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

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dust Monkey

New member
I opined in another thread that citizens would eventually wake up and assert their views on the issue of the militarization of police. Well. This just might be the first of many such cities just saying no. When citizens realize that they control the purse strings and the elected officials, things will change.

http://http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523388,00.html?test=latestnews

BOSTON — The Boston Police Department wants to arm neighborhood patrol officers with high-powered military assault weapons, but the mayor doesn't think it's such a good idea.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino said Friday he will not approve a police department plan to put semiautomatic M-16 rifles in the hands of regular patrol officers. But Menino says he's open to giving them to "specialized units."

The police recently obtained 200 M-16s free of charge from the U.S. military and had planned to give them to dozens of officers for their patrols after training them to use the rifles.

However, some community leaders criticized the lack of public notice and questioned the reasoning behind arming district officers with M-16s when the city's SWAT team already has such weapons.
 
I guess the question I have is: when would they be used? I know of a few PD's that have AR-15's but they stay in the trunk of the police car unless the SHTF. And these are not SWAT units, these are just patrol cars. Essentially, they replaced shotguns with AR's.

Now if a beat cop is walking around the streets of Boston carrying an AR-15, that is a whole other kettle of fish. But I don't have any problem with them in the car....
 
I dont have a problem with the rifles being in squad cars or in the trunks of squad cars. I am just pointing out that citizens can do something about the increasing militarization of police. Citizens can say no. They can pressure local elected officials not to sign off on it. Its not about police having ARs or not. Its the fact that maybe, just maybe, citizens are waking up.
 
I'm one for the police not needing rifles. In the rare chance that there's a situation that warrants the need for battle rifles and automatic submachine guns and such, it would be bad enough to let the highly trained SWAT teams take care of it. Not bashing on the street cops, but they have a hard enough qualifying with their pistols. They don't need more on their plate for the rare chance that they might use it maybe.
 
Tell that to the officers in LA who had to go against bank robbers better equipted than the officers. It takes time to roll out SWAT and time means lifes, civilian and police.
 
I am fine with police officers being permitted to be armed as well as citizens. I could keep an AR-15 in my trunk or even openly carry it, although this might cause some unwanted attention. No reason for the police not to be allowed. They are citizens without felony records after all.
 
Let him watch the N. Hollywood shootout and then say patrol officers shouldn't have rifles. Before that shootout occurred the Police had requested patrol rifles and that was denied if I remember correctly.
 
Last edited:
Let him watch the N. Hollywood shootout
Click to expand...

Tell that to the officers in LA who had to go against bank robbers
Click to expand...

No offense guys but, this example is getting quite tiresome, if this is the only situation in 13 years that has pitted street cops against an unfair advantage then I would submit that perhaps the need is not that great.

I have no problem with officers being issued AR-15s as a trunk gun, sometimes a handgun just ain't enough, But, I cannot see the need to issue M-16s to street cops. FA fire should not be that "necessary" for peace officers.
 
I am confused. The article clearly says "M-16", but it also describes them as "semiautomatic." I'm not exactly sure what they mean by a "semiautomatic M-16." Maybe it's the writer's mistake, or maybe they are converted to semiautomatic only.

Outcast, I agree somewhat with you. Full auto has a very narrow application in law enforcement. I wouldn't call it a "need" for a patrol officer to carry a fully automatic weapon, but I certainly wouldn't expect them to turn down ones that were donated.

I could see where one would think the potential for misuse is high, but a police officer already has a full compliment of tools (up to and including a pen) that if misused could ruin someone's life. If you are well trained and know where and when to use "da switch" why should you be limited in the amount of firepower you have access to? It is hard for me to say that Bob can't have it because Steve might screw it up.

To SteelJM1, your logic is the same used against private gun ownership and carrying: none.

I'm one for the police not needing rifles.
Click to expand...

Ha, we agree there. I'm for them not needing them as well. I think what you mean is you are for the police not having them.

In the rare chance that there's a situation that warrants the need of your home defense or concealed carry weapon, better let the police handle it. Just pray that they don't need rifles to handle it.:rolleyes:
 
All cops should have rifles. Easier to hit with and those hits usually give a better result.

Handguns should be a last resort, not the first option.

I could care less if the sight of a rifle makes some people soil themselves and screech. I wouldn't have expected that reaction from "gun people" but life is full of surprises. I guess antis aren't the only ones frightened of scary-looking arms.
 
They can get a full auto surplus rifle from DoD a lot cheaper than they can buy a new AR-15. No reason for them to pay for something they can get very cheap or free.
 
I opined in another thread that citizens would eventually wake up and assert their views on the issue of the militarization of police.
Click to expand...

Tom Menino probably did not need any grumbling from citizens groups to reach his conclusion about "military assault weapons." Some of Menino's past rhetoric suggests that he may be an anti-gun true-believer who would disarm the police (except for "specialized units") if he thought it was politically feasible.
 
SteelJM1 said:
I'm one for the police not needing rifles. In the rare chance that there's a situation that warrants the need for battle rifles and automatic submachine guns and such, it would be bad enough to let the highly trained SWAT teams take care of it.
Click to expand...

In the N. Hollywood shootout that's already been brought up in this thread, the shooting went on for quite some time with quite a few officers being injured before the SWAT team arrive and ended it. That only happened so quickly because they were in a training evolution at a nearby location. If they'd had to respond from their station, as is usually the case, it might have taken an additional 30 minutes. In all likelihood many more officers would have been injured and one of the suspects may have even escaped! He was in the process of hijacking a truck when they arrived on scene and stopped him.

SteelJM1 said:
Not bashing on the street cops, but they have a hard enough qualifying with their pistols. They don't need more on their plate for the rare chance that they might use it maybe.
Click to expand...

It's a simple matter to allow only those officers who are proficient with a particular weapon, in this case the AR-15/M-16 carry it. Generalizations like yours, " … they have a hard enough [time] qualifying with their pistols …" are out of place in such a discussion and because they're so general are usually wrong. I never had the slightest bit of trouble qualifying "with my pistol" or any other weapon I carried or had available.

IN FACT most officers find it far easier to shoot a rifle faster and more accurately than they do a handgun.
 
OuTcAsT said:
No offense guys but, this example is getting quite tiresome, if this is the only situation in 13 years that has pitted street cops against an unfair advantage then I would submit that perhaps the need is not that great.
Click to expand...

What's getting REALLY tiresome is this rather regular sniveling about the "militarization of the police." The North Hollywood shootout is hardly the only example of a situation where rifles carried by patrol officers would have been helpful but it was the impetus for many agencies to get such guns. And it was one of the biggest such incidents. Other incidents are over quickly and often with the officer on the losing end.

OuTcAsT said:
I have no problem with officers being issued AR-15s as a trunk gun, sometimes a handgun just ain't enough, But, I cannot see the need to issue M-16s to street cops. FA fire should not be that "necessary" for peace officers.
Click to expand...

I fail to see much difference. Most of the M-16's that are issued to street officers are set up to fire only on semi-auto. But I see no problem with having the ability to select FA if needed.

What are the objections to this? Why is semi auto OK but FA is not?
 
bigger hammer

Respectfully Sir, You once again attempt to credit me with statements that I have not made, I do not intend to be baited into a genital waving contest over a topic that has been all but declared "verboten" and not under discussion here. Again, please point to any mention of "militarization" by me, in this thread or kindly refrain from dragging me into the folds of your wadded panties.

We have differing opinions and, that is the way it is.

On topic, I cannot see where fully automatic fire would be needed by anyone other than "specialized" Police units , unless they are going to be available to other civilians as well.
 
On topic, I cannot see where fully automatic fire would be needed by anyone other than "specialized" Police units, unless they are going to be available to other civilians as well.
Click to expand...

This logic could also be used to argue that even specialized units do not need FA weapons since the numerical superiority of specialized units could compensate for the lack of FA firepower.
 
I never had the slightest bit of trouble qualifying "with my pistol" or any other weapon I carried or had available.
Click to expand...
and most officers are not registered on a firearms forum... This is like the 'I kept my AR running in Iraq, so every grunt can' argument. I don't think MOST officers have trouble with their pistols, but there are some who really should not have pistols in the first place, at least not live ammunition.

IN FACT most officers find it far easier to shoot a rifle faster and more accurately than they do a handgun.
Click to expand...
Probably true, but not many of their handguns have the ballistics of a 223. 9mm doesn't exactly go through frame houses all that well. 223 on the other hand has a lot better chance.

I also agree the west hollywood card is overplayed. I think it is very likely we will not see a similar situation before the zombies/communists/mall ninjas, or even the retired mall ninja communist zombie hoard, take over.
 
This logic could also be used to argue that even specialized units do not need FA weapons since the numerical superiority of specialized units could compensate for the lack of FA firepower.
Click to expand...

A very good point.

not many of their handguns have the ballistics of a 223. 9mm doesn't exactly go through frame houses all that well. 223 on the other hand has a lot better chance.
Click to expand...

And given we are discussing an urban environment,I would think that FA .223 fire would be very cumbersome with respect to controlling overpenetration.
 
I also agree the west hollywood card is overplayed.
Click to expand...

I also agree that West Hollywood is overplayed... but for different reasons.

In a highly urbanized environment, we generally expect a large number of police to be able to respond to a situation in a short period of time. West Hollywood was a rare example where that type of response did not work well. However, in rural environments (such as some of the sparsely populated Western or Plains states), backup may not be a realistic option, the bad guy may (probably) have a rifle and a long approach field of fire, and a patrol rifle may be the only viable option.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top