Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who didn't see this coming?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • Who didn't see this coming?

    Sobering.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/4203345.html

  • #2
    What does Glenn Reynolds expect? No, we don't have Andy Taylor patroling the streets of Mayberry dispensing wisdom and good-naturedly correcting citizens like Otis any longer. Instead, we have semi- and fully-automatic weapons in the hands of bad guys. We have terrorist groups and gangs that want to make a name for themselves. Law enforcement has to keep up.

    Comment


    • #3
      Oh, wow, a law professor. I wonder how many years of first-hand police experience he has.

      It used to be that police came to the door, announced themselves and, once a homeowner responded, entered the premises
      I'd like to see him go to a suspected drug house in the skankiest parts of our inner cities and try that.

      Why is it that some jackasses have to act like cops respond to every call in in armored vehicle with a rifle at-the-ready, and every search warrant is carried out by tacti-cool ninjas who fast-rope in from a CH-53? If they worked the job for a few minutes, they would find that the sky isn't falling.

      Comment


      • #4
        There's a lot the writer says that I agree with. When SWAT teams were first formed (in Los Angeles City) "regular" patrol officers were restricted to six shot revolvers, with solid lead round nose ammunition, issued dump pouches and given limited (compared to today) training in officer safety and field tactics. Things have progressed a lot on the tactical front, but not as much regarding search and seizure, laws of arrest, investigative procedures, interviews and interrogation techniques. If all one trains in is how to break down doors, shoot and handcuff "Bad Guys", you're going to have problems. We are peace officers (law enforcement) not soldiers and the more I hear tactical trainers referring to us as "operators" the more I worry. I support the use of special entry teams, but only for specific, situations (high risk entries). If a police department places a huge percentage of it's resources in those teams, the teams become the routine for the organization. Proper safety equipment (semi-auto pistols, good ammunition, patrol rifles, etc...) should be general issue and tactical training is important for all officers, but lets not forget our primary responsibilities.
        "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by pulicords View Post
          If a police department places a huge percentage of it's resources in those teams, the teams become the routine for the organization. Proper safety equipment (semi-auto pistols, good ammunition, patrol rifles, etc...) should be general issue and tactical training is important for all officers, but lets not forget our primary responsibilities.
          Like the writer, you're making a assumptive leap that isn't true.

          The writer assumes that, because we have the "toys," we automatically want to use the "toys" and find more reasons TO use them. In reality, the opposite is true...most departments get equipment like patrol rifles because of a previously unaddressed need. The department encounters a situation where a patrol rifle would be useful, but they lack that equipment and have to improvise, putting officers at risk. Seeing the need, the department equips the officers properly for such scenarios in the future. Deployment of "military weapons" by LE isn't just the desire to "play with the new toys," it's responding to a situation with the proper equipment to protect both the officers and the citizens.

          That, and the writer is assuming that the exception is in fact the rule. In this case, he's assuming that all departments with, for example, patrol rifles have full-time SWAT teams and use them on a regular basis. As officers, we know that the average department in the US is a small one and that full-time tactical teams are a luxury reserved for only the biggest, most well-funded departments. Most tactical teams are part-time and composed of patrol officers who answer calls and take reports for most of their shift. So, in reality, you're not militarizing the officer, you're at most making a patrol officer (who thinks like a patrol officer) slightly more tactical.
          "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
          -Friedrich Nietzsche

          Comment


          • #6
            The problem with that article is the author is using examples of police work from 30-40 years ago! Those tactics are no longer viable in todays day in age. My father is a 32 year member with the RCMP and started police with in 1976, i start with the same organization June 1st. The old man, had repeatedly told me that todays police work is more dangerous, for many reasons. As stated aboive, gang violence, terrorists, but in my opinion and that of my fathers is the fact that people no longer respect the authority of police like they used to. When you start to lose your authority as a figure and are a target for that, when you get to a door and knock its given a warning to those who might want to do you harm.

            Comment


            • #7
              But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences.
              I'm confused. So would the author prefer that the U.S. military responds to counter heavily armed domestic criminals?
              "Screw that. We can make bullets faster than they can make terrorists. Kill them all. Every last one." -Interceptor

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bing_Oh View Post
                Like the writer, you're making a assumptive leap that isn't true.
                The writer assumes that, because we have the "toys," we automatically want to use the "toys" and find more reasons TO use them.
                I disagree. Although my agency now only has a collateral SWAT program, when it was full time (a few years ago) there were considerable problems due to a lack of experience dealing with other law enforcement related issues (ie: search and seizure). When the officers from the team promoted, they were great on tactical knowledge, but lacked experience in other (more often) needed skills. When the SWAT became a collateral assignment, the officers did work patrol and other assignments full time but a tremendous amount of training resources went to an even greater number of people who were now assigned on a collateral basis. Again, a lot of tactical knowledge, but little training resources on other more often used (vital) areas. Also, non-SWAT patrol officers had a drastic reduction in range training. The average patrol officer might only fire 30 rounds of qualification/training with the patrol rifle per year or 18 months. Sorry, but that's not sufficient training for a critical skill. Even basic handgun qualification was down to only 50 rounds or less per year. Note also, that if a shooting does occur, it's more likely to involve a regular patrol officer than a SWAT member. Training funds and time are not infinite and they've got to be allocated intelligently. I don't believe they were. But our SWAT team (with their extra training time) did win a couple competitions among other teams and looked good doing it.

