Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by waste_monk » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 2:02 AM UTC

vkat wrote: post #270

namelessoracle wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having gone through police training in another life, you are absolutely correct. I think it's deeper than just what you wear, it's the attitude of the higher ups and overall culture. The leadership team for police that wants you dressing all paramilitary and in all black is going to have a focus on you acting a different way during training and in what your day to day is like than the other group. There's also the br…

I have never understood why the police in the US shoot to kill(chest area) as opposed to disarming or injuring by shooting in the leg.

1) A firearm with live ammunition is explicitly a lethal weapon. You must not fire one at something you don't intend to kill, even if you "only" end up maiming the target. There's also a reasonable chance you'll kill someone if you shoot a limb, e.g. if you hit an artery. Guns are not to be trifled with.

2) Per [1] the surface area of your torso is about double that of one leg (that is, anterior torso is 18%, an individual leg anterior is 9%), so it's far more likely to hit if you aim for the torso. Even if you aim for a torso and miss, you might hit a limb or head - it's a lot less likely to miss a limb and hit something else.

3) The research behind the Tueller anti-knife self defence drill found an attacker with a knife could cover 21 ft / 6.4 metres in about 1.5 seconds. To stop the attack, you have to be able to shoot them before they can close to melee range - you must aim for the largest possible target to have any hope of success.

I am not commenting on US police practices generally, but specifically that the idea you can shoot to wound is neither responsible nor practical.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_body_surface_area

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

#292

Post by eloff » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 2:05 AM UTC

maest wrote: post #282

eloff wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone agrees they don't like violent policing. I think as per usual both sides will disagree about what the solution should be.

> I think everyone agrees they don't like violent policing That is not completely true. For example, the narrative on thedonald.win wrt recent rioting is that most protesters are looters and that looters deserve being shot. They seem to be ok with militarized, strong-men police. Also, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is used as a justification for violent policing. "Of course you're gonna get tazed/hit/shot at…

True, everybody agrees is an oxymoron. What I mean to say is most people agree they don't like violent policing. I think that's probably true for some value of most.

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

#293

Post by mulmen » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 2:06 AM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #261

sandworm101 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cops are not soldiers. They are not fighting a war. Look to any other western nation. America may be a little more violent, a little less stable, but the cop-citizen relationship isn't fundamentally different than in any number of other nations. There is no need for US cops to take that attitude. There is no reason for them to be killing as many people as they do. A thousand people a year are killed by US cops. Canad…

Your perspective is skewed, and the example is arguably irrelevant. It’s not difficult to find examples where the situation is far worse than the US. There is no reason for them to be killing as many people as they do. Yes, there is absolutely a reason. There is a reason for everything. If you want to fix it, you need to set your emotions aside and get to the root cause of that reason. If you continue to deny that th…

Please, enlighten us. Why is "shot by police" the leading cause of death among black men?

What is your proposed solution?

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

#294

Post by ggreer » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 2:13 AM UTC

rsynnott wrote: post #64

dashundchen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. What always confuses me (I live in a country where the police don't generally get guns, even) is what they're preparing for with this sort of thing? A full-on war? Like, if they need hundreds of assault rifles for police work, then arguably society has already coll…

I think the term "assault rifle" is very misleading here. People are imagining fully automatic weapons like the ones the military uses. But outside of SWAT, such weaponry is very rare. (And in most countries, their equivalent of SWAT has fully automatic weapons.)

The rifles used by everyday police are the same as those owned by tens of millions of civilians. These weapons are cosmetically similar to those used by the military, but they have the same functionality and fire the same cartridge as the Ruger Mini-14.[1] They are semi-automatic. Every "bang!" requires a pull of the trigger. The reasons police have these weapons are because pistols are less accurate, have shorter range, and are unable to penetrate body armor. These rifles are usually locked in the back of the vehicle and only brought out for standoff situations, or if the cop has retreated due to being outgunned. Such occasions are rare, but when they happen, those rifles are worth their weight in gold (as are the fire extinguishers and medical kits in practically all police cars).

Moreover, police have always used the latest weaponry. A century ago, they were equipped with the Thompson submachine gun[2] and the Browning Automatic Rifle[3] (both of which are fully automatic weapons).

I agree that police have gotten more militarized over time, and I would love to roll that back, but it's also true that many of those arguing in this thread are either misled or disingenuous. We're much more likely to convince others if we make sure our arguments and our facts are unimpeachable.

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ruger_Mini-14.jpg

2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thompsonad1sm.jpg

3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Firearms_practice,_1...

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

#295

Post by inetknght » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 2:28 AM UTC

jacobush wrote: post #234

inetknght wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, I am not sure that will be the case in a week. A week? I think it's already not the case. Maybe not across the entire nation but certainly in some places. I can see an argument that Twitter isn't a source of "quality" journalism. But these things are so widespread that I think it's hard to not only discredit it but even ignore it. In the first link [0] you've got National Guard walking in a neighborh…

The National Guard said it was the MPD who was doing the shooting.

That makes sense. The NG goes by in their vehicle and the people firing the paint guns are wearing what looks like police armor.

Do you have a link to cite though? I haven't yet read a statement from the National Guard about it and some brief searching on Google brings up a lot of useless noise.

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

#296

Post by inimino » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 3:04 AM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #261

sandworm101 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cops are not soldiers. They are not fighting a war. Look to any other western nation. America may be a little more violent, a little less stable, but the cop-citizen relationship isn't fundamentally different than in any number of other nations. There is no need for US cops to take that attitude. There is no reason for them to be killing as many people as they do. A thousand people a year are killed by US cops. Canad…

Your perspective is skewed, and the example is arguably irrelevant. It’s not difficult to find examples where the situation is far worse than the US. There is no reason for them to be killing as many people as they do. Yes, there is absolutely a reason. There is a reason for everything. If you want to fix it, you need to set your emotions aside and get to the root cause of that reason. If you continue to deny that th…

> Yes, there is absolutely a reason.

Your point is valid, but reading "there is no reason" literally misses the intended meaning, which is "this is unacceptable and cannot stand".

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

#297

Post by asdfgtrewq » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 3:21 AM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #293

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your perspective is skewed, and the example is arguably irrelevant. It’s not difficult to find examples where the situation is far worse than the US. There is no reason for them to be killing as many people as they do. Yes, there is absolutely a reason. There is a reason for everything. If you want to fix it, you need to set your emotions aside and get to the root cause of that reason. If you continue to deny that th…

Please, enlighten us. Why is "shot by police" the leading cause of death among black men? What is your proposed solution?

Around 15 black men killed in Chicago on memorial day weekend. And that is normal number of homicides on any of the long weekends. During regular weekends that number is bit lower in high single digits.

Almost all of them black on black violence.

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

#298

Post by Buttons840 » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 3:29 AM UTC

vkat wrote: post #270

namelessoracle wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having gone through police training in another life, you are absolutely correct. I think it's deeper than just what you wear, it's the attitude of the higher ups and overall culture. The leadership team for police that wants you dressing all paramilitary and in all black is going to have a focus on you acting a different way during training and in what your day to day is like than the other group. There's also the br…

I have never understood why the police in the US shoot to kill(chest area) as opposed to disarming or injuring by shooting in the leg.

If a situation allows for shooting at the legs, then it is not serious enough to justify shooting at all.

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

#299

Post by asdfgasdfg » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 3:59 AM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #293

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your perspective is skewed, and the example is arguably irrelevant. It’s not difficult to find examples where the situation is far worse than the US. There is no reason for them to be killing as many people as they do. Yes, there is absolutely a reason. There is a reason for everything. If you want to fix it, you need to set your emotions aside and get to the root cause of that reason. If you continue to deny that th…

Please, enlighten us. Why is "shot by police" the leading cause of death among black men? What is your proposed solution?

Around 15 black men killed in Chicago on memorial day weekend. And that is normal number of homicides on any of the long weekends. During regular weekends that number is bit lower in high single digits. Almost all of them black on black violence.

Nothing to do with current situation. These are numbers for BAU.

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

#300

Post by salawat » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 4:58 AM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #182

tomohawk wrote: post #72

The Posse Comitatus act prohibits the military from operating within the US, except at the borders, and as provided by the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act requires a State governor or legislature to request military assistance during an insurrection. The act also allows the president to act without that, if the State is not acting in a way that is protecting people's rights. This is why Bush could not deploy t…

> And for good reason. You consider the Posse Comitatus act as being passed for a good reason? Perhaps the effects are good, but the Act itself was mainly passed so that the white former slaveholding states of the south could enforce racially charged laws without the Union military preventing them.

Or so the captains of industry could strike break without fearing the same?

Just because you don't like the particular use case doesn't detract from the fact it is generally not desirable to be throwing around your military at your own people at the drop of a hat.