Help Needed

[jones87]

Hey guys, I need your help. I work for a small to mid size county department, 60 deputies. We hand all of the normal calls, fights, domestics, accidents, anything that people call in for. I am one of the firearms instructors for the department. Approximately 2 years ago we were able to talk the Sheriff at the time into buying us all Daniel Defense M4V1's and Aimpoint T-1's. Before then we either had our own personal AR's, or a shotgun. Some of the guys only had their pistol. Well in the beginning of January we got a new Sheriff and Chief. They are under the mindset that we don't need the patrol rifles. The pistol and shotgun is good enough. We (firearms instructors and deputies) completely disagree. The Head firearms instructor just had an hour in half meeting with the Chief attempting to change his mind, but with no luck. As of this time we are not aloud to use the patrol rifles. We have a meeting with the Sheriff and Chief tomorrow 2-15-17 at 1400 hours, to go over everything again. So I need all of the credible resources that I can find to help our case. I've already have several things to present to them, but the more the better. I have some stuff on ballistics, over and under penetration, easy of handing, faster target accusation. If you could provide links for anything that can help us out it would be greatly appreciated. thanks for your help.

[fishing]

http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/doc...RiflePaper.pdf pages 1 thru 6
http://www.mlefiaa.org/files/MPTC_NE...anual_2010.pdf - pages 1 thru 8

quick googled produced the above pdfs - linked if you have not found them already.
should support making a quick rundown of points to be sure to hit during your limited time during meeting tmrw.

given the limited amount of time before meeting, and the details you provided, i would strongly recommend that you do not seek to get a firm go/no-go tmrw.
instead it would be beneficial to present some facts, collect and if possible address doubts/questions from the chief or other decision makers, and leave the door open to have a continued time bound dialogue with them in the near future. (a meeting to review more fully and decide at a scheduled later date/time).

during the near future you should fully address the questions/doubts/concerns and continue to build support for your case to give you a better shot of the outcome you are seeking.

would not come on too strong, depending on chief's stance on this and let them do most of the talking especially at beginning of meeting.

good luck

[jones87]

Thanks I didn't see the first one, the second one I was able to find. I really appreciate it. From the sounds of the meeting already, things aren't looking good. With the new Chief its all black and white there's no grey. your first link should help to convince them, along with what we've already found. The more information we have the better. I appreciate your advise, I'll keep that in mind tomorrow. Thanks for your help.

[fishing]

Thanks I didn't see the first one, the second one I was able to find. I really appreciate it. From the sounds of the meeting already, things aren't looking good. With the new Chief its all black and white there's no grey. your first link should help to convince them, along with what we've already found. The more information we have the better. I appreciate your advise, I'll keep that in mind tomorrow. Thanks for your help.

think of the main points you want to cover, and write them down to bring into the meeting with you if you havent done already.
start with those points when appropriate and then re-iterate them when nearing the end of meeting.
having alot of information in your head is good, but during the meeting how effectively/concisely you communicate and present it will be more important.
group meetings are generally not good places to surprise people nor present tons of new information in raw form.
prepare yourself to answer ANY question that might come up - and if you do find yourself drawing a blank be honest about it but commit to getting an answer back to the asker by a certain time.
get him to a place where he is asking questions - this will help you understand more fully what his concerns might be.
don't rely on any variation of "we had approval before" or "the old chief was gonna let us" etc - it will not help.

of course you ultimately know the way the man works and the rapport he has with folks better than i, so trust your jugement or ask someone who knows him well if you can.

i'd like to think that if the chief was truly 100% black and white and NO on this issue, he wouldnt waste his time with another meeting about it. you can change this

[Cookie Monster]

You have 60 DD rifles with T-1's that go unused because of an ass-hat chief?

I am at a loss for words. Leave a number and we'll all leave a voicemail.

[jones87]

Ok, thanks for the help. Deff going to have to find out what their reasoning is. We're at a loss there. It doesn't make any sense. But I think your right everything we've heard about him it's all black and white, no middle ground. So I think with the info we have we'll be able to convince them. But we have only been working w them for less than 2 months so, their feeling us out and just like we are to them. All this extra work and no more pay, gotta love it lol. Again thanks for your help.

[jones87]

No their all issued out right now. As of today we've been told were not aloud to use them. Till they can made a decision. The sheriff and chief just came into office 1-1-17. So their making changes left and right

[okie john]

No their all issued out right now. As of today we've been told were not aloud to use them. Till they can made a decision. The sheriff and chief just came into office 1-1-17. So their making changes left and right

Not having patrol rifles limits the options that officers have, which puts them and the public at risk. It might help to point out what could happen in terms of lawsuits if it can be shown that the new chief is responsible for TAKING AWAY a viable piece of safety gear that worked just fine before.


Okie John

[SafetyFirst]

Well, if you can use history as a credible resource, google "north hollywood shootout" or "the battle of north hollywood". Leo only had 9mm , .38s and shotguns. Over 2000 rounds fired from both directions. Leo had to acquire high powered rifles from gundealers in the neighborhood during firefight. Good luck

[jones87]

Okie John, I'll write that down hopefully it doesn't get that bad to where I have to bring that up. Deff won't be hard to prove that he they were the ones responsible for taking them away. I can see that making the sheriff and chief mad. I'll try and word so it's not taken as an insult.
Safeyfirst
I have the highlights from that but I'll prob print off the whole thing.
Thanks for the help guys.