Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Infuriating

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Infuriating

    Looking for thoughts on this...

    I work for a smaller "suburban" department in the highest crime area of the county. Our crime rate and demographics and statistics, etc, are all similar to the "big city" but we're in a much, much smaller area.

    Anyway, we are not allowed to have rifles. Only shotguns, and one sidearm, no BUG. We qualify once a year with both weapons, and that is the extent of our shooting practice. I raised the question as to why we can't get rifles in the patrol cars, and the response I was given was that, and I'm not making this up, they do not trust the officers to field the rifle properly. I then made a proposition: I would buy a rifle from my own personal funds, go to a rifle course of the department's choosing on my own dime, provided I could then carry the weapon in the patrol vehicle. The answer, of course, was no. Of note is the fact that I am already proficient with a rifle as I spent 4 years active duty Marine Corps infantry.

    I then come to find out that the department actually HAS M4's... enough to outfit every patrol vehicle with one. But they sit in the armory, unused. It blows my mind. At this point, it's really a safety concern and it's frustrating that nobody in the higher echelon is more concerned about it.

    Thoughts from more experienced folks?
    You, you, and you: Panic. The rest of you, come with me.

  • #2
    Get proficient with your shotgun. They're extremely underappreciated. You can't change the mind of admin.
    NRA Life Member

    The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mfh83 View Post
      Looking for thoughts on this...
      It's nice to see idiocy of management is universal in both public and private sectors.

      Thinking from a political angle, how about you recommend that the M4's be sold so the funds could go towards aspects that are of more use to your department.

      So far, the Admin justifies M4's can't be used. Go with that. At best you cause a stir that justifies maybe that you should train with them.

      At worst you might ironically get brownie points for finding the resources (the sale of the M4's) for other pet projects.

      That’s how I would play the hand you’re dealt, but you need to have another project in mind the funds would go towards. Maybe have it go towards further training on what you are allowed to use.

      Something to consider is if your agency was in such a situation it was overwhelmed with firepower and you are either forced to go to the armory and use the M4’s (of which no one was trained in), or that officers were falling left and right to superior firepower and it came out that the agency had M4’s in inventory but never deployed them for administrative reasons.

      The M4’s need to be gone, and the resources need to be put to better work.
      _____________
      "Corruptisima republica plurimae leges."

      "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
      - Cornelius Tacitus

      Comment


      • #4
        I've known some officer I wouldn't want to have access to a rifle. It is what it is and you're not going to change their mind no matter how many articles and graphs and pie charts and reports you put on their desk because "it's not gonna happen here." Are you allowed to have slugs in your shotgun? I agree with the above. If at a minimum the dept is not going to be trained in their use, they need to be sold.

        Comment


        • #5
          A shotgun with slugs is way more smack down than a rifle.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm more concerned with a lack of a bug than a lack of a rifle. Rifles are nice but the shotgun can suffice. Not having a backup weapon is a true officer safety issue imho.
            Seriously, the only reason I wanted to be a cop was so I could post anywhere on this forum.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by David Hineline View Post
              A shotgun with slugs is way more smack down than a rifle.
              I have to agree with Mr Hineline. Especially at less than 100 yards with slugs, you can't beat a sabot slug. Ask you Rangemaster if you can carry slugs in your shotgun until the brass comes into the 21st century line of thinking.

              Also being former Marine Infantry as you are for a back up weapon you have to make due with your knife. I had to deal with the same issue up til about 98 when our area allowed us back ups.

