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

[bigger hammer]

Against my own word, I've come back to this thread.

Thanks for pointing out that you're NOT a man of your word. Saves me the trouble.

Bigger Hammer
How was what I said one of the "stupider" comments made in this thread?

It took my comments well past anything that I've said or supported.

From what you've said, police cannot possibly be too heavily armed to do their job.

Quite wrong.

You wrote this,

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

Those tools have no place in the police arsenal. The job of a police officer is to enforce the law using a minimum of force. Those tools do not offer a force option. They are fatal. You could have asked if I endorsed those killing weapons, but instead you chose to insinuate that I approved of them.

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!

There are many tools in between "fully automatic weapons" and hand grenades.

Oh, and by the by, I'm not a coward.

Your "hit and run" post (you may remember that you said that you were posting and then leaving the thread) was the act of a coward. You gave highly misleading information (and that's being kind) and then said that you would not return.

A fool might mistake me for one however.

Quacks like a duck …

I am a victim of police abuse though.

I'm sure that you are. The light REALLY WAS yellow. An officer searched your car even though you didn't give consent. The police beat you up for no reason. The police stopped you just because you're (fill in the minority of your choice here). Heard it many times.

But since you're so vague I'll freely admit that perhaps you really are a victim of police abuse. Why don't you give us some details. Perhaps the incident number of the complaint that you filed? How about the case number for the lawsuit that you won?

A disturbingly common event where I live it seems.

One is too many. I eagerly await the information about your particular incident. Since it's so "common" perhaps you can give us a few links. Since it's so common I'm sure the ACLU has gotten involved and you have news stories to support your accusations.

I am a firm believer in keeping the police and the weapons they "need" in check.

Doesn't look as if you've having much success in that. As you told us your locals have FA weapons.

 

[bigger hammer]

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.

I well understand these concepts. We do have to be careful about this area of LE. But some of the comments given here are just complete nonsense. At least one poster has mentioned that he's seen SWAT teams in their specialized uniforms (complete with balaclavas covering their faces) working patrol. At least one has mentioned up–armored vehicles routinely patrolling the streets with belt–fed machine guns. Yet when they're challenged that these things have NEVER happened, they fail to respond, leaving a reasonable person to believe that either those were lies, gross embellishments, or mistakes of fact. I see no reason to let such twaddle stand without being challenged. Notice that folks who have made such inflated claims have never responded to those challenges.

But I am more bugged by the fact that every intersection now is rigged with video cameras.

Of course this has nothing to do with the topic but I'll respond. The US Constitution gives you a right to privacy in your home and other places where it's reasonable to expect it. But when you go out in public ANYONE can photograph you at ANYTIME, including the police. If you want to complain that red light cameras are "about revenue not safety" you can. But it's not a violation of your rights by any stretch of the imagination.

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.

Since driving is a privilege, not a right, they're well within their rights to try and cut down on the carnage on the highways. Don't like it, stay home when you drink take a cab or get a designated driver. If you're not drunk, as the courts have said, the intrusion is minimal. If you don't think this is legal, get thee to a judge and get an injunction.

I am more concerned by the fact that police are now driving big honkin' SUVs and will be armed with carbines?

ROFLMAO. Why does it "concern" you that the police are now "driving big honkin' SUV's?" Should they all be in subcompacts?

Unless you're a crook, you should feel safer that the police have better weapons to stop them.

WHAT THE HELL IS NEXT? Belt-fed machine guns? Jumpsuits for every airline passenger?

I like the idea of airplane jumpsuits. Would they have the little snuggly feet? lol

 

[jerkface11]

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

Under the law they're still machineguns.

 

[DHJenkins]

I like the "big honkin' SUVs" that our PD has. They're bad-ass looking. All black GMC's, logos in black, blacked out rims, limo tint windows, hidden lights.

Damnit, now I want one!

 

[ARNETT44]

South Florida Sun-Sentinel May 31, 2009
In Coral Springs last weekend, Officer Paul Kempinski was shot with a Norinco assault rifle, and hit several times with 7.62-mm bullets that were able to pierce his body armor. That type of ammunition is readily available, which can't be comforting to police or regular citizens.
Officer Kempinski is recovering, but the incident begs the question: Who needs ammunition that can pierce the protective armor of a police officer? Do you need this kind of ammunition for hunting? Perhaps if you are hunting rhinos wearing protective vests.

Not only are too many assault-style weapons on the street, but so are the types of ammo that can do nothing but create havoc out there. You can readily access ammo for AR-15s, AK-47s, you name it.



LakeBy Jerome Burdi | South Florida Sun-Sentinel
May 11, 2009
Lake Park - It started off as a quiet morning. Then Deputy William Badala got a disturbance call. Next: a shootout between him and a man toting an assault rifle and handgun.

Badala's case: The suspect Edward Voltz, 51, initially showed up to retrieve his car from a tow yard about 4:30 a.m. Oct. 22, deputies said. He was turned away. He returned after 9 a.m. demanding and arguing to get something from the impounded vehicle.

Before Badala arrived, investigators said, Voltz grabbed an assault rifle and a handgun from his car. He came back shooting, deputies said, striking owner Kathryn Gadoury in the hip and dispatcher Lisa Hedrick in the arm. He fired at two other workers but missed.

Badala said he pulled up and ordered Voltz to drop his weapons. He let go of the handgun but turned toward Badala with the assault rifle. Badala fired, striking Voltz, but it didn't stop him. Voltz got up and allegedly returned fire. A brief shootout raged as Badala and Voltz took cover on either end of Voltz's SUV.

Voltz finally went down after the sixth shot. He remains in county jail charged with four counts of attempted murder, one count of attempted murder on a law enforcement officer, as well as a weapons and burglary charge, records show. He is scheduled for trial in June.

"He got ambushed answering that call," Kazanjian said. "This guy came out blazing."

Capt. Douglas Reece, commander of the Lake Park district, described Badala as a quiet hero: "Being right in the heat of the battle and doing what you need to survive and end it so no one else gets injured."


Jan. 13: Timothy Jermaine Brown, 35, is shot and killed by Fort Lauderdale police after they say he pointed a weapon at an officer while fleeing the scene. Police say Brown and three other men had brandished rifles and AK-47s after crashing a party the previous night

Sept. 2: Pembroke Pines police shoot and kill Alejandro Figueroa, 37 after they say he opened fire on three cars near Archstone Harbour Cove apartments.

Miami Police Detective James Walker
Jan. 8, 2008
Walker, who was off-duty, was gunned down by someone with a high-powered assault rifle. Authorities say he may have unwittingly drove into a crime in progress in a neighborhood that has been plagued by violence in recent years. Police found Walker's body slumped over the steering wheel of his unmarked patrol car in a North Miami Beach alley near Northeast 164th Street and 18th Avenue, his Glock service revolver still in his hand.

Miami-Dade Police Officer Jose Somohano
Sept. 13, 2007
Somohano was killed and three other officers were wounded when suspect Shawn LaBeet opens fire during an anti-burglary operation in south Miami-Dade County. LaBeet is later killed by police in a shootout in Pembroke Pines.
According to Miami-Dade spokeswoman Linda O'Brien, officers working a burglary surveillance detail late Thursday morning at an apartment complex near Southwest 280th Street and 143rd Court in Miami-Dade, pulled over a white Honda that was driving "very erratically." When the car stopped, the man inside opened fire on the officers with a high-powered rifle, O'Brien said.

The shooter got back into the car and drove away. Police later found the car near Southwest 216th Street and 129th Avenue, police said.

Alvarez, the county's former police director, said at an earlier news conference that police found an AK-47 rifle in Labeet's car. He said, "Without any remorse, [Labeet] left them there to die and fled the scene."


Kenneth P. Wilk used a hunting rifle to fatally shoot Fatta, 33, who had gone to Wilk's house to arrest him on child pornography charges. Although Fatta was wearing a protective vest, he was shot in the chest near the heart and died a short time later. Angelo Cedeño, then a Broward Sheriff's sergeant, was struck in his left shoulder and survived

 

[ppshcccp]

bigger hammer wrote:

At least one poster has mentioned that he's seen SWAT teams in their specialized uniforms (complete with balaclavas covering their faces) working patrol.....Yet when they're challenged that these things have NEVER happened, they fail to respond, leaving a reasonable person to believe that either those were lies, gross embellishments, or mistakes of fact.

I guess you haven't been to NYC in a while?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/2818211.html

and

http://www.flickr.com/photos/janvanraay/2608261557/



And, I'll take the bait at this one

The US Constitution gives you a right to privacy in your home and other places where it's reasonable to expect it. But when you go out in public ANYONE can photograph you at ANYTIME, including the police. If you want to complain that red light cameras are "about revenue not safety" you can. But it's not a violation of your rights by any stretch of the imagination.

The ninth amendment can be pretty easily interpreted to apply to government surveillance in public without that big of an imagination stretch. The government does not have the same rights as individual citizens. That's why Police need a warrant to search a house and I do not.

I know we are getting waaay off topic here, but there are a whole host of constitutional issues when dealing with red light cameras, that I will briefly delve into:

Basically, if you run a red light and a LEO see's you doing so, he will pull you over, check your ID and registration, and issue YOU the citation (not your car). He basically conducts a miniature investigation to determine who is operating the vehicle.

Now, with a red light camera, the government no longer has to prove you are guilty...you need to prove you are innocent!

That is a very slippery slope that goes well beyond public surveillance.

 

[ppshcccp]

Also, this is pretty relevant to the discussion and worth a read:

Special "Assault Weapons" Law
for the City of Boston
Acts 1989, ch. 596, sections 1-7, entitled "An act relative to assault weapons in the city of Boston", which was approved Dec 9, 1989; by section 8, effective upon its passage, provide as follows:

SECTION 1.
For the purposes of this act the following words shall have the following meanings:

1. "Assault weapon", all rifles and shotguns designated as assault weapons in this section and all other semi-automatic rifles and shotguns which are determined by the assault weapon roster board, established under the provisions of section five, to be assault weapons. Such term shall include, in addition to any other rifles and shotguns identified by said board, all versions of the following, including rifles and shotguns sold under the designation provided in this section and rifles and shotguns which are substantially identical thereto sold under any designation:

1. Avtomat Kalishnikov, also known as AK-47 semi-automatic rifles;
2. Uzi semi-automatic rifles;
3. AR-15 semi-automatic rifles;
4. FN-FAL and FN-FNC semi automatic rifles;
5. Steyr Aug semi-automatic rifles;
6. SKS semi-automatic rifles;
7. shotguns with revolving cylinders known as the Street Sweeper and the Striker 12;
8. any other semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding ten rounds;

2. "Assault weapon" shall not include:

1. a rifle or shotgun which does not employ fixed ammunition;
2. a rifle or shotgun which was manufactured prior to the year eighteen hundred and ninety-eight;
3. a rifle or shotgun which operates by manual bolt action;
4. a rifle or shotgun which operates by lever action;
5. a rifle or shotgun which operates by slide action;
6. a rifle or shotgun which is a single shot weapon;
7. a rifle or shotgun which is a multiple barrel weapon;
8. a rifle which is a revolving cylinder weapon;
9. a rifle which employs a fixed magazine with a capacity of ten rounds or less;
10. a shotgun which is a rimfire weapon that employs a tubular magazine with a magazine capacity of six rounds or less; 11. a rifle or shotgun which cannot employ a detachable magazine or ammu- nition belt with a capacity greater than ten rounds;
12. a rifle or shotgun which has been modified so as to render it permanently inoperable or so as to make it permanently a device which may not appropri- ately be designated as an assault weapon; or.
13. a rifle or shotgun which is an antique or relic firearm, movie prop or other weapon not capable of firing a projectile and not intended for use as a functional weapon and which cannot be readily converted through a combina- tion of available parts into an operable assault weapon.

So basically, it is illegal to own a semi-automatic military style rifle in Boston if you are a civilian.

EDIT: here is the whole text of the thing http://web.archive.org/web/20020619015816/www.goal.org/MGL/boston.aw.html

 

[Mags]

So basically, it is illegal to own a semi-automatic military style rifle in Boston if you are a civilian.

Oh yeah just for the sake of argument explain how civilian Police are not civilians. Please explain how they deploy and are subject to military law not civilian law.

I think it is unconstitutional to arm civilian LE with an automatic weapon.
Bigger Hammers Response:
Not that I know of. Thousands of PD's have FA weapons. If you disagree, please show us the law.

 

[ilbob]

I don't care much for the argument over whether police are civilians or not. The fact is that police often refer to the rest of us that way, so at least a fair number of police see themselves as non-civilians. Whether that is a semantically correct or not, I don't know.

And I don't much care either for the cops shouldn't have "X" or shouldn't be allowed to do "Y" because I can't arguments. Those distinctions are enshrined in the laws of every state, and the federal government. They won't be going away anytime real soon.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Well we at least know the Major of Boston don't want
the cops running around with so called 'assault rifles'.

Wonder what the citizens of Boston think?

As far as places like LA, and South Florida..
Sounds like the cops need some help as they can't seem
to manage all the
problems they are having enforcing the laws any longer.

Perhaps martial law is in order for those areas
and the military should be sent in?

 

[TAB]

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

I don't want a beat cop taking a 25 yd shot, let alone a 75 yd shot.

its not uncommon to hear reports that officer(s) empted the mag at a some one at close range, with only a couple hits.

a couple years back 3 officers in the bay area fired 58 times, inculding 30 rounds for a AR, and another officer emptying his glock, reloaded and fired again. The 3rd officer only fired 4 rounds. he had both( thats 2 hits total) of the hits, upper arm, and ankle. this was at less then 10 yds.

So let me ask you, do you want those officers making a 300 yd shot? do you want them to make a 100 yd shot? what range do you want them to make that shot?

The sad reality is most cops do not train more then whats required with thier side arm.

Thats not all LEOs, I know a CHP officer that goes to the range every day before his shifts. Shoots about 2 mags full doing diffrent drills and with movment. then again, he is a ex seal....

 

[bigger hammer]

From your first link,

On this day, Nieves doesn't see anything overly suspicious, but he is pleased that the deployment created a strong impression. Known as a Hercules team, it makes multiple appearances around the city each day. The locations are chosen either in response to specific intelligence or simply to provide a show of force at high-profile sites.

Earlier I wrote,

At least one poster has mentioned that he's seen SWAT teams in their specialized uniforms (complete with balaclavas covering their faces) working patrol..... Yet when they're challenged that these things have NEVER happened, they fail to respond, leaving a reasonable person to believe that either those were lies, gross embellishments, or mistakes of fact. [Emphasis added]

I guess you haven't been to NYC in a while?

I guess you're unable to read and understand what is written. "mak[ing] multiple appearances around the city" is NOT working patrol. That would mean assigned to a beat or specific area and handling routine calls assigned to that beat.

And, I'll take the bait at this one

Earlier I wrote,

The US Constitution gives you a right to privacy in your home and other places where it's reasonable to expect it. But when you go out in public ANYONE can photograph you at ANYTIME, including the police. If you want to complain that red light cameras are "about revenue not safety" you can. But it's not a violation of your rights by any stretch of the imagination.

The ninth amendment can be pretty easily interpreted to apply to government surveillance in public without that big of an imagination stretch. The government does not have the same rights as individual citizens. That's why Police need a warrant to search a house and I do not.

I know we are getting waaay off topic here, but there are a whole host of constitutional issues when dealing with red light cameras, that I will briefly delve into:

You don't determine what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. SCOTUS does. They've never ruled that your concerns are unconstitutional. You are free to hold whatever opinion you like but as far as the law goes, you're wrong.

 

[bigger hammer]

So basically, it is illegal to own a semi-automatic military style rifle in Boston if you are a civilian.

The City of Boston owns those guns, not the individual officers.

Obviously the City has decided to give the police department an exemption on the possession of these guns. Governments give exemptions for all sorts of reasons. They're not taking them home and they're not using them while off–duty. So while they're doing "the City's work" the city has decided that the officers can possess them.

I think that your issue is with the Government of the City of Boston. I'd suggest that you contact them and let them know of your concerns.

 

[bigger hammer]

The Real Mags quotes ppshcccp,

So basically, it is illegal to own a semi-automatic military style rifle in Boston if you are a civilian.

Oh yeah just for the sake of argument explain how civilian Police are not civilians. Please explain how they deploy and are subject to military law not civilian law.

There's often a bit of semantic confusion in discussions that involve police officers, non–police officers and the military. Often people refer to a distinction between the military and civilians. Often people also refer to a distinction between the police and the non–police, referring to the latter group as civilians. Sometimes people refer to non–police as citizens leading to some confusion regarding people who are "citizens of the US" and people who are not. Such confusion is the case here.

