Raritan Police asking for Rifles

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

SWAT takes a long time to mobilize and in the event of an Active Shooter, every minute that passes results in more dead bodies. "Regular" Patrol Officers need to be able to move in immediately with enough firepower to stop the threat ASAP.

 

 

So why do we have SWAT?

[Jon 264]

So why do we have SWAT?

 

To handle barricaded subjects and high risk search warrants. Active shooters are a relatively new phenomenon, and thus, cannot be handled by traditional tactics.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Like i said im all for them having them, but if there not trained like swat, they shouldnt be acting like swat. They should use the weapons to maintain a parameter and keep people safe until swat or who ever gets there to take care of the situation. No gun comes inherit with training and you never know what your running into.

 

One instance i can think of would be the guy who rob the bank with his AK and drum mags + full body armor. A couple AR's would have stopped that guy much faster.

 

I cant stop thinking tho about a couple officers with AR's and inadequate training running into a building and getting shot because they were under false pretenses and told they have the weapon to do the job, but little or no tactical training.

I'm just trying to point out the argument can go 2 ways respectively.

 

A better option would be to require all officers to participate in SWAT training, not necessarily be swat, but do the training yearly. I mean then they can buy the guns themselves and write them off as work expense.

[Jon 264]

They should use the weapons to maintain a parameter and keep people safe until swat or who ever gets there to take care of the situation.

 

This train of thought is why Columbine was such a massacre. Current tactics call for going in ASAP in order to limit casualties. Maintaining a perimeter with an active shooter who wants nothing more than to afflict as much damage as possible before being stopped, is the absolute worst thing you can do. And if they're going in, I want them to have the best tool for the job.

 

Just to add: All the departments that I know of who issue rifles or shotguns, have special training for each officer that is issued that particular weapon. They must complete that training and qualify with it in order for it to be issued to them while on the road.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

This train of thought is why Columbine was such a massacre. Current tactics call for going in ASAP in order to limit casualties. Maintaining a perimeter with an active shooter who wants nothing more than to afflict as much damage as possible before being stopped, is the absolute worst thing you can do. And if they're going in, I want them to have the best tool for the job.

 

Just to add: All the departments that I know of who issue rifles or shotguns, have special training for each officer that is issued that particular weapon. They must complete that training and qualify with it in order for it to be issued to them while on the road.

I agree, but what qualifies them and to what extent? An officer highly trained with a handgun can be more effective then a poorly trained officer with a rifle. To me it's more about training then firepower. What worried me about this is they it seemed to me that they just want the firepower, they didnt mention the cost of training and or how they would do it. I would rather see them spend money on training the officers on how to handle these types of situations first.

[Jon 264]

I agree, but what qualifies them and to what extent? An officer highly trained with a handgun can be more effective then a poorly trained officer with a rifle. To me it's more about training then firepower.

 

At my department "regular" officers need to qualify with their handguns according the NJAG guidelines with 8 0% accuracy. Those in the subgun and rifle program need to qualify with 90% accuracy with their handguns, complete a 40hr course with either weapon, score 100% in all in-house tests regarding usage, controls, field stripping, cleaning, etc, and qualify with 100% accuracy with the subgun or rifle.

 

Those officers who carry the higher-powered weapons are a lot more proficient than you think.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

At my department "regular" officers need to qualify with their handguns according the NJAG guidelines with 8 0% accuracy. Those in the subgun and rifle program need to qualify with 90% accuracy with their handguns, complete a 40hr course with either weapon, score 100% in all in-house tests regarding usage, controls, field stripping, cleaning, etc, and qualify with 100% accuracy with the subgun or rifle.

 

Those officers who carry the higher-powered weapons are a lot more proficient than you think.

It's good that they hold them to such high standards in proficiency, but are they given tactical training and response? Some may say the most powerful tool is training. Just as an example: the veteran 0fficer that shot the father of that drug dealer because he hit the trigger instead of the light switch on his gun. I'm more about these guys knowing how to take over a situation then just having the tools to do it and the proficiency to hit a target. I'm not saying there not trained to respond to these situations, but what use is any weapon when your not trained to be in the **** of the situation.

[Jon 264]

Accuracy in the LEO world is not measured by standing still and shooting at paper...

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Accuracy in the LEO world is not measured by standing still and shooting at paper...

I didn't mean to sound ignorant, but its a different story and stress level when people are shooting back at you, and many lives are in danger.

[Jon 264]

I didn't mean to sound ignorant, but its a different story and stress level when people are shooting back at you.

 

Fair enough. This is why we have simunitions (unfortunately we're one of few that have and use them)

[Wojo 98]

As a standing NRA LE Instructor in Patrol Rifle and Tactical, I can tell you that our active LEO's are grossly under trained and now with budget cuts, even more so. I know some will disagree, but I stand by my statement. Even with the abysmal training programs, I still fully support having a patrol rifle in every car.

 

Once they leave the academy, few see a significant amount of training. This statement is more towards the beat / traffic / admin's with a badge and gun types. The guys who routinely knock on doors, serve warrants, parole issues are pretty good. The NRA LE Instructor development program is to train department 'top-guns' the skills needed to go back and train their guys...Train the Trainer. Most veterans are familiar with this type of instruction. We hear a bunch of horror stories about guys that don't want to carry anything more then their sidearm and HATE going to the range for training and loathe qualifying.

 

The active shooter is a new problem that LE agencies still haven't been able to grasp. A big part is still the mind set of, "It will never happen here". The idea behind having a carbine, tactical - not body armor in more cruisers is to engage active shooters once you have a 3-4-5 person team to go in and by any means possible, stop the carnage as quickly as possible. The average, not every, the average response time for SWAT to pull into the parking lot is 45 minutes. At that point in time the only thing left is the crying and finger pointing. IIRC, the average shooting spree only lasts 6 minutes and the mean average is quite large. Most are way under six minutes and a few last much longer, but in the long run it is over pretty damn fast.

 

Shotguns versus carbines... PD recruits now have a larger percentage of women and smaller framed men then in years past. A 12 gauge scatter-gun is very, very intimidating to them. A 5.56 with a short stock is much easier to handle even for the small framed and small hand types. A shotgun is just scary to many people. Dropping down to a 20 gauge wouldn't make much sense. I personally think each cruiser should have both and a variety of ammo choices. Keep'em loaded with 55g soft points and double 0 as a standard. And if needed, load up some bean bags, pepper balls, breaching rounds, FMJ, zombie repellent, what ever. Give them the training and the tools they need. The streets aren't getting any safer and it seems that every department is downsizing so you better be improving the training on the other end with all those cost savings. Gnosh on them apples.

[BadBul 0]

Oh boy, I can see my $11,700 homeowners tax bill skyrocket to $12,900 next year because we need to equip or towns 107 member police force with rifles...

 

I say we should let the men do a mans job, and let the boys patrol the streets, walk the beat and secure the scene until the men get there.

[vjf915 456]

I have to completely agree with j0n and Wojo on this one. The days are long gone where they can "secure the scene" and wait for SWAT to arrive. Active shooters ARE todays issue, and it's getting worse and worse. This is not just my opinion, this is also what I have been told by Plainsboro's chief. Our officers need every tool and every bit of training they can get, and it's a real shame that they aren't getting it. Hell, if I were an officer, I wouldn't want to be limited to just my pistol, and would ask to pay for my rifle and any ammo needed for training. I would HATE to be the officer who responds to an active shooter, yet can't take them down soon enough because of my weapon limitations.

[bulpup 98]

When i was deployed with my reserve unit we had 5 police officers deployed with us. They got very well versed in rifle use and tactics. Every reserve unit i have been in had a few cops. I wonder how many of the Raritan police may already have that much hands on.

 

I imagine if I were chief there I would be considering that as a factor if it was available.

[GRIZ 3,369]

I can tell you that our active LEO's are grossly under trained and now with budget cuts, even more so.

 

I've been a LE Firearms Instructor for about 35 years and I couldn't agree with you more. I started as a police officer in NJ and after the academy there was only semi annual qualification with your duty handgun. Although it wasn't required at that time the chief didn't even want to fund qualification with off duty guns. There was zero training or quals with the long guns the department had in inventory.

 

This is contrasted by the federal agency I worked for. You needed to qualify with all handguns you carried quarterly. There was a requirement for 8 hours of firearms and tactical training each quarter. They had a minimum training requirement for all long guns and quarterly quals. If you didn't qualify with it you couldn't carry it. Use of long guns was encouraged (more on that later) and you had your choice of MP5, M16 (semi), M4, or shotgun (subject to available inventory). As an example, to be a MP5 instructor I had to have the 40 hour operator course and 60 hour instructor course. All sighted guns (MP5, M16, M4) were issued to you. If you were going to something where a shotgun was more appropriate you could draw a pool shotgun. The agency was willing to fund the time, ammo, and hardware for all this training.

 

We didn't deal with active shooter incidents as local police do but there were other benefits to having all these long guns out there so no one gets hurt. If the bad guy sees 5 or 6 LEOs coming after him armed with handguns and he has a shotgun or rifle he may decide to fight. If he's faced with 2 MP5s, 2 shotguns, and a M4 he is more likely to give up as he sees it as a losing propostion. On one occasion I had a guy tell me "I ain't fightin' you, you got an AK 92". We had Steyr AUGs at the time.

 

The idea opf patrol rifles is not to replace SWAT. Its to furnish you with the ability to take care of an issue. We shouldn't put ourselves in the position "if I had had a rifle...".

[mipafox 438]

I have to completely agree with j0n and Wojo on this one. The days are long gone where they can "secure the scene" and wait for SWAT to arrive. Active shooters ARE todays issue, and it's getting worse and worse. This is not just my opinion, this is also what I have been told by Plainsboro's chief. Our officers need every tool and every bit of training they can get, and it's a real shame that they aren't getting it. Hell, if I were an officer, I wouldn't want to be limited to just my pistol, and would ask to pay for my rifle and any ammo needed for training. I would HATE to be the officer who responds to an active shooter, yet can't take them down soon enough because of my weapon limitations.

 

They never use them for that, though. They frequently use them when they kick in your door in the middle of the night because somebody smelled pot outside your house. Just like the Latin Kings do. Who, coincidentally, also yell, "Police!" when they blast their way in.

 

I have no problem with police having rifles. I have a serious problem with all this "gearing up" of police in general, though. They are trying to become a military. Now, if it saves just one cop's life, then it's not worth it. It's not worth it if it saves the lives of a thousand cops. Each police life should be worth very slightly less than each life of a non-sworn citizen. When we get back to that, everybody will support the police and praise their proffession and honor. They are police, not a paramilitary force. Going home safe at night should NOT be the primary concern. Enforcing the law and protecting the citizens from harm (mostly harm by them) should be their primary concern. And, if they kick in my door, I will end up dead. If they knock, I will answer. This **** needs to be turned back about 30 years.

 

But I have no problem with them having rifles. That makes a lot of sense (no sarcasm).

[Dan 177]

They never use them for that, though. They frequently use them when they kick in your door in the middle of the night because somebody smelled pot outside your house. Just like the Latin Kings do. Who, coincidentally, also yell, "Police!" when they blast their way in.

 

I have no problem with police having rifles. I have a serious problem with all this "gearing up" of police in general, though. They are trying to become a military. Now, if it saves just one cop's life, then it's not worth it. It's not worth it if it saves the lives of a thousand cops. Each police life should be worth very slightly less than each life of a non-sworn citizen. When we get back to that, everybody will support the police and praise their proffession and honor. They are police, not a paramilitary force. Going home safe at night should NOT be the primary concern. Enforcing the law and protecting the citizens from harm (mostly harm by them) should be their primary concern. And, if they kick in my door, I will end up dead. If they knock, I will answer. This **** needs to be turned back about 30 years.

 

But I have no problem with them having rifles. That makes a lot of sense (no sarcasm).

The militarization of the police is more mental than just giving them an AR and other equipment. People direct/teach the police act like a paramilitary force, not the guns. They could get these AR's, have them in the trunk for when they need them, train up on their usage/proficiency, no harm no foul. Now if they start carrying them around as a show of intimidation when the situation doesn't warrant it, then that's just wrong.

 

There was an instance a few years back where the police academy director told his cadets to "Go out there and kick some a**" or something to that affect. What happened to "serve and protect"? Increasingly , it appears that an "us v. them" (police v. citizens) mentality is on the rise. Treat every civilian as a threat, use force to make them submit. Not saying all LE is like that of course, just appears to be a trend.

[mipafox 438]

The militarization of the police is more mental than just giving them an AR and other equipment. People direct/teach the police act like a paramilitary force, not the guns.

 

Yes, it's all right there. It's not the cops, it's the culture. And that comes from above.

[Wojo 98]

30 years ago we had Motorcycle gangs, The Mafia and other organized crime elements that all costs, tried to avoid getting into shoot outs with police. Now, it is more commonplace. The phrase 'suicide by cop' really didn't exist 30 years ago. Some of us in our late 40's, remember 30 years ago, some here weren't born yet. I graduated 30 years ago and used to party like a rock star in Manhattan. Time Square used to be a tough neighborhood, now it is outdoor mall. Newark, was and still is a war zone. The media is fanning a lot of this and blowing it out of proportion.

 

We didn't have active shooters shooting innocent victims but we had hit squads taking out rivals (not exactly innocent bystanders). Small time drug dealers have been replaced by Bloods, Crips and MS-13 organizations doing business. I don't like having a police state, but I also don't like the notion of having all these new threats killing a lot of innocent people. If we don't keep our boots on the necks of this scum, then what? Yes, many LEO's need to learn how to turn it down a notch or two when dealing with the regular public. That sadly is an occupational hazard. Corrections Officers treat everybody like they are convicts...have you ever worked a security detail with those guys? Don't get me started on that one.

 

I do a lot of presentations on Workplace Violence. People fail to realize that when you are a first responder to an incident, you have no way of knowing who the good guys are or who the bad guy is. An employee badge or company dress attire means squat. If you are hiding something, have your hands deep in your pockets and they come out quick when you are told get down, you're going catch a bullet or two.

 

Can things improve? Hell yes. Should everyone have better firearms AND better situational awareness? Damn Straight. Should more people be involved with their communities, churches and other civic events so we are in better touch with each other, of course. Too many (not directed at anyone in particular) go home and live in a vacuum. Too few people know their neighbors next door, never mind a few houses down. We used to. And that works to the advantage of gangs, terrorists, meth-labs, wife beater, pedophiles, etc.

[vjf915 456]

They never use them for that, though. They frequently use them when they kick in your door in the middle of the night because somebody smelled pot outside your house. Just like the Latin Kings do. Who, coincidentally, also yell, "Police!" when they blast their way in.

 

I have no problem with police having rifles. I have a serious problem with all this "gearing up" of police in general, though. They are trying to become a military. Now, if it saves just one cop's life, then it's not worth it. It's not worth it if it saves the lives of a thousand cops. Each police life should be worth very slightly less than each life of a non-sworn citizen. When we get back to that, everybody will support the police and praise their proffession and honor. They are police, not a paramilitary force. Going home safe at night should NOT be the primary concern. Enforcing the law and protecting the citizens from harm (mostly harm by them) should be their primary concern. And, if they kick in my door, I will end up dead. If they knock, I will answer. This **** needs to be turned back about 30 years.

 

But I have no problem with them having rifles. That makes a lot of sense (no sarcasm).

Huh? How is the life of a police officer worth less than the life of a citizen? How is the life of a police officer worth less than a couple dollars worth of taxes out of your pocket? I don't know where the hell you are coming from with all this, but it's just crazy talk man. These men and women put their lives in harms way EVERYDAY. Every single domestic disturbance call they answer, every car they pull over, every door they knock on could be their last. They have a very dangerous occupation, and I really don't think that having rifles capable of stopping some lunatic chasing after your sorry a** is too much for them to ask for.

[mipafox 438]

Huh? How is the life of a police officer worth less than the life of a citizen?

 

I don't know where the hell you are coming from with all this, but it's just crazy talk man. These men and women put their lives in harms way EVERYDAY.

 

No they don't. And, occupationally speaking, it's not even in the top 20 of most dangerous common jobs.

 

That being said, I have a great deal of respect for police because they are willing to, and some get the chance on occasion, and almost all of them do whatever the F it takes when their number is called. Also, they investigate criminals and enforce the law. THAT is their job, it's a tough one, and it's very important. We would have a lawless and dangerous society without them.

 

Do I need to rephrase what I said earlier in order for you to understand it? Because I won't. Just read it again in that context.

 

Every single domestic disturbance call they answer, every car they pull over, every door they knock on could be their last. They have a very dangerous occupation, and I really don't think that having rifles capable of stopping some lunatic chasing after your sorry a** is too much for them to ask for.

 

Where did I say they should not have rifles? I thought I said a few times that they should.

 

My a** is indeed sorry. That is a statement of fact, not an appology. No cop is going to save it (my a**) if some lunatic is chasing me. Do you think if some lunatic is chasing you that some cop will come save you?

[vjf915 456]

My issue is not with whether you believe they deserve rifles or not, that is simply a disagreement of opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, regardless of which side you stand on.

 

My issue is that you stated you don't think it's worth saving one cops life. I made sure I read it several times, and each time you stated that the life of a cop is worth less than that of a citizen. Difference of opinion or not, that certainly doesn't seem like you respect them very much. On top of that, it's very inflammatory to say that ANYONES life is worth more/less than another. I do not believe that ANYONE has a more valuable life than anyone else, and to base it simply on their occupation is even worse.

[stever 16]

call Hillary..plenty of Korean M1 Garand assault weapons out there the PD can use..much too dangerous for us civilians

[Wojo 98]

No they don't. And, occupationally speaking, it's not even in the top 20 of most dangerous common jobs.

 

That being said, I have a great deal of respect for police because they are willing to, and some get the chance on occasion, and almost all of them do whatever the F it takes when their number is called. Also, they investigate criminals and enforce the law. THAT is their job, it's a tough one, and it's very important. We would have a lawless and dangerous society without them.

 

Do I need to rephrase what I said earlier in order for you to understand it? Because I won't. Just read it again in that context. ( This statement SCREAMS I still live at home and am not an adult)

 

Where did I say they should not have rifles? I thought I said a few times that they should.

 

My a** is indeed sorry. That is a statement of fact, not an appology. No cop is going to save it (my a**) if some lunatic is chasing me. Do you think if some lunatic is chasing you that some cop will come save you?

 

Not in the top 20 for FATALITIES because they have vests now... and have radios...and GPS in the cruisers to pinpoint where they are when the call in for back-up... and medical kits in the car that other LEO's can patch them up until EMS arrives. Any idea how many lives are saved yearly because of that vest?... and the new strategies that have been developed because we live in a more violent world? Of course not, you are too busy playing X-Box and haven't spent much time living in the tough arena called REALITY. If that technology wasn't available those numbers would be thru the roof genius. Do us all a favor and remove the ability to call 9-1-1 from your phones so you can live up to your words of never needing that type of assistance.

 

If there was a cop at every intersection to save your fleeing skirt lifted butt, then you would complain there are too many cops. If a lunatic is chasing you, how about you grow a pair and take him down mano a mano style? (translated means hand to hand, not man on man).

 

I really don't mean to be stopping on you like a Drill Sargent, but your logic is FUBAR'ed boy. Your lack of facts or objectivity is making you look like a window licker on the short bus. Think before you type.

[Shane45 807]

The issues are more complex than whats discussed here. An armed society is the correct answer to the active shooter concern. I could care less how much a PD gears up. That is not the problem there either. The real problem is the growing rift of us/them mentality. A PD that fully embraces their community and guards heavily against an above the law, us vs them, guilty until proven innocent mentality can have an Abrhams tank for all I care.

 

On the topic of risk, well thats a location relevent topic. Wanna here about the stains left on the seat of some SW LE that pulled up on a little convoy to have the back doors of a van swing open revealing a Ma-Deuce? How about our own area recent Lakewood PD officer killing? On the flip side of that, wanna here about the several cops I know knocking back 100k a year running other businesses out of their patrol car?

 

Dont think a rifle is needed or relevant. Pace off a Wallmart on your next visit. The dynamic nature of true police work demands a reasonably optioned tool box.

 

Does it concern anyone the FBI bought 20mm sniper rifles?

 

 

 

Edited for gramatical clarity and typos.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

The issues are more complex than whats discussed here. An armed society is the correct answer to the active shooter concern. I could care less how much a PD gears up. That is not the problem there either. The real problem there is the growing rift of us/them mentality. A PD that fully embaces their community and guards heavily against an above the law, us vs them, guilty until proven incnocent mentality and they can have an Abrhams tank for all I care.

 

On the topic of risk, well thats a location relevent topic. Wanna here about the stains left on the seat of some SW LE that pulled up on a little convoy to have the back doors of a van swing open revealing a Ma-Deuce? How about our own area recent Lakewood PD officer killing? On the flip side of that, wanna here about the several cops I know knocking back 100k a year running other businesses out of their patrol car?

 

Dont think a rifle is needed or relevant. Pace off a Wallmart on your next visit. The dynamic nature of true police work demands a reasonably optioned tool box.

 

Does it concern anyone the FBI bought 20mm sniper rifles?

 

 

What a waste of money, who needs a 20mm sniper rifle? Oh wait... the FBI apparently does. :-(

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Why do they need rifles anyways? If they're not going to pay for the training to use them, and they end up collecting dust in the back of a patrol car, then why bother?

 

Also: are police even held to the standards of the NJ Assault Weapons ban? I mean, if it having a pinned/welded muzzle brake, 15 round magazine capacity, and no collapsible stock is good enough for us, it's good enough for them.

[bulpup 98]

I had no idea there are so many anti's on this board.

[Wojo 98]

FWIW, the FBI trains their people A LOT more then the locals do. FBI Agents have to qualify 4 times a year whether you push a pencil or are part of the HRT / Hostage Recovery Team. Yes the special operators get more advanced training then the intel geeks, but even the rank and file agents are more proficient then your average Joe Friday. I get to have some training every year down at their Fort Dix facility and they have some neat simulators inside that will get your adrenaline elevated is all I can tell you.

[Shane45 807]

I dont care what the FBI has. I hope its reciprocal . And as far as local, I KNOW I have better stuff