You don;t know when or where an active shooter is going to hit. Of all of the big-time incidents over the last decade and a half, have ANY of them really been predictable? Was there any way for LEOs to know when and where it would occur? Of course not. These things happen completely out of the blue, and LEOs have to literally rush into the situation, having little idea what they're going to be dealing with. And you know who gets there first and has to deal with it? Beat cops, not SWAT. The MRAPs are SWAT vehicles, and they are there mostly for response to serious terrorist attacks (think a Mumbai-type event). Their use in riot situations is inappropriate, but they'd be very appropriate for a Mumbai-type fight.
Spoiler <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/j-P54MZVxMU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> St. Louis Police Release Video Of Kajieme Powell Killing That Appears At Odds With Their Story http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/kajieme-powell-shooting_n_5696546.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
The North Hollywood incident was well-publicized, but it's hardly an isolated event. Aurora could have been very nasty if he'd decided to fight the cops. Sandy Hook likewise. To use a couple of examples where they lucked out and then claim there's no need for the weapons is absurd. But here are a few examples anyway. http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/local-news/arms-race http://articles.latimes.com/1997/dec/20/news/mn-536 http://www.aol.com/article/2014/06/11/police-shooter-at-oregon-school-had-assault-rifle/20910727/ http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2014/08/dallas-police-in-far-north-dallas-where-a-man-with-a-rifle-is-claiming-to-be-a-sovereign-citizen.html/ If you're responding to such an incident, are you cool with just having your six shooter and your trusty old level 3A armor? If so, you are going to die, because the guy with the AR/AK is going to have a major advantage over you when the bullets start flying. And 18 other people were shot in the process. I'm with you except for the "they don't need" part. They are using it inappropriately, but that does not mean that they won't need it at some point. If they're lucky they'll never need it. If they aren't so lucky then they'll really need it.
Well you never know when a heavily armed terrorist group is going to show up so why don't we let cops carry RPG's.. This is a game of what ifs based on the worst case scenario. Yes the world is unpredictable but we have to weigh the likelihood of events when formulating policy and also considering the downside. As you note the use of this type of equipment is inappropriate to most situations that police might face the problem though is that when they have that equipment and presumably are paying for upkeep there is a temptation to use such equipment. As a saying goes for a man with a hammer a lot of things start looking like nails. I agree that there is a time and place for military hardware for PD that time though is very rare and most PD's probably never face a situation where they are outgunned by opponents. Arming beat cops with military weaponry just makes more likely that an individual might overreact to a situation rather than that they will be confronted by a Mumbai situation.
Your question was to those opposed to militarization of the police force. But the questions you asked and the incidents you brought up had no need for police/soldiers armed with military equipment (as another poster already pointed out to you). You even used crazy white kids as a reasoning for the militarization of the police force.
Dude, WTF are you talking about? How old are you, man? Seriously, go read the *actual* post and then try and answer the question.
Glanced at articles and they are cops saying they need more guns. Bring some example where i don't need to read a wall of text. Giving them a gun doesn't mean they won't be killed. They can call in SWAT and choose to not engage. The incidents where they would be useful are what 0.00000000001% of shootouts? Cops have been so anti-gun, and have such little knowledge of firearms they have no sympathy from me about not having rifles.
RPGs are not necessary in a firefight like that. Having body armor that can stop rifle-caliber bullets and having similar weapons of your own are. If you disarm the cops - take away their ARs and body armor - then the only result is going to be better-armed criminals who DO have body armor and ARs, and no one who can stop them. With lots of dead cops who tried to deal with them and got outgunned. True, and it's an obvious problem here. But the answer is not disarm them, it is to train them better and establish better rules on such tools' deployment. If the PD establishes SOPs that say "unless you're SWAT, leave the AR and the PC in the trunk for a riot situation", then most of them are going to leave it in the trunk... So you agree that it might be necessary at some point? Of course, this is the only really logical answer, and exactly what I was looking for. The problem is in proper deployment and utilization of these tools. And that's all that they are - tools. You don't need a sledgehammer when all you need to do is tap a nail in an inch or two. It's training and SOP, that's it.
Understand, I have a relatively large arsenal that would make most here gasp in terror, and I am probably on a half-dozen Homeland Security lists... And I used to work for them. I am not a fan. But if you won't actually read the articles, there's not much that I can do. The common thread among the articles is the cops being outgunned (usually by an AR/AK-wielding suspect) and being put into an untenable situation. You say giving them a gun doesn't mean they won't be killed. Well of course not - it's a firefight. Two-way ranges are unpredictable. But their odds of survival increase DRAMATICALLY if they have a carbine and body armor. Ask the military why every single service member deployed has those two things... Because they drastically increase the odds of your survival in a fight. It's a low probability-high impact situation, but it's not one that they can afford to ignore. They'll likely never need the gear if it's deployed appropriately, but if they ever encounter such a situation - which does happen - then they are going to need it very, very badly.
How often? The costs are very high. Money for departments that claim to be broke, and it gives the cops an us v them relationship with the public. Cops don't need that. It is fine for SWAT to have that because they don't deal with jaywalkers. Giving rifles to guys like Anas acuta who barely know which end the bullets come out of is just plain foolish.
And didn't understand it, apparently. You thought I meant leveling the field against Ferguson protesters, which I didn't even reference. I was talking about active shooters - which I did reference. For the third time... Try again.
As I said, low probability-high impact. It's unlikely to happen in your area, but if it does it has a massive impact and it has to be dealt with. Why do we have a nuclear arsenal? Only when they deploy it inappropriately as did these cops. When they keep it in the trunk until it's needed it's not a problem. Anas acuta - the beat cop - is the guy who is going to get there first. SWAT deployment takes time. Maybe Anas acuta gets there, holds back and makes the appropriate calls, and SWAT gets there, and in the intervening time no one else gets hurt. Or maybe Anas acuta gets there and there's some twisted fuq in the elementary school popping kindergartners in the head with an AR15, and there's no time for SWAT to get there. He needs to get in there NOW and kill the motherfuqer. NOW. That's how these things play out sometimes, and you never know until you get there.
Because it involves the safety of millions and not one cop in your scenario. So again, this scenario has never happened. Again, never happened. If it does happen I don't want a doofus going in there with a rifle. I want pros. I certainly don't want Anas acuta going in a school with a rifle. Jesus Christ that is the stuff of nightmares.
Um... you're kidding, right? Have you ever heard of Sandy Hook? That's EXACTLY what happened, only there was no one there to stop the POS from popping kids in the head. I would have MUCH rather have had Anas acuta in there with an AR and some plates to kill that motherfuqer before he murdered another kid. I mean really... You're joking now, right?
Joking about what? You are making an argument that cops need rifles right? These school shootings are over before cops show up. No cop decided against going in VATech because he didn't have an M4. You are not saying there should be more cops, you are saying there should be more rifles. You need to show how a rifle with a cop results in a better result. Sandy Hook isn't an example of that, just like Aurora there wasn't a shootout.
No, you need to show that cops don't need it. The problem of getting there in time is one issue, the problem of what do do once they are on site is a different one. Your argument is essentially "Well, the shooter will either surrender or kill himself before they get there", right? That's essentially what you're saying. Do you think that's what happens in every case? Of course not. You want me to scour the internet for examples that fit your narrowly defined criteria. I did and presented several, which you didn't bother to read. I could scour away and drag up dozens more, but it's the middle of the night and I am not going to do that. The cops already have these tools, you want to take them away. The burden is on YOU to present a case that they should not have them. If you are going to argue that a cop shouldn't have an AR, then you also need to advocate that their six-shooters be removed. If you want their plate carriers taken away, then you also need to argue for removal of their soft armor. Otherwise, you are b****ing about cosmetic effects. Either they are armed, or they aren't. Either they are WELL armed, or they aren't. Explain to me why they should be armed but not WELL armed. Tell me why they should half-a$$ a gunfight. I want to hear it.
You didn't even understand your question you asked because those situations you referenced did not need regular street cops with military equipment.
