Boston PD have shown that they have the capacity to be lethal killing machines using only their bare hands, tasers, or pepper guns.
One can only wonder at the devastation that could be wreaked upon a neighbourhood, or an "unruly crowd (lawfully assembled)" by a Boston cop with a semiautomatic weapon in his chubby hands.
Don't worry, guys. I see that the newly-appointed #2 in command is the fellow behind this "initiative" to give y'all "long-range weapons." Once that meddling Davis is out, you will get your high-powered rifles.
This decision was based on some seriously stupid logic. Because of Mumbai, Boston cops need high-powered assault rifles? Let's see, if Mumbai *were* to happen here (and there's absolutely no reason to think it would) then wouldn't SWAT be called out? And they already have those same weapons in their repertoire. If you put bigger guns in the cops' hands, then what do you think it will do to the criminals that *do* want to use force against cops? It's going to make them up the mini-arms race too. Right now, we're at "they have illegal assault rifles, cops have legal handguns". Going to "cops have illegal assault rifles, they have illegal Gatling miniguns" or some other step above is just pushing the chances further that OTHER people are going to get hurt from EITHER side.
As citizens we're told "don't do anything stupid, call the police". Well, it's time to remind the police that when faced with overwhelming firepower "don't do anything stupid, call the specialists".
that the average cop wants this rifle in the car. Its simply not true. Although I am against them as well, you can bet they would only be used in a situation that really needed them. I don't think Ive heard of many cases across where these weapons had been used in situations where they shouldnt have.
I would be more scared of meathead cops, and some of the people that the city has been forced to have hired within the last 5 years because of civil service reguations.
Untill we see more school shootings or hollywood type bank robberies with extreme body armor, Boston can wait for the assault rifles.
The training and cost of bargining officers to actually carry the weapons would probably cost more that what can be paid for anyway.
Hell, i have no problem with smart, no, make that wise, experienced, well-trained policemen carrying weapons. Unfortunately, it's established that police hiring has upper limits on IQ, and no lower limits on meatheadedness, thus it's just too dangerous to over-arm cops.
There is a subculture out there that loves bigger and bigger weapons. Post-2001, there were many stories of small town police departments (I'm talking half a dozen cops in the sticks, here) who wanted semiautomatic weapons to fight "drug dealers and terrorists" who might wander into, dunno, North Nowhere, Idaho.
they like to beat up people. But I see what your saying.
And the subculture you talk about is going to be the 90% iraq veterans that are going to be on the force in full for the next 50 years. And those guys love guns. But they are also highly trained.
I honestly wouldnt be too worried about the rifles even if they do end up in the cars. Be more worried about the gun on every cops hip instead as thats the one that would be more likely to be used as a mistake.
I'm more afraid of the police having tasers and pepperball guns.
An M-16 would only be pulled out of the trunk in an extreme situation. One advantage of having rifles is that one with the kind of laser holographic sights available is highly accurate at long range, while a pistol with open sights is not that accurate.
In a hostage situation or something like the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout, having an M-16 or M-4 would be a life saver.
Sure the pistol is less accurate, but if misfired it can also only seriously hurt someone if they're within a hundred feet or so without any interference between the cop who missed and themselves.
If the cop misses with that long range rifle, you could be yards away and inside of a house or car and still be seriously wounded by the missed shot.
There's absolutely no reason to think we need our officers to up the arms war in this city at this point. When was the last cop shooting that could have easily been prevented if the officer had only had an M-16 locked and unloaded in their trunk? If you find one, when was the last one before that?
That super party bus that the MBTA has, complete with an arsenal of all sorts of high-powered weapons...when was the last time it was put into use for anything other than mission support when a train crashed or the power went out?
I'd love to see a list of all the times in this NATION when it was better to have an M-16 armed beat cop than to have called in SWAT. I imagine it is not a very long list.
in Boston where the rifles would have come in handy (you might have to look at instances where SWAT has failed instead of preventive shootings)
This rifle stuff is comming from a few places.
1- Columbine. SWAT teams are usless in a situation like that where cops simply waited around because they didnt have the firepower to go up against what those two kids had. Today, every single active shooter policy is going to direct cops to go into those schools regardless. The further thought is that cops would do absoutly nothing against people like the Columbine Killers if they actually did go in.
2- Any other Active shooter situation where someone is going around an office with a high powered rifle and body armor just killing as many people as fast as they can. This is another situation where SWAT teams are usless becasue all the killing is done by the time they would get there. But a cop with a rifle could be there in 1-4 minutes, possibly saving lives.
3- Bank Robberies gone bad. Like the Hollywood shootout where a botched robbery led the killers to go around carjacking cars and firing at anyone in sight that got in their way. The cops were also usless back then because of the body armor of the robbers, and its another situation where SWAT would be too little to late.
4- Future terrorist hostage/killings. A big unknown here but if someone or a group storms into a church, temple, or other place where these guys might hit, the response time against that firepower and armor could only be matched with a patrol officer with a rifle
On the other hand, the argument is like you said. "whens the last time Boston has had a Columbine?" and "Im more afraid of someone being shot by mistake with the rifle". There are many valid arguments on both sides.
