Pajamas Media » Cops May Get Assault Weapons in Chicagostan

Cops May Get Assault Weapons in Chicagostan

Arming officers with assault rifles would make Chicago look like a developing nation. Why won't Chicago's mayor just let citizens defend themselves?

May 3, 2008 - by Bob Owens

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

Fifty-four shootings in two weekends. Shot-up bodies recovered in groups of three and five. Is this Ramadi? Basra? No.

Welcome to Chicago.

After a recent outbreak of gun-related violence, Mayor Richard Daley is now pushed into supporting a plan by new Police Superintendent Jody Weis to arm 13,000 Chicago police officers with assault rifles. Depending on how many weapons are eventually deployed, this may develop into the largest militarization of police patrol officers in United States history. If the department arms 10,000 of their officers with M4s, the police will have 9,900 more assault rifles in Chicago than the U.S. Marines presently have in Fallujah, Iraq.

The plan is still in preliminary stages and the cost and logistics of supplying the rifles, associated magazines, optics, accessories, and ammunition are still up in the air. Also undefined is how the Chicago PD is going to be able to train their officers to use their new weapons in an urban environment without becoming a greater threat to civilians than the city’s criminal element.

The rifle tentatively chosen for deployment is a semi-automatic version of the M4 carbine. The M4 is a more compact variant of the M16 rifle used by the American military since the Vietnam War era. The M4 features a shorter barrel (14.5 inches versus 20 inches for the M16) and a multi-position collapsible stock. Many companies make variants of the M4, and the Chicago PD should be able to obtain M4-type rifles for between $600 and $1,100 per unit, depending upon manufacturer and specifications. Modern military variants of the M4 rarely use iron sights as their primary way of aiming the weapon, and instead use various optical sights, which enable soldiers to acquire their targets more quickly. The EOTech holographic weapon sight and the Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight (ACOG) are among the most prevalent, and range in price from $300 to $900 or more. Outfitting the police force with M4 carbines equipped for optical sights will cost the City of Chicago millions of dollars even before factoring in the cost of magazines, spare parts, other necessary accessories, ammunition, initial training, and periodic recertification. The police department will also probably need to hire or contract additional armorers as well to keep the weapons system operational.

Even the most basic rifle training is going to cost a day’s pay per officer, range staff, targets, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and cleaning costs. Estimate the salary costs conservatively at $160 per officer per day, and you’re looking at salary training costs of over $2 million just for introductory familiarization with the weapons system and another $338,000 in ammunition costs (based upon a bare minimum of 200 rounds per officer at a cost of $130/1000 rounds and 13,000 officers). As ammunition prices continue to go upward, due in part to increased police demand, the cost of rifle ammunition in periodic weapons recertification will continue to rise.

Mayor Daley and new police superintendent Jody Weis are planning on spending millions of dollars to start their militarization of the Chicago PD, and they’ll encounter recurring costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for maintenance and training as part of their plan to turn Chicago into Gaza on the Calumet.

At this point, we don’t know precisely how many M4 systems Weis is suggesting the CPD needs. If Weis is suggesting that every patrol officer be armed only while on patrol and the rifles will be transferred from one shift of officers to another, the CPD could conceivably get away with purchasing perhaps as few as 2,000 M4 optics-equipped carbines at a minimum outlay near $2 million. If Weis instead envisions issuing M4s one per officer, as departments typically do with handguns, then we’re looking at in excess of 10,000 M4 rifles at roughly $9 million, assuming that at least 3,000 non-patrol officers will not be issued the carbines. The figures assume a per-rifle-plus-optics unit cost of about $900. If the CPD opts for more expensive carbines or options, individual unit prices can easily exceed $1,500 per weapon. The initial outlay would range between $3 and $15 million.

These are just estimates of the physical costs of initiating the militarization of the Chicago PD, and it will be very interesting to see how Superintendent Weis and Mayor Daley intend to pay for the recurring training and maintenance costs of continuing such a program, which could take up hundreds of thousands of dollars in the police budget each year.

There is a distinct public safety risk to the citizens of Chicago if the police department does not adequately train CPD officers in the proper use of these weapons. Military-style carbines provide police officers greatly increased range, penetration, and roughly double the number of rounds per magazine than handguns currently approved for department use. While potentially advantageous for the officers in a violent encounter, the increase in firepower increases the possibility of more bullets being fired at a greater range during police gun battles with criminals, and a greater potential for civilian casualties as a result.

More than a half-dozen of America’s top shooting schools were contacted in an attempt to determine what the minimum level of training should be for officers carrying military-style semi-automatic carbines in urban areas. None has chosen to respond on the record. One trainer, a former federal law enforcement officer, would only respond if his organization and name were not used. He indicated that the level of police training in general was “not nearly as good as most people think it is” and suggested that while it was certainly possible that the Chicago Police Department could train their officers to become technically proficient in the use of carbines, he wondered openly if the CPD would expend the necessary energy and money in order to keep their officers at a high level of training. Federal law enforcement agencies issued similar weapons often qualify quarterly, and most SWAT units issued similar weapons practice on a continual basis. Soldiers are required to qualify semi-annually with the M4/M16, in addition to continual and specialized weapons training for combat-oriented military specialties.

As an idea advanced to the public without a developed plan, the proposal of arming the Chicago PD with military-style M4 carbines should be viewed as a potentially dangerous knee-jerk response to the failure of Chicago government in stopping gang-related violence. Arming rank-and-file police officers with assault-style rifles is an unsettling precedent for American law enforcement, echoing the often-failed police forces of developing nations.

Perhaps instead of up-gunning the police, it is time for Chicago to admit its strict anti-gun laws have failed, and perhaps rescind mandates that only disarm Chicago’s law-abiding citizens in the face of increasing violent criminal activity. Mayor Daley is unlikely to see that logic, however. For him and those like him, guns in the hands of citizens are the problem, not the cure.

It is an irony lost on a man intent on turning his police force into a respectable third-world army, and his city into Chicagostan, Gaza on Lake Michigan.

Bob Owens blogs at Confederate Yankee.

116 Comments

1. Big City Boy:

Interesting story, but it may be that Second Amendment Orthodoxy depends on where you come from. I wonder if the blogger of Confederate Yankee has spent much time living in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles. That changes your perspective on the Second Amendment a bit. In the big city land of driveby killings, it’s not quite so simple as everyone having their own weapons to defend themselves. That’s fine in the country, but in the urban megalopolis we may have outgrown this. Think Blade Runner.

May 3, 2008 - 10:59 am 2. P. Ami:

@Big City Boy,
Perhaps fiction isn’t the best foil in a comparative analysis. Do you mean that the Second Amendment wasn’t meant for urban living? Perhaps the freedom of the press was only meant for the small movable type presses of the 18th century? Certainly not this new fangled and out of control internet form of press.I suggest we put forward an amendment to the Bill of Rights that they aught only apply to cities and towns the size of Philadelphia circa 1790. Would that avoid the Blade Runner scenario?

Don’t take my following points too seriously as I don’t have the time and current access to find the name of the author or a book written by him in which he discusses the figures which point to shrinking violence when people know that any civilian might be armed.

I grew up and lived in LA plus I’ve lived in NYC. Neither of those experiences created a perspective in which I feel that citizens should not have the ability to defend themselves to the fullest extent of their Constitutionally protected right. Driveby shootings and various other violent crimes are generally committed by criminals with weapons they obtain on the black market. How about you stop coming up with excuses to take away our Constitutionally protected freedoms.

May 3, 2008 - 11:39 am 3. MikeT:

Interesting story, but it may be that Second Amendment Orthodoxy depends on where you come from. I wonder if the blogger of Confederate Yankee has spent much time living in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles. That changes your perspective on the Second Amendment a bit. In the big city land of driveby killings, it’s not quite so simple as everyone having their own weapons to defend themselves. That’s fine in the country, but in the urban megalopolis we may have outgrown this. Think Blade Runner.

You are also more likely to fall victim to violent crime in one of those urban megalopolii than you are in the country. It is far more necessary for a woman living in D.C. to carry a firearm into town at night for her protection than for a woman living in rural Virginia to do the same at night. The reality is that the crime problems in major cities actually makes the need for law-abiding citizens to be able to be armed in public MORE necessary there than it is in rural towns.

May 3, 2008 - 12:04 pm 4. Marsouin:

Why won’t Chicago’s mayor just let citizens defend themselves?

Simple, like the people here in DC, the citizens don’t want freedom more than they love their children. The violent ghetto will be with us for many generations to come.

May 3, 2008 - 12:17 pm 5. Jason X:

The M4? Unreliable and too much over penetration. What’s wrong with the HK MP5? With hollow points this weapon has proven itself very effective in close quarter, urban environments and is not nearly the cost, per unit, of the M4. Hell, if money is the issue, AK-47. My personal favorite.

May 3, 2008 - 12:32 pm 6. Javelin:

I don’t know how armed citizens are going to stop the gang conflicts, unless you propose blanketing the city with roving armed vigilante patrols. I support the 2nd Amendment and hate gun control too.

May 3, 2008 - 12:42 pm 7. ic:

Despite the 2nd Amendment, Big City Boy should never be allowed to go near a gun. Reason: As soon as he gets hold of a gun, he would do a drive-by.

Bob Owens: The problem is not with the cost of equiping, training and maintening an M4 totting police force, the problem is: when the day comes, a policeman with an M4 shot a gangbanger who was holding a regular handgun. Headlines: police brutality… police overkill… poice use excessive force.

Anyway, how would the police know when and where a gang warfare is going to take place? Bipartisan Solution: Senator Reid declares all is lost, withdraw all police from the quagmire. Redeploy the marines from Iraq where they have nothing much to do anyway. Pay informers, raise Chicago-gangland Awakening local militias. Recall Petraeus to oversee Operation Gangbuster.

May 3, 2008 - 12:43 pm 8. Dark Helmet:

Now would be a good time to reflect on what has brought this great nation to a point where the local police would need to be an army. Another infamous Chicago enity got a lot of milage on another type of drug that a nanny government tried to control.

Change the laws back to freedom to put what you want into your one body and enforce the ones of personal choices where it affects others and the problem will go away.

