Boston Cop has Glock stolen

Boston Cops should not have guns...Obviously they are the primary source for illegal firearms in Massachusetts...[wink]

They do not have every cop carrying firearms in Britain. Look at all of the threats that they stopped. Their police force system never was orientated towards 100% carry. They have FOOT patrols. They also tend to wear uniforms that promote visibility along with safety designs.

Our police officers wear uniforms that are invisible during night time. They wear uniforms without any padding for rifles or such when firing. Has anyone noticed how British police are equipped differently for firearm detail? Or they are completely outfitted for motorcycle patrol.

Who is really serious about policing?

At this stage the best thing would be to encourage community policing. I do not know if any other member of the board has read the various mass cops forums out there. It remains to be seen how those posters could be police officers. Most of them would be unable to properly handle a situation. All of those posters seem to discuss how their jurisdiction limits their powers and ego. They also talk ad nausem about pay.

Let's have real community policing. Boston should have an auxiliary police. The volunteers should have full police powers. They should do the bike patrol in downtown Boston(the fun gig) or the tougher foot patrols alongside a full time officer.

the doctor
 
Why?

Someone has to ask:

why would anyone steal a GLOCK? [smile]

My 2ndGen G17 (circa 1988) is by far the finest handgun I have ever owned. I trust it 100% to deliver 17 rounds of the hottest +p+ cartridges into a one-inch group at 10 meters. It is light (30 ounces fully loaded), and concealable.

I have fired tens of thousands of rounds through it, and it has had ONE stoppage, a stovepipe, one one of my PF 128 reloads.

I gladly stake my life and the lives of my loved ones on this fine firearm 24/7.
 
the 17 year old is walking away from this. The 13 yeasr old stole the gun...that's fairly easy to prove.

But unless anyone actually saw the 13 year old sell the firearm to the 17 year old it's a "he said, she said" situation...

All the 17 year old has to do is deny the whole incident because unless they catch the person he (the 17 year old) sold it to the only proof that he ever poosessed that firearm is the word of a 13 year old thief whose ass in in a sling.
 
Not picking on you Mike, but I'd like to hear from one of the lawyers who handles these types of cases. All I've heard, and there's been a lot of it lately, is "In MA this... will definitely get your LTC yanked", but nothing to support it. Especially from the "IANAL" crowd.

Fine, but they've all had to deal with what I (and others) have
been talking about all along- and that is that numerous anti
towns will misuse the "unsuitable person" pet trick to yank/deny
permits whenever they can get away with it... think about it for
a minute... take a place like boston or brookline, that doesn't want
to issue permits to begin with; it stands to reason that they'll
yank them if they can, too. (and there is much evidence to
support this, especially in the case of brookline... I'm sure you've
heard about the army officer who was denied over a bunch of
dumb crap, but there are a lot more than just him. ) Use the
search function, poke around some more.

Regardless of how often or how little it is done- the problem still
exists... there is NO protection in MA against an IA misusing this
provision against someone, at least not until after the
fact. This is in stark contrast to the rest of "free america"
where ones rights can only be deprived by a statutory conviction
in a court of law (eg, you have to be convicted of an actual,
real, crime) or at weakest application of a restraining order,
etc. In MA the chief can yank your permit because he doesn't
like the way your breath smells, and get away with it, unless you
challenge them.

-Mike
 
But really, I go to work everyday and rarely carry a f/a..you don't really need one if you are quick on your feet and with your hands, aware of your surroundings and do not place yourself in harms way.

Seems like you might have a beef with BP already but I must comment on this one. That is completely unrealistic. I've never know anyone to be able to out run a bullet. And even if you can hide.. bullets go thru things. If you chose not to carry that's your business though.
 
Mod Hat On!

NO Personal Attacks on NES Allowed. Please keep it civil!!

Address, dispute the issues, etc. but don't make it personal. We like to keep this a friendly forum.
 
wrt officers who don't carry a gun . . .

- I've seen many officers who work "inside", riding a desk and not carrying a gun. Personally I don't think it is the smartest thing, as there have been a few armed perps shooting up police stations in the past, but it seems common. I worked with/for a Lt. and later Chief who refused to carry a gun on the job . . . he retired with >30 years on the job and for the ~20 years I knew him I only saw him carry a gun once (while working)

- Most PDs admin in MA seem relatively anti-gun, extending to their own officers and put into place policies that dissuade officers from carrying off-duty. I know a lot of POs, but less than a handful that carry all/most of the time when off-duty.

wrt LTCs for LEOs . . .

- Back almost 30 years ago our Chief at the time wanted to issue LTCs (for free) to all his officers. Most refused, didn't want one. The Chief was very frustrated (couldn't force the issue due to the union).

- In recent years, most suburban PDs (I can't speak for Boston PD) DEMAND that any applicant for a job as a PO already have a LTC! It's used as a "pre-screening" of the individual prior to going thru the interview and hiring process.
 
I know that BCPD does require an LTC now. It was in the job requirements when I was browsing through the HR system at BC.
 
Back
Top Bottom