Hey, there! Log in / Register
Boston cop unions demand more armor, weapons
By adamg on Fri, 08/05/2016 - 9:01am
In a world gone mad, with Kumbaya-singing wimps serving as president and governor, they say officers need more protection and firepower, the Herald reports.
Meanwhile, the Globe reports no BPD officers have volunteered to test body cameras in a pilot slated for September, so the department will have to order 100 or so officers to put them on.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
The fact that patrol cars do
The fact that patrol cars do not have plate armor and modern rifles should be a cause for outrage. Patrol officers are poorly equipped to deal with major threats without them. The rifles could be had for 500 bucks a piece for crying out loud and surplus MICH helmets for probably less than 100 from the feds.
Why stop there?
Hell, put 'em all in armored personnel carriers, and mount a minigun on the front end of each one. That'll keep them safe!
Unless the bad guys acquire anti-tank mines. We should definitely plan for that possibility. How about, we dig massive earthworks around the Ruggles police station, station snipers on the roof, and keep an Apache airborne 24/7 to repel organized assaults?
Alternately, we could teach actual policework, encourage the department to practice actual community policing, and ponder the question "How come the rest of the civilized world doesn't put their cops in Kevlar and full-auto weapons, and they seem to do OK?"
Nah, you're right, that would be impossible... we'll never get it past the legion of limp-dicked internet warriors fixating on their own insecurities by fantasizing about using the police as a proxy for solving their problems with minorities, or the poor, or whoever the villain of the week might be. Cheaper to buy body armor, or APCs, or tactical nuclear weapons.
erik g.
I've been in two situations in my career where bullets have flew within 20 feet of me by criminals. Have you ever been in that situation?
That's probably the reason why other cops in the world aren't pressing for protection.
What's the point?
Are you saying that if you haven't been a police officer or haven't been shot at you shouldn't weigh in on the issue of what policing in America should look like?
If you aren't saying that, why bother asking the question?
No I think you need to know your facts.
If these cops around the world aren't getting shot at, why would they want vests? That was my point, and that is what I inferred.
I say this as someone from a
I say this as someone from a police family with an incredible distrust of law enforcement officers: maybe reform the brotherhood that for decades has protected bad behavior and led to the incredible mistrust and hatred of cops and people wouldn't be shooting? Maybe force police officers to be accountable for their actions? Maybe become something more than thugs and bullies of a broken system and poisonous culture?
Wait
How did you go from talking about cops to talking about BLM posterboys in your last sentence?
You think cops are getting
You think cops are getting shot at because criminals don't like the "brotherhood"? Really? Do you really think killing a cop is justifiable because someone doesn't like the blue line? I don't like the blue line either, but killing a cop because of it gives someone everything they deserve.
Your justifying killing cops and getting 6 likes for it is enough for me today.
You don't think
Well, actually, how could you when you didn't even bother to read?
Didn't say it was okay ... just predictable if cops go into the world with an "us vs them" attitude.
Partially
That is what is inferred in your second paragraph. That is not what is inferred in your first paragraph with the question I was addressing.
Well my second paragraph was part of the same theme as the 1st.
If a random guy on uhub.com who serves on a police force in an American city has been shot at twice, maybe his experience is telling about why others in the world really shouldn't have the same concerns.
I think he's saying
That twice in twenty years isn't a good enough reason for a bunch of wannabe warriors to dress like Mad Max characters all the time, and abandon community policing to their fears.
A) NOBODY is going to wear
A) NOBODY is going to wear plate armor when they do not have to. That stuff is heavy and uncomfortable, same with rifles.
B) Why does arming cops with rifles mean you must abandon community policing?
Such a joke, 2 times in a
Such a joke, 2 times in a carreer? 20 feet? from a 9mm or .38? What a whiny baby. I had that beat by a mile in one day in Afghanistan. Sorry, cops don't need to be equipped like soldiers. Oh....and if they do....they should have to wear that shit ALL THE TIME like soldiers AND be held to basic fitness standards like soldiers. Also, no overtime, like soldiers.
Settle down Francis.
Thanks for your service but realize that Boston shouldn't be a place where people shoot at each other. You invaded a foreign country for crying out loud, expect to be shot at.
Forget the fact that pretty much 100% or the cops who want this stuff are ex military guys who probably shouldn't be cops in the first place.m but that's another story.
*clutching pearls*
To my dearest cop person,
I can't believe someone shot in your general vicinity!? That must have been really scary! You must be very brave. Please let us buy you a tank.
Love,
The Taxpayers
When I handle chemicals in my
When I handle chemicals in my workplace I am required to wear protective clothing, thanks OSHA. When cops engage a threat with a rifle they may as well be wearing T-shirts. How dare they also want protective clothing!
Spoken by somone
who has never had live rounds coming down range at them. You're such a brave man Andy from Alston.
go fishing or tree climbing for a living
Then you will know what a dangerous job is really like.
It's spelled Allston :)
It's spelled Allston :)
andy the allston boy
maybe someday you will be at the apple store and some maniac with an AR-15 will come in shooting? maybe you will find yourself surrounded by dead bodies and flying bullets? maybe then you might appreciate the nearest "cop person" that's going to be coming in to find you and save your life? maybe they will actually run you over with their new tank?
In that situation, wouldn't
In that situation, wouldn't be better for us all just to have armor? Or better yet, bullet-proof ipads?
Rare event
Extremely rare event. You are far more likely to be run over by some numbnutz in a truck as you leave the apple store, and to have the BPD make excuses for the numbnutz running a red light or driving on the sidewalk or otherwise "I just didn't see anything".
Technically it would be the
Technically it would be the taxpayers tank since we paid for it :)
Will community policing stop
Will community policing stop terrorist attacks? Will community policing stop scenarios where rifles are a threat? Having plate armor that can stop rifle rounds, and helmets has pretty much nothing to do with minorities. Supporting equipping police with the proper gear to engage threats does not mean one opposes community policing.
Rifles are the best tool for the job when you need to accurately and effectively engage an armed threat. Getting into a gun fight with a handgun as reflected by the hit rates of most police (34% for the NYPD) is less than ideal.
Deploying cops with handguns and soft armor (does not stop rifle rounds) when you know there is an armed threat is outrageous. That a city with so many resources would refuse to act to give its officers a reasonable level of protection is outrageous.
DPM you have a point.
I was always baffled about all the people who are scared of "military" weapons.
If the street cop does not have a rifle in a situation where he would use it, he is going to use his handgun which is probably 1/10th as accurate. Instead of using cover fire, you can sit in an armored vehicle and wait it out.
I'm not that worried though, BPD can always call Northeastern.
1/10th as accurate and 1/10th
1/10th as accurate and 1/10th less effective if you get hits on target.
Okay
So why arm cops at all?
Please explain weapon worshipper
How would the cops having these weapons have stopped the Tsarnaev brothers?
You can't. Because they couldn't.
Wait, you mean rifles an body
Wait, you mean rifles an body armor will not be 100% useful in 100% of circumstances? No way!
You're arguing against yourself here
What percentage of circumstances involves a terrorist attack, or a person using rifles against police officers? Yes, both of these scenarios have occurred at some point, but how likely is either to happen at any given time? If the tools currently available to police are effective in the vast majority of circumstances, why should they upgrade to equipment that, like their current equipment, will also not be effective 100% of the time?
I am not arguing that armor
I am not arguing that armor and rifles are a cure all. All I am arguing is that armor and rifles are tools that will help keep cops alive and civilians alive when the worst does happen.
