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.

sirlynchmob wrote:
It's amazing how people think the insured stuff in their house or pockets is worth more than a human life.

Of course the other side of that coin is, if the guy wanting my possessions decides they are not worth his life, perhaps he then does not try to take them by force.


There are too many cases where the crap bag taking another person's property by force hurts, or worse kills, the victim even when the victim is compliant. Frankly my life and well being are a LOT more valuable to me than that of some crap bag who threatens force to relieve me of my property. The lives and well being of wife and kids has even higher value.

 Asherian Command wrote:

A regular cop does not need to have a bullet proof vest period. It is only fear mongering to think so.

This may be the most ridiculous thing you've posted.

 Asherian Command wrote:
A regular cop does not need to have a bullet proof vest period. It is only fear mongering to think so. In some areas. They do.

My uncle was an NYPD officer who was slain in the line of duty, and I wish that he had been wearing a vest.

The ideas that you have posted in this thread, such as shooting a gun out of the hands of a perpetrator, and that police do not need kevlar vests.. I can honestly say it's some of the most worthless, ill-informed drivel I've read on these forums.

 Dreadwinter wrote:


I like how you are implying that by questioning LEO's carrying around 2-3 extra clips I am suddenly arguing the whole aspect of their use of firearms. I am also suddenly calling for all LEOs to drop their 2nd and 3rd magazine. I have not once talked about the caliber of a bullet or anything else you have implied. You are implying that I am saying a lot and all I am doing is asking you to provide evidence for your arguments. I said none of these things. I really expected much better from you.

You understand I used all those other qualifiers because it greatly impacts the magazine size, correct?

I'm implying that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

@Asherian Command: That's probably the most naive thing I've ever read. Some people go out of their way to harm police officers because they wear the uniform. For instance, a man here in Manchester, UK led police officers into a trap after making a crank call reporting a burglary. He then attacked them with a Glock and grenades because "police were hounding his family"

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

That's how big a jerk people can be.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

A regular cop does not need to have a bullet proof vest period. It is only fear mongering to think so.

This may be the most ridiculous thing you've posted.

You are very selective.

Hell Pot meet kettle.

Please include the whole quote. Thank you.

My uncle was an NYPD officer who was slain in the line of duty, and I wish that he had been wearing a vest.

The ideas that you have posted in this thread, such as shooting a gun out of the hands of a perpetrator, and that police do not need kevlar vests.. I can honestly say it's some of the most worthless, ill-informed drivel I've read on these forums.

Hello have you been reading my posts? no?

Let me highlight a very important part that I have written okay ready for it?

A regular cop does not need to have a bullet proof vest period. It is only fear mongering to think so. In some areas. They do.

Wow! I actually said that I just blew some peoples minds. Mates I am not jagged so stop telling me I am jagged on this event. I am saying most police do not need bullet proof vests. IE Sururban towns and villages do not need heavy weaponry or bullet proof vests. In cities they do. Or in high risk areas. Right now every cop has a bullet proof vest now. Its call escalation. Once you tart wearing bullet proof vests gangs start buying armor piercing rounds.. And let me tell you Gangs can get weapons and ammunition pretty easily from the black market.

The more powerful weapons you get for the police the more motivated gangs will be to get better weaponry. And then it starts a bloody arms race.

That's probably the most naive thing I've ever read. Some people go out of their way to harm police officers because they wear the uniform. For instance, a man here in Manchester, UK led police officers into a trap after making a crank call reporting a burglary. He then attacked them with a Glock and grenades because "police were hounding his family"

Wow some of you just stop reading at certain points.

I think this is completely selective.

That's how big a jerk people can be.

I don't know, some can be, some can't. But we shouldn't expect things like that to happen. They happen whether we like it or not.

An officer should not go dressed for war in the case of a domestice dispute between a grandma and a group of kids. Because those kids are crossing her lawn. Grandma wants them arrested for trespassing.

