Tango 51 KIlls Armed Assailant

[LawnMM]

... but it's your job to misconstrue whatever I say, and make a public declaration of what I believe, "bud?"

There's no misconstruing, you said it in plain English. Here's a refresher.

Too true... some cops can fuck up a wet dream.

I hear ya. Trust me, I do hear you, and agree with you on your distrust of cops

Regardless of how I feel about the current mindset of most law enforcement

I can be found on the "kick the cop train" as you put it, in many threads

I don't think I'm misconstruing anything, I'm just reading what you write in plain old English and its fairly obvious which way you lean. I'm sorry you're ashamed of it when somebody points it out to you.

I call it like I see it, and have no beef with good cops. I know you'd like to paint me as someone that blindly hates all cops, and doesn't look at each situation with fresh eyes... and I'm fine with you thinking whatever happens to pass through your brain. So you don't like it when I'm against cops, but you don't like it when I'm saying they were justified either? You and my ex-wife would get along great!

What I don't like is the peanut gallery passing judgment on what happens in a few split seconds of a given Police Officer's day that has effects on the cop, the community, and the country as a whole, for years afterward and pretending that because they watch the news that somehow makes them a qualified opinion with a frame of reference for the situation. As much as I despise the Monday morning quarter backing I still support your having the right to do it. This is America after all. You have the right to make stupid snide comments about cops and I have the right to do business elsewhere. Frankly I only threw that in because you're always the first one beating the customer service drum and I find it humorous how willing you are to alienate a group of people based on some pretty broad generalizations.

Last week I threw a dumbass out of my store that was claiming he wanted a "sniper rifle" to protect himself against the "right wing republican extremists" in the world. Lots of people aren't a fit for my business. The more open I am about my views, the less bullshit I need to put up with from people that don't see things the way I do. Sure, lots of other businesses out there don't care who you are or what you stand for... they just want your money. We're not one of them. If you think I'm a blinded serial cop-hater and that's why you don't want to buy from me... so be it. ... but that doesn't mean its true, nor does it mean I have to stand by while you post that bullshit in public without me setting the record straight for the other critical thinkers among us. My customers know better, and they can speak for me when it comes to how we service them. If you don't want to be counted among them, that's your choice.

You sure set the record straight! You aren't anti-cop at all...

Too true... some cops can fuck up a wet dream.

I hear ya. Trust me, I do hear you, and agree with you on your distrust of cops

Regardless of how I feel about the current mindset of most law enforcement

I can be found on the "kick the cop train" as you put it, in many threads

 

[Niles Coyote]

This thread is so full of wine I think Im about to pass/lknnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

[Randoman5]

Even if this was absolutely what had to be done and this man had to die to save the life of an innocent person, I think it's a tad distasteful to celebrate a man's death or use it as some sort of marketing.

We all know Tac Ops makes excellent rifles. We all know that they are used by law enforcement agencies and what those agencies may have to use them for. It's an important job, but I fail to see how it's an attractive or glamorous one.

 

[orkan]

Right LawnMM... that's why I have some VERY good friends that are cops, and why I go train with cops when the opportunity arises, and why I support good cops by giving them free shit to use on duty and off, and why PR offers a discount to LEO and Mil... right?

Your perception of my views does NOT automatically make them my views. Anyone can play the "gotcha game" to make their point seem valid. Doesn't mean it is valid. You done grinding your fucking axe yet?

 

[Killswitch Engage]

Even if this was absolutely what had to be done and this man had to die to save the life of an innocent person, I think it's a tad distasteful to celebrate a man's death or use it as some sort of marketing.

We all know Tac Ops makes excellent rifles. We all know that they are used by law enforcement agencies and what those agencies may have to use them for. It's an important job, but I fail to see how it's an attractive or glamorous one.

^^^^^^^^^This

 

[alpine44]

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

You're welcome.

I prefer "Evil only exists if good men do nothing" for many reasons.

Firstly, when seconds count, the 'rough men' are only minutes away. When they arrive, they secure the perimeter and call even rougher men....

Secondly, what guarantees me that the violence is "on my behalf"? History tells us that violence is fairly indiscriminate. Worst case, the violence turns against me if the 'rough men' have nothing else to hunt. The 'opening day' for civilian gun owners is just around the corner in many states.

Thirdly, and that is the point I try to make, can we ever create a monopoly of violence and then leave that monopoly unchecked?

This is not about pro-cop or anti-cop. This is about human nature. We saw what happened when the same people who were selling mortgage backed securities were also determining the value and the risk of these securities. This nearly wiped out our economy. IMO, a failure to police the police NOW will put the most successful and audacious example of human self-governance at risk.

It does not take much to add another banana republic to the long global roster. "Evil only exists if good men look the other way"

 

[LawnMM]

Right LawnMM... that's why I have some VERY good friends that are cops, and why I go train with cops when the opportunity arises, and why I support good cops by giving them free shit to use on duty and off, and why PR offers a discount to LEO and Mil... right?

Your perception of my views does NOT automatically make them my views. Anyone can play the "gotcha game" to make their point seem valid. Doesn't mean it is valid. You done grinding your fucking axe yet?

My perception of your views is based on YOUR choice of words. As in things you elected to say and put in print. If you don't want to get called on it, then don't say it. Flip your own coin...having a friend that's a Cop means you are automatically a supporter? I don't have an axe to grind, I just take people at their word and what you've already said is more than enough for me. The 'gotcha' game? Really? All I'm doing is repeating what YOU said and I haven't even gone looking in other threads. You do have a point though, this conversation has obviously run its course.

 

[orkan]

Lets see if you can possibly misunderstand this:

I love good cops.
I hate bad cops.

That clear it up?

 

[HBARLeatherneck]

Even if this was absolutely what had to be done and this man had to die to save the life of an innocent person, I think it's a tad distasteful to celebrate a man's death or use it as some sort of marketing.

when I first opened this thread thats what I was thinking. First I didnt think it was really the right area for this particular thread and then kind of tacky.

Did the cops shoot this guy from hundreds of yards out, maybe a mile, two? if not its no big deal that a certain rifle was used anyway. you can go to just about any store and buy a cheap 700, 70 or vanguard that will shoot someone dead at the distances cops engage at.

 

[desert dog]

Yep, tables are already turning.

The "hostage's" brother tweeted this earlier today:
get the story straight. my sister was not a hostage and my brother in law wasn't a danger to himself or no one else and my sister kept telling the police that. he had schizophrenia and was off his meds. he was unarmed with no type of weapon and she told the police that.
R.I.P. you will be missed dearly

Also, a different tale of events;
"Reports indicated he was unarmed"
"He released her after about seven hours, but did not immediately surrender himself"
"SWAT members tried to enter the apartment, flash-bang grenades were deployed"

Man Killed By Deputies During Bellflower Standoff | NBC Southern California

And remember, this same unit (LACSD), accidently shot the wrong people during the 2 previous hostage situations before this event. I don't think I would brag about them using my rifle.

There are two side to every story and I don't think we know either yet.

 

[Terry Cross]

Did the cops shoot this guy from hundreds of yards out, maybe a mile, two? if not its no big deal that a certain rifle was used anyway. you can go to just about any store and buy a cheap 700, 70 or vanguard that will shoot someone dead at the distances cops engage at.

It's not just about distance but available target with clear backstop and most times breaking the shot within an EXACT time window.
Stats from the last 20yrs of L.E. SWAT "sniper" shootings show roughly 50% of the shots taken are body shots on active shooters or shooters flanking the team, etc.

The other 50% are true H.R. shots that may not be 847 yards away but you can bet your sweet ass they were high stress, with small available bullet path to and past the target and even then the fucking target is only going to be at that intersection and away from the hostage(s) for a second or less.

Most of the shooters taking those shots train very hard and are capable of getting the 1/2 minute out of their rifles under true field conditions. You bet your ass at moments like that, they want and I would even guess all associated friendlies want the most accurate rifle possible because it better freakin go BANG and it better freakin go TRUE.

LTRs and 700Ps are used every year with good results. You could probably use a compound bow on half of the shooters but should you?

There are several custom rifle shops that have rifles in the hands of multiple agencies. Enough guns in enough agencies over enough years tilt things in favor of seeing one of your rifles used in a live fire event. Most never hear about it or if they do, it may be months later. Even then, most will not put that on the street but you can bet it makes a sobering heat come over you with the reminder that your shit might actually be used somewhere besides the SH Cup.

Let it go and just chalk one up for the good guys.

Terry

 

[orkan]

let it go and just chalk one up for the good guys.

Terry

amen!!!!

 

[Killswitch Engage]

It's not just about distance but available target with clear backstop and most times breaking the shot within an EXACT time window.
Stats from the last 20yrs of L.E. SWAT "sniper" shootings show roughly 50% of the shots taken are body shots on active shooters or shooters flanking the team, etc.

The other 50% are true H.R. shots that may not be 847 yards away but you can bet your sweet ass they were high stress, with small available bullet path to and past the target and even then the fucking target is only going to be at that intersection and away from the hostage(s) for a second or less.

Most of the shooters taking those shots train very hard and are capable of getting the 1/2 minute out of their rifles under true field conditions. You bet your ass at moments like that, they want and I would even guess all associated friendlies want the most accurate rifle possible because it better freakin go BANG and it better freakin go TRUE.

LTRs and 700Ps are used every year with good results. You could probably use a compound bow on half of the shooters but should you?

There are several custom rifle shops that have rifles in the hands of multiple agencies. Enough guns in enough agencies over enough years tilt things in favor of seeing one of your rifles used in a live fire event. Most never hear about it or if they do, it may be months later. Even then, most will not put that on the street but you can bet it makes a sobering heat come over you with the reminder that your shit might actually be used somewhere besides the SH Cup.

Let it go and just chalk one up for the good guys.

Terry

Yep, tables are already turning.

The "hostage's" brother tweeted this earlier today:
get the story straight. my sister was not a hostage and my brother in law wasn't a danger to himself or no one else and my sister kept telling the police that. he had schizophrenia and was off his meds. he was unarmed with no type of weapon and she told the police that.
R.I.P. you will be missed dearly

Also, a different tale of events;
"Reports indicated he was unarmed"
"He released her after about seven hours, but did not immediately surrender himself"
"SWAT members tried to enter the apartment, flash-bang grenades were deployed"

Man Killed By Deputies During Bellflower Standoff | NBC Southern California

And remember, this same unit (LACSD), accidently shot the wrong people during the 2 previous hostage situations before this event. I don't think I would brag about them using my rifle.

There are two side to every story and I don't think we know either yet.

Interesting change of story....no hostage now at the time of the shot. Oh snap

 

[Whit]

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.

That doesn't mean I'm pro-cop, or anti-cop. That means I'm anti-shitbag.

I wouldn't either, I agree.

 

[Lofty]

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

You're welcome.

Cops dont protect me and my family, I protect me and my family.

Secondly, dont sit there like a proud peacock with feathers flared like the police provide ANYONE with any level of protection other than when they WANT to. Police departments and LEO organizations go through great lengths at any chance they get to expound all the time how they dont owe us pee-ons anything in the way of protection. So I owe you no thanks whatsoever.

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

 

[alpine44]

If you or I shoot someone, there will be questions that we have to answer to the investigating bodies. The investigating bodies are not going to be our colleagues or buddies.

Is there any reason for not applying the same standards to civilians who get paid with our taxes to maintain order in our communities? Law enforcement is neither the law itself nor does it stand above it.

Demanding accountability will not insult the good cops, they would probably appreciate it. The fewer bad apples slip through, the higher the esteem for the whole crop.

 

[KragCarbine]

A…. I wouldnt endorse LAPDs shooting of ANYONE...…
]

It was not LAPD (Los Angeles Police Dept, as in LA City cops). It was LASD (Los Angeles Sheriff Dept. as in LA County cops). Mike built all of the sniper rifles for LA Sheriff SWAT (or whatever they call it)

 

[Lofty]

It was not LAPD (Los Angeles Police Dept, as in LA City cops). It was LASD (Los Angeles Sheriff Dept. as in LA County cops). Mike built all of the sniper rifles for LA Sheriff SWAT (or whatever they call it)

Different department, same problems.


Sheriff's official to review mistaken shooting of Pico Rivera man - LA Times



L.A. deputies shoot, kill the wrong man, age 30

 

[orkan]

Same department perhaps... but the patrol deputies are not on the same program as LA county SWAT team. If they were, then SWAT wouldn't exist, and patrol would BE SWAT. The last bad shoot the county SWAT was involved in was a LONG time ago, and would have happened to ANYONE. That county team probably has more SWAT callouts than any in the world... and they do NOT behave like LAPD SWAT.

Bottom line, there are a lot of assumptions getting made in this thread. Why can't we hold bad cops accountable, and praise the good cops? Why does it have to be "all cops are bad" vs "all cops are good?"

I have talked to people today that told me the specifics of the shoot in the OP, and it sounds to me like it was a CLEAR good shoot. If you talk to people that were there, you'll get the real story of what happened. You won't get the real story from the fucking media. Period. You damn sure won't hear what happened from me... but at least I've talked to people close to the situation. Blows my goddamn mind how ready people are to parrot bad information, or draw parallels when none exist.

I just want to inject a little clarity here. The SWAT team in question, that took this guy out... has a very clean history. The department's patrol deputies obviously are not on the SWAT team, and the bad shoots listed in this thread are the responsibility of the patrol deputies BEFORE SWAT gets there. This doesn't mean I'm saying it's OK. It's not. Cops shouldn't be smoking good guys. Period. However, if we are going to assign blame... why not assign it to the correct parties? The team involved in this shoot has a history of solid work. Talking to people today, and getting a clear account of what happened... its obvious that this shoot today was good also.

If we can't punish the bad without punishing the good... the quality of LEO isn't going to go very far in the direction it needs to go.

 

[alpine44]

Different department, same problems.

Sheriff's official to review mistaken shooting of Pico Rivera man - LA Times

L.A. deputies shoot, kill the wrong man, age 30

Just imagine the shitstorm that would descend on a CCW holder in these two cases of mistaken identity. OTOH, the guys who got a little trigger happy will get an internal review, possibly some remedial training (at the taxpayers expense) and life goes on. If the families of the victims sue, the taxpayer will again pay the bill.

I do not expect the police to hand out girl scout cookies to stop criminal activity but the cases here look like some itchy fingers got ahead of situational awareness.

 

[orkan]

Just imagine the shitstorm that would descend on a CCW holder in these two cases of mistaken identity. OTOH, the guys who got a little trigger happy will get an internal review, possibly some remedial training (at the taxpayers expense) and life goes on. If the families of the victims sue, the taxpayer will again pay the bill.

See, there's something I can get behind. Yes, the blue wall goes up and the "there's nothing to see here" squad comes out. If that were you or I... we'd be in prison for life.

Yet that's NOT what this thread is about. This thread is about a shitbag getting his gourd opened up by a Tac Ops rifle. If we lack the ability to differentiate between the two... we're in big trouble.

 

[pawprint2]

I hear ya. Trust me, I do hear you, and agree with you on your distrust of cops ... but I would guess your company isn't reliant upon proof of positive results in the line of duty either. Mike's is. This is proof. Good, bad, or otherwise... this is proof that his rifles do what he say they can do. He'd be foolish to not post about it. Besides, I didn't see him aggrandizing it. He just said "hey, this happened, and it was some of my kit." I don't see any reason to eat his lunch over that. Maybe I'm wrong.

If the cops killed a scumbag(and the facts are correct) I'm giving them a "Job well done" to be sure, however, the rifle didn't do a damn thing, the man pulling the trigger did. If for example the shooter killed the wrong guy, we would not be blaming the rifle (at least no sane group of people would), I'm sure it's a good rifle, but the real KUDO's should be going to the man that did the job!

 

[alpine44]

I have talked to people today that told me the specifics of the shoot in the OP, and it sounds to me like it was a CLEAR good shoot. If you talk to people that were there, you'll get the real story of what happened. You won't get the real story from the fucking media. Period. You damn sure won't hear what happened from me... but at least I've talked to people close to the situation.

This is exactly the same lame line we hear from the 'officials'. "We cannot (or do not want to) tell you the details, but trust us, everything was OK"

My blind trust is gone and can only be restored through positive proof.

Can you understand that the whole mystery drama does not exactly build trust?

 

[alpine44]

See, there's something I can get behind. Yes, the blue wall goes up and the "there's nothing to see here" squad comes out. If that were you or I... we'd be in prison for life.

Yet that's NOT what this thread is about. This thread is about a shitbag getting his gourd opened up by a Tac Ops rifle. If we lack the ability to differentiate between the two... we're in big trouble.

Ok, let's put the two cases of mistaken identity aside and focus on the alleged hostage taker who was shot with the Tac-Ops rifle.

Can we agree that, after the hostage supposedly left, there should have been an immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave harm to the officers on the scene or to the general public?

Can we further agree that any reasonable person would expect this threat to be expressed with a weapon and not merely by generally erratic behavior?

If we agree on these two conditions that would most likely be applied to you and I in a similar situation, do you still consider this a justifiable homicide (or justifiable gourd opening if you prefer)?

Three "yes", and I rest my case on that incident.

 

[dmtsc]

I think its funny when I hear gun guys bitch about the "militarization of Police" when probably 99% of us have better or equal stuff in out safes! Just an opinion guys.

 

[alpine44]

I think its funny when I hear gun guys bitch about the "militarization of Police" when probably 99% of us have better or equal stuff in out safes! Just an opinion guys.

I would like to believe that 99.999% of non LEOs do not try to resolve social problems with these tools. Hunting paper or game requires a little less responsibility than hunting men.

Also, I do not worry as much about the tools as I worry about the 'mission' and the attitude with which it is carried out.

 

[fdkay]

This is exactly the same lame line we hear from the 'officials'. "We cannot (or do not want to) tell you the details, but trust us, everything was OK"

My blind trust is gone and can only be restored through positive proof.

Can you understand that the whole mystery drama does not exactly build trust?

You are a tool.
You do understand that there is an investigation underway, right?
You also realize that they can't discuss an ongoing investigation, right?
You realize that this will likely go to grand jury, right?
You realize that the grand jury is made up of citizens, right?

 

[dmtsc]

I would like to believe that 99.999% of non LEOs do not try to resolve social problems with these tools. Hunting paper or game requires a little less responsibility than hunting men.

Also, I do not worry as much about the tools as I worry about the 'mission' and the attitude with which it is carried out.

Very fair statement.

 

[alpine44]

You are a tool.

I take the 5th on that one.

You do understand that there is an investigation underway, right?

An internal investigation, to be precise.

You also realize that they can't discuss an ongoing investigation, right?

How about the facts that lead to the conclusion after the internal investigation is over?

You realize that this will likely go to grand jury, right?

Unlikely, unless the family of the deceased sues or civil rights advocates gets involved. Even if family sues, it is more likely to be settled at the taxpayers expense.

You realize that the grand jury is made up of citizens, right?

No argument there.

My question is why do we exempt the institution of the police from the same external scrutiny that gets applied to a civilian when deadly force was used? Please educate me on the downside of this equal treatment.

 

[orkan]

Ok, let's put the two cases of mistaken identity aside and focus on the alleged hostage taker who was shot with the Tac-Ops rifle.

Can we agree that, after the hostage supposedly left, there should have been an immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave harm to the officers on the scene or to the general public?

Can we further agree that any reasonable person would expect this threat to be expressed with a weapon and not merely by generally erratic behavior?

If we agree on these two conditions that would most likely be applied to you and I in a similar situation, do you still consider this a justifiable homicide (or justifiable gourd opening if you prefer)?

Three "yes", and I rest my case on that incident.

Yup... In the instances you describe, I agree. I think cops should be held to a higher standard than you or I (joe citizen) because they have more power over citizens than you or I.

However, who says it went down that way? The guys I talked to today seemed to have a completely different view of events than the "media" is portraying. You guys seem to forget that I'm usually on the other side of these arguments when the circumstances are not anywhere near as cut and dried as what I believe happened in this instance. I'm all for holding everyone accountable for their actions... not just cops, and damn sure do not condone excluding cops from that responsibility. Yet I still have the capacity to treat instances such as these as individual events, applying a bit of critical thinking to see whether it stands muster. So either the people that were there, whom I talked too today, are lying... and will be discovered during the investigation... or it went down how they say it went down. If the latter, then this was a good shoot. Period. ... and I shed no tears for the shitbag that's answering for his mistakes as we speak.

 

[Terminator2]

It was LASO not LAPD that was involved in this call-out. Both fine agencies that keep the barbarians in check.

 

[hypno02]

Whether or not the (assumed) shitbag was indeed a shitbag or not, props to that tango 51 and tacops for doing it's job as described.

 

[alpine44]

Yup... In the instances you describe, I agree. I think cops should be held to a higher standard than you or I (joe citizen) because they have more power over citizens than you or I.

However, who says it went down that way? The guys I talked to today seemed to have a completely different view of events than the "media" is portraying. You guys seem to forget that I'm usually on the other side of these arguments when the circumstances are not anywhere near as cut and dried as what I believe happened in this instance. I'm all for holding everyone accountable for their actions... not just cops, and damn sure do not condone excluding cops from that responsibility. Yet I still have the capacity to treat instances such as these as individual events, applying a bit of critical thinking to see whether it stands muster. So either the people that were there, whom I talked too today, are lying... and will be discovered during the investigation... or it went down how they say it went down. If the latter, then this was a good shoot. Period. ... and I shed no tears for the shitbag that's answering for his mistakes as we speak.

Well, then let's agree to agree.

It would be nice if someone would see to that the media gets the correct info and then distributes it correctly. I know from experience how hard it is to have these guys publish what you actually said but it can be done. If they gleaned the disseminated info from a scanner then someone should preempt the distribution of false or out of context info with a formal statement. Silence gets either filled with facts or speculation as we saw here.

 

[johnsta]

I think its funny when I hear gun guys bitch about the "militarization of Police" when probably 99% of us have better or equal stuff in out safes! Just an opinion guys.

Being in Law Enforcement myself, I laugh when I hear the term "Militarization of Police". When someone says that to me, I ask them to please define what they mean. They never can. They try and say, "Why do you guys need to dress up like 'Army Men' with all this wazoo equipment? You're not the Military." Really? So outfitting myself with the best tactical equipment to best protect myself makes me military? When there are riots, you show force and stop it NOW. Remember Rodney King Riots? They were not stopped and contained. You know the rest.

Or they say, "The feds are giving you guys all the military equipment, this needs to stop!" Feds often times sell old equipment to state/local LE agency's to help them save money. The agencies would buy this stuff anyways! Also, most officers who know anything about guns/equipment would wish the feds wouldn't sell stuff to our department because the stuff they sell sucks!!!!!!!!! For example, my agency purchased a lot (I don't know how many) of old semi-auto versions of the M16s from the feds. They were horrible, shot out, and very old. I wish our department would just let the officers buy stuff they need and stop suppling us with old crap! Enough of this military equipment. Please! lol...

 

[fdkay]

Well, again, you seem to be full of shit.

Yes, there is an internal investigation to determine if the officer violated department policy.

A separate criminal investigation will be conducted by an outside agency, normally the states bureau of investigation (state version of the FBI).

What the fuck does a civil suit have to do with a grand jury?

You are so full of shit.

Look, I agree that ALL government agencies need oversight, that is should be a function of the press and concerned citizens.
Your assumption that all cops are guilty all the time is a bit over the top.

 

[Randoman5]

Being in Law Enforcement myself, I laugh when I hear the term "Militarization of Police". When someone says that to me, I ask them to please define what they mean. They never can. They try and say, "Why do you guys need to dress up like 'Army Men' with all this wazoo equipment? You're not the Military." Really? So outfitting myself with the best tactical equipment to best protect myself makes me military? When there are riots, you show force and stop it NOW. Remember Rodney King Riots? They were not stopped and contained. You know the rest.

Or they say, "The feds are giving you guys all the military equipment, this needs to stop!" Feds often times sell old equipment to state/local LE agency's to help them save money. The agencies would buy this stuff anyways! Also, most officers who know anything about guns/equipment would wish the feds wouldn't sell stuff to our department because the stuff they sell sucks!!!!!!!!! For example, my agency purchased a lot (I don't know how many) of old semi-auto versions of the M16s from the feds. They were horrible, shot out, and very old. I wish our department would just let the officers buy stuff they need and stop suppling us with old crap! Enough of this military equipment. Please! lol...

The problem is that it seems like as the police's capability to use more force increases so does their apparent willingness to use it. As police increasingly use military weapons like assault rifles and armored personnel carriers it seems like they increasingly see the citizens the are sworn to SERVE and protect as their enemy and vice versa. How does dressing in camo pajamas protect you in an urban environment? We live in a free country with a civilian police force. This isn't Baghdad or Fullujah. Why do police need and why should tax payers pay the bill for armored personnel carriers, and machine guns and .50bmg sniper rifles?

Police are supposed to be a part of a community, not the scourge of it. Police are supposed to deescalate confrontations, not escalate them.

I'm not saying that you, or any other specific LEO is guilty of these things, but when I turn on the news I see a small city in missouri that looks like it's in Beijing or Moscow and I wonder how we got here.

 

[RobertB]

Settle down girls. Maybe hes just pointing out that his rifles are actually being trusted by guys who put their life on the line. NOt everyone gets to say that. I'm glad that yall are arguing over a scumbag being killed instead of this girls family grieving over their daughter.

Good job Mike.

 

[johnsta]

The problem is that it seems like as the police's capability to use more force increases so does their apparent willingness to use it. As police increasingly use military weapons like assault rifles and armored personnel carriers it seems like they increasingly see the citizens the are sworn to SERVE and protect as their enemy and vice versa. How does dressing in camo pajamas protect you in an urban environment? We live in a free country with a civilian police force. This isn't Baghdad or Fullujah. Why do police need and why should tax payers pay the bill for armored personnel carriers, and machine guns and .50bmg sniper rifles?

Police are supposed to be a part of a community, not the scourge of it. Police are supposed to deescalate confrontations, not escalate them.

I'm not saying that you, or any other specific LEO is guilty of these things, but when I turn on the news I see a small city in missouri that looks like it's in Beijing or Moscow and I wonder how we got here.

