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 no need, ever, for police to have the automatic weapons, APCs, and "non-lethal" weapons they are buying from the military. If they are facing an opponent like that then call in the FBI, who generally have much better training, or ATF (no idea about their training).
> 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 defensive. Its effectively a Brinks armored money truck, but instead of money it carries people to/from gunfire safely.
Yeah, I wouldn't bet on it being causal though I could make a plausible story that police departments that put dangerous looking military equipment in their recruitment videos tend to attract the wrong sort of people.
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.
It may also be that the police departments that seek to purchase military equipment operate in cities/neighborhoods with a higher incident of violent crime.
Los Angeles PD for example was the poster boy for getting military style gear before most departments in the country, but at the time it also dealt with more serious violence than most police departments (such as drive-by shootings).
The per capita incidence of police shootings in the US compared to other developed nations seems high until you normalize it by the per capita rate of violent crimes committed by citizens.
> If they are facing an opponent like that then call in the FBI, who generally have much better training, or ATF (no idea about their training).
Except those agencies aren't responsible for everday law enforcement, and some police departments are essentially fighting a war. For example, when I was a kid growing up in LA in the 90s, the gangs there were basically like warlords. Even recently, you can find examples of execution style gang murders in Los Angeles, and shootouts on the streets.
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.
There is no statistical evidence supporting the claims implied by this article or even the reversed claim that 'more aggressive' departments are seeking out military equipment.
> Regardless, there is no need, ever, for police to have the automatic weapons, APCs, and "non-lethal" weapons they are buying from the military. If they are facing an opponent like that then call in the FBI, who generally have much better training, or ATF (no idea about their training).
I disagree with this. The police should have automatic weapons so they are able to overpower criminals and protect themselves in dangerous situations. I want my police department to be effective and safe. It is also important that they have non-lethal equipment to de-escalate situations safely when possible.
As for APCs - if it is available as a surplus piece of equipment, why shouldn't they have it? It isn't something they use everyday. There aren't police departments using heavy gas guzzling APCs for daily patrol. They use it for rare situations like riots and shootouts.
Your statement about the FBI and ATF doesn't make sense to me and makes me think you aren't aware of what those agencies actually do.
It might also be because military equipment is statistically more likely to be acquired by departments in more dangerous environments.
Though I still feel the explanation is a positive feedback, where being more aggressive causes more aggressive behavior to normalize faster, causing more aggressive equipment, causing police to feel more like an occupation force rather than civil servants, causing more aggresive behavior, and so on.
This makes a lot more logical sense. The already had pistols and shotguns aplenty to shoot people, adding some armored carriers, camo, and some AR15s isn't going to really add much to that capability. I find your proposal a lot more likely, the police departments that get this stuff are much more aggressive and see it more as a War on Crime, rather than to Protect and to Serve.
If the reverse is true, you are positing that American society, the most wealthy society in the history of Earth, is so dangerous that we need jackboots and APCs in the streets. I don't buy it for a second. I think cops should be unarmed, and if they are armed, they should at least pretend to be as brave as their propaganda portrays them as and resist shooting people even if it puts them in danger.
EDIT: To be even more clear, when you are not literally in a state of existential civil war, deploying militarized police is a political judgement not an evidence based one. It is a tool of para-military force used against the less powerful by the more powerful. I would argue that paramilitaries are never appropriate in civil society, even in a state of war.
Oh I want to give them the benefit of doubt but metropolitan Atlanta's Doraville Police department made headlines a decade ago with their tank video.
Frankly, as a Libertarian, I see zero reason that any police department have at its disposal any equipment the military has used or discarded that can lead to physical harm. This includes no vehicle that is not street legal; and no making exceptions to grant them legality does not count. As for automatic weapons, they should require a court order to unseal usage of if not by a committee which must be alerted to any request to use them.
If there is an excuse for heavy weapons or such, call in the national guard or local military to assist. The police still do not need this hardware.
"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."
True. Still, when the only tool you have is a hammer, soon or later every problem will look like a nail.
Its all fine to imagine the police are operating in a vacuum, where they can wait days for the FBI to respond when they encounter an emergency call with somebody with an automatic weapon.
Sure, they shouldn't have to have that kind of weaponry. But neither should they encounter them on the street. Are the police are some sort of ablative shield, that can be sacrificed to a political ideal?
> In Georgia alone, police departments and sheriff’s offices have received more than 2,700 military rifles, night vision goggles and laser gun sights, and literally hundreds of armored vehicles, including more than two dozen mine-resistant vehicles built to fight the war on terror abroad.
How else will they protect themselves in the dangerous minefields of Atlanta? /s
I’m glad someone has put together the data on this, but it’s entirely unsurprising that police cosplaying as the military murder more people. It’s dystopian as hell, and it baffles me that it’s a contentious issue rather than being universally condemned.
Edit: added /s to relevant paragraph. I know, Poe's law, my bad.
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.
> 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.
I was under the impression that one of the main reason police forces are getting "military gear" is because they're getting it at a steep discount due to the actual military not having anything else to do with it once they're done.
I think one possible reform is that SWAT teams should belong to a separate department than the regular police. If the situation gets out of hand, then the police can call in the SWAT.
But we shouldn't be expect regular beat cops and detectives to be the people kicking down doors with bullet proof vests. The two jobs require very different skillsets and temperaments. Unfortunately because of the long-running wars in the Middle East, the US has no shortage of combat veterans with experience in these types of urban warfare situations. I'd definitely a trust a SWAT department filled with ex-special forces more than I'd trust a small-town cop LARPing in military gear.
The second benefit is that a lot of times, I think police start itching to break out the military gear because they have it and think it looks cool. By separating the departments, it removes that incentive. They're not going to hesitate calling in SWAT, when the situation's genuinely dangerous. But they're going to think about letting an outside agency step on their turf for everyday situations.
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 toxic cultures -- e.g., power-tripping, roided-out hardos with motarded haircuts who treat black people like shit and maintain a blue wall of silence -- are more likely to jump through the hoops necessary to get the military surplus gear, and as a result, departments who have embraced the 1033 program generally do more bad cop shit"?
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.
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.
Seems there is actually a direct link between the knee-on-the-neck technique and military tactics, i.e., that the Minneapolis police had learned that through IDF training (and that that technique is used against Palestinians) [0].
I would think agencies that relieve military gear would be operating in more dangerous cities. That would explain the higher level of police involved shootings.
I think this is because the police departments that get military gear are in more dangerous areas, with more dangerous situations, leading to more deaths.
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.
[+] [-] Communitivity|5 years ago|reply
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 no need, ever, for police to have the automatic weapons, APCs, and "non-lethal" weapons they are buying from the military. If they are facing an opponent like that then call in the FBI, who generally have much better training, or ATF (no idea about their training).
[+] [-] tomschlick|5 years ago|reply
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 defensive. Its effectively a Brinks armored money truck, but instead of money it carries people to/from gunfire safely.
[+] [-] Symmetry|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nojokes|5 years ago|reply
I could not read the article because it is blocked for me.
[+] [-] SquishyPanda23|5 years ago|reply
I agree with the sentiment, but my impression (based on little evidence) is that the "need" here is to create a wider market for these weapons.
It takes money to develop new weapons, and a larger customer base helps defray those costs.
[+] [-] ptero|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwaway0a5e|5 years ago|reply
The FBI doesn't answer the phone when the ATF calls anymore. They learned that lesson the hard way.
[+] [-] malandrew|5 years ago|reply
Los Angeles PD for example was the poster boy for getting military style gear before most departments in the country, but at the time it also dealt with more serious violence than most police departments (such as drive-by shootings).
The per capita incidence of police shootings in the US compared to other developed nations seems high until you normalize it by the per capita rate of violent crimes committed by citizens.
[+] [-] tathougies|5 years ago|reply
Except those agencies aren't responsible for everday law enforcement, and some police departments are essentially fighting a war. For example, when I was a kid growing up in LA in the 90s, the gangs there were basically like warlords. Even recently, you can find examples of execution style gang murders in Los Angeles, and shootouts on the streets.
[+] [-] me_me_me|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaysea|5 years ago|reply
> Regardless, there is no need, ever, for police to have the automatic weapons, APCs, and "non-lethal" weapons they are buying from the military. If they are facing an opponent like that then call in the FBI, who generally have much better training, or ATF (no idea about their training).
I disagree with this. The police should have automatic weapons so they are able to overpower criminals and protect themselves in dangerous situations. I want my police department to be effective and safe. It is also important that they have non-lethal equipment to de-escalate situations safely when possible.
As for APCs - if it is available as a surplus piece of equipment, why shouldn't they have it? It isn't something they use everyday. There aren't police departments using heavy gas guzzling APCs for daily patrol. They use it for rare situations like riots and shootouts.
Your statement about the FBI and ATF doesn't make sense to me and makes me think you aren't aware of what those agencies actually do.
[+] [-] lmilcin|5 years ago|reply
Though I still feel the explanation is a positive feedback, where being more aggressive causes more aggressive behavior to normalize faster, causing more aggressive equipment, causing police to feel more like an occupation force rather than civil servants, causing more aggresive behavior, and so on.
[+] [-] giantg2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SN76477|5 years ago|reply
We need to change the mindset that police are fighting everyday. They should be community servants that aid in settling disputes.
[+] [-] stjohnswarts|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehjoker|5 years ago|reply
EDIT: To be even more clear, when you are not literally in a state of existential civil war, deploying militarized police is a political judgement not an evidence based one. It is a tool of para-military force used against the less powerful by the more powerful. I would argue that paramilitaries are never appropriate in civil society, even in a state of war.
[+] [-] Enginerrrd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] diob|5 years ago|reply
The right to a fair trial in the USA has been utterly destroyed by police who seek to be judge, jury, and executioner.
[+] [-] Shivetya|5 years ago|reply
Frankly, as a Libertarian, I see zero reason that any police department have at its disposal any equipment the military has used or discarded that can lead to physical harm. This includes no vehicle that is not street legal; and no making exceptions to grant them legality does not count. As for automatic weapons, they should require a court order to unseal usage of if not by a committee which must be alerted to any request to use them.
If there is an excuse for heavy weapons or such, call in the national guard or local military to assist. The police still do not need this hardware.
Oh, the video is cringe heaven
https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/sep/30/help-crow...
[+] [-] squarefoot|5 years ago|reply
True. Still, when the only tool you have is a hammer, soon or later every problem will look like a nail.
[+] [-] steve76|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|5 years ago|reply
Sure, they shouldn't have to have that kind of weaponry. But neither should they encounter them on the street. Are the police are some sort of ablative shield, that can be sacrificed to a political ideal?
[+] [-] jakelazaroff|5 years ago|reply
How else will they protect themselves in the dangerous minefields of Atlanta? /s
I’m glad someone has put together the data on this, but it’s entirely unsurprising that police cosplaying as the military murder more people. It’s dystopian as hell, and it baffles me that it’s a contentious issue rather than being universally condemned.
Edit: added /s to relevant paragraph. I know, Poe's law, my bad.
[+] [-] opwieurposiu|5 years ago|reply
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acqui...
[+] [-] bonestamp2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicoburns|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fastball|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dcolkitt|5 years ago|reply
But we shouldn't be expect regular beat cops and detectives to be the people kicking down doors with bullet proof vests. The two jobs require very different skillsets and temperaments. Unfortunately because of the long-running wars in the Middle East, the US has no shortage of combat veterans with experience in these types of urban warfare situations. I'd definitely a trust a SWAT department filled with ex-special forces more than I'd trust a small-town cop LARPing in military gear.
The second benefit is that a lot of times, I think police start itching to break out the military gear because they have it and think it looks cool. By separating the departments, it removes that incentive. They're not going to hesitate calling in SWAT, when the situation's genuinely dangerous. But they're going to think about letting an outside agency step on their turf for everyday situations.
[+] [-] leroy_masochist|5 years ago|reply
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 toxic cultures -- e.g., power-tripping, roided-out hardos with motarded haircuts who treat black people like shit and maintain a blue wall of silence -- are more likely to jump through the hoops necessary to get the military surplus gear, and as a result, departments who have embraced the 1033 program generally do more bad cop shit"?
Or is it both, or is it something else?
[+] [-] bcrosby95|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ruminasean|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EvanAnderson|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ev0lv|5 years ago|reply
>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.
[+] [-] throwawaysea|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] torwayburger|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobthechef|5 years ago|reply
[0] https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/minnesota-cops-train...
[+] [-] rweir|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thdrdt|5 years ago|reply
His response was very insightful. He observed that most problems boiled down to lack of training.
For an untrained cop an arrest can be very stressful. This then can result in using way too much force.
I believe he also mentions this in the Joe Rogan podcast: https://youtu.be/iUhdc1GAddk
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unnouinceput|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hownottowrite|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hownottowrite|5 years ago|reply
https://archive.is/d1GIz
[+] [-] rabbitrecon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edward1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lovetocode|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jankyxenon|5 years ago|reply
I'm guessing there aren't many sleepy hamlets that request the high-end stuff.
[+] [-] mywittyname|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dfxm12|5 years ago|reply