Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Let's all remember, no vocal disagreement does not necessarily mean agreement.

I agree that the militarization of police should stop, but the idea that a policeman having 2-3 clips/magizines/whateverthosethingareclled on his person is somehow bad is a mystery to me. It's not about being prepared for what's going to happen, but might happen.

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm glad you could respond with so much mature sarcasm and hyperbole.

I'll just wrap it up here and say that I agree with all the other people on this thread that think you're wrong.

How do you want me to react when somebody provides me with something that I did not ask for and then tries to say "HA GOTCHA!"

Here is a quote from me! Look, it says exactly what I want.

Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.

There was no fatality. There was not more than 1 magazines worth of bullets fired. In fact, did the cop fire a shot? Do not act high and mighty here when you cant even give me what I want to continue your argument with me.

As for the people that are disagreeing with me, that is pretty much Hordini. Jihadin just made a joke. Did I miss somebody?

Here's a link to a video that meets your requirements. WARNING: It is quite graphic. link

You haven't answered my question yet though. How many magazines do you think police should carry? And why do you think two or three extra is too many? I'm pretty sure very few people think that two or three extra magazines is anything extreme. I'm guessing nobody else is engaging with you, not because they agree with you, but because your posts are ridiculous.

I dunno, it might be because I am asking for evidence that they cannot provide or they agree with me. I like that you automatically assume that they are against me though. That is how that works, the people being silent are always against you.

As for the video, I am not sure it still meets my requirements. QUICK! BACK TO THE QUOTE!

Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.

How many shots did that cop fire?!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
2-3 clips/magizines/whateverthosethingareclled

They're called magazines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


I dunno, it might be because I am asking for evidence that they cannot provide or they agree with me. I like that you automatically assume that they are against me though. That is how that works, the people being silent are always against you.

Nope. Just in this instance, with our knowledge of their opinions about these types of matters from other threads.

But please, we'd still love for you to tell us how many magazines a LEO should be allowed to carry, and in which caliber, and whether or not that applies to only full sized weapons, or if it also applies to compact and sub-compact firearms.

 Dreadwinter wrote:


I dunno, it might be because I am asking for evidence that they cannot provide or they agree with me. I like that you automatically assume that they are against me though. That is how that works, the people being silent are always against you.

As for the video, I am not sure it still meets my requirements. QUICK! BACK TO THE QUOTE!

Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.

How many shots did that cop fire?!

There are two officers shooting in the video. One was injured in the hand, and the other fires his whole magazine and then reloads. You can hear the reload if you pay attention closely during the lull in the shooting, right after the female officer says "Yes. You cover, I'll call dispatch!"

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


I dunno, it might be because I am asking for evidence that they cannot provide or they agree with me. I like that you automatically assume that they are against me though. That is how that works, the people being silent are always against you.

As for the video, I am not sure it still meets my requirements. QUICK! BACK TO THE QUOTE!

Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.

How many shots did that cop fire?!

There are two officers shooting in the video. One was injured in the hand, and the other fires his whole magazine and then reloads. You can hear the reload if you pay attention closely during the lull in the shooting, right after the female officer says "Yes. You cover, I'll call dispatch!"

Alright, so two police officers fire 2 1/2 rounds (Not sure how many she shot, I assume she got at least a few off) at a man in the open with AK47 while being pinned down behind their doors. (Again, assuming they did that, police videos really suck at capturing what is happening during an event)

That is still far away from needing 2-3 extra magazines per cop. At most, they needed one extra magazine between the two of them to take down a heavily armed assailant.

a lot of these LEO's who look like



Also use to wear



We're one step closer to Civilan and a Citizen


If you want to know more........

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


I dunno, it might be because I am asking for evidence that they cannot provide or they agree with me. I like that you automatically assume that they are against me though. That is how that works, the people being silent are always against you.

As for the video, I am not sure it still meets my requirements. QUICK! BACK TO THE QUOTE!

Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.

How many shots did that cop fire?!

There are two officers shooting in the video. One was injured in the hand, and the other fires his whole magazine and then reloads. You can hear the reload if you pay attention closely during the lull in the shooting, right after the female officer says "Yes. You cover, I'll call dispatch!"

Alright, so two police officers fire 2 1/2 rounds (Not sure how many she shot, I assume she got at least a few off) at a man in the open with AK47 while being pinned down behind their doors. (Again, assuming they did that, police videos really suck at capturing what is happening during an event)

That is still far away from needing 2-3 extra magazines per cop. At most, they needed one extra magazine between the two of them to take down a heavily armed assailant.

By 2 and 1/2 rounds do you mean 2 and 1/2 magazines? So, what if it had only been one police officer in the car (which is often the case)? Then you can start to see how 2 or 3 extra mags can be critical. Especially considering it takes most police officers quite a few shots to hit anything.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
2-3 clips/magizines/whateverthosethingareclled

They're called magazines.

Thanks.

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


I dunno, it might be because I am asking for evidence that they cannot provide or they agree with me. I like that you automatically assume that they are against me though. That is how that works, the people being silent are always against you.

As for the video, I am not sure it still meets my requirements. QUICK! BACK TO THE QUOTE!

Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.

How many shots did that cop fire?!

There are two officers shooting in the video. One was injured in the hand, and the other fires his whole magazine and then reloads. You can hear the reload if you pay attention closely during the lull in the shooting, right after the female officer says "Yes. You cover, I'll call dispatch!"

Alright, so two police officers fire 2 1/2 rounds (Not sure how many she shot, I assume she got at least a few off) at a man in the open with AK47 while being pinned down behind their doors. (Again, assuming they did that, police videos really suck at capturing what is happening during an event)

That is still far away from needing 2-3 extra magazines per cop. At most, they needed one extra magazine between the two of them to take down a heavily armed assailant.

By 2 and 1/2 rounds do you mean 2 and 1/2 magazines? So, what if it had only been one police officer in the car (which is often the case)? Then you can start to see how 2 or 3 extra mags can be critical. Especially considering it takes most police officers quite a few shots to hit anything.

I did and no I still can not. I can see how 1 extra mag worked in this situation and he was not forced to use other weapons such as those I previously mentioned.

Two cops, one was wounded fairly early and probably did not get more than half a magazine off. The other got one full magazine off and then reloaded, finishing the man fairly quickly afterwards.

 Jihadin wrote:
a lot of these LEO's who look like



Also use to wear



We're one step closer to Civilan and a Citizen


If you want to know more........

There has been discussion that there would be two different types of police. Tactical and Patrol.Tactical use weaponry. Patrol are well. Peacekeepers. They don't play war.

They report, deal with domestics. They are not sent in as a swat unit. tactical are trained to be semi-military, but only at high risk operations.

"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

agreed.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I did and no I still can not. I can see how 1 extra mag worked in this situation and he was not forced to use other weapons such as those I previously mentioned.

Two cops, one was wounded fairly early and probably did not get more than half a magazine off. The other got one full magazine off and then reloaded, finishing the man fairly quickly afterwards.

So you really, honestly, can't see the need for an officer to carry two or three extra pistol magazines? Something that officers have been doing basically since the introduction of semi-automatic pistols to police forces? You think they should be prepared for the best case scenario, with the bare minimum of equipment, rather than potential worst case scenarios that actually do happen from time to time?

What is wrong with an officer carrying two or three extra magazines? What is the downside? What problem does it cause?

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

Ppffttttt I call BS. I carried multiple magazines for my M4 and 9mm

Edit

Zip Ties and empty Sandbags to

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

Yes because you need an assault rifle to settle a domestic dispute.

You don't need a gun to settle a dispute its called talking and being a good and lawful citizen.

Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.

Police officers in the US settle domestic disputes without using their firearms every single day. That doesn't mean that regular officers don't need to carry a firearm.

 Hordini wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.

Police officers in the US settle domestic disputes without using their firearms every single day. That doesn't mean that regular officers don't need to carry a firearm.

I didn't say that. But in many areas the officers resort to them too quickly.

You can have a gun, you just can't have heavy weaponry.

Most domestic responses are usually good, but its the problem throughout the whole system with inadequately trained officers. There is now little difference between an officer and a militamen.

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators. The idea is kind of simple. Some times you need a hammer some times you need a warm blanket.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.

Police officers in the US settle domestic disputes without using their firearms every single day. That doesn't mean that regular officers don't need to carry a firearm.

I didn't say that. But in many areas the officers resort to them too quickly.

You can have a gun, you just can't have heavy weaponry.

Most domestic responses are usually good, but its the problem throughout the whole system with inadequately trained officers. There is now little difference between an officer and a militamen.

There are a lot of valid reasons for police to carry shotguns or patrol rifles (i.e., AR-15s) in their cars. And I'm getting the impression that you use the term militiaman like it's a bad thing (correct me if I'm wrong). And the police (more specifically, the sheriff's department in most counties) basically are the core of the militia. In the event of a disaster or emergency, they are the ones who are going to be equipped to respond first.

nomotog wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.

Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

Yes because you need an assault rifle to settle a domestic dispute.

You don't need a gun to settle a dispute its called talking and being a good and lawful citizen.

Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.

