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

Police killings more likely in agencies that get military gear, data shows

ajc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 336 posts

Re: Police killings more likely in agencies that get military gear, data shows

#61

Post by SquishyPanda23 »

Communitivity wrote: post #34

We should be careful to draw a causal relationship here. It might not be that getting the military equipment causes police to be more aggressive and therefore have more killings. It might instead be that the more aggressive police departments are the ones that more seek to purchase military equipment, and the more aggressive police are the ones with more killings. I tend to think that's the case. Regardless, there is…

> there is no need, ever, for police to have the automatic weapons, APCs, and "non-lethal" weapons they are buying from the military.

I agree with the sentiment, but my impression (based on little evidence) is that the "need" here is to create a wider market for these weapons.

It takes money to develop new weapons, and a larger customer base helps defray those costs.

Re: Police killings more likely in agencies that get military gear, data shows

#63

Post by seretogis »

nojokes wrote: post #39
Communitivity wrote: post #34

We should be careful to draw a causal relationship here. It might not be that getting the military equipment causes police to be more aggressive and therefore have more killings. It might instead be that the more aggressive police departments are the ones that more seek to purchase military equipment, and the more aggressive police are the ones with more killings. I tend to think that's the case. Regardless, there is…

Or departments with more military gear are in more risky areas where the use of force is more likely. I could not read the article because it is blocked for me.

"Risky areas" sounds like a dog whistle to me, much like "bad neighborhood"... When you think of these "risky areas", what do the people within them look like? Do they deserve to have militarized police literally rolling armored tank-like vehicles through their neighborhood, and what sort of impact do you think that has on them?

Re: Police killings more likely in agencies that get military gear, data shows

#64

Post by saganus »

sandworm101 wrote: post #32
opwieurposiu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police in Georgia literally throw hand grenades into the cribs of sleeping babies and get away with it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acqui...

Flashbangs. They are violent, but in a totally different class than actual hand grenades. No police in the US use hand grenades. The kid in the crib survived. Had it been an actual grenade ... not a survivable event. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-...

According to Wikipedia

> On 28 May 2014, a 19-month-old baby boy's face was severely burned and mutilated when a stun grenade was thrown into his playpen by a SWAT team serving an arrest warrant for a suspected drug dealer in Cornelia, Georgia. The baby survived with facial disfigurement.[17] The family received $3.6 million in settlements in 2016.[18]

So yeah, the baby survived. That doesn't mean there was no harm done.

Re: Police killings more likely in agencies that get military gear, data shows

#65

Post by jmcqk6 »

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #61
Communitivity wrote: post #34

We should be careful to draw a causal relationship here. It might not be that getting the military equipment causes police to be more aggressive and therefore have more killings. It might instead be that the more aggressive police departments are the ones that more seek to purchase military equipment, and the more aggressive police are the ones with more killings. I tend to think that's the case. Regardless, there is…

> there is no need, ever, for police to have the automatic weapons, APCs, and "non-lethal" weapons they are buying from the military. I agree with the sentiment, but my impression (based on little evidence) is that the "need" here is to create a wider market for these weapons. It takes money to develop new weapons, and a larger customer base helps defray those costs.

Maybe those weapons should cost more instead.

Re: Police killings more likely in agencies that get military gear, data shows

#66

Post by bigwavedave »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #51
mdorazio wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really purposely using the wrong word to force the conversation to fit your narrative?

Wikipedia redirects "flashbang" to "stun grenade" and describes it as a "less lethal explosive device", so I'd say they're using the vernacular correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbang

Not the op, the gp, or even the parent, but I'd like to say that while I'm certainly not condoning flashbangs in cribs or saying that "grenade" is technically inaccurate in the original sentence, there is a very different mental picture when someone says "grenade" vs "stun grenade". I feel like in an era where it's easier and more prolific to crucify a person because of their words than in the known history of mankind, the distinction between "grenade" and "stun grenade" should be made.

Does that make this okay? No. Not even a little. But let's err on the side of clearer communication.

Re: Police killings more likely in agencies that get military gear, data shows

#68

Post by whoknew1122 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #32
opwieurposiu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police in Georgia literally throw hand grenades into the cribs of sleeping babies and get away with it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acqui...

Flashbangs. They are violent, but in a totally different class than actual hand grenades. No police in the US use hand grenades. The kid in the crib survived. Had it been an actual grenade ... not a survivable event. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-...

A flash-bang is a grenade. It's not a fragmentation grenade (which you're referring to); or an incendiary grenade; or any number of other 'less than lethal' (which can be lethal) grenade types.

A 'hand' grenade is one thrown by hand as opposed to projected from a grenade launcher. So, yes, a flashbang is a hand grenade.

And it's a good thing those policemen used a concussive grenade to pacify that dangerous child. I'm sure that child was a threat that needed to be neutralized./s

Re: Police killings more likely in agencies that get military gear, data shows

#69

Post by matwood »

nojokes wrote: post #39
Communitivity wrote: post #34

We should be careful to draw a causal relationship here. It might not be that getting the military equipment causes police to be more aggressive and therefore have more killings. It might instead be that the more aggressive police departments are the ones that more seek to purchase military equipment, and the more aggressive police are the ones with more killings. I tend to think that's the case. Regardless, there is…

Or departments with more military gear are in more risky areas where the use of force is more likely. I could not read the article because it is blocked for me.

> Or departments with more military gear are in more risky areas where the use of force is more likely.

Maybe. I know anecdotally where I live has very little violent crime, and the police department is fully militarized with mraps and the like.

Re: Police killings more likely in agencies that get military gear, data shows

#70

Post by jmcqk6 »

andreilys wrote: post #42
ordu wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In social sciences cause and effect often intermixed. It is pain in the ass for researchers. From the other hand, it means that it not so important to distinguish cause and effect. If we had a correlation, we would have a predictor, so we could do something about it. Just studying agencies with military gear would change outcomes. Even media discussing this correlation could change things. The role of an observer eve…

Cause and effect is important to distinguish. Spurious correlations exist everywhere (ice cream consumption is correlated with drowning, should we ban ice cream before swimming?) From my experience most people don’t understand this difference and assume any narrative around correlation equals causation.

>Cause and effect is important to distinguish.

Alternatively we should probably abandon the notion that anything at the society level has a simple cause and a simple effect.

When dealing with society, we're dealing with a chaotic system. I don't see much in society that can be clearly defined in terms of "if this then that."

It seems like we would be much better off by being honest about the complexities of what we're dealing with.

Post reply on HN