Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 339 posts

Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear

#11

Post by dashundchen »

briandear wrote: post #2

I don’t think the police need MRAPs. That’s a bit over the top. However, it does seem they need some sort of up-armored police cars given how many of them have been destroyed in the rioting. SWAT maybe has some use for military equipment, but only for bona-fide SWAT situations (hostages/bombs/active shooter.) But rolling out MRAPs for general policing is a bad policy. It’s one step removed from deploying tanks and it…

Sure, maybe there is limited use in some of this equipment. But my small city police department recently got a grant for 450 high powered assault rifles and armored vests, on top of the hundreds they already had. There are only 700 officers including things like traffic enforcement.

Of course the police union lobbied for more.

They have armored trucks and undercover vehicles. They have mobile towers to survey. They have closed circuit cameras at every major intersection. They have Stingrays. They have purchased LRADs which can permanently deafen. They have helicopters, tear gas cannons for hundreds of officers, batons.

And they trot it out for peaceful protests. The police did not come equipped to protect, they came equipped to escalate and occupy.

Hell, they even manage to bust a lot of the equipment out at concerts and festivals. I stopped going to a local outdoor concert series when they decided to gate a park off and start pat downs and metal detecting everyone who entered.

Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear

#12

Post by ksdale »

asdfman123 wrote: post #8
dx87 wrote: post #4

They would need to restrict capabilities, not just cut off access to "military-style" gear. They make the same mistake with gun laws where they ban "military-style" weapons because they look scary, but allow weapons that are just as deadly because they have a wooden stock and don't look as scary as "military-style" weapons.

Why don't impressions matter? It's important that more people see officers and get the impression that they are there to enforce peace, not dole out violence -- while still ensuring they have the tools to maintain safety and order. Large, threatening military-style vehicles don't send a good message to people who are already scared for their safety.

I think this is spot on, and not just because of creating the impression to people looking at police. I also think that if police see their tools as the tools of a soldier, they are more likely to act like soldiers.

I don't remember who said it, in relation to sports - "Look good, feel good, play good." I think how you look can absolutely affect how you behave.

Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear

#13

Post by zentiggr »

jmastrangelo wrote: post #5

Focusing on the gear seems like a cheap and easy solution compared to fixing training and accountability, the actual root of the issue.

When has legislation ever solved the underlying problem (uncontrolled violence in this case)?

Legislation almost always winds up being the softball nearby target that does something visible, not necessarily something useful.

Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear

#14

Post by rconti »

A common response to the idea of "police reform" is that it will make it harder/more expensive/etc to hire police, which we all agree we need.

As an armchair economist who believes that everything DOES happen at the margins, we can't completely ignore this, so I'm at least somewhat sympathetic to the argument.

But what really kills the argument is looking at how our medical professionals have stepped up and responded to COVID-19, putting their lives on the line every day, with utterly inadequate gear. And still they serve.

Yes, if the police are less militarized and have more personal liability/responsibility, it will reduce the level of interest in the profession somewhat, but I think we have to not kid ourselves about the degree of such an impact.

This is before we get into whether we really even want "those people" (who are attracted to the militaristic side of policing) 'serving' our communities at all.

Just as anti-pursuit policies have swept the nation to reduce officer-involved carnage, we can reduce escalation of violence.

Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear

#15

Post by zentiggr »

dashundchen wrote: post #11
briandear wrote: post #2

I don’t think the police need MRAPs. That’s a bit over the top. However, it does seem they need some sort of up-armored police cars given how many of them have been destroyed in the rioting. SWAT maybe has some use for military equipment, but only for bona-fide SWAT situations (hostages/bombs/active shooter.) But rolling out MRAPs for general policing is a bad policy. It’s one step removed from deploying tanks and it…

Sure, maybe there is limited use in some of this equipment. But my small city police department recently got a grant for 450 high powered assault rifles and armored vests, on top of the hundreds they already had. There are only 700 officers including things like traffic enforcement. Of course the police union lobbied for more. They have armored trucks and undercover vehicles. They have mobile towers to survey. They h…

This sounds like an excellent case for equipment limitations. At the very least making departments pay 'retail' for gear instead of getting effectively donated surplus.

Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear

#16

Post by RangerScience »

rconti wrote: post #14

A common response to the idea of "police reform" is that it will make it harder/more expensive/etc to hire police, which we all agree we need. As an armchair economist who believes that everything DOES happen at the margins, we can't completely ignore this, so I'm at least somewhat sympathetic to the argument. But what really kills the argument is looking at how our medical professionals have stepped up and responded…

Changing the police narrative to one of serving, regardless of adversity (see doctors and USPS) from one of "getting to play with violent toys"...

Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear

#17

Post by catalogia »

ksdale wrote: post #12
asdfman123 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't impressions matter? It's important that more people see officers and get the impression that they are there to enforce peace, not dole out violence -- while still ensuring they have the tools to maintain safety and order. Large, threatening military-style vehicles don't send a good message to people who are already scared for their safety.

I think this is spot on, and not just because of creating the impression to people looking at police. I also think that if police see their tools as the tools of a soldier, they are more likely to act like soldiers. I don't remember who said it, in relation to sports - "Look good, feel good, play good." I think how you look can absolutely affect how you behave.

I think we should also make it legal for police departments to discriminate against combat veterans when hiring, and encourage them to do so. Perhaps as a token of fairness, this could be paired with a separate initiative to provide other sort of jobs to combat veterans.

People trained by the military to police occupied communities should not be allowed to act as civilian police in peacetime conditions.

Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear

#18

Post by pmorici »

rconti wrote: post #14

A common response to the idea of "police reform" is that it will make it harder/more expensive/etc to hire police, which we all agree we need. As an armchair economist who believes that everything DOES happen at the margins, we can't completely ignore this, so I'm at least somewhat sympathetic to the argument. But what really kills the argument is looking at how our medical professionals have stepped up and responded…

I agree that both professions have the same sort of "service in a time of crisis" mythology surrounding them but how does the fact that the norm for the medical profession is high pay where as the norm for police is slightly above minimum wage starting out with a shot as average pay after several years of service affect those myths?

Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear

#19

Post by throwaway0a5e »

catalogia wrote: post #17
ksdale wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is spot on, and not just because of creating the impression to people looking at police. I also think that if police see their tools as the tools of a soldier, they are more likely to act like soldiers. I don't remember who said it, in relation to sports - "Look good, feel good, play good." I think how you look can absolutely affect how you behave.

I think we should also make it legal for police departments to discriminate against combat veterans when hiring, and encourage them to do so. Perhaps as a token of fairness, this could be paired with a separate initiative to provide other sort of jobs to combat veterans. People trained by the military to police occupied communities should not be allowed to act as civilian police in peacetime conditions.

This is completely backwards. If anything the veterans are the one not shooting first and asking questions later because that kind of conduct is/was not allowed overseas. They also tend to have a little more perspective as to what does and doesn't constitute a threat.

Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear

#20

Post by ceejayoz »

catalogia wrote: post #17
ksdale wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is spot on, and not just because of creating the impression to people looking at police. I also think that if police see their tools as the tools of a soldier, they are more likely to act like soldiers. I don't remember who said it, in relation to sports - "Look good, feel good, play good." I think how you look can absolutely affect how you behave.

I think we should also make it legal for police departments to discriminate against combat veterans when hiring, and encourage them to do so. Perhaps as a token of fairness, this could be paired with a separate initiative to provide other sort of jobs to combat veterans. People trained by the military to police occupied communities should not be allowed to act as civilian police in peacetime conditions.

More vets might be a positive thing.

The rule of engagement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are significantly stricter than they are for America's cops. No firing until fired upon, limits on use of things like tear gas and riot gear, etc. They're also trained significantly more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/1...

> In contrast, soldiers continuously and over the course of their careers repeatedly train to employ techniques to deescalate stressful, unpredictable, and dangerous scenarios. They also know what steps they must take before resorting to lethal force. Most rules of engagement (ROEs) — the military’s term for rules that govern the circumstances when soldiers are justified using force — contain explicit instructions requiring soldiers to use verbal warnings, show their weapons, and exhaust all non-lethal physical options before resorting to deadly force.

Post reply on HN