What if the other guy is not a lawful abiding citizen

 Asherian Command wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.

Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.

What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?

 Hordini wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.

Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.

What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?

Our M4's have three selection
Safe
Semi
Burst (3 round)

Edit

9mm is as hard and as far as you can throw it

 Asherian Command wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.

Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.

Depends on what your calling military weaponry I guess, but I think that police should be the police and the army should be the army. You get problems when you mix them.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

Yes because you need an assault rifle to settle a domestic dispute.

You don't need a gun to settle a dispute its called talking and being a good and lawful citizen.

Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.

I am given to understand through a brother in law, who was in law enforcement for about 18 years, that domestic disputes can be some of the worst and most dangerous calls to go in on.

Some info on the subject.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2378&issue_id=52011

 Hordini wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.

Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.

What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?

Nope.

I consider anything that a normal soldier has as standard issue. Should not be carried by an officer. AR-15 is a civilian rifle that is fine. As long as your not an idiot.

A 12-Gauge shotgun is not military issue that is civilain.

A Striker or better known as Armsel Striker. Is military grade and its buckshot could rip you apart.

yeah I highly doubt that a Police officer needs access to military vechiles, armored vechiles, mine trucks *

*unless specified in certain areas. IE a Police force needs to requisition temporary, but you don't need a bloody tank in your arsenal.....

Oh looky here.




I don't support any group that uses violence to prove a point.

The entire problem that if you don't train officers right they aren't going to know how to use the weaponry.

Most Soldiers know what they are doing when they are pulling the trigger.

Guess what. Most cops Don't.

They work fine

Relapse wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

Yes because you need an assault rifle to settle a domestic dispute.

You don't need a gun to settle a dispute its called talking and being a good and lawful citizen.

Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.

I am given to understand through a brother in law, who was in law enforcement for about 18 years, that domestic disputes can be some of the worst and most dangerous calls to go in on.

Some info on the subject.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2378&issue_id=52011

So you're saying that you need access to military grade weaponry, an armored vehicle, grenades, tear gas, full body armor, and an entire swat team to settle a domestic dispute.

Unless your expecting a warzone I don't think you need those weapons or an entire swat team to deal with it.

If crime is starting to decrease shouldn't the amount of weaponry you currently own being going down with that slope. Not I don't know... Up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:


They work fine

Difference. That is a military grade version.

Police have the standard issue civilain one.

There are rare cases of them using Riot Guns. But last time I saw that was waayyy back.

What if the other guy is not a lawful abiding citizen

Then arrest him. Don't shoot him in the head because he's walking on the wrong side of the road and happens to be a black man.

There is a ton of racial profiling in the united states.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
"Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.

Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.

We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.

Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.

What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?

Nope.

I consider anything that a normal soldier has as standard issue. Should not be carried by an officer. AR-15 is a civilian rifle that is fine. As long as your not an idiot.

A 12-Gauge shotgun is not military issue that is civilain.

The military does use 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Just FYI. My point is there is some overlap between what the military uses and what civilians are able to own and use, particularly when it comes to small arms.

The shotgun in that picture Jihadin posted can be bought by any civilian. There isn't anything special that makes it "military grade."

 Dreadwinter wrote:


WOO! WE GOT A VIDEO! Finally, some evidence. Alright, lets look at this bad boy. Oh man, he DID reload his firearm after 7 shots. Then he didn't shoot anymore and ran away!

Wow, you really showed me with that situation. The cop clearly needed more firepower with that one weapon being fired at him and one magazine being used. GIVE THIS MAN A GRENADE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZg4mcYkIwU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norco_shootout

The police are there to respond when things go wrong. And things do go wrong. Most of the time, they only go wrong a little bit. The average shots fired in the past few decades by NYPD during shooting incidents was 3-4 rounds, depending on the decade. But every once and a while, things go really, really wrong, and often there's no time to assemble a SWAT team to get into place, and it's the random patrol officer who has to deal with the situation. The vast majority of cops go their whole careers without firing their sidearm outside the range, but they still carry a sidearm (and a rifle or shotgun in their patrol car) because it's their responsibility and job to put themselves in harm's way when need be, and they can't do that while unarmed. From any rational, objective standpoint, if police are going to carry firearms there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have a second magazine.

To quote Theodore Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

You quite clearly don't know what you're talking about. Any input you can provide on whether or not the police are over or under equipped is going to be twisted by your lack of knowledge on the subject and what appears to be a rather large chip on your shoulder. Sure, it really doesn't matter if internet expert #538,544 decides he knows better than everyone else, but still, you're being as unreasonable as the suggestion to shoot anyone who doesn't like police.