Of course that would dry up a huge source of income for the powers that be.

Second ammendment has zero to do with this. Not being able to defend yourself and having to rely on big brother to protect you does. Anything to make you weak…..

May 3, 2008 - 2:41 pm 9. Ten:

Why won’t Chicago’s mayor just let citizens defend themselves?

Why won’t Chicago’s citizens just prosecute the city’s mayor for violating their fundamental rights by refusing to “allow” them to defend themselves? Getting them shot and/or killed via the city’s horrible record on crime prevention more than implies a serious liability.

That’s the attitude sleeping America needs to adopt, if for no other reason than to start a rather vigorous pushback against their arrogant masters.

Perhaps a little more palatably, why won’t some of Chicago’s citizens take this violation of their rights to their supreme court? Short circuiting the quite improper militarization of their police while they’re at it.

Think Minority Report, big city boy.

Folks think police prevent crime. No, they apprehend lawbreakers, as in, the law has already been broken. In this case, one presumes the police need this kind of military firepower to take down shooters. They certainly don’t need it, as Owens alludes, to defend anyone.

That responsibility and right falls to the soon-to-be victims, no?

Assault weaponry doesn’t make anyone preemptively safer. it just looks cool, which brings us back to Mr. Mayor’s motives. The nature of power grabs are always more power and we all know how that invariably turns out. This time it’s costing lives.

May 3, 2008 - 3:15 pm 10. Ten:

I don’t know how armed citizens are going to stop the gang conflicts, unless you propose blanketing the city with roving armed vigilante patrols.

I don’t know how militarized police are going to stop gang conflicts, unless you propose blanketing the city with collectivized roving armed patrols.

I really don’t see how in a situation like this and in a free state, armed private citizens are any different, pragmatically speaking, than armed public servants. Except, of course, that the constitutional intent was for the former to have the key rights the latter has by now almost completely usurped.

Is life as a free man too difficult? Is a private force somehow inferior to a public force? Except for the inconvenience to those who would remain free, that is.

May 3, 2008 - 3:22 pm 11. Johnm:

Big City Boy says, “In the big city land of driveby killings, it’s not quite so simple as everyone having their own weapons to defend themselves.”

How do you know this when it is manifestly obvious that the current level of gun control laws is not working, to say the least? It’s depressing that that you can’t see irony in the amount of gun violence in big cities and the difficulty that law abiding citizens have in acquiring weapons in these cities compared that to areas where less gun control is enforced. You seem to believe that city living has some controlling element here. What does living in the city have to do with it? Do you think citizens who acquire gins legally are going to start regularly firing shots randomly out the window at passing cars? You have a very low level of faith in your fellow citizens.

Sigh. What’s the use? I’ve made this argument a thousand times.

May 3, 2008 - 3:25 pm 12. Chad:

@BCB

Tell me about it! If it wasn’t for me being illegally disarmed by my elected nannies I would have been able to fight off those rogue space-mining replicants as they stole my flying car! Instead I had to file a report with Harrison Ford…oh, the humanity!

Back on this side of the TV screen a person is nuts to trust any government to protect them if the first business of that government is to remove your ability to protect yourself.

May 3, 2008 - 3:27 pm 13. waylay:

Crime in Chicago will become central to the anti-Obama campaign. Legitimately, his opponent will ask again and again whether he agrees with the policies of the Democrats running his native Chicago, and whether gun control has been part of the solution or the problem. No, he wasn’t governor or Illinois or mayor of Chicago (which is an issue in itself), he was a “community activist”. How did he make life better for people in Chicago, or does he concede that decades of Democrat domination have been bad for the city and its children?

May 3, 2008 - 3:28 pm 14. coreyappleby.com » Blog Archive » tough on crime:

[...] Thank god for the war on drugs and gun control. [...]

May 3, 2008 - 3:30 pm 15. Brian:

Are the police actually involved in shooting at the people committing the murders? I was under the impression that these murders were being carried out when the cops were not present. If that’s the case, then what the cops are armed with is pretty much a non-issue in regards to actually quelling the violence.

May 3, 2008 - 3:37 pm 16. Tim:

Jason X - the M4 may not be as reliable as an AK, but in practice you do not need to shoot 5,000 rounds without cleaning. “M4’s are unreliable” is, in that sense, just a myth. Furthermore, any 9mm round out of an MP5 (short of frangible ammunition) will have MORE overpenetration in cars and residential building materials than the 5.56mm rounds.

Big City Boy - the urban populations in general haven’t “outgrown defending themselves”, they’ve “failed to be intolerant of thugs and abdicated their own responsibility to protect themselves”. The police simply cannot be there 24/7 to protect you - but you know what? Law enforcement is even more sparse outside urban centers, and we certainly have no crime problem here.

Crime on that scale can only exist where it is tolerated by the population, be it through fear, laziness, or a misguided reliance on police who give 110% but cant hold your hand every minute.

As for the M4’s in general… I think there are a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings about M4/AR-15 type rifles.

First off, are we talking REAL assualt rifles, i.e, safe-semi-auto on the selector switch, or just plain semi-auto (one trigger pull, one shot) AR-15’s? These days having an AR as a patrol rifle in the trunk or in a rack is just plain normal; they are far, far more accurate than a shotgun and have much less overpenetration than 00 buck, 12ga slugs, or 9mm rounds out of carbines (or handguns for that matter). 5.56mm/.223 rounds simply do not behave the same way as full sized .30 cal rifle bullets.

AR-15’s are also a lot easier to shoot for smaller and/or female officers and easier and cheaper to maintain than a bunch of creaky old German submachineguns. For that matter, these rifles would certainly be employed on single shot (semi); Even in the military, use of full auto in an M4/M16 is rare. There is simply little or no place for full auto rifle fire even in SWAT team usage, let alone street patrol. Similarly, MP5’s or other submachineguns are not appropriate for most street patrol officers because the time and money to train them to use them properly simply is not there. (plus, again, overpenetration, etc.)

ic :
This isn’t at all a knock on you, but,

Policemen in cities with the common sense to issue patrol rifles in their cruiser trunks (which is a lot of them) shoot pistol-toting gang bangers all the time, and I don’t recall ever hearing any sort of outcry about it. There is no such thing as “disparity of force” when you’re already trying to shoot them. Simple fact of the matter is, if you KNOW you’re going to get into a gunfight, choosing to bring a pistol instead of a rifle is mind-bogglingly stupid. This is one of those issues where soccer moms, yuppies, and other assorted people who have no idea what they’re talking about need to sit down, shut up, and let the adults do their jobs.

May 3, 2008 - 3:48 pm 17. glenn:

Blanketing the city with roving armed vigilante patrols…..Hmmmmm,
Seriously for just a minute, the SF Chronicle did a two page story about murders in Oakland couple of years ago. Most of the vics were ex-cons involved with drugs. Any report on who the vics are in Chicago? If they are who I think they are…oh well.

May 3, 2008 - 3:52 pm 18. Ken Mitchell:

My concern would be issuing the police FULLY-AUTOMATIC rifles. Yes, the cops need better than .38 Specials and shotguns. But one of the biggest sources of weapons are theft, and in cities with strict gun control, a substantial percentage of the guns are stolen from the police.

When the cops have machine guns, the bad guys will have more incentive to steal them. Very few crimes are committed with machine guns now; if Chicago does this, that’ll change. Yes, give the police rifles; SEMI-auto rifles.

May 3, 2008 - 3:53 pm 19. Zach:

Gun control advocates always say that the cause of gun crime is guns. If we didn’t have as many guns on the streets, the streets would be safer.
Oh, except now when we need 10,000 more assault rifles on the streets to make them safer. Somehow that makes us safer than trained private citizens with .38 revolvers.
This just shows that liberals aren’t afraid of guns on the street (since police and criminals can carry them with impunity). They are afraid of independent, self-reliant citizens who might question their pet theories. They would rather we all be 100% dependent on the government for such basic need as safety. For some reason, a person with an assault rifle is good if he has a badge, but a person with a handgun is bad if he doesn’t have a badge. The only difference? Not training. Not morals. Not intelligence. Simply one is part of the all-benevolent government and the other is not. Government is double-plus-good. Private citizens are double-plus-ungood. It’s as simple as that.

May 3, 2008 - 3:55 pm 20. dirigible:

Odd. There is a logical disconnect here. A spike in gun-related crime means that the Chicago police need fancier guns? Why? Are the police being shot at more than usual? I haven’t seen any news reports stating any such thing.

If they are really serious about up-gunning the police, they should get what the Army and Marines use when the chips are down - the Mossberg 500. Forget the M4 - that stuff is for people who watch too much TV.

May 3, 2008 - 4:02 pm 21. Anthony:

I live in Chicago. This city has essentially outlawed handguns. The result, it appears to be safer in Basra than in some parts of this city and now they are talking about militarizing the police.

May 3, 2008 - 4:09 pm 22. Harry Schell:

The human right of self-defense will never go out of style, except in tyrannies.

May 3, 2008 - 4:14 pm 23. K T Cat:

We’re about to arm cops with M4s? How marvelous! Well, that certainly beats a public relations campaign to inform the populace of the massive social catastrophe that has come from the destruction of traditional morality and the nuclear family. It’s better to arm the cops with assault rifles than seem like a prude. Good luck with that, Chicago!

May 3, 2008 - 4:28 pm 24. RKV:

The Sons of Iraq work against the JAM and Al-queda, so when are the Sons of Liberty going to start up in Chicago? Simply put disarming the good guys never worked. In fact its not supposed to work. The quagmire is deliberate. Keep the citizens begging for police protection and let the bad guys loose. Win-win for the politicians.

May 3, 2008 - 4:35 pm 25. mjk:

Quagmire, Chicago is in a quagmire. Why leave our foolish children who decide to become police offiers and firemen in a place where the United States is losing the souls of the people in the occupation of Chicago?

Withdraw from Chicago NOW!!!

P.S. I love Chicago. It’s a wonderful city and this is a real tragedy. They need to get rid of Daley and get themselves a Guiliani to clean up the city.

