Private University LEOs

[EEllis]

Just thinking about campus police being armed with full auto weapons makes me cringe ( I hope your Chief resists that possibility). I don't know what private school you are working at, but has there EVER been an incident on campus that would have justified the campus police being equipped with full auto assault rifles? Is there any existing example of the criminals dealt with on campus, having a shootout with officers, where the criminals had superior firepower? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but it gets really old hearing that "we are being outgunned by the criminals" line used as justification for needing miltary grade weaponry. In my experience, that is an extremely rare occurence, and if there has been such a situation occur at your campus, I'd really like to read about it.

I don't know about his school but you only have to look at the UT sniper and the Va tech shooting to think that something besides sidearms might be a good idea for cops at a school public or private. With the current thinking on spree shootings being that you want to confront them as soon as possible I would want school cops to have access to weapons that make such a response reasonable if there is a heavily armed shooter on campus. Baylor, a private university, has what 16,000+ students. They cover a big area with lots of people so if they end up being a first responder I want them able to do the job. Now of course unlike Nightmares situation every Baylor University cop is also a reserve county cop but they still cannot work off campus extra jobs.

I used the word "outgunned"...you responded with the Whitman and Virginia Tech as examples.

OK you used it I didn't..............

[nightmare69]

Just thinking about campus police being armed with full auto weapons makes me cringe ( I hope your Chief resists that possibility). I don't know what private school you are working at, but has there EVER been an incident on campus that would have justified the campus police being equipped with full auto assault rifles? Is there any existing example of the criminals dealt with on campus, having a shootout with officers, where the criminals had superior firepower? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but it gets really old hearing that "we are being outgunned by the criminals" line used as justification for needing miltary grade weaponry. In my experience, that is an extremely rare occurence, and if there has been such a situation occur at your campus, I'd really like to read about it.

I don't know about his school but you only have to look at the UT sniper and the Va tech shooting to think that something besides sidearms might be a good idea for cops at a school public or private. With the current thinking on spree shootings being that you want to confront them as soon as possible I would want school cops to have access to weapons that make such a response reasonable if there is a heavily armed shooter on campus. Baylor, a private university, has what 16,000+ students. They cover a big area with lots of people so if they end up being a first responder I want them able to do the job. Now of course unlike Nightmares situation every Baylor University cop is also a reserve county cop but they still cannot work off campus extra jobs.

I used the word "outgunned"...you responded with the Whitman and Virginia Tech as examples.

Im not directing this at you or anyone else, just my opinion.

Better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it. That same goes for weapons, gear, and training. This operator training I'm currently going through is something I hope I never use except on paper but I have the skill if the defecation ever hits the rotary oscillator. If it was your job to stop an active shooter I know you would want the best training and gear you could get your hands on. When its others job to put themselves in harms way to protect you the citizen, you feel like you should get to decide what's best for us and what we need and don't. To me this sounds just like big brother telling me what types of weapons I can and cannot own.

[anygunanywhere]

In the case of the UT shooter, Whitman barricaded himself in the tower. The police were indeed outgunned. They responded by asking for help and citizens responded with their hunting rifles. This was a prime example of the need for armed citizens and the importance of the Second Amendment.

[mojo84]

Cops want automatic weapons and mraps and the citizen students and teachers get a stapler to throw. I submit allowing teachers and students to bear arms would mitigate the need, but not the desire, for the cops to have such military war fighting equipment.

Looking forward to this coming legislative session. Hope we can make some big strides to better our situation.

[nightmare69]

Cops want automatic weapons and mraps and the citizen students and teachers get a stapler to throw. I submit allowing teachers and students to bear arms would mitigate the need, but not the desire, for the cops to have such military war fighting equipment.

Looking forward to this coming legislative session. Hope we can make some big strides to better our situation.

I'm sure the administrators think I'm crazy supporting students with CHLs to carry a firearm but when something goes down I would want all the help I could get. I'll be honest though, I have a big fear of responding to an active shooter and shooting a fellow CHLer on accident. If you don't have on a police uniform And you have a gun in your hand there is a good chance you will be shot. This is why I carry my green fluorescent vest that says POLICE in 3 places in my go bag. I don't want to be mistaken for the bad guy.

[Charles L. Cotton]

In the case of the Va Tech shooter armed students and professors makes more sense than militarized cops who show up after the fact.

Absolutely right! These folks are the first responders and because of absurd state laws, they unarmed first responders. That's a recipe for disaster.

It amazes me that anti-gunners and some COPs can argue for full auto weapons on a school campus, yet argue that an adult student, teacher or professor with a handgun creates too large of a risk of collateral damage. When an argument is so devoid of any connection to reality, it is no longer a rationale for a position, it's a lie.

Chas.

I think it makes sence, a little anyway. A police officer wants to go into a shooting situation with full knowledge the bad person is the only person with a firearm. They don't want the waters muddied by other people having a firearm so they won't have to think about their response. Look at most of the targets they use. If it has a gun you shoot, not is the target pointing the gun. If it doesn't have a gun don't shoot. In a possible shooting situation they don't want to have think.

I disagree.

No responsible agency trains its officers to shoot anyone with a gun because guns are used by criminals, law abiding citizens, and LEO's. There are no shortcuts to using good judgment.

Letting lots of people get killed during the first 5 - 10 minutes of an incident so the responding officers won't be confused instead of allowing someone who is already on the scene solve the problem immediately and make the scene safe before officers can arrive doesn't make any sense at all.

Look at the police responses to Newtown, and most other school/university shootings. How long were the police on site setting up before they entered the site? How many of the police organizations say that teachers and faculty should not be armed so there is no problem identifying the shooter? Saying that they don't want to shoot the wrong person because the person had a firearm.

Any officer that feels this way is not fit to wear the badge. This is an officer that wants to make their job easier and safer at the expense of additional innocent casualties.
Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't know about his school but you only have to look at the UT sniper and the Va tech shooting to think that something besides sidearms might be a good idea for cops at a school public or private.

Full auto weapons aren't a good match for either of those scenarios.

Full auto weapons are useful in battle against a large group of attacking enemy, or to lay down a large volume of covering fire. A semi-auto AR, for example, is just as useful as an M-16 (if not more useful) for any ordinary scenario against a handful of attackers. I say "if not more" because aimed fire is more effective than a "spray and pray" approach anyway.

Just my opinion, but unless we are talking platoon-size engagements , I see very little use for full auto weapons for law enforcement, including anti-terrorist action.

I will agree that in those 2 particular situations that might be the case, although an argument could definitely be made for covering fire on the sniper situation, but you can look to the Batman shootings to see where burst fire could be of use. I mean if you don't want to find something you wont but I find it had to believe that anyone can't see some utility in first responders having access to greater firepower. Now that doesn't mean that other considerations outweigh those benefits but lets not pretend they don't exist.

You apparently make no distinction between civilian police forces addressing armed civilian criminals and a military unit engaging opposing military forces that have heavy weapons. Under your theory, then the Posse Comitatus Statute has no application in 21st Century America.

"Covering fire" in a university setting? Really? I have to ask; are you or were you a LEO? I was for 10 years and I cannot imagine any experience LEO making such a suggestion.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

In the case of the Va Tech shooter armed students and professors makes more sense than militarized cops who show up after the fact.

Absolutely right! These folks are the first responders and because of absurd state laws, they unarmed first responders. That's a recipe for disaster.

It amazes me that anti-gunners and some COPs can argue for full auto weapons on a school campus, yet argue that an adult student, teacher or professor with a handgun creates too large of a risk of collateral damage. When an argument is so devoid of any connection to reality, it is no longer a rationale for a position, it's a lie.

Chas.

