# Grand Forks Cops have mobile offices



## bisontraks (Dec 22, 2006)

Why is it that cops can drive around working on their computers but for the general public it is illegal to text? :eyeroll: :bs:

*Cop Runs Stop Sign While Typing on Computer, Injured Motorcyclist*

Sues Software Makers
On behalf of The Law Offices of Tyler & Peery posted in Motorcycle Accidents on Thursday, June 16, 2011
A police officer ran a stop sign while typing on his in-dash computer keyboard, hitting motorcyclist Louis Olivier, now 75 years old, leading to roughly half a million in medical bills, as PoliceOne reports. Olivier has had four skin grafts since the motorcycle accident.
After bringing a lawsuit against the relevant police department, Olivier settled his case for $250,000, or about half of what he needs to be compensated so that he can pay for his medical treatment.
According to PoliceOne, now Olivier has brought a second lawsuit - this time against the makers of the computer the police officer was using when he ran the stop sign. Olivier's injury lawyer said, "From the beginning we never really blamed the city. This lawsuit has always been about the product manufacturers who enable vehicles to turn into mobile offices."
When it comes down to it, this is a case of distracted driving, no different than texting while driving, and Olivier would like to change the way these police car "mobile offices" operate.
When police officers are actually driving their vehicles, Olivier asserts, the computer should come equipped with safety technology that would disable use. In turn, this would prevent the kind of distracted driving accident that happened to Olivier.
The two defendants named in the lawsuit are Tritech and Versaterm, according to PoliceOne.
The motorcycle accident occurred about one year ago. Of his injuries, Olivier says, "I would say five months I went through pain 24-hours a day," as Jim Bergamo reports for KVUE News.
Sources: PoliceOne, "Motorcyclist hit by police blames software for accident," 06/14/11
KVUE News, "Motorcyclist hit by APD suing two software companies," by Jim Bergamo, 06/07/11


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

I know an officer who plays games all the time on his while working.


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

bisontraks said:


> Why is it that cops can drive around working on their computers but for the general public it is illegal to text? :eyeroll: :bs:


Because it's vital for their jobs.

I don't know how many times just in the last few years I've almost been hit by some moron texting or on the phone. Very good law in my opinion, especially considering the youngest, most inexperienced drivers are probably the heaviest texters.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Because it's vital for their jobs.

That is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time. If texting is distracting to all drivers so is playing on a computer. It does not matter if you are doing your job on it or not. A distraction is a distraction it does not matter if you are a 14yo girl or a 76yo man or any age in-between.

I will give you three Chuck Norris sayings.

One time, at band camp, Chuck Norris ate a percussionist. 
Chuck Norris' I edited this. Nothing vulgar or lewd please. MSG Rude
Chuck Norris doesn't say "who's your daddy", because he knows the answer.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

So all the cops are just playing games all day on their computers? :eyeroll:


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

People said:


> That is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time. If texting is distracting to all drivers so is playing on a computer. It does not matter if you are doing your job on it or not.


Really? The stupidest. You better think about that one for a minute.

I don't think most law enforcement are rolling down the road checking Facebook or texting their friends about where they can score some beer for the party tonight. Just like police officers can carry weapons into certain places even those with a concealed permit cannot, there is nothing wrong with law enforcement having different "rules" if it's vital to their job. If you don't think being "connected" is vital for their job and/or safety, then there is not enough explanation I can give you....you just don't get it.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

OK it has been well over a minute for thinking about it. It is not the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I will go with the stupidest thing I heard today and I work with the mentally dim. I would call them retards but that is a massive insult to the mentally retarded group out there and that group by and large is a good group of individuals.

There are reasons law enforcement officers are allowed to carry their handguns into bars while on duty. Can cops bring their handguns and rifles into a bar when they are drinking? Nope!

I am sure most are not checking facebook or adultchickensandwichfinder either but most drivers are not putting on makeup or texting. If you are playing with your toys when you are driving (not a cop), you are distracted and that is against the law. If you are a cop and you are using (playing) with your toys when you are driving you are distracted, and that is not against the law. How is that ok?

So if a cop is running plates not paying attention and runs over your kid killing him how is that different than a person who was texting and runs over and kills your kid? I am serious how is it different? They kind of are the same thing to me.

Just because a person puts a badge on does not mean they are better than everyone around them. There are great cops and there are horrible cops. Bad cops are not usually cops long but because they are a cop they are automatically allowed to drive distracted? Heck most drivers get away with distractions all the time but on occasion it will catch up with you.

As cops say all the time driving is a privilege. I am not saying yank those computers out of the cars but use them when it is safe. There is also a reason for the side of the road.


----------



## macker13 (Nov 7, 2006)

Interesting discussion. First, I have two active duty Police officers in my extended family and several others who have worked in the field. I support the police what they need to do to protect us.

The police are granted a greater latitude in what they can do than the average citizen. That is so they can protect us. They can run red lights, they can exceed the speed limit, and they can discharge their weapon in a crowded area in order to protect us. However, People has a point. If the cop is running a plate and hits a kid it is no different than if anyone else was texting and hit the kid. The kid is still dead (in People's example). Same is true if they discharge their sidearm in an unsafe manner and kill an innocent by-stander, or t-bone someone while going through a red light. In all of these cases, the officer involved in the tragedy will be held accountable and WILL SUFFER THE REST OF HIS LIFE carrying the guilt of that mistake.

However, I think suing the software manufacture for this accident is like suing the gun manufacturer or the car maker. It all boils down to personal responsibility and accountability.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Cops can't bring their guns to the bar when they are drinking, true, and when cops are off duty they can't text and drive, just like the rest of us. So why are people crying about this?

Macker, way to go with bringing up the shyster lawyers suing the software companies. Typical BS, they know they can't get blood from a turnip, so they won't sue the cop, they will go after the big bucks. What a bunch of crap!!!! I guess that is the new version of the "American way".


----------



## driggy (Apr 26, 2005)

Texting or being otherwise distracted while driving is equivalent to being double the blood alchohol level for DWI. So those defending it would be OK if said officer show up drunk for work. After all, they should get more lea way because of their job according to some here. Used to be just the opposite. Cops were held to a higher standard. By setting a higher standard, they were shielding themselves. Do garbage collectors get to pollute at will? Air Traffic Controllers get to make terroristic threats on aircraft? Obviously not, but police trained in advanced driving courses that explain why you shouldn't be doing it are exempt? Would someone please explain why they are better multitaskers than the rest of us.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Driggy, please show your work. I have done some searching, but couldn't find any stats about the assumed BAC of a person texting. Not saying you are wrong, but I would like to read more about that. It would seem your stat would hold true for any one eating, playing with a radio, talking on a cell phone(or talking to a passenger for that matter), or even just thinking about hunting while they are behind the wheel. Correct?

Is a Dr. better at healing, is a pilot better at flying, is a carpenter better at building some thing out of wood? YUP. Why wouldn't a police officer, who I would guess probably multitasks almost every moment of their day on the road, not be better at it than you?


----------



## driggy (Apr 26, 2005)

Got it from 2 sources. First is the NSC Defensive Driving Course 9th edition. This is one of the highest rated courses on driving. Second was a series called Mind Games that I believed was aired on nat geo. It explained how the mind works and how we can convince ourselves of things that are wrong. Highly recommend watching that series. As the second applies here, they had a taxi driver, who swore he was an excellent multi tasker, take a simple test where he drove a course and had a conversation, not texting but verbal, and failed miserably. They repeatedly showed most people are only good at doing one thing at a time. Just the way we are wired. Few can do more, but the quality of the tasks being performed suffers. Usually those that claim to be good multi taskers are the worst. I work for the Govt on airports and driving safety is highly stressed. No cell phone or computer use, period, until you have stopped the vehicle.


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

driggy said:


> So those defending it would be OK if said officer show up drunk for work. Do garbage collectors get to pollute at will? Air Traffic Controllers get to make terroristic threats on aircraft?


That's just an absurd comparison.

How about this since you like to use stats. There certainly must be studies on the vehicle accident rates of law enforcement while multitasking. Show me some scientific data and not what they say on some TV show.


----------



## driggy (Apr 26, 2005)

I guess if one of the most respected driver training programs and a scientific show on how the brain works is not enough for you, I have nothing else. But for a test, drive down a city street and close your eyes for 3 seconds. See how far you went and what could have happened in the distance traveled. Depending on what he looking up, 3 seconds is likely a minimum time distracted.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Was it a sad and tragic accident.....YES. Should the police use caution when using their laptops.....YES. Should the laptops be taken away.....NO! If this police officer was using his laptop for non-police action should he be punished more harshly....YES. If he was using it for police purposes should he be punished more harshly...NO.

Accidents happen. This was a tragic accident. But Police need these computers for work. They need them to help protect and serve us. The police force is getting less funding to hire more police in many county's and states. So equipment they need better technology and things to help with the work load. If that is getting license plates read, looking up driver license numbers, finding if people have warrants out, etc. They need laptops. Laptops can be monitored to see if they are being used for business or for screwing around. Just like at offices around the country. But they are needed.

Should the public be allowed to text, email, etc. while driving.... HECK NO! Like someone mentioned is that the majority of people texting are youthful drivers. Also with the worlds addiction to Facebook. You will see more and more accidents with the increase in technology of the cell phone. It will get worse and worse. You will see the states making laws banning the use of cell phones by drivers very soon. Why do you think many auto makers are changing or making hands free voice texting available in cars now?? They see the writing on the wall.


----------



## macker13 (Nov 7, 2006)

Chuck, you stated "If he was using it for police purposes should he be punished more harshly...NO" I disagree. Just as any other tool, the Police must use common sense when using these tools. He should have been paying attention to his driving when entering an intersection. He should have been more vigilant when entering an interestion just as you and I do. I feel sorry for both the officer and the injured citizen. If this officer is like the ones I know he is likely punishing himself sufficiently, but he still needs to be held accountable for his actions which severely injured another person.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Grand Forks isn't the only department with this issue.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/11/2 ... sa-couple/

And while it may be "legal" for them to do, a lot of departments have policies against completing reports as they are driving. I know having spoken with a couple of MN troopers, the department does have that policy. You write a report, you had best be stopped on the side of the road as you are working on the computer.

I don't care who you are. If you support a cop driving down a road writing a report, you are as much a part of the problem itself. Distracted driving is distracted driving. It gets people killed and it's happening more and more as the technology leaves the office and is put into the vehicle.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck, you stated "If he was using it for police purposes should he be punished more harshly...NO" I disagree. Just as any other tool, the Police must use common sense when using these tools. He should have been paying attention to his driving when entering an intersection. He should have been more vigilant when entering an interestion just as you and I do. I feel sorry for both the officer and the injured citizen. If this officer is like the ones I know he is likely punishing himself sufficiently, but he still needs to be held accountable for his actions which severely injured another person.


Do we know he was doing a report? Or was he looking up a license of a vehicle he was watching/following?

I agree that a cop should not be doing reports while driving. But what was he doing at the time this took place should weigh into the punishment.

Just like previously stated a cop and use his firearm in a public area. If he is shooting at an armed suspect and hits someone or something is different if he is shooting at a cat and hits someone or something. Both examples are the use of firing his weapon but with two very different in the intent.


----------



## macker13 (Nov 7, 2006)

Chuck, what the office was doing is irrelevant. Whether he was working on a report or running a license plate does not matter. When he was approaching an intersection he should have been focused on his driving.


----------



## specialpatrolgroup (Jan 16, 2009)

Please dont tell me that I am the only one who checked to see if adultchickensandwichfinder was real :roll:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Being a cop, I'll offer my opinion.

First, we are to be held to a higher standard, we are pretty hard to miss out there and we have to set an example. Second, if you have to avert your attention from driving for something other than checking gauges, speed etc. *pull to the side of the road.* This goes for cops and citizens alike. Cell phones, computers, GPS units, I don't care what it is, pull over and ding with it. The time you save by doing it while you are driving is just not worth the potential for causing a tragic accident.

As far as comparing texting while driving to DUI, Car and Driver did one study that showed texting while driving resulted in slower reaction times that being drunk.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/te ... rous-is-it
&
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004/site/14081545

There are likely other tests out there as well, I don't have time to do more searching.

As always, my opinion, others may vary.

huntin1


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck, what the office was doing is irrelevant. Whether he was working on a report or running a license plate does not matter. When he was approaching an intersection he should have been focused on his driving.


Macker13..... It is just like if he was adjusting the radio, looking to the right at something else coming down the street, etc. This was a tragic accident. But to take away the tool of the laptop like others in this thread has suggested that isn't needed...is wrong.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Chuck is absolutely correct. To take away this tool would be a leap backwards. Policies that are clear and disciplinary action for violating them are what is needed, not taking away the tool.

huntin1


----------



## driggy (Apr 26, 2005)

Never said take the tool away, just change the behavior.


----------



## macker13 (Nov 7, 2006)

What driggy said. I'm a BIG advocate of giving the police the tools needed to do the difficult job we are asking them to do, just use them intellegently.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Yes, no need to take it away. Just use it responsible. They do have a job that sucks and need help doing it.

As far as tools go I will go a step farther. They should only have tools that are available to the regular citizen. That does not mean that we should have access to the police records but if your state citizens can not have high cap mags, full autos, sound suppressors, body armor, any type of firearm, gas masks, or anything like that then law enforcement should not have it either.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

That sounds good in theory, but then criminals by nature don't abide by the law. If they have all this equipment that you listed, and a lot of them do, how do you as a citizen expect LE to deal with those criminals who have better equipment than we do?

Huntin1


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

huntin1 said:


> That sounds good in theory, but then criminals by nature don't abide by the law. If they have all this equipment that you listed, and a lot of them do, how do you as a citizen expect LE to deal with those criminals who have better equipment than we do?
> 
> Huntin1


That is getting to be an old line that's getting tired of being heard.

It is still NO excuse to being allowed to operate as a special class of citizen outside the laws presented by society for all to follow.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Who said anything about being a special class? And "a tired old line?" wow. Didn't know that you were so "up" on what cops in general are up against these days.

Whatever, I'm gld you guys aren't making the decisions, we'd all be back to carrying single action revolver and leather saps.

Do some research, or better yet a ride along.

Huntin1


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

last I knew, it was an administrative decision to place computers in a car to allow officers to be dispatched via emails and software and to also have the officers file reports, tickets and other clerical duties required of them. Get's them out of the office and onto the street.

And for WHAT purpose does an officer need to have a computer live as they are driving down the road? It's a distraction removing your attention from driving a 3000 lb missile down the road at speeds that will kill someone in the blink of an eye.

You want to sit in the parking lot at dunkin donuts playing solitaire all wee hours of the morning, go for it.

You want to start plugging in license numbers for vehicles as you are driving down the highway or city street, sorry, WRONG answer.

Pick up the stupid mic and call dispatch. They are static, you aren't.

ETA:
Cops being allowed to text, use computers and electronic devices when the general public is prohibited IS creating a special class. "We are allowed, you aren't".

Careful with the rest of that statement as you have no clue who / what I do, nor do you know who I have associated with to base my thoughts on.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Ahhh, I do believe that's what I said in a previous post. I'll say it again, there is no reason to be driving down the road and using the computer at the same time. Just like there is no reason to be driving down the road texting, dinging with your GPS etc. Pull over, do what you need to do and then get back on the road.

And you have no knowledge of the experience that I draw from when I make these statements.

Huntin1


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Really had not thought about diving into this issue until this AM! hunting1 I get what you are saying, use it right, do not remove the tool. No issue with that, however I saw this AM twice local LEO almost cause accidents because they where messing with the computer. One if not for the quick reaction of the other driver would have caused an accident when the officer went through the red light I stopped at. He was behind me and was not looking up was looking directly at the laptop as he went by.

Later on while on a side street, I met a police vehicle coming toward me angling into my lane of traffic. Again was close enough to see the face of the officer and where his head was pointed. Again it was at the computer. I laid on the horn turned away from him and almost hit a fire hydrant trying to avoid getting hit!

This time I got the ID number off the cop car and made a call. I was not impressed with the response I received to the point I may follow up on this matter.

Some kind of cutoff needs to be in place so that if the vehicle is in drive the computer is disabled. Or it needs to be a policy with ramifications to the officers if they are found to be violating the rules.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I agree Ron. I would think that a policy is in place to cover this and if not there should be. I know we have one.

All I can suggest is to continue making complaints, and if the Chief isn't doing anything then its time to talk to the city council and the mayor.

Not sure if a cutout like you suggest exists, if it does it may be worth looking into.

Huntin1


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

huntin1 said:


> Not sure if a cutout like you suggest exists, if it does it may be worth looking into.
> 
> Huntin1


C++ is rather powerful and what most software is based on. Since you are already tied into a GPS system, it's just a matter or writing a routine that sees a speed from the GPS at anything over 3 MPH and making the screen black. Priority dispatches would come up as a box with code, address and level of emergency.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

WOW, I am glad all you non LEO's out there have ALL THE ANSWERS!!! Good thing you folks are not running things!!! :eyeroll:

As far as the police not being able to have better equipment than those they protect......what a STUPID statement! uke:


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Savage260 said:


> WOW, I am glad all you non LEO's out there have ALL THE ANSWERS!!! Good thing you folks are not running things!!! :eyeroll:
> 
> As far as the police not being able to have better equipment than those they protect......what a STUPID statement! uke:


I deal with enough idiots on the road.

I don't need or want another one doing it under color of law.

It's about them doing their job and not putting others in harms way. Sentiments such as yours are just as crappy as the other extreme


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Here in ND you are golden. We can have high cap mags, full autos, and sound suppressors. This is off topic but here goes. I am tired of all the antigun stuff being done in the name of making us safer. While you may believe in the second amendment most police organization's do not. As you said if we had our way you would be using a revolver if the antigun org and police orgs had their way we would not even have revolvers.

That is not what I am saying at all. If there are rules that prohibit certain items to citizens then cops should have to follow those same rules. Like Ca they banned the 50bmg, high cap mags body armor, and tones of other stuff. The cops should have to follow those rules also. If you have it fine but if you need to buy new or replacement then they should be limited to the same things their citizens can buy. If cops where included in those same rules I would think there would be far less of those rules.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

You know people, I could go along with your idea, IF you could resolve one little problem.

How would you ensure that criminals are also restricted in the same way?

Huntin1


----------



## maple lake duck slayer (Sep 25, 2003)

There are some obvious things that have not been brought up here. Number one, as far as the automatic cutoff, my Ford F150 has Sync/Navigation/DVD. When the vehicle is moving, you cannot type in an address in the GPS, watch a DVD, etc. How can a $40,000 truck do this but a $100,000 police vehicle can't? And I don't want to hear that it would cost x amount of additional tax dollars cause the whole system in my truck was like $2000, cut out some pork/govn't contracts and it won't cost any extra.

Also, this thing called Sync allows me to talk out loud to change climate settings, music, navigation, etc. Again, how can my F150 have this technology, that we are required to use, but a vehicle twice as expensive doesn't. You can't tell me it can't be done. A simple smart phone can read you texts/emails and can type texts/emails from your voice commands. Seems only logical to me to have voice command in a police vehicle.

Second, I have nothing against LEO's, you guys provide a much needed service and for that I thank you. You help protect our streets and keep people safe. But there is a definate double standard, not just for LEO's but all government workers. If you are driving a vehicle that requires a CDL to drive it, you cannot talk on a cell phone that does not have hands free connectivity. Is this a law for LEO, public works, etc? My line of business requires constant use of technology to take phone calls, read texts and emails, etc. I drive all the time and HAVE TO take phone calls. I work in an emergency business where I need to answer right away and be at a location within 4 hrs time, while routing employees, looking up an address, writting down instructions, etc. My livelyhood depends on this sort of phone use, and I will continue to do so. I put on 45,000 miles a year driving in this manner and have zero issues whatsoever.

It kinda agitates me when I am told by the government I can't do something that could greatly affect my business and livelyhood, and if I do it any way it will cost me money, but they can do it all they want. Thats just wrong.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Why should citizens be punished for what criminals do?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Okay, so after doing a bit of research, there is no provision written into the computer operating system that would allow shut down whenever the vehicle is in motion. It could be written into the program, but is not. There are also programs available for the computers that allow voice commands. Any call info is given both on screen and voice, and commands from the officer can be given to the computer by simply speaking the command. Personnally, I'm going to push for this technology in our patrol cars.



people said:


> Why should citizens be punished for what criminals do?


Who said anything about punishing citizens for what criminals do? You are talking about limiting the tools available to LE that help fight the criminals. In a perfect world LE would not need these tools, but I think we can agree that our world is far from perfect.

Do you believe that the fact that citizens can't own some of this equipment is punishment? I view it as a failed political system. And guess what, cops are included in those rules, I can't own any of the stuff that is regulated either, off duty I'm subject to the same restrictions as everyone else.

huntin1


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

huntin1 said:


> You know people, I could go along with your idea, IF you could resolve one little problem.
> 
> How would you ensure that criminals are also restricted in the same way?
> 
> Huntin1


If no one is restricted, then we are all on the same playing field.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Huntin1 said
Who said anything about punishing citizens for what criminals do?

Then why is it most police agencies want firearm bans right along with the antigun left? Kind of sounds like they want to punish the current and future firearm owner. Failed federal or state regulations aside if private citizens can not have it cops should not have it period. That is on or off duty not just off duty.

Here in ND if I wanted to pay the cash I can buy a full auto and get a sound suppressor fitted to it also. I have to pay the fed's transfer fees and time then I can get one. States like MN (you know the land of 10,000 polluted lakes) law abiding citizens can not have full autos or suppressors. Cops should not have them either in that state.

Same should be with high cap mags. If your state prohibits more than 10 rds then cops should be limited also. Sure you can buy pre ban mags but anything new should be under current law.

To answer your question directly do I think we should limit LEO's in their fire power? YES I do! If the citizens are limited the cops should be limited also.

If I am wrong in my thinking please explain to me how I am wrong


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

First, my personal opinion is that none of us should be restricted.

As to cops being restricted in what is available to them while on duty, my answer to that is no. I understand that we here in ND are somewhat shielded from the majority of violent offenders out there, but we have also been experiencing a marked increase lately.

My reasoning is that since cops deal with these violent people in some cases daily, and these people may have these restricted items simply because they don't normally abide by the law anyway, what makes you think that they would abide by weapons laws, it makes no sense to handicap the officers that are likely to confront them at any given time.

An extreme example of this would be the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997, the bad guys had fully automatic AK-47's and full body armour, the responding officers had 9mm and 38 spc. handguns and a couple of shotguns neither of which could penetrate the BG body armour. Eleven police officers and seven civilians were shot before the cops were able to end it with AR-15's that they appropriated from a nearby firearms dealer. If the officers had been issued patrol rifles would the number of injured people been less? I don't know, but most people who have studied this incident have concluded that.

Again, this is an extreme example, this does not happen every day and in most cases will happen once in a lifetime, if ever. So yes, you are wrong in your think, if only because of this one isolated incident.

huntin1


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Of course you would think do not limit cops you are a cop. Why should I as a civilian be limited in the type of firearms to protect my family? There is a reason I do not have a hipoint for self-defense. I want the most reliable and functional firearm I can get. So by your logic of holding weapon superiority I guess all LEO should operate in 4 person fire teams all with Glock 18's, M4A1carbines, and one should have some kind of bolt rifle just in case they ever come across a person who has better firearms then they have? I guess there is something to say about using these little things that are on almost all firearms they are sights. It is amazing how accurate a handgun can be if a person uses them. Here in Bismarck a SWAT team person was giving me pointers on how to shoot more accurately. Just look at the back of your handgun when you are shooting. Ah, no clear front sight post is the way to shoot. There is something about using the sights. Just look at the last few police shootings here in Bismarck. The SWAT team sprayed down the trailer houses and the criminals were only wounded. Then the cops will not say how many rds were spent because it was ridiculous. Then look at the pictures of the trailers. They have speed holes all over and that is not an over statement.

Sure criminals will get stuff they should not have. They are criminals it is kind of what makes them criminals. Again why should I be limited in what I can get because of what a few bad apples are doing?

The North Hollywood shoot out was a failed endeavor by the LAPD from years before those two did it to the first bank years before North Hollywood. The LAPD was severely limited in its firearms from politicians to its own budget problems. Ar-15 rifles have been available since the 70's. Heck I know for a fact that 1903a3 rifles could have been had at a price that would not have stopped them from getting them. I know what you are going to say something about they are not cool or very tactical. A bolt 30-06 would have put those guys down from several hundred yards even in the hands of untrained officers. This proves how short sighted some are. We do not have AR-15's so we need to get some right now. Then when it is over we give them back and get M-16's and AR-15 type rifles. Then we make it super hard for CA citizens to get any AR type rifle. Sounds like a real winning team operating the show down there.

Again you have not answered my question about why should we be limited in what we get for a few bad apples?


----------



## xdeano (Jan 14, 2005)

Anarchy! That's what happens when there isn't a control group. All civilizations from the beginning of time has always had a group of individuals that were used to contol and protect the people. If there wasn't a control things would be Anarchy. I say give them any and every resource that they can.

High poweder weapons, body armor, suppressors, full auto, armored cars, night vision, IR/thermal/FLIR.

I know when i'm working and need a tool and don't have it, it really ****** me off when I could have it and didn't.

They are here to protect and serve, they do that to the best of their ability, which in my book is great. I don't have to do it then. 

xdeano


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

people said:


> Again you have not answered my question about why should we be limited in what we get for a few bad apples?


I have already stated several times that I personally don't believe any legal law abiding citizen should be restricted in what they own.

As to your question, I don't have an answer. That is a politically philosophical question that may be better answered by those in Washington. Do you think that they will answer it for you.

It appears that you are letting emotional jealousy guide your thinking, "if I can't have it no one can." Or am I reading you wrong?

I don't care what looks "tacticool" I worry more about functionality and usefullness. A bolt gun doesn't fit to well in a patrol car, at least not as well as an M4. And I do prefer bolt guns. And I don't think that a Glock 18 is the most reliable and functional weapom that one can get, don't like a Glock anything, but that's just me. 

huntin1


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

The children in Washington DC will not answer anything unless you give them a big pile of cash. Then if they do answer anything you have to take it as a lie.

emotional jealousy? Nope. If cops had to follow the same rules as regular citizens I bet they would be 100% for not banning anything. If they did and it was taking from them it might be worth taking a look at. That is not the case they do not have to play by the same rules.

I do remember you saying what you felt about what we can have. My bad on that one.

As far as the bolt gun they can have short barrels and short stocks. So areas that prevent citizens from having AR or anything that could be fun they can have a rifle that will have some range. I know personally a 16 inch 223 bolt gun is pleasant to shoot. Same with a 308. The 308 is loud but that is why they make plugs, muffs, and electronic hearing protection.

We all know you are not for glocks. Glocks are solid firearms as long as you do not stick anything on them but Glock accessories. Who would have thought you put on a surefire and you get jams. Take it off and you are fine then put on a glock light and you are fine. Glock and HK are the same in the fact that it is their product and why would you want it any other way.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Actually cops do have to follow the same rules in what we can own. The department however, does not. But then, I don't have access to any of that equipment unless I am working and there is a need.

huntin1


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Sounds a lot like a bunch of BOO HOO HOO. Cry me a river. The cops don't make the rules, and laws. They follow the rules that govern them, we follow the rules that govern us. If you don't like it, you can always move.

Why punish the good cops that use their computers and other tools as they are supposed to just because a few don't? Just like not punishing the regular civilians for the criminals???? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

When I say cops I do not mean off duty cops. I do infact mean on duty cops.

If you fear getting hurt in your job maybe you need a new line of work.

That was not directed to you huntin1. Just all of the other cops that have that I am better than you attitude and those that thinks cops are better than us citizens.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

This should be locked.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

People said:


> This should be locked.


Under the TOS (Terms of Service) this thread doesn't meet the criteria for being locked.

What I would say though, from my personal perspective, is that it seems to be between two of you generally and it is easily stopped by not replying any more or taken to PM's for discussion.

Have a good day.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

MSG Rude said:


> People said:
> 
> 
> > This should be locked.
> ...


 :lol: Now THAT is how you moderate!!!

Rude, how ya been? How's life in the glass cubicle treating you?


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

AdamFisk said:


> :lol: Now THAT is how you moderate!!!
> 
> Rude, how ya been? How's life in the glass cubicle treating you?


Haven't been in that place for almost a year now. Moved along to something that was more conducive to my personality and specific traits and abilities. Something I greatly enjoy.

I am a Director of Security at a place here in Fargo. Love it. I actually have responsibilities and duties that take-up the entire 9-11 hour days. Feel like I am contributing to society a bit more now. Less time for stirring the pot here though! :wink:

How about you?


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> If you fear getting hurt in your job maybe you need a new line of work.


Wow, you say this to and about people willing to put their butts on the line every day to protect you. You are truely a complete and total EDITED BY MSG RUDE. I SUGGEST YOU REVIEW THE AFORE MENTIONED TOS (Terms of Service). There is to be no personal attacks which includes name calling. MSG RUDE.

I suppose you think this way about our soldiers too???


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

MSG Rude said:


> AdamFisk said:
> 
> 
> > :lol: Now THAT is how you moderate!!!
> ...


It's good you're doing something you now enjoy. Makes life quite a bit more enjoyable.

Can't say my duties are taking up the entire work day right now. It's pretty slow, but Spring isn't that far away by the way things are looking. It was a good Fall of hunting. Really wishing August was right around the corner, otherwise life is pretty good.


----------

