Is All This Really Necessary?

The fundamental danger of MRAPs and other heavy equipment is that the tail wags the dog. Violent crime is currently at an all time low. However, Law Enforcement who obtain such equipment need to justify their purchase and thus end up using it totally inappropriate situations. County Sheriffs are now armed to the teeth for combat that literally never happens within their jurisdiction. So they break out the big guns for routine police work and cause completely unnecessary damage.

rathi said:

The fundamental danger of MRAPs and other heavy equipment is that the tail wags the dog. Violent crime is currently at an all time low. However, Law Enforcement who obtain such equipment need to justify their purchase and thus end up using it totally inappropriate situations. County Sheriffs are now armed to the teeth for combat that literally never happens within their jurisdiction. So they break out the big guns for routine police work and cause completely unnecessary damage.

Click to expand...

This right here sums up a lot of my feeling towards this topic. Like you said crime is lower than it has been in a long long time yet PD continue to equip their LEOs with more and more military equipment. And as everyone knows once you have bought the equipment and paid for the training they are going to put it to use even if it's unneeded.

CLAX1911 said:

...Why because you can't dictate what the police can wear?

Click to expand...

Many neighborhoods already feel like the police are an occupying army that is mostly concerned about using their mostly victimless behavior such as loitering, drinking in parks and drug use and sales to fill (often for-profit) prisons. Community policing, especially having cops walking a beat and getting to know the residents is proven to improve police-community relations and reduce major crimes. A cop dressed in military armor is not in a position to even hear what people are saying to them, much less have real communication. They are also harder to old accountable for their actions because they are hard to identify with their bodies concealed to that degree. It also sens the message that they expect to be violently attacked.

I have a self-regulating suggestion for dealing with this

Civilian police departments are not the military. Civilian police have the same limits on engaging criminals as other civilians. they aren't armed for the purpose of offensive actions against hostile military forces. Unlike the military they cannot engage enemies without warning. Military snipers can shoot unsuspecting enemy combatants who are not actively engaging in fighting. The police cannot.

SO-any weapon civilian police departments have is solely issued for defensive purposes for use in a civilian environment. Thus other civilians should have access to the same weaponry so they can use it for exactly the same purpose-self defense against civilian criminals.

braindrain said:

Wow you really don't know much about firearms laws do you. It does not apply to police depts. That is specifically spelled out in the law.

Click to expand...

Wow, you really don't read do you?

Hard Truth said:

Many neighborhoods already feel like the police are an occupying army that is mostly concerned about using their mostly victimless behavior such as loitering, drinking in parks and drug use and sales to fill (often for-profit) prisons. Community policing, especially having cops walking a beat and getting to know the residents is proven to improve police-community relations and reduce major crimes. A cop dressed in military armor is not in a position to even hear what people are saying to them, much less have real communication. They are also harder to old accountable for their actions because they are hard to identify with their bodies concealed to that degree. It also sens the message that they expect to be violently attacked.

Click to expand...

I think that yes absolutely police should be out walking around among the community, basically being friendly too the community, and sadly police have moved away from that. But typically the officers all dressed up in that stuff don't wear it on patrol. There is no way I would do it. I live in Texas it's freaking hot here.

TurtleDude said:

Civilian police have the same limits on engaging criminals as other civilians...SO-any weapon civilian police departments have is solely issued for defensive purposes for use in a civilian environment. Thus other civilians should have access to the same weaponry so they can use it for exactly the same purpose-self defense against civilian criminals.

Click to expand...

On that basis, the police should only have the same responsibilities regarding criminals as civilians and should only be expected to act reactively and in self defence. Of course then they're not police at all.

Police are granted rights and tools not necessarily available to the general public because they have responsibilities and duties not held by the general public. They're expected (often legally required) to do things that we're not. You can certainly make arguments regarding specific items but to make a general statement that the police should have exactly the same practical limitations as the general public is ridiculous.

That's like pilots not being allowed on the flight deck or surgeons not being allowed to cut people open.

HonestJoe said:

On that basis, the police should only have the same responsibilities regarding criminals as civilians and should only be expected to act reactively and in self defence. Of course then they're not police at all.

Police are granted rights and tools not necessarily available to the general public because they have responsibilities and duties not held by the general public. They're expected (often legally required) to do things that we're not. You can certainly make arguments regarding specific items but to make a general statement that the police should have exactly the same practical limitations as the general public is ridiculous.

That's like pilots not being allowed on the flight deck or surgeons not being allowed to cut people open.

Click to expand...

Like many gun restrictionists you confuse use with possession

TurtleDude said:

Like many gun restrictionists you confuse use with possession

Click to expand...

Your post referred to both having the weapons and using them and my response was in even more general terms. If you can clarify the distinction between use and possession here, I'd happily respond to that specifically.

Incidentally, I'd rather you didn't stick any of your pejorative labels on me. I'm Joe and I'm just like me.

HonestJoe said:

Your post referred to both having the weapons and using them and my response was in even more general terms. If you can clarify the distinction between use and possession here, I'd happily respond to that specifically.

Incidentally, I'd rather you didn't stick any of your pejorative labels on me. I'm Joe and I'm just like me.

Click to expand...

cops use guns for self defense against criminals.

why should other citizens be deprived of the tools our dear leaders have decreed are most useful for such defense?

TurtleDude said:

cops use guns for self defense against criminals. why should other citizens be deprived of the tools our dear leaders have decreed are most useful for such defense?

Click to expand...

Same old drum, eh????

I do believe the Courts, not the CON crap 'dear leaders', have held citizens are allowed firearms in such defense.(Heller and McDonald, you must have heard of them being a lawyer and all)

If you refer to the types of weapons and ammunition capacity of said weapons again NO Court has upheld that 'theory' I am aware of.

The biggest problem with your attempt to equate the 'self defense' function for LEO and citizens is the duty side. Cops are not 'other citizens' but COMMISSIONED Law Enforcement Officers. Cops don't just walk around and only use deadly force if a mugger demands their wallet. Nor is the biggest likelihood of confrontation while asleep at home because of a burglar. LEO is far more likely to confront an armed biker gang than a one way range warrior having a fantasy run on some COF.

I find it interesting so many who claim Commissioned Law Enforcement is the same as 'other citizens' rarely, if ever, volunteer to go through the Reserve Academy and work as a Reserve Officer, since it is the 'same thing' as just going about your business as a 'other citizen'.... eace

TurtleDude said:

cops use guns for self defense against criminals.

why should other citizens be deprived of the tools our dear leaders have decreed are most useful for such defense?

Click to expand...

I've never said they should. My point related to your statement that "Civilian police have the same limits on engaging criminals as other civilians.". That isn't the case since the police are required to actively pursue, capture and hold criminals, not just defend themselves against them.

I don't think you can easily differentiate between tools the police use for self-defence and tools they use for proactively pursuing criminals or for protecting the public. That's why the idea that any weapons (or indeed anything else) available to the police being automatically available to the general public on the same basis is flawed. It's not an entirely unreasonable starting point but not one that couldn't have rational exceptions.

CLAX1911 said:

You can buy all that stuff.

Click to expand...

Not in every state. Which was his point.

I voted no, but I could change my mind if there are any more episodes involving mobs of gun-toting fukwadgoons a la the Cliven Bundy episode.

HonestJoe said:

I've never said they should. My point related to your statement that "Civilian police have the same limits on engaging criminals as other civilians.". That isn't the case since the police are required to actively pursue, capture and hold criminals, not just defend themselves against them.

I don't think you can easily differentiate between tools the police use for self-defence and tools they use for proactively pursuing criminals or for protecting the public. That's why the idea that any weapons (or indeed anything else) available to the police being automatically available to the general public on the same basis is flawed. It's not an entirely unreasonable starting point but not one that couldn't have rational exceptions.

Click to expand...

so you are saying civilian police officers can engage (and by that I mean deploy lethal force) criminals under different rules than other civilians

what weapons do you think the 2A were intended to cover. Police weapons are drawing the line a bit conservatively since the M16 or M4 select fire rifles are clearly protected as well

notquiteright said:

Same old drum, eh????

I do believe the Courts, not the CON crap 'dear leaders', have held citizens are allowed firearms in such defense.(Heller and McDonald, you must have heard of them being a lawyer and all)

If you refer to the types of weapons and ammunition capacity of said weapons again NO Court has upheld that 'theory' I am aware of.

The biggest problem with your attempt to equate the 'self defense' function for LEO and citizens is the duty side. Cops are not 'other citizens' but COMMISSIONED Law Enforcement Officers. Cops don't just walk around and only use deadly force if a mugger demands their wallet. Nor is the biggest likelihood of confrontation while asleep at home because of a burglar. LEO is far more likely to confront an armed biker gang than a one way range warrior having a fantasy run on some COF.

I find it interesting so many who claim Commissioned Law Enforcement is the same as 'other citizens' rarely, if ever, volunteer to go through the Reserve Academy and work as a Reserve Officer, since it is the 'same thing' as just going about your business as a 'other citizen'.... eace

Click to expand...

LOL that commission does not give cops or other civilian LEOs any greater power to deploy lethal force. I know, I had a commission and I was a sworn LEO

so your nonsense is just that-nonsense.

TurtleDude said:

LOL that commission does not give cops or other civilian LEOs any greater power to deploy lethal force. I know, I had a commission and I was a sworn LEO. so your nonsense is just that-nonsense.

Click to expand...

Interesting that after all our many talks about Commissioned LEO and citizens you have started and attempted to fly suddenly, you now claim to have held a commission.... what academy did you attend?

But once again you do the CON game dodge...

What court has supported your 'theory' that a citizen is allowed whatever weapon or mag a Commissioned LEO carries on duty???

Point to where I said 'greater power' to deploy deadly force??? You are just trying some very lame CON spin...

What I said is LEO by magnitudes goes into harm's way as part of his job, far more the average citizen walking the street or sleeping in his own bed. :roll:

The Courts (and more rational folks) have long recognized this, as well a cop has a far greater opportunity of running into quite a few dangerous folks he arrested and testified against in court while the average citizen does not.

Cops in serving a warrant on gang bangers have a far greater chance of a desperate shoot-out than a one way range wannabee playing fantasy tag... :2wave:

notquiteright said:

Interesting that after all our many talks about Commissioned LEO and citizens you have started and attempted to fly suddenly, you now claim to have held a commission.... what academy did you attend?

But once again you do the CON game dodge...

What court has supported your 'theory' that a citizen is allowed whatever weapon or mag a Commissioned LEO carries on duty???

Point to where I said 'greater power' to deploy deadly force??? You are just trying some very lame CON spin...

What I said is LEO by magnitudes goes into harm's way as part of his job, far more the average citizen walking the street or sleeping in his own bed. :roll:

The Courts (and more rational folks) have long recognized this, as well a cop has a far greater opportunity of running into quite a few dangerous folks he arrested and testified against in court while the average citizen does not.

Cops in serving a warrant on gang bangers have a far greater chance of a desperate shoot-out than a one way range wannabee playing fantasy tag... :2wave:

Click to expand...

more nonsense. Its tough pretending you are pro 2A and being hard core left a the same time

cops are far less likely to be attacked on the criminals' terms than other civilians. Indeed, other than say private security and bounty hunters, most civilians who have to engage criminals NEVER pick the time and place of the confrontation. Warrants-LOL-you EVER been on a warrant issue run?

your military braggadocio is once again pathetic and has no relevance to this discussion

who is more likely to have reprisals directed against them? a cop who arrested a mope or the citizen who was the state's star witness testifying against the mope

TurtleDude said:

so you are saying civilian police officers can engage (and by that I mean deploy lethal force) criminals under different rules than other civilians

what weapons do you think the 2A were intended to cover. Police weapons are drawing the line a bit conservatively since the M16 or M4 select fire rifles are clearly protected as well

Click to expand...

Police officers are professionals employed and empowered to do a specific job and as such are given tools to do that job and use those powers.

You and other civilians, are not.

haymarket said:

Police officers are professionals employed and empowered to do a specific job and as such are given tools to do that job and use those powers.

You and other civilians, are not.

Click to expand...

that is really stupid. Its like saying people who are not professional fire fighters cannot have the same fire extinguishers pros use but they can own some fire extinguishers

if you can claim cops are more likely to be attacked by multiple assailants at the same time as other civilians perhaps you can make a somewhat cogent argument that non LEO civilians can get by with less rounds. But you cannot. In fact, citizens who are not uniformed cops are far more likely to be attacked by multiple assailants than civilian LEOs

haymarket said:

Police officers are professionals employed and empowered to do a specific job and as such are given tools to do that job and use those powers.

You and other civilians, are not.

Click to expand...

Civilians job is to monitor and operationally change through the political process, those tools and jobs which they deem may be extreme or overbearing. These professionals you speak of work for civilians, therefore it is the civilians job to moderate extensive use of military tools as they see fit, as well as moderate what empowerment the police have. Civilians also have Constitutional rights supported by the SCOTUS to protect their own lives and property under the law.

Ockham said:

Civilians job is to monitor and operationally change through the political process, those tools and jobs which they deem may be extreme or overbearing. These professionals you speak of work for civilians, therefore it is the civilians job to moderate extensive use of military tools as they see fit, as well as moderate what empowerment the police have. Civilians also have Constitutional rights supported by the SCOTUS to protect their own lives and property under the law.

Click to expand...

employees of civilian law enforcement agencies are civilians as well. one of the biggest lies is the claim that civilian LEOs are not civilians. well they sure aren't military

TurtleDude said:

more nonsense. Its tough pretending you are pro 2A and being hard core left a the same time. cops are far less likely to be attacked on the criminals' terms than other civilians. Indeed, other than say private security and bounty hunters, most civilians who have to engage criminals NEVER pick the time and place of the confrontation. Warrants-LOL-you EVER been on a warrant issue run? your military braggadocio is once again pathetic and has no relevance to this discussion. who is more likely to have reprisals directed against them? a cop who arrested a mope or the citizen who was the state's star witness testifying against the mope

Click to expand...

More CON deflection...

Who said anything about 'on the criminal's terms'??? You try and parse the parameter to a tiny subset... :doh

But by far LEO is far more likely to be a situation of being the second one in the confrontation to know a firefight is about to break out- from that deadly 'routine' traffic stop to entering into the middle of a domestic dispute. A burglar just got life plus 20 for shooting a Lawton city cop after attempting to enter a home and the homeowner was present. Homeowner didn't testify in either trial (the shooter had a running buddy, separate trial)

Again you dodge your 'commission', your academy... I never claimed to have been LEO, just have helped train hundreds and spent a few hours talking to them... :roll:

Did I say ANYTHING about the military, you are just desperately trying to fling poo as you scuttle way... :mrgreen:

Your reprisal BS is just that, this isn't a one time deal for the LEO, it is for the Citizen, a 20 veteran LEO will have HUNDREDS of 'mopes' he put in prison and now are out and about. It is quite obvious you have no Commissioned LEO experience and don't spend much time talking to cops. Most convictions are done without a citizen being the 'star' witness as forensic evidence, LEO testimony to what was found, and video tape of the suspect interview are often all that is needed for the conviction.

So once again, what court has held your 'theory' on why Citizens should have whatever the LEO has in firepower??? :2wave:

TurtleDude said:

so you are saying civilian police officers can engage (and by that I mean deploy lethal force) criminals under different rules than other civilians

Click to expand...

The specifics would depend on the jurisdiction but for example, police officers can be expected to forcibly enter a criminals home (with the appropriate warrants or authorisation) and they may defend themselves, their colleagues or other people in that home with deadly force if necessary. A civilian forcibly entering a home, even that of a known criminal would be on very different ground using deadly force inside, even in self-defence.

As I said, none of this means that there are necessarily any weapons used by the police that should be denied to the general public, only that the concept that what the police do and what civilians do in this context being the same is flawed.

TurtleDude said:

what weapons do you think the 2A were intended to cover. Police weapons are drawing the line a bit conservatively since the M16 or M4 select fire rifles are clearly protected as well

Click to expand...

I don't care. I'm talking about principles, not current or historic US law. You can close down pretty much any discussion about gun law with "But the Second Amendment..." but that won't actually get us anywhere will it. Establish the principles first, then worry about the practicalities. I honestly think this is the major sticking point in the whole gun debate in the US.

TurtleDude said:

that is really stupid. Its like saying people who are not professional fire fighters cannot have the same fire extinguishers pros use but they can own some fire extinguishers if you can claim cops are more likely to be attacked by multiple assailants at the same time as other civilians perhaps you can make a somewhat cogent argument that non LEO civilians can get by with less rounds. But you cannot. In fact, citizens who are not uniformed cops are far more likely to be attacked by multiple assailants than civilian LEOs

Click to expand...

Con spin again, it is like saying a Civilian is required to take his fire extinguisher into a burning house and fight a fire 6 blocks away... :doh

Please cite the 'facts' on civilians being attacked by multiple assailants rather than LEO???