                Finally, regarding the "toys": It's very hard for an organization or it's leaders to justify the purchase of those "toys" unless they can document their use/need. Using the tools demonstrates and seems to justify the need more than just having them and claiming you're "prepared."
                Last edited by pulicords; 05-16-2007, 05:53 PM.
                "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

                Comment


                • #9
                  The writer of the story needs to realize that law enforcement needs to keep up with the criminals. A prime example is the Hollywood shootout where the police were out gunned from the beginning. We as law enforcement need to be, at a minimum, equally equipped, but preferably better.
                  Times are changing and unfortunately not for the better!
                  "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything!"-Wyatt Earp

                  "You never know when crazy will show up!"-Irishdep

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The idiotic writer said this jem:

                    "SWAT teams, designed to deal with rare events, wound up doing routine police work, like serving drug warrants."

                    Uuuhhhhh ..... I don't know what planet this guy if from, but serving drug warrants is NOT "routine" in any way shape or form.

                    This guy is much like the soccer mom's of the US that say "why did he have to handcuff that poor kid (who just carjacked someone and ran for 10 miles)?????"

                    Lawyers ..... ...... they know not of how the law meets the streets.
                    Space for rent .........

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This (and the guy above's) guy's attitude is what leads to us being unprepared. When does a town need SWAT gear/guns/vehicles???? BEFORE an incident or AFTER an incident? Same thing would happen like the aftermath of 9/11. "The gov't was unprepared!" "Let's blame (the FBI/police/
                      CIA/military/etc!"

                      Who cares that soccer moms think our police forces look too militarized. I WANT the BG'sto be intimidated.
                      Space for rent .........

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by irishdep View Post
                        The writer of the story needs to realize that law enforcement needs to keep up with the criminals. A prime example is the Hollywood shootout where the police were out gunned from the beginning. We as law enforcement need to be, at a minimum, equally equipped, but preferably better.
                        Times are changing and unfortunately not for the better!
                        With all due respect, I still agree with the writer and would back this up with your example. I know officers who were involved in the N. Hollywood shootout and the Norco (Riverside County, CA) shootout from the late 1970's. Both incidents occurred when teams of heavily armed (rifle equipped) bank robbers encountered officers. SWAT arrived on both scenes long after the suspects had been engaged by poorly equipped patrol officers. Had those patrol officers been trained and equipped with rifles, a Riverside deputy sheriff might still be alive today and several LAPD patrol officers wouldn't have been seriously wounded. The few, well trained SWAT officers to arrive (late in the game) did an outstanding job, but by then the damage was done. My department now has an AR-15 in every patrol vehicle, accessible to patrol officers. Last I heard, LAPD received a few semi-auto M-16s, but hadn't distributed them to field personnel. SWAT still has the ability to respond to rifle threats, but patrol's only additional resource (equipment wise) is the issuance of rifled slugs. The problem I have with our organization is that issuance of equipment is only part of the solution. The other (equal) part is training. The patrol officers shouldn't just have access to rifles, they need training in their use.

                        The other concern the writer and I share, is the "military" aspect of providing huge resources to SWAT programs. Just my $.02.
                        "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pulicords View Post
                          With all due respect, I still agree with the writer and would back this up with your example. I know officers who were involved in the N. Hollywood shootout and the Norco (Riverside County, CA) shootout from the late 1970's. Both incidents occurred when teams of heavily armed (rifle equipped) bank robbers encountered officers. SWAT arrived on both scenes long after the suspects had been engaged by poorly equipped patrol officers. Had those patrol officers been trained and equipped with rifles, a Riverside deputy sheriff might still be alive today and several LAPD patrol officers wouldn't have been seriously wounded. The few, well trained SWAT officers to arrive (late in the game) did an outstanding job, but by then the damage was done. My department now has an AR-15 in every patrol vehicle, accessible to patrol officers. Last I heard, LAPD received a few semi-auto M-16s, but hadn't distributed them to field personnel. SWAT still has the ability to respond to rifle threats, but patrol's only additional resource (equipment wise) is the issuance of rifled slugs. The problem I have with our organization is that issuance of equipment is only part of the solution. The other (equal) part is training. The patrol officers shouldn't just have access to rifles, they need training in their use.

                          The other concern the writer and I share, is the "military" aspect of providing huge resources to SWAT programs. Just my $.02.
                          ????????????? Issuing patrol officers military weapons is NOT militarizing them ...... in your view?
                          Space for rent .........

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The point is that the tool/training is part of a package for the patrol officers' tool belt, along with more generalized law enforcement training to make a well rounded officer/department. The guys in black, ninjas, SWAT or whatever are used for a narrow field of specialized details (ie: hostage rescue, "High Risk" search warrant service, etc...). You don't attempt to replace every duty that entails some risk, by putting the word out "Only SWAT does that, goes there, etc..." SWAT teams by their very nature should be limited in scope, patrol officers should have the equipment, training and backing of the organization to deal with the most situations, including tactical. That's why patrol is now expected to react to active shooter scenarios immediately, instead of setting up a perimeter and waiting for SWAT.
                            "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by scratched13 View Post
                              ????????????? Issuing patrol officers military weapons is NOT militarizing them ...... in your view?
                              Final comment and then I've got to go. If patrol officers in either shootout had access to a good, lever action (Winchester Model 94) 30-30 the situation would probably have been dealt was well as with any high tech .223. IMO!
                              "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5533 users online. 341 members and 5192 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X