May 3, 2008 - 4:40 pm 26. rockdalian:

It is not just Chicago that bans concealed carry, it is the entire state.
You forget about one scenario: the city will simply raise taxes to cover the expenses. Cook County raised the sales tax recently in a effort to be the highest in the country. The majority of voters that continually reelect the crooks to office are really no more than sheep. True freedom literally scares them to death.

May 3, 2008 - 4:46 pm 27. Ben:

I don’t know how armed citizens are going to stop the gang conflicts, unless you propose blanketing the city with roving armed vigilante patrols.

The reason civilians need to be armed in Chicago is simple: the problem with gangs is one of control of territory. To control territory, gangs depend on cash flow, and that cash comes largely from petty crimes, much of which is committed by junkies or low level gang members. These thugs will quickly be repulsed or killed by armed civilians. They don’t have to take vigilante actions, just self-defense is enough.

May 3, 2008 - 4:49 pm 28. MikeT:

I don’t know how armed citizens are going to stop the gang conflicts, unless you propose blanketing the city with roving armed vigilante patrols. I support the 2nd Amendment and hate gun control too.

Gang conflicts are only a small part of the violent crime problem in places like Chicago. The police already have SWAT units that are more than capable of gunning down gangbangers who are fighting a shooting war in the streets, should they ever be so stupid as to fight what amounts to a real battle in the streets. There is no need to add to the average cop’s existing armaments.

May 3, 2008 - 4:53 pm 29. Marc:

As a resident of this foul city called Chicago, I find this story encapsulates the mayor’s profound lack of a brain. First, he takes all the guns away from the law-abiding citizens. Now, he wants to further empower a police force that has made headlines for committing more crimes than it solves. (I do have sympathy for the men and women in blue that are committed to helping Chicagoans out). So, pray tell, what will this solve? Frankly, I think Daley has read Mein Kampf a few too many times, and has a power complex. I fear that more of my rights might be taken away by a more powerful police force, and they may even have the gumption to raise the county taxes past the already highest mark in the country. The liberal agenda of removing self-determination from the common man and placing it in the hands of the almighty government is taking giant strides here in the city of big shoulders.

I am a life member of the NRA, I am a gun owner and hunter. Having said that, I wonder if more constructive ways of spending the city’s tax dollars might yield more fruit. Take a trip through any of the many blocks of ghetto that trouble this city, and you’ll see that armed police will not tame the problems. First of all, the police are not getting into shootouts with these criminals, so why do they need more firepower? The criminals are shooting at each other, and innocent bystanders. What needs to happen is a radical change in these environments. They need fathers in the home, they need investment in the communities, they need to see that they have something to offer this world other than drugs or crime. Of course, these things may never change. In all likelihood, things will get worse before they get better. Sadly, concrete changes won’t occur until some white folks get killed. Until then, I’ll continue to sleep with a Glock at my bedside, and damn the consequences if I’m jailed.

May 3, 2008 - 5:25 pm 30. sagi:

How many will the police have to kill to keep them from keeping on killing each other?

May 3, 2008 - 5:55 pm 31. Billll:

Gaza on the Lake. I like it. Perhaps the rest of Illinois could put up a tall concrete wall around the place, and vote to give the Chicagoans their own homeland.
Or Chicago could take a lesson from Iraq, and built tall concrete walls around selected neighborhoods, and search everybody going in or out. Everybody wants to live in a gated community, right?

May 3, 2008 - 6:17 pm 32. John Samford:

Chicago has been part of the 3rd world for decades, since waaaaay before Henry the K coined the term in the late 50’s.
No mayor wants the citizens armed. Mayors are comfortable with criminals, being birds of a feather. Besides, the Cops can deal with the criminals. Armed citizens are a direct threat to the mayor. That is why they don’t want guns in the hands of those they don’t control.

May 3, 2008 - 7:22 pm 33. Mike:

Hey Marc,

Forget Chicago. Come down South with us and bring your Glock with you. It’s legal down here - you can even carry concealed

May 3, 2008 - 7:22 pm 34. BizzyBlog » TIB Radio Is On (050308):

[...] doom-mongering. - Obama’s radical Weatherpeople friends. - Chicago’s crime rate is way up. - Obama supported gas tax holidays in Illinois before he was against a federal gas-tax [...]

May 3, 2008 - 7:54 pm 35. glenn:

‘Course, it might be that that the thugs are fighting over the drug and prostitution trade and the pols and cops are staying out of the way in return for a share of the profits. Lots of tax free cash in crack and hookers.

May 3, 2008 - 9:11 pm 36. cubanbob:

It’s obvious Chicago is incapable of self- governance. The city needs to be taken over by the State and run directly by the State. At least it will be one less layer of criminals and incompetents to feed and allow to steal. Let us hope the US Supreme Court strikes down the more reprehensible gun laws.

May 3, 2008 - 11:52 pm 37. ronnor:

Aren’t these just gang members killing each other? As long as they don’t kill innocent civilians why would you care. Certainly beats the court system in Chicago where the criminal is continually cut loose or if they do get sent to prison it breaks the system financially. It used to cost $35,000 per year [probably more like $50,000 now] to incarcerate a person in medium security facility, lots of money wasted warehousing thugs, let them kill each other.

May 3, 2008 - 11:53 pm 38. John D:

Of the 54 murders, how many would have been prevented if only the Chicago PD had been armed with “assault” rifles?

If the answer is none, which I’m pretty sure is the case, exactly what is supposed to be accomplished by having the police issued them?

I work for a police agency and all of our cars have both AR15s and shotguns. But the officers rely primarily on their pistols.

May 4, 2008 - 5:06 am 39. Marc:

Ronnor- what’s sad is that not even the newspapers are asking these questions. The mayor had a conference where he spit and shouted about how evil guns are. It does nothing but invigorate the lowest common denominator, emotional rhetoric was Hitler’s forte too. Oh and I’d feel safe without guns too when I have 24 hour police escort. The gun shop I frequent says that Daley has his own little armory, so he is a hypocrite for sure. Once the precedent is set for the DC case, you’ll see the suits come out against these unfair laws. Hell, there is a reason even Obama and HRC won’t come out against guns, it’s cause we outnumber the leftists 2:1.

I have heard anecdotal accounts of the gangs mobility too. Apparently, they are moving into the more well-to-do suburbs that collar the city limits. They find the low income housing, move in, and sell drugs to the high-schoolers. They bring all the crap that goes with gangs too: graffiti, petty crime, domestic abuse, etc… The crime rates in the suburbs will go up, but it’s concentrated in one group. Make you’re own assumptions about the demographics, ie; profiling might work.

Like I said in a previous post, it’s going to get worse before it gets better. Anyone with the ability to move to a rural locale, should. If the economy worsens, crime will go up due to desperation. Inflation will certainly inflame the problem. The only reason this city hasn’t gone down the tubes is they require the cops and fireman to live in the city limits. You’ve got million dollar condos, and crackhouses blocks from each other. Go figure.

May 4, 2008 - 5:38 am 40. Cops May Get Assault Weapons in Chicagostan - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!:

[...] have 9,900 more assault rifles in Chicago than the U.S. Marines presently have in Fallujah, Iraq. READ MORE Perhaps instead of up-gunning the police, it is time for Chicago to admit its strict anti-gun laws [...]

May 4, 2008 - 6:18 am 41. great unknown:

Daly is worried that the federal corruption investigations are getting too close for comfort. He wants to arm his personal army to prevent FBI agents with warrants coming after him. As for the people of Chicago and Cook County constantly electing the criminals in power: as any resident of the area knows - it’s not how the votes go in that count, it’s how they come out. Speak not evil of the dean [voter].

May 4, 2008 - 6:26 am 42. Barry:

Did not the Chicago police take up the Thompson during the gang wars of 1930’s prohibition?
What’s different now?
I’ll tell you!
5.56×45 mm as opposed to .45 ACP

May 4, 2008 - 7:05 am 43. glenn:

People still get the government they deserve.

May 4, 2008 - 7:13 am 44. Thomas-in-Newport:

If they want to go with some form or rifle then maybe it should be a Mini-14 with a Bullpup configuration. Cost less and easy to handle. BUT it does use the 5.56 mm ammo. Is that what we want all the police to use or do we want then to have a MAC-10 with .45 cal? What type of fire power do we want the cops to have? As for the idea of private ownershuip of firearms, I own 12 differant firearms and think it is not just the right of the adult head of household to defend his / her home, it is their duty. Today that means you have to know how to handle a firearms to protect your children, your wife / husband and yourself against armed criminals. EVERY home should have at least one (1) handgun of .40 cal or stronger.

May 4, 2008 - 7:22 am 45. M. Simon:

Question:

What is the purpose of uparming police?

Do they get into a lot of fire fights with gangs?

May 4, 2008 - 7:29 am 46. M. Simon:

Actually it is the very same criminals.

May 4, 2008 - 7:42 am 47. M. Simon:

The NIDA says Addiction Is A Genetic Disease. Which is why demand is not affected much by price.

So explain to me again why we have a price support mechanism in place for criminals?

May 4, 2008 - 7:44 am 48. M. Simon:

The current Mayor Daley once said that Drug Prohibition was responsible for 85% of the crimes in his city. Since no one was into ending prohibition he has now taken the sides of the citizens and giving them the government they deserve.

May 4, 2008 - 7:49 am 49. Bill:

1. Re: big city boy - apparently Chicago has in fact implemented your apparent preferred nostrum of gun control to no good effect. This is obviously going to happen since guns can move easily across jurisdictions. So the next logical extension of your argument is that all other responsible gun owners in other jurisdictions must give up their rights so that maybe things will improve in inner city hell holes. In truth, inner city drug and gang cultures are so dysfunctional that the impact of gun control would in fact barely make a dent in what happens there.

3. Many of the policies of government have in fact created and fostered this dysfunctional culture. Creating a crisis to use as an excuse to curtail individual rights (think global warming) is a tried and true tactic of those who favor more government control of the citizenry.

May 4, 2008 - 7:56 am 50. K T Cat:

This is solving the wrong problem. I blogged a response about this. Enjoy.

May 4, 2008 - 8:27 am 51. Just A Grunt:

I don’t care what you arm the police with there still remains one indisputable truth. Police react to crimes that have already been committed. Those fancy M4’s are not going to prevent crime but I guess the mayor’s whole scheme is to appear to be doing something while actually not doing anything.
Chicago needs to save the money and instead address the issue of inner city gangs and not follow Washington DC’s model of simply renaming them, although that is as about as effective as the Chicago mayors plan.
Maybe he just got jealous after seeing those pictures of Mayor Nagin goofing around with one.

May 4, 2008 - 9:06 am 52. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Bob Owens
RE: How To Endanger the Police

This will be a great way to get more assault weapons into the hands of the lawless.

How?

Simple….

[1] Call in a [phony] incident.
[2] Wait for the police to arrive.
[3] Ambush the responding officers.
[4] Take their weapons.

If the police send more than one unit, all the better. More weapons to go around.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

May 4, 2008 - 9:39 am 53. Chuck Pelto:

TO: glenn
RE: Indeed

“People still get the government they deserve.” — glenn

And it still seems to be rather ineffective at doing what it is supposed to do.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

May 4, 2008 - 9:42 am 54. Chuck Pelto:

TO: K T Cat
RE: Life in the ‘Fast’ Lane

“….certainly beats a public relations campaign to inform the populace of the massive social catastrophe that has come from the destruction of traditional morality and the nuclear family. It’s better to arm the cops with assault rifles than seem like a prude.” — K T Cat

As Niven and Pournelle might say…

Look upon it as evolution in action.

This is one of the many reasons I moved from a metroplex like Chicago to a much smaller community. I’m reminded of that famous experiment involving overpopulation amongst lab rats.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Life imitates Science Fiction.]

P.S. Or is it that Niven and Pournelle are prescient?

May 4, 2008 - 10:16 am 55. Mama73:

O.K…I don’t know if the author of this post lives in Chicago but….

Not everyone gets everything right. And Daley tends to pick his battles to fight what he can win.

Last year (date?) he let ban on Foie Gras go through (thankfully its a completely ineffectual ban)…but then when the same alderman behind that fiasco tried to prevent a big box store from opening up here, he turned it around and made them look like they cared more about ducks than about poor people who would shop and work at the store (got some ministers with poor congregations behind him — it was beautiful).

Daley is a master of playing the corrupt, petty, racist , aldermen against each other–USUALLY, but not always to the benefit of ordinary Chicagoans. (And I mean all of the aldermen are racists, the blacks, Hispanics, Italian, Hungarian, Ukrainian, Chinese, Polish, Russian–they all hate each other!)

Anyway, the guy keeps the snow off the streets in winter. Snow affects more of us than the shootings do. Some neighborhoods in Chicago are very safe. I was just at a park West Loop overflowing with moms and toddlers.

There is no one to fill the vacuum that will be left when the Daley dynasty resigns…that will probably be when our family leaves the city.

May 4, 2008 - 12:18 pm 56. Mi5ke561:

Here’s what everybody is missing. Arming cops with any rifle is a bad idea. Why? Politicians will go cheap, and that means that the rifles will be part of the gear that goes with the car, which means that it’s gonna get swapped between shifts. And what that means is that it’s not going to have the sights adjusted for the user. And that means that not only will the cops shoot a lot, they’ll miss a lot. And if they’re not hitting their targets, they’ll be hitting something or somebody else.

For the most part, they’re lousy shots anyway because they won’t practice until the day before qualification and if you want to see something scary, see Joe Beat Cop trying to make up for not practicing for the previous six months to a year. It’s a wonder when they hit their own targets, let alone anything else.

And this shows up in police shootings all the time. They fire a huge number of rounds and they’re lucky if they get one or two actual hits. And if they hit the wrong guy and kill him, while the negligent cop did the shooting, the perp will get charged with capital murder because whatever he was doing is considered to be the proximate cause of the shooting.

Part of that is lack of practice and part of that is that they tend to fire at longer ranges than they can hit at, and stationary target practice doesn’t prepare you for a firefight. Range shoots are neat, but real gunfights are sloppy, especically when it’s the cops doing the shooting. One of the reasons that private citizens tend to hit more, is that they shoot from closer range, and they practice, and most important of all, they tend to shoot inside their homes where the building and the junk in it canalizes the movement of the target they’re trying to hit.

Overall, I think that the move to arm cops with assault rifles is a tragic mistake because they’re not set up to use them correctly or to maintain the proficiency to do so. And the end result will be more property damage and more collateral casualties that the cops will blame on anything else except themselves.

If the cops need a long arm, they’re better off sticking to shotguns. Much safer for everybody concerned, especially if they’re taught to restrict their shooting to ranges that they can actually hit at.

In the meantime, I’m gonna offer some well intended advice to everybody. Whenever you see a cop with either his sidearm drawn or carrying an assault rifle, your best move is to find some cover and get behind it because they’re more likely to cap you than they are the badguy.

May 4, 2008 - 1:13 pm 57. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mama73
RE: Uuuuuhhhh….

“Not everyone gets everything right. And Daley tends to pick his battles to fight what he can win.

Last year (date?) he let ban on Foie Gras go through (thankfully its a completely ineffectual ban)…” — Mama73

Like ‘glenn’ said, “Everybody gets the government they deserve.”

The ‘foi gras’ thing is the epitome of what glenn is talking about. And the business about Daley thinking he can ‘win’ this business is just another example of stupidity in governance. All he is doing here, as I commented (above) is providing another means to get assault weapons into the hands of those who least deserve them…..over the dead bodies of law-enforcement officers.

Reminds me of a time in my enlisted days when I went on guard duty with a military shotgun, to guard a serviceman’s club that was just a stone-throw from the military installation border.

The weapon I carried was more valuable than the contents of the safe in the club. Not to mention the veterinarian shop next door. If the dogs in the outdoor kennel went ‘ballistic’, the first thing I did was lock and load.

Daley is an idiot if he wants to arm the police on patrol with military assault weapons.

Did you ever read some book titled The Arms of Krupp? It was all about ‘escalation’ in the arms race amongst nations. Similar to that being claimed in Chicago. But at $1000 a pop for an assault weapon, a good one that is, I doubt if most gang members can afford that sort of piece….

….unless they pry it from the hands of a cop.

RE: The Real Question Here….

….should be what are the gun-control laws of Chicago?

Is it like ‘Great’ Britian? Or Washington DC? Where only the criminals are allowed guns with which to act?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. -- Thomas Jefferson]

May 4, 2008 - 2:41 pm 58. wGraves:

Mayor Daley should just admit that this has become a job for the military. Definition of Insurrection: “Organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another.” Sounds like Chicago has an insurrection on it’s hands, all right. Now consider the Constitution of the State of Illinois. Article XII. Militia, SECTION 4. COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND OFFICERS
(a) The Governor is commander-in-chief of the organized
militia, except when they are in the service of the United
States. He may call them out to enforce the laws, suppress
insurrection or repel invasion.

So what is Daley waiting for. Call the Governor. Declare Martial Law, Suspend Habeas Corpus, and round these guys up. If they resist, so much the better.

May 4, 2008 - 2:50 pm 59. glenn:

And if mayor Daley called in the troops etc.and stamped out drug and prostitution activities where would he get the money to run a re-election campaign? And where would the Dems in general get money to fund their activities?

May 4, 2008 - 5:10 pm 60. Dark Helmet:

liberals really get off on para military being used against American citizens, makes that feeling of total control just a little bit closer in reach.

May 4, 2008 - 5:28 pm 61. glenn:

While we’re at it why doesn’t somebody go ask the Mayor, Chief of Police, and the City Council members how many concealed weapons arrests were made in Chicago last year? And how many of the people arrested were tried, convicted and sent to prison? Most of the talk from Democrats about gun crime is just that, talk, designed to get votes from dumb people.

May 4, 2008 - 6:47 pm 62. Javelin:

Babble all you want with your favorite nostrums. The simple fact is that a large part of the city is criminalized and gangs are totally entrenched in many areas, socially as well as economically. So giving the cops autoweaposn and repealing stupid gun laws will not solve the core problem, GANGS! Can’t anyone here think past their guns? We can’t shoot our way out of every problem as well as disarm our way.

May 4, 2008 - 6:55 pm 63. Javelin:

“Dark Helmet:
liberals really get off on para military being used against American citizens, makes that feeling of total control just a little bit closer in reach.”
And you absolutely worship guns, military and war, so your ignorant talk show babble about liberals is really quie ironic.

May 5, 2008 - 5:31 am 64. CityCop:

The problem with trying to get away cheap and have officers sign out M4’s is that they are not fixed sight weapons and must be zeroed or adjusted to the individual user. The settings for one can greatly differ from rifle to rifle. Too much liability and in the end would cost too much in liablity. The weapons will not help because J-Fed will have the first officer that uses one indicted.

May 5, 2008 - 5:59 am 65. Wearing a vest:

A lot of talk here from gasbags who know little to nothing about police work. That’s not their fault, but cops who read your comments can only shake their heads in wonderment at how little the average citizen knows about big city policing.

For example, to: “The simple fact is that a large part of the city is criminalized and gangs are totally entrenched in many areas, socially as well as economically. So giving the cops autoweaposn and repealing stupid gun laws will not solve the core problem, GANGS!”

To a street cop, the REAL core problem is how to go home safe at the end of the day. We’re already outnumbered by several hundred to one (at least) by the gangs. When I run into a two-legged gang animal with an AK, or a four-legged animal like a pit bull or a cougar, I’d rather have a rifle than a 9mm popgun.

And to: “In the meantime, I’m gonna offer some well intended advice to everybody. Whenever you see a cop with either his sidearm drawn or carrying an assault rifle, your best move is to find some cover and get behind it because they’re more likely to cap you than they are the badguy.”

Seeking cover is good advice but your comment after it is untrue, stupid and betrays your hatred and fear of the police. Not to worry, though, little man. We’ll protect you anyway. Any concrete examples of where the Chicago PD has hit more good guys than bad guys? I didn’t think so, because there AREN’T ANY! Turn off your TV and get into the real world. I carry a gun to help make sure I go home safe to my family every morning. I’m an expert with it, and I practice frequently. On my beat, I have it out of my holster each night on many traffic stops and on some calls. Just having it out deters a lot of problems because shitheads know I’ll use it. (I have and I always hit what I was aiming at!)

Most U.S. suburban departments adjacent to big cities either issue rifles & shotguns or allows officers to carry their own. Chicago would be merely catching up to the norm. (But you can all relax. Daley was just blowing smoke - he will never spend the money.)

May 5, 2008 - 6:35 am 66. Dark Helmet:

Javelin,

What I worship has nothing to do with this. It is a hard fact, the first people to call in miltary action against citizens of the USA are liberals.

The same people who scream bloody murder to disarm us are…. liberals.

The very same people who think that they should be the ones who decide who can protect themselves or stand up to corruption in government are…. liberals.

The very fruit of that way of thinking only emboldens and creates an enviroment for the very criminals Chicago, yet once more, faces. The last time a bunch of nanny state idiots controled things Al Capone was the toast of the town. They used Machine and Sub Machine guns then to try and deal with the corruption then too. Not much has changes with idiots like … well you, pushing a control freak socialist agenda.

This conclusion does not come from talk shows, they are still way behind the curve. It comes from understanding our history and refusing to view anything through pc lenses. In other words, thinking. Your problem is you don’t know who you are and where you really come from. You’ve been spoon fed bs for the past 40 years.

We are the greatest nation this planet has ever known, we are that because we are free men. We are free because the rest of the world fears what that means to dictatorships, you know, liberal utopias? Get a clue.

May 5, 2008 - 7:33 am 67. John_N:

Re:

“cubanbob:

It’s obvious Chicago is incapable of self- governance. The city needs to be taken over by the State and run directly by the State.”

I used to live in downstate Illinois. Chicago dominates state politics — a state takeover of Chicago would be little change.

May 5, 2008 - 8:12 am 68. Chi Town Copper:

I am a Chicago Police Offier. The City’s anti-gun ordinances are nice thoughts but obvious failures. Without our own long guns, the CPD cannot protect all of its citizens. I welcome the interest in getting M4’s or something similar. I hope the Dept goes implements this, but does it right. The cost of the rifles can be happily transfered to the officers that have the interest and ability to handle them. The author is incorrect about the CPD issuing hand guns to its officers. Every copper has to buy his own gun. Handing rifles off to the next shift is a bad idea. M4’s and their varients are notorious in their required maintenance. Not all coppper are created equal. Some are more fastidious in their level of care. If someone that I do not know well enough just handed me a rifle at the begining of my tour of duty, I would have to take time out of handling 911 calls to make certain that rifle is ready to be taken out on the street. If I had my own rifle I could make sure that it is ready before getting to work. The best solution is to identitfy those officers that have the skill, desire and cool heads to handle such a weapon and let them buy their own rifles.

May 5, 2008 - 8:51 am 69. Mi5ke561:

RE:Wearing A Vest.

Sir, I’ve spent much time on the same firing line at the range with cops and my comments about their marksmanship and inclination to practice, stand. And if one checks, there are plenty of instances where the police have fired a huge number of rounds and hit,…..Nothing. Jeff Cooper used to mention them periodically before he passed away. It doesn’t have anything to do with hatred, only with the fact that for the most part, they can’t shoot and they train on close range targets and then try engaging at outside of that range.

And when you’ve got a guy who doesn’t practice, and who frequently develops bad habits like palming the gun from dry firing it at the television and simulating recoil, it gets worse. In that situation, it doesn’t matter one bit what the cop intends, the bullet is going to go somewhere, and more often than not, it’s gonna go anywhere but at the point that he’s trying to hit.

I’d be curious as to how much time you’ve spent with a rifle, (I’ve known cops who’ve never fired one) since you haven’t addressed one of the major problems, and that’s making sure that the sights are adjusted to the shooter before he goes out on the street with it. If the rifle isn’t sighted in, you’re gonna miss, even with those glass meatball sights that are all the rage in the military now. Before you can safely use it on the street, you’ve got to go to a range, and shoot several groups and adjust elevation and azimuth. Being a cop doesn’t impart some magical power to hit the target without adjusting the sights. Luke Skywalker might have been able to get by with “The Force” but the rest of us are bound by the laws of physics and the gear that we use to apply them.

Insofar as your Pit Bull & Cougar attacks go, a 5.56mm poodle shooter isn’t going to stop one of those and if you think that it will, you’re sadly
mistaken. Shooting either at close range requires something heavier. If you have a cruiser mount shotgun with replacable choke tubes, in the urban environment you’re operating in, No.6 Low Base from a full choke will stop one of those, whereas the 5.56mm won’t. And if you really must have a rifle for that, A Marlin Model 1895G Guide’s Gun in .45-70 with the new CorBon load will do just fine. You don’t need a military pattern rifle for that job, and there are few that will actually do what you think a rifle will do for you. An M-4 Carbine won’t.

Finally, on the matter of stupidity and hate. It would be really refreshing to see commentary by a policeman that isn’t predicated on the idea that any criticism of Law Enforcment is tantamount to treason.
A badge, sir, is not a substitute for either knowledge or intelligence and I frequently wonder at those who think that wearing a badge and basketweave leather trumps using one’s brain. One of the things that I’ve been seeing that dismays me, is that police are becoming more and more a polarised self selecting petty nobility that cries l’ese majest whenever they’re questioned about anything. Increasingly, Heinlein’s old comment about the semantic equivalence between “Public Servant” and “Public Master” seems apt.

And I count myself lucky that I live in a place which is out of Mayor Daley & Governor Blagojevich’s reach by a considerable margin. I don’t know what your current record on shootings are, but I’d be interested in rounds fired per incident, and at what ranges and under which lighting conditions. It would be interesting.

In the meantime, try some well intended advice. Go someplace where you’re actually allowed to possess and shoot a military pattern rifle and then engage targets at 30-100 meters and then again after you’ve adjusted the sights and compare the two. Then imagine the difference in impact point in a crowded, cluttered environment such as a mall, and perhaps you might get an epiphany.

May 5, 2008 - 9:24 am 70. rapid:

so just so I get this right, you guys ARE actually worried about having poorly trained individuals on the streets with guns? It occurs to me that the problem would only multiply when you factor in every bob, dick and harry civilian who wants to carry as well - even at one round per minute. Put another way, you all are worried about undertrained cops with automatics but not undertrained civilians with automatics or anything else?

May 5, 2008 - 9:35 am 71. Marc:

Not that easy to concealed carry, there is a course to take, a test, and applications galore. However, we’ll never see that happen in Illinois. Concealed carry laws are also very specific about how and when to shoot. My assumption would be that those who do qualify and pass would be not be under-trained at all.

What question you should ask is, why are those licensed to carry a concealed weapon not in the news shooting everything up more often. It’s cause they don’t. People who shoot illegally don’t have any business owning a gun in the first place. We heard all these arguments during the last tragic school shooting at NIU. None of which hold water and are typically fueled by emotional reactionary rhetoric.

May 5, 2008 - 10:44 am 72. Mi5ke561:

As a general rule, Civilians tend to practice more, and in most places where you have CCW, civilians have to demonstrate some competence. They also tend to fire at shorter ranges than police do, not least of which because the ramifications of a shoot are, in the end, different than they are for a policeman.

Also, if you’re packing, if you miss and hit the wrong guy, you go to jail. You also get sued. The department isn’t going to be there to provide you with legal or psychological support, nor will the badguy be charged with capital murder because he was the proximate cause of the shooting. When you take a CCW course, those facts are forcefully made known to you. And it effects both your decision to carry, and more often than not, the circumstances under which you’re willing to draw.

You also miss the point that civilians carrying, generally aren’t out looking for trouble. And while it’s counter intuitive, packing a pistol can actually make you even more timid about a possible confrontation than being unarmed. The ramifications of having to go through all of the legal actions that come with shooting anybody, generally are a great deterrent to those carrying. How would you like having your life taken apart and scrutinised in detail while you have to face a grand jury and even if the shooting is justified, if you don’t live in a state with a shield law that bans suing the victim of a crime in a lawful self defense situation, having to face a lawsuit from the perp or his survivors– all of that will weigh on your mind.

In the end, from observation, people licensed to carry will wait until the last possible moment to draw and pull the trigger. And we’re fortunate that the vast majority of defensive situations result in the civilian drawing his weapon and the badguy taking one look at that and bugging out. John Lott is right about that one. I’ve been in that situation.

A civilian has to be able to answer three big questions. First, did he have a clear and identifiable target. Secondly, did he shoot to stop or shoot to kill. Finally, why did he shoot.

If the answer to the first one isn’t “yes”, the second is “to stop” and the third “because I have an articulable fear of an imminent threat to my life or the life of another”, you are in deep yogurt and that’s made clear and forcefully so too. And again, it pays to remember that a cop is going to have the support of his department and a legal presumption of regularity which Joe Citizen isn’t gonna have.

So, when you’re talking about cops and citizens, it really is an apples & oranges sort of thing. Cops, whether we like it or not, have a different legal environment than we do, and we’re made to remember the fact.

As far as my worries about cops and weapons go, there are things that cause me some concern. First off, I’ve shot rifles my entire life, and my hobby is taking really old service rifles to the 1000 meter line and seeing what I can hit on iron sights. (Old rifles like my Finnish M28-30 were designed for aimed fire to 1000 meters and plunging fire to 2000, although the latter is anything but accurate.) One big result of that is that I understand the limitations of the weapons we’re talking about here. If you don’t adjust your sights and get to know the individual rifle you’re issued with, you’re gonna miss. And if you miss, that bullet is going to go somewhere and if it’s the wrong somewhere, somebody is injured or killed or property is damaged.

Secondly, I’ve personally seen the spectacle of cops who don’t practice trying to make up for that the day before qualification. They usually requalify, but right after that, their skills start to deteriorate again. And cops tend to engage at longer ranges than Joe Citizen will, mostly in low light level conditions and in a situation which is anything but the calm atmosphere at a practice range.

Third, back when the changeover from revolvers to semiautos was happening in most departments about ten years ago, NYPD pulled several service revolvers from field service and detail stripped them. What the department armorers found was that most of them had a considerable amount of rust, which is a pretty good indicator that there was a lack of maintenance by the individual police officer carrying that weapon.

The thing you have to remember is that for people like me, shooting is fun, for people who just carry for protection, shooting is a means of reducing liability, both civil and criminal, and for a cop, it’s mostly something that you have to do on your own time, usually paying for your own ammo, and generally it means that it’s more time doing something work related rather than going home and getting some downtime. And because cops aren’t subjected to the same kind of hostile scrutiny Joe Citizen is, they’re less inclined to go the extra mile.

And all of that makes issuance of a weapon that will be a part of the vehicle’s equipment rather than individually issued to the officer on the beat, rather questionable. It’s one thing to insist on practice and proper maintenance and issuing the cop with an individual weapon that he has to demonstrate competence with. It’s quite another to issue the damned things like jacks & tire irons.

May 5, 2008 - 10:47 am 73. Free In Idaho! » Blog Archive » Chicago's Third World Army:

[...] a little article over at Pajamas Media, speaking about the Democrat Mayor’s planned response to all the recent gang shootings in [...]

May 5, 2008 - 11:29 am 74. Dark Helmet:

umm… fast thingy comes out the end that looks like a tube, right? And that is what you point away from you.

Unlike chief of police who shot himeslf in the ankle today at a firearms safety demonstration, give that man an Uzi!( and a band aide)

Irony, how I love thee.

May 5, 2008 - 11:52 am 75. plutosdad:

Maybe Daley and Stroger should stop stealing from us and use tax money for actual city services rather than lining their pockets. How can citizens live freely and in peace when the local government is one of the most corrupt in the free world?

Is it any wonder one of the most corrupt cities wants to become the most well-armed and it’s populace the least armed?

The police are the last line of keeping law and order. It starts long before, with property rights, governments that are relatively free of corruption, freedom and opportunity for all, all of which are sadly lacking in Cook County.

If the politicians really want to change things, they need to fire themselves.

May 5, 2008 - 12:04 pm 76. Wearing a vest:

RE: “Finally, on the matter of stupidity and hate. It would be really refreshing to see commentary by a policeman that isn’t predicated on the idea that any criticism of Law Enforcment is tantamount to treason.”

If you’re gonna shoot your mouth off little fella, especially when you back it up with a lot of made-up “facts,” expect to get smacked.

“A badge, sir, is not a substitute for either knowledge or intelligence and I frequently wonder at those who think that wearing a badge and basketweave leather trumps using one’s brain.”

Chicago PD wears a star. And we don’t wear baketweave leather, either. (Sigh) Again, a self-proclaimed expert with no facts. How foolish do you want to make yourself now? All right, go ahead…

“And because cops aren’t subjected to the same kind of hostile scrutiny Joe Citizen is, they’re less inclined to go the extra mile.”

Oh man! This one really has us all laughing here! Tell this to the three guys in the NYPD. Of course, you don’t know all the facts only what you read in the comic books, but I’m sure you’re an expert on this case, too. Even though after an expensive, exhausting trial process that found them not guilty, the press has already convicted them and your pal Al Sharpton wants them tried in federal court, then sued in civil court for millions. Reply what you want, I’m off to work and I won’t be reading your replies. Trying to get through to liberals like you isn’t worth the effort.

May 5, 2008 - 1:02 pm 77. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Wearing a vest
RE: Hostile Scrutiny

“Oh man! This one really has us all laughing here!” — Wearing a vest

As for the three guys in NYPD…..ever hear of buying a judge? I wonder why they went for the summary court as opposed to a jury of their ‘peers’.

What do YOU think?

Then again, there’s the Denver PD officer who pulled a gun on someone he was having an ‘off-duty’ traffic ‘discussion’ with.

The unarmed motorist drove away in terror. The DPD officer fired into the fleeing car.

The officer was not brought up on charges for something ‘joe citizen’ would have.

You guys are getting a bad rep. And there is evidence showing up every day about that.

So NOW you want an M4 to deal with your personal vendettas on the highway?

Get a grip….

….you’re not doing yourself any good service with that last post….if you ARE a cop.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

May 5, 2008 - 1:38 pm 78. Dark Helmet:

yup, fast thingy comes out hole, hurts

May 5, 2008 - 1:45 pm 79. Chuck Pelto:

P.S….

“A lot of talk here from gasbags who know little to nothing about police work.” — Wearing a vest

…I suspect I was dealing with use of deadly force in an urban environment while you were still playing with cap guns.

May 5, 2008 - 1:48 pm 80. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Dark Helmet
RE: In The Police….

“Unlike chief of police who shot himeslf in the ankle today at a firearms safety demonstration, give that man an Uzi!( and a band aide)” — Dark Helmet

They would probably do such.

In the Army, we had a young lieutenant do the same sort of thing in the same situation.

He was relieved of his position as an infantry platoon leader and re-assigned from the 82d Airborne Division to XVIII Airborne Corps.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. What’s this I hear about a cop who gunned down a 12-year old who was armed with a toy gun?

What became of the cop?

May 5, 2008 - 1:51 pm 81. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. The story says the cop shot the child because the child refused to ‘obey’ him.

Sound reason, that. Eh?

May 5, 2008 - 1:52 pm 82. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Wearing a vest
RE: Oh….Yeah….

“Trying to get through to liberals like you isn’t worth the effort.” — Wearing a vest

You probably wouldn’t know a ‘conservative’ if he bit you in the fourth-point-of-contact.

Something to do with ‘perception’, and you’re demonstrating that law-enforcement officer, or at least those of your caliber, have serious problems.

KAKL?

May 5, 2008 - 3:48 pm 83. Dark Helmet:

“Obey or die you little bastard!!!!” Man oh man, such sweet songs I can remember hearing going to sleeep as a small child.

I would think that pointing an object that looks like a weapon at a law enforcement officer would get your genes removed from the pool very quickly. Sort of like standing in front of an oncoming train to see if it will stop…. it won’t, it’s a train.

They’ve got a tough job to do and do it for a mostly ungreatful group of people who focus only on the negative. Idiotic stunts are for the most part dealt with by promotions to get them behind a desk and off the roads. Anyone with experiance can attest to that one, not limited to law enforcement.

But what the heck do I know, I’m just another Bitter Clinger.

May 5, 2008 - 4:19 pm 84. rapid:

“Trying to get through to liberals like you isn’t worth the effort.”

yep, Mi5ke561 certainly sounds like a liberal.

May 5, 2008 - 4:30 pm 85. Javelin:

Dark Helmet’
You sound like a talk show clone cause you are. When people lie you babble in generalities about “liberals are the first to call in paramilitary” I consider garbage like that to be a sign that you have a tiny, dishonest stupid mentality. Sorry, but I have no respect for yourp athetic one dimensional, semi literate, generality laden level of argument skills. You are just another right wing retard making the same dumass comments. You are stupid and uneducated, your opinion is worthless.

BTW: What would you do? Huh, got any brilliant ideas that doesn’t involve mass firepower? DOn’t forget that Al Capone was taken down for tax evasion by the FBI, so you can shove your brain dead nanny state labels.

May 5, 2008 - 4:31 pm 86. Dark Helmet:

javelin,

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Truth can just be a mo fo, can’t it? The IRS is who handles tax evasion btw, not the FBI. Another favorite branch of the libby lib liberals, whose motto is….if you’re not smart enough to catch ‘em, make something up as you go along!

(It’s just history, why pay attention to that when you can rewrite it to make it pc? )

That would be the RICO act jave… no…. I think after this rant & rave you’ve been down graded to a tooth pick. That would be the RICO act, tooth pick.

You can twiddle your little binky all you want, the libs are well known for using paramilitary force against American citizens, the first ones to push to dismantle the constitution and seem to really like the idea of being the only ones with the means to back up what they say. ( See cuba, china, iran, chavezville your villas waitng comrade)

Al was created by nanny state self proclaimed thinkers who knew what was best. He loved them. Just like the gangs love the way the race card works and how civil rights can’t be violated no matter what the hell they are doing to law abiding people.

My brilliant idea, enforce the laws of the land. Seal the borders, cease all welfare, lock up criminals, put to death those who murder within 24 hours of sentance passed and require you to think for yourself. If you can not think for yourself then you don’t get to vote. If you can not take care of yourself, you do not get to procreate.

There ya go toothpick, most problems resolve themselves when you enforce the rules, for those that don’t, try that train brake thing out and see how it works for ya.

Good luck!

May 5, 2008 - 6:33 pm 87. Mi5ke561:

RE:Wearing a Vest.

Sir, I think that I noted that I live far away from the evil clutches of the dismal Mr. Daley and the equally infamous Mr. Blagojevich. I didn’t make up any facts. Police shootings in general are an interest of mine, because for a period which is probably longer than you’ve been breathing, young man, I’ve watched law enforcement deteriorate across the country. It’s rapidly ceasing to be accountable to the people who pay the taxes and it’s increasingly militarised, polarised and it gets progressively more inward looking as time goes on.

Let me be blunt here, Sir. It’s impossible to police a population that you hold in contempt, and your’s is showing. Furthermore, I really wonder just how effective you are. You yourself said that your primary goal is to get home alive at night. It reminds me of that paradigm shift during the Vietnam War, when people started saying, “We have a war to fight”, rather than , “we have a war to win.” It looks to me like your three goals are, (1) to get home alive, (2) to collect a paycheck, and (3) to enjoy the perquisites of being a member of a defacto petty nobility.

I also find it just fascinating to note that when it comes to matters of little things like the technical question of whether a rifle is an appropriate tool for an officer of a patrol division, you don’t seem to have much to say. And since the merits of that are what we’re discussing, I think that the exchange is degenerating into my answering your rage at my questioning my self appointed betters. Your reaction says that in your mind I’m guilty of the moral equivalent of treason for questioning you, and the judgement of your superiors, and that my tone in doing so amounts to L’ese Majest. It would be humorous if you weren’t a commissioned police officer.

