Jump to content

Talk:Boston Police Department

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

assessment

[edit]

I hesitate, then place this article as a high start class, due to having only one reference. If more are added, this will quickly rise.--SGGH 14:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Police / Municipal Police - Same thing?.

[edit]

On a recent visit to Boston, I noticed some police vehicles were predominently blue and prominently marked 'Boston Police', whilst others were predominently black and prominently marked 'Municipal Police'. I wasn't sure if I was seeing two different police departments, or just a branding change.

I hoped this article might answer that question, but it doesn't really. Except for an implied one by including the article in the category 'United States municipal police departments', which might be misleading. Can anybody answer the question/improve the article?. -- Chris j wood 15:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm from Boston. The Boston Police Department and the Boston Municipal Police are two separate departments, independent of one another. The blue and white you saw marked Boston Police is just that, with jurisdiction across the city. The Municipal Police only have jurisdiction on and over city property and employees. For instance, the Municipal Police have jurisdiction over Boston public schools, city parks, city housing projects, and the like. To confuse the matter more, there is also an independent Boston School Police, as well as a Boston Housing Authority Police. Were we more sensible, like New York City, all these different police forces would be consolidated, albeit in different divisions. I hope this helps. 72.70.71.18 21:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protest in Back bay

[edit]

Maybe a subtitle should be added for the recent protest on cheney's visit? Pictures?

Revised Department (former Boston Muicipal Police) is now City Municipal Protective Services

[edit]

Added April 3, 2007

The Wiki on the (former) Boston Municipal Police should not be merged with the wiki on the Boston police.

On December 31, 2006, the "Muni" force was formally disbanded. Approximately 35-37 men and women transferred to the regular Boston Police. Those remaining are now called the Boston Municipal Protective Services. They are a separate body of employees and a completely separate union.

Other definitions wrongly portray these people as the security guards at Boston's City Hall. While that is one of their details, they also serve at numerous other city office buildings, community centers, city-affiliated clinics, and some remaining details retained at the first-of-the-year change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.185.51 (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Added April 16, 2007 I would have to agree with the above statement WAAFFan1073977 15:24, April 16 2007 (UTC)

Completely separate union? What the heck are you talking about? The Protective Services union is still called the Boston Municipal Police Patrolman's Association and the site officers were always members of it! That never changed!

New Infobox

[edit]

I've replaced the Police Department infobox template with a standard template. The police template surprisingly lacks versatility, not allowing for changing Chief of Police to Commissioner, and is a definite problem for Boston and many other cities like NYC, that have a Commissioner as head of department. (Edit:: Actually, those other head of department categories are there, I just can't get them to work. I don't know enough to try to fix the template either)

I took out the helicopters and jails sections. As I know it, the Boston Police depend on Massachusetts State Police helicopters and don't have their own aviation division, and jails are integrated with the stations. Suffolk County Sherriff's Department is in charge of the House of Corrections (South Bay and Nashua St), which in other cities would be known as the main city jail.

Please feel free to add on or change information in the infobox as it is known.Nam1123 04:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting part on Aqua Teen reaction

[edit]

"The BPD's handling of this incident has been criticized by Boston residents: "We all thought it was pretty funny," said one student. "The majority of us recognize the difference between a bomb and a Lite-Brite," said another.[4] One resident said that the police response was "silly and insane", and that "We’re the laughing stock"."

I believe this is not needed in a summary of the Boston PD. I have no problem with this being in the Aqua Teen page., but not here. BTW, it is "some" Boston residents. BTW, the reaction was praised by the Department of Homeland Security [1]. Funny that's not mentioned but a college student's in-depth analysis was. 1. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-02/01/content_798219.htm DrRisk13 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)s[reply]

Edits to wikipedia need to be made from an unbiased POV. From how you sound, you might be a member of the BPD yourself. As long as the references are legitimate, it's valid. If you're so upset about the praise part not being mentioned, add it yourself instead of deleting the contribution of a hardworking member of the wikipedia community. 76.171.61.223 (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting 2007 Mooninite Scare

[edit]

I believe the inclusion of the "2007 Mooninite Scare" which has its own Main Article is not particularly relevant to the Boston Police Department in fact according to the actual Wikipedia article about the "2007 Mooninite Scare" it was the MBTA who made the initial judgemnet about the device, thinking it a serious enough threat to notify the Boston Police: "At 9 a.m., the Boston Police Bomb squad received a phone call from the MBTA requesting assistance in identifying the device". I would also agree with one of the previous commenters that the inclusion is of a biased POV. (Just4john (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It wasn't the MBTA's judgement which made that a notable affair, but the BPD's reaction. The former are not qualified to make an assessment whether something is a deadly terrorist threat (that's why they asked for assistance), the latter are trusted by the public to make such assessments. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would go further and say it is utterly moronic to include this incident in the page on a 175-yr-old department, especially when there is only a tiny blurb on busing. There are a thousand other more important events in Boston's history, from fugitive-slave riots on down, in which the police response played a significant role. At most there could be a section with a list of links to events such as this one in which the BPD's response was at issue. Or a section on recent criticisms of the BPD, which should focus on people who died under BPD custody or attacks.Cannoneo (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Cannoneo[reply]

There may of course be other events which are notable but not yet mentioned, and the part about busing may need expansion. But you cannot claim that there exist "a thousand other" events which attained the same level of worldwide attention (2007 Boston Bomb Scare#Notes is just a tiny part of it); in fact, this is quite unlikely to happen to any local police department.

Please also keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia for a general audience, not just for Boston locals like you (or people attached to that particular organization). While I am not advocating to delete details like

  • the name of the commander of district D-14
  • the 2006 protest of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association against 31 employees joining from another organization, or
  • the fact that officers called for pay-raises after an internal change of regulations fourteen years ago

(each might be important information for these reader groups), there is no denying the fact that the general readers will be much more interested in facts that separate this particular police department from tens of thousand of others.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The implication that as a deleter I am thinking parochially or maybe even as a BPD insider is laughable, given that I proposed as alternatives: first, the 1854 fugitive slave riot and busing, events whose national historic importance is well established; and second, the recent deaths of Victoria Snellgrove and David Woodman under controversial circumstances, invoking criticisms that enrage many police officers and their supporters.

I agree the names of district commanders and minor labor disputes are inappropriate. But the assimilation of the Municipals is significant in the history of the BPD and law enforcement in Boston, in which the patrolmens' objections seem a relevant detail.

In general, I think we agree the article should not be colored by media-driven recentism. But this is precisely what I think is at issue in the bomb scare. I would suggest that "worldwide attention" is not always an unquestionable rationale for inclusion, because it cedes enormous power to current media dynamics. Personally, I suspect that the bomb scare looms large with younger, tech-savvy people, because it was so recent, because the young men charged had tech-anarchist personae, and because the legal and moral hysteria directed against them resonates with the experiences of many similar young people.

I am finding it impossible to imagine any objective or widely shared perspective in which this event merits anything more than a link in a list of controversial events in the history of the BPD. If I develop such a list in the next few weeks, and propose it, I hope you and other editors will consider accepting it as justifying the deletion of the bomb scare paragraphs. All the best.96.237.130.245 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Cannoneo[reply]

Please read again what I wrote, I certainly did not imply that you are a BPD insider, I was only refering to your own statement that you are a Boston local.
I also did not say that "the names of district commanders and minor labor disputes are inappropriate", in fact I explicity stated that I am not advocating to delete these. These were just examples that not all facts in an article are equally important to all readers.
I am not sure if your assumptions about "younger, tech-savvy people" are that well-founded (much of the worldwide media coverage was in mainstream sources, not in tech journals or hipster magazines), but even if they were, I can't see how this would be an argument to exclude it from this article. We wouldn't argue to exclude the busing incidents because they only "loom large with" older people who were involved with 1970s civil rights conflicts and the hysteria at the time "resonates with the experiences of many similar" old people at the time, would we? And one could just as well argue that the notability of these incidents is due to "media-driven dynamics" of the 1970s.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that a single-day bomb scare is of comparable historical importance to the enforcement of court-ordered school desegregation in the 1970s. It just isn't. Busing isn't only important to people who remember it. It's important to anyone who wants to know what kinds of uniquely significant events the BPD has been involved in during its history. I.e., those who come to Wikipedia to learn about the BPD.

But I want to refrain from discussing the distracting details of these various comparisons, to try to simply focus on whether the bomb scare merits inclusion in an encyclopedia article on the BPD. The only case I can think of is that the BPD was accused of being part of a general, multi-agency overreaction, compared to other cities where the devices were planted. This falls into the category of "recent controversies" or some such and, if I'm being as sympathetic as possible, merits one or two sentences of the kind I just wrote. (But less than the aforementioned student deaths, or the fact that the BPD has a lower conviction rate on murders than comparable departments.) As of now, this article is badly flawed by a severely imbalanced and disconnected history section. One way to correct this imbalance is to introduce or expand other history subsections to establish a proper balance and connecting thread. Even if this were to be done -- and I'm going to work on it -- it would still not justify including details about the bomb scare. All the best.Cannoneo (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Cannoneo[reply]

One cop got fired for writing an email this one time

[edit]

Is this at all relevant to this article? -- Kendrick7

I agree completely. This one incident is not indicitive of the entire police department. This section should be removed as severely undue weight. Arzel (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it another day, but unless someone can explain why this is important here I am removing it. It is basically a verbatim repeat of what is already in the Gate's arrest article and serves no additional purpose here other than to incite racist attitudes against the BPD. Arzel (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • If this is going to be covered, IMHO, it should be covered on how the department dealt with it, not on how it may reflect on the department because of a single dumb officer making a dumb choice at an inopportune time period. Why isnt the incident on its own article? Your thoughtsIlliniGradResearch (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is one event and is probably not deserving of it's own article. It is covered within the Gates arrest article, which is probably as much as needs to be done. Arzel (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Italian Officer killed in line of duty?

[edit]

I've commented out a section of the firsts part of the article. It's supposedly about the first Italian officer in Boston getting killed. But it's in dense, improperly capitalized narrative form (probably straight from an old newspaper or book), and it doesn't really seem relevant. I'm leaning towards deletion of the section, but I'd like to get others' thoughts first. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

general critique

[edit]

This seems much more a piece of PR rather than an encyclopedia entry. Not having a criticism section makes this difficult to take seriously.

More specifically, I think a brief discussion of the BPD's important role in the Boston Miracle of the 1990s is in order here.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgearnold23 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite in progress

[edit]

Heads up: I'd like to take a stab at significantly rewriting this article, so it doesn't just read like a bulleted shopping list of random events. If anybody's watching this, please feel free to join me, and if you have questions/comments/ideas/concerns, let me know here or on my talk page. Thanks! Accedietalk to me 22:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

response to the Boston Marathon bombing

[edit]

Anyone want to write a few sentences on BPD's significant role in responding to the Boston Marathon bombing? 74.69.121.132 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Boston Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boston Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boston Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boston Police Department. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


1. History 1.2 19th Century - Suggestion

[edit]

A friend told me that police departments in the U.S. were formed for the purpose of catching fugitive slaves. Please address the role of the BPD in capturing persons escaping slavery ... in the context of local crime. Dorothea1927 (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boston_Police_Department&oldid=1200282759"