Also, you have to think that every patrol car is going to have one of this high capacity rifles wherever they go. Could they be stolen? Just another thing to worry about.
The rifle gives you penetration and range, but it doesn't help in an "active shooter" scenario any more than a handgun unless you're fighting at a football field. If the assailant is armored, the rifle still isn't necessarily going to penetrate well.
We'd be better off giving them all Baker Batshields in their trunk to rapidly approach an active shooter situation than a rifle. They can make contact safer and still use their handgun when within good proximity.
The new rules tell the cops to make contact to draw attention away from innocent targets while also ignoring any wounded or scared people they pass on the way to the active shooter. Having an M-16 doesn't make that any easier, but having better shielding would.
Remember, Robocop was a badass because he could take a bullet, not because he carried a howitzer.
An M-16 will go through 100% of any type of body armor that 100% of police officers in Massachusetts wear. A glock or .40 or even .45 and .357 will not penetrate most of the level 2-3 vest that Id say 90% of MA officers wear (And all of Boston) wear, and it especially wont go through the protected breastplate that the vests have.
And an assault rifle will help you at distances as close as 15 yards, and most MA officers probably shoot less than 10% at a moving target at anything more than 15 yards with a handgun. Im talking about your average hallway or large room here, where any slicing the pie or button hook tecnique would be greatly enhanced by your use of a rifle.
Of course the main point of the rifle is to use it in situations where police know someone is using a high caliber weapon, or has body armor.
And you are right about the bodyshields and I think any training involving the new rifles would go hand in hand with bodyshields available in the wagons or precints.
Rifles have been around longer than hand guns, and yet most civilian policing around the world involves hand guns and not rifles.
I'm assuming that the reason for this is that while rifles have their utility in specific situations, they aren't an effective tool for the vast majority of policing situations. Add in that each additional weapon requires proper training and supervision that departments may be ill-equipped to handle effectively (see also: Snelgrove). Without that ongoing commitment to training and supervision, may end up with a situation where people (including officers) are needlessly injured or killed OR lots of money is spent for expensive weapons that gather dust - and even "free" hand-me-downs from the US Army are expensive in terms of training and upkeep.
There is the added problem that M-16-toting police forces start looking more like an occupying force and less like civilians, with all the social issues that dredges up (including the willingness of witnesses to cooperate). It will make some feel safer, but it may make the police seem more hostile to others. Image does matter.
Both the expense and the risks have to be justified. They may very well be justified in this situation, but a well-verified case for M-16s has to be made to the public as well as to the officers themselves.
(btw, the SWAT teams in the Columbine incident wouldn't have been helped by more firepower - they had to wait for the bomb squad as the boys' plans included wiring the entire school to blow up. The world's biggest rifle would not have changed that.)
(btw, the SWAT teams in the Columbine incident wouldn't have been helped by more firepower - they had to wait for the bomb squad as the boys' plans included wiring the entire school to blow up. The world's biggest rifle would not have changed that.)
Cops are trained to recognize explosives and could have snuck through a window in this situation. If their kids were in that school you could have bet they wouldnt have waited for a bomb squad.
Hello people???? Remember North Hollywood? Columbine? Virginia Tech? Etc???? When/if some sort of active shooter incident happens in Boston these guns would be vital in stopping it before it goes further. I don't know about you but if I was hunkered down under a desk with some maniac coming down the hall I'd want the cops coming in right then (not having to wait for SWAT) with the right guns to stop him/her.
when boston cops show that they can be trusted with weapons, then they may have more weapons. However, I really don't think they're quite ready, as a group, for these sorts of things just yet... if ever.
The "devestation" caused by the Boston police? The "leathal killing machines?"
Innocent people get killed in every single major city in the world by the police, and Boston is no different.
For every innocent life that gets lost at the hands of the police (accidental or negligent), there are tens of thousands of times where police use those same weapons to prevent future harm to other citizens.
Its just a lot easier to keep track of the people that die instead of the ones that get saved.
The Boston PD has gone without high-powered weapons from the founding of Boston through May 30, 2009.
Tell us some stats about situations where the public's well-being would have been improved if at any time between (pick a date in) 1630 and June 30, 2009... how often does this need arise? What are the possible consequences for innocents being hurt? We already know what kinds of damage cops do when they:
- conduct high speed chases without permission (by the rules high speed chases are seldom authorized)
- kill innocent bystanders with far "less lethal" (by design, description, marketing) weapons such as pepper guns and tasers
Let's see both sets of stats. Go ahead and make your case. But you're advocating for a major change with no evidence to indicate there would be any true benefit. I see that there is true potential for downside and harm to the public. Make the case. I'm only advocating for status quo. Nothing more to demonstrate. Want change? Justify it.
Fear-mongering and imaginary tales of "what could happen" do not count in this exercise.
