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

[fivepaknh]

Growing up in and around Boston I’ve found through experience that many of the cops in that area don’t trust us common folks to own firearms. I find it amusing that they’re getting the same treatment from the Mayor. They can’t be trusted with scary black rifles.

 

[bigger hammer]

I have to jump in here.

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

he says

ppshcccp quotes me,

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

Until and unless you have READ the thread, you really don't know what you're talking about.

I'll show you the discussion.

7.5-Swiss wrote,

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

And I responded

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?

but I don't see where anyone has claimed that the local police have used frag grenades and indiscriminately killed people.

The fact that no one has been able to show us that this has occurred supports my argument. Quite a few here keep telling us that the police are becoming more and more "militarized." I maintain that such an argument not only has no specific meaning but that some are merely using it as an argument against police getting better, more efficient tools, in this case, weapons.

And so I cited a typical military room entry as an example of a military movement and challenged anyone to find me such a event as done by any police department anywhere. No one has. That's because the entire "militarization of the police" is a red herring. An excuse for those who don't care for the police as the local representatives of government because they don't like any government interference in their lives.

He has come up with this outlandish example and since there are no examples of it actually occurring, seem to think this proves something?

It proves that nothing even approaching it has happened.

And here, lies the problem with this whole debate.

Actually this debate has NOTHING to do with the militarization of the police. It has to do with the Boston PD being given semi–auto M–16's. Anything else, including this discussion about the "militarization of the police" is off topic.

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)

Sounds like a great idea to me. I don't care for the "execution nature" of this incident but I see no reason to give murderers another opportunity to kill someone, me included. I'd have given them the opportunity to surrender. If they chose to fight it out, so be it.

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

Years ago, lawmen carried rifles as part of their everyday equipment. Then as now, they were far more effective in preventing and stopping armed resistance to arrest. As we became "more civilized" it fell from favor as the foot beat became a common method of patrol. It just wasn't efficient to carry a long gun. Only when the foot beat fell from common use and the patrol car became the common patrol method did long guns, in the form of shotguns come back into use.

Now all that's happened is that people are used to the SG and NOT as used to the rifle being in the cars. Some people, especially those who don't like the police don't like to see them make ANY progress. They fought the transition from revolvers to semi-autos. They fought the transition from round-nose lead bullets to hollow–points too. Now they're fighting the transition to rifles. But thousands of police departments have started carrying them and more will follow.

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.

Agreed.

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

ppshcccp quotes me,

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...

The statement was in response to the oft repeated statement (to the effect) that "the police shouldn't have any gun that I don't have." It was intended as satire.

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

Only because some take such great delight in predicting Armageddon at the hands of the police and warning that it's imminent if (as in this case) the police get these converted M–16's. LOL.

show me a Boston specific example of how an ordinary officer would need one.

The question of proving how an "ordinary police officer would need a converted M–16 is an impossible task. There are literally thousands of situations where it would be useful. Virtually anytime a felony traffic stop is made in Boston a rifle in the intermediate power category would be a useful addition to the weaponry presented. The same goes for virtually any entry made for the service of a search warrant or an arrest. As with a shotgun or a K-9 the mere presence of such tools may have a suspect thinking twice about offering resistance. Instead, he just goes to jail quietly. That's better for all concerned.

It's interesting how often the advice is given out here repeating statements from well–known firearms instructors, "A handgun is for fighting your way to a long gun." And "If you know trouble is coming, have a long gun." These words of advice apply to everyone it would seem EXCEPT for police officers who are far more likely to find themselves involved in armed confrontations than JQ Public.

 

[woodybrighton]

mini 14s were used by the RUC as a less scary version of a rifle.
the armored landrover and support from the British army tended to nullify that idea somewhat
seems a bit odd to spend $$$ on mini 14s when you could m16 gratis.
police with tracked apc's ok got you got it for free and probably a hoot at the county fair for crushing cars.
but apart from that and photo shoots not exactly practical going to take ages to get anywhere even if it does start and not exactly quiet.

mind you after the killdozer episode if I was a small police force in the middle of nowhere I'd be making discrete enquiries of the guard how I could access an anti tank weapon in a hurry

 

[tkopp]

Originally posted by ppshcccp

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.

