|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Except they aren't "hop[ping] out of a military vehicle with assault rifles" 999 times out of a thousand. They're getting out of a ten year-old mid-to-low range domestic sedan with a lowest-bidder 9mm and a metal stick. Then they are proceeding to do whatever the gently caress they want because they know their colleagues and the law will back them to the hilt. I don't understand why anyone should be against the demilitarization of the police in the US. It doesn't solve the greater problem of police abuse but it's still a good thing.
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I don't agree that we should eliminate SWAT teams, but shouldn't we at least limit their use for dangerous situations with hostages/armed gun men? How often do you think these kinds of situations happen where SWAT is necessary? Do you think life is an action movie where every criminal is holding up banks and taking hostages every other week? Not one person in this thread has argued for keeping SWAT teams in the exact same usage as they are now. What I'm calling stupid is the idea (seriously brought up in this thread) of outright eliminating SWAT teams and hauling out the National Guard in case anything serious happens. quote:Are you saying a police officer can't possibly protect themselves with a measly pistol? It's not enough? I guess if you think life is an action movie police can't survive without military grade weaponry. How experienced are you with firearms? Probably not very. Rifles and shotguns are much easier to train on than handguns and easier to accurately hit with, and have improved accuracy and range; studies of police gunfights have found that officers have better hit percentages with shotguns than with handguns. The reason you carry a handgun on your hip during regular patrols and business is because it can be unobtrusively carried in a holster that's easy to quickly draw from if you suddenly need it and it presents a much less threatening picture during regular business than someone carrying a longarm in their hands. Which is why shotguns and AR-15s are typically kept locked in the trunk or on racks in the cab of the cruiser. quote:There are plenty of countries that have a "no-chase" policy, you make it sound like that's a crazy thing to ask. For police not to have shootouts and car chases with criminals where civilians/the public can and do get injured more than if they'd just let the criminals get away for the time being. I want you to go back and read my post a little more carefully, because I didn't say a single word about any other incident except North Hollywood. My post was specifically about that single incident, as that was the actual subject of the debate. I was responding to ONE person about ONE incident, because that one person was arguing that the entire reason for the gunfight was the police engaging the bank robbers instead of letting them peacefully flee after they had already charged out of the bank firing assault rifles (including shooting at a police helicopter). At no point did I ever use that one incident to justify police response anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I don't understand why anyone should be against the demilitarization of the police in the US. It doesn't solve the greater problem of police abuse but it's still a good thing. Military gear isn't a problem. Military attitudes are. If every cop in America was Andy Griffith I wouldn't give a poo poo if they drove Abrams tanks and carried laser rifles.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I don't understand why anyone should be against the demilitarization of the police in the US. It doesn't solve the greater problem of police abuse but it's still a good thing. Imagine your dad just had a heart attack. He's just gotten out of the hospital, and he's got an appointment today with a doctor to discuss whether or not they should schedule a bypass vs. other alternatives. If that doctor instead spent the entire consultation talking about how your dad needs orthopedic inserts for his shoes to help with his sore back, would you consider that helpful (hey, it's technically correct medical advice!), or would you be frustrated and concerned that it means the far more serious heart condition is going unaddressed?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
People are a product of their environment. If police are dressed as army men, it's not really surprising that they start acting like army men. e: But actually it's worse because at least army grunts have strict rules of engagement, whereas police forces are free to make up their own rules, including their own policy's on escalation of force.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Not one person in this thread has argued for keeping SWAT teams in the exact same usage as they are now. What I'm calling stupid is the idea (seriously brought up in this thread) of outright eliminating SWAT teams and hauling out the National Guard in case anything serious happens. Another poster did mention abolishing them in favor of an FBI task force or something. I don't know about the FBI or national guard replacing SWAT, but a scenario that requires "big guns" should probably be handled by someone trained differently than someone who's normal duties are pulling people over for speeding or responding to domestic abuse calls. I think it would be pretty nice to reduce the use of SWAT teams across the board. chitoryu12 posted:How experienced are you with firearms? Probably not very. Rifles and shotguns are much easier to train on than handguns and easier to accurately hit with, and have improved accuracy and range; studies of police gunfights have found that officers have better hit percentages with shotguns than with handguns. The reason you carry a handgun on your hip during regular patrols and business is because it can be unobtrusively carried in a holster that's easy to quickly draw from if you suddenly need it and it presents a much less threatening picture during regular business than someone carrying a longarm in their hands. Which is why shotguns and AR-15s are typically kept locked in the trunk or on racks in the cab of the cruiser. I'm pretty experienced with firearms, don't own any right now but I have done my share of hunting and shooting at ranges. I know very well that rifles are easier to aim accurately, especially at longer distances. My point is that police aren't doing the kind of shooting that requires anything more accurate than a pistol, and even then I don't believe they need pistols to do their job 99% of the time. chitoryu12 posted:I want you to go back and read my post a little more carefully, because I didn't say a single word about any other incident except North Hollywood. My post was specifically about that single incident, as that was the actual subject of the debate. I was responding to ONE person about ONE incident, because that one person was arguing that the entire reason for the gunfight was the police engaging the bank robbers instead of letting them peacefully flee after they had already charged out of the bank firing assault rifles (including shooting at a police helicopter). I stupidly assumed both you and the other poster were using this one instance as justification for the greater subject of police power/abuse.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:If every cop in America was Andy Griffith I wouldn't give a poo poo if they drove Abrams tanks and carried laser rifles. Why put laser rifles into the hands of cops when they don't need them? If you give someone a tool they're likely to use it, why even give them the option? Andy might shoot beaver or himself, why put him in that situation? Franks Happy Place posted:Imagine your dad just had a heart attack. He's just gotten out of the hospital, and he's got an appointment today with a doctor to discuss whether or not they should schedule a bypass vs. other alternatives. Because the doctor can only do one thing at a time? Is that how the analogy works? you put limitations on how many things the government can do at a time for some reason? Why can't they do both? Though in this case it's not even the same doctor, local governments vs federal regulations.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Because the doctor can only do one thing at a time? Is that how the analogy works? you put limitations on how many things the government can do at a time for some reason? Why can't they do both? Though in this case it's not even the same doctor, local governments vs federal regulations. Because if you want to succeed and do a good job, you always fix the flashiest, most visible, and least substantive problems last.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Because the doctor can only do one thing at a time? Is that how the analogy works? you put limitations on how many things the government can do at a time for some reason? Why can't they do both? Though in this case it's not even the same doctor, local governments vs federal regulations. You don't pat yourself on the back for convincing a serial killer to stop skinning cats when he continues skinning prostitutes. "Good job, me. The kitties are safe!" *walks away whistling Dixie*
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Here is a better argument. It seems like police are creating an Us vs Them mentality, that is reflected both in their casual interactions with the citizens of the community as well as their camaraderie within their job, going so far as to no longer consider themselves "civilians". Further it appears that this culture is mimicking a more militarized culture, including "military style" raids complete with flashy but ultimately useless "tactilol" firearms, vehicles, and shock-and-awe tactics, as well as a disturbing eagerness to use those things where less violent civilian tactics would be more appropriate. Perhaps this attitude can be traced back to the increasing militarization of the police in the form of military hardware, no-knock warrants, and " fear of terrorism" since the 60's despite the reduction of crime across all demographics. I propose that in addition to addressing the systemic problems (war on drugs, for-profit penal systems, and general revenue based law-enforcement), perhaps we should also limit military hardware that is no-doubt contributing to this hostile police atmosphere?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
The focus on weapon power is silly, the general public simply isn't going to allow the police to not be armed to the teeth because all it takes is one LA robbery and people give in. Doesn't matter the frequency, just look at how rare school shootings are yet the make people go loving nuts. Besides that high power weaponry really isn't the issue, most police shootings are by weapons available or similar to things police always traditionally carried. Really if you just greatly restricted no-knock warrants or busting into houses in the middle of the night the whole point would basically be negligible. Franks Happy Place posted:Imagine your dad just had a heart attack. He's just gotten out of the hospital, and he's got an appointment today with a doctor to discuss whether or not they should schedule a bypass vs. other alternatives. No joke, the left needs a crash course in basic marketing and message control. It's all about winning every argument at any cost, no matter how silly it is in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Here is a better argument.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Taking away MRAPs from naughty cops is to the problem of police abuse what the Assault Weapons Ban was to the problem of gun crime. A distraction and the epitome of "Do something!" politics. The vast majority of abuse isn't some camo'd out cop in an armored car with an LRAD. It's two guys in a clapped out Chevy Impala rolling up on someone they don't like the look of and then stomping the poo poo out of him with boots and fists. Rent is currently posting on my behalf.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
tsa posted:
Nah, the message is so holy that the only reason people would misinterpret it is if the Bad People are keeping them from understanding.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:You've put the cart before the horse. The militarization of police equipment is a symptom of the militarization of police attitudes and tactics, not a cause. I agree. The military equipment isn't the cause, but surely you can see how it is helping perpetuate it right?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Because if you want to succeed and do a good job, you always fix the flashiest, most visible, and least substantive problems last. It's not even the same people (federal equipment regulations vs local/state police policies), why are you framing it as "we either do this thing or that thing"? Rent-A-Cop posted:This is an absurd argument. How is it absurd? We can't address the militarization problem because something else is more important? Why does it have to be one or the other? We can't make changes to fix both problems? We have to do one first and then the other will come? I think you're the one making an absurd argument here.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I agree. The military equipment isn't the cause, but surely you can see how it is helping perpetuate it right? ElCondemn posted:How is it absurd? We can't address the militarization problem because something else is more important?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Reducing the number of armored trucks given to PD's that make the DoJ mad at them does not address the militarization problem. Reducing the amount of military hardware available to police departments does not address the militarization problem how?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Removing the flashy military gear will not fix anything directly. As a part of a greater re-tooling of training and operational mentality it would remove some of the "Look Ma! Imma Commando!" mentality from the scared and insecure cops. It would also, over time, probably change some of the self-selection process as to who wants to be a police officer. If the uniforms were purple and pink with doilies on the shoulders you would not get the insecure power seeking kids that were bullied and want to look like a video game "hero". (No Im not arguing for that being a literal uniform.) This was also related to my comments about uniforms that dont look like ninja/specops BS and plainly marked vehicles that, in theory, the public could approach for aid when needed. (Presumably in the theoretical future where the police are returning to "public service" and leaving "war against the citizens" mode".) "Serving the public" is a different mindset than "looking for ways to 'get' the public - our enemy". It will take a lot of things acting together to clean up cops in America.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The only problem DoD toys are perpetuating is the problem of police abuse being on television. Which is exactly why they are being addressed by Washington. What exactly are you arguing here? That Obama cut military surplus shipments to local PDs just to shut everyone up and make it look like he's doing something while the actual issue goes purposefully unaddressed? Yes, getting rid of unnecessary military gear alone does not address the totality of the militarization problem, and I think most people in here agree with you on that. Has anyone in here argued that we need go no further in addressing police abuse because taking their tacticlol gear away should take care of it? Should it not have been done at all because it doesn't solve the entire problem in one fell swoop?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Reducing the amount of military hardware available to police departments does not address the militarization problem how? Rhesus Pieces posted:What exactly are you arguing here? That Obama cut military surplus shipments to local PDs just to shut everyone up and make it look like he's doing something while the actual issue goes purposefully unaddressed? Rhesus Pieces posted:Should it not have been done at all because it doesn't solve the entire problem in one fell swoop?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Is there anything inherently wrong with taking away their toys? Like, I get that it doesn't solve some of the fundamental problems with policing, but I don't exactly see where the issue is in taking that poo poo away.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Is there anything inherently wrong with taking away their toys? Like, I get that it doesn't solve some of the fundamental problems with policing, but I don't exactly see where the issue is in taking that poo poo away.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
The proposal is not bad and it explicitly assures that PDs will still get rifles, which is good.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The amount of military gear available to police departments is not the cause of militarization, it is the result of it. I agree, it doesn't address the reason the police are militarizing. However it does directly address the issue of police using military equipment and tactics against citizens (though it seems like it doesn't go far enough). Rent-A-Cop posted:Yes. Instead of addressing a complex and politically challenging problem the administration has decided to reduce the visibility of the problem. They have effectively addressed the political problem of police militarization making them look like a bunch of fascists without actually addressing the problem of police militarization. What should the federal government do instead? Rent-A-Cop posted:I don't think it solves the problem at all. The police rolling out a giant truck to gas protestors is not a problem. Gassing protestors is a problem, and the size and nature of the automobile used for that particular violation of civil liberties is irrelevant. I understand you want to go after the root of the problem, but maybe you can explain explicitly what the root of the problem is and what can be done to address it in a way that's satisfactory to you.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Yes. Instead of addressing a complex and politically challenging problem the administration has decided to reduce the visibility of the problem. They have effectively addressed the political problem of police militarization making them look like a bunch of fascists without actually addressing the problem of police militarization. Occupy is still the most wide-scale example of how the police are looked at by the feds these days, and most people couldnt really follow it. ElCondemn posted:I understand you want to go after the root of the problem, but maybe you can explain what the root of the problem is and what can be done to address it in a way that's satisfactory to you.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:In another context where it was combined with substantive reforms addressing the behavior of police I would support it as a good step in reorienting public perceptions of local law enforcement. In this context it is a pure political maneuver to avoid addressing real problems and thus counterproductive. How is it counterproductive exactly? Let's assume that this is entirely political and that nothing else will come of it. Forget about everything else you just said and explain why police having less military hardware is bad. I get your point, but we might not be getting those other things any time soon (if ever) so I don't see why this is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I agree, it doesn't address the reason the police are militarizing. However it does directly address the issue of police using military equipment and tactics against citizens (though it seems like it doesn't go far enough). ElCondemn posted:I understand you want to go after the root of the problem, but maybe you can explain what the root of the problem is and what can be done to address it in a way that's satisfactory to you. ElCondemn posted:What should the federal government do instead?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:How is it counterproductive exactly? Let's assume that this is entirely political and that nothing else will come of it. Forget about everything else you just said and explain why police having less military hardware is bad.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Is there anything inherently wrong with taking away their toys? Like, I get that it doesn't solve some of the fundamental problems with policing, but I don't exactly see where the issue is in taking that poo poo away. Because if you do so and another LA robbery situation happens you've utterly torpedoed your overall argument because all anyone is going to focus on is how you want to disarm the police and give dangerous criminals the advantage. Again, this is real basic marketing poo poo, you focus on your best argument and push that, bouncing your message all over the place just confuses things and weakens your position. You want to make your position acceptable to the broadest group of people, you don't want to alienate people who would have agreed with your broader message by pushing an edge case and you don't want to dilute stronger points with weaker ones. If you actually care about making progress on this issue it is crucial to realize that you cannot just preach to the choir. Right now I'd say things like body cams are a great thing to argue for- broadly acceptable and will further the cause by providing direct examples of misconduct. Video evidence thus far has been the most effective argument used and the thing that has proven most successful in securing actual justice for the victims.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I believe removing police abuse from the national media spotlight will make it harder for substantive change to happen. Whether the intent of this decision was exactly that or it is simply low-effort do-something-ism doesn't really matter although I think the latter is more plausible. Yeah, I'm torn..because it is a good thing, unless that's all it is. Half (or, arguably, likely more) the reason the media cared at all about Ferguson was the optics of it. A lot of people are mistaking your point for it being a bad thing by itself, rather than it being a bad thing if it's all there is. And really if it mattered, this should have been done months ago, because it feels like a feel-good afterthought, now. I suppose we'll see.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Yeah you know something might work when ... http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2014/12/05/sign-up-now-for-the-first-ever-seattle-police-hackathon/ quote:Sign Up Now For the First-Ever Seattle Police Hackathon! They say that officers will not be hidden. http://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/seattle-police-department-looking-for-a-few-good-hackers-to-help-it-doctor-dashboard-cam-footage/ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/seattle-police-hold-hacking-contest-learn-censor-body-cam-footage/ quote:Seattle Police Department looking for ‘a few good hackers’ to help it doctor dashboard cam footage quote:This event highlights the vulnerability of police-worn body cameras, and shows that they really do have the power to alter the footage if they are the ones in control of it. What is also interesting here, is that the Seattle Police Department is so technologically illiterate, that they are being forced to recruit hackers, a group that is traditionally a rival of police.