The power of the police - how much is too much?

[cptn janks]

 

For the record, if I am ever asked to stop by cops with guns, and I proceed to get in my car and try to get away. You have full permission to empty as many rounds into my car as possible.

 

 

failure to stop and fleeing are not crimes worthy of the death penalty.

[Mr. Jones]

failure to stop and fleeing are not crimes worthy of the death penalty.

 

I guess that is why they call them opinions. As it turns out, if you don't break the law, you won't get shot!

[copperhead]

Also alot of times goes into the plan to see if innocents are in the home I'm sure if children would of been home there may not have been return fire

 

That's why the two people they were specifically looking for weren't even there, right?

[wnaplay1647545503]

Reynoldsburgs police officer application asks you if you want to be a "peach officer", true story. And that boys and girls is my random post of the day.:offtopic:

[trigun7469]

Few for the many, you now understand Iraq good sir.

 

Problem I don't live in Iraq I live in America and pay taxes here. You can't disguise are economical problems fighting elsewhere and colonizing other countries.

 

If people acted more civilized and violent crimes went down, they would not need bigger weapons to intimidate people. I don't totally agree with that reasoning its the law system that needs some work, lowering and controlling the tort, tougher on repeat offenders, and make the jail system more efficient. Also people becoming more civilized would also help, but may be a stretch. I certaintly don't feel the loaw towering over me since well I'm not shooting people or selling drugs. It's typically the criminals who feel towered over by the law.

[Devils Advocate]

....why do cops have uzis in the trains if there havent been any train bombings?

 

 

...Ill take the 1-in-a-frillion odds that some nutjob is gonna be on my train with a bomb over having John Q. Toughguy scaring the shit out of me with a navy seal gun any day.

 

 

And uh... I dont think you guys are really thinking this whole "scare them away" thing through....

 

 

If a guy is going to suicide bomb a train... he... doesnt.... care... if.... he.... dies? He walks into a crowded station, sees an ANTI TERROR SKWAD, and says "oh, snaps. I get to take some of them out too. Whoopdie-doo, more virgins for me!"

 

 

And another thing: You cant really (effectively) high-jack a train and use it to drive/fly into a building, because... ITS ON A FUCKING TRACK. I'd love to see that high speed chase. "Well ladies and gentlemen, were up here in the super special mega-anti-terror chopper in hot pursuit of the runaway train filled with militant terrorists... i think its about to take a left... YUP! I WAS TOTALLY RIGHT! THE TRAIN TOOK A LEFT! WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO AVERT WHATEVER IT IS THEY HAVE PLANNED!!1!1"

 

 

We could continue to let the government waste our money on pathetic, non-effective, freedom robbing atrocities like this, or we could all man up and say "Look, I'll take my chances with the non-existant militants.... you guys keep those guns the fuck away from me, my family, and my friends."

[PeteS40]

That's why the two people they were specifically looking for weren't even there, right?

 

they got one of the three guys in the raid... not like there standing watching the place... i belive charges for drugs were filed today

[Devils Advocate]

they got one of the three guys in the raid... not like there standing watching the place... i belive charges for drugs were filed today

 

 

 

... God forbid they actually do some recon work before storming in guns blazing.

[AngryBMW]

... God forbid they actually do some recon work before storming in guns blazing.

 

Pothead.

-Marc

[Devils Advocate]

Pothead.

-Marc

 

 

 

Yo, Ive barely smoked in the last couple weeks, after smoking for pretty much every day for lie 3 years.

[Rhett]

I for one am happy we have people armed on trasportation now, planes, trains hell arm up on the cota bus. And about the "1-in-a-frillion odds that some one is going to have a bomb". dont you think that the 246 people on the 4 planes of 9/11 wish some John Q was standing there with an "Uzi" when 14 people took over the planes with box cutters. I think that all the 2,974 people that died wish some Tough guy had a gun to "scare them". Its not a scare tactic its a deterent, Yes they are still going to try to blow them selves up... Its not that they are going to hijack a train and crash it into a building. Terrorists main goals are to scare people (casue terror hense the name Terrorists) and gain publicity. But if John q has his Uzi and Achmed starts making demands or start his Islamic radical preechings and the Guard/Cop has a weapon, and he sees a threat to everyone on that train and puts a few rounds in Achmed's chest and head. No boom (unless its on a timer or another is far off using a cell phone or another trigger device) but more than likely it is on a self triggering device. I have studied how and why they pick there targets. I am glad when I see our goverment taking a stand to protect us where we cant carry our weapons. I have been face to face with al-Qaeda, with insurgents and some bomb makers. Your right, they dont care if they die.. but if we show them that we are not taking a stand, they will keep on doing what they do best and another 9/11 will more than likely be the out come.

Now they may not be on the trains because of terrorists, In DC, our nations capital, you are more likely to be killed than in Iraq, As in Iraq the military men and women are amred and prepared for the worst.

Here is a report about this^^^^^

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq

theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, when this was written) that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000

soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D. C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. (...and that was while handguns were outlawed!!)

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U. S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

 

This is not an attack on any bodys beleifs or me saying I am right, this is just my opinion... I just think we should think about why the goverment does what it does, I know that sometimes, alot of the time, it IS wrong or there is a better way to do it. But this is just my opinion.

 

....why do cops have uzis in the trains if there havent been any train bombings?

 

 

...Ill take the 1-in-a-frillion odds that some nutjob is gonna be on my train with a bomb over having John Q. Toughguy scaring the shit out of me with a navy seal gun any day.

 

 

And uh... I dont think you guys are really thinking this whole "scare them away" thing through....

 

 

If a guy is going to suicide bomb a train... he... doesnt.... care... if.... he.... dies? He walks into a crowded station, sees an ANTI TERROR SKWAD, and says "oh, snaps. I get to take some of them out too. Whoopdie-doo, more virgins for me!"

 

 

And another thing: You cant really (effectively) high-jack a train and use it to drive/fly into a building, because... ITS ON A FUCKING TRACK. I'd love to see that high speed chase. "Well ladies and gentlemen, were up here in the super special mega-anti-terror chopper in hot pursuit of the runaway train filled with militant terrorists... i think its about to take a left... YUP! I WAS TOTALLY RIGHT! THE TRAIN TOOK A LEFT! WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO AVERT WHATEVER IT IS THEY HAVE PLANNED!!1!1"

 

 

We could continue to let the government waste our money on pathetic, non-effective, freedom robbing atrocities like this, or we could all man up and say "Look, I'll take my chances with the non-existant militants.... you guys keep those guns the fuck away from me, my family, and my friends."

[copperhead]

tl;dr

 

Try using paragraph's next time.

[ttemper]

+1000

 

i think its embarassing that cops qualify at 20 feet or what ever it is when i can hit the same target at 50 ft.

 

 

you should be embarassed, you have no idea what you're talking about. cops have to qualify at 50', not 20' as you previously stated.

[Rob1647545496]

you should be embarassed, you have no idea what you're talking about. cops have to qualify at 50', not 20' as you previously stated.

 

i sure hope your right.

i'm just going by what the guys at ohio valley were telling me. i have not been able to find any info about it on-line but while i was looking i did find this.

 

However, there seems to be a consensus among practitioners and researchers alike that police marksmanship in real-life (scene of a crime) situations is less than desirable, something along the order of one hit for every six shots (Morrison 2002). This means that in gunfighting with actual criminals, the average police officer effectiveness is at the level of 17% proficiency. This is much less, as you will have noticed, than the 84% proficiency level required for qualification in police training. It also illustrates the problem, that real-life situations are so vastly different from training situations.