Another factor would be the tremendous number of vets our two large wars are creating, and the crossover between law enforcement and the military. We have a good number of ex-soldiers intimately familiar with the platform who were either in the national guard in addition to being a LEO prior to 9/11 and served several rotations, or enlisted, served several deployments, retired, and have gone through the long and arduous application process to become a LEO.

 

[woad_yurt]

No quotes here. Just my two cents' worth....

Police are getting more military in flavor. There has definitely been a shift to the tactical side of the spectrum.
What ever happened to plain ol' cop uniforms? Now, lots of 'em look like soldiers. The cop cars in my home town used to be white with a blue and yellow motif on the doors. Now, the new ones have been painted black and mustard color, with blacked out grilles and rims.

A police force is much more effective when the locals trust it and are comfortable around it. If I was a cop, I'd rather have the public's good will than its fear. I can't see how intimidation would inspire good will and support from the general public. However, I have seen how it inspires suspicion, non-cooperation and resentment.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

You insinuated that possessing an MP–5 was illegal/impossible. It's not. That was a lie at worst and misleading at best.

Actually, I said: No. Just...no. No no no no no. Legal for the few rich enough to afford blowing thousands on it, sure. But...no.[emphasis added]

Nice try. But it's obvious that you've changed the meaning of this exchange. I'll put it back in context for the readers (and you).

7.5-Swiss had quoted another poster,

I have no problem with well-armed cops, provided civilians have access to the same weaponry.

and then 7.5-Swiss had replied,

Agreed. Good luck getting an MP-5.

Then I responded

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

It's clear that the issue was that it was legal, not how much it costs.

You quoted my statement and replied

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

Let's see that's EIGHT times you said "no" in response to my statement that it was legal to purchase and own an MP–5. You added the qualifier about "needing to be rich" but the overall meaning of your post was that it was NOT legal.

I think that's pretty clear actually.

So do I.

Pervasive Vagrant quoted me,

The fact that it's expensive, whether it's due to government control or what the traffic will bear is immaterial to this discussion.

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. [emphasis added]

And a 10 billion% tax on ammunition wouldn't be an ammunition ban?

Yes it would. I think you're letting the paranoid voices in your head affect your thinking a bit too much. Please tell us of a time when the government has imposed a "10 billion% tax on ANYTHING?" In any case that would be the government DIRECTLY affecting the cost of ammunition and that's not how the government has affected the cost of purchasing FA guns. So AGAIN you let your paranoid fear of the government affect what you write.

Now, the machine gun ban (That's what wikipedia calls it too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm...s_Amendment.29 ) hasn't priced fully automatic weapons out of existence for EVERYONE...yet. However, the artificially high prices mean that millions of Americans are effectively deprived of a part of what should be their birthright as US citizens - the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course this has nothing to do with this discussion. The guns given to the Boston PD were neither machine guns nor do they fire FA, but AGAIN your paranoia has led you down this path. LOL.

Pervasive Vagrant quotes me,

it's

*its.

Please, let's not sink to this stupid level of correcting spelling, grammar or syntax. You are far from perfect in this regard and would suffer far more then me.

Pervasive Vagrant quotes me,

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.

You're the one that made that statement in the first place, where you were responding to 7.5 Swiss's offhand comment of
Quote:
Agreed. Good luck getting an MP-5.

I go where I'm lead. I've responded to many off topic comments in this thread. Often, as I have in this post, I point out that what YOU FOLKS bring up is off topic when I do.

 

[bigger hammer]

Police are getting more military in flavor. There has definitely been a shift to the tactical side of the spectrum.

The "officer survival" movement started in 1970 after "The Newhall Incident" in which four CHP officers were slain by two men who were intent on not being taken to jail. Never before had so many officers been slain in one operation. Almost immediately better training ensued on such things as how to approach a stopped vehicle and how to handle the weapons at hand more efficiently. Officers started wearing bullet resistant vests as a matter of course. Back then some people wailed that the police were becoming too much like the military.