              I don't know about you but thanks to the K bar training along with rubber knife fighting and bayonet training I received in the Marine Corps I can work my way around with a knife even if I was blind.
              Last edited by Nightshift va; 04-19-2010, 05:35 PM.
              "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. The MARINES don't have that problem." ....Ronald Reagan

              Comment


              • #8
                Be patient, it's more likely that the admin personell will change before the admin will change "its" mind. Chiefs come and go. Maybe the next one will more "Officer friendly."
                ROLL TIDE!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'll trade with you. We have rifles, but are not allowed a shotgun.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ABC144 View Post
                    Be patient, it's more likely that the admin personell will change before the admin will change "its" mind. Chiefs come and go. Maybe the next one will more "Officer friendly."
                    It's really never about that. It's more about liability and cost than anything.
                    They don't think about how a .223 does anything but over penetrate and how much it would cost when a dead cops widow sues the county, city or state when she sues for them not providing adequate equipment to keep him safe after he's lost in a fire fight with his buck shot at a distant trailer as the bad guy returns fire with his hunting rifle. They think more about ammo cost. And have no concept of ballistics. Not all, but many.
                    "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. The MARINES don't have that problem." ....Ronald Reagan

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I would second the sentiments about the shotgun. We carry both rifle and shotgun and in most cases I grab the shotgun first. Absolutely devastating weapon at close range, especially with good ammo. What I'm really concerned with is the ban on carrying a bug. That would really **** me off. I would be inclined to carry one anyway. I would rather have my life than my job. Or go get a job at department that actually gives a **** about its officers. Just my .02 though

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sadly whats likely going to happen to get those M4's into use is a tragic case of a life or lives of officers or civilians that coulda been saved had the M4's that are collecting dust were in use. Only then will policies change. Take LAPD after the Bank of America shoot out.
                        One Shot, One Kill. Anything else is just pu(ff)y!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SCV-Sop View Post
                          Something to consider is if your agency was in such a situation it was overwhelmed with firepower and you are either forced to go to the armory and use the M4’s (of which no one was trained in), or that officers were falling left and right to superior firepower and it came out that the agency had M4’s in inventory but never deployed them for administrative reasons.
                          To support what SCV-Sop is saying here, as cclawdog said, consider the 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery. Cops with 9mm Berettas and 12 gauge shottys didn't stand a chance against those 2 with full auto AKs. Sure, they were wearing body armor, but if every officer had an M4 to use, it would've ended a helluva lot quicker than it did.

                          LAPD had what? 10 (or was it 12?) wounded officers that day, not to mention the several civilians that were shot.

                          To make things worse for the above mentioned incident, the LAPD had lobbied for patrol rifles not just a month or two before and was turned down, saying it was an unneeded expense...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I would type a letter requesting to carry a back up gun and advise the gun type and how you will carry it. Let them deny it but ask for the letter back with their signed denial. I f they ask why just advise you want it in your files for liability purposes.
                            They have you sign stuff for that reason so you can have them do the same.
                            If anything it will get them to think.

                            I would seek working for another agency. I've dealt with similar policies at another agency and it boils down to them being more concerned about their liability than they are your safety. Agencies like that don't police, they "serve the public".
                            Due to the Juvenile bickering and annoying trolling committed by members of this forum I have started an igore list. If your name is listed below I can't see you.

                            CityCopDC, Fire Moose, Carbonfiberfoot, Damiansolomon

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SCV-Sop View Post
                              It's nice to see idiocy of management is universal in both public and private sectors.

                              Thinking from a political angle, how about you recommend that the M4's be sold so the funds could go towards aspects that are of more use to your department.

                              So far, the Admin justifies M4's can't be used. Go with that. At best you cause a stir that justifies maybe that you should train with them.

                              At worst you might ironically get brownie points for finding the resources (the sale of the M4's) for other pet projects.

                              That’s how I would play the hand you’re dealt, but you need to have another project in mind the funds would go towards. Maybe have it go towards further training on what you are allowed to use.

                              Something to consider is if your agency was in such a situation it was overwhelmed with firepower and you are either forced to go to the armory and use the M4’s (of which no one was trained in), or that officers were falling left and right to superior firepower and it came out that the agency had M4’s in inventory but never deployed them for administrative reasons.

                              The M4’s need to be gone, and the resources need to be put to better work.
                              You've gotta be careful about selling equipment already purchased and unused. Our Dept sold two MP-5's and two 7.62 sniper rifles because the tacteam was disbanded as a liability and overall operating costs ( wtf ). The money was put back in the city general fund, which I believe was the most likely intent to start with.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5230 users online. 332 members and 4898 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X