Police arrest pair with shotguns, rifle near Madison Park High School
By adamg - 6/16/09 - 2:01 pm
Boston Police report arresting a 38-year-old man and his teen sidekick from Athol on charges they were cruising near Madison Park High on Malcolm X Boulevard with the shotguns in their Dodge Neon around 2 p.m. yesterday.
Julio Estrella, 38, of Boston and Jeremy Horne, 18, of Athol, were pulled from the car and charged with three counts of carrying a rifle or shotgun on a public way:
Based on the specific information received, coupled with the numerous school aged children in the area, it was decided to remove both male occupants from the vehicle for the safety of the officers as well as the general public.
Police say the weapons were a Browning 16-gauge shotgun, a Remington 20gauge shotgun and an M-1 2900 rifle.
Innocent, etc.
Location
Javascript is required to view this map.
Comments
And still no Assault Rifles
So, the criminals had more firepower than the cops? This is just the sort of thing that makes me believe that we should arm normal patrol cops with assault rifles. Yes in this case no one was hurt but the potential was certainly there.
Firepower
You're speaking of the "M-1 2900 rifle"? I haven't been able to find that in Google.
It is a high powered rifle
An oldy-but-goody, use in the military years ago. It shoots a .30 caliber round and has an effective range of over 400 yards. The patrol officers' handguns have an effective range of about 20 to 30 yards. That's why they should be armed with the assault rifles.
2900?
What does the 2900 mean? Is it a particular manufacturer's model number? I don't see that designation in Google, and I would prefer to know the capabilities before I comment further.
So what's the 2900?
The Garand doesn't have a "2900" model number that I've ever heard of or can find on the internet. It's not entirely clear to me that they even had an actual M-1 in the first place. What street thug is going to go around carrying pockets full of the 8 round cartridges to plug into that thing anyways?
Besides the point, this doesn't even sound like it was ever going to be an "active shooter" scenario, so it's not the greatest example of why you'd want to have cops with high-powered guns. They made a traffic stop..more than close enough to make their current armament useful against an unarmored shooter in the other car.
Huh? Not clear they had the M-1?
It says in the report "During the search of the vehicle, Officers located three firearms. They were identified as the following: (1) a Browning 16 gage shotgun (2) a Remington 20 gage shotgun (3) an M-1 2900 riffle." Isn't that clear enough. Why would they write that if that is not what it was? "Yeah, hey, let's also say we found a high-powered rifle too. That will make the case even more interesting." They're not making this stuff up you know.
And, yes it is not a "great" example of the need for cops to have assault rifles but it is just another case which shows that criminals have serious firepower. This rifle carries 8 HIGH POWERED rounds and can kill from OVER 400 yards away...do you know how far that is? It is a lot further than a cop's handgun. What do you want the cops to do? Wait until AFTER we have a mass killing in Boston to arm them properly?
Get real
No, it's not clear at all, that's the point! What's an "M-1 2900 riffle" (sic)? I know what an M-1 Garand is, but I'd LOVE to know the last person in Roxbury who was packing one as a street weapon. That's a vintage weapon these days used as a show piece for color guards and collectors. They don't really stock them next to the glocks and saturday night specials in your local gun shop. But I don't know what an "M-1 2900" is. There's no designation of 2900 that I know of or I can search for that relates to an M-1 at all, so why did they specify that? It's entirely possible that the "M-1" designation is wrong and it's a "something else 2900". I have no idea and neither do you it seems since you've avoided answering that question for neilv and I. So, aside from them misspelling "riffle" twice, no, it's entirely NOT clear that they had an M-1 Garand in the car (this does not suppose that they didn't have A rifle, only that it may not have been an M-1).
Secondly, it would take a hell of a shooter to make an M-1 hit their target from 400 yds in 1 en-bloc clip (and the fact that it uses an en-block clip makes it even weirder for them to have an M-1...if that's what they had). Is there even a 400 yard sightline in this city for a shooter to "mass kill" anyone from that kind of distance on the ground? Name an active shooter situation in the NATION where the police needed a higher powered weapon because of *range*. These things happen in businesses, churches, and schools where many people are gathered in a small amount of space (thus upping the reason for an active shooter to want to target that location), places where a handgun works just fine unless the shooter is armored. You can probably count on one hand (ok, maybe 2) where, somewhere in the nation, police had an armored active shooter scenario and extra innocent life was lost because the police did not have assault rifles. It's so rare that it does not justify strapping ex-military weaponry in every BPD cruiser for just such a case. Just today, the state announced that it's having to review a program to get these kinds of weapons out to local law enforcement because they have COMPLETELY mismanaged what and how many of these ex-federal weapons they were handing out! Do you really think West Springfield cops need multi-capacity grenade launchers!? What? Are they worried about needing to tear gas the best apple pie competition at the Big E??
This situation wasn't close to being a call for bigger weaponry. If this arrest was the best logic behind arming our cops with assault rifles, I think my point is made for me.
Oh, another "it hasn't happened elsewhere yet
so it can't happen here" person. Sorry, I forgot, there is a building every 25 yards in Boston and nowhere is there a 400 yard sightline. Are you high? Just because some maniac hasn't opened up and then actually killed someone, and, done it from over 400 yards, doesn't mean it can't happen. Do you have homeowner's insurance? You probably do so I ask you; How many times has your house caught fire? How many floods have happened there? How many cars have driven into your kitchen? Oh???? None of those things have happened to you yet? Then I guess they'll never happen so why do you have insurance again?
I'd pay good money
A) No I don't actually have homeowner's. I rent...and I still don't have renter's insurance either.
B) I live on the second floor of a two-story house. I would pay good money to actually see a car drive into my kitchen. That would be awesome.
But to more seriously address your point, life has risks. You put words in my mouth. I know full well that it *could* happen here. At any time, even! We could eventually know someone as the "Pru Tower Shooter" or the incident that became the "Boston Latin Massacre" or the "Post Office Square Bank Robbery" would be a legendary heist involving 20 heavily armored and heavily armed assailants. But the probability is so low as to not justify the probability that a cop overreact, that a cop just plain miss his target with a high-velocity round, or that criminals might want to "shoot first" because they know they can't let a cop get to his assault rifle or they're outgunned. The dangers of adding these weapons to the cruisers far outweigh the "one in a million"-esque chance that they actually are needed in a situation where a handgun wouldn't have cut it and SWAT wouldn't arrive in time. Give officers better armor (like foldable, bulletproof, full-body sized shields) and better tactics (like new "active shooter" training for engaging the shooter as early as possible), but they don't need Army issue rifles.
I'd rather live in a world where we suffer the risk of lacking their highly limited up-sides than suffer the weighty risks of their deadly down-sides.
Silver Bullets?
How well would these assault rifles do against vampires with body armor?
Or the Alice's Restaurant Massacre, in four part harmony
your silver bullets are useless against the awesome power of folk music.
I disagree with you Kaz
I understand what you are saying but for 2 reasons I am unlike you:
#1-I have faith in cops.
#2-I would rather live in a world were we don't risk lacking the limited up-sides of having the "insurance" needed when that very rare assault happens. I have met several of the LA cops who were there that day of the North Hollywood shooting (one of them shot and killed one of the criminals) and I have heard their stories and believe me, no one, civilian or cop, should have to go through the horror of being helplessly pinned down like some of them were that day. It's worth the cost and the risk.
So, let's just agree to disagree and end this feud. Okay?
Where are those against cops carrying now?
The last time there was a post about BPD getting assault rifles there were loads of you checking in to say that it was a stupid idea. Where r u now? Here is a local case of a high powered rifle in a criminal's possession but you are nowhere to be found. What's wrong, can't come up with a good argument now?
Oh, we're still here
I can't speak for the others. For my part, you've made it clear that you've staked out your ground and will be sure to let us know every time there's an incident that, in your make-believe world, "proves" that police officers need high-powered assault rifles.
Nothing to see here, nothing to learn, no progress to be made. Therefore, no point wasting the time or the bits. But just keep in mind that we're still here.
Boooo!! Weak argument.
Get back to me when you have some substance. And while your thinking of something to say, here are some places in my "make-believe world." Oh, and they're part of your world too:
1989-Stockton, CA, Cleveland Elementary School: Gunman killed 5 children and wounded 30 others.
1989- Canada, Montreal: In the end, 14 women were killed and 15 of mixed gender were seriously injured.
1996- Moses Lake High School, Washington: a 14-year-old student shot 3 people to death and wounded another student.
1996- United Kingdom, Scotland, Dunblane; 16 five-year olds died, and 14 other were injured.
1997-Bethel High School, Alaska: 16-year-old student shot principal and 1 student to death, 2 other students were injured.
1997 -Mississippi, Pearl High School: after killing his mother, a 16-year-old student killed 2 classmates, including his ex-girlfriend, and injured 6 others.
1997-Kentucky, West Paducah, Heath High School: 14-year-old student killed 3 students and wounded 5 others at an informal prayer meeting.
1998-Arkansas, Jonesboro, Westside Middle School: two 11- and 13- year old boys opened fire at Westside Middle School after a hoax firealarm; 5 people died, 12 were injured.
1998-Pennsylvania, Edinboro, Parker Middle School: at a graduation party a 14-year-old killed a teacher and wounded 3 other people.
1998-Oregon, Springfield, Thurston High School: a 15-year-old teenager carried out a shooting rampage. 2 classmates died and 22 others were injured.
1998-Tennessee, Fayetteville, Lincoln County High School: an 18-year-old student was shot in a school parking lot dispute over a girl by another 18-year-old student.
1998 -Virginia, Richmond, Armstrong High School: 14-year-old shooter injured 2 teachers.
1999 April 20th. - USA, Colorado, Littleton, Columbine High School: in the most violent school assault in U.S. history two students, 17 and 18 years old, fired more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition and detonated 30 explosive devices during their rampage. 12 people were killed; 24 students were injured, some of them critically, 160 patients had to be triaged, and more than 2,000 people were evacuated during the shooting. In the aftermath of the violence more than 60 other live explosives were found in and around the school.
Need I say more? Oh...and add North Hollywood, CA.
If that is not enough "Proof" for you, you have something wrong with you.
Yes, you do need to say more
1. Cite investigation reports and studies of incidents, don't just list a bunch of incidents. Show us where the professional conclusions of police and FBI brass state that certain types of armaments for police would have made a difference. Show us where the investigators and commissions, etc. recommend more firepower for police as a future prevention and containment strategy in the incidents that you describe.
2. Detail the costs of handling, maintaining, and training cops on these weapons, compared to other more mundane but possibly more bang-for-buck police work like flushing out drug dealers and anti-gang work. The weapons may be "free", but the rest costs big money.
3. Show us the statements where the cops themselves are even asking for these weapons, and what they think they could use them for. No sense getting tools for the professionals if they really don't want them or don't think they can even use them in the areas they spend time in on a daily basis.
For the record: I grew up with guns, I have trained with automatic weapons in the military, and I actually own an heirloom 0.22 that my grandpa built himself. I don't necessarily oppose equipping police with weapons other than handguns - but a laundry list of atrocities is not proof, it's anecdata. The hard conclusions and recommendations of professionals who investigated both the crimes and the responses to those crimes are far more valuable determinants of police policy.
Do you really need all that?
Isn't it clear? For your #1 and #3: The cops are clammering for these weapons (let's not get into what the police unions are saying cuz that is just about $$). There is a reason for that. Hello? They are the experts on public safety aren't they? And for #2, the "cost?" It is 1. What is ONE life worth? Spend the money, save a life.
What is one life worth?
Well, lets see - if the cost of keeping weapons around and training with them and securing them and maintaining them to save that one life in that one outside incident means that more people die in far more mundane circumstances (drug deals, bank robberies, etc.) for want of police protection, you tell me.
As for the others? Sorry, but your truthy assertions are not sufficient when real world information exists. Show me where the research and investigations say these weapons would be effective in the field. Show me where the police are "clamoring for them". Your personal belief in each of these things you are repeating over and over is not necessarily congruent with reality. It might be, but I'd defer to the conclusions of the professionals who have been there.
two points
Yes, all those things add up to something. Isn't someone's life worth that cost? Do you have loved ones? Are they worth it? I'd say yes. And, on the other point, the "clammering." Why do you think all these police departments already have these weapons? They have obviously concluded that these weapons are needed.
Worth which cost?
The shooter rampage is a much rarer event than a car accident, a drug deal, etc. Having these guns around costs money. If that money is spent on these weapons, sure, one person might be saved some time. HOWEVER, if spending money on these weapons means less resources for basic police work, I would be that it would be far more likely that my loved ones and many more people's loved ones will die for each loved one saved by an assault rifle.
Car accidents and drug/gang violence claim far more lives than random mandmen with high powered weapons. There is not infinite money for police work. The choice to obtain these weapons is a choice to spend money here and not elsewhere. The cost-benefit needs to be assessed.
Think about it.
These police departments have these weapons because the military decommissioned them and gave them away for "free". They have been sitting around, sometimes improperly secured, because of the dubious costs of traning - not to mention poor fit for purpose (e.g. grenade launchers).
You're not very good at following a conversation are you?
In my post about "what's a 2900" above I specifically responded to your point already. This wasn't an example where the cops needed an assault rifle. They handled this incident with a traffic stop, more than close enough to use their handguns (and actually a situation which would have been quite difficult for a rifle shooter to do anything useful).
If your sole argument is going to be "if the bad guy is *carrying* a rifle, then the cops need one too" then your argument is pretty unfounded. In fact, this example goes more towards suggesting that they *don't* need it to do their job correctly (as was done in this case) against someone who was simply "carrying" a rifle.
Assault rifles bring 1)range and 2)penetration to the fight. I have yet to hear from advocates of cops with assault rifles what the scenario would be to justify the cops needing range and/or penetration power other than an armored active shooter scenario...and how many of those have there really been?
The officials have had to go to MUMBAI(!) to even justify it to anyone....
If Canada were Pakistan, they might have a point. Luckily, it's not.
Ahem, maybe you're the one who can't follow
As I said in my response to you; "And, yes it is not a "great" example of the need for cops to have assault rifles but it is just another case which shows that criminals have serious firepower." My argument is: sooner or later it won't just be a case of finding an assault weapon in a car...it will be a case of that weapon being used against multiple victims and maybe even cops because the cops don't have the right weapon to combat it. Yes, these things are rare but if you read the other post above it shows a list of school shootings. And from the looks of it, it isn't too rare to not have a plan for it.
Which of those school shootings required an assault rifle?
In every single case of the ones you quoted that I'm familiar with, the beat cops having an assault rifle would NOT have improved their response.
1989 in Stockton - it was over in 3 minutes. Shooter took his own life.
1989 in Montreal - shooter was unarmored and shot himself. No evidence that an assault rifle would have ended it early. However it was used as evidence of a need for "active shooter" drilling. Years later at Dawson College in Montreal, police with ONLY their issued handguns acted quickly and stopped the active shooter.
1996 Moses Lake - shooter was disarmed by a teacher before police arrived.
1996 Dunblane - shooter had only handguns and suicided prior to police arrival.
1997 Bethel, AK - police engaged him in a shootout after he had already shot at students and the principal and he peacefully surrendered.
1997 Pearl HS, MS - The vice principal subdued the student with a handgun as he attempted to drive away. He surrendered.
1997 KY - shooter dropped a handgun after firing 8 rounds and surrendered to the principal.
1998 Jonesboro - shooters were finished and attempting to leave when they were subdued peacefully by police.
1998 PA - shooter was subdued by restaurant owner and held at gunpoint for 11 minutes before police arrived.
1998 OR - shooter was subdued by victims while reloading until police arrived.
1998 TN - single intended target (dispute over girl) and shooter stayed with the victim until police arrived to arrest him....are you just padding your list??
1998 VA - shooter was using a handgun against another student in a fight and two teachers were collaterally hit (neither life-threatening) and the shooter was apprehended immediately by police...no assault weapon necessary and no active shooter, even. You *are* padding your list, aren't you!
Ah, and the gran'daddy: Columbine - NO evidence that assault rifles would have been necessary. A similar rampage at VA Tech was stopped with cops armed with handguns by simply gaining entry and attempting to engage the shooter who suicided with rounds of ammunition left when he heard police enter and approach his position.
In NONE of your quoted situations would an assault rifle saved a single life. Nearly ALL of them ended before police were even on the scene and those scenarios that didn't, the shooters were apprehended peacefully by police or the shooter suicided before being reached by police. In two situations, the old method of establishing a perimeter and waiting out the shooter led to extra lives lost (Columbine and Montreal) and they are held up as the two key instances that justify the new "active shooter" protocols that require police to enter an active situation and ignore wounded and others in an attempt to quickly engage the active shooter and end the rampage foremost.
So, if that's all the "proof" you have for arming beat cops with M16's, that's pretty sad. You could have at least mentioned North Hollywood so I could have said "ok, well, maybe I have to give you that one"...but you didn't. No soup for you.
Kaz don't forget
that the policy of "active shooter" protocols were in place becasue police did not have weapons available to fend off an armored threat like the kids at Columbine. Now of course if the cops were armed with rifles but the same policies existed, then yea, the cops would have still been usless at Columbine because they would have been sitting and waiting in the parking lot with rifles instead of sitting and waiting with handguns.
Policies have now changed so that officers (with only handguns now) don't sit and wait outside, they go in and after the active shooter. Of course with just handguns, the cops are now at a disadvantage against the Columbine type shooter. With a rifle, they have more of a chance to live and kill those with body armor.
Policies have changed though
So, don't you think, because the policy has been changed, that the cops should be able to defend themselves better by having these weapons? And, in turn, they are defending the lives of any surviving innocents. I think the main problem here is that too many people either don't trust the cops or that they think they are going to taking these things out at routine calls.
2900
Im not too familiar with M1 models, but a number like 2900 usually refers to the muzzle velocity of specific models of various rifles. Many times this number will listed to identify various kinds of rifles that might not be identified in a police report that would be written before a department armorer would be able to tecnically classify the rifle. So "2900" probably refers to an M1 that fires rounds at 2900 feet/per second.
It's will take a armed school shooter to start killing kids and then the underarmed and underarmored cops that enter the school before anyone can win the arguement here whether these guns are needed or not.
On the other side, if the rifles are put in vehicles before a situation is needed to use them, and someone innocent is killed by them then the other side of the arguement has made their point.
But there are a few other things I wanted to say on based on some of the comments I read here.
- Criminals are not going to "get bigger weapons" just because the police have them. Criminals get weapons to fend off other criminals or to commit crimes against innocent people. I assure you that the majority of criminals don't want to ever get to the point where they have to arm up against the police/swat teams.
-Most Boston cops are usless with their handguns against slow moving targets at more than 10 feet. A rifle with scope (and training of course) will make the average cop precicesly accurate at these slow moving targets at 15-30 feet, and at stationary targets at up to 75 feet. Most Boston cops are also usless with their handguns against stationary targets over 25 feet.
-Your typical glock or 40-45 cal. handgun fired against a Boston cop with level 2 or 3 body armor (most boston bullet proof vests) will be stopped by that vest. A high powered rifle like an AR-15 or M-16 will go through a vest, the cop, out the back of the vest, and through 1-2 more cops with vests on. This also means that these rifle rounds will be able to hit innocent people on the other side as well.
-These rifles would only be used in the worst case scenerio, and I don't think would be misued if ever placed in any cruiser. 2000 Boston cops are armed every time they hit the street, and I haven't seen that many cases where lethal force was used (with leathal force weapons) against the public. I would be much more worried about cops that are bad drivers, or cops that used excessive handcuffing techinques than I would be with a rifle in the back of a cruiser. I would be more worried about a cop car getting stolen with this rifle in it than the rifle being used by a cop.
-The cost of traning? Lets say 2,000 cops at 2 hours each year (when they qualify at the range) at $35 an hour would be 140K. The first year you would might need more training. 4 hours a year for each cop would be 280K, 8 hours would be 560K and 16 hours 1.12 million. This all of course I think would have to be bargined with the union as well, so add a stipend onto those figures.
There's Information on that Already
These grim events have already happened in a number of places in the country. There were investigations and commissions involved. The conclusions of those should be available, and should be used to decide policy (as Kaz has noted).
I think you also have to add some more money to your estimate for properly storing and securing these weapons, keeping track of them, and maintaining them. Automatic weapons have their quirks, as any grunt will tell you. There are certain tricks (like underfilling your clip by one round) to keep them happy. If they sit for long periods of time without being fired, they may jam at the worst possible moment.
well you're right........
These grim events have already happened in a number of places in the country. There were investigations and commissions involved. The conclusions of those should be available, and should be used to decide policy (as Kaz has noted).
After the hollywood shootout, LAPD put AR-15 rifles in every patrol car, and after columbine, a closer look at school shootings found that most were ended by means other than law enforcement.
Costs
Thanks, Pete. Question on the costs of training: does the $35/hr. per cop number include the cost of the time of the cop being trained *and* the cost of administering the training (instructors, facility, supplies, etc.)?
I would've guessed considerably higher total cost, after looking at the detail rate and considering that a cop being trained is not on the street like a cop working a detail is.
estimated costs.
Ive been out of there for a while, but the $35 an hour is an estimated overtime rate (inservice training rate) for only those officers being trained.
The Boston range has a full time staff that might have to pay the training counsul or some other agency on how to train Boston officers with these weapons....then again, swat officers are already on staff and are probably already certified trainers.
So the facility and full time staff are already there, and the guns (were) paid by the feds, and the ammo might cost a few thousand a year too.
Most of the costs would be in paying each officer trained, not the people training or the actual weapons themselves.
And as swirrly notes, you would have to figure in the cost of putting in a lockbox in every vehicle, or at least those vehicles where they would be used. I don't think maintaining the weapons or keeping track of them should cost anything, as Boston has more than enough staff to handle that kind of record keeping/maintinence.
And that leads me to another point. I think it was a false presumption that Davis wanted to put the rifles into every single car. I heard that he wanted to only put them in specific vehicles with specific people, not every single vehicle. This would also cut down on training if only a select number of patrol officers or supervisors were trained in it.
Response
You probably didn't think Snelgrove would have died due to a misused pepper gun too. That wasn't even supposed to be lethal force and yet it killed someone. I don't see how the mountain of downsides doesn't outweigh the singular upside (aka what if the assailant is armored?). I worry about ALL of the ways that cops in this city (and state) screw up...bad driving, lack of knowledge on the laws they're enforcing, excessive restraint/force, and abuse of authority, to name a few. Turning every officer into a paramilitary soldier by arming them with greater weaponry previously reserved for SWAT/STOP or the federal army is just above-and-beyond the level at which they should operate. Better tactics and better armor should enable them to handle 99% of all of the shooter scenarios they will ever encounter. For that 1% (probably less than that) of the time when there's a "Columbine" (armored active shooter(s)), there's the city SWAT and state STOP teams (and the MBTA party bus for that matter). It would seem in even most "Columbine"-like scenarios, the simple act of engaging the suspects would still put an end to it by having the shooter suicide. Very few of these "rampage" killings were carried out by anyone with the intention of fighting through police to leave. Even "North Hollywood" was a bank robbery (and therefore why they intended to use armor and high powered weaponry to flee the scene, necessitating high powered armament in response).
yea you are right....
I can't disagree with anything you are saying. We just have to hope that there is never a situation in Boston where one of these rifles could have come in handy. It will happen someday Im sure, but there also might be a situation where someone innocent gets killed by one of these rifles as well.
But lets leave these decisions in the hands of those who are experts on public safety, not the Zberts of the world who think of this situation like you would some mutual fund future and not those who are trying to win an election or gain some sort of other political advantage, which I am afraid is might be happening.
Well pete what else should we prepare for?
I asked this once before and you guys couldn't come up with answers.
How about nuclear attack? Shouldn't everyone be building bunkers? Shouldn't the basements of the large buildings be converted to fallout shelters? Why aren't you calling for that, if ANYTHING can happen at any time? Same for bio attacks. Way, Way, WAYYYYY more people are killed in crosswalks by cars than by shooters. We need a crossing guard on every corner, or maybe a big mechanical arm to stop that? By your logic, "If even one life can be saved... then it's worth doing" right? I'm quoting here, so think before you say "no".
And you've failed, despite being given many chances to do so, to show even one report that shows that placing unloaded high powered weapons in the trunks of police cars would have been of any use in any of the shooting cases you guys are so infatuated with.
Nothing about Columbine would have been helped by more weapons... nor in 9/10 of what's probably 20 situations total, nationwide, in the 15 or so years you have to reach back to even TRY to establish your "case".
The experts didn't make this decision. Toy-hungry cops and politicians did, and they're not experts - neither group is. In fact, Boston's expert said "no" so in that case I am glad we did have an expert around who could see that it's all a big lie.
You're just a weapon freak. You've failed to show even one little bit of proof that having more weapons would be useful... Not one bit.
When I win an election, the cops who work for me will have to go out and do police work, on the street, in the scary neighborhoods, not guard holes in the road or write parking tickets on street-cleaning day or ride around on ponies making nice with tourists...
And can you remind me again why Springfield needs two grenade launchers? Wait, let me re-state that. Obviously they need TWO grenade launchers so they have a spare in case the first one fails. Can you remind me again why Springfield needs a grenade launcher?
But they're so much fun!
I have to admit, automatic weapons are a lot of fun to use under the right circumstances.
I'm not sure the couple hours of training a year would really be enough, though. Just being able to hit your target with good aim takes regular practice - I saw how my mother's accuracy with a rifle went way down when she stopped target shooting for a while, but picked up when she started up again. I'd rather see a few cops having these weapons and have them very well trained to evaluate the situations they might use them in.
That said, doesn't the state police have snipers who are well trained in these kinds of weapons? If so, is it redundant for any but the large cities to have such officers, too?
SWAT and STOP
The state has a STOP (Special Tactics and OPerations) unit and the city of Boston has a SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) unit.
ok...
1. A nuke attack? Yea, thats better handled at the federal level and guess what, there is an answer to a nuke attack
2. Bio attack? yes, there are already protocols in place for that at the federal and local level. Boston police have level x hazmats suits to prepare for a terrorist attack along with other gear suited to go into a hotzone in order to use specific levels of force. So yea, there is already an answer for that too.
Again, Im not a weapons freak, and STILL DONT THINK THESE WEAPONS ARE NEEDED IN CRUISERS.
You have no clue what happens with police work. Jesus! More cops in "scary" neighborhoods doing police work! Holy fuck Zbert! Where have you been with that great idea the last 30 years!
Rifles and a policy would have helped in the Columbine and North Hollywood shootout. In fact, after the North Hollywood shootout, LAPD put AR-15s in every car! How many Ar-15 shootings have their been in the last 15 years? None.
Hate to inform you again Zbert, but public safety works with worse case scenerios. You wouldn't even believe what the fire department has bought and never used. Do you want to get rid of all that stuff to?
You don't know what you are talking about and lets leave it at that. Worry more about what your good at, risk management of things not involing public safety.
You don't even listen to the other side, just dismiss them when you don't think they have anything to promote your point.
Small point
I'm still not convinced that assault rifles would have helped at Columbine. When the shooters were low on ammo and out of options, they killed themselves (like many other school shooting rampages). I believe engaging them early (as was not policy at the time) would have led to their suicide earlier, and potentially saved more lives, but I don't think there would have been a shoot-out, nor would police have had to do anything other than make their presence inside the building more known sooner to trigger the shooters' need to control their destiny and take their own lives.
We'll never really know in that specific instance whether that's right or not, maybe they would have needed assault rifles to drop the two shooters at Columbine. However, instances since then with shooters of the same mindset have stopped and suicided with ammo to spare because police used their newer active shooter tactics of engaging as soon as possible. I believe North Hollywood is the only situation I've ever learned of where I agree that assault weapons would have been extremely useful to stop well-armored, well-armed criminals with total disregard for human life.
I'd also like to point out that LAPD didn't lose a single life that day, even though none of the non-SWAT officers were armed with assault rifles, but both criminals died on scene.
Right
We don't know 100% what would have happened in either situation (the only two from that list where I think they might have helped at all).
And you can use Binghamton as a recent example. The first officers that showed up on scene waited for swat to come and clear the building. They did not enter because they said the shooting had stopped and the "active shooting" situation was over. Most of these school/church/workplace shooters do not want a confrontation with the police. They are suicidal, depressed loners that want no part in actually going to jail.
N. Hollywood on the other hand there were some hard line bank robbing criminals who would do anything to escape and not die.
More locally ...
What about the Edgewater Technology massacre of 12/26/2000? The guy was caught and brought to trial for killing seven people, but could he have been stopped earlier? How did the killing stop?
he just stopped shooting.
michael mcdermott was just sitting in a chair in reception when the cops got to him. his weapons were in reach, on the floor and in his pocket, and he was arrested without any further conflict.
well we dont know what happened
in that porthole that he went into either. I assume that guy is still alive?