Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/5/2001 3:36:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2001 3:52:03 PM EDT by thebeekeeper1]
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 3:55:41 PM EDT
Cop basher! Those devices ONLY start fires in the homes of those that are guilty.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 3:58:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 4:05:22 PM EDT
Beekeeper- Perhaps these fires are starting from the lack of flash suppressors on the firearms they use to commit suicide. If these agencies would change the 94 crime bill the problem would end. With these alleged criminals having to use postban weapons the fire danger has increased dramatically. The only other alternative would be to instuct them by mail before serving warrants that they should remove all combustibles away from where they will be starting their standoff. Hope this highly intelligent observation helps all government agencies involved. Please remember suicide with postban firearms always causes incineration of surroundings. Be smart, use preban for your next attempt.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 8:11:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 8:44:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 8:58:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2001 9:05:40 PM EDT by Gunrunner]
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 9:44:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunrunner: thebeekeeper1, sorry about "going off" but I'm getting more than a little annoyed at the Anti-Cop postings and maybe I'm getting a little "thin skined". I left Bowers' Board several years ago when posts start appearing about "Killing Cops", I DON'T want AR15.com to sink to that level.(and there HAVE been a few here) Yes there ARE canisters that REDUCE the chance of fire BUT, do NOT eliminate it. And on the subject of B.A.T.F. Officers, yes there ARE BAD Officers working for the ATF, BUT, I do know several Enforcement Branch Officers working out of the K.C.MO. Office that are Pro-Gun and will not defend many of B.A.T.F.'s actions INCLUDING Waco TX. Do not lump everyone together, ANY group has a cross section of the population, good , bad, etc., etc. Gunrunner
View Quote
But you do agree that the training and tactics of the LACSO do need to be given a serious going over. Shooting up the neighbors houses has no justification. We started using professional law enforcement in this country about a hundred years ago just to get away from this kind of crap- possymen had a very poor history of finding the right house and killing the wrong people. What the LACSO showed in this was not a improvement over 100 years ago.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 10:33:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunrunner: Rules of Engagement for almost every Law Enforcement Agency in the U.S. - When engaged with a suspect you are to respond with the next step on the ladder of force above what the suspect is using. When deadly force is used you WILL respond with deadly force. Gunrunner [b]1*[/b]
View Quote
Does this mean in a situation where law enforcement runs out of ammo, like in Waco and Lubbock, you can call in arty on your own position?
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 10:39:07 PM EDT
It wouldnt be so bad if the leo's only shot up the bad guy's house! noooo they have to shoot up the hole neighborhood, and kill one of their own in the process!
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 10:48:31 PM EDT
View Quote
i have a legitimate, non-LEO bashing question. where is it stated that authorities absolutely, undeniably have to go in right then and there, when the only way of doing that is, at the very least, causing property dammage (sometimes lots of it), and, at the very worst, results in the loss of the "bad guy's" life? if you're taking fire and the "bad guy" is not giving up, and the only way to get him is through EXTREME force, why can't you back off? pull out? get behind those little yellow perimeter marking tapes? i only ask because if it were a hostage situation (assuming he wasn't offing the hostages), going in like a crazed banshee isn't really an option. so why not treat the lone "bad guy" as if he's a hostage-taker and use all the techniques in hostage rescue like negotiation, waiting, loss of electricity, heat,water? why aren't these things employed?
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 1:46:06 AM EDT
I think the key to Gunrunner's post is "continuing to engage the officers with rifle fire". If reports are true that Beck had the high ground and that he had deputies pinned down, then pulling out is obviously easier said than done. The tough part about shuting off the electricity, water, heat, etc, is that you would have to approach the house where all the meters/controls are located. Yeah, you could shut down a whole grid, but if you're going to wait this guy out, (for how long) what do ya do with the rest of the neighbors? In your scenario; "if you're taking fire and the 'badguy' is not giving up", backing off is the last thing I would want to do. Beck appearantly shot many rounds and presumably only hit his mark once. Where were the rest of his rounds hitting? Could he have been shooting at the neighbors who "ratted" him off? Remember, it was a populated neighborhood not a ranch in the boonies. For the officers to have backed off and said "sorry folks, you're on your own" is IMO unthinkable. "Get behind those little yellow perimeter marking tapes?" LOL. That one was cute.
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 5:48:29 AM EDT
Beck supposedly was firing a scoped .30-06 rifle. Effective range could be out to about 500 yards. With that rifle he would have a zone of appx 0-150 yards where there was NO cover for the LEO's. Houses, cars, and trees only offered concealment. The LEO weapons, handgun and shotgun have much shorter ranges, and a house would be cover against those weapons. If they had .223 rifles the effective range might be 300 yards, 100 yards would be the approximate range to defeat a house as cover. The LEO's should only fire when they have a target. I think they may have been trying to "surpress" Beck since they didn't have good cover. If the LEO's had pulled back, they would have had to pull back far enough so they couldn't see Beck's house in order to be concealed. That would have given Beck MOBILITY. An armed man is bad, and armed mobile man is really dangerous. I looked at the specs. of some 12ga, 37mm, and 40mm gas rounds in a sales catalog. Most 37mm and 40mm rounds had ranges from 60-150 yds, and 40mm rounds actually had less range than 37mm rounds (???). With those shells the buyer could chose pyrotechnic or non-pyro. But there was 1 shell listed for 37mm that had barricade penetrating capabilities and a 300 yard range. It was only available as a pyrotechnic round. They did call Beck during this incident, he said he wasn't coming out and they would pay if they came in. How long can you wait for a person that is actively shooting to come out?? What if one of his rounds hits someone 1000 or 2000 yards (by luck, or chance) from his position. How would you evacuate people in every dierction for a mile, quickly?? Can the police sit by and risk that kind of risk to an innocent bystander??
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 5:57:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 6:16:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2001 6:19:16 AM EDT by fight4yourrights]
By Gunrunner
You are NOT going to like my response !!!! If I already had at least one Officer down and the perp was still firing from the structure I would introduce tear gas. If he still continued to fire from the structure AND I knew there were NO OTHER INDIVIDUALS inside I would hit it with EVERYTHING at my disposal !!!! This IDIOT signed his own death warrant.
View Quote
Well, some reports say the LEO's shot their own, that Beck wasn't the shooter. We'll probably never know for sure, but I don't like the idea that someone "signs their own death warrant" based on a mistake by the LEO's. The shootout in Lubbock Texas a few weeks ago almost got the suspect killed after an LEO was killed, yet the suspect didn't even have a gun on him. Would be a real shame for someone to be executed for something they didn't even do. Last time I checked, LEO's weren't given Death Warrants to be served against the lowly plebes. With all the confusion that surrounds these events, the execution of the suspect can often be based on incorrect information. We end up with an "oops". Look at the 11 year old boy shot in the back with a 12 gauge during a raid gone bad at the wrong address. Here's a question: Why did the media and the public buy the BS line that firefighters couldn't suppress the fire in Becks house? We could all see them spraying water on the surrounding houses, there is NO REASON they couldn't have sprayed water on Beck's house. My only conclusion is that the establishment was pissed a cop was dead and wanted Beck dead as well. Retribution is a poor SOP, but I don't claim that I would be above it.
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 7:13:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 7:34:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 8:04:09 AM EDT
I lurk here much more than I post......but based on my experience of supervising, for ten years some of those guys that dress in black; standing outside while being shot at from inside, being responsible for the safety of on scene fire personnel, medical personnel, bystanders, neighbors, and the people I was supervising, it is a much more complicated problem to deal with than it may seem. It is really sort of difficult to walk that thin line of keeping everyone safe, doing the job that you are responsible for, trying not to get your own a** shot off, worry about the civil suits, and attempting to get the "bad/crazy" person to give up without killing the bast**d all at the same time. It tends to be a little stressful being shot at and having a whole bunch of rules to follow, not to say that the rules should not be there. I must admit to zinging a few burning projectiles in the window a time or two.........must have been those 30-06 rounds from the Garand coming my way that caused my lapse in judgement, bullets tend to do that. As I recall, I zinged a few shotgun launched flares in that particular window too when I ran out of other stuff to shoot. But I must also admit that I was shooting it all at the correct house.
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 8:16:00 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 1:50:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2001 1:50:55 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: Here's a question: Why did the media and the public buy the BS line that firefighters couldn't suppress the fire in Becks house? We could all see them spraying water on the surrounding houses, there is NO REASON they couldn't have sprayed water on Beck's house. My only conclusion is that the establishment was pissed a cop was dead and wanted Beck dead as well. Retribution is a poor SOP, but I don't claim that I would be above it.
View Quote
They could have put water on Beck's house but it would be like trying to fill your cars gas tank when your parked 10 feet from the pump and the pump has a 4' hose. A working structure fire is an intense fire temperatures reach over a thousand degrees. Most of the water that would be sent to the house would hit the roof and drain off. What is Beck's responsibility here?? Does he not have a responsibility to get out of a burning house if he doesn't want to be burnt. Is he not responsible for his choices??
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 1:56:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 2:16:25 PM EDT
Wow, this board really impresses me! We have folks here who weren't there, never been there, never will be there who know all the answers! Hmmm, let's see, have you ever been shot at by high power rifle fire? By someone who has just killed someone you know who is nearby? How is your fire dicipline? Don't really know do you armchair commando's? Well in Beck's case, and many others, you don't have the option to "wait it out". Yellow barricade tape won't stop highpower rifle fire, it ain't cover. He, his dog, and his house burned to a crisp, sooooo what? In a case like his, a 40mm willy pete is much more apropriate than CS in my humble view. Of course, that is just my view. Even though I am someone who has been shot at, and hit, and someone who has thrown a bit of it back. But I obviously don't know near as much as the ChairBorne Rangers we have here who know it all...
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 2:57:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2001 3:29:16 PM EDT by Striker]
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 3:14:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 3:42:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer: for all guys defending the LEO here remember this. They did not have the search warrant on site. Last i knew you were under no obligation to cooperate with a search until they produce a warrant. By the ATF's own admision the warrant was sealed at another location. I would have most likely refused them entry as well until the warrant was produced. Beck most likely was a dirtbag. But he was not killed for being a criminal he was killed for resisting an illeagal search. Yes he is to blame as well but LEO are the proffesionals and seemed to have skirted the law. mike
View Quote
Well they told the media the warrant wasn't on scene, does that mean it wasn't there when they atttempted the search?? Are you saying if LEO's call and tell you they have a search warrant you should wait until they approach your house and open fire?? Then you yell that they didn't serve the warrant and were trying to violate your rights?? I keep seeing on this site that the "dynamic entry" is not an AR15.com approved method. Posts keep saying LEO's should talk to people in a rational manner. If they have a warrant to serve they should knock on the persons door and talk with them. They called him and asked him to come out, he started shooting. Did he start shooting because of LE tactics or did he realize if they executed the warrant they would find evidince that could be the basis of multiple criminal charges?? How should LE serve warrants you guys are good at pointing out stuff that doesn't work, what would have? First person that says wait until he leaves the house and [red]"pick him up"[/red] gets a dunce cap. This was a [red]search warrant[/red] it doesn't give LEO's the authority to detain anyone.
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 3:50:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 3:55:40 PM EDT
There may be state or federal law related to the warrant service or there may be USMS policy. Or that could have been specified by the issuing Court/Judge. I don't know I'm theorizing. If the shepard was an actual trained service dog they wouldn't have gotten into the house without Beck present or shooting the dog. Perhaps again the USMS was trying to be reasonable and didn't want to use any force, even against the dog, if they didn't HAVE to. Again guessing, theorizing.
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 3:58:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2001 3:58:51 PM EDT by AR-SNIPER-15]
But I thought they started the fires themselves.[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 4:00:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 4:01:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR-SNIPER-15: But I thought they started the fires themselves.[rooleyes]
View Quote
Yes, 1) If they were being fired on, deadly force, they may have felt they were justified in firing pyrotechnic rounds. 2) That is after they had been shot at, a deputy killed, and negotiations had broken down. 3) I wonder about the choice of CS rounds myself.
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 4:07:59 PM EDT
Striker said:
I wonder how many people here know what 1* even means!
View Quote
I don't. Wanna tell us?
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 4:15:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer: oly, Are you really this big of an idiot or do you only play one on ar15.com? [:)] The atf agent was interviewed at the scene during the standoff. Therefore i assume
View Quote
never assume.
the warrant was NEVER on scene. I don't think they made a special run to return the warrant to the office. If they did not present a warrant then as far as he knew there was not one.
View Quote
he barricade himself in the house when they approached. I guess they should have said looks like he made it inside we can't show him the warrant even though we just phoned him and told him we had one. Quick everyone back to donut world.
If a police officer came to your door tonight and wanted to search your house just because he felt like it would you let him?
View Quote
I don't have anything to hide. I suppose I would make up a lot of reason and justificatation if a was a felon and continuing to commit crimes.......
No it was not right to open fire. That was his mistake. But if the situation were on my privately owned property i would certanly have resisted until a warrant was delivered.
View Quote
Yeah, I think open the front door, stand in it and be like Cuba Gooding... "show me the warrant". But Beck didn't want to see a warrant and didn't want to allow a search no matter what.
They are the Police for gods sake. They are supposed to know the law. Try reading the constitution and then think about the warrant issue again. mike
View Quote
Constituion should alway be capitalized. [red]Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [/red] Don't see a right to commit crimes or shoot people. The right to be secure, says UNREASONALBE searches. Let's see felon with guns pretending to be a USMS officer, that sounds like the basis of a REASONABLE search Where does it say that a warrant must be present??
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 4:24:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 4:25:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 4:27:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 4:31:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 4:41:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 4:58:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2001 5:06:22 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
If a police officer came to your door tonight and wanted to search your house just because he felt like it would you let him?
View Quote
I don't have anything to hide. I suppose I would make up a lot of reasons and justificatations if I was a felon and continuing to commit crimes.......
View Quote
Another favorite LEO attitude I see too much of, anyone who doesn't consent to a search without probable cause must have something to hide, they couldn't just value thier rights[rolleyes]. (note this was a question not about Beck, but about what you would do.)
View Quote
I said I didn't have anything to hide. People who resist a warrant may have something to hide. I have no problems with people asserting their Rights. EDIT: I'll add that LEO's should be aware of rights and be cognizant of their actions, in regards to people's Rights. LEO's should not be violating people's Rights either recklessly or knowingly.
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 5:05:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 5:05:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 5:14:30 PM EDT
symtex, me no understando.
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 6:23:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 6:25:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2001 6:31:16 PM EDT by Gunrunner]
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 6:34:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 6:34:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 7:10:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2001 7:12:11 PM EDT by Gunrunner]
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 7:28:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 8:01:39 PM EDT
Just a short note about this "sealed warrant" business........I do not, nor have I ever been employed by the Federal Government, but unless I am very mistaken it is fairly common practice for Federal search warrants, at least the affidavit (the part that the officer writes which contains all the facts that add up to that magic thing "probable cause" and swears to in front of the judge) is sealed, it is also not uncommon for a Federal Indictment to be sealed. In other words, there being a "sealed" warrant does not, in any way mean that there was not one nor that there was not a physical copy of a search warrant signed by a Federal Judge on the scene with the officers. The Federal system tends to work a little different than what most of us may be familiar with, for example......it is common for local law enforcement to make an arrest and sometime later the case goes before a Grand Jury for Indictment, in the Federal system a case or witnesses present information to a Federal Grand Jury and if there is an Indictment then the individual is arrested.
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 8:10:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 8:42:14 PM EDT
The warrent issue is neither here nor there. What is important is that the LACSO, showed a extreme lack of disipline. Once they heard one of their number was down they went completely to pieces. They started shooting at houses, not suspects- houses, and then they couldnt even get the right one. They fired into unevacuated houses on either side of the suspect even after the occupants had contacted 911 and told them they were there. Their indiscriminate shooting is what needs to be called into question first and foremost. I cant beleve that people here are fiddle farting around trying to make this sleezebag into another Randy Weaver. And I cant beleve that profesional LEO's find nothing wrong with the Deputies firinig blidly into houses almost hitting innocent civilians. You all need to get off your high horses and get into the real fucking world.
Link Posted: 9/7/2001 4:17:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2001 4:20:05 AM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top