TexasCHLforum.com

Did anyone catch the news on fox.com yesterday about how Phoenix police high up's are denying their officers the option to have and use ar's.

Shouldn't AR type rifles be a SWAT only type of weapon? The militarization of our police force concerns many.

TheArmedFarmer wrote:Shouldn't AR type rifles be a SWAT only type of weapon? The militarization of our police force concerns many.

That might make sense if only SWAT officers had to deal with offenders armed with long guns. From the reports I've seen on this, in Phoenix, as well as in many other areas, that's not the case.

Patrol officers often find themselves in high threat situations where the the range, accuracy, and power of the guns they face is significantly superior to their own. When you do this day after day, you tend to think about how likely it is you can keep getting away with this for the remainder of a 25 year career and still come out alive.

If the equipment in question were mortars or hand grenades, I could see a militarization concern. However, since AR's are OK for any citizen to own, I don't see a similar issue with police officers owning and using the same type of gun you and I can purchase at will.

Excaliber wrote:However, since AR's are OK for any citizen to own, I don't see a similar issue with police officers owning and using the same type of gun you and I can purchase at will.

That is a very powerful argument. Thanks!

Excaliber wrote:However, since AR's are OK for any citizen to own, I don't see a similar issue with police officers owning and using the same type of gun you and I can purchase at will.

But they can own and use the same type of gun you and I can purchase at will. On their own time.

When they're at work they have to follow their employer's policy if they want to keep their job.

tarkus wrote:

Excaliber wrote:However, since AR's are OK for any citizen to own, I don't see a similar issue with police officers owning and using the same type of gun you and I can purchase at will.

But they can own and use the same type of gun you and I can purchase at will. On their own time.

When they're at work they have to follow their employer's policy if they want to keep their job.

This rather heavy handed approach to mandating that officers ignore their safety and restrict themselves to guns with firepower that's inferior to that commonly used by the offenders they face is, quite honestly, hard for me to understand and wouldn't work in the real world.

Police executives know that experienced officers are valuable assets, and are not shackled to an agency. If a department's policies repeatedly place officers at high risk of being seriously injured or killed, officers will seek employment with more enlightened agencies who are more than happy to hire them with their training and street experience. Experience shows that the best leave first. Both retention and recruitment in the "donor" agency will suffer. So will staffing levels, response times, arrests, clearance rates, complaints, and hard dollar training costs. The hiring agency experiences commensurate upgrades in those areas at sharply reduced costs, and the "donor" agency becomes known as the training ground for the county.

The patrol rifle is very widely accepted as a necessary piece of equipment in today's law enforcement environment. Phoenix police management apparently agrees. The news report I saw stated that Phoenix has 300 AR's on order for delivery at the end of Q2 2009. When you dig into the issues in the articles, it appears there are 2:

1. The agency is concerned that some underperforming officers may not use the rifles safely and they want to establish some criteria for who gets them and who doesn't. As the former head of firearms training for a 200 officer agency, I can attest that this is a valid concern, and there are lots of good policies in place in other agencies that they could copy.

2. The officers are concerned that six more months without necessary equipment poses an unacceptable risk to them. This is also a valid concern when you put your life on the line every day- six months is a long time in an active urban jurisdiction. However, in today's high demand / low supply environment for anything remotely connected with AR's, six months may well be the best that can be done for an order of that size. Authorizing use of privately purchased weapons may be a way around some of that.

It's in the agency's and the community's best interest to work together with the officers to put this to bed pretty quickly.

If a company has the right to prohibit its employees from having a firearm at work then a PD has the right to limit the firearms its employees have at work.

People argue a CHL can work somewhere else if they don't like the policy. Same here. A LEO can work somewhere else if they don't like the policy.

boomerang wrote:If a company has the right to prohibit its employees from having a firearm at work then a PD has the right to limit the firearms its employees have at work.

People argue a CHL can work somewhere else if they don't like the policy. Same here. A LEO can work somewhere else if they don't like the policy.

Police agencies can (and almost all do) restrict on duty weapons to certain makes, models, calibers, etc. for effectiveness and liability reasons. In most cases, these choices are well thought out and generally accepted by most officers who work there. Occasionally circumstances come up to suggest that a change might be needed, and the driving initiative for this often starts with the rank and file and gets percolated up through the command ranks for consideration.

The second point is most certainly true, as I outlined in my earlier post below. However, a factor that may be overlooked here is that the high portability of police job skills makes moving to another agency a pretty easy thing to do. Most officers are not "trapped" in their jobs, as many in the civilian world are due to limited opportunities in their field.

Departments give a lot of thought to their salary, working conditions, benefits, etc. to maintain competitive standing with other nearby agencies and retain as many of their personnel as they can. Any agency that gets seriously out of line with others in its area can quickly dig itself into a personnel drain quagmire that can take several painful years and a lot of money to turn around.

I agree that our officers need to have the proper equipment to do their job to the best of their ability. There are times in this day and age where more than handgun in needed to get the job done. To be honest I believe the AR a better backup than a 12 gauge. Better precision, more rounds, less time between shots, and lighter weight. The 12ga has been a back up for years, but if you can't hit it with a pistol what makes you think a 12ga is going to do the trick unless they are at a very short distance.

RECIT wrote:I agree that our officers need to have the proper equipment to do their job to the best of their ability. There are times in this day and age where more than handgun in needed to get the job done. To be honest I believe the AR a better backup than a 12 gauge. Better precision, more rounds, less time between shots, and lighter weight. The 12ga has been a back up for years, but if you can't hit it with a pistol what makes you think a 12ga is going to do the trick unless they are at a very short distance.

The 12 gauge is a devastating weapon close up, and with slugs it retains that capability out to 50 yards and beyond with good accuracy. It is markedly superior to a pistol out to these ranges if the tactical environment allows proper movement with a weapon of this size.

However, as RECIT points out, the AR is more versatile and is rapidly becoing the standard for both entry teams and patrol rifle applications for the reasons he cites: more precise shot placement, more rounds available, quicker follow up shots, and lighter weight.

Since it spits out single projectiles, it is immune to the shot spread liabilities that must be taken into account when shotguns loaded with pellet containing shells are fired beyond 7 yards.

Also, since the AR is essentially a modular weapon system, it is easy to customize it for particular tactical usage with short barrels, illuminated sights, folding stocks, flashlights, etc. These things can be fitted to shotguns too, but it's generally easier on the AR platform.

For those who are not familiar with incidents where police rifles were needed, here are a couple of cases that might be of interest:

FBI Shootout - Miami

5 agents dead, 2 wounded by suspect during felony stop for multiple violent bank robberies. Suspect firing a .223 caliber Mini-14 rifle after being fatally (but nondynamically) wounded by agents' gunfire

FBI Miami Shootout - Quick Overview

FBI Shootout - Focus: Medical Aspects

This incident led to the adoption of .40 caliber service pistols and long guns (MP5's and AR15's) as the agents' issued service weapons. The MP5 is now out of favor, and in most incidents requiring long guns, agents use AR-15's.

North Hollywood Bank Robbery

2 suspects firing full auto AK-47's and body armor held up a bank and engaged LAPD officers. 10 officers and 7 civilians wounded. Pistol fire was ineffective against suspects' body armor. Officers commandeered AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer to obtain the firepower necessary to engage the suspects. Suspects fired 1100 rounds. Officers fired 650. The AR-15 is now standard issue to all LAPD officers, as it is in many other departments.

North Hollywood Bank Robbery - Overview

N Hollywood Bank Robbery video 1

I personally know rifle equipped officers who have been engaged by suspects firing rifles from covered positions during investigations and arrests in cases that were resolved successfully with no injuries to police.

I hope this information helps folks not familiar with the conditions officers face on the street to understand the need for AR's in the hands of initial responders.

Excaliber,

Presumably, "under performing" officers are those that can't handle firearms safely and/or can't shoot accurately with a rifle.

If that's the case, can't these same officers be trained to be safe and accurate?

If not, should they be in the field? Or is this a union problem or something along those lines?

Or, am I way off base?

Thanks

Abraham wrote:Excaliber,

Presumably, "under performing" officers are those that can't handle firearms safely and/or can't shoot accurately with a rifle.

If that's the case, can't these same officers be trained to be safe and accurate?

If not, should they be in the field? Or is this a union problem or something along those lines?

Or, am I way off base?

Thanks

You're asking some good questions here. Unfortunately they have uncomfortable answers. Here's the story as I see it:

Police officers are not another species - they come from the same general population that all other employees do.

A small but significant minority of officers, just like some CHL holders, are only marginally competent with their handguns. They can pass an annual qualification, usually with a lot of coaching, but they don't do anything to maintain skills on their own, and therefore never advance beyond what is essentially a beginner's level. This is good enough to stay employed, but not good enough to let the Chief or the training commander sleep well at night.

When I ran the training for my department, I had no hesitation about disqualifying 1 or 2 officers a year from street duty if they couldn't pass our rather challenging firearms qualifications. They were offered remedial training, and all were able to upgrade their skills to meet the standards. If they hadn't, they would have been looking at termination.

Some people are just not internally motivated to do anything beyond the minimum required in any line of work, and police work is no different. It is challenging for an agency to keep these folks' handgun skills at an acceptable level for protection of the officers and the public, and avoidance of unacceptable liability. The addition of a second and very different weapon system in the form of a patrol rifle multiplies the training challenges and risks. A news photo of a female officer armed with a patrol rifle on the perimeter of an active shooting scene a few months back captured the issue painfully well - the nationally published photo clearly showed her AR15 magazine was inserted in the magazine well backwards. She probably (and deservedly) earned a nickname that will stick with her from that one.

Departments that have substantial resources may be able to dedicate the training and support required to qualify nearly everyone with a patrol rifle. This is ideal, but it requires a robust budget that is not found in many agencies.

Some departments have dealt with this situation by authorizing individual officers to use patrol rifles on duty after they have demonstrated competence and safety with the weapon in a demanding qualification course. This puts the burden on the officers to learn the weapon system and become proficient with it on their own. Only well motivated officers will go through the trouble and expense to do this.

This approach allows officers who want to deploy with the patrol rifle to do so, and eliminates the issue of trying to train folks who are not interested in learning and would present what the agency feels would be an unacceptable risk of an ND or misuse of the rifle on the street if they were required to deploy with it.

Deployment of patrol rifles has to be done responsibly and carefully to protect the officers from criminal attack, the public from undue harm and the agency from unnecessary liability. It's not as simple as it might appear. It requires a lot of forethought and a bunch of difficult choices that look easy until you're the guy that has to take the heat for any untoward results.