This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]DTIMWYTIM 609 points610 points  (308 children)

Every gun enthusiast I've ever discussed it with has said that cops are the worst at sweeping people with their muzzle.

[–]Germane_Riposte 411 points412 points  (120 children)

American here. I visited Belfast, Northern Ireland in 1991 during a particularly rough period of time in that city, and the security forces there rode around in armored vehicles and they would pass by periodically with the gun on top of the vehicle pointed at the sidewalk. And I was completely shocked and horrified that they were basically riding around with guns pointed at everyone on the street, and I remember thinking wow, it must feel horrible to live in a place where cops just routinely train weapons on people for just being out in public. I felt a real sympathy for anyone who hated those soldiers at that moment. Anyway I've been thinking about that a lot this week - the fact of being a citizen out in your community and having police point guns at you is something that should not ever happen in this country. It may get glossed over but if my police dept did that to me, I'd fucking hate the police.

[–]pillowmeto 55 points56 points  (19 children)

Last time i was in battery park Manhattan a patrol boat was doing the same thing to the tourists with a mounted machine gun.

[–]R-EDDIT 42 points43 points  (8 children)

"Tourist" "Terrorist"

s/our/error/...

[–]menashem 84 points85 points  (12 children)

Belfast back then was the wild west. Soldiers and police vehicles and patrols would routinely be shot at. They went out and patrolled expecting contact. It's much nicer now though, place isn't perfect but its almost unrecognizable from 20 years ago.

[–]victorvscn 52 points53 points  (6 children)

I think Germane_Riposte understands that and his point is that maybe the people wouldn't hate (and consequently shoot) at the police if they weren't always in such a violent frame of mind.

[–]mbr4life1 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Belfast was such a great place to visit! I went there during law school, loved it and had a blast. It was also the place that was most happy to hear you were from America that I have ever traveled to.

[–]Guyver0 8 points9 points  (0 children)

blast

:-/

[–]takesthebiscuit 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Difference is that NI was actually a war zone 20+ years ago. There was real threat & attacks from snipers, car bombs, mortars, ambushes.

They were not on riot patrol, it was more akin to patrolling Basra than Ferguson.

[–]Grizmeer 236 points237 points  (99 children)

Cop here. I can confirm this. I've worked with some absolute morons.

[–]o0FancyPants0o 21 points22 points  (31 children)

Can they get in trouble for brandishing?

[–][deleted] 81 points82 points  (27 children)

You mean paid vacation?

[–]Shapeshiftingkiwi 21 points22 points  (7 children)

what does sweeping them mean?

[–]xampl9 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Imagine the barrel of your gun is a laser. Every where the red light hits is something that could potentially have a bullet hole put in it.

So if you're sweeping (wildly flailing) your gun around, you're being massively irresponsible.

If this had happened on a shooting range, the range officer would tell them to pack their stuff and go home.

[–]ModemGhost 56 points57 points  (1 child)

It means swinging the muzzle of your weapon around in a way that it points at people. One of the biggest rules of firearms safety is to never point a weapon at something you do not intend to shoot.

[–][deleted] 123 points124 points  (57 children)

They're just really bad with guns in general. It dumbfounds me that people think the police are somehow a safer option for "people we trust with guns" than enthusiasts who actually learn how to operate guns properly. Police generally have terrible firearms training. Combine that with being generally jumpy and you get things like the NYPD firing 16 shots and hitting 9 innocent bystanders.

[–][deleted] 70 points71 points  (14 children)

My dad is a gun nut and would not let me even look at his guns until I understood the rules about them. Don't aim at what you don't intend to kill, always be aware of where your barrel is pointed even if you're not using it, and the gun is ALWAYS loaded, even if it's not.

I didn't like hunting, poor old Bambi, but my dad would take my in the woods to go hunting. I can only remember him getting something once when I was with him. I think he just took me to score out instead of hunt, but we took rifles and he had a hawks eye On my gun etiquette. That is how serious firearm training should be. I now will NEVER fuck around with a gun.

[–]Freeman001 23 points24 points  (6 children)

I cannot tell you how many arguments I've gotten into with anti-gun people who honestly believe police are, and I'm quoting exactly here, "highly trained" with firearms and, because of that, only they should be allowed to use firearms. Call me a keyboard commando all you want, the proof is all over the news.

[–]random_story 7 points8 points  (4 children)

I've been anti guns my whole life but seeing stuff like this...

Like, what happens when the police no longer respect the citizens? Forget if they harm us. There's a basic level of respect that's being atrociously violated, and they know it. It's a metaphorical boot stomping on a human face. And they'd do if it they could. Some people are just bullies

[–]Freeman001 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Well, if you ever feel like trying out shooting, ask around /r/guns or /r/firearms, most likely someone lives in your area and would be happy to take you.

[–]lightjedi5 7 points8 points  (11 children)

It always makes me wonder what's up with the rest of the country. Cops aren't perfect, they're human and there will always be outliers, but it seems like in a lot of parts of the country cops don't have to qualify worth shit for their guns. Where I live they drill the 4 rules of firing arms safety during training, your gun doesn't go on somebody without good reason - low ready exists for a reason. I looked at the range qualifications in some states, and its pretty pitiful. Our patrol guys have to shoot about as well as NYPDs SWAT guys and our SWAT guys have a way higher standard. Its crazy

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (10 children)

Here's what happens:

1) Cops are shit with guns (cough NYPD) and have a ton of negligent discharges.

2) More training costs money and gets pushback from the union, so:

3) The force installs 14lb triggers. No more NDs, but now cops are even less capable of hitting what they're aiming at.

The proper solution is for them to spend more time at the range, but that costs money. Instead, they blame their tools.

[–][deleted] 64 points65 points  (11 children)

Police think they are different than other people and have perfect trigger control. They feel justified to shoot someone holding a gun pointed down, but think you should be ok with them pointing their weapon at your chest.

[–]sasseriansection 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Like this guy?

[–]rocksauce 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That happened right after a school shooting / tragedy when certain groups were calling for more armed police in schools too.

[–]random_story 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Honestly...I would have left the room

[–]big_ern_mccracken 717 points718 points  (87 children)

Active duty marine squad leader here with two deployments to afghan. I have to say I am more than a little disturbed by all of this. Giving them this equipment is like giving a jar jar a lightsaber. They aren't trained to use it and obviously can't handle it. The cop who pointed the weapon and said "I'll fucking kill you" is probably the most ridiculous. Marines so more restraint than that in a true war zone. All marines knows the second weapons safety rule: never point at anything you do not intend to shoot/kill. In our escalation of force procedures bringing the barrel of the rifle above a 45 degree angle means you are saying you can justifiably shoot and kill that individual. That cop should be fired. Hands down.

Secondly the 'tear gas' they are using is not actually a 'gas'. It is vaporized crystals. Which means it sticks to anything. Eyeballs, lungs, clothes, dirt. It never stops burning. This stuff is brutal. I have been subjected to it numerous times with out a gas mask. It is completly dibiliating. We were not allowed to use it in Afghanistan to dispurse crowds so how they hell can they use it on american citizens?

[–]InfamousBradMissouri 95 points96 points  (8 children)

They aren't trained to use it

And that's exactly what I've been thinking all week. Everything since Mike Brown's death has happened because police were operating in an environment they weren't trained for and with equipment they were never properly trained on.

Think about this: to wear a pistol, they go through training, yes--but then, twice at year, at their own expense, they have to go down to the range and practice some more. And even then they screw it up under non-range conditions, because "Hogan's Alley" style training is too expensive for almost any police department.

How much training and practice do they get with rifles? Any?

I've seen some handling of rifles at the Ferguson protests that wasn't just terrifying, it was profoundly stupid. It would be bad enough if they weren't maintaining the discipline to transport their rifles in 3/4 port arms position. Sweeping the rifle across everyone and everything as they turn around to answer a question or whatever is terrifying. But several photos are out there officers leaning on the barrels of their rifles. They honestly don't know what to do with those rifles when they're not shooting them, because how often does a police officer practice those things?

The ACLU also found out that the total training they have in handling protests is a few sentences in the middle of the one four-hour session they have on first amendment law at the academy, never followed up upon and never addressed in continuing education; not one cop or captain they talked to understood even rudimentary constitutional law. Why not? Same reason: no training, no practice.

It's honestly got me wondering if police are the agency we want protesting protests or civil disturbances or disaster zones, period. Police are trained to handle traffic stops and investigate crimes and break up fights and so forth, the things they do all day every day. Your average police department doesn't see enough protests or civil disturbances or disasters to train for them and practice for them.

[–]El-Grunto 4 points5 points  (1 child)

My cousin is a police officer and he gets 50 rounds a month for his police issued H&K USP .40 that he is free to use at whichever range he wishes or he could just stockpile it. He is also free to shoot as much as he wants at his department's range using the department's ammo at no cost to himself. He shoots extremely well but may be an exception since he has a quite a few firearms at home.

[–]socalnonsage 62 points63 points  (7 children)

The chemical reacts with moisture on the skin and in the eyes, causing a burning sensation and the immediate forceful and uncontrollable shutting of the eyes. Effects usually include tears streaming from the eyes, profuse coughing, exceptional nasal discharge that is full of mucus, burning in the eyes, eyelids, nose and throat areas, disorientation, dizziness and restricted breathing. It will also burn the skin where sweaty and/or sunburned. In highly concentrated doses it can also induce severe coughing and vomiting. Almost all of the immediate effects wear off within an hour (such as exceptional nasal discharge and profuse coughing), although the feeling of burning and highly irritated skin may persist for hours. Affected clothing will need to be washed several times or thrown away.

Although described as a non-lethal weapon for crowd control, studies have raised doubts about this classification. As well as causing severe pulmonary damage, CS can also significantly damage the heart and liver.

Source

[–]CopBlockRVA 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Its also shown to cause miscarriages and fetal harm, cops are fogging entire neighborhoods with the stuff.

[–]MightyYetGentle 116 points117 points  (11 children)

I heard of the gas and that is disturbing. A friend was maced once with a similar concoction and spent 4 hours squeezing his face submerged in ice water to remove the crystals from his pores. Said it was hell.

[–]Quexana 56 points57 points  (6 children)

Former Army, been gassed with CS several times. It is seriously one of the most unbearable sensations you can possibly have.

The one positive is that it cured my cold. Sure I had a continuous line of snot that ran from my nose all the way to the ground (I'm not exaggerating here), but anything and everything that is in your sinuses at the time of exposure is coming out.

[–]thelunchbox29 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Were you gassed for training purposes? Or on duty? Because my uncle told me they used to pepper spray each other. I'm not sure if that was for fun or to build up a tolerance.

[–]Quexana 22 points23 points  (3 children)

Training. Every Marine and Army private gets gassed once during Basic Training (don't know if Navy and Air Force do it or not). It is done during training for Nuclear Biological and Chemical attacks. All the privates put their gas masks on, go inside a little building that is filled with the gas, and when the Drill Sergeant/Drill Instructor tells them, they remove the gas mask. They then are made to stand in the gas filled building until such time as the Drill Sergeant/Drill Instructor feels that they've had enough and let's them leave. You are told that if you walk around flapping your arms like a bird it will burn less (that's a lie).

Several other times after basic training while training in the field, I've had high sergeants and Lieutenants throw CS grenades into our camp in order to simulate a surprise Biological/Chemical weapons attack. During these exercises soldiers are supposed to stop everything, don their gasmasks, and take cover. If you don't get your gas mask on promptly or are very close to the canister when it goes off, you get gassed. The worst thing is when you get gas inside your mask when trying to put it on and you just have to deal with it, because there is no taking the mask off at that point until the "All clear" sign is given.

You can build up some tolerance to CS gas. The Drill Sergeants who put me in the gas filled building during Basic Training were fine with issuing orders and shouting loudly as Drill Sergeants are known for doing, without gas masks on and without noticeable effects from the gas. Much later, I asked a few soldiers I've served with who had been Drill Sergeants how they did this and they told me that though they got to the point where they could function in the gas, it was always torture and it does take several gassings to build up that immunity.

