North Hollywood shootouts rewind

[law dawg]

More like pre-1900 technology (still the basis for the Rem 700 sniper platform in use today, mind you)

Daisy cutters only work if you hit something with them. Don't ever underestimate a man and a rifle with home field advantage and a cause to fight for.

I was making an exaggerated point to counter the other exaggerated point. The truth is, as usual, "it depends."

Of course, we must also consider if the USA government did decide to get dictatorial then it's their home field advantage too.

 

[law dawg]

I don't "tell" anyone what they can or can't do/say. I merely voice my opinion about EVERYTHING. And yes, we DO pay your salary and we DO decide what you can or can't spend our money on. Who the hell do you think you are? A private security force? Your attitude is appalling.

Are we talking about town workers? Fire Departments? If you'd like to discuss them and the tools they use, feel free to start a thread. I just may voice my opinion there as well.

But I pay my salary too? Does my opinion count as much as yours? If you pay my salary and say I should do X and I pay my salary and say I should do Y, who wins? Rock, paper, scissors? Best two out of three?

 

[Martlet]

Well, he was killed with a rifle. Obviously backup got there sometime because one of the bad guys was killed.

And, yes, it's absolutely possible he was toting a rifle. Or that he had available rifles and chose not to carry one. No doubt.

But I still think the point is made that bad guys use rifles and anyone choosing or forced to go up against them without one is at a serious disadvantage.

And they are at an even greater disadvantage if they don't have a handgun, either.

 

[Martlet]

But I pay my salary too? Does my opinion count as much as yours? If you pay my salary and say I should do X and I pay my salary and say I should do Y, who wins? Rock, paper, scissors? Best two out of three?

Your opinion ABSOLUTELY counts as much as mine. The person who wins is the person who persuades enough people to cast a ballot in support of their side. However, since there are far more private citizens than police officers, it's fair to say that THEY, or WE, decide, not you (as in the police department). The same applies to YOU deciding MY fate as a soldier, even though I vote as well.

 

[Will Brink]

what i dont get is out of dozens of cops firing at these two guys , none of them could get a headshot ? c'mon !

That has been covered here several times. For example:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=466848&postcount=230

Etc, etc....

 

[vellnueve]

I really don't see the people/police relationship as an us vs them sort of thing.

 

[MassMark]

Well, he was killed with a rifle. Obviously backup got there sometime because one of the bad guys was killed.

And, yes, it's absolutely possible he was toting a rifle. Or that he had available rifles and chose not to carry one. No doubt.

But I still think the point is made that bad guys use rifles and anyone choosing or forced to go up against them without one is at a serious disadvantage.

Agreed, but that disadvantage does not shrink much if the responding officer is not properly trained and most importantly, continues to train to employ a rifle safely and soundly in a gunfight. I think we all agree that many, (not all) officers are more than lax when it comes to regular training/practice and the thought of an untrained or under-trained officer hosing down a grocery store with an M4 Carbine makes me a bit edgy...

 

[vellnueve]

I don't think anyone here has said that they think unqualified officers should be carrying M4s. I specifically remember even the various cops here (HC, LD, etc) saying that this should not be the case.

However, I do think that police often view armed citizens as untrained and unable to use firearms proficiently, and clearly that is the view of many people here about police as well. The fact is that neither of these stereotypes are correct. There are people in both groups of firearms users that have no business doing so, but there are also highly motivated, highly trained, safe handlers of firearms in both groups as well. There is absolutely no reason not to allow officers who show the requisite amount of skill with patrol carbines to carry.

 

[pbearperry]

To all those Leos out there,why do you let Martlet get to you?This forum is his personal tool to lay some stress on every cop in here.He thrives on it.He hides behind his personna and does his best to piss you off.He hates cops and loves giving you insult after insult.It took me a while to figure him out,but once I did,I learned to sit back and laugh.The best way to drive him crazy is to ignore him.

 

[law dawg]

And they are at an even greater disadvantage if they don't have a handgun, either.

Word.

 

[law dawg]

Your opinion ABSOLUTELY counts as much as mine. The person who wins is the person who persuades enough people to cast a ballot in support of their side. However, since there are far more private citizens than police officers, it's fair to say that THEY, or WE, decide, not you (as in the police department). The same applies to YOU deciding MY fate as a soldier, even though I vote as well.

Hm, my post was about 3/4 tongue in cheek.

 

[law dawg]

Agreed, but that disadvantage does not shrink much if the responding officer is not properly trained and most importantly, continues to train to employ a rifle safely and soundly in a gunfight. I think we all agree that many, (not all) officers are more than lax when it comes to regular training/practice and the thought of an untrained or under-trained officer hosing down a grocery store with an M4 Carbine makes me a bit edgy...

Hard to argue with that.

 

[law dawg]

I don't think anyone here has said that they think unqualified officers should be carrying M4s. I specifically remember even the various cops here (HC, LD, etc) saying that this should not be the case.

However, I do think that police often view armed citizens as untrained and unable to use firearms proficiently, and clearly that is the view of many people here about police as well. The fact is that neither of these stereotypes are correct. There are people in both groups of firearms users that have no business doing so, but there are also highly motivated, highly trained, safe handlers of firearms in both groups as well. There is absolutely no reason not to allow officers who show the requisite amount of skill with patrol carbines to carry.

+1

 

[vellnueve]

Actually, I didn't get +1 because you're too new of a member. I got a +0. But thanks for the effort.

 

[law dawg]

Actually, I didn't get +1 because you're too new of a member. I got a +0. But thanks for the effort.

I tried! Sorry. It was very well reasoned and addressed the hypocrisy both sides can show.

 

[pmb44]

I've seen nothing to indicate this is true. I may be wrong, but I chuckle a little whenever I hear a police officer claim his training is equal to Special Forces. I've met and served with quite a few police officers around the country. I've met and served with quite a few Special Forces members. In my eyes, there is no comparison.

ESU are not just cops there the the elite of dept that ranks size wise is the 6th largest "army" in the world. This comparison comes from a veteran of both NYPD's ESU and Marine SF so he is qualified to say the training is equal and its a feeling shared by many of the ESU cops who are prior service SF.

 

[Martlet]

To all those Leos out there,why do you let Martlet get to you?This forum is his personal tool to lay some stress on every cop in here.He thrives on it.He hides behind his personna and does his best to piss you off.He hates cops and loves giving you insult after insult.It took me a while to figure him out,but once I did,I learned to sit back and laugh.The best way to drive him crazy is to ignore him.

Yeah. That's it. You're free to say whatever you'd like, but if I feel you're wrong, I'm an antagonist. If I'm ANGRY that many police officers in Massachusetts ACTIVELY try to usurp my right, not just as a free man but specifically named in the Constitution, to possess firearms and use them in the defense of myself, my family, and my property, I'm an antagonist?

You make hollow accusations that don't even approach reality. The "us vs them" mentality mentioned earlier? You're a perfect example of it. You're so bent on finding something wrong where there is nothing, you're losing your mind. You're a cop? With an attitude like that? You wonder why so many people are wary of police officers?

Due to my profession, most of my best friends and family are police officers, both State Police, local police, transit police, etc. The VAST majority of them are great cops. When the police are in the news, we have discussions much like this. Many of them agree with me. I've been told on more than one instance "You're right, Martlet. I get so caught up in dealing with dirt bags all day, looking at everyone for an indiscretion, that I sometimes forget why I'm here and who I serve." Others are people I'm embarrassed to admit are cops. They view themselves as the caretakers of the population. Their mission is to keep us in line.

Those bad cops give the rest of you a bad name. I'm extremely Libertarian on most fronts. My views aren't anti-police. I don't know you personally. From what I've seen, I gather you're a pretty crappy cop, though. Others, like law dawg, are probably very good at his job.

 

[Martlet]

Hm, my post was about 3/4 tongue in cheek.

Oh. It's hard to tell sometimes, since all words look the same.

 

[Martlet]

ESU are not just cops there the the elite of dept that ranks size wise is the 6th largest "army" in the world. This comparison comes from a veteran of both NYPD's ESU and Marine SF so he is qualified to say the training is equal and its a feeling shared by many of the ESU cops who are prior service SF.

Not that I don't believe you, but I sincerely doubt it.

That being said, I find the fact that they consider themselves an army troubling, to say the least.

 

[MassMark]

I don't think anyone here has said that they think unqualified officers should be carrying M4s. I specifically remember even the various cops here (HC, LD, etc) saying that this should not be the case.

However, I do think that police often view armed citizens as untrained and unable to use firearms proficiently, and clearly that is the view of many people here about police as well. The fact is that neither of these stereotypes are correct. There are people in both groups of firearms users that have no business doing so, but there are also highly motivated, highly trained, safe handlers of firearms in both groups as well. There is absolutely no reason not to allow officers who show the requisite amount of skill with patrol carbines to carry.

And who will monitor and administrate this? If police departments are having difficulties keeping officers properly trained with their sidearms, how can adding M4's to the mix make things better?

When you have 3 police officers firing 50 rounds out of their sidearms at an unarmed man who they thought had a gun - on a city street, with people on the sidewalks, how do those same 3 officers with M4s make things better? I'm not advocating for Mr. Bell either - I believe he may well have deserved deadly force. I'm also not saying that the actions of those three officers is indicative of all police officers - certainly not. What I am saying is that a system needs to be in place to ensure that existing LEO's are proficient with the weapons they already carry and clearly this is not the case.

I also think drawing the distinction between the views of the police toward armed citizens and vise versa leaves out one point: The law enforcement community carries firearms for a living. If there are even a few (for arguments sake) critically under trained LEO's on the streets sporting a combination of ego, a badge and firearms, it makes for a clear path to the violation of our rights as citizens. As soon as you figure out a way to clear that up, let the M4 festival begin....

 

[law dawg]

And who will monitor and administrate this? If police departments are having difficulties keeping officers properly trained with their sidearms, how can adding M4's to the mix make things better?

When you have 3 police officers firing 50 rounds out of their sidearms at an unarmed man who they thought had a gun - on a city street, with people on the sidewalks, how do those same 3 officers with M4s make things better? I'm not advocating for Mr. Bell either - I believe he may well have deserved deadly force. I'm also not saying that the actions of those three officers is indicative of all police officers - certainly not. What I am saying is that a system needs to be in place to ensure that existing LEO's are proficient with the weapons they already carry and clearly this is not the case.

I also think drawing the distinction between the views of the police toward armed citizens and vise versa leaves out one point: The law enforcement community carries firearms for a living. If there are even a few (for arguments sake) critically under trained LEO's on the streets sporting a combination of ego, a badge and firearms, it makes for a clear path to the violation of our rights as citizens. As soon as you figure out a way to clear that up, let the M4 festival begin....

You were doing grandly until you wrote "ego," then the bias crept in.....

To assume all cops are ego-driven is incorrect and what's generally referred to as a stereotype. You know, like the one that civilians are sheeple?

 

[vellnueve]

Because, like I said before, training someone on an M4 is a lot easier than training someone on a handgun. Most service members can't shoot handguns worth a damn either but are extremely proficient with rifles.

 

[law dawg]

Yeah. That's it. You're free to say whatever you'd like, but if I feel you're wrong, I'm an antagonist. If I'm ANGRY that many police officers in Massachusetts ACTIVELY try to usurp my right, not just as a free man but specifically named in the Constitution, to possess firearms and use them in the defense of myself, my family, and my property, I'm an antagonist?

You make hollow accusations that don't even approach reality. The "us vs them" mentality mentioned earlier? You're a perfect example of it. You're so bent on finding something wrong where there is nothing, you're losing your mind. You're a cop? With an attitude like that? You wonder why so many people are wary of police officers?

Due to my profession, most of my best friends and family are police officers, both State Police, local police, transit police, etc. The VAST majority of them are great cops. When the police are in the news, we have discussions much like this. Many of them agree with me. I've been told on more than one instance "You're right, Martlet. I get so caught up in dealing with dirt bags all day, looking at everyone for an indiscretion, that I sometimes forget why I'm here and who I serve." Others are people I'm embarrassed to admit are cops. They view themselves as the caretakers of the population. Their mission is to keep us in line.

Those bad cops give the rest of you a bad name. I'm extremely Libertarian on most fronts. My views aren't anti-police. I don't know you personally. From what I've seen, I gather you're a pretty crappy cop, though. Others, like law dawg, are probably very good at his job.

At the end of the day you don't want a cop who's a bully any more than you want one who's a doormat.

Sometimes a cop needs to be compassionate and sometimes he needs to be firm. Sometimes soft and sometimes hard.

It all depends.

 

[Martlet]

You were doing grandly until you wrote "ego," then the bias crept in.....

To assume all cops are ego-driven is incorrect and what's generally referred to as a stereotype. You know, like the one that civilians are sheeple?

In his defense, he specifically stated that "if there are even a few". Not only didn't he assume "all cops", he clearly stated he didn't.

 

[MassMark]

You were doing grandly until you wrote "ego," then the bias crept in.....

To assume all cops are ego-driven is incorrect and what's generally referred to as a stereotype. You know, like the one that civilians are sheeple?

Please re-read. You glossed over this part:

If there are even a few (for arguments sake) critically under trained LEO's on the streets sporting a combination of ego, a badge and firearms, it makes for a clear path to the violation of our rights as citizens.

Surely you will admit that there are even a few LEO's who may fit this description?

 

[law dawg]

Please re-read. You glossed over this part:



Surely you will admit that there are even a few LEO's who may fit this description?

You're right. I mis-read it. I cry your pardon gunslinger (with a tip of the hat to Stephen King....).

That said, how does under training with regards to firearms increase the likelihood of civil rights violations? I can't find causation there in that link. I, as a LEO, can violate your civil rights being a good shot or being a poor one. My level of firearms proficiency has little to do with it, in my mind.

Although, remember, I ALWAYS ask for and want more and better trained LEOs, myself included. So while I agree with your desire for better trained LEOs, I don't think the reason of civil rights abuses is relevant. Or am I missing something?

 

[MassMark]

You're right. I mis-read it. I cry your pardon gunslinger (with a tip of the hat to Stephen King....).

That said, how does under training with regards to firearms increase the likelihood of civil rights violations? I can't find causation there in that link. I, as a LEO, can violate your civil rights being a good shot or being a poor one. My level of firearms proficiency has little to do with it, in my mind.

Although, remember, I ALWAYS ask for and want more and better trained LEOs, myself included. So while I agree with your desire for better trained LEOs, I don't think the reason of civil rights abuses is relevant. Or am I missing something?

Yeah, maybe that doesn't quite make sense there - I can see how it wouldn't. As I was writing it, I was thinking about a combination of those three officers expending 50-rounds on a public fare - bullets flying through windows, door panels and occupants, how it would have been had they been employing M4's and maybe a little pre/post judging of their character. I also envisioned one of those few officers I spoke about - high on power and ego, being emboldened further by his new M4. I cannot be alone in knowing an LEO or two on a power trip - hell, there's a mental health caseworker or two - even a Dunkin Donuts manager or two I know of on the same kind of trip. Difference is, they sport clipboards, meds and crullers for a living - not guns.

 

[law dawg]

Yeah, maybe that doesn't quite make sense there - I can see how it wouldn't. As I was writing it, I was thinking about a combination of those three officers expending 50-rounds on a public fare - bullets flying through windows, door panels and occupants, how it would have been had they been employing M4's and maybe a little pre/post judging of their character. I also envisioned one of those few officers I spoke about - high on power and ego, being emboldened further by his new M4. I cannot be alone in knowing an LEO or two on a power trip - hell, there's a mental health caseworker or two - even a Dunkin Donuts manager or two I know of on the same kind of trip. Difference is, they sport clipboards, meds and crullers for a living - not guns.

Still not sure I agree, but I understand your point a little better, I think.

 

[Half Cocked]

Not that I don't believe you, but I sincerely doubt it.

That being said, I find the fact that they consider themselves an army troubling, to say the least.

Martlet..please re-read the post. They never said that they were considered an army. The poster simply stated that the NYPD was the size of an army.

Please stop reading things how you want them to read and read them for what they actually are.

 

[Martlet]

Martlet..please re-read the post. They never said that they were considered an army. The poster simply stated that the NYPD was the size of an army.

Please stop reading things how you want them to read and read them for what they actually are.

You re-read the post. It specifically states what I said. He didn't compare it to a police force. He didn't say it was the 6th largest "police organization" in the world. He used the word "army".

Why don't you stop humping my leg and start participating in the conversation?