The Human Toll of Flashbangs • Hacker News Board

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#241

Post by base2 » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 1:39 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #209

amirmc wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that logic utterly distorted. Give a bunch of humans guns, the right to use deadly force and then for some reason worry about making them 'feel safe' -- oh, and also absolve them if things go wrong (or even if they break the law), as we've seen in recent US news. I think they're already safer than most people. What cops really need is better and more substantive training, not equipment to hide behind.

No, tinco is right about officer safety. You really want those "men with gun and right to use deadly force" to feel safe, so that they don't exercise their killing license prematurely. When the officers feel safe and thus sure of themselves, they're more likely to follow proper procedures instead of being afraid of their own safety. I'm not saying that you should give them armoured troop carriers though. You want the…

I'm glad someone gets it haha! Most people and therefore police officers don't want to get shot. I'm going to assume that the group with more guns and people are the side you don't want to resort to shooting if there is not a need.

If all that can happen is the armor getting dented up your not going to feel compelled to shot back so quickly. You will have much more flexibility in responding too. Your initiative is going to get taken away if you don't need to immediately react to a threat.

I do however thing that the carriers should get painted blue or white that someone resemble police colors. The all black and super tactical looking equipment is even too much for me as former military.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#242

Post by base2 » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 2:12 AM UTC

ecdavis wrote: post #240

base2 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be amazed at the difference in reaction time if someone steps out of a car with a weapon drawn and the time it takes to bring up your own weapon. If the US police were so gun happy I would expect way more people to be shot per year/day.

I understand the reasoning behind the action, but it's still not justifiable. Following that same reasoning we can argue that police should approach car windows with their weapons drawn and aimed. After all, if an officer approaches a car window and sees the occupant has a gun aimed at them they won't have time to defend themselves if their sidearm is holstered. Officers have certainly been killed by vehicle occupant…

Having your weapon drawn right from the get go is not a good thing. It tends to make calm people nervous. As far as getting out of the vehicle most police don't like surprises so if things go step by step according to the person with the gun things go much better.

If you stay in the car you have a much easier time dealing with a person who can't easily get into your personal space and limiting the options you have to protect your self.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#243

Post by halfcat » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 5:08 AM UTC

>At least 50 Americans have been seriously injured, maimed or killed by flashbangs since 2000

I was surprised to see this statistic included. It really makes this issue seem less significant and does not help the argument being made. This means a little over 3 people per year injured or worse. Probably less than 1 death per year. By comparison, vending machines alone kill over a dozen people each year. Was this supposed to say, "we located over 50 people", and not intended to be put forward as a statistic?

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#244

Post by fapjacks » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 5:15 AM UTC

base2 wrote: post #239

fapjacks wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. The proper military use of flashbangs is to throw them into a room (to land wherever, usually the center of the room) and then run in and murder everyone inside. You are overstating the precision involved.

Why does everyone seem to derive the usage of flashbangs from something like Counter Strike. Knowing the room layout/size as well as what kind stuff is in the room is never a sure thing. I'm going to assure you that the most common place you are going to find an open area is closer to the entry point due to the need for people to enter and exit through a door. I guess its a moot point to try and explain the concepts…

I can tell you haven't much in the way of combat experience. All of these things you've read online or in a FM somewhere go totally out the window in combat. All of these things you're talking about are completely in the land of theory when people are trying to kill you and vice versa. On two of my three combat tours in the infantry I spent most of the time kicking in doors, zip-tying people to themselves, and tossing a hood over their heads. And that was when they weren't trying to fight. The real world is far too chaotic and fast for the games you are talking about playing. You know I once had to clear the first three stories of an office building between myself and two other guys. There were a stupid amount of rooms. We cleared upwards of thirty rooms because of one smartass firing down from the top floor. All those Youtube videos you're quoting are meaningless in a situation like that.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#245

Post by halfcat » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 5:23 AM UTC

Rainymood wrote: post #116

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone interested in the video: Warning it's graphical, naturally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tpAZObNZfI To summarize, indeed he says 'Im not a murderer' while picking up his bag, just standing around. They fire the grenade, tell him to get down blabla. He never steps forward in any way, charges them or attacks, while the officers close in and put a dog on him. Seconds later he turns away and gets shot mult…

And this is the problem with guns, imagine if the police didn't have any guns and they would have to approach him by first. Obviously they outnumber him but know (unless he has a lethal weapon on him) there shouldn't be any lethal force. Guns escalate the situation way too quickly to a life threatening one ...

>unless he has a lethal weapon on him

And if he does? Your argument has excluded half of the (rather important) outcomes.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#246

Post by halfcat » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 5:33 AM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #185

tomohawk wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going off of reports such as this: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/charlie-hebdo-french-satirical-m... "the first two officers to arrive, who were apparently unarmed, fled after seeing gunmen armed with automatic weapons and possibly a grenade launcher."

CBS News isn't a reliable source. This is also the same "source" which claimed that both suspects had been captured and a third killed according to "US intelligence sources" (still unnamed). Turned out that that wasn't true at that point in time or since then. They're like the Daily Mail of the US, just peddle utter shit all of the time...

>CBS News isn't a reliable source.

This tells me nothing. Are the facts presented by parent's post false or not?

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#247

Post by zo1 » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 6:50 AM UTC

rmxt wrote: post #225

zo1 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I absolutely think the police should not discriminate against crime-heavy neighborhoods by policing them less than they deserve/need. To police them less is the discriminatory thing to do, as they need it more than safer neighborhoods. Of course, the entire discussion we're having is invalid if we work with the premise that more policing = more convictions, by virtue of the crime being everywhere (across boundar…

My point of contention isn't whether or not we should police high crime neighborhoods more or less, it's whether we should condone the (less-common) explicit or (more-common) implicit police policy of using race as a proxy for the other variables that I mentioned previously. You've danced around my question: is race a valid "indicator" of "problem areas" in your model?

If the statistics agree with it, then yes, of course race can be used as an indicator of problem areas. But as I said in my second paragraph, there are certain things that invalidate that completely.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#248

Post by antimagic » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 9:34 AM UTC

base2 wrote: post #238

antimagic wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not military police, it's just plain ol' soldiers. Which kinda freaks me out, because I spend my time wondering exactly what their rules of engagement are, and how well they have been trained in them. At least they always have the safety engaged when I check...

Solders for the most part get much more time and training using firearms than police who tend to have a much wider range of duties to perform. Most NATO militaries have increased the amount of training in urban environments. I'm pretty sure(or overly optimistic) they have decent training/drilling experience as the political backlash from having soldiers get way to aggressive in terms of resorting to military tactics…

They are much better marksmen, it's true. But police have waaaaaay more experience dealing with drunk idiots, mentally ill people, people doped up to their eyeballs on speed and so on. Deciding whether someone is one of these or a serious security threat is not as easy as it might sound, hence my curiousity vis-a-vis the rules of engagement...

The Australian military is generally lauded as being excellent at peace-keeping operations, yet during officer training, it was hammered into us that policing was a much harder operation, and that our hierarchy would never accept policing missions.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#249

Post by cmdkeen » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 10:59 AM UTC

base2 wrote: post #234

cmdkeen wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a former UK police officer I can assure you that if armed police officers came across someone with a drawn knife at least one firearm would be aimed at them. One of my officer safety trainers was a qualified close protection officer (i.e. bodygaurd) who ran through one of their scenarios whereby someone with a knife faces off across the diagonal length of a basketball court sized room with someone with a holstered…

I can remember the proper name for them but it's along the line of Armed Emergency Response Teams. Watching tapes and a short training exercise the amount of trigger discipline and weapons handling is amazing.

Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs) are the mainstay of British armed policing, outside of London they are pretty rare and often fall back to traffic policing duties.

The qualfiied officers are Authorised Firearms Officers who will also stand up the equivalent of SWAT teams as needed for each constabulary.

London has Specialist Firearms Officers as well who are a standing set of SWAT type teams. Several have written some very good books about their experiences, Steve Collins especially.

The main thing in the UK is that armed officers who discharge their weapon, let alone kill someone, face extremely rigorous scrutiny by an external agency. This combined with no specific legal protections means that a police officer shooting their weapon is very rare, it happens a handful of times across the UK each year.

Re: The Human Toll of Flashbangs

#250

Post by EliRivers » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 1:44 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #215

EliRivers wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, there is evidence from other situations that when people feel safer, they simply increase the risk level. When people wear seatbelts, they drive more dangerously. Fit airbags; people drive more dangerously. Wear a helmet while cycling; people cycle more dangerously. Turn up inside an armoured tank...

You´re conflating two concepts that are the opposite of each other. The examples you gave are about people putting _themselves_ in more danger when they have safety gear. This is analogous to cops being more likely to de-escalate situations instead of just shooting prematurely (the latter of which is much safer for the cop in general). The concept we´re discussing in this thread is making _others_ safer in the presen…

I still disagree. I think if the cops feel that they are safer, they will feel that escalating the situation is less risky, and are more likely to do so.