Chicagoist: Do Chicago Police Need Assault Rifles?

fed up

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:57:13 -0600

I dont think that most drug dealers or gang bangers are going to get into an arms race with the police. The gang banger or drug dealers is using the weapon available to the to settle a disput with a rival or in some cases committ a robbery they are not looking for a confrontation with the police it decresses the chance for success. The police that are given these semi auto rifles better be well trained.Bullets fired from rifles tend to go through things and keep going. A few cars in each district manned by officers with extra training might be neccasary but IMO rifles and urban areas are a bad idea.

NotsoAnonymous

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:22:34 -0600

Wow. This is great. That's why I come here... to get answers. We'll give police officers BIGGER guns so THEY can be safer. I sincerely appreciate the job the officers perform... and I respect them. AND, I want them to have the weapons (and protection) that they need (and deserve). BUT in the vast majority of shootings on the street, the police are not the targets. Back to the fundamental question... What about making us citizens safer? If we use Jody and da Mayor's logic... WE need guns.

JP2

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:26:50 -0600

Mel82, I'm with AlbanyParkist ont the well wishes too. Thing is though, that semi-automatic rifle almost certainly would not have helped the two tact officers who confronted the AK-47 wielding gunman in 022 two weeks ago. They drove up on him, and apparently unloaded their pistols through the windshield when they saw him wielding the AK. Picture a secured semi-automatic rifle in the trunk, or locked in the backseat in that situation. Almost no way do two officers have time to unsecure the gun in that situation. Which brings me back to my original point on this. These guns are for use when you know their use is likely to be warranted, and would not help the random street ambushes the police face so often. They would, however, help the response that is 2 or 3 minutes away, in that multiple POs with semi-automatic weapons would be able to respond quickly any time an officer called in shots fired at the police. Helpful. Just not perfect.

AlbanyParkist

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:07:09 -0600

mel82: I hope your husband is always safe. I agree with you completely that all cops get tarred with a pretty broad brush. For every Anthony Abbate there are dozens, hundreds of cops who tow the line and keep people safe. There are 13,000 cops in Chicago. Pick 13,000 people in any profession and there are going to be some folks simply not fit. But that doesn't meant there are not systemic issues. Entering an escalating arms race with gangs is not the solution to street crime. It's not even an effective deterrent. The closest comparison I can find is, sadly, Iraq. The US military is easily the most well-armed and powerful forces in history. We make the Grand Army of Napoleon look like a nursery school class. And yet, we can't pacify one nation with a 4th class army, no air force, no navy and homemade weaponry getting 5th class surplus weapons smuggled to them. Why? Because until very recently the Army practiced a battle plan that involved rolling through Iraqi neighborhood in convoys at high speeds over direct community engagement. General Patreus made it a command priority for his officers to get out and know the people in their area, to know the leaders of the factions, the tribes and get them to work together under their auspices. Sometimes that meant sitting at the table with insurgents who'd been shooting at them days before, but they put that aside for the greater good. In some parts of Iraq, it's working. The really sad part is, this idea, of working with people, making them involved in their own safety and part of their own protection, may be too little too late for Iraq. 40 years of economic downturn, devastated and blighted neighborhoods, serious violent gangs, there are parts of Chicago, beautiful old neighborhoods, that are rotting on the vine. Cops rolling around armed to the teeth isn't going to make those neighborhoods any better, it's going to make the people in them feel like prisoners. Resentful, angry prisoners. Who will eventually do something awful with that anger. Again, Mel82, I hope your husband is always safe and thank him for his service in keeping us safe.

mel82

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:24:11 -0600

my husband is a chicago police officer and everyday you say a prayer in the hopes that something bad doesn't happen. chicago has a bad habit of lumping all cops into the category of "bad cops." the media does a fine job of only reporting on the 5% that use their postion for bad purposes. the majority of police are just trying to do their job and not get killed in the process. for once daley is right...AK-47 vs. pistol. who is going to win?! chicago police are one of the only major city police forces without firepower to match the criminals they face every day. instead of blaming police for the death of innocent bystanders due to firefights...blame the criminals who put them in these tough situations.

Ward Up

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:36:57 -0600

I am in the health field. I have participated in the care of two GSW victims this weekend. As I think of these two cases and many other cases, I don't see where giving the police assault rifles would make any impact whatsoever. The problem is the police have been taught, by the media and the courts, that aggressive enforcement will not be rewarded with convictions or well-deserved long prison sentences for those caught with illegal guns. On the contrary, aggressive enforcement is resulting in good cops having their careers hurt and their families hurt. The fear of false allegations of police abuse, suspensions, and demotions is very real. It should be no surprise to the lefties that the gangbangers are not being controlled. Please let the police do their jobs aggressively. After all, this aggressive enforcement helps low-income minorities most of all. Let those low-income people get the help in their neighborhoods that they need.

clarenceweatherspoon

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:24:41 -0600

No, they don't need assault rifles, but this explains why the local media has been pushing these "XX number of shootings over the course of a weekend, which is really bad, but we won't tell our readers/listeners that there were a number of weekends just as violent last year and pretty much every year since the late sixties, let's just scare the crap out of everyone" stories lately.

Navin

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:05:00 -0600

Interesting points JP2, I think we can both agree that current policy is an utter failure.

JP2

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:34:20 -0600

Well Navin, it would appear that you and I and Albany Parkist agree in part. I am for legalization, taxation, and a strong just-say-no campaign. That thing about the south and west sides is a result just as much of Federal funding (e.g., public housing concentrations of the poor) as it is with anything affirmatively done by the city. Which is to say, economics plays a role in the solutions to both the weaponization of the drug culture and the concentrations of poverty in the city. Legalize and those guns will cost far more man-hours of profit than they currently do, though its hard to say what the subculture will do without the economic incentives to sell dope. Mandate that subsidies and subsidized housing go all over the Chicago area, more or less equally, and the worst aspects of ghetto culture should disappear in a generation, unless that one family from the ghetto moving into 50 stable families manages to ghettoize the whole neighborhood. Or, on the other hand, we could just drastically cut back subsidies entirely, or impose drastic work requirements on those receiving aid. That should have some positive effects on the ghetto subculture too.

Navin

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:07:03 -0600

Great post Albanyparkist, I would just add the failed war on drugs to that list of problems contributing to this situation. If the we had a more sensible policy on drugs, legalization or at least a drastic reduction of our draconian laws I think a lot of these gangstaz would soon find the drugs that fund these weapon purchases are not worth quite as much money.

Pinko

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:57:42 -0600

Imagine walking home and seeing the police standing around with automatic weapons, sounds very threatening and intimidating - which is the point - but it may raise tensions for the common folk in that area of the city. In Italy, you see the Carabinieri (military police in a civilian capacity) throughout cities like Rome and Florence, and they carry submachine guns. I'll admit the sight of it was a little unsettling at first (it was my first time overseas), but I got used to it. I also felt safer whenever one was in the area...

Sears Tower

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:09:12 -0600

The CPD controls the automatic, for any dumb motherfucker starting static.

matty

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:06:15 -0600

"These things should only be removed from vehicles in very limited circumstances, and the only way anybody should be seeing these by the dozen is during a riot." Agreed. Let's hope the CPD feels the same way.

JP2

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:54:47 -0600

This is where I'm with ya Matty. There are more than a few POs who are not qualified by any reasonable standard to carry a water gun, let alone a semi-automatic rifle. Its not even the appearance of things that would worry me so much. Rather, if distributed as standard issue (particularly as a take-home weapon) its only a matter of time before a drunk or disturbed PO lights something up. These things should only be removed from vehicles in very limited circumstances, and the only way anybody should be seeing these by the dozen is during a riot. It would raise tension if someone totes a freakin machine gun into your disturbance barking-dog or theft from auto call. I'd be appalled if that was in any way what is being offered.

matty

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:43:15 -0600

"heavier-firepower to highly-qualified POs." I agree. However if that doesn't happen and if they make an assault rifle standard issue on the west side I swear it's going to create tension. Imagine walking home and seeing the police standing around with automatic weapons, sounds very threatening and intimidating - which is the point - but it may raise tensions for the common folk in that area of the city. Personally I would not want to walk home and see that. It would remind me of living in gaza or some other war zone.

