Boston mayor knows better than cops?

[TFOGGER]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/30/incoming-boston-mayor-police-clash-over-ar-15-proposal/?cmpid=edpick&google_editors_picks=true


Boston police are clashing with the city's incoming mayor over a proposal to arm some officers with AR-15 rifles.
Mayor-elect Martin Walsh reportedly came out against the plan over the weekend. The Boston Police Department had been pushing for a limited number of officers to carry the high-powered rifles, in light of recent mass shootings as well as the Boston Marathon bombing earlier this year.
But after the incoming mayor initially stayed mum on the idea, a spokeswoman for Walsh told the Boston Herald (http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/12/walsh_shoots_down_rifle_plan) he's not on board -- not yet, anyway.
"Mayor-elect Walsh is opposed to the AR-15 rifles," she was quoted as saying. "Unless otherwise convinced by the Boston Police Department, he does not think they are necessary."


...because his extensive backgroung in law enforcement gives him special insight into the needs of LEOs on the front lines. Maybe he should read up on the North Hollywood Shootout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout)...

ETA: I do think the cost of the rifles is probably inflated, but the article doesn't specify what they're planning on buying.

[lowbeyond]

Well you cant have an "assault weapon" in MA if you are not a cop.

So meh. Fukkem

Whats good for the goose and all that...

[Eric P]

Police should not be more heavily armed than the populus they need to police. They also dont need military style weapons, armor or vehicles. After all they are civilians.

[TFOGGER]

They're talking about 33 rifles for 22 cops in a force of about 2500. Part of me agrees that police shouldn't have weapons not available to the general public, but the other side of that coin is that the criminals should not be better armed than the cops OR the general public, and I don't think the drug dealers and bank robbers are going to comply with the "assault weapons" restrictions. The solution, then is not to restrict what the cops are allowed to carry, but to eliminate those restrictions for the law abiding populace.

The North Hollywood Shootout may have been an anomaly, but it is by no mean unique. The Miami FBI shootout that led to the adoption of the .40 S&W by the FBI comes to mind. I'm not advocating arming police with Howitzers and Tanks, merely allowing them to carry the same types of weapons that you or I would choose to defend our families with.

[blacklabel]

The front lines? Lol.

[crays]

Besides, they captured Whitey Bulger, so the streets of Beantown are now safe.......right?
;)

Sent via my Mobile Work Avoidance Device

[lowbeyond]

Part of me agrees that police shouldn't have weapons not available to the general public, but the other side of that coin is that the criminals should not be better armed than the cops OR the general public, and I don't think the drug dealers and bank robbers are going to comply with the "assault weapons" restrictions.

They wont comply. But that is not the point of the law is it. No the purpose of the law is to put the screws on the low hanging fruit. The people that will comply, and if they don't.. well there is a nice fine and jail cell waiting. Gotta show 'em who is boss right !


The solution, then is not to restrict what the cops are allowed to carry, but to eliminate those restrictions for the law abiding populace.

Well sure. Wake me up when the cops support a repeal of the laws. Or better yet, stop busting people for plastic stocks that change length, or boxes that hold more than 10 rounds etc etc. As it stands now, the cops want the criminals to be better armed than the general public.


I'm not advocating arming police with Howitzers and Tanks, merely allowing them to carry the same types of weapons that you or I would choose to defend our families
How about bearcats and MRAPS ? And the funny thing about that last part in bold is that the cops want a weapon that they will not permit other people's families to have.

So, again.. Fukkem.

[Bailey Guns]

At $2500 per rifle (even with accessories and parts and training) I'd pass, too. Sounds like someone is trying to rob the Boston PD. I guess I just can't get too fired up about what the leftist mayor of a leftist east coast city wants (or doesn't want) for his police department. Especially since the citizens of his town can't go out and buy the same gun. The people of Boston (and leftist controlled cities like Boston) are getting exactly what they voted for. I'm sure a lot of the PD officers voted for the mayor, too. Now someone is surprised? Color me don't care.

[hatidua]

Color me don't care.

That sums up my sentiments on the entire issue.

[osok-308]

This guy is a buffoon. Isn't he the same guy who told Chick-fil-a they weren't welcome in Boston because of their stance on gay marriage?

[DavieD55]

They wont comply. But that is not the point of the law is it. No the purpose of the law is to put the screws on the low hanging fruit. The people that will comply, and if they don't.. well there is a nice fine and jail cell waiting. Gotta show 'em who is boss right !



Well sure. Wake me up when the cops support a repeal of the laws. Or better yet, stop busting people for plastic stocks that change length, or boxes that hold more than 10 rounds etc etc. As it stands now, the cops want the criminals to be better armed than the general public.


How about bearcats and MRAPS ? And the funny thing about that last part in bold is that the cops want a weapon that they will not permit other people's families to have.

So, again.. Fukkem.

X2

[rondog]

Silly me - I thought most cops these days were already equipped with AR's.

[Jesus-With-A-.45]

If the citizens of Boston can't own them than neither should the LEO of Boston.

You reap what you vote for.......NO FUCKS GIVEN.

[BPTactical]

If the citizens of Boston can't own them than neither should the LEO of Boston.

You reap what you vote for.......NO FUCKS GIVEN.


Yup, you would think people would realize there are consequences for their vote.
Now Boston gets a bag of dildoes to play with for a couple of years....

And my DILLIGAF meter is pegged as well.

[trlcavscout]

Well you cant have an "assault weapon" in MA if you are not a cop.

So meh. Fukkem

Whats good for the goose and all that...

Exfuckinzactly!

[JohnnyDrama]

While I agree with the general sentiment about the local law enforcement not being more heavily armed than the general population I think there is likely more to this than what was reported and said. My idea comes from a conversation with the local sheriff a few years ago. He had recently lost a couple of rigs in a roadblock incident someone tried to blow through. He was wondering where he was going to get the $60.000 to replace the equipment he lost. BTW they got the bad guy... Anyway I'm wondering if it isn't so much a case of the mayor thinking his police don't need carbines as much as it is that the money would be better spent elsewhere. The mayor is just too chicken to tell it like it is and would rather make up a more politically correct answer which is misleading and dishonest.

Lying politicians serve no one.

[hatidua]

a conversation with the local sheriff a few years ago. He had recently lost a couple of rigs in a roadblock incident someone tried to blow through. He was wondering where he was going to get the $60.000 to replace the equipment he lost.

He probably should have given that a bit more thought prior to parking two vehicles in the path of oncoming traffic.

[Ronin13]

Police should not be more heavily armed than the criminals they may encounter who don't care about the law. They also dont need military style weapons, armor or vehicles. After all they are civilians.
Right, because examples like North Hollywood and Columbine (where first responding patrol officers were out gunned) prove that a better armed police force shouldn't match the criminals they may face with equal or greater equipment and firepower. [Roll1] I'm not a plumber, so it's not my place to dictate what equipment a plumber should have.

[Rabid]

Right, because examples like North Hollywood and Columbine (where first responding patrol officers were out gunned) prove that a better armed police force shouldn't match the criminals they may face with equal or greater equipment and firepower. [Roll1] I'm not a plumber, so it's not my place to dictate what equipment a plumber should have.
Columbine? The police were out gunned by 9mm's and 12 gauges?

[osok-308]

Columbine? The police were out gunned by 9mm's and 12 gauges?

Not outgunned with Columbine as far as I know, but North Hollywood and the Miami shootout of '86 are perfect examples of what Ronin is going for. The public should not be undergunned, but this is a perfect case of trying to take guns from the good guys in an attempt to keep them from bad guys, and we all know how well that went.

[Ronin13]

Columbine? The police were out gunned by 9mm's and 12 gauges?
POS gun, but the Hi-Point Carbine they used to open fire on the first JCSO unit to arrive had a lot more range than the pistol the deputy was carrying. Even for a 9mm, it still is more accurate up to longer ranges than the average duty pistol.