How many people in prison right now would kill someone if they were let out or not arrested in the firt place? How many of them were arrested because they had a gun pointed at them? How many of them were arrested through swat teams? How many of them were arrested becasue they knew if they fought the police or shot at them, they probably would have been killed and decided to give up instead?
And I already said that I don't think they should be put in the cars so Im not advocating for it either way.
But we do know the damage people can do after Columbine, Va Tech, Hollywood shootout etc. Whats going to be the next terror attack Zbert? What do you think it will be? Should we wait to see or at least try to be somewhat proactive in thinking of ways to keep people safer. If there is a Columbine situation in Boston in the future and the police do not have those rifles, we will never know if 1-500 lives could have been saved. Maybe the cop with the rifle wouldnt get the call untill its too late, maybe he will be right near the school and could have helped...yhou simply don't know unless it happens. Thats the chance you take. And if a cop ends up shooting someone innocent with the rifle, you know who to blame...the rifle. Like Kaz said, its a give and take situation.
And "what could happen" is what we do all the time and it does happen.
There was probably a time where you could bring a gun onto an airplane and no one would have noticed or cared. Once planes started to get hijacked, we started to change policy because of "what could happen", or what has already happened even though a very small percentage of planes were hijacked at any point in history.
-And what high speed chases without permission are you talking about? Do you know that California has different policies than Boston does? Do you know what the policies say?
-The theory behind pepperball guns, tess than lethal shotguns, and tazers is that they are used in situations that leathal force used to have been used. Departments use tazers because they have found that lawsuits from resisting arrest and getting beaten up have gone down. Untill courts rule that tazers are not less than lethal, departments will continue to use them (Boston does not use either the pepperball gun or tazer) But if they did have a tazer, that kid that died from a heart problem after the celtics game may have lived because the cops would not have had to have thrown him to the ground. But maybe the tazer would have killed him because of his heart problem? We will never know and thats the problem with the other side...you just dont know.
There is no right or wrong here. The world doesn't always have easy answers like you want it too. I guess its a good thing you probably aren't in charge of anything that might have to be thought out or we might be in a lot of trouble.
If, before the 911 attacks had happened, people like you would have called it a "wild speculation" if someone suggested that someone would fly jets into the towers. If you haven't noticed, active shooter incidents/mass shootings have been on the rise (hello? Another one last night in Springfield). And, with this poor economy, more people are feeling more desperate/depressed and that sometimes leads to them doing crazy stuff like these shootings. So, this is exactly the time to get prepared.
If it was so easy to know right or wrong, then we wouldn't need risk management at all would we? Unless you are smarter than everyone else.
In that case you should run for president of the US and solve the worlds problems then if you can make all your decisions off of facts. Or since that might be hard to do right off the bat, you should run for city council or mayor right away since everyone that can't make decisions off of facts now like you can, will be amazed at how perfect you can make this world! But then you aleady said you keep little parts of the world here and there from falling apart so we should already feel real safe!
I thought one of the key principals of risk manamement is a prioritization of risks and then using probability to further examine those risks? Or how about including human factors and reactions, a key principle of any risk management process?
And if you deal with financial or portfolio risk management, that is not what we are talking about here.
And this if far from "wild speculation" here like you say. If it were that "wild", there wouldn't be one police department in the country that carry rifles in the cars.
I asked you fine fellows to provide some stats of your choosing to show how bigger weapons would have helped the boston police at any time in the past.
you chose not to do that, so there is really nothing to talk about.
you have to look at what happens at other cities and what could happen.
Does Seattle airport go without security because no one has ever hijacked a plane out of Seattle? This could save the Seattle airport and city X million dollars if they just got rid of security right now.
No it doesn't because it is a FACT that since planes have been hijacked at other airports, it COULD happen in Seattle. There is no correlation between the 9/11 hijackers and the cities of Newark, Boston or Bangor. So Newark, Boston and Bangor shouldn't have to be the only airports that have to worry about hijacking in the future.
And after facts or statistics, there is still sometimes a tough decision to be made. Ill stick with the airline situation and say that since 1950, there have been 1 billion flights. How many of that 1 billion flights have been hijacked? 100? Lets say 1000. That means that .000001 flights have been hijacked. Now that number is low because someone decided at somepoint that it would be beneficial to put security at airports to prevent that from happening. But just take out a 0 or two 0s from the number. Its still pretty slim.
Who can predict how many more hijacking there are going to be in the future? What's going to be the next method? A boxcutter? No one thought of that before 2001 did they?
Zbert I respect your opinion if you say you don't think rifles belong in cars because of factors X,Y and Z, but you can't say you have the right answer. Don't you see why that is?
Cite some specific examples of REAL situations, that have occurred, in which a high powered rifle in the trunk of a police car, properly stowed (unloaded) would have been useful in the city of Boston.
Note that you're going to need more than one extreme example to make a compelling case.
