Park Rangers stabbed in Boston Common

Perhaps the guy was try to commit suicide by cop, not realizing the Rangers werent' armed (the backup BPD evidentally was).

“We were sitting under the tree watching the duck and then suddenly there was a police officer drawing his gun and there was a man real close to him, like 3 feet and he kept saying ‘shoot me, shoot me,'” one witness said. “The officer didn't shoot him, they finally got him on the ground, cuffed him and took him away.”

http://www.whdh.com/story/26785616/park-ranger-stabbed-in-the-area-of-boston-common
 
... If rangers should be armed so should every single 18 yr old US citizen period.

again we are putting far to much faith in a "police" system that is not bound by law to protect anyone.

The clowns under the gold dome don't give a rats ass about you me the cops or the homeless. unless we force our law makers and our Leo to be subject to the same laws as us citizens shit ain't going to get better anytime soon.

See the quote in my signature.

Also:
exempt from MA and US laws

LEO Exemptions??


We can't be armed in hospitals as a visitor? I know that at some hospitals an employee can't have a knife in their possession greater than a certain blade length and can't have a firearm in their possession whether on duty or not. Which hospitals have signs posted forbidding firearms?

Sport Venues and hospitals.....?

Never heard this one.

Also, I hope the knife the guy used was a little one, as big knives are banned in Boston. Right?


good to hear but if rangers need to be armed we all need to be armed.
now if the homeless man stabbed a women or 2 would LEO by screaming to arm all the women. NO

... citizens that walk freely are not looking to be in harms way but with out any limitations should be able to defend themselves by any means against any harm. ...

Yes. It is NOT about police. It is about ANYONE being able to defend themselves.


... FWIW, LE are exempt from any "you can't go here armed" policies or bylaws of the City of Boston, period. Don't like that, talk to your legislators.

ETA: I don't think that anyone walking thru the Boston Common or Gardens should be prohibited from carrying a firearm or OC, but nobody asked me to write those rules.

Again, see my signature and the two other threads I linked to up above here.
 
I do NOT know the legal status of Park Rangers wrt if they have any LE powers or not, whether they are trained by a police academy or not.

What I do know is that they are NOT employees of the City of Boston, so the mayor has nothing to do with whether or not they are armed. They are part of DCR and DCR sets the rules for what they are to do and if they are trained, armed and/or LE.

FWIW, LE are exempt from any "you can't go here armed" policies or bylaws of the City of Boston, period. Don't like that, talk to your legislators.


ETA: I don't think that anyone walking thru the Boston Common or Gardens should be prohibited from carrying a firearm or OC, but nobody asked me to write those rules.

They are most definately City of Boston employees. The city parks department has their own Park Rangers that have absolutely nothing to do with DCR. The Common is not DCR property, its city property. DCR rangers are places like the Esplanade, beaches, etc.
 
Mass knife law:

16-45.1 Carrying of Weapons Prohibited.

No person, except as provided by law, shall carry on his person, or carry under his control in a vehicle, any knife having any type of blade in excess of two and one-half (2½ ) inches, ice picks, dirks or similar weapons that are likely to penetrate through police officer's ballistic vests, or other object or tool so redesigned, fashioned, prepared or treated that the same may be used to inflict bodily harm or injury to another, except:

a. When actually engaged in hunting or fishing or any employment, trade or lawful recreational or culinary activity which customarily involves the carrying or use of any type of knife, or

b. In going directly to and/or returning directly from such activities, or

c. If the knife is being transported directly to or from a place of purchase, sharpening, or repair, and if packaged in such a manner as not to allow easy access to the knife while it is being transported.

No person, except as provided by law, shall carry on his person, or carry under his control in a vehicle, a machete. For purposes of this section, "machete" means a heavy knife at least eighteen (18) inches in length and having a blade at least one and one-half (1.5) inches wide at its broadest measurement. This subsection shall not apply to carrying a machete on one's person or in a vehicle if the machete is carried for the purpose of cutting vegetation or if the machete is being transported for the purpose of cutting vegetation.
 
That's not MA law, that's Boston law, which means that I carry a teeny tiny knife. A couple of other towns have similar laws, but the statewide law bans switchblades over 1.5 inches and a couple other types of knives, but not regular.knives by length

I wouldn't even bother carrying a tiny knife, just carry ypur standard length blade, the penalty is only a fine.
 
"OMG...we need more armed people to protect us...OMG, OMG..."

Really, STFU.

1. They chose that job
2. Shows that making guns illegal doesn't stop crime.
3. What were they doing to get attacked? Was it random? Or were they provoking it with the "respect my authority" BS?

I still don't think we need more armed bullies telling us what to do and shooting our dogs.

First they get a handgun for self defense, then an AR, then they get more powers, the power is abused, then they get assault vehicles...all in the name of "its for the people" and "our job is very dangerous"
 
Last edited:
What exactly do rangers on the common do that warrants the defined benefit pension and lifetime medical the taxpayers are no doubt funding?
 
Looks like they're considering a change. Why does smart policy always have to be reactionary?

“We’ll go back and talk with the police and talk with the rangers and see what they need for more equipment and possibly an increase of park rangers to make sure the parks are safe,” Mayor Martin J. Walsh said after the attack. “I think we have to look at the manpower and see if we have to increase it there.”

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...on_common_patrols_eyed_after_rangers_attacked
 
"OMG...we need more armed people to protect us...OMG, OMG..."

Really, STFU.

1. They chose that job
2. Shows that making guns illegal doesn't stop crime.
3. What were they doing to get attacked? Was it random? Or were they provoking it with the "respect my authority" BS?

I still don't think we need more armed bullies telling us what to do and shooting our dogs.

First they get a handgun for self defense, then an AR, then they get more powers, the power is abused, then they get assault vehicles...all in the name of "its for the people" and "our job is very dangerous"

NES smash!!!!!!

I would attempt to respond, but your response tells me you are incapable of a rationale discussion on this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I wonder if the mayor saying that they are looking into if they need more equipment means arming them. I would say if they did it would have to change hiring qualifications and etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've dealt with the suspect in the past. He's not crazy, just a huge ******* , and quite possibly the dumbest man you could ever meet. It's no wonder the spray had no effect, he's been sprayed many times. He's used to it by now.

That's about as much as I can share about this subject.
 
NES smash!!!!!!

I would attempt to respond, but your response tells me you are incapable of a rationale discussion on this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Please, prove me wrong. Tell me that if they get guns, they won't get additional power and if they get additional power, they won't abuse it.

Look at TSA, they are always looking for way of giving them more control, and the TSA is happy to abuse it.

Same with cops.
 
Please, prove me wrong. Tell me that if they get guns, they won't get additional power and if they get additional power, they won't abuse it.

One need only look at the history of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. Incidents => We need guns => toll collectors got guns => now that we are armed we need to be paid extra for the responsibility of carrying a gun.

I wouldn't be surprised if armed status would bump the park rangers up a level in the retirement system (more dangerous jobs get more generous terms)
 
One need only look at the history of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. Incidents => We need guns => toll collectors got guns => now that we are armed we need to be paid extra for the responsibility of carrying a gun.

I wouldn't be surprised if armed status would bump the park rangers up a level in the retirement system (more dangerous jobs get more generous terms)

Just do away with the rangers entirely, and put a couple regular cops on the beat there. Why game the whole system? They need to just plain SIMPLIFY THINGS.
 
Just do away with the rangers entirely, and put a couple regular cops on the beat there. Why game the whole system? They need to just plain SIMPLIFY THINGS.

That would be how I would fix this. Like a special division.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just do away with the rangers entirely, and put a couple regular cops on the beat there. Why game the whole system? They need to just plain SIMPLIFY THINGS.

But then we would only have 15 different law enforcement groups in Boston with there own support staff of hundreds.... we can't have that one can we (personally I think we should get rid of all cop but city/town and state police. If it's local it's city town, if it crosses town lines it's state. More cops on the street less remf's getting 100k to manage....

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk
 
Just do away with the rangers entirely, and put a couple regular cops on the beat there. Why game the whole system? They need to just plain SIMPLIFY THINGS.

That's what I've been saying. Create a parks patrol unit within the BPD. Besides the dopey PR tourist side of things they would have excellent intelligence gathering capabilities on all the illicit activity which takes place in parks. Besides the homeless, parks are big time spots for moving drugs, weapons, stolen goods, and prostitution. Having people around that see the players everyday and know the hiding, drop, pick-up, or meeting spots would be a major help to other units within the department. As it is now BPD/MSP don't care for 'duck duty' and since the BPD mounted unit was disbanded there isn't a dedicated presence in the parks other than occasional crackdowns in hot-spots.
 
Let's see if I can remember them all (in no particular order)
State
Boston city
Boston municipal police
School police
Housing police
Transit police
Dcr police
City Park police
Federal park police
State police
Amtrak police
The private swat teams that don't need to follow the laws
Parking police
Code enforcement police
Various college police forces (not counting the square badges)
Who am I forgetting?


Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk
 
Let's see if I can remember them all (in no particular order)
State
Boston city
Boston municipal police
School police
Housing police
Transit police
Dcr police
City Park police
Federal park police
State police
Amtrak police
The private swat teams that don't need to follow the laws
Parking police
Code enforcement police
Various college police forces (not counting the square badges)
Who am I forgetting?


Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

I don't believe you understand the idea. It was to for BPD to do the patrol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That's what I've been saying. Create a parks patrol unit within the BPD. Besides the dopey PR tourist side of things they would have excellent intelligence gathering capabilities on all the illicit activity which takes place in parks. Besides the homeless, parks are big time spots for moving drugs, weapons, stolen goods, and prostitution.

Other than stolen goods, why the hate for other commercial exchanges of goods or services?

It wouldn't be illicit if the state didn't legislate morality. The only reason why drugs and prostitution are unsafe is because they are only available from illicit suppliers.

And this is coming from a person who vehemently opposes both drugs and prostitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom