyone answer if cops with tommychoppers are less intimidating than cops with AR15s?

Just getting off the phone with Shootin' Buddy who was relating the tale of Lafayette, Indiana's only riot-type disturbance, as related to him by his retired cop friend.

Seems that back during the Sixties, there was some draft-related hooraw across the Wabash in West Lafayette, where the university is, and the mob was headed for the bridges across the river, only to find each of them obstructed by a line of Lafayette's finest holding Thompsons. The marchers turned around and headed back toward campus, and that was about it as far as the Lafayette po-po were concerned.

Coyotesfan97
08-19-2014, 05:58 PM
I started in 1987. I carried a Model 66 with two speed loaders. I had handcuffs, CS mace (that I never used), a nightstick, a radio, and a rechargeable Maglite. The flashlight was always on me. The night stick not so much. Suspects pretty much knew why it rested on your shoulder.

Now on my belt I have a Glock 17, 3 extra mags, handcuffs, OC spray (I like using it), pelican 7060, a PR24 in place of an ASP, a Pelican 8060, a radio, a Taser, and a heat alarm/door popper. It's all carried so none of it is in the small of my back..

That's not counting what I carry in my external carrier.

JHC
08-19-2014, 06:16 PM
Just getting off the phone with Shootin' Buddy who was relating the tale of Lafayette, Indiana's only riot-type disturbance, as related to him by his retired cop friend.

Seems that back during the Sixties, there was some draft-related hooraw across the Wabash in West Lafayette, where the university is, and Athe mob was headed for the bridges across the river, only to find each of them obstructed by a line of Lafayette's finest holding Thompsons. The marchers turned around and headed back toward campus, and that was about it as far as the Lafayette po-po were concerned.

And that worked IMO because if push had come to shove the knuckleheads believed they could be chewed to pieces by those choppers. That is missing today.

MDS
08-19-2014, 08:48 PM
People react emotionally to certain stimulus regardless of their political leanings. Images of the search for the Boston Bomber, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Elion Gonzalez come to mind when the militarization of cops is brought up.

I don't disagree, but I think the emotional reaction thrives in a vacuum of information. Half of me wishes all cops wore gopro's all the time with live feeds to the internet so the facts would never be in question. The other half of me thinks this would backfire because we the public seem to think that a few months in an academy should guarantee 100% infallible perfect snap life and death judgments.

Chuck Haggard
08-19-2014, 09:51 PM
I don't disagree, but I think the emotional reaction thrives in a vacuum of information. Half of me wishes all cops wore gopro's all the time with live feeds to the internet so the facts would never be in question. The other half of me thinks this would backfire because we the public seem to think that a few months in an academy should guarantee 100% infallible perfect snap life and death judgments.


That would also make going to the bathroom while on duty a bit problematic.



We have a ton of Taser Axon cameras on the street. The guys that have them love them, the guys that don't want one (it's a question of budget...) It is common for us to get a complaint, the complainer to come in to IA for a reinterview and be shown the video, then asked questions such as "Where again when the officer rude/brutal/mean/disrespectful to you?" and to have the complainer leave at that point to never be heard from again.

MDS
08-19-2014, 10:23 PM
That would also make going to the bathroom while on duty a bit problematic.

Good point. When I become king I guess I'll allow short recording gaps. ;)


We have a ton of Taser Axon cameras on the street. The guys that have them love them, the guys that don't want one (it's a question of budget...) It is common for us to get a complaint, the complainer to come in to IA for a reinterview and be shown the video, then asked questions such as "Where again when the officer rude/brutal/mean/disrespectful to you?" and to have the complainer leave at that point to never be heard from again.

Awesome! I've heard vaguely that more agencies are doing this - dashcams are great as far as they go, but... Anyway, can you confirm if that's true, that more and more video documentation is done by the cops themselves, from their POV? Would have been great in St. Louis...

Also, and I hope this isn't offensive or insensitive, but has the footage ever helped clarify that an officer did in fact make a mistake or behave unprofessionally?

John Hearne
08-19-2014, 11:03 PM
It is common for us to get a complaint, the complainer to come in to IA for a reinterview and be shown the video, then asked questions such as "Where again when the officer rude/brutal/mean/disrespectful to you?" and to have the complainer leave at that point to never be heard from again.

Our experience with video is very similar. Last time I looked the research on video said that 97% of the time the cops did what they were supposed to. The other 3% were BS errors like not wearing your uniform hat during the contact. Substantive errors captured by video are fairly non-existent.

My only gripe is that flagrantly bogus complaints are never pursued legally. If you want to make patently fake accusations about an officer's conduct, you should be criminally prosecuted.


Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk

JAD
08-19-2014, 11:07 PM
There was an article in the WSJ on this today. It completely missed the point -- Drew the conclusion that cops who wear cameras behave better. The point of the article though was right up my alley -- for those of us in the highly reliable electronics business, it's a gold mine.

Chuck Haggard
08-20-2014, 07:31 AM
Our experience with video is very similar. Last time I looked the research on video said that 97% of the time the cops did what they were supposed to. The other 3% were BS errors like not wearing your uniform hat during the contact. Substantive errors captured by video are fairly non-existent.

My only gripe is that flagrantly bogus complaints are never pursued legally. If you want to make patently fake accusations about an officer's conduct, you should be criminally prosecuted.


Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk



^This^


Coppers seriously messing up is very much a "man bites dog" event in my experience. More than 99% of the time the video clears the officers, and IMHO the complainant should be prosecuted for making a false writing (it's a KS law).

When you realize that 90% of rape reports/claims are false reports you start to get an idea of how many off the charts blatant, bold face liars there are in the human race.

That being said, yes, we do catch dudes doing stupid stuff. Typically too fast during a pursuit and such, rules have been bent, no one got hurt type things.

I did have cause to bring about the firing of a very veteran officer after I was able to review car camera video that showed he had in fact used excessive force and inappropriate conduct.
The bad guy in question didn't complain, the other officers on scene did. Think about that for a few minutes.

ford.304
08-20-2014, 08:31 AM
Like anything else with punishment - it's not so much how often crap happens, but how it is dealt with by the system. And, moreover, how it is *perceived* to be dealt with by the system.

Huge fan of cop cams. Seems like a win/win all around, and I can't imagine that they cost more than a defending a few of these bullcrap excessive force claims.

John Hearne
08-20-2014, 11:15 AM
I did have cause to bring about the firing of a very veteran officer after I was able to review car camera video that showed he had in fact used excessive force and inappropriate conduct. ... The bad guy in question didn't complain, the other officers on scene did. Think about that for a few minutes.

BUT, BUT - blue code of silence! stonewalling! cops don't rat out other cops! ... ;)

Regarding allegations, my most recent one was great. Stopped dude for traffic violation and he had a local warrant. Confirmed local warrant and hooked him up. He was on his way to a duck hunting trip and had a ton of crap in his truck. The first thing I did was remove his shotgun, clear it, and put it on the tailgate so it wouldn't get scratched up in the inventory. Transported dude to the locals and some ass pulled out in front of me causing me to apply brakes to avoid collision.

Two days later, he's in my Chief's office with a bunch of allegations. First was of course that I irreparably scratched and scarred his shotgun. He also alleged that I had been speeding, run multiple stop signs and almost been involved in a wreck because of my recklessness. The camera directly contradicted everything he said, from the shotgun to the fact that I only passed one stop sign and had come to a complete stop for it. Because he couldn't make his position any more obvious, he offered to drop his allegations against me if the ticket I had written him was dropped.

He faced zero legal repercussions for this. Yeah leadership....

Shellback
08-20-2014, 11:38 AM
My only gripe is that flagrantly bogus complaints are never pursued legally. If you want to make patently fake accusations about an officer's conduct, you should be criminally prosecuted.


More than 99% of the time the video clears the officers, and IMHO the complainant should be prosecuted for making a false writing (it's a KS law).

I don't disagree with either one of you and think it's a very valid point, they should be prosecuted. Sue them for slander and defamation for all I care. After reading quite a few positive things on body cams I'm all for them. I see lots of upsides and very few downsides to utilizing them.

With that being said, what should the punishment be for the officer who intentionally disables or turns off their camera? I've read of it happening with dash cams as well on a few occasions.

To provide an example, here's a recent incident from New Orleans (http://www.fox8live.com/story/26283883/officer-involved-in-monday-shooting-had-body-cam-turned-off). It doesn't help when NOPD doesn't release the basic information (http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news/new-orleans/attorney-nopd-officer-shot-man-in-head-in-monday-morning-incident/27461746#!bGPrJG) pertaining to the OIS.

I'd like to know your opinion in general, not really this specific incident. It sounds like the officer turned off their camera going off shift so I don't see it as some great conspiracy but for this particular incident it would've helped to eliminate questions regarding the shooting. So, what should happen to officers who aren't recording when they should be?

Shellback
08-20-2014, 12:07 PM
Compton, CA. (http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/08/18/46025/school-police-assault-rifle-policy-raises-question/) I'm all for these guys have the proper tool for the job. Caution: Article is filled with ridiculousness.

As Compton students head back to school Monday, residents are expressing concern about a school board policy passed in July that allows campus police who pass an internal selection process to buy semi-automatic AR-15 rifles and carry them in their patrol car trunks while on duty.

John Hearne
08-20-2014, 01:50 PM
With that being said, what should the punishment be for the officer who intentionally disables or turns off their camera? I've read of it happening with dash cams as well on a few occasions.

Off the cuff, I see a difference between disabling recording equipment mid-event and other incidents that aren't recorded. If someone intentionally stops the recording mid-event then that should warrant serious disciplinary action. Our policy is clear, the camera should be rolling continuously during LE contacts. If it isn't then its grounds for disciplinary action.

The other issue is that most systems require something to activate them. Most cars are setup to activate the camera when the warning lights are activated. If I was away from my car, like in a restaurant, and something happened suddenly, the odds are that nothing would be recorded. Also, the wireless mics that the in-car systems use aren't perfect. They are battery powered and can be out of range of the recorder. There are just some clear limitations to the equipment that are legit and not conspiratorial.

Shellback
08-20-2014, 02:11 PM
Off the cuff, I see a difference between disabling recording equipment mid-event and other incidents that aren't recorded. If someone intentionally stops the recording mid-event then that should warrant serious disciplinary action. Our policy is clear, the camera should be rolling continuously during LE contacts. If it isn't then its grounds for disciplinary action...

There are just some clear limitations to the equipment that are legit and not conspiratorial.
Sounds like a reasonable standard. And on #2 I totally get that. Thanks for your input.

ford.304
08-20-2014, 02:57 PM
I don't think punishing the officer is fair without a higher standard of proof, but I do feel that recordings going missing should cast serious doubt on the officer's testimony.

KevinB
08-20-2014, 03:16 PM
I like POV cam's - I ran a helmet cam when doing PSD work overseas and between those and the dash (and rear) cams they really helped.

I got pulled over recently by a VSP Trooper wearing a body cam -- he informed me the contact was being recorded, and then I pointed to my dash cam and mic and said yes it is (we both had a laugh about it).

I don't believe cameras make officers make better decision (or better people), but I do know that they are a powerful tool to be able to articulate what was done when and why, and fully support their usage.


WRT the poor comms on some issues from LEA's. I think that very few senior administrators in LEA's even understand what or why some items of equipment are acquired. Especially in the case of their Tactical Units - mainly as most of them never were in a Tactical Unit - and even if they did, they will mostly be horribly stale in terms of TTP's. The folks driving the acquisitions train are the Tactical Unit leaders, most of whom are too busy working than trying to put out an explanation to the public.

MRAP's - these were supplied for free (you pay transport, and maintenance plan) under a lend/lease - being the USG can ask for them back if the need arose.
Now most agencies jumped at the chance - as the maintenance is not badly priced, and no one wants to be the Chief/Sheriff/Mayor who if a active shooter appears in their jurisdiction cannot evac wounded, or give an entry team cover to move in.

Many richer areas bought the Lenco BearCat as its based on a Ford F550 - and the routine work can be done by the Dept mechanic, or any Ford dealership if the Dept is not large enough to warrant its own (or city/county etc.) vehicle maintenance entity.

KeeFus
08-20-2014, 03:27 PM
I don't think punishing the officer is fair without a higher standard of proof, but I do feel that recordings going missing should cast serious doubt on the officer's testimony.

With our set-up the officer would have to have limited access to the storage at the PD. We have to remove the card and place it into evidence. Our camera cards are downloaded by one person...the only thing we can do is burn them to a dvd after they've been downloaded, which is usually the next day. We have had a few issues with the system in the car crashing but the last couple years it seems the company has gotten their stuff together. Pretty good system IMO.

We use Digital Ally DVM 500 plus. They're activated by speed (65 MPH), emergency equipment, and in accidents (I presume when the airbag is deployed, I haven't experienced that one yet...).

We've had a few officers tempt their fate by figuring out the admin password and manipulate the speed settings...didn't work out so well for them. Otherwise, we can only turn them on/off and stop them after an incident. Although I guess we could stop them during but that's just stupid.

Shellback
08-20-2014, 07:00 PM
SWAT getting it done. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-officer-shot-in-harvey-hostage-situation-underway-20140819-story.html) Hostages rescued, bad dudes behind bars and unfortunately 2 officers got wounded in the process. Report states officers are OK and at home recovering.

Beat Trash
08-21-2014, 11:39 AM
I've just skimmed through 12 pages on this site and about the same number of replies on another forum on a similar topic. One thought keeps coming to mind. Why is it such a bad thing that an armed LEO is intimidating?

My agency has had a Patrol Rifle program since the end of 2005. I helped instruct the first 75 officers through the program when it was first started. My agency has yet to have an OIS involving a Patrol Rifle (AR15). OIS incidents with Pistols and shotgun, yes, carbines, not yet. (Rifles still carried in trunks has a lot to do with that.)

Even as a supervisor, I can easily think of 5 or 6 incidents over the last 12 months where I personally held an armed suspect at gunpoint with my Patrol Rifle. I was doing my best to give the perception of being intimidating. By successfully appearing intimidating to the suspect, I was able to gain compliance without having to use lethal force.

IS this such a bad thing?

Would I carry a rifle to a community meeting? Nope, But if the incident warrants the deployment of gear such as armored vehicles, ceramic plat body armor and long guns, then the ability to gain compliance through intimidation is preferred to not gaining compliance and having to up the UOF response. Not only does this type of gear keep the officers safer, I would argue that it actually keeps innocent members of society safer. And for those suspects that feel either intimidated, or that the odds are not in their favor that day and opt to comply, they are safer than if the officers have to up the UOF continuum and shoot them.

What am I missing here?

DocGKR
08-21-2014, 12:22 PM
You are missing NOTHING. It is a good thing to intimidate suspects into submission, rather than being forced to use a higher level of force (bad pun intended). The problem is that most of the public, large numbers of LE "administrators", and even many military service members do NOT understand Constitutional use of force law or policy and how those differ from military ROE.

Shellback
08-21-2014, 01:22 PM
Why is it such a bad thing that an armed LEO is intimidating?

Even as a supervisor, I can easily think of 5 or 6 incidents over the last 12 months where I personally held an armed suspect at gunpoint with my Patrol Rifle. I was doing my best to give the perception of being intimidating. By successfully appearing intimidating to the suspect, I was able to gain compliance without having to use lethal force.

IS this such a bad thing?

What am I missing here?

I think it depends on the context and a lot of this is speculation on my part but I'll bet I'm not too far off the mark... I don't think most people have an issue with a police officer being intimidating towards a known bad guy or in a hostile situation. However, in general, people aren't used to seeing police utilizing long guns and this strikes them as something that should be reserved for the military, fighting bad people in bad lands, as seen on TV. Most people have probably never even seen a cop with their gun out of the holster unless it's on Cops.

I think most people are in their bubble, they're generally law-abiding, and obviously view the world through their lens. When Suzy soccer mom sees a cop looking like a stone faced hardass with a slung rifle, they get scared and feel intimidated, plenty of examples in NYC. Your typical everyday American doing the 9 to 5 has no idea what possible threats are out there and can't understand why you'd need an "assault rifle." They're constantly told that assault rifles are bad so why would they want police having them? Our media does nothing but feed them misinformation and they swallow it hook, line and sinker.

We suspend kids from school for anything even remotely related to firearms, including their index finger. I've seen multiple active shooter callouts for someone carrying an umbrella on campus within the past month. Just this past week Six Flags denied entry to a former Marine who was wearing a shirt with an M4 silhouette on it. The list goes on and on... The laws, rules and regulations that are being written and enforced are breeding this type of anti-gun hysteria that also affects law enforcement due to people's perception of guns and the image they have of what a cop should look like.

You have the top LE brass braying on TV that people don't need assault weapons, high capacity magazines, etc. and decrying them as evil. Then they expect to arm the police with those weapons and not receive any backlash? They, in the media, politicians and LE, have made the average Joe terrified of these types of weapons and in return you expect a positive response to police utilizing them on our streets?

Sorry for the rant and I hope the disconnect makes sense.

DocGKR
08-21-2014, 02:02 PM
In the post WWII years when most of the U.S. military was equipped with M1903 Springfield rifles with fixed 5 rd magazines, the public seemed to have no problem with LE being better armed with M1921 Thompson SMG's with 50 rd drum magazines and vertical foregrips, M1918 BAR LMG's with 20 rd magazines, and Remington M8's with POE 15 rd magazines....

Shellback
08-21-2014, 02:15 PM
I've seen the pictures and I don't disagree. But, how often were those toted around in reality by your average street cop, versus a staged photo op? How often was the 24 hour media cycle, the internet, politicians, Sarah Brady and the police brass parroting the anti-gun agenda back then? How many times did children get thrown out of class for saying "Bless you" (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/20/student-punished-for-saying-bless/) when someone sneezes in a classroom?

Put the shoe on the other foot... Back then you could've been a kid riding a bike carrying your rifle and nobody would've screwed with you. Try it now and see what happens.

http://timelifeblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/06_113218219.jpg

peterb
08-21-2014, 02:28 PM
I've just skimmed through 12 pages on this site and about the same number of replies on another forum on a similar topic. One thought keeps coming to mind. Why is it such a bad thing that an armed LEO is intimidating?

It is good to look intimidating when it helps accomplish the task and enhances officer and public safety.
It is not good to look intimidating when it makes the task more difficult and decreases public trust.

There are times to be Officer Badass, and times to be Officer Friendly. A good cop knows when each is appropriate.

TAZ
08-21-2014, 03:16 PM
Why is it bad for police to be intimidating?? Interesting question. Having grown up under Communist rule I'm one of those people who are very skittish about intimidation. Is there an appropriate time to the police to be intimidating. Of course. Going into a riot, dealing with a violent criminal and other situations require an aggressive and intimidating presence. BUT the aggression and intimidating presence have a clear and distinct purpose. To quickly STOP the actions of a SELECT individual or group at a PRECISE moment in time. The rest of the time intimidation is not a good tactic. You can't intimidate everyone around you simply cause they made the mistake of being in the same location as you. That isn't what we pay taxes for. And that isn't the kind of America I want to live in. For the record my definition of intimidating has little to do with equipment and more to do with mental state.

Beat Trash
08-21-2014, 03:18 PM
I won't argue that point. But this will end up where the tools and equipment to safely address violent situations will no longer be an option because it "looks too intimidating".

There is a time and a place for everything. I spent a lot of time on the line when my city underwent two weeks of riots in 2001. During active civil unrest is the time to gain as much compliance as possible, from as many as possible. If you can do this by looking mean, than great.

But the outcome of this could have a lasting effect on LE agencies long after the unrest in Ferguson is over. Some want to go as far as to restrict things from LEO's such as armored vehicles and rifles. Both are vital when dealing with active shooter incidents.

During normal day to day patrol operations, only a fool wants to "intimidate" everyone they encounter. Even when dealing with the "criminal element". Kind of hard to develop a CI that way. Not to mention gaining public trust and support. But the "Hug-A-Tug" concept doesn't go to far in my experience.

Trooper224
08-21-2014, 04:41 PM
As hard as it is for some apologists and anarchists to believe, it's very possible to be intimidating, professional and courteous all at the same time.

MDS
08-21-2014, 04:58 PM
As hard as it is for some apologists and anarchists to believe, it's very possible to be intimidating, professional and courteous all at the same time.
This. In my field the prerequisite is confidence - in your tools and your ability to use them, but also in your knowledge of the context (eg, law, local culture, up to date intel, etc,) and in your administration, etc. Would you say this prerequisite applies to Le?

LtDave
08-21-2014, 06:34 PM
Yup; same year for me, but it was a 4" M-66, 18 rounds of "magnums", one pair of cuffs, and a Buck 110 in a .45 mag pouch. Didn't wear a stick normally, but I had a PR24 and SL20 available... both of which christened more than a few recalcitrant skulls.

Oh, and I also carried a J frame BUG from Day One. Still got both of the Null ankle rigs I wore, and plan to pass them down to my son-in-law if his wish to join LSP is realized.

I look at these guys (and gals) nowadays, humping all that stuff around; Jeez, Louise, my back hurts just thinking about it.

.
I don't remember the Streamlights showing up until a year or two later. I had a 3 cell light with D batteries when I started. Can't remember the brand right now, but you could change the number of cells by buying a different tube. Had one of the first Streamlights that would blow the bulb if you looked at it wrong. The next gen SL20 was a great improvement.

I had a nice LH Hoyt for the M27, but sold it to somebody who needed it more at the time.

ford.304
08-21-2014, 06:35 PM
I think there's different types of intimidating. "I'm not going to try anything because I have no chance of success" intimidating, and "I better not need to scratch my nose or I'm going to end up full of bullets."

The former is reasonable to apply to all circumstances. The latter needs to be reserved for special circumstances.

The issue at hand, I think, is that people associate full battle dress with the latter. Media is definitely egging that on. And it requires a very nuanced defense of police needs to defend the former and not the latter in the face of that.

