Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly..... | Page 236 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....

Who was in the wrong?

  • Cop

    Votes: 23 20.7%

  • Dude who got shot

    Votes: 33 29.7%

  • I like turtles

    Votes: 55 49.5%
  • Total voters
    111
pfbmgd said:
It is always about the money . How much of your disposable income are you willing to give up ( taxes ) ? To have a police service that is trained as phycoclogist to deal with the mentally ill ? It can be done just we have to pay for it .

Why do police need tanks . Well if a person is baracaded in a house they need it to get close to the house . They may need it to rescue a person trapped between a gunman and the police .

Rather then tear gas or OC . Would you rather police use bullets to stop riots ? They are less then lethal option . Used around the world for riots .

You will not been opressed or subjugated if you follow the laws . Police go to places when they are called . Politicians make the laws not the police .
Click to expand...
You’re not wrong, but you’re also not addressing the real point.

Serving and protecting is not putting 9 rounds into someone standing on a streetcar with a knife while surrounded by police. Using your argument yea they went for the ‘least lethal’ options out of their lethal tool kits, but it didn’t have to go that way.

It’s not pepper spraying someone who doesn’t follow your commands but is no danger to you or anyone else.

There’s no discussion anymore, it’s roll up, do what I say, or you get hurt.

There are already laws in place that serve the police. E.g. I believe it’s illegal to resist arrest even if you believe that arrest to be false and the court agrees later. Etc, etc.
 
Last edited:
pfbmgd said:
It is always about the money . How much of your disposable income are you willing to give up ( taxes ) ? To have a police service that is trained as phycoclogist to deal with the mentally ill ? It can be done just we have to pay for it .

Why do police need tanks . Well if a person is baracaded in a house they need it to get close to the house . They may need it to rescue a person trapped between a gunman and the police .

Rather then tear gas or OC . Would you rather police use bullets to stop riots ? They are less then lethal option . Used around the world for riots .

You will not been opressed or subjugated if you follow the laws . Police go to places when they are called . Politicians make the laws not the police .
Click to expand...
It's absolutely about the money. In Canada police departments request higher and higher budgets, while doing almost nothing to train their officers in how to deal with people in crisis. And police SHOULD NOT be expected to be front line mental health care workers, in addition to their policing duties, and yet they are. And in Canada they can't even use the excuse of "cost savings" for obtaining that military hardware, because it's far more pricey than what they would otherwise be obtaining.

So "defund the police" and move that additional unneeded financial expenditure to training and deploying people who are properly trained in deescalation procedures, then have them work in conjunction with police.

If someone is barricaded in a house and is currently no danger to anyone but himself, there is no immediate need to "take him down." And yet, time and again, we see police storm a building because there seems to be some sort of manufactured pressing need to do so. Sure, there are times when there's a clear and present danger to others, however, that was why SWAT/ER Teams were created. Not every cop on the street needs to be able to hang in a protracted firefight, using actual military grade weapons.

In the United States the mindset of police has moved so far that the Taser is no longer a "less lethal" means of taking someone into custody. It's now, effectively, a tool for obtaining compliance. "Do this, now, or you'll be Tased." When time isn't a factor, why do this? Is it because the officer is angry that his authority is being ignored? That he's being disrespected? I've seen far too many interactions, with police, in which there was no pressing need to have someone comply *right now*.
 
Another thread that’s going to get locked
 
This thread was specifically created to deal with the large number of other threads that were being created, had huge disputes in them, and were subsequently locked. It's unlikely that this one will be locked though if members make it go sideways, there would undoubtedly be repercussions.
 
pfbmgd said:
Can you tell me what police departments have 54 round minimun for their pistols ?
Click to expand...

My mistake... it's 51 rounds. 52 if the pistol is carried with a full magazine and one up the spout.
I'm basing this on the assumption the pistol is question is a Glock 17... probably the most widely issued police sidearm.
Each G17mag holds 17 rounds so...
One in the gun and two spares on the belt... 17+17+17=51
Capacity varies slightly amongst different pistols... the OPP's SIG mags are 15 IIRC and back when Guelph City Police stil had their Berettas... they held only 11, but...
I digress...
What I'm trying to get across us that the average load out for the average cop on patrol is significantly different than it was when I was a kid...
'Far from my S&W model 10 with two 6 round speed loaders..
 
Last edited:
Hack said:
My mistake... it's 51 rounds. 52 if the pistol is carried with a full magazine and one up the spout.
I'm basing this on the assumption the pistol is question is a Glock 17... probably the most widely issued police sidearm.
Each G17mag holds 17 rounds so...
One in the gun and two spares on the belt... 17+17+17=51
Capacity varies slightly amongst different pistols... the OPP's SIG mags are 15 IIRC and back when Guelph City Police stil had their Berettas... they held only 11, but...
I digress...
What I'm trying to get across us that the average load out for the average cop on patrol is significantly different than it was when I was a kid...
'Far from my S&W model 10 with two 6 round speed loaders..
Click to expand...
I believe that "one up the spout" is against regs. It's certainly against the law for civilians. Otherwise, excellent math.
 
Love this thread. It's like a whole bunch of people who watched some news stories and slanted media reports on how to program a computer and are now discussing what actual computer programmers are doing wrong.
"Why do cops need tanks?!" (yes I get it, they're expensive and scary). Cops also used one to get into an apartment building in Fredericton a few years ago after the resident shooter shot/killed a few people in the parking lot, including some cops who were called there in response (thank you officers). Without the tank more people, police and/or civilian, would have been killed. If your kid decides to be a cop would you rather they respond to that building before he shoots someone else and likely get shot as well or would you rather them have that tank? And it's not a tank btw...

Cops get called to a person in crises, mental heath or whatever, and says he's going to stab himself. Cops arrive and are outside the door. Why, because how do you know he's not going to stab someone besides himself down the hall, or across the street etc. Darn right they should have their guns out. Guy opens the door and attacks them, you should darn well be prepared. Can cover a whole lot of ground with a knife before someone can get a gun out. Guy now going to jump over the balcony so police break down door to stop him. Guy then comes at them with knife and gets shot (you'd be arguing police never should have come in) or he jumps over balcony (you'd be arguing cops didn't do anything.
Lots of Holiday Inn Express armchair quarterbacks but hey, continue. I'll show myself out.
 
Hardwrkr13 said:
Love this thread. It's like a whole bunch of people who watched some news stories and slanted media reports on how to program a computer and are now discussing what actual computer programmers are doing wrong.
"Why do cops need tanks?!" (yes I get it, they're expensive and scary). Cops also used one to get into an apartment building in Fredericton a few years ago after the resident shooter shot/killed a few people in the parking lot, including some cops who were called there in response (thank you officers). Without the tank more people, police and/or civilian, would have been killed. If your kid decides to be a cop would you rather they respond to that building before he shoots someone else and likely get shot as well or would you rather them have that tank? And it's not a tank btw...

Cops get called to a person in crises, mental heath or whatever, and says he's going to stab himself. Cops arrive and are outside the door. Why, because how do you know he's not going to stab someone besides himself down the hall, or across the street etc. Darn right they should have their guns out. Guy opens the door and attacks them, you should darn well be prepared. Can cover a whole lot of ground with a knife before someone can get a gun out. Guy now going to jump over the balcony so police break down door to stop him. Guy then comes at them with knife and gets shot (you'd be arguing police never should have come in) or he jumps over balcony (you'd be arguing cops didn't do anything.
Lots of Holiday Inn Express armchair quarterbacks but hey, continue. I'll show myself out.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not literal tanks, if you want to be pedantic about it, but large departments like LAPD have had LAVs and APCs for literally decades.
 
Hardwrkr13 said:
Love this thread. It's like a whole bunch of people who watched some news stories and slanted media reports on how to program a computer and are now discussing what actual computer programmers are doing wrong.
"Why do cops need tanks?!" (yes I get it, they're expensive and scary). Cops also used one to get into an apartment building in Fredericton a few years ago after the resident shooter shot/killed a few people in the parking lot, including some cops who were called there in response (thank you officers). Without the tank more people, police and/or civilian, would have been killed. If your kid decides to be a cop would you rather they respond to that building before he shoots someone else and likely get shot as well or would you rather them have that tank? And it's not a tank btw...

Cops get called to a person in crises, mental heath or whatever, and says he's going to stab himself. Cops arrive and are outside the door. Why, because how do you know he's not going to stab someone besides himself down the hall, or across the street etc. Darn right they should have their guns out. Guy opens the door and attacks them, you should darn well be prepared. Can cover a whole lot of ground with a knife before someone can get a gun out. Guy now going to jump over the balcony so police break down door to stop him. Guy then comes at them with knife and gets shot (you'd be arguing police never should have come in) or he jumps over balcony (you'd be arguing cops didn't do anything.
Lots of Holiday Inn Express armchair quarterbacks but hey, continue. I'll show myself out.
Click to expand...
Uh.

No?
 
I think also one or both of the Carolinas, and some others that I'm currently having trouble remembering. Oh, for the days when I could watch "Live PD" and then check the applicable statutes, online.
 
Last edited:
With respect to whether or not a firearm can have a round chambered, I'm guessing that the transport requirements pretty much preclude that anyway, at least for most people.

Transportation of Restricted Firearms​

11 An individual may transport a restricted firearm only if

  • (a) it is unloaded;
  • (b) it is rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device;
  • (c) it is in a locked container that is made of an opaque material and is of such strength, construction and nature that it cannot readily be broken open or into or accidentally opened during transportation; and
  • (d) if it is in a container described in paragraph (c) that is in an unattended vehicle,
    • (i) when the vehicle is equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the container is in that trunk or compartment and the trunk or compartment is securely locked, and
    • (ii) when the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the vehicle, or the part of the vehicle that contains the container, is securely locked and the container is not visible from outside the vehicle.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
With respect to whether or not a firearm can have a round chambered, I'm guessing that the transport requirements pretty much preclude that anyway, at least for most people.

Transportation of Restricted Firearms​

11 An individual may transport a restricted firearm only if

  • (a) it is unloaded;
  • (b) it is rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device;
  • (c) it is in a locked container that is made of an opaque material and is of such strength, construction and nature that it cannot readily be broken open or into or accidentally opened during transportation; and
  • (d) if it is in a container described in paragraph (c) that is in an unattended vehicle,
    • (i) when the vehicle is equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the container is in that trunk or compartment and the trunk or compartment is securely locked, and
    • (ii) when the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the vehicle, or the part of the vehicle that contains the container, is securely locked and the container is not visible from outside the vehicle.
Click to expand...


Obviously, but when in otherwise legal use there is no law against having a full magazine and that "extra" round up the spout.
It's a common practice in many shooting sports... ie. IPSC, IDPA as well as the litany of other action shooting sports and is not limited to handguns...
Topping up in this manner is also practiced with rifles and shotguns
 
Hack said:
Obviously, but when in otherwise legal use there is no law against having a full magazine and that "extra" round up the spout.
It's a common practice in many shooting sports... ie. IPSC, IDPA as well as the litany of other action shooting sports and is not limited to handguns...
Topping up in this manner is also practiced with rifles and shotguns
Click to expand...
On a drop-safe gun (was it military or rcmp that recently flubbed that one) why would it matter if one was in the chamber? You either pull the trigger and get a bang or you dont pull the trigger and there is no bang.
 
Evoex said:
You’re not wrong, but you’re also not addressing the real point.

Serving and protecting is not putting 9 rounds into someone standing on a streetcar with a knife while surrounded by police. Using your argument yea they went for the ‘least lethal’ options out of their lethal tool kits, but it didn’t have to go that way.

It’s not pepper spraying someone who doesn’t follow your commands but is no danger to you or anyone else.

There’s no discussion anymore, it’s roll up, do what I say, or you get hurt.

There are already laws in place that serve the police. E.g. I believe it’s illegal to resist arrest even if you believe that arrest to be false and the court agrees later. Etc, etc.
Click to expand...
Police use a use of force continuum . Not confrontatiom can be covered by policy .

I think you are talking to about Sammy . He had a knife a deadly weapon . You don't fight people with knives with OC or tazer . The knife makes it a firearm responce . You need minimum 21 feet for safety .


Out of hundreds of thousands interactions between the public and police . I bet shootings way down the list of use of force .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom