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

251–260 of 336 posts

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

#251

Post by jjk166 »

monocasa wrote: post #226
jjk166 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Most 1033 materials are simple things like ammunition and office supplies, which wouldn't have any maintenance contracts. I'm sure if a police department got an APC they'd want it to be maintained, and I highly doubt you can just take an APC down to the local mechanic, but to my knowledge there's nothing in the 1033 program that forces them to continue a maintenance contract.

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

#252

Post by e40 »

tomschlick wrote: post #108
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…

> 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…

is the catalyst for all of this

I think excuse is the word you're looking for. As someone else pointed out, the 2 people that died were the robbers.

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

#253

Post by iguy »

jjk166 wrote: post #249
iguy wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are talking about a group of powerful politicians crafting legislation with a secret ulterior motive to transfer money to an unknown entity or entities in the military industrial complex. That's a pretty textbook conspiracy. If you dig into the line items I'm sure there will be some compromises to get the maximum number of votes, but that's a far cry from an elaborate scheme to line the pockets of the military in…

You're mis-reading me. Nowhere have I proposed any well-thought-out secret scheme. I'm pushing back against a story that says there's one precise purpose to this, which I thought was your claim above: "pretty obviously just a way for the federal government to subsidize domestic police forces".

I suggested one other motivation some people might have felt, of keeping the hardware moving. You've suggested some more, too, now, like looking tough on TV. Maybe that means we agree.

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

#254

Post by ceejayoz »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #239
kelnos wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Police exist (in theory) to enforce law. The military does not.

Edge cases like MPs and the Coast Guard exist, and some countries blur the line more than others. The Paris fire department, for example, is a military branch for historical reasons.

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

#256

Post by brigandish »

BelleOfTheBall wrote: post #213
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? 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…

You protect yourself from edge cases all the time, ever put on a seatbelt?

Risk is the chance of something happening coupled with the effect it would have. Perhaps the police should not be the ones protecting the public from a Mumbai style attack - possibly it should be the military - but it should be someone because of the grave consequences.

That does not have any link to whether police should routinely use de-escalation techniques (which they should).

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

#258

Post by passwordreset »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #180
yeetawayhn wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People conveniently leave out that it was the front door of a suspected drug dealer who had a previous weapons charge and had guards. https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-st... So the suspected drug dealer was using the baby as a human shield.

Your article does not support your assertion: > Because the suspected drug dealer, Wanis Thonetheva, had a previous weapons charge, officers were issued a "no-knock warrant" for the residence, Terrell said. > Thonetheva, 30, was not at the home at the time of the raid, but the toddler's mother and father and their other three children were inside. Not only was the raid unannounced, but the suspected drug dealer wasn'…

... and it's even worse than that. It seems there was no reason to suspect that this was the home of a drug dealer, as the police informant never purchased drugs there. The deputy who lied to the court to get the warrant was indicted but acquitted.

From https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acqui...

In 2015: "a federal grand jury indicted the undercover Habersham County deputy who secured the no-knock warrant, Nikki Autry, alleging that she provided false information to gain entry to the home where the Phonesavanhs were staying. The informant who she claimed purchased meth there never did, the indictment states, and Autry never "confirmed" that there was heavy drug traffic at the home, as she also claimed to have done."

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

#260

Post by ceejayoz »

brigandish wrote: post #256
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…

You protect yourself from edge cases all the time, ever put on a seatbelt? Risk is the chance of something happening coupled with the effect it would have . Perhaps the police should not be the ones protecting the public from a Mumbai style attack - possibly it should be the military - but it should be someone because of the grave consequences. That does not have any link to whether police should routinely use de-esc…

There are hundreds of thousands of car accidents in the USA annually.

There has never been a Mumbai-style terror attack, and the National Guard could be activated for such a thing.

Some edge cases deserve more addressing than others.

Post reply on HN