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

271–280 of 336 posts

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

#271

Post by alisonkisk »

regularfry wrote: post #141
jakelazaroff wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study controls for that variable: > The newspaper’s analysis used the military’s database and paired it with a database of fatal police shootings from across the state, controlling for statistical variables like community income, rural-urban differences, racial makeup, and violent crime rates. The article explicitly cautions against drawing conclusions about causality. My intuition is that there’s truth to both e…

We would have to deal with violent cops who want to hurt civilians, but at least they'd have less efficient tools to do so. And maybe the violent people would be less drawn to a career in law enforcement if it wasn't associated with a militarised image. If it's both effects at the same time, in a feedback loop, it's actually ok - you can stop the loop by cutting either effect.

When I think of the outrageous crimes committed by police, I see handguns and batons and knees, not military gear.

I suspect the tacticool gear is more about the culture and mindset (your second effect). As tech companies attract computer nerds with computer toys, LE attacks violence nerds with violence toys.

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

#272

Post by alisonkisk »

nojokes wrote: post #243
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 honestly do not know about how they look like. What I meant was higher rate of crime against people and police. But to give you an idea what might turn police force to want to have more serious weapons. Just few days ago there was a 2 hours long attack on the local police station in France. Attackers used fireworks. Police did not respond though and I do not have an idea why. Perhaps they were outnumbered and outgu…

CNN: "Police said no one was injured and an investigation to identify the perpetrators is underway."

The police did a great job and I'm glad it didn't turn into a massacre that could have exploded into an outright civil war.

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

#273

Post by Craighead »

oh_sigh wrote: post #261
monocasa wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple police in Atlanta do through multiple grenades. They just only threw it into crib with an infant in it once. But made sure we all knew that they think they did nothing wrong by doing that, and would absolutely do it again under the same circumstances. When you go out of your way, under oath, to say that your organization systemically didn't learn from the mistake and would absolutely do it again, an "only on…

I get your point. It doesn't change the fact that your post is factually inaccurate. If you said that the Lebanese government was bad because they have all these deadly ammonia nitrate explosions, then it is factually incorrect because there was really only one explosion. Even if the Lebanese government tries to shirk responsibility, or say the explosion was a good thing and they'd do it again - none of that means th…

How ok/apathetic were they about the explosion matters.

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

#274

Post by ptero »

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…

To me, the military should not be a part of any law enforcement for the citizens. In practical terms, "never" is too harsh, but the bar should be very high. When military gets involved in local matters there is a risk that it takes power and holds it for a long time. Sometimes a military junta might be the least bad option, but this is not a path the country should risk taking lightly.

There were plenty of countries where gangs possessed and used automatic weapons, from Scandinavia to Germany, from Brazil to former Soviet Union. And that is not even touching Africa. A gang with machine guns is not a reason to ask military to take over law enforcement. My 2c.

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

#276

Post by fastball »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #173
numpad0 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s not much technical difference in “military rifles” from civilian AR15 other than military version has an extra pin and the finger groove

On the other hand, there's presumably a significant technical difference between police cars and mine-resistant vehicles created for military operations in the Middle East.

Not very intuitive that a mine-resistant vehicle would encourage anyone to kill more civilians tho.

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

#277

Post by refurb »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #203
99_00 wrote: post #120

Every modern police department all over the world has assualt rifles, carbines, military sights, sniper rifle a, scopes, and armored vehicles.

Modern law enforcement universally has access to those things. But in most countries (and many areas of the US) they're limited to specific, organizationally disjoint departments which are specifically trained to use such force. That's different than what's happening here.

Isn't that the case here? They don't give out SWAT vehicles to beat cops. Even smaller cities have distinct SWAT teams with specific training.

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

#278

Post by tomnipotent »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #269
ceejayoz wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The military also exists to enforce law. The police are in exactly the same business as the military, enforcing compliance through violence. Using a different word doesn't make them a different thing.

> The military also exists to enforce law.

No it doesn't. It exists to protect national interests. The rare exemption is when a state decides to deploy the Army National Guard or Coast Guard. The Posse Comitatus Act is very specific about this, and the U.S. Army Military Police Corps were slapped with administrative actions for violating the act when they intervened in murder spree in Alabama.

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

#279

Post by scollet »

bigbubba wrote: post #189
dcolkitt wrote: post #144

I think one possible reform is that SWAT teams should belong to a separate department than the regular police. If the situation gets out of hand, then the police can call in the SWAT. But we shouldn't be expect regular beat cops and detectives to be the people kicking down doors with bullet proof vests. The two jobs require very different skillsets and temperaments. Unfortunately because of the long-running wars in t…

> I'd definitely a trust a SWAT department filled with ex-special forces more than I'd trust a small-town cop LARPing in military gear. I know soldier worship is the national religion or something, but I think that's something you should reconsider: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30281075/ More research needs to be done, but there is evidence that police officers with military backgrounds are more likely to be invol…

I'd prefer police carrying a two-year degree (with an emphasis on negotiation and deescalation) more than anything else.

Most able people can learn to use a gun. Most anyone can use it lethally.

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

#280

Post by stjohnswarts »

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…

This makes a lot more logical sense. The already had pistols and shotguns aplenty to shoot people, adding some armored carriers, camo, and some AR15s isn't going to really add much to that capability. I find your proposal a lot more likely, the police departments that get this stuff are much more aggressive and see it more as a War on Crime, rather than to Protect and to Serve.
Post reply on HN