Doctor Offers to Buy AR-15s, Fox News, Mass Shooting: 5 Questions with Marion Chief Harry Daugherty

Last month, a simple item on the Marion City Council agenda put the city of Marion and the Chief of Police Harry Daugherty in the national spotlight.

City Council considered purchasing $50,000 for 25 assault rifles for Marion Police officers. The officers would ultimately have to pay the city back.

Here's five questions for Marion Police Chief Harry Daugherty:

1. What prompted the plan to purchase these weapons, and why the AR-15 model?

The reason to get these type of semi-automatic assault type rifles is because every time you turn around there is an active shooter somewhere, at a school, in a business. It's just getting out of hand. They are shooting and killing people. I don't know what to tell you. That's what's going on. The reason is we need to have at least the same type of firepower being used by the assailants. They are not using the pistols for most part. My people on the street don't have assault-type weapons; my SWAT team or H.E.A.T. (High Risk Entry and Arrest Team) does. But, as you know, on an active shooting we don't have the luxury of waiting and calling in SWAT.  You have to neutralize the threat immediately. You don't have time to wait, and we could be outgunned. That is the reason we purchased it. It was for that.

Second part of question:

The ARs have been a proven model for the military, and that is what the SWAT team uses, so it made sense to do that.

2. I've seen this news spread all around the country. Did you expect this reaction, and what responses have you received from near and far? Any notable people reach out to you?

I did not expect the reaction on this when we first put it out. It was also the same time the president (Barack Obama) put out legislation against assault-type weapons. If that's not the answer (to the large response) it could be the officers tried to pay for it out of pocket. When that came up, I got numerous emails, a dozen letters.

Everybody thinks we should have the weapons, but that the city should buy them and officers shouldn't have to pay for them. We'll find out hopefully next week (when City Council meets). It caused an issue with some of the public. They couldn't believe the council would not pay for what they believe we should have. One person said we didn't need weapons. We were fine with what we have.

The rest have been supportive. People want to donate money so officers don't have to pay for them.

I didn't plan to be on Fox News and Washington Post.

I've got letters from other sheriffs, police chiefs, councils, mayors. I'm just shocked that I got such a response. A prominent doctor volunteered to pay $10,000 for 5 years to pay it off so officers don't have to.

I'm not sure why, but Texas and North Carolina reached out the most.

3. What was the last situation that Marion PD has needed AR-15s?

We are getting these as a preventive thing, in case we need them. It's always better to have them and not need it. If you have an active shooter, you need the fire power, not a pistol. We want to be ahead of the curve. I have to sleep at night. I have to send my officers out there.

4. How do you respond to people who say the police force is already well-armed and more guns lead to more problems?

Why would we have this in bad guys' hands but not police. That wouldn't make sense. This is not putting guns out for civilians. This is for police who are protecting you.

5. Why was the plan for officers to pay the city back for these guns, and how do you feel about the city considering covering the costs?

In the area, we are the only department that doesn't pay for guns for the officers. It's always been that way for 40 years. They know that coming in, "You better have an extra $600." It could be a recruiting problem coming in: $600 for a gun; they don't have that money. It's something that probably should change but but that's not my call.