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

231–240 of 336 posts

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

#231

Post by oh_sigh »

monocasa wrote: post #229
oh_sigh wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

A million people could defend it, but it doesn't change the fact that the act only happened once.

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

#232

Post by kelnos »

CydeWeys wrote: post #230
slg wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 h…

> 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.

Absolutely not. The military does not handle issues like this on US soil. (If you meant something else by "troops", please choose your words more carefully.)

I have zero confidence that, with such a force on standby all the time, departments will resist using that force for more mundane matters until it becomes routine.

> 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.

Would "military-level policing" have actually helped in any of these terrorist attacks? I fail to see how a tricked-out army would have stopped 9/11. I did a quick search for "terrorist attacks in washington dc", and nothing really came up, except for some theoretical worries and a few foiled plots, which clearly did not need "military-level policing" to deal with.

I'm really tired of how "oh my, terrorists!" is used as an excuse for domestic militarization and draconian domestic policy. The threat of terrorism in the US is hugely overblown, and traditional policing at the local and federal level is what we need to handle these sorts of things, by catching them during the planning phases. And with most terrorist attacks, if you get to a point where there's an active attack, it's too late to do all that much that's meaningful, and bringing in militarized units has just as much potential to make the situation worse. Sure, there are exceptions, but not enough to warrant militarized police on call 24/7.

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

#233

Post by monocasa »

oh_sigh wrote: post #231
monocasa wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

A million people could defend it, but it doesn't change the fact that the act only happened once.

The police in Atlanta, collectively, made a point to hit home how OK it was and how any else of them would do the same thing, with police management saying such under oath during her trial.

They don't get a "only once" pass under those circumstances.

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

#234

Post by kelnos »

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.

You are picking one particular attack and are attempting to use that single, outlying instance to argue for things that will not be necessary in the 99% case.

And the problem with military gear -- as we're currently seeing, plain as the day -- is that cops will not just save it for the truly dire situations; they'll use it more and more until it becomes a part of routine operations.

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

#235

Post by vorpalhex »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #159
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…

That sounds legit, but OP mentioned automatic weapons purchased from the military as well. Definitely not purely defensive of course.

No but a used beater M4 is a whole lot cheaper than a new Mk18 or a new M4 and it's probably been maintained by military armorers it's entire lifespan.

Though yes, the military firearms tend to be select fire. Probably not a useful feature for police but I can't imagine they use it with any frequency.

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

#236

Post by ffggvv »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #87
seretogis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

I don't understand why this was downvoted.

i downvoted it because it’s not a dog whistle. people insist on seeing race everywhere. a risky area by common sense is an area with increased violence, regardless of the racial makeup. if you can’t see why somewhere with increased violence would possibly require police to have increased capabilities i’m not sure what to say. or how it’s magically a dog whistle

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

#237

Post by freeone3000 »

Balgair wrote: post #160
baron_harkonnen wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Many other countries have Gendarmerie forces that bridge this gap in various ways. The most famous being the RCMP. Other countries mix these responsibilities with varying success, but they do it intentionally. Some have found good success w…

RCMP are regular police everywhere but Ontario and Quebec. RCMP are closer in remit to the US Marshals, but also have the investigatory powers of the FBI. "Gendamarie" isn't inaccurate, but they're not militarized any greater or lesser than the SPVM.

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

#238

Post by btgeekboy »

bigbubba wrote: post #220
BelleOfTheBall wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Is there any particular reason why a clear edge-case scenario should be our basis for arming police departments, which spend most of their time solving mundane domestic disputes, pulling apart drunken fights and responding to break-ins where someone's Playstation was stolen? We should ori…

I think the biggest problem with these vehicles is the aesthetics and the mindset they attract. But in this regard, those armoured vehicles are only a small part of the problem. Their dark uniforms should be replaced with light uniforms. Replace black and dark blue uniforms with baby blue, white or 'day-glo' neons. Do the same to their guns (white plastic 'furniture' where possible), cars, and armoured vehicles. It d…

In other words, you want more WA State Patrol (white cars, light blue uniforms) than Seattle PD (navy blue for both), it seems. Though I recall the move to the navy blue uniforms in Seattle was for cost reasons - their old baby blue uniforms were custom, so they cost more.

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

#239

Post by thaumasiotes »

kelnos wrote: post #232
CydeWeys wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

> 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. Absolutely not. The military does not handle issues like this on US soil. (If you meant something else by "troops", please choose your words more carefully.) I have zero confidence that, with such a force on standby all the time, departments will resist usi…

> Absolutely not. The military does not handle issues like this on US soil.

In what sense are the police not military?

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

#240

Post by thowaway23413 »

thdrdt wrote: post #115

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

Fixing the process (formal training in this instance), rather than focusing on specific mistakes (a specific instance of police violence) is generally the correct approach.

However, given how little accountability there is for specific instances, maybe part of "training" is cops actually facing substantial repercussions when they resort to violence?

Side note: Does Jocko have a vested interest here? ie. does he sell a police training course? That could explain his bias to pointing to more training while skating over repercussions.

Post reply on HN