Not much has changed really. Every time there's an advance in tactics or weaponry somebody whines about it. Not to long ago we had PD's changing from .38 caliber, 158 gr, round–nose lead bullets to hollow point ammo. Then going from six shot revolvers to high capacity semi–autos. Then pepper spray and Tasers. Add rifles and a few surplus military armored vehicles to the list and we're about up to date.

Now comes woad_yurt complaining because he doesn't like the way police officers dress or the colors of their police cars.

What ever happened to plain ol' cop uniforms? Now, lots of 'em look like soldiers. The cop cars in my home town used to be white with a blue and yellow motif on the doors. Now, the new ones have been painted black and mustard color, with blacked out grilles and rims.

I don't know if he dreads the day that the Underground Federal Government flips the switch activating the electrode that every cop had implanted in his amygdla and we all start going door to door demanding everyone's firearms, but it's a safe bet that some do.

A police force is much more effective when the locals trust it and are comfortable around it.

Looks like you've brought into the entire "Community Based Policing" crap that's PC now and has been for a few years. Gee, wouldn't it be nice to go back to the day when the police officer on the beat was your friend? When instead of arresting the youthful shoplifter, he brought him home so that Mommy could speak harshly to him and all would be peace in the neighborhood? When the kindly officer on the beat bought the runaway kid a burger, gave him a pat on the back and sent him home to a tearful Mommy? When Barney carried his bullet in his shirt pocket and Andy didn't even need a gun?

Wake up people. You can't afford and won't pay what it costs to have policing like that. As cities grew police realized that it was more effective to be in cars rather than on foot. They became more distant as a result. Perhaps a little too distant. Some talk of "armies of occupation" and in some neighborhoods that was accurate. But the budget was already breaking the taxpayer's back and a choice had to be made. The City of LA makes it with fewer cops per capita than just about any major city in the US. Crime surged in the 80's and is now taking a nosedive for many reasons. Not the least is that jails and prisons are full of criminals. They're off the streets where they can't victimize anyone.

If I was a cop, I'd rather have the public's good will than its fear.

And you think that because they're not wearing "happy" uniforms and they're driving black and mustard colored cars that inspires "fear" in the public. I think it does in a few deranged and disturbed people. The rest, the normal folks (whatever that means) don't give a hoot. Apologies for the off-topic rant.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Why do these cops wear masks
when doing all that 'military style' raiding?

Why are they afraid of being identified?
(Rhetorical questions of course)...

If I see an entire police department armed like an Army.
I'm not going to be too trusting of them.
Too many tyrannical governments seem to have
started out this way too.

 

[nofishbob]

Bigger hammer wrote-

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?

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.

I supplied a link to a Cato Institute paper that documents dozens of these raids.

Bigger hammer then replied:

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 .

"Errors of location"???? in other words the police were at the wrong house.

Innocent people were terrorized and some died.

Saying something "NEVER happened" just does not make it so.

You discount the Cato Institute study as being false. Great way to poison the well. I"ll play that game -show me a study that supports your contention that these raids "NEVER happened" with similar documentation to that in the Cato Institute study. Typing your beliefs over and over does not make them true.

Also be please careful with your quotes:

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

I never posted that.

Originally Posted by nofishbob
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 never posted that either.

Bob

 

[RP88]

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 yet you yourself have just used the most prominent technique of the anti-gun trade: "YOU don't NEED that kind of gun." If that isn't the most reiterated anti-gun rhetoric, then I don't know what is. You just fell victim to yourself and to the Brady Bunch.

 

[bigger hammer]

Why do these cops wear masks when doing all that 'military style' raiding?

It's hardly "military style raiding." They're not kicking in the door unannounced, throwing in fragmentation grenades and then entering and killing anyone who's not already dead. They're knocking, announcing that they are the police (or some other LE agency) and that they're present to serve a search or arrest warrant. Then they're waiting a "reasonable period of time" for someone to answer the door. If there's no answer or they hear rapidly retreating foot beats THEN they're breaking in and arresting everyone. Is that distinction enough for you?

In any case, they wear masks for several reasons. One is to protect themselves from flash bangs, breaking glass and other flying debris. And the other is to intimidate the people they're going to arrest so that they hesitate to use force to prevent their arrests. In a few cases they're also working undercover and don't want their identities revealed.

Some large departments, LAPD for example have stopped the practice.

Why are they afraid of being identified?
(Rhetorical questions of course)...

For an undercover operator sometimes being identified leads to being dead. (Rhetorical answers of course).

If I see an entire police department armed like an Army.
I'm not going to be too trusting of them.

Somehow I doubt that you've EVER seen "an entire police department armed like an Army." Armies have things like .50 M2 machine guns, LAWS rockets, FA M–16's of various iterations, howitzers, tanks mortars, airplanes and more.

To make this SLIGHTLY topic related, in this case the Boston PD has about 2,000 officers. They've been given guns that would arm only 10% of them. Hardly "an entire police department" is it?

Too many tyrannical governments seem to have started out this way too.

I don't think so. I think that mostly tyrannical governments begin with ARMIES (NOT POLICE) that go sideways. If you have some examples of police taking over governments, particularly anywhere outside of a "banana republic" please let us know.

Military coups are not uncommon in some areas. But they ARE NOT committed by the police. It's part of (sometimes the entire) ARMY.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote (see below),

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. I know that at anytime I want I can go by the nail gun even tho it's overkill and I don't need it. 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. [Previously omitted emboldened sentence added]

And yet you yourself have just used the most prominent technique of the anti-gun trade: "YOU don't NEED that kind of gun." If that isn't the most reiterated anti-gun rhetoric, then I don't know what is. You just fell victim to yourself and to the Brady Bunch.

This has already been discussed. I'll refer you to my post #113

But I now see that I somehow left out a line that my brain inserted but my fingers didn't pick up. I've added it above and emboldened it for you to see. Perhaps this changes your feelings.

As I said earlier, this was intended as satire. Leaving out the key sentence didn't help a bit. LOL.

 

[RP88]

Even then, it is hard to say that a militarization of the police forces is not happening. Sure, they are not going out and kicking in grandma's door with extreme prejudice or anything like that, but what people have a bone to pick with is not their issuing of AR-15s, but the issuing of full-auto rifles in some cases, and also granting local everyday police the jurisdiction to perform paramilitary tactics that are extremely dangerous to both sides and are extremely unnecessary. There was a supreme court ruling that has effectively paved the way to the official death of the 4th amendment last year.

With the police being able to use the "probable cause" phrase as an excuse to execute their biased prerogative, and have the everyday beat cops be able to execute military-style raids...well, I have to ask: what is it that I am or am not seeing that you do/don't?

 

[DHJenkins]

There are whole books of quotes that have less quoting going on than in this thread.

Does it really matter that the people who will never agree with you keep not agreeing with you?

I wish people spent this much time writing their elected officials.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

My .02 cents

big ham---Dude---get a life.

And don't quote me.

 

[ARNETT44]

Crebralfix," THE COPS ARE NOT BEING SMART!!!! It's about catching the bad guy...not catching the bad guy this instant. So, why not wait until the bad guy gets up to go to work or the store?"

That has to be one of the stupidest dumbist things I have ever read. You have to be out in the sticks or not in touch with the real world. Does your experience with Police work come from a re-run of 1A12?
Last week alone in my area there were 3 incidents with the bad guys armed with AK's. In one incident and officer took 4 hits. Last year three officers were shot (killed)with AK's locally. The last incident the bad guy got out of the car firing. Get out of your car with your Glock when someone is lighting you up with an AK and you will wish the 1st Marine Division was with you.
Maybe he will leave his name and address so you can pick him up later when he has calmed down and more rational. Or when he is taking little Johnny to soccer practice. Because Violent criminals that are willing to shoot at you are only violent at that moment. And Iran is trying to build a humanitarian power plant! Maybe you didn't see the shootings of the officers last month, or missed the LA shootout, or Miami shootout, where officers were killed because of lack of firepower. Along with the countless others.
For the Police to have these weapons does not mean you use them every day, or walk around with them like you are in a Bagdad slum, but when you do need them you will wish you had one.
The Military, do they really need artillery? Why cant we wait until insurgents are sleeping and go get them, thats what and Old School GI's would do. Not a Frag in the door, followed by 25 .45's from a Thompson.
You must not have any experience with real criminals. You probably will see in the future officers wearing outer armor just like the Military as well. As the normal vests are being punched thorough like paper. And To carry a 308 or Garand? We dont usally like the bullets to penatrate into the nearest school. As well as dealing with the weight,and long barrels while searching homes or businesses.
Old School beat cops changed with the need for change, as the criminal has. I started with a 4 inch Colt Python and 2 inch Det. Special. Now I have Glock 22 and 26, with more ammo then my entire 1st squad from 30 years ago.
There is more violent crime now then in the days of Dillinger.
How many posts are there with persons worried about protecting themselves, stopping power, having 346 loaded mag's why do you need that AR or M1? The police can't protect you if they cant protect themselves first. When you get a chance stop by places like, Israel, Rome airport, Berlin, and tell me what you see the police armed with.
"The times they are a changing"

Some are really there and know what is needed, others watch CSI and think that Cr#^ is real! If it was this stack of cases on the desk would be solved.

 

[runrabbitrun]

I have a solution.
Simply issue all citizens old enough to be in the military a surplus M16.
(Training and a starter kit of ammo too please)...
We can ALL then help the cops engage the bad guys
when the bad guys show up with all that firepower.

Wait.
The bad guys would leave or stop being bad guys
(on way or the other)... or most I bet would be deciding
the American street is not a good place to conduct illegal activities any more.
(Seeing as we all got some good guns to protect ourselves).

Maybe they'll decide to move to locations around the world
where the populations are not armed and have at it.
They can leave the rest of us gun toten
law abiding Americans alone for a change.

Us regular Jo's/Jane's and the cops can have BBQs on the weekends
sharing stories of how we ran this gang out, stopped that thug, etc.

All will be good.

We will be covering that whole 'keep your government in check' thing too.

 

[P.O.2010]

As an active duty MP for some years now, and a part time peace officer in the civilian world before that, I can speak with some authority on the subject of policing versus soldiering. I am also intimately acquainted with the M-16, M-4, Remington 870, Mossberg 500 and many other similar weapons having carried them, and many others, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The problem here is one of escalation. Arguments are put forward on a regular basis that patrol officers and detectives need battle rifles to perform their duties. If they don't have them, some say, a tragedy will result. A sniper won't be stopped, a madman will slaughter children, bank robbers with kevlar vests will annihilate an entire watch, a terrorist will blow himself up and the list goes on. Do these things happen? Yes they do. There are two important things to remember, however. First, these events are exceedingly rare, winning the lottery jackpot rare. Second, being a police officer is about keeping the peace and protecting individual rights not charging into battle on your faithful steed. Are there valid reasons to carry an M-16 on patrol? Sure. There are also valid arguments that could be made in favor of patroling large urban areas using up-armored HMMWVs and MRAPs. After all, what happens if there is a terrorist attack using car bombs? What if sector adam is ambushed by gang members using rifles chambered for 7.62 x 51? What happens if the SWAT/ESU/SRT/ERU armored personnel carrier can't get to the scene of an active shooter in time to shield the wounded? Wouldn't it be better if every Officer drove one just so we'd be that much safer?

The above is not a joke or an attempt at ridicule. I've heard this type of argument made by small, rural PDs that want an absurd amount of military hardware. I've also heard the argument made by members of large urban departments that I've spoken to. I haven't seen any civilian PDs field belt- fed weapons yet but I get the impression that will be happening within the next five years.

If you as a civilian Police Officer have to go on routine patrol equipped as I was equipped in Baghdad then something is very wrong. SWAT should not be out on patrol wearing a ballistic helmet and outer tactical vest with a protective mask on one leg and a drop holster on the other cradling an M-4, MP5 or Mini-14 in arms with a balaclava concealing one's features. I've seen this nonsense in NYC and I've seen it in Las Vegas. The criminals don't care, they just go somewhere else or come back later. The only thing that happens is that you intimidate ordinary, law abiding people.

The combat mentality has to stop and it has to stop now. There is no war on crime. There is no war on crime. Let me repeat it a third time. There is no war on crime. I am constantly amazed by how terrified so many Police Officers are. Really, the fear is extraordinary, bordering on the unbelievable. I can't count the number of times I've had civilian Police Officers tell me how "it's a battlefield out here" or "these people are animals" or some other equally paranoid, and dangerous, crap. You've got to be able to turn the condition red on and off and I'm really shocked by just how many Police Officers I meet who cannot, or will not do that. Frankly, I've also met far too many Police Officers who were wanna-be Special Forces, guys who wanted to run around in a ninja costume with a long rifle and play commando but didn't want to sign on the dotted line and go through the hell that is SFAS and the Q-Course. Instead they joined the local PD where they wouldn't have to deploy but could tool around the city in a Lenco Bearcat wearing $200 Oakleys mean mugging people.

This isn't intended to insult hard working civilian Police Officers or Sheriff's Deputies. I've had armed people do their best to murder me on the road, I've chased people through back yards in near total darkness and been forced to go into burglarized buildings without a second unit. I have people, young and old, military and civilian, black and white, give me the finger on patrol just because I'm driving in a police vehicle. Yet, I always show the maximum respect for the public when I am on the road and I make a real effort to find out how they feel and how I am perceived, both as a Soldier and as an MP. Trust me, the perception of law enforcement isn't doing so well.

Bottom line: Boston PD doesn't need military firearms, semi-automatic or otherwise, because it isn't the military. Why is need relevant here? Because as government employees we do have to show need on the basis of being subordinate to those who employ us. That AR-15 with 200 magazines (or whatever) that some poster chooses to show here is something he bought with his own money. Those M-16s are bought with taxpayer money. Yes, need must be shown. How many times were M-16s really needed in Boston last year? The year before? Show me the statistics in black and white. Compile the sworn testimony. Your average tax paying citizen is sick and tired of seeing the Police as an occupying Army that can't be bothered to help and which puts up that icy wall of reserve (and wears sunglasses indoors) to keep people away.

If you can't hear the discontent it's because you aren't listening.

 

[nofishbob]

Great post, P.O. 2010!

Bob

 

[runrabbitrun]

That really was a good post P.O.2010.

Thanks for your service as well.
Your one of the good guys and see the truth as
many of us tax paying civilians see it.

Come on over to the BBQ.
Will you?

See.. We can all take a bite out of crime... together.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Your average tax paying citizen is sick and tired of seeing the Police as an occupying Army that can't be bothered to help and which puts up that icy wall of reserve (and wears sunglasses indoors) to keep people away.
+1000

Have been seeing this locally with the Douglas County Sheriff's Dept(who are basically not needed since the city is the county--more or less) and it drives me nuts everytime I see them---no longer in a standard police uniform but in black bdu's complete with jack boots----usually seen doing what I consider illegal searches where a vehicle's entire contents are strewn on the side of the interstate.

No longer the land of the free.



To the original subject---local PD only should be issued a side arm--a pump shotgun---and maybe a bolt action rifle for longer engagements.

 

[ARNETT44]

PO 2010 Policing many streets here in America is not about how cool you look or what type of protection you wear, CID gear (Chicks Dig It)* or even if you cover your face. The bottom line is to go home at the end of your shift. Plane and simple. Police equipment is a direct response to, and unfortunally, past actions. When bad guys start to shoot at you with Hi-Capacity auto's Police switched to them as well. Now many encounters, bad guys have stepped up to Semi-Auto rifles. And Police departments are trying to level the field as well.

I am not sure what part of that you cant see. Sorry you did get the ride in the police car when you were little. Please dont forget Cop's are taxpayers as well, there is no exemption for Cop's. We go places sane peolpe run away from.When Little Johnnys school has an active shooter, should cops wait for the SWAT team? That did not work out so well in Colo. Now Active Shooter response is from mostly patrol officers. The issue is having the equipment you need at the time you need it.

You do know we wore bullet resistant vests long before the Military did. Not because they are cool, far from it. Obviously that "part time peace officer" whatever that is, didn't let you see much of the unfortunate sides of Police work. Radar trap on Route 10?You state: If they dont have them a tragedy will result. and site two important things: these events are rare ( thank god for that) and Police Officers are to keep the peace,protecting individual rights not charging into battle. That is increadibly stupid.* The event may be rare, and that is defined as what, and where, but they do happen, and in my area to often. So you are not to be prepared when it happens? Really you shoot your 9 at Hodgie every day? So then take that m-9 off ,you will rarely need it at the guard gate waiving traffic in.*Many "steeds" as you call them, we call them patrol cars, are charged in every day. That stupid 911 thing keeps going off, Duh. Give me a armored car, I would gladly drive it in some neighborhoods.

Come down to Miami with your Part time experience and MP ensigna, could use the entertainment. The fact is you dont know #%% about what the police need or dont need, cause you "talked to" some guy from some big city. If belt fed weapons is what you need in the future, then so be it. It will probably be from some crazy ex MP who stole a SAW and is lighting up some school yard.The bottom line remains the same. Go home alive at the end of each shift, do the best job you can and hopefully have the equipment to do it with, whatever that is that the situation dictates.

Talk to some of the officers at the LA shootout next time you need to chat. Or the Two metro officers lit up from an AK, or the Coral Springs officer shot 4 times last week with a rifle. Did anyone forget the "fight fire with Fire" expression. Or "dont take a gun to a knife fight" There is something to learn from those words, you need better movies. And which of you heros wants to face 2 bangers with AK's with your Les Baer,Wilson, super streched, beveled, ported, parkerized, eo-tech custom sight, shoots through schools 45. You would be the first to cry out to have the right equipment for the right job. When the right situation in encountered. If find something wrong with that, the techincal term is MORON. Now if were all facing Beaver and the Cleavers, I would carry a wood stick and a pack of Hubble Bubble. But that, sadly is not what going on. I will be the first in line to turn in my vest and Glock if you can make that happen.

I have been to many funerals and scenes of officers shot, and bad guys shot. In fact The last suspect killed was killed with an AR, the bad guy had a pistol. The ability to hit at a distance was a good thing. I wanted to charge at him with my steed under foot and* K-bar in my teeth as he unloaded on everyone, but damn officer took him out before I could get close.Bet ya didn't know that many of the officers are Military vets, some even MP's. Police are not soldiers and no one in Policing wants to be. But there are some things that are the same.Police officers want to have safe and proper equipment, so do soldiers, Police do not want to be outgunned, so do soldiers.* If that is an AR ( and yes we do prefer the semi auto version, as we catch hell killing civilians) Full Auto is for TV and Hero's, then why would you not have one. Most are carried in the trunk, try getting to it in a hurry! We also carry Life saving equipment.* You say it OK to have the weapons and equipment cause you are in Bagdad, do you think those people are not intimidated? Law abiding people really dont care, but knuckleheads do.

No war on crime!* What exactly is it when you are searching a building in the middle of the night for some idiot who just shot the clerk for $11.37. ARE YOU IN CONDITION RED all the time. No, but If you want to get hurt being a police officer let your guard down while you are working. Do you guys smoke and joke while you are working a prisioner detail?* You wont find out unless you actually do it. And I dont mean at the local high school game as "part time" security.* You are insulting to me and others and I seriously doubt you have any experience as an officer exept for maybe a couple of rides in the back seat with wet pants.*

Many of us do not have to be wanna -be Special Forces. WE ARE everyday we put the vest and Glock on.As a side bar I served 8 years active and 3 reserve with 5th Mech Inf. 82nd Abn. and 5thSF group. As an 11bush ,Two of my associates with the 10SF and 4 with Ranger Batt.'s* Many others from 1st Gulf war and new guys fresh from the sand box.

The perception of law enforcement is not doing well with those whose only understanding of police work is the prime time TV networks. Just like most peoples perception of Firefighters as all being heros, but have never called the Fire Dept. I love those guys, but they hang back a bit until the bad policeman clears the area first. And if you have no data call Boston PD find out how many times they could have been needed. You dont have any data to support not needing them either just your leg lame opinion. I hope someday you get enough maturity to* pass the test this time, to be a police officer and be part of the"occupying Army"

 

[Mags]

Wow Arnett44 your post sure has alot of emotion and very little fact way to go...
On another note why do police officers have more of a right to protect themselves than the ordinary law abiding citizen?

