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

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

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.

Of course there is. Do you think that some supply sergeant just decides for himself, "Hmm I think I'll give the Boston PD 200 rifles?" There's a long list of "considerations" made before such a decision is made.

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.'

Based on the obvious fact that the rifles have been offered and no such "need" was shown, you're wrong.

I fully believe that EVERY American should be able to have whatever weapon s/he can afford.

Me too.

 

[Mags]

Way to Pad the thread count LOL. BTW I disagree as you posts seem to be conflicting.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Of course there is. Do you think that some supply sergeant just decides for himself, "Hmm I think I'll give the Boston PD 200 rifles?" There's a long list of "considerations" made before such a decision is made.

No, some bureaucrat in DC made that decision.

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.

Like the few in White County Indiana that dared complain of the cost of the entire sheriff's office plus three towns worth of marshals plus dedicated units from other counties guarding an empty house because of an unsubstantiated rumor had a suspect in possession of hand grenades inside?

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

That shoe would pinch pretty badly on the other foot. Everything equal would mean the people should put restrictions on the good and dedicated officers for the misdeeds of the very very few creeps that manage to get into law enforcement. True, it's insanely rare for a mental unstable to get a badge but since it happened in <fill in the blank> it can happen here. But congratulations on one point, I've never seen anyone skilled enough to put three separate logical fallacies in one statement before.

 

[Officers'Wife]

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.

Still another logical fallacy but OK, I'll play. This is a very rare event that no amount of training or equipment could have prevented. In fact, training and equipping for such an event would interfere with performance of normal duty.

Tell me, since that kid in Michigan was making radioactives with a Van de Graf generator and propane lantern mantles, does that mean it's reasonable to equip LEO's with NBC gear? Given the relative ease a home builder could construct and EMP generator does that make it reasonable to completely shield the electronics in a police car up to the say 15KW range? Police work is somewhat hazardous, just below driving a semi long haul if I remember the stats right. I come from a family that is in three of the top five most hazardous and their motto is the only thing between you and death is your common sense. There are no lucky charms or magic tools that will keep you safe. Only the brain God gave you can do that. If you can't use the brain, get into a safer line of work.

 

[TAB]

what about hazmat gear?


chances are a officer is more likly to walk into a meth lab then get in a gun fight with FA weapons.


before you know, they will have to drive a semi to carry all this gear they might need.

 

[tkopp]

Ignoring the sniping for a minute;

I'm a little lost in the back and forth. I'm curious about your opinions on the following points, as they seem to be the ones most discussed. Short and simple is best.

1) Do you believe a police officer should carry a long gun (rifle or shotgun, something beyond a pistol)?

2) What level of equipment do you believe is appropriate for a police force to use?

3)Do you believe access to increasingly effective equipment engenders abuses of power by the police?

4)What do you see as the role of the police in society, and how well are they doing at it?

 

[Action_Can_Do]

Tkopp
Those questions are reasonable, but if you want to actually get any reasonable answers I suggest you try a different thread. This one has gotten really ugly.

Officer's Wife and P.O.2010
You tried. Kudos for the effort.

Bigger Hammer
By your logic all cops should be armed with chemical weapons and hand grenades. There comes a point when cops are not enforcing the law. They are making war on the citizenry.


And with that I'm not wasting one more second on this thread.

 

[bigger hammer]

I give up. You're impossible to reason with.

Not at all. But one has to use reason.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier Officers'Wife wrote,

When the Government issues to civilian police there is no consideration. [Emphasis added]

And I responded

Of course there is. Do you think that some supply sergeant just decides for himself, "Hmm I think I'll give the Boston PD 200 rifles?" There's a long list of "considerations" made before such a decision is made.

Now she writes

No, some bureaucrat in DC made that decision.

In your previous post you wrote "… there is no consideration." Did something happen to change your mind?

Earlier nofishbob wrote,

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!

And I responded

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.

Like the few in White County Indiana that dared complain of the cost of the entire sheriff's office plus three towns worth of marshals plus dedicated units from other counties guarding an empty house because of an unsubstantiated rumor had a suspect in possession of hand grenades inside?

Pardon me? I’m sorry, but I see absolutely no connection between my response to nofishbob and your response to what I wrote.

But I'll try and address it anyway. It sounds as if you're talking about an incident where some people complained about the expense where a lot of manpower was expended "guarding" a house that was rumored to contain hand grenades. Is that correct? Do you have a link to a new story about this incident?

If I've guessed correctly, I wonder what this has to do with this discussion? I wonder what it has to do with my comment about the frustration of trying to do a good job only to be unappreciated and attacked for those efforts.

What has this situation to do with a discussion of the advisability of giving semi–auto M–16's to the Boston PD?

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.

And I responded

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

That shoe would pinch pretty badly on the other foot. Everything equal would mean the people should put restrictions on the good and dedicated officers for the misdeeds of the very very few creeps that manage to get into law enforcement.

What the heck are you talking about? I said nothing about "everything equal." I said nothing of "putting restrictions" on anyone. Are you reading these posts? Did you mean to send this to another list? You're not making any sense here that I can figure out.

True, it's insanely rare for a mental unstable to get a badge but since it happened in <fill in the blank> it can happen here.

Did someone bring up the further off topic subject of someone with mental instability getting a badge? Did I miss some messages?

But congratulations on one point, I've never seen anyone skilled enough to put three separate logical fallacies in one statement before.

Please point out those "three separate logical fallacies." This post from you makes little sense at all.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

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.

Still another logical fallacy

Hardly.

but OK, I'll play. This is a very rare event that no amount of training or equipment could have prevented.

No amount of training or equipment could have prevented the robbery. But if the officers had rifles, the first officer on the scene, instead of driving into the parking lot would have stood off 75 yards and when the crooks exited, instead of being directly in the kill zone he would have had the advantage of cover and concealment and the ability to accurately direct aimed fire at them, instead of being just a target, fighting to stay alive.

In fact, training and equipping for such an event would interfere with performance of normal duty.

Pray tell, how so?

Tell me, since that kid in Michigan was making radioactives with a Van de Graf generator and propane lantern mantles, does that mean it's reasonable to equip LEO's with NBC gear?

I don't know where you've been hiding but most departments in this area HAVE NBC gear. LOL.

Given the relative ease a home builder could construct and EMP generator does that make it reasonable to completely shield the electronics in a police car up to the say 15KW range?

You can propose whatever wild scenario that you like. We can't be prepared for all of them. But ones that involve firearms are very common and having better arms DOES give an advantage in those situations.

Police work is somewhat hazardous, just below driving a semi long haul if I remember the stats right. I come from a family that is in three of the top five most hazardous and their motto is the only thing between you and death is your common sense. There are no lucky charms or magic tools that will keep you safe.

Yes, I've heard all the quotations about "the only weapon is the brain, everything else is a tool." But NO ONE is talking about "being safe." This conversation is about keeping police officers (and thereby the public they serve) SAFER there's a considerable difference. That can easily be accomplished by giving them rifles, in this case semi–auto M–16's which give BOTH more stopping power and more accuracy than their handguns, particular at longer ranges where fire from the crooks is less effective.

Only the brain God gave you can do that. If you can't use the brain, get into a safer line of work.

Wonderful philosophy Grasshopper. My brain tells me to get and use the most efficient tools for the job at hand. For someone assaulting me with gunfire, in the police venue, that's usually going to be a rifle.

I'm looking forward to you answering my questions.

 

[bigger hammer]

what about hazmat gear?

What about it. My department issued it.

chances are a officer is more likly to walk into a meth lab then get in a gun fight with FA weapons.

True but let's not pretend that the only use for a semi–auto M–16 is when the crooks open up with FA weapons. Virtually any felony traffic stop, standing a perimeter, surrounding a barricaded suspect, most "man with a gun" calls, are but a few of them.

before you know, they will have to drive a semi to carry all this gear they might need.

Boy ain't that the truth. When I started in LE about all I carried to the car in the way of personal gear was the equipment I wore on my gunbelt, a clipboard and a ticket book. Nowadays some officers carry two large duffle bags and fill up most of the car trunk!

 

[bigger hammer]

Ignoring the sniping for a minute;

I'm a little lost in the back and forth. I'm curious about your opinions on the following points, as they seem to be the ones most discussed. Short and simple is best.

Who are you asking?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Speaking As A Civilian

I find the idea of military surplus weapons -- which have already seen service and been amortized -- donated to a police force a good idea.

Given, of course, that the police department in question spends the time, money, and resources to see to it the practitioners are properly trained in their use. Which might be an expense the local government might find objectionable, I don't know.

I can't claim to have a nuanced understanding of all the ins and outs of rifle use in the line of duty for metro police, but I'm familiar with the concept of the need to place accurate fire at a distance.

(We had an incident up here last year where a fellow parked his truck and started shooting when the police showed up. He was shot at about a hundred yards (as I recall) by an officer using an AR. It was a righteous shoot.)

It strikes me as irresponsible to apply arbitrary qualifiers to what kind of rifle may be carried by officers -- especially such qualifiers as are common among those whose fondest wish is that we are all disarmed.

If we accept that police are necessary, and if we accept that the nature of their job will take them into harm's way significantly more often than the average civilian, and if we accept that a civilian in harm's way would be well served by having a rifle, then why would it be wrong for a policeman in harm's way to have access to that same defensive tool? (Yes, I'm aware that police are civilians. Cut me some slack, okay?)

I personally can't afford an AR, and I can't lay hands on a functional machine-gun outside of exhibitions, laws and regulations being what they are. I am irritated by that latter fact, and hope that one day it will be rectified.

I believe that, in a just world, I would have as much access to surplus military weapons as the police do. And, in fact, we once did. That, however, is not really the issue here. At issue is whether it makes sense to equip a police department with rifles that are the functional equivalent (after modification) of an AR-15. At no cost, beyond training, maintenance, and ammo.

Well, I dunno. The AR-15 looks a lot like the M-16, and that's a scary assault rifle, and the Brady folks and the press have made it clear that "assault weapons" are dangerous and military-looking and scary and stuff.

Having spent a little time with the AR, and the more modern M4-style variant, it seems quite a sensible weapon for the task at hand. An ergonomically improved, reasonably compact and light (sans accessories), medium-powered weapon with adequate capacity to keep an assailant from closing to contact distance seems like just the ticket.

Personally, I'd prefer the M1 Carbine. It's lighter, offers the same advantage of distance and medium power, and it's prettier (well, to me, anyway).

Trouble is, they're not in common use, and not being made in sufficient quantities for any kind of deployment.

The AR-15 family of rifles is well-supported and has broad availability of ammo and accessories. It's also reasonably accurate at 100 yards.

Ask the rifle guys here on the board.

Do I favor the indiscriminate use of this rifle in crowded venues? Well, duh! Of course not. If I trust the police to be armed at all, I have to trust that somewhere within their ranks or among their trainers will be someone who will see to the proper level of judgement in their use.

So, if I'm the mayor of a city, and my city has a metro police department, and my police have as much exposure to danger as police anywhere else, and the military offers to equip some 10% of my force with rifles for which I don't have to beat up my budget to obtain, then what on earth would be my motive in denying my officers equipment of this kind?

I don't think the right question is "should police have rifles," but rather "why would a politician think his police department shouldn't have them." At no cost.

I find that kinda troubling, myself.

But then, I don't have all the facts.

But, hey, who cares? It's the Internet, doodz!

 

[bigger hammer]

Bigger Hammer
By your logic all cops should be armed with chemical weapons and hand grenades.

I'm sorry but this is one of the stupider comments that anyone has made in this thread. I've never advocated anything of the sort. IN FACT I'm pretty sure that I've NOT EVEN defended giving the Boston PD FA weapons. I HAVE said that giving them the modified semi–auto M–16's was a good idea.

Why someone would make such an overblown, obviously false statement is beyond comprehension.

There comes a point when cops are not enforcing the law. They are making war on the citizenry.

I agree. I'm all for putting those cops in jail. At the very least they should be fired.

And with that I'm not wasting one more second on this thread.

Some might call this highly misleading "hit and run post," the act of a coward.

 

[Mags]

Bigger Hammer, I don't think this thread is about Semi Auto Rifles which I certainly have no problem with civilian LE carrying. The problem is with Civilian LE with automatic weapons. I don't even know how a automatic weapon will help the cops do their job. I think it is unconstitutional to arm civilian LE with an automatic weapon. Not to mention the training required the squad based tactics used in urban environments for full autos would require more officers in scene. A full auto is designed for a suppressive cone of fire not a tactical controled shot. I am not sure if the M16s in question are 3 round burst or full auto. But I just do not see the logical civile LE application.

 

[bigger hammer]

I find the idea of military surplus weapons -- which have already seen service and been amortized -- donated to a police force a good idea.

Given, of course, that the police department in question spends the time, money, and resources to see to it the practitioners are properly trained in their use. Which might be an expense the local government might find objectionable, I don't know.

Very nice post AG.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Automatic?

The problem is with Civilian LE with automatic weapons.

M-16s that have been modified for semi-auto capability are semi-automatic weapons.

Thats what's under discussion.

 

[Mags]

M-16s that have been modified for semi-auto capability are semi-automatic weapons.
Thats what's under discussion.

Well disregard any of my posts in this thread there is absolutely nothing wrong with civilian LE with semi auto rifles.They just should abide by the states mag restrictions if any, not familiar with Mass. gun laws.
I read the OPs post and it said something about a happy switch and that is when I flew off the handle.

 

[TAB]

What about it. My department issued it.

your department issues what Tyvek style suits and resperators? thats not exactly hazmat gear. those are only level c protection, just barely over say a heavy cotton jump suit.

I was speaking more along the lines of Level B or A suits.


now all those other things, wouldn't a shot gun work just as well ? infact Id say in something like a felony stop, they would work better as buck shot does not go near as far as a 223.

 

[tkopp]

Originally posted by Bigger Hammer

Who are you asking?

Open question. If I'm interpreting the conversation correctly, the greatest disagreement seems to be centered around those points. The rest is name calling and pettiness. Now if I've missed something (and I've been skimming this mess at best) feel free to tell me the main point of contention.

I'll throw out my responses.

1) Do you believe a police officer should carry a long gun (rifle or shotgun, something beyond a pistol)?

I do believe officers should have access to long guns. I don't believe there's any reason for cops to be hamstrung into fighting 'fair' when deadly force is required. I want cops to win. I want people to know cops will win. Police need to justify themselves in court same as everyone else, and I see a convergence of law and dire necessity
as being a more poignant means of keeping police power in check than restricting their equipment.

2) What level of equipment do you believe is appropriate for a police force to use?

Police should have any and all equipment to best accomplish their mission. Various departments have various needs. Trying to set a standard universal to a foot patrol officer, wildlife enforcement, SWAT, or military police is bound to fail. I find the discussion of equipment less interesting than the side discussion of the intersection of tactics and natural rights, which is truly another discussion entirely.

3)Do you believe access to increasingly effective equipment engenders abuses of power by the police?

Well, yes and no.

For example, I find it silly that scanning a neighborhood for heat plumes by helicopter is a 4th amendment violation, but using drug-sniffing dogs indiscriminately along sidewalks to hunt for drug activity is perfectly legal. Both are investigations from a public place that can give probable cause for a warrant to search a private residence. Police will game the system just like citizens will in an attempt to most expediently complete their mission. So I can understand the concern.

However, I'm not convinced that in increasing the lethal effectiveness of a police officer one encourages more violent confrontations. Police tend to be already perfectly lethal for the vast majority of their encounters. They're constrained by forces other than some Hobbsian war of all against all threat to not cut a scythe through the relatively unarmed populace.

4)What do you see as the role of the police in society, and how well are they doing at it?

Police are a panopticon, or at least a Foucault-like means of persuading individuals to act as if they could be observed at any moment. By enforcing a relatively fair public retribution, they mitigate private and varied retribution. In society they function as a system of control; keeping honest people honest, and forcibly removing dishonest elements from society for whom no regulatory agency might be effective.

I think police do a great job at what they're trained to do. Eventually our justice system will need some reform -- incarcerating more of our populace than anyone but a third world dictatorship is keeping crime down, but at tremendous cost -- but that's hardly the police's fault.

 

[Action_Can_Do]

Against my own word, I've come back to this thread.
Bigger Hammer
How was what I said one of the "stupider" comments made in this thread? From what you've said, police cannot possibly be too heavily armed to do their job. In the town I live in, police actually have fully automatic weapons at their disposal. The local news recently did a story about it. And I live in a small town. To be any more heavily armed they would need hand grenades! Oh, and by the by, I'm not a coward. A fool might mistake me for one however. I am a victim of police abuse though. A disturbingly common event where I live it seems. I am a firm believer in keeping the police and the weapons they "need" in check.

 

[KingYaba]

The problem I have is the slippery slope. I understand the issue of painting a broad brush. It's not the best idea to strictly enforce one standard when individual police department's needs are varied. I get that. But I am more bugged by the fact that every intersection now is rigged with video cameras. I am more bothered by the fact that the city of Dallas continues to set up road blocks in the name of fighting drunken driving. I am more concerned by the fact that police are now driving big honkin' SUVs and will be armed with carbines? WHAT THE HELL IS NEXT? Belt-fed machine guns? Jumpsuits for every airline passenger?

Folks, this has got to stop.

 

[DHJenkins]

Hospital negligence will probably kill more people this week than the BATFE has in it's entire history.

I want criminals to fear the police, and I want the police to not fear criminals.

If a simple carbine can do that, so be it. I will not live in fear of my government because they make a few mistakes.

 

[bigger hammer]

After TAB asked about Haz Mat gear I responded,

What about it. My department issued it.

your department issues what Tyvek style suits and resperators? thats not exactly hazmat gear. those are only level c protection, just barely over say a heavy cotton jump suit.

I was speaking more along the lines of Level B or A suits.

The FD handles those incidents here s officers don't need the heavier gear.

now all those other things, wouldn't a shot gun work just as well ? infact Id say in something like a felony stop, they would work better as buck shot does not go near as far as a 223.

You underscore the very shortcoming of the SG, limited range. SG pellets spread at about the rate of 1" / yard. At 75 yards you'd have a 75" spread and many pellets would miss the target, striking anything behind him. 75 yards is well within the "hit ability" of the average police officer with skilled shooters able to make hits on human targets out to 300 yards.

 

[bigger hammer]

When tkopp asked a series of questions I responded,

Who are you asking?

Open question. If I'm interpreting the conversation correctly, the greatest disagreement seems to be centered around those points.

I'll throw out my responses.

I agree with all of your points and think that you expressed them much better than I could. I hope some on the other side of this question from me answer as well.