Boston Terror Attacks

[PeZook]

You don't point your weapon at anything you don't expect to have to kill, this is basic military deadly force training. Using your mounted scope to scan windows is not appropriate when your expectation for danger is near zero. Notice the rest of those other soldiers and officers are searching just as well without pointing their weapons in windows and are more exposed than the mounted soldier.

Uh...at the time the guy was said to have hand grenades. How is that 'near zero'? A well thrown hand grenade could've taken out most of that group.

Also, what was he supposed to have done? Carefully remove the scope from the rifle in order to be ABSOLUTELY SURE he did not spook anybody, then if it turned out it WAS the suspect, remount it later so that he could use the weapon? Maybe just ignore it entirely? Have binocs handy and use those, so that he'd have to reach for a weapon if it was the fugitive preparing to throw bombs at them?

He saw somebody in the window (again, while searching for a bomb-chucking armed fugitive), raised his rifle to check it out through the scope, turned out to be just a civilian with a camera, cool.

[AniThyng]

Now I understand where people who object to the "militarization" of american police are coming from. Even interested hobbyists find it hard to distinguish between National Guard soldiers and MA State police, because camo = NG

[Agent Fisher]

Actually AniThyng, hobbyists find it very easy to distinguish. In both the picture of the SWAT officer checking out the picture taker and in the picture on page 16. In the first one, they're all in OD green uniforms with various different patterned gear over it. And in the second, they're in Multicam, which has normally only been used by army units while on deployment overseas. Plus, they're all wearing rigs made in Ranger Green, which has normally only been used by special units, such as 75th Ranger Regiment, along with special operation units. A regular army unit would have been wearing multicam rigs with the multicam uniforms.

[AniThyng]

Actually AniThyng, hobbyists find it very easy to distinguish. In both the picture of the SWAT officer checking out the picture taker and in the picture on page 16. In the first one, they're all in OD green uniforms with various different patterned gear over it. And in the second, they're in Multicam, which has normally only been used by army units while on deployment overseas. Plus, they're all wearing rigs made in Ranger Green, which has normally only been used by special units, such as 75th Ranger Regiment, along with special operation units. A regular army unit would have been wearing multicam rigs with the multicam uniforms.

Okay, I phrased that poorly. Hobbyist might be the wrong word, as you (and sea skimmer earlier) just demonstrated. I meant..well...look at everyone who did/does refer to them as soldiers. They aren't exactly ignorant john q public either.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think anyone that talks about the militarization of the police is exaggerating. What do they want to see? Perhaps street cops wearing a bus driver hat, a revolver, and a straight stick searching for this suspect?

Sounds like style over substance to me. Intelligent leaders equip your people to deal with the threat at hand. You don't worry about how it appears or makes others feel.

The police have been "militarized" because criminals are "militarized". Prior to this "militarization" two armored bank robbers held off dozens of officers armed with 9mm pistols and shotguns. In response to that uniformed officers can now utilize semi-automatic rifles. After Waco, disregarding the cluster that was thanks to the ATF, you had ATF being engaged by automatic weapons and anti-material rifles in which case they had to ask the military for use of some Bradleys and later some tanks. It seems very silly to complain about such things when the best point you have is the clothing. Yeah, these special operation teams of police departments probably don't need to wear BDUs but that's not a very strong reason to be concerned.

Now in reaction to those threats police can now deploy armored vehicles.

However, even if you disagree on those points just remember this. Those police units deployed on the streets of Boston were tactical teams. They were SWAT. Patrol wasn't going around dressed like that. We can talk about the militarization of police when two cops show up at your door with rifles slung while responding to a typical call for service or driving up to a call in an armored vehicle but as it stands right now someone could shoot through my car with a 9mm.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I've never even heard anybody adequately describe what "militarization" of the police even fucking means, or why it might be bad. Just because the police get shiny new gadgets to protect themselves we are becoming a fascist dictatorship? I mean, seriously?

