5 ms·

Interesting how in situations like this Americans seem to forget about the Second Amendment... The right to bear arms also means that the police has to be prepa

by donkeyd 12y ago

Interesting how in situations like this Americans seem to forget about the Second Amendment... The right to bear arms also means that the police has to be prepared for groups of opponents bearing arms.

LyndsySimon 12y ago
By and large, American police don't tend to face groups of armed criminals. There have been a few instances that come to mind - Bonnie and Clyde and assorted Prohibition Era gangs in the 1930s, Platt and Mattix in 1986, the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997 - but they are well known exactly because they are extremely uncommon. It's more likely that an armed citizen would come to the defense and support of law enforcement than stand in opposition. This is exactly what happened in 1966 when Charles Whitman (suffering from a brain tumor) climbed a tower in Austin, Texas and starting shooting at passers-by. Citizens retrieved hunting rifles from their vehicles and homes and returned fire, helping pin down Whitman while law enforcement climbed the tower and killed him. In the North Hollywood Shootout, responding officers didn't have rifles and were therefore pretty much completely outgunned. They turned to a local gun store and commandeered several rifles that were for sale there, which were essential to ending the standoff.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Is the focus on "groups" of armed criminals interesting? There were police officers shot in at least Houston and Washington D.C. yesterday. Of course those aren't major incidents, but I don't think officers only get shot in major incidents, and they at least have to be prepared to face armed criminals all the time (the article I read about the Houston shooting was making a big deal of their policy requiring armor...).
  - LyndsySimon 12y ago
    It's not merely interesting, but troubling. In my opinion, local police should focus on local law enforcement - investigating crimes and serving as a deterrent by being visible in the places where crime is most likely to occur. Cities where it makes sense should have tactical teams for responding to dangerous incidents. Ongoing armed robberies, hostage situations, etc. Riots - and any situation I can think of where an armored vehicle is an appropriate response - should probably be handled by the state. If we must have police, then they should be a part of the community, acting as public servants instead of enforcers. If we must have a government with a monopoly on violence, then we should strive to employ that violence as sparingly as possible. Instead, we've taken it to the point that every small town in America feels they must have the resources at hand to quell a rebellion - and when those resources are present and people train with them, then they are apt to use them on their fellow citizens.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      Well, I meant how the OP included the word "groups" in their comment and then you focused on historical incidents that involved groups of armed assailants in your comment arguing that citizens are more likely to help police than to shoot at them. That's why I pointed out the recent incidents where citizens shot police, without worrying about whether the citizens were a group. Perhaps there are similar very recent incidents where armed citizens assisted police? A similar search effort doesn't lead me to any.
      - LyndsySimon 12y ago
        It's likely to get you shot or sued these days. I know personally of a few instances where regular citizens have aided police with a concealed weapon, but were told to leave by the same officer before backup arrived, so they wouldn't risk legal action. There have been a few in the news where the responding citizen died in their attempt, though. In the recent case where two officers were killed in a pizza place in Las Vegas, the "bystander" that was killed immediately afterward in a WalMart was an armed citizen. He saw one of the shooters come into the store, so he drew his weapon and tried to get behind him. He didn't see the other shooter, who the shot him in the back and killed him. There was another instance in the Southwest - I think it was Texas, but not sure - about a year ago. A guy walked into a courthouse and shot someone in the courtroom during a trial, then fled. He was engaged by an armed citizen while trying to get into his car in front of the courthouse, and killed him before fleeing. A quick search couldn't turn up the details on this one, but if you're really interested I'm sure I could dig it up tonight.
        maxerickson 12y ago
        So nothing from the last week? I don't care that much. I just didn't think you made a very good argument in that first reply and felt like pushing back on it.
        LyndsySimon 12y ago
        Nothing comes to mind, no. The vast majority of this sort of thing never makes the news. Of those that do, it very rarely makes it out of the local and regional outlets. As for your pushback, that's fair. I struggle in this particular forum not to be driven in my comments by ideology first, and as a result I've found that I sometimes drift a bit from the topic I wanted to address and it comes off as a bit incoherent. All I wanted to with my original reply is point out that the Second Amendment need not mean that all police are always ready to do combat with groups of armed criminals. ... and no worries, I've never once been offended by someone challenging my argument. That's what it's all about. Commentary is worthless if you can't defend it, and political positions are worthless if you are incapable of adapting them when presented with new evidence.
- donkeyd 12y ago
  You're missing my point, I'm not talking groups of armed criminals, I'm talking groups of armed people. In the US anybody could be armed, not just criminals. So even when meeting with regular citizens they need to be prepared to be up against people with guns. In most European countries only criminals have guns, so cops responding to regular people have a lot less to be afraid of. So when US Police is up against a group of non-criminal protestors, there's a much bigger chance of somebody with a firearm doing something stupid than in Western Europe. Because of this it doesn't surprise me that US cops don't just carry batons.

