North Hollywood shootouts rewind

[Martlet]

Unless it was in a previous post I missed then he didn't establish anything. All he did was make generalizations about a large group from a limited experiences.

He did, and he prefaced it with that statement. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I believe what he was intending to communicate was that since he has seen some officers who have little to no proficiency with firearms, he's want to ensure that all officers who used that weapon was proficient in its use.

I think that's fair.

 

[JonJ]

But when we speak of the faux pas of the military of which you are a member of, they are simply "exceptions not the rule".

Really? Give me an example of when I've said that.

Kent State.
Waco.
New Orleans, Katrina.

Exceptions, not the rule.

The number of responses to the community that the National Guard responds to monthly is surprising. Even right here in Massachusetts.

Additionally, the fact that they were MISused more than once doesn't mean that their intent is misuse. That's the same argument the gun grabbers use.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you said.

 

[codenamepaul]

Damn! And I thought I was the resident shit stirrer!!!!

 

[Martlet]

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you said.

I don't think you're misunderstanding, I think you're intentionally drawing similarities that aren't there. Unless I'm mistaken, the premise was the general misuse of the military by civilian leadership.

If you'd like to discuss individual soldier's, or the military as a group's, actions that day, I'd be more than willing to. My answer would likely be quite different.

 

[pmb44]

He did, and he prefaced it with that statement. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I believe what he was intending to communicate was that since he has seen some officers who have little to no proficiency with firearms, he's want to ensure that all officers who used that weapon was proficient in its use.

I think that's fair.

If thats how he meant it then i will agree thats fair to want all cops to be proficient I just take offense in his specific choice of words by saying most and alot when the percentage is not high enough to warrant it.

On a side not be wary of some of the "cops" who are bad shots on the range. If you dig enough you find out that alot of them say "cop" when they mean security or there unarmed (meaning no state firearms trainings for some and no qualifications) reserves or campus PO's. But i won't pretend there are some real deal armed cops who don't shoot well too.

 

[vellnueve]

I'd say that some security types or campus PDs are better shooters than some of the .gov cops. I'd probably take BCPD or HUPD training over BPD, but would probably take BPD over Umass or Brandeis training. It all depends on the money they put into the departments.

 

[Mass-diver]

Where is this information coming from? MOST? LOTS? HALF? How many cops do you know? where did this info come from? every cop on my shift likes guns and trains pretty freguently. I can't remeber the last time any of the cops in my dept. failed to qualify. Lots of talk here about how most cops are bad shots, how many cops have you seen shot qualifications? Real qualifications not hanging out at the range. Lots of talk about how little training cops from people who have no knowledge of police training and how much, how little, or what type of training we get.

Like many people on NES, I'm a range rat, I got shooting a couple times a week. I see plenty of cops shoot. I also have a number of friends who are cops - they are not gun guys, they don't even really like guns.

I read the paper and watch the Cops TV show as as well (every episode there is atleast one cops point his barrel at another cop's back)

 

[Half Cocked]

It all comes down to what is an acceptable level of proficiency.

Just as we here cringe when we see some LEO's handle firearms. I am equally sure that those who race cars cringe when they see some LEO's in a car chase and those into martial arts cringe when they see some cops fight.

Your point of reference comes from your own level of expertise.

 

[pdm]

All that I know of are 100% behind law abiding citizens possessing/carrying.

Then maybe they can use some of their political muscle on Beacon Hill to that effect. But that's a topic for a different thread.

Police carrying ARs as a part of their general duty is not a policy decision that I support. Own one as an individual? Fine, I've never been against that, insinuations to the contrary notwithstanding. But as an agent of the state, police are under obligations not otherwise set upon their fellow citizens. I don't want the police to start resembling the army. That's it in a nutshell. If, in some world view, that makes me "anti-cop", then IMO some folks need to reexamine what they view the police as.

 

[vellnueve]

Again, your argument is akin to EBRs being more dangerous because they're black.

The appearance of LEOs does not concern me.

 

[Half Cocked]

Then maybe they can use some of their political muscle on Beacon Hill to that effect. But that's a topic for a different thread.

