Crime is at an all-time low yet spending on police is near an all-time high. (Those factors could have a causal relationship, but I doubt it's the primary cause based on reading "The Better Angels of Our Nature".) http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1950_2010...
Having big budgets but less crime means these swollen budgets end up being wasted on a lot of "fun" things like military gear. (Did you know that Wisconsin has two anti-terrorism centers? One in Madison and one in Milwaukee.)
I think this has something to do with politicians being unable to touch the budgets of first responders.
Today in the US, if you call 911 about an emergency medical condition, they will often send a fire engine along with an ambulance and a cop. It makes me wonder if firemen and firewomen are so underutilized they've ended up with mostly make-work.
"Today in the US, if you call 911 about an emergency medical condition, they will often send a fire engine along with an ambulance [...]"
This is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure).
1. Imagine a scenario where an ambulance arrives as a first responder, and the EMTs [1] find that they cannot gain access to the emergency scene, because the home or other structure is locked or otherwise blocked. In this case, a firetruck would need to be dispatched, because it deploys with the correct equipment (e.g., Halligan bar [2], Denver tool [3], etc.) and personnel trained to handle such a situation. Also, ambulances are typically deployed with only two personnel, and that may not be enough in situations where items need to be moved or cleared to gain clear access to the emergency scene.
2. Most firefighters are cross-trained as EMTs. If they are local to the emergency scene, then they may be the first responders, while an ambulance is en-route.
3. Incoming 911 calls can often be confusing, with callers under extreme stress, experiencing situations that they have never faced in their lives. Imagine a situation where a caller is so distraught, overwhelmed, or focused on a life-saving effort, that they cannot articulate that they need firefighting support, in addition to an ambulance.
The bottom line: in an emergency situation, it is better to have more help on-hand than too little.
"Today in the US, if you call 911 about an emergency medical condition, they will often send a fire engine along with an ambulance and a cop. It makes me wonder if firemen and firewomen are so underutilized they've ended up with mostly make-work."
One of the reasons for this is also that fire stations are often far closer to the scene of a call (fire suppression being something that benefits from being distributed vs. centralized hospitals) so the fire truck will often arrive there first, and can render aid until the ambulance arrives.
I used to be a volunteer junior firefighter as a teen (many of Long Island's fire departments are volunteer based). Fire engines were sent out on emergency calls because many times the situation calls for tools and equipment that ambulances don't carry. I doubt it was budget-related, considering nobody was on payroll.
"Today in the US, if you call 911 about an emergency medical condition, they will often send a fire engine along with an ambulance and a cop. It makes me wonder if firemen and firewomen are so underutilized they've ended up with mostly make-work."
In response to a similar observation that I once made, a friend suggested that police at a non-law enforcement emergency act as ad hoc project managers. "You need what, Mr. EMT? I'll have it for you directly, and I'll have those cars blocking access towed too. ... You lot! Back away!"
They glamorize and hero worship mega violent law breaking cops, while at the same time portraying criminals as super beings with government like resources, who always lose due to the violent law breaking cops.
The people in the end believe this to be a vaguely true, even though in their lives they rarely see it, most cops are in fact fairly decent professionals, and criminals are average to dumb folk with bugger all resources, while the cops think they look crap compared to the Hollywood versions, and want more powers and toys.
No? Well, I'm yet to see a credible argument as to why adverts influence us, but movies don't. One of those special people who claim ads dont work on you? Simply, I don't believe you. Every one reckons that, yet ads work.
I think it's not just that Hollywood movies are influencing the Police, although that is part of it. Art both reflects and influences culture. It's hard to separate out causes and effects, although it's clear there is a problem here.
American culture as a whole places a ridiculous emphasis on empowerment through violence. It's everywhere; films, tv, books, music, punditry, news reporting, people's attitudes and idle conversation. A huge proportion of narratives resolve themselves through heroic violence. Often a heroic character will find inner strength through physical violence (and often inner strength means becoming murderously callous).