As well, for a true picture of the risks and overhead, what is the cost of training officers and maintaining certification to carry those weapons? Some stats from other departments in similar-size cities would be useful there. This department has a history of officers using things they are neither trained nor authorized to use, for example, the pepper gun situation. Given that such unauthorized uses can't be stopped in advance, only atoned for afterward (sometimes when people are dead, with no benefit to the community), what are the risks to uninvolved civilians when officers have high powered weapons.
Now, if you are really serious about getting this right, what alternatives exist to placing high powered rifles in police cars, conducting training and recertification, and bearing risks of misuse, going forward in time forever... given the specific examples that you would have cited in response to my first request above, what alternative exist, and what is the history of those alternatives here or anywhere?
There has been no evidence presented to justify this move, just a lot of fanciful storytelling. Please either ground your arguments in reality or stop arguing.
Here's a story for you zbert:
Since 2006, in the USA, at just schools, not churches or malls...
Over 45 people killed at: North Illinois University; Success Tech Academy, OH; Virginia Tech; West Nickel Mines Amish School; Mt Vernon Elem, NJ; Weston School Casenovia, WI; Platte Canyon High, CO; Orange High, NC; Campbell County High, TN; Red Lake High, MN.
Why don't you tell their surviving families that these are just stories and that none of it is real?
Please explain precisely what use semiautomatic weapons, in the trunks of police cars, would have done to help in those situations.
In the cases above that i'm familiar with, the wackos who showed with weapons and killed people, had more or less completed their killing before authorities were even on the scene. At Columbine (did you mention that?) the police were there and had access to whatever weapons they might have needed, and it didn't matter one bit because the reality is that having a big gun is no help if you can't enter the premises without making things worse. Oh yeah, Columbine. Isn't that where the police kind freaked out a bit and were pointing guns at students? I think we should be glad they didn't have standard-issue semis.
I'm sorry you can't see the near-complete lack of logical connection between the problem and the solution you propose, but clearly that's not going to change. I'm glad excitable people like you aren't making these decisions, at least much of the time.
At Columbine (did you mention that?) the police were there and had access to whatever weapons they might have needed
the reality is that having a big gun is no help if you can't enter the premises without making things worse
with this quote you are 100% wrong and have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. The lack of policy and weapons was one of the #1 reasons that every single police department in the country changed their policy for active shooting situations after Columbine.
first off you forget that I don't want machine guns in cars for the exact reasons you state. But I sure as hell aren't going to tell people that it is the right decision because they have never been needed in the past.
we are talking about machine guns here. Machine guns are used in worse case scenerios. "storytelling" is not the right word to use.
Didn't I already say that "boston" as a city has nothing to do with it? If someone can shoot someone in CO or VA, they can shoot someone in MA. How can't you understand that?
As well, for a true picture of the risks and overhead, what is the cost of training officers and maintaining certification to carry those weapons? Some stats from other departments in similar-size cities would be useful there. This department has a history of officers using things they are neither trained nor authorized to use, for example, the pepper gun situation. Given that such unauthorized uses can't be stopped in advance, only atoned for afterward (sometimes when people are dead, with no benefit to the community), what are the risks to uninvolved civilians when officers have high powered weapons.
No one ever said that none of the above isn't taken into consideration did they?
And hijacking of planes don't have to do with this situation, but it does have to do with your weak arguement of "if it never happend here, then it can't happen here".
And just by seeing your quote below when you state that Columbine officers had all the weapons at hand shows that you are totally ignorant about the subject.
that there are no numbers! Its never happened! Just like a hijacking never happened in Seattle! If you are going to use the lazy logic (and not answer to why you use it!) of "never happened here, so why worry about it here" then whats the difference!
Just by reading that you thought that Columbine officers had the weapons at hand shows you had your fact wrong! YOUR FACTS WERE WRONG! And those are facts we are talking about not logic.
Don't worry Zbert, you, me and Menino agree on the M-16s, the only difference is that Menino and I probably had some real background information as to why they aren't needed besides facts like "the cops have chubby fingers" or "they might be looking into holes" all day. That shows why you can't be in any position of respect or real responsiblity.
Comments
Redundant
Boston PD have shown that they have the capacity to be lethal killing machines using only their bare hands, tasers, or pepper guns.
One can only wonder at the devastation that could be wreaked upon a neighbourhood, or an "unruly crowd (lawfully assembled)" by a Boston cop with a semiautomatic weapon in his chubby hands.
Don't worry, guys. I see that the newly-appointed #2 in command is the fellow behind this "initiative" to give y'all "long-range weapons." Once that meddling Davis is out, you will get your high-powered rifles.
Good
This decision was based on some seriously stupid logic. Because of Mumbai, Boston cops need high-powered assault rifles? Let's see, if Mumbai *were* to happen here (and there's absolutely no reason to think it would) then wouldn't SWAT be called out? And they already have those same weapons in their repertoire. If you put bigger guns in the cops' hands, then what do you think it will do to the criminals that *do* want to use force against cops? It's going to make them up the mini-arms race too. Right now, we're at "they have illegal assault rifles, cops have legal handguns". Going to "cops have illegal assault rifles, they have illegal Gatling miniguns" or some other step above is just pushing the chances further that OTHER people are going to get hurt from EITHER side.
