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

291–300 of 336 posts

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

#291

Post by ardy42 »

pedalpete wrote: post #288
ardy42 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

No, that's not true. They didn't have head to toe armor, but they were armored where the police where trained to shoot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Death...:

> After retrieving [a pistol that had been shot out of his hand], [Phillips] placed the muzzle under his chin and fired; he was simultaneously shot by a bullet fired by Officer John Caprarelli that severed his spine.....

> Later reports showed that Mătăsăreanu was shot 29 times in the legs and died from trauma due to excessive blood loss coming from two gunshot wounds in his left thigh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Weapo...:

> Following their training, the responding patrol officers directed their fire at the "center of mass", or torsos, of Mătăsăreanu and Phillips. However, aramid body armor worn by Phillips and Mătăsăreanu covered all of their vitals (except their heads), enabling them to absorb pistol bullets and shotgun pellets, while Mătăsăreanu's chest armor, thanks to a metal trauma plate, successfully withstood a hit from a SWAT officer's AR-15.

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

#292

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> APCs are purely defensive

Er, no, they aren't. They are mostly offensive, since the point of them is to allow infantry to more effectively conduct offensive maneuvering in the presence of automatic weapons fire rather than being pinned down in static defensive positions.

Military technology is almost never purely defensive.

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

#293

Post by 082349872349872 »

jessaustin wrote: post #107
082349872349872 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's two years for the local municipal police. For comparison, nationwide we have less than 1 police fatality per 10 mm population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...

What municipality is that? That is remarkably longer than the training taken by multiple family members of mine.

A municipality in one of denmark, iceland, japan, poland, switzerland, taiwan, or the UK.

Compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23376741

(It's difficult to bear witness for any length of time without revealing far more than 30 bits of information about oneself. Therefore, my post history will narrow it down to the city, if you really wish that level of detail. But I believe the 2 years is the same for my "state" and its neighbours, whom we share a police academy with, and roughly the same across the country. NB that we don't even have judicial execution, so extra-judicial execution would especially be frowned upon.

    Regret, by definition, comes too late;
    Say what you mean. Bear witness. Iterate. )

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

#294

Post by ordu »

andreilys wrote: post #42
ordu wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In social sciences cause and effect often intermixed. It is pain in the ass for researchers. From the other hand, it means that it not so important to distinguish cause and effect. If we had a correlation, we would have a predictor, so we could do something about it. Just studying agencies with military gear would change outcomes. Even media discussing this correlation could change things. The role of an observer eve…

Cause and effect is important to distinguish. Spurious correlations exist everywhere (ice cream consumption is correlated with drowning, should we ban ice cream before swimming?) From my experience most people don’t understand this difference and assume any narrative around correlation equals causation.

> From my experience most people don’t understand this difference and assume any narrative around correlation equals causation.

I know. Our thinking is built around cause and effect and when confronted by a correlational data it start to come to a wrong conclusions, because it have no idea what to do with correlations. It tends to assume that correlation is a causation, because such an assumption allow our thinking to do at least something with the data.

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

#295

Post by watwut »

mixedCase wrote: post #199
watwut wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you taking about actual real need in cities or a fantasy? It sounds flippant, but other counties don't need such ammo. The murder clearance rates are low, corruption seem to be persistent problem and actual police work does not actually seem to involve attacking actual super armed gangs.

Of course I'm talking about an actual real need in cities, it's bewildering to me someone can't even see it as obvious. What country do you live in where there's no need for SWAT-like teams or a straight-up Gendarmerie?

SWAT-like teams are used rarely and they don't buy used arms from military. They are few in numbers.

The issue with catching organized criminality is in investigation and dealing with corruption - including police corruption. The whole need to shoot out with them thing does not happen unless the local police is spectacularly bad.

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

#296

Post by BelleOfTheBall »

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…

This is a false equivalency. Putting on a seatbelt poses no danger and requires no effort. Giving police military-grade vehicles and weapons, on the other hand, costs money and isn't safe, considering their track record.

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

#297

Post by baq »

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…

of course i'd rather the police sit and watch and maybe throw some tear gas around. why do think violence or even lethal force would work?

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

#298

Post by baq »

ptero wrote: post #274
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…

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…

what's the difference between military and police if both look the same and use the same weapons? what's stopping a rebel police chief from taking power in that case instead of some rebel general?

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

#299

Post by lovetocode »

lovetocode wrote: post #142
mywittyname wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police department at Ohio State University has an APC. No city in the USA, much less college campus, looks like a war zone. I would hope most people would not need to experience Kandahar first-hand to understand this fact.

You should check out Baltimore

I’m not wrong you should really check out Baltimore.

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

#300

Post by lovetocode »

mywittyname wrote: post #38
jankyxenon wrote: post #14

I'm not saying it's warranted for Police to have military weapons - but wouldn't departments that request military gear be somewhat correlated with ones with more intense crime. I'm guessing there aren't many sleepy hamlets that request the high-end stuff.

The police department at Ohio State University has an APC. No city in the USA, much less college campus, looks like a war zone. I would hope most people would not need to experience Kandahar first-hand to understand this fact.

What does a war zone look like exactly?
Post reply on HN