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

311–320 of 336 posts

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

#311

Post by CydeWeys »

tekknik wrote: post #285
CydeWeys wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good?

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

#312

Post by brigandish »

BelleOfTheBall wrote: post #296
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…

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.

That you find a property or trait that is different between them does not make them a false equivalence. The comparison is about:

a) whether they are edge cases, which they are in terms of occurrence b) risk, which are comparable on a personal level

Additionally, when seat belt laws were introduced there were arguments about whether it was a moral hazard. Their requiring some effort (try strapping in a small child) and considerable danger to some (again, children, and pregnant women) was not relevant to that (ultimately wrong) argument and it's not relevant here either.

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

#313

Post by ev0lv »

The sentiment of the threads in this discussion are very anti-police. I personally see this as a privileged perspective.

>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.

Causal relationship between killings and military gear can easily be explained by "dangerous communities motivate police to seek out military gear. Dangerous communities have more killings in general." I believe it's the most straightforward explanation.

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

#314

Post by Communitivity »

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…

Your point about the FBI taking time and not being on call is good. New procedures and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) would need to be put in place, i.e. politics. But there are more tactical teams than people realize. The FBI openly admits that the FBI maintains SWAT teams at each of its 56 field offices throughout the country[1]. The field offices are distributed ideally, so they'd probably need additional field offices. For example, there are two in VA and two in PA, but none in WV. The reason I am so for the FBI doing this is that they watch their people much more closely, and have a higher psych bar to entry.

Also, regarding distance for the North Hollywood incident, the FBI's LA Field Office is at 11000 Wilshire Blvd, along with our their office in Los Angeles, they have 10 satellite offices, known as resident agencies, in the area. The estimated travel time for the CIRG from the field office to incident site is 22 minutes by car. That doesn't count using sirens/lights, or using a helo. The problem was likely being asked to participate, and getting approval to participate. As with many things at scale, tactical or techie, politics is more often a root cause than a technical issue.

[1] "Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG)". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 15 August 2020. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cirg

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

#315

Post by tekknik »

CydeWeys wrote: post #310
tekknik wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like military are also civilians? Your comment makes no sense, what should they call themselves?

There is no definition of the word "civilian" under which members of the military qualify. > Under international humanitarian law, civilians are "persons who are not members of the armed forces" and are not "combatants if they [don't] carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war". (from Wikipedia)

Sure, now next step is to determine if a military member in civilian clothes is considered military or civilian. Speaking from first hand experience we call ourselves civilians then.

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

#317

Post by tekknik »

CydeWeys wrote: post #309
tekknik wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the police lack a lot of the training that would be useless in urban environments. Your average cop is also trained with a handgun as their primary, instead of a rifle as primary and handgun as secondary. Your average military personnel is more fit than your average cop as well. Not to mention the military doesn’t have jurisdiction inside the US to enforce laws. If you believe they are the same then how come m…

> Your average cop is also trained with a handgun as their primary, instead of a rifle as primary and handgun as secondary. For what it's worth, your average soldier isn't equipped with a handgun at all, and as such, handgun training is minimal to non-existent. Your average soldier is more likely to need to know how to operate the squad's crew-served machine gun, a grenade launcher, or a door-busting shotgun, so to t…

You’re right there, my comment was more in line with the primary rather than secondaries.

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

#318

Post by darkerside »

tekknik wrote: post #287
darkerside wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is that a challenge or an honest question, I really can't tell?

If it's a question, probably because of its association with night and darkness, and it's contrast with bright colors.

If it's a challenge, give me a basis because you're fighting common sense. I'm not here to convince you that black is intimidating in a way that pink is not.

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

#319

Post by bigbubba »

tekknik wrote: post #283
bigbubba wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I'm aware that black metal components often have a protective black oxide layer. In another post in this thread I mention that the plastic 'furniture' could be made white at least. And in common police firearms, namely glocks, that's most of the gun that could be recovered. I don't think the Glock company offers such guns presently, but if there were widespread police aesthetic reforms I don't think supply would necessarily be a problem.

As for camouflage, I think police should be forbidden from using it. If a bank robber needs to be ambushed from the bushes in some sort of 'Bonnie and Clyde' scenario, let the beat police call in specialists. These armoured vehicles don't need camo in the likely scenarios in which they'd ever be used, particularly since the entire premise of such vehicles in a police role is that they'd be impervious to the small arm fire they might encounter. In a military role they might get hit by an RPG, but such anti-armour weapons are exceedingly unlikely to be relevant to police.

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

#320

Post by bigbubba »

tekknik wrote: post #305
bigbubba wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the literal sense. Police like to blur the line by calling everybody else 'civilians', but they are civilians too.

Just like military are also civilians? Your comment makes no sense, what should they call themselves?

Soldiers are not civilians.
Post reply on HN