Police carrying ARs as a part of their general duty is not a policy decision that I support. Own one as an individual? Fine, I've never been against that, insinuations to the contrary notwithstanding. But as an agent of the state, police are under obligations not otherwise set upon their fellow citizens. I don't want the police to start resembling the army. That's it in a nutshell. If, in some world view, that makes me "anti-cop", then IMO some folks need to reexamine what they view the police as.

How does the use of a tool resemble the military?

Would a wood stock look better?

Argument sound a lot like an anti-gunner?

This whole thread is a hypocritical.

 

[pdm]

Again, your argument is akin to EBRs being more dangerous because they're black.

The appearance of LEOs does not concern me.

Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true.

 

[Mikey]

Martlet for President!!!!

Just to get back on topic I would also love to carry a rifle in my truck, if the police can I should be able to as well. After all the bad guys attack us civilians first, the police come after to clean up or continue the fight. We are the ones who are initially at the most risk when there is an incident.

 

[Mass-diver]

The appearance of LEOs does not concern me.

It does to me. LEOs aren't soliders, we (civilians) aren't the enemy. I don't want my neighborhood cop looking like a SF operator.

You start dressing up these officers to look the part and sooner or later they start to act it. I don't like the whole idea of cops (under the banner of any agency) out playing solider.

 

[ephemeratta]

"Oh the hypocrisy!"

 

[drgrant]

Martlet for President!!!!

Just to get back on topic I would also love to carry a rifle in my truck, if the police can I should be able to as well. After all the bad guys attack us civilians first, the police come after to clean up or continue the fight. We are the ones who are initially at the most risk when there is an incident.

If I lived in a free state I definitely would have a "trunk rifle" of some sort
that went with me everywhere. I won't do it in MA because the risk of
losing ones LTC over a stolen gun is just too great, even if it is stored properly.

-Mike

 

[pbearperry]

My Dept. even now does not allow officers to carry back up weapons.Talk about the dark ages.As far as more training for police,I don't see that happening unless Federal money pops up.Most Police Depts. are having their budgets cut.Money is tight and things will only get worse.

 

[Mikey]

This is what I am talking about. Would look great with an SKS in my truck.

http://www.pro-gard.com/overhead_gunrack.html

 

[Will Brink]

What I'm witnessing here with law dawg and half cocked is the very 'look down on civilians attitude' that so permeates law enforcement as a general rule

I am not picking that up form them at all.

(and believe me, I know alot of LE at all levels)

As do I.

 

[Will Brink]

I truly believe most cops would be better served if they had semi auto carbines in 9mm,40S&W or 44 mag in their cars instead of shotguns or M16's.Hitting targets out to 100 yds would be a snap and with little recoil.JMHO

Although I like your thinking on that, said it before, will say it again: very few combat shooters can make a head shot at 100 yards on a moving target that is spraying bullets out in all directions, with the noise, general mayhem, radios going, adrenaline flowing, etc., Anyone who says other wise is in dream land and watched Rambo too many times.

As was recommended, take a balloon and put about a man's hight of string to it, tie it off at the 100 yard mark, and shoot it, and let us know ow long it takes and with what gun and optics you used to do it. Then take into consideration is was not shooting back at you, there is no one screaming in your ear about needing help, etc, etc.

 

[Will Brink]

After reading several posts, the OP's original idea seems more practical. Instead of handing out high-powered carbines, maybe it would be in the best interest of the officers and public to simply offer them better ammunition w/ better effectiveness to respond to situations like HollyWood.

Slugs, are old school technology and not "high tech" but few projectiles under 100 yards have the thump of a slug. If you were to add the newer sabots, you have some real "stopping power" * there. Now I was contacted by someone who has detailed knowledge of that event, and he claims they did in fact have slugs on hand. Clearly they either didn't use them or they missed, 'cause you don't shrug off a slug wearing body armor.

* = in quotes because we all know it's misused term but for the sake of brevity, I am using it here.

 

[Half Cocked]

Hey Will,

I questioned your sanity when you posted this thread but it turned in to a good debate with differing opinions. It is threads like this that makes me appreciate this forum. Good hearted people with differing opinions that can debate topics with passion and still be able to sit down later and have a beer.

Kudos to you sir and thank you!!

 

[Will Brink]

Hey Will,

I questioned your sanity when you posted this thread

So I recall...

but it turned in to a good debate with differing opinions. It is threads like this that makes me appreciate this forum. Good hearted people with differing opinions that can debate topics with passion and still be able to sit down later and have a beer.

Kudos to you sir and thank you!!

My pleasure...and there is a method to my madness. Revisiting seminal events in history, etc., is never a waste of time, as some here seemed to imply. I learned some things about this event I didn't know, and or confirmed some opinions and facts I did have.

 

[pbearperry]

It amazes me reading some of this crap.Either some people here are complete lunatics or they are hear to just break balls?

 

[Will Brink]

It amazes me reading some of this crap.Either some people here are complete lunatics or they are hear to just break balls?

You forget option # 3, it could be a bit of both!

 

[Martlet]

It amazes me reading some of this crap.Either some people here are complete lunatics or they are hear to just break balls?

Odd I was thinking the same thing.

 

[USMC109]

And no one can outrun a radio. If the police roll up on a situation where someone's got a rifle, they should call in backup. If it's really dangerous, someone ought to call in the SWAT guys. That you want to shortcut that escalation of force to put a rifle in every cruiser... well, maybe that makes sense on your side of the blue line, but from where I sit, it looks more like a step to turning cops into soldiers. What's next, every cop jocked up in an IOTV and cammies?

Here's an example for you:You're in your patrol car alone and decide to stop a car for whatever reason.A man gets out with a full-auto rifle and start firing at you.Your nearest back-up car could be only 2 blocks away(who in the mentioned situation has no rifle either) let alone a SWAT team which would obviously take much longer.Are you willing to wait for someone to come to your aid before it's too late and your dead?While your on your radio calling and waiting for backup the BG is putting 6 bullets in your torso.Everyone know that a pistol is no match for a rifle.Truth is usually by the time anyone can get to the scene to help it's already over as these situations happen in seconds.I don't see why it's so hard to except the fact that the police should be trained and prepared for this as we do not live in the 1950's anymore.

In NYC the ESU rides the subways in full bdu's and MP5 subguns.Why is this a bad thing?These men are trained more than most infantry units!

Then when 09/11 happens all over again you will be saying,"Oh my why didn't anyone do anything sooner".It's amazing how many people say what they would have done when they've never experienced it.I swear some of you "gun"guys are more anti than Hillary!

 

[USMC109]

My Dept. even now does not allow officers to carry back up weapons.Talk about the dark ages.As far as more training for police,I don't see that happening unless Federal money pops up.Most Police Depts. are having their budgets cut.Money is tight and things will only get worse.

You should at least be given the option to carry your own so long as you qualify with it.I know quite a few guys including myself who carry guns they bought or had themselves here in CT.(the mother of all Blue states...next to MA.)Especially shotguns.The state PD here now carries AR patrol rifles in every car.

 

[Martlet]

Here's an example for you:You're in your patrol car alone and decide to stop a car for whatever reason.A man gets out with a full-auto rifle and start firing at you.Your nearest back-up car could be only 2 blocks away(who in the mentioned situation has no rifle either) let alone a SWAT team which would obviously take much longer.Are you willing to wait for someone to come to your aid before it's too late and your dead?While your on your radio calling and waiting for backup the BG is putting 6 bullets in your torso.Everyone know that a pistol is no match for a rifle.Truth is usually by the time anyone can get to the scene to help it's already over as these situations happen in seconds.I don't see why it's so hard to except the fact that the police should be trained and prepared for this as we do not live in the 1950's anymore.

That's a great reason. I'll past that on to the residents of Worcester and Salem. They can put that on their LTC application. I'm sure the Chiefs will start issuing ALP licenses after reading it.

In NYC the ESU rides the subways in full bdu's and MP5 subguns.Why is this a bad thing?These men are trained more than most infantry units!

It's been explained why some people think it's a bad thing. By the way, what training do they get?

 

[vellnueve]

Martlet, more dead cops does not help the citizens who are deprived of the tools of self defense. I think we should maximize the number of law-abiding persons willing and able to respond to violent crimes on the streets of our cities. If that means a lot of those people are cops, I have no problem with that.