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

101–110 of 336 posts

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

#101

Post by meta4s »

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-...

Did you just read what you wrote? The kid in the crib survived. How does that not stop you in your tracks? What prompts a SWAT team to do a night raid on a potential family home? Please tell me how any other point in the day where the potential of a family not being there, isn't a better option? Then if you could please explain if this was the case, that any other time is/was plausible, what you think the reason to throw the flash grenade is or was at the time? Actually interested how you divest your self from being human under the guise of being analytical and miss such an obvious analytical point.

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

#102

Post by fastball »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #78
fastball wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that one of the main reason police forces are getting "military gear" is because they're getting it at a steep discount due to the actual military not having anything else to do with it once they're done.

IMO this is even less charitable, since it implies that more violent police departments are seeking out surplus military equipment to better subjugate civilians.

If you require a firearm, and you can buy a military surplus weapon which is cheaper than a new "civilian" firearm, wouldn't you?

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

#103

Post by bobthechef »

Seems there is actually a direct link between the knee-on-the-neck technique and military tactics, i.e., that the Minneapolis police had learned that through IDF training (and that that technique is used against Palestinians) [0].

[0] https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/minnesota-cops-train...

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

#104

Post by meta4s »

chacham15 wrote: post #88
whoknew1122 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

For justice, outcomes matter. This is why there is a difference between "attempted murder" and actual murder. Yes, both are punished, but the actual outcome does matter. Therefore, the distinction between a flashbang and an incendiary/fragmentation grenade (which what most people think when they read hand grenade) too does matter. When I read the initial statement, I thought that the child was killed and am happy to…

You're wrong. The differences between "attempted murder" and "actual murder" are just codified laws which were enacted by a legislature. People decided. And it's certainly okay in this situation to debate those decisions. If you're just arguing that definitions matter, don't hide it under something that it's not.

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

#105

Post by HarryHirsch »

sandworm101 wrote: post #25
leroy_masochist wrote: post #17

The question here, in my opinion, is whether we're looking at actual causation or simple correlation. Is this an example of, "receiving free coyote-colored tacticool gear and MRAPs prompts cops to become more aggressive, detached from the population they are ostensibly there to protect, and likely to unnecessarily end civilian lives in the course of doing their job"? Or is it an example of, "police departments with t…

I would like to see if there is an correlation between the hiring of ex-military people, the purchase of military equipment, and any increase in police-related violence. Many people think that soldiers make good cops. In reality, the jobs share almost nothing in common.

In reality, the jobs share almost nothing in common

That's right, the military has rules of engagement and no mirrored sunglasses. With cops it's opposite. Imagine, standing in formation with half of the men wearing cool sunglasses. It would be unthinkable.

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

#106

Post by jjk166 »

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.

Under the 1033 program, police departments pay for shipment and storage of the materials they request, but they do not pay for the equipment itself. While the military may purchase more equipment then it actually needs to lower per unit price, the acquisitions as a whole are not made any cheaper and the weapons developers make no more profit. In fact, given that this material is specifically diverted from what would be sold as surplus, the military would have more money to purchase weapons with if it didn't give these supplies to police forces. It's also worth noting that, while military vehicles like MRAPs are very visible, most of the requested property is more mundane: bulk ammunition is the most requested category, followed by office supplies.

It's pretty obviously just a way for the federal government to subsidize domestic police forces with money nominally intended for the defense budget.

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

#107

Post by jessaustin »

082349872349872 wrote: post #84
Fezzik wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Oregon it’s 21-weeks followed by a probationary period. At least for the Oregon State Police: you attend five weeks of pre-academy and sixteen weeks of regular academy. Then there are ongoing trainings and required education courses. I’ve had numerous friends go through the process, with some failing out, and they all agree it is both thorough and grueling. Edit: grammar

It's two years for the local municipal police. For comparison, nationwide we have less than 1 police fatality per 10 mm population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...

What municipality is that? That is remarkably longer than the training taken by multiple family members of mine.

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

#108

Post by tomschlick »

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…

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout is the catalyst for all of this. Police were heavily outgunned. The FBI would take hours to get there as FBI tactical teams are not in most cities and are not on call like normal SWAT teams are. APCs are purely defensive. Its effectively a Brinks armored money truck, but instead of money it carries people to/from gunfire safely.

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

#109

Post by StillBored »

torwayburger wrote: post #20

How much training/school do US police get on average before starting their jobs?

I'm personally of the opinion that much of the training is the problem. The vast majority ends up enforcing a "us vs them" mindset. So, outside of legal classes, what they need to do is get out of the freaking cars and talk to people, so they understand that not everyone is out to shoot them.

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

#110

Post by throwawaysea »

Remember, the total spending on police budgets annually is around $115B a year. The total value of all former military equipment held by police departments is less than $2B (https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/05/29/how-mu...). The total amount of equipment transferred since 1990 is $6B but the majority of that gear is in non-military-specific items like office furniture, generators, and so on (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/06/1...). The breakdown of the military bits can be seen at https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/05/29/how-mu....
Post reply on HN