As citizens we're told "don't do anything stupid, call the police". Well, it's time to remind the police that when faced with overwhelming firepower "don't do anything stupid, call the specialists".
you guys assume...
that the average cop wants this rifle in the car. Its simply not true. Although I am against them as well, you can bet they would only be used in a situation that really needed them. I don't think Ive heard of many cases across where these weapons had been used in situations where they shouldnt have.
I would be more scared of meathead cops, and some of the people that the city has been forced to have hired within the last 5 years because of civil service reguations.
Untill we see more school shootings or hollywood type bank robberies with extreme body armor, Boston can wait for the assault rifles.
The training and cost of bargining officers to actually carry the weapons would probably cost more that what can be paid for anyway.
when average cops have rifles in their cars
... so will meathead cops.
that's the problem.
Hell, i have no problem with smart, no, make that wise, experienced, well-trained policemen carrying weapons. Unfortunately, it's established that police hiring has upper limits on IQ, and no lower limits on meatheadedness, thus it's just too dangerous to over-arm cops.
There is a subculture out there that loves bigger and bigger weapons. Post-2001, there were many stories of small town police departments (I'm talking half a dozen cops in the sticks, here) who wanted semiautomatic weapons to fight "drug dealers and terrorists" who might wander into, dunno, North Nowhere, Idaho.
meathead cops dont like to shoot people...
they like to beat up people. But I see what your saying.
And the subculture you talk about is going to be the 90% iraq veterans that are going to be on the force in full for the next 50 years. And those guys love guns. But they are also highly trained.
I honestly wouldnt be too worried about the rifles even if they do end up in the cars. Be more worried about the gun on every cops hip instead as thats the one that would be more likely to be used as a mistake.
not to mention tasers and pepperball guns
I'm more afraid of the police having tasers and pepperball guns.
An M-16 would only be pulled out of the trunk in an extreme situation. One advantage of having rifles is that one with the kind of laser holographic sights available is highly accurate at long range, while a pistol with open sights is not that accurate.
In a hostage situation or something like the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout, having an M-16 or M-4 would be a life saver.
One more idiotic decision from Menino.
Give and take
Sure the pistol is less accurate, but if misfired it can also only seriously hurt someone if they're within a hundred feet or so without any interference between the cop who missed and themselves.
If the cop misses with that long range rifle, you could be yards away and inside of a house or car and still be seriously wounded by the missed shot.
There's absolutely no reason to think we need our officers to up the arms war in this city at this point. When was the last cop shooting that could have easily been prevented if the officer had only had an M-16 locked and unloaded in their trunk? If you find one, when was the last one before that?
That super party bus that the MBTA has, complete with an arsenal of all sorts of high-powered weapons...when was the last time it was put into use for anything other than mission support when a train crashed or the power went out?
I'd love to see a list of all the times in this NATION when it was better to have an M-16 armed beat cop than to have called in SWAT. I imagine it is not a very long list.
There hasn't been too much history...
in Boston where the rifles would have come in handy (you might have to look at instances where SWAT has failed instead of preventive shootings)
This rifle stuff is comming from a few places.
1- Columbine. SWAT teams are usless in a situation like that where cops simply waited around because they didnt have the firepower to go up against what those two kids had. Today, every single active shooter policy is going to direct cops to go into those schools regardless. The further thought is that cops would do absoutly nothing against people like the Columbine Killers if they actually did go in.
2- Any other Active shooter situation where someone is going around an office with a high powered rifle and body armor just killing as many people as fast as they can. This is another situation where SWAT teams are usless becasue all the killing is done by the time they would get there. But a cop with a rifle could be there in 1-4 minutes, possibly saving lives.
3- Bank Robberies gone bad. Like the Hollywood shootout where a botched robbery led the killers to go around carjacking cars and firing at anyone in sight that got in their way. The cops were also usless back then because of the body armor of the robbers, and its another situation where SWAT would be too little to late.
4- Future terrorist hostage/killings. A big unknown here but if someone or a group storms into a church, temple, or other place where these guys might hit, the response time against that firepower and armor could only be matched with a patrol officer with a rifle
On the other hand, the argument is like you said. "whens the last time Boston has had a Columbine?" and "Im more afraid of someone being shot by mistake with the rifle". There are many valid arguments on both sides.
Also, you have to think that every patrol car is going to have one of this high capacity rifles wherever they go. Could they be stolen? Just another thing to worry about.
Stopping power
The rifle gives you penetration and range, but it doesn't help in an "active shooter" scenario any more than a handgun unless you're fighting at a football field. If the assailant is armored, the rifle still isn't necessarily going to penetrate well.
We'd be better off giving them all Baker Batshields in their trunk to rapidly approach an active shooter situation than a rifle. They can make contact safer and still use their handgun when within good proximity.
The new rules tell the cops to make contact to draw attention away from innocent targets while also ignoring any wounded or scared people they pass on the way to the active shooter. Having an M-16 doesn't make that any easier, but having better shielding would.
Remember, Robocop was a badass because he could take a bullet, not because he carried a howitzer.
Kaz...
An M-16 will go through 100% of any type of body armor that 100% of police officers in Massachusetts wear. A glock or .40 or even .45 and .357 will not penetrate most of the level 2-3 vest that Id say 90% of MA officers wear (And all of Boston) wear, and it especially wont go through the protected breastplate that the vests have.
And an assault rifle will help you at distances as close as 15 yards, and most MA officers probably shoot less than 10% at a moving target at anything more than 15 yards with a handgun. Im talking about your average hallway or large room here, where any slicing the pie or button hook tecnique would be greatly enhanced by your use of a rifle.
Of course the main point of the rifle is to use it in situations where police know someone is using a high caliber weapon, or has body armor.
And you are right about the bodyshields and I think any training involving the new rifles would go hand in hand with bodyshields available in the wagons or precints.
The right tools for the job
Rifles have been around longer than hand guns, and yet most civilian policing around the world involves hand guns and not rifles.
I'm assuming that the reason for this is that while rifles have their utility in specific situations, they aren't an effective tool for the vast majority of policing situations. Add in that each additional weapon requires proper training and supervision that departments may be ill-equipped to handle effectively (see also: Snelgrove). Without that ongoing commitment to training and supervision, may end up with a situation where people (including officers) are needlessly injured or killed OR lots of money is spent for expensive weapons that gather dust - and even "free" hand-me-downs from the US Army are expensive in terms of training and upkeep.
There is the added problem that M-16-toting police forces start looking more like an occupying force and less like civilians, with all the social issues that dredges up (including the willingness of witnesses to cooperate). It will make some feel safer, but it may make the police seem more hostile to others. Image does matter.
Both the expense and the risks have to be justified. They may very well be justified in this situation, but a well-verified case for M-16s has to be made to the public as well as to the officers themselves.
(btw, the SWAT teams in the Columbine incident wouldn't have been helped by more firepower - they had to wait for the bomb squad as the boys' plans included wiring the entire school to blow up. The world's biggest rifle would not have changed that.)
maybe..
(btw, the SWAT teams in the Columbine incident wouldn't have been helped by more firepower - they had to wait for the bomb squad as the boys' plans included wiring the entire school to blow up. The world's biggest rifle would not have changed that.)
Cops are trained to recognize explosives and could have snuck through a window in this situation. If their kids were in that school you could have bet they wouldnt have waited for a bomb squad.
They should have these guns
Hello people???? Remember North Hollywood? Columbine? Virginia Tech? Etc???? When/if some sort of active shooter incident happens in Boston these guns would be vital in stopping it before it goes further. I don't know about you but if I was hunkered down under a desk with some maniac coming down the hall I'd want the cops coming in right then (not having to wait for SWAT) with the right guns to stop him/her.
Chance of that happening is
Chance of that happening is less likely then getting killed from an airplane falling out of the sky.
Why waste the money, when it's an unlikely scenario
LOL @ you
panic! everyone panic!
when boston cops show that they can be trusted with weapons, then they may have more weapons. However, I really don't think they're quite ready, as a group, for these sorts of things just yet... if ever.
who is panicing though?
The "devestation" caused by the Boston police? The "leathal killing machines?"
Innocent people get killed in every single major city in the world by the police, and Boston is no different.
For every innocent life that gets lost at the hands of the police (accidental or negligent), there are tens of thousands of times where police use those same weapons to prevent future harm to other citizens.
Its just a lot easier to keep track of the people that die instead of the ones that get saved.
Make your case, Pete, let's see some numbers
The Boston PD has gone without high-powered weapons from the founding of Boston through May 30, 2009.
Tell us some stats about situations where the public's well-being would have been improved if at any time between (pick a date in) 1630 and June 30, 2009... how often does this need arise? What are the possible consequences for innocents being hurt? We already know what kinds of damage cops do when they:
- conduct high speed chases without permission (by the rules high speed chases are seldom authorized)
- kill innocent bystanders with far "less lethal" (by design, description, marketing) weapons such as pepper guns and tasers
Let's see both sets of stats. Go ahead and make your case. But you're advocating for a major change with no evidence to indicate there would be any true benefit. I see that there is true potential for downside and harm to the public. Make the case. I'm only advocating for status quo. Nothing more to demonstrate. Want change? Justify it.
Fear-mongering and imaginary tales of "what could happen" do not count in this exercise.
there are no numbers....
thats the whole problem.
How many people in prison right now would kill someone if they were let out or not arrested in the firt place? How many of them were arrested because they had a gun pointed at them? How many of them were arrested through swat teams? How many of them were arrested becasue they knew if they fought the police or shot at them, they probably would have been killed and decided to give up instead?
And I already said that I don't think they should be put in the cars so Im not advocating for it either way.
