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

[pbearperry]

To all the cops in this forum,don't waste your time.No matter how,or what the Police try to do,there will be some asshat complaining about it.Why didn't they do this,or that,or why can they do this but we can't.What all these critics don't understand,is that they are the ones that force the Cops to think in the"Them and us mentality."
AN old cop told me years ago,the people will hate you because everyone hates the Government,and the Cops are the most visible part of the whole ball of wax.All you can do is keep your head up,be careful,and stay alive to get the pension.You know about that bloated,too much for a Civil Servant pension that we all get.Oh and before I forget,screw them all.There I feel much better.And most importantly,to all you weeping,I wanna open carry Mall Ninjas,thanks for the big pension.Just one more payment on the Lear Jet and it's mine.

 

[highorder]

There are good cops and bad cops.

We have both right here.

P.O, thank you for your service and perspective.

 

[Mags]

PBEARPERRY Can you answer this question? Why do police officers have more of a right to protect themselves than the ordinary law abiding citizen? I know police officers are in harm's way alot more and I believe in equipping police in a manner that they can safely do their job. But why is it necessary for a police officer to defend himself against a robber or home invader with an automatic weapon but joe blow law abiding citizen cannot defend his family in the same situation with a similar weapon.

 

[Expertowgunner]

Do cops need m-16s? NO Do cops need AR-15s? I think so. My reasoning is if i cant buy a select fire weapon, then the police shouldnt have it either. Also it makes more sense to have a semi only gun for the reason that cops wont need to clear out rooms indescriminantly and put down large volumes of lead in a urban setting with innocents around. Now if the gov believes that we should as civilians have full auto guns to play with then the police can to although it would have limited application to their job.

 

[ARNETT44]

Sorry about that but that wanna be pisses me off and I could not get my fingers to stop.

Police officers dont have any special privliges other then what the law allows. If you want some privlege that is different then get the laws change. I personnally have a SBR, and yes I filled out the same form and paid the $200.00. for the stamp. I have the SBR after having some issues with a 16 bbl clearing a house.

Officers have less safety equipment then soldiers, and there is no spray and pray format for shooting. And frag grenades are out of the question. But would have been useful at times. Just not the same as a flash bang.We get seconded guessed by the media for not shooting the gun out of idiots hand at 50 yards in dim light.

I dont know any police officers that make any laws, just enforce them. If your state doesn't have those laws get them. This state allows you to own, and possess the same weapons most police officers have. Glocks and semi auto AR's. You can get a concealed weapons permit. And other then a few restricted areas have the same rights and weapons as police officers. And you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself or others. In fact homeowers can shoot someone entering their home. Officers can't shoot a burglary suspect in that same home. Only forceable felonies. Rape,Murder you get the drift.

Of Course most are handguns Duh, what does that have to do with the fact we face rifles? Tell the Coral Springs officer that is in the hospital today. One round went through his vest. And it is a senario is getting more often. .We dont even make the criminals, we dont supply them with weapons We dont even play to the most in the job, but try to prepare for any and all. Thats like saying lets only train for most of the calls. Hodgie mostly uses an AK therefore soldiers can only use a M-4! It's not about playing fair, its about winning. And winning means you go home not them. You know you can play by the rules and still win, it happens all the time. Only the TV cop takes on 15 bad guys with a 8 shot 45, and kills them all.

I will forward your tax info. to my accountant, and ask the Federal tax be stopped. Also my property taxes dont have to be paid now, or should they give me 28% increase to off set the non income that I pay myself. I like that a lot. I never knew we getting ripped off for 30 percent of our salery.

Most all of us started as 11 bush, (4 years)I dont thing the entitlement program started till later. That's just kidding- though the guys today are just as good if not better. The road getting there may have changed a bit.

PO2010 - which the year he thinks he is going to get hired as a police officer, has not a clue, other then what he reads in some magazine. Please list the town city or whatever it is, except Mayberry, that allowed you to be a part time officer, detective!!whatever, I will call the Chief tomorrow and see how that works. I will post his answer. No names just the town. I wont even tell him what it is for. I just got to here this.

Did you only get half the ammo? forget that.

Here is something for you, come down you can stay at my house ( no charge cause I make the big bucks)I will get a waiver for you to ride along, Unarmed of course, Hook you up with the street crimes unit, and take you myself, has to be for at least a week, ya know to get the full effect. Then lets post your expierence "part time" other then Mayberry or whatever has "part time". What do you do with the other part of the time?

