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

141–150 of 336 posts

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

#141

Post by regularfry »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #71
nojokes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The study controls for that variable: > The newspaper’s analysis used the military’s database and paired it with a database of fatal police shootings from across the state, controlling for statistical variables like community income, rural-urban differences, racial makeup, and violent crime rates. The article explicitly cautions against drawing conclusions about causality. My intuition is that there’s truth to both e…

We would have to deal with violent cops who want to hurt civilians, but at least they'd have less efficient tools to do so. And maybe the violent people would be less drawn to a career in law enforcement if it wasn't associated with a militarised image.

If it's both effects at the same time, in a feedback loop, it's actually ok - you can stop the loop by cutting either effect.

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

#142

Post by lovetocode »

mywittyname wrote: post #38
jankyxenon wrote: post #14

I'm not saying it's warranted for Police to have military weapons - but wouldn't departments that request military gear be somewhat correlated with ones with more intense crime. I'm guessing there aren't many sleepy hamlets that request the high-end stuff.

The police department at Ohio State University has an APC. No city in the USA, much less college campus, looks like a war zone. I would hope most people would not need to experience Kandahar first-hand to understand this fact.

You should check out Baltimore

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

#143

Post by malandrew »

seretogis wrote: post #63
nojokes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you're using the term dog whistle to describe something, you're the dog in that situation.

That accusation is just a submarine form of kafkatrap.

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

#144

Post by dcolkitt »

I think one possible reform is that SWAT teams should belong to a separate department than the regular police. If the situation gets out of hand, then the police can call in the SWAT.

But we shouldn't be expect regular beat cops and detectives to be the people kicking down doors with bullet proof vests. The two jobs require very different skillsets and temperaments. Unfortunately because of the long-running wars in the Middle East, the US has no shortage of combat veterans with experience in these types of urban warfare situations. I'd definitely a trust a SWAT department filled with ex-special forces more than I'd trust a small-town cop LARPing in military gear.

The second benefit is that a lot of times, I think police start itching to break out the military gear because they have it and think it looks cool. By separating the departments, it removes that incentive. They're not going to hesitate calling in SWAT, when the situation's genuinely dangerous. But they're going to think about letting an outside agency step on their turf for everyday situations.

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

#145

Post by yeetawayhn »

mineirobr wrote: post #129
Munksgaard wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know of any developed country where the police can reasonably expect to face better equipped adversaries than they can in the US. This is interesting for two reasons: You may have a point that it is necessary in the US for the police to have automatic weapons, but the US is also the only western country that has put itself in such a situation. Take from that what you will...

There are plenty of places. Mexico for example where the narcos have capabilities similar to the mexican military and In brazil we have little kids with automatic rifles roaming the favelas.

You missed the "developed countries" dogwhistle, which usually means rich and white nations.

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

#146

Post by btilly »

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…

My brother, who spend most of his life in the Marines, explained the difference between the military and the police to me many years ago.

The job of the military is to accomplish a set mission by any means necessary, including force. The job of the police is to ensure that law and order are kept. If you send the police to do the job of the military, the result will be dead police and and unaccomplished missions. If you send the military to do the job of the police the result will be dead civilians, and eventually civil disorder.

We have a lot of police who have forgotten this. And the results are obvious.

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

#147

Post by atoav »

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…

Yeah I agree that specialized police forces (e.g. those who are called when people are taken hostage) need modern weapons that can counter the weapons of criminals.

But when I say specialized I mean specialized. That means special training, special deployments, special oversight.

That is how it is done in most civilised nations and it works very well. Regular cops rarely even need their handarm in most western nations. The whole German police force fires roughly 35 bullets at people in an average year, with an average of 8 deadly ones. There are cops in the US who shoot more bullets at people in a week than the entire police force of a nation with 80 million people in an entire year.

This so obviously due to bad (and too short) training, a misguided police culture (rather than neutral enforcers many US cops seem to think they are the law) and of course a lack of hard consequences for the "bad apples".

Of course it has to do with weapons in general, but the Austrian village I grew up in has a Glock factory in it, every second family has rifles in their locked rifle cabinets etc — yet Austria and other Nations with a lot of guns (Canada, Finland) don't have comparable problems.

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

#148

Post by malandrew »

adwww wrote: post #94
matwood wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Plural? Like one could make sense, in a siege type situation or bank robbery in progress perhaps. The sort of event that might happen once a decade or so maybe. But how many sieges or bank robberies are they expecting to need multiple of these?!

Bank robberies used to be more common, but inflation basically took care of that

https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/economists-demonstra...

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

#149

Post by boomboomsubban »

koheripbal wrote: post #93
bcrosby95 wrote: post #40

Note that the 1033 program has a "use it or lose it" provision. Police must use equipment they receive via this program or it's taken away. So they find reasons to use their toys.

I wonder what the details around that are. So if I drive the APC on a training run once per year... is that "using it"? Have any of these departments actually lost any equipment? ie. is there any enforcement of that rule? Is it the actually equipment they must use, or is it the funding? ...because if it's the funding, that's a pretty standard accounting practice.

It's the equipment, they must apply for a reason they need it and conduct audits to make sure they still have the item. The rule is in place to prevent requesting items and then selling them though.

Even that is rarely enforced, I doubt anyone has been punished for not using something. The article mentions a department that keeps some guns permanently locked up because the DLA refused to take them back.

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

#150

Post by leetcrew »

Munksgaard wrote: post #98
ptero wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't know of any developed country where the police can reasonably expect to face better equipped adversaries than they can in the US. This is interesting for two reasons: You may have a point that it is necessary in the US for the police to have automatic weapons, but the US is also the only western country that has put itself in such a situation. Take from that what you will...

"automatic weapons" is sort of a red herring. even in the military (US military at least), rifles are usually used in semi-auto mode. AFAIK, the main exception would be suppressive fire on a position, which is probably not an appropriate tactic for police in a residential area.

even in the US, you are much more likely to encounter criminals armed with pistols than rifles. it's a much more appropriate platform for the use case.

Post reply on HN