SACair Forum

[quote="awdriscol4"]I dont want to dwell on the police issue, that not what this thread is about. But the gunman surrendered only after fighting it out with police, then being shot. Of course he was surrendering, what choice did he have? Would you be so worried if it had been one of your famaily or friends that had been killed?[/quote]

In all reality all the Patrol men did was keep the Bank Robbers insight of the civilians. Which turned this robbery into a shootout. The bank robbers were not stopped until SWAT arrived.[/quote]

- Alfred

Just an FYI Ferg, all police officers are NOT trained EMTs, they have basic medical training. About the same training that you would get by going to a first aid class held by the American Red Cross. True, they probably could have tried to save him, but in all honesty would you? I would not call that police corruption, but being human. They just watched those monsters gun down their brother police officers and after stopping them would just as soon have taken a dump on their chests than given any type of aid.

Then they shouldn't be cops.

So then by your estimation, humans should not be cops? Be realistic.

American Marines and Soldiers were fired on by Iraqi soldiers, they risked their lives saving the same Iraqi's that shot at them. Our soldiers showed real honor doing their job. They controled their hatred, and did what was right.

I think your taking this all a bit too personal. Was one of those criminals a relative or something? I think that this topic is getting way out of control. Maybe its best not to discuss controversial subject matter? With that, I leave you to your own devices.

I want to get into politic's some day, I enjoy debating.

That is what is so great about this forum, the ability to discuss and debate your points, no matter what others may think, or agree/disagree.

And what do you suppose would've happened if 3-4 of the people in that bank had been armed? I don't know of any armor that the robbers had for thier face and neck region. Don't flame me if they did, I just havn't heard of any. But even if they did, a .45 to the head at 2-3 feet is gonna mess you up.

Ok Ferg, sounded like you were getting pissed. I love a good debate as well. Just don't like it when people take things personal.

I'm with ya Ferguson, I would love to get into politics one day! I am a master debater!!!!!!!

omg john...:) ERIN u bring up a great point, i say u e-mail that to the Senate. Now getting back to the topic Fergy was discussing (if i offend u, i didnt mean it). First off, put yourself in their situation, then a soldier's situation. Then compare and contrast the two's objective in life. Police: mainly for small crimes, drunk driving, gang fights, domestic disturbance, nothing big. The only reason they even carry is gun is solely if the opponent has one. Then, put yourself in a soldier's shoes. Trained to the limits of human abilities, they are the heart and soul of the American army. Hymm...sounds a bit more extreme doesn't it? Soldiers objectives are to fight for the country, and achieve the objective at hand. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO RISK THEIR LIVES. it's wut they do for a living. The officers in the LA bank robbery were only firing due to their last option: fire back. They had no other decisions except maybe get killed. If they just held their positions and waited, the terrorists would have been long gone. As for the Emil d00d laying in the street dead, if a guy fired off a few AK-47 rounds at your face, would u have any respect for the bastard?

Probably not, but the least they could do was put a bullet in his head to end it. That or some of the medical attention stuff....

[quote="ERIN"]I'm not even going to try and figure out how much it would take to do this. But you know we just sent $80,000,000,000 over to iraq. I bet we could do some great things with that kind of cash in the United States. :wink:[/quote]

I Don't remeber saying anything about armor penetration? A .308 hollow point should be more than enough to knock anyone on their azz. And the .45acp has proven stopping power. The 9mm has capacity. I sorry, this may sound baostfull and childish, but if I can't drop him with the first three rounds I don't need a gun. Now I can understand the need for cover fire, but instead of shooting to keep the bad guy behind his car door, put a bullet through it? Yes police face heavily armed combatants about as rarely as diane fienstien gets laid. But I'd rather be ready when the time comes.

Ferg, just a technical critique of your last post. The 5.56mm (.223 cal) round does not have that kind of penetration. It MAY go out of the subject that it has hit, but the ballistics of that round are that it starts to tumble on entry into a subject. So if it does exit, its going to hit the ground and not much further. Also, most police forces have started using frangible rounds, that is the bullet turns to dust after impact. Therefore, your argument about the penetration is moot. The primar purpose of having high powered rifles is for accuracy at range, the 12ga shotgun that is carried by all police does not have any real effect after about 50 yards with buck shot, and 100 yards with slugs, and that is the utmost effective range, with a very skilled shot. The M16 varients that are being carried are able to hit a point target at 550meters, plus there isn't the scatter effect that there is with a shotgun. I know you want to make sure there are no friendly casualties. The fact of the matter is that by arming our police with the best weapons, they are able to determine the threat, and choose the appropriate weapon for the job. If the threat is minimal, then they use their pistol, if it is a greater threat, but at close range, they use the shotgun, if it goes to longer range, they then have the rifle, and the SWAT team as a last resort. People much smarter than you or I have thought of all of these situations, and made the decisions based on real world situations. Unfortunately sometimes because of the politicians who are affraid of it looking as if we have become a police state we have under armed our police in the past, and continue to do so in the present. It takes something like the LA bank robbery to give the wake up call to the politicians, letting them know that our police DO need these weapons, so that they can better deal with any threat that may come down the line. Now, I hope that they never have to use those weapons, but I feel safer knowing that they now have them.

[quote="Redleg869"] The fact of the matter is that by arming our police with the best weapons, they are able to determine the threat, and choose the appropriate weapon for the job. If the threat is minimal, then they use their pistol, if it is a greater threat, but at close range, they use the shotgun, if it goes to longer range, they then have the rifle, and the SWAT team as a last resort.[/quote]

Actually, many of them do use mini 14s, its mainly the larger agencies that are arming with M16s. I believe that the CHP uses the mini 14.

[quote="ERIN"]I Don't remeber saying anything about armor penetration? A .308 hollow point should be more than enough to knock anyone on their azz. And the .45acp has proven stopping power. The 9mm has capacity. I sorry, this may sound baostfull and childish, but if I can't drop him with the first three rounds I don't need a gun. Now I can understand the need for cover fire, but instead of shooting to keep the bad guy behind his car door, put a bullet through it? Yes police face heavily armed combatants about as rarely as diane fienstien gets laid. But I'd rather be ready when the time comes.

If a police officer has to draw thier sidearm the situation has gone to a place where lethal force is to be expected and is sometimes required. So if I had to draw a gun on someone that I intended to shoot, and I knew it was him or me, I want "killing potential." Police deal with the very worst of society right? They get the child rapists and the cannibals and all the freaks that need to be put down like the bottom feeding scum they are. So I apolice officer has to defend his life, why do it half assed?

The fact of the real matter is when you get down to costs their really is no need for every police officer to have an M16. Swat teams were not even made until Charles Whitman went into the clock tower. He was only armed with some bolt actions, and a M1 Carbine... Theres a website a friend sent me a few months ago, and it has all the reports of massive crimes where assualt weapons or body armor were used. There was like less then a dozen reports of assault weapons being used in actual crimes from 1997-2002. Whats the point in spending Billions, which is what the actualy price tag would cost, to arm "all" of our police with M16s.

Ferguson, honestly, i know you don't think we should spend our money on more powerful guns for the police force and SWAT teams, but consider it once more through the eyes of a politician (OH GOD). It's making them look bad when horrible things happen, and they want to make sure something like that never happens again. So would i. Arming our police forces and SWAT teams should be TOP priority if we want less crime. if criminals know we can blow the sh!t out of them with one of 6 guns in the trunk, they probly wont try anything stupid. Sure, cops may die by their own gun, but how often? and why dont the cops USE the gun? it's an accident. The cop thinks he can take the little bastard down with some hand-to-hand, but then realizes hes screwed when the slimeball whips out some taekwondo, and jacks the guys pistol. If he had USED the gun, the perp would be in the morgue. It's all about common sense...As for stopping power, WTF??? Why would u want to stop the guy? hes better off dead then in jail, released in about 20 years to wander the streets again. screw stopping power, blow the bastard 5 feet back with a Benelli. That's what i say.....

[quote="ChaosBringer"]It's making them look bad when horrible things happen, and they want to make sure something like that never happens again. So would i. Arming our police forces and SWAT teams should be TOP priority if we want less crime. if criminals know we can blow the sh!t out of them with one of 6 guns in the trunk, they probly wont try anything stupid. Sure, cops may die by their own gun, but how often? and why dont the cops USE the gun? it's an accident. The cop thinks he can take the little bastard down with some hand-to-hand, but then realizes hes screwed when the slimeball whips out some taekwondo, and jacks the guys pistol. If he had USED the gun, the perp would be in the morgue. It's all about common sense...As for stopping power, WTF??? Why would u want to stop the guy? hes better off dead then in jail, released in about 20 years to wander the streets again. screw stopping power, blow the bastard 5 feet back with a Benelli. That's what i say.....[/quote]

im not saying they should just go on killing sprees and hunt down bad guy, but i am saying that situations arise, and we need to be ready to defend ourselves. The solution: Snipe the bad guys....minimize civilian casualties :)

The problem with what is being said about going out and killing the bad guys, is very simple. We cannot have a police force who is perceived as trigger happy, nor can we have a police force that is unwilling to use their weapons. We my friends are in a conundrum, we must have police to enforce our laws, but we also want them to be a politically correct institution that is free of controversy. These are all pipe dreams. We are never going to have a force that is completely able to take out the criminals because we are not going to live in a police state. And we are never going to have a police force that is free of controversy, because we want to be safe, and have criminals behind bars. It is a catch 22, we're damned if we do, and we are damned if we don't.

[quote="Rhino"][quote="ERIN"]I Don't remeber saying anything about armor penetration? A .308 hollow point should be more than enough to knock anyone on their azz. And the .45acp has proven stopping power. The 9mm has capacity. I sorry, this may sound baostfull and childish, but if I can't drop him with the first three rounds I don't need a gun. Now I can understand the need for cover fire, but instead of shooting to keep the bad guy behind his car door, put a bullet through it? Yes police face heavily armed combatants about as rarely as diane fienstien gets laid. But I'd rather be ready when the time comes.

That's slightly different from when I went through some police training. When I was taught, we were told to "shoot to stop" never to wound, but we also didn't necessarily want to kill them either. I guess its all just semantics.

Dude ferg, no offense intended by this, you seem like a redneck cop hater who is very mis informed. I read several of your earlier comments on the 97 bankshootout and believe me you need to get the facts straight. Dude the history channel did a documentary on the shootout. you say that the cops are trained with basic medical care and left him to die. dude the only way the swat officers stopped him was be shooting him in the legs under the cars. he took 2 round to the legs, 6 to his feet, and one to his arm before he finally surrendered. Now tell me how basic medical training is going to step the bloodloss from 30 major wounds. He died from bloodloss 2 mins after his surrender. What ambulance could have prevented that death, oh wait there are no ambulances within 2 mins distance, and even if there were an ambulance on the spot could they save him, NO. My dad is a surgeon he even agrees. My dad says the best med team in country could not have saved that asshole. Furthermore we equip our officers with the best weapons available (both leathal and non-leathal) so that they can asses a threat and deal with it accordingly. Nuff said.