It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boston mayor says no to police patrols with M-16s

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Boston mayor says no to police patrols with M-16s


hosted.ap.org

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

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

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
First of all I hate to burst their bubble but a rifle chambered in 5.56x45 is not a "High Powered" weapon. My real question is why would they not want to arm the police as well as we are? I have both a 5.56x45 and a 7.62x39 so why should they not have equal fire power on patrol? There is no true logic behind allowing them to carry a side arm but not a rifle. There has been several times in history where if law enforcement had the proper fire power when they first showed up on a crime scene, they could have saved lives. Think about the L.A. Armor Clad Bank Robbery.

hosted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   
I think the police have more than enough fire power as it is, and they just love to use it @ any chance they get, so the less fire-power that an average patrol cop has, the better in my eyes. S.W.A.T. team members, sure, that's what they do..

Like we really need regular beat-patrolling police officers walking around the streets of any US city with M-16's or AR-15's out in the open, giving off the visual impression that we are some third world savage country.

Can you imagine, getting pulled over for blowing a red light, or perhaps a seat-belt check, and here comes Officer Angry Joe trotting up with a Machine Gun.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicClearance
 



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


First of all they are not talking about "machine guns", they are talking about AR15's for all practical purposes. Just because they have them in their squad cars does not mean that they will be carrying them. I am certain that the intention is not to have them just carrying them around like they are on military patrols. I think their intention is to give an added insurance policy in the event that they need more firepower than a hand gun or shotgun can provide.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Do regular police already get shotguns ? If so then let them have the machine guns, visually they are both just as intimidating, if they have shotguns but keep them secured in squad cars unless shtf then fairplay they can do the same with machines.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by gYvMessanger
 


Yes in the states they do commonly have shotguns. In Oklahoma they some have AR15's as well. We never see them unless the police get into a real SHTF situation. There is nothing wrong with them being prepared. We like to be prepared so why can't they?

[edit on 31-5-2009 by LeaderOfProgress]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


I understand I used the term, "Machine gun" when in fact an AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, and an M-16 is an automatic rifle; however, to the average person that doesn't know much about weaponry, they both can easily appear to be, "machine guns."

It's just a bad idea, all in all, what would be the purpose of a specialized unit, if all officers in that area had them, those special units wouldn't be so specialized anymore if you ask me.

I grew up in New York City, in particular Manhattan, and I've seen just about every bad thing, a cop gone bad can do. So I feel that it would only be a matter of time before these weapons would be used in unwarranted situations, I don't trust police, this isn't a sentiment I easily developed, it is the product of what I have witnessed, and not just strictly with NYC police either.

Please keep in mind, I'm not a trouble seeking type of person by any means.

A perfect example of this idea is demonstrated by the introduction of the taser gun.

It went from being a cops, "extra line of defense" to, an item that is now used at whim, and in many cases with excessive force.
These days if you catch an officer that's having a bad day, and a person says even the slightest thing wrong, during a routine traffic stop, it's... zap....

Search, "cop taser" on youtube, plenty of examples come up...

I just don't think it's a great idea, that's my opinion.

[Edit to add content & repair grammar]

[edit on 31-5-2009 by CosmicClearance]

[edit on 31-5-2009 by CosmicClearance]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Here in SW Missouri the Officers carry AR-15's in there trunk! They have for quite a few years and we have had no issues with them doing this.

Also with them having the arms in there trunk they have been able to save lives when it was needed with out having to wait for SWAT to get to the trouble spot.

The local Officers I do not have a big issue with. It is the FED's who have caused the most issues and damage to property . They are the ones I want out of our state.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicClearance
 


Maybe instead of restricting their firepower to less than that of the citizens, maybe they should properly hold accountable those who do as you have stated. The hiring practices may need some revamping in order to stem this kind of activity. As a whole though law enforcement is not evil. Of course there are some but not all are bad. The mentality that states that because a few are bad then all should be restricted is the same mentality that creates a racist mindset. We should not be less protected because some officers are bad. The people just need to come up with a new check and balance system that keeps bad officers off of the street.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Trouble is there's a difference between Tazering someone and filling them full of bullet holes.

Sure a pissed off cop may well Taser someone who didn't deserve it (they shouldn't and they should be held accountable when they do.).

But I think worrying that one of them is going to open up on you with a semi is a bit much, I mean sure they may do if your in a gang or something involved in a turf war, but not for getting naked in public.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I want to know more about THIS statement:


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


Does the military normally give police departments M-16s? Are they outfitting our police departments for something?



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   




Pry just because for the most part the military don't use them or at least the area's I was in were M-60's I don't think I ever saw an actual M-16, (other than basic but don't recall if it was the 16 or 60) when I was in but I'm someone around here has.

Heck when I went through training they gave me an M-60 to qualify with. But I will say I was at a test base/pilot base so maybe the non-test/pilot bases were getting M-16's not sure.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   




Even more of a reason to dig deeper. If the military doesn't use them then why did they buy them only to give them to the police? I really would like to hear from others in the military. Does the military use these weapons? OR do you think the military is equipping our police departments for something else???



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
They are slowly getting the public use to seeing armed patrols on our streets... Welcome to the new Amerika and Martial Law.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman


Even more of a reason to dig deeper. If the military doesn't use them then why did they buy them only to give them to the police? I really would like to hear from others in the military. Does the military use these weapons? OR do you think the military is equipping our police departments for something else???


They use to use them in the 70's for example but then started stock piling them as they swapped them out for the M-60 personally I wouldn't take one other than to show it off as I'm not too sure how reliable they would actually be.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I am not quite sure why the military would have them. The military usually does not have "semi auto" M16's or M4 variants. Now days they at least have 3 round burst. As for the statement that they are gearing us up to see military style patrols, I don't think that they are. Those of us who live in states that they already have them, never see the rifles. The police keep them in the trunk, and never get them out unless it is needed.




top topics



 
2

log in

join