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

221–230 of 336 posts

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

#221

Post by bigbubba »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #219
bigbubba wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most are a third option; not theoretical, but neither occurring in America. Consider something like the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 10 men with rifles and explosives terrorized an entire city causing hundreds of casualties. Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Against that sort of threat, I think the police having a f…

In the time it takes for an APC to show up some beat cop the rampage will be over. They will either run out of ammo and detonate suicide vests or someone will have managed to shoot the threat. An APC is of no use except when you know where and when you want it and those situations tend to not be the kinds of situations we want civilian police engaging in.

The 2008 attack in Mumbai lasted numerous days.

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

#222

Post by bigbubba »

nitrogen wrote: post #209
bigbubba wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most are a third option; not theoretical, but neither occurring in America. Consider something like the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 10 men with rifles and explosives terrorized an entire city causing hundreds of casualties. Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Against that sort of threat, I think the police having a f…

Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Mainly because gurs in general aren't hard to get in America. Any would-be shooter has to fear not only cops, but armed civilians. And if they are spanning an entire city and the police aren't able to keep up, you'd definitely get recreational hunters with their rifles trying to take them d…

Maybe in a city like Dallas (I'm aware of the Charles Whitman case), but how many rifle-toting vigilantes could you really count on in San Francisco?

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

#223

Post by monocasa »

bobthechef wrote: post #95
sandworm101 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Their job is to protect citizens An interesting turn of phrase, but not reality. Cops are there to enforce laws. Some of those laws are meant to protect citizens. Other laws are to protect property, protect government interests, and enforce codes of behavior. This is particularly true when dealing with mental health issues. Protection of anyone quickly becomes secondary to physically stopping the person who is act…

That's an interesting set of distinctions without a difference. > Some of those laws are meant to protect citizens. Laws are made for the just common good. They may not be ideal, but that's what they exist for. > Other laws are to protect property, Again, for the sake of the common good. The ability to hold private property is a prerequisite for other goods we need to flourish. > protect government interests What is…

No there's a real distinction, to the point that protecting citizens isn't a part of their job, legally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

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

#224

Post by UncleEntity »

btilly wrote: post #146
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…

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 y…

Case in point: when they sent the 82nd Airborne down to Haiti for peacekeeping things didn't go as well as they had hoped.

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

#225

Post by iguy »

jjk166 wrote: post #204
iguy wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but maybe this has better PR than scrapping stuff. Or having it show up in Isis videos. Mostly I don't think it's clear that "subsidize domestic police forces" need be the main goal.

The simplest explanation that adequately explains the observation tends to be correct. There's really no need for any conspiracy here, support for "law and order" has been a winning political strategy for decades. Meanwhile, getting the department of defense to increase the number of MRAPs they order by a fraction of a percent seems like it could be achieved in other, easier ways. It's good to be skeptical, but at so…

Conspiracy is quite a strong word!

My take on the neutral explanation would be is to assume that it's like every other policy -- about a dozen people with varying motivations had to support it, and then a few more motivations got added by PR people, and by whoever doesn't want it to stop. Policies "pretty obviously" driven by exactly one factor are extremely unusual.

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

#226

Post by monocasa »

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…

Don't they have to take over the fairly lucrative maintenance contracts as well?

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

#227

Post by ceejayoz »

bigbubba wrote: post #221
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the time it takes for an APC to show up some beat cop the rampage will be over. They will either run out of ammo and detonate suicide vests or someone will have managed to shoot the threat. An APC is of no use except when you know where and when you want it and those situations tend to not be the kinds of situations we want civilian police engaging in.

The 2008 attack in Mumbai lasted numerous days.

Are you under the impression the Indian Army doesn't have APCs etc., then?

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

#228

Post by bigbubba »

ceejayoz wrote: post #227
bigbubba wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2008 attack in Mumbai lasted numerous days.

Are you under the impression the Indian Army doesn't have APCs etc., then?

I am not. I am refuting the assumption that a coordinated terrorist attack would play out quickly. Even if the responding police/military are well equipped it remains possible that a terrorist attack could last for several days.

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

#229

Post by monocasa »

oh_sigh wrote: post #218
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...

One police officer once threw a hand grenade into the crib of a sleeping baby. Clearly not a good thing, but your phrasing makes it sound like it is some kind of common, repeat experience.

As someone from Atlanta, the police came out hard in defense of this, to the point where I don't feel bad speaking in terms of plurals.

The phrase I believe goes "a few bad apples... spoils the bunch"?

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

#230

Post by CydeWeys »

slg wrote: post #212
bigbubba wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most are a third option; not theoretical, but neither occurring in America. Consider something like the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 10 men with rifles and explosives terrorized an entire city causing hundreds of casualties. Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Against that sort of threat, I think the police having a f…

>Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America I don't think this is the right question to ask. There are a lot of things that one can reasonably think could happen in America. Do we need to prepare every police department in the country for all those situations regardless of the odds of the worst happening? Do the costs, both literal monetary costs and the harder to measure societal…

It's a good point. Our largest and most targeted cities (e.g. NYC, DC) absolutely should have dedicated heavy weapons troops on call to respond in real time to a terrorist attack. Their equipment and training should be separate from workaday policing.

Then most of the rest of the country just needs normal policing, because realistically, they're so unlikely to be a target. Look at all the big terrorist attacks that have happened in the past several decades. They've targeted huge international cities: DC, NYC, London, Paris, Mumbai. These are the kinds of targets (and the only kinds of targets) that plausibly need military-level policing on stand-by 24/7.

Post reply on HN