User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 3:51:39 AM EDT
[#1]
yeah it would be much better to let the meth'ed up, senior citizen beating, murderer go.
Most states have part of thier laws dealing with police using reasonable force to make an arrest. He represented a huge danger if he was not captured. The reasonable force includes up to deadly force to effect an arrest. Don't run from the cops, if you don't think you should be arrested tell it to the judge. Chuck Taylor (?) said on 60 minutes "some people just need to be shot". If you keep postin opinions like this we will start think you are a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 3:54:37 AM EDT
[#2]
Chalk one up for the home team!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 4:07:17 AM EDT
[#3]
Higher standard my eye...
1) they will have to submit to an administrative investigation. Oh that means no right to remain silent, no right to counsel. 2) they will be subjected to a criminal investigation, possibly a Grand Jury probe, and maybe a trial. 3) they will have to live for the rest of their lives dealing with killing another person. 4) they will probably face lawsuits, from the suspects family, and maybe apt. neighbors who were traumatized by the incident 5) they will get the attention of the media, and computer hero's like you F4YR. 6) they will be reassignmened to non-critical jobs, or placed on administrative leave. 7) they may have to participate mandatory counseling, which since their dept. ordered it will no be subject to Dr. patient confidentiality. 8) Their careers are most likely shot F4YR, this seems to be 2 officers doing their job what's the worst that can happen to YOU at your job. I read a lot of sniveling about the "them against us" wall that cops have. Make no mistake the "them against us" is perpetrated by moronic posts like the one at the start of this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 4:08:51 AM EDT
[#4]
Actually I think it was Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch that made the comment, "some people just need to be shot."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 4:11:52 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Actually I think it was Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch that made the comment, "some people just need to be shot." That's why I put the "(?)" thanx for straightening that out. [bounce] [heavy] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 4:28:01 AM EDT
[#6]
NO-AR:
Why is the first post moronic? How many times have we heard about cops, oh excuse me LEOs, busting down the door of the wrong place and/or shooting people and nothing happens to them? And yes, us non-cop civilians do have to meet a higher standard b/c we don't have a badge and the opinion of most sheeple that LEOs can't be wrong. P.S. Are you sure your name isn't GLOCKCOP? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 4:35:14 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote from story -
There were no warrants for his arrest in either of those cases, Lewis said. Damn. Eric The Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 4:38:41 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:(: yeah it would be much better to let the meth'ed up, senior citizen beating, murderer go. You don't really grasp the meaning of the word "suspect", do you? He wasn't convicted of any of those things except, it seems, by you. Since the police shot him, he MUST have been guilty, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 4:40:36 AM EDT
[#9]
Higher standard
6 months to 2 years to get hire including, background checks, psychological testing, physical testing, and medical tests. Most states require college degrees for new hires at LE agencies now. Then they go to the academy from appx 6 to 20 weeks. Including hours of decision making when it come to use of force and be trained to use weapons and tactics. Up to 6 months patrol training, during which they are assessed for their ability as an employee and decision making ability. (A little more extensive than is required for CCW.......higher standard) And I think I already posted what can happen to them after the shooting. My point isn't that LEO's are perfect. But I also know that there are consequences for screwing up. Yes, it does depend on a whole bunch of factors. The seriousness of the screw up, whether a citizen complains, the amount of damage done, and the attitude of the dept. etc.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 4:42:22 AM EDT
[#10]
[size=3]Look the guy was a scumbag. Fine. I'll grant you that.
But what about his [i]Civil Rights?[/i] You all love to justify the police actions when it comes to scumbags, but if their Rights aren't protected, why do you think yours will be? What possible reason would they have for opening up with a machine gun and shooting him in the back? You'd better pray you never get "shot trying to escape" when they come to your house during the 2006 National Gun Registration operation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 4:45:09 AM EDT
[#11]
Originally Posted By The Anti-Christ: You don't really grasp the meaning of the word "suspect", do you? He wasn't convicted of any of those things except, it seems, by you. Since the police shot him, he MUST have been guilty, right? I've got a good grasp. Suspected of murder don't make him any less dangerous, then convicted of murder. If HE hadn't decided to run he would have been arrested and maybe if there was enough evidence tried and possibly convicted. And he did have felony warrants, wonder what those were for? Other felonies against people? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 4:49:05 AM EDT
[#12]
NO-AR:
You miss the point, we are not talking about a higher standard for getting on the force vs. getting a CCW. We are talking about a higher standard about the consequnces of an average joe vs. a cop if they shoot someone w/o justification. Yes cops may get admin leave and psych counseling but they won't have to deal with the zealous local DA who wants to make his bones by being tough on viligantes and they get the benefit out the doubt b/c they have a badge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 4:51:57 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:(: Originally Posted By The Anti-Christ: You don't really grasp the meaning of the word "suspect", do you? He wasn't convicted of any of those things except, it seems, by you. Since the police shot him, he MUST have been guilty, right? I've got a good grasp. Suspected of murder don't make him any less dangerous, then convicted of murder. If HE hadn't decided to run he would have been arrested and maybe if there was enough evidence tried and possibly convicted. And he did have felony warrants, wonder what those were for? Other felonies against people? No, you don't. You are equating supected with guilty. One hopes that if you are ever a victim of the legal system, that you are not subject to the judgement of people like yourself. Due, at least in part, to this guy's own actions he'll never get his day in court. Now, all sorts of crimes can be "cleared" by hanging them on his dead ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 4:52:51 AM EDT
[#14]
NO-AR-:( - do we live in such a Police State that you are guilty until proven innocent (wait, non-guilty - us civilians are never innocent anymore)?
Do we live in a society so paranoid that ANY resistance to authority is viewed such that it justifies deadly force? In England a boy's birthday party was raided by a SWAT team in a no-knock raid because the neighbors freaked out when they saw the 11 year old boy playing in the back yard with his new BB gun. They arrested the boy and confiscated the "weapon". Is this the Amerika we want? We are headed this direction at a rapid pace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 5:06:01 AM EDT
[#15]
Suppose they made a mistake, and shot your son, or your daughter, or your Mom? Regardless that it turned out to be the "Bad Guy" these guys should not have shot a "fleeing suspect" in the back.
What was the shooter's name, Judge Dredd? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 5:09:01 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: [size=3]Look the guy was a scumbag. Fine. I'll grant you that. But what about his [i]Civil Rights?[/i] You all love to justify the police actions when it comes to scumbags, but if their Rights aren't protected, why do you think yours will be? What possible reason would they have for opening up with a machine gun and shooting him in the back? You'd better pray you never get "shot trying to escape" when they come to your house during the 2006 National Gun Registration operation. Well if the info at time of the shooting is the S.O. had probable cause to believe he committed a murder and a separate violent armed robbery, the police can use that information to decide what level of force is justifiable in attempting to effect an arrest. In this case I think they'll say that he constituted such a danger if he escaped, that deadly force was a reasonable measure to prevent him from getting away. (and possibly committing more serious crimes) I'm just a little more concerned with the rights of his victims and the people that he might have victimized if he got away. He made the CHOICE to run, he paid for his choice. I had no idea it was scheduled for 2006. [;)] MOD-No I've not GLOCK-COP And since I don't plan on going on a meth powered crime spree, including murder, senior citizen baeting, robbing, and running from the police I think my chances of taking 1 or more in the back are slim at best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 5:17:56 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: NO-AR: You miss the point, we are not talking about a higher standard for getting on the force vs. getting a CCW. We are talking about a higher standard about the consequnces of an average joe vs. a cop if they shoot someone w/o justification. Yes cops may get admin leave and psych counseling but they won't have to deal with the zealous local DA who wants to make his bones by being tough on viligantes and they get the benefit out the doubt b/c they have a badge. Thank you for playing, our friend J. Reno made a hobby out of prosecuting police officers for their use of force, and she usually lost. Yeah benefit of the doubt just like the Officers of the Cinncinati PD that is getting investigated by the FBI? Or the cops from the Rodney King incident that were found not guilty in State Court and immediatley charged, then convited in Federal Court, for the same incident that had just been tried for in State Court? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 5:24:56 AM EDT
[#18]
Now I'll switch sides. The Consent Decrees that the (so-called)Justice Department forces upon Police Departments like Cincinnati, is just plain WRONG.
It's a Witch Hunt designed to bring most American Law Enforcement under control of the Federal Government. Welcome to the Police State. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 5:29:14 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Suppose they made a mistake, and shot your son, or your daughter, or your Mom? Regardless that it turned out to be the "Bad Guy" these guys should not have shot a "fleeing suspect" in the back. And what if he got away and victimized your son, your daughter or your mom? Has there been even a suggestion that they shot the wrong guy?? The answer is no. Please don't try to interject what if, What if he was a space alien that escaped from Area 51 and it wasnt the S.O. that shot him it was FBI agent Mulder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 5:32:30 AM EDT
[#20]
I'm not defending the "police state" but I do believe that police officers have the privilege to use force under certain circumstances.
Fleeing drugged up suspected murderer sounds like a likely candidate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 5:40:11 AM EDT
[#21]
Hi we are from the local swat team. We will be your judge jury and exocutioner today.
Yes this guy may well have deserved it. But this was cold blooded murder by the LEO's involved. No warrant! No threat?! Give me a break. I'm sorry guys but i don't see this any other way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 5:42:13 AM EDT
[#22]
Thank you for playing, our friend J. Reno made a hobby out of prosecuting police officers for their use of force, and she usually lost. She did? Could you name some and the incicents that resulted in her prosecuting them? To the best of my knowledge, none have been prosecuted due to the fact they have soveriegn immunity. This is why Lon Horiuchi, the man that shot Vicki Weaver in the face while she was holding her baby never stood trial, nor the person that shot their son in the back as he was running home. Even the jury for the Waco survivors said the government had the wrong people on trial. Did anyone from that incident stand trial? I'm sorry, you don't shoot an unarmed "suspect" in the back because he is running away. You mean to tell me, that they didn't have the place surrounded? No one was at the back just in case he tried to flee? This is just a sign of the times. We are living in a police state. I'll bet that the two individuals that committed this murder will never stand trial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 5:42:38 AM EDT
[#23]
Cops need better PR
Druggies that are killing and beating and stealing need killin, esp if they have been awake for 12 days. I would assume the cops got the right person square in the BACK. I mean, cuase cops are always right. Right? They never get the wrong guy, they never shoot until shot at, right? Their lives must be in danger to justify a shooting, right? They are here to protect us from our selves, like Columbine, right? Cops need to work on their PR if they expect help from the people they are sworn to prosecute and kill, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 5:45:57 AM EDT
[#24]
I am not anti-cop(as most of you know),but shooting an unarmed suspect in the back is not right........ no matter how big a scumbag he is.
Leave that stuff for Central and South America's death squads. My $.02 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 5:48:28 AM EDT
[#25]
I wonder what the ROE were for this team when they went in? Are they given open orders to shot if the feel like it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 5:51:37 AM EDT
[#26]
I'm surprised none of the police apologists haven't yet tried to claim that [i]"there must be more information than the article is telling us. I'm sure the justification just isn't being mentioned"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 5:54:30 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Thank you for playing, our friend J. Reno made a hobby out of prosecuting police officers for their use of force, and she usually lost. She did? Could you name some and the incicents that resulted in her prosecuting them? To the best of my knowledge, none have been prosecuted due to the fact they have soveriegn immunity. This is why Lon Horiuchi, the man that shot Vicki Weaver in the face while she was holding her baby never stood trial, nor the person that shot their son in the back as he was running home. Soveriegn Immunity?? they formed their own country?? [:)] You have terms mixed up. There is what's called qualified immunity. That is usually an individual officer is not civilly responsible for duty related acts done as a result of thier lawful performance of duties. In other words the PD or SO gets sued not the individual officer. Criminal acts due not have immunity. I should have specified, J Reno was a County prosecutor in the 80's in Florida and she was the lead prosecutor on several criminal trials dealing with police use of force. I believe she lost most of them, that's also when Massad Ayoob (sp?) started gaining national attention as an expert use of force witness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 6:15:09 AM EDT
[#28]
I didn't mean to make it seem like I thought this was a state of the art police tactic.
I didn't like the "I'm held to a higher standard", because your not. My point is that police use of force is often a no win situation. 1) the police had a duty to arrest this person. 2) the police had to take what was known about this person and use it in their use of force continuum. ..... a) on meth for 12 days ..... b) suspect in a murder ..... c) felony warrant(s) issued for supsect ..... d) past criminal activity ..... e) behavior when contacted by police before 3) the police had to be aware of their own safety 4) the police had to take the public safety into account. 5) yes they should even take the suspects safety into account. 6) they had to consider the actions of the suspect. 7) they had to consider wheether or not it was likely he would escape if force wasn't used. 8) they had to consider what force was likely to prevent escape without endangering the officers or the public. And use the lowest level of force that would be likely to prevent the escape. 9) they had to consider how much danger this guy posed to the public if he escaped. (and I mean likelyhood of more crimes against people, not writing hot checks). 10) the had to consider the area that he was in. ie. if he ran into the desert and no-one was around, not much of a threat. He was running away apparently in a higly populated(victim rich?) area. I'm not sure there really is a right answer to this but there is a difference between what's right, wrong, and what's criminal. Many people try to make what they think is wrong criminal.... AW ban comes to mind, that's why a lot of you start talking about the "police state". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 7:06:41 AM EDT
[#29]
Police are an extention of the population, not a para-military organization sanctioned to shoot on sight.
If this person broke into your house(felony) unarmed, and you shot him in the back outside the house, you're held responsible. Hold them responsible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 7:56:11 AM EDT
[#30]
1) the police had a duty to arrest this person
Maybe i misread this but i thought they said no warrant was issued for this suspect? 2) the police had to take what was known about this person and use it in their use of force continuum. ..... a) on meth for 12 days ..... b) suspect in a murder ..... c) felony warrant(s) issued for supsect ..... d) past criminal activity ..... e) behavior when contacted by police before Informants have been known to lie. Yes he was a scumbag, but this was way excessive. 3) the police had to be aware of their own safety Yes a man with his back to them running away is a big threat. 4) the police had to take the public safety into account. 5) yes they should even take the suspects safety into account. These 2 i agree with 6) they had to consider the actions of the suspect. 7) they had to consider wheether or not it was likely he would escape if force wasn't used. Once again he was running away they could have captured him without shooting him in the back. Was he even armed or displaying a weapon? 9) they had to consider how much danger this guy posed to the public if he escaped. Here again running away,while not smart, is no justification for an execution. The police have had their hands tied on use of deadly force for a reason. Whose to say a police bullet would not go through a door or window in the complex injuring a bystander. Let me finish by saying if this guy was the threat they thought him to be a part of me thanks the cops for saving my tax dollars. However even this peice of shit is an AMERICAN CITIZEN and is entitled to due process. If he was indeed threatening police or bystanders then by all means cap his ass. But running away with no weapon? I don't think so. That was a cowardly and BAD decision by the police involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 7:58:41 AM EDT
[#31]
chaingun's identified that higher standard.
Any of us would be tried for murder. These poor guys had their careers ruined. Oh the horror. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 8:02:41 AM EDT
[#32]
Sounds like Judge Dredd style justice!
[b][red]"I am the law"[/red][/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 8:09:35 AM EDT
[#33]
i wasnt there so my .02 counts for shit but if he was high running away and "screaming" i'll kill you all" or some other threat and i didnt shoot and he killed someone. the police would have been held accountable its a no win scenario and if this happened every day i would be worried about the police state.. but le are human they make mistakes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 8:24:53 AM EDT
[#34]
So you are saying an unarmed lunatic shouting threats deserves to die there on the spot?
No i wasn't there either and am going strictly by what was written in the article. seems to me if they had to fire an aimed leg shot to stop him would have been a much wiser choice. Also unless i am mistaken a shouted threat without the means to carry it out, can never warrant the use of deadly force. This idiot should have been brought down, but not this way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 8:29:26 AM EDT
[#35]
The guy made statements as to wanting to kill police and that alone would justify the shooting as self defense. Leave it to you civilians to completely ignore the fact that cops risk their lives every day and need all of the tools available to be able to return safely home at night to their families.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 8:43:08 AM EDT
[#36]
Do you guys all believe everything you hear, see or read as it is reported "in the news"?
I have been on a number of violent encounters between police and "BG" types and in every case, the actions of the police were "PERFECT". In EVERY case, it was reported with an anti-cop spin by the news....sometimes I wondered if they were reporting on the same encounter, because there was no similarity to the facts I personally observed. If you want the police to "ALWAYS" act properly, you need to be a part of the solution.. Form a local citizen over-sight committee, review the FACTS, not the news spin developed to create "viewership". If you just sit there on your PC complaining about it, you are an un-American hypocrite and you deserve to live in fear. just my opinion |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 8:51:33 AM EDT
[#37]
like i said in my posts i am going only by what the article says. If the guy is threatening police or anyone else and HAS the means to carry out said threat then blow his ass away. If he is just ranting with no means to do anything or is running away i don't think that is a valid kill. i have to believe if SWAT was called in then they had plenty of time to quarantine the area and cut off his avenue of esacape.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 8:58:01 AM EDT
[#38]
When i working as a paramedic with a municiple fire department i also saw MANY violent encounters between police and BG's. And MOST of the time the police acted appropriately. I would also add most of the time they showed extreame restraint. I have also seen many that went bad and were made worse by the officers involved. These were individual officer issues not departmnent issues. As i think this might have been as well.
But i still say, Shooting an unarmed man in the back while he is running is WRONG and a bad shoot. If he is fleeing he is not a threat. Wing him to stop his flight if needed but a kill shot is murder. Police above all others should be held to this. They are enforcement officers not judges. bring them in alive if at all possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 8:58:31 AM EDT
[#39]
he was armed before just because it wasnt in his hand it could of been in his waistban the police didnt know it seems...
If a family is at lunch together and a man storms into the room slaps a younger sister the five brother stand up kick his ass and hold him for police thier heros. but if the five brothers were LE its brutality. police have training but training isnt the all to end all and LEO have emotions their only human. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 9:02:14 AM EDT
[#40]
I dont know of any Police force in this nation that will let you shoot to wound its shot to remove the threat not piss him off and let him fight back ...leg shots only work in the movies boys.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 9:07:58 AM EDT
[#41]
If those Brothers are on duty yes it is brutality. If they are off duty then nothing happens. The non leo brothers are booked for battery and fined at the least for defending their sister.
I never said Leo's aren't human. They above anyone else have my respect for the job they do. My argument has been strictly related to this article and the facts stated within. I have no doubt there are may factors not reported here. If he had a weapon he was not brandishing it and therefore not a threat. Had he made a move to grab it or shown it. then BANG one less moron in the world. And for all we know he may well have done just that. Please don't take these posts as anti-leo. They are anti policy or anti individual officer if anything. i just don't think killing a man running away in a controlled area is the right thing to do. Yes he was obviously a POS and like others here have said proboly deserved it anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 9:12:57 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: I dont know of any Police force in this nation that will let you shoot to wound its shot to remove the threat not piss him off and let him fight back ...leg shots only work in the movies boys. i agree i only said that it would have been a better choice if your going to shoot at a fleeing suspect. If he is running away HE IS NO THREAT. I still say that if the SWAT unit was called in they should have had the area under control. ie.. bystanders out of the way for the most part. If they had time to get a SWAT unit OS suited up and moved in they must have had patrol units OS also to handle other probelms. Or i would hope so at least. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 9:24:41 AM EDT
[#43]
Beer Slayer, in the original post read what it says right after Sacremento, Calif. If the had probable cause to beleive he did the homicide, and the elderly beating armed robbery that would make it valid to arrest on those charges.
Yes he was running away from the cops, but where was he running to?? If he is running away from the cops he is no threat TO THEM, but he surely isn't running to return a page or get some ID. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 9:34:39 AM EDT
[#44]
Like i said before i agree with that aspect of it. But from the sound of things i still don't think that "according to this article" this was just. I do believe there is a lot here that is not reported that may justify it in the long run. If the police had tim to deploy a SWAT unit they had time to secure the area. If they did not then THEY put bystanders in harm's way. My position here is somewhat confused because I BELIEVE THIS PEICE OF SHIT should have been shot. I just don't think he should have been shot in the back while in flight. If he was as dangerousas they say proper man power should have been available to effect a live capture. Gunning a man down in the street should be a last resort. I am no convinced they were at that point. "at least according to THIS article". The facts may well prove otherwise. If so i will gladly change my opionion.
You will just have to forgive me for not trusting LEO departments. I have seen WAY to many reports of bad shootings, killing homeowners in raids at the wrong address, and abuse of LEO power to trust them. I know there are good Officers out there but there are also MANY bad apples and wanna be SEAL's out there ruining your rep's as LEO's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 9:38:52 AM EDT
[#45]
And if those wanna be SEALS had been at Columbine.............
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 9:46:10 AM EDT
[#46]
a wanna be seal at columbine could have been just as bad as the lack of action they took. can you imagine 4 kids mis identified and shot by a swat unit.
mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 9:48:39 AM EDT
[#47]
Which was part of my long Use of Force post, there are often no "RIGHT" answers, but wrong answers are often found.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 9:51:31 AM EDT
[#48]
What scares me is that this type of thing sets a dangerous precedent. The sheeple will accept shooting a dope head "for the children". What will happen during the coming gun confiscations???
* He owns an AR-15, so he is an obvious threat. (Media hypes up how evil and deadly these semi-auto machine-guns are.) Therefore, "use of deadly force is authorized" or even worse "Shoot on sight". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 9:58:01 AM EDT
[#49]
What scares me is that this type of thing sets a dangerous precedent. The sheeple will accept shooting a dope head "for the children". What will happen during the coming gun confiscations???
* He owns an AR-15, so he is an obvious threat. (Media hypes up how evil and deadly these semi-auto machine-guns are.) Therefore, "use of deadly force is authorized" or even worse "Shoot on sight". my sentiments exactly. today a dope head tomorrow and high school kid with a kitchen knife in her car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2001 9:59:14 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:(: Which was part of my long Use of Force post, there are often no "RIGHT" answers, but wrong answers are often found. and on that point we agree |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
