Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
McNamara on Militarization
Hoover Institution fellow and former police chief (in San Jose and Kansas City) Joseph McNamara writes in today's Wall Street Journal (link should be good for a few days):
Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed. An emphasis on "officer safety" and paramilitary training pervades today's policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn't shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed. Police in large cities formerly carried revolvers holding six .38-caliber rounds. Nowadays, police carry semi-automatic pistols with 16 high-caliber rounds, shotguns and military assault rifles, weapons once relegated to SWAT teams facing extraordinary circumstances. Concern about such firepower in densely populated areas hitting innocent citizens has given way to an attitude that the police are fighting a war against drugs and crime and must be heavily armed.
Yes, police work is dangerous, and the police see a lot of violence. On the other hand, 51 officers were slain in the line of duty last year, out of some 700,000 to 800,000 American cops. That is far fewer than the police fatalities occurring when I patrolled New York's highest crime precincts, when the total number of cops in the country was half that of today. Each of these police deaths and numerous other police injuries is a tragedy and we owe support to those who protect us. On the other hand, this isn't Iraq. The need to give our officers what they require to protect themselves and us has to be balanced against the fact that the fundamental duty of the police is to protect human life and that law officers are only justified in taking a life as a last resort.
McNamara is also a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
Nobody Important|11.29.06 @ 2:40PM|#
Yes, police work is dangerous, and the police see a lot of
violence. On the other hand, 51 officers were slain in the line of
duty last year, out of some 700,000 to 800,000 American cops. That
is far fewer than the police fatalities occurring when I patrolled
New York's highest crime precincts, when the total number of cops
in the country was half that of today.
Obviously the escalation of violence and firepower by the police,
and the increased willingness to risk civilian lives, is working to
reduce officer deaths.
And what could be more important than officer safety?
Guy Montag|11.29.06 @ 2:50PM|#
Police in large cities formerly carried revolvers holding
six .38-caliber rounds. Nowadays, police carry semi-automatic
pistols with 16 high-caliber rounds
Um, these "high caliber rounds" are usually 9 mm, .35 cal. and
smaller than .38
I prefer .45, but I am not a cop and can use what I feel like
using.
Egon|11.29.06 @ 2:54PM|#
Thanks, Guy. You said it more eloquently than I would have. Note, however, that the "elite" police units (e.g., LAPD SWAT) also use .45-caliber 1911s. For officer safety, I assume.
|11.29.06 @ 2:55PM|#
Police officers are permitted to carry +P ammo, hollow-point bullets and armor piercing rounds. Yes, 9mm and .35 are smaller than a .38, but they pack a hell of a whallop. And in NJ, State Troopers are permitted to carry a back-up pistol of their choice up to .40 cal. And they carry Benelli 12 ga semiautomatic shotguns in their patrol cars at all times. I consider that pretty heavily armed for routine patrols.
|11.29.06 @ 2:59PM|#
Um, these "high caliber rounds" are usually 9 mm, .35 cal.
and smaller than .38
Actually the 9mm and .38 Special round are practically identical
with a bullet diameter of 0.354" & 0.356" respectively. The 38
caliber thingy goes way back in gun marketing days.
It's the same as that big-boned child of the 38 Special the 357
magnum. It's just that the marketing boys at S&W didn't think
that "three-fifty-six magnum" would sound as cool.
|11.29.06 @ 3:00PM|#
In my lengthy
post in the fascism thread, I argued that the U.S. had
practiced fascism lite throughout the 20th century - primarily
because when the central management of some aspect of the economy
began to breakdown, the government officials are unwilling to use
mass-murder or brutal repression to prop the system up.
The most dramatic example of this was Truman's decision to not send
the national Guard to sweep through farms in the midwest to
confiscate livestock to combat shortages in meat due to federal
price-controls.
I don't think he was horrified at using U.S. troops against the
citizenry (I base this on a blood-curdling letter he wrote in WW I
to his wife calling for the extermination of the German race in
that left me chilled), so much as was aware that the farmers would
not submit without a fight, and that the troops would likely rebel
rather than obey orders.
Today, I think with a small amount of political indoctrination one
could field soldiers and police officers to brutally repress and
slaughter their countrymen.
I am worried that the next time price-controls are tried and cause
shortages the governors and president will have a credible option
to to use force rather than end the bad policy.
And they will exercise it.
Guy Montag|11.29.06 @ 3:04PM|#
MadBiker,
I have a Benelli Nova Pump (12ga, 18.4" barrel, no choke, ghost
ring slug sights) that I *was* using for skeet.
Sadly, the folks at the Bull Run Shooting Center banned all barrels
shorter than 23" partly because of cops playing 'Rambo'with their
14" guns.
Tried lieing about the length to the nosey people, but it didn't
work too well.
Now I use the Saiga-12 with 19" barrel (threaded for external
chokes) and nobody looked twice at the barrel. Go figure.
|11.29.06 @ 3:11PM|#
Guy,
Cops are the worst at any shooting range I've used. Playing "Rambo"
is right. I have a lot of respect for awesome firepower, but I have
no need to showboat it around in front of everyone else. I would
not say they were always dangerous about it, but definitely
cocky.
And how in the world did you shoot skeet with an 18.4" barrel? I am
comfortable with 26 or 28, and I shoot skeet as practice for bird
hunting. You must have great aim and a strong shoulder to shoot a
19" barrel with a choke tube of any sort and knock claybirds out of
the sky.
Guy Montag|11.29.06 @ 3:25PM|#
MadBiker,
Since skeet is such a close game it is pretty easy, but I prefer
the pump, although slower than the semi, because it never has
stovepipes.
Anyway, the awsome spread you get on 7.5 shot you pretty much have
to be awful to shoot below 20.
I use the Saiga for trap with the full choke, wobble and skeet with
no choke or medium.
Needless to say, those household firearms are not for shooting at
~4" clay flying faster than people move, the games are just
practice in case of having to use them for their intended
purpose.
Need to order another barrel for the Benelli anyway, since it is
worthless for trap and would like to get to use it on the range
without hassles.
|11.29.06 @ 3:37PM|#
The 9mm and .40 craze shows how cavilier police are about public safety. Both are very hot rounds that penitrate really well. Gee, I am probably going to use the weapon in a public place with lots of bistanders, let me get a really high velocity round that is bound to go through the buy I am shooting and hit the old lady standing behind him, yeah that is a good idea.
|11.29.06 @ 3:47PM|#
"Cops are the worst at any shooting range I've used."
I'm inclined to disagree. I have seen cops at a Lincoln, Nebraska
shooting range shoot like fuckin' Annie Oaklie. It was absolutely
amazing!
|11.29.06 @ 3:50PM|#
I did not mean worst in terms of their prowess at hitting targets. I meant mostly in terms of their attitude.
George Demetriou (NYPD)|11.29.06 @ 3:51PM|#
Mr. Diallo had committed no crime and was attempting to
enter his own hallway when one of the undercover officers yelled,
"Gun!" The four officers were acquitted in a trial held outside the
city, based upon their defense that they reasonably believed their
lives were in danger.
It was Amadou Diallo who set the stage for tragedy.
|11.29.06 @ 3:51PM|#
In my city, the police (and City Hall, and the local DA's
office) responded to the increase in drug- and violent-crime of the
early 1990s by developing an innovative strategy of community
policing. They demilitarized their policing, taking cops out of
cars and encouraging them to develop interpersonal relationships in
their beats.
There is no way this could have happened in Lowell, Masschusetts.
If the police had gotten that bad tip, there would have been some
cop who would have said, "No way, the owner of that house is a
92-year-old lady, very nice. Never been any trouble there. Who's
this C.I., again?"
It was this strategy that Clinton supported with the COPS and Weed
and Seed programs at Justice, which Bush killed in order to boost
"Homeland Security" grants for armored vehicles and such.
|11.29.06 @ 3:52PM|#
Oh, and in the decade following the implementation of community policing, Lowell experienced the largest drop in crime of any city in America, while experiencing a dramatic improvement in relations between the police and the public, particularly in the minority communities.
|11.29.06 @ 3:57PM|#
Horses Joe,
Take cops out of cars and put them on horses. I am serious. They
would get to know the community and you would be amazed the sense
of authority someone gets when they are on a horse. But, Lowell was
exactly right to de-militarize the cops and put them in the
neighborhoods rather than in SWAT teams.
|11.29.06 @ 3:58PM|#
Seeing as this thread has been hijacked by the Rod & Gun
club, this post may be wasted.
However, McNamara's point that the firepower has escalated without
real consideration of the safety issues is important. It seems that
there has been a wilful attempt to confuse power with
effectiveness. Whatever 'criminals' you are pursuing, brainpower
counts more than firepower.
The drug war has certainly been a major factor in this, but I'm
sure other 'reasons' would have been found to justify seeking more
powerfully weaponry.
|11.29.06 @ 4:02PM|#
John,
Lowell has had horse cops since the mid-1800s.
They used to use them as strike-breakers, but we don't hold that
against them. Today, they just look pretty for the tourists.
And while I'm not exactly Annie Oakley, even I know that a .38
caliber rifle round is heavier and faster than a .38 caliber pistol
round.
|11.29.06 @ 4:05PM|#
McNamara's op-ed in the WSJ says absolutely nothing. What is his point? He cites one statistic: that 50 cops are slain each year and that this is much less on a % basis than when he was a cop. Is he implying that we should target a level of cop slayings that he experienced on the force?!? He doesn't make any sense. Statistics that illuminate the number of innocents shot by police are relevant to this debate and he mentions none. Lame.
|11.29.06 @ 4:06PM|#
John
I agree with your point on horses. I had a friend in the Mounted
Patrol in my city & that is exactly what she argued. In crowd
control, a mounted officer was worth 20 on the ground.
One other factor that should be mentioned: A lot of people like
horses, so the police get an extra 'approachability' factor as the
horse is perceived as non-threatening.
|11.29.06 @ 4:06PM|#
Aresen, sorry, my question to Guy Montag was not meant to jack
this thread. I pointed out the types of firepower carried by local
and state PD in NJ to underline McNamara's point.
The types of shotguns carried by our state troopers define deadly
force - short barrels, high-powered heavy loads and repetitive
firing without pause constitute one lethal weapon, one I would not
want aimed at me under any circumstances.
|11.29.06 @ 4:09PM|#
Take cops out of cars and put them on horses.
And don't forget: raise taxes to pay for the additional costs
|11.29.06 @ 4:13PM|#
MadBiker
No problem. For some reason, whenever I get together with my
libertarian friends, the subject turns to guns. :)
|11.29.06 @ 4:22PM|#
"""Take cops out of cars and put them on horses."""
Are you aware the PD does not clean up behind their horses? The
streets would REEK!!!
|11.29.06 @ 4:26PM|#
tt,
I apologize for not making my point clearer. The militarization of
police makes totalitarianism much more likely in the U.S.
It's only possible to engage in brutal repression when you have
police and soldiers who see the citizenry as aliens or 'them' and
not as their countrymen.
|11.29.06 @ 4:27PM|#
Are you aware the PD does not clean up behind their horses? The
streets would REEK!!!
Yeah but it would be worth it, who doesn't love horses?
|11.29.06 @ 4:32PM|#
Yeah but it would be worth it, who doesn't love
horses?
I love horses, medium well, with a baked potato..
Radley Balko|11.29.06 @ 4:35PM|#
Joe,
Except that Clinton also started the "troops to cops" program,
which gave federal grants to local PDs to hire ex-soldiers as
police officers. While I don't doubt that some ex-soldiers are
capable of becoming fine police officers, the program itself
betrays a "hey, they both carry guns!" lack of understanding of the
important differences between the two.
And while I certainly support community policing efforts, federal
grants have a tendency to get used for purposes beyond what's
intended. Case in point, those community policing grants Clinton
started are now routinely used to start and expand -- you guessed
it -- SWAT teams.
I guess my point is that his record on this issue is pretty
mixed.
William Adama|11.29.06 @ 4:40PM|#
There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
|11.29.06 @ 4:52PM|#
Each of these police deaths and numerous other police
injuries is a tragedy
Each and every one? LOL!
Maybe some are real tragedies and I'm sure all are tragedies for
their loved ones but in general I would say many if not most police
deaths are net positives for the public, especially the bastards
who kick peoples doors down with guns drawn under false pretenses
to nab nonviolent "offenders". I certainly wouldn't have shed any
tears for the pigs in the recent case if that little old lady had
had truer aim.
|11.29.06 @ 5:04PM|#
Obsession over the gear carried by cops is the wrong path to
take.
FWIW, the vast majority of cops don't practice except when required
for firearms qualifications maybe a couple of times a year.
These guys are the last ones who should be issued any
firearm.
On the other hand, I've met a few cops that shoot competitively who
do some pretty amazing things. But they shoot on a rather continual
basis, and are definately in the minority.
|11.29.06 @ 5:06PM|#
In other words, software, not hardware should be the focus of
the discussion.
How competent is a given cop with a firearm?
How willing is he to use it?
How have training and doctrine played into the above two
questions?
|11.29.06 @ 5:21PM|#
Mr. Balko,
I have a great deal of respect for your opinions on these issues,
but I think you're barking up the wrong tree about the "troops to
cops" programs. People in the military receive extensive training
about the difference between the two. Many of the best Lowell cops
are in the National Guard, and it doesn't seem to have interfered
with their ability to recognize the difference between a citizen
and an enemy soldier one bit.
"Case in point, those community policing grants Clinton started are
now routinely used to start and expand -- you guessed it -- SWAT
teams."
I rather doubt that, because the COPS program was zeroed out in
2001 or 2002, IIRC. There are other Dept. of Justice programs that
were created or expanded under Bush, not Clinton, which have
replaced them, but the intent was to do just that - to replace the
community policing strategy with a policy of militarization.
|11.29.06 @ 5:25PM|#
mediageek,
"Obsession over the gear carried by cops is the wrong path to
take."
Fair enough. The LPD carry shotguns and AR-15s (semis) in their
cars.
But as I said, the move towards more military equipment has
eclipsed, even replaced, the principles of community policing.
|11.29.06 @ 5:50PM|#
"But as I said, the move towards more military equipment has
eclipsed, even replaced, the principles of community
policing."
Not sure what you mean by community policing, but I agree with your
point.
There is a heavy push among PD's to adopt gear under the dual
guises of "officer safety" and "preventing the next *insert name of
high-profile, low probability crime event here*."
On top of it all, the federal government has a number of programs
where they sell surplus military gear to PD's.
Radley Balko|11.29.06 @ 5:56PM|#
Joe --
My bad. There are like community policing grants continued under
Bush. But you're right, the specific COPS program has been phased
out.
But there are several instances of COPS grants in the 1990s being
used to start tactical teams. The Madison Times reported
in 2000 that this was going on in Wisconsin, and the alternative
paper in Portland reported a similar story there in the late 90s.
Peter Kraska's research also found a pretty high percentage (the
exact number escapes me) of police chiefs who in a survey said they
had no problem using COPS grants to build out a paramilitary police
unit.
|11.29.06 @ 6:18PM|#
Gee, I am probably going to use the weapon in a public place with lots of bistanders, let me get a really high velocity round that is bound to go through the buy I am shooting and hit the old lady standing behind him, yeah that is a good idea.
(sarcasm) It's a great idea if the guy you shot at will be charged
with her murder while you get off scott free (/sarcasm)
|11.29.06 @ 6:28PM|#
"Many of the best Lowell cops are in the National Guard, and it
doesn't seem to have interfered with their ability to recognize the
difference between a citizen and an enemy soldier one bit."
Joe, the problem is that many police are unable to recognize the
difference.
A glaring example of this was the warlike mentality of imported
police officers in New Orleans (I cite this because I think
everyone is pretty familiar with the situation there): the house to
house searches, the theft of privately owned weapons, the assaults
on the citizenry.
About once every two years, I find myself interacting with
law-enforcement for mundane reasons (flat tires, a few car
accidents where I was not at fault and the like). I have noticed a
growing hostility starting around 1995. With the exception of the
older grey-haired officers, I have noticed that they tend to try to
"control the situation" by aggressively dominating the space they
are in, and react very badly to perceived resistance to their
authority. Since they are usually arriving on scenes where most
people are out of their "comfort zones", there is invariably one
person who triggers an escalation by their lack of enthusiastic
compliance.
Sir Robert Peel's rules have fallen by the wayside.
SIR ROBERT PEEL'S NINE PRINCIPLES
The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime
and disorder.
The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon
public approval of police actions.
Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in
voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain
the respect of the public.
The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured
diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical
force.
Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public
opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service
to the law.
Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure
observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of
persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the
public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police
are the public and the public are the police; the police
being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time
attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the
interests of community welfare and existence.
Police should always direct their action strictly towards their
functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the
judiciary.
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder,
not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with
it.
Steve in Clearwater|11.29.06 @ 6:36PM|#
The McNamara essay in the Wall Street Journal can also be seen
at our website where the link will be available for time
immemorial.
US: OPED: 50 Shots
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n1626/a01.html
|11.29.06 @ 6:48PM|#
Steve in Clearwater
"for time immemorial"
You mean "until the end of time". "Time immemorial" originated in
the Common-Law courts and referred to a practice or situation which
had existed longer than anyone could remember (hence
'immemorial').
Apologies for the rant, but malapropisms are one of my hot
buttons.
|11.29.06 @ 7:34PM|#
tarran,
"Joe, the problem is that many police are unable to recognize the
difference."
I agree, 100%. My point is that the inability to recognize the
difference is the result of bad policy and training on the domestic
side, not the presence of Guardsmen and former military.
And good on you for bringing up Peel! We would be a safer, more
civilized country is we had more "Bobby's Boys," and fewer "Law
Enforcement Officers."
Radley, thanks for the response. Good info.
|11.29.06 @ 7:47PM|#
tarran | November 29, 2006, 6:28pm | #
Thankyou for the Bobby Peel citation. It is really important for
people to understand the distinction between civilian
policing and military action.
|11.29.06 @ 7:52PM|#
I agree with mediageek above that the focus on militarization in
the hardware sense is wrongheaded. I am much more concerned that
there exists a no-knock warrant than I am that the guys issuing
such a warrant might have rifles. Inside a house, you put yourself
in more dangerous spots trying to turn a corner or manipulate a
suspect while holding a rifle than you do while holding a sidearm
anyway.
It is the strategies and institutions surrounding the deployment of
police that are of concern. I find myself again wondering how much
of a problem there would be if it weren't for meth lab raids and
other idiotic drug war jackbootery.
I agree with joe about community policing as differentiated from
'broken windows'. I like horse cops, too.
|11.29.06 @ 9:33PM|#
Sorry, Joe, I mistook your point, despite the fact that you
stated it several times in fairly clear language.
I guess you can lead a horse to water...
|11.29.06 @ 9:52PM|#
I believe the police and their masters no longer view us as
citizens. All non-police fall into the "indiginous personnel"
catgory. This conveniently allows "free-fire" zones, cover-ups, the
use of flimsy warrants, etc.
If you review the statistics available for your area, you will
probably find that for all the money spent on police, they really
don't produce much
|11.29.06 @ 10:07PM|#
Liberty, democracy, all those things we supposedly value, cannot
long survive in a war zone. McNamara is pointing out that the "war
on" approach -- war on terror, war on drugs, whatever -- is truly a
war on the American way of life, because it turns our neighborhoods
into war zones, in which our traditional way of life cannot be
sustained.
Bottom line: if the things upon which you "crack down" really
aren't the sources of your problems, matters only tend to get
worse. The spiral of our country into militarized fascism is the
telltale indicator that our leaders are profoundly misguided -- or
misguiding US.
|11.29.06 @ 10:40PM|#
There is an emailer over at instapundit that made the right point; arming police with high capacity magazines just encourages the "spray and pray" mentality. It is the same reason the military went to a three round burst on the M16 A2 versus the fully automatic setting on the first M 16. If you make it easy for people to cack off rounds, they will just cack them off and not pay attention to where they go. When you using your weapon in a public area against the people who are supposed to be protecting, that is a real problem.
|11.29.06 @ 10:59PM|#
As to mounted patrols, I understand that more and more
departments are adopting strategically placed bags so that while
the problem of, shall we say waste, might not be completely
eliminated it is controlled.
Many, many years ago I built an access road to the stables for one
of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Mounted units. They were the
best bunch of cops you could ever have wanted to meet. Anyway,
apparently even though horses are quiet tough there is a certain
part of the hoof that is quite tender (actually I already knew
that, having grown up with horses).
Anyway the guys at the post let it be known that certain kinds of
debris could hurt a horse quite badly. From then on everyone on the
site made sure every piece of trash was picked up every day before
the patrol returned. It seems that even a gang of italian asphalt
workers can have a soft spot for horses.
thoreau|11.29.06 @ 11:26PM|#
I agree that the user matters more than the hardware, but as others have said, isn't it kind of a bad idea to let cops carry ammo that's likely to leave an exit wound?
|11.29.06 @ 11:56PM|#
The problem from a terminal ballistics point of view is that you
need a certain amount of penetration in order for the round to be
effective. Imagine shooting at a big, muscular and fat guy. A shot
that hits him should have enough energy to do serious damage even
if it passes through his arm first, or if he's wearing very heavy
clothing; anything that won't may not take him down fast enough.
But anything that does have that kind of power is likely to
overpenetrate if you don't hit him squarely center-of-mass. I think
the problem is really one of methodology and training, not
equipment. You have to assume that any round might overpenetrate,
or might just miss.
Although I will say - I don't think there's necessarily a problem
with cops routinely having access to rifles and shotguns. Remember
the North Hollywood shootout? The cops had to run and borrow rifles
from a gun store because the bank robbers had body armor. I know I
wasn't the only one thinking "WTF? Didn't it used to be common for
there to be a rifle or scattergun in the trunk of the cruiser?"
|11.30.06 @ 12:05AM|#
Before I forget: I think one reason a lot of cops come across as jerks is because they're taught to "maintain control of the situation". That's a fine goal, but too many of them seem to confuse that with "being an abusive jackass". Interestingly enough, a cousin of mine just flunked one of the police-trainee exams, a mock confrontation...apparently he was being too nice.
EL|11.30.06 @ 12:20AM|#
I don't think there's necessarily a problem with cops
routinely having access to rifles and shotguns. Remember the North
Hollywood shootout?
The police in that case had shotguns, but only had buckshot shells.
Buckshot cannot normally penetrate ballistic armor except at
point-blank range. On the other hand, shotgun slugs can usually
penetrate soft ballistic armor at short to medium ranges, but LA
police weren't allowed to carry slugs at the time (I believe this
rule has since been rescinded).
Robert Goodman|11.30.06 @ 1:15AM|#
There are slugs that fit shotguns? Are those for shooting pachyderms, or are they anti-aircraft weapons?
Guy Montag|11.30.06 @ 8:05AM|#
Robert,
Yes, there is a slug for every bore I believe. They are frequently
used for wild boar, deer, etc. IIRC, some places in VA (and other
areas) require slugs rather than shot for deer, but I am a little
fuzzy on why (I don't deer hunt).
The Benelli Nova Pump I mentioned earlier is built for rifled
slugs. You can also get "slug barrels" that are rifled for another
type of slug.
I fired 5 super-magnum 12 ga. slugs (3.5") from mine right after I
bought it. Never shooting that stuff again, really packs a punch to
the sholder. Will be using standard or magnum at the most.
Advice for boar hunting was "load as many slugs as will fit in your
gun, skip the buckshot, wear something that you can run fast in."
Looking forward to my first trip.
|11.30.06 @ 9:31AM|#
Cops should have access to effective ammo, period. There is a
role for the rifle, especially in rural counties.
I would draw the line at automatic fire. Cops don't need the
ability to spray and pray at the flip of a switch.
|11.30.06 @ 10:15AM|#
I think that police officers should have the same equipment
available to them that is available to your average citizen, and
nothing more.
That goes for federal, state, and city.
They probably should use hollowpoints. If they are to use deadly
force, a hollowpoint would be the most effective.
Guy Montag|11.30.06 @ 11:10AM|#
kwais,
Certain Constitutional Scholars and I believe that the citizens
should be able to keep and bear any weapon issued to a common
Infantry soldier.
not really against the cops having similar, but it seems a bit much
to me.
Anonymous Coward|12.9.06 @ 12:00AM|#
A bit late for this thread, but check out this 1987 ad featuring
Joseph McNamara at http://www.publicmediacenter.org/assets/assets.php?c=8&p=12
"Cop-killer bullets, mail-order handguns, machine guns...
has the N.R.A. gone off the deep end?"
-Joseph McNamara
Police Chief
San Jose, California
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245