NYPD counterterrorism unit (circa 350 men) to be heavily armed with "long rifles" and "machine guns," according to NYPD Police Commissioner.

[Thanatos]

http://nypost.com/2015/01/30/nypd-to...rrorism-squad/

The NYPD will launch a unit of 350 cops to handle both counterterrorism and protests — riding vehicles equipped with machine guns and riot gear — under a re-engineering plan to be rolled out over the coming months.The Strategic Response Group, or SRG, will be devoted to “advanced disorder control and counterterrorism protection,” responding to the sort of demonstrations that erupted after the Eric Garner grand-jury decision and also events like the recent Paris terror attacks.“It will be equipped and trained in ways that our normal patrol officers are not,” Commissioner Bill Bratton said Thursday.

“It will be equipped with all the extra heavy protective gear, with the long rifles and the machine guns that are unfortunately sometimes necessary in these *instances.” The department will do away with the current system that pulls cops off regular assignments to provide a beefed-up presence at certain hot spots in “critical incident.” The unit, which will be operational by summer, will be assigned to the Counterterrorism Bureau.

You know, I don't really recall when protesters required an armed response by officers using machine guns and long rifles, and it's not like these officers running around playing soldier are going to stop terrorism, especially when:

1) there is no way to prevent certain kinds of terrorist attacks like a spur-of-the-moment violence spree,
2) terrorists don't go to protests and peacefully help protesters chant slogans and wave sign posts (or ineffectively throw rocks and crude molotovs at shielded police officers), and
3) SWAT can already do the damn job.

But hey, what do I know. Crazy terrorists and simple protesters (regardless of what issue) warrant the exact same response team apparently.

[Captain Jin]

I wonder if, when they say machine guns, they really mean machine guns.

[Thanatos]

I wonder if, when they say machine guns, they really mean machine guns.

It's the NYPD Commissioner saying it, so it should be more likely, but then again it's not a guarantee he knows what on earth he's talking about. When you get that high up, the job is more politician than anything actually approaching police work.

[frozenprince]

I wonder if, when they say machine guns, they really mean machine guns.

I highly doubt they actually do mean machine guns. Probably just more assault rifles, but people see those and think "machine guns" so, gotta speak to your audience.

[Simon Cashmere]

I wonder if, when they say machine guns, they really mean machine guns.

They gonna give these guys an M240B, .50 cal or a Mk48? Probably not. But then again. Sheriff Arpaio has .50 cals. Maybe NYPD is jealous of Maricopa County.

It would be a rare police event that you'd want to lay down suppressing fire with a machine gun. If that ever happens...... we'll need more than the cops.

I don't mind police having whatever weapons, but what I do not like the occupying army attitude where they are instead of engaged with the community - start to think they are soldiers after an occupation by a conquering force.

[alhoon]

I thought SWAT are armed that way already... NYPD launched a second SWAT unit it seems, concentrated on anti-terrorism. But do they need 350 people? 60 would be enough I think. If 30 terrorists suddenly take over an airport, Swat and those anti terrorists would be enough till the army arrives. If 3 terrorists hole up in a bank, 20-30 of these anti-terrorist focused people would be enough.
To me, the better thing would be to take say 60-80 people from the SWAT and create a small division in there that is specifically trained to handle terrorists.

[Thanatos]

I thought SWAT are armed that way already... NYPD launched a second SWAT unit it seems, concentrated on anti-terrorism. But do they need 350 people? 60 would be enough I think. If 30 terrorists suddenly take over an airport, Swat and those anti terrorists would be enough till the army arrives. If 3 terrorists hole up in a bank, 20-30 of these anti-terrorist focused people would be enough.
To me, the better thing would be to take say 60-80 people from the SWAT and create a small division in there that is specifically trained to handle terrorists.

The problem is that there has been a trend by them to now consider protests (of any ilk) to be minor forms of terrorism. If the cops possess these kinds of toys, they're going to come up with any kind of excuse whatsoever to use them against civilians.

What's that saying? When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail?

[Delcane]

Maybe a Medium saw an American Spring for 2016, I dont know xd

[Captain Jin]

I think probably they mean submachine guns like MP5s and so forth which is pretty normal equipment for tactical units to carry and then long rifles in regards to AR-15s and the like.

[TASS07]

The NYPD will launch a unit of 350 cops to handle both counterterrorism and protests

Ehrm, what makes me wonder: What do those two have in common?!

I understand the need for heavy arms to handle terrorists, but protesters? Surely water cannons are more appropriate for that?

[Captain Jin]

There's nothing that says they're related. They can train for either so they are used for more than just one thing.

[TASS07]

There's nothing that says they're related. They can train for either so they are used for more than just one thing.

Surely the conjunction "and" establishes a connection, for that is what it does, and those makes the two related?

[sumskilz]

Surely the conjunction "and" establishes a connection, for that is what it does, and those makes the two related?

Not really, look at the sentence again, especially considering the word "both".

[TASS07]

Not really, look at the sentence again, especially considering the word "both".

Did so, nothing changed. It's supposed to be the same unit handling "both... and ...". That clearly relates them. It is the same unit handling the cases with similar equipement. "responding to the sort of demonstrations that erupted after the Eric Garner grand-jury decision and also events like the recent Paris terror attacks." Here we have it again. So yes, it does relate the too. However I do think I get now where the two of you are coming from: Just since it is merged in one unit (even though it are some quite different tasks) that doesn't mean the unit cannot apply different tactics for different situations. And just because they have the gear, that doesn't mean they always need to bring it. Actually some of the gear described in less precise manner could very well include water guns and the like. And you're right in that, we have the same here. The units that usually handle protests, riots and the likes would also be involved (now better armed) in case of large scale police mobilisation in case of terror alarm as happened in France. Though I'd argue that in the stricter sense the anti-terror units are kept seperate here from riot and demonstration related forces. And in a sense the same can be said about some of the units involved in the reaction to the Paris attacks. I rest my case.
I guess the key point is what tactics are applied, how and when the gear is being used and that the two different situations they are being gathered for are kept clearly seperate. Cause this I'd argue is clearly a bit too much for demonstrations and rallies and even most riots..

[sumskilz]

Did so, nothing changed. It's supposed to be the same unit handling "both... and ...".

Yeah, my brother is both a free climber and a quantitative epidemiologist. What's the relationship? The same guy is doing both things, that's about it. I doubt he's using the same equipment. Of course there is probably more overlap in the topic at hand, but that level isn't necessarily implied by the sentence. The way it may be is that since neither job is a full-time job, the unit will have multiple specialties.

I guess the key point is what tactics are applied, how and when the gear is being used and that the two different situations they are being gathered for are kept clearly seperate.

Sure

Cause this I'd argue is clearly a bit too much for demonstrations and rallies and even most riots.

Better to be over-prepared than under-prepared. If they can't help but to overreact just because they're over-prepared, then that's a different problem.

[hellheaven1987]

Long rifle? Come on police already uses sniper rifle.

I highly doubt they actually do mean machine guns. Probably just more assault rifles, but people see those and think "machine guns" so, gotta speak to your audience.

I thought most SWAT already uses M4?

[Yayattasa]

In the US, according to the law, any automatic weapon is treated by the term "machine gun".

Wikipedia says:

Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm. A non-machinegun that may be converted to fire more than one shot per trigger pull by ordinary mechanical skills is determined to be "readily convertible", and classed as a machinegun, such as a KG-9 pistol (pre-ban ones are "grandfathered").

[Captain Jin]

In the US, according to the law, any automatic weapon is treated by the term "machine gun".

Wikipedia says:

That's pretty funny. Wonder how that got in there. A machine gun is a belt fed weapon system. Plain and simple. That's why I think he's talking about SMGs.

Surely the conjunction "and" establishes a connection, for that is what it does, and those makes the two related?

Not at all. If they're related it's that they're related in the realm of policing. If you say a Navy SEAL is trained for direct action raids and hydrographic reconnaissance they are not directly related, only that they are tasks SEALs train for and can perform. They are two entirely different missions.

[Gaidin]

That's pretty funny. Wonder how that got in there. A machine gun is a belt fed weapon system. Plain and simple. That's why I think he's talking about SMGs.

I'm aware of what you would call it. Either way, by law, any gun that fires more than one round per trigger pull is a machine gun. That, however, is something I doubt the commissioner is referencing when he says the term, given the legal term is about 80 years old. What the law and what the field call their items are sometimes two different things, and, well, too bad so sad. We have lawyers for a reason. Technical documentation says one thing, legal documentation another.

[TASS07]

That's pretty funny. Wonder how that got in there. A machine gun is a belt fed weapon system. Plain and simple. That's why I think he's talking about SMGs.



Not at all. If they're related it's that they're related in the realm of policing. If you say a Navy SEAL is trained for direct action raids and hydrographic reconnaissance they are not directly related, only that they are tasks SEALs train for and can perform. They are two entirely different missions.

It's the same everywhere I suppose. After every school shooting here they report it had been done with "fully automatic machine pistols". What they mean is the guy had a regular gun/handgun. Apparently anything semi-automatic is a "machine pistol". I wouldn't make the belt the exclusive characteristic of MGs though, it's more likely to be a thing to be a common characteristic of heavy MGs.

About that other thing, I already gave in, see above.