Not outgunned with Columbine as far as I know, but North Hollywood and the Miami shootout of '86 are perfect examples of what Ronin is going for. The public should not be undergunned, but this is a perfect case of trying to take guns from the good guys in an attempt to keep them from bad guys, and we all know how well that went.
Oh I totally forgot about Miami '86... well said. Yes, I consider all good guys to consist of cops and law abiding citizens... if criminals want to break the law and have bigger guns, then in order for the average person to protect themselves they should be allowed to have "evil, military style rifles", because usually the police arrive to process the crime scene, not stop the crime.

[Mick-Boy]

I would have more sympathy if there wasn't a constant stream of high ranking LEOs (I know, I know "They don't represent most of the rank and file"..) on television using their badge as a pulpit to advocate the disarmament of the American Citizen.

The day Boston PD is advocating for the citizens on MA to have their second amendment rights restored is the day I'll care about the PD not getting the weapons they want.

[Milt]

A Modest Proposal for Fairness:

No government official or employee at any level should have weapons denied to the general public, nor should their salaries be one penny higher than the average after tax earnings of the tax paying public they 'serve'.

If the 'public servants' feel out-gunned by the 'bad guys', there is a simple remedy - quit denying the rights of the citizenry to the tools of self defense. If the 'public servants' have a hard time living on the same income as their constituents, they can get their idiotic regulations out of the way so that the market can operate to raise that average income.

[osok-308]

A Modest Proposal for Fairness:

No government official or employee at any level should have weapons denied to the general public, nor should their salaries be one penny higher than the average after tax earnings of the tax paying public they 'serve'.

If the 'public servants' feel out-gunned by the 'bad guys', there is a simple remedy - quit denying the rights of the citizenry to the tools of self defense.

I agree. Citizens should not be out-gunned. I'm just saying that taking them out of the hands of police doesn't mean that criminals aren't going to have them. Considering the rank and file officer supports citizens right to bear arms (from what I've heard from family members of mine who are cops) no politician should be making laws arms. Or make a law that holds the politicians are responsible for the deaths of those who were under-gunned should a shootout arise.

[Milt]

Of course, criminals will get whatever weapons they 'need'. The problem is that far too many cops' behavior has become indistinguishable from that of the free lance criminals and thugs - and, the 'good cops' are failing to police their own ranks.

If the institution we call 'the police' can be at all compatible with the American ideal of ordered Liberty, cops must strictly honor their oaths and become true Peace Officers instead of law enforcement officers. They absolutely MUST place their duty to protect the Rights and Liberty of the public above their loyalty to the 'thin blue line'/us-versus-them mentality that facilitates the continuing trend toward cops becoming mere tools of unlawful government power. Anyone who swears an oath and then essentially ignores it is completely devoid of honor and worthy only of the contempt of honest, decent people. Like the rest of us, cops need to remember that honor and integrity can only be gained or lost by their own efforts - no one else can deprive you of your honor or integrity and no one else can give you either of those precious gifts.

I have heard much talk of 'wolves, sheep and sheep dogs'; the police and military are supposed to be the sheep dogs. Today they increasingly resemble the wolf and it is time for that to stop...

[hatidua]

They absolutely MUST place their duty to protect the Rights and Liberty of the public above their loyalty to the 'thin blue line'/us-versus-them mentality

I'd recommend you focus on more realistic scenarios:

-World Peace
-Locating the Loch Ness Monster
-Sharply in-focus photo of Big Foot

[Milt]

"I'd recommend you focus on more realistic scenarios:

-World Peace
-Locating the Loch Ness Monster
-Sharply in-focus photo of Big Foot"

Unfortunately, you are probably correct - the police seem to be functioning as the standing army (of occupation) so loathed by the Founders. "To Protect and Serve" somehow doesn't seem to require MRAPs and massive surveillance; to subjugate and tyrannize would seem to be the real mission, here. As the sheepdogs complete the process of morphing into wolves, it will be time to go hunting...