Adventures in Police Professionalism
Radley Balko | May 20, 2008, 6:25pm
D.C. Police Chief Kathy Lanier rehires 17 police officers previously fired for misconduct.
Then she decides the city will arm them with semiautomatic weapons.
Sounds like a fantastic couple of ideas. What could possibly go wrong?
Meanwhile, a coda to the Kathryn Johnston botched drug raid case in Atlanta: Arthur Tesler was the only officer on the raid who didn't take a plea bargain. Despite admitting that he lied, helped cover up Johnston's murder, and stood watch outside while other officers handcuffed the bleeding 92-year-woman—allowing her to die while they planted marijuana in her basement—he was convicted today only on the charge of lying to investigators. He'll face a maximum of five years in prison.
The one good thing to come out of the case is we got to see just how vast, deep, and pernicious the culture of corruption and disregard for civil rights ran in Atlanta's police department. Tesler testified that narcotics officers were required to serve nine warrants and make two arrest per month, or they'd risk losing their jobs. This led to routine lying on warrants and bullying and intimidation of informants. What we don't know is how many people were wrongly raided, arrested, and jailed because of all of this.
Kwix | May 21, 2008, 9:16pm | #
Well, it seems like that scenario has occurred more than once.
Ahhh, yeah. That would be three shootouts in 28 years. Two of which occurred when the standard issue sidearm was a .38 revolver. Still an exception, not the rule. All three occurred in areas where SWAT teams were in existence and the most notorious of the bunch, the North Hollywood robbery, the SWAT team was not called until after a prolonged shootout had ensued resulting in the injury of multiple civilians. More egregious is the fact that the officers who witnessed the robbers entering the bank made note of the automatic rifles they were carrying and opted to tackle them without SWAT reenforcement thereby prolonging the shootout and the danger to bystanders.
Basing a policy on the stupidity and poor judgment of a pair of officers 3000 miles away is not what I would call sound.
I'm not a police apologist. I think they have way too much power...
So giving them more power somehow corrects this? You sir are either a liar or stupid, neither bodes well for you.
The cops where I live have had these assault weapons for years and, to the best of my knowledge, have never shot anyone with them. So I guess there's no need to panic.
Your local police are equipped with long range semiautomatic rifles but have never actually
had to use them and this is evidence that they both need and can be trusted with them.
I find this interesting. By the same token your local police force should also be equipped with hand grenades and RPGs since who knows when they may need them, right?
Additionally, we are not talking about your local cops unless you live in DC, where, as has been pointed out above, a truly law abiding citizen can't carry and by extension reasonably protect themselves with a gun of any stripe.
When the citizens of DC can legally own the same firearms of those corrupt police officers sworn to "protect" them, then perhaps your arguments will be valid. Until then, you are indeed an apologist who would give the police power to control the citizenry rather than the power to help it.
As far as I am concerned, if the average Citizen can't carry a handgun, semi-automatic rifle or shotgun for personal protection then the paid citizens(police) can't carry one either. Or is that just too "self-centered" for you to understand.
Tim | May 22, 2008, 1:39am | #
This entire post is chock full of ignorance and hysteria. I'll also point that that "T" has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.
These are not "assault rifles", nor are they machine guns, nor exceptionally long range or powerful. The AR-15 is a regular run-of-the-mill self loading rifle that fires a round that, in power, is meant to bridge the gap between pistol rounds and full size rifle rounds.
It is typical these days for departments to ditch shotguns in the patrol cars in favor of AR-15's; this is because the AR-15 is by far the safer choice.
The AR's are safer because they are far more accurate, easier to use (especially for smaller officers), and FAR safer in an urban setting than pistols or shotguns, all of which will have more over-penetration in building materials. (yes, you read that right - don't argue with me, it's true, and it's one reason SWAT teams are ditching submachineguns for AR-15 type weapons)
At typical law enforcement ranges (100 yards is a long, long way and rare in any sort of police shooting), the AR-15 is near idiot-proof in terms of putting rounds on target. Despite stopping readily in building materials, the 5.56mm round will penetrate all soft body armor with ease. It is much easier to train someone to use an AR effectively than a 12 guage shotgun, not to mention the shotgun is limited to 25 yards with buckshot and most are not equipped to accurately shoot slugs.
There have been a number of stories similar to this one lately, and they all spawn similar comments despite the fact that it's been common for years. Carrying a rifle of this type in the patrol car is basic common sense; this is a subject where the couch commandos, soccer moms, yuppies, and other assorted clueless types should probably sit down, shut up, and let the adults do their job.