Why should equipment be upgraded? Because for a negligible cost we can save lives? This is not only about cop lives. Body armor keeps cops in the fight, this can save civilian lives. Rifles are force multipliers and allow cops to engage with accuracy simply not present with handguns. This can also save civilian lives, civilians being caught in the crossfire is not unusual, rifles can minimize that potential risk ( tho not eliminate it)
Armor and rifles are not a cure all. They can however save lives.
You know
this is Boston and not Baghdad, right? How many times per year is BPD going to be called in to take down multiple deadly threats with rifles?
BPD answers calls to people
BPD answers calls to people with handguns quite regularly. Helmet and rifle give them an edge in such a scenario.
Terrorist attacks have happened in Boston and they will happen again in the future. Buying rifles that could last 60 years (longer if properly maintained) to increase the efficacy of cops engagement of those threats is entirely reasonable.
Another imaginative paranoid pretends to know what cops do
If you did some real digging, you would find that these calls aren't as common as you seem to think they are from your hours spent being regaled with hero stories by drunken cops.
swat team
"Deploying cops with handguns and soft armor (does not stop rifle rounds) when you know there is an armed threat is outrageous"
Are SWAT teams still a thing? Pretty sure if you know there is a serious armed threat, you won't just send the guy down the street on patrol into the situation.
"Pretty sure if you know
"Pretty sure if you know there is a serious armed threat, you won't just send the guy down the street on patrol into the situation.'
When there is an active shooter etc the first officers there are expected to begin engaging the threat. Armor and rifles allow them to do that in a safer (for EVERYONE) manner.
With all those officers educated under the Quinn Bill...
With all of those officers educated under the Quinn Bill, you'd think that they'd learn how to correctly use capitalization.
One has to also bear in mind, however, that nowadays,
there are bullets being manufactured that can go right through bullet-proof vests and other bullet-proof armor like nothing, if one gets the drift.
Specifically made AP ammo has
Specifically made AP ammo has been illegal for 30+ years. Rifle caliber ammo (any hunting rifle) will defeat common plate armor on the simple basis of physics.
Common plate armor can stop
Common plate armor can stop all common rifle rounds quite effectively.
Soft armor however cannot at all.
Every single center fire
Every single center fire rifle round in the world will go through soft armor like butter. Has pretty much nothing to do with armor piercing ammo. Plate armor will stop pretty much every rifle threat cops face.
Also "Quotes"
And the Use of "Apostrophe's"
Overall the grammar in this letter is just A+. Looks like they hired some Herald commenters to write it.
Quinn bill?
Ya - the state de-funded that. Because why encourage that our cops be educated.
More like, "Why automatically give them raises...
...because they got a degree?" Because that's exactly, totally, completely how it works in the private sector, and the rest of government service for that matter-- people get degrees and automatically get raises, no matter what.
Oh wait, that's not how it happens? MY GOD!
Teachers too.
Get bonuses for having advanced degrees. Not a difficult concept to understand. Educated cops means less police brutality and all sorts of other benefits.
traffic enforcement?
It's frustrating to see all the red light running and other traffic violations in our neighborhood. There's almost zero enforcement.
How about instead of weaponizing police, and instead of paying them to stand around construction jobs, we start paying them to enforce traffic rules?
we already pay them to
we already pay them to enforce traffic laws. they apparently just are not doing it.
Protecting the public
Reducing road collisions is a huge way to do that.
Enforcement and roadway design that frustrates scofflaws goes a long way toward that end.
Yep, drivers injure and kill
Yep, drivers injure and kill WAY more people in Boston than terrorists have. Yet I've never seen someone get a ticket for speeding or running a red light despite witnessing these laws being broken on a daily basis.
you're not
Actually, you are not paying them to "stand around construction jobs." they are paid by the company, not the city
Costs are passed on
It makes it more expensive to build things, which means fewer things are built, which means those things that get built are more expensive. It's not a huge driver of costs, but it's one of those many regulations that make doing things more difficult without any good reason for it.
I don't know how many there are
But before they start picking names out of a hat, may I humbly suggest that any cop currently under investigation be the first to be issued cameras? That guy who shoved the pedestrian to the sidewalk for touching his car, for instance, might be a good candidate to show what he's up to in the course of his duties while the investigation continues.
Pussies
Patrick M. Rose, Mark M. Parolin, Brian C. Black, Michael G. Talbot: Resign. You're not qualified to protect the public, because you quake with fear when you imagine walking down the street like the rest of us.
Back in the days when it was actually more dangerous to be a police officer than it is today, police weren't afraid to confront the possibility of violence without military-style equipment. The FBI has confirmed that this is the safest time in history to be a police officer, but police unions have been taken over by a bunch of frightened little pussies. Vote them out and get some real leadership. Pretending they're in an imaginary war just makes cops a danger to each other and to the public.
The vast majority of Boston cops are brave, dedicated, and community-minded, standing together with the public against crime and violence. They deserve better than a bunch of pants-wetters as their union leadership.
Ridiculous. Cops are not
Ridiculous. Cops are not going to be lugging around rifles or plate armor except in circumstances where they face a significant threat, they will be sitting in the trunk of their squad cars otherwise. That cops want the best tools for the job when engaging a terrorist or any other similar threat makes them pussies? Yes, how dare they demand body armor that can stop rifle rounds, how dare they demand helmets that they can put on if faced with an armed threat they should stop the bullets with their bodies.
"Circumstances"
Question for you: in these hypothetical circumstances, by the time the cops know that all this hardware is needed, won't it be too late? Who makes the determination of a "significant threat", and how do they make it? And isn't that judgment call (or rather the quality of that judgment call) at the heart of the problem with police-public interactions?
IOW, acquiring tools without developing the judgment of when and how to use them is a waste of time, and when the tools are lethal weapons, it's quite a bit worse than that. So how does the police UNION propose to avoid that?
"by the time the cops know
"by the time the cops know that all this hardware is needed, won't it be too late?"
Depends on the circumstances. Get a call for a person shooting people at a location and throw on the plate carrier from the trunk when one arrives at the location. Is the plate carrier going to be available in all circumstances? Of course not.
The judgement of when and how to use them is easy. Know you are going to be facing an armed threat and not yet engaged? Put on your helmet, retreive your rifle, sure it might take an extra minute but a rifle and a brain bucket will make the individual officer much more effective.
Then get rid of SWAT
SPECIAL Weapons and Tactics officers (with requisite training) used to be required to be called in if the situation was such that you needed armor, rifles, etc. If you give every cop a SWAT Starter Kit in their trunk, then you're *directly* militarizing the entire system. You've given up on when a *peace officer* should be deferring to SWAT or other organized groups/task forces. Every beat cop shouldn't be engaging in a situation where they need full armor and a mini-rover with an explosive attached to an arm in case the subject holes up.
I don't want my police force knowing when he needs to deploy long rifles and full armor. I want him calling in the SMALLER group of officers that don't go out and regularly patrol the city in full kit but respond with the gear as needed and then disappear again.
Police tactics have changed.
Police tactics have changed. When there is an active shooting they no longer wait around for SWAT to arrive, the first cops there begin engaging the threat. Why should those officers not be equipped with the armor that can keep them alive and the rifle that gives them a capacity to stop the threat as quickly and effectively as possible.
An officer with a long gun and armor may survive and stop a threat in a circumstance where an officer with a sidearm and soft armor dies and lets the threat continue. This can also save civilian lives.
Yes, and
Your point?
"But THAT CITY HAS ALL THE FUN WEAPONS" is not an excuse for militarizing OUR police force when there is NO NEED.
My point was quite clear.
My point was quite clear. Patrol officers will pretty much always be the first on scene of a shooting etc. Expecting them to engage a threat while refusing to give them adequate tools for the job is an unreasonable demand.
Just as I must wear protective clothing when handling chemicals in the workplace there should be a standard of safety for officers when they are put into difficult situations and forced to engage a threat.
At no point did I state your quoted argument. Could we try and avoid strawmen?
Sure thing bud
Let's say there's an active shooter at your workplace, you're hiding under your desk and the gunshots are getting closer and closer. Do you want the first cop in the vicinity to engage the shooter, or would you rather wait for half hour or so for SWAT team to arrive?
rare outcomes
Rare outcomes do not necessitate extreme measures.
Far more important to prepare for less rare outcomes - like your workplace flooding out.
Sure thing bud
Prevention is vastly better than militarized police declaring any and all events "active shooter" situations because they have riot gear handy.
The best way to handle an active shooter situation is DON'T SELL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
BPD used to have Thompson
BPD used to have Thompson submachineguns, Browning automatic rifles, and heavy machineguns (maxims) in their armory in addition to armored cars. They are less equipped now than they were in the past.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/5804690089/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/5804699937/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/5805254928/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/5805248900/
You know why, right?
A lot of those weapons had a clear purpose: they were for murdering union strikers and demonstrators and uppity immigrants and such.
Even the captions from the
Even the captions from the Leslie Jones collection (captions he would have suggested for use in the Herald-Traveler) indicate that the militarized weapons of the time were meant for use against lefty types.
Now that is militarized.
Now that is militarized.
On Sock_Puppet's "Pussies"
On Sock_Puppet's "Pussies" comment...
Police unions really do suck, especially the so-called leadership. They are in perpetual "us against the world" mode. Their uber-dominance in labor negotiations means that the membership of smaller unions has to settle for scraps, relatively speaking. And then there's their house publication, Pax Centurion, and ...
I would think the police
I would think the police would want body cameras so that there is no question about how things went down. Isn't it a win-win for the police and the citizens?
They should have equipment that protects them for sure but they should not be militarized. I think we have enough of that. And while they are getting their body armor the K9s who don't sign up for the job should also be automatically given vests as well.
"Isn't it a win-win for the
"Isn't it a win-win for the police and the citizens?"
Absolutely IMO a win for the cops. For the rest of us? Ehhhhh, I have major privacy concerns with the use of data from police cameras.
cameras yes?
(sarcasm) The logic is that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. If there is nothing wrong happening then a camera will show that everything is on the up and up.
How could anyone possibly dispute that? (/sarcasm)
clowns and thugs
Police unions are a disgrace to the labor movement.
If these morons want to ride around in tanks and carry assault rifles then might I suggest they join the military? I hear they get to do that sort of thing all day long.
Fine...let's make a deal
I'll stuff their new APC trunks full of ex-military gear and let them go crazy. They just have to meet one request first.
They have to fully and breathlessly take on the NRA and gun manufacturers until we have substantial and meaningful gun control changes in this state and country. They have to team up with other police unions. If they want to play this stupid "blue lives matter" game, then their protest should be at reducing ALL gun sales everywhere.
But not one goddamned word in that whole grammatical disaster they call a "letter" (seriously, does the union not have a press secretary who could have cleaned that up before it was sent out the door??) about the need to have elected officials make their lives safer by reducing the problem rather than ratcheting up the so-called solution higher and higher.
When Maura Healey recently explained her definition of "similar guns" includes guns that were previously legally sold in MA...not ONE PEEP from the police unions in her defense when gun enthusiasts started going apeshit. And part of the reason? Because their unions are full of gun masturbators as well. The more guns the better...until someone you don't like gets their hands on one of your powerful toys, eh boys in blue? Then, well, "we're unprotected and how do we fire back if we don't have firepower superiority...oh and I should get to buy more guns like this when I'm not on duty because I've proven I can handle them correctly". And the fucking cycle continues.
So, no. No new toys for you. Not until you understand the root of the problem and start showing the same vitriol you just showed to management to the people who are arming all those people you think are causing you to work in fear.
