Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
In a relatively recent article from Ralph Mroz of the Police Officers Safety Association, he discussed
the militarization of police. The article inspired some discussion and it's interesting (gently put) to see the different outlooks folks have about things as simple as what color uniform an officer should wear or - and the topic of this blog - what kind of weapon he should be allowed to have.
I've always been a "gun guy". Since I was very little I was exposed to firearms as tools to accomplish a given task whether it be hunting for food, protecting one's home or defending yourself or someone else - guns always had a purpose. That's never held a negative connotation in my mind. However, I fully understand that to plenty of other people in our country, guns are viewed as inherently evil and unnecessary in a civil society.
The problem we have is that our society is sometimes far from civil. When those riotous times occur, someone has to show up to restore order. In some third world countries, those who restore order are the henchmen of some warlord and they simply kill anyone and everyone, without regard to age or gender, who doesn't immediately comply with any order given. Sometimes they even kill without issuing an order just to stake a claim on that particular piece of property at that particular time.
Since we Americans tend to not want a feudal warlord ruled state here in our country, we instead look to those in the law enforcement profession to restore order. Constrained as they are by law and departmental policy, law enforcement professionals don't respond to riots with wide-spread and uncontrolled lethal force and certainly no Chief or Sheriff goes onto television bragging about how he now owns X number of city blocks and anyone within them had better comply or die.
Even given that, however, there is still no way for police to take control of a given area and return it to a peaceful condition without exercising control over the rioters themselves and that requires a use of force. The same is true of any unlawful situation: the police have to regain control and return it to a lawful condition, and they are authorized to use that minimum force necessary to seize such control and return order. The reality is that to "seize control" the officers most often have to use force which is slightly greater than that being used by the bad guys.
If the bad guys are using knives or guns or other implements of deadly force, then the police have no choice but to respond in kind - hopefully with better training and weapons discipline to secure control by containing and neutralizing the dangerous and unlawful actions of the bad guys. This brings me to my discussion about weapons and the presence of rifles in law enforcement use today.
Since I started my police career in the early '80s I well remember the days when no one but SWAT members had anything other than a handgun (a revolver back then) and a shotgun in their patrol vehicle. We were always warned about using the shotgun because the (largely) preferred load was 00 buck and that meant 9 pellets fired with each shot and you had to account for them. Then came Columbine and some police administrators woke up to the fact that:
1) Lethal force is lethal force is lethal force. It doesn't matter if that lethal force is delivered by handgun, cruiser, rifle, shotgun or stick.
Judgment was far more important than delivery tool.
2) Bad guys have guns too and police should always have the more powerful weapon.
3) Sometimes officers will find themselves in the position of
needing to take a fully justified shot that is longer range than a handgun can safely handle. Weapons accurate to longer ranges are therefore required.
Some administrators answered this situation by compromise: they provided their officers shoulder fired weapons in pistol calibers, i.e. 9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP. I call these weapons
carbines. (I know it's not an exactly accurate use of the term, but it makes it easy for me in this discussion)
Other administrators answered this situation by providing their officers with full-power rifles, but limited the potential for excessive rounds fired by selecting a slower-to-fire action, i.e. pump action rifles. They are still rifles and a .223 or .308 round is going to have a greater affect on the bad guy shot 150 yards away than a 9mm or .40S&W round will.
Other administrators answered this situation by providing their officers with semi-automatic rifles. In doing so they were brave enough to face the anti-gun / gun-control crowd which bemoans these weapons as "assault weapons". These weapons are usually "military" in appearance and there is usually far more worry on the part of administrators about how the public will
perceive these weapons than the actual officer's use of them.
Other administrators answered this situation by providing their officers with select fire rifles usually reserved for SWAT use. Such weapons require additional training time and may be viewed as increasing potential liability if used. Again, this boils down to the judgment of the officer. If it's good, then the shooting will be clean no matter how many rounds are fired.
Other administrators answered this situation by sticking to the old tried and true shotgun, some experimenting with various specialty munitions to increase the accuracy at range of the given weapon. This approach has actually proved fortuitous because as Active Shooter tactics (the bad guy's tactics) evolve, we've learned that we may need to breach a structure before we can make entry to neutralize the bad guy. Shotguns have long been used as effective breaching tool and with some training most officers can efficiently use one as such.
Other administrators are still in denial and allowing their officers only to carry handguns. Such administrators are, in my opinion, sufficiently buried in the
it can't happen here mindset that they'll stay there until surrounded by the dead bodies of innocents, a portion of whom could have been saved if the Chief or Sheriff had simply dislodged his head from his rectal cavity.
That all said, I was intrigued by the current results of the poll we're running (found elsewhere on the home page). The poll question is this and the answers follow:
What long gun do you have in your patrol vehicle? (I assume that it is there legally and within departmental policy)
17% - None. Whether by choice or policy, these officers have no distance engagement choice beyond their handgun.
2% - Pistol-caliber carbines. (see the comments above about a compromise)
2% - Pump-action rifle. (see other comments above about a compromise)
41% - Semi-automatic patrol rifle (I cheered for this number)
6% - Select fire rifle. (I can't help but wonder if these are all SWAT guys)
32% - Shotgun (second largest response)
The current sampling is just under 1,000 votes so it's fairly comprehensive but far from "scientific".
Now having gone through all that, I'd like to invite you to share your thoughts about the need and necessity (or lack thereof) for law enforcement to have rifles in their patrol vehicles. I know that if I go back on the street an AR-style weapon (semi-automatic rifle in .223) will be available in my cruiser. I'd hate giving up my shotgun though due to the simple versatility of the ammo available.
What do you think?
