Japanese Police issued Paintball guns

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

I basically agree with smoking357 on this.

Of course, how officers choose to arm themselves as individuals off-duty is a right they possess as human beings.

Although, I do think the penalty for brandishing should be the same for all civilians, in and out of uniform.

Edit: LEO229, explain... All of a sudden law enforcement is something other than a purely reactive mechanism?

News to me. They sure did a lot of "gun deployment" at Virginia Tech. Didn't prevent very much, though. :quirky

You know, when the London police first stopped carrying guns (by policy), the British citizen could still arm himself with a concealed handgun on the streets of the city quite legally. Imagine that... armed citizens and disarmed (beat) police. And guess what? Crime not only didn't go up, the number of violent altercations involving police officers (either on the giving or receiving end of the harm) actually decreased.

People could still defend themselves, yet the escalatory effect of armed police was mitigated.

Click to expand...

Well gentlemen....   If you and 357 think the world is so safe that the police do not need guns on duty where they are more likely to need them...  I guess you two will be first in line to turn in your guns.

Obviously.. if the police on duty do not need guns.. citizens do not need them either. :lol:

Click to expand...

Straw man of epic proportions. "Obviously", my ass.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Of course.. But here some want to prevent the police from being armed but allow themselves to be.

Under the guise that the police are somehow "dangerous"... while the citizens with firearms are too.

Go figure.

Click to expand...

lol, "guise"?

You don't read the news much, do you?

imported post

For the fleeing motorcycle to remove his coat he needs to stop and do it. This give the police time to catch up." -- LEO 229

Just for the record...

Please...this is not true at all. You must have never owned/ridden a motorcycle.


It's often interesting watching people is cars passing you on the freeway when they see you on a bike but with no hands on the handle bars -- for as long as you want.

So no problem at all to use both hands for a few seconds to take off a jacket and toss it.

-- John D.

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

For the fleeing motorcycle to remove his coat he needs to stop and do it. This give the police time to catch up." -- LEO 229

Just for the record...

Please...this is not true at all. You must have never owned/ridden a motorcycle.


It's often interesting watching people is cars passing you on the freeway when they see you on a bike but with no hands on the handle bars -- for as long as you want.

So no problem at all to use both hands for a few seconds to take off a jacket and toss it.

-- John D.

Click to expand...

Golly.. I guess you go me there!!! Yuk, Yuk, Yuk!!! :uhoh:

Nothing like traveling 100 MPH in traffic and taking a moment to remove a coat that you may or may not know has paint on it. Hopefully you remember to remove your wallet and cell phone before you toss it.


Back in my day we would sit and watchguys ride motorcycleswith no hands on the handle bars and they would run off the road, hit a tree, and the bike would explode.

So no problem at all to use both hands for a few seconds to scratch their crotch and ass at the same time.

-- Jake D.

imported post

I am liking the idea of an officer needing some serious justification for drawing a firearmin a situation where it is not warranted, and then being fined or some other disciplinary action when it is not justified.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Of course.. But here somewant toprevent the police from being armed but allow themselves to be.

Under the guise that the police are somehow "dangerous"... while the citizens with firearms are too.

Go figure.

Click to expand...

lol, "guise"?

You don't read the news much, do you?

Click to expand...

I do not need the news.. I get the data first hand from calls for service. To date.. way far more citizens have used guns indangerous waysthan cops.

You watch the news thatwill notkeep reporting the same ol' thing. Do you know that the media is not interested in robbery and burglary reports unless there is something good in them? So all the accidental gun discharges and other dangerous events by citizens are so prevent that they are not news worthy anymore. Unless someone was actually shot and killed.. the media will normally pass on it.

So just because YOU do not hear about it in the news.... certainly does not mean it is not happening. Now the cop events are GREAT for news ratings. Why? Because they do not happen that often!! This draws viewers in to see what happened because it is so rare.

Remember who you are talking to, OK? I hear about ALL the calls and most of them never make the nightly news. There are plenty of dangerous citizen related gun events.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

I am liking the idea of an officer needing some serious justification for drawing a firearmin a situation where it is not warranted, and then being fined or some other disciplinary action when it is not justified.

Click to expand...

