

Too Many Cops Are Told They’re Soldiers Fighting a War. How Did We Get Here? - tankenmate
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-free-speech-technology-and-liberty/too-many-cops-are-told-theyre-soldiers

======
nostromo
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...](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1950_2010USp_12s1li011mcn_50t)

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...](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1950_2010USp_12s1li011mcn_52t)

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
_" 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.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_medical_technician](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_medical_technician)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halligan_bar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halligan_bar)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_tool](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_tool)

~~~
Cthulhu_
And yet I can imagine this is something that could be optimized; why not
cross-train the three emergency respondent department members into jack-of-
all-trades that can deal with 80% of cases? Or put members of the three
departments into a single vehicle equipped to deal with most cases? They could
travel swifly to the site and deal with most cases, and call in back-up (like
a fully equipped ambulance, fire-truck, or paramilitary SWAT-team in an
armored hum-vee) if the situation needs it. I'm not an expert, but that would
reduce overhead and cross-department communication needs.

Of course, the risk is that if the one vehicle has an accident in itself,
there's no others that can fall in right then.

~~~
mabhatter
Firemen and EMTS DON'T WANT to be cops! That's why "public safety" movements
fail. They don't want to be forced to issue citations for petty drug laws
while trying to save people from health or fire emergencies. It's not an
uncommon situation for somebody with petty illegal activity to start shooting
at firemen trying to stop their house being on fire because they think firemen
might arrest them. Regular fireman just want to take care of safety.. They
don't want to put on jackboots and arrest people.

Of course the Feds want as many police as possible because of the laws
militarizing them and actually disincentive separete rate fire protection with
rigged grant processes.

------
alan_cx
Not a flippant comment...... I blame Hollywood.

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.

~~~
yk
You are missing a news industry, who secretly want a Micheal Bay like special
effects budget .

~~~
alan_cx
Very good point.

Yes, they do dress up news like an action movie. That most obvious and grating
feature of this is the emotional music they now play over news and
documentaries. Also, they way enemies are completely demonized and
dehumanized, and the good guys worshiped. And when a lead character goes off
script, they really freak out.

------
cousin_it
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.

~~~
dclowd9901
Given how the situation is playing out in Egypt, I'd say this assessment is
spot-on.

------
matt__rose
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.

~~~
yardie
It's not prescient because that is how it's been in predominantly black
neighbourhoods. Black people have been saying this for the last 2-3 decades
through protests, riots, and community organisers. It's only now that everyone
has a cameraphone and a Youtube account do you get to see what's been going
on.

Even well respected actor, Levar Burton, knows how to act in front of police.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M-ck...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M-ckDJ3xTaE).

For black people we go into every encounter with the police thinking this
might be my last moment on earth.

~~~
mabhatter
Being as its Levar...

His famous role was in Roots as the slave that kept getting lashed for not
taking a proper English name from his owner over and over if he would just say
his English name...

So its more than a little ironic that THIS actor makes a video about how to be
properly submissive to his mas'ers!

It just sad that he would have to make a video like that because most of his
TV time has been spent reading books to children. He's about as threatening as
Mr. Rogers and still gets the jackboot.

------
cypherpunks01
FYI Two days ago there was a very extensive discussion on a Salon article
which was an excerpt of this book:

“Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book” (salon.com)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001843](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001843)

~~~
tehwalrus
Thanks, I didn't connect the dots here (I had read the Salon article.)

------
enko
You can't make this shit up.

> 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.

~~~
blhack
That's really misleading.

There is a base in Grand Forks, ND that houses several CBP (Customs and Border
Patrol) Predator Drones, and they work with local law enforcement when asked
to.

So, more than likely, the drone is going to be flying home here anyway, and
made a pass over some property.

The facility where these things are flown from isn't some top secret bunker or
anything, it's an office building on the air force base, and they give tours
to local schools[1]. A local cop probably just stood behind one of the pilots
while they flew over the property and spotted the cows.

Also: to somebody who didn't grow up in this area, that probably sounds really
silly...but keep in mind that cows are worth a couple of thousand dollars
each. So you're talking, low end, about $12,000 worth of property that they
won't return. That's like having a stolen car.

\--

I think something like this (flying a UAV, since CBP doesn't actually fly
drones) should require a search warrant, but this is a totally reasonable use
of resources IMHO.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, I guess.

[1]: They'd probably give a tour to anybody that asked, actually. Grand Forks
is home to one of the biggest and best Aviation and Aerospace engineering
schools in the world[2], and it would surprise me if there wasn't a
relationship between the air force base there, and the school. If any HNers
are ever up there, I'd suggest asking for a tour.

[2]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Odegard_School_of_Aeros...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Odegard_School_of_Aerospace_Sciences)

~~~
ljf
2k for a cow? Try 60 dollars...[http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-
resources/cow-calf/price...](http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-
resources/cow-calf/prices/cow-prices-by-us--state-114538214.html)

~~~
blhack
I'm looking around the internet, and seeing prices all over the place
actually. $60 is the lowest I've seen, NASDAQ.com says $120, some farming
websites are saying $1000-$2000, etc.

~~~
dtparr
If you're seeing numbers < $200, those are almost certainly in $/ctw which is
the price per 100 lