Boston Mayor Rejects Idea to Arm Police Officers With Military Assault Weapons

[bigger hammer]

What I meant was that if the cops can have full-autos, we should to. If not, they shouldn't get any either.

I'll agree with the first statement and disagree with the second. When you get the same task that's been given to the police then perhaps there will be a need for you to possess them.

BUT AGAIN, this story is not about the police getting "full–autos." Those guns have been converted so they only fire semi–auto. How come people keep missing this little fact?

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

In many states it's completely legal to purchase and own an MP–5.

No. Just...no. No no no no no. Legal for the few rich enough to afford blowing thousands on it, sure. But...no.

Looks like someone doesn't like a free market economy and having to pay "what the traffic will bear." Nonetheless my statement is completely true and accurate and yours is completely false and inaccurate. "Expensive" is not the same thing as "illegal." Nowhere near.

 

[bigger hammer]

God, I thought I incarnated this lifetime in America because it was populated with persons believing themselves to be a free people not requiring to be tyrannically bullied by ANY gov't... I guess I was wrong!

ROFLMAO!!!!! Silly me. I thought this discussion was about a police department being given semi–automatic rifles to assist in their fight against crime.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Maybe they just need a bigger hammer

 

[7.5-Swiss]

How you get from "the government is giving the Boston PD 200 M–16's" to "complete gun registration is OK, since it's not a gun ban." defies logic and reason.

It was an analogy. I was pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument that "because there are no instances of the police using grenades and slaughtering innocent people" then "we should not worry about that happening until it does"

There have been more than enough examples of LE using unnecessary force when they play soldier. (See: Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc..)

For those interested, there is a very interesting Cato institute article dealing with the militarization of law enforcement worth checking out here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

Again, I do not dispute that in certain cases LE does have a need for military style weapons, what I do dispute is issuing them to patrol officers. Its just another step toward further police militarization. They aren't fighting battles in the streets of Boston, what do they need M16s for? This is hardly comparable to upgrading from revolvers to semi-automatics.

I'll agree with the first statement and disagree with the second. When you get the same task that's been given to the police then perhaps there will be a need for you to possess them.

I think you've shown your true colors in this statement, and I think further debate on my end isn't going to change your views. Good day.

 

[nofishbob]

Bigger hammer wrote:

ROFLMAO. Notice that you didn't answer my very simple question and supply us as asked for "EVEN ONE such instance of the local police kick[ing] in your door, toss[ing] in a fragmentation grenade then enter[ing] and kill[ing] everyone who's still alive." That's because despite your earlier comments about the militarization of the police and this statement, it's NEVER happened.

Please see this paper by the Cato Institute descibing dozens of these raids on innocent people. These are well documented.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

Not all of these raids resulted in deaths, but some sure did. To say "It's NEVER happened" is just not correct.

Bob

 

[nofishbob]

Looks like 7.5-Swiss beat me to the link......

 

[Noxx]

Got some links that support this statement about SWAT teams "going out on minor calls? "

Salvatore Culosi ring a bell? There are dozens like him readily available. If you don't think SWAT and SWAT type units are overemployed against the public, you don't read enough news.

 

[DHJenkins]

Since "criminals will always find a way to buy guns illegally", what sense does it make to have the first responders be nothing but target practice for those that are better armed? Why would people rather have their criminals better armed than their cops?

How much sooner would that bank robbery in california have ended if even one of those cops had a rifle?

An officer that's going to be prick or abuse his power will do so regardless of how he's armed.

It's gun control, for pete's sake - I thought we were all against that?

 

[shotgunjoel]

They can have any gun they want, just so long as I can have it, and carry it wherever they do/can. I think that it is a good idea for the police to have rifles for harder targets, but I think it can easily be abused, same way SWAT teams seem to be executing every search warrant that comes up. SWAT is a very useful tool for the department, but it's way over-used.

 

[shotgunjoel]

It's gun control, for pete's sake - I thought we were all against that?

The point is that it's ok for CIVILIAN police to have guns that any other CIVILIAN cannot.

 

[DHJenkins]

Isn't "civilian police" an oxymoron?

You're either a civilian, or a LEO - right?

I can't have shiny red & blue lights on my truck, either. So what?

 

[Noxx]

isn't "civilian police" an oxymoron?

You're either a civilian, or a leo - right?

wrong.

 

[DHJenkins]

Maybe instead of just saying "wrong", you might enlighten me so that I may understand your argument...

 

[tkopp]

Holy cow, bigger hammer, when you quote something crazy don't misattribute it! I've been misattributed something like three times in this thread. This bboard needs a better quoting system.

Originally posted by Officer's Wife:

Not a fan of Jonathon Swift I take it. I suppose I'm just used to a different way of thinking. The fact the great White Father in Washington seems to believe that department 'needs' to arm it's men with battle rifles in order to keep the peace implies an extremely violent area. Since, according to Rousseau, the office of government is to provide the background for a peaceful society such an implication denotes a failure of that government.

Really? You're breaking out the Rousseau? The guy who thinks we should all live in small homogeneous communes ruled by direct popular vote with radical wealth redistribution? He made some excellent points with respect to Locke, but with all due respect let's not pretend he's some great American political thinker.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

Looks like someone doesn't like a free market economy and having to pay "what the traffic will bear." Nonetheless my statement is completely true and accurate and yours is completely false and inaccurate. "Expensive" is not the same thing as "illegal." Nowhere near.

A "free market" economy? With $200 taxes on transfers, tons of paperwork, and a pool of goods that has been artificially cut off by the federal government, to the extent that pre-86 MGs are worth multiples of their post-86 counterparts? A "free market" where a drop-in sear brings in a price tag of $15,000, not because it's expensive to produce or because anyone is making a huge profit, but because it's legal?

If that's what you call a free market...

You insinuated that possessing an MP–5 was illegal/impossible. It's not. That was a lie at worst and misleading at best. The fact that it's expensive, whether it's due to government control or what the traffic will bear is immaterial to this discussion.

And your statement is true on its face, but false in a very real way for millions of Americans who want a full-auto toy but can't afford one, not due to free market pressures, but due to an artificial, government-imposed limitation on the number of goods available to purchase.

True on it's face is good enough for me. The fact that the price may have been artificially inflated STILL does not make possession of an MP–5 illegal or impossible.

And even if it WAS illegal, that still has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, the issuing (or the non-issuing) of semi–auto M–16's to the Boston PD by the government. Too bad you're so easily sidetracked. LOL.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

How you get from "the government is giving the Boston PD 200 M–16's" to "complete gun registration is OK, since it's not a gun ban." defies logic and reason.

It was an analogy.

It obviously didn't work.

I was pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument that "because there are no instances of the police using grenades and slaughtering innocent people" then "we should not worry about that happening until it does"

Thanks for the admission that "your analogy" has NEVER occurred. That could have happened ages ago. LOL.

There have been more than enough examples of LE using unnecessary force when they play soldier. (See: Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc..)

Talk about "once in a lifetime occurrences." Let's see some more examples of "etc." OK and MAYBE then you'll have a valid point.

For those interested, there is a very interesting Cato institute article dealing with the militarization of law enforcement worth checking out here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/ba...paper_2006.pdf

The Cato institute was founded by a libertarian for whom any government was too much government. Anything they put out will be as biased as can be. There are tons of nonsense in that article; really to many to go into here.

Again, I do not dispute that in certain cases LE does have a need for military style weapons, what I do dispute is issuing them to patrol officers.

Several questions come to mind. I notice that you call these M–16's "military style weapons." THIS IS AN OLD ANTI-GUNNER'S TRICK. SOMEHOW you conveniently keep forgetting the fact that they've been converted to only fire on semi–auto. IN REALITY there is no difference, except cosmetic, between these guns and dozens of others that you accept as perfectly OK.

More than likely the Boston PD carries semi-auto handguns. I found one reference several years old to them carrying Glocks. How is it that a semi–auto handgun is perfectly acceptable to you, yet the same semi–auto function in a rifle, is not?

I've already asked several people before and I'll ask you again, why is it OK for SWAT to have such guns but it's NOT OK for a patrol officer? Is there some reason that some are ducking this question? Or is it just that it points out the fallacy in their argument?

Its just another step toward further police militarization.

There it is again. ROFLMAO.

They aren't fighting battles in the streets of Boston, what do they need M16s for? This is hardly comparable to upgrading from revolvers to semi-automatics.

It's exactly the same thing. Why you think that in order for an intermediate caliber rifle to be useful to the police they must be "fighting battles in the streets of Boston" is beyond reason and logic. OFTEN police officers find themselves in situations where a more powerful weapon or one with a longer accuracy range would be useful. I don't know of a single knowledgeable firearms instructor who says that if you know trouble is coming to "grab a handgun."

Using a long gun in these circumstances is something that even the greenest beginner hears quite often on these forums when the topic of self or home defense comes up. Most police officers have access to a shotgun but often it's loaded with 00 buck and they have a rather limited effective range.

Earlier I wrote,

I'll agree with the first statement and disagree with the second. When you get the same task that's been given to the police then perhaps there will be a need for you to possess them.

I think you've shown your true colors in this statement

My true colors are simple. The police have a mission to accomplish, enforcing the law. You don't. My carpenter uses a nail gun. For the small projects that I do, I get by with a hammer. Sorry if you don't like "the color" of that. You folks are the ones who persistently throughout this discussion have used the techniques used by the anti–gunners. I don't know where you're from but in most states you are free to purchase a rifle that is all but identical to the weapons that the Feds gave the Boston PD.

and I think further debate on my end isn't going to change your views. Good day.

I often change my mind on topics that are under discussion. But in order for that to happen someone has to show me that I'm mistaken somewhere in my assessment of the facts or the situation. So far all you've done is to reinforce my beliefs.

I'd guess by your final word, "Good day" that you're leaving this thread. Too bad that you choose to run, rather than to answer some very simple questions. I wonder if you're a man of your word or if you'll wander by again? But perhaps my interpretation of your "Good day" is improper.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

ROFLMAO. Notice that you didn't answer my very simple question and supply us as asked for "EVEN ONE such instance of the local police kick[ing] in your door, toss[ing] in a fragmentation grenade then enter[ing] and kill[ing] everyone who's still alive." That's because despite your earlier comments about the militarization of the police and this statement, it's NEVER happened.

Please see this paper by the Cato Institute descibing dozens of these raids on innocent people. These are well documented.

No bob, you're VERY wrong. Except for the errors of location NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE were "innocent." They may not have been guilty of the crimes they were accused of, as in the case of the person accused of drug dealing, but he was guilty of use and possession. The mere fact that you folks cite the Cato institute speaks volumes about the nonsense that influences your beliefs .

Not all of these raids resulted in deaths, but some sure did. To say "It's NEVER happened" is just not correct.

ROFLMAO. I find it fascinating how some of you twist my words to make your points./ Here is a perfect example. I NEVER said that inappropriate deaths do not occur during the service of search warrants. I DID give a very specific example when 7.5–Swiss made this comment,

Unfortunately, when the line between military and law enforcement tactics blurs, instances of unnecessary force rise.

Here's my VERY SPECIFIC response.

Here's the "militarization of the police" argument again, just wearing a different hat. When the local police kick in your door, toss in a fragmentation grenade then enter and kill everyone who's still alive, you might have a case. Until then it's just nonsense. Can you give us EVEN ONE such instance occurring with the police in the US? [Emphasis added]

And so in response you go to the generic, "people mistakenly or inappropriately killed during raids." Notice that STILL no one has been able to fulfill my request for an incident that would be representative of the "militarization of the police."