There are two points that you might want to consider. First off, are you there to do something or to be somebody? Your answer strongly appears to indicate the latter.

Secondly, you might want to remember Joseph Waumbaugh’s warning that while police work isn’t the most physically dangerous job in the world, (check a set of insurance company actuarial tables sometime) it is the most morally dangerous one. And whenever I get into a debate with somebody who responds as you do, first with a dismissive claim that I’m watching too much television, (frankly I haven’t had a reason to turn it on since Firefly got cancelled, )
and then those constant inferrences that none of us have any right to question or criticise you because we allegedly haven’t got a clue, I’m sadly convinced that Mr. Waumbaugh is right. And Waumbaugh, is a veteran from the Los Angeles Police Department.

And you’re not the only one who’s attitude convinces me that I’m right. A little story here is in order.

Once upon a time, my ex-wife got me to go to a presentation put on by a detective who was trying to sell a multilevel marketing insurance scheme. Because
my brother in law, (a good guy who as it turned out made an excellent Robbery/Homicide dick) was on the list for Detective.

Anyway, at this presentation, he kept referring to us all as “little people” and then correcting himself and changing it to “real people”. I wasn’t at all clear as to what he meant, but I was fairly certain that “little people” as a term of art, was a pejorative and most likely a strong one.

So, I called an old friend on the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Office, and asked. After all, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

What my friend told me was that if I eliminated the racial specific, the term “little people” was a pejorative which meant roughly what the infamous “N-Word” does.

It’s nice to have such as succinct indicator of what the police actually think about the citizenry they serve. And again, I reiterate that you can’t effectively police a population that you hold in contempt.

It’s something you might want to consider before you get your panties in a wad over the fact that one of the peasants dares to question the acts and perquisites of our self appointed petty nobility.

Finally as to the tiny matter of whether you wear basketweave or not, (and you can always tell when somebody is losing because they start harping on peripheral issues) it’s common in most departments across the country for a very good reason. Unlike smooth leather it hides scratches, scuffs and scrapes that might otherwise made it unpresentable, by presenting a largely diffuse surface rather than a specular one.

A bit of history. At one time, policemen carried handcuffs and spare ammo in a leather lined pocket on one side of their coats and a small .32 revolver on the right. In their hands, they carried an ironwood billy club and in a breast pocket, a notebook, pencil and a whistle. And that’s what cops walked a beat with.

Then in the 1880’s or so, departments looking to save some money started buying military surplus revolvers to equip their police with, as well as larger civilian ones. Carrying those in a leather lined pocket didn’t work, so they had to go to a Sam Browne belt, frequently with a shoulder strap that had been originally intended to counterbalance the weight of a sword in military usage. Then over a period of time, they found that the leather got scuffed, scraped, ect and that replacement of belts that couldn’t be salvaged got expensive. That’s when the basketweave came in. (Consider the Francis Bannerman Catalog of that era sometime. It was the Galls of it’s day.)

And personally, I prefer the modern nylon stuff, but not everybody gets to carry it. It’s lighter, more resistant to scuffs and scratches and best of all, you don’t have a big brass buckle that contributes to some nasty cases of “cop rash.” (Really nasty dermatological condition where sweat and the metal combine to irritate the skin into something really nasty and hard to get over. If you see cops standing around with their hands in the front of their pants trying to hold their belt buckles away from their bodies, odds are good that they’ve got it. And it’s miserable.)

So much for that small detail.

I avidly await your next broadside, Sir.

May 5, 2008 - 9:22 pm 88. observer:

WTF???

This is some of the lamest cop-bashing EVER. You probably have never seen a cop from way up in your ivory tower. You just know your talking points.

Haven’t some of you have an Obama rally to attend?

You know if he wins we shall all hold hands and sing kumbya, and guns will never be needed. The police will carry flowers and the all-caring state will decide this tough stuff for us. Swept away with love for the guy from Illinois, enforcement will never be needed, and we ain’t going to study war no more.

So stop arguing, and accept the new pre-decided, state approved mode of thinking. If not for yourselves, then for the children.

May 5, 2008 - 9:27 pm 89. Mi5ke561:

RE Observer:

Regrettably you are mistaken, both on how close and how well I know police officers and what my political position is on anything. I do find it interesting however, that you’re unable to discuss the issues on the merits and have descended into name calling.

What does distress me however, is the inability of cops to debate or even discuss an issue without behaving like liberal Democrats. As far as the ability to deal with facts goes, you Sir, are on par with the Brady Bunch, the Sharptons, the Kerry-Kennedy mob, et al,……….

What saddens me still more, is that you regard anybody who argues on the basis of fact, or even of opinion which is consistant with the facts, as some sort of ivory tower academic liberal. And your self evident tendency to regard that as the moral equivalent of L’ese Majest if not outright treason, convinces me that something is definitely amiss.

What’s dangerous is just how out of touch it shows you to be. A person who is right, knows that he is right, and who has confidence in that knowledge does not have to decend to the intellectual level of some protestor from SWINE, (Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything. (And thank you Al Capp, where ever you are, for the acronym!))

If you can’t deal with a discussion of an issue on it’s merits without resorting to that old, tired and lame arguement, “”Shut Up”, he explained,” why ever on God’s green earth should any of us trust you with gun, badge and authority? Why should we trust your judgement when you show so little of it?

Questions like mine won’t go away. Every time a SWAT team kicks the wrong door and plants evidence as happened with that old lady who was killed in New Orleans, and every time they do something stupid like riddling that guy in NYC with fifty rounds when he wasn’t armed, or any of the rest of the scandalous stuff we are assaulted with, it would seem at fairly frequent intervals, those questions grow and the outraged insults of a wannabe petty noble who feels that he shouldn’t be accountable to those whom he regards as peasants, will simply support the increasing consensus that there is something wrong with Law Enforcement.

Thus far, all I can see in your outburst is somebody who is saying, “I’m somebody special, and that peasant is getting uppity!” If you’re actually a policeman, one wonders if such rudeness is how you approach the citizens on your beat. If it is, I’m ashamed of you.

What’s really ironic about this is that on the basis of outbursts like yours and an increase in reports of police misbehavior, I’ve gone from a person who used to give the police the benefit of a doubt and who opposed civilian review boards. Now the reverse is true.

I now think that those boards should be independant, should have their own independant investigative capabilities and should be able to bring charges directly against policemen who violate the law.

Congratulations: You’ve contributed to a commendable job on the part of police to convince me that the liberals are right on this one. And that’s a sad state of affairs.

And a major contributor to that conversion is the overweening sense of entitlement that you guys bring to the table. And it shows in such things as your calling us “little people” or “Civilians”, when in point of fact, you’re C I V I L I A N P O L I C E.
You’re neither military, nor are you some newly empowered class of petty nobility. You’re neither our teachers, nor our nomenklatura, regardless of what you guys say to each other at “Choir Practice.”

You need to be reminded that all you are, are citizens just like us and that while you may be accorded some limited power, we nevertheless are
sovereign. Or in simple English, you work for us, not the other way around, although I can understand your confusion on the matter. I recall a statement by NYC Police Commissioner Patrick Murphy, that he couldn’t understand why we were opposing gun control when the police wanted it, because the police were our constituents. That comment continues to amaze me because I don’t recall ever having to be voted citizenship by a committee of policemen. Murphy’s opinion was and is endemic. So it doesn’t surprise me that you might think that way, when the people who hired you also seem to operate under that particular misapprehension.

Once upon a time, there was a Midshipman James I. Waddell, who later rose to command the Confederate Raider, C.S.S. Shenandoah, but that lay in the future.

He reported after recieving his appointment from the Secretary of the Navy, to Commodore William B. Shubrick, aboard the ship of the line, U.S.S. Pennsylvania, a three decker of one hundred and twenty guns.

On reporting to the Commodore, he was advised by him of the following: “Young Gentlemen you must remember that you are now a servant of the people. They are taxed for your support, and you should at all times be respectful to the people. They can dismantle the Navy whenever they choose to exercise that power.”

I think that you may want to reflect on the Commodore’s advice as well. Why? Because whether you like it or not, the police are becoming ever more arrogant, polarised and in some things delusional and people notice this. And at some point, some outrage will occur and at that point, somebody will display the courage shown by Sir Robert Peel when he dismantled the old Peelers who were the British Police, and then formed what we know today as the London Metropolitian Police.

And as outrage surpasses outrage and as the police only answer when asked to account for it is, “how dare you rise against your betters”, than end becomes
more and more thinkable to many. And that number increases every time you behave badly.

In the meantime, I only can reiterate that your outburst is low on truth, high on vitriol and in the end, it impresses me not at all.

And again, I await your next broadside, Sir.

May 6, 2008 - 3:19 am 90. Marc:

There is a theme in these posts, one of which intrigues me greatly. The overriding fear regarding misuse of power is what I am alluding too. The previous comment by Mi5ke561 encapsulates this meme.

So, we’ve pointed out the issue, how do we fix it? I am continually searching for ways to right the ship, as it were. How do we invigorate the masses? What is the threshold for revolution? Are we made to feel so comfortable and medicated that nothing will perturb us? We have all this power to disseminate messages, but will anyone care?

Holed up in my bunker- Marc

May 6, 2008 - 5:09 am 91. Chris R.:

Who’s to blame when elected officials screw up this badly? The people who elected the officials. Chicago voters filled the ballot boxes and now their Mayor and crew are filling wooden boxes. The Governor of my state, Texas, signed a bill into law in 2007 called the Castle Law which makes it easier to defend yourself and your property with deadly force. There are several large cities in Texas and they are all included in the Castle Law.

Do I feel safer since 2007? You bet. Am I actually safer since 2007? Absolutely. My favorite news reports are when elderly homeowners open fire during home invasions. They didn’t need to wait for the police to show up with assault rifles and I wouldn’t wait either.

No system is perfect, but disarming people while arming a police force with military weapons is illogical. What does the Mayor do when assault rifles don’t work as planned? How about ordering up a few Apache helicopter gunships for those pesky car chases? Why not just deploy M1A1 Abrams tanks as patrol vehicles?