If you take a step back and look at it critically, it is rather absurd. In the real world true empowerment comes from intelligence and leadership skills. In the real world, having to kill lots of people would be very traumatic (at least for a well adjusted person).
I don't think it's as simple as violent movies causing violence. I think the real dangers come from the unspoken assumptions, the things that movies take for granted, which then become part of everyday thinking.
During the 2011 protests in Russia, some people suggested that the government benefits from bad relations between the public and the police, because the government is afraid that the police will side with the public during mass protests. Though I guess that problem is much less severe in the US.
David Simon and Ed Burns wrote the following passage for the TV show, "The Wire" spoken by Bunny Colvin:
<<<<
I mean, you call something a war and pretty soon everybody gonna be running around acting like warriors. They gonna be running around on a damn crusade, storming corners, slapping on cuffs, racking up body counts. And when you at war, you need a fucking enemy. And pretty soon, damn near everybody on every corner is your fucking enemy. And soon the neighborhood that you're supposed to be policing, that's just occupied territory.
>>>>
This was written in 2004. With the passage of time, it seems more and more prescient.
> Police in North Dakota borrowed a $154 million MQ-9 Predator B drone from the Department of Homeland Security to arrest a family of anti-government separatists who refused to return six cows that wandered onto their farm.
The SWAT issue is a different issue IMO, more related to politicians wanting to "do something" at the Federal and State levels. "Doing something" translates to "allocate funding". That money can pay for more cops/overtime, or stuff. Or it may be earmarked by a congressman whose donor makes light tanks to only buy tanks.
The us vs. them stuff is related to the state of affairs in high-crime communities. Cops can't relate to the people they interact with (and vice versa) because they essentially live in different societies -- they might as well be different planets.
If a policeman has access to body armor and machine guns to serve a warrant on some guy in a house, he will take them along. The cop has no idea who may be behind a door when they knock -- they may be intoxicated/high, have a vicious pit bull, or just be a scared kid with a gun and nothing to lose. The policeman wants to go home to see his kids at the end of his shift.
If a policeman has access to body armor and machine guns to serve a warrant on some guy in a house, he will take them along. The cop has no idea who may be behind a door when they knock -- they may be intoxicated/high, have a vicious pit bull, or just be a scared kid with a gun and nothing to lose. The policeman wants to go home to see his kids at the end of his shift.
Uh, shouldn't this information be available based on some kind of investigation that the warrant is based on? This argument leads to the "shoot first, ask questions later" ethos. It is exactly what leads to innocent people and animals being murdered by police. The police should not shift the risks of their job on to the public.
> If a policeman has access to body armor and machine guns to serve a warrant on some guy in a house, he will take them along.
Interestingly, in the UK, where regular policemen don't carry guns, most policemen apparently don't want to have firearms.
Obviously this is a rather different culture, and there's a difference between a collective matter (should we all be armed?) and an individual matter (should I be armed today for this particular call?). But I mention this to point out that human nature isn't as simple as everyone wielding the biggest stick available to them.
> The cop has no idea who may be behind a door when they knock -- they may be intoxicated/high, have a vicious pit bull, or just be a scared kid with a gun and nothing to lose. The policeman wants to go home to see his kids at the end of his shift.
One way to reduce the risk of encountering these dangers is to not be serving warrants on non-violent drug offenders in the first place. Not that this a police decision, but it should be obvious to policy makers.
The more drug dealers they stamp out, the more rewarding an endeavor selling drugs becomes. Increasingly aggressive police tactics will be met with increasingly drastic measure to secure drug operations, until you've literally got cartels riding around in military hardware.
I wish that was a hypothetical doomsday scenario, but just look to the south of the border.
If you dress up a guy in like a soldier and tell him he's going to war, he's going to go fight one, even if his enemy turns out to be a 12 year old with a baseball bat.
Context leads action. Our police are deeply out of context. Bulls in china shops break china. If you don't want broken dishes, don't send in a bull.
"The policeman wants to go home to see his kids at the end of his shift."