Especially with regards to tactical teams, I think it is BETTER for them to take some of the equipment and protocols that soldiers use, because we know they work (if you define work as minimizing casualties and subduing threats).

The only way "militarization" of police would be bad is if civilian police forces actually became a branch of the armed services and treated everyone as foreign combatants or civilians in occupied territory. And if you really think that's happening then I have a nice bridge to sell you.

[Lagmonster]

I think anyone that talks about the militarization of the police is exaggerating. What do they want to see? Perhaps street cops wearing a bus driver hat, a revolver, and a straight stick searching for this suspect?

Sounds like style over substance to me. Intelligent leaders equip your people to deal with the threat at hand. You don't worry about how it appears or makes others feel.

Am I getting this thread wrong, or are people worried about how police are equipped as opposed to how they act? I wouldn't give a shit if the police were dressed like Stormtroopers so long as they were efficient and honest. Anyone who says differently might not actually understand what an authority figure with *any* sort of lethal weapon on his person represents to the average person.

[Col. Crackpot]

I think anyone that talks about the militarization of the police is exaggerating. What do they want to see? Perhaps street cops wearing a bus driver hat, a revolver, and a straight stick searching for this suspect?

Sounds like style over substance to me. Intelligent leaders equip your people to deal with the threat at hand. You don't worry about how it appears or makes others feel.

Am I getting this thread wrong, or are people worried about how police are equipped as opposed to how they act? I wouldn't give a shit if the police were dressed like Stormtroopers so long as they were efficient and honest. Anyone who says differently might not actually understand what an authority figure with *any* sort of lethal weapon on his person represents to the average person.

And for the most part the behaviour was outstanding. What complaints have been filed against the police? Considering that much of this took place in Cambridge, where people go out of their way to accuse the government of jackboot thuggery and a are given an open forum when they do, i find the lack of actual locals complaining refreshing. Christ there were cops bringing groceries to families in lockdown for crying out loud.

[Flagg]

Seriously. People are too quick to forget the Dorner situation in LA where the cops were shooting at anything that moved and had brown skin.

[Col. Crackpot]

Seriously. People are too quick to forget the Dorner situation in LA where the cops were shooting at anything that moved and had brown skin.

What does that have to do with this? Other than show how cops up here are a hell of a lot better trained and much more restrained than they are in sothern california?

[Flagg]

Seriously. People are too quick to forget the Dorner situation in LA where the cops were shooting at anything that moved and had brown skin.

What does that have to do with this? Other than show how cops up here are a hell of a lot better trained and much more restrained than they are in sothern california?

That's was I was saying. The cops in Boston were exemplary compared to the idiots who went after Dorner. Hell, they were exemplary in their own right.

[Simon_Jester]

I've never even heard anybody adequately describe what "militarization" of the police even fucking means, or why it might be bad. Just because the police get shiny new gadgets to protect themselves we are becoming a fascist dictatorship? I mean, seriously?

Especially with regards to tactical teams, I think it is BETTER for them to take some of the equipment and protocols that soldiers use, because we know they work (if you define work as minimizing casualties and subduing threats).

The only way "militarization" of police would be bad is if civilian police forces actually became a branch of the armed services and treated everyone as foreign combatants or civilians in occupied territory. And if you really think that's happening then I have a nice bridge to sell you.

The complaint is that the police are engaged in too many "shoot first, ask questions later" actions in certain neighborhoods, and that money is spent on improving their firepower, when they'd have more impact on crime if it were spent on building positive interactions with the community.

This is usually raised in the context of the war on drugs, which is the main driver behind the proliferation of SWAT teams in police forces outside urban areas, and which involves a lot of cases of SWAT teams raiding houses on suspicion of drug possession and causing collateral damage or deaths on the way in.

[Sea Skimmer]

The thing is an awful lot of that police firepower improvement was near free, because so much of it has been DoD surplus M16s converted to semi auto only via trigger group modifications. That costs about 30 dollars for the part kit. This does not buy much training. This program has been going on for a long while.

