Rail cops go great guns

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/rail_cops_umdUeMj91LgYvYe2LV3zTN



Seems like excessive security theater to me. If someone were to target the subway with some kind of IED, I doubt an AR-15 offers much more protection than a standard side-arm.

It supposedly delivers somewhat better range and dramatically improved terminal ballistics than the 5.56x45mm round.

or a remotely detonated device.

Random searches at entrances might have some effect... but they don't have the man-power to do so frequently enough or for long enough.

Once again, Security Theatre(tm).

Bloomberg is an ass.

Edit: Especially if this a response to a Russian government-caused issue that the U.S. does not support. Any excuse for a parade, I suppose...

How likely is an officer to get a shot that justifies the extra range? (not to mention the risk of overpenetration with 6.8 in distances inside a subway station..)

IIRC, some SWAT in NYC have SIGs in 357 as sidearms. I'd think that is a good balance between stopping power, risk of overpenetration, range, and flexibility in a crowded space where swinging even a carbine could be difficult.

then it's security theater.



Hope that officer doesn't actually need that rifle. The Aimpoint optic is on backwards.

Although the reporter should get some facts straight. An M16 is not a "submachine gun", and even if the whole NYPD had M16's, they could not "wipe out downtown Brooklyn." Unless they are issuing some nuclear fission-fusion loads that I don't know about. :eyes:

that guy has some gunz!

and i'm not talking about the firearm

It doesn't just mean the cop has never fired that particular weapon, or even just tried to look through the sight, but has never fired an M4 fitted with an Aimpoint. It also means that nobody has even tried to zero the optic. So we've got a cop with a rifle he doesn't know how to use, and no idea where the bullets would end up going if he did fire it. And chances are, he's not the only one toting a rifle with no clue In a crowded urban environment, that is a very, very scary thought.

He's the only one "professional enough...."

You know the rest.

Do you really expect them to know the difference between pistol-caliber and rifle-caliber nomenclature?

I do agree with the sentiment though. Would a little fact-checking be so difficult?

The really funny thing is, when the media gets a chance to use the term "assault rifle" correctly, they still mess it up :rofl:

so they feel no need to check them. Why bother when they can just make shit up?

Seriously.


She always complains about how small town newspapers like the one for which she works get angry people every time they mess up, but nobody really seams to care when the AP outright lies.

The state of journalism is pretty sad, these days.

Epic facepalm.

its like the random bag searches at some stations....silly and totally ineffective

I thought Bloomberg wanted to keep guns OUT of NYC?!

If I were working a detail that involved patrolling a subway platform, then I'd be pretty happy with the M4. A shoulder fired carbine is far more accurate than a pistol, assuming you know how to actually use the thing. The 5.56 has plenty of stopping power. Given the excitement on the Russian subways recently I would think it would be negligent for the NYPD to not increase patrols and visibility.

Is this added security an iron-clad guarantee of safety? Nope, not a bit. But at least it gives the officers on the ground the tools to do their job. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if the NYPD allowed a suicide bomber to just waltz in to the place unchallenged.

I have no problem with police having the tools they need to do their jobs as long as they aren't stomping on our rights.

I cannot imagine the lawsuit resulting from an innocent bystander getting shot by that guy. The first thing they'll ask for is his qualification records and it had darn well better include the sight he used. There's no way that guy ever shot that weapon in that condition. The City would be exposed to risk even if he shot Osama Bin Laden riding a camel laden with TNT down Wall Street if the officer hadn't qualified on that weapon. If the officer in question has qualified, but somehow shoots a bystander because he can't get a sight picture, that will be quickly determined in the follow-up investigation. The first thing they do when starting such an investigation is relieve you of your weapon and ammo so it wouldn't take long to figure out what the problem was. Everyone scrutinizes officer involved shootings because that's one of the best ways to learn if training and tactics are still working.

I've been on details where the long arms were handed out. We're always given the admonition to "not kill anyone" and a quick call to dispatch can verify whether a particular officer is current on the weapon. And I have seen officers sent home because they lacked the proper paperwork to carry, for instance, a shotgun. In this case it was a call up of a bunch of "reserve" officers who allowed themselves to fall through the cracks in training.

It's just like that famous picture of an officer with her magazine inserted backwards that was turned into a de-motivational poster...


You have to wonder about training standards. That's different from not allowing police to have good tools.

If the officer in question has qualified, but somehow shoots a bystander because he can't get a sight picture, that will be quickly determined in the follow-up investigation.

How hard is it to align the sights and pretend the whole thing away (assuming no photographic proof exists to the contrary)?

Cops eat their own all the time. It's a sight to behold. The Thin Blue Line gets very thin when it comes down to deciding whether to keep your pension or help out someone who wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire. Of course departments will try to minimize their exposure to liability but that wouldn't help out an individual officer who managed to mount his optics backwards on his patrol rifle. Guaranteed the individual officer would get tossed into the volcano to appease the lawyers. They'll take care of you on little things but shooting a bystander isn't such a little thing.

It's far simpler to adhere to some minimum training standards and actually expect your officers to know how to use their equipment. If an individual officer is dumb enough to carry a weapon that he hasn't qualified on he's an idiot. If he qualifies with an AR with the optic mounted backwards, well, that's very interesting. I'd sure hate to be the instructor who signed that pile of forms because you are about to join Officer Backwards in the volcano.

Government shields itself from this kind of treatment. Screw up once and goodbye they hardly knew ya'.

are not what you would consider to be "gun guys." There are many cops who never fire their weapon except for mandated qualification. They are only marginally competent with their issue weapon and some are virtually clueless as to the function, handling or use of any other class of firearm.

One great example occurred when a local agency changed their training and qualification policy back in the revolver days. The department decided it would no longer allow officers to qualify with mildly loaded .38 special wadcutter ammunition but instead the full-house .357 magnum ammo they normally carried while on duty would be used. Concurrent with this change, the officer would use the ammunition he had been carrying to fire qualification and he would be issued "fresh" ammunition to replace what had been expended in practice. That would end the embarrassment of "green bullets" in belt loops.

During the initial range firing under the new chief's policy, a couple officers took their spots on line and all six rounds in their revolvers failed to fire. Turned out they had been in the habit of spraying the gun down with WD-40, wiping it with a rag, and stuffing it into a locker when not on duty. Repeated spraying of the loaded cylinder had caused the oil to contaminate and ruin the primers. No one knew how many years that ammo had been in their guns.

At that time the department permitted, but did not require officers to carry off-duty. Invariably, those officers who engaged in competitive shooting or were active hunters and shooters off-duty were not only more competent marksmen but considerably safer in their gun-handling as well. The department also changed from annual qualifications to quarterly, made the courses of fire more realistic, and made the standards more rigorous. Also included were changes to qualify and not just familiarize with the shotgun. That chief also mandated that all carry off-duty and if they chose a weapon other than their service sidearm, they had to qualify to standard with their off-duty weapon. Officers that could not or would not qualify didn't get to keep their jobs.

We had one guy who I literally had to stand directly behind when he shot "to help him". My primary job was to make sure he didn't sweep everyone with his muzzle or somehow try to kill anyone. He made it through a couple parts of the new course before he decided he'd had enough. He was bitter because what had been good enough for all those years just wasn't anymore.

Back in those days our range had a big pile of railroad ties that everyone not on the line shooting would hide behind. I'm not kidding.

...the mistake will correct itself.

:nuke:

I remember when 9/11 happened. In the rural area I was working at the local volunteer fire department guys I worked with were all salivating at all the new cool disaster gear they were going to be able to buy with the federal 9/11 disaster money being handed out by the bucket.

Now I can't be too upset about this small-town fire department getting some badly-needed new equipment (for a long time they did not even have a fire truck proper, just a flat-bed truck with a water tank on it and a pump.

But I am certain that the years of the "war on drugs" and now the "war on terror" has allowed police departments across the country to "up-gun" and essentially turn small-town police forces into paramilitary SWAT forces. No-knock warrants are now being served by these "troops" routinely.

This is the real problem with these "wars". They are really just used as excuses to grab and consolidate power and buy equipment to make it happen.

that has an M113 armored personnel carrier.

http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/01/sheriff-lotts-new-toy



Personally, I think the issuing of non-automatic civilian AR's in lieu of the traditional cruiser shotgun is a good thing, and I think putting Aimpoints/Eotechs on patrol rifles is a good idea. But in the case of the NYPD, merely equipping officers with tactical gear and rifles that make local reporters wet their pants (even if they ARE small-caliber civilian rifles) is useless against Terrah if the officers don't get any range time and aren't allowed to own their own. In the photo I posted, it is painfully obvious that the officer knows very little about his rifle and has never shot it in that configuration, and that the city of New York considers "looking badass" to be his primary mission. Training costs money, so who needs training, I guess the thinking goes. Or maybe they feel that possession of a badge automatically confers competence, I dunno.

But then again, I think everybody (not literally everybody) should be allowed to buy them.

Reagan's escalation of the War On Drugs included federal subsidies to all law enforcement agencies that participated in what appears to be an incremental transition to police state tactics, which includes money to buy all sorts of redundant paramilitary ("SWAT") equipment such as special shoes, special gloves, special sidearm holsters, submachine guns and accessories, night vision equipment, helmets, goggles, body armor, rapelling gear, assorted smoke and flash-bang grenades, knee protectors, special radios, special knives, and more unnecessary junk. All in the ostensible interest of the drug war.

Anyone who wishes to see the current status of the police-state transition should go here:

Cato Map on SWAT Raids: http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Give the map a few seconds to load and I promise you will find the content very interesting.

The "war on drugs" should be referred to as it really is. A war on people. You can't go to war against stuff.

It may seem to be a minor point, but as long as you let an interest control the language, it controls the conversation. If you control the conversation, you can greatly influence the outcome.

If it was really a war on drugs, then when people are caught with contraband (a fancy word for "stuff I don't think you should have, because I know better"), it would just be confiscated (a nice word for stealing) and the person would be sent on their way. While this is still less than ideal, since people should have have things stolen from them under color of law, it would be a far sight better than throwing them in jail.

- is the primary function of the police is to protect and serve the interests of the ruling elite, not the ordinary citizens. While the sight of helmeted police with machine guns might be confusing, even somewhat unsettling, to the average subway rider it is just fine with the elitists who travel in limousines. For them, the more machine guns the better.

While it is true that police sometimes serve the interests of the general public they are, primarily, agents of the State.

protecting the interests of the average citizen. The state represents itself institutionally; citizens as flesh & blood.