
Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear - miles
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/police-military-gear.html
======
Shivetya
The equipment issue isn't going to solve anything, this is just lip service to
the real problem. Police Unions have effectively created a system by which
officers are nearly immune from prosecution and even if successfully
prosecuted their record cannot travel with them in many cases.

Now one fix that removing some of the equipment will do will reduce the amount
of psychological impact it has on those wielding it, as in reduce the Rambo
effect. The idea of attaching military style equipment to the current problems
is only for political purposes, they needed to blame Trump for the violence.

However in the end, there are few alternatives to fixing the police and their
application and misapplication of force

1) Restrict conditions that can be placed in union negotiated contracts
regarding officer behavior, culpability, and indemnification.

2) If not 1) then make it illegal for the unions to exist with regards to any
public servant who is armed

3) civilian oversight boards that are veto proof against the police they
monitor. Not only would they review incidents which are questionable they
would have to involved in any use of concentrated force to include no knock
warrants; something which should be illegal except in the most incredible
cases.

4) holding elected and appointed officials of the localities, city, county, or
state, accountable for the harm caused by their police forces.

~~~
sandworm101
5) Change the uniforms.

Dress for the job you want. If they all dress like storm troopers some of them
will act like storm troopers.

NY _state_ patrol uniform: Grey with _purple_ ties.
[https://northcountrynow.com/sites/default/files/images/Zone2...](https://northcountrynow.com/sites/default/files/images/Zone2Platoon2.gif)

NYPD (new york _city_ ) police: Black on black with black ties.
[https://media.timeout.com/images/103899055/image.jpg](https://media.timeout.com/images/103899055/image.jpg)

It seems meaningless, but having interacted with a few police agencies I have
noticed a trend. They cops that show up for meetings in head-to-toe black tend
to be more aggressive. They try to assert themselves in every meeting, which
is entertaining as we are the military. They cannot win the "who has the
bigger gun" thing. The cops that come in oldschool blue shirts and ties are
much easier to work with.

(Fyi, if those two NYPD officers in the pic were in the military they would
get a talking to about attitude. Hands in pockets. Chewing. Crossed arms. In
public? Have some respect for your uniform.)

~~~
namelessoracle
Having gone through police training in another life, you are absolutely
correct. I think it's deeper than just what you wear, it's the attitude of the
higher ups and overall culture.

The leadership team for police that wants you dressing all paramilitary and in
all black is going to have a focus on you acting a different way during
training and in what your day to day is like than the other group.

There's also the brittle fact that I still remember the day long fire arms
training where i was required to watch officers get shot for an hour and got
it drilled into my head that it was better to shoot someone if I felt any risk
or danger (and what to say if i had to do it), and that I needed to make sure
i got to go home. It was all done in a very deniable way, but police officers
are 100 percent indoctrinated during training to shoot if they feel like they
are in any danger. I can speak more to what kind of training took place and
the attitude of the instructors if people are curious.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
This is important to introduce into the discussion. I have felt that in the
vast majority of controversial police shootings, especially in the mistaken
identity cases, they were likely the result of a hair-trigger reflex and being
on high alert, with your conditioning telling you that if an adversary either
gets the jump on you or even gets into a strategically advantageous position,
today is the day that you are going home in a body bag.

Part of the training also drills in the fact that an untrained opponent with a
sharp object like a knife is at a strategic advantage versus someone with a
holstered firearm if they are closer than 21 feet away. Failure to maintain
strategic dominance is a potentially fatal mistake.

Nobody is interested in empathizing with the mental state of the cop in these
situations, and if you try to do so, you’ll be shouted down for not
empathizing with the family and friends of the deceased. This is not only a
false dichotomy, but it precludes you from arriving at possible solutions. The
goal of this exercise is not to feel sorrow for the officer, but to discover
the root cause of this pattern. Only after doing so can you expect to find
solutions, and ultimately, save lives.

It is not acceptable to have a non-zero casualty rate, and what most people
fail to understand is that the average human, even with training and
experience (and often, experience is actually a liability, not an asset -
people with PTSD are further compromised) cannot accurately assess and process
a potential threat 100% of the time. This is the simple explanation for why
these incidents seem to happen so frequently. Yet the general public thinks
that police are somehow different from the average human, and that their
brains do not work like their own. Or perhaps more accurately, they don’t
understand how their own brain works, so in their mental re-enactment of the
scenario, they make the correct decisions, and conclude that the only
remaining explanation is hate, racism, or some other evil that only police
seem to have.

If anyone wants to get a glimpse into what this environment does to a person,
next time you go for dinner with a veteran, take note of where they sit at the
table. More often than not, they will prefer to select a position that does
not leave their back exposed to an entrance. Even in a harmless restaurant,
their brain is instinctively on high alert for potential threats. That’s also
why many of them cannot sleep.

IMHO, the way to prevent these errors is to prevent the number of
opportunities to make a fatal mistake.

None of this is to suggest a complete lack of malice in all cases - but most
of the time, people are people, and they will continue to do what people do,
uniform or not.

~~~
mcguire
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2017/02/14/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2017/02/14/a-day-with-killology-police-trainer-dave-grossman/)

" _Fittingly, the most chilling scene in the movie doesn’t take place on a
city street, or at a protest, or during a drug raid. It takes place in a
conference room. It’s from a police training conference with Dave Grossman,
one of the most prolific police trainers in the country. Grossman’s classes
teach officers to be less hesitant to use lethal force, urge them to be
willing to do it more quickly and teach them how to adopt the mentality of a
warrior. ... In the class recorded for “Do Not Resist,” Grossman at one point
tells his students that the sex they have after they kill another human being
will be the best sex of their lives. The room chuckles. But he’s clearly
serious. “Both partners are very invested in some very intense sex,” he says.
“There’s not a whole lot of perks that come with this job. You find one, relax
and enjoy it.”_ "

1\. You do what you train to do.

2\. What you look for in the world is what you will find.

3\. Police work is risky, but not excessively so.
[https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf](https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf)

~~~
lawnchair_larry
It certainly sounds like we need to fire that guy before he “teaches” any more
police.

------
rconti
A common response to the idea of "police reform" is that it will make it
harder/more expensive/etc to hire police, which we all agree we need.

As an armchair economist who believes that everything DOES happen at the
margins, we can't completely ignore this, so I'm at least somewhat sympathetic
to the argument.

But what really kills the argument is looking at how our medical professionals
have stepped up and responded to COVID-19, putting their lives on the line
every day, with utterly inadequate gear. And still they serve.

Yes, if the police are less militarized and have more personal
liability/responsibility, it will reduce the level of interest in the
profession somewhat, but I think we have to not kid ourselves about the degree
of such an impact.

This is before we get into whether we really even want "those people" (who are
attracted to the militaristic side of policing) 'serving' our communities at
all.

Just as anti-pursuit policies have swept the nation to reduce officer-involved
carnage, we can reduce escalation of violence.

~~~
pmorici
I agree that both professions have the same sort of "service in a time of
crisis" mythology surrounding them but how does the fact that the norm for the
medical profession is high pay where as the norm for police is slightly above
minimum wage starting out with a shot as average pay after several years of
service affect those myths?

~~~
Terretta
Is _" the norm for the medical profession is high pay where as the norm for
police is slightly above minimum wage"_ overstating things a little?

Looks like NYC cops make more than NYC nurses, or it's close.

From the source, starting $42K, $85K after 5 years, plus benefits:

[https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/police-officers/po-
be...](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/police-officers/po-
benefits.page)

New York nursing, average pay (> 5 years) $83K, $89K in NYC.

When you factor in years of medical school for the degree, medical malpractice
insurance, and lack of benefits versus police pension, police are generally
netting more.

~~~
pmorici
In Baltimore, the minimum wage is $15 an hour (31k / yr) and the starting
salary for a police trainee is advertised to be around 35k.

The point isn't whether they get paid the wrong amount for the qualifications
required the point is about the calculus about how much you are willing to put
up with when you are getting paid $70k vs $300k.

If I'm getting paid $300k and once or twice in my 40 year career I have to
deal with a pandemic my thought process about how I feel about that is
different than if I'm making 70k. All I'm saying is comparing doctors to cops
doesn't seem particularly useful.

~~~
Terretta
This seems confused about who are on the front lines.

It's mostly not the $300K year MDs just like it's mostly not the $300K police
captains. That's "the 1%" (figuratively).

The front lines for riots are the $35K - $85K cops and the front lines for
COVID are the $35K - $85K year nurses.

------
twblalock
Police were able to brutalize protesters in the 1960s with much simpler
equipment than they have today. The equipment is not the problem.

~~~
paloaltokid
All the more reason to not give the police even more powerful tools with which
to brutalize people. If the equipment is not the problem, take it away. That's
one less thing to worry about.

~~~
remarkEon
This isn't true. Modern tools are significantly less lethal, and give police
more options on the spectrum of escalation before having to draw their service
pistol. This is why protests were much more deadly in the 1970s.

~~~
paloaltokid
We're not talking about the same thing here. Of course it's better if the
police can manage crowds and protests without anyone dying. Ideally no police
person ever has to draw their service weapon and fire.

What seems less defensible is police coming in with things like tanks.
Personally, I would prefer to see police de-escalate rather than escalate.

------
dx87
They would need to restrict capabilities, not just cut off access to
"military-style" gear. They make the same mistake with gun laws where they ban
"military-style" weapons because they look scary, but allow weapons that are
just as deadly because they have a wooden stock and don't look as scary as
"military-style" weapons.

~~~
asdfman123
Why don't impressions matter?

It's important that more people see officers and get the impression that they
are there to enforce peace, not dole out violence -- while still ensuring they
have the tools to maintain safety and order. Large, threatening military-style
vehicles don't send a good message to people who are already scared for their
safety.

~~~
ksdale
I think this is spot on, and not just because of creating the impression to
people looking at police. I also think that if police see their tools as the
tools of a soldier, they are more likely to act like soldiers.

I don't remember who said it, in relation to sports - "Look good, feel good,
play good." I think how you look can absolutely affect how you behave.

~~~
catalogia
I think we should also make it legal for police departments to discriminate
against combat veterans when hiring, and encourage them to do so. Perhaps as a
token of fairness, this could be paired with a separate initiative to provide
_other sort_ of jobs to combat veterans.

People trained by the military to police occupied communities should not be
allowed to act as civilian police in peacetime conditions.

~~~
ceejayoz
_More_ vets might be a positive thing.

The rule of engagement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are significantly
_stricter_ than they are for America's cops. No firing until fired upon,
limits on use of things like tear gas and riot gear, etc. They're also trained
significantly more.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2016/08/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2016/08/16/maybe-u-s-police-arent-militarized-enough-soldiers-are-
better-trained-to-deescalate/)

> In contrast, soldiers continuously and over the course of their careers
> repeatedly train to employ techniques to deescalate stressful,
> unpredictable, and dangerous scenarios. They also know what steps they must
> take before resorting to lethal force. Most rules of engagement (ROEs) — the
> military’s term for rules that govern the circumstances when soldiers are
> justified using force — contain explicit instructions requiring soldiers to
> use verbal warnings, show their weapons, and exhaust all non-lethal physical
> options before resorting to deadly force.

~~~
catalogia
> _The rule of engagement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are
> significantly stricter than they are for America 's cops._

Maybe on paper, but in practice they act with little if any respect for the
communities they're in. For instance screaming at people and pointing rifles
at their heads to "overcome" the language barrier. Or, as apologists phrase
it, _" use verbal warnings, show their weapons,"_

Edit: Here is something else for the haters to consider:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology)

After WWII, the American military conducted studies that determined a large
portion of their soldiers were unwilling to kill people in combat. This was
perceived as a problem and efforts were undertaken to make soldiers more
willing to kill people. Among these measures was the use of human silhouette
targets at gun ranges, a practice which is _not coincidentally_ common for
civilian police today:
[http://www.americantargetcompany.com/law_enforcement_targets...](http://www.americantargetcompany.com/law_enforcement_targets.asp)

It's not just a matter of whether an individual police officer was a combat
veteran, but also a matter of whether he ever received training from a combat
veteran (which is extremely common.) Look up Dave Grossman.

------
milkytron
I get that they're trying to address the current issues this nation is facing.
But if the issue is related to police officers not facing punishment for their
crimes, wouldn't revising qualified immunity[0] be a pretty good solution? It
seems to be clear that qualified immunity has been taken advantage of and is
potentially the main reason why officers are able to get away with the crimes
they commit. This might get burried in the comments, and maybe I'm wrong, but
what are others' thoughts on this?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity)

~~~
bgentry
It's entirely insufficient. Qualified immunity is a concept that protects
officers from _civil_ liability. It's part of the puzzle for sure, but the
much bigger issue is that officers that violate the law or others' rights
almost never face _criminal_ liability.

An officer that chokes a nonviolent person to death for 9 minutes straight, or
an officer that kicks an unthreatening protester in the face, or that fires
rounds at people peacefully standing in their own home's doorway, or one that
knowingly attacks journalists, should be first and foremost be prosecuted and
put in jail, and _also_ be subject to civil suits for their actions.

Unfortunately there is a significant structural disincentive for DAs,
prosecutors, and Attorneys General to pursue such cases except in the most
egregious high-profile incidents so justice is rarely served. Eliminating
qualified immunity allows individuals some recourse to sue the perpetrators in
these incidents, but it is no replacement for prosecuting and putting them in
jail.

~~~
andromeduck
Civil liabilities go a long way. The bulk of the original civil rights
lawsuits were civil suits stemming from constitutional violations.

------
papeda
Slightly tangential question, but I have seen at least one proposal [1] for
"malpractice insurance" for cops. The claim is that this would shift expenses
for bad policing settlements from taxpayers to bad actors -- a bad cop
attracts suits, creates settlements, pays higher premiums, and perhaps
eventually stops being a cop. It has some kind of economic logic, but to the
best of my knowledge this has never been implemented anywhere. Has it?

[1] [https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/make-cops-
carry...](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/make-cops-carry-
liability-insurance-private-sector-knows-how-spread-risks)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _this would shift expenses for bad policing settlements from taxpayers to
> bad actors_

Why wouldn't the taxpayers be expected to pick up the cost in the form of
increased pay?

Better: police unions indemnifying their employers against convictions.

~~~
mrep
From the article:

One objection is that police are already doing a difficult and dangerous job
for relatively low pay, and it would be unfair to saddle them with the
additional cost of insuring themselves.

No problem. We can take that pot of taxpayer money currently being used to pay
damage awards for misbehaving cops — $308 million in payouts last year divided
by 34,000 uniformed NYPD officers equals nearly $10,000 per cop — and use it
to give them an insurance allowance.

When very‐ high‐ risk officers see premiums go up, they would have to pay the
difference out of their own pockets. That’s fair

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _When very‐ high‐ risk officers see premiums go up, they would have to pay
> the difference out of their own pockets_

These policies would almost certainly be bought and negotiated on the union
level, as a union benefit. As such, rates would rise for everyone and be
passed on to the taxpayer.

Indemnification requirements are simpler, and cut out the middle man. If the
union then chooses to pass than risk to an insurer, that can be negotiated
separately.

------
jmastrangelo
Focusing on the gear seems like a cheap and easy solution compared to fixing
training and accountability, the actual root of the issue.

~~~
inerte
No when life gives you lemons, there is no need for whataboutism. Let’s keep
pressuring and working to get to training and accountability too.

~~~
dang
This comment breaks the site guidelines against calling names in arguments
("whataboutism"). Please don't do that.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20whataboutism&sort=byDate&type=comment)

~~~
inerte
Didn’t know, sorry about that.

~~~
dang
Appreciated!

------
habosa
Today I did some Googling and found this startling comparison:

NYPD annual Budget: 6 billion dollars Mexican military budget: 7 billion

It's no surprise that the police at these protests look like they're ready to
take on a well-armed drug cartel. They are.

~~~
grecy
In the year 2015, in all of Germany, the Police only fired a total of 46
bullets [1], killing only 7 people in the entire country.

At 83 million, Germany's population is 25% that of the USA, so all things
being equal the Police in the USA would only use 184 bullets per year, and
there would only be 28 deaths as a result of police shootings.

In reality, The police in the USA shot shot and killed nearly 1,000 people in
2015 [2].

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/52r4zr/sho...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/52r4zr/shots_fired_by_german_police_yearly_2007_2015_oc/)

[2]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a-year-
of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/)

~~~
jacobush
Great killrate and accuracy, too. Those bullets knew their target, on average.

~~~
trevor-e
I have friends who are police that post videos of their gun training to social
media. One exercise involves speeding up to an area in their cruiser and
quickly coming to a stop. Then they exit the vehicle and use their door as
cover while shooting a target as fast as they can. Afterwards they proudly
smile and hold their target up to the camera.

The amount of gun training these officers receive is insane, and it's no
wonder why so many resort to using their weapon first.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> Mr. Gallego said. “Our neighborhoods aren’t war zones.”

Unfortunately, I am not sure that will be the case in a week. I think by the
time the actual voting on the bill comes, it is likely that either the
protests have died down removing the immediacy of this, or else there is so
much destruction in the cities that this becomes not politically viable.

~~~
inetknght
> _Unfortunately, I am not sure that will be the case in a week._

A week? I think it's already not the case. Maybe not across the entire nation
but certainly in some places. I can see an argument that Twitter isn't a
source of "quality" journalism. But these things are so widespread that I
think it's hard to not only discredit it but even ignore it. In the first link
[0] you've got National Guard walking in a neighborhood shooting paint at
people legally standing on their own property. In the second link [1] you've
got protestors taking refuge inside of someone's personal property.

No, it's not a war zone insomuch as there aren't live rounds being used.
Except for, you know, when they are being used {[2],[3]} [4]. Okay so the
latter three videos videos aren't in _neighborhoods_. I don't think it
matters. It shouldn't matter whether these events are happening to a
neighborhood or not. The fact is, they're _happening_ and people are getting
permanent injuries and some even dying.

[0]
[https://twitter.com/tkerssen/status/1266921821653385225](https://twitter.com/tkerssen/status/1266921821653385225)

[1]
[https://twitter.com/allieblablah/status/1267636221406261248](https://twitter.com/allieblablah/status/1267636221406261248)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/BrandiKruse/status/1266889752466227200](https://twitter.com/BrandiKruse/status/1266889752466227200)

[3]
[https://twitter.com/BrandiKruse/status/1266924674107109377](https://twitter.com/BrandiKruse/status/1266924674107109377)

[4]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdmaXkNcgWw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdmaXkNcgWw)

~~~
jacobush
The National Guard said it was the MPD who was doing the shooting.

~~~
inetknght
That makes sense. The NG goes by in their vehicle and the people firing the
paint guns are wearing what looks like police armor.

Do you have a link to cite though? I haven't yet read a statement from the
National Guard about it and some brief searching on Google brings up a _lot_
of useless noise.

~~~
jacobush
I saw it as it unfolded while I watched YT and Twitter in disbelief. I’ll try
to find it but I lost it in a flurry of tabs.

------
tomohawk
The Posse Comitatus act prohibits the military from operating within the US,
except at the borders, and as provided by the Insurrection Act.

The Insurrection Act requires a State governor or legislature to request
military assistance during an insurrection. The act also allows the president
to act without that, if the State is not acting in a way that is protecting
people's rights. This is why Bush could not deploy the National Guard during
Katrina - the governor of the state refused to request the help, and it was
not deemed to have come to a point where the president would impose the
military anyway. The last time this act was used was during the Rodney King
riots, where the governor of CA requested assistance.

This is a long way to say that we have made it difficult to deploy the
military or use military force within the US. And for good reason.

So, why do we allow police departments to arm up and look/act like the
military? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - is it not a duck?

I get that there are circumstances where SWAT may be required, but why does
every PD have a SWAT team? Why isn't it required that the governor authorize
the use of SWAT in every case?

SWAT is now routinely used to perform dawn raids (no knock raids) on people
who have no criminal record, and where no violence has been reported.

Controlling the equipment may be part of the solution, but it won't do any
good unless the deployment of SWAT and other military style options are more
carefully, judiciously, and transparently controlled.

~~~
tathougies
> And for good reason.

You consider the Posse Comitatus act as being passed for a good reason?
Perhaps the effects are good, but the Act itself was mainly passed so that the
white former slaveholding states of the south could enforce racially charged
laws without the Union military preventing them.

~~~
salawat
Or so the captains of industry could strike break without fearing the same?

Just because you don't like the particular use case doesn't detract from the
fact it is generally not desirable to be throwing around your military at your
own people at the drop of a hat.

------
mberning
I would like them to provide and require body cams for all officers at the
federal level and require all deaths and injuries occurring in police custody
to be reviewed by the FBI/justice dept.

~~~
HarryHirsch
_I would like them to provide and require body cams for all officers_

But we had police shooting at reporters on live TV already. It's not that
documented misconduct didn't exist. What's missing is savage consequences for
misconduct.

~~~
chris_va
Catching all this on camera seems to have spurred a movement, but most real
change takes time to play out.

20 years ago most of this wouldn't have been caught on camera, so it seems
like a net win.

------
flowersjeff
Great first (if baby) step.

As others have already said here, more is needed.

I think another proper move would be to abolish police unions - nationally.
This coming from a pro-union individual; however, these organizations have
failed the public in my opinion.

And it's not really their fault. Unions are tasked with strictly defined goals
around protection/advancement of wages, hours, benefits, and working
conditions. To fail to advocate for these on the behalf of their paying
members - opens them up to lawsuits themselves.

Ideally there would be an organization that would stand up for the protection
of the individual in police organizations, the current structure(s) we have in
place simply are not congruent with respect to protection of both the working
individual in an organization and the public at large.

~~~
chillacy
It's definitely evidence that unions work at a minimum. It's just as you said,
unions advocate for their members above all else. Just like a union of coal
miners might be against environmental regulation if it protects the jobs.

------
OminousWeapons
This is going after symptoms rather than going after problems. The primary
problem is there are a subset of police that are bad actors, there is a thin
blue line culture, and there is an unwillingness on the part of jurors,
prosecutors, and politicians to hold police accountable. This legislative
action does nothing to address that. A second problem is that police seem to
be viewing their job as one of pacification as opposed to community based
policing. This legislative action solves a symptom of that but doesn't go
after the root cause which is again cultural.

------
chris_va
Genuine question...

What would it take to align police incentives (compensation, etc) with the
outcomes we want? Reforming the unions? Better local politicians?

De-militarizing the police seems like a great step, but it seems like trying
to cut off a mindset that is already entrenched.

~~~
scarlac
I can only give my own opinion.

De-criminalize recreational drug-use. Community arrests of recreational users
with no victims causes a bad image and puts young people on a path to being
full time criminals.

Increase training. If you fall back to instinct too quickly and you're
equipped with guns, you're likely to commit large mistakes like murder.

No immunity. Police offers already defend each other. Immunity makes just
gives them a license to kill. Over time, they'll learn they can get away with
pushing people around and hurting them under umbrella immunity + team
protection. Legal immunity must stop.

Full medical insurance, no co-pay (Do all officers have this already?). If an
officer has to fear he'll get ruined from an injury then it creates
unnecessary pressure for him to shoot first.

------
sxcurry
Some thoughts: 1) Fire all current police officers 2) Hire back maybe 25% in
numbers, but different profile people 3) Stop enforcing drug laws 4) Convert
all property crime handling to online recording 5) Take away police guns, tear
gas, etc, except in very rare circumstances 6) Have police focus on the very
few dangerous situations where they are actually needed.

~~~
jacobush
Getting rid of 75% of the Police force in one go seems like the recipe that
the US used in Iraq and which resulted in the creation of ISIS.

(The US civilian administrator fired a HUGE chunk of armed men who could no
longer provide for their families. Their services were eventually rendered
elsewhere. I’m sure ex-police will find rackets, new and old.)

------
eximius
This helps (but does not fix) the problems we're seeing now during the
protests but doesn't at all address the problem that instigated the protests.

------
briandear
I don’t think the police need MRAPs. That’s a bit over the top. However, it
does seem they need some sort of up-armored police cars given how many of them
have been destroyed in the rioting. SWAT maybe has some use for military
equipment, but only for bona-fide SWAT situations (hostages/bombs/active
shooter.) But rolling out MRAPs for general policing is a bad policy. It’s one
step removed from deploying tanks and it’s a bad look and probably
counterproductive.

~~~
dashundchen
Sure, maybe there is limited use in some of this equipment. But my small city
police department recently got a grant for 450 high powered assault rifles and
armored vests, on top of the hundreds they already had. There are only 700
officers including things like traffic enforcement.

Of course the police union lobbied for more.

They have armored trucks and undercover vehicles. They have mobile towers to
survey. They have closed circuit cameras at every major intersection. They
have Stingrays. They have purchased LRADs which can permanently deafen. They
have helicopters, tear gas cannons for hundreds of officers, batons.

And they trot it out for peaceful protests. The police did not come equipped
to protect, they came equipped to escalate and occupy.

Hell, they even manage to bust a lot of the equipment out at concerts and
festivals. I stopped going to a local outdoor concert series when they decided
to gate a park off and start pat downs and metal detecting everyone who
entered.

~~~
inerte
I live close to a small town in the Bay Area, called Los Gatos. Quaint,
expensive, beautiful place.

It was Big Truck Day at the library and a lot of government employees were
showing their vehicles. Fire trucks, trash compactors, a huge bulldozer, and
there was a police car and a handful of officers around.

A little girl came and pointed at a rifle and asked the officer, “what is this
for?”

He said, “to protect myself”, paused and caught his breath and said “and to
protect you”.

This happened a couple years ago. I still think about his pause, the
afterthought on why he needs the truck, the rifle and the gear.

~~~
defterGoose
Wow, anecdotal but very telling. I tend to think that most cops are "good
people", but that doesn't mean that the majority also doesn't go around
envisioning their job primarily as a combat deployment to a war zone, and only
secondarily as an exercise in protecting and strengthening their communities.

The bellicose see war everywhere...

------
ryanmarsh
I was opposed to the equipment transfer until this week. They might just need
MRAP’s moving forward. That or get used to the NG getting activated.

------
tehjoker
Defund. Disarm. Disband.

