“The number of law-enforcement officers killed by firearms in 2013 fell to levels not seen since the days of the Wild West, according to a report released Monday,” seattlepi.com reports. “The annual report from the nonprofit National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund also found that deaths in the line of duty generally fell by8 percent and were the fewest since 1959. According to the report . . .
[click here to read], 111 federal, state, local, tribal and territorial officers were killed in the line of duty nationwide this past year, compared to 121 in 2012. Forty-six officers were killed in traffic related accidents, and 33 were killed by firearms.”
Tell me again why cops need MRAPs and SWAT teams, and why cops can swan around with AR-15s while law-abiding Americans in many parts of the United States are denied “assault rifles” or “high capacity magazines.” Meanwhile, let’s drill down a bit . . .
First, wikipedia.org reports that “in 2008, state and local law enforcement agencies employed more than 1.1 million persons on a full-time basis, including about 765,000 sworn personnel (defined as those with general arrest powers).” Those numbers have swelled in the intervening six years, but let’s go with 765k cops potentially in harm’s way. Thirty-three officers killed by firearms represents .0043 percent of that total.
There were six rifle-related police fatalities. Strangely, the NLEOMF don’t report on the type of rifle involved. But do you really need me to do the math on the number of AR-style rifles in Americans’ hands vs. the number used to kill cops?
Again, it would be excellent if we had a little more information to work with. What, exactly, is an “ambush”? Or “Investigative Activity”? How to you separate out what constitutes a “drug-related matter”? A brace of accidental shootings? What’s that all about?
How about a break down of which type of gun was involved in which type of fatality? While we’re at it, how many cops were shot during no-knock raids? Come to think of it, how many non LEOs were shot during no-knock raids?
Our thoughts and prayers go out to all the police killed or injured in the line of duty. We, their employers, want to do everything we can to ensure their safety. But militarizing them is not the answer. Nor is it necessary. In fact, it’s a danger to the Constitutionally protected liberties which they are sworn to protect. Just sayin’ . . .
I want to first state that I am happy to hear that the lives of LEO’s are safer these days. I know they take a lot of heat, but there are many good ones and they need to get home safe at the end of their shift.
With that said, do you think that they are not dying on duty as much as before has to do with the fact no knock warrants are more common place and in the case of active shooter scenarios are hanging back and waiting for the carnage to end before going in?
I have actually met a disproportionate number of really nice, dedicated people in the police, compared to other professions. There are a few bullies, though, which the nature of the job attracts, and police forces need to do more to weed them out of selection. There are other problems. Up here, in Canada, racial and gender quotas are creating big problems. For example, women and visible minorities do not have to pass the PARE (Physical Abilities Requirement Evaluation) at the same level as white males. I have seen some interesting examples, like a female, visible minority officer in my home town who was about 4’8″ and weighed maybe 85lbs. What do you think will happen when she is confronted by a large and aggressive male? While one of her robust male colleagues would simply physically restrain the person, she would have to go right to a Taser or gun. And there are other problems. A former classmate of mine is a smart, strapping man with two degrees, who is now a Sergeant in the city police force. Good, except that he has had both grand mal seizures and a volcanic anger problem–teenage issues that probably never went away. Another officer in the city police was killed when the LOADED WITH LIVE AMMO Glock (no red guns) used by a colleague was discharged into his head during a training exercise. And, if I ran a police union, I would refuse to execute no-knock warrants, on safety grounds. I’ve posted this before here, but this is an example of what can go fatally awry in one of these raids:
Very interesting “no-knock” SNAFU. Any final result from the incident?
A judge signed off on that warrant….glad to know that Canadian judges are as wishy washy as their American counterparts.
Why is it that judges are never held accountable? Parole Boards too?
It doesn’t say what the warrant was for. I’d bet dollars to donuts it was for a “victimless crime,” i.e., he was accused not of doing any harm, but engaging in activities that Der Fuehrer disapproves of.
wait, an anger problem as a teenager should disqualify a man from a job later in life?
And seizures? My wife had a couple back in grade school; that was 20+ years ago, and there hasn’t been one since. Should that still be a concern for someoen hiring her? I mean, unless you *know* these are still issues, not just something that happened a decade or more ago…
well, one thing the statistics have shown out (this is a stat story) is the female officers tend to resolve conflict at a higher rate without physical confrontation than male officers. Once things get out of hand though, yes, female officers do tend to have to resort to lethal force before male officers. It’s kind of a weird thing.
The reason why cops aren’t dying as much is the same as why everyone else isn’t dying as much. Crime rates, especially violent crime, are at their historical lows all across the country.
And medical treatment is getting better and better. Lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan are paying off here.
I would like to also know what percentage of cops were killed INTENTIONALLY by other cops.
Eric Holder has one confirmed kill . . .
Now that’s funny, In a very sad kinda way.
Very sad indeed! And true.
What Dirk says!!
I make it as an unconfirmed number of kills from an unconfirmed number of weapons allowed to fall into cartel hands for the sole purpose of creating “evidence” that “Ninety % of the guns in the hands of Mexican cartels come from the USA because of our ‘lax gun laws’.”
Antoinette Frank and Christopher Dorner comes to mind.
lets not forget the cop shot by other cops during the boston bombing fiasco.
Before we even get into the whole discussion of racial bias in officers getting capped, do we even know the actual ethnic breakdown of the total number of officers nationwide?
Better yet, what’s the ethnic make-up of the PDs the deceased officers served, and of the areas those PDs serviced?
How many of those white cops were shot by white perps, and so-on?
FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics data suggests that the vast majority of violence of intra-racial, at least in so far as the general population is concerned. Does this trend carry over into the officers lost in the line of duty?
Just sayin’… 😉
You’re absolutely right in that militarizing the police is definitely not the answer, esp. being that traffic has often been just as deadly to the police if not more so than gunfire since the 80s. Seems to me like they not only need more intensive training in high-speed, offensive driving but also need to be monitored to make sure they even wear their damn seat belts. This more than marksmanship training, and that’s saying something with NYPD generally unable to hit the broad side of a barn. From the inside.
Note: I removed that bit about the ethnicity of the fallen officers. I felt it was a little . . . harsh. The info’s available in the report at the link.
I see that meow.
real safe to be an Asian-American officer . . . . just saying
“…being that traffic has often been just as deadly to the police if not more so than gunfire …”
No longer an issue if we get them more of those Bearcats and MRAPs. Maybe a few Strykers.
There is the “takeaway”. Save police – get rid of the squad cars and put them back on foot patrol.
I guarantee the number of cops, downed by friendly fire is greater than the accuracy rate of the NYPD
The number of cancer patients Chuck Norris’ tears cure ever year is greater than the accuracy of the NYPD.
And Chuck Norris don’t cry.
We had one in Baltimore catch an accidental head shot during training. Happily, he lived. Unhappily (for the shooter), the SGT who shot him is now in the slam. The operation was snake-bit from top to bottom and front to back.
How could you miss the fat-ass in the front. His plate carrier isn’t even on right.
Yep. And his cool operator pistol is strapped too low. Perhaps they don’t make leg straps long enough to strap in higher?
What on earth are these guys ready for? They don’t need to move on a guy who is outdoors, because that can be done from cover at a distance. Yet, they have glasses and goggles much too dark for interior work. None of them have face shields or groin shields, so one perp with buckshot shooting from cover could take them all out in three seconds. (One has a groin shield improperly attached.)
Maybe you have to be SWAT to get it. I don’t get it. If they want to get to the entry door fast and in one piece they would be better off with a light vehicle with rifle-grade shielding panels in front and that extend to the sides. Vastly cheaper. Better. And Mr. point-man should have a shotgun like all good high-end SWAT teams. There isn’t a better aimed fire but sure-to-connect SWAT gun. Then he peels off, etc.
Frankly, I’d like my PD guys to survive and be effective. Hannibal, help me out here. Is this all just a bad photo op? I saw the same MRAP-shielding-nobody on site in the Springfield, VA, shoot a month ago. What gives?
On the other hand, the guy behind him might as well be standing behind a two-story house.
“Thanks for the
Laugh. OK. The guys behind him are safe.
I noticed Officer Chunky was too “prosperous” to get his vest closed. They all look like “PX Operators” and it pisses me off to see peace officers dressed like soldiers.
Might be a little off topic, but I was just wondering if those knee pads were bullet proof. Not that I’d want to get shot in the femur, but I was just thinking it would really suck to get shot in the kneecap. That and I’m sure the department would be happy to sucker the taxpayers out of the extra $300/pair.
“The annual report from the nonprofit National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund also found that deaths in the line of duty generally fell by 8 percent and were the fewest since 1959.”
How is this possible with more armed citizens in public than ever?!?!?!?
How is this possible with more firearms in private ownership than ever?!?!?!?
We really have to rub this in the face of civilian disarmament advocates … along with the fact that violent crime rates are at the lowest point in something like 50 years. Not only are we NOT seeing “blood in the streets” like all the gun grabbers predicted, we are seeing the lowest level of violent crime and officers shot dead in the line of duty in 50+ years.
How much longer can the grabbers deny that proliferation of armed citizens is a really good thing?
As long as they have the media to use as a megaphone. And I’m looking at you too, Internet.
As much as I fully support TTAG I have to generally disagree with their stance on law enforcement and this article is no different. While I don’t see a need for MRAPs for SWAT teams on every corner I do agree with officers having access to AR’s or similar patrol rifles. As a criminal justice student I know that when I actually get into this line of work I don’t want to just match what the majority of criminals are armed with I want to know that I have the upper hand. If that patrol rifle is being utilized then I’m sure as hell going to have a good reason for it. Giving officers these tools is the same as having one to defend your own home and family. The chances of actually needing it are slim for most but it’s that small chance that makes it worth while.
This is the first TTAG article I fully disagree with
What part did you disagree with? Or are cops just so sacrosanct that TTAG can’t publish an article that mentions police at all?
Ralph, the guy admitted that he’s a thug in training. Of course he’s furious that someone doesn’t fall on their knees praising the Thugs in Blue every moment of the day.
Of course patrol officers should have options beyond handguns. Old school it was shotguns. In the past 10 years or so it’s primarily AR-15s. That isn’t how the police are being militarized. It is the tactics rather than the tools. Except for MRAPs. That’s sort of stupid, particularly in how they were used in Boston. Gee, what a great idea: take an excellent piece of protective equipment and have all the tactical guys ride on the outside of it. Sort of reminded me of sausage sandbags.
No knock raids for serving warrants on non-violent offenders, increases in police shootings, increases in police beatings, no accountability if cops actually do something wrong, calling out SWAT to raid a poker game… those are the militarization tactics that are dead wrong. Militarization is when the cops swarm into larger groups and then take over a neighborhood, kicking people out of their homes, because they think they’ve got some suicidal guy in a house. How about dragging thousands of people out of their homes in order to execute searches for the surviving Boston bomber? Wow. Sure didn’t look like America when I was watching it on CNN.
“Sort of reminded me of sausage sandbags.”
What a fantastic mental image. Don’t you know it’s hard to sit down with all that shit strapped on over your spare tire?
“While I don’t see a need for MRAPs for SWAT teams on every corner I do agree with officers having access to AR’s or similar patrol rifles. ”
Why? Please name ONE situation that an ordinary officer will encounter that cannot be handled with a pistol or a pump-action shotgun.
“As a criminal justice student”
Ah, well that explains it. You view yourself as being one of the “superior” beings blessed by St. Obama with the divine wisdom of how to use a firearm and no peasant should dare to think that they are your equal.
“I don’t want to just match what the majority of criminals are armed with I want to know that I have the upper hand.”
Because you’re a coward who wants to murder anyone who disagrees with you without them having even the slightest chance of your victims defending yourself. People are like you are why I’m patiently waiting for the government to push the people too far – because it will be the LEO scum who die first.
If a police officer works in an urban area he and the community is best served with a pistol caliber carbine.
I surely agree with the pistol-caliber carbine concept, with a shotgun if more suitable. At law-enforcement distances and with ZEROED sites they would surely suffice in urban areas. Indoors they preserve the LEO’s hearing and vision. I’ve gone to a .45ACP carbine as an indoors HD item for that reason. They suppress better than 5.56, too.
Why? Heavier pistol rounds tend to overpenetrate more than .223, which fragments (especially if proper ammunition designed for this kind of stuff is used, like Hornady TAP).
“Giving officers these tools is the same as having one to
defend your own home and family.” Sorry, but no. If you
continue on your career path, you will quickly find that
99% of your responses will be after-the-fact. A LEO having
an AR, state of the art optics, body armor or even
an MRAP cannot defend your anyone if they aren’t their.
As far as being on equal footing, many standard hunting
rifles vastly outperform your standard patrol rifle setup,
specifically in terms of range, power and accuracy. Where
I live an officer is more likely to need a high-powered rifle
or revolver to dispatch an injured animal. (5.56 and 9mm
generally just piss off moose.) This makes the AR patrol
rifle nothing more than a gimmick of self-importance.
Right tool, wrong job.
A large part of what ticks of many people-of-the-gun, is that
so many in law enforcement state the need for comparable
weapons to criminals; then actively support the restriction of
the Second Amendment for the general population. Actions
like this instantly give those in the thine blue line a sense
of superiority and authoritarian right. As you should guess
this doesn’t play out to well, especially when a large part of
the gun community is comprised of active and retired military
and LE. It’s kind of difficult to impress upon us how hard
your job might be when so many are/have been in your shoes
and far beyond.
Well reasoned and expressed.
Police need ARs because the bad guys have ARs, and we charge police with the job of investigating, catching, and arresting these bad guys. Pretty damn simple. Incidentally citizens in general should be able to buy them because bad guys have them as well, but since the article specifies police as if they specifically shouldn’t have them, that’s what stuck out.
As to the rest of the stuff… I take issue with the budget implications of quite a bit of it. Some of it might cause the police to act more aggressively than they would otherwise, but I think if we’re going to try and address that, we need to start with the laws and what we put people in jail for rather than the enforcement (form follows function).
“Police need ARs because the bad guys have ARs”
False. If you bothered to look at murder statistics, you’d see that an AR (or AK or any other “scary!” looking weapon) are the LEAST used weapons. Police “need” AR’s because it makes it easier for them to subjugate the people of the US. The police, like soldiers, are cowards and only “fight” when they have overwhelming force on their side. Thus going into the home of one man with a pistol and a shotgun means that at least two dozen police / military with full auto-M4’s / M16’s will be going after them. The cowards shit their pants and run at the thought of anything even remotely resembling a fair fight.
Pardon my French, Totenglocke, but what the FUCK do you know about the military and their bravery or lack thereof? I spent several months in Iraq helping treat wounded troops, and interacting with a lot who weren’t, and I never once met a coward (except for my whiskey delta commander, but that’s another story). Those brave men and women put their asses on the line, as did I, so you can spout whatever bullshit you like. So do us all a favor and lay off. And by the way, if God forbid the situation you are hoping for ever does occur, you can rest assured that the vast majority of military folks won’t be on the side you assume they would be. And it won’t be anything like you imagine.
I think it’s a case of blindness, otherwise he’d see all the lines he’s crossing. It’s a reverse-Dustin: Lumping together soldiers and police rubs me wrong whether it’s a weapon question or a danger assessment. I’d send Tot some descriptions of actual battles, extraction attempts, but what, really, would be the point?
Well, first off, anyone who is willing to murder in order to force the will of corrupt politicians on others is among the lowest of the low. Then there’s the fact that I know more members of the military (in all branches) than I can count and I’ve yet to meet one that would actually have the balls to fight someone their own size. It’s why out military bombs weddings, sends dozens of troops to kill one man, and won’t fight any nations but the weakest and most defenseless (never-mind that for the last decade two of those incredibly weak nations have been handing their ass to them).
Those soldiers didn’t do SHIT in the name of “freedom”, nor did any of the poor people that they murdered threaten our nation in any way. YOU were the invading force and any soldiers that they killed was because YOU were trying to murder them in their own homes. Those same cowards believe that politicians are “divine” and will (and have) blindly do anything they are told. A couple of weeks ago I spent an entire weekend on an Air Force base and every single person there (enlisted an officer) that I spoke to had nothing but disdain for the “peasants” and openly talked about how they would kill every American they came across if they were told to. Just because you want to keep people worshiping the very people who oppress them doesn’t make the bullshit true. There is a reason that the Founding Fathers explicitly forbade a standing army in a time of peace (which is why since WWII we have always manufactured a reason to be a war and thus keep a large standing army) – because it can and will be used to force the people into submission, as our politicians love to threaten on an almost daily basis.
“And it won’t be anything like you imagine.”
Two words – Bonus Army. Google it. Not only did the military scum fire on unarmed Americans, but they were firing on unarmed US veterans for protesting. Then, after they finally were ordered to stop murdering unarmed people, they had a hard time getting the cowards to actually STOP. We’ve seen many times over the past century that US soldiers are both willing and eager to murder unarmed Americans.
Ok, now I’m officially pissed. Knowing that you are baiting me, I’m going to respond anyway.
You are totally full of shit regarding your visit to the Air Force base. I AM Air Force, and I have NEVER heard any fellow Airman, officer or enlisted, refer to fellow Americans as “peasants”. Matter of fact, i dont think I’ve ever heard a member of the military, or any other american for that matter, refer to anyone as a peasant. I have discussed the notion of being ordered to disarm or use force against civilians with many of them, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM would refuse such an order, and likely mutiny. Perhaps you had a dream, or an out of body experience that took you to a Red Chinese air base?
I am well aware of the Bonus Army incidents, and yes, they are disgusting, shameful marks on our history. With regard to murdering civilians and bombing weddings, etc, since you weren’t there, or obviously in any other combat situation, you don’t know fuck all about it, and therefore have no business judging.
However, you do have the right to say whatever you like, paid for by many thousands of brave souls. I also have that right, which I am going to use now (sorry Matt, this time it’s appropriate)…you are a sorry excuse for a man and an American….so FOAD. And that’s all I have to say about that.
timeout. There is a quintessential difference between police and military.
Think NKVD vs Red Army. Nationalized internal police forces are what we need to worry about, not necessarily the military forces, (unless they merge, or there is a coup).
I never said that they used the word peasant. I used “peasants” as a euphemism for “inferior people”, because that IS how government thugs view anyone who does not serve their masters in DC.
“I have discussed the notion of being ordered to disarm or use force against civilians with many of them, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM would refuse such an order, and likely mutiny.”
That’s the biggest load of BS ever, and I’ve heard Obama speeche’s and seen Michael Moore “documentaries”. Yes, I know, for PR reasons to keep people worshiping their oppressors, you have to spout this nonsense. But the actions of the military over centuries as well as the personal conversations (in person, on blogs, Facebook, etc) of military members has exposed this for the lie it is.
“With regard to murdering civilians and bombing weddings, etc, since you weren’t there, or obviously in any other combat situation, you don’t know fuck all about it, and therefore have no business judging.”
I know that Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Name, Korea, etc never did ANYTHING to harm the US. Yes, Osama bin Laden lived in Afghanistan, but that does not make the millions of others there guilty of his crimes. Every war our criminal soldiers have waged for SEVENTY YEARS has been about terrorizing and oppressing anyone who dares to hold a view that is different from the C*cksucker in Chief that you worship so dearly. When YOU are the invading force, YOU are the bad guy and a murderer. There is no twisting this to claim that because you wear the US flag on your uniform that you are automatically the “good guy”. That is why I do not have any respect for the American flag anymore. Because for almost three quarters of a century, it has represented fear and oppression. It represents the motto of the American military -“Do as we say or die”.
“However, you do have the right to say whatever you like, paid for by many thousands of brave souls”
False. Your fellow cowards in arms murdering and raping people for being the “wrong” religion or skin color did NOT protect anything. If the brave men who fought to found a nation based on the concept of freedom were here to see you praising yourself and claiming that raping and murdering those who posed no threat to anyone was “defending freedom”, they’d kick your ass to next week.
“I also have that right, which I am going to use now (sorry Matt, this time it’s appropriate)…you are a sorry excuse for a man and an American”
To quote The Patriot – “If the conduct of your officers is the measure of a gentleman, I’ll take that as a compliment”. Standing up to murdering cowards is not being a “sorry excuse for a man” and standing up against an oppressive government is the most American thing one can do. Sadly, you believe in the almighty power of the government and are willing to die to protect the power of the politicians you so loyally serve. Maybe if you’re lucky they’ll tell you “Good boy” and give you a pat on the head from their thrones. You, like all of your fellow murderers and rapists, are a pathetic coward.
RF asked a question: “Tell me again why cops need ARs, MRAPs and SWAT teams, and why law-abiding Americans shouldn’t be able to own ‘assault rifles’ or ‘high capacity magazines.’ And from that question, which you obviously did not understand, you created your own little controversy.
Most cops I know are pro-2A. They don’t follow this blog’s idea that violent felons should have 2A rights immediately upon release, but for people without records? Most of them don’t give a damn if you have ARs or AKs.
The cops NEED an ar-15 a lot more then a gun blogger does. Your bias is actually embarrassing, and you’re part of the problem not the solution.
Actual NEED. Maybe we should look into soldier’s deaths and see if they actually need SAW’s and M2’s. After all, there isn’t any need to outgun the bad guy according to your logic. If cops are good handgun vs handgun (mostly), then why do the soldiers need such heavy weaponry when it’s IED’s that are killing them, not gunfights (mostly).
Rob, your MSNBC bias is again showing. Also pretty sure that most COPS aren’t after any gun bans, that’s political chiefs and politicians.
“Also pretty sure that most COPS aren’t after any gun bans”
thats for a different discussion.
i have no problem with a cop having an ar-15 with 30 round mags…if i can have one also. here in ca, i can’t. so i would like to see ca cops with ar-15s with fixed 10 round mags. if i was in az, i say go for it. let the cops have the 30 rounders.
Dustin, soldiers =/= police. Adversaries are entirely different, tactics are entirely different (or should be), “tools of the trade” are entirely different. I’ve only seen the police call in an air strike on a criminal once (Philadelphia, 1960s), and the department was taken apart by the Feds for it, and the mayor was shown the door.
Care to try a non-fallacious argument, bud?
Just for the sake of accuracy, the Philadelphia Police also air-bombed MOVE members in 1985.
Dustin, you jump to specious military non-analogies twice. What a soldier needs and does, and how he does it, has nothing to do with what lawmen have to do, or how they should do it.
I agree with Hannibal, and I think AR’s are in someways preferable as LEO backup long guns, though the township liability issue comes from fear that “group-reinforced mass shooting” becomes a larger risk.
Police should never feel they are “behind enemy lines,” or even “at the front.” With the exception of some rural duty they can call for backup and they can pursue perps by surrounding them physically or by using electronic surveillance. It is extremely rare that a rifle is needed. I have never read a case requiring an MRAP by a local force.
Why do you mix a soldier’s needs in war with a lawman’s needs on the streets of an American town? Perhaps you should serve a hitch?
Just going by the statistics shown here, where is the justification that cops NEED AR-15s or M-4s? Aside from the intimidation factor of pointing them at people during a raid I fail to see where they have any real use. This data is incomplete, to be sure, since it does not include shootings that did not end in death nor any information of people who were shot BY the police, why, and under what circumstances.
But as has been argued here on many occasions the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms does not discuss needs or wants, only the right. That said, if we understand the ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment to be the ability of the people to stand against a tyrannical government it would be obvious that we (non-LEO) civilians can show a much more definitive NEED for M-16s, M-4s, AKs. etc., than your average police department. Cops may WANT those cool rifles and even occasionally actually find a use for them, but in order to keep any sort of restraint on an out-of-control government it is the people who actually NEED these weapons.
It could be reasonably argued that the only thing that keeps the government from moving toward civilian disarmament/gun confiscation is the absolute knowledge that with 300 million plus guns out here the result would be a literal and political bloodbath. Best if we keep it that way (for now) by ensuring they can never out-gun us. (Posse Comitatus.)
Cut the cr*p, you cannot compare War fighting (application of maximum force to another nation without consent) and Law enforcement (application of minimal force by consent of society) are entirely different, different objectives so different levels of risks/weapons/violence.
I have been around Brit Mil Ops since 1989 (NI, Bos/Kos, Iraq and a bit of Afghanistan) and in all of the thousands of American, French, Italian and Brit etc forces personnel I have worked with in that time I havnt met any of the stereotypes you are imagining, my advice to you is to watch less films, play less computer games, get out more to meet a good woman who will knock some sense into you and develop some wisdom as quickly as you can.
I don’t think I wrote that bit about cops needing AR15’s well. What I mean to say was, “tell me again why cops needs these things and we aren’t allowed to have them (in many places in the US).”
I don’t think the average cop needs an AR-15, but that wasn’t my point. I’ll amend the text to clarify.
We are allowed to have ARs unless we live in one of the rare Special Fear Zones. You can have one. I can have one. NY, CT, MA, RI? They, especially the rich “they,” fear their poor immigrants, immigrants’ children, and people of color. I think it’s basically class conflict. Brahmins versus Irish, Portuguese, black folks, servants, gardeners. Wannabee Brahmins just towing the line, hoping they’ll eventually qualify as self-made political Brahmins-by-kissing-Brahmin-ass. There is an awful lot of “gee I hate that group over there” in no-AR land. It shows. And then there’s the whole “minorities fearing the great unwashed majority” bit. And the rich mothers coddling their crazy sons bit. And the “we’re academics so we must be morally special” bit. All crowded into one small region of the nation.
As far as the categories of ambush and investigative activity go, an example of the first would be that officer in Kentucky I think it was, that stopped to move a branch out of the road and was shot by persons unknown. It turned out the branch was likely intentionally placed for precisely that reason. For the second category, perhaps cops that went for a “knock and talk” and got more than they expected?
More information would be good, if for no other reason than because I’d like to know.
Since the courts have already decided that the police are under no duty to protect the citizenry should the citizens find themselves in violent conflict, why would the police have a need to carry a firearm at all?
Lets face it, the average patrol cop has less of a chance of thwarting a violent crime in progress than he has of being shot on the job. So really the gun is for what exactly? Self preservation?
And yet the citizenry are the ones under assault, on the actual front lines if you will They do and will always require a greater need for self preservation than law enforcement.
Armed citizens have, and will stop a crime in progress. The firepower should belong to them. The citizenry should always be better armed than the agents of the government. Since the reality is when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
We need to give more credit to the Doctors an ER’s and the instant communications available for fewer deaths. In many cases the officer is on the table in minutes and is being worked on while in transit.
Excellent point. I’d like to see the statistics on police shot versus deaths in a longitudinal study. I don’t know the stats, but if the stats are anywhere close to those cited by Dave Grossman in “On Killing” then the assault rate climbed but the death rate didn’t.
(I know there has got to be a way to keep articles from showing up in a mobile format, just have not figured it out yet. Have any idea how hard it is for me to scroll down and click on “desktop”)? Otherwise, I have no problem with fewer people getting killed. There is a need for a well armed, well equipped, para-military trained police force, before people really start shooting at them. The US Military will not come for your guns first. It will be the local dawgs. Then declaring martial law will be next, National Guard, then the US Military with some really cool stuff. Most likely the big cities first, once those are liberated, then move on to pockets of resistance in the less dense areas. Is such a scenario likely? I would not of thought so too many years ago, but since then, I am seeing a lot of things happening now that I never thought would happen either. From the beginning our military has fought for our freedom, or thought they were fighting for our freedom. Those men and women did not fail their country, their country has failed them.
Are you on a desktop machine? The setting of what kind of display you’re viewing it on is, to my knowledge, set and remembered by a cookie. If you’re clearing your cookies constantly, that could be a reason it’s not remembering it. Otherwise, I’d trying clearing cache and cookies on purpose one time. Then, restart your browser, and reset it to desktop if necessary. It should remember it from then on, unless you delete cookies again.
Thanks Matt, that is most likely it, I have laptop browser set to clear on closing, most cookies reload automatically. Have to reload outside my virtual browser, most likely be good after that.
I want the other statistic — during that time period, how many have the police killed?
Happy and a safe New Year to all.
Are the LEO’s outgunned by the citizens? Why yes indeed they are, as it was meant to be. LEO’s are citizens and civilians. Anything that is available to them should be available to any other civilian, period, full stop.
My nephew was one of the 46 killed in traffic accidents this year along with his k9 partner on Oct 30 by a drunk driver who broadsided him on the interstate. Its more os a rural area and he did carry an ar15. It was his own that he bought himself and had to qualify on it and authorized to carry it. Dont believe he ever had to use it on duty. His sidearm and dog were his main weapons. It was there if he ever did though and it didnt cost taxpayers a dime.
Sorry for your loss. I hope the drunk asshole is in pain somewhere.
The job of the police is to protect and serve the people.
The job of the military is to search and destroy enemies of the state.
When the police become militarized, the people become enemies of the state. Also applies if the military perform, or are co-opted into, civil law enforcement.
If you want examples, look at most countries in South and Central America, particularly Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, etc. And add Central and Eastern Europe, most of the Middle East and Africa, and most of Asia as well.
Or, they are simply open to offers from the highest bidder (ie: Mexico).
“The job of the police is to protect and serve the people…”
In spite of what it says on the side of their cars, I believe the courts have pretty well established that this is NOT the job, nor a job requirement, of the police at any level unless they have specifically and individually entered into such an agreement with a particular person.
The job of the police is to enforce the law. How they go about doing that and who is or is not protected or hurt in the meanwhile is not the issue.
Exactly. The job of the Police is to enforce the will of the State through violence. The job of the Military is to kill enemies of the State. Seems like the Police and Military are essentially the same.
The opening to law&order has it pretty spot on. The police investigate crimes and arrest suspects. That is it, anything else they may do is icing on the cake… Icing flavored with a dash of fear and abuse.
Without digging too deep into the possibility that changes in tactics are at least partially responsible for the reduction in firearms deaths (for the record I don’t like no-knock warrants unless the person you’re looking for has recently committed seriously violent felony crimes), here’s my opinion in general.
Police should have access to modern weapons, including ARs. I think ideally, we should buy them ourselves, because if you take more pride in ownership you’re more likely to train properly and maintain the equipment. About the only things I would have to turn in if I quit tomorrow would be the car, radio, and gas mask. Everything else I actually use, I paid for myself.
I also think police should not have access to anything forbidden by law to the rest of the population outside the military. That means, everyone should be able to buy the same stuff I can. And now that 2013 is over, I think I maintained an average of just under twice a week recommending to regular folks I met on calls that they look into arming themselves and getting some good training.
I’m not out to beat anyone, and I shouldn’t be. I’m out to get people into jail if absolutely necessary, and with the least amount of force needed to do that quickly. If I end up winning a fistfight and taking a bad guy to the hospital on the way to jail, I think it’s worse than if I showed up with two other guys and the bad guy just gives up.
Do I think I’m outgunned? No. The facts and my personal experience don’t back that up one bit. I just don’t think I should be looking to have a fair fight- I’m not a boxer, I’m not engaged in sporting competition, and if I get in a fair fight, it will last longer and it’s more likely someone will be hurt. Me, the bad guy, the kid standing across the street, or someone who has to swerve around me on the road and crashes, it doesn’t matter.
That in essence is how I respond to the “fight with your fists like a real man” types when discussing self defense. I just don’t see the moral high ground in engaging in a fight that will probably injure both if us when I can like 90 odd percent if the time people do. End the conflict with nobody injured including the assailant. Thank you for being a cop who knows it’s better to take a report on an attempted assault than collect evidence after an assault or rape or murder.
The sentence that stood out in the story for me was: “fell to levels not seen since the days of the Wild West”
Wait a minute…everyone knows that in the Wild West law men were being gunned down left and right by bad guys.
I know because I have watched a LOT of Western movies.
Cops aren’t outgunned. They all carry 9mm or .40s, which are sufficient to kill people at close range. The military carries rifles because on the battlefield, range is king. Cops don’t make hundred yard shots. Hell, they don’t even make 15 yard kills. If they need more than seventeen shots in a crowded urban environment, well, a lot of bystanders are getting hit.
My friend the local SWAT commander told me that longest SWAT shot in the DC metro area was 68 yards. In an Urban area there aren’t many places that are more than 50 yards apart. That is my reason for giving regular cops a pistol caliber carbine. That should cover any situation they are likely to see. Rifles should be reserved for real SWAT missions, i.e., active shooters and exurban and rural law enforcement.
So, the SWAT team decided to put the shit sandwich up front for the photo op, huh?
Fatty there is about as high speed, low drag as a boat sail.
In the past year we have seen 2 no-knock raids in the local area that have been published. One was a farmer in the dairy business and the other was a family in a high end neighborhood. Neither would suggest that they would be violent. Yet we seen a platoon size group of men made up of the Border Patrol, DHS, FBI, Hyway Patrol, Sheriff, and Dept of Ag. All of of these were armed with automatic weapons, full body armor, military vehicles, helicopter, and dogs. No one was arrested. They come with unlimited firepower and no common sense, and destroy the residence, eat food and throw it around. Its a good thing that no of the occupants grabed their legal firearms to protect themsleves from a B & E. Of course they din’t have a dog either of there would have been a dead beagle or basset hound.
The more military looking they become, the more abuse by the ten percent power trip arrogant officers to civilians will occur. We need a police force, not another national guard or army unit. Look the sheriff department, playing war by little boys that wouldn’t last five minutes against a trained military unit. Police keep separating themselves from civilians and with their high rate of violence and unnecessary use of firearms against civilians, the low numbers killed on duty will be a lost memory. Where are the numbers of innocent civilians or bystanders that were killed by the police departments?
That’s funny because I have never met a service member who has been anything but polite to me. The young enlisted marines I meet always address me a sir.
The fairly low number of police killed is due primarily to Kevlar vests, radios, trauma centers, and better training. Take these away, making things like they were just a few decades ago, and the number would skyrocket. Actually, take away modern medical care and response time and the murder rate for everyone would skyrocket. For a more accurate picture of what’s going on, look at aggravated assaults.