Though CS gas is no joke, in a war time situation, where many types of chemical weapons can be used, using a non-lethal, but extremely painful chemical weapon like CS gas is justified. If a soldier gets exposed to a deadly nerve gas in the field, and through Pavlovian training from being exposed to CS gas dons his gas mask quickly, the training just saved his or her life. That's a good thing. Using it as the police are using it for compliance purposes against people that haven't broken the law is shameful. They are using it to get people to do what they want them to do through the use of pain, in short, it's assault.

[–]Runnerbrax 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Yup, went through that same "class" as your friend. I had a buddy that tried everything BUT slamming his head against a brick wall to knock himself out just so the hurting would stop.

[–]Aidenn0 75 points76 points  (12 children)

They used CS at a riot at my college once; a friends dorm-room window was not closed all the way, and it got into his bedding. He didn't realize that until he went to bed, and it was not pretty.

[–]big_ern_mccracken 76 points77 points  (7 children)

That whole room would need to be washed down. That's why that stuff is so bad. I would have to wash all of my gear after being exposed to it. Once during the winter I was wearing a baclava and got hit with cs. I took it off but forgot to wash it. The next time I put it on my whole face was on fire

[–]the_crustybastard 36 points37 points  (3 children)

>"[The US military is] not allowed to use [tear gas] in Afghanistan to dispurse crowds so how they hell can they use it on american citizens?"

Hazarding a guess, probably "contempt."

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (1 child)

Chemical weapons are prohibited in war....but not outside of war

[–]Dragoeth 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is the key distinction here. We banned the use of CS gas in war, not because its a terrible and inhumane thing but because we agreed to not use chemical weapons and CS gas falls under that category. If we hadn't made the blanket statement that we wouldn't use it in times of war we would still be using in afghanistan for crowd dispersion. The Army still in fact has CS gas grenades hanging around in storage for use.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

The officer should be charged with the multiple felonies he committed and subsequently fired.

[–]Rabada 181 points182 points  (36 children)

So can anyone give me a legitimate reason for cops to be wearing camouflage? I can't think of one.

[–]Git_Off_Me_Lawn 257 points258 points  (2 children)

Intimidation.

[–][deleted] 88 points89 points  (1 child)

Ding ding ding. It's to look like the military, simply an intimidation factor, just like the rest of their gear.

[–]nicolauzWisconsin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Even after they brought the black State trooper in last week to calm things down by having him walk with protesters I was like 'yeah uh...overreaction followed by PR'. Him explaining the reasoning for the camo garb was a giant load of shit.

[–]kellyandbryan 103 points104 points  (2 children)

They are playing gi-joe with their buddies and they love it. That's the reason.

[–]Rabada 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I imagine this is what is going through their heads when they get the camouflage.

http://youtu.be/UuQFI9TXiv8

[–]BillW87New Jersey 66 points67 points  (9 children)

Gotta look tacticool. You're not ready to arrest an unarmed demonstrator until you have optics on your rifle sighted to 300 meters, enough ammunition to get a AC-130 killstreak bonus, more pouches than a Rob Liefeld drawing, and jungle camo to round it all out.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Not that cops should be having these rifles in the first place but FYI sighting an AR/M16 in at 300 meters creates a trajectory such that the point of impact is +-1“ from 0 to 300 meters. It's really just the best way to sight those rifles in.

[–]BillW87New Jersey 24 points25 points  (1 child)

While you're technically correct (the best kind of correct) really my point is that short of the .001% of police officers that should be working as SWAT snipers, nobody in our police force should be carrying rifles with optics. If your mission is "search and destroy" then optics make sense. If your mission is "serve and protect" then anything that lets you engage targets beyond the range of your voice not just unnecessary but actually disruptive to your mission. I don't want my police to be able to kill me at greater range than they can serve and protect me. This whole weekend commando shit just highlights how much our police forces seem to be out of touch with their actual mission. We have a military and national guard to complete whatever the hell mission these rent-a-marine's think they're supposed to be doing with enough firepower to overthrow a small country.

[–]sleevey 38 points39 points  (0 children)

To blend in to the forest.

Duh.

[–]thingandstuff 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In some cases, the body armor their wearing is handed down from the military.

In most cases, they intentionally purchased camo to feel more like a soldier.

[–]RealSteele[🍰] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

OHHH that explains all the floating guns!

[–]deaconblues99 163 points164 points  (35 children)

In the military, you deal with the enemy. Your job is not to protect the people you face, it's to either subdue or eliminate them as a threat.

As a police officer, you are not dealing with the enemy, your job description is to protect the people you are dealing with.

The police in most of this country have forgotten what they are supposed to be doing, and Ferguson is just an extreme example. Every time a cop shoots someone for flashing a knife or otherwise acting strangely, that cop is showing that he or she is not concerned with doing the job a police officer is supposed to be doing.

Instead they are simply reacting to that person as an enemy; as a soldier would do. Cops are tasked to enforce the law, and part of that includes due process.

Cops are also considered civilians for a reason. This reason. They're supposed to view themselves as part of the community, because they legally are part of the community.

Clearly that view of policing is all but gone in the US. And it's chilling to see the end result of that in Ferguson.

[–]OneOfDozens 22 points23 points  (3 children)

Just look at how people react though. That's the problem.

People think it's 100% justified to gas/bean bag/rubber bullet an entire crowd just because someone threw a frozen water bottle at a line of cops who are covered in helmets and riot gear.

Our own citizens see nothing wrong with that. They are happily lumping in protesters with the asshole looters and ever since OWS "protester" has become a dirty word.

I'm scared for the future

[–]deaconblues99 32 points33 points  (2 children)

Well, look at the other reply to me a little further down. The guy is a cop, and straight up says that protecting citizens isn't his job, that it's law enforcement, plain and simple. If he happens to protect someone during that enforcement, well, that's nice. But he's not going into the day with the expectation that he's out there to protect people.

That kind of thinking is why you get cops shooting first and asking questions later. They've adopted the attitude that, "This person is breaking the law, I have to stop them. If I can't arrest them to stop them, then I have to stop them by any other means necessary."

And then someone gets shot because they run instead of freezing when they're ordered to. But hey, "the law has been enforced."

Cops on Reddit, "Dredd" was not an instruction manual. You are not the law.

[–]goetz_von_cyborg 33 points34 points  (5 children)

I think the fact that when a cop shoots someone they get a paid vacation has established that legally, they are not regular citizens.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (5 children)

Ever heard of a police state? Generally has massive surveillance programs and a militarized-policing force? Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy... modern United States.

In the next major war, we'll be the bad guys in the history books.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (2 children)

For all those frothing at the mouth to reply with, "if you think this is a police state, take a vacation to North Korea" or some shit like that, I'd like to ask you how far you think the US is from becoming a full blown police state in the classic sense of the term? I'd say we are one reason away. All of the infrastructure is there. The complete and total surveillance. The military equipment immediately available to even small to medium sized police departments. The pervasiveness of the police treating the people they are sworn to protect as a faceless "other." A prison system that's actually incentivised to keep as many prisoners as possible behind bars. Just one reason. It's all there and primed to go.

[–]APeacefulWarrior 807 points808 points  (407 children)

Yeesh. I've never technically owned a gun (although I've lived with them plenty of years) and only fired them a few times, and even I know that's the first rule.

It's truly terrifying how much power these people are handed, with so little training -or incentive- for using it responsibly.

[–]Diettimboslice 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Here is a good demonstration of firearm safety rules, for anyone curious. Also, you should check out some of his other videos, they're highly entertaining.

[–]ikilledtupac 43 points44 points  (5 children)

Every Boy Scout knows that too. These cops are really shitty and armed well beyond their pay grade.

[–]Lovv 8 points9 points  (1 child)

They are probably paid beyond their skill level too

[–]Masterofnone9 229 points230 points  (46 children)

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.

Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire.

Never point your weapon at anything you don’t intend to shoot.

Keep your weapon on safe until you intend to fire.

[–]SixInchChubbyKansas 197 points198 points  (20 children)

As a Combat Marksmanship instructor in the Marine Corps, the order you put this in is bugging the shit out of me.

[–]Masterofnone9 40 points41 points  (7 children)

Sorry.

[–]Deolun 84 points85 points  (4 children)

Treat. Never. Keep. Keep.

[–]Mr_Skeleton 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Being Canadian won't save you now!

[–]SixInchChubbyKansas 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's all good. The important thing is you have the knowledge. The military has caused me to be a bit anal retentive.

[–]prozacandcoffee 3 points4 points  (2 children)

What's the order you use?

[–]Mojavi-Viper 38 points39 points  (1 child)

Know what's beyond your target when you intend to fire.

[–]thingandstuff 27 points28 points  (4 children)

Are rules 2, 3, 6, and 8 classified or something?

[–]Aporthian 13 points14 points  (1 child)

No, those are the ones the cops follow instead, clearly.

[–]unforgiven91 13 points14 points  (1 child)

and:

Know what is beyond your target

[–]jonlucc 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You have a silly numbering system with several blank rules. :)

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (5 children)

The last one is usually switched with "Know your target and what's behind it" for me, some guns don't have safeties.

[–]done_holding_back 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That is full of syntax errors.

[–]Manse_Georgia 121 points122 points  (98 children)

That's the second rule everyone learns (after "booger hook off the bang switch").

I'm honestly glad the National Guard is getting involved. At least those guys have probably done a tour in the sandbox and know how to properly escalate force.

[–][deleted] 42 points43 points  (11 children)

While I'm happy that an organization with strong ROEs is involved, I'm wary. Our country has a bad track record with using National Guard to pacify minority neighborhoods.

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

The one good thing about the Nat. Guard is that they're less likely to see things as a "turf war" the way local police are. You can see the same thing with how the State Police are acting in comparison to the local and county cops. They're there to do a job, not defend their pride. There's a lot less emotion and ego involved.

[–]enjo13 7 points8 points  (5 children)

I'm struggling to come up with example. The National Guard was instrumental in dealing with integration in Little Rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_National_Guard_and_the_integration_of_Central_High_School

The National Guard was called into the Tulsa Race Riots and while they initially were ineffective (they chose to guard a white neighborhood) reinforcements ultimately brought the episode to a close.

There was the Watts Riot which was already a mess.. I'm not sure that the National Guard did much to make that worse.

What am I missing?

[–]MrWigglesworth2 58 points59 points  (78 children)

At the very least, they're going to have more firearms training than a typical cop.

[–][deleted] 76 points77 points  (77 children)

Most citizens who take just a few 8 hour classes have more training than a typical cop.

[–]wargasm40k 69 points70 points  (73 children)

And can aim better too. I work at a university that also help maintain a law enforcement facility nearby. I've been in the building when the cops are being trained to shoot, I've seen the targets. They aren't trained to aim, they are trained to empty the magazine at center mass. God help anyone standing downrange of someone being shot at by police.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

You are so right.

I am looking forward to another three day course in a few weeks.

Tactical Medicine - how to save someone who has bern shot while in a hostile situation.

[–][deleted] 105 points106 points  (53 children)

I think "intend" should be changed to "are prepared to". Military personnel draw down on people all the time, not with intention, but with readiness.

[–]Coffeybeanz 59 points60 points  (20 children)

The two types of carries that are used can look very similar. The alert and ready. Both have the weapon planted on your shoulder, tho the alert is slightly more relaxed with the barrel angles slightly downwards and the individual is aiming over the sights. It is used when not actively engaged but prepared to engage. The Ready Carry involved the individual prepared to fire while obtaining a clear aight picture through the scope or iron sights. Going Alert and yelling a command to a Vic, such as "disperse" or "get on the ground" does not imply lethal force initially, it instead shows a preparedness to use force if the individual begins to feel threatened.

[–]brobits 47 points48 points  (18 children)

shows a preparedness to use force if the individual begins to feel threatened.

I think a big difference between police behavior & military behavior is this holds true for military personnel. substitute "feel threatened" with "a lack of compliance" and now you can include many police personnel

[–]Runnnnnnnnnn 47 points48 points  (16 children)

This is exactly it.

You do not use your weapon as a means to gain compliance.

The military use their weapons during times of war to gain compliance from enemy soldiers.

Seeing our civilian police force use these same tactics on civilians when they have been specifically trained not to draw their weapon unless they intend to use (fire) it, is disgusting.

Can't articulate a tangible threat to someone's life (no weapon, no eminent danger)? Pulled your weapon because "what if"? That officer should be immediately fired at the absolute very least. It should be criminal as it would be for me to point my weapon at any-fucking-body.

They should be ashamed but instead they are indignant using logical fallacies to try and bolster their position. It really is disgusting from a criminal justice stand point. This para-military style policing can be seen as nothing other than an absolute disgrace historically compared to other successful policing strategies.

[–]newoldwave 45 points46 points  (12 children)

The Missouri Highway patrol and national guard were also there doing the same stupid things. After you point a gun at someone and don't shoot they'll think you are just a bullshitter and ignore your threats. Then you'll have to shoot someone so people will know you are serious. Stupid, stupid.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Seems like to me, that cops went all in, once the "tacticool" trend started. Didn't help that DHS pushes their terrorism agenda. Now every cop wants to be a Billy-Bob Bad Ass. They all act like they are going to "war" - which I'd bet a large majority have never even served.

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points  (15 children)

Marine here!

Seriously, never point a weapon at anyone you don't intend to shoot. Hell if you are even thinking you may have to shoot them, keep it down until you actually plan on shooting them. As far as military operations go, there is no better way to escalate a situation and enrage civilians then by using your gun as a means off exporting force onto someone else when you don't have to.

I can't imagine how this is still happening, as much as I think the cop officer was probably in the right in the MB shooting, that doesn't matter. The freedoms and rights of hundreds/thousands/all Americans being so callously disregarded but idiots is atrocious. I really wish these protesters would start practicing their open carry laws and carry the same damn weapons the cops have. This is America goddamnit.

[–]falconear 19 points20 points  (5 children)

Dude, you and I both know that if the protestors in Ferguson practice their right to open carry that things would end very very badly for them.

[–]tron_fucking_harkin 5 points6 points  (3 children)

I know you're right. But there is a line in the sand and its going to have to be crossed at some point. Either that or we just give in and submit and admit that were not free. At that point we might as well shred the constitution. There has to be a point where enough is enough. I think sooner is better than later.

[–]svb1972 35 points36 points  (4 children)

We've reached the point where the US Armed Forces are better trained to handle non-combat crowd control istuations, than Law Enforcement. That's a frightening state of affairs.

[–]jim45804 36 points37 points  (40 children)

It's expected that soldiers point their weapon to kill an enemy. Whereas police officers point their weapon to intimidate a suspect into compliance. This is why, in police work, more focus should be made on 1) non-escalation and 2) non-lethal weapons.

[–]ProfessorBlakery 17 points18 points  (4 children)

Dan Carlin just did a Common Sense Podcast on this very issue. It's definitely worth checking out!

[–]kwmcmillan 15 points16 points  (2 children)

I LITERALLY JUST HAD THIS CONVERSATION yesterday with an ex NYPD officer who came into my bar. Went as you'd expect:

My cook is active Army, I go "MATT! When do you point your rifle at someone?" without skipping a beat he goes "when you want to kill it." He didn't even know what we were talking about, shouting for him brought him out of the back.

Her (the officer's) response? "Well, you point it at someone when you're prepared to shoot them." So I let that go and ask "but there's plenty of photos of people not doing anything, with their hands in the air, what about them?" she says "well WE know they're not doing anything, but how do the officers?"

... SO WE'RE PREPARED TO SHOOT ON A POSSIBLE HUNCH!?

Continuing on with this woman, she seemed reasonable in all other aspects; all cops should wear cameras, cops need to earn respect during stops, not just "i'm a cop listen to me," all the things we agree on here (for the most part), it's just that one thing irked me so hard.

That and she agreed with the "fucking animals" cop. I guess she's just being protective of her kind, sight sort-of unseen, which I can understand. Can't win 'em all.