by donkeyd 12y ago

LyndsySimon 12y ago

By and large, American police don't tend to face groups of armed criminals. There have been a few instances that come to mind - Bonnie and Clyde and assorted Prohibition Era gangs in the 1930s, Platt and Mattix in 1986, the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997 - but they are well known exactly because they are extremely uncommon. It's more likely that an armed citizen would come to the defense and support of law enforcement than stand in opposition. This is exactly what happened in 1966 when Charles Whitman (suffering from a brain tumor) climbed a tower in Austin, Texas and starting shooting at passers-by. Citizens retrieved hunting rifles from their vehicles and homes and returned fire, helping pin down Whitman while law enforcement climbed the tower and killed him. In the North Hollywood Shootout, responding officers didn't have rifles and were therefore pretty much completely outgunned. They turned to a local gun store and commandeered several rifles that were for sale there, which were essential to ending the standoff.

maxerickson 12y ago
Is the focus on "groups" of armed criminals interesting? There were police officers shot in at least Houston and Washington D.C. yesterday. Of course those aren't major incidents, but I don't think officers only get shot in major incidents, and they at least have to be prepared to face armed criminals all the time (the article I read about the Houston shooting was making a big deal of their policy requiring armor...).
- LyndsySimon 12y ago
  It's not merely interesting, but troubling. In my opinion, local police should focus on local law enforcement - investigating crimes and serving as a deterrent by being visible in the places where crime is most likely to occur. Cities where it makes sense should have tactical teams for responding to dangerous incidents. Ongoing armed robberies, hostage situations, etc. Riots - and any situation I can think of where an armored vehicle is an appropriate response - should probably be handled by the state. If we must have police, then they should be a part of the community, acting as public servants instead of enforcers. If we must have a government with a monopoly on violence, then we should strive to employ that violence as sparingly as possible. Instead, we've taken it to the point that every small town in America feels they must have the resources at hand to quell a rebellion - and when those resources are present and people train with them, then they are apt to use them on their fellow citizens.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    Well, I meant how the OP included the word "groups" in their comment and then you focused on historical incidents that involved groups of armed assailants in your comment arguing that citizens are more likely to help police than to shoot at them. That's why I pointed out the recent incidents where citizens shot police, without worrying about whether the citizens were a group. Perhaps there are similar very recent incidents where armed citizens assisted police? A similar search effort doesn't lead me to any.
    - LyndsySimon 12y ago
      It's likely to get you shot or sued these days. I know personally of a few instances where regular citizens have aided police with a concealed weapon, but were told to leave by the same officer before backup arrived, so they wouldn't risk legal action. There have been a few in the news where the responding citizen died in their attempt, though. In the recent case where two officers were killed in a pizza place in Las Vegas, the "bystander" that was killed immediately afterward in a WalMart was an armed citizen. He saw one of the shooters come into the store, so he drew his weapon and tried to get behind him. He didn't see the other shooter, who the shot him in the back and killed him. There was another instance in the Southwest - I think it was Texas, but not sure - about a year ago. A guy walked into a courthouse and shot someone in the courtroom during a trial, then fled. He was engaged by an armed citizen while trying to get into his car in front of the courthouse, and killed him before fleeing. A quick search couldn't turn up the details on this one, but if you're really interested I'm sure I could dig it up tonight.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        So nothing from the last week? I don't care that much. I just didn't think you made a very good argument in that first reply and felt like pushing back on it.
        LyndsySimon 12y ago
        Nothing comes to mind, no. The vast majority of this sort of thing never makes the news. Of those that do, it very rarely makes it out of the local and regional outlets. As for your pushback, that's fair. I struggle in this particular forum not to be driven in my comments by ideology first, and as a result I've found that I sometimes drift a bit from the topic I wanted to address and it comes off as a bit incoherent. All I wanted to with my original reply is point out that the Second Amendment need not mean that all police are always ready to do combat with groups of armed criminals. ... and no worries, I've never once been offended by someone challenging my argument. That's what it's all about. Commentary is worthless if you can't defend it, and political positions are worthless if you are incapable of adapting them when presented with new evidence.
donkeyd 12y ago
You're missing my point, I'm not talking groups of armed criminals, I'm talking groups of armed people. In the US anybody could be armed, not just criminals. So even when meeting with regular citizens they need to be prepared to be up against people with guns. In most European countries only criminals have guns, so cops responding to regular people have a lot less to be afraid of. So when US Police is up against a group of non-criminal protestors, there's a much bigger chance of somebody with a firearm doing something stupid than in Western Europe. Because of this it doesn't surprise me that US cops don't just carry batons.