Can't get any fairier then that. Because if you are planning a career you wont last long, either from the citizen are some FTO putting a boot in your butt.

If this make you feel bad we will talk about it, then hug tightly.

 

[ARNETT44]

pbearperry- Dude, you I like!!!!!! I would trade wars stories with you till the wee hours of the night~ If I said anything to offend you - so what, get over it!

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Snark

Let's knock off the snide and snark.

Ditch the personal attacks.

That's just a suggestion, or course, me being all "officer friendly" and stuff. Or we can tap into our testosterone reserves and tell the moderator to stick to his knittng.

This thread is running out of gas almost as fast as a Wal*Mart thread.

If it's to continue, there will be civility.

 

[pbearperry]

The Real Mags question about why?

Guess what Mags, I ask the same question.I myself don't have any use for fully automatic weapons,and I see no real need for the cops to have them.Any good shot with a semi can usually pick off the spray and pray machinegun type out there.
I am thankful that the Cop Carry Bill passed a few years ago,and I pray that civilians get the right to carry in all 50 states.I am a NRA Life Member and have been for 30 years.I believe in the 2nd ammendment along with most street cops.The Police are not your enemy.Sure,nobody likes to be told to slow down,etc. but that's the job the police are given to do.I too do not like seeing police forces starting to resemble soldiers.However,police work has always had to adapt thru the years to keep up to the changing times.Let's face it,todays society is not very polite or bright.Where will it end,I don't know?

 

[Mags]

Thanks for your positive response PBEARPERRY.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi P.O.2010,

After your post, I have absolutely nothing to add. Nicely done.

Selena

 

[Officers'Wife]

Nonsense. This is akin to when anti–gunners say that people who carry a gun "must either be afraid or paranoid." The fact is that there are criminals with rifles who will assault the citizenry and police officers alike. Giving the police comparable (or better) guns to fight them with is merely an acceptance of the world as it is, rather than how you wish it was.

The sidearm I carry is carefully considered between use and cost. When the Government issues to civilian police there is no consideration. As these battle rifles are purchased using federal tax, the same tax that is taking up a significant percentage of my income, they had better have a shown need for such weaponry other than 'advantage.' I fully believe that EVERY American should be able to have whatever weapon s/he can afford. I also believe that every woman has a right to an abortion. In neither case does that right imply I have an obligation to pay for it. While the $300,000 more or less the 200 battle rifles are worth on the open market is a drop in the bucket compared to the fed budget, the folk wisdom of take care of the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves is still valid.

 

[jerkface11]

While the $300,000 more or less the 200 battle rifles are worth on the open market

Since they're military surplus they're technically machineguns and worth at least 10x that much.

 

[bigger hammer]

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

So you consider the issuing of FA rifles to be militarization? I don't. Think back to the "Gun that made the 20's roar," The Thompson. That was the 1920's. During WWII MANY police departments had BAR's in their inventory. For those who don't know the "A" in BAR stands for "automatic." It's ONLY very recently that the police didn't have access to the same small arms that the military uses. In fact, the police have been using the exact same weapons as the military for thousands of years. ONLY in recent times was there a break. Now because some of that hardware is creeping back in, some are up in arms. (Pun intended).

and also granting local everyday police the jurisdiction to perform paramilitary tactics that are extremely dangerous to both sides and are extremely unnecessary.

Sorry this is too vague to address. Perhaps if you give some examples of what you mean by "paramilitary tactics" I would have a better understanding of what you're getting at.

There was a supreme court ruling that has effectively paved the way to the official death of the 4th amendment last year.

Again too vague. Can you reference the case and how you think that the 4th amendment is "dead?" Quite to the contrary it's very much alive. In the latest case from SCOTUS, Arizona v. Gant, police searches of vehicles are restricted.

With the police being able to use the "probable cause" phrase as an excuse to execute their biased prerogative

What the heck are you talking about? The concept of PC is NOT a military concept. It's ONLY a concept used by the police. How does this have anything to do with what has apparently become the new topic, the militarization of the police?

and have the everyday beat cops be able to execute military-style raids...

Please tell us what a "military style raid" is and then why "everyday beat cops" should not be allowed to execute them.

well, I have to ask: what is it that I am or am not seeing that you do/don't?

So far most of your references are too vague. You feeling that the 4th Amendment is "dead" is dead–wrong. Perhaps if you answer some of my questions I'll have a better idea of what you're referring to.

 

[bigger hammer]

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

Yes and?

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

Not in the slightest.

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

I'd be willing to bet that I spend just as much time, if not more, communicating with my elected officials than you do.

 

[bigger hammer]

My .02 cents

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

Thanks for the free advice, it's worth every penny. In fact I have a fantastic life. I had the best job in the world. Great family, great spare time activities, including this one. I'd suggest that you stop giving out advice. Dear Abby and Dr. Laura have you beat six ways from Sunday.

And don't quote me.

OK ROFLMAO.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

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.

Oh I don't believe that they're going to impose a 10 billion % tax - I was just using that as a hypothetical.

It's usually best if hypotheticals have some realistic application to the topic of discussion. Yours did not.

And why would a 100% tax on ammo (again, not going into whether that's actually feasible) be more objectionable than a 150% increase in the price of firearms (FA guns have gone up a *lot* more) if the 150% increase was brought about by "indirect" government action. I don't know of any economist who could claim with a straight face that the main factor in the price of FA guns isn't the government.

He'd be wrong. The main factor in the price of FA guns is people who are willing to pay what the traffic will bear.

BTW can you tell me how this applies to the topic of the Boston PD getting semi–auto firearms from the government? ROFL

Earlier I wrote,

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.

I think you're getting me all wrong again. I really don't care if they get AR-15s - I was just wondering about political fallout vs usefulness. I said that a Garand would have close to the same usefulness vs almost no political fallout. Someone made the point that 5.56/.223 doesn't overpenetrate as much, and thus .30-06 AP (or 7.62x51/.308) would be a poor choice. That discussion was pretty well settled.

Was it? I think not. You keep talking about the militarization of the police. That has nothing to do with whether the Boston PD gets 5.56, .30-06 Garands or .308 bolt guns. I think that firing a full power round v. firing an intermediate power round in an urban environment IS a big deal. Never mind the fact that JQ police officer is going to find it far harder to learn to accurately shoot the full power rifles. Never mind the fact that the ammunition is going to be far more expensive. And never mind the fact that the M–16 is going to be far more compact making it easier to maneuver in the urban environment and easier to transport. Round here the M–16 rides in the front of the unit, between the seats, right next to the SG. Try doing that with a Garand!

After you corrected my spelling/syntax I wrote,

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.

lol wut bro d00d i liek have gud grammer and spellig moar then u!!!!1

Thanks for making my point.

 

[bigger hammer]

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.

Except for those who aren't interested and those who legally can't possess firearms, felons, the mentally unstable, etc., I'm all for it.

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.

Still sounds good. I think it's a good idea for their one–way–tickets–to–elsewhere be paid for with taxpayer funds to make it more expedient for them to leave.

 

[bigger hammer]

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.

Thanks for your service.

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. [Emphasis added]

I have yet to hear the argument made that these weapons are "needed." I HAVE heard the argument that they'd be safer if they had those tools. In this case we're not talking about FA weapons, just semi–autos.

If they don't have them, some say, a tragedy will result.

Here's the truth, a tragedy will result even if we have them. But it will be over sooner and with less loss of life and less injury to the police and to the public.

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.

Notice that many folks still play the lottery and somebody always wins.

Second, being a police officer is about keeping the peace and protecting individual rights not charging into battle on your faithful steed.

LOL. You're confusing a discussion of tactics with one of equipment. They are related but are not the same. And BTW sometimes it IS necessary to "charge into battle." Officers used to be trained to wait for the SWAT team on AS (active shooter) incidents. Now they're being taught to form an impromptu entry team with as few as 2-3 officers. It would facilitate a good ending if they were armed with rifles.

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.

Now you're moving to an illogical conclusion. But at times those vehicle ARE useful. What happens to regular patrol vehicles when a mob celebrating the latest sport team loss (or even victory – can someone explain that to me) turns ugly. We've all seen this on TV and some may have lived it. They start setting fires, breaking windows and looting. When they bump into a police unit the occupants flee because they're so badly outnumbered and vulnerable and it gets set afire, sometimes it gets overturned.

What's wrong with having those vehicles (the cheaper ones like an up armored Humvee or an APC standing by, in the police garage for long term storage and then a few blocks away from such epicenters so they can be used for them. Perhaps you'd like regular uniformed Barney Fife's to march headlong into that crowd? No helmets. No less–lethal. No shin guards. No body barricades. No nothing. Just a bullet in their pocket!

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?

Another illogical conclusion.

I've heard this type of argument made by small, rural PDs that want an absurd amount of military hardware.

Yeah because nothing could ever happen in a "small, rural PD" right? Norco was a nice sleepy little town about 30 years ago until five robbers decided to hit the Security Pacific Bank. When the gang exited the bank they were greeted by a lone police officer. He spent the next few minutes hiding under his dashboard as dozens of rounds hit around him. Think he might have been better served if he'd had a semi–auto M-16 that allowed him to stand off 75 yards and pick the suspects off as they fired at him? This incident continued for quite some time. Because they were clearly outgunned the police lost more officers and even had a helicopter shot down!

J's Restaurant in the quiet little town of Newhall in 1970 was the scene of one of the worst massacres of LEO's up until that time. Four CHP officers were killed in a matter of minutes. Some of it we know realize was due to poor tactics, but some if it was the weapons they carried and how they'd been trained. They were stopping a vehicle with two suspects, one if whom was known to be armed with a handgun. The CHP had revolvers and SG's. Think they might have been better served if they'd had semi–auto M–16's and stood off 75 yards while ordering the suspects out of the vehicle?

Austin, TX was a medium size college town in 1966 (population about 250,000) when Charles Whitman decided to climb a tower on the University campus and start shooting people. He managed to kill 14 and would 32 before he was stopped. Notably one of the officers who finally stopped Whitman was armed with a borrowed rifle. I wonder how many fewer killed there'd be if the officers had semi–auto M–16's on hand when the shooting started?

To tell the truth P.O.2010 I'm quite disappointed in this "it won't happen here because we're a 'small rural' area" attitude. ALL of the above cited instances were safe "small rural areas" until … well they weren't so safe anymore. But I know that one day you'll make a fine police administrator. (With apologies to police admins who have not forgotten what LE is really about).

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.

I was around during both the Watts riots of 1965 and the LA riots of 1992 after the Rodney King verdict. BOTH TIMES we were very gratified to see the National Guard roll into town with their vehicle mounted belt-fed weapons. Somehow the citizens were put at ease, not made fearful by them. I see no reason why they too can't reside quietly in an armory in anticipation of such incidents occurring again.

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.

I agree and this is just more nonsense and rhetoric. If you think this is happening anywhere, please show us where.

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.

I doubt that you've seen this "out on patrol." I'd bet that you've seen special units doing special enforcement in areas inhabited by special crooks.

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.

"Going somewhere else" is the nature of the beast . If you don't know this yet your education as a police officer has been sorely lacking. And you're also wrong about ONLY the "ordinary, law abiding people" being "intimidated." If the crooks weren't intimidated, they wouldn't "go somewhere else? I've been part of such gang sweeps. While the "ordinary, law abiding people" are afraid at first, when they find out what's happening, they are grateful, even cheering the police as we escorted handcuffed crooks out of their homes. The neighbors invited us back in for cake and ice cream, and invited us to come back "ANYTIME!" The reality is quite different from the picture you paint.

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.

Remember what I said just a while back about your education being lacking. Here's another example. But perhaps you mean something different when you say this. Instead of reciting homilies, why don't you explain further?

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.

I wonder where you work that this is the way that officers talk? I've done (still do) police related seminars around the US and in three foreign countries. I've NEVER heard anyone express this.

BTW some fear is normal. People shooting at you, trying to stab you, should make one afraid. If not, there's something wrong with that person. BTW some areas ARE a "battlefield." There are many areas round here where police do not go unless there are at least four of them. BTW, some people ARE animals.

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.

I've never met any who stayed in LE who could not turn this off and on. Short–timers, those who stay less than 3–5 years often have these sorts of issues but they don't stick around for long.

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.

I have no doubt that some of these fools exist. But to portray the majority of LE ( I know that you're not doing this but some here will multiply your comment exponentially) as of this ilk, is a dis–service to the rest.

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.

I've always been more concerned with the reality than the perception. You seem to be overly concerned with image.

Bottom line: Boston PD doesn't need military firearms, semi-automatic or otherwise, because it isn't the military.

But civilian version, the AR–15, is OK? If you think so please tell us the difference between this rifle and the semi–auto M–16.

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.

Going by your thinking, if this was the case, no officer would ever need to carry more than the one magazine in his handgun. How often does he need more than that? No officer ever need carry a back–up gun. How often does he need that? We should all be driving Prius'. How often do we need to go faster than 55 mph? This is simply stupid thinking. It's impossible to predict when a need for some police tool will arise. And so most of us carry more than one magazine, some of us carry back–up guns and we all (virtually all that is) drive cars that go faster than 55.

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.

You sound more and more like an administrator and less and less like a street cop. Simply put there are no such statistics. But then there were also none before Norco, Newhall or the Austin Tower either.

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.

Please show us "the statistics in black and white" to support this statement. "Compile the sworn testimony" as you have said.

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

If anyone is listening to you, they're listening to the wrong source. Oddly enough my experience after nearly 30 years of LE for two police departments is quite the opposite of yours. Perhaps you simply didn't hang around long enough or have enough experience as a "part time peace officer in the civilian world."

 

[bigger hammer]

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.

I wonder, can you tell us how you "consider" that a search that you (probably) just drive by is "illegal?" This bit of nonsense is something I often hear but when I ask, no one has ever been able to give a decent answer. Perhaps this time will be different!?

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.

Do you want to pay for those "bolt action rifles?" The semi–auto M–16's were free! Just a few posts back you voted "+1000."

 

[bigger hammer]

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.

Nice post from someone who's actually been there and done that, not some wanna be part–timer who thinks he knows what LE is really all about!

 

[bigger hammer]

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?

I don't know. You seem to. Please share that number with us. And then please tell us how you know this.

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!

It's frustrating putting your life on the line every day for years only to hear from a few sniveling malcontents not only that it's not appreciated, but that we're infringing on their rights. Lotsa "glass half empty" folks here.

 

[bigger hammer]

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.

Perhaps you should read the reports of the Norco incident, the North Hollywood shootout, the Miami FBI incident and the Texas Tower incident. The fact that "most crooks prefer handguns as proved by statistics" means nothing when the SHTF. Perhaps we should all carry around a copy of the FBI's report and show it to them!?

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.

Hmmm. I used the FEDERAL U.S. INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURN 1040. I figured my deductions on the FEDERAL SCHEDULE A TAX FORM. I worked. I got paid. Every April 15, just like most of the rest reading this, the Feds took back some of what I earned. That's called paying taxes. Hard to believe someone really wrote this. Even harder to believe that someone might even believe it.

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.

Oh great, another expert who knows what police work is like because he "has friends … who were or are police officers … from all different agencies." ROFL. You really don't know how silly this is, do you?

"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.

I too worked as a reserve before becoming a regular. I'll tell you from personal experience that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

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.

I pick "fighting the war on crime." Let's not play semantic games OK?

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.

Quite the little detective there aren't you? Of course you just might be wrong. Not everyone does it the way you do.

There's also the fact that your post is rambling, semi-coherent and smacks of functional illiteracy.

nofishbob could you please note for future reference that P.O.2010 when cornered, becomes just as insulting as those of us who are arguing for giving Boston PD their donated semi–auto M–16's. LOL

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.

I can't tell you how many former MP's I've trained who, because of their military experience, thought they had a clue about civilian LE. NOT ONE OF THEM DID! And you don't seem to be an exception.

Assuming that you are in fact a Police Officer

How rude! Nofishbob are you taking note of this?

Being a cop isn't a combat operation and thus it does not require the same equipment.

Sometimes it is and sometime it does.

Your patrol area isn't a battlefield,

Sometimes it is.

the residents of that patrol area aren't hostile forces

Sometimes they are.

and warrant service isn't a guerilla raid

Sometimes it's close.

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.

FINALLY some accuracy and truth! I was wondering when it would come along.

Those armed robbers you speak of aren't terrorists

Really? Please give us your definition of "terrorists." I bet it will include many crimes that have already been mentioned, Norco, Newhall, Texas.

they aren't militia and they aren't enemy Soldiers.

Nothing but semantic games.

They are ordinary criminals,

I guess our definition of "ordinary" isn't the same as yours.

the same as society has always had.

Some far exceed what society is used to as "ordinary criminals." They'll be around again. And you and folks like you will have officers dying again because they're not armed to handle them. Because your perception is that police officers carrying semi–auto M–16's makes them look "icky."

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.

Great advice. Would that you'd follow it.

 

[bigger hammer]

There are good cops and bad cops.

We have both right here.

I take it that the "bad cops" are the ones that disagree with you? ROFLMAO

 

[bigger hammer]

PBEARPERRY Can you answer this question? Why do police officers have more of a right to protect themselves than the ordinary law abiding citizen? I know police officers are in harm's way alot more and I believe in equipping police in a manner that they can safely do their job. But why is it necessary for a police officer to defend himself against a robber or home invader with an automatic weapon but joe blow law abiding citizen cannot defend his family in the same situation with a similar weapon.

I'm not PBEARPERRY but I'll respond. Everyone has the same right of self defense. Such a decision has NOTHING to do with the police and everything to do with politicians. If you don't like the situation, I'd suggest that you start lobbying for change. I do quite frequently. The police don't make such rules.

 

[bigger hammer]

This is in response to P.O.2010's questions about "proving a need" for enhanced weaponry for the police. It's not "Boston specific" but it makes no difference. I've taken the liberty of freely editing the information.

FROM THIS SOURCE. about the Norco Robbery incident.

five masked men wearing fatigue jackets and wielding automatic weapons ran inside the Security Pacific Bank at Fourth Street and Hamner Avenue.

Dep. Bolasky was on his own for the next few terrifying minutes. The light-bar on his patrol car was immediately shattered by gunfire.

He crawled under the dashboard, as the windows burst and shattered around him. His left shoulder was hit.

Since he was crouched down and couldn’t see, when [he backed his ] vehicle out into the street, it crashed into another car. This spun his car around, becoming a shield for him.”

The four passengers bailed out of the van, opening fire on Bolasky. Hille recounts that Bolasky described them as “standing four abreast and pumping out rounds — all kinds of automatic weapons, clips taped to each other, 30-round clips.”

Dep. Bolasky was hit again, this time in the arm. Forty-seven bullet holes riddled his patrol car.

As Dep. Hille ran across the field, the gunmen were shooting at him. “They were shooting from the hip, and lucky for me, they were lousy shots,” said Hille.

Bullets were going through the vehicle and out the other side; that’s how powerful they were.

‘They’re moving around a lot. Chuck, they got automatic weapons and are in camouflage outfits.’

At this point, he knew “we were outgunned, but I figured, what the hell.”

It sounded like Vietnam.”

In abandoning their van, they also left behind in the van about 2,000 rounds of ammunition and 15 homemade bombs.

the occupants began hurling homemade bombs or grenades from the back of the truck.

a CHP officer, Dennis Johnson, described the bandits as “very professional with military backpacks, gas masks and military-type banana clips (ammunition).”

During the chase, the bandits fired semi-automatic weapons and hurled beer-bombs at scores of pursuing cars and civilian motorists.

Then the gunmen abandoned their truck and opened fire on the officers. A deadly gun battle followed — described as an ambush — leaving two more Riverside County deputies wounded — and one deputy, Jim Evans, shot and killed.

However, Dep. Evans managed to get out of his car, which was being sprayed with bullets, opened his door and rolled out to the back of his unit. He continued to fire on the trio with his handgun, at long-range distance, wounding one of them.

CHP Officer Johnson told the Times he saw Deputy Evans shot and killed as he tried to reload his weapons after firing at the robbers. Dep. Evans was shot in the head when he was “pinned down by gunfire during the ambush,” reported the San Bernardino Sun.

Mary recalls that her husband said on the tape just before he was killed: “They’re setting me up for an ambush. I’m going to be ambushed.”

Mary said her husband , a five-year veteran of the Riverside Sheriff’s Department, had been a First Lieutenant in the Green Berets during the Vietnam War,

Her husband had told her about two months before his death: “Something big is going to go down, and we’re not going to be ready for it. We’re going to lose a lot of men here. This county’s growing; we need to have two men to a car, not one-man units. We need to be better equipped.”

Meanwhile, following the savage ambush, the robbers fled by foot into the mountainous wilderness, leaving a bloody trail. Almost 200 officers searched the area through the night.

three of the men surrendered to officers in the canyon in the early morning hours of May 11. Another member of the gang was located by early afternoon, refused to surrender, and was subsequently shot by L.A. Sheriff’s Office SWAT officers.
Six other Riverside deputies were wounded during an ensuing exchange of fire which ended in the San Bernardino foothill area of Lytle Creek. Several civilians were also injured, none seriously.

This story omits the fact that a police helicopter was disabled by gunfire from the crooks and forced out of the pursuit. The pilot and observer landed safely. It also omits that 33 police vehicles were disabled by gunfire and explosives.

FROM THIS SOURCE about the same incident

Heavily outgunned, the police were pinned down until one officer arrived with an AR-15. After the police engaged the suspects with the AR-15, the suspects fled. One of the suspects was killed in the shootout, one during a later standoff with the police the next day, and three were later captured. 8 officers were also wounded during the events.

Now P.O.2010 (and others) when you're composing your response to this and you're about to write the words "Yeah but really how often does this happen" I want you to imagine that you're saying this to the widow of the officer killed in this incident. I want you to picture yourself sitting in a room with her as well as the families of those officers who were shot, but through luck, managed to survive. Now please stop yourself from making that stupid comment again. EVER.