 

[nofishbob]

ARNETT44 wrote:

The bottom line is to go home at the end of your shift. Plane and simple

.

How many abuses of rights and other questionable police actions has that statement been used to justify over the years?

In this thread, the posters arguing for more police firepower are more prone to personal attacks and raw anger in their posts than those arguing against. These are the people who want more powerful weapons....it's almost like a parody: give me more powerful weapons because I am more aggressive and less respectful than you!

 

[P.O.2010]

Now many encounters, bad guys have stepped up to Semi-Auto rifles.

The weapon of choice for criminals is still overwhelmingly the handgun. Read the FBI's Uniform Crime Report.

Please dont forget Cop's are taxpayers as well, there is no exemption for Cop's

Police Officers don't pay taxes. Your entire paycheck as a Police Officer (as well as my entire paycheck as a Soldier) comes from money taken from the taxpayers. When we "pay taxes" we're not paying anything. Government is merely witholding money it already had in its possession which it obtained from non-civil servants. Government employees paying taxes is sleight of hand unless they have non-government income.

The fact is you dont know #%% about what the police need or dont need, cause you "talked to" some guy from some big city.

I lived in New York City for twenty years. I had, and continue to have, numerous friends there who were or are Police Officers and Peace Officers from all different agencies. My understanding of big city policing goes far beyond the superficial.

"You are insulting to me and others and I seriously doubt you have any experience as an officer exept for maybe a couple of rides in the back seat with wet pants."

I served as a reserve officer for several years where I walked a foot post and rode in a patrol car in different high crime areas. I also worked in plainclothes for part of my time with the Department.

Many of us do not have to be wanna -be Special Forces. WE ARE everyday we put the vest and Glock on.

That's it right there in a nutshell. We are not wanna-bees, we're the real thing because we put a vest and a Glock on. You actually consider being a patrol officer the equivalent of serving in the Special Forces and wearing the Green Beret. I hope you're joking but I get the feeling, sadly, that you're not.

No war on crime!* What exactly is it when you are searching a building in the middle of the night for some idiot who just shot the clerk for $11.37.

Serving an arrest warrant, being a Peace Officer, doing the job the citizens of your jurisdiction pay you to do. Take your pick.

As a side bar I served 8 years active and 3 reserve with 5th Mech Inf. 82nd Abn. and 5thSF group. As an 11bush ,Two of my associates with the 10SF and 4 with Ranger Batt.'s*

You may or may not have served in the Infantry but you certainly weren't a member of Special Forces. If you had been you'd refer to your MOS as being 18 series rather than 11 series. There's also the fact that your post is rambling, semi-coherent and smacks of functional illiteracy.

As an MP I've served as a patrolman on large Army installations (daytime population in excess of one hundred thousand) and I can tell you from first hand experience that you will see everything on post that you see off post, it's just that the military is better at keeping its dirty laundry out of the public eye. We have drug houses, juveniles walking around high while armed with handguns, serial rapists, burglary rings, robbery homicides, officer involved shootings, you name it, we've got it. Guess what? We don't run around in full battle rattle. Why? Because it isn't necessary, even on an installation where in excess of fifty percent of the population has formal training in marksmanship, unarmed combat and the use of explosives.

Assuming that you are in fact a Police Officer you'd best conduct a quick reality check. You are a public servant, the same as I am. We both swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Being a cop isn't a combat operation and thus it does not require the same equipment. Your patrol area isn't a battlefield, the residents of that patrol area aren't hostile forces and warrant service isn't a guerilla raid. Us versus Them isn't the Police versus everybody else. It's the Police, acting on behalf of the citizenry in accordance with the Constitution, versus the criminal element. Those armed robbers you speak of aren't terrorists, they aren't militia and they aren't enemy Soldiers. They are ordinary criminals, the same as society has always had. Local Police and Sheriff's Departments do not have to become the standing army feared by the Founders to effectively do their job and I say that knowing full well the irony of that statement considering I am serving as a member of a standing army.

Get a fresh perspective and get ahold of yourself.