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Racism, classism, and fear are the root of the problem. When push comes to shove a lot of people want to live in a police state because they're afraid of themselves and everyone else. I don't have a clue how you solve those problems. I'm on board, I just don't think arguing against more restrictions on police is an effective strategy. Especially since there is no concrete plan for addressing the real problem. Rent-A-Cop posted:Prosecutions. Prosecutions as far as the eye can see and federal jails stuffed to bursting with dirty cops and the dirty politicians who cover up their crimes. I'd love that, but has anyone in the federal government talked about doing that? It seems to me that the federal government so far has done little to nothing in regards to this problem. Letting local governments deal with the problem how they wish. This policy change seems to be the only thing that's been done, probably due to the rioting and media coverage. There is no way to just fix the fear and racism that encourages police to militarize. In my mind the next best thing is to set some guidelines that should be followed, and this seems like a step in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm on board, I just don't think arguing against more restrictions on police is an effective strategy. Especially since there is no concrete plan for addressing the real problem. ElCondemn posted:I'd love that, but has anyone in the federal government talked about doing that?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:What restrictions on police am I arguing against? "If you're naughty with your toys we might reevaluate the price of some of your toys." isn't a restriction. According to this AP article: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/10785eac6d3e4c26a1baed8f0d796b48/obama-bans-some-military-style-equipment-provided-police They're prohibiting things like grenade launchers, .50 cal rifles, drones and a bunch of other stuff. I don't know much more than what the articles posted say, but it doesn't seem like it's just a price increase or threat of price increase.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:According to this AP article: Things specifically not restricted from transfer: Aircraft, drones, MRAPs, Humvees, explosives, riot gear including shields and batons. "We won't give you literal tanks or Apache helicopters for free and you'll have to get a grant to buy new grenade launchers." is not a meaningful restriction and does nothing to combat police militarization. It is literally a list of scary things that look good on TV but are almost never actually used. It is the AWB for cops. Edit: Full text available Here (PDF). My favorite bits: No camouflage uniforms except for woodland, desert, or solid color patterns. So I guess cops won't get the new Navy blueberry camo. No grenade launchers, but teargas launchers are fine. Just no launchers of actual explosive grenades. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 01:14 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Looks like some of the conservative "news" outlets are claiming that the people shot during the Waco biker thing were actually shot by the police shooting into the crowd and not by bikers. Should be interesting to watch, if it does end up being the case. edit: interesting note, black person shot by police, police doing their job. White person shot by police, it's a police conspiracy. peengers fucked around with this message at 14:42 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Yeah you know something might work when ... From my understanding, it's not like the original footage is being discarded; police agencies are looking for a cheap automated way to produce a version of the footage that they can quickly (and in some case automatically) share publicly without generate privacy concerns for the public. If there's an issue, the original footage remains for internal affairs or a court to request and for the agency to do a manual more nuanced blurring of. Of course there's still the question of how do you store 24 x number of on-duty police hours worth of body camera video per day for whatever the retention policy is, and the if the answer is "the cloud" is that appropriate for chain of evidence and privacy.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Good examples of why you should never take free thought project seriously. Why yes, SPD trying to find a way to automate the censoring of identifying info from dash/body cams so they can release the footage to the public more readily is a great example of police corruption finding away around the tech. Also I too am shocked that the beat cops of the SPD are so technically illiterate can't code this themselves that they have a form a truce with the arch enemy of municipal police departments everywhere: hackers. edit: The worst part of this is even if they did switch it up so it blurred cop's faces as well, that doesn't defeat the purpose at all and releasing the footage is still a huge gain in transparency. The public gains very little from actually knowing the officer's name when reviewing the footage. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 15:04 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Yes. Instead of addressing a complex and politically challenging problem the administration has decided to reduce the visibility of the problem. They have effectively addressed the political problem of police militarization making them look like a bunch of fascists without actually addressing the problem of police militarization. I agree with you in a cynical way. But I don't think that the federal government can actually do anything about state police without amending the constitution or tying it to funding somehow. So given those restrictions I'd say limiting the amount of military hardware going to police departments is the best they can do, so they should do it. Rent-A-Cop posted:Prosecutions. Prosecutions as far as the eye can see and federal jails stuffed to bursting with dirty cops and the dirty politicians who cover up their crimes. ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 16:59 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:56
|
|