...and I do not want to have a gang of soldiers invade my home at 5:00am and shoot my dog. When soldiers are doing police work, police work puts the public in danger.
> "The cop has no idea who may be behind a door when they knock"
The cop also has no idea what's waiting for them in a vehicle they've just pulled over on the highway. Some of them have been murdered in exactly that situation.
But should they all suit up before writing traffic tickets?
The policeman wants to go home to see his kids at the end of his shift.
All kids are different. Personally, I think I would have preferred my father not come home, than come home a murderer. Maybe I was a fluke, but just to be sure the police officers should ask their kids about this, before operating on potentially false assumptions.
It's more likely that SWAT teams are being used to hide the fact that violent crime is at the lowest levels in decades. Police use terrorism to justify keeping officers on the force when they should be getting laid off. It's makework.
The job of the US' domestic police force is to serve and protect; the job of the military is to defend the nation against foreign enemies. When police forces become militaristic, the citizens become the foreign enemy.
The job of the US domestic police force is to serve and protect the status quo (NOT individuals). Be against that, and you're against the police. Police aren't paid to care what the status quo is, but the status quo pay the police. And who is the status quo (ask yourself)
The methods they use to protect and serve that ideal just need to be one step less that what the masses will absolutely tolerate. If they cross that line, you get a riot.
Police violate individual citizen rights all the time and usually it's just ignored. It's a sorry state of affairs. That's why I'm afraid of police and police actions.
Google the story about 7 cops in VA that went after a 17yr old girl because she was carrying non alcoholic fruit soda the cops thought were wine coolers. They handled this by breaking through her car windows guns drawn like they were seals going after bin laden lol.
Actually, it was a 20-year-old college student with a 12-pack of water, and they failed to break her windows because she drove away when the crowd of large men ran up and started beating on her car, and then they charged her with assault.
"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people" -Commander William Adama, Battlestar Galactica
Do you think it matter if veterans were disallowed from joining law enforcement? Without getting into constitutionality arguments, would it really make the country safer for all its citizens (and not just those lucky enough to never be confronted by cops)?
It's interesting to contrast the approach taken in different countries. I spent the majority of my life in New Zealand but the last 9 years in the UK so I've witnessed it first hand.
Within the first couple of months of arriving here (London) I had attended several large gatherings, for example festivals in and out of London, and there was a marked difference in the police handling. I was genuinely surprised when I realised that the police controlling the events were interested in the safety and enjoyment of the public. They weren't looking to stir up trouble, they weren't searching for the "bad eggs" to antagonise - they were just trying to do their best to control the situation by working with those involved.
In my time in NZ I saw the police carry out all sorts of actions that were completely unnecessary.
I saw someone arrested for overloading a car with people leaving a party - prior to that I watched the police insist that the driver allow the car to be overloaded in the first place.
I was once tripped from behind by the police (on the pavement) for walking alongside a protest on my way home from University.
Might not seem like big issues but I've seen countless similar examples where the police were actually responsible for instigating the problem.
There's very much an Us vs Them attitude in NZ that, thankfully, isn't the norm in the UK (for the moment).
This is an awful generalization, there are many veterans that see this as excessive and abhorrent. They left the Middle East to trade the military environment for quiet(er) civilian life.
It would be interesting to get a lot of data (HN specialty!) looking at the breakdown of all the different approaches. It seems like there are 2 extremes, and a wide variety from place to place.
Certain parts of NYC has seen amazingly drops in violent crime due to more "community-oriented" policing that requires officers to integrate themselves into the fabric of the neighborhoods in their precincts (I think it's NYC...). On the other end, you have that Salon article about SWAT teams gone willy nilly.
Some basic correlations, and visualizations showing comparative effectiveness of the different techniques could go a long way....
As with everything else it seems to be a case of misplaced incentives, both good and bad.
Imagine in 2 out of every 100 raids (numbers completely made up of course) that these style raids are called for - the people inside are incredibly dangerous and bargin in unannounced is the safest thing to do. Based on what I've read these police forces seem to treat every situation like this. Whether a hardened criminal or some dude playing poker with his friends they assume the worst and barge in guns a blazing.