TAZ
08-21-2014, 06:55 PM
But the outcome of this could have a lasting effect on LE agencies long after the unrest in Ferguson is over. Some want to go as far as to restrict things from LEO's such as armored vehicles and rifles. Both are vital when dealing with active shooter incidents.

During normal day to day patrol operations, only a fool wants to "intimidate" everyone they encounter. Even when dealing with the "criminal element". Kind of hard to develop a CI that way. Not to mention gaining public trust and support. But the "Hug-A-Tug" concept doesn't go to far in my experience.


Agree whole heartedly about the need for vital equipment to deal with violent situations. I'm not a fan of the MRAP and would prefer something with less melodrama, but same functioning. However I think, especially in light of the Furguson riots, that they have a very specific use. This is why I stated that intimidation has less to do with equipment and it's appropriate use and more to do with a mental state.

My concern with the equipment is a desire to use it everywhere simply cause we have it. The appropriate use of equipment and tactics is rarely the issue.

The question is how do we insure that the tools are used appropriately and what is the consequence when they are not.


As hard as it is for some apologists and anarchists to believe, it's very possible to be intimidating, professional and courteous all at the same time.

I'm neither an apologist nor an anarchist and don fact firmly believe that one person can be a courteous and polite professional when needed and be the hard nose door kicker when the situation demands it. I also believe that not everyone can be a chameleon.

runcible
08-21-2014, 08:35 PM
TAZ,

I don't speak for Trooper224, but I think he was getting at being all of those characteristics simultaneously, as opposed to switching from one to another. If so, I agree with him, and that has been my experience.

If any tools possessed may be subject to excessive use due to possession; how far back would you advocate removing equipment from the duty belt or armory, to head this off?

DocGKR
08-21-2014, 08:46 PM
"I think he was getting at being all of those characteristics simultaneously, as opposed to switching from one to another. If so, I agree with him, and that has been my experience."

This.

Trooper224
08-21-2014, 11:54 PM
TAZ,

I don't speak for Trooper224, but I think he was getting at being all of those characteristics simultaneously, as opposed to switching from one to another. If so, I agree with him, and that has been my experience.

If any tools possessed may be subject to excessive use due to possession; how far back would you advocate removing equipment from the duty belt or armory, to head this off?

You may speak for me in this case because you are in fact correct. ;)

An LEO is required to be many different things to many people, but that doesn't mean you need multiple personalities. It's quite possible to carry oneself with confidence and authority without being a martinet at the same time, I've done it for years. I've lost count of the times that someone has told my wife, " Your husband stopped me yesterday. He's a nice guy, but I wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley!" or something of that nature. I've often told younger troops, "There's a difference between being tough and acting tough and most people, both good and bad, know the difference." You don't want to be Sheriff Andy Taylor because in the real world people won't respect you, they look at you like you're a patsy. On the other hand, you don't want to be Billy Badass with a badge either. Interacting with the general public is just like raising children, IMHO. You're not their friend, but you're the authority figure they trust to show up and get things done, whether or not they realize they want it.

In my opinion, none of the current tools of our job need to be removed as they all have their place and time. Admittedly, there seem to be occassions where these tools could be and should be used with more discretion. As the cliche goes: when you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Several years ago our agency replaced our Mini-14's with the Colt LE6920, replete with tac vest and all sorts of battery powered widgets attached. Soon after we completed transiton I turned on the nightly news and saw several of out troops assisting the metro PD with an incident. Several of our young nail biters had their vests on with their rifles slung across their chest. I don't remember what the incident was but it didn't precipitate that kind of response. It was a case of, "Let's show off our new toys." They heard about it from me as well as their chain of command. When their Lt. called then on it, one of them replied, "224 already chewed our ass for that!" 'cause that's how I roll. :)

Beat Trash
08-22-2014, 09:11 AM
Trooper224

Well said, and I couldn't agree more...

TAZ
08-23-2014, 06:29 PM
TAZ,

I don't speak for Trooper224, but I think he was getting at being all of those characteristics simultaneously, as opposed to switching from one to another. If so, I agree with him, and that has been my experience.

If any tools possessed may be subject to excessive use due to possession; how far back would you advocate removing equipment from the duty belt or armory, to head this off?

Thanks for the clarification of the simultaneous characteristics vs the switch back and forth. No matter how we characterize it, IMO not everyone is cut out for it. Thankfully, I've only run into 1or 2 that were totally out of their element here in the states. Thankfully, my experiences in Romania taught me how to deal with them and not set off a truly bad experience.

WRT equipment cut backs, I don't think equipment is/was/could be the issue. Every piece of equipment can be abused by an idiot. Equipment does 2 things. It has a practical use and a psychological impact. What image do you wish to project 24/7/365? Not during a riot or hostage standoff or active shooter. Then choose the equipment that projects that image AND allows you to do your job safely. The special equipment can be reserved for special events. However, the projected image your equipment choices have need to be understood.

This is why I view regular equipment as a symptom and am more concerned with officer attitudes when discussions of "militarization" or "oppressive" come up. It's also very disingenuous to discuss these topics during a situation that actually needs the special equipment and tactics.

runcible
08-23-2014, 07:49 PM
I disagree strongly with appearance oriented equipping, at a variety of levels. All law enforcement is regional, and ultimately organizational for the specifics; perceptions of different equipment follows the same divergence by region and locality.

For example, many organizations obstruct the carry of knives by their members, because "it looks bad." That a knife may be lawfully used in the pursuit of duties, to include to apply deadly force as is described in numerous SCOTUS cases, is then discarded in favor of an ever-shifting and undefinable notion. For similar reasons, organizations end up with mandated uniform load-bearing setups; this is not optimal.

Assessing something for its "psychological impact" has always seemed poor logic to me; and indefinable in practice. Something is worn, carried, and\or used best with cause and purpose; and I do not see any "psychological impacts" being purely collateral and unacceptably inconsistent. There is equipment that could be worn for purely intimidation purposes, but I believe that skull-helms and shrunken heads do not significantly add to combat effectiveness to justify their weight penalty. Are BDU pants or other uniform cargo trousers to be dismissed because of the possible perception of aggression? If so, that is folly. If there is anything that makes another submit, it is not the rifle: it is the presented will and readiness to use it. Would that be in line with "... intimidation has less to do with equipment and it's appropriate use and more to do with a mental state," as you wrote?

It has been said that LEOs that are large in stature or appearing physically fit are intimidating, or escalating in their presence. What can be done for that?

Policing is largely a reactive business; the police being brought somewhere for cause. If a strong aversion to an undesired consequence associated with behaving poorly in their presence reduces the overall level of force applied during conflict resolution; would you describe that as a good thing?

John Hearne
08-23-2014, 09:33 PM
I disagree strongly with appearance oriented equipping, at a variety of levels. ... Something is worn, carried, and\or used best with cause and purpose; and I do not see any "psychological impacts" being purely collateral and unacceptably inconsistent.

Prior to the Newhall Massacre, CHP did not allow their officers to carry speedloaders, forcing them to use drop pouches, based on appearance reasons. My agency went through similar drama over speedloaders back in the day.

runcible
08-23-2014, 09:38 PM
"Something is worn, carried, and\or used best with cause and purpose; and I do see any "psychological impacts" as being purely collateral and unacceptably inconsistent."

Posted for correction to my poor grammar.

Trooper224
08-23-2014, 11:25 PM
Prior to the Newhall Massacre, CHP did not allow their officers to carry speedloaders, forcing them to use drop pouches, based on appearance reasons. My agency went through similar drama over speedloaders back in the day.

With my agency, after speedloaders the only equipment change that had more teeth nashing and drama attached too it was the issuance of a pistol mounted light.

Stephen
08-24-2014, 06:27 AM
Has anyone seen this? (https://bridge.caspio.net/dp.asp?AppKey=36701000b255adcfe6ca4b13a8a4) The NY Times obtained a list of military equipment sales to local LE with a FOIA request and the list was uploaded to that link where its searchable by state/county. Maybe cops who know their dept's inventory can comment on how accurate this is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/upshot/data-on-transfer-of-military-gear-to-police-departments.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=0
Raw data: https://github.com/TheUpshot/Military-Surplus-Gear

I've seen a few interesting things looking at random counties. Like a $27,000 indoor rock climbing wall. My former town of Omaha, NE has about 80 billion dollars worth of night vision gear. I've seen a couple counties with a buttload of bayonets. My county and many other have nothing of note. Although I wish I could get some ARs for $120.

Totem Polar
08-24-2014, 08:04 AM
Thanks for that link, Stephen! My own county dropped half a mil on a FLIR system and bought some outboard motors, and another county in my state bought several pairs of ballistic dog goggles. I can see that link becoming this week's time sucker...

runcible
08-24-2014, 08:29 AM
Sidheshooter,

Are you saying that they they bought and paid full price for the FLIR and outboards; or that they received them through the lend\lease-like DRMO system?

There is, after all, a fairly large difference in how much money is spent between the two.

Stephen
08-24-2014, 09:11 AM
The spreadsheet hosted on github is definitely much better to use than the first link.

Shellback
08-27-2014, 09:21 AM
Just posting it (http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/08/26/davis-city-council-tells-police-to-get-rid-of-mrap-military-vehicle-in-next-60-days/), not saying I agree with it. This appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to the whole Ferguson debacle.


The Davis City Council has told the police department it must get rid of a military vehicle it received in the next 60 days...

Davis Police Chief Landry Black made the department’s case for the acquisition, showing high-power weapons his officers have confiscated this year...

The missing 1033 weapons is a bit concerting. (http://fusion.net/leadership/story/americas-police-departments-lose-loads-military-issued-weapons-984250)


Fusion has learned that 184 state and local police departments have been suspended from the Pentagon's "1033 program" for missing weapons or failure to comply with other guidelines. We uncovered a pattern of missing M14 and M16 assault rifles across the country, as well as instances of missing .45-caliber pistols, shotguns and 2 cases of missing Humvee vehicles...

KevinB
08-27-2014, 10:55 AM
The missing 1033 weapons is a bit concerting. (http://fusion.net/leadership/story/americas-police-departments-lose-loads-military-issued-weapons-984250)

In the grand scheme - the losses are concerning - but statistically insignificant, when compared to all the ones not lost, or DoD losses across the country.
All LE Departments need to conduct audits of their NFA property -- something that few understood properly.
The same goes for GFM (Government Furnished Material).

I would tend to blame the Federal Government for not explaining the program properly - both to LEA, and to the general public.

I for one as a Tax Payer am glad to see excess equipment being used rather than 1) destroyed 2) given to Foreign "allies"

Shellback
08-27-2014, 11:13 AM
In the grand scheme - the losses are concerning - but statistically insignificant, when compared to all the ones not lost, or DoD losses across the country.
A far better track records than the 40% of weapons that have gone missing in the M.E. (http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2014/07/30/u-s-weapons-missing-in-afghanistan/)


I would tend to blame the Federal Government for not explaining the program properly - both to LEA, and to the general public.

I for one as a Tax Payer am glad to see excess equipment being used rather than 1) destroyed 2) given to Foreign "allies"
Completely agree on the 1st part and the 2nd.

DocGKR
08-27-2014, 01:34 PM
Someone should hold former SJPD Chief Rob Davis accountable for all the pristine 1033 program M16A1's he illegally ordered destroyed a few years ago...

SeriousStudent
08-27-2014, 07:47 PM
Someone should hold former SJPD Chief Rob Davis accountable for all the pristine 1033 program M16A1's he illegally ordered destroyed a few years ago...

An honest question. Wouldn't that be a felony?

John Hearne
08-27-2014, 08:05 PM
An honest question. Wouldn't that be a felony?

Only if we still followed the "rule of law."

KevinB
08-28-2014, 05:15 PM
An honest question. Wouldn't that be a felony?
Depending what the Value was placed on them and how he destroyed them, yes.

They belonged to the DoD, not his entity - so he illegally destroyed federal property -- someone should call ATF and FBI...
I'm sure that somehow one could get DHS involved as well.

Rich
08-29-2014, 08:11 AM
LE should have the same right as use citizens. I'm all for carbine/rifles for trained officers. I will say that I don't think full auto is needed for the average LEO.

Really I don't see much difference between the Carbine and the Lever Action .

My friend is pretty darn fast with his Winchester 3030 and hitting a row of milk jugs at 200Y

LittleLebowski
08-29-2014, 08:57 AM
LE should have the same right as use citizens. I'm all for carbine/rifles for trained officers. I will say that I don't think full auto is needed for the average LEO.

Really I don't see much difference between the Carbine and the Lever Action .

My friend is pretty darn fast with his Winchester 3030 and hitting a row of milk jugs at 200Y

With due respect, if you're not seeing a difference between the two, you're not pushing it hard enough.

John Hearne
09-05-2014, 04:45 PM
"KOLO-TV reports officers transported children via their armored vehicles out of one school directly across from the threat zone – a building across the street."

http://www.policeone.com/SWAT/articles/7533298-Nev-SWAT-rescues-kids-during-manhunt/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=featuredNews&nlid=7529215

JHC
09-05-2014, 05:09 PM
The sad thing about the foil hat crowd is that if they spent half of their paranoia time learning the reality of this equipment as they do blogging and displaying their inner-tard, they would realize that M4/M16 rifles, MRAPs, and drones are easily enough defeated should push come to shove.

But you do have to have an IQ above 7, and be capable of rational thought.

It was about two years ago that a friend provided eye witness testimony to me of seeing thousands of MRAPs staged at a remote place in the US under gubment control marked DHS. I will admit that was sobering and I'm an establishment neocon. Caleb once called the stories BS but I have no doubt they were there. But as soon as I heard of the distribution of them out to LE I thought it very smart.

Mark
09-07-2014, 02:44 PM
It was about two years ago that a friend provided eye witness testimony to me of seeing thousands of MRAPs staged at a remote place in the US under gubment control marked DHS. I will admit that was sobering and I'm an establishment neocon. Caleb once called the stories BS but I have no doubt they were there. But as soon as I heard of the distribution of them out to LE I thought it very smart.

I find it very unlikely this account was based in reality. Thousands? Really?

FailureDrill
09-07-2014, 11:58 PM
It was about two years ago that a friend provided eye witness testimony to me of seeing thousands of MRAPs staged at a remote place in the US under gubment control marked DHS. I will admit that was sobering and I'm an establishment neocon. Caleb once called the stories BS but I have no doubt they were there. But as soon as I heard of the distribution of them out to LE I thought it very smart.

Yeah, unverifiable assertions of your "friend" of a secret staging point for an army of DHS MRAP's.........sounds legit.

Drang
09-08-2014, 01:43 AM
Was this in a rail yard in Indianapolis...?

Shellback
09-16-2014, 07:22 AM
Texas Trooper gets booted from Waffle House for OC'ing. (http://controversialtimes.com/news/texas-state-trooper-kicked-out-of-waffle-house-for-being-armed-in-uniform/) Video at link.


The manager of a Dallas, Texas area Waffle House screamed across the restaurant ordering a man out because he was wearing a gun. It didn’t matter to the manager that the armed man was a Texas Department of Public Safety officer – in uniform.

Trooper Jeff Evans was in a field uniform, not the full uniform and Smokey the Bear hat when the manager saw his gun and ignored the badge next to it on his belt. Evans had stopped at the Waffle House for breakfast and was wearing his DPS pilot’s polo shirt and tan slacks, with his sidearm and badge on his belt – as required by the department.

Evans took to Facebook in disbelief,

So I just got asked to leave the Waffle House in Grapevine! Apparently my Department Approved DPS Aircraft Uniform is not welcome there. I was asked to leave by the management and was also instructed not to return. They said it was because I was wearing a gun. I was in uniform, TXDPS Polo Shirt and Tan pants, with my badge visibly displayed on my belt. I explained to the manager that I am a state trooper and he said I still wasn’t allowed to have a gun in the restaurant...

Alpha Sierra
09-16-2014, 07:55 AM
Texas Trooper gets booted from Waffle House for OC'ing. (http://controversialtimes.com/news/texas-state-trooper-kicked-out-of-waffle-house-for-being-armed-in-uniform/) Video at link.

Sauce for the gander and all that......

Kranq
09-16-2014, 09:31 PM
Sad, and funny, all at the same time. I bet he'll be fine with the officer having a gun if he's ever robbed.

DocGKR
09-17-2014, 12:54 AM
He was in an authorized LE uniform, not the same as OC.

HCM
09-17-2014, 02:29 AM
It was about two years ago that a friend provided eye witness testimony to me of seeing thousands of MRAPs staged at a remote place in the US under gubment control marked DHS. I will admit that was sobering and I'm an establishment neocon. Caleb once called the stories BS but I have no doubt they were there. But as soon as I heard of the distribution of them out to LE I thought it very smart.

I agree with Caleb - your friend is full of it. DHS isn't distributing these vehicles. They are coming via DRMO which is a Dept of Defense entity responsible for distribution of surplus military equipment to civilian agencies (not just LE).

I'm sure the federal government has storage lots full of armored vehicles, however they belong to the DOD. I am aware of two DHS LE agencies which have a limited number of marked, armored tactical vehicles - the Border Patrols BORTAC and ICEs SRT. These vehicles are armored but are not armed. The serve the same purpose as armored vehicles for state and local TAC teams, rolling cover. You are talking a about a few dozen vehicles nationwide.

HCM
09-17-2014, 02:35 AM
I agree with Caleb - your friend is full of it. DHS isn't distributing these vehicles. They are coming via DRMO which is a Dept of Defense entity responsible for distribution of surplus military equipment to civilian agencies (not just LE).

I'm sure the federal government has storage lots full of armored vehicles, however they belong to the DOD. I am aware of two DHS LE agencies which have a limited number of marked, armored tactical vehicles - the Border Patrols BORTAC and ICEs SRT. These vehicles are armored but are not armed. The serve the same purpose as armored vehicles for state and local TAC teams, rolling cover. You are talking a about a few dozen vehicles nationwide.

The link below is an example of "why" these type vehicles are necessary for these agencies TAC teams:

http://m.sfgate.com/crime/article/3-U-S-agents-shot-in-Petaluma-gang-raid-3531694.php

I worked this area for 7 years and can attest these type of threats aren't an an anomaly.

Shellback
09-17-2014, 10:20 AM
He was in an authorized LE uniform, not the same as OC.

It was meant to be humorous... Apparently it wasn't.

In the woman's mind he was OC'ing and was no different than any other person with a visible sidearm.

MDS
09-17-2014, 10:30 AM
He was in an authorized LE uniform, not the same as OC.

I wonder if there's a civil rights case against waffle house in there somewhere.


It was meant to be humorous... Apparently it wasn't.

FWIW, I giggled. Then I cried a little.

Alpha Sierra
09-17-2014, 10:46 AM
He was in an authorized LE uniform, not the same as OC.

As far as the owner of an establishment goes, it is the same if they want it to be the same.

HCM
09-17-2014, 10:52 AM
Given the high frequency of calls for police service generated by the average Waffle House I would think they would be a bit more eager to have uniformed LEOs on the premises.

KevinB
09-17-2014, 11:34 AM
As far as the owner of an establishment goes, it is the same if they want it to be the same.

Not legally. All States have exemption for LE, but in some states there are allowances to refuse entry. Which could get into discrimination cases.
In many states owners can only refuse entry to problem patrons

However who in their right mind wants to bar LE from their establishment (albeit maybe some biker bars, crack shacks etc would - but then again I do not see those as in their right mind).

KeeFus
09-17-2014, 11:39 AM
However who in their right mind wants to bar LE from their establishment (albeit maybe some biker bars, crack shacks etc would - but then again I do not see those as in their right mind).

IME, that's more or less what WH is. We no longer patronize ours.

Shellback
09-17-2014, 11:42 AM
Given the high frequency of calls for police service generated by the average Waffle House I would think they would be a bit more eager to have uniformed LEOs on the premises.

I agree with you and think the whole thing's ridiculous. But, from a layman's perspective he wasn't in "uniform". He was wearing a pilot's field uniform which consists of polo and slacks, with his sidearm and badge apparently. A quick Google turns up nothing even similar to that in appearance so I'm not sure how she's expected to know what a rarely seen DPS uniform is supposed to consist of.

From his description he told them he was DPS and it didn't seem to matter to them even then. Hopefully she gets educated on the importance of having the police around in your 24 hour diner.

Dr. No
09-17-2014, 11:51 AM
I agree with you and think the whole thing's ridiculous. But, from a layman's perspective he wasn't in "uniform". He was wearing a pilot's field uniform which consists of polo and slacks, with his sidearm and badge apparently. A quick Google turns up nothing even similar to that in appearance so I'm not sure how she's expected to know what a rarely seen DPS uniform is supposed to consist of.

From his description he told them he was DPS and it didn't seem to matter to them even then. Hopefully she gets educated on the importance of having the police around in your 24 hour diner.

Almost every Detective in every agency across this country wears a similar "uniform" when they are on the job unless they are in a suit.

I disagree with the sentiment that they should not be allowed to deny him access, though. Without other legal reason to be on the premises, he has no ability to overrule the manager's decision. I think WH has the right to have anyone they want removed from their premises for any reason they want. I also think that the Trooper has every right to let the public know that WH is making a decision which he personally does not agree with and believes to be in poor taste. He should not be restricted from doing so by his department policy, nor should this complaint reflect negatively on his department. WH's business will either suffer or increase due to the local populations opinion on the matter. Thus is the American way.

LSP552
09-17-2014, 12:06 PM
Almost every Detective in every agency across this country wears a similar "uniform" when they are on the job unless they are in a suit.

I disagree with the sentiment that they should not be allowed to deny him access, though. Without other legal reason to be on the premises, he has no ability to overrule the manager's decision. I think WH has the right to have anyone they want removed from their premises for any reason they want. I also think that the Trooper has every right to let the public know that WH is making a decision which he personally does not agree with and believes to be in poor taste. He should not be restricted from doing so by his department policy, nor should this complaint reflect negatively on his department. WH's business will either suffer or increase due to the local populations opinion on the matter. Thus is the American way.

This^

Coyotesfan97
09-17-2014, 12:12 PM
I wouldn't have even argued. You don't want me in your restaurant I don't want to spend my money there. The word gets around quickly about unfriendly restaurants real fast in the LE world. You start telling cops not to eat at a place and they usually stay away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KevinB
09-17-2014, 12:50 PM
It was still going on Facebook last time I looked -- frankly depending on mood I think his answer (as I said on FB) should have been was call the Police ;)

I already boycotted WH due to their food has enough grease to kill a healthy human - but I doubly would not go now.

Alpha Sierra
09-17-2014, 01:11 PM
Not legally. All States have exemption for LE
I'm sure that exemption always applies when entering an establishment in an official capacity (investigation, etc), but does it extend if all the cop wants to do is get lunch?

Alpha Sierra
09-17-2014, 01:12 PM
I already boycotted WH due to their food has enough grease to kill a healthy human

Heresy

KevinB
09-17-2014, 01:16 PM
I'm sure that exemption always applies when entering an establishment in an official capacity (investigation, etc), but does it extend if all the cop wants to do is get lunch?
Agreed -- was in reference to the OC aspect.

Shellback
09-17-2014, 01:18 PM
It was still going on Facebook last time I looked -- frankly depending on mood I think his answer (as I said on FB) should have been was call the Police ;)


Nice! :)

LSP972
09-18-2014, 05:40 AM
Almost every Detective in every agency across this country wears a similar "uniform" when they are on the job unless they are in a suit.

.

Not just detectives. Around here (south Louisiana), just about every cop who doesn't work the road/street, or otherwise needs to be in Class A uniform, and isn't in plain clothes, wears that get-up.

We call it the "5.11 Tuxedo"…:D

.

JR1572
09-18-2014, 06:32 AM
Not just detectives. Around here (south Louisiana), just about every cop who doesn't work the road/street, or otherwise needs to be in Class A uniform, and isn't in plain clothes, wears that get-up.

We call it the "5.11 Tuxedo"…:D

.

My boss didn't get that memo. I have to be in at least a tie. Everyday. Including when I'm working weekend duty.

JR1572

LSP972
09-18-2014, 09:00 AM
My boss didn't get that memo. I have to be in at least a tie. Everyday. Including when I'm working weekend duty.

JR1572

Yes, but you're technically plainclothes, right? Spend a lot of time at the court house? Last time we talked, you were still doing the juvie thing.

I'm talking about the guys who don't interact with the public that much.

.

JR1572
09-18-2014, 10:22 AM
Yes, but you're technically plainclothes, right? Spend a lot of time at the court house? Last time we talked, you were still doing the juvie thing.

I'm talking about the guys who don't interact with the public that much.

.

I spend most of my time at the courthouse. Sometimes I'm out grabbing these "children" at there homes for warrants.

JR1572

ffhounddog
09-18-2014, 05:38 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HcvyHMyhpaA

Do not worry we have the gear for you.

KevinB
09-19-2014, 09:19 AM
That was hilarious.

NickA
09-20-2014, 08:33 AM
Just read through this whole thing, and it's actually raising my confidence in our local PD. They recently acquired an MRAP through the 1033 program, announced it on FB and were met with a decidedly mixed reaction. The Chief posted a very well thought out response that hits a lot of the points brought up here. Some excerpts:

"Although it is referred to as a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, we did not acquire it to ward off mines or IEDs. It is an armored personnel carrier. It is similar in its capabilities to the one recently purchased by another local police department for nearly $200,000."


"No one ever believes that a major incident will occur in their area, until it does. Whether an active shooter or barricaded suspect. My hope is that we never have to use this vehicle in a real situation. How great would that be?!? And, if that is the case, better we had a zero purchase price than the cost of purchasing a new one with our tax money.

“Overkill, bit much, useless”? If you are meaning that we will never again have a situation where an officer comes under gunfire or have to respond to an armed citizen that has barricaded himself in his home, I hope you are correct. Better have and not need than…

"And, the design of the vehicle provides for high water responses. This was a huge feature for us. Those of you that were here during “the flood” know the problems that occurred when the city was devastated by rain and flooding. There was no such vehicle available during that time."

"Finally, let me agree with a few of you about the militarization of local law enforcement agencies. I also see the line narrowing. And, I am not completely in agreement with this movement. From the uniform to tactics of the regular patrol officer, I will strive to keep that separation. You will find that our patrol officers will continue to wear the more classic civilian law enforcement uniforms. Our regular patrol vehicles will continue to be representative of civilian law enforcement; bright and well-marked. And, we will continue to operate as civilian law enforcement officers. This vehicle is a special use vehicle. It does not change the way we operate and conduct ourselves in this community. And, even in the discussions of the paint scheme for this vehicle we assured it was also more of a civilian style over the dark, stealthy style often chosen by others."

"I know that there are some that will find fault in anything that happens. There are some that will search out the negative in any event. Some cannot find good. For those, there is nothing that I can say to change that. But, for those that may truly have questions about this vehicle I hope that I have provided the answers. "


Pretty well done, I think. The high water capabilities alone are probably worth it, our area is prone to flash flooding.

Chuck Haggard
09-20-2014, 08:58 AM
The flooding rescue, and response during blizzards, has been 100% of what a M113 has been used for in a jurisdiction that I am familiar with.

No one seems to be screaming about the militarization of SAR

The next thing you know somebody will be rescuing injured hikers or mountain climber with a helicopter.

czech6
09-20-2014, 12:10 PM
http://www.odmp.org/officer/22194-senior-deputy-jessica-hollis

Tragically, a Travis County Deputy was killed at a high water crossing when her squad car got swept away.

I don't have any particulars on the incident. It's never ceases to amaze me how many people will drive through flooded roads, get stuck and expect the police to come and save them.

Tamara
09-20-2014, 01:29 PM
He was in an authorized LE uniform, not the same as OC.

I know, right? Wear BDUs and people freak out about "militarization"; wear a polo and khakis and get tossed out of Waffle House.

I wish the internet would make up its mind. ;)

TAZ
09-20-2014, 05:51 PM
I know, right? Wear BDUs and people freak out about "militarization"; wear a polo and khakis and get tossed out of Waffle House.

I wish the internet would make up its mind. ;)

LOL...... Ain't that the truth.

To be honest I live around Austin and wouldn't recognize the official DPS polo and slacks "uniform" either. There is a chance the manager didn't recognize the uniform and wasn't interested in some mall ninja who is an officer for Donalds Personal Security in their store. Or she is a total idiot.

I'm with Dr. No on this. Unless he is on official business WH has the right to ask him to leave for any reason. Similarly the officer has every right to tell all his friends and coworkers about an idiot he ran into and that they should stay away.

NickA
09-20-2014, 08:59 PM
No one seems to be screaming about the militarization of SAR

The next thing you know somebody will be rescuing injured hikers or mountain climber with a helicopter.

Now that's gold right there :D

JM Campbell
09-20-2014, 09:26 PM
http://www.odmp.org/officer/22194-senior-deputy-jessica-hollis

Tragically, a Travis County Deputy was killed at a high water crossing when her squad car got swept away.

I don't have any particulars on the incident. It's never ceases to amaze me how many people will drive through flooded roads, get stuck and expect the police to come and save them.


Extended family friend of my wife. Tragic loss.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Chuck Haggard
09-21-2014, 05:59 AM
Extended family friend of my wife. Tragic loss.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

It is. I read that she was on their dive team. That should tell a person just how dangerous a flash flood is when an experienced swimmer ends up killed.

LittleLebowski
09-21-2014, 07:58 AM
Just read through this whole thing, and it's actually raising my confidence in our local PD. They recently acquired an MRAP through the 1033 program, announced it on FB and were met with a decidedly mixed reaction. The Chief posted a very well thought out response that hits a lot of the points brought up here. Some excerpts:

"Although it is referred to as a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, we did not acquire it to ward off mines or IEDs. It is an armored personnel carrier. It is similar in its capabilities to the one recently purchased by another local police department for nearly $200,000."


"No one ever believes that a major incident will occur in their area, until it does. Whether an active shooter or barricaded suspect. My hope is that we never have to use this vehicle in a real situation. How great would that be?!? And, if that is the case, better we had a zero purchase price than the cost of purchasing a new one with our tax money.

“Overkill, bit much, useless”? If you are meaning that we will never again have a situation where an officer comes under gunfire or have to respond to an armed citizen that has barricaded himself in his home, I hope you are correct. Better have and not need than…

"And, the design of the vehicle provides for high water responses. This was a huge feature for us. Those of you that were here during “the flood” know the problems that occurred when the city was devastated by rain and flooding. There was no such vehicle available during that time."

"Finally, let me agree with a few of you about the militarization of local law enforcement agencies. I also see the line narrowing. And, I am not completely in agreement with this movement. From the uniform to tactics of the regular patrol officer, I will strive to keep that separation. You will find that our patrol officers will continue to wear the more classic civilian law enforcement uniforms. Our regular patrol vehicles will continue to be representative of civilian law enforcement; bright and well-marked. And, we will continue to operate as civilian law enforcement officers. This vehicle is a special use vehicle. It does not change the way we operate and conduct ourselves in this community. And, even in the discussions of the paint scheme for this vehicle we assured it was also more of a civilian style over the dark, stealthy style often chosen by others."

"I know that there are some that will find fault in anything that happens. There are some that will search out the negative in any event. Some cannot find good. For those, there is nothing that I can say to change that. But, for those that may truly have questions about this vehicle I hope that I have provided the answers. "


Pretty well done, I think. The high water capabilities alone are probably worth it, our area is prone to flash flooding.

Very well done!

Dr. No
09-21-2014, 12:25 PM
It is. I read that she was on their dive team. That should tell a person just how dangerous a flash flood is when an experienced swimmer ends up killed.

She was on the dive team, fit, and a very accomplished swimmer. She was one of the toughest women I've met in my life. She worked out with our team one time doing a god awful crossfit workout. A few days later she came down with Rhabdo and refused to go to the hospital until she almost collapsed. When she finally began recovering she was very concerned that our team would think she was weak for not being able to keep up. That's the kind of person she was. Relentless. Always had our back, and would dive head first into anything and anyone.

She was down in the area checking the flooded roads to make sure no one was stuck. As she approached the roadway at 0142 hours we believe that she could not tell how fast/deep the water was and as soon as she hit the water her vehicle was swept off the narrow roadway.

It is a horrible tragic accident and our teams worked ourselves relentlessly until she was located.

She was a good friend and a better cop. We are truly diminished.

http://charon.ofhell.org/~drno/Jessica/Jess%20Collage.jpg

Chuck Haggard
09-21-2014, 12:30 PM
I am very sorry to hear of her death. We are diminished.

Chuck Haggard
09-21-2014, 10:16 PM
http://behindthebadgeoc.com/cities//vargas-fridays-shootout-fourth-recent-example-armored-police-vehicles-saving-lives#.VB2c27XUWaU.facebook

Shellback
09-30-2014, 09:32 AM
I thought this article was interesting. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/police-departments-struggle-return-pentagon-military-surplus-gear) It would appear, from the article, that PD's who want to return their MRAP's, etc. aren't really able to and basically end up being a defunct storage unit for the DOD's toys. Something I really hadn't considered before.


An officer with the Chelan County Sheriff's Department in central Washington is offering me a tank. Three of them, actually.

"We really want to get rid of these," Undersheriff John Wisemore says. "We've been trying to get the military to take them back since 2004."...

In reality, however, police departments may find the returns process slow, mystifying, or nonfunctional...

KevinB
09-30-2014, 09:37 AM
Many Departments jumped at the chance to get them, and refused the maintenance package - either thinking incorrectly they could do it themselves, or not understanding the platform required as much maintenance as they do.

Thus those entities are having issues with them.

Drang
09-30-2014, 11:41 AM
Considering that Ft Lewis (screw that "joint base" crap!) is being criticized for maintaining a supply of "obsolete" Stryker parts, I'm not surprised the civilian agencies can't return their Whyte Oliphaunt Combat Vehicles.


( I hereby claim copyright on the Olipahunt combat vehicle, manufactured by the Whyte corporation, to be used when I finally get around to writing the Great American .mil SF novel...)

czech6
09-30-2014, 11:58 AM
Many Departments jumped at the chance to get them, and refused the maintenance package - either thinking incorrectly they could do it themselves, or not understanding the platform required as much maintenance as they do.

Thus those entities are having issues with them.

Considering how few departments are willing to spend a little money to maintain squad cars, versus fixing them when they break, I'm not surprised. Long term I wouldn't be surprised if an armored vehicle based off of a F550, will end up costing less than a "free" mrap.

Shellback
09-30-2014, 12:19 PM
...end up costing less than a "free" mrap.

What I find laughable is the fact that the proponents of the program insisting that the vehicles are somehow free don't include the cost of refurbishment and shipping them back here stateside. From what I've read it's about $250k - $350k to bring one back from overseas and it's far cheaper to dispose of them in place at about $12k a piece.

It may not cost the local PD, outside of about $5k shipping here in CONUS, but it definitely still costs the taxpayer. Ain't no free lunch served here.

Drang
09-30-2014, 12:26 PM
Considering how few departments are willing to spend a little money to maintain squad cars, versus fixing them when they break, I'm not surprised.
Saw a state partrolman standing on the sidewalk while his car was on the lift at a Jiffy Lube this weekend.

KeeFus
09-30-2014, 01:01 PM
Considering how few departments are willing to spend a little money to maintain squad cars, versus fixing them when they break, I'm not surprised.

No kidding...but it all starts with the manufacturers. If they (Dodge) would put a reliable vehicle out there would be far less items to fix. I took mine back in this morning because the control arms are worn out...at 35,000 miles.

Tamara
09-30-2014, 07:37 PM
What I find laughable is the fact that the proponents of the program insisting that the vehicles are somehow free don't include the cost of refurbishment and shipping them back here stateside. From what I've read it's about $250k - $350k to bring one back from overseas and it's far cheaper to dispose of them in place at about $12k a piece.

It may not cost the local PD, outside of about $5k shipping here in CONUS, but it definitely still costs the taxpayer. Ain't no free lunch served here.

You're conflating lots of different layers of Taxpayer, here. It costs the federal government money, spread over the entire federal tax base, to get the Smallville P.D. their MRAP, assuming it's still overseas.

If Smallville (pop 1,320) wanted a shiny new Bearcat, on the other hand, then that's a couple hundred bucks per Smallville taxpayer...

Shellback
09-30-2014, 09:25 PM
You're conflating lots of different layers of Taxpayer, here. It costs the federal government money, spread over the entire federal tax base, to get the Smallville P.D. their MRAP, assuming it's still overseas.

If Smallville (pop 1,320) wanted a shiny new Bearcat, on the other hand, then that's a couple hundred bucks per Smallville taxpayer...

That still doesn't change the fact that they're not "free" like so many are espousing. I'd rather see that money, federal tax dollars, allocated to be spent on training and "software" that's used everyday, versus hardware that many will find mothballed, and not very usable under a lot of circumstances. Training for many > hardware for the few.

KevinB
10-01-2014, 08:31 AM
1) We do not want to leave stuff in theatre -- it gets re-milled. If you totally demilled a MRAP it would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars - and some local would just end up spending more time re-welding the damn thing.

2) Given the above - the costs to repat the vehicle need to be considered a sunk cost.

3) The acquiring entity only needs to pay for the transport to their locale from the DRMO site that has that
a) They should pay for a maintenance package - its not a lot of money in the grand scheme.

4) These remain Federal assets - and IF a surge of gear is needed, they can and will be reacquired for DoD usage.


Irish: Training -- who gives it? There are not a lot of qualified folks to give LE training. Mil training does not carry over across the board to the LE world. Certain aspects do, however the differences are large enough that the only folks really qualified to do training to that level as busy as F already.
You do not want a 11B teaching LE CQB, - NODS and NightVision work, sure, but very few 11B's outside the Ranger Regiment have enough experience and time under NODS to do much of value.

Unfortunately it really is mostly only the gear that Departments can make us of -- now maybe the gear should come with a training package - but how to vet the trainers is a major issue.

czech6
10-01-2014, 02:02 PM
That still doesn't change the fact that they're not "free" like so many are espousing. I'd rather see that money, federal tax dollars, allocated to be spent on training and "software" that's used everyday, versus hardware that many will find mothballed, and not very usable under a lot of circumstances. Training for many > hardware for the few.

Departments have very little control over their own budgets. Convincing a city council, mayor, etc. officers need something intangible, like training, instead of some shiny new crap that they can show off to voters is not likely to happen. Our in-service training shutdown in mid August due to no money, the range ran out of training ammo in July, fleet services ran out of money and we have 32 squad cars awaiting repair, the over time budget was depleted in early September and we were under strict orders about no overtime (including a quasi blessing to screw off for the last two hours of the shift in order to avoid "jail calls"). But somehow the city council found $600,000 in August for tailgates and power tools with GPS trackers to stop thieves. No officers were available to work the equipment, but they had a solution. (As a side note a previous program that put patrol officers in high crime areas through overtime cost the city about $200,000 a year and was much more effective that thief-bait programs)

It's October first and the cycle starts again.

Chuck Haggard
10-01-2014, 04:34 PM
One of the very best uses of federal money for CONUS LE that I have ever seen was the now de-funded Sioux City training center. That organization got a lot of small town cops training that they never would have been able to afford otherwise. One of the many issues I have with the current administration is cutting that program.

LtDave
10-01-2014, 08:45 PM
Saw a state partrolman standing on the sidewalk while his car was on the lift at a Jiffy Lube this weekend.

Just got my DPS truck serviced at the Jiffy Lube last week...

Shellback
10-02-2014, 04:20 PM
More than 99% of the time the video clears the officers...

Might be worth a body cam thread... Utah Officer puts down a noncompliant threat. (http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/7619051-Video-Body-cam-helps-justify-fatal-Utah-police-shooting/) From the 911 call, to dude trying to act like he's strapped, I fully support the officer's decision.


The incident was triggered by a 911 call from somebody who reported seeing "gangbangers" with a gun "looking for trouble." When the person was asked by a dispatcher if they men threatened him, the person said no. That call led Cruz and two other officers to arrive to the convenience store where the shooting occurred...


http://youtu.be/9U-enMryJRM

Shellback
10-02-2014, 04:21 PM
Irish: Training -- who gives it?

Not sure and not trying to dodge the question, just been super busy. How about even more training ammo? Qualify more often with their daily equipment... I'm sure there's lots of suggestions from line cops who know better than I do. Again, sorry super busy. Take care.

John Hearne
10-02-2014, 06:07 PM
Between that video and the lack of one from Ferguson, the manufacturers will really sell body cameras. While the comments make it obvious that not everyone agrees with the decision, the shooting above would would be very hard to explain without that video.

KevinB
10-03-2014, 05:44 PM
Not sure and not trying to dodge the question, just been super busy. How about even more training ammo? Qualify more often with their daily equipment... I'm sure there's lots of suggestions from line cops who know better than I do. Again, sorry super busy. Take care.

I'd fully support that. However as many have mentioned - even when folks are given ammo the majority do not take advantage - and the other aspect is without good training - its just pissing ammo downrange for naught.

Additionally the DMRO items are sunk costs -- ammo etc is a new expenditure - so increase in tax dollars

John Hearne
10-03-2014, 06:00 PM
The answer is really simple but infinitely unpopular. You make the shooting standards relevant and fire the ones that don't meet them. If you had to pass Paul Howe's pistol standards or the old Air Marshall course to keep your job, you'd have people showing up for range days.

If you want to go SUPER crazy, make shooting ability a hiring/selection screen out. If you have to be able to run 1.5 miles in a certain time to get hired, why not require a certain level of shooting ability prior to hiring?

LittleLebowski
10-03-2014, 06:01 PM
The answer is really simple but infinitely unpopular. You make the shooting standards relevant and fire the ones that don't meet them. If you had to pass Paul Howe's pistol standards or the old Air Marshall course to keep your job, you'd have people showing up for range days.

If you want to go SUPER crazy, make shooting ability a hiring/selection screen out. If you have to be able to run 1.5 miles in a certain time to get hired, why not require a certain level of shooting ability prior to hiring?

*like*

Trooper224
10-03-2014, 06:24 PM
The answer is really simple but infinitely unpopular. You make the shooting standards relevant and fire the ones that don't meet them. If you had to pass Paul Howe's pistol standards or the old Air Marshall course to keep your job, you'd have people showing up for range days.

If you want to go SUPER crazy, make shooting ability a hiring/selection screen out. If you have to be able to run 1.5 miles in a certain time to get hired, why not require a certain level of shooting ability prior to hiring?

I agree and have said much the same thing for over twenty years, which is why I'm not allowed to be a range instructor. I don't see using it as a benchmark for hiring, this is unrealistic in our increasingly urbanized society. However, I've long advocated far more stringent qualification standards with consequences for failure.

Shellback
10-03-2014, 06:59 PM
The answer is really simple but infinitely unpopular. You make the shooting standards relevant and fire the ones that don't meet them. If you had to pass Paul Howe's pistol standards or the old Air Marshall course to keep your job, you'd have people showing up for range days.

If you want to go SUPER crazy, make shooting ability a hiring/selection screen out. If you have to be able to run 1.5 miles in a certain time to get hired, why not require a certain level of shooting ability prior to hiring?
Good stuff John.

LSP552
10-03-2014, 07:09 PM
The answer is really simple but infinitely unpopular. You make the shooting standards relevant and fire the ones that don't meet them. If you had to pass Paul Howe's pistol standards or the old Air Marshall course to keep your job, you'd have people showing up for range days.

If you want to go SUPER crazy, make shooting ability a hiring/selection screen out. If you have to be able to run 1.5 miles in a certain time to get hired, why not require a certain level of shooting ability prior to hiring?


Take this as a complement John, but you will never be an agency head thinking like that.

I wouldn't mandate a shooting standard prior to hiring, but I'd run off those who can't shoot. When I went through the LSP academy in 1978, you qualified or you went home from the range that afternoon. The qual course included a 50 yard portion so if you didn't have a chance unless you understood trigger control and sight alignment. Come qual day, you made it or not. There was no remedial instruction over a multi-week period.

Don't get me started on what POST has done to LE training……..

LSP972
10-03-2014, 08:23 PM
Don't get me started on what POST has done to LE training……..

Neither me.

Those three chuckleheads from the 1990 academy are what cost us the 50 yard line. That wasn't POST… that was our own brass.

But the rest… yeah. I have to wonder how long before we follow Texas… TCLEOSE dropped the mandatory yardage to 15 a while back. I guess you know we have already dropped the off-duty course yardage to 15, and cut ten rounds.

Dropping the main P.O.S.T. course to 15 yards has been on the table for a few years now. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

The 50 yard line separated the shooters from the bullshitters, for sure.

.

Lon
10-03-2014, 08:29 PM
Neither me.

Those three chuckleheads from the 1990 academy are what cost us the 50 yard line. That wasn't POST… that was our own brass.

But the rest… yeah. I have to wonder how long before we follow Texas… TCLEOSE dropped the mandatory yardage to 15 a while back. I guess you know we have already dropped the off-duty course yardage to 15, and cut ten rounds.

Dropping the main P.O.S.T. course to 15 yards has been on the table for a few years now. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

The 50 yard line separated the shooters from the bullshitters, for sure.

.

We haven't had anything past 50 FEET since I got hired in 95. We still have people who struggle.

LSP552
10-03-2014, 08:43 PM
Neither me.

Those three chuckleheads from the 1990 academy are what cost us the 50 yard line. That wasn't POST… that was our own brass.

But the rest… yeah. I have to wonder how long before we follow Texas… TCLEOSE dropped the mandatory yardage to 15 a while back. I guess you know we have already dropped the off-duty course yardage to 15, and cut ten rounds.

Dropping the main P.O.S.T. course to 15 yards has been on the table for a few years now. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

The 50 yard line separated the shooters from the bullshitters, for sure.

.

Yep, I know the agency did it. But the justification was the POST standard didn't require it so it was unnecessary. With the recent reduction in rounds from the 25, I wouldn't be shocked to see that stage disappear completely.

KevinB
10-04-2014, 08:44 AM
Yep, I know the agency did it. But the justification was the POST standard didn't require it so it was unnecessary. With the recent reduction in rounds from the 25, I wouldn't be shocked to see that stage disappear completely.

I'm continually amazed by folks who will cut down to the POST. Liability wise - I would want to seriously exceed the mandated State qual

KeeFus
10-04-2014, 08:51 AM
I'm continually amazed by folks who will cut down to the POST. Liability wise - I would want to seriously exceed the mandated State qual

I dream of the day where our minimum qualification score is 80 or better. Currently there are folks that have trouble getting above 70, which scares the hell out of me. There is talk with my agency of having one (1) range day per year that our guys will have to go and spend that day under instruction of the firearms instructors. It's not enough, but it's better than what we are currently doing...which is show up once per calendar year to qualify...and that's it.

LSP552
10-04-2014, 10:11 AM
I'm continually amazed by folks who will cut down to the POST. Liability wise - I would want to seriously exceed the mandated State qual

Me too, but here are lots of poor reasons why they do it:

1. It's cheaper

2. Reduced liability when you try to fire someone for failing a more difficult standard that the State POST decides is acceptable. A minimum standard tends to make the argument that the higher standard is job related more difficult. This is often the way they try to increase minority hiring and retention. Can't pass, lower the standards to the lowest possible.

3. Lowering of recruiting standards. By example; at one time your chances of becoming an LSP trooper were slim unless you had prior military or law enforcement experience, and both were preferred. College was also good, but didn't override prior mil or LE experience. That changed with the requirement for more minority hirings. I'm hoping that the WOT will once again put vets back in LE, where they generally excel.

For a period of time, I taught the Officer Survival block at the LSP academy. The last basic class I did was somewhere in the early 2000's. In that class, over 50% of the group had never been in a fight, hit anyone or been hit. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.

4. Qualification focus rather than training. You know the difference, but for many agencies the qual course is all the firearms training they get. Make it easy and check the agency liability block.

5. A general shift away from training gunfighters to being more officer friendly.

Trooper224
10-04-2014, 11:20 AM
A general shift away from training gunfighters to being more officer friendly.

Something the general public has been demanding for the last several decades. Folks are getting exactly what they've been asking for. You can't train people to hand out lollipops and rainbows, then expect them to react appropriately under situations of extreme stress. Some will freeze and others will over react depending upon their emotional and psychological make up. Society is getting the law enforcement it deserves.

KeeFus
10-04-2014, 11:31 AM
For a period of time, I taught the Officer Survival block at the LSP academy. The last basic class I did was somewhere in the early 2000's. In that class, over 50% of the group had never been in a fight, hit anyone or been hit. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong..

No need to be sorry...it's the truth.


4. Qualification focus rather than training. You know the difference, but for many agencies the qual course is all the firearms training they get. Make it easy and check the agency liability block.

5. A general shift away from training gunfighters to being more officer friendly.

This is where we are now...which is hopefully about to change.

LSP972
10-04-2014, 11:32 AM
Yep, I know the agency did it. But the justification was the POST standard didn't require it so it was unnecessary.

That may have been the justification, but the real reason was the bullshit "discrimination" suit those three bolo's filed. Rick saw that coming, so we documented their pathetic non-performance six ways from Sunday… and hammered their asses all the way to the state supreme court.

No matter. Political correctness won; again.

On the one hand, we (collectively speaking) know that has trumped facts and common sense for far too long now, and its easy to give up in resignation. Its a sad fact that the great majority of our guys these days do not possess nearly the marksmanship skills that our generation did… had to have, as you pointed out, to even keep the job.

On the other hand, these less-capable "new breed" types are still winning their fights. Which begs the question… does it really matter? That is, as long as cops are trained to a given competency level so they can at least get the rounds headed in the proper direction, do the relaxed accuracy (i.e., distance) standards degrade the issue enough to be seriously concerning?

That's the $64 question, in my mind. And I don't have the answer. I do think that the fact that almost all of our shootings involving the regular road guys have been relatively close-in has a lot to do with the success rate.

All I know for sure is that I'm glad to be out of the game, and let someone else deal with it.

But I still think that you should buy that Wilson, and we'll square off at the long line, standing on our hind legs...:cool:

.

Shellback
10-04-2014, 11:51 AM
Body cam video released of Utah shooting in West Jordan. I tend to think of body cams as "appropriate gear" and that matches up to the title of the thread. If these videos are inappropriate, I'm only posting new ones, let me know and I'll shift course. Quick synopsis (http://fox13now.com/2014/10/03/warning-graphic-body-cam-video-released-after-west-jordan-officer-shoots-suspect/), someone called cops on guy, he said he'd "shoot the cops" and this was relayed to 911 operator, running and pivots towards cop, found with metal pipe and laser attached along with a knife. Video cleared police officer in the shoot.


http://youtu.be/-Z9FoQ7G-qk

Nice shooting on the run.

John Hearne
10-04-2014, 12:41 PM
Take this as a complement John, but you will never be an agency head thinking like that.

Wow. That is probably the nicest thing that has been said about me on the interwebs.

I am fairly convinced that most agency heads don't think - they emote, an entirely different process.


Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk

LSP552
10-04-2014, 05:06 PM
That may have been the justification, but the real reason was the bullshit "discrimination" suit those three bolo's filed. Rick saw that coming, so we documented their pathetic non-performance six ways from Sunday… and hammered their asses all the way to the state supreme court.

Yep, I've sent felons to prison with less paperwork. But "they" got scared and decided to do anything they could to avoid another suit.

No matter. Political correctness won; again.

On the one hand, we (collectively speaking) know that has trumped facts and common sense for far too long now, and its easy to give up in resignation. Its a sad fact that the great majority of our guys these days do not possess nearly the marksmanship skills that our generation did… had to have, as you pointed out, to even keep the job.

On the other hand, these less-capable "new breed" types are still winning their fights. Which begs the question… does it really matter? That is, as long as cops are trained to a given competency level so they can at least get the rounds headed in the proper direction, do the relaxed accuracy (i.e., distance) standards degrade the issue enough to be seriously concerning?

That's the $64 question, in my mind. And I don't have the answer. I do think that the fact that almost all of our shootings involving the regular road guys have been relatively close-in has a lot to do with the success rate.

I'm a bit out of the loop now, but it does seem most Patrol shootings are still up close and 1 v 1. But, we can also remember a few that were not. I don't think a minimum POST shooter would have done well in RD's shooting (Guy with rifle @ about 25 yards). It's training to the average and it works, until it doesn't.

But I still think that you should buy that Wilson, and we'll square off at the long line, standing on our hind legs...:cool:

I'm afraid that I couldn't leave it as a safe queen, and I'm not sure I want to go back down that road……just yet

.

LSP972
10-04-2014, 07:48 PM
"… a few that were not."

Indeed. That's why I wrote ALMOST all.

"Its training to the average, and it works, until it doesn't."

Absolutely. But it ain't our dog anymore, thank goodness.

As for the Wilson… trust me, after carrying that heavy sucker for a couple of days, you'd be GLAD to put it back in the safe! I got my EB with the full intention of never carrying it (emergencies excepted, of course). Weight aside, I'd have to do some SERIOUS training to get back up to speed on the safety manipulation.

.

runcible
10-05-2014, 03:27 PM
The answer is really simple but infinitely unpopular. You make the shooting standards relevant and fire the ones that don't meet them. If you had to pass Paul Howe's pistol standards or the old Air Marshall (?) course to keep your job, you'd have people showing up for range days.

If you want to go SUPER crazy, make shooting ability a hiring/selection screen out. If you have to be able to run 1.5 miles in a certain time to get hired, why not require a certain level of shooting ability prior to hiring?

I bolded the parts that I generally agree with; but I disagree strongly with the rest. Pre-requisites for hiring and job-specific training allow for a broader hiring pool then considering only those that already satisfy one requirement\standard or another. More so, why disqualify candidates from further consideration and training, for something that can be so readily taught as firearms use? What of the benefits of the relative tabula rasa's in a given student body? Physical ability to a given standard is a must to be able to train and reduce liability to the organization; a lack of shooting ability entering an initial-training environment cannot say the same.

You need a DL before EVOC; but should candidates for a LEA be required to have EMT certs so they can receive BLS or TCCC training? Should they require ham radio licenses to operate Motorola's?

Altering qualification courses and shooting standards can also be used to artificially shrink an agency through increased attrition: some would argue that this can go to fault.

Chuck Whitlock
10-05-2014, 05:45 PM
One of the very best uses of federal money for CONUS LE that I have ever seen was the now de-funded Sioux City training center. That organization got a lot of small town cops training that they never would have been able to afford otherwise. One of the many issues I have with the current administration is cutting that program.

+1!

I was lucky enough to attend a couple of courses there. Top notch training that the village I worked for would have never paid for.