JP2

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:39:10 -0600

Matty, you are not as familiar with the street/police situation as I am. As I indicated, after Columbine the city put up a few citywide units with heavier-than-normal arms. Basically, one south, one north, and maybe one downtown. These were put up because a Chicago HBT/SWAT team takes some time to assemble. They are coming from different directions in personal cars, and the notification and decisionmaking process takes some extra time. SWAT takes perhaps 1/2 hour (and that's being a bit optimistic) to assemble at a scene. A quicker response is why the already-on-duty and armed units were put up after Columbine. What the city is looking at doing is cutting the average response time down further, and also adding the amount of firepower (via added heavily-armed personnel) that can be used on a quick basis. Your concerns, my concerns, and hopefully the concerns of all other reasonable people can be addressed by limiting this heavier-firepower to highly-qualified POs. Not limited to sergeants, or TRU, or dicks or tact, though they should be available to qualified sergeants or dicks or POs in TRU or tact. What they should do is 2 or 3 distributed among the district uniforms in each district on each watch (plus a few more in the station). Maybe a qualified sergeant here, a qualified tact officer there, but mostly to uniformed POs on the watch. And the reason is: because uniformed district POs on the watch are the most uniformly distributed in the city, and they are the most likely to actually be working when they are supposed to be (due to their duties of answering 911 calls from which they cannot escape without notice).

fed up

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:54:10 -0600

From what I have read the city is thinking of using former military with good service records and only having a few rifles in each district. The training needs to be very good because a rifle round goes a long way and citys tend to be crowded. The police are out gunned but semi auto rifles in a city can cause alot of problemss.

matty

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:26:55 -0600

SWAT Teams have automatic weapons. Why do regular cops need them? It seems they will increase the chances of civilians being hit in a fire fight. Also this could create an arms race between gangs and cops.

JP2

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:13:17 -0600

Clearly not everyone on the job should be given one of these. However, if you have recent veterans or other highly qualified POs, its probably a good idea to have these floating around in a few places citywide. After Columbine the city started putting up 2 or 3 special operations units each day in different parts of the city, and these guys are pretty heavily armed with assault rifles etc. Problem is, its probably a good idea to have one or two floating around in each district, and a few more at the station. They should not even be displayed for most calls or interactions with the public. And as actual shootouts usually occur without notice, I'm not sure that these will be all that helpful to POs. Its the extended incidents (LA bank robbery, or Rober Taylor homes sniper wars in the 90s), or the possibility of terrorist incidents anywhere that make me think that maybe it would be a good idea for a few of these to always be available within 2-5 minutes anywhere in the city. In the hands of well-qualified POs though, and certainly not in the hands of one and all.

magilla gorilla

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:09:00 -0600

i don't think the idea behind these guns is to make the neighborhoods safer, it's to make the police safer so they can defend themselves better. not saying it will work, but that seems to be the logic. there are a million variables as to why violent crime happens. the biggest and most important is the lack of parenting and shitty family environments these criminals grew up in.

Pinko

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:06:12 -0600

More firepower is not going to make these neighborhoods safer. It's the illusion of progress and the further militarization of the police. I'm not so sure this is about making the neighborhoods safer as much as it's about making the cops safer. I certainly wouldn't want to go up against a gangbanger armed with an AK-47 with only my service pistol and some pepper spray...

ljpljpljp

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:59:40 -0600

semi-fully-automatic-weapon Good one Richie!!!

AlbanyParkist

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:21:23 -0600

I suppose that Warner Brothers has done a number on me with their marketing, but the first thing I thought of was the end of the last batman movie. Gary Oldman and Batman are talking on the rooftop about escalation. How, now that there's a guy in a costume catching criminals how are the criminals going to respond. Then they foreshadow the Joker. More firepower is not going to make these neighborhoods safer. It's the illusion of progress and the further militarization of the police. Drug gangs aren't going to go away because cops have bigger and better weapons The state gutted Ceasefire, we have no functional rehabilitation for first time offenders and the juvenile justice system is simply effective at cranking out adult criminals. Combine that with 40 years of economic abandonment of the west and chunks of the south sides (since the riots of '68) and a city and county government riddled with the very worst cronies the African-American community has to offer............ Frankly, I'm shocked it's not far worse. Before anyone says I'm not holding the criminals to account, I'll say that anyone committing a violent crime with a gun should spend a good portion of the rest of their lives in jail. But individuals are constrained by systems that have been rotting away for decades. And it's only going to get worse.