7 ms·

There's 2.5k people in my town and it's news here (literally) when someone is arrested shopping at the local Wal-Mart. The police have two miltary-issue Humvees

by fixedd 12y ago

There's 2.5k people in my town and it's news here (literally) when someone is arrested shopping at the local Wal-Mart. The police have two miltary-issue Humvees, for some reason.

base2 12y ago
That stuff has always irked me, trying to look threatening/intimidating. However when most people complain about military gear finding its way to police I have to laugh a little bit. When automatic grenade launchers and .50 cal machine guns start appearing then there are problems(too late at that point I guess). MWRAPS and armored personnel carriers, those are okay. Dressing in all black(A horrible tactical color BTW) or camo now your just doing that to look upsetting. The armored tanks are not so bad as it provides something that police can feel safer and less threaten in so escalation doesn't need to happen so fast.
- EliRivers 12y ago
  The armored tanks are not so bad as it provides something that police can feel safer and less threaten in so escalation doesn't need to happen so fast. If you turn up in an armoured tank, you have just escalated the situation.
  - base2 12y ago
    I guess police departments (if they haven't already) would be stupid enough to deploy them in a trivial situation. If your dealing with against a threat with a firearm I'm going to assume there are going to be more cops with guns in the majority of the situations. Those are the folks you don't want to set off! So if you can feel a little bit safer in a little ole MRAP you might not be inclined to start a shooting gallery as quickly.
    - amirmc 12y ago
      I find this attitude confusing. You're suggesting that cops are the ones who need to be made to feel safer? That by making them them feel safer they might be less likely to start shooting? Who is protecting who in this brave new world?
      - sqrt17 12y ago
        The answer in other countries has been to train the police force so that they can accurately assess risks to themselves and others and use the amount of caution and, if needed, force necessary to fulfill their task. Police should value their own lives higher than that of people behaving aggressively towards them, but that's speaking in a degree. And they shouldn't behave like dangerous paranoics (because of lack of training, or because they are dangerous paranoics).
      - tinco 12y ago
        You're being irrational now. Of course cops need to be and feel safe. They are just humans, humans equipped with guns. Anything you can do to make sure they don't fire those guns prematurely should be done, after all, they're for protecting us. Calling it an armored tank is exaggerating. It's basically a mobile barrier that can carry a bunch of officers. There's all kinds of nice stuff you can do with them, and frankly I think it would be kind of embarassing for a town if they couldn't get a robust all terrain vehicle to some location within a reasonable timeframe.
        amirmc 12y ago
        I find that logic utterly distorted. Give a bunch of humans guns, the right to use deadly force and then for some reason worry about making them 'feel safe' -- oh, and also absolve them if things go wrong (or even if they break the law), as we've seen in recent US news. I think they're already safer than most people. What cops really need is better and more substantive training, not equipment to hide behind.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        No, tinco is right about officer safety. You really want those "men with gun and right to use deadly force" to feel safe, so that they don't exercise their killing license prematurely. When the officers feel safe and thus sure of themselves, they're more likely to follow proper procedures instead of being afraid of their own safety. I'm not saying that you should give them armoured troop carriers though. You want them to feel safe, not invincible.
    - EliRivers 12y ago
      On the other hand, there is evidence from other situations that when people feel safer, they simply increase the risk level. When people wear seatbelts, they drive more dangerously. Fit airbags; people drive more dangerously. Wear a helmet while cycling; people cycle more dangerously. Turn up inside an armoured tank...
      - wutbrodo 12y ago
        You´re conflating two concepts that are the opposite of each other. The examples you gave are about people putting _themselves_ in more danger when they have safety gear. This is analogous to cops being more likely to de-escalate situations instead of just shooting prematurely (the latter of which is much safer for the cop in general). The concept we´re discussing in this thread is making _others_ safer in the presence of a situation involving cops. The defenses in all of these alleged excessive cop violence cases has been that they were trying to protect their safety and were thus premature with firearm use (et al). The effect you´re describing in essence exactly what we want: cops will feel safer and thus be less inclined to excessive personal-safety measures that are actively dangerous to civilians (like quick trigger fingers). I´m not sure I articulated that all that clearly, sorry...
        EliRivers 12y ago
        I still disagree. I think if the cops feel that they are safer, they will feel that escalating the situation is less risky, and are more likely to do so.
fixedd 12y ago
*shoplifting
akgerber 12y ago
A non-uparmored Humvee seems like a nicer pickup truck, and would be useful in a small town where rescues in an isolated area are part of the job. An uparmored Humvee, on the other hand, is problematic.
bmelton 12y ago
The DoD is selling off the old equipment to local LEOs for pennies on the dollar. Simultaneously, the terms of the sale dictate that they must use those military items within a year of purchase, or they have to return the items. This is why the police are increasingly using military gear in situations for which they are not warranted. I don't like this source, per se, but I've seen it posted elsewhere, and this is the handiest one right now, so here it is. http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/tanks-on-the-streets-police-required-to-use-military-equipment-within-a-year-or-return-it-140826?news=854075 http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/tanks-on-the-streets-...

