NYPD Auxiliary Officers killed.

[Eclipse]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/15/nyc.shootout/index.html

Auxiliary officers sometimes ride in squad cars (called RMPs for Radio Mobile Patrols), but usually patrol on foot. They are equipped with a baton, flashlight, handcuffs, and a radio. If officers see a crime in progress, they report it to Central Dispatch using the radio. Auxiliaries act primarily as the eyes and ears of the police department. Before becoming auxiliaries, recruits go through 53 hours of training. Recently, a directive dated July 14, 2005, 2 weeks after the 2005 London bombings, stated that the City would institute a citywide transit auxiliary program.

Main:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department#Auxiliary_Police

The above is exactly why CAP wants no part of increased involvement with LEA's, and the PCA is just fine the way it is - the appearance of authority, absent any, is a recipe for disaster.

I was in NY a couple of months ago, and noticed several NYPD/Aux in Times Square.  I recognized the difference because the NYPD wears some tactical uniform parts, and I was noting the trousers for my friend who is local PD.

The shield and the patch are different, but not much, and that's lost in all the blingage NYPD cops wear, and certainly nothing a panicked and fleeing suspect would notice in a blind run.

Today CAP is akin to the fire department, in a way which was pointed out to me years ago by PD & FD people I was working with.  In most cases, people are happy to see the Fire Department. (YMMV)

[JohnKachenmeister]

You have a point, Bob.

The police auxiliary should have the authority to carry weapons and defend themselves if they are supposed to be out looking for criminals.

The Air Force auxiliary should similarly be capable of self-defense if the defense of the United States requires the use of our light planes.

[A.Member]

You have a point, Bob.

The police auxiliary should have the authority to carry weapons and defend themselves if they are supposed to be out looking for criminals.

The Air Force auxiliary should similarly be capable of self-defense if the defense of the United States requires the use of our light planes.

   Not the response I think he was looking for...but a good response nonetheless!

[DNall]

^ I would tend to agree with that on the basis of snake, gators, moutain lions, cyotes, wild dogs, & drug runners around the marinas & such.

I don't know about this thing they got in NY, sounds weak. We have reserve deputies down here that are commissioned peace officers & carry weapons with the full authority of any other officer. The continuing education is less, and the initial physyical & academic standards are slightly lower but still in the ballpark. They have to work I believe 15-20 hrs a month to retain their license & can't work extra jobs (cause that money has to go to the full-time guys).

[RiverAux]

At one point in early in my career I had a summer job with limited law enforcement authority for a federal agency.  They gave us a whopping 40 hours of training and handed us our ticket books sent us off into the woods by ourselves with a radio that normally wasn't within range of anyone that could help you. 

As I've matured I've thought more and more about how that was almost criminal and I would say the same about putting someone on the street in NY city with only 53 hours of training. 

[Eclipse]

You have a point, Bob.

The police auxiliary should have the authority to carry weapons and defend themselves if they are supposed to be out looking for criminals.

The Air Force auxiliary should similarly be capable of self-defense if the defense of the United States requires the use of our light planes.

   Not the response I think he was looking for...but a good response nonetheless!

No, in a way it is.

Even Guard troops who aren't allowed to shoot back, >CAN< shoot back if push comes to shove.

Today, to the average citizen, we're the military.  But since we're mostly involved in humanitarian missions
and general "feel-good" stuff, we're not a threat, so people smile and wave when they see us.

Start using us as an LEA augment and that will change, quick.  In fact it could backfire in unforeseen ways in terms of people's views of the military in general.

But provide me with a way to defend myself, and at least I can make a conscious decision as to whether to take the risk.

Today we're just easy targets.

[Ned]

No, in a way it is.

Even Guard troops who aren't allowed to shoot back, >CAN< shoot back if push comes to shove.

Today we're just easy targets.

It's not that easy.

I lost count of how many times I was deployed during emergencies as a Guard Guy in California.  Dozens, certainly.  For wildfires, floods, earthquakes, and the like.  (I was an MP company commander.)

And only once (for the Rodney King Riots) were we armed.  Even we providing security in flooded or otherwise threatened urban areas.  The weapons were always locked in the vaults back in the armories at home station.  Often hundreds of miles away.  If someone was a problem, we just called 911.

IIRC, nobody ever shot at us.  (I'm pretty sure I would have noticed.)  And I don't think my guys and gals patrolling the levees for leaks or operating traffic control points near the fire areas ever felt particularly threatened.

It's all about the mission and conducting the appropriate risk analysis.

[RiverAux]

Start using us as an LEA augment and that will change, quick.

We already are....can you say "counternarcotics", "Salt Lake City Olympics", or "space shuttle launch"?  With the CN missions we are definetely looking at property, but for the Olympics, shuttle launch, etc. we have been looking for suspicious activities by individuals and reporting it. 

[ddelaney103]

Start using us as an LEA augment and that will change, quick.  In fact it could backfire in unforeseen ways in terms of people's views of the military in general.

We actually had a similar time in CAP's recent history.

When we were sucking up CD money instead of HLS funds, CAP got involved with a little game called "Operation Drop In."

ODI involved CAP flyers visiting airfields and checking out the a/c on the ramp.  They were looking for mods or indicators that the a/c were being used for drug running.  If they found indicators, they jot down the tail numbers and gave them to the FAA, I believe.  If they didn't find any, they were to jot down a couple of tail numbers anyway and the FAA would run the numbers.

This was a PAO disaster with the private pilots.  The CAP's jump from "their possible rescuer" to "narcs" went over like a lead Cessna.

We should be very careful about jumping from the FD/EMS side of the street to the PD.

[Eclipse]

Start using us as an LEA augment and that will change, quick.

We already are....can you say "counternarcotics", "Salt Lake City Olympics", or "space shuttle launch"?  With the CN missions we are definetely looking at property, but for the Olympics, shuttle launch, etc. we have been looking for suspicious activities by individuals and reporting it. 

Yes, you're right, which is one of the reasons the CN missions, especially, are so quietly performed, and those members know they are accepting more risk.

It also needs to be said, that the Guard guys, armed or not, >are< getting paid for the risk, even if its not much.

[DNall]

You can't even bring up pay. They don't get paid extra for the risk, they get paid for not having a choice when the boss says time to work, and not being able to say, "screw you" when ordered into bad places. Those priveldges are worth the lack of pay, and anyway you signed on knowing the deal. Sorry, just a little aside there. I hate when people make it out like troops are just mercenaries & hte money means anything at all, legally or morally.

[sardak]

Yes, you're right, which is one of the reasons the CN missions, especially, are so quietly performed, and those members know they are accepting more risk.

Which is why some CN crews would prefer to fly their missions with unmarked aircraft, which at one time we did, and in "plain clothes."

Mike

[Eclipse]

You can't even bring up pay. They don't get paid extra for the risk, they get paid for not having a choice when the boss says time to work, and not being able to say, "screw you" when ordered into bad places. Those priveldges are worth the lack of pay, and anyway you signed on knowing the deal. Sorry, just a little aside there. I hate when people make it out like troops are just mercenaries & hte money means anything at all, legally or morally.

I didn't say or mean anything about being a mercenary.

I'm referring to the risk/reward ratio of the service.   Its one thing to ask me to give up my Sundays, a whole 'nother to give up my life.

The benefits of CAP service are mostly intangible, and the risks are low.

Military / Guard service, as well as PD/FD jobs provide tangible benefits which are at least a marginal justification for the additional risk.

[DNall]

maybe the retitement package & a few of the benfits are slightly better than the average job, but the pay is crap beyond crap. By no means on earth worth the risk involved. I wouldn't sit here drawing floor plans for what they make. I sure as hell wouldn't take fire & for the slightest second think the money mattered.

Obviously people in serivice professions (LE/FD/EMS/teachers/military/etc) are there for the intrinsic return for feeling like they are part of smething important doing their duty for a higher cause kinda thing.

CAP is exactly to the letter the same thing. And CAP members do get killed on & off mission in service of this cause. The risk rates are actually pretty high too. We have a small organization with a low number of active members. If you take active members qual'd as mission aircrew for instance, that's somewhere under 4000 people nationwide. You lose a couple crews & run the percentages. No, the fact is the pay is totally meaningless. They accept risk in exchange for reward, absolutely, but the reward is completely intangible return for being part of a service profession, and CAP is right there in the mix, as well it should be.

There are a lot of things that seperate CAP members from other professions, but a paycheck is not one that has any bearing on anything but itself.

[lordmonar]

This is sort of a non sequiter.

Even if they changed PCA to allow us a more active role in LE operations....we are not really increasing our risk that much.  We will not be patrolling any streets and we will not be on the ground with the SWAT team (unless we really go off the deep end).   What we will be doing is supporting in the back ground and we will be able to keep our planes on station/track the target all the way through the arrest phase of the operation.

It is sad that the NYPD Aux officer was killed.  It is sad that he was not armed and able to protect himself.  But neither of them have anything to do with CAP.  Increasing our ability to work with LE does not necessiarily mean we are going to assume more risk.

You can accidently over fly a pot field during and ELT search and be at risk PCA or no PCA.  Being on a CD flight only means that you looking for something that MAY be armed.  Eliminating PCA and allowing us to over fly the same target while the helos land and swat arrives does not really increase our risk all that much.  (how many people can hit a moving target at 1000+ feet?)

[JohnKachenmeister]

No, in a way it is.

Even Guard troops who aren't allowed to shoot back, >CAN< shoot back if push comes to shove.

Today we're just easy targets.

It's not that easy.

I lost count of how many times I was deployed during emergencies as a Guard Guy in California.  Dozens, certainly.  For wildfires, floods, earthquakes, and the like.  (I was an MP company commander.)

And only once (for the Rodney King Riots) were we armed.  Even we providing security in flooded or otherwise threatened urban areas.  The weapons were always locked in the vaults back in the armories at home station.  Often hundreds of miles away.  If someone was a problem, we just called 911.

IIRC, nobody ever shot at us.  (I'm pretty sure I would have noticed.)  And I don't think my guys and gals patrolling the levees for leaks or operating traffic control points near the fire areas ever felt particularly threatened.

It's all about the mission and conducting the appropriate risk analysis.

You're lucky, Ned.

I was mobilized (before I was commissioned) for a blizzard in 1978.  Our job was to cheauffer policemen around in quarter-tons, since the police had zero 4-wheel drive cars then.

Mostly it was pretty routine.

But then there was the nut case who took cabin fever to an extreme level, and began shooting at anything that moved from his window.  Fortunatey, in addition to being nuts, he was also a lousy shot.  His round hit the VRC-46 in the back of the vehicle. 

The cop with me kicked in the door, and arrested the guy.  There was a swat team, but with the snow drifts, they would have taken at least an hour to assemble, and this nut needed to be taken down fast, before his aim improved.

I started carrying a concealed weapon the next day on patrol.  Rules are good, but regulations should not be a suicide compact.

I did have some fun with our commo guy though.

"Hey, the radio is shot."

"What's wrong with it?"

"I just told you... its shot!"

(Repeat three times until the fact that I was using "Shot" in its literal form sank in!)

[lordmonar]

And just to give you a note of the aspect of "armed" armed services.

There have been many times in my 21 years where the military from all four services have been posed to guard/patrol/secure something with no ammunition.

Beirut in '83....Marine captain stops an Israeli Armor Column with unloaded .45.
Macos....evacuated to Guam...the Marines posted around his quarters had not ammunition....only the USAF cops had ammo, they were supposed to share it with the Marines if something went down (there were about 6 Marines per USAF cop...you do the math).

I deployed to Bosnia in '97 with my M-16 and not ammunition.   On site we had 2 loaded magazines each and 1 ammo can to share between about 13 U.S. military personnel on the base.

[A.Member]

This is sort of a non sequiter.

Even if they changed PCA to allow us a more active role in LE operations....we are not really increasing our risk that much.  We will not be patrolling any streets and we will not be on the ground with the SWAT team (unless we really go off the deep end).   What we will be doing is supporting in the back ground and we will be able to keep our planes on station/track the target all the way through the arrest phase of the operation.

It is sad that the NYPD Aux officer was killed.  It is sad that he was not armed and able to protect himself.  But neither of them have anything to do with CAP.  Increasing our ability to work with LE does not necessiarily mean we are going to assume more risk.

You can accidently over fly a pot field during and ELT search and be at risk PCA or no PCA.  Being on a CD flight only means that you looking for something that MAY be armed.  Eliminating PCA and allowing us to over fly the same target while the helos land and swat arrives does not really increase our risk all that much.  (how many people can hit a moving target at 1000+ feet?)

I tend to agree with this.  There just isn't the need given our missions.  What are we going to do, roll in on a marijuana field and let loose with a little 20 mike-mike?  I don't think so.  Besides, the demand for CAS within our borders is pretty low.  And carrying a sidearm while I plow through the sky at 1,000 AGL in my Cessna doesn't do anyone a whole lot of good.

Although I firmly believe in the right to defend one's self, even if we wanted to take a more active roll (and I'm not certain we do), such a change would certainly take a lot more training than we currently have - and would require a significantly higher level of "professionalism" than we currently have with the greater "officer corps".

[DNall]

There just isn't the need given our missions.  What are we going to do, roll in on a marijuana field and let loose with a little 20 mike-mike?  I don't think so.  Besides, the demand for CAS within our borders is pretty low.  And carrying a sidearm while I plow through the sky at 1,000 AGL in my Cessna doesn't do anyone a whole lot of good.

Although I firmly believe in the right to defend one's self, even if we wanted to take a more active roll (and I'm not certain we do), such a change would certainly take a lot more training than we currently have - and would require a significantly higher level of "professionalism" than we currently have with the greater "officer corps".

Yeah clearly we're not talking about arming planes, or even crews, though I wouldn't so much mind being able to carry a pistol in the flight bag with some other survival gear just in case I ever ended up on the ground in little condition to flee the predators.

Obviously any real need to carry weapons is for self-defense on a ground team, be that field environments or guy with a shotgun & bail of dope in the back of the boat with the EPIRB.

I think we're talking more about within the bounds of state carry laws (which may be concealed, on display, or not at all depending on state), but which apply to all citizens, not just CAP members. The fears, besides liability, would be abuse of authority & quasi law enforcement that you might find yourself in. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm certainly not talking about going armed to participate in arrest & seizure or any other type of LE activity.

[Al Sayre]

What are we going to do, roll in on a marijuana field and let loose with a little 20 mike-mike? 

Napalm would be a whole lot more effective on a pot field...