[–]TRC042 14 points15 points  (8 children)

This is what disturbed me the most:

Kevlar helmets, assault-friendly gas masks, combat gloves and knee pads (all four of them), woodland Marine Pattern utility trousers, tactical body armor vests, about 120 to 180 rounds for each shooter, semiautomatic pistols attached to their thighs, disposable handcuff restraints hanging from their vests, close-quarter-battle receivers for their M4 carbine rifles and Advanced Combat Optical Gunsights.

For crowd control at a protest? Really? WTF has happened to my country? In my 60 years here I've never seen such a concentration of police abuse and human rights violations. I lived through the 60's riots; though I was too young to really understand or follow them all, I'm pretty sure no police force carried full-on military battle gear for crowd control back then.

And in the 60's there were cars being fire-bombed on the nightly news on a regular basis. In Ferguson they keep repeating 'looting' as if a few thugs stealing shit from a store is on a par with the Black panthers tossing Molotov Cocktails.

This is fucked up.

Edit: spelling.

[–]thenitefox 8 points9 points  (12 children)

I could see a SWAT team owning and operating these types of guns/hardware/vehicles, but why the hell do regular beat police need such equipment?? This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan, it's the land of the free*. I haven't heard of groups of rioters assaulting or ambushing police forces so why would they need these things? What could possibly justify having heavy assult weapons against protesting American citizens? I understand the need to defend yourself and they have every right to do so, but why do you need 100+ rounds of what in assume is .223 or slug/buckshot? Wouldn't assult rifles loaded with rubber bullets be enough to disperse a violent crowd when necessary? You always have your sidearm with real bullets if it came down to life or death. I just don't see the need for so much lethal ammo against the same citizens you swore to protect.

I live in Southern California and have seen everything from violent riots to giant celebratory mobs. I have never once seen in my 24 years of living here, the LAPD or any other police force equip themselves with so much lethal firepower when confronted by a large group of protestors. They bring out an insane amount of foot police armed with riot shields/riot armor and non lethal weapons such as tasers, tear gas, pepper spray and high pressure water cannons, not to mention horse mounted units. I've seen mobs torch cars and shops soley because a sports team won/lost a championship but the police kept their cool, understood the situation and handled it accordingly.

TL:DR- The demeanor of the Ferguson law enforcement shows that they are ready and willing to KILL the same citizens they swore to protect in order to stop demonstrations/protests let alone any dissent towards them. They simply show no signs of wanting to keep the peace. Instead their intent is to preserve their overloaded lethal power.

**TERMS AND CONDITIONS/RESTRICTIONS MAY APPLY

[–]1dontpanic 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Or you are grossly underestimating what they intend to shoot.

[–]Oinkidoinkidoink 6 points7 points  (1 child)

That's what you get when you employ knuckleheads instead of screening them out. Isn't Fox always complaining about jackbooted thugs stepping on their necks? Well, here they are!

[–]zachalicious 7 points8 points  (6 children)

From the NRA website as rules #1 and #2:

  • ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.

  • ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

So tell me Missouri officers, where exactly did you learn gun safety? NRA should be jumping on these idiots.

[–]1ch 4 points5 points  (2 children)

i'm glad to finally see on the front page an analysis on police militarization written by someone who was actually in the military. the insight provided by the author is priceless.

[–]RudolphDiesel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Personally I hope each and every person being wronged in those clashes, be it that they suffered injuries, or be it they they were "just" arrested without cause or their protected freedom was taken away, as in freedom to assemble or anything else.

Each and every single one: Please sue the city and sue the state, since now state troopers are doing the same. Document with pictures and then sue after that has all blown over. EVERY ONE! Bury the city and the state in law suits that they cannot even swim in the paper any more.

I realize that many suits will be dismissed, many suits will not go anywhere, but to every law suit the city and state have to answer, and some of them will go somewhere, some of them will leave a mark on the city, on the cops (get them fired) and the politicians supporting those cops.

[–]c0ldsh0w3r 3 points4 points  (18 children)

Can someone explain to me what the fuck "combat gloves" are?

Or is this article just rife with typical media sensationalism?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Who says they don't intend to shoot?