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

91–100 of 336 posts

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

#91

Post by me_me_me »

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…

I would guess that apart from 'super gear' making people feel more confident, it also would draw in even more people with power issues into police ranks.

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

#92

Post by ptero »

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…

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 police to not need automatic weaponry. But this is not universal. In other parts of the world police may face a much better equipped adversaries and automatic weapons.

We should strive to make the world safer so the strongest weapon the police on the street has is a book for writing fines, but until we are there we should equip law enforcement to overcome threats they expect to face. My 2c.

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

#93

Post by koheripbal »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #40

Note that the 1033 program has a "use it or lose it" provision. Police must use equipment they receive via this program or it's taken away. So they find reasons to use their toys.

I wonder what the details around that are. So if I drive the APC on a training run once per year... is that "using it"? Have any of these departments actually lost any equipment? ie. is there any enforcement of that rule?

Is it the actually equipment they must use, or is it the funding? ...because if it's the funding, that's a pretty standard accounting practice.

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

#94

Post by adwww »

matwood wrote: post #69
nojokes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Maybe. I know anecdotally where I live has very little violent crime, and the police department is fully militarized with mraps and the like.

Plural? Like one could make sense, in a siege type situation or bank robbery in progress perhaps. The sort of event that might happen once a decade or so maybe.

But how many sieges or bank robberies are they expecting to need multiple of these?!

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

#95

Post by bobthechef »

sandworm101 wrote: post #37
nicoburns wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How else will they protect themselves in the dangerous minefields of Atlanta? They could put the money into dealing with the social problems that cause it to be a "minefield". Their job is to protect citizens including criminals . They're not doing it properly if they're shooting people. And they're likely making people a lot more likely to shoot at them in the process.

>> Their job is to protect citizens An interesting turn of phrase, but not reality. Cops are there to enforce laws. Some of those laws are meant to protect citizens. Other laws are to protect property, protect government interests, and enforce codes of behavior. This is particularly true when dealing with mental health issues. Protection of anyone quickly becomes secondary to physically stopping the person who is act…

That's an interesting set of distinctions without a difference.

> Some of those laws are meant to protect citizens.

Laws are made for the just common good. They may not be ideal, but that's what they exist for.

> Other laws are to protect property,

Again, for the sake of the common good. The ability to hold private property is a prerequisite for other goods we need to flourish.

> protect government interests

What is a government interest? You seem to be alienating government and construing it as some foreign body with competing interests. No, government exists for the sake of the common good of the society it governs. Once governments begin to turn into cliques that serve, e.g., some oligarchy (quite common), esp. at the expense of the common good, we call this a tyranny.

> and enforce codes of behavior.

For the sake of the common good.

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

#97

Post by anthony_romeo »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #71
nojokes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

> If the relationship goes the other way, though, we still have to deal with violent cops who want to hurt civilians.

If the problem is iterative, then I'd think in terms of adjusting probabilities in a Markov chain, and having the goal be to minimize instances of avoidable police violence over time. Anyway, it's not possible to eliminate violence from the police, unless we find a way to eliminate violence from human nature, so the goals should be about adjusting priorities, duties, and tone to minimize unnecessary violence.

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

#98

Post by Munksgaard »

ptero wrote: post #92
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…

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…

I don't know of any developed country where the police can reasonably expect to face better equipped adversaries than they can in the US. This is interesting for two reasons: You may have a point that it is necessary in the US for the police to have automatic weapons, but the US is also the only western country that has put itself in such a situation. Take from that what you will...

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

#99

Post by mijamo »

ptero wrote: post #92
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…

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…

What parts of the world are you referring to? In general if you have people with automatic weapons attacking the police, you are basically in a civil war and the army takes over. The police is supposed to be a numerous local presence, not a fighting force.

When police has been equipped with automatic weapons, things usually end badly, particularly in those other parts of the world where police pay is nothing and alternative sources of revenue are very tempting when you are armed like a soldier. Having a corrupt cop is a thing, but a corrupt military armed cop is even worse.

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

#100

Post by throwaway2048 »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #87
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 don't understand why this was downvoted.

Because the down voters agree that "risky areas" aka communities full of minorities like black and hispanic people, deserve military style occupation and tactics.

If you think that's not true, ask yourself why analysis of that term is not welcome.

There is a long proud tradition of terrible anti-human bullshit being hidden behind neat euphemisms like that.

Because it sounds reasonable, and civil.

It isn't.

Post reply on HN