Should the officer really being wielding an ar-15 for something like this? No? You got it right!

The only time you should wear full combat gear is if you know there is going to be.

Have it in your cruiser.

That is completely untrue Asherian. Even if its very unlikely for a cop in a certain area to need his vest, the chance remains that he will. You're basically saying his life isn't worth enough to warrant preparing for the possibility. Thats utterly disgusting.

 Asherian Command wrote:


Wow! I actually said that I just blew some peoples minds. Mates I am not jagged so stop telling me I am jagged on this event. I am saying most police do not need bullet proof vests. IE Sururban towns and villages do not need heavy weaponry or bullet proof vests. In cities they do. Or in high risk areas. Right now every cop has a bullet proof vest now. Its call escalation. Once you tart wearing bullet proof vests gangs start buying armor piercing rounds.. And let me tell you Gangs can get weapons and ammunition pretty easily from the black market.

The more powerful weapons you get for the police the more motivated gangs will be to get better weaponry. And then it starts a bloody arms race.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Ash... you're buying into the mysticism that certain weapons/configurations are deadlier than others.

It's a hammer... a tool.

EDIT: the small towns, non-urban settings are just as deadly as the city Ash...

Rural Missouri is still one of the top Meth producing areas in the country, with affiliated gang activities.

sirlynchmob wrote:


It's amazing how people think the insured stuff in their house or pockets is worth more than a human life.

Not sure why that irritates you so much. Everything in your house (and your house in general of course) is something that belongs to you, it's yours, and thus naturally closer to any stranger. If any stranger enters my house with bad intents, he is a criminal and is fully responsible for any consequences. Get caught stealing red-handed? Get knocked out or maimed. Or killed if you're unlucky. Anyone entering private property fully decided to do so. And as it always is the case with decisions...you're responsible for your decision's outcome.

Ash, you're really just digging yourself deeper and deeper and your inexperience is showing in a big way. Rural Montana is exceptionally dangerous for police and, much like whembly's example, is a major meth-producing area with gang activity. Are you telling me that police don't need protection there as well?

 whembly wrote:
Ash... you're buying into the mysticism that certain weapons/configurations are deadlier than others.

It's a hammer... a tool.

EDIT: the small towns, non-urban settings are just as deadly as the city Ash...

Rural Missouri is still one of the top Meth producing areas in the country, with affiliated gang activities.

I am pretty sure a stinger is deadlier than an assuallt rifle

ou really have no idea what you're talking about.

Sorry but that is the truth. The more military looking your weapons are the higher the chance the gangs will do the same to stay ahead.

That is completely untrue Asherian. Even if its very unlikely for a cop in a certain area to need his vest, the chance remains that he will. You're basically saying his life isn't worth enough to warrant preparing for the possibility. Thats utterly disgusting.

Please read for gods sakes just read what I've wrote. You do not need it on 24/7. You have need of it, when you have need of it.

If you are settling a domestic dispute between a gun crazy ex military yeah. You should probably be wearing a vest.

If you want a better police force the officers need to have information sent to them. I.E. Background checks etc on the place they are going to.

While they are driving there maybe the HQ should send them information about the preprator if it is an ex-military maybe the officer should wear a vest.

Its the officers call whether to wear it or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
Ash, you're really just digging yourself deeper and deeper and your inexperience is showing in a big way. Rural Montana is exceptionally dangerous for police and, much like whembly's example, is a major meth-producing area with gang activity. Are you telling me that police don't need protection there as well?

Did I?

No.I said there would be exceptions.

The only ones digging holes here are you lot because you refuse to read. And try to seek clarity with me.

Instead you assume, you assume this is what I meant or cut out small details that make my opinion completely different from what it actually is.

Most situations in the United States in Rural and Urban areas they do not need a bullet proof vest. I am not saying to get rid of them, just not to wear them for every situation.

