ppshcccp said:
I have to jump in here.
bigger hammer is using a classic bait and switch argument tactic.
he says
ppshcccp quotes me,
Notice that you didn't answer my very simple question and supply us as asked for "EVEN ONE such instance of the local police kick[ing] in your door, toss[ing] in a fragmentation grenade then enter[ing] and kill[ing] everyone who's still alive." That's because despite your earlier comments about the militarization of the police and this statement, it's NEVER happened.
ppshcccp said:
I've only browsed the thread
Until and unless you have READ the thread, you really don't know what you're talking about.
I'll show you the discussion.
7.5-Swiss wrote,
Unfortunately, when the line between military and law enforcement tactics blurs, instances of unnecessary force rise.
And I responded
Here's the "militarization of the police" argument again, just wearing a different hat. When the local police kick in your door, toss in a fragmentation grenade then enter and kill everyone who's still alive, you might have a case. Until then it's just nonsense. Can you give us EVEN ONE such instance occurring with the police in the US?
ppshcccp said:
but I don't see where anyone has claimed that the local police have used frag grenades and indiscriminately killed people.
The fact that no one has been able to show us that this has occurred supports my argument. Quite a few here keep telling us that the police are becoming more and more "militarized." I maintain that such an argument not only has no specific meaning but that some are merely using it as an argument against police getting better, more efficient tools, in this case, weapons.
And so I cited a typical military room entry as an example of a military movement and challenged anyone to find me such a event as done by any police department anywhere. No one has. That's because the entire
"militarization of the police" is a red herring. An excuse for those who don't care for the police as the local representatives of government because they don't like any government interference in their lives.
ppshcccp said:
He has come up with this outlandish example and since there are no examples of it actually occurring, seem to think this proves something?
It proves that nothing even approaching it has happened.
ppshcccp said:
And here, lies the problem with this whole debate.
Actually this debate has NOTHING to do with the militarization of the police. It has to do with the Boston PD being given semi–auto M–16's. Anything else, including this discussion about the "militarization of the police" is off topic.
ppshcccp said:
What bigger hammer seems to consider the militarization of police vs. what the people he is debating with considers it to be, seems to be pretty different. However, I think its fair to point out that compared to the early 1920s, when bonnie and clyde were killed in a police AMBUSH (law enforcement ambushing citizens, criminals or not, is still mind-boggling to me today)
Sounds like a great idea to me. I don't care for the "execution nature" of this incident but I see no reason to give murderers another opportunity to kill someone, me included. I'd have given them the opportunity to surrender. If they chose to fight it out, so be it.
ppshcccp said:
Personally, I'm not convinced that crime has become so bad in the past 10 years that we suddenly need to rush to equip police officers with ar15s
Years ago, lawmen carried rifles as part of their everyday equipment. Then as now, they were far more effective in preventing and stopping armed resistance to arrest. As we became "more civilized" it fell from favor as the foot beat became a common method of patrol. It just wasn't efficient to carry a long gun. Only when the foot beat fell from common use and the patrol car became the common patrol method did long guns, in the form of shotguns come back into use.
Now all that's happened is that people are used to the SG and NOT as used to the rifle being in the cars. Some people, especially those who don't like the police don't like to see them make ANY progress. They fought the transition from revolvers to semi-autos. They fought the transition from round-nose lead bullets to hollow–points too. Now they're fighting the transition to rifles. But thousands of police departments have started carrying them and more will follow.
ppshcccp said:
I think the issue many have with issuing police officers rifles is not that they are not effective, but rather it is a change...obviously there is a line somewhere, that if crossed, changes the nature of law enforcement for worse. Does it lie with giving some officers ar15s, probably not. Is it somewhere further down the road that doing so embarks us on? Maybe.
Agreed.
ppshcccp said:
oh and one more thing - this statement grinded my gears a bit,
ppshcccp quotes me,
My true colors are simple. The police have a mission to accomplish, enforcing the law. You don't. My carpenter uses a nail gun. For the small projects that I do, I get by with a hammer. Sorry if you don't like "the color" of that. You folks are the ones who persistently throughout this discussion have used the techniques used by the anti–gunners.
ppshcccp said:
How is that logic any different from the type used by the Brady bunch to try and ban "assault rifles"? "Only the military needs assault weapons" etc...
The statement was in response to the oft repeated statement (to the effect) that "the police shouldn't have any gun that I don't have." It was intended as satire.
ppshcccp said:
You are saying that citizens shouldn't have certain weapons because they don't need them. Yet, you fail to provide any specific examples as to why Boston police need them...besides some vague references to how they might be useful in certain situations..as you seem to enjoy demanding examples from those you are debating
Only because some take such great delight in predicting Armageddon at the hands of the police and warning that it's imminent if (as in this case) the police get these converted M–16's. LOL.
ppshcccp said:
show me a Boston specific example of how an ordinary officer would need one.
The question of proving how an "ordinary police officer would need a converted M–16 is an impossible task. There are literally thousands of situations where it would be useful. Virtually anytime a felony traffic stop is made in Boston a rifle in the intermediate power category would be a useful addition to the weaponry presented. The same goes for virtually any entry made for the service of a search warrant or an arrest. As with a shotgun or a K-9 the mere presence of such tools may have a suspect thinking twice about offering resistance. Instead, he just goes to jail quietly. That's better for all concerned.
It's interesting how often the advice is given out here repeating statements from well–known firearms instructors, "A handgun is for fighting your way to a long gun." And "If you know trouble is coming, have a long gun." These words of advice apply to everyone it would seem EXCEPT for police officers who are far more likely to find themselves involved in armed confrontations than JQ Public.