Traffic Stop Disclosure

[M1911]

We moved our patrol rifles out of the trunks where they had been for 6 years. Now they are in a more accessible position between the bucket seats where they can be safely and properly deployed.

Agreed. If the officer can't get to the rifle when the SHTF, then it isn't doing anyone any good.

Same reason I don't like the change to black paramilitary style uniforms and all black cars. It all gives an impression that it's us vs them.

I don't care if they're wearing pink tutus. I want them to have the tools to do the job. In many situations, an AR15 is a better tool than a handgun or a shotgun. If Mr. Bad Guy had me in a headlock with a knife in his hand, I'd much rather the cop had a readily accessible AR15.

 

[Dench]

If Mr. Bad Guy had me in a headlock with a knife in his hand, I'd much rather the cop had a readily accessible AR15.

yeah, that way you both get shot when he fires.

 

[jdubois]

I don't care if they're wearing pink tutus. I want them to have the tools to do the job. In many situations, an AR15 is a better tool than a handgun or a shotgun. If Mr. Bad Guy had me in a headlock with a knife in his hand, I'd much rather the cop had a readily accessible AR15.

I'm not begrudging them the tools for the job. If they feel an AR will help them patrol the streets of their small town, fine. I don't see it, but I'm not an expert on effective law enforcement needs. But they need to put it somewhere other than mounted up on the rear window like a trophy. In the trunk, between the seats as JonJ was mentioning, whatever.

 

[drgrant]

yeah, that way you both get shot when he fires.

Not to get too involved in this one, but frankly you could still get shot via over penetration even with a handgun. (For starters, cops have killed/injured each other this way, numerous times- cop A shoots BG, bullet goes through BG, hits cop B who was standing behind BG ) To top this off, in some cases a shoot-through with a pistol, in some cases, might actually be worse than it is with the AR-15 depending on the bullets being used in either scenario.

The inexorable problem in wound ballistics is the ammo/cartridge which is generally the most competent for the job also ends up being a halfway decent penetrator. While this is a good thing this also has the not so great side effect of the bullet sometimes exiting the meat of the intended target.

The only way to completely guard against overpenetration issues in this regard is to use a bullet/cartridge/loading that's less capable, but all that really does in the net equation at the end is make the LEO less likely to stop the BG, which, ironically might make the "third parties" worse off all the way around. If the LEO has to use more bullets, then that means the opportunity to miss or overpenetrate is that much greater.


-Mike

 

[M1911]

yeah, that way you both get shot when he fires.

Dench: he's got a much better chance of making a successful headshot with an AR15 than with a shotgun or a pistol. And you know it, too. You're letting your ideology cloud your reasoning.

 

[M1911]

I'm not begrudging them the tools for the job. If they feel an AR will help them patrol the streets of their small town, fine. I don't see it, but I'm not an expert on effective law enforcement needs. But they need to put it somewhere other than mounted up on the rear window like a trophy. In the trunk, between the seats as JonJ was mentioning, whatever.

Where they put it is a big deal? Goodness, gracious. I just don't get it.

 

[jdubois]

Where they put it is a big deal? Goodness, gracious. I just don't get it.

Yup, psychology is an important part of running a town. The police department is one of the most visible representatives of a town. How the police department chooses to come across helps to set the character of the town. If you are saying that prominently displaying their patrol rifles is not intended to or effective at conveying a confrontational message, you are, I would hazard a guess, purposely being obtuse. However, if you feel that the confrontational message they are delivering is appropriate, then I can only disagree.

Of course, I live in Bolton, who's police force instead decides to prominently display their useless for law enforcement 'dare to keep kids off drugs' themed Camaro out front of the police department, which conveys a completely different message.

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

Of course, I live in Bolton, who's police force instead decides to prominently display their useless for law enforcement 'dare to keep kids off drugs' themed Camaro out front of the police department, which conveys a completely different message.

sorry to go OT but that just reminded me of the vw bug done up as the DARE icon "drugless Douglas" my town had complete with hydraulic front trunk that opens and closes as the mouth. Oh the days of the famous drugless douglas

 

[doobie]

Come up to NH and you too can display your "Patrol AR-15" in the back window

 

[M1911]

To the anonymous person who gave me a -1 and left this comment:

You don't "Get it" and judging from your previous posts you never will.

