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: 7/22/2008 4:31:49 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:33:58 AM EST
In.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:39:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Why Cops Carry Guns
Law Enforcement Firearms
with Richard Fairburn


“This is the law: The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental. — John Steinbeck


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose part of getting older is the eternal cycle of accusing the latest generation of being a bunch of wimps compared to their predecessors. Still, kids nowadays in the “X” or “Y” (or whatever they call themselves) generation are pretty different.

A few years ago, when I ran an academy firearms training unit, one of the range officers walked into my office and announced that Cadet “Smith” refuses to shoot a gun ... she wouldn’t even pick one up. “We’ve tried everything," he said, "even explaining she’ll be terminated from the program. But she won’t touch the damn thing.”

So, Cadet Smith was ushered into my office. She was an obviously bright young lady, not much older than my daughter, but damn certain she wasn’t going to shoot a pistol. She thought that as a police officer, carrying a gun would be optional. Why goodness, gracious, she could never bring herself to harm another human being, so why would she want to carry a gun? Her goal, she explained, was to work with children or perhaps investigate internet crimes.

Putting aside my desire to ask several politically incorrect questions, I settled on conducting a polite little background examination. “What did you do before coming to the police academy?” I quizzed. She had been a social worker for Family Services. “OK,” I continued, “why do you want to be a Police Officer?” Her answer was simple and direct, “Cops make a lot more money ... but I will never fire a gun.”

At one point, the young lady made the argument that she should be able to choose whether or not to carry a gun. “After all,” she continued, “if I get myself killed for not carrying a gun, that’s my choice.”

WRONG ANSWER.

If we allowed the young lady to place herself in mortal danger by not being armed while on duty, other officers might need to risk their lives to save hers. By not carrying her fair share of the load, other officers could die. That is not a choice she is entitled to make.

True to her word, she never fired the gun. A short time later she resigned before being fired, returning I presume, to the world of social work. Surprisingly, we have encountered a similar mindset in other young trainees, all of whom eventually came around. We have seen variations of this in a handful of older officers when they are sent to Rapid Deployment training. The idea of charging into a school to hunt down an active shooter curdles the blood of a few experienced officers. Most officers embrace active shooter training and remember the “serve and protect” oath they swore, but a few claim they simply didn’t sign on to go into what they deem to be a “SWAT-only” environment.

The discovery of these misguided souls who manage to get past the screening process prompted me to develop a half-hour lecture for all new trainees I entitled “Gun-fighting 101.” If you train new recruits, you might find it handy for getting their attention.

1. We carry and train with firearms because police officers have a sworn obligation to save lives and sometimes deadly force is the only way to stop a terrible person from committing a terrible act. Our goal is to stop, and we would like to be able to stop them without the possibility of killing them, but we don’t have a Star Trek “phaser” to set on stun. Yeah, I know, we have an array of less lethal options for those cases where they are a viable alternative, but gunpowder and lead is the only certain way we have to stop the bad guys, for now.

2. The firearm is merely a tool we use to make the bad guy stop. A firearm is nothing more than a long-distance, chemically-powered cordless drill. They come with different size drill bits (I like .45 caliber, personally), but they all accomplish the same end. The cordless drill does its job by letting stuff run out the hole it creates. Generally, blood runs out. Sometimes the suspect’s life runs out, too. Sorry, but stopping sometimes requires killing, even deliberate killing with a head shot if that is our only option. Better him than me, or my partner, or an innocent victim. So, if you’re not mentally prepared to kill, you shouldn’t carry a gun. If you don’t carry a gun, you can’t be a law enforcement officer. Not being willing to kill doesn’t make you a bad person. Hell, you might be a better person than me. You’re just not cut out to be a cop — no shame in that. I suggest social worker, firefighter, or paramedic — noble public service professions, all.

3. Shooting a firearm is primarily a mental exercise. Some basic physical skills are also needed, but mastery requires the proper mindset. Part of that mindset is pre-deciding that you are capable of killing another human being under the proper legal and moral conditions. Get over the idea of the “Thou shalt not Kill” commandment. It was mistranslated in the King James version. The original language of the Commandment prohibited murder - an unjustified killing. Since before the days of King David, killing those who need killing is indeed God’s work. As Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch stated so eloquently on an episode of 60 Minutes II; “Some people just need to be shot!”