And what happens? 2 times out of 100 they nail the bad guys and are probably congratulated on the local news and within the department. And the other 98 times? Nothing. They hand out some minor violations and leave, none the worse for it. Or again that's what it seems the case is based on these articles. So why wouldn't they just barge in and do whatever the hell they want. They are either heroes or the people they are terrorizing have no way to fight back. There needs to be some way to either punish them for this or positively incentivize more civil raids/raiding at all.
As the financial crisis showed us, bankers would bet the country if it meant they get a bigger bonus. It seems we are a point where the police will essentially do the same.
One of my best friends is NYPD working in the projects in Brownsville NY, one of the most dangerous cities in NYC. From the stories he tells me, he is fighting a war.
Of course, that's not applicable to most other areas, but it's worth noting that when your day-to-day job is dealing with the criminals and scum of the earth, it changes your perspective on life.
But are they criminals just because drugs are illegal, and they got sent to prison where crime is all they learned? Has the adversarial relationship been heightened by both sides?
When you send the police to war, the people become the enemy. The goal should be deterring the behavior not taking these people down and stomping them hard in retribution.
Here in Hawai'i, we're lucky to have small communities, from which many of our police officers are enlisted, thus maintaining more of sense that we are all part of the same class, as well as the fact that many officers are related to people in the communities, so there is less disconnection and stratification than one would see in larger metropolitan areas.
I've been on both sides of the law here, and have always been treated with the utmost respect and humanity, even when I didn't deserve such. (a couple of drunken incidents, which will shame me for the rest of my days)
Sure our local police force has an armored, Lenco Bearcat, which they rarely use, but such measures are necessary in today's world - where criminals possess military-grade weapons.
This is not to say that I disagree with the article, as it's plain to see that the points made in the article are valid for a large portion of the USA.
I guess all I can say is...
Lucky we live Hawai'i!
Somewhat tangential: There has long been a tie-in between the military and the police. Former military members make an easier transition to the police, and a lot of policemen have a strong weekend-warrior, macho mentality and like big guns and things that go boom. Plus the rank system is similar, there's use of deadly force, and so on.
The U.S. has also seen major mission creep in the military. Instead of going in and bringing a devastating kinetic assault to an enemy in order to get them to surrender, now we're in the mission of Counter-Insurgency (COIN), nation-building, handing out candy to kids, and air-lifting supplies in to earthquake victims.
Because of all of that, I think we need a new branch of the armed forces specifically set aside for nation-building, humanitarian relief, and so forth. It's a completely different mission from the other branches, and deserves its own budget, training, and voice. Then, civilian police forces should only pull military members from that branch.
We need to separate the warrior mentality from the protect and serve, community-friendly mentality. Some organizational re-alignment may help.
In the interest of playing devil's advocate, couldn't the fact that we have 94 guns per 100 Americans have something to do with it? To be honest, the cops that work in Oakland, Compton, Detroit, Chicago, and many other cities effectively are fighting wars with heavily armed gangs, etc.
I don't know that I buy the notion that police are the way they are today because of the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam protests. Seems to me like the rise of inner city violence is a far bigger mover.
Not trying to justify militarized police, just trying to understand the reasons why in order to logically approach alternatives.
I don't know how we got here, but you must admit that SWAT teams in mine-resistant personnel carriers sure look spiffy. If your police force isn't ready for battle, the terrorists win
What terrorists? Did you read the article? "Today, the use of this sort of force is in too many jurisdictions the first option for serving search warrants instead of the last. SWAT teams today are used to break up poker games and massage parlors, for immigration enforcement, even to perform regulatory inspections."
[+] [-] nostromo|12 years ago|reply
Having big budgets but less crime means these swollen budgets end up being wasted on a lot of "fun" things like military gear. (Did you know that Wisconsin has two anti-terrorism centers? One in Madison and one in Milwaukee.)
I think this has something to do with politicians being unable to touch the budgets of first responders.
Tangentially, due to stringent building codes, the number and severity of fires has been dropping dramatically over time. Yet spending on fire protection only goes one way: up. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1950_2010...
Today in the US, if you call 911 about an emergency medical condition, they will often send a fire engine along with an ambulance and a cop. It makes me wonder if firemen and firewomen are so underutilized they've ended up with mostly make-work.
[+] [-] Arjuna|12 years ago|reply
This is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure).
1. Imagine a scenario where an ambulance arrives as a first responder, and the EMTs [1] find that they cannot gain access to the emergency scene, because the home or other structure is locked or otherwise blocked. In this case, a firetruck would need to be dispatched, because it deploys with the correct equipment (e.g., Halligan bar [2], Denver tool [3], etc.) and personnel trained to handle such a situation. Also, ambulances are typically deployed with only two personnel, and that may not be enough in situations where items need to be moved or cleared to gain clear access to the emergency scene.
2. Most firefighters are cross-trained as EMTs. If they are local to the emergency scene, then they may be the first responders, while an ambulance is en-route.
3. Incoming 911 calls can often be confusing, with callers under extreme stress, experiencing situations that they have never faced in their lives. Imagine a situation where a caller is so distraught, overwhelmed, or focused on a life-saving effort, that they cannot articulate that they need firefighting support, in addition to an ambulance.
The bottom line: in an emergency situation, it is better to have more help on-hand than too little.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_medical_technician
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halligan_bar
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_tool
[+] [-] mililani|12 years ago|reply
http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/images/Stats%20Images/crime%20rat...
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
Isn't this cause and effect? Crime is lower because we are hiring more policemen. That is certainly one conclusion from Freakonomics.
This is just a digression, because I do think the "Cops as Warriors" model is very scary, as "collateral damage" becomes acceptable in a war.
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
Two words: public unions.
[+] [-] Fomite|12 years ago|reply
One of the reasons for this is also that fire stations are often far closer to the scene of a call (fire suppression being something that benefits from being distributed vs. centralized hospitals) so the fire truck will often arrive there first, and can render aid until the ambulance arrives.
[+] [-] nrivadeneira|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3n|12 years ago|reply
In response to a similar observation that I once made, a friend suggested that police at a non-law enforcement emergency act as ad hoc project managers. "You need what, Mr. EMT? I'll have it for you directly, and I'll have those cars blocking access towed too. ... You lot! Back away!"
[+] [-] alan_cx|12 years ago|reply
I honestly do.
They glamorize and hero worship mega violent law breaking cops, while at the same time portraying criminals as super beings with government like resources, who always lose due to the violent law breaking cops.
The people in the end believe this to be a vaguely true, even though in their lives they rarely see it, most cops are in fact fairly decent professionals, and criminals are average to dumb folk with bugger all resources, while the cops think they look crap compared to the Hollywood versions, and want more powers and toys.
No? Well, I'm yet to see a credible argument as to why adverts influence us, but movies don't. One of those special people who claim ads dont work on you? Simply, I don't believe you. Every one reckons that, yet ads work.
[+] [-] cadasfafad|12 years ago|reply
American culture as a whole places a ridiculous emphasis on empowerment through violence. It's everywhere; films, tv, books, music, punditry, news reporting, people's attitudes and idle conversation. A huge proportion of narratives resolve themselves through heroic violence. Often a heroic character will find inner strength through physical violence (and often inner strength means becoming murderously callous).
If you take a step back and look at it critically, it is rather absurd. In the real world true empowerment comes from intelligence and leadership skills. In the real world, having to kill lots of people would be very traumatic (at least for a well adjusted person).
I don't think it's as simple as violent movies causing violence. I think the real dangers come from the unspoken assumptions, the things that movies take for granted, which then become part of everyday thinking.