Maybe next time the voters of Chicago will choose more wisely while voting. Until then, they are stuck in the mess they created.

May 6, 2008 - 6:23 am 92. Southside CPD:

While incidents like the North Hollywood shootout do occur, they are rare. The access to heavy firepower no doubt saved countless LAPD and citizen lives. They were saved by going into a gunshop and getting rifles, something that could not happen in Chicago where most “sporting goods stores” don’t even carry gun cleaning supplies– to non PC.

But these incidents are rare. There should be some type of rapid response heavy fire weapons available on the street on short response time.

As for the training costs, the article is way off the mark.

First of al the $1400/gun cost: That is BEFORE the city goes through its procurement process and awards the contract to an approved minority contractor. Looks more like $2000/gun..+?

Wages: More like $375/day when you factor in benefits. Plus officers are not available for street duty during training. And at LEAST 5 days to include basic weapon cleaning.

Ammo: Right now with the war in the Middle East, ammo for those guns is sky high. It used to be easy to have a 1000 rd case shipped to your house for about $140. Now the ammo is around $450/1000 and no major ammo house can legally ship to the City of Chicago.

Plus the CPD officers have been “negotiating” a new contract for nearly a year with at least another year or two before it will be settled and paid.

The money could be better spent on more training with current weapons and much more needed supplies.

May 6, 2008 - 7:45 am 93. Rifleman14:

I would love to know where you can buy 1000 rounds of 5.56mm ammo for $130. I would enjoy paying 13¢ a round, instead of the almost 30¢ a round I normally see.

May 6, 2008 - 7:48 am 94. Mi5ke561:

RE :Southside CPD.

As a thought, Sir, instead of arming all of the police with rifles that odds on won’t be sighted in for the individual, why not take a flyer from the late 19th and early 20th Centuries called a “Flying Squad.” Different from a SWAT team, which is something that’s terribly overused and equally terribly misused, the Flying Squad would be a highly mobile police unit that can be moved from area to area at need, when heavy and accurate use of firepower might be a deterrent. This would also cut acquisition costs and might make training costs low enough for the department that it might be possible to at least schedule weekly or bi-weekly training in a fun house/ Hogan’s Alley type situation. One thing that I have discovered is that you learn more in a mobile range than you do a stationary one. You always fight as you train, and buying ten thousand assault rifles will only insure that nobody learns to use them well enough to be both decisive and not a threat to the community at large due to a large number of misses.

May 6, 2008 - 9:54 am 95. Mi5ke561:

RE: Marc

Sir, I think that the first step is a developing consensus that something is wrong with law enforcement as it’s currently practiced. Once you accept that something is wrong, it’s a lot easier to analyze the problem and come up with some answers.

Of course that’s going to require a level of public outrage that will more than counterbalance one political truth that is of overriding concern to politicians in big cities and that’s this: The cops tend to be members of public employee unions and the one thing that they hate is whenever somebody calls their current practice into question and wants to change it. They’ll fight tooth and nail just like a teachers union will. And politicians tend to be rather solicitous of what they regard as cohesive political blocks.

Once we’ve gotten past that point, it gets easier. From where I sit, law enforcement as currently practiced in this country is a failure. You engage in fear based training, and then you put them in a police car that is a bubble that separates them from the people that they serve. That cop car is a reality filter for the guys who are wearing badges and carrying guns.

And it doesn’t help one bit that we’re selecting for the type of person who becomes threatened and outraged when questioned either.

Back when I was a kid, guys who joined the police force generally tended to be average guys who liked a little action and wanted to get paid for it. And from observation, they did a fine job, but unfortunately the clipboard tickers got ahold of the process of personnel selection and it’s been going downhill ever since.

It’s instructive that these days you can go to a bookstore and get study guides on how to sharpshoot the written tests, oral boards and the psychiatric interview. And reading them gives you a pretty good idea of who and what they’re selecting for. And frankly that’s frightening. It’s also a case of inintended consequences.

The tests are largely imposed by the Feds. To get funding your department has to meet certain specifications as far as training of both line officers and their supervisors are concerned. And there are also some mandates on personnel selection.
And that’s why you see guys on the command track in Law Enforcement always showing coursework at the FBI Academy at Quantico for example.

Now the thing that fascinates me the most is a question that usually shows up in the written and the psychological evaluation. They’re asked, “why do you want to become a cop”. The correct answer, according to the shrinks and the tests is, “because I want to help people.” Sounds innocuous doesn’t it? Actually it’s anything but.

Why? Consider the nature of the question. They’re looking for an altruistic type of person and those come in two flavors. The first and fortunately rarest, is an individual who’s pretty much committing slow motion suicide, and fortunately that tends to be rather self correcting.

Then there’s the second one. The guy who wants to be the helper. And what’s wrong with that? Consider the nature of the relationship between the person helping and the person being helped for a moment. The person accepting assistance, must place himself in a subordinate role to the person giving the assistance. The helper is in charge!

And when we use that as a filter for hiring decisions, what we’re selecting for is somebody who wants to be in charge– who by virtue of his position wants power over others. And that’s not necessarily a good thing either.

When you look at some of the outraged outbursts from some of the police who are posting, you begin to see a connection between their desire to be in charge and their desire to not be questioned by the peasants that they regard as below them. Notice the pattern to my comments and their responses. It’s not a coincidence.

And it’s been my observation that the earlier one becomes involved with law enforcement, the worse that attitude is. Some of the snottiest kids I’ve ever met are Police Explorers and they’re learning that outrage and sarcasm from professionals. And the thought of them growing up to be commissioned police officers frightens me. I’d love to see some figures correlating participation in those programs to problem behavior and diciplinary problems later on. Unfortunately, I suspect that nobody’s keeping score on that one.

And when you take those individual behaviors and allow those people to create a self selecting elite, what you get are a bunch of people who tend towards paranoia due to the social disconnect they suffer from the rest of society at large. And they become infected with a bunker mentality and they are outraged at anybody who questions it.

And I think that the reason that we’re having that problem is largely a question of personnel selection.
We’re taking one type of person and concentrating them in an organization that wields a great deal of power. And that can’t be a good thing.

So, we’ve got to start with two things, admitting that we have a problem and changing the personnel selection policies so that we don’t have a bunch of Type II Altruists more interested in power and perquisites than on getting the job done that we pay them for.

Remember that comment from “Wearing a Vest” that their primary goal was surviving to the end of their shift? That says volumes about a number of things– all bad.

And trying to get them to try something new, is about as much fun and as successful as getting a shark to take up being a vegetarian! Remember a few years ago, when Community Oriented Policing was a new thing? Most cops hated it. Most of them still do. And from the reactions, you’d have thought that we were asking them to go on patrol wearing pink fuzzy bunny suits or something.

And one of the big reasons that this particular initiative has generally been a failure is that the cops don’t respect the people that they work for. Getting out and getting to know “little people” must be a real drag for them. Then again, it only underscores my assertion that you can’t effectively police a population that you hold in contempt.

And until we can fix those things, the problems with the police will both continue to be insoluable and it will continue to get worse.

May 6, 2008 - 10:43 am 96. JohnMc:

The amazing thing about the exchanges between Mi5ke561 and wearing a vest, is that despite vests comments like “little fella” and “little man” (projecting much?) he does not once respond to the central point Mike was making — if you’re sights are not zeroed to the individual shooter — you are going to miss — possibly by a very wide margin.

I also have to agree with Mike on cops and practice. I shoot IPSC, and of those few cops who participate in this sport, or IDPA, most are average shots, at best. A military friend of mine occasionally gets me on the local PD rifle range, where the range master says that he mostly does nothing all day because the only times the cops practice is when they have to qualify.

May 6, 2008 - 10:53 am 97. Mi5ke561:

RE: JohnMC

Sir, I think that part of the problem is that Wearing a Vest, is a Chicago cop. Most cops from large cities aren’t gun people. I grew up with a rifle and a big desert to go play in. He probably didn’t and his first exposure to firearms was probably in the police academy.

The end result of this is that he probably has no idea at all as to the characteristics or limitations of a rifle and especially not in a congested environment.

And it appears likely that neither the Mayor nor the Chief of Police in his town, both being gun control supporters, are quite unlikely to understand just how a rifle works either. Most people don’t study the technical attributes of things that they hate.

My guess is that the first time these guys go to a range and try sighting a couple of rifles in, they’re going to discover just how much of an accuracy problem they’re going to have, issuing M-4s as car guns. And odd accessories like flashlights and laser sights aren’t going to help matters any either.

May 6, 2008 - 11:40 am 98. JohnMc:

Mi5ke561:

I lived in NYC for many years. The Giuliani Administration did a study upon the issuance of 9 mm semiautos to NYPD to evaluate the “hit ratio after a number of high profile shootings. The hit ratio was about 8%. 8%! Needless to say, the mayor’s office did not publish the findings.

One of the scariest trends out there is the militarization of police forces, creating in effect para-military organizations without the military training. Combine that with no-knock raids and we have a recipe for tragedy. How many times have we seen mistaken addresses in these raids? I take a backseat to no one in my respect for cops — they do a dirty job. But do I want them uparmed with high penetration rifles? Lord no.

May 6, 2008 - 12:57 pm 99. Chuck Pelto:

TO: JohnMc
RE: Mike v. the Vest

“The amazing thing about the exchanges between Mi5ke561 and wearing a vest, is that despite vests comments like “little fella” and “little man” (projecting much?) he does not once respond to the central point Mike was making…” — JohnMc

Interesting point. Reminds me of the Lawyer’s Rule:

[1] If the Law is against you, argue the facts.
[2] If the facts are against you, argue the Law.
[3] If both the Law and the facts are against you, call the other side names.

Maybe the Vest is going to night school in order to become a ‘Lawyer’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

May 6, 2008 - 4:39 pm 100. Chi Town Copper:

I take a backseat to no one in my respect for cops — they do a dirty job. But do I want them uparmed with high penetration rifles? Lord no.
–

Interesting opinion. Fatally flawed, but interesting. As the civil libertarians gather strength in major markets, which are often ghettoized, the police will continued to be de-balled and the criminal class will grow in conviction. You better believe the Bad