Infact the only things I think they should get rid of are the armored tanks that certain police do have. Infact they have military vechiles which are known to tear up roads, and yet they are driven in sururban and rural areas.

Unless your in a warzone. I don't think you need access to military hardware. (I.E. Armored jeeps and tanks)

Please read for gods sakes just read what I've wrote. You do not need it on 24/7. You have need of it, when you have need of it.

So, after the first round punches through your torso, you know you need your vest.

Sounds good.

 CptJake wrote:

Please read for gods sakes just read what I've wrote. You do not need it on 24/7. You have need of it, when you have need of it.

So, after the first round punches through your torso, you know you need your vest.

Sounds good.

NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.

In a place like Grand Rapids Michigan. A Crme rate that is incredibly low. The police do not wear.... Vests. Wow. its like they are competent! Because they are in a college town.... So they expect not to get shot at by snipers.

You all make out that police in rural areas have to fight the bloody mob every day in the thousands of cases. Can I say that is not what is happening most crime like that is incredibly rare.

Saying it happens all the time. It is stupid it doesn't.

Most crimes like that happen seldom and the police prepare accordingly.



But if you go to a place that has a history by all means wear the bloody vest.

Its the officers call like I have said many times so far.

 CptJake wrote:

There are too many cases where the crap bag taking another person's property by force hurts, or worse kills, the victim even when the victim is compliant. Frankly my life and well being are a LOT more valuable to me than that of some crap bag who threatens force to relieve me of my property. The lives and well being of wife and kids has even higher value.

Yeah, there's a book (an extremely great read, I might add), called "Seven Myths of Gun Control" by RIchard Poe, where he talks about this sort of thing. As a case in point, in the book, in the chapter about "gun control proponents believe if you're compliant a home invasion will remain simply a robbery", he talks about a case in a college town in Kansas.

In that town, a number of years back, there was a single dude who broke into the house of some young adults (IIRC, they were upperclassmen, or grad students). The house occupants at the time were the 2 couples who lived their, and a 3rd female friend (2 males, 3 females), and a single guy entered the house with the apparent intentions of robbing it. Now, they've been told this BS of "if you're compliant, you'll come out alive" and they did exactly what he said. The were all herded into a single bedroom, and the perp had the 2 males duct tape the wrists of the 3 females and then each others, like handcuffs. This guy then proceeded to rape, and kill all three women, in front of the dudes without a single bit of resistance from anyone in the house.... seriously, it was 5:1, and NO ONE thought to fight back, instead, all 5 are now dead, because they complied.


Now, maybe it's just many of our's military training, but if you're (the metaphorical "you") are in my house uninvited, you should probably expect a good dose of lead poisoning as a welcoming gift. I get that there's pacifists in this world, and that's all well and good, but there MUST be a line where you stop believing peace is the answer and start kicking ass.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

There are too many cases where the crap bag taking another person's property by force hurts, or worse kills, the victim even when the victim is compliant. Frankly my life and well being are a LOT more valuable to me than that of some crap bag who threatens force to relieve me of my property. The lives and well being of wife and kids has even higher value.

Yeah, there's a book (an extremely great read, I might add), called "Seven Myths of Gun Control" by RIchard Poe, where he talks about this sort of thing. As a case in point, in the book, in the chapter about "gun control proponents believe if you're compliant a home invasion will remain simply a robbery", he talks about a case in a college town in Kansas.

In that town, a number of years back, there was a single dude who broke into the house of some young adults (IIRC, they were upperclassmen, or grad students). The house occupants at the time were the 2 couples who lived their, and a 3rd female friend (2 males, 3 females), and a single guy entered the house with the apparent intentions of robbing it. Now, they've been told this BS of "if you're compliant, you'll come out alive" and they did exactly what he said. The were all herded into a single bedroom, and the perp had the 2 males duct tape the wrists of the 3 females and then each others, like handcuffs. This guy then proceeded to rape, and kill all three women, in front of the dudes without a single bit of resistance from anyone in the house.... seriously, it was 5:1, and NO ONE thought to fight back, instead, all 5 are now dead, because they complied.


