LEO dress code and use of military equip

[TBO]

Keep digging, it's a free country.

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk

[Historian]

I was offered a full auto Uzi on Friday.   Interesting:  But i'm not planning on holding off a platoon in my living room.

Besides the price was stupid.

[Fyrtwuck]

21 hours ago, Historian said:

I was offered a full auto Uzi on Friday.   Interesting:  But i'm not planning on holding off a platoon in my living room.

Besides the price was stupid.

The prices of legally transferable full autos have been rising steadily since the law was changed May 19, 1986. There are only so many out there and new ones are not available to the public. I passed on a full auto HK MP5 in 1985 for $900.00 because I thought it cost too much. Now that same gun if it was registered before May 19, 1986 will run about $25,000.00-$30,000.00. 

[Historian]

1 minute ago, Fyrtwuck said:

The prices of legally transferable full autos have been rising steadily since the law was changed May 19, 1986. There are only so many out there and new ones are not available to the public. I passed on a full auto HK MP5 in 1985 for $900.00 because I thought it cost too much. Now that same gun if it was registered before May 19, 1986 will run about $25,000.00-$30,000.00. 

A friend of mine often talks about that.  Back in the 80s we had a mutual friend who made the comment that it was worth maxing out the credit cards on thsi one.   He was right.  

I just looked at a Sterling.  14 years ago it was half the price.  Something as awesome as an mp5?   Yeah.   Sorry guys.   I'm a married working stiff.  I got bills to pay and money doesn't grow on trees.

[Fyrtwuck]

On 9/2/2018 at 4:55 PM, Historian said:

It does not help that so many depts ARE cash strung and the feds are giving away stuff.

I think part of it is because the American public is tired of seeing this equipment sent through a shredder after being paid for by their tax dollars. Given the choice I’d rather see an agency get use out of it or find a way to get it back to the taxpayers. 

[Historian]

Just now, Fyrtwuck said:

I think part of it is because the American public is tired of seeing this equipment sent through a shredder after being paid for by their tax dollars. Given the choice I’d rather see an agency get use out of it or find a way to get it back to the taxpayers. 

There's a lot of good stuff out there too.   We loaded up on some ammo boxes.  Same time most of us have.  They make great storage for lots of things other than ammo.  But we put then in every car.   They now hold flash light batteries, some first aid equipment, whatever the officer wants to put in there.

Those tax payers are right.  

[Fyrtwuck]

3 minutes ago, Historian said:

A friend of mine often talks about that.  Back in the 80s we had a mutual friend who made the comment that it was worth maxing out the credit cards on thsi one.   He was right.  

I just looked at a Sterling.  14 years ago it was half the price.  Something as awesome as an mp5?   Yeah.   Sorry guys.   I'm a married working stiff.  I got bills to pay and money doesn't grow on trees.

I was too. That was one of the reasons I passed on it. I bought an UZI years later for $4200.00. I sold it four years later when I ran out of places to shoot it. It sold for $7500.00. I saw one posted on subguns not long ago for $15,000.00. 

[SC Tiger]

On 8/27/2018 at 6:04 PM, Historian said:

I think we should dress like cops. Some guys might have a need for bdus. But this are a few..and those I know wear suit-like uniforms to court.

There is a reason for most things. I think cops sometimes forget they are civilians. I know I fell into that mode of thought once or twice. But there is a good amount of cross over in gear.

But thank God for them. 

I've noticed a trend of LEOs wearing the armor vest outside the uniform now.  Not sure what the reason is, but often I see them just out and about with the vest on.  It does give a military-like look.  Maybe some people like that and I have no doubt that it might be more comfortable, but I wouldn't do it.  

I also see plenty that still wear the uniform over the vest.  I've no problem with the vest being worn but IMO it should be under the uniform outside of special requirements.

On 9/3/2018 at 9:55 AM, AK_Stick said:

I think most of the outcry is over the guys who dress for their regular day, whilst wearing overly tactical gear. 

 

Friend of mine got a ticket a few weeks ago, cop was wearing a molle vest/pc and a molle belt with multiple pistol and two rifle mags on his belt. Plus the rest of his head. 

 

 

 

Now I understand why he’d have that kind of gear. I wear the same stuff when I go down range. Maybe he was coming or heading to something requiring all the tactical stuff. 

 

 

However, to people who don’t carry/use/like guns, he could easily have come off as excessive. And perception of public is reality to a lot of people.  

That's a touch much IMO.

 

As for the MRAPS - I have no issue with them.  They are free and defensive.  I would be careful when I brought them out though. 

[TBO]

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk

[Historian]

4 hours ago, SC Tiger said:

I've noticed a trend of LEOs wearing the armor vest outside the uniform now.  Not sure what the reason is, but often I see them just out and about with the vest on.  It does give a military-like look.  Maybe some people like that and I have no doubt that it might be more comfortable, but I wouldn't do it.  

I also see plenty that still wear the uniform over the vest.  I've no problem with the vest being worn but IMO it should be under the uniform outside of special requirements.

That's a touch much IMO.

 

As for the MRAPS - I have no issue with them.  They are free and defensive.  I would be careful when I brought them out though. 

MRAPs are particularly good when dealing with active shooter situations where you can use the vehicle as a shield to get the wounded out of there.

As for the vests.  Lot of guys like wearing it outside for two reasons.  First its a bit more comfortable and you can remove it when you need to.   Second you can stick all sorts of stuff on it like moral patches that say, "I'm with stupid ---->"   

That always works well with your sgt to the right of that arrow.

Not going to quote TBO:  But he nailed it.  In the US we do not have national police forces doing local policing.  And never should.

[TBO]

Wearing body armor under clothing can cause heat rash and other issues.

An external carrier can help relieve that by not pressing tight against the skin, having air gaps, and allowing the wearer to easily pop it open in the office, break room, restroom, etc.

The external carrier also allows for greater mobility w/o binding.

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk

[SC Tiger]

39 minutes ago, TBO said:

Wearing body armor under clothing can cause heat rash and other issues.

An external carrier can help relieve that by not pressing tight against the skin, having air gaps, and allowing the wearer to easily pop it open in the office, break room, restroom, etc.

The external carrier also allows for greater mobility w/o binding.

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk
 

It also contributes to police looking more like military.  And the image that (some) police are wannabe soldiers.  

I get why many prefer the vest outside the uniform.  Hell I'd probably prefer it too.  But what you need to understand that there is a downside to it.  Local PD's guys are apparently big believers in Under Armor.  Plus cops have worn it under the shirt for decades.  Wearing it outside seems to be a more recent development.

Of course sometimes (occasionally) they look more like this:

(Kidding)

 

Honest question though - is what these guys are wearing body armor or just some sort of equipment vest meant to replace the belt?

Second question would be have we not figured out how to shrink down or get rid of some of that stuff?  Surely to God they make a radio that isn't that damn big for starters.

Kinda reminds me of that LEO that got caught wanking his crank in his patrol car.  When many were asking why, Dennis_in-MA asked the more immediate question of "how?"  With all that **** on.....

1 hour ago, Historian said:

MRAPs are particularly good when dealing with active shooter situations where you can use the vehicle as a shield to get the wounded out of there.

As for the vests.  Lot of guys like wearing it outside for two reasons.  First its a bit more comfortable and you can remove it when you need to.   Second you can stick all sorts of stuff on it like moral patches that say, "I'm with stupid ---->"   

That always works well with your sgt to the right of that arrow.

Not going to quote TBO:  But he nailed it.  In the US we do not have national police forces doing local policing.  And never should.

Addressed the armor above.

I completely get wanting a few MRAPs in the fleet.  Hell - if the military is giving them away I'd take a few too.  I want one at my house.  Few cans of blue Krylon (or Clemson Orange if it's my personal MRAP) and you're good to go.  Just don't go trucking up and down the street in that thing with someone standing in the top hatch like you're in Baghdad or something (I've honestly never seen police do that BTW).  

Unless the situation warrants it of course (active shooter, that ******** in Columbia, etc).  Then - truck away.  The ass you're saving my be attached to me!

My hometown is still rockin' a Chevrolet squarebody for certain jobs.  They have a HUMMVEE too but I've never seen them do much with it.

Edited March 6, 2019 by SC Tiger

[TBO]

"Looks bad", same thing the left uses with AR-15... "military looking weapons.... assault rifle... etc".

It's how it's used, by the individual using it.

Is short hair "military" or "aggressive", the list of emotive avenues for attack is endless.

Body armor is defensive, not offensive.

The officers wearing vests are human beings and entitled to equipment that makes them safer and addresses health/environmental issues.

"wore vests under clothes for decades".

For hundreds of years muzzle loading rifles and shotguns sufficed..... se above post again.

Shrink equipment? They have, but we keep getting mandated more (narcan, 1st aid equip, multiple recording devices, etc).

Keep in mind just now rugged and long lasting this equipment needs to be (used daily, often 7/24/365 in challenging environments).

It's very expensive. Even if a new model comes out smaller, do you support an agency throwing a million plus every year or two soley to get the new models? Keep in mind that would be in addition to the multi million dollar budget already in place.

Those cops sitting down, likely vests that can hold body Armour panels inside, AND allow both the carry of a lot of extra equip on the vest, but personalization of what/where it is carried.

Very often used to work special projects, such as warrant service.

A big benefit when doing search warrants is you can take off the hot/heavy body armor as soon as the scene is secure. Much more comfortable for searching for/collecting evidence.

Wearing plainclothes under the vest lends a friendly non-military appearance for those now tasked with interviewing people.

Lots of guys who wear vests like that have assignments where they are plain clothes assignments and only put a vest on to help out with warrants or serious in-real-time events.

Some of those guys may put on a vest only a handful of times a year. Notice how the vast majority of those type of photos show no wear on the vests.

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk

[Historian]

1 hour ago, SC Tiger said:

It also contributes to police looking more like military.  And the image that (some) police are wannabe soldiers.  

I get why many prefer the vest outside the uniform.  Hell I'd probably prefer it too.  But what you need to understand that there is a downside to it.  Local PD's guys are apparently big believers in Under Armor.  Plus cops have worn it under the shirt for decades.  Wearing it outside seems to be a more recent development.

 

Yeah.  I might not know what I'm talking about.   And...might.  

One of the main reasons I have worn a vest outside is chronic hip issues most officers face as a result of packing 20 or 30 pounds of gear on their belt.    

They can be a back killer (or breaker).  I never wear anything along the spine.

Wearing the vest outside makes it possible to distribute the gear off the hip.     In addition it's less likely to be caught on a seat belt or something in a rapid exit.

Those radios are small.  The main issue with them is they have to be big enough to hold a battery that will run for a long time without recharge.  Not to mention they are abused all day every day.  They have to be rugged.  It's a life-line.  Your radio goes silent.   So will you.

As for your comment about soldier wannabes...please remember a lot of very good officers started their time in the nation's uniform.  They carry themselves professional as they did then, now, in a different uniform.

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Historian

[Historian]

1 hour ago, SC Tiger said:

Unless the situation warrants it of course (active shooter, that ******** in Columbia, etc).  Then - truck away.  The ass you're saving my be attached to me!

 

People who drive and work with heavy equipment like MRAPS have to be able to take them to and from training locations.  It's not something that can be parked, and forgotten.  If you don that it's not going to work when you need it to work.

I have seen them used as mobile commands, medical commands, etc.   It is used mostly in large scale operations like a Garth Brooks concert where you have thousands of people and if you need to MRAP...you need it NOW...not later.

[SC Tiger]

12 minutes ago, Historian said:

Yeah.  I might not know what I'm talking about.   And...might.  

One of the main reasons I have worn a vest outside is chronic hip issues most officers face as a result of packing 20 or 30 pounds of gear on their belt.    

They can be a back killer (or breaker).  I never wear anything along the spine.

Wearing the vest outside makes it possible to distribute the gear off the hip.     In addition it's less likely to be caught on a seat belt or something in a rapid exit.

Those radios are small.  The main issue with them is they have to be big enough to hold a battery that will run for a long time without recharge.  Not to mention they are abused all day every day.  They have to be rugged.  It's a life-line.  Your radio goes silent. 

As for your comment about soldier wannabes...please remember a lot of very good officers started their time in the nation's uniform.  They carry themselves professional as they did then, now, in a different uniform.

 

To be clear - I've never said you didn't know what you're talking about.  TBO either.  I definitely see WHY the vest on the outside is done.  My point is simply that there IS a downside and it needs to be addressed.  Same with the "wannabees" comment (wasn't meant as an insult - was stating that it could be how they are - or could be - seen by outsiders).  I realize that a lot of LEOs are former military (and that's a good thing) and maybe thats where the vest outside the uniform comes from.  

It's also part of the whole package.  I see LEOs around here wearing what look like battle fatigues from time to time.  In their defense they might be in some sort of training though.

Once again my point is very simple - there is a downside to it and the downside needs to be acknowledged.  Doesn't make it the wrong decision.

The chronic hip issue I didn't think of.  But I can see why this would be uncomfortable:

That's a lot of shvt on a belt.  And I assume this is with the newer (collapsible) baton and smaller light.  I had forgotten this, but there was a company trying to sell a purpose-built police car that had seats specially designed to accommodate the belt.

No offense to anyone was ever intended.

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by SC Tiger

[Historian]

15 minutes ago, SC Tiger said:

That's a lot of shvt on a belt.  And I assume this is with the newer (collapsible) baton and smaller light.  I had forgotten this, but there was a company trying to sell a purpose-built police car that had seats specially designed to accommodate the belt.

No offense to anyone was ever intended.

I didn't take offense.   While it's warm outside  I do not melt above 32 degrees nor am I special or unique.

BDUs are normally worn by guys who are working special details like K9.   A fine uniform can get covered in your best friend's hair rather quickly.    They might also be training.  You never know.  Could also be part of an evidence team.   The powders and chemicals from that are quite caustic and often very fine and get everywhere.

I get your point about perspective.  It does come up frequently.   I think people should be concerned with other things in general.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Historian

[SC Tiger]

3 minutes ago, Historian said:

People who drive and work with heavy equipment like MRAPS have to be able to take them to and from training locations.  It's not something that can be parked, and forgotten.  If you don that it's not going to work when you need it to work.

I have seen them used as mobile commands, medical commands, etc.   It is used mostly in large scale operations like a Garth Brooks concert where you have thousands of people and if you need to MRAP...you need it NOW...not later.

Of course.  Hence my "exercise the equipment" remark that I deleted before posting that apparently.  Dammit.  Why can't you read what I meant to post?

IMO MRAPs are really not a big deal as long as you don't have a .50 BMG or a 20MM or something on it.

Has anyone ever looked into armoring a standard police car?  Cost would be pretty ugly but in the Columbia thing I don't think SWAT got there for a while.

[SC Tiger]

Just now, Historian said:

I get your point about perspective.  It does come up frequently.   I think people should be concerned with other things in general.

True, but the world is what it is.  It's just got to be dealt with.

[Historian]

1 minute ago, SC Tiger said:

.  Why can't you read w't think SWAT got there for a while.

Sounds like something my wife would say.

[Historian]

14 hours ago, SC Tiger said:

True, but the world is what it is.  It's just got to be dealt with.

I stopped being worried about what others think and have become more concerned with what I do and whether it is moral and right.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Historian

[TBO]

True, but the world is what it is.  It's just got to be dealt with.

You are talking about feelings, not facts. As such the below post is spot on.

I stopped being worried about what others thing and have become more concerned with what I do and whether it is moral and right.

 

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk

 

 

 

[SC Tiger]

19 hours ago, TBO said:

You are talking about feelings, not facts. As such the below post is spot on.

 

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk

 

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Historian said:

I stopped being worried about what others think and have become more concerned with what I do and whether it is moral and right.

What I am driving at is a very simple thing:

When people complain about the militarization of police, it's not just the MRAPs they almost never see, or the M60s, M2s and M249s that you don't have.  It's also the uniform.

That doesn't make the uniform choice (vest outside the shirt) WRONG by any means.  Historian and you have done an excellent job of explaining why many prefer that setup.  But when asked, tell the person asking what you told me - "we have to carry a lot of **** and having it distributed on the vest is a lot better and more comfortable than carrying it on a belt that screws my hips up."

That's it.  

Done.

Easy.

It will help the general public be more at ease about it.  Which SHOULD make your job easier.

Edited March 7, 2019 by SC Tiger

[TBO]

What I am driving at is a very simple thing:
When people complain about the militarization of police, it's not just the MRAPs they almost never see, or the M60s, M2s and M249s that you don't have.  It's also the uniform.
That doesn't make the uniform choice (vest outside the shirt) WRONG by any means.  Historian and you have done an excellent job of explaining why many prefer that setup.  But when asked, tell the person asking what you told me - "we have to carry a lot of **** and having it distributed on the vest is a lot better and more comfortable than carrying it on a belt that screws my hips up."
That's it.  
Done.
Easy.
It will help the general public be more at ease about it.  Which SHOULD make your job easier.

People are afraid of guns, but police aren't going to stop carrying them to appease them.

Those who complain about "militarization of police" are generally engaging in thinly veiled LE bashing. Same stuff, different day.

Irrational fears are responsibility of those feeling it.

You don't have to give up your gun carrying (CCW or open where legal) just because some don't like it.

Emotions need to be dealt with by those feelings them.

My part is only explaining:

-facts
-logic
-law

Personal feelings/bias usually fly in the face of those, and ignore those no matter how much of the above is explained (clearly and convincingly).

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk

[Historian]

9 hours ago, SC Tiger said:

It will help the general public be more at ease about it.  Which SHOULD make your job easier.

I am not concerned with the Hoplophobic. 

Only those who do wrong shall fear me.

My actions will speak volumes.   Those actions will reflect upon the uniform.  The uniform reflects on the profession.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Historian