[Simon_Jester]

Correction: improving firepower is cheap. Improving tactical training and maintaining the SWAT team is pricier overall, hence the complaints.

Which, for all I know, are not true or aren't important enough to matter.

[shrugs]

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think anyone that talks about the militarization of the police is exaggerating. What do they want to see? Perhaps street cops wearing a bus driver hat, a revolver, and a straight stick searching for this suspect?

Sounds like style over substance to me. Intelligent leaders equip your people to deal with the threat at hand. You don't worry about how it appears or makes others feel.

Am I getting this thread wrong, or are people worried about how police are equipped as opposed to how they act? I wouldn't give a shit if the police were dressed like Stormtroopers so long as they were efficient and honest. Anyone who says differently might not actually understand what an authority figure with *any* sort of lethal weapon on his person represents to the average person.

For the participants in this thread it is mostly how the police have been acting. Ando posted a link where the author seemed to have a problem with police walking down the street with what appeared to him as military weapons, equipment, and vehicles. Others have mentioned it in other threads but never have defined what they mean by it.

That's was I was saying. The cops in Boston were exemplary compared to the idiots who went after Dorner. Hell, they were exemplary in their own right.

Do you think this exemplary performance is a result of "military" type training?

[weemadando]

I posted it because it's interesting - a matter of perception and PR.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I posted it because it's interesting - a matter of perception and PR.

I know and it was an interesting read. I think it showed exactly what a large number of citizens perceive when they see those type of pictures/videos.

I think the government could do a better job of educating people as to why a deployment like that was necessary. Answer questions about why they need rifles, why tactical teams dress up in BDUs, why they used armor vehicles.

[Flagg]

I think anyone that talks about the militarization of the police is exaggerating. What do they want to see? Perhaps street cops wearing a bus driver hat, a revolver, and a straight stick searching for this suspect?

Sounds like style over substance to me. Intelligent leaders equip your people to deal with the threat at hand. You don't worry about how it appears or makes others feel.

Am I getting this thread wrong, or are people worried about how police are equipped as opposed to how they act? I wouldn't give a shit if the police were dressed like Stormtroopers so long as they were efficient and honest. Anyone who says differently might not actually understand what an authority figure with *any* sort of lethal weapon on his person represents to the average person.

For the participants in this thread it is mostly how the police have been acting. Ando posted a link where the author seemed to have a problem with police walking down the street with what appeared to him as military weapons, equipment, and vehicles. Others have mentioned it in other threads but never have defined what they mean by it.

That's was I was saying. The cops in Boston were exemplary compared to the idiots who went after Dorner. Hell, they were exemplary in their own right.

Do you think this exemplary performance is a result of "military" type training?

I don't know to be honest. It was a combination of forces and I don't know enough about their training to make a call.

[PeZook]

I've never even heard anybody adequately describe what "militarization" of the police even fucking means, or why it might be bad. Just because the police get shiny new gadgets to protect themselves we are becoming a fascist dictatorship? I mean, seriously?

It's a complex thing, actually. The term is mostly about the way police acts, but also about image and PR which are important on their own, because part of the mission of law enforcement is creating certain PERCEPTIONS amongst people.

So the way cops dress is pretty important, actually. Less so for SWAT probably because they don't generally interact with people on a day to day basis, but for patrol officers - absolutely. You need to project an aura of authority, but also seem human and approachable so that people trust and respect you when they see a patrol instead of worrying something bad is going to happen to them.

But of course the primary component is the way police act, namely in treating policing like war: the tendency to use overwhelming force for EVERYTHING, shooting dogs, shooting people in general, adversarial "us vs. them" mentality during routine procedures, etc - or even small stuff like departments buying MRAPs and desperately looking for a use for them, or how every little department seems to feel they must have a tactical team of some sort...

That said, if the culture you are working in is distrustful of soldiers doing policing work, then it's not a bad idea at all to clearly differentiate even your tactical teams from the military. As I wrote, PR matters because police rely a lot on popular perception, as well as the actual physical tools they use.

Of course, like KS points out, it's not necessarily something the police can avoid, because of how the US looks and how their criminals have access to better and better firepower themselves.

[Grumman]

Ando posted a link where the author seemed to have a problem with police walking down the street with what appeared to him as military weapons, equipment, and vehicles.

You forgot the part where the policeman was aiming said military weapon at some random person in their own home for filming the police. Under the default circumstances it goes without saying that this is unacceptable behavior, and I do not consider merely patrolling a street sufficient grounds to change that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Ando posted a link where the author seemed to have a problem with police walking down the street with what appeared to him as military weapons, equipment, and vehicles.

You forgot the part where the policeman was aiming said military weapon at some random person in their own home for filming the police. Under the default circumstances it goes without saying that this is unacceptable behavior, and I do not consider merely patrolling a street sufficient grounds to change that.

I like how you reduce the situation to "merely patrolling the streets" and then ignore that this complaint has already been addressed by other board members.

So, since you feel this is unacceptable behavior I would like a thorough answer as to why and then I'd like you to give a situation in which it would be acceptable for a police officer to point a weapon at someone? After that I'd like you to cite any police department/military world wide that follows this doctrine under similar circumstances.

EDIT - Grumman's perspective on the situation is a good example of why I think the government should be educating the public as to why things are done the way that they are. Also, Grumman I forgot to ask why you feel the weapon he was aiming at the camera man is a "military" weapon. How do you know that officer didn't buy that rifle with his own money at a civilian firearm store?

[weemadando]

Is an officer legally allowed to buy and carry their own weapon while on duty?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Is an officer legally allowed to buy and carry their own weapon while on duty?

Only if the weapon and ammunition are approved by the department.

Usually these weapons and ammunition are listed in the department policy manual. For example, with my department only AR-15 variants are approved and may only use ball ammunition.

[Grumman]

Ando posted a link where the author seemed to have a problem with police walking down the street with what appeared to him as military weapons, equipment, and vehicles.

You forgot the part where the policeman was aiming said military weapon at some random person in their own home for filming the police. Under the default circumstances it goes without saying that this is unacceptable behavior, and I do not consider merely patrolling a street sufficient grounds to change that.

I like how you reduce the situation to "merely patrolling the streets" and then ignore that this complaint has already been addressed by other board members.

So, since you feel this is unacceptable behavior I would like a thorough answer as to why and then I'd like you to give a situation in which it would be acceptable for a police officer to point a weapon at someone?

That is the thorough answer: unless you've got a damn good reason otherwise, the rules default to "don't aim your gun at people". Until they verified that the person they're looking at is armed and/or hostile and not just some guy standing in his own home with a camera phone, they should be holding their weapon pointed at the ground.

After that I'd like you to cite any police department/military world wide that follows this doctrine under similar circumstances.

Gun safety isn't a popularity contest - it doesn't matter if one police department or a hundred point their guns at people under similar circumstances, it's still a bad idea.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That is the thorough answer: unless you've got a damn good reason otherwise, the rules default to "don't aim your gun at people". Until they verified that the person they're looking at is armed and/or hostile and not just some guy standing in his own home with a camera phone, they should be holding their weapon pointed at the ground.

Gun safety isn't a popularity contest - it doesn't matter if one police department or a hundred point their guns at people under similar circumstances, it's still a bad idea.

The rules of firearm safety as taught to police/military are as follows;

1 - All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2 - Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3 - Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
4 - Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

As you can see there is no such rule of "Don't point your gun at people". Number 2 comes the closest but that doesn't prohibit pointing a gun at a possible threat. What comes next is a combination of rules #3 and #4.

You have a misconception about these rules and how they are applied in self-defense/police/military situations.