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

111–120 of 336 posts

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

#111

Post by stanrivers »

When I first read this I thought is was going to be a study that concluded that more policed were killed in departments where police have military gear.

That would have been interesting.

At the same time, I wonder if the units that are more likely to ask for military equipment are the ones that need it - meaning there are in a situation where life or death confrontations, given current gun laws in the US, are more common.

I have in the back of my head the idea that less access to firearms for citizens equals less deaths for citizens at the hands of police.

If every encounter a police offer has is blanketed with the idea that, at any moment, a gun could be drawn, they have a seriously different mentality than if worst case is a knife.

That’s why studies like this bother me a bit... I’m biased for sure, but it feels like, if people can have firearms, police need firearms and equipment that severely outclass citizen firearms.

I don’t like that conclusion, which is why gun control laws seems to be a better target for consideration...

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

#112

Post by wonderwonder »

edward1 wrote: post #96

I think this is because the police departments that get military gear are in more dangerous areas, with more dangerous situations, leading to more deaths.

Except for the fact that the study controlled for that.

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

#113

Post by Enginerrrd »

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…

FBI yes. ATF no. They're reputation is horrendous.

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

#114

Post by ulisesrmzroche »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #9
jakelazaroff wrote: post #2

> In Georgia alone, police departments and sheriff’s offices have received more than 2,700 military rifles, night vision goggles and laser gun sights, and literally hundreds of armored vehicles, including more than two dozen mine-resistant vehicles built to fight the war on terror abroad. How else will they protect themselves in the dangerous minefields of Atlanta? /s I’m glad someone has put together the data on thi…

The worst part about the police getting military gear is that the actual military has much stricter rules of engagement. With great power comes great responsibility.

Propaganda. It’s the exact opposite.

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

#115

Post by thdrdt »

Jocko Willing was asked about the issues with the police (in the US).

His response was very insightful. He observed that most problems boiled down to lack of training.

For an untrained cop an arrest can be very stressful. This then can result in using way too much force.

I believe he also mentions this in the Joe Rogan podcast: https://youtu.be/iUhdc1GAddk

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

#116

Post by throwawaysea »

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 statistical evidence supporting the claims implied by this article or even the reversed claim that 'more aggressive' departments are seeking out military equipment.

> Regardless, there is no need, ever, for police to have the automatic weapons, APCs, and "non-lethal" weapons they are buying from the military. If they are facing an opponent like that then call in the FBI, who generally have much better training, or ATF (no idea about their training).

I disagree with this. The police should have automatic weapons so they are able to overpower criminals and protect themselves in dangerous situations. I want my police department to be effective and safe. It is also important that they have non-lethal equipment to de-escalate situations safely when possible.

As for APCs - if it is available as a surplus piece of equipment, why shouldn't they have it? It isn't something they use everyday. There aren't police departments using heavy gas guzzling APCs for daily patrol. They use it for rare situations like riots and shootouts.

Your statement about the FBI and ATF doesn't make sense to me and makes me think you aren't aware of what those agencies actually do.

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

#117

Post by baron_harkonnen »

ptero wrote: post #92
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…

I agree with your first part that there is not necessarily a causal relationship between military equipment and killings. But your "no need, ever, for police to have automatic weapons" part is, to me, just wrong. In general, police should have enough kit to easily overpower the criminals they expect to face. We have been fortunate in many areas (e.g., most of the US, Europe and practically all urban areas) for the po…

The problem with your logic here is it makes the line between police and the military incredibly blurry to the point where police become just another type of military personnel.

Maybe if you have criminal activity at the level of needing automatic weapons, then you need military intervention and not police.

As many ex-military have pointed out in various forums, even in war situations rules of engagement for soldiers are very clear and strict, which is not true of most police. Soldiers are trained to deal with situations where lethal force and high power weaponry are assumed standard.

Police, if they are really to protect and serve, and act as part of the community should be dealing with an entirely different set of tools and skills. A solider and a police officer should be completely different roles. The former should be an expert in using state sanctioned violence to deal with high level threats to public safety and the latter should be a member of the community with the ability to resolve local conflicts and enforce standards agreed upon by that community.

You can't reasonably mix these two responsibilities and expect good results.

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

#118

Post by iguy »

jjk166 wrote: post #106
SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

And perhaps a way to turn over the army's stockpile & keep its suppliers in business.

Quite a bit of the defense budget seems to have this goal, and it's not crazy -- if you skip a generation of tanks/planes/ships because your old ones are OK, the experience to build the next generation will have to be re-grown from scratch.

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

#119

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN