If and when you buy the idea that you are not responsible for your own self-defense, that someone else is responsible for your personal safety, you back the idea that deadly force should arrive with police. Their tactical position is always nasty, as they are unable to determine who the "good guys" are at any given moment.

This cannot be corrected with more force, but people buy this idea, and even holler for faster and more police as they demand their neighbors be disarmed.

SO we should what, be Britian, with unarmed police? What can they even do, just waggle their fingers as an armed gunman robs a bank? Give a stern lecture "That's not very gentlemanly of you, sir" as a woman is raped?

I don't think random beat cops need to carry machine guns, but there certainly do need to be Swats with that and more available.

I don't understand why more people don't get that the police can't protect you - they can only respond after something has already happened. It's up to the individual to protect themselves as best they can, which is why I firmly believe (yeah, I'm gonna say it yet again) that an armed society is a polite one.

The idiocy of the average person is frightening.

> Give a stern lecture "That's not very gentlemanly of you, sir" as a woman is raped?

Yes.

CLEARLY.

The only alternative to having highly militarized police with machine guns and light tanks is to condone rape.

You've crisply captured the only possible choices, because (a) there's no possibility what-so-ever that cops might be armed as they were in the 1950s, and (b) it takes a militarized police corps with 50 caliber sniper rifles, body armor, and sub machine guns to prevent rape.

Momof4, please watch the video.

The problem isn't firearms in the hands of the police. It is the thought process that seeps over when they are trained along side the military.

The military's mission is to kill people and break things. That should never be the police's mission, and they should be using the bare minimum of force necessary to get the job done.

Frankly, it should be as difficult for law enforcement to get a select fire weapon as it is for me to get one.

I have been concerned with two trends in law enforcement, civil forfeitures, and the increasing growth of tactical teams. Not every law enforcement entity requires a tactical team and, of course, some teams are better trained than others. For example, why does the federal Dept of Education need a tactical team? Why can't they use the FBI tactical teams when actually necessary?

However, according to the video the police were responding to an armed robbery. The police should always respond with ability to use superior fire power, if necessary. The MP5 was a good choice of weapon to respond to an armed robbery call. If you think there is a real chance that you may be in a gun fight you do not go with a pistol. As many tactical instructors say, you use your handgun to fight your way to your long arm, be it a shotgun, carbine, rifle or sub machine gun. We don't issue handguns as primary weapon to our soldiers going into combat, why do we expect police to respond to an armed robbery call with a handgun?

The H&K MP5 uses a pistol caliber cartridge, typically 9mm or .40 S&W, the same as used in standard issue police handguns. Consequently, the terminal ballistics is essentially identical to a handgun of the same caliber. In fact its terminal ballistics is significantly less lethal than the traditional 12 gauge shotgun that police use to routinely carry in their patrol cars.

The MP5 can be used in semi automatic mode, in which case it fires no more rapidly than a standard issue police handgun, such as a Glock.

There are two benefits to responding with an MP5 over a handgun. First, since it has a shoulder stock and a longer sight radius it is easier to shoot more accurately, creating less risk to the surrounding public. Second, if necessary the user has the option of using full auto in the event suppressing fire is necessary and appropriate.

The video does not say whether the officer was using the MP5 in semi automatic mode or full auto mode. If I had to guess probably semi auto mode.

I suspect given what few facts are provided, that Mr. Nida would be just as dead today, if the officer only had a handgun.

Sadly, people who are profoundly ignorant regarding actual close quarter combat, find it very easy, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, to criticize.

The video says that Mr. Nida was afraid of police. Perhaps if race baiters such as Al Sharpton, Eric Holder and Barack Obama stopped indoctrinating people of color that police are racists to be feared, Mr. Nida might not have run away twice, substantially increasing the chances of this tragedy.

SO we should what, be Britian, with unarmed police? -- momof4 at August 4, 2012 5:58 AM

The Brits do have police that are carrying machine guns in their cars. But the majority are still unarmed.

For example, why does the federal Dept of Education need a tactical team? Why can't they use the FBI tactical teams when actually necessary?

WTF?!?! Why would the DOE ever need a tactical team -- criminal truancy? Failure to pay school taxes? The school board refused to give the standardized tests?

We don't issue handguns as primary weapon to our soldiers going into combat, why do we expect police to respond to an armed robbery call with a handgun?

As noted previously -- the soldier's job is to kill people and break things. The cops job is, supposedly, to keep order. Would you want this guy armed with an MP-5?

As has been discussed here many times -- most people are ignorant of their civil rights. Most cops are a little more aware of them -- in other words how to cover their assess.

In addition -- how many times have you heard of armed robbers using AR-15's or an SKS, let alone an M4/16 or AK47? I can think of one.

This is a case that I severely question the wisdom from both sides. But increasing the armament of the police should be looked at with a jaded eye. I rarely ever heard of the police kicking in doors when I was a kid. Now, depending on where you live, it occurs every other night.

I don't see the problem. He ran from police not once, but; twice. If you're arrested and you run officers can use deadly force.

Also who cares if they used a sub machine gun or not? Would the result have been any different if he was shot twice with a handgun? I think machine guns need to be more available to everyone. Register them and let unlimited quantities be sold to civilians. Just like before the bans of the 1970's.