But we do know the damage people can do after Columbine, Va Tech, Hollywood shootout etc. Whats going to be the next terror attack Zbert? What do you think it will be? Should we wait to see or at least try to be somewhat proactive in thinking of ways to keep people safer. If there is a Columbine situation in Boston in the future and the police do not have those rifles, we will never know if 1-500 lives could have been saved. Maybe the cop with the rifle wouldnt get the call untill its too late, maybe he will be right near the school and could have helped...yhou simply don't know unless it happens. Thats the chance you take. And if a cop ends up shooting someone innocent with the rifle, you know who to blame...the rifle. Like Kaz said, its a give and take situation.
And "what could happen" is what we do all the time and it does happen.
There was probably a time where you could bring a gun onto an airplane and no one would have noticed or cared. Once planes started to get hijacked, we started to change policy because of "what could happen", or what has already happened even though a very small percentage of planes were hijacked at any point in history.
-And what high speed chases without permission are you talking about? Do you know that California has different policies than Boston does? Do you know what the policies say?
-The theory behind pepperball guns, tess than lethal shotguns, and tazers is that they are used in situations that leathal force used to have been used. Departments use tazers because they have found that lawsuits from resisting arrest and getting beaten up have gone down. Untill courts rule that tazers are not less than lethal, departments will continue to use them (Boston does not use either the pepperball gun or tazer) But if they did have a tazer, that kid that died from a heart problem after the celtics game may have lived because the cops would not have had to have thrown him to the ground. But maybe the tazer would have killed him because of his heart problem? We will never know and thats the problem with the other side...you just dont know.
Well put Pete
good job
Don't forget
... your tinfoil helmets, backyard bomb shelters, earthquake suits, gas masks, and snakebite kits when going out...
by Pete's logic, and I know it's popular (though really wrong): ANYTHING could happen at ANY TIME.
Gotta go. The sun could explode today!
thats your problem Zbert...
There is no right or wrong here. The world doesn't always have easy answers like you want it too. I guess its a good thing you probably aren't in charge of anything that might have to be thought out or we might be in a lot of trouble.
Actually Pete
I'm in charge of lots of things.
I do risk management and process improvement. I keep little parts of the world here and there from falling apart.
My work is based on facts, not wild speculations and storytelling.
zbert, it's good to prepare for "wild speculations."
If, before the 911 attacks had happened, people like you would have called it a "wild speculation" if someone suggested that someone would fly jets into the towers. If you haven't noticed, active shooter incidents/mass shootings have been on the rise (hello? Another one last night in Springfield). And, with this poor economy, more people are feeling more desperate/depressed and that sometimes leads to them doing crazy stuff like these shootings. So, this is exactly the time to get prepared.
risk management and facts?
If it was so easy to know right or wrong, then we wouldn't need risk management at all would we? Unless you are smarter than everyone else.
In that case you should run for president of the US and solve the worlds problems then if you can make all your decisions off of facts. Or since that might be hard to do right off the bat, you should run for city council or mayor right away since everyone that can't make decisions off of facts now like you can, will be amazed at how perfect you can make this world! But then you aleady said you keep little parts of the world here and there from falling apart so we should already feel real safe!
I thought one of the key principals of risk manamement is a prioritization of risks and then using probability to further examine those risks? Or how about including human factors and reactions, a key principle of any risk management process?
And if you deal with financial or portfolio risk management, that is not what we are talking about here.
And this if far from "wild speculation" here like you say. If it were that "wild", there wouldn't be one police department in the country that carry rifles in the cars.
Probabilities are derived from knowable facts and statistics
I asked you fine fellows to provide some stats of your choosing to show how bigger weapons would have helped the boston police at any time in the past.
you chose not to do that, so there is really nothing to talk about.
you don't just look at Boston...
you have to look at what happens at other cities and what could happen.
Does Seattle airport go without security because no one has ever hijacked a plane out of Seattle? This could save the Seattle airport and city X million dollars if they just got rid of security right now.
No it doesn't because it is a FACT that since planes have been hijacked at other airports, it COULD happen in Seattle. There is no correlation between the 9/11 hijackers and the cities of Newark, Boston or Bangor. So Newark, Boston and Bangor shouldn't have to be the only airports that have to worry about hijacking in the future.
And after facts or statistics, there is still sometimes a tough decision to be made. Ill stick with the airline situation and say that since 1950, there have been 1 billion flights. How many of that 1 billion flights have been hijacked? 100? Lets say 1000. That means that .000001 flights have been hijacked. Now that number is low because someone decided at somepoint that it would be beneficial to put security at airports to prevent that from happening. But just take out a 0 or two 0s from the number. Its still pretty slim.
Who can predict how many more hijacking there are going to be in the future? What's going to be the next method? A boxcutter? No one thought of that before 2001 did they?
Zbert I respect your opinion if you say you don't think rifles belong in cars because of factors X,Y and Z, but you can't say you have the right answer. Don't you see why that is?