[+] [-] yk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cousin_it|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt__rose|12 years ago|reply
<<<< I mean, you call something a war and pretty soon everybody gonna be running around acting like warriors. They gonna be running around on a damn crusade, storming corners, slapping on cuffs, racking up body counts. And when you at war, you need a fucking enemy. And pretty soon, damn near everybody on every corner is your fucking enemy. And soon the neighborhood that you're supposed to be policing, that's just occupied territory. >>>>
This was written in 2004. With the passage of time, it seems more and more prescient.
[+] [-] cypherpunks01|12 years ago|reply
“Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book” (salon.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001843
[+] [-] enko|12 years ago|reply
> Police in North Dakota borrowed a $154 million MQ-9 Predator B drone from the Department of Homeland Security to arrest a family of anti-government separatists who refused to return six cows that wandered onto their farm.
[+] [-] Spooky23|12 years ago|reply
The us vs. them stuff is related to the state of affairs in high-crime communities. Cops can't relate to the people they interact with (and vice versa) because they essentially live in different societies -- they might as well be different planets.
If a policeman has access to body armor and machine guns to serve a warrant on some guy in a house, he will take them along. The cop has no idea who may be behind a door when they knock -- they may be intoxicated/high, have a vicious pit bull, or just be a scared kid with a gun and nothing to lose. The policeman wants to go home to see his kids at the end of his shift.
[+] [-] jimzvz|12 years ago|reply
Uh, shouldn't this information be available based on some kind of investigation that the warrant is based on? This argument leads to the "shoot first, ask questions later" ethos. It is exactly what leads to innocent people and animals being murdered by police. The police should not shift the risks of their job on to the public.
[+] [-] takluyver|12 years ago|reply
Interestingly, in the UK, where regular policemen don't carry guns, most policemen apparently don't want to have firearms.
Obviously this is a rather different culture, and there's a difference between a collective matter (should we all be armed?) and an individual matter (should I be armed today for this particular call?). But I mention this to point out that human nature isn't as simple as everyone wielding the biggest stick available to them.
[+] [-] eloisius|12 years ago|reply
One way to reduce the risk of encountering these dangers is to not be serving warrants on non-violent drug offenders in the first place. Not that this a police decision, but it should be obvious to policy makers.
The more drug dealers they stamp out, the more rewarding an endeavor selling drugs becomes. Increasingly aggressive police tactics will be met with increasingly drastic measure to secure drug operations, until you've literally got cartels riding around in military hardware.
I wish that was a hypothetical doomsday scenario, but just look to the south of the border.
[+] [-] noonespecial|12 years ago|reply
Context leads action. Our police are deeply out of context. Bulls in china shops break china. If you don't want broken dishes, don't send in a bull.
[+] [-] betterunix|12 years ago|reply
...and I do not want to have a gang of soldiers invade my home at 5:00am and shoot my dog. When soldiers are doing police work, police work puts the public in danger.
[+] [-] roc|12 years ago|reply
The cop also has no idea what's waiting for them in a vehicle they've just pulled over on the highway. Some of them have been murdered in exactly that situation.
But should they all suit up before writing traffic tickets?
[+] [-] PavlovsCat|12 years ago|reply
All kids are different. Personally, I think I would have preferred my father not come home, than come home a murderer. Maybe I was a fluke, but just to be sure the police officers should ask their kids about this, before operating on potentially false assumptions.
[+] [-] gohrt|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhizome|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makerops|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinator|12 years ago|reply
The methods they use to protect and serve that ideal just need to be one step less that what the masses will absolutely tolerate. If they cross that line, you get a riot.
Police violate individual citizen rights all the time and usually it's just ignored. It's a sorry state of affairs. That's why I'm afraid of police and police actions.
[+] [-] dobbsbob|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zoepfli|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Caskman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arh68|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aidos|12 years ago|reply
Within the first couple of months of arriving here (London) I had attended several large gatherings, for example festivals in and out of London, and there was a marked difference in the police handling. I was genuinely surprised when I realised that the police controlling the events were interested in the safety and enjoyment of the public. They weren't looking to stir up trouble, they weren't searching for the "bad eggs" to antagonise - they were just trying to do their best to control the situation by working with those involved.
In my time in NZ I saw the police carry out all sorts of actions that were completely unnecessary.
I saw someone arrested for overloading a car with people leaving a party - prior to that I watched the police insist that the driver allow the car to be overloaded in the first place.
I was once tripped from behind by the police (on the pavement) for walking alongside a protest on my way home from University.
Might not seem like big issues but I've seen countless similar examples where the police were actually responsible for instigating the problem.
There's very much an Us vs Them attitude in NZ that, thankfully, isn't the norm in the UK (for the moment).
[+] [-] lostlogin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vondur|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ihsw|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caycep|12 years ago|reply
Certain parts of NYC has seen amazingly drops in violent crime due to more "community-oriented" policing that requires officers to integrate themselves into the fabric of the neighborhoods in their precincts (I think it's NYC...). On the other end, you have that Salon article about SWAT teams gone willy nilly.
Some basic correlations, and visualizations showing comparative effectiveness of the different techniques could go a long way....
[+] [-] mrjaeger|12 years ago|reply
Imagine in 2 out of every 100 raids (numbers completely made up of course) that these style raids are called for - the people inside are incredibly dangerous and bargin in unannounced is the safest thing to do. Based on what I've read these police forces seem to treat every situation like this. Whether a hardened criminal or some dude playing poker with his friends they assume the worst and barge in guns a blazing.
And what happens? 2 times out of 100 they nail the bad guys and are probably congratulated on the local news and within the department. And the other 98 times? Nothing. They hand out some minor violations and leave, none the worse for it. Or again that's what it seems the case is based on these articles. So why wouldn't they just barge in and do whatever the hell they want. They are either heroes or the people they are terrorizing have no way to fight back. There needs to be some way to either punish them for this or positively incentivize more civil raids/raiding at all.
As the financial crisis showed us, bankers would bet the country if it meant they get a bigger bonus. It seems we are a point where the police will essentially do the same.
[+] [-] fixxer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nrivadeneira|12 years ago|reply
Of course, that's not applicable to most other areas, but it's worth noting that when your day-to-day job is dealing with the criminals and scum of the earth, it changes your perspective on life.
[+] [-] coopdog|12 years ago|reply
When you send the police to war, the people become the enemy. The goal should be deterring the behavior not taking these people down and stomping them hard in retribution.
[+] [-] qohen|12 years ago|reply
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville,_Brooklyn
[+] [-] gizmo686|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] D9u|12 years ago|reply
I've been on both sides of the law here, and have always been treated with the utmost respect and humanity, even when I didn't deserve such. (a couple of drunken incidents, which will shame me for the rest of my days)
Sure our local police force has an armored, Lenco Bearcat, which they rarely use, but such measures are necessary in today's world - where criminals possess military-grade weapons.
This is not to say that I disagree with the article, as it's plain to see that the points made in the article are valid for a large portion of the USA.
I guess all I can say is... Lucky we live Hawai'i!
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|12 years ago|reply
The U.S. has also seen major mission creep in the military. Instead of going in and bringing a devastating kinetic assault to an enemy in order to get them to surrender, now we're in the mission of Counter-Insurgency (COIN), nation-building, handing out candy to kids, and air-lifting supplies in to earthquake victims.
Because of all of that, I think we need a new branch of the armed forces specifically set aside for nation-building, humanitarian relief, and so forth. It's a completely different mission from the other branches, and deserves its own budget, training, and voice. Then, civilian police forces should only pull military members from that branch.
We need to separate the warrior mentality from the protect and serve, community-friendly mentality. Some organizational re-alignment may help.
[+] [-] bicknergseng|12 years ago|reply
I don't know that I buy the notion that police are the way they are today because of the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam protests. Seems to me like the rise of inner city violence is a far bigger mover.
Not trying to justify militarized police, just trying to understand the reasons why in order to logically approach alternatives.
[+] [-] schrodingersCat|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xroche|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] digitalengineer|12 years ago|reply