 

[bigger hammer]

Got some links that support this statement about SWAT teams "going out on minor calls? "

Salvatore Culosi ring a bell?

No, but I read the link you supplied. First let's explore the pertinence of this to the topic under discussion. It has none.

Second I'll quote from the highly biased story from the Cato Institute,

It's unlikely that the officer who shot Culosi did so intentionally.

How does an accidental shooting support the alleged rise of (dare I say it again) "the militarization of the police?" It's really a rhetorical question, it doesn’t support it at all.

The article continues,

But it's also unlikely that the investigation into this shooting will address why police sent a military-style unit to arrest an optometrist under investigation for a nonviolent crime and why the officers had their guns drawn when approaching a man with no history of violence.

It's interesting to note that four of the charges against the county were dismissed by the judge. Charges remain against the officer.

Notice that my comment was quite clear. I asked for " …some links that support this statement about SWAT teams "going out on minor calls?" Making a warrant arrest is NOT a "minor call." A minor call would be something like, a noise complaint, a petty theft report, a dead animal needing to be picked up, a juvenile shop lifting suspect in custody at a local store and the like. An arrest is NEVER a minor call. Supposedly "normal" (whatever that means) people often panic and even arrests for the most mundane of offenses can become deadly. And so we see that STILL no one has responded with anything EVEN CLOSE to what I asked for.

There are dozens like him readily available. If you don't think SWAT and SWAT type units are overemployed against the public, you don't read enough news.

I'll disagree. I read plenty of news. The difference is that you think that an arrest for illegal gambling is a "minor call" and I know that it's not; at least it's not at this level.

Speaking of not "read[ing] enough news" I wonder if you saw THIS STORY. in the Washington Post about this incident?

Here are some comments from it. Note that Culosi was suspected of being an illegal bookmaker, hardly a minor offense. It's a felony in most jurisdictions.

Police found betting slips, currency, "suspected cocaine" and an unspecified amount of "U.S. currency," according to Baucom's "Inventory of Seized Property." Sources close to the investigation said that police found $38,000 cash in Culosi's home and that the suspected cocaine was a small amount. [Emphasis added]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't happen to keep "$38,000 in cash" lying around my house. Think it's possible that a gambler would use a gun to protect his$38K? I sure do. Still thinking that this was a "minor call?" If so, you're delusional.

The article continues,

Gnagey [executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association] said tactical teams should be used only when police have reason to suspect danger. But some noted that sports bookmakers often deal in cash and might be expected to carry a gun to defend themselves against criminals, if not police. [Emphasis added]

Uh oh. Looks like someone agrees with me that Mr. Culosi might have reason to take violent action to resist arrest.

I find it fascinating how some of you folks blindly accept the writing of the Cato Institute. Their obvious bias affect everything they put out. Rather than giving advice for me to "read [more] news" you'd be wise to check the facts in what YOU read.

In any case, not a month goes by that we don't hear of an officer killed by someone that he's arrested for a "minor charge" when let his guard down.

This was a case of negligence, on the part of the officer who it looks like, had his finger on the trigger, when it should not have been there. The use of the SWAT team was perfectly justified here. This was a criminal (no mistake of identity here – he'd been taking bets from an undercover officer for months) who had plenty of reason to defend himself from arrest with violence AND this class of criminal is well known to carry guns to defend their profits. Better that officers are prepared when they go to take him into custody than for them to assume that this was a "minor call" and they should not take protective action.

Contrary to the statement in your signature line

I don't live in Fantasyland, I just work there.

It would appear that you DO live there.

 

[bigger hammer]

They can have any gun they want, just so long as I can have it, and carry it wherever they do/can.

I'm no expert on Illinois law but I think that you can possess AR-15's which is only cosmetically different from a converted M–15. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. If so that would mean that you DO support the Boston police in getting these converted M–16's!

I think that it is a good idea for the police to have rifles for harder targets, but I think it can easily be abused, same way SWAT teams seem to be executing every search warrant that comes up. SWAT is a very useful tool for the department, but it's way over-used.

A search warrant can easily become a highly dangerous situation. All it takes is one person who does not want to be arrested or a family member with this thought. Far better to have the SWAT team present or even serve it than to not call them. Like a gun, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

 

[jerkface11]

So who is this bigger_hammer guy anyway? Does he just live in this thread?

 

[bigger hammer]

Holy cow, bigger hammer, when you quote something crazy don't misattribute it! I've been misattributed something like three times in this thread. This board needs a better quoting system.

I deeply apologize. I agree that this board needs a quoting feature. Trying to do it manually leads to errors on occasion, at least for me.

 

[bigger hammer]

So who is this bigger_hammer guy anyway? Does he just live in this thread?

Is this the sort of comment that one expects from "The High Road?"

But since you asked, So who is this jerkface11 guy anyway? Does he just pop in to make rude, off topic comments?

 

[ppshcccp]

I have to jump in here.

bigger hammer is using a classic bait and switch argument tactic.

he says

Notice that you didn't answer my very simple question and supply us as asked for "EVEN ONE such instance of the local police kick[ing] in your door, toss[ing] in a fragmentation grenade then enter[ing] and kill[ing] everyone who's still alive." That's because despite your earlier comments about the militarization of the police and this statement, it's NEVER happened.

I've only browsed the thread, but I don't see where anyone has claimed that the local police have used frag grenades and indiscriminately killed people. He has come up with this outlandish example and since there are no examples of it actually occurring, seem to think this proves something?


And here, lies the problem with this whole debate.

And so in response you go to the generic, "people mistakenly or inappropriately killed during raids." Notice that STILL no one has been able to fulfill my request for an incident that would be representative of the "militarization of the police."

What bigger hammer seems to consider the militarization of police vs. what the people he is debating with considers it to be, seems to be pretty different. However, I think its fair to point out that compared to the early 1920s, when bonnie and clyde were killed in a police AMBUSH (law enforcement ambushing citizens, criminals or not, is still mind-boggling to me today) we are not off that bad. I've seen some terrifying early 20th century photos of side car mounted police machine guns (for riot control). Heck, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake saw the killing of somewhere around 500 citizens by the army and police after this order was posted by the Mayor:

"The Federal Troops, the members of the Regular Police Force and all Special Police Officers have been authorized by me to kill any and all persons found engaged in Looting or in the Commission of Any Other Crime."

But I'm Getting off-topic..

Personally, I'm not convinced that crime has become so bad in the past 10 years that we suddenly need to rush to equip police officers with ar15s (or, as I suspect, does it have more to do with the Army, currently replacing aging M16A2s with M4s, pushing them off to police departments?) I think the issue many have with issuing police officers rifles is not that they are not effective, but rather it is a change...obviously there is a line somewhere, that if crossed, changes the nature of law enforcement for worse. Does it lie with giving some officers ar15s, probably not. Is it somewhere further down the road that doing so embarks us on? Maybe.


oh and one more thing - this statement grinded my gears a bit,

My true colors are simple. The police have a mission to accomplish, enforcing the law. You don't. My carpenter uses a nail gun. For the small projects that I do, I get by with a hammer. Sorry if you don't like "the color" of that. You folks are the ones who persistently throughout this discussion have used the techniques used by the anti–gunners.

How is that logic any different from the type used by the Brady bunch to try and ban "assault rifles"? "Only the military needs assault weapons" etc...
You are saying that citizens shouldn't have certain weapons because they don't need them. Yet, you fail to provide any specific examples as to why Boston police need them...besides some vague references to how they might be useful in certain situations..as you seem to enjoy demanding examples from those you are debating, show me a Boston specific example of how an ordinary officer would need one.

 

[Dan Crocker]

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

Seriously, it's the INTERNET folks! It's not worth getting so crazy over. We're all (at least we should be) friends here!