The other question to answer is...is Indy one of the many U.S. cities which is having to take cops off the street because they can no longer pay for them?

Not with there new contract, however Indy plans on paying for it.

M-16s are good for sniping work, but they really should be carrying carbines (M-4 or M-1) for the close range urban fighting. Just ask our military in Iraq.

I also think they deserve something that shoots a bigger bullet, although I suppose that would increase overpenetration problems. Any suggestions on how to balance killing power and penetration issues?

"Any suggestions on how to balance killing power and penetration issues?"

Shoot the 5.56 round from a longer barrel like a 20" m-16. ;) Seriously, 5.56 has been shown to over-penetrate less than pistols and pistol-caliber submachine guns because the bullet tumbles and fragments on impact at short to medium ranges. So it destroys itself fairly quickly if you hit a wall or a perp. It will kill a man if you hit him somewhere reasonable. Plus its high energy and small size means it may actually do better against body armor than a bigger .308 would.

Frankly I think cops are better off with shotguns though. They are built last a helluva long time and require less training. Loaded with shot, they don't penetrate much. Loaded with slugs the cops can penetrate damn near anything if they need to in order to get the job done. Its a very flexible tool as long as you don't need to shoot someone over 50 yards away. For city cops, snipers start to be employed out past 50 or 100 yards anyway.

Really? That's very interesting. I've seen mixed reviews of its effectiveness, but if it's not a huge penetration concern then I think it is the way for the cops to go, after all.

Good point about the shotguns. I'm not sure why they're switching away.

The weapons have been in Indianapolis for a long time. The training just did not take place. Action is being taken because a local radio host exposed the difficulty. Meanwhile, Indianapolis has vastly more policemen than they did, albeit Mr. Peterson promised voters no tax increase to cover their additional costs. It got him elected.