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

41–50 of 336 posts

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

#41

Post by 8fGTBjZxBcHq »

sandworm101 wrote: post #32
opwieurposiu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police in Georgia literally throw hand grenades into the cribs of sleeping babies and get away with it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acqui...

Flashbangs. They are violent, but in a totally different class than actual hand grenades. No police in the US use hand grenades. The kid in the crib survived. Had it been an actual grenade ... not a survivable event. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-...

Are you really defending the police grenading a baby.

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

#42

Post by andreilys »

ordu wrote: post #27
leroy_masochist wrote: post #17

The question here, in my opinion, is whether we're looking at actual causation or simple correlation. Is this an example of, "receiving free coyote-colored tacticool gear and MRAPs prompts cops to become more aggressive, detached from the population they are ostensibly there to protect, and likely to unnecessarily end civilian lives in the course of doing their job"? Or is it an example of, "police departments with t…

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.

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

#43

Post by steve76 »

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…

The mayor or governor can be corrupt and block it. The FBI has been corrupted before. Whitey Bulger. Richard Hansen. Epstein. Or they can be honest, but can't intervene because they are on the world stage and arresting a Cuban or Chinese spy running everything would start a world war.

It's a lot different when your number is called, when you're the one who's going to be shot to death by a criminal. You want everything you have and it's nowhere near enough. It's the opposite of what you think. Police just contain as much as they can. And they hide a lot of horrible monsters, worse than you can believe. If they talked about what criminals really do, there would be an unrestrained outrage which would engulf us all.

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

#44

Post by Someone »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #17

The question here, in my opinion, is whether we're looking at actual causation or simple correlation. Is this an example of, "receiving free coyote-colored tacticool gear and MRAPs prompts cops to become more aggressive, detached from the population they are ostensibly there to protect, and likely to unnecessarily end civilian lives in the course of doing their job"? Or is it an example of, "police departments with t…

Or just the looks of the police makes de-escalation less likely, resulting in more officers getting attacked, resulting in more officers shooting back.

That should be testable by looking at the “how often do officers get attacked seriously” metric. I haven’t checked whether the article discusses this, as I can’t read the article because AJC can’t, in two years, figure out how to handle GDPR requirements. I wonder what they do to visitors from California.

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

#46

Post by ryandrake »

nojokes wrote: post #39
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…

Or departments with more military gear are in more risky areas where the use of force is more likely. I could not read the article because it is blocked for me.

> Or departments with more military gear are in more risky areas where the use of force is more likely.

Which, itself deserves a different study to understand whether risky areas lead to more use of force, or whether excessive use of force leads to police distrust, making areas more risky for police.

There is probably no single causal path here. Use of force, aggressive police, police's fear of the public, the public's distrust of police, militarized training, military gear, socioeconomics, race, and crime are likely interrelated in complex ways, without an easy line to draw from one to the other.

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

#47

Post by mdorazio »

8fGTBjZxBcHq wrote: post #41
sandworm101 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flashbangs. They are violent, but in a totally different class than actual hand grenades. No police in the US use hand grenades. The kid in the crib survived. Had it been an actual grenade ... not a survivable event. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-...

Are you really defending the police grenading a baby.

Are you really purposely using the wrong word to force the conversation to fit your narrative?

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

#48

Post by HarryHirsch »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #30
bonestamp2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst part about the police getting military gear is that the actual military has much stricter rules of engagement. With great power comes great responsibility.

Yep, even in a warzone, if a member of the US military killed somebody because they thought they were reaching for a gun, they would be court-martialed and put in jail, and then kicked out of the military after their sentence. The standard for police in the USA is appallingly low, and getting lower.

The hot head will at least get a bollocking from the captain that shooting people dead isn't how you pacify a town. Within the police, no such concerns.

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

#50

Post by pjc50 »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #30
bonestamp2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst part about the police getting military gear is that the actual military has much stricter rules of engagement. With great power comes great responsibility.

Yep, even in a warzone, if a member of the US military killed somebody because they thought they were reaching for a gun, they would be court-martialed and put in jail, and then kicked out of the military after their sentence. The standard for police in the USA is appallingly low, and getting lower.

Well, apart from that guy who shot so many civilians that his colleagues kept bending his sights, who eventually got prosecuted for war crimes .. then pardoned by the President.
Post reply on HN