Sir -

Thanks for responding. While I understand your concern with the increasing demand for police to use force, I argue that it isn't the police's actions that cause the force, it is the suspects. Having said that, there are instances where police make mistakes. We are all human right? Trust me, it sucks working in a profession where people expect you to be perfect 100% of the time. It is really hard, yet easy to critique.

Regarding your comment "police's capability to use more force". You're right, we are taught to use force quickly, violently, and reasonably. And we are also taught to stop when it is time to stop. Trust me, criminals have evolved, not just the police. And I argue that police have evolved in response to the new brand of brazen criminal. We don't want to use force. Trust me. I have just recovered from a broken hand sustained by a use of force incident. I wish I didn't have to do that. I wish the criminal didn't attack us. I wish our tactical communication would have worked and not failed. But we were left with the only option and that was to use force. Our willingness to use force has evolved, and we have learned, that if there is hesitation, there is injuries, and deaths within the law enforcement family. That's just the way it is.

Regarding the "dressing in camo for an urban environment" come one...really? does it matter what we are wearing? What would you say if we were wearing black?

"Why do police need and why should tax payers pay the bill for armored personnel carriers, and machine guns and .50bmg sniper rifles" Only elite units have Machine guns...highly trained and skilled in their use. They are needed to combat criminals who have them. Period. .50 Cals have been used to stop vehicles. It's a tool, and effective. And regarding armored vehicles? Here is a link: LAPD Credits Armored Vehicle in Shootout | Officer.com

If you really don't think taxpayers should be paying for the best equipment for LEO to be protected, than I am not sure anything I could say would help. I have a wife and kids. I like knowing that there is equipment like armored vehicles keeping me safe at work. I appreciate that your tax money has provided me that safety. Thank you.

We deescalate situations daily. There are times when we could have used reasonable deadly force, and should use it, but haven't. You won't hear about those times, because they don't make the news. Trust me, you can give us a little more credit that that....

When I turn on the news I am sadden as well. I am sadden to see a world that has so much hatred and lack of leadership that has allowed us to evolved into a violent generation. I can't help but recognized the control Satan has over the minds of many. It's truly sad (sorry if my religious beliefs offend you).

Lastly, by reading your post, I am reminded of how the media uses its verbiage to describe gun owners. "assault style military rifles" Just so you know we are on your side.

Remember, no body is perfect. Just be lucky that you are in a profession where there isn't much repercussion when you make a mistake.

 

[Lofty]

John, you sound like a good guy and a credit to your profession.


Unfortunately for all of us, you included......your profession is more and more littered with douchebags filled with an us against them mentality and are willing to smear the civil rights of the people they serve into the dirt without batting an eye.

 

[alpine44]

Being in Law Enforcement myself, I laugh when I hear the term "Militarization of Police". When someone says that to me, I ask them to please define what they mean. They never can. They try and say, "Why do you guys need to dress up like 'Army Men' with all this wazoo equipment? You're not the Military." Really? So outfitting myself with the best tactical equipment to best protect myself makes me military? When there are riots, you show force and stop it NOW. Remember Rodney King Riots? They were not stopped and contained. You know the rest.

Or they say, "The feds are giving you guys all the military equipment, this needs to stop!" Feds often times sell old equipment to state/local LE agency's to help them save money. The agencies would buy this stuff anyways! Also, most officers who know anything about guns/equipment would wish the feds wouldn't sell stuff to our department because the stuff they sell sucks!!!!!!!!! For example, my agency purchased a lot (I don't know how many) of old semi-auto versions of the M16s from the feds. They were horrible, shot out, and very old. I wish our department would just let the officers buy stuff they need and stop suppling us with old crap! Enough of this military equipment. Please! lol...

John, let me answer your question what 'Militarization of Police' means.


A militarized police wages a war againt something or someone and in a war the ROEs are different from what the Constitution suggest for civil life. In a war, due process is replaced with "If in doubt, shoot first and ask later". We have seen that philosophy carried out often enough in our neighborhoods and I am not referring here to the recent brew-ha-ha.

A militarized police is represented by characters without a badge or ID who when asked for their name answer with "Donald Duck". (I think it would be appropriate to send those characters to Disneyworld as rent-a-cops.)

A militarized police uses detainment for the purpose of intimidation, without intent or reason to arrest/charge the detained party. The police 'force' in Ferguson had nothing better to do than to apply this tactic to two foreign journalist and this is going to cost us a bit of goodwill on the international scene. (I know, real Americans do not give a shit about the world but with Trillions of debt we might have to in the foreseeable future).

A militarized police is some hotshot, sporting a mohawk/iro haircut and tacticool sunglasses, who approaches my car during a traffic stop with his right hand on the pistol grip, thumb on the retention release, and six (!) tilted magazine holders neatly staggered on his belt. (It was awfully hard to bite my tongue and not ask him how the hunting goes and whether he is going to fill his perp-tag this season.)

A militarized police finds no problem with an image of waging war against the citizens it has sworn to serve and protect.

A militarized polices has abandoned policing (knowing the neighborhood and fostering civil behavior by example) and replaced it with forcing compliance by intimidation. The result is very similar to what we see with our military interventions. The moment the forces pull out, everything reverts to its initial state - or worse.


I could go on and on but I think you get the point here. This is not about stuff, this is about the 'mission' and with which attitude the mission is carried out.


A non-militarized police officer is the guy who pulled me over for having my head burried in the navigation system while crossing an intersection. He asked me (fatherly) what that stunt was for and I answered (politely) that I was desperately trying to deal with a detour ending in the middle of nowhere. He reminded me that the detour was necessary because of a nasty, fiery accident and that I should not try to cause something similar - and then gave me directions to continue my journey. Point made, future behavior changed, mission accomplished without antagonization.

 

[johnsta]

John, you sound like a good guy and a credit to your profession.


Unfortunately for all of us, you included......your profession is more and more littered with douchebags filled with an us against them mentality and are willing to smear the civil rights of the people they serve into the dirt without batting an eye.

Sir -

I would agree that (to a point) that there has been some really bad cops employed in this profession. I see fellow cops who, if I was in charge, wouldn't have been hired. However, most of us our good. Trust me on that. By nature people don't like us. It's the way it is. I'm fine with that.

I can't speak for others but this is my view on the "us vs them" mentality. There are areas in this country that are filled with people who hate you and I with a passion. They hate us so bad that they are willing to form gangs to violently pilfer and rob the community. When we get involved (or in their way) they want to kill us, or you. When dealing with these types of devils, your right, it can appear to be an us vs them mentality. Often times good people like yourselves come across cops who have a hard time changing their mentality when dealing with an honest person who is trying to live their lives in a civilized manner. If I were to pull you over, I would treat you differently than I would a car full of MS-13 gangsters. Not because of race/religion/etc., but because in my experience gangsters are violent by nature. Some people (like some in this thread) don't like that we are tough with people. It is what it is. We deal with so many horrific people all day that it is hard to not treat everyone the same. I suppose that is why some people do not like cops.

 

[fdkay]

John, let me answer your question what 'Militarization of Police' means.

A militarized police wages a war againt something or someone and in a war the ROEs are different from what the Constitution suggest for civil life. In a war, due process is replaced with "If in doubt, shoot first and ask later". We have seen that philosophy carried out often enough in our neighborhoods and I am not referring here to the recent brew-ha-ha.

A militarized police is represented by characters without a badge or ID who when asked for their name answer with "Donald Duck". (I think it would be appropriate to send those characters to Disneyworld as rent-a-cops.)

A militarized police uses detainment for the purpose of intimidation, without intent or reason to arrest/charge the detained party. The police 'force' in Ferguson had nothing better to do than to apply this tactic to two foreign journalist and this is going to cost us a bit of goodwill on the international scene. (I know, real Americans do not give a shit about the world but with Trillions of debt we might have to in the foreseeable future).

A militarized police is some hotshot, sporting an mohawk/iro haircut, who approaches my car during a traffic stop with his right hand on the pistol grip, thumb on the retention release, and six tilted magazine holders neatly staggered on his belt. (It was awfully hard to bite my tongue and not ask him how the hunting goes and whether he is going to fill his perp-tag this season.)

A militarized police finds no problem with an image of waging war against the citizens it has sworn to serve and protect.

A militarized polices has abandoned policing (knowing the neighborhood and fostering civil behavior by example) and replaced it with forcing compliance by intimidation. The result is very similar to what we see with our military interventions. The moment the forces pull out, everyhing reverts to its initail state - or worse.

I could go on and on but I think you get the point here. This is not about stuff, this is about the 'mission' and with which attitude the mission is carried out.

A non-militarized police officer is the guy who pulled me over for having my head burried in the navigation system while crossing an intersection. He asked me (fatherly) what that stunt was for and I answered (politely) that I was desperately trying to deal with a detour that ended in the middle of nowhere. He reminded me that the detour was necessary because of a nasty, fiery accident and that I should not try to cause something similar - and then gave me directions to continue my journey. Point made, future behavior changed, mission accomplished without antagonization.

Alpine, most of what you describe is not "militarization" but a lack of professionalism and should most certainly be addressed.
Any person that is given the power to deprive someone of their liberty and even their life, should always strive to act in the most professional manner, though it is frequently difficult.

"Donald Duck"??? Isn't that from "The A Team" movie? Are you confusing fantasy with reality?
Since it is normally policy to provide, not only your name, but your badge number if asked, I am skeptical this actually happens, though I would be easy to convince that it does.
Then again, if you take the time to notice, the vast majority of officers have at least their last name displayed on their uniform.
If they are undercover, that is a different story. If they are in uniform and refuse to identify themselves, contact the supervisor.

I can't speak to the guy that approaches your car with his hand on the butt of his weapon with a stupid haircut. Was it dark outside? Was there something else going on that you might not have known about? Most departments, though not all, have grooming standards.
Did you speak to the chief about it? If not, how is it that the problem will be addressed?
I will also freely admit, that many times, your complaints will fall on deaf ears. If you reside in that city, then going to your city council meetings and stirring the pot may be the answer.

I will tell you that many of the officers today ARE a product of their environment. The whole "everybody gets the same trophy" and "you deserve it, even if you didn't earn it" is prevalent in society, and the officers are a representation of that society, society is also lacking in manners and thoughtfulness, enough so that common decency is now a newsworthy event.

 

[orkan]

If you reside in that city, then going to your city council meetings and stirring the pot may be the answer.

...or get you targeted by the people you are intending to complain about. Don't be surprised if you are trying to affect some change... and suffer at the hands of those you intend on changing. I speak from personal experience. It can be just as bad as anything you've ever seen in the movies. If they can put a face/name to who is complaining about them... chances are good that if they deserve to be complained about, they will try to "punish" you for it.

The ones that don't deserve the complaint, generally won't retaliate. Really is a poor situation!

 

[johnsta]

John, let me answer your question what 'Militarization of Police' means.


A militarized police wages a war againt something or someone and in a war the ROEs are different from what the Constitution suggest for civil life. In a war, due process is replaced with "If in doubt, shoot first and ask later". We have seen that philosophy carried out often enough in our neighborhoods and I am not referring here to the recent brew-ha-ha.

A militarized police is represented by characters without a badge or ID who when asked for their name answer with "Donald Duck". (I think it would be appropriate to send those characters to Disneyworld as rent-a-cops.)

A militarized police uses detainment for the purpose of intimidation, without intent or reason to arrest/charge the detained party. The police 'force' in Ferguson had nothing better to do than to apply this tactic to two foreign journalist and this is going to cost us a bit of goodwill on the international scene. (I know, real Americans do not give a shit about the world but with Trillions of debt we might have to in the foreseeable future).

A militarized police is some hotshot, sporting a mohawk/iro haircut and tacticool sunglasses, who approaches my car during a traffic stop with his right hand on the pistol grip, thumb on the retention release, and six (!) tilted magazine holders neatly staggered on his belt. (It was awfully hard to bite my tongue and not ask him how the hunting goes and whether he is going to fill his perp-tag this season.)

A militarized police finds no problem with an image of waging war against the citizens it has sworn to serve and protect.

A militarized polices has abandoned policing (knowing the neighborhood and fostering civil behavior by example) and replaced it with forcing compliance by intimidation. The result is very similar to what we see with our military interventions. The moment the forces pull out, everything reverts to its initial state - or worse.


I could go on and on but I think you get the point here. This is not about stuff, this is about the 'mission' and with which attitude the mission is carried out.


A non-militarized police officer is the guy who pulled me over for having my head burried in the navigation system while crossing an intersection. He asked me (fatherly) what that stunt was for and I answered (politely) that I was desperately trying to deal with a detour ending in the middle of nowhere. He reminded me that the detour was necessary because of a nasty, fiery accident and that I should not try to cause something similar - and then gave me directions to continue my journey. Point made, future behavior changed, mission accomplished without antagonization.

A militarized police wages a war againt something or someone and in a war the ROEs are different from what the Constitution suggest for civil life. In a war, due process is replaced with "If in doubt, shoot first and ask later". We have seen that philosophy carried out often enough in our neighborhoods and I am not referring here to the recent brew-ha-ha.

If we violate civil rights, we are indicted. I have seen a handful of my partners indicted for issues regarding civil rights. It is sad, because they were great guys, but the feds wanted them and they got them. Trust me, when we violate rights, we are held accountable.


A militarized police is represented by characters without a badge or ID who when asked for their name answer with "Donald Duck". (I think it would be appropriate to send those characters to Disneyworld as rent-a-cops.)

Not sure I understand this.... I have a badge and ID....Sorry if this went right over my head...

A militarized police uses detainment for the purpose of intimidation, without intent or reason to arrest/charge the detained party. The police 'force' in Ferguson had nothing better to do than to apply this tactic to two foreign journalist and this is going to cost us a bit of goodwill on the international scene. (I know, real Americans do not give a shit about the world but with Trillions of debt we might have to in the foreseeable future).

If I have reasonable cause to detain, than I can detain. Period. From their I can use reasonable tactics to conduct an investigation. If we step out of line and use our power to intimidate, we are punished. Period. At times you don't know what reasonable cause police have to detain. They don't need to tell you."

A militarized police is some hotshot, sporting a mohawk/iro haircut and tacticool sunglasses, who approaches my car during a traffic stop with his right hand on the pistol grip, thumb on the retention release, and six (!) tilted magazine holders neatly staggered on his belt. (It was awfully hard to bite my tongue and not ask him how the hunting goes and whether he is going to fill his perp-tag this season.)

We are expected to be professional, and I am not sure an officer with a mohawk is professional. I apologize for that. However, cops have been killed on traffic stops by people of all appearances. We employ tactics based off of what we learn from previous experiences where officers are killed. I am positive that officers have been spared because they have been tactically ready (in your words hands on their weapons etc.) to react. You would do the same in our shoes.


A militarized police finds no problem with an image of waging war against the citizens it has sworn to serve and protect.

Last time I checked we aren't throwing grenades in crackheads houses and shooting RPGs at people who we are in pursuit of...We arrest people (sometimes use force to effect arrest which the penal code allows us to do) and take them to jail to face the judicial system. I guess we aren't going to agree with each others comments on this one.


A militarized polices has abandoned policing (knowing the neighborhood and fostering civil behavior by example) and replaced it with forcing compliance by intimidation. The result is very similar to what we see with our military interventions. The moment the forces pull out, everything reverts to its initial state - or worse.

We have laws and punishments to force compliance, right? This is meant to intimidate people to a point right? I would argue so. I mean isn't that the point of going to jail and receiving a punishment? Maybe I am misunderstanding your statement. It is hard to understand. Fine, pull us out of a bad area. See what the reactions are. What about the rights of the good people living in those areas? Again, I might be way off with my response but the statement was a little shaky.


You seem like a well spoken person. I hope your further law enforcement interactions go better, I really do. Again, when law enforcement steps out of line, there is soooo much oversight, that we are crucified for it, and punished. I invite you to learn case law, department policies, state, and federal law to better verse yourself in why cops do what they do. And if you disagree with tactics, thats fine. We employ tactics to go home safe every night. We don't expect people who aren't in this profession to understand or agree with those tactics.

 

[LRShooter101]

I hate to justify the garbage posted in here with a response, but what the hell,

Ever hear of:
Beslan school hostage crisis

Moscow theater hostage crisis

2008 Mumbai attacks

Westgate shopping mall attack

I can go on in regards to the International picture if it is not clear enough for you?


On the local front, ever hear of:
North Hollywood shootout

2009 Fort Hood shooting

Washington Navy Yard shooting

Boston Marathon bombings

I can also go on here, but unless you live in a cave, under a rock, or in "Never Never Land", you should know what has happened in this country.


Given that ISIS is now openly calling for attacks on Main Street USA, there is a good chance that we will be adding to those headlines soon.

If you think that "Joe the Beat Cop" would have stood a snowballs chance in hell in any of those situations, then you might want to move to the "Neighborhood of Make Believe" and hang out with Mr Rogers (RIP).

One of our local tactical teams recently attempted to serve multiple felony warrants (Attempt Murder, Robbery, etc) on a suspect. What they found was a house that was fortified like Ft Knox, a suspect who was wearing body armor, and was armed with a number of illegally converted full auto rifles. The knock on the door of the house was meet with a barrage of full auto gun fire. The team secured a perimeter and attempted to call out the suspect, who responded by shooting at anything and everything that he could see. Next the team used their armored car with a ram to breach an opening in the house so they could introduce gas. After about 10 minutes of gas, a spotter advised that he could see a gas mask on the suspect. After about 20 minutes of shooting by the suspect, the order was finally given to take him out. One of the operators using NVGs was finally able to ID the suspect (low light) and take him out. Fortunately no civilians or police were injured, but they very easily could have been given the suspect had sprayed hundreds of rounds outside of the house. This is NOT an ISOLATED incident, this happens somewhere in the country on a regular basis. Beat cops in a patrol car, with a pistol, wearing concealable armor, would have been mascaraed trying to deal with an incident like this. The hard armor, rifles, gas, armored car, and NVGs were all key TOOLS needed to bring this situation to an end. You can call this a "Military Assault" if you like, but deadly force must be meet with deadly force.

Sorry, but it is not a matter of if, but when and how bad this country will be hit by more criminal or terrorist incidents. The body count may well come down to the response made by the first LE responders and how well they are equipped to handle it.

Every group of individuals has some rotten apples, Presidents have committed criminal acts in office, Priests have molested hundreds of innocent kids, and the list goes on. If you want to judge and penalize all law enforcement officers based on a what a few bad apples have done, then best of luck to you when the $#!@ hits the fan and you need them and they no longer have the ability to help you!

Apologies to Mike for ranting in his topic. Glad that your hard work paid of for the folks in LA!

 

[johnsta]

I hate to justify the garbage posted in here with a response, but what the hell,

Ever hear of:
Beslan school hostage crisis

Moscow theater hostage crisis

2008 Mumbai attacks

Westgate shopping mall attack

I can go on in regards to the International picture if it is not clear enough for you?


On the local front, ever hear of:
North Hollywood shootout

2009 Fort Hood shooting

Washington Navy Yard shooting

Boston Marathon bombings

I can also go on here, but unless you live in a cave, under a rock, or in "Never Never Land", you should know what has happened in this country.


Given that ISIS is now openly calling for attacks on Main Street USA, there is a good chance that we will be adding to those headlines soon.

If you think that "Joe the Beat Cop" would have stood a snowballs chance in hell in any of those situations, then you might want to move to the "Neighborhood of Make Believe" and hang out with Mr Rogers (RIP).

One of our local tactical teams recently attempted to serve multiple felony warrants (Attempt Murder, Robbery, etc) on a suspect. What they found was a house that was fortified like Ft Knox, a suspect who was wearing body armor, and was armed with a number of illegally converted full auto rifles. The knock on the door of the house was meet with a barrage of full auto gun fire. The team secured a perimeter and attempted to call out the suspect, who responded by shooting at anything and everything that he could see. Next the team used their armored car with a ram to breach an opening in the house so they could introduce gas. After about 10 minutes of gas, a spotter advised that he could see a gas mask on the suspect. After about 20 minutes of shooting by the suspect, the order was finally given to take him out. One of the operators using NVGs was finally able to ID the suspect (low light) and take him out. Fortunately no civilians or police were injured, but they very easily could have been given the suspect had sprayed hundreds of rounds outside of the house. This is NOT an ISOLATED incident, this happens somewhere in the country on a regular basis. Beat cops in a patrol car, with a pistol, wearing concealable armor, would have been mascaraed trying to deal with an incident like this. The hard armor, rifles, gas, armored car, and NVGs were all key TOOLS needed to bring this situation to an end. You can call this a "Military Assault" if you like, but deadly force must be meet with deadly force.

Sorry, but it is not a matter of if, but when and how bad this country will be hit by more criminal or terrorist incidents. The body count may well come down to the response made by the first LE responders and how well they are equipped to handle it.

Every group of individuals has some rotten apples, Presidents have committed criminal acts in office, Priests have molested hundreds of innocent kids, and the list goes on. If you want to judge and penalize all law enforcement officers based on a what a few bad apples have done, then best of luck to you when the $#!@ hits the fan and you need them and they no longer have the ability to help you!

Apologies to Mike for ranting in his topic. Glad that your hard work paid of for the folks in LA!

Well said sir, well said. Thank you.

Criticizing police for having the best and most useful equipment at their disposal is hypocritical at best. Everyone, if in LE, would want to have the best their is to offer to keep them safe.

 

[orkan]

The hard armor, rifles, gas, armored car, and NVGs were all key TOOLS needed to bring this situation to an end.

So should us civilians have the same access to those tools if we want it?

 

[fdkay]

So should us civilians have the same access to those tools if we want it?

All of those items are available to the general public.

 

[orkan]

All of those items are available to the general public.

Stretching there... don't you think? I said "same access," not what is "available."

 

[alpine44]

I hate to justify the garbage posted in here with a response, but what the hell,

Ever hear of:
Beslan school hostage crisis

Moscow theater hostage crisis

2008 Mumbai attacks

Westgate shopping mall attack

I can go on in regards to the International picture if it is not clear enough for you?


On the local front, ever hear of:
North Hollywood shootout

2009 Fort Hood shooting

Washington Navy Yard shooting

Boston Marathon bombings

I can also go on here, but unless you live in a cave, under a rock, or in "Never Never Land", you should know what has happened in this country.


Given that ISIS is now openly calling for attacks on Main Street USA, there is a good chance that we will be adding to those headlines soon.

If you think that "Joe the Beat Cop" would have stood a snowballs chance in hell in any of those situations, then you might want to move to the "Neighborhood of Make Believe" and hang out with Mr Rogers (RIP).

One of our local tactical teams recently attempted to serve multiple felony warrants (Attempt Murder, Robbery, etc) on a suspect. What they found was a house that was fortified like Ft Knox, a suspect who was wearing body armor, and was armed with a number of illegally converted full auto rifles. The knock on the door of the house was meet with a barrage of full auto gun fire. The team secured a perimeter and attempted to call out the suspect, who responded by shooting at anything and everything that he could see. Next the team used their armored car with a ram to breach an opening in the house so they could introduce gas. After about 10 minutes of gas, a spotter advised that he could see a gas mask on the suspect. After about 20 minutes of shooting by the suspect, the order was finally given to take him out. One of the operators using NVGs was finally able to ID the suspect (low light) and take him out. Fortunately no civilians or police were injured, but they very easily could have been given the suspect had sprayed hundreds of rounds outside of the house. This is NOT an ISOLATED incident, this happens somewhere in the country on a regular basis. Beat cops in a patrol car, with a pistol, wearing concealable armor, would have been mascaraed trying to deal with an incident like this. The hard armor, rifles, gas, armored car, and NVGs were all key TOOLS needed to bring this situation to an end. You can call this a "Military Assault" if you like, but deadly force must be meet with deadly force.

Sorry, but it is not a matter of if, but when and how bad this country will be hit by more criminal or terrorist incidents. The body count may well come down to the response made by the first LE responders and how well they are equipped to handle it.

Every group of individuals has some rotten apples, Presidents have committed criminal acts in office, Priests have molested hundreds of innocent kids, and the list goes on. If you want to judge and penalize all law enforcement officers based on a what a few bad apples have done, then best of luck to you when the $#!@ hits the fan and you need them and they no longer have the ability to help you!

Apologies to Mike for ranting in his topic. Glad that your hard work paid of for the folks in LA!

The old, beaten logic: In order to make our communities safe from terrorism and lunatics we have to increase the power of the government and its agencies and reduce the rights of the individual (Patriot Act, War on Whatever, etc.) "Mr. and Ms. America, hand over your guns" and whatever liberties you have left. "It's for the children" Yeah, right.

As a citizen, I DO NOT ASK YOU FOR SAFETY that you cannot deliver anyway. SWAT teams could not prevent the bombs from going off, the shootings from starting. They show up towards the end and pretend that 'tactical' policing could prevent the beginnings if we would just give them more power/money/hardware. If you cannot provide the solution (domestic peace), you may be part of the problem (increasing violence). Hashtag Ferguson

Any good ol' country boy with a rifle or a CCW citizen could have restored peace faster, cheaper, and often better in most scenarios mentioned above. Looting does not happen if the average Joe is allowed to stand his ground instead of being driven out of town 'for his safety'.

I only bother the police with my problems when I am not allowed to deal with the issue myself like the guy who found the remaining Boston bomber after a domestic army drove dozens of innocent people out of their homes at gunpoint. It is a miracle that no 'friendlies' got shot then. The display of force after the crime is not going to deter any future lunatics but it sure reminds you who wears the pants in the people's Republic of Massachusetts. I rather have a perp or terrorist point a barrel at me in a free state instead of being muzzled by someone who is supposed to serve and protect me but works for those who relentlessly attack and reduce my rights.

It would be great if the effectiveness of the police could be increased WITHOUT reducing the rights of the individual, but that is not what is happening in this country during the last few administrations.

Does it occur to anyone that the terrorist have actually won when the only remaining bastion of individual freedom in this world has been turned into another police state? The individual freedom of the Infidel is a thorn in the side of those bowing to rigid dogma. It is the reason why the Infidel is attacked and at the same time his most powerful defense.