EBRs For Phoenix Az Police?

[Brick]

Here's a story I heard first on Fox News. This article is from: http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/268784
(Arizona Daily Star)

Arizona / West
Police seek to buy own semiautomatic rifles
The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 11.25.2008
PHOENIX — Feeling they're at risk and need more firepower on the streets, Phoenix police union members are asking the city to allow 200 senior officers to buy their own semiautomatic rifles.
Police officers say the additional firepower gives them a better match against criminals armed with AK-47s and other assault-style weapons.

In a survey of 312 members of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, more than half said a rifle was not available when they needed it in the past six months. In the past year, 74 percent had a similar experience. About 76 percent said the job has become increasingly violent since they graduated from the police academy.
About 300 union members are willing to buy their own rifles, an investment of up to $2,000, said Mark Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. Current policy allows officers to buy and use their own handguns and shotguns as long as the firearms meet department standards and the officer participates in required training.
"Past history will give you a good indication of future performance," Spencer said. "As they have with handguns and shotguns, they'll comply. We made it very clear (to managers) that they need to trust the standards that the Police Department requires of officers and trust the officers who are in possession of those tools that meet the standards."
Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris wants officers equipped with high-powered rifles to be trained.
"Ultimately, the goal is I want them to have the rifles they need, but I want them in the hands of appropriate people that I have confidence in," he said. Harris says he doesn't want officers paying for equipment the department can provide.
"I want to retain possession of the rifles, so when they leave (for another squad), I don't end up with nine guys on a squad having rifles and none on midnights."
Harris has not ruled out private purchases of rifles to help push the department toward its 200-rifle goal.
"It's a very complicated issue that carries a tremendous liability with it, and so we have to be very careful with how we take this particular piece of equipment and deploy it," he said.

In some ways I find the story hard to credit and I would really be interested in finding out: 1, How many armed encounters the Police went through in the past year whether shots were actually fired or not. 2. How many encounters did the Police go through in the past year where shots were fired and a. How many shots fired by police, b. from what type of weapon, c. how many shots fired by perp, d. from what type of weapon and e. The final results of the encounter? I just find it hard to believe that more than half of a 10% sampling of this PD would find officers in a position where a rifle was needed in an encounter. That would mean 150+ incidents!

[Ten*K]

you're just a Lt. Colonel. what the heck do you know about anything?

OK, maybe you do know a thing or two about a thing or two...

crime stats up to 2007.
http://tpdinternet.tucsonaz.gov/Stats/ucrrateall.pdf.

apparently, there have been a few shootings with bad guys using "assault weapons", and at least one officer killed.

AZ crime stats from FBI show that violent crimes per capita are slightly higher than here in PA, and that total number of LEO murders was the same (15 in 2007 for both PA and AZ), but they have about 3/4ths the number of LEO's (full time) in AZ, so they are higher per capita.

though I can't find specific data for Arizona, nationally, of all firearm related crimes committed from 2000 to 2005, only 2% (according to the Dept. of Justice) were with "military style semiautomatic firearms".

Does that justify increasing the armaments of a city police force? probably not..., but there is increasing illegal immigrant/drug cartel violence in the region, and if those officers #1 are putting their butts on the line, #2 getting adequate training, and #3 have a right as citizens of this Country to own them and are willing to pay for them, then what the hell?

Better to have and not need than need and not have.

not like that asshat carolina dept that bought the BMP with a Ma Deuce.

[Brick]

[QUOTE=Ten*K;540991

apparently, there have been a few shootings with bad guys using "assault weapons", and at least one officer killed.

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Brick: Too bad about an Officer killed in the line of duty. That's always a bad thing. But, when someone says an "assault weapon" was used by a perp, they aren't necessarily talking about semi-auto military-rifle clones, since some shotguns and pistols were included in the Clinton AWB. Also the UCR doesn't specify weapon type for armed crime or in the block of crimes reported as "weapons violations".[/COLOR]

AZ crime stats from FBI show that violent crimes per capita are slightly higher than here in PA, and that total number of LEO murders was the same (15 in 2007 for both PA and AZ), but they have about 3/4ths the number of LEO's (full time) in AZ, so they are higher per capita.

though I can't find specific data for Arizona, nationally, of all firearm related crimes committed from 2000 to 2005, only 2% (according to the Dept. of Justice) were with "military style semiautomatic firearms".

Brick: I guess that's the part that bothers me. "2% of all armed crime" doesn't seem to rise to the height of alarm (and it is the falsely ringing of alarm bells that I speak of) that would require a wide distribution of EBRs among a PD. But, it does raise the hype and hysteria level against the private ownership of EBRs and increase the calls for re-instating a Federal AWB.

Does that justify increasing the armaments of a city police force? probably not..., but there is increasing illegal immigrant/drug cartel violence in the region, and if those officers #1 are putting their butts on the line, #2 getting adequate training, and #3 have a right as citizens of this Country to own them and are willing to pay for them, then what the hell?

Brick: Of what you cite immediately above, the training part is the most critical. Most PDs just aren't that good at training, and because they have so many other concerns most policemen aren't that proficient with thier firearms. Also, former military training can't be counted on either.

Better to have and not need than need and not have.

Brick: True, but the Dept. or any Dept. must be able to defend itself against charges of negligence from and for any reason.

[QUOTE]

Certainly, the officers have the right to purchase their own rifles any time they wish, that's not an issue. Just as certainly, the Dept. has the right to regulate the use of privately own weapons by officers on duty. That, and the level of training and qualification of the officers is the issue.

[ar15jules]

I agree that the officers should at least be given the opportunity to utilize a patrol rifle. With that comes training, quarterly qualification, etc... I know of at least three incidents here in northwestern PA where officers arrived on scene and took fire from deer hunting rifles. NOT "assault rifles", but they were surely unable to protect themselves while pinned down with a sidearm or an issued shot gun. Should they have to remain pinned down and wait for a SWAT or SERT team to arrive?

Public perception is always a huge concern when a department chooses a patrol rifle. For this reason, Remington and Ruger both make excellent patrol rifles that LOOK way less "evil".

There is a time and place for a number of different firearm applications in law enforcement, and I believe it is unfair to say flat out that a standard patrol vehicle should not be equipped with a patrol rifle. We all know it is better to arrive at a gun fight with a rifle instead of a pistol.

Jules

[d90king]

Here's a story I heard first on Fox News. This article is from: http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/268784
(Arizona Daily Star)

Arizona / West
Police seek to buy own semiautomatic rifles
The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 11.25.2008
PHOENIX — Feeling they're at risk and need more firepower on the streets, Phoenix police union members are asking the city to allow 200 senior officers to buy their own semiautomatic rifles.
Police officers say the additional firepower gives them a better match against criminals armed with AK-47s and other assault-style weapons.

In a survey of 312 members of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, more than half said a rifle was not available when they needed it in the past six months. In the past year, 74 percent had a similar experience. About 76 percent said the job has become increasingly violent since they graduated from the police academy.
About 300 union members are willing to buy their own rifles, an investment of up to $2,000, said Mark Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. Current policy allows officers to buy and use their own handguns and shotguns as long as the firearms meet department standards and the officer participates in required training.
"Past history will give you a good indication of future performance," Spencer said. "As they have with handguns and shotguns, they'll comply. We made it very clear (to managers) that they need to trust the standards that the Police Department requires of officers and trust the officers who are in possession of those tools that meet the standards."
Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris wants officers equipped with high-powered rifles to be trained.
"Ultimately, the goal is I want them to have the rifles they need, but I want them in the hands of appropriate people that I have confidence in," he said. Harris says he doesn't want officers paying for equipment the department can provide.
"I want to retain possession of the rifles, so when they leave (for another squad), I don't end up with nine guys on a squad having rifles and none on midnights."
Harris has not ruled out private purchases of rifles to help push the department toward its 200-rifle goal.
"It's a very complicated issue that carries a tremendous liability with it, and so we have to be very careful with how we take this particular piece of equipment and deploy it," he said.

In some ways I find the story hard to credit and I would really be interested in finding out: 1, How many armed encounters the Police went through in the past year whether shots were actually fired or not. 2. How many encounters did the Police go through in the past year where shots were fired and a. How many shots fired by police, b. from what type of weapon, c. how many shots fired by perp, d. from what type of weapon and e. The final results of the encounter? I just find it hard to believe that more than half of a 10% sampling of this PD would find officers in a position where a rifle was needed in an encounter. That would mean 150+ incidents!

More importantly I would like to know how many shots were fired by law abiding citizens with LEGAL guns. I dont care what scumbags do statistically because they are criminals not legitimate gun owners. We should not be considered in the same statistics as thugs.


I find they use statistics from thugs most of the time when it comes to using them for gun control agendas. I like the stats that say .08% (less than 1%) of gun crimes come from citizens who are licensed to carry a firearm.