Now, maybe it's just many of our's military training, but if you're (the metaphorical "you") are in my house uninvited, you should probably expect a good dose of lead poisoning as a welcoming gift. I get that there's pacifists in this world, and that's all well and good, but there MUST be a line where you stop believing peace is the answer and start kicking ass.

Rare case again.

The basic problem with that argument is if that is a normal occurence. You have 5 vs 1. You do the math. Did the prep have a gun? No. Then that person is going to get his ass kicked.

I just won't be doing to the kicking. I'll be doing the holding down against the ground till the police arrive. He won't be able to move with both his hands broken.

 Asherian Command wrote:

NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.

So, that Oregon State Trooper a couple pages back... he KNOWS he's walking into a firefight when he pops a guy for speeding, right? Who called 911 to let him know this speeder was crazy, had a gun and was itching to use it?


Ohh, that's right. No one did. There was no prior information there. Simply what his radar gun said in the cruiser, which is the guy was going faster than 65 mph.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.

So, that Oregon State Trooper a couple pages back... he KNOWS he's walking into a firefight when he pops a guy for speeding, right? Who called 911 to let him know this speeder was crazy, had a gun and was itching to use it?


Ohh, that's right. No one did. There was no prior information there. Simply what his radar gun said in the cruiser, which is the guy was going faster than 65 mph.

I'm going to let you come to your own conclusion.

Does he Either A) Choose to wear the vest (With Suspicions and ever since he is a State Trooper)
or
B) Choose not to wear the vest (Because he knows the person in the car and has a 100% guarantee it is not going to turn into a gunfight)
Or
C) Be a dumbass walk up to the window with your vest in your hand and give the lawbreaker your gun and your badge and say shoot me.

Please indulge me.

 Asherian Command wrote:


NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.

In a place like Grand Rapids Michigan. A Crme rate that is incredibly low. The police do not wear.... Vests. Wow. its like they are competent! Because they are in a college town.... So they expect not to get shot at by snipers.

You all make out that police in rural areas have to fight the bloody mob every day in the thousands of cases. Can I say that is not what is happening most crime like that is incredibly rare.

Saying it happens all the time. It is stupid it doesn't.

Most crimes like that happen seldom and the police prepare accordingly.

At this point I have to wonder if you're trolling.

I only know 6 LEOs. Every one wears their vest on the daily. It's not the "snipers" (are you fething serious with this?) or the "bloody mob" they're worried about. It's the single unhinged methhead or person with an axe to grind against the police.

But it's good to know that if you're in a college town, you're safe. Just make sure you don't tell that to Charles Whitman or Seung-Hui Cho.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.

So, that Oregon State Trooper a couple pages back... he KNOWS he's walking into a firefight when he pops a guy for speeding, right? Who called 911 to let him know this speeder was crazy, had a gun and was itching to use it?


Ohh, that's right. No one did. There was no prior information there. Simply what his radar gun said in the cruiser, which is the guy was going faster than 65 mph.

Heck, wrap it back to the article in the OP. Did these two officers think they were gonna be in a gun fight?

Granted, a vest would not have helped them, but the situation is a great example of not every gunfight is entered with "information" it is about to be entered.

Frankly it is asinine to assume cops only are ever in planned gunfights.

 Asherian Command wrote:


I just won't be doing to the kicking. I'll be doing the holding down against the ground till the police arrive. He won't be able to move with both his hands broken.

Listen to this guy.

You're cracking me up over here.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


I just won't be doing to the kicking. I'll be doing the holding down against the ground till the police arrive. He won't be able to move with both his hands broken.

Listen to this guy.

You're cracking me up over here.

Yes because the guy has an extreme tolerance to pain.

All of you are ignoring the fact that most cases don't have that. Most cops don't ever fire their fire arm. Guess what that is completely true. If you are in a low risk area you don't need to wear one all the time.

