Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/4/2003 9:29:44 PM EST
We were watching a Discovery Channel program tonight about body armor. This provoked much conversation in our house and also raised many questions. I would like to point out that in many interviews with LA police and officers from the surrounding municipalities, the officers made many questionable statements. Such as, "the .223 round will go through cruisers and still injure officers" and "the majority of criminals carry and use assault weapons". We all know these statements are crap but I wonder why police officers continue to make them? The biggest question of all: The program showed several officers recounting the West Hollywood Bank of America robbery in '97. The shoot out lasted 45 minutes. All the officers told tales of shear terror and fear. That is, until a benevolent civilian that owned a gun shop provided police with 5 AR15 rifles.......... Now my question is this: Where the HELL was the much vaunted LA SWAT teams with their belt feed machine guns and armored personnel carrier? Why did they have to go to the gun shop owner for weapons? I mean, they justify all the military hardware their SWAT units have, but yet they have to borrow AR15 rifles? What's up with that? REAPER2502
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 9:39:15 PM EST
A. Most cops really don't know shit about guns (including how to shoot them accurately). B. The rifles acquired from the gunshop were not actually employed by the police as the bad guys were already on the move. C. The LAPD SWAT team did kill the bad guys. A sniper shot the first through the neck while the bad guy simultaneously shot himself. The second guy was shot up pretty good by a car full of M-16-equipped SWAT officers. D. Since the shootout Project Northstar has given the LAPD several M-16 trunk guns (I can't remember the exact number right now, but it was quite a few and I believe they had the sears removed so they could only fire semi-auto).
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 3:55:16 AM EST
Did they mention that the cops did not allow the second robber to recieve medical treatment even though a doctor was there and wanted to treat him? They waited with him for over an hour until he died before they would let anyone near him.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 4:17:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By Hercules2400: Did they mention that the cops did not allow the second robber to recieve medical treatment even though a doctor was there and wanted to treat him? They waited with him for over an hour until he died before they would let anyone near him.
View Quote
Boo-hoo [>(]
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 4:18:21 AM EST
Originally Posted By Hercules2400: Did they mention that the cops did not allow the second robber to recieve medical treatment even though a doctor was there and wanted to treat him? They waited with him for over an hour until he died before they would let anyone near him.
View Quote
I believe they were fearful that a there was a third shooter in the vicinity and didn't want to risk having additional victims. Victims and honorable combatants deserve medical attention. Scumbags can be left to die where they fall.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 4:30:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By REAPER2502: Now my question is this: Where the HELL was the much vaunted LA SWAT teams with their belt feed machine guns and armored personnel carrier? Why did they have to go to the gun shop owner for weapons? I mean, they justify all the military hardware their SWAT units have, but yet they have to borrow AR15 rifles?
View Quote
Usual on scene after a call out for a SWAT team is 45 minutes to an hour. Before SWAT could arrive, some of the patrol officers on scene went to the gun shop and got the AR's. The only long guns at the time for patrol were Ithaca shotguns.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 4:58:00 AM EST
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: D. Since the shootout Project Northstar has given the LAPD several M-16 trunk guns (I can't remember the exact number right now, but it was quite a few and I believe they had the sears removed so they could only fire semi-auto).
View Quote
Project Northstar is some program to educate the homeless or something like that. They got their weapons through the 1033 Program. They got 600 M16A1s, which they modified for semi-only fire. They only deployed about half of those to Patrol, with the other half going to their Metro Division, the academy or were held in reserve. They are now apparently buying .223 carbines for Patrol; looks like their standard set-up is a fixed carry handle carbine with about a 16" barell and a Surefire M500. A fairly decent patrol setup. Their original policy for deploying rifles was very strict, and a situation had to meet very strict criteria, and they had to have a supervisor's permission before they deployed a rifle. That has since changed, and the rifles are racked up front with the shotguns and deployed at the officer's discretion.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 5:20:23 AM EST
Originally Posted By natez:
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: D. Since the shootout Project Northstar has given the LAPD several M-16 trunk guns (I can't remember the exact number right now, but it was quite a few and I believe they had the sears removed so they could only fire semi-auto).
View Quote
Project Northstar is some program to educate the homeless or something like that. They got their weapons through the 1033 Program. They got 600 M16A1s, which they modified for semi-only fire. They only deployed about half of those to Patrol, with the other half going to their Metro Division, the academy or were held in reserve. They are now apparently buying .223 carbines for Patrol; looks like their standard set-up is a fixed carry handle carbine with about a 16" barell and a Surefire M500. A fairly decent patrol setup. Their original policy for deploying rifles was very strict, and a situation had to meet very strict criteria, and they had to have a supervisor's permission before they deployed a rifle. That has since changed, and the rifles are racked up front with the shotguns and deployed at the officer's discretion.
View Quote
You're correct, it isn't called Project Northstar (a program to educate homeless children). The militarization of the police came as a result of an agreement forged between the DOJ and DOD by Janet Reno in like 1994 (at least that's the information I've been able to drudge up so far).
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 5:47:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/5/2003 5:53:53 AM EST by OLY-M4gery]
Militarize Police? With AR-15's? Surely, on this site you aren't opining that AR-15 style rifles are a bad thing for people to have? Good I didn't think so. It is called giving people the tools to do the job you EXPECT them to do. Plus I would rather be armed, and have other LEO's armed with weapons, like AR-15's, that are very accurate at LE engagement distances, that don't generally overpenetrate, but can defeat most improvised cover. If you really look back at "policing" you will find that the "Tommy Gun" was actually much more common in a LEO's hands than a criminals hand's. Several big name criminals actually obtained "Tommy Guns" by stealing them, or killing a cop that had 1. LE has always had some type of "big guns". In the "SWAT" mentality, most of those guns were put in fewer hands. So the line officer is less likely to have a long gun. But there is likely a ninja somewhere with a full-auto, laser, and flashlight equipped cool guy gun. What is the problem you say? The regular MK-I LEO type is far more likely to encounter a sudden need for an apropriate long gun. Where were the SWAT guys when they were needed at Columbine or N. Hollywood? Who was at those incidents? Regular, MK-I, LEO's. In N.Hollywood, the line officers had shotguns, with buckshot, and handguns to engage suspects with assualt rifles. In N. Hollywood they were actually LUCKY. The SWAT team was asssmebled for training nearby. So that didn't have to be "mobilised", assemble and, proceed to the shootout. They just had to be notified, and load up. If the had to be "mobilised" it would have taken them much longer to get there. What if the SRO at Columbine, who was having a snack in his car when the shooting started, had a rifle in his car? Instead of engaging two subjects, that had a 9mm carbine and a 12 ga. shotgun, with a handgun, the SRO could get an AR out? The SRO fired a lot of rounds, where did they go? Wouldn't an AR mean that the SRO would have fired far fewer rounds, and most likely stopped the massacre BEFORE it started? Your right tho' none of that could happen in your hometown, why worry about giving the police adequate equipment? What is the worst that could happen?
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 5:50:41 AM EST
If im not mistaken, heavy traffic delayed the arrival of the SWAT unit. They did shoot the sh*t out of the bad guys though when thet eventually got there.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 5:59:02 AM EST
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Militarize Police? With AR-15's? Surely, on this site you aren't opining that AR-15 style rifles are a bad thing for people to have? Good I didn't think so. It is called giving people the tools to do the job you EXPECT them to do. Plus I would rather be armed, and have other LEO's armed with weapons, like AR-15's, that are very accurate at LE engagement distances, that don't generally overpenetrate, but can defeat most improvised cover. If you really look back at "policing" you will find that the "Tommy Gun" was actually much more common in a LEO's hands than a criminals hand's. Several big name criminals actually obtained "Tommy Guns" by stealing them, or killing a cop that had 1. LE has always had some type of "big guns". In the "SWAT" mentality, most of those guns were put in fewer hands. So the line officer is less likely to have a long gun. But there is likely a ninja somewhere with a full-auto, laser, and flashlight equipped cool guy gun. What is the problem you say? The regular MK-I LEO type is far more likely to encounter a sudden need for an apropriate long gun. Where were the SWAT guys when they were needed at Columbine or N. Hollywood? Who was at those incidents? Regular, MK-I, LEO's. In N.Hollywood, the line officers had shotguns, with buckshot, and handguns to engage suspects with assualt rifles. In N. Hollywood they were actually LUCKY. The SWAT team was asssmebled for training nearby. So that didn't have to be "mobilised", assemble and, proceed to the shootout. They just had to be notified, and load up. If the had to be "mobilised" it would have taken them much longer to get there. What if the SRO at Columbine, who was having a snack in his car when the shooting started, had a rifle in his car? Instead of engaging two subjects, that had a 9mm carbine and a 12 ga. shotgun, with a handgun, the SRO could get an AR out? The SRO fired a lot of rounds, where did they go? Wouldn't an AR mean that the SRO would have fired far fewer rounds, and most likely stopped the massacre BEFORE it started? Your right tho' none of that could happen in your hometown, why worry about giving the police adequate equipment? What is the worst that could happen?
View Quote
[rolleyes] Yeah, you really need to have ready access to weaponry that you have a 1% chance of ever encountering.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 5:59:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By Tuukka: If im not mistaken, heavy traffic delayed the arrival of the SWAT unit. They did shoot the sh*t out of the bad guys though when thet eventually got there.
View Quote
Yeah EVENTUALLY. What delayed the BG's? Could it have been a whole bunch of cops fighting long gun equpped, armored BG's? Most place don't have 100 cops, let alone 100 on duty, or 100 that are willing to go into a fight they aren't equipped for. How long would have that fight lasted if 1 officer, a regular patrol officer, had a rifle when the BG's startred shooting at the officers that rolled up on the robbery alarm at the bank?
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:02:23 AM EST
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: [rolleyes] Yeah, you really need to have ready access to weaponry that you have a 1% chance of ever encountering.
View Quote
Yeah, that's exactly what HCI would say about CHL's too.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:06:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: How long would have that fight lasted if 1 officer, a regular patrol officer, had a rifle when the BG's startred shooting at the officers that rolled up on the robbery alarm at the bank?
View Quote
Given that the average cop in America can't shoot for shit, a long, long, long, long, long, long time.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:08:56 AM EST
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: [rolleyes] Yeah, you really need to have ready access to weaponry that you have a 1% chance of ever encountering.
View Quote
Yeah, that's exactly what HCI would say about CHL's too.
View Quote
Hmmm...... Citizen's right to bear arms, enumerated specifically in the BOR v. Law enforcement's "right" to maintain a military arsenal, specifically [i]forbidden[/i] by an act of Congress. Yes, I can truly see how the two are related.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:11:02 AM EST
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: [rolleyes] Yeah, you really need to have ready access to weaponry that you have a 1% chance of ever encountering.
View Quote
I am always incredibly entertained by this reaction from many members on the board. [;D] You make the argument for yourself that you should be allowed to own all sorts of thins base don the logic that you MIGHT need them someday (concealed carry, select-fire ARs, etc.) - and then at the same time you do not acknowledge the same argument for others. Sure LEO don't NEED AR-15s and SWAT teams over 99% of the time they do their job. But neither do YOU (or anyone else) NEED concealed carry - or any gun at all for that matter - over 99% of the time. All of you that make this argument should look up hypocracy in the dictionary (and when you do - tell me how to spell it [:D] ).
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:15:30 AM EST
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: Hmmm...... Citizen's right to bear arms, enumerated specifically in the BOR v. Law enforcement's "right" to maintain a military arsenal, specifically [i]forbidden[/i] by an act of Congress. Yes, I can truly see how the two are related.
View Quote
OLY, checking Constitution...........wait it appears that citizens would include LEO's. No act of Congress stop LE from possesing semi-automatic rifles, or any other rifle that is legal for every other citizen to posses. The connection is......... the thought process that certain people share, ie it is ok to ban certain weapons, or you probably will never need a weapon for self defense so it is pointless to have it, or it might get used against you........ You seem to be espousing some of those ideals.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:20:12 AM EST
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: [rolleyes] Yeah, you really need to have ready access to weaponry that you have a 1% chance of ever encountering.
View Quote
I am always incredibly entertained by this reaction from many members on the board. [;D] You make the argument for yourself that you should be allowed to own all sorts of thins base don the logic that you MIGHT need them someday (concealed carry, select-fire ARs, etc.) - and then at the same time you do not acknowledge the same argument for others. Sure LEO don't NEED AR-15s and SWAT teams over 99% of the time they do their job. But neither do YOU (or anyone else) NEED concealed carry - or any gun at all for that matter - over 99% of the time. All of you that make this argument should look up hypocracy in the dictionary (and when you do - tell me how to spell it [:D] ).
View Quote
Except that the police are in a position in which abuse of said weaponry is far more likely and dangerous to society. A well-armed citizenry is not a threat to freedom, a well-armed police force, is, and has proven to be throughout history. Nothing at all hypocritical about my views, or anybody else's for that matter. You will note also that I've never once argued that I would need machine guns, concealed carry, etc. because I might be faced with an assault rifle-wielding bank robber.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:27:05 AM EST
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: Hmmm...... Citizen's right to bear arms, enumerated specifically in the BOR v. Law enforcement's "right" to maintain a military arsenal, specifically [i]forbidden[/i] by an act of Congress. Yes, I can truly see how the two are related.
View Quote
OLY, checking Constitution...........wait it appears that citizens would include LEO's. No act of Congress stop LE from possesing semi-automatic rifles, or any other rifle that is legal for every other citizen to posses. The connection is......... the thought process that certain people share, ie it is ok to ban certain weapons, or you probably will never need a weapon for self defense so it is pointless to have it, or it might get used against you........ You seem to be espousing some of those ideals.
View Quote
Oh please. You argument to equip police with military hardware is rather sad, "Well Davey, the pro-gun people want to have guns because they have a right to them, so we should have tanks and grenade launchers because we might one day need to stop two well-armed bank robbers......." My weapons aren't likely to be used against somebody, however; the police have a really nasty tendency to get overzealous. The fact that most cops are pretty poorly trained "blue-collar" schlubs probably has a whole lot to do with it. Cops have proven that they can't be trusted to be safe and responsible with freakin' batons, much less light armor and machine guns. Yet you think that because of [b]one[/b] extraordinarily unusual event, something so unusual that it made headlines worldwide for weeks and still talked about to this day, is justification to put military hardware into the hands of law enforcement. I'm sorry bub, but your line is just a little too thin for me.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:30:30 AM EST
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: Except that the police are in a position in which abuse of said weaponry is far more likely and dangerous to society.
View Quote
A well-armed citizenry is not a threat to freedom, a well-armed police force, is, and has proven to be throughout history. Nothing at all hypocritical about my views, or anybody else's for that matter. You will note also that I've never once argued that I would need machine guns, concealed carry, etc. because I might be faced with an assault rifle-wielding bank robber.
View Quote
You know I would have some type of zinger response. But I find your post just sad. It epitomizes the them-vs-us mindset. LEO's are citizens, who have agreed to perform certain duties that are incumbent on all citizens.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:40:15 AM EST
If you want to argue "need," than us LEOs have it, hands-down. How many situations have you been in, during your life, where you had to use force to defend yourself or another person. How many shooting incidents have you been in? How many incidents have you been in that could have been a shooting? I haven't had any THIS YEAR, but it's only the 5th of January. While you and I both have a right to own a variety of weapons, I am far more likely, as a nature of my duties, to actually NEED a weapon, particularly a .223 caliber carbine, which I happen to have. I own a .223 carbine (a nice preban PWA), and I also have been issued an M4 by work. That work M4, and its predecessor, an M16 carbine, have been deployed on several occasions where there was a definite, articulable "need" for me, or some other officer present, to have a long gun, due to the threat level, armor, distances involved and various other factors. I would have been much less capable if I had been armed with just my sidearm or with a shotgun. We don't turn someone loose with a rifle until they have had pretty extensive training, which emphasizes not shooting unless you are relatively likely to get a hit. Passing is 90% on the qual course, with 5 scored head shots in the immediate incapacitation trapezoid. You don't have to do anything that complex to use a rifle; you just have to take it out of the safe. Owning and using a rifle is your right. For our guys it is a needed tool and a privilege. It dang sure isn't militarization. What about the militarization of the public, buying BDUs and armor, so-called "assault weapons" and forming "para-military" groups? You have a right to do those things. So does LE, and LE definitely has more "need" for this stuff, on occasion, than the average Joe. The beat cop is far more likely to be in situation where the increased accuracy, range, body armor-penetration and other capabilities of a rifle are needed than the average citizen. You have a right to own that rifle; that is all the "need" you have to demonstrate. Why is it any different for a cop?
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:42:55 AM EST
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: Oh please. You argument to equip police with military hardware is rather sad, "Well Davey, the pro-gun people want to have guns because they have a right to them, so we should have tanks and grenade launchers because we might one day need to stop two well-armed bank robbers......." My weapons aren't likely to be used against somebody, however; the police have a really nasty tendency to get overzealous. The fact that most cops are pretty poorly trained "blue-collar" schlubs probably has a whole lot to do with it. Cops have proven that they can't be trusted to be safe and responsible with freakin' batons, much less light armor and machine guns. Yet you think that because of [b]one[/b] extraordinarily unusual event, something so unusual that it made headlines worldwide for weeks and still talked about to this day, is justification to put military hardware into the hands of law enforcement. I'm sorry bub, but your line is just a little too thin for me.
View Quote
Your right AR-15's are obviously to dangerous for anyone to own. Since they are such dangerous super-military-turn-a-regular-joe-into-a-killing-machine. (Again another theory that VPC/HCI/ and Sarah B. repeat, and you are cozying up to) There you go stereotyping. Are you really saying blue collar tpyes aren't responsible enough to own those dangerous assualt rifles? There you go calling AR-15's "military hardware". They are rifles. They have barrels at least 16" long and shoot projectiles more accurately than handguns, or shotguns. See you shouldn't be scared of them. Your right. We should give up all firearms, stop locking our houses, and just pray that random chance keeps something bad from happening. -End sarcastic response Sorry as more than a few people here point out the world is sometime a dark and dangerous place. You should have the means to defend yourself and others around you. The police should be seeking out BG's, and have the tools to deal with them if the SHTF. If you think that the S doesn't HTF all over this country every day, and every night somewhere you are dead wrong. Luckily for most of us it's small fans that get hit most of the time. Why don't you go over to the BoB topics and start telling them they can unpack, because YOU are so sure nothing bad will ever happen.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:46:25 AM EST
"Why is it any different for a cop?" did you happen to read the story about the family that was on vacation and ended up cuffed, stuffed and with a headless pooch?
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:54:23 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:56:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:58:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB: "Why is it any different for a cop?" did you happen to read the story about the family that was on vacation and ended up cuffed, stuffed and with a headless pooch?
View Quote
Are you are trying to say that a bad deed by a few LEO's should tarnish all LEO's?? If you say yes John Muhhamed, and John Lee Malvo used an AR-15 to kill 11 people and wound to others. I guess all AR-15 owners are killers? Does that make the point of how bad stereotyping can be?
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 7:15:48 AM EST
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: C. The LAPD SWAT team did kill the bad guys. A sniper shot the first through the neck while the bad guy simultaneously shot himself. The second guy was shot up pretty good by a car full of M-16-equipped SWAT officers.
View Quote
IIRC, as I was watching this shoot-out live on channel 9 and the first guy indeed shot himself as his pistol had just been shot out of his hand. He picked it up tried to fire it or did, and then racked the slide and shot himself. While he was lying on the floor from the self-inflicted gunshot wound, an LAPD officer shot the ground right in front of him and then hit him in the head. It looked as though he walked the rounds on in.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 7:16:05 AM EST
Originally Posted By rkbar15:
Originally Posted By Hercules2400: Did they mention that the cops did not allow the second robber to recieve medical treatment even though a doctor was there and wanted to treat him? They waited with him for over an hour until he died before they would let anyone near him.
View Quote
I believe they were fearful that a there was a third shooter in the vicinity and didn't want to risk having additional victims. Victims and honorable combatants deserve medical attention. Scumbags can be left to die where they fall.
View Quote
Watch the video, they really look like the are scared that there is a third person, NOT!!. They just let him die, I have no problem with that. As you said the scumbag deserved it. The cops deserve the same weaponary we deserve. What they posess is not a concern to me. In fact I think it is irresponsible for a Department like LA to send them out without an m-16 in the car. it's also irresponsible to send them out without the proper training. The Militarization of the police is not about what tools they have. It's about their actions, how they use them. Having an M-16 has nothing to do with it, kicking down doors and shooting the wrong guy has everything to do with it. Doesn't matter if it's with an M-16 or a .38 revolver.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 7:24:46 AM EST
What model and caliber of pistol did the LAPD use?
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 7:29:26 AM EST
I have argued with my wife and mother about the issue of letting the Greek guy bleed to death. That is not justice. Justice would of been this guy rotting in prison. He wasn't a few minutes from death..he was looking into the cameras and smiling full of life. They indeed let him bleed to death. He was shot in the ass and legs not upper torso! I'm all for LEO's having access to the right tools to accomplish the job. It's situations like WACO and Ruby Ridge that bother me. [b]Civilian[/b] law enforcement (yes LEO's are civilians too) that fights crime I totally respect and count on to keep our communities safe. I want my local sheriff deputies to have whatever tools they need. Civilian law enforcement that have a main mission of cruising the highways and not fighting the criminal element I'm not too found of.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 7:34:30 AM EST
...or the innocent guy that got shot in the face with the rifle while sitting in his girlfriend's car?
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 7:49:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/5/2003 7:50:11 AM EST by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB: ...or the innocent guy that got shot in the face with the rifle while sitting in his girlfriend's car?
View Quote
[:O)] [:K]
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 8:31:05 AM EST
He bled to death. That's fine with me. Saves tax dollars. So long as he's not walking the streets, I don't care what happens to him, so long as it doesn't hit up my tax dollars.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 8:42:39 AM EST
Now my question is this: Where the HELL was the much vaunted LA SWAT teams with their belt feed machine guns and armored personnel carrier? Why did they have to go to the gun shop owner for weapons? I mean, they justify all the military hardware their SWAT units have, but yet they have to borrow AR15 rifles? What's up with that? REAPER2502
View Quote
I have the video and watched it many times over there were snipers on the roof of buildings now question is why didnt the snipers take out these robber's! that said.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 8:45:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By Hercules2400: Did they mention that the cops did not allow the second robber to recieve medical treatment even though a doctor was there and wanted to treat him? They waited with him for over an hour until he died before they would let anyone near him.
View Quote
So what! Big fucking deal! He got what he deserved.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 8:48:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/5/2003 8:48:35 AM EST by rkbar15]
Originally Posted By Neolock: Watch the video, they really look like the are scared that there is a third person, NOT!!. They just let him die, I have no problem with that. As you said the scumbag deserved it.
View Quote
Do you know what the outcome of the lawsuit was concerning the scumbags death?
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 9:02:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB: "Why is it any different for a cop?" did you happen to read the story about the family that was on vacation and ended up cuffed, stuffed and with a headless pooch?
View Quote
Are you are trying to say that a bad deed by a few LEO's should tarnish all LEO's?? If you say yes John Muhhamed, and John Lee Malvo used an AR-15 to kill 11 people and wound to others. I guess all AR-15 owners are killers? Does that make the point of how bad stereotyping can be?
View Quote
Yea; You hit the nail right on the head with that statement. this is what the media/HCI/VCP etc! are saying why these weapons need to be banned is because all the sole purpose for these weapons is for killing people, period.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 9:55:31 AM EST
That show was total BS about the shooting. The gun store owner should have insisted they take Winmag or Ultramag caliber HUNTING rifles instead of ar-15's if they were going up against body armor. The BGs looked like, and were wearing level 4 body armor, and thus would stop everything up to a 30-06. AR-15s were not the correct weapon then or now for the police to be using when encountering heavily armored criminals. I would have them keep a scoped bolt action scout type rifle in .338 Rem Ultra Mag in the trunk for occasions when armored BGs or BGs armed with rifles are encountered. This gives the officer stand off capability to down the BG from 100-200 yards(easy for the novice) hitting the head OR TORSO even if they are wearing level 4 body armor. That was the pity of the hollywood shootout, all that was needed was a hunter to be driving by, hop out, take two quick shots, and that'd be the end of the whole thing. Instead police and SWAT are "tactical" and chose ar-15's. Even if they had just had slugs for their 12 gauges, that would penetrate the armor around their trauma plate and stop them, or at least cause a blunt wound behind the plate enuogh to limit their function. But they were only allowed to carry buckshot.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 10:19:58 AM EST
Okay, I wasn't arguing for or against the LEOs having the AR15s. The program we were watching featured many of the officers actually involved recounting the events. Not once did they mention that the SWAT team was even deployed. A lieutenant claimed that Phillips was killed by two rounds striking him simultaneously....one round from an officer's hangun in the back of the neck and the other was when Phillips shot himself by placing the gun in his mouth. It did concern me that other officers not involved in this particular shooting were making reckless statements such as..... "the .223 round will COMPLETELY penetrate a cruiser and kill an individual" -or- "the MAJORITY of criminals carry and use assault weapons" It appeared as though these officers were using these statements to support law enforcement deploying assault rifles. Hey don't get me wrong....I think they should deploy these weapons, but it just kills me when they make blantantly false statements to support their position. -REAPER2502
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 10:42:55 AM EST
Originally Posted By REAPER2502: Okay, I wasn't arguing for or against the LEOs having the AR15s. The program we were watching featured many of the officers actually involved recounting the events. Not once did they mention that the SWAT team was even deployed. A lieutenant claimed that Phillips was killed by two rounds striking him simultaneously....one round from an officer's hangun in the back of the neck and the other was when Phillips shot himself by placing the gun in his mouth. It did concern me that other officers not involved in this particular shooting were making reckless statements such as..... "the .223 round will COMPLETELY penetrate a cruiser and kill an individual" -or- "the MAJORITY of criminals carry and use assault weapons" It appeared as though these officers were using these statements to support law enforcement deploying assault rifles. Hey don't get me wrong....I think they should deploy these weapons, but it just kills me when they make blantantly false statements to support their position. -REAPER2502
View Quote
The .223 round WILL penetrate a "cruiser". COMPLETELY to me is a car door, especially when I'm standing or sitting behind said door. As far as the second statement, yeah, its BS;.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 11:16:20 AM EST
I'll comment only on the show, since i also watched it. The major thing that stuck with me is that a 223 will penetrate car doors and body armor and that a 223 is one of the most deadly rounds out there. They also indicated that the round will tear through a house and not stop until hitting someone. My favorite is that the 223 WILL GO THROUGH SAND BAGS!!! Atleast they said that the AK47's used by the robbers were not legal at all, however not many people would understand why. They'd just think that all Ak varients are illegal. It seems as though the discovery channel is not a pro gun network. Their portrayal of the assault rifles was incomplete, since they didn't say that the AR15's which the store owner gave the cops would NOT have penetrated the body armor the BG's had. However, any larger caliber rifle would not have had any problem.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 11:53:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By kay9:
Originally Posted By REAPER2502: "the .223 round will COMPLETELY penetrate a cruiser and kill an individual" -or- "the MAJORITY of criminals carry and use assault weapons"
View Quote
The .223 round WILL penetrate a "cruiser". COMPLETELY to me is a car door, especially when I'm standing or sitting behind said door. As far as the second statement, yeah, its BS;.
View Quote
And a handgun round won't penetrate a car door? This is deliberate misinformation to make assault rifles sound lethal than other firearms. The whole show really pissed me off, especially in the end when they stated that as weapons have become more powerful, and more available to the public, police will need better armor to protect themselves. Most turn of the century rifles would go through modern vests like a hot knife thru butter, and machine guns were purchased at hardware stores prior to 1934!
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 12:10:46 PM EST
This incident demonstrates irrefutably why civilians should not be allowed access to military pattern firearms.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 12:33:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: This incident demonstrates irrefutably why civilians should not be allowed access to military pattern firearms.
View Quote
you're freakin hilarious
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 12:44:03 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 12:45:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: ...The militarization of the police came as a result of an agreement forged between the DOJ and DOD....
View Quote
Wasn't that the central theme of Blue Thunder? Funny how it seemed like science fiction back in 1983.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 12:46:24 PM EST
Okay, I'm a little confused. They made the case (and a few of the officers affirmed the statement) that the .223 WOULD defeat body armor. Will .223 defeat body armor? I know that provided the armor has a solid strike plate a .223 will NOT penetrate it. But I thought that if the armor did NOT have a strike plate that .223 would penetrate it. Can someone clarify? -REAPER2502
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 12:51:05 PM EST
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By Tuukka: If im not mistaken, heavy traffic delayed the arrival of the SWAT unit. They did shoot the sh*t out of the bad guys though when thet eventually got there.
View Quote
Yeah EVENTUALLY. What delayed the BG's? Could it have been a whole bunch of cops fighting long gun equpped, armored BG's? Most place don't have 100 cops, let alone 100 on duty, or 100 that are willing to go into a fight they aren't equipped for. How long would have that fight lasted if 1 officer, a regular patrol officer, had a rifle when the BG's startred shooting at the officers that rolled up on the robbery alarm at the bank?
View Quote
Ok, dont blow up at me, just verifying i remembered correctly why the SWAT didnt get there faster. Im all for officers having rifles/carbines with them that they are properly trained in.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 12:54:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/5/2003 12:55:24 PM EST by Big_Bear]
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 12:57:30 PM EST
The badguys at North Hollywood had lots of weapons. Their AKs were Chinese Type 56-1 rifles. They were not illegally modified, they were built at the factory in China as MGs. This was just a few months after Customs intercepted 10,000 similar weapons from China in LA; makes you think they must have missed the earlier shipments. They also had a Bushmaster or two, an HK91 or two and numerous other long guns and handguns. Almost, if not all of the long guns, were illegal MGs, though I think that the Type %6s were the only factory MGs; the rest were conversions. Big hunting rounds probably wouldn't do much more than a .308 or .30-06 to body armor, and an AR has much greater utility. Shotgun slugs won't do much for armor penetration; Level IIIA armor is rated to stop about anything a shotgun will sling out, so slugs aren't the answer. Scoped bolt action rifles aren't quite as useful, unless you are in an urban area. Use of force considerations being what they are, an officer will rarely, if ever, have justification to use deadly force beyond 100 yards. Even the average police sniper shot is around 80 yards, and we strongly discourage AR-equipped officers from even considering a shot beyond 100, though there may be circumstance where it is appropriate. .223 weapons are a great "fit" for patrol work because of their ease of handling, ability to deliver rapid, accurate fire, the ability to penetrate most armor (and the ease of rapid follow-ups for failure to stop drills if it doesn't), and the fact that is accurate with iron sights for a moderately trained shooter out to the edge of expected engagement envelopes, 100 yards.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 5:47:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: This incident demonstrates irrefutably why civilians should not be allowed access to military pattern firearms.
View Quote
No what it says is that criminals shouldn't have "military pattern firearms" but everybody else should in case a criminal doesn't follow the rules.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top