This is already in place. It is called excessive use of force. If a cop drew down on you and you believe it was not justified you can report the event it IA. They will look into it and interview everyone involved.

If the cop was wrong and cannot articulate why he drew or his reason for drawing was not justified... he pays the price.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Well gentlemen.... If you and 357think the world is so safe that the police do not need guns on duty where they are more likely to need them... I guess you two will be first in line toturn in your guns.

Obviously.. if the police on duty do not need guns.. citizens do not need them either. :lol:

Click to expand...

Straw man of epic proportions. "Obviously", my ass.

Click to expand...

What.. you do not like the idea of not being armed either? :lol:

If it is so safe for the cops to go out unarmed...why do YOU need a gun. Come on.. be honest here.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

I am liking the idea of an officer needing some serious justification for drawing a firearm in a situation where it is not warranted, and then being fined or some other disciplinary action when it is not justified.

 

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Although, felony (as smoking 357 suggested) may be a bit harsh.

But, once again: Absolutely.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Well gentlemen....   If you and 357 think the world is so safe that the police do not need guns on duty where they are more likely to need them...  I guess you two will be first in line to turn in your guns.

Obviously.. if the police on duty do not need guns.. citizens do not need them either. :lol:

Click to expand...

Straw man of epic proportions. "Obviously", my ass.

Click to expand...

What.. you do not like the idea of not being armed either?  :lol:

If it is so safe for the cops to go out unarmed... why do YOU need a gun. Come on.. be honest here.

Click to expand...

You're a servant. If we decide your job is safe enough as it is, that's our call.

It's not about making things cozy for you, CLEO. It's about making this country peaceable and safe for the citizen.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Nutczak wrote:

I am liking the idea of an officer needing some serious justification for drawing a firearm in a situation where it is not warranted, and then being fined or some other disciplinary action when it is not justified.

Click to expand...

 
This is already in place. It is called excessive use of force. If a cop drew down on you and you believe it was not justified you can report the event it IA. They will look into it and interview everyone involved.

If the cop was wrong and cannot articulate why he drew or his reason for drawing was not justified... he pays the price.

Click to expand...

Where is this? Fantasy land? Maybe one time in a thousand.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Of course.. But here some want to prevent the police from being armed but allow themselves to be.

Under the guise that the police are somehow "dangerous"... while the citizens with firearms are too.

Go figure.

Click to expand...

lol, "guise"?

You don't read the news much, do you?

Click to expand...

I do not need the news.. I get the data first hand from calls for service. To date.. way far more citizens have used guns in dangerous ways than cops.

You watch the news that will not keep reporting the same ol' thing. Do you know that the media is not interested in robbery and burglary reports unless there is something good in them? So all the accidental gun discharges and other dangerous events by citizens are so prevent that they are not news worthy anymore. Unless someone was actually shot and killed.. the media will normally pass on it.

So just because YOU do not hear about it in the news....  certainly does not mean it is not happening.  Now the cop events are GREAT for news ratings. Why? Because they do not happen that often!!  This draws viewers in to see what happened because it is so rare.

Remember who you are talking to, OK?   I hear about ALL the calls and most of them never make the nightly news. There are plenty of dangerous citizen related gun events.

Click to expand...

I'm going to give you the rare nod of the head here: you work in Fairfax County. Aside from your excessive numbers and the state's immoral prohibitions, your force comes as close to being professional as any in the country.

Things are a little different here in the Bay Area.

Furthermore, I didn't say all police had to be disarmed; I implied that many should be. It would simply be a privileged earned by well-behaved servants. Your department might be one of the few to qualify.

imported post

Leo229,

Yeah, yuk yuk, you're a Gomer Pyle/Barney Fife alright, roger that, but the fact remains you still don't know anything about riding amotorcycle....people hitting trees or scratching asses notwithstanding of course.

Sounds like another cop I knew who was just like you (who's now the Police Chief in that city): Never owned/ridden one but was telling me (who did) allabout them.

Alsokept telling meabout all the violence and dead bodies he's seen on the force...when I was a combat vet and saw a hell of a lot more "action" then he (who got a deferment andnever served) sure did. Cops who were never the service in combat vets sure are funny that way.

Yuk Yuk.

