It's hard for some to grasp that some of these rifles are actually used for their intended purpose.
The question is not about the use - it's about the 'use-case', the "When?" and "Why?".
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's hard for some to grasp that some of these rifles are actually used for their intended purpose.
BG should have been a Hider. That way he would have known to just surrender when the Tango 51 came out.It's hard for some to grasp that some of these rifles are actually used for their intended purpose.
Haha wordBG should have been a Hider. That way he would have known to just surrender when the Tango 51 came out.
As long as they are pieces of shit like that guy. What man points a gun at a woman? A guy that needs to do the Tango shuffle that's who!Congratulations also goes to Glock, S&W, Sig (etc etc) for building useful tools cops can use to shoot people with!
I sincerely hope the OP received reliable intel that this situation was a WHOLE lot more volatile than described in the linked article before he decided to post.
When it comes to the use of deadly force I would prefer the police to be held to the same "...immediate and OTHERWISE UNAVOIDABLE threat .... to the innocent..." criteria that DA's apply to the common Joe.
But if you prefer, we can simply move on, give the 'operator' a medal for bravery in battle, early-retire the negotiators, add "The best tool for resolving domestic disputes" to the feature list of this rifle, and be glad that "No road closures were in effect due to the incident".
You bring up LAPD shootings. Why? LAPD covers the City of Los Angeles. Bellflower is not in the City of Los Angles, and LAPD had NOTHING to do with this shoot. This shoot was conducted in Los Angeles County, by the Los Angles Sheriffs Department Special Enforcement Bureau Special Weapons Team. There is a huge difference between a city police force and a county sheriffs department; you should know that.
All due respect, but as a former cop you should have a better attention to detail. Your distrust of police is obvious and has clouded your discretion.
Sleep well tonight, Mike, knowing that your precision saved that womans life. I will give you a call in the next few days for something unrelated to this.
There are situations no one wants to get into, and there are few people who can resolve them. But if you want to protect and serve the public from the dangerous you better have to right tools for the job.
I hear ya. Trust me, I do hear you, and agree with you on your distrust of cops ...
Sorry, I am sure this Mike fellow is a great guy and by all accounts he builds an amazing rifle.....its still bad form.
If my broadly worded and completely unspecific statement meant to try and ratchet down someone that was in my opinion being a little too harsh toward the cops and Tac Ops in this instance is to be construed by you as an affront on all the good cops out there... Have at it. It is very likely not in my best interest to do business with someone so easily offended.Painting with a broad brush there. You haven't received any business from me yet, and you won't after this. Just thought I'd tell you since you are quick to claim as a business owner you like to hear complaints since it's an opportunity to fix a problem.
And my question still stands....
If you think my cynicism is reserved for LAPD only, you completely missed my point. I dont trust most law enforcement agencies period. Ive been around the game long enough to take with a grain of salt what I read from the media regarding an incident like this. Remember, their only source of information is the police dept itself....the other guy is dead.
So rather than celebrate that someone is dead and use that to promote a product, I would rather sit back and hope that justice takes its course. If a fair, unbiased and informed investigation reveals that the officer acted properly and killed a dangerous person, that is awesome. I would still say a little tact and professionalism over the taking of a persons life should be displayed....I mean lets face it, the thread title is a bit ridiculous. I thought gun lovers always say guns dont kill people, people kill people. Now its the rifle that deserves accolades?
My point is this. The rapid militarization of our police is disturbing. Todays police see every problem as a nail.......when all you see are nails, everyone wants to pull out the hammer.
A couple bad turns in life, a few misunderstandings and poor decisions.....anyone can end up with their life in the hands of an over anxious law enforcement officer.
So before any investigation is completed or the first scrap of evidence is turned in, someones death is shamelessly being used to promote a product with absolutely no proof that what happened is what should have happened.
Sorry, I am sure this Mike fellow is a great guy and by all accounts he builds an amazing rifle.....its still bad form.
Let us break this down for you........The OP built a rifle used by a highly trained law enforcement professional. The piece of equipment used is a highly regarded and well built piece of weaponry. Used responsibly this fine piece of equipment helped to stop a criminal from killing and/or shooting anyone else. I would be proud also if one of my products was used to stop a madman on a killing spree.
If my broadly worded and completely unspecific statement meant to try and ratchet down someone that was in my opinion being a little too harsh toward the cops and Tac Ops in this instance is to be construed by you as an affront on all the good cops out there... Have at it. It is very likely not in my best interest to do business with someone so easily offended.
Let us break this down for you........The OP built a rifle used by a highly trained law enforcement professional. The piece of equipment used is a highly regarded and well built piece of weaponry. Used responsibly this fine piece of equipment helped to stop a criminal from killing and/or shooting anyone else. I would be proud also if one of my products was used to stop a madman on a killing spree.
My point is this. The rapid militarization of our police is disturbing. Todays police see every problem as a nail.......when all you see are nails, everyone wants to pull out the hammer.
This site is called snipers hide douchebag...what the fuck do you expect to see posted here.
werd
But I think most folks are grossly overreacting in this thread. This was a police sharpshooter who handled a hostage situation. This was not Ruby Ridge or careless cops shooting up LA for the fun of it.
Looks like some folks got some sand in their vag....I really don't know how in the fuck this got all fucked up! It seemed pretty simple to me and others on here. Killing is a necessary evil that needs to be done from time to time. Their are three types of people, wolves, sheep, and sheep dogs ( self explanitory I would hope).
This site is called snipers hide douchebag...what the fuck do you expect to see posted here.
The weaker the argument, the stronger the words.
We have seen military personnel being indicted for despicable acts, we did not find it honorable when 'snipers' prayed on unarmed civilians in former Yugoslavia, but in all these years we never saw one case where even the question was raised whether or not SWAT teams crossed the line. Either they are super-humans or we have pretty good blinders.
In this case I am inclined to trust Mike's judgement and that is why I hoped he had more intel on this case. But who is going to do the vetting on the next case?Alpine, I do agree but this one doesn't look to be the case.
Poor word choice on my part. Sorry about that. You and I are on the same page I think. I agree that government should be questioned. I simply am not going to shed a tear for a shitbag holding a hostage. Regardless of how I feel about the current mindset of most law enforcement, in this situation it's pretty clear that it was a bad guy that got shot. Good guys don't take hostages, even when pressed into extraordinary circumstances. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if every crack head, drug dealer, armed robber, home intruder, gangster, or rapist in the whole goddamn world got shot in the head by one of Mike's rifles. As long as no innocents took a pill, I'd not lose a second's sleep.I didnt need any ratcheting down...I wasnt irate or anything.
I just have an inherent distrust of anything I hear from the media, especially when it is related to anything to do with a government entity or agency. Personally I think its an Americans patriotic duty to question their government, to maintain a slight distrust and question them at every opportunity.
Whatever world you believe it is ok for someone to spray bullets into a populated area and not be confronted by well armed law enforcement feel free to move there and enjoy yourself.
That means I'm anti-shitbag.
If my broadly worded and completely unspecific statement meant to try and ratchet down someone that was in my opinion being a little too harsh toward the cops and Tac Ops in this instance is to be construed by you as an affront on all the good cops out there... Have at it. It is very likely not in my best interest to do business with someone so easily offended.
LAPD had NOTHING to do with this shoot. This shoot was conducted in Los Angeles County, by the Los Angles Sheriffs Department Special Enforcement Bureau Special Weapons Team. There is a huge difference between a city police force and a county sheriffs department; you should know that.
Wait till the girlfriend (who was yelling out the window for help right before the shot was fired) changes sides and testifies against the police; you know its going to happen, it always does in these domestic cases when police use force.
What kind of conundrum will they face if it turns out that the guy had no weapon? What about when the girlfriend testifies to the jury that she was not a hostage and was in no danger? What will the media think when his crying mother gets on the podium and tells of her "good boy" that was mentally ill but wasn't a danger to anyone?
The cop that took this shot is going to have a rough few months ahead. What a horrible job, I couldn't do it.
"Spraying bullets" was not reported in this case and that term reminds me of the playbook of the anti-gunners: Overwhelming force of a militarized police is necessary to protect the citizens from each other.
If you prefer this ideology, you seem to have have more global options to move to - just google "Police State".
Your delusional line of thinking is astounding!! So you really think a criminal thinks about backdrop and where bullets go????????? There are police and then there are SWAT teams that have the training and weapons needed to handle dynamic situations basic patrol officers are not equipped to handle so contrary to your belief police across the country are NOT becoming militarized. I suggest you go do a ride along with your local agency and get a real world point of view for once.
... but it's your job to misconstrue whatever I say, and make a public declaration of what I believe, "bud?"I'm not easily offended, bud, I just take people at face value. You were all too happy to jump on the kick the cops train when it pulled in here and made several comments that are pretty openly anti-cop. That's fine, its a free country, but at least own it like Lofty. Don't back peddle in one spot when you are joining in earlier in the same thread. It's not your job to ratchet anybody down, we have moderators for that.