Police killings more likely in agencies that get military gear, data shows • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by stjohnswarts » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 1:51 AM UTC

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.

I'm sorry a 38 caliber "old school" pistol will kill you just about as quickly as an AR15 and a shot gun with correct shells will be far more likely to end you. It's not about the style of gun, it's about who's using it and how aggressive they are.

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

#282

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 1:54 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #277

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The smaller cities you're thinking of are very large compared to the median sheriff's office, with less than 25 sworn personnel. (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/so07st.pdf) It's hard for a SWAT team to be meaningfully distinct at such a small size, when you're counting on one or two hands the number of times it's needed in a year.

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

#283

Post by tekknik » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 1:54 AM UTC

bigbubba wrote: post #262

btgeekboy wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes basically, though I would like to see these sort of aesthetic changes across the board, not just to uniforms. The uniforms and the rest of their equipment should convey peaceful professionalism, not macho militarism.

Some of the black on the metal hardware comes from coatings to prevent rust and other corrosion, not to look cool. Custom colored coatings (cerakote I guess if you want light blue) would be much more expensive. It’s not just simply painted black. The other hardware that is painted is done for camouflage, and I’m betting the vehicles were sand colored when they got them as a black APC is gonna stand out real well in the desert.

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

#284

Post by tekknik » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 1:55 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #260

brigandish wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What about SWAT teams?

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

#285

Post by tekknik » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 1:56 AM UTC

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…

So then these centers will be known and avoided by terrorists.

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

#286

Post by tekknik » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 2:00 AM UTC

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.

Do we really need to pull up instances of when police use APCs to insert SWAT teams? It’s very easy to find and pretty well common knowledge if you look.

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

#287

Post by tekknik » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 2:02 AM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #167

yeetawayhn wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>APCs are not "purely defensive". They're an intimidating presence In that case, they can paint them pink.

But they won't. Because they wouldn't look intimidating.

Yet they paint them tan when in military use. Honest question, why do you think black = intimidating?

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

#288

Post by pedalpete » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 2:05 AM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #250

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…

> Police were heavily outgunned. I believe the problem wasn't so much that they were "outgunned," but that they lacked longer range weapons of any kind. So that problem could be entirely solved by issuing some fraction of officers hunting rifles to carry in their patrol car's trunk. No need to kit them out like infantry or give them APCs. The police's advantage in numbers and organization would take care of almost an…

The robbers were head-to-toe in kevlar and had armor piercing bullets, the police didn't.

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

#289

Post by brigandish » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 2:10 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #260

brigandish wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Some edge cases deserve more addressing than others.

Not only is no one arguing different, the "hundreds of thousands of car accidents in the USA annually" has been addressed (in several ways). Perhaps other problems may also be addressed?

> There has never been a Mumbai-style terror attack

No, only in most (if not all) of the other G8 countries, but have they had a Pulse nightclub attack or planes flown into buildings? How many have had a Bataclan or a London Bridge style attack?

Let's not split hairs.

> the National Guard could be activated for such a thing

Well, I did suggest “possibly it should be the military” so the National Guard, being part of the military, would fit.

In short, an edge case being rare does not imply that it should not be prepared for. What's the response time for the National Guard if terrorists start attacking people in the street?

Edit: typo

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

#290

Post by thaumasiotes » Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 3:16 AM UTC

tomnipotent wrote: post #278

thaumasiotes wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> No it doesn't. It exists to protect national interests.

This is meaningless, and to the degree that it has meaning, ridiculously overbroad. Almost all activities that "protect national interests" are not military. The definition you purport to provide here does not distinguish the military from anything else.

What actually defines the military is that it achieves its goals through the use of violence. And the police belong in this category too; there isn't a difference. Saying the police are not military purely because they wear a label saying "the third amendment doesn't apply to us, for reasons that will make sense if we beat you enough" would be the same error as saying that a newspaper didn't enjoy freedom of "the press" if it published online (and therefore didn't use a printing press).

Actually, it would be more like saying that the New York Times didn't enjoy freedom of "the press" because they're "the Times", not "the press".