What a clown.

- John D.

P.S. I didn't say it was SAFE to do, I just said it can be done. Yuk yuk.

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

Leo229,

Yeah, yuk yuk, you're a Gomer Pyle/Barney Fife alright, roger that, but the fact remains you still don't know anything about riding amotorcycle....people hitting trees or scratching asses notwithstanding of course.

Sounds like another cop I knew who was just like you (who's now the Police Chief in that city): Never owned/ridden one but was telling me (who did) allabout them.

Alsokept telling meabout all the violence and dead bodies he's seen on the force...when I was a combat vet and saw a hell of a lot more "action" then he (who got a deferment andnever served) sure did. Cops who were never the service in combat vets sure are funny that way.

Yuk Yuk.

What a clown.

- John D.

P.S. I didn't say it was SAFE to do, I just said it can be done. Yuk yuk.

Click to expand...

Golly... you sure showed me, huh??!! :lol:

imported post

marshaul wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

What.. you do not like the idea of not being armed either? :lol:

If it is so safe for the cops to go out unarmed...why do YOU need a gun. Come on.. be honest here.

Click to expand...

You're a servant. If we decide your job is safe enough as it is, that's our call.

It's not about making things cozy for you, CLEO. It's about making this country peaceable and safe for the citizen.

Click to expand...

You are correct... I do a job on behalf of the people. I protect them and provide a service.

I doubt that you or any other group would ever be successful in disarming any or even some the police in a day whencriminals now arm themselves with AK-47 rifles. As it stands now... departments all over the US are issuing rifles to keep up.

So it has nothing to do with being "cozy" and I am not sure why you even said that. It is about allowing the police to combat criminals and keep the community safe.

Again... this is all becauseyou and a few others "think" the police are dangerous with firearms.

If this is criteria to disarm a group of people... thenmany citizens would need to be disarmed too.

But if a citizens rights to bear arms areconstitutionally protected... then a guy working as a cop has the same rights to carry. Right?

Why are you focusing on cops alone when far more citizens are involved in gun related dangers?

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

Leo229,

Yeah, yuk yuk, you're a Gomer Pyle/Barney Fife alright, roger that, but the fact remains you still don't know anything about riding amotorcycle....people hitting trees or scratching asses notwithstanding of course.

Sounds like another cop I knew who was just like you (who's now the Police Chief in that city): Never owned/ridden one but was telling me (who did) allabout them.

Alsokept telling meabout all the violence and dead bodies he's seen on the force...when I was a combat vet and saw a hell of a lot more "action" then he (who got a deferment andnever served) sure did. Cops who were never the service in combat vets sure are funny that way.

Yuk Yuk.

What a clown.

- John D.

P.S. I didn't say it was SAFE to do, I just said it can be done. Yuk yuk.

Click to expand...

Just to keep you from diging deeper hole, I have witnessed with mine own eyes LEO229 riding his motorcycle, and I find his backstory of military service to be believable.

So let's get on with the discussion of proper armament for police officers and how it should or shouldn't be used and knock off the ad hominem sniping.

As many of you may suspect, I tend to side with the "less arms for cops, more arms and responsibility for citizens" camp. While it's true that Fairfax County tends to have a professional police force, it also has a state's attorney who tends to go easy on cops who do screw up.

That said, the professionalism or lack thereof of a particular police force is not really the issue; the fact that the citizenry has surrendered its sense of responsibility to police itself to armed, badged governement employees is the issue. When we Americans decided we needed professional police to enforce what should be fairly simple laws, we also placed our own liberties under ever-increasing pressure to yield before government "needs".

It's now reached the point where someone who wants to go to a British-style unarmed bobbie-type system is considered a crank, even though the British had this system until very recently ina modern metropolitan city.

All that aside, I'd just be happy if cops were forbidden from using tasers without a really good reason. That'd be a good start.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

What.. you do not like the idea of not being armed either?  :lol:

If it is so safe for the cops to go out unarmed... why do YOU need a gun. Come on.. be honest here.

Click to expand...

You're a servant. If we decide your job is safe enough as it is, that's our call.

It's not about making things cozy for you, CLEO. It's about making this country peaceable and safe for the citizen.

Click to expand...

You are correct...  I do a  job on behalf of the people. I protect them and provide a service.

I doubt that you or any other group would ever be successful in disarming any or even some the police in a day when criminals now arm themselves with AK-47 rifles. As it stands now... departments all over the US are issuing rifles to keep up.

So it has nothing to do with being "cozy" and I am not sure why you even said that. It is about allowing the police to combat criminals and keep the community safe.

Again... this is all because you and a few others "think" the police are dangerous with firearms.

If this is criteria to disarm a group of people...  then many citizens would need to be disarmed too.

But if a citizens rights to bear arms are constitutionally protected... then a guy working as a cop has the same rights to carry. Right?

Why are you focusing on cops alone when far more citizens are involved in gun related dangers?

Click to expand...

Another strawman. How many cops carry an AR-15 on a sling during their entire patrol?

I never said police shouldn't have access to handguns and AR-15s. I merely think they should not have weapons on their person during every traffic stop or "consensual" encounter, and should certainly not present their weapons as frequently as they do today.

Tomahawk hit the nail on the head, as usual.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Nutczak wrote:

I am liking the idea of an officer needing some serious justification for drawing a firearmin a situation where it is not warranted, and then being fined or some other disciplinary action when it is not justified.

Click to expand...

This is already in place. It is called excessive use of force. If a cop drew down on you and you believe it was not justified you can report the event it IA. They will look into it and interview everyone involved.

If the cop was wrong and cannot articulate why he drew or his reason for drawing was not justified... he pays the price.

Click to expand...

Too funny. We all know that nothing happens to cops for their crimes, and that's why we're seeing such a societal backlash against them.

I'd like to see the felony extend to the touching of the gun. That's menacing and assault, and we need to start reducing the amount of power and violence available to the police.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Why are you focusing on cops alone when far more citizens are involved in gun related dangers?

Click to expand...

There are also more citizens than cops. By a long shot. Armed ones, too.

The rates are disproportionate. Further, most citizen-induced dangers are accidents, NDs and the like. Most of the time nobody gets hurt.

The simple fact is, as you with your experience very well know, citizens very rarely stop drivers and end up killing the unarmed occupant(s).

Armed citizens don't go looking for trouble. Cops do. This is the inherent difference between the two, and why I seek to treat them differently.

BTW, a citizen has a right to bear arms, but he doesn't have a right to require his employer allow him to be armed while on the job. The employer retains his right to make only those contracts he darn well pleases to enter into. The people, as employer of the police, can similarly set any rules they darn well please with regards to how and the extent to which officers arm themselves while on the job.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

You are correct... I do a job on behalf of the people. I protect them and provide a service.

I doubt that you or any other group would ever be successful in disarming any or even some the police in a day whencriminals now arm themselves with AK-47 rifles. As it stands now... departments all over the US are issuing rifles to keep up.

Click to expand...

No police should ever have a rifle in the car on on their person. These must only be withdrawn from the locker in a declared emergency. When police are armed with offensive rifles, they've easily crossed the line into becoming an enemy occupyng army.

So it has nothing to do with being "cozy" and I am not sure why you even said that. It is about allowing the police to combat criminals and keep the community safe. Again... this is all because you and a few others "think" the police are dangerous with firearms.

Click to expand...

I fear the "criminals" less than the cops, and the police firearms, tasers included, are a far greater threat to me than the guns of criminals.

If this is criteria to disarm a group of people... then many citizens would need to be disarmed too.

Click to expand...

Nice "us vs. them" attitude. My right to keep and bear arms is not connected to the access to arms of the domestic state security forces. In fact, every gun you acquire increases the need for the citizens to go +1 over the police. The militia is the defense of this country, and we'd rather only have to worry about enemies thousands of miles away.

But if a citizens rights to bear arms are constitutionally protected... then a guy working as a cop has the same rights to carry. Right?

Click to expand...

When he's not drawing a paycheck from the citizens, sure; he can obey the rest of the rules that his masters are forced to obey. I don't like the idea of police being able to carry badges with them when they are off duty.

Why are you focusing on cops alone when far more citizens are involved in gun related dangers?

Click to expand...

Red herring. Really, bud, that's a sleazy attempt at deception.