[Goober5000]

I would urge everybody to keep level heads about them as they engage in discussion.  You can make your points without resorting to hyperbole, personal attacks, ad hominems, and other fallacies.

But, more on-topic, maybe we need a split, I don't know.  Or a lock, whichever. 

Well, the opening post was specifically about the level of force police use when responding to threats.  So the other posts appear to be on topic.  If you wanted to compare ammunition caliber, or capacity, or various firearms for hunting or shooting practice, that would be better served by starting a new thread.

[Colonol Dekker]

Just so my stance is clear. I'm for police bing able to RE TURN APPROPRIATE FORCE.


But s.w.a.t raids on unconfirmed hostiles just makes me

[jr2]

I would urge everybody to keep level heads about them as they engage in discussion.  You can make your points without resorting to hyperbole, personal attacks, ad hominems, and other fallacies.

But, more on-topic, maybe we need a split, I don't know.  Or a lock, whichever. 

Well, the opening post was specifically about the level of force police use when responding to threats.  So the other posts appear to be on topic.  If you wanted to compare ammunition caliber, or capacity, or various firearms for hunting or shooting practice, that would be better served by starting a new thread.

You appear to have addressed the issue I was referring to.

EDIT:

And, yes, this thread was about ammunition amounts & calibers.  Hence tactics in the thread title.  Police brutality isn't a tactic; it's a crime and should be treated as such.  Heck, if you did some of the things mentioned here as a soldier in Afghanistan you'd probably be in some (understatement there, don't miss it) hot water (court martial), I don't know how civil servants get away with it here in the CONUS when there's evidence to back up what happened.  Just corruption in the justice system I would say.

But, referring to the OP, some here seem to advocate just rolling over and "oh, well, you know, if I can't stop a crook from shooting at me, at least it wasn't my fault that he did 'cause I'm as helpless as a cute little kitty cat" -- really, officers do need to be ready to inflict deadly harm.  As long as they don't respond with inappropriate levels of force, they should be equipped to respond to anything that they might face in their area, and maybe a step or two above.   That's my thoughts.  I mean, if you have a couple of hardened criminals in a fortified house, you could either:

1) Spend all day plinking at them with handguns
2) Spend hours sniping with semi-auto rifles
3) Spend a few minutes with a grenade launcher

(Although, to get to #3, that's probably in SWAT territory, however, that increases your time of regular arms fire exchange, and the resulting probabilities that bystanders or responding officers will be hit.)

Anyone here watch 44 minutes?

[Scotty]

I believe the correct answer for "hardened criminals in a fortified house" is to cut their power and water and then lob tear gas for days until they either give up living or give up and come out.

Tear gas ****ing sucks.

[zookeeper]

Indeed, if hardened criminals are fortified inside a house and you're considering using a grenade launcher on them, then obviously you have to be absolutely certain there's no one else in the house (and I don't know how you could know that), which means that you're in no hurry whatsoever to flush them out in the first place because no one's in danger.

Anyone who thinks a sensible response is to just (likely) kill them all whether it's with handguns, rifles or grenade launchers should be massively unqualified to be in a position where they actually get to make a call like that.

[jr2]

I was also presuming an ongoing firefight, I'm not sure if I made that clear.

Fortified house meaning, while you're trying to break down the door, you're soaking up AK rounds.

I was also assuming they had provisions for lack of power and water. You don't think so? They took the time to fortify the house, but not prepare for an assault which would almost definitely include cutting utilities? Unlikely.

[Mika]

Interesting to hear how it works in other countries.

We do have had a couple of times when armed person fortifies himself inside a house, and when that happened, the police simply surrounded the house and waited for him to fall asleep - or to surrender, since those hours tend to get long and you sort of can't help but think about what you're doing.

Last time they raided a motorbike gang hideout, they did it with a special team and armed personnel carriers. No shot was fired, though. They confiscated a light bazooka from the hideout. The incident was related to some kind of fighting in between two motorbike gangs where the other gang fired a light RPG to the hideout of the other. Police prevented further escalation by just raiding the hideout of the other, and the court slapped quite heavy penalties for this sort of stupidity, probably to make the point. Haven't heard of this sort of incidents after that.

There was an incident a couple of years ago, when a police officer was forced to shoot a person aiming his shotgun towards him when he was sitting in a car. I think he did that with a single shot to shoulder, but that lead to quite an examination of whether even that use of force was justified. Given the description of events, general public was very supportive of the police in question. The Finnish police usually does not carry loaded weapons, keeping the clip in a separate pocket from the gun - I suppose this is because there is rarely need to use the gun and to increase the safety of the officer in question. In the rare events the gun IS needed, there's typically plenty of time to do what's needed. From what I can see, Finnish police uses the gun roughly 40 times in a year, including intimidation cases.

Does the officer in the original post use a Kevlar vest now?

[Colonol Dekker]

I was also assuming they had provisions for lack of power and water. You don't think so? They took the time to fortify the house, but not prepare for an assault which would almost definitely include cutting utilities? Unlikely.

What can the average gangbanger procure that will withstand extended "cutting attempts" cutting by what exactly? Oxy acetelene is substantially effective. Hydraulic cutters equally so. I'm no sure of the capabilities of the various agencies that would get involved / ATF, FBI, S.W.A.T etc, but unless the crims had ablative ceramics over some heavy duty stuff. They'd last hours at best. Short af an APC with ram taking out a back wall.

[The E]

But, referring to the OP, some here seem to advocate just rolling over and "oh, well, you know, if I can't stop a crook from shooting at me, at least it wasn't my fault that he did 'cause I'm as helpless as a cute little kitty cat" -- really, officers do need to be ready to inflict deadly harm.  As long as they don't respond with inappropriate levels of force, they should be equipped to respond to anything that they might face in their area, and maybe a step or two above.   That's my thoughts.

I think that's a mischaracterization of the argument. The argument isn't that police forces should be made incapable of responding to armed threats, it's more that the default assumption that an officer needs to be armed at all times is one that isn't exactly leading towards correct behaviour. The problem is that police officers are just as fallible as anyone else, and that assuming they'll do the right thing in a stressful situation is probably not safe.

As for your original intended direction for this thread: Given that the amount of people on this forum who are actually in law enforcement (or wanting to get into it) is pretty low (never mind the amount of people who have actually fired a gun at another person with intent to kill or harm), the actual utility of discussing the best ways to kill people is dubious at best. Discussing inappropriate uses of force by police forces is more interesting, and probably more fruitful, than wanking off about calibers.

[Lorric]

I don't like this kind of mindset, that you can't have an opinion about something if you're not involved in it. You can't have an opinion about football if you're not a football player or coach? You can't have an opinion on movies if you're not a movie director or an actor? You can't have an opinion on politics if you're not a politician? It doesn't work that way. Let people talk about what they want to talk about.

[Colonol Dekker]

I did think "General discussion" covered the bases.

I know that Nuke, Deathfun and myself shoot quite regularly. But nobodys being forced to chat or not chat.

[jr2]

Ha, as for my opinions, I should clarify that they are just that - I'm discussing what I (loosely) think, based on what limited real world info I happen on. (44 minutes was based on real world events, btw).

Regarding waiting until they were asleep, I'm surprised they didn't sleep in shifts (because, well, otherwise you get caught)    of course however, no shots fired would be the best solution. If there were no civilian homes nearby, police could (and should)  I suppose,  back off and create a perimeter.  Dunno how long you could wait for though.

[Scotty]

I don't like this kind of mindset, that you can't have an opinion about something if you're not involved in it. You can't have an opinion about football if you're not a football player or coach? You can't have an opinion on movies if you're not a movie director or an actor? You can't have an opinion on politics if you're not a politician? It doesn't work that way. Let people talk about what they want to talk about.

That's not the message here at all.  Please try again.  Also do note that while the moderation staff does try to prevent flame wars and outright abusive language, we are not here to make sure no one gets their feelings hurt.  Dissenting opinions will not be moderated for disagreeing with the OP, nor (despite earlier issues) is being snarky an actionable offense.

[Lorric]

I don't like this kind of mindset, that you can't have an opinion about something if you're not involved in it. You can't have an opinion about football if you're not a football player or coach? You can't have an opinion on movies if you're not a movie director or an actor? You can't have an opinion on politics if you're not a politician? It doesn't work that way. Let people talk about what they want to talk about.

That's not the message here at all.  Please try again.

Well you're going to have to tell me then. Because the message I got from the whole post is essentially this thread is trash, that the people in it don't have what it takes in his eyes to discuss it, and telling us what we should be discussing instead.

[jr2]

I think the error here might be in assuming that since I lean more towards a conservative viewpoint, I must be a gun crazy, bloodthirsty lunatic.

So can I assume that since others here lean liberal ("reality has a well-known liberal bias" [/smug tone]), that they are all secretly communists who wish for all governments to unite, and take over every aspect of our lives and lead us into eternal human misery and suffering.

Now, do we need to dispel more stereotypes, or can we just crack on?  [/Sherlock Holmes]

[The E]

Well you're going to have to tell me then. Because the message I got from the whole post is essentially this thread is trash, that the people in it don't have what it takes in his eyes to discuss it, and telling us what we should be discussing instead.

Most of the thread, the part discussing excesses of police violence, and the limits to which we can trust the police to use its powers responsibly, is pretty fine, and we had a good discussion going (at least, that's what I feel).
The original intention, to kick off a discussion about the best ways to kill someone, that's what I object to. I would like to think that most of us never have had reason to find answers to this, and I think it's a discussion that's fundamentally stupid and filled with misconceptions from games, TV shows, films and propaganda of all sorts. As such, I question the reasoning behind posting this, something jr2 hasn't yet elaborated on, I think.

That I despise people who glorify real-life violence, or who think that they're in some sort of war against the civilian populace, is certainly part of this.

I think the error here might be in assuming that since I lean more towards a conservative viewpoint, I must be a gun crazy, bloodthirsty lunatic.

No, not at all. Your general conservativeness doesn't create that impression, your posting of a thread dedicated to finding the best options for killing people does.

[Lorric]

Well as long as you're talking like in this post, I have no objection at all. It's all about tone and respect for me, and bringing hostility into what has been a civilised and interesting thread. This thread as far as I can tell is not about the best ways to kill someone, it's about police safety, and about where the line of reasonable force is to be drawn and questioning current doctrine and tactics.

At this point, I too think it would be prudent to have clarification from jr2. We could both be wrong.

[Colonol Dekker]

I honestly not once read it as a how to kill thread. If JR2 meant it as that, i'd have objected immediately.

[The E]

My thought process leans more towards heavier caliber and fewer shots, but then there's this :

First post, first sentence.

[Colonol Dekker]

I don't read that as an intent to kill. Just weight reduction.
Maybe it's my non civilian background but I just didn['t read any malice into it.