To try and clear this up, civilian police are civilians. Unless they're on military reservations (not the case anywhere in this discussion) they're not subject to military law. But I don't understand how the subject of "military law" enters into this discussion in any way. Can you explain please?

More than likely you're referring to the comment from The Real Mags that you quoted. I've answered this in a previous post. The police do not own those donated rifles, the City does. The law in Boston covers possession and it's apparent that the city government has decided to give the Boston PD an exemption, something that rife in government when it's for their own purposes.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

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

I don't want a beat cop taking a 25 yd shot, let alone a 75 yd shot.

Fortunately for the police you don't get to dictate this.

its not uncommon to hear reports that officer(s) empted the mag at a some one at close range, with only a couple hits.

Yep that happens with handguns. I've not seen any such reports with rifles. Have you?

a couple years back 3 officers in the bay area fired 58 times, inculding 30 rounds for a AR, and another officer emptying his glock, reloaded and fired again. The 3rd officer only fired 4 rounds. he had both( thats 2 hits total) of the hits, upper arm, and ankle. this was at less then 10 yds.

So let me ask you, do you want those officers making a 300 yd shot? do you want them to make a 100 yd shot? what range do you want them to make that shot? [Emphasis added]

I guess it's too much to ask you to actually read what I write. Far more expedient for you to just skim it and assume. But I feel a need to call BS anytime (as now) someone goes off the res with it. I so clearly wrote this, (note that I was talking about rifles when I wrote this)

… 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 [Emphasis added]

At such close distances, "less than 10 yards" police officers and civilians alike sometimes panic and are ineffective with their firearms. However at 75 yards when armed with a rifle, facing a crook armed with a handgun, this same sort of panic is unlikely.

BTW do you have a link to the incident you reference? Sometimes people make mistakes of memory on things like this and I'd like to take a look at actual accounts rather than rely on your memory.

The sad reality is most cops do not train more then whats required with thier side arm.

You're not telling me anything new. I was the Rangemaster for three years for my dept.

 

[ppshcccp]

The City of Boston owns those guns, not the individual officers.

Obviously the City has decided to give the police department an exemption on the possession of these guns. Governments give exemptions for all sorts of reasons. They're not taking them home and they're not using them while off–duty. So while they're doing "the City's work" the city has decided that the officers can possess them.

I was trying to point out a potential source of concern for people living in Boston. The government of Boston is saying:
"You cannot own any 'assault' rifles, but we are issuing M16s to our police."

I guess you're unable to read and understand what is written. "mak[ing] multiple appearances around the city" is NOT working patrol. That would mean assigned to a beat or specific area and handling routine calls assigned to that beat.

I hope this isn't going to degenerate into a game of semantics. I think its pretty fair to say that what NYC does with their Hercules teams more or less amounts to a patrol.

In anticipation of whatever rebuttal I'm sure you will have, and in making the foolish choice of playing semantics when I shouldn't, please take a look at the following:

pa-trol
–verb (used without object)
1.(of a police officer, soldier, etc.) to pass along a road, beat, etc., or around or through a specified area in order to maintain order and security.

With the specified area being NYC, and the Hercules teams operating to provide security, I think what they are doing can be considered a patrol.

And if not? It doesn't matter, it still is a pretty clear example of what you claimed never happens. Just because they don't call it a certain word that you used does not make you correct.

What we have in the case of the Hercules teams is a bunch of police officers, dressed and armed as soldiers, going to (patrolling) certain areas of NYC. They are not responding to calls, they are "mak[ing] multiple appearances around the city."

This seems to support some of the militarization of police fears some of have expressed in this thread. ( and no, militirization does not equal using hand grenades or gunning down innocent people. it means, straight from the dictionary: "to equip with armed forces, military supplies, or the like.")

I have no problem with a police officer having an AR15 or equivalent in the back of their patrol car in case of an emergency. What I am concerned with is where the militarization of police leads.

Like it or not, the average citizens civil rights are most likely to be infringed upon not by the federal government, the batf, or the military...but their local police department. I think a heavy dose of scrutiny should be applied to whatever they do in order to keep them on a tight leash.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Well, It's Been Fun

It's been a spirited debate, and an interesting one.

It's begun to degerate into things like Argumentum ad Humpty Dumpty, and that becomes time-consuming for the mod crew.

Thanks for keeping it (mostly) civil, guys.

Let's go do something else.