I only know 6 LEOs. Every one wears their vest on the daily. It's not the "snipers" (are you fething serious with this?) or the "bloody mob" they're worried about. It's the single unhinged methhead or person with an axe to grind against the police.

Well considering how all of you are saying that the police need to be prepared for anything and carry around full body armor, full headgear, have access to military hardware, Because you know Meth Addicts are rich enough to own a tank.

There is only one recorded case that there was actually a tank owned by a criminal. Guess what. The guns were ineffective. Does this mean that the police should carry anti tank weaponry? Nope. Guess how you stop a tank. You act smart and destroy its gears and treads. Which is what happened because the idiot driving it drove into a a solid cement wall.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.

So, that Oregon State Trooper a couple pages back... he KNOWS he's walking into a firefight when he pops a guy for speeding, right? Who called 911 to let him know this speeder was crazy, had a gun and was itching to use it?


Ohh, that's right. No one did. There was no prior information there. Simply what his radar gun said in the cruiser, which is the guy was going faster than 65 mph.

Heck, wrap it back to the article in the OP. Did these two officers think they were gonna be in a gun fight?

Granted, a vest would not have helped them, but the situation is a great example of not every gunfight is entered with "information" it is about to be entered.

Frankly it is asinine to assume cops only are ever in planned gunfights.

i didn't say that but you can plan ahead. If the cops already at the area call for back up and say get vests on. They will. It is the officers choice whether to wear a vest or not to.

Wow. Just....wow. This has got to be trolling, right?

 curran12 wrote:
Wow. Just....wow. This has got to be trolling, right?

While most of us hope so... I don't think so.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ash... you're buying into the mysticism that certain weapons/configurations are deadlier than others.

It's a hammer... a tool.

EDIT: the small towns, non-urban settings are just as deadly as the city Ash...

Rural Missouri is still one of the top Meth producing areas in the country, with affiliated gang activities.

I am pretty sure a stinger is deadlier than an assuallt rifle

Before moving forward:

Define "assault rifle" as what you *think* it means.

Also, please point out the police department that has a Stinger Missile system... I'd like to make sure that I'm outside if their range.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Wow. Just....wow. This has got to be trolling, right?

While most of us hope so... I don't think so.

i think I have said several times it is the Officers choice at the end of the day. Whether to wear a vest or not to.

Before moving forward:

Define "assault rifle" as what you *think* it means.

Also, please point out the police department that has a Stinger Missile system... I'd like to make sure that I'm outside if their range.

Assualt Rifle - A weapon that can switch between automatic or semi-automatic, these weapons are usually used by Military personnel and have special optics.

Plus the stinger thing was a joke because someone said I bought into the whole some weapons are deadlier than others which I know is bull.

Let's get back ontopic...

Should we have a "national conversation on violent rhetoric" like we had over Sarah Palin's non-involvement in the shooting of Gabby Giffords???

 whembly wrote:
Let's get back ontopic...

Should we have a "national conversation on violent rhetoric" like we had over Sarah Palin's non-involvement in the shooting of Gabby Giffords???

Oh dear XD

 whembly wrote:
Let's get back ontopic...

Should we have a "national conversation on violent rhetoric" like we had over Sarah Palin's non-involvement in the shooting of Gabby Giffords???

I don't know if that's the particular title we should use, but I do think we should have some conversations. I probably don't know all the questions that need asking, and I certainly don't have answers for many of those questions. But, I believe that if we're able to have a peaceful discussion with "important" people involved, more will be accomplished than it would by rioting in Missouri, or executing cops who are just doing their jobs.

 Asherian Command wrote:


Assualt Rifle - A weapon that can switch between automatic or semi-automatic, these weapons are usually used by Military personnel and have special optics.

Oh goodness. "Have special optics?" You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Be honest with us. Have you actually held an AR 10/15 before? The truth now, if you will.