One might ask at this point if police officers are such bad shooters in real life, how good are the criminals? As far as determining the average proficiency of armed criminals, researchers typically distinguish between determined adversaries and ordinary adversaries. Most police encounters involve ordinary adversaries - those criminals who are on unfamiliar territory themselves, and typically firing shots over their shoulder while fleeing. From what limited research exists, we know that the average ordinary adversary effectiveness is something around the order of 10% proficiency (Morrison 2002). The proficiency of determined adversaries is presumably higher. It may or may not be reassuring that, in real-life situations, criminals are only 7% worse shooters than police.

 

from here

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/Mstevens/205/205lect02a.htm

[Tractor]

Well not to defend the police, but my logic would say that police at 17% and criminals at 10% means that police are 70% better than the criminals performance.

 

Evan

[LJ]

i sure hope your right.

i'm just going by what the guys at ohio valley were telling me. i have not been able to find any info about it on-line but while i was looking i did find this.

 

However, there seems to be a consensus among practitioners and researchers alike that police marksmanship in real-life (scene of a crime) situations is less than desirable, something along the order of one hit for every six shots (Morrison 2002). This means that in gunfighting with actual criminals, the average police officer effectiveness is at the level of 17% proficiency. This is much less, as you will have noticed, than the 84% proficiency level required for qualification in police training. It also illustrates the problem, that real-life situations are so vastly different from training situations.

One might ask at this point if police officers are such bad shooters in real life, how good are the criminals? As far as determining the average proficiency of armed criminals, researchers typically distinguish between determined adversaries and ordinary adversaries. Most police encounters involve ordinary adversaries - those criminals who are on unfamiliar territory themselves, and typically firing shots over their shoulder while fleeing. From what limited research exists, we know that the average ordinary adversary effectiveness is something around the order of 10% proficiency (Morrison 2002). The proficiency of determined adversaries is presumably higher. It may or may not be reassuring that, in real-life situations, criminals are only 7% worse shooters than police.

 

from here

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/Mstevens/205/205lect02a.htm

 

The departments that qualified up at the BWCC had to do it from 50'. They do shoot at a life sized target and I don't even remember what their accuracy had to be.

[Rob1647545496]

The departments that qualified up at the BWCC had to do it from 50'. They do shoot at a life sized target and I don't even remember what their accuracy had to be.

 

a life sized target at 50' ? i hope they had to hit a specific part of the target cuz i could hit a life sized target at 50' by age 10.

[Tractor]

a life sized target at 50' ? i hope they had to hit a specific part of the target cuz i could hit a life sized target at 50' by age 10.

 

You know those police on the Simpson? Well its a little like that:-)

 

Evan

[Jelloman4571647545499]

a life sized target at 50' ? i hope they had to hit a specific part of the target cuz i could hit a life sized target at 50' by age 10.

 

with a shotgun...

[PeteS40]

OPOTA standards ill give you a rough run down..

All target are a human silouwet(SP) the inner ring is the only part that counts... picture a target where all of your vital organs are, stomach, lungs, heart.. head dosent count... i would say roughly 1 1/2 wide MAYBE...

 

50 ft.. 6 shots

35ft.. 6 shot

25 ft.. 6 shot

strong hand weak hand.. 6 shots

moving right then back left.. 4 shots each way

moving forward then back ward.. 4 shots

low light 25 ft one hand... 4 shots

3ft one hand.... 2 shots

35 ft, barricade middle, two targets right, two left... two standing, two kneeling, both side... 8 shots

start at 45ft 4 shots by 25 ft walking then back wards.. 8 shots

 

along those line, you have 60 shots total, cant be lower then 48... which = 80%

 

all have time ranging from 30 seconds to as little as 5 seconds

 

 

 

also your stateing that when a officer use's his gun in the line of duty how low the hit percentage is.. well stress COULD be a factor, and well the target is able to move.. i can hit alof of targets on the range but a moving humane target that shoots back may be a little bit of a problem to hit the first shot out of the barrel