Hijackings of airplanes have nothing to do with this subject
Cite some specific examples of REAL situations, that have occurred, in which a high powered rifle in the trunk of a police car, properly stowed (unloaded) would have been useful in the city of Boston.
Note that you're going to need more than one extreme example to make a compelling case.
As well, for a true picture of the risks and overhead, what is the cost of training officers and maintaining certification to carry those weapons? Some stats from other departments in similar-size cities would be useful there. This department has a history of officers using things they are neither trained nor authorized to use, for example, the pepper gun situation. Given that such unauthorized uses can't be stopped in advance, only atoned for afterward (sometimes when people are dead, with no benefit to the community), what are the risks to uninvolved civilians when officers have high powered weapons.
Now, if you are really serious about getting this right, what alternatives exist to placing high powered rifles in police cars, conducting training and recertification, and bearing risks of misuse, going forward in time forever... given the specific examples that you would have cited in response to my first request above, what alternative exist, and what is the history of those alternatives here or anywhere?
There has been no evidence presented to justify this move, just a lot of fanciful storytelling. Please either ground your arguments in reality or stop arguing.
"Fanciful storytelling?"
Here's a story for you zbert:
Since 2006, in the USA, at just schools, not churches or malls...
Over 45 people killed at: North Illinois University; Success Tech Academy, OH; Virginia Tech; West Nickel Mines Amish School; Mt Vernon Elem, NJ; Weston School Casenovia, WI; Platte Canyon High, CO; Orange High, NC; Campbell County High, TN; Red Lake High, MN.
Why don't you tell their surviving families that these are just stories and that none of it is real?
Fear-mongering is not useful in making decisions of this sort
Please explain precisely what use semiautomatic weapons, in the trunks of police cars, would have done to help in those situations.
In the cases above that i'm familiar with, the wackos who showed with weapons and killed people, had more or less completed their killing before authorities were even on the scene. At Columbine (did you mention that?) the police were there and had access to whatever weapons they might have needed, and it didn't matter one bit because the reality is that having a big gun is no help if you can't enter the premises without making things worse. Oh yeah, Columbine. Isn't that where the police kind freaked out a bit and were pointing guns at students? I think we should be glad they didn't have standard-issue semis.
I'm sorry you can't see the near-complete lack of logical connection between the problem and the solution you propose, but clearly that's not going to change. I'm glad excitable people like you aren't making these decisions, at least much of the time.
poor argument
I don't think you'll ever see how wrong you are so I am giving up. Over and out.
never mind...
At Columbine (did you mention that?) the police were there and had access to whatever weapons they might have needed
the reality is that having a big gun is no help if you can't enter the premises without making things worse
with this quote you are 100% wrong and have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. The lack of policy and weapons was one of the #1 reasons that every single police department in the country changed their policy for active shooting situations after Columbine.
Zbert....
first off you forget that I don't want machine guns in cars for the exact reasons you state. But I sure as hell aren't going to tell people that it is the right decision because they have never been needed in the past.
we are talking about machine guns here. Machine guns are used in worse case scenerios. "storytelling" is not the right word to use.
Didn't I already say that "boston" as a city has nothing to do with it? If someone can shoot someone in CO or VA, they can shoot someone in MA. How can't you understand that?
As well, for a true picture of the risks and overhead, what is the cost of training officers and maintaining certification to carry those weapons? Some stats from other departments in similar-size cities would be useful there. This department has a history of officers using things they are neither trained nor authorized to use, for example, the pepper gun situation. Given that such unauthorized uses can't be stopped in advance, only atoned for afterward (sometimes when people are dead, with no benefit to the community), what are the risks to uninvolved civilians when officers have high powered weapons.
No one ever said that none of the above isn't taken into consideration did they?
And hijacking of planes don't have to do with this situation, but it does have to do with your weak arguement of "if it never happend here, then it can't happen here".
And just by seeing your quote below when you state that Columbine officers had all the weapons at hand shows that you are totally ignorant about the subject.
Lazy!
and with this ad hominem retort i hereby turn my back on this useless discussion with you
you're too lazy to do research, instead using fairy tales and make-believe what-ifs.
and you're still doing it
nothing to discuss with you.
moving on to productive endeavours.
I already said in my first response...
that there are no numbers! Its never happened! Just like a hijacking never happened in Seattle! If you are going to use the lazy logic (and not answer to why you use it!) of "never happened here, so why worry about it here" then whats the difference!
Just by reading that you thought that Columbine officers had the weapons at hand shows you had your fact wrong! YOUR FACTS WERE WRONG! And those are facts we are talking about not logic.
Don't worry Zbert, you, me and Menino agree on the M-16s, the only difference is that Menino and I probably had some real background information as to why they aren't needed besides facts like "the cops have chubby fingers" or "they might be looking into holes" all day. That shows why you can't be in any position of respect or real responsiblity.
In case you people never
In case you people never noticed, Boston Police already have guns. How often do they use them?
If I were you, I'd be far more worried about Boston Public School students with guns than cops.