[ALS]

I can't disagree with the officers on this one. Ten years ago maybe but not today. We don't live near the border so we have no real understanding of what these guys have come up against or what they may possibly come up against in the near future. I have read a lot of stories of the drug and gang violence along the border in the local border towns newspapers. Most of this information is intentionally blacked out to the rest of the country. We can't show America what a real crap hole Mexico really is.
If I was cop down there along the border I wouldn't carry anything less than a high capacity .45, a Benelli M4 shotgun and an AR10 in my patrol unit.
I would also make the wearing of soft body armor mandatory for all my officers while on duty.

[Philadelphia]

I think AZ and other southwestern states have it a little different. Problems come north from the south out there. I've read that the drug cartels hire Mexican soldiers as mercs and they run raids and smuggle stuff like a military operation.

I don't see any problem with cops having patrol rifles. I have one. Why shouldn't a cop? The liability issues can be overcome with sensible policies and solid training. As far as the sheep being afraid of cops walking around with patrol rifles as needed, that's their problem. Get over it.

Where I think we all get exercised is when the police top brass start talking about keeping these same simple (but evil looking) rifles out of the hands of everyone except military and police. If the police want to say that an EBR is not a legitimate tool for self-defense or defense of others, then police absolutely should not have them. Police generally may not use lethal force any differently than any citizen. If the tool is not appropriate for "defensive" use then it's not appropriate for police. There is no free fire ROE I've ever heard of for a police operation.

If police need semi-auto EBRs to address active shooter scenarios, then so do ordinary citizens. After all, it is ordinary citizens and not police who are the ones being mowed down in most active shooter situations.

As for needing a .50 BMG to shoot out car engine blocks or whatever justification they use, it's not even a thinly veiled smokescreen that they just want some cool toys to play with. Cops need to have some fun too, so I'm OK with that I guess.

[Brick]

I think AZ and other southwestern states have it a little different. Problems come north from the south out there. I've read that the drug cartels hire Mexican soldiers as mercs and they run raids and smuggle stuff like a military operation.

Right, in which case, I believe the responding officers should be armed like and use the same tactics as an Infantry squad, including fire support from indirect fire weapons.

I don't see any problem with cops having patrol rifles. I have one. Why shouldn't a cop? The liability issues can be overcome with sensible policies and solid training. As far as the sheep being afraid of cops walking around with patrol rifles as needed, that's their problem. Get over it.

Brick: Equip each patrol car with a rifle, that's fine with me, as long as they go the extra steps needed to ensure that the officers are well trained on the firearms and its' tactical employment. Many years ago a NY township that I know intimately, issued one M1 Carbine per patrol car, that lasted until they got surplus M14s, but the officers that could handle them well were a distinct minority. But then, so were the officers that were really proficient with thier sidearms.

Where I think we all get exercised is when the police top brass start talking about keeping these same simple (but evil looking) rifles out of the hands of everyone except military and police. If the police want to say that an EBR is not a legitimate tool for self-defense or defense of others, then police absolutely should not have them. Police generally may not use lethal force any differently than any citizen. If the tool is not appropriate for "defensive" use then it's not appropriate for police. There is no free fire ROE I've ever heard of for a police operation.

If police need semi-auto EBRs to address active shooter scenarios, then so do ordinary citizens. After all, it is ordinary citizens and not police who are the ones being mowed down in most active shooter situations.

Brick: Yea verily and AMEN!

As for needing a .50 BMG to shoot out car engine blocks or whatever justification they use, it's not even a thinly veiled smokescreen that they just want some cool toys to play with. Cops need to have some fun too, so I'm OK with that I guess.

I think the resistance they're getting from the brass is more in line with policy and legal issues.

[Ten*K]

brick, brick, brick... you just don't get it, do you? 2% of those crimes were with "military style semiautomatic weapons" which to anti's, common folk, and many LEO's means "M-60's bought at gun shows using loop-holes"

like that National Geographic asshattery that showed a guy checking out "machine guns" that the commentator talked about... never mind that they were AIRSOFT.

you are trying to assign common sense to knee-jerk reactions... and dammit, if you don't learn sooner rather than later that you can't apply the "C-word" when it comes to EBR's you are just setting yourself up for heartbreak and/or stress related disease.

Seriously, my good man... think of the children. FOR PETE'S SAKE... I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU, MAN!

[ithinkimamedic]

If giving the officers or letting they buy and qual with their own AR will save ONE officers life then I think it is completely worth it! Recently in the state college area there was a situation that the local police were able to resolve the situation with minimal loss of life and this may not have been possible with out the availability of a "patrol rifle" which in this case was a surplussed M16a1 that had an auto sear block in it to limit it to function in semi auto only.

this was discussed vaguely here:
http://forum.pafoa.org/news-123/2868...e-college.html

IMO, get them in their hands and offer them every chance they can have to go home at the end of their shift.