41magfan
10-06-2014, 11:04 AM
I dream of the day where our minimum qualification score is 80 or better. Currently there are folks that have trouble getting above 70, which scares the hell out of me. There is talk with my agency of having one (1) range day per year that our guys will have to go and spend that day under instruction of the firearms instructors. It's not enough, but it's better than what we are currently doing...which is show up once per calendar year to qualify...and that's it.

In my last job - working for a Sheriff, no less - I was not only able to raise the qualification standard to 80% (on the way to 90%, ultimately), but we did it with a fairly tough COF fired on an standard IPSC target - not a cheesy B-27. Out of 150+ guns, about 10% of the officers could shoot in the high 90's with another 10% or more in the low to mid 90's. Over time it became obvious that our COF was "relatively" demanding since most lateral transfers scored poorly or failed to qualify at all in some instances.

To make this standard doable, we offered monthly training opportunities which obviously requires a commitment with regard to staffing and resources. That reality alone prevents a lot of smaller agencies from pursuing higher standards.

Anyway, after almost 8 years of steady progress that program fell apart with the election of a new Sheriff. And so it goes ......

David Armstrong
10-10-2014, 11:04 AM
I bolded the parts that I generally agree with; but I disagree strongly with the rest. Pre-requisites for hiring and job-specific training allow for a broader hiring pool then considering only those that already satisfy one requirement\standard or another. More so, why disqualify candidates from further consideration and training, for something that can be so readily taught as firearms use? What of the benefits of the relative tabula rasa's in a given student body? Physical ability to a given standard is a must to be able to train and reduce liability to the organization; a lack of shooting ability entering an initial-training environment cannot say the same.

You need a DL before EVOC; but should candidates for a LEA be required to have EMT certs so they can receive BLS or TCCC training? Should they require ham radio licenses to operate Motorola's?

Altering qualification courses and shooting standards can also be used to artificially shrink an agency through increased attrition: some would argue that this can go to fault.
I would add to this the idea that I am not aware of any sort of reasearch that indicates success on the range equates to success in actual gunfights for LE, while there seems to be some evidence that there is no relationship between higher range scores and increased chance of winning a gunfight. Heck, if we are going to raise requirements I'd push for better driving, report writing, and H2H as having far more impact than better shooting.

John Hearne
10-10-2014, 01:54 PM
I would add to this the idea that I am not aware of any sort of reasearch that indicates success on the range equates to success in actual gunfights for LE, while there seems to be some evidence that there is no relationship between higher range scores and increased chance of winning a gunfight.

My point was that how we hire reflects our priorities. When the FBI wanted gunfighters back in the 1930's, they hired people like Jelly Bryce. Why? Because they wanted people with a proven track record of putting bad guys in the dirt.

Regarding the research, there have been two studies that tried to correlate the two. One study found no relationship. The other found a very small relationship but it wasn't enough to be statistically significant.

Of course the problem with this is that no LE qual (except the old FAM) tests for the reflexive use of the pistol. It's like arguing that there is no correlation between 1.5 mile run times and success in foot pursuits. If your standard is a 45 minute 1.5 mile run (a literal crawling pace) and you either pass or fail then of course there will be no relationship. The standard is set too low to be a meaningful metric.

What the research does show, across a huge variety of domains with a high level of certainty, is that skills possessed with automaticity are more likely to be successfully executed during periods of high stress. If the higher levels of skill didn't improve your chance in a gunfight then it would be the first such area of motor performance that we've found.

David Armstrong
10-10-2014, 04:38 PM
I understand the process and the issue of priorities, which actually explains the whole problem (if it is a problem) IMO. Very little of what most LE does has anything to do with guns, so skill with guns becomes a non-issue, particularly in an era of tight budgets and limited resources. Management, when tasked with improving officer performance, should go with those areas where you get the greatest bang for the buck. In gunfights you really don't need a particularly high skill set most of the time. Maybe if we trained all officers to Gunsite "E" ticket level, or Thunder Ranch II, or similar it would matter, but I doubt any agency is going to spend the time and resources to do that across the board. So instead we go with minimal standards that balance the cost with the potential benefit.

FotoTomas
10-18-2014, 12:04 PM
I am coming in late but here goes...

I currently work as a uniformed cop. I have many years of experience in LE going back to 1975 when I started. I believe the adoption of SWAT tactics and uniforms for many types of routine LE is where the "militarization" is coming from and I for one do not like it.

I recently had a need for interaction with the local LE agency and was very put off by the regular road cops (no rifles or armored vehicles) that were wearing black tactical uniforms, bloused boots, external armor carriers with pockets for ammo magazines radios and other gear. It simply looked to me to be too damn tactical. I want my road cops to have an easily identifiable uniform that is NOT looking like a SWAT raid is imminent.

Tactical trousers and a Polo with a duty belt is cool. External vest carrier is OK if it is designed to blend in with the uniform shirt. Have an emergency??? grab the rifle and a bail out kit and go to work. Makes sense to me and does not impede the "Officer Friendly" look for regular duties. Got a riot...fine...send in the riot squad. That I expect. Got a serious situation... fine... send in the M113 or later model of armored vehicle. Routine, day to day police work should NOT have officers looking like the riot or emergency is about to happen.

If you do have a riot squad and/or SWAT/QRF/favorite acronym then do NOT look for ways to use them in regular police work. If you do it will frighten the horses and cause much gnashing of teeth. This leads to a tsunami of public distress and bull$#!+.

As for marksmanship training. I was raised on the 50 yard line qualification and am a good shot because of it. I am a trained police armorer and instructor and the best shot in my local office. I am a rather mediocre shot when compared to many here or a lot of the club shooters at my local gun club. That to me shows how mediocre my agencies training standards are. We still qualify at the 25 yard line but for only two (2) shots. The rest are 15 yards or less with an 80% passing score required and NO other option for the training folder. Get 40 hits anywhere on the target out of 50 rounds fired and you get a P for pass.

This sucks and I think it is poor policy and a serious accident waiting to happen. My bosses and the main bosses in Washington do not care. They play the odds, realizing gun fire is a very rare situation in my agency and would rather spend limited training dollars on more utilized skill sets. I see their point. The world is full of compromise and for a few it will be a very bad day.

Retiring at the end of this year and very happy to get away from this manure.

KevinB
10-18-2014, 01:20 PM
I am coming in late but here goes...

I currently work as a uniformed cop. I have many years of experience in LE going back to 1975 when I started. I believe the adoption of SWAT tactics and uniforms for many types of routine LE is where the "militarization" is coming from and I for one do not like it.

I recently had a need for interaction with the local LE agency and was very put off by the regular road cops (no rifles or armored vehicles) that were wearing black tactical uniforms, bloused boots, external armor carriers with pockets for ammo magazines radios and other gear. It simply looked to me to be too damn tactical. I want my road cops to have an easily identifiable uniform that is NOT looking like a SWAT raid is imminent.

Many of the external carriers (which I don't like for other reasons) are being adopted due to attempts to reduce weight on officer's hips (medical issues) and the ability to deal with the vast amounts of crap that some departments make their officers carry (rightly or wrongly).
I really don't like external carriers - as the soft armor is then visible - I prefer to hide it under a uniform shirt.

However many organizations are going to scaleable carriers - so they can clip in their hard armor (if issued) and rifle mags etc for an active shooter/ barricade situation.




Tactical trousers and a Polo with a duty belt is cool. External vest carrier is OK if it is designed to blend in with the uniform shirt. Have an emergency??? grab the rifle and a bail out kit and go to work. Makes sense to me and does not impede the "Officer Friendly" look for regular duties. Got a riot...fine...send in the riot squad. That I expect. Got a serious situation... fine... send in the M113 or later model of armored vehicle. Routine, day to day police work should NOT have officers looking like the riot or emergency is about to happen.

Agreed, however more and more departments are seeing that "tac" gear clothing are cheaper than other (or additional) uniforms.



If you do have a riot squad and/or SWAT/QRF/favorite acronym then do NOT look for ways to use them in regular police work. If you do it will frighten the horses and cause much gnashing of teeth. This leads to a tsunami of public distress and bull$#!+.
agreed wholeheartedly.


As for marksmanship training. I was raised on the 50 yard line qualification and am a good shot because of it. I am a trained police armorer and instructor and the best shot in my local office. I am a rather mediocre shot when compared to many here or a lot of the club shooters at my local gun club. That to me shows how mediocre my agencies training standards are. We still qualify at the 25 yard line but for only two (2) shots. The rest are 15 yards or less with an 80% passing score required and NO other option for the training folder. Get 40 hits anywhere on the target out of 50 rounds fired and you get a P for pass.

This sucks and I think it is poor policy and a serious accident waiting to happen. My bosses and the main bosses in Washington do not care. They play the odds, realizing gun fire is a very rare situation in my agency and would rather spend limited training dollars on more utilized skill sets. I see their point. The world is full of compromise and for a few it will be a very bad day.

Retiring at the end of this year and very happy to get away from this manure.

Unfortunately very very trued.

secondstoryguy
11-04-2014, 09:48 AM
I've heard people say that shooting skill/gun-handling is not that important to police work as it is only 1% of our job. That's like saying knowing how to work an ejection seat is only 1% of a pilots job (and working an ejection seat is a hell of a lot easier than shooting a pistol).

Our department has a very locked on training officer and the shooting standards are actually pretty high. The basic TCOLE standards(the state agency which licenses LEO in TX) are worthless, they essentially show you can safely fire a gun and that's about it. I actually giggled and was wondering if they were serious when I shot a basic TCOLE qualification for the first time...the targets were so huge and you had ridiculous amounts of time for the COF.

I would love to wear a scalable carrier at work. I'm currently shopping for a plate carrier (for active shooter/warrant service) that's compatible with the uniform that I'm currently wearing and I have no idea what to buy.

czech6
11-04-2014, 12:34 PM
I would love to wear a scalable carrier at work. I'm currently shopping for a plate carrier (for active shooter/warrant service) that's compatible with the uniform that I'm currently wearing and I have no idea what to buy.

I have a SKD Brigadine plate carrier (that replaced a SKD Pig plate carrier) and have to say that IMO hands down it's one of the best LE patrol plate carriers out there. It's fast and simple to get on, it fits 10x12 velocity system plates like a glove, and it's out of the way of my duty belt. It's not in the way while driving a car. On the bad side, if you go traipsing through the woods, due to the copious amount of velcro, you'll come out with every sticker that you encountered embedded in the velcro.

Lon
11-04-2014, 04:26 PM
I have a SKD Brigadine plate carrier (that replaced a SKD Pig plate carrier) and have to say that IMO hands down it's one of the best LE patrol plate carriers out there. It's fast and simple to get on, it fits 10x12 velocity system plates like a glove, and it's out of the way of my duty belt. It's not in the way while driving a car. On the bad side, if you go traipsing through the woods, due to the copious amount of velcro, you'll come out with every sticker that you encountered embedded in the velcro.

My go to PC as well.

John Hearne
07-17-2016, 03:14 PM
Couldn't think of a better place to put this:
http://lawofficer.com/2016/07/radio-traffic-in-baton-rouge-released-we-need-the-bearcat/