You're right, I don't get it.

I want police to have the best tool for the job. If a beat police officer has to make a longer (say 25 yards plus), accurate shot, then a patrol rifle is a much better tool than a pistol or a shotgun.

What is the likelihood of an officer having to make such a shot? Relatively low, but not non-zero. During the initial response to Columbine, one of the officers on scene was exchanging fire with one of the shooters from the parking lot, at a range over 50 yards, using his pistol. If he'd had a patrol rifle then he might have been able to stop the carnage sooner.

If the officer is going to have a patrol rifle, then it has to be accessible, in the front of the cruiser, because if the officer needs the patrol rifle, then he needs it real bad and needs it right now. It takes longer for the officer to get the rifle out of the trunk.

In many police cars, the shotgun used to be mounted between the seats, with the muzzle pointed upwards. Most police cruisers now have a computer terminal there, so that position is often no longer feasible. Some agencies use a rack that is on the ceiling of the cruiser, some use one across the divider behind the front seats. It doesn't matter to me which one the department uses, as long as the rifle is accessible.

So, you're right, I just don't get it. I do not understand anger at the position of the patrol rifle. It makes no sense to me.

 

[M1911]

If you are saying that prominently displaying their patrol rifles is not intended to or effective at conveying a confrontational message, you are, I would hazard a guess, purposely being obtuse.

Purposely being obtuse . Gimme a frickin' break. For eons, police cars had shotguns mounted between the seats, with the barrel of the shotgun clearly visible through the windshield. That was ok, but if you can see their AR15, that is bad? Did we all just get transported to the UK?

So many folks here are in favor of open carry and belittle antis who wet their panties at the sight of a person open carrying. Those same folks would say that the sight of pistol on non-police officer's hip is not confrontational or scary. Yet now, those same folks are wetting their panties at the sight of an AR15 in a police cruiser.

So many us railed against the federal assault weapons ban for the "logic" behind it that the so-called "semi-automatic assault weapons" were somehow more dangerous that other guns. We all said that was (and still is) complete BS. Now here some folks are, making essentially the same case -- that these "scary" weapons need to be hidden away or we'll all wet our panties.

Pot? Kettle. Comm check. The level of hypocrisy is breathtaking.

However, if you feel that the confrontational message they are delivering is appropriate, then I can only disagree.

I don't see any confrontational message.

 

[jdubois]

To the anonymous person who gave me a -1 and left this comment

That neg is a load of crap. We may disagree, but you're certainly adding perfectly good points to the discussion. +2 to counter whoever gave you the -1.

 

[jdubois]

So many folks here are in favor of open carry and belittle antis who wet their panties at the sight of a person open carrying.

I'm in favor of a lot of things that I wouldn't do myself. Personal open carry in an area that is not used to it (such as Massachusetts) would without a doubt also deliver a very confrontational message. I wouldn't want to convey that message myself, so I doubt I would open carry even if it came down from the courts as ok. But whether the confrontational message is appropriate is entirely up to the person carrying. With the police, however, as representatives of the town, it's up to the town as a whole to decide what message they want to deliver.

Now here some folks are, making essentially the same case -- that these "scary" weapons need to be hidden away or we'll all wet our panties.

I, at least, am not making that claim. I don't care what kind of gun it is they plaster all over their rear window. It's inappropriate for a small town police department, same as it would be inappropriate to write the words, "Don't f*** with us," in the rear window of all the cruisers.

But you seem to be making the false connection between my finding something inappropriate and my wanting to ban it. That's a leap you shouldn't be making. Since I don't pay taxes in Hudson, I just shake my head at them and move on. Not my business. But, message conveyed.

 

[doobie]

+1 to counter whoever gave the neg rep, but also wanted to post that I agree and disagree. I think the police should have the best tools they need, but putting a military style rifle on visible display in every officers car... I think that goes a bit far. If it continues like that we'll likely start seeing them walking the streets carrying them too.

They should find a place off display that is still easy to reach.

Also, I'd love to know what type/level of training the receive for the rifles.

To the anonymous person who gave me a -1 and left this comment:

You're right, I don't get it.

I want police to have the best tool for the job. If a beat police officer has to make a longer (say 25 yards plus), accurate shot, then a patrol rifle is a much better tool than a pistol or a shotgun.

What is the likelihood of an officer having to make such a shot? Relatively low, but not non-zero. During the initial response to Columbine, one of the officers on scene was exchanging fire with one of the shooters from the parking lot, at a range over 50 yards, using his pistol. If he'd had a patrol rifle then he might have been able to stop the carnage sooner.

If the officer is going to have a patrol rifle, then it has to be accessible, in the front of the cruiser, because if the officer needs the patrol rifle, then he needs it real bad and needs it right now. It takes longer for the officer to get the rifle out of the trunk.

In many police cars, the shotgun used to be mounted between the seats, with the muzzle pointed upwards. Most police cruisers now have a computer terminal there, so that position is often no longer feasible. Some agencies use a rack that is on the ceiling of the cruiser, some use one across the divider behind the front seats. It doesn't matter to me which one the department uses, as long as the rifle is accessible.

So, you're right, I just don't get it. I do not understand anger at the position of the patrol rifle. It makes no sense to me.

 

[drgrant]

While we're going completely off topic here, I figure I'll add my .02.

It doesn't bother me that cops have rifles in their cars. I don't care where
they store them, either. (Although, I wish citizens would be afforded this
same right, but that's another topic altogether, which has everything to
do with government/legislation and little to do with law enforcement. )

I see bigger issues with the personality of an officer in terms of "representing" the PD. If a cop acts like an a**h***, isn't curteous, etc, that places a far bigger influence on the PD's rep than a rifle in a cruiser does. I've been lucky so far, and every officer I've encountered hasn't been a jerk. (Well, one MSP guy administering a driving test was a bit "firm" with me, but after thinking about what I "did" (obstructing an intersection) I can't really blame him... ) Other people, however, may not have had the same experiences.

Admittedly a lot of us have so called "bias" in the regard that we generally don't think that fear of an inanimate object is reasonable. An obvious problem is the "sheeple" don't always see it that way. Where is the line to be drawn between appeasing the sheeple from going "guh buh wuh oh noes its a RIFLE (not being held or wielded by someone) everyone run!" and giving an officer a (relatively) cheap, effective, defensive tool? Should we just completely disarm the officers, and make them drive pink priuses to make the sheeple happy? If we're going to invoke pants shitting hysterics over a rifle, that doesn't make us that much better than the antis doing the same thing. (Case in point- you know damned well after the antis are done disarming the average citizen, they're going to go after the police next. Look at the anti mentality in places like London, where police carrying guns are a minority. )

I guess what I'm getting at is PD's have bigger things to worry about in terms of image than a rifle being stowed in their cruiser, that even if it's up front, the average person won't even see it unless they're looking for it.

Honestly, how many times has anyone complained to you about "those cops with the machineguns" compared to say, a cop that pulled a guy over for speeding that treated the "accused" like shit? The average interaction with LE by the average citizen doesn't involve a rifle, or even force. The overwhelming majority of interactions are based off things like traffic stops or officers following up on a report by a citizen, etc. It's these things which largely determine the tenor of how the locals feel about a PD, not what kind of gun they might have.

-Mike

 

[jdubois]

If we're going to invoke pants shitting hysterics over a rifle

You're bringing in a lot of hyperbole . "pants shitting hysterics" and "completely disarm the officers" is entirely different than suggesting that displayed in the rear window is perhaps not the place to store their patrol rifles.

Honestly, how many times has anyone complained to you about "those cops with the machineguns"

In Hudson, the town we're referring to? I hear it at least once a week.

 

[doobie]

In Hudson, the town we're referring to? I hear it at least once a week.

From gunnies or non-gunnies?

 

[mikem317]

When did this thread get hyper-hijacked? Yikes...