Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nassau PBA, commissioner spar over assault rifles for patrol officers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by incognito View Post

    So from the 50,000 feet level you agree that my gut feeling that 3 full days of training is over the top...for everyone? And not enough for others?

    So how do you short cut the training and the roll out? By training for the deficiencies only or enhancing training already given.

    I proposed a written test as one element covering all the nitty-gritty details you guys are talking about. Did I once suggest that no new tactics training was needed? Nope.

    Did I suggest that it was a static proficiency test? Nope.

    Did I mention the quality of the instructors or testers? No again. Pardon me for not belaboring that the instructors would need to be on a pre-approved list.

    As far as the former military guy...I assume that he already got the memo that he is not in a combat zone and he can't call in for air support.



    I answered that already: If he wants to play by the bureaucratic rules and delay being better equipped by months, that would be his choice.
    Why? To increase his odds at saving his own ass so he gets to spend more decades with his family/hobbies while the brass and PBA kick it around.
    Statistically, it is not me or my family at risk, its the LE on the street with the higher risk.

    I don't want LE to be equally armed. I want LE to be significantly better armed.
    You bring up some age-old, but good questions. Training a group of people in anything has its problems, as everyone has different learning abilities and skills. As a teacher or instructor, you try to find a place where you don't lose your slowest, but don't bore your more advanced. If you try to group people by skill level - your overtime budget will go through the roof, and to have some patrol officers trained 'better' than others will just kill you in lawsuits and are decisions made well above the instructor's pay grade.

    While I'd LOVE to have 40 hours to teach patrol rifles - the more (good) training the better - I think 24 hours on basic patrol rifle is unnecessary. I think an intensive, 16 hour basic course is more than enough, backed with more training and testing 2 or 3 times a year.
    Written tests are......ok, but practical application tests in a stressful environment is better. Talking about transitioning to handgun is bit different than doing it, with heavy plate carriers on, slings in the way and rifles banging into your knees, a former Marine/instructor screaming and throwing gravel at you while you're trying to run, kneel, communicate, shoot, etc.

    Instructors have to be LE certified patrol rifle instructors by the state or (preferably) feds.

    Again, the VAST majority of former military people are only basically trained in rifles. Your average police recruit has never even shot a hunting rifle. A very few were in the military. Out of those who were, only a very few where in the infantry or other combat arms unit. Lastly, figure it usually takes several years from the time you take a police test to the time you get into an academy - so you have a tiny of percentage of police recruits who had some training with an M16/M4, several years before. Not exactly something that would hold up in court if a stray .223 round went through a wall 2 blocks away and hit granny.

    I understand that you still want LEO's to get training on their own time - then get reimbursed. I asked you if they should do that with all of their weapons, but you did not answer. I asked if they should do that for emergency driving courses - you didn't answer that either. Should they pay out of their own pocket to learn about the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc. amendments? CPR? The use of Narcan or a defibrillator. And I disagree, I don't have the stats, but I think non-LEO's have been the victim of long arms more than LEO' s have been. When an officer drives to the scene of a active shooting, gets out of his car, grabs a rifle and runs into the fray - that's not to save himself. It's to try to save you and your family. HE should pay for that training?

    "The Open Carry guy is my decoy."

    Comment


      #77
      Dan,

      Non-LEOs, victims, are mostly trying to survive an active shooter. Most non-LEOs are not trying to neutralize the active shooter. The possibility that I would need to try to neutralize an active shooter is zero for all practical purposes. I don't carry a police carbine in my trunk just in case. I don't need or want that training.

      I doubt the average veteran on the force ever thought they might be called upon to neutralize an active shooter when they signed up.
      That has changed. Now the possibility, however minute, is real.
      I've been taught that the first consideration in any rescue situation is to avoid creating another victim in need of rescue, yourself.

      So, if I were to choose to be a front line LEO as a career, I would be in better physical condition, I might take martial arts training, I might run a few miles a week, I might do weight training, I might spend extra time at the range, I might ride my bicycle a few times a week, swim, etc. If my employer reimbursed the cost of my gym membership and I went there on my own time, that would seem like fair compensation to me.

      If I got reimbursed to CHOOSE to be the best I could be, rather than at the other end of the spectrum, that seems fine to me.

      Learning about the bill of rights is not going to preserve my life like police carbine training might. I have no knowledge base about the other weapons and their use, so I cannot fairly address your question.

      My position from my first post has not changed. I would CHOOSE to spend some of my own time for my own safety. I would not CHOOSE to wait for a slow moving or frozen bureaucracy to schedule my training to protect my ass in this new world. i would prioritize the training and conditioning needed based on the risk to my life while on duty.

      I was never a union guy. I was a salaried employee most of my career. I put in 50 to 60 hours a week without extra pay on a regular basis. I read professional magazines at home at night while watching television to keep myself current. I have seen firemen study for promotional exams at the beach, on their own time. It is called homework. The successful self-employed among us likely do more. I guess we come from two different worlds.
      ANY violation by ANY person of ANY provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor. - NYPL §400.00(15)
      Conspiracy in the sixth degree is a class B misdemeanor. - NYPL §105.00

      Comment


        #78
        So you spend an hour of your time in the gym then maybe a self defense classes few times a week because you sure as shit going to come across more fight and force scenarios then you ever will active shooters. Maybe you also study for promotional exams hour a day ( that is for a promotion and benefits you financially) Work a shift have semi normal family life children's activities family functions only s many hours in a day and lots of people would not choose putting much of their down-time into work stuff. Training on own time also needs to be prioritized.

        Comment


          #79
          Originally posted by incognito View Post
          Dan,

          Non-LEOs, victims, are mostly trying to survive an active shooter.....
          OK, we're on two different wave lengths, for sure. We DO seem to come from 2 different worlds, but it doesn't sound like we agree on which worlds they are.

          In MY world, in the Marine Corps and other places, you were given a task - and the tools and training to do that task. You were not mandated to do a task that could get you killed and told to find the training on your own time and your own dime. That's absurd. OF COURSE you did stuff on your own that could inevitably help you accomplish that task. You worked out, you went to the range, etc. But if a soldier decided not to charge a machinegun nest with just his KABAR knife, he didn't get in trouble for it. His name wasn't put all over the news and called a coward - like what happened in Parkland when that officer didn't rush into the school building with his pistol against an AR15. He was expected to and his rules and regulations demanded it.

          One of the main ways we differ is that, to me, this isn't about studying for a promotional exam or going to classes and getting reimbursed by your job - to eventually move up the ranks and make the job better(tuition reimbursement). This is about mandating someone to risk their lives and not giving them the best tools to do it. The tools are bought, paid for and sitting in a locked room for years, but because the company doesn't want to pay overtime, they just sit there and make the officer - and the public - less safe. This is about leaving safety, risking your life to try to save strangers.

          Without getting into specifics, I think it's obvious to most that an rifle in a gun battle is better than a pistol. It will allow an officer to engage further, possibly through barriers, hit smaller targets, etc. And while an officer is mandated to run in, there is no mandate to be stupid and take even more risk. A rifle can greatly enhance everyone's survivability.

          "Learning about the bill of rights is not going to preserve my life like police carbine training might. I have no knowledge base about the other weapons and their use, so I cannot fairly address your question."

          You surely don't need a knowledge base in an officer's weapons to answer the questions.

          Learning about the Bill of Rights will keep an officer from false arrests or from deadly confrontations with people who do know their rights as the officer tries to illegally take them away for the wrong reasons - so YES, an officer needs to know Rights that can keep him safe, the public safe and him from being sued, your taxes going up due to lawsuits, and the officer losing his livelihood. Who pays for that training?
          MANY people are saved each year by officers doing CPR - who pays for that training?
          MANY more people are saved each year by officers using a defibrillator - who pays for that training?
          Officers protect themselves and others with a Taser - who pays?
          A baton -who pays?
          Pepper spray training - who pays?
          Emergency Driver training - who pays?
          Patrol Rifle training - who pays?

          As long as you keep replying without answering these simple questions, I'll keep asking.

          ALL of this training can save lives - officers and citizens alike. But you choose patrol rifles as the line where officers should pay to get trained on their own time.

          "The successful self-employed among us likely do more. I guess we come from two different worlds."

          We do come from different worlds. I've never been self-employed. I knew from a very young age I wanted to be in the service of my country and community. And I've seldom seen self-employed people 'do more' or give more than my time in the Marines and PD.
          Last edited by Dan 0351; 09-10-2019, 09:57 AM.
          "The Open Carry guy is my decoy."

          Comment


            #80
            I think all police should be equally trained regardless of their duty roll (i.e. on the street or in the office). In a SHTF it will be all hands on deck.

            As someone before stated, many didn't join the police expected to be in an active shooter scenario. But the landscape has changed. Can't deny that.

            And as a taxpayer, I'm OK with reimbursing a LEO for taking the training on their own time.
            I am not armed out of fear of who's in front of me.
            I am armed out of love of those behind me.

            Anyone who says money doesn't matter to them is either a FOOL or a LIAR or BOTH!

            Comment


              #81
              [QUOTE=incognito;n465635]

              So ...

              As far as the former military guy...I assume that he already got the memo that he is not in a combat zone and he can't call in for air support.

              ...

              Actually, police call in air support all the time.

              ...but point taken.

              Comment


                #82
                Originally posted by Dan 0351 View Post

                ...

                But if a soldier decided not to charge a machinegun nest with just his KABAR knife, he didn't get in trouble for it. His name wasn't put all over the news and called a coward - like what happened in Parkland when that officer didn't rush into the school building with his pistol against an AR15. He was expected to and his rules and regulations demanded it.

                ...
                What if that soldier didn't use his sidearm to try to save the life of a fellow soldier? I doubt he'd get a warm welcome back at the barracks.

                The Parkland officer should have had access to a rifle, but he should have tried to save the lives of his charges anyway.

                Comment


                  #83
                  Originally posted by Range Time View Post

                  What if that soldier didn't use his sidearm to try to save the life of a fellow soldier? I doubt he'd get a warm welcome back at the barracks.

                  The Parkland officer should have had access to a rifle, but he should have tried to save the lives of his charges anyway.
                  I agree that the Parkland officer should have done a lot more than he did, but there's a line where you can effectively respond with the equipment you have - hence my example of a soldier with a knife vs. an MG nest. In Parkland, I don't think the shooter entered a single classroom (a teacher's lounge, but no classrooms). He shot from the hallway into classrooms and down the halls - killing many, including some pretty far shots. An officer with handgun would have had to be a SuperCop or extremely lucky to get into a 30, 40 or 50 yard gunfight against an AR15 and survive.

                  Here's a couple of examples. Green is students, Yellow is wounded, Blue is dead. First person hit to the last person hit was less than 4 minutes. 34 shot, 17 of them died.

                  Parkland Animation Still 2.png



                  Parkland Animation Still 4.jpg
                  Last edited by Dan 0351; 09-10-2019, 11:08 PM.
                  "The Open Carry guy is my decoy."

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by Dan 0351 View Post

                    I agree that the Parkland officer should have done a lot more than he did, but there's a line where you can effectively respond with the equipment you have - hence my example of a soldier with a knife vs. an MG nest. In Parkland, I don't think the shooter entered a single classroom (a teacher's lounge, but no classrooms). He shot from the hallway into classrooms and down the halls - killing many, including some pretty far shots. An officer with handgun would have had to be a SuperCop or extremely lucky to get into a 30, 40 or 50 yard gunfight against an AR15 and survive.

                    Here's a couple of examples. Green is students, Yellow is wounded, Blue is dead. First person hit to the last person hit was less than 4 minutes. 34 shot, 17 of them died.

                    Parkland Animation Still 2.png



                    Parkland Animation Still 4.jpg
                    True, but I submit that a trained cop wouldn't get in a gunfight with the killer.

                    A smart cop would peek through the stairwell door, wait for the shooting to start, note whether it went chips from the wall at the near end of the hall, then lean out (or use cover) to take at least one shot. Maybe you but the killer, and he stops shooting. Maybe he kills himself when faced with resistance.

                    Will that course of action work in every situation? No. Might it have worked in this one? Yes. Would it work better than doing nothing and minimize the chance of the cop getting shot while doing it? Absolutely.
                    ​​​​​​

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Originally posted by Range Time View Post

                      That's why they should sell them to law-abiding citizens...
                      In freer states like Texas!
                      Retired and loving it.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Originally posted by Range Time View Post

                        True, but I submit that a trained cop wouldn't get in a gunfight with the killer.

                        A smart cop would peek through the stairwell door, wait for the shooting to start, note whether it went chips from the wall at the near end of the hall, then lean out (or use cover) to take at least one shot. Maybe you but the killer, and he stops shooting. Maybe he kills himself when faced with resistance.

                        Will that course of action work in every situation? No. Might it have worked in this one? Yes. Would it work better than doing nothing and minimize the chance of the cop getting shot while doing it? Absolutely.
                        ​​​​​​
                        I'm surly not going to get into all the possible nuances and scenarios that could/would happen and what tactics might work - I just pointed out the Parkland shooting because a rifle may have been a excellent tool for an officer engaging this murderer in the long hallways. Having to take a 40 yard pistol shot at a guy with a rifle, sucks. And every time you miss, he's shooting several others.
                        "The Open Carry guy is my decoy."

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Originally posted by Range Time View Post

                          What's the Fed standard for handguns? I find it hard to believe they qualify four times per year.

                          SCPD qualifies once per year; the NYPD qualifies twice. Why would twice per year not be enough for rifles, which they will be using only when stopping a threat is the paramount concern (as opposed to a patrol handgun, when protecting the public is the paramount concern).
                          The agencies by which I was employed all qualified four times per year. They were the Border patrol, Customs patrol, Customs Office of Investigations, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Investigations), Immigration & Customs Enforcement (Investigations) and Homeland Security Investigations (after my agency changed its name so as not to include ICE because of the low esteem ICE gets). I also worked many details with the Secret Service and one with the Federal Air Marshals - I believe they also qualified at least four times per year. I cannot speak for other federal agencies.
                          Retired and loving it.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            One of the reasons LE needs to do their own training is so that officers act, or are more likely to act, uniformly with their firearms in a given situation. Outside training would likely not meet the standards to accomplish such unless a government watchdog agency oversaw that training - there is a big expense right there. There also are the legal issues others already have mentioned. LE training also helps assure that parts of the training other than proficiency with firearms is addressed such as rules and regulations regarding use of force and so on. Training by an officers department/agency also assures weapons meet the standards of the agency or department and that ammo being utilized is standard issue. It also allows the opportunity for maintenance to be done and certified and for inventories to be taken.

                            When I was with the Customs Office of Investigations (pre-2003 when the U.S. Customs Service was abolished and please do not confuse Customs & Border Protection with the U.S. Customs Service - they are not one and the same) we at first were all trained on rifle & shotgun in addition to our handguns. Over the ears that changed and we then had the option of qualifying with longarms. I think for a bit it went back to being mandatory but was soon made optional again. When it came to the MP-5 submachine gun, things were a bit different. If you wanted to be issued an sub-gun, you had to maintain at least 90% proficiency with your handguns. If already a firearms instructor you did not magically become an MP-5; as best I can recall, you had to maintain a 90% proficiency with the MP-5 and attend an MP-5 instructor course which was at least 5 days long (maybe longer but memory fails me as that was quite awhile back and the way-back machine does not always make it that far back). I believe that later on, in order to carry a rifle, one needed to attain a high percentage of proficiency with handguns like for the MP-5. That training, for both the MP-5 and burst fire rifles necessitated agency training and if you do not understand why, just try taking a burst fire gun to the range in NY on your personal time, they had a shit fit when I pulled out mine in Brookhaven (although once they found out it was legal and I'd only fire it semi-auto two of the ROs asked me if they could shoot it - no they could not). Back to Customs, at one point in there, it was the policy to have so many people in each group be assigned a longarm. If I remember right, it was not more than two agents in each group except for the tactical response teams in which I think every agent was assigned one (after my time as a range officer).

                            Now I have not mentioned it yet; so will bring it up now. Have you even been to the Nassau County Rife & Pistol Range on a day that a LE agency or department is training there? If so you may have noticed the windows to the range they are using are covered over so you cannot see into the range. Why do they do that? They do it because there is another reason LE officers are trained by their departments and agencies that absolutely does not allow for outside training to be involved. Maybe someone else mentioned it before me and I missed it but if that is the case allow me to mention it again. LE is trained not only how to be proficient with weapons but also how to be proficient in certain tactics that LE departments & agencies do not want to divulge. Doing such at public ranges, or private ranges, wherein private instructors have been given those tactics would be ludicrous as far as operational security goes.
                            Retired and loving it.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Originally posted by Dan 0351 View Post

                              I'm surly not going to get into all the possible nuances and scenarios that could/would happen and what tactics might work - I just pointed out the Parkland shooting because a rifle may have been a excellent tool for an officer engaging this murderer in the long hallways. Having to take a 40 yard pistol shot at a guy with a rifle, sucks. And every time you miss, he's shooting several others.
                              Yeah. Sorry. When you mentioned that guy, I couldn't let it go.

                              Comment


                                #90
                                Originally posted by Glenn B View Post

                                The agencies by which I was employed all qualified four times per year. They were the Border patrol, Customs patrol, Customs Office of Investigations, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Investigations), Immigration & Customs Enforcement (Investigations) and Homeland Security Investigations (after my agency changed its name so as not to include ICE because of the low esteem ICE gets). I also worked many details with the Secret Service and one with the Federal Air Marshals - I believe they also qualified at least four times per year. I cannot speak for other federal agencies.
                                Interesting. I wonder if it's only fed who qualify quarterly, and why.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X