How about someone who is pro campus carry and is just not concerned if a school with a sizable force, I'm not talking a 3 to 9 man force but 20 -30+ officers, has a couple of auto rifles in the armory or has a unit or two with patrol rifles that happen to have burst capabilities? Honestly I can't see auto rifles being a bigger risk on campus that in an apartment complex or downtown would be.

I don't understand your question in the contest of my post. I commented on people who oppose campus-carry based on the claim of potential collateral damage, while supporting full auto (or even burst fire) weapons in the hands of campus-cops.

Remember, I'm a guy who doesn't even want campus-cops to exist.

Chas.

[mojo84]

I bet he is a government employee of some sort. Comes across as an assistant district attorney or 2nd year law stident to me.

Edit: By the way, this is not meant as a negative or personal attack. I've just wondered this many times in the past add I've read his pro-government pro-police posts.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Cops want automatic weapons and mraps and the citizen students and teachers get a stapler to throw. I submit allowing teachers and students to bear arms would mitigate the need, but not the desire, for the cops to have such military war fighting equipment.

Looking forward to this coming legislative session. Hope we can make some big strides to better our situation.

If you don't have on a police uniform And you have a gun in your hand there is a good chance you will be shot.

This would be gross incompetence! I'm so sick of a small but vocal minority of COPS and COP administrators trying to disarm citizens or restrict carry locations by claiming COPs are so incompetent, so trigger-happy, that they might kill the wrong person. This is complete crap! It's also a byproduct of militarization of police as some level of collateral damage is acceptable in a military attack. I realize you don't feel this way because you support open-carry.

If a COP feels he must shoot before making a reasonable evaluation, then that's a COP that needs to do something else for a living. This attitude was nonexistent when I was a COP. I suggest people who hold this opinion do some sole-searching and realize how this attitude is helping to destroy public opinion of and support for law enforcement.

Chas.

[gljjt]

When an active shooter situation occurs in a school allowing licensed concealed carry, the guns the arriving officer will be most likely to see are the holstered pistol of the CHL holder, standing over the body and weapon of the unactive shooter.

I'll reconsider my pro-campus carry views when we see a rash of active shootings inside of gun stores.

[mojo84]

[EEllis]

You apparently make no distinction between civilian police forces addressing armed civilian criminals and a military unit engaging opposing military forces that have heavy weapons. Under your theory, then the Posse Comitatus Statute has no application in 21st Century America.

"Covering fire" in a university setting? Really? I have to ask; are you or were you a LEO? I was for 10 years and I cannot imagine any experience LEO making such a suggestion.

Chas.

Why would I distinguish between the two when I am clearly only talking about civilian police forces? Covering fire? You're right, right after I posted it I realized I should of use suppressing fire. I also couldn't care less if it is on a college campus. That comment of mine was directly related to the UT sniper and if the police had weapons that could reach and sustain fire on Whitman position it would have been a positive thing. But of course waiting and having cops raid gun stores is another way to go.

[EEllis]

I bet he is a government employee of some sort. Comes across as an assistant district attorney or 2nd year law stident to me.

Edit: By the way, this is not meant as a negative or personal attack. I've just wondered this many times in the past add I've read his pro-government pro-police posts.

I don't think of my posts as particularly pro anything. I mainly respond to what I consider weak arguments for things. Now here I'm not for private university police to have police powers outside of their work because such should be limited to organizations that are ultimately headed by someone elected or appointed by an elected official. But I recognize they are police and it doesn't bother me it a college with a sizable force and responsible for a.large number of people, happen to have rifles that may fire more than a single round at a time available to them. Doesn't mean they should start issuing M-60 or anything but just because they are college cops doesn't mean they aren't cops. I also don't think a college campus is particularly sacred either. I am pro campus carry and it seems that the attitude that used as justification for preventing carry is spilling over here. I don't get why cops with automatic capabilities are OK down the street but not at the college.

[anygunanywhere]

I don't get why cops with automatic capabilities are OK down the street but not at the college.

It is the overt militarization of departments that is the issue. That and the trend of every little political government agency having their own enforcement arm up to and including SWAT.