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

161–170 of 336 posts

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

#161

Post by yeetawayhn »

Steltek wrote: post #156
tomschlick wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 defensiv…

APCs are not "purely defensive". They're an intimidating presence which is by itself, a type of force. On top of that, it's becoming "a thing" to use vehicles to run over people you disagree with.

>APCs are not "purely defensive". They're an intimidating presence

In that case, they can paint them pink.

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

#162

Post by withinboredom »

leetcrew wrote: post #150
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...

"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…

That’s because with a m4, your job isn’t to push random rounds down range. Your job is to actually hit what you’re aiming at. Even with covering or suppressive fire, you’re not randomly shooting down range and your shots are calculated to keep whomever your shooting at either dead or where they are so they can be flanked. You might have some full automatic weapons in your team, but they can’t hit anything so they just lay down suppressive fire. Point is, you can’t hit what you’re aiming at in full auto.

Source: ex-military

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

#163

Post by NotSammyHagar »

ArnoVW wrote: post #130
Symmetry wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I wouldn't bet on it being causal though I could make a plausible story that police departments that put dangerous looking military equipment in their recruitment videos tend to attract the wrong sort of people.

Or that police departments in dangerous areas have to resort to buying more lethal equipment. Thus ending up killing more no-good dangerous criminals. I'm more inclined to belief the first version, but it's good to keep in mind that this sort of interpretation has it's limits.

There is so much that is legal to own (but of course not legal to use violently). 50 caliber machine guns are legal to own, quora reports that it can take a year to get a permit. There are places you can go and fire mortars on private land. Should the police have tanks to counter these things? Because they are legally owned in the us. The answer is no, the police should not. They have shown through their actions (repeatedly during the past 6 months on top of historical actions) that they can't be trusted with weapons this powerful.

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

#164

Post by throwawaysea »

yborg wrote: post #137
throwawaysea wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No city in the USA looks like a war zone, but they can encounter situations that are dangerous. Things like gang shootouts or riots. I don't understand why APCs are a reason to be outraged. They are armored personnel carriers. Is it bad to want to keep our limited, trained, experienced police staff safe? I feel like APCs and MRAPs have been picked as a target of manufactured outrage without any concrete reason to act…

It's commonly understood by even a child that an armored military vehicle belongs in a war zone. Having one driving around your home town sends the message that you live in a war zone, and guess what - you, the citizen, are the enemy. Even if they are reserved for "gang shootouts or riots" you are wasting money in the 95% of US towns that don't have gang shootouts or riots on such a regular basis that police need to…

> It's commonly understood by even a child that an armored military vehicle belongs in a war zone

I don't feel it is "commonly understood". Remove the word 'military' from your descriptor of the vehicle and let's talk in specifics. Do people working in dangerous conditions deserve protection? Yes. Do we need police to handle dangerous conditions even if they are rare? Yes. Do some of those situations require armor to protect them? Yes. Do they require a transport to get police to or from those situations? Yes. So we need armored vehicles, on rare occasions. The fact that an armored vehicle was used by the military is not really relevant.

>So I'm outraged as a taxpayer to see my money being wasted.

Why are you outraged at getting free surplus equipment that may be at end of life for military purposes? And what is a 'regular basis'? It doesn't matter if it is once a year - the police still need to handle that situation and need to be able to do it safely.

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

#165

Post by yeetawayhn »

leetcrew wrote: post #152
yeetawayhn wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

is there a better way of describing the group of countries where it is unlikely to encounter criminals with lmgs mounted to pickup trucks?

>is there a better way of describing the group of countries where it is unlikely to encounter criminals with lmgs mounted to pickup trucks?

The dogwhistle has now turned into a full on bullhorn.

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

#166

Post by JoeAltmaier »

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…

Its all fine to imagine the police are operating in a vacuum, where they can wait days for the FBI to respond when they encounter an emergency call with somebody with an automatic weapon.

Sure, they shouldn't have to have that kind of weaponry. But neither should they encounter them on the street. Are the police are some sort of ablative shield, that can be sacrificed to a political ideal?

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

#167

Post by darkerside »

yeetawayhn wrote: post #161
Steltek wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

APCs are not "purely defensive". They're an intimidating presence which is by itself, a type of force. On top of that, it's becoming "a thing" to use vehicles to run over people you disagree with.

>APCs are not "purely defensive". They're an intimidating presence In that case, they can paint them pink.

But they won't. Because they wouldn't look intimidating.

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

#168

Post by MperorM »

hguant wrote: post #85
bonestamp2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On paper. I hang out a lot with a lot of former US infantry guys on discord, and they talk all the time about how rule one was come back alive, and rule two was 'make sure you all get your stories straight.' This mythos of the American warfighter being above and beyond is propaganda. Good propaganda, because it has some basis in truth, but it whitewashes a lot of nastiness.

This was the case for the danish military in Iraq and Afghanistan as well.

The people I feel worst for are the soldiers themselves. You're informed over and over about the rules of engagement, and when you get there none of it applies.

If you don't shoot first, then your next to you friend will die. Obviously you're going to break the rules in that situation, it's what any human would do.

Now you have to live the rest of your life, knowing you broke conventions. You should be tried like the war-criminal you are. Or so it feels.

While I disagreed with the west's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have the utmost respect for the soldiers who fought there. They deserve a set of rules can realistically be followed.

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

#169

Post by mixedCase »

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #117
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…

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…

How does "protect and serve" not include removing dangerous, violent criminals from society?. To do so you need efficient weaponry and tactics that differ from conventional warfare. Does every police officer need to be equipped with such firepower? No, but police forces around the world facing these threats tend to have an intermediate (or more) group for dealing with threats that fall between petty thievery and terrorist organizations/nation-state level actors.

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

#170

Post by tomschlick »

Steltek wrote: post #156
tomschlick wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 defensiv…

APCs are not "purely defensive". They're an intimidating presence which is by itself, a type of force. On top of that, it's becoming "a thing" to use vehicles to run over people you disagree with.

You shouldn't get rid of a vital tool in a riot or active shooter situation because they look scary to you. And I have yet to see anyone use an MRAP/Bearcat to run over anyone (though I have seen quite a few patrol cars hit active shooters - quite justifiably)
Post reply on HN