So, we need to strike a balance when new recruits are trained in deadly force. We need an officer who is willing to kill without hesitation, but would much prefer to never see that day come. There are some among us who WANT to kill someone; they live for the day. We need to screen them out, too. We must reach a delicate equilibrium between confidence in our ability to use deadly force, if we must - and those who WANT to or DREAD to use deadly force. It will never cease to amaze me that some individuals go through the entire law enforcement application process without giving a thought to the “dark side” of our profession. If law enforcement officers can’t wrap their mind around the concept of using deadly force, then they are not truly armed, even if they do carry a gun.


Dick Fairburn has had more than 26 years of law enforcement experience in both Illinois and Wyoming. He has worked patrol, investigations and administration assignments. Dick has also served as a Criminal Intelligence Analyst, and as the Section Chief of a major academy’s Firearms Training Unit and Critical Incident Training program. He has a B.S. in Law Enforcement Administration from Western Illinois University and was the Valedictorian of his recruit class at the Illinois State Police Academy. He has published hundreds of articles and a book titled, Police Rifles.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/1716565-P1-Exclusive-Why-Cops-Carry-Guns/


Its a decent un-refereed article geared for those in the law enforcement community.

Bullet point #1 is eronious. I believe its been decreed in Supreme Court statute that the police have no moral/professional/responsible obligation to use deadly force to "save lives".
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:41:52 AM EST
OMGWTFBBQ MILTAZATION OF PIOLICE! JBT COMING 4 U! VOTE RON PAUL!

That's how I see this thread ending up.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:51:24 AM EST
Well put Bama!
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:53:29 AM EST
Somethign that suck out to me.



police officers have a sworn obligation to save lives


But not a legal one according to the courts.



"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)


....We express no view on the plaintiff's rights under the tort law of Illinois. A state may if it wants recognize positive duties of care and make the breach of those duties tortious. But the only duties of care that may be enforced in suits under section 1983 are duties founded on the Constitution or laws of the United States; and the duty to protect the public from dangerous madmen is not among them. ~~~ Bowers v. DeVito 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)




That's why I carry.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:54:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:54:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:


Bullet point #1 is eronious. I believe its been decreed in Supreme Court statute that the police have no moral/professional/responsible obligation to use deadly force to "save lives".


See my post above...
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:57:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 4:58:52 AM EST by tc556guy]

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:


Bullet point #1 is eronious. I believe its been decreed in Supreme Court statute that the police have no moral/professional/responsible obligation to use deadly force to "save lives".


Correct, we cannot be held liable for not intervening in a given situation, because in the real world, if you forced officers to absolutely interevene in every situation, the lawsuits would be flying in those instances where the officers couldn't or wouldn't intervene to the satisfaction of the litigious party. In the end though, most officers when asked say they join LE to help their communities, get the bad guys, etc. Exactly as the author said.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:59:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Why Cops Carry Guns
Law Enforcement Firearms
with Richard Fairburn


“This is the law: The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental. — John Steinbeck


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose part of getting older is the eternal cycle of accusing the latest generation of being a bunch of wimps compared to their predecessors. Still, kids nowadays in the “X” or “Y” (or whatever they call themselves) generation are pretty different.

A few years ago, when I ran an academy firearms training unit, one of the range officers walked into my office and announced that Cadet “Smith” refuses to shoot a gun ... she wouldn’t even pick one up. “We’ve tried everything," he said, "even explaining she’ll be terminated from the program. But she won’t touch the damn thing.”

So, Cadet Smith was ushered into my office. She was an obviously bright young lady, not much older than my daughter, but damn certain she wasn’t going to shoot a pistol. She thought that as a police officer, carrying a gun would be optional. Why goodness, gracious, she could never bring herself to harm another human being, so why would she want to carry a gun? Her goal, she explained, was to work with children or perhaps investigate internet crimes.

Putting aside my desire to ask several politically incorrect questions, I settled on conducting a polite little background examination. “What did you do before coming to the police academy?” I quizzed. She had been a social worker for Family Services. “OK,” I continued, “why do you want to be a Police Officer?” Her answer was simple and direct, “Cops make a lot more money ... but I will never fire a gun.”

At one point, the young lady made the argument that she should be able to choose whether or not to carry a gun. “After all,” she continued, “if I get myself killed for not carrying a gun, that’s my choice.”

