07-11-2016, 07:42 AM
(07-08-2016, 02:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(07-08-2016, 10:50 AM)playwrite Wrote: I don't think there's a single police-at-fault shooting that involved their use of any military weapons platforms like an AR-15 style weapon. As far as I know, every one of these events, including the recent LA and MN shootings, were with standard issue handguns. The police bring out the military hardware once an event has escalated.
I have big problems with local police force having military weapons platforms as standard issue. I just got back from Paris, FR, and the police fire teams with military issue were patrolling all over the place. Given their situation, that's understandable, but it is a mood killer - do we want that here? On the other hand, I want the police to be able to outgun the bad guys. Solution, take the military platforms out of the hands of civilians - this is not rocket science.
There are some who oppose SWAT teams with full military kit serving search warrants in the middle of the night, leading off with flash bangs thrown into the house at random. One of the more notable incidents had the flash-bang land the baby's crib. Some jurisdictions do this in response to rumors of pot being grown in a house. The people sleeping inside can't really be expected to respond rationally after a sudden awakening. Things go wrong too often. Local jurisdictions can afford to accept free military surplus equipment, but they can't afford the expensive training required if you want the missions to go well. PBS did a recent series of programs on the problem. The primary thing I took away from it is that if you can't afford to train your people in paramilitary missions in a civilian environment, you shouldn't hand out the weapons or launch the missions. Otherwise, mistakes happen. A lot.
Another factor that came up in the PBS specials is lawyers. Make a mistake, you can get sued big time. Thus, if a police officer makes a mistake, you can't admit to anything having gone wrong. This reinforces the Blue Wall of Silence. As a result patterns of mistakes that happen often are not being publicized. Training cannot be improved to train officers to avoid the common mistakes. The failure to accept responsibility or admit fault when fault obviously exists results in distrust and resentment by the public.
This should be considered an almost separate issue from many of the other problems. It is generally accepted and traditional that officers can use deadly force if they feel threatened. The recent LA an MN incidents had cops that felt threatened when the civilian had a gun but was making absolutely no attempt to use it. This sort of situation comes up with little to no notice. As a result, the police will have only their side arms available to respond. It's not at all the same situation as the midnight search assault. A good part of the answer may still be better training that many police departments don't think they can afford.
Not rocket science, but wishful thinking won't get it done, either. Better training would help a lot, but are we willing to pay for it? Having superior firepower immediately available, assuming one is trained to use it, isn't a bad idea.
Not much to disagree with here unless it is attempting to imply that most armed confrontations with police involve SWAT teams - just the fact that the "S" stands for "special" makes that a silly notion - and thereby a roundabout way of getting the typical refrain that a ban on ARs would not stop all confrontations or the common cold.
It is also likely that police training would be different if confrontation with individuals with ARs was moved from the need-to-assume category to the not-likely category - maybe there be more attention to training on the proper placement of flashbangs.