I do feel bad that cops have
I do feel bad that cops have to deal with so many armed gun nuts in this country. But they are making things worse by not fighting for stricter gun laws. Instead we are in an arms race between militarized cops and the legions of dangerous gun owners. Caught in the crossfire are innocent people who just want rational gun laws and to not be shot.
Ummm
Last time I checked, it's not the "gun nuts" who are killing the cops...
Ahem
Dallas?
Overworked?
We could ease your load by legalizing civilian flaggers. What was the roadblock to that again? Oh, right.
Boston's Police Department is one of the few departments
Boston's Police Department is one of the few police departments here in the United States that hasn't been militarized. Why change that? The idea of militarizing Boston's Police department when it's just pulling out of its own sad history is ludicrous, imho.
Surprised at the level of anti-cop rhetoric
I'm surprised at the level of anti-police rhetoric here. As noted above, the cost of a long gun, helmet and bullet resistant vest (there's no such thing as bullet-proof vest) is nominal, especially when mustering the SWAT team could take 30 minutes or more. Keep in mind the military grade Bearcat vehicle, vests and weapons helped end the ISIS attack in Orlando. In the 1997 Battle of North Hollywood, police under fire actually had to borrow weapons from a gun shop. In an era of mass shootings and terrorism, arming and vesting the police is the right thing to do.
Body cameras, like any change in working conditions, should be negotiated through collective bargaining. Our officers have earned and deserve that right. While the cameras will benefit the vast majority who are good officers, it will curtail the long established policy of officer discretion. License expired on your birthday? Arrest. The infamous "two drinks" driver after the company Christmas party? Arrest. Registration expired at the end of July, criminal complaint, citation and tow. I would have no problem wearing the camera but would feel bad for the good people who deserve a break and don't get it due to heightened scrutiny.
From what I've read, most
From what I've read, most departments that adopt body cameras do so along with policies that help preserve officer discretion. Nobody on the police or civilian side of this argument thinks they should be used to let the bosses look over your shoulder and keep you from letting that driver with the expired registration go with a warning. But both the officer and the civilian should be able to request the footage of their interaction to defend themselves.
It's not anti-police, you melted sno-cone
It's anti-this-dumb-fucking-letter-from-the-police.
If you aren't doing anything bad ...
... why are you so afraid?
Yes to vests, partial to rifles, no to body cameras
Every cop should have a vest, and have a helmet in their car for whenever they want it. We have shootings daily in Boston.
I could see a rifle secured in the trunk of every car, after training, for use in an active shooter or terrorist situation. If the department decides that's a good idea in balance, and not making cop cars a target for terrorists wanting to acquire rifles, like officer Sean Collier became a target. By policy, I'd expect that the rifle would not be taken out except in extreme situations, beyond when it is appropriate to draw a sidearm.
I will not voluntarily talk with a cop with a body camera. I don't trust that those cameras are not yet another way for power-crazed federal people to deploy surveillance. Or that some gang bander won't get access to the footage and learn who talked about them. Some departments in other states need body cameras to keep them in line, BPD does not.
Robo cop or Inspector Gadget?
Pick the future of Policing in Boston:
Inspector Javert
Harry Callahan
Bunk Moreland
Cagney or Lacy
Pete, Julie and Linc
Kina Greggs
Martin Brody
Barney Fife
Inspector Lee
Crockett or Tubbs
Lieutenant Frank Drebin
Joe Friday
Alonzo Harris
Alex Foley
Jim Gordan
Olivia Benson
OMG! More Typos!!!
Make that Axel Foley
Here come the threats, ala Menino
The mayor won't get 100 officers to volunteer for this camera program so he'll have to threaten the officers on the special units with transfer or withholding promotions from officers who scored high on the test. He'll threaten to bypass people in line for sergeant and lieutenant. It's the government. It's all on the level.
Aren't union negotiations nigh?
If so, it's lucky timing for Mayor Marty.