WRONG ANSWER.

If we allowed the young lady to place herself in mortal danger by not being armed while on duty, other officers might need to risk their lives to save hers. By not carrying her fair share of the load, other officers could die. That is not a choice she is entitled to make.

True to her word, she never fired the gun. A short time later she resigned before being fired, returning I presume, to the world of social work. Surprisingly, we have encountered a similar mindset in other young trainees, all of whom eventually came around. We have seen variations of this in a handful of older officers when they are sent to Rapid Deployment training. The idea of charging into a school to hunt down an active shooter curdles the blood of a few experienced officers. Most officers embrace active shooter training and remember the “serve and protect” oath they swore, but a few claim they simply didn’t sign on to go into what they deem to be a “SWAT-only” environment.

The discovery of these misguided souls who manage to get past the screening process prompted me to develop a half-hour lecture for all new trainees I entitled “Gun-fighting 101.” If you train new recruits, you might find it handy for getting their attention.

1. We carry and train with firearms because police officers have a sworn obligation to save lives and sometimes deadly force is the only way to stop a terrible person from committing a terrible act. Our goal is to stop, and we would like to be able to stop them without the possibility of killing them, but we don’t have a Star Trek “phaser” to set on stun. Yeah, I know, we have an array of less lethal options for those cases where they are a viable alternative, but gunpowder and lead is the only certain way we have to stop the bad guys, for now.

2. The firearm is merely a tool we use to make the bad guy stop. A firearm is nothing more than a long-distance, chemically-powered cordless drill. They come with different size drill bits (I like .45 caliber, personally), but they all accomplish the same end. The cordless drill does its job by letting stuff run out the hole it creates. Generally, blood runs out. Sometimes the suspect’s life runs out, too. Sorry, but stopping sometimes requires killing, even deliberate killing with a head shot if that is our only option. Better him than me, or my partner, or an innocent victim. So, if you’re not mentally prepared to kill, you shouldn’t carry a gun. If you don’t carry a gun, you can’t be a law enforcement officer. Not being willing to kill doesn’t make you a bad person. Hell, you might be a better person than me. You’re just not cut out to be a cop — no shame in that. I suggest social worker, firefighter, or paramedic — noble public service professions, all.

3. Shooting a firearm is primarily a mental exercise. Some basic physical skills are also needed, but mastery requires the proper mindset. Part of that mindset is pre-deciding that you are capable of killing another human being under the proper legal and moral conditions. Get over the idea of the “Thou shalt not Kill” commandment. It was mistranslated in the King James version. The original language of the Commandment prohibited murder - an unjustified killing. Since before the days of King David, killing those who need killing is indeed God’s work. As Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch stated so eloquently on an episode of 60 Minutes II; “Some people just need to be shot!”

So, we need to strike a balance when new recruits are trained in deadly force. We need an officer who is willing to kill without hesitation, but would much prefer to never see that day come. There are some among us who WANT to kill someone; they live for the day. We need to screen them out, too. We must reach a delicate equilibrium between confidence in our ability to use deadly force, if we must - and those who WANT to or DREAD to use deadly force. It will never cease to amaze me that some individuals go through the entire law enforcement application process without giving a thought to the “dark side” of our profession. If law enforcement officers can’t wrap their mind around the concept of using deadly force, then they are not truly armed, even if they do carry a gun.


Dick Fairburn has had more than 26 years of law enforcement experience in both Illinois and Wyoming. He has worked patrol, investigations and administration assignments. Dick has also served as a Criminal Intelligence Analyst, and as the Section Chief of a major academy’s Firearms Training Unit and Critical Incident Training program. He has a B.S. in Law Enforcement Administration from Western Illinois University and was the Valedictorian of his recruit class at the Illinois State Police Academy. He has published hundreds of articles and a book titled, Police Rifles.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/1716565-P1-Exclusive-Why-Cops-Carry-Guns/


Its a decent un-refereed article geared for those in the law enforcement community.

Bullet point #1 is eronious. I believe its been decreed in Supreme Court statute that the police have no moral/professional/responsible obligation to use deadly force to "save lives".



Then you had better get really good at creative writing to explain why you were not able to save that person's life. Most folks I know have a moral / responsible / and professional obligation to save someone's life if that means having to take someone else's life.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 5:00:49 AM EST
I'm not saying that LEO's don't or wouldn't put their lives on the line, they do every day, just that according to the courts.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 5:05:15 AM EST
Thanks for the post. I think it applies not only to the police but to folks who CCW as well.

You are carrying a tool for your defense. If you aren't ready to use it when you have to then don't bother carrying it. Self defense sometimes involves killing the bad guy.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 5:06:56 AM EST
Tag

For the record I feel my oath and my integrity require me to be there to save innocent lives no matter what the court says.

Also for those that CCW Thank You for taking your personal safety seriously.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 5:11:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:


Bullet point #1 is eronious. I believe its been decreed in Supreme Court statute that the police have no moral/professional/responsible obligation to use deadly force to "save lives".


Correct, we cannot be held liable for not intervening in a given situation, because in the real world, if you forced officers to absolutely interevene in every situation, the lawsuits would be flying in those instances where the officers couldn't or wouldn't intervene to the satisfaction of the litigious party. In the end though, most officers when asked say they join LE to help their communities, get the bad guys, etc. Exactly as the author said.


And I think this reinforces why the OP is screening his applicants. To try to eliminate the potential for an officer that would not perform in a dire situation.

Its what I would do!
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 5:15:15 AM EST
True story -

I was once interviewing with a federal corrections facility (a very l-o-n-g time ago). Part of the face to face interview was to probe me about my willingness to use deadly force and to shoot a person in the center of mass should the situation require it.

I answered appropriately..."Blah, blah, blah...as trained, etc." But they kept going on about it...

I said "Captain, you have a copy of my DD-214. Beyond that and explaining to you what I just have, the only other possible way I know to prove this to you is to drag your shittiest inmate into the yard and allow me to use him for target practice."

They looked at each other and then back at me, ok that's fine, but you might want to tone it down before you talk to the shrink.

I turned down the job and went into sales instead.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 5:23:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:
Its a decent un-refereed article geared for those in the law enforcement community.

Bullet point #1 is eronious. I believe its been decreed in Supreme Court statute that the police have no moral/professional/responsible obligation to use deadly force to "save lives".


There is no such thing as "Supreme Court Statute". Courts don't make laws.....although several activists judges now-a-days believe they do.

And contrary to what you believe there are several Court rulings (State and Federal) that have ruled a failure to act did amount to deliberate indifference.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 5:38:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 5:41:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By SevenMaryThree:
True story -

I was once interviewing with a federal corrections facility (a very l-o-n-g time ago). Part of the face to face interview was to probe me about my willingness to use deadly force and to shoot a person in the center of mass should the situation require it.

I answered appropriately..."Blah, blah, blah...as trained, etc." But they kept going on about it...

I said "Captain, you have a copy of my DD-214. Beyond that and explaining to you what I just have, the only other possible way I know to prove this to you is to drag your shittiest inmate into the yard and allow me to use him for target practice."

They looked at each other and then back at me, ok that's fine, but you might want to tone it down before you talk to the shrink.

I turned down the job and went into sales instead.
Exactly what kind of answer were they looking for?
Uh probably a damn straight seeing its the feds
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 5:47:12 AM EST
Cops in England get along just fine without guns. Why can't cops in America?

Link Posted: 7/22/2008 5:52:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By leo6223:

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:
Its a decent un-refereed article geared for those in the law enforcement community.

Bullet point #1 is eronious. I believe its been decreed in Supreme Court statute that the police have no moral/professional/responsible obligation to use deadly force to "save lives".


There is no such thing as "Supreme Court Statute". Courts don't make laws.....although several activists judges now-a-days believe they do.

And contrary to what you believe there are several Court rulings (State and Federal) that have ruled a failure to act did amount to deliberate indifference.


He's talking about Castle Rock v Gonzales.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 5:56:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Cops in England get along just fine without guns. Why can't cops in America?



I'll give up mine, if you'll give up yours.

No?

Well, there you go...

Who told you that cops in England dont have guns?
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 5:57:20 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:09:33 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:17:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Cops in England get along just fine without guns. Why can't cops in America?

2 cops in england just got jumped by a mob of teenagers this past week
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:18:26 AM EST
Cops that don't want to carry and/or use guns if they had to?
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:20:22 AM EST
I think it's a great article, and I agree with it completely. Those pointing out the USSC ruling are missing the point.

I don't think most police officers look at the USSC ruling and say, nah, I'm not gonna answer that active shooter call.....

TXL

Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:24:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Why Cops Carry Guns
Law Enforcement Firearms
with Richard Fairburn



1. We carry and train with firearms because police officers have a sworn obligation to save lives and sometimes deadly force is the only way to stop a terrible person from committing a terrible act. Our goal is to stop, and we would like to be able to stop them without the possibility of killing them, but we don’t have a Star Trek “phaser” to set on stun. Yeah, I know, we have an array of less lethal options for those cases where they are a viable alternative, but gunpowder and lead is the only certain way we have to stop the bad guys, for now.



Its a decent un-refereed article geared for those in the law enforcement community.

Bullet point #1 is eronious. I believe its been decreed in Supreme Court statute that the police have no moral/professional/responsible obligation to use deadly force to "save lives".


The courts have ruled that an individual is not granted police protection on single basis unless there is some type of special attachment, LEO's are here to protect lives as whole.


Correct.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 6:27:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 6:27:43 AM EST by jrkarp]

Originally Posted By AJ-IN-JAX:
Somethign that suck out to me.



police officers have a sworn obligation to save lives


But not a legal one according to the courts.



"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)


In other words, no specific person has a right to be protected from harm and thus does not have a cause of action if the police fail to protect them.

This does not mean that the police as a whole do not have a duty to the public as a whole.



....We express no view on the plaintiff's rights under the tort law of Illinois. A state may if it wants recognize positive duties of care and make the breach of those duties tortious. But the only duties of care that may be enforced in suits under section 1983 are duties founded on the Constitution or laws of the United States; and the duty to protect the public from dangerous madmen is not among them. ~~~ Bowers v. DeVito 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)


In other words, there is no cognizable tort under federal law.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 7:17:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Cops in England get along just fine without guns. Why can't cops in America?



Citizens in England get along just fine without guns. Why can't citizens in America?


'Cause if the citizens don't have guns in America then the King of England might decide to start some shit again.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 7:28:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 7:39:06 AM EST by EternalVigilance]
Good article.


I would like to add that I feel that I have a moral obligation to protect the lives of my wife and child.



To paraphrase the author "We carry and train with firearms because parents have a moral obligation to protect their children's lives and sometimes deadly force is the only way to stop a terrible person from committing a terrible act."



What I don't get is why some libs and other people don't understand why a father and a husband is just as justified in carrying a firearm (in a safe and responsible manner) as a police officer. Not only that, but I personally feel that for someone who knows how to carry and operate a firearm in a safe manner to NOT carry one when out with the family is a violation of their responsibility as a husband and father (or mother). YMMV.



eta: Bama, I'm not saying you don't agree with this or that the article doesn't. I just wanted to throw that out there. Good article. You wouldn't think someone trying to go into law enforcement would be so dillusional.

If cops didn't carry guns, then how do you stop crime? Stop! Or I'll yell stop again!


The girl student in the article reminds me of a libtard. Wants to feel morally superior to everyone but doesn't care whether or not they actually are. If all cops didn't carry guns, law enforcement would be 100% ineffective. I guess she is too good for that and can duck out on her duty, better then all the men and women who are keeping her safe by being armed. I doubt she wouldn't want ALL cops to be disarmed, because then she wouldn't be safe to continue her dillusion of moral superiority.



“Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”


Apparently we can add "stupid people" to the list of those who sleep peaceably thanks to others.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 8:08:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By TxLewis:
I think it's a great article, and I agree with it completely. Those pointing out the USSC ruling are missing the point.

I don't think most police officers look at the USSC ruling and say, nah, I'm not gonna answer that active shooter call.....

TXL



No, those rulings exist because the Police exist to protect society as a whole, and sometimes the best they can do is contain the threat. And sometimes that means that innocents are inside the containment area.

Which is why, ultimately, we are all on our own.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 8:13:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 8:33:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By AJ-IN-JAX:
Somethign that suck out to me.



police officers have a sworn obligation to save lives


But not a legal one according to the courts.



"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)


....We express no view on the plaintiff's rights under the tort law of Illinois. A state may if it wants recognize positive duties of care and make the breach of those duties tortious. But the only duties of care that may be enforced in suits under section 1983 are duties founded on the Constitution or laws of the United States; and the duty to protect the public from dangerous madmen is not among them. ~~~ Bowers v. DeVito 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)




That's why I carry.


That's why I wish I could carry, and I fear what will happen if guns go away.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 8:48:55 AM EST
Why cops carry guns

Turn the sound up. If you're not convinced after this, then you're too fucking stupid to be in law enforcement.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 8:51:20 AM EST
because they can.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 9:03:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 9:05:18 AM EST
I agree with the point of the article. If someone is unwilling to carry a firearm and use it if needed, they have no business being a cop. They would be a liability, not an asset. I feel the same way about people who CCW. If you aren't willing and ready to take someone's life without hesitation if necessary, you have no business packing a gun. Sadly, there are people I know who carry guns who likely would hesitate at the moment of truth.

BTW, if I were the head firearms instructor for a dept or academy and encountered such reluctant folks, the first thing I'd do is sit them down and drag out some of those Line of Duty videos for them to watch. I imagine they'd either quickly change their mind and want to not only qualify on weapons, but MASTER them, or else they'd get up and leave. Either way, you'd find out right away how serious they are about being a police officer.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 9:06:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
Why cops carry guns

Turn the sound up. If you're not convinced after this, then you're too fucking stupid to be in law enforcement.


I don't watch anything that says ogrish on it.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 9:10:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By 87GN:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
Why cops carry guns

Turn the sound up. If you're not convinced after this, then you're too fucking stupid to be in law enforcement.


I don't watch anything that says ogrish on it.



That is a reason to train, train train. Many shots to the center torso could have saved his life.

Then again offensive rifle, vs handgun as well.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 9:11:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Adirondack47:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Why Cops Carry Guns
Law Enforcement Firearms
with Richard Fairburn



1. We carry and train with firearms because police officers have a sworn obligation to save lives and sometimes deadly force is the only way to stop a terrible person from committing a terrible act. Our goal is to stop, and we would like to be able to stop them without the possibility of killing them, but we don’t have a Star Trek “phaser” to set on stun. Yeah, I know, we have an array of less lethal options for those cases where they are a viable alternative, but gunpowder and lead is the only certain way we have to stop the bad guys, for now.



Its a decent un-refereed article geared for those in the law enforcement community.

Bullet point #1 is eronious. I believe its been decreed in Supreme Court statute that the police have no moral/professional/responsible obligation to use deadly force to "save lives".


The courts have ruled that an individual is not granted police protection on single basis unless there is some type of special attachment, LEO's are here to protect lives as whole.


This is why it's been my positon that civilians should have access to all the weapons and armor that police are allowed to use. If it's necessary for police to have MG's (and other NFA stuff) then that same equipment would also be useful to a citizen who is not "granted protection on a single basis."
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 9:12:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 9:15:37 AM EST by Charging_Handle]

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
Why cops carry guns

Turn the sound up. If you're not convinced after this, then you're too fucking stupid to be in law enforcement.


I first watched that more than a month ago. Yet I can STILL hear that guy's screams as he's being gunned down. I am not a very squeamish person (I am a firefighter/EMT), but that video is simply tough to watch. To be quite honest, I was shaking after I viewed that the first time.

I remember reading Jack P. Smith's account of the LZ Albany Battle in the Ia Drang Valley, Vietnam (1965) that he did for the Saturday Evening Post. In it, he seemed to key in on the sound a man makes when wounded by gunfire. He described the screams as "unearthly". After watching the video above, I now know exactly what he meant.

This video also clearly shows what happens to cops in deadly force situations when they hesitate. Deputy Dinkheller was not mentally prepared to kill. He waited far too long to act. And he died a painful, violent death as a result. What a damn waste of a young, human life. That video sickens me to my core.

One must be prepared to encounter beasts like that. The only way to stop them is to kill them, post haste. You can't talk them down. You can't reason with them. When dealing with those kind, you want it to be THEIR ass laying on the pavement screaming in agony, not you. Mindset, mindset, mindset.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 9:12:55 AM EST
Tag for later !
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 9:13:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
Why cops carry guns

Turn the sound up. If you're not convinced after this, then you're too fucking stupid to be in law enforcement.


That video gives me chills.


I take it the Deputy didn't survive.



I hope that piece of shit got a needle in the arm. Was the deputy returning fire? Having the gun doesn't do any good unless you use it.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 9:19:44 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 9:26:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
Why cops carry guns

Turn the sound up. If you're not convinced after this, then you're too fucking stupid to be in law enforcement.


That video gives me chills.


I take it the Deputy didn't survive.



I hope that piece of shit got a needle in the arm. Was the deputy returning fire? Having the gun doesn't do any good unless you use it.


Dinkheller, the deputy, actually fired first. He just waited too damn long to start shooting. I'd have opened up on the guy the moment I saw him pick up the rifle. And I certainly would have fired on him the instant he refused to put it down after ordering him to do so. But chances are, deadly force would have never been required if Dinkheller had simply sacked that piece of shit when he attacked him. He had his baton out and had struck the bad guy a few times with it. But instead of finishing him there and taking him down, he let him back away. If he had put that guy down hard on the pavement, he would have never been able to get to the gun.

BTW, one of Dinkheller's bullets did strike the bad guy in the stomach. I am not sure if it was the first shots that got him or when he was charging the deputy's position. I believe Dinkheller was armed with a Glock 22 .40 cal. The bad guy actually left after the incident and went home. He wasn't even admitted to the hospital until the next day following his arrest. From the video, you never even see that guy flinch. Dinkheller's hit had no noticeable effect on him.

Another thing about that video that I always wondered about was what position Dinkheller was in when the bad guy ran back toward his cruiser firing. You can clealy see the bad guy firing over the hood/roof on the passenger side. Dinkheller must have been well off the left side of his cruiser (cover) for the bad guy to be able to hit him so many times from that angle. Why he never made better use of cover, I do not know. But he was wounded numerous times, in the arms, legs, the back and the left side of his chest. The shot that finished him off hit him in the eye. That son of a bitch was relentless. A real evil bastard. Again, only quick and violent death can stop someone like that. Nothing less will work. It is too bad Dinkheller didn't have an AR-15 he could have pulled out when he saw that guy going for the .30 carbine. But with only his Glock and at those distances, the guy with the carbine simply had more firepower. He laid down suppressing fire and charged Dinkheller. But had the deputy reacted sooner, things may have ended quite differently. It was a real damn shame. It really is.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 9:27:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By AJ-IN-JAX:
Somethign that suck out to me.



police officers have a sworn obligation to save lives


But not a legal one according to the courts.



"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)


....We express no view on the plaintiff's rights under the tort law of Illinois. A state may if it wants recognize positive duties of care and make the breach of those duties tortious. But the only duties of care that may be enforced in suits under section 1983 are duties founded on the Constitution or laws of the United States; and the duty to protect the public from dangerous madmen is not among them. ~~~ Bowers v. DeVito 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)




That's why I carry.


Correct and this has been well litigated. LEO's are under no legal obligation to save lives.

5sub

(­An individual offcier might take a bullet for you but is under no legal obligation to do so.)

Link Posted: 7/22/2008 9:29:08 AM EST

Why Cops Carry Guns


To shoot the family dog

5sub
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 9:52:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
Why cops carry guns

Turn the sound up. If you're not convinced after this, then you're too fucking stupid to be in law enforcement.


That video gives me chills.


It's the death scream. I've heard rabbits being eaten by a bobcat scream just like that. You never forget the scream of a dying being.



Originally Posted By passive:

Originally Posted By 87GN:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
Why cops carry guns

Turn the sound up. If you're not convinced after this, then you're too fucking stupid to be in law enforcement.


I don't watch anything that says ogrish on it.



That is a reason to train, train train. Many shots to the center torso could have saved his life.

Then again offensive rifle, vs handgun as well.


The suspect was hit in the lower torso with a round from Deputy Dinkheller's .40 S&W pistol and didn't even flinch. According to the suspect after he was arrested, he just phased everything out and it was as if he was back in combat in the military. No emotion, no thought, just maneuver and kill. When he described his version to the detectives questioning him, he used phrases like "I engaged the target" instead of "I pulled out an M1 Carbine, loaded it, and murdered a police officer in cold blood".

The Dinkheller case, the Miami and Hollywood bank robberies, and a number of other cases (such as when my grandmother, formerly a city sheriff, witnessed a man high on PCP take six rounds of .357 Magnum to the center of mass without flinching; a 12-gauge slug finally took him down.) all go to prove several things:

1) An enemy who is sufficiently determined, trained, psychotic, or on drugs (or even just drunk) can take a LOT of damage to take down. Officers and anyone intending to carry a gun for self-defense must train, train, train and make certain they stop the enemy. The Mozambique is taught for a reason.

2) Only hits count. Additionally, only EFFECTIVE hits count. It doesn't matter if the enemy bleeds out half an hour later if he kills you in the meantime; you have to stop him NOW.

3) In addition to training, you need the proper gear. The cops and feds involved in the Miami and Hollywood shootouts were NOT prepared in the least.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:09:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/22/2008 4:14:23 PM EST by Charging_Handle]
You know, something else I have been thinking about again a great deal after seeing the Dinkheller video: how vulnerable law enforcement officers on a traffic stop would be if some loon immediately jumped out of the car with a weapon and started charging back toward the officer, firing as he advanced. That would actually be a much bigger fear for someone like me than the situation with the Brannan guy who killed Deputy Dinkheller, since there would not be as much advanced warning that something was about to happen. Think about it. You spot a violation of some sort, you light up the vehicle, and as you pull to the side and are coming to a stop behind them, some crazed lunatic (someone with the same sort of issues as the Brannan dude) immediately hop out of their vehicle and come after you with a gun.

IMHO, that would be one of the more difficult tactical scenarios I could think of for the LEO. I was a reserve deputy myself for a number of years, but I never recall being trained formally for such a situation during that time. But I did think about it quite a bit, because of the difficulties involved in defending yourself in such a situation. That would be a real bitch to contend with. Here are all the factors you'd have working against you:

1. Surprise. Most people simply aren't expecting some lunatic to un-ass their vehicle and come after you with a weapon just as soon as you pull them over. So they would have surprise on their side. Plus, they'd be precious seconds ahead in the game, since they already know what they are going to do, whereas the cop would simply be trying to react to the bad guy's actions.

2. You're not going to have a lot of cover and very little time to seek any. In such a situation, you're not going to have very much distance between you and the bad guy either. And the only thing between you and he is a windshield. At best, you might have time to swing open your door and seek cover behind that. But unless the door is armored, I really wouldn't consider that my idea of "cover". Trying to shoot through the windshield from inside the vehicle may also be problematic. It isn't easy to draw a gun from a duty holster inside the cramped confines of a vehicle. Firing through the glass may deflect your bullets and cause misses or less serious hits. And again, if you try to fight it out from inside the car, he has the total advantage in mobility.

This sort of situation was always my nightmare scenario. Talking it over with other LEOs, many of us concluded that perhaps the best response to such a threat would be to simply shove the accelerator to the floor, duck down behind the dash for cover and try to run the son of a bitch over or crush him between the cruiser and his own vehicle. In light of the situation described, that might actually be the quickest and most effective response to employ. And even if you miss him, you at least forced him to dive out of the way and now you have a clear path out of the kill zone so you can put some distance between you and him. If you try to shoot it out with the guy, he's going to likely have the advantage in mobility and cover, while you're confined inside a tin can with windows and very limited movement and visibility. And even if you manage to get out of the car in time, you're still in a helluva position out there on the middle of a road with no cover if you can't retreat to the rear of the vehicle, while he now has the front of your cruiser as a shield for him, should he choose to use it.

Again, that would be a real bitch of a situation and the one I most dreaded. It is just so damn sudden, he can close the gap between you and he so fast, and it takes away most of the advantages the LEO holds during a stop in which the bad guy remains inside the vehicle. In this scenario, the bad guy essentially and violently reverses the situation on the cop. How would you LEOs handle such a situation? And have you been trained for such a situation and/or given it any thought? While I would imagine such a bold move by a bad guy would be extremely rare, I am sure that somewhere, somebody has tried it. It might be a good strategy to war game it sometime, to learn what the pitfalls are and what the best courses of action might be.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:29:34 PM EST
With a determined attacker in your scenario, most officers would die, unless they were able to drive away, which is not always possible due to the road conditions. The attacker would likely be captured or killed due to the camera recording unless they were able to remove the recording device.
Link Posted: 7/22/2008 4:32:04 PM EST
Crazy, read it this AM on police one.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top