by fixedd 12y ago

There's 2.5k people in my town and it's news here (literally) when someone is arrested shopping at the local Wal-Mart. The police have two miltary-issue Humvees, for some reason.

base2 12y ago

That stuff has always irked me, trying to look threatening/intimidating. However when most people complain about military gear finding its way to police I have to laugh a little bit. When automatic grenade launchers and .50 cal machine guns start appearing then there are problems(too late at that point I guess). MWRAPS and armored personnel carriers, those are okay. Dressing in all black(A horrible tactical color BTW) or camo now your just doing that to look upsetting. The armored tanks are not so bad as it provides something that police can feel safer and less threaten in so escalation doesn't need to happen so fast.

EliRivers 12y ago
The armored tanks are not so bad as it provides something that police can feel safer and less threaten in so escalation doesn't need to happen so fast. If you turn up in an armoured tank, you have just escalated the situation.
- base2 12y ago
  I guess police departments (if they haven't already) would be stupid enough to deploy them in a trivial situation. If your dealing with against a threat with a firearm I'm going to assume there are going to be more cops with guns in the majority of the situations. Those are the folks you don't want to set off! So if you can feel a little bit safer in a little ole MRAP you might not be inclined to start a shooting gallery as quickly.
  - amirmc 12y ago
    I find this attitude confusing. You're suggesting that cops are the ones who need to be made to feel safer? That by making them them feel safer they might be less likely to start shooting? Who is protecting who in this brave new world?
    - sqrt17 12y ago
      The answer in other countries has been to train the police force so that they can accurately assess risks to themselves and others and use the amount of caution and, if needed, force necessary to fulfill their task. Police should value their own lives higher than that of people behaving aggressively towards them, but that's speaking in a degree. And they shouldn't behave like dangerous paranoics (because of lack of training, or because they are dangerous paranoics).
    - tinco 12y ago
      You're being irrational now. Of course cops need to be and feel safe. They are just humans, humans equipped with guns. Anything you can do to make sure they don't fire those guns prematurely should be done, after all, they're for protecting us. Calling it an armored tank is exaggerating. It's basically a mobile barrier that can carry a bunch of officers. There's all kinds of nice stuff you can do with them, and frankly I think it would be kind of embarassing for a town if they couldn't get a robust all terrain vehicle to some location within a reasonable timeframe.
      - amirmc 12y ago
        I find that logic utterly distorted. Give a bunch of humans guns, the right to use deadly force and then for some reason worry about making them 'feel safe' -- oh, and also absolve them if things go wrong (or even if they break the law), as we've seen in recent US news. I think they're already safer than most people. What cops really need is better and more substantive training, not equipment to hide behind.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        No, tinco is right about officer safety. You really want those "men with gun and right to use deadly force" to feel safe, so that they don't exercise their killing license prematurely. When the officers feel safe and thus sure of themselves, they're more likely to follow proper procedures instead of being afraid of their own safety. I'm not saying that you should give them armoured troop carriers though. You want them to feel safe, not invincible.
  - EliRivers 12y ago
    On the other hand, there is evidence from other situations that when people feel safer, they simply increase the risk level. When people wear seatbelts, they drive more dangerously. Fit airbags; people drive more dangerously. Wear a helmet while cycling; people cycle more dangerously. Turn up inside an armoured tank...
    - wutbrodo 12y ago
      You´re conflating two concepts that are the opposite of each other. The examples you gave are about people putting _themselves_ in more danger when they have safety gear. This is analogous to cops being more likely to de-escalate situations instead of just shooting prematurely (the latter of which is much safer for the cop in general). The concept we´re discussing in this thread is making _others_ safer in the presence of a situation involving cops. The defenses in all of these alleged excessive cop violence cases has been that they were trying to protect their safety and were thus premature with firearm use (et al). The effect you´re describing in essence exactly what we want: cops will feel safer and thus be less inclined to excessive personal-safety measures that are actively dangerous to civilians (like quick trigger fingers). I´m not sure I articulated that all that clearly, sorry...
      - EliRivers 12y ago
        I still disagree. I think if the cops feel that they are safer, they will feel that escalating the situation is less risky, and are more likely to do so.

fixedd 12y ago

*shoplifting

akgerber 12y ago

A non-uparmored Humvee seems like a nicer pickup truck, and would be useful in a small town where rescues in an isolated area are part of the job. An uparmored Humvee, on the other hand, is problematic.

bmelton 12y ago

The DoD is selling off the old equipment to local LEOs for pennies on the dollar. Simultaneously, the terms of the sale dictate that they must use those military items within a year of purchase, or they have to return the items. This is why the police are increasingly using military gear in situations for which they are not warranted. I don't like this source, per se, but I've seen it posted elsewhere, and this is the handiest one right now, so here it is. http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/tanks-on-the-streets-police-required-to-use-military-equipment-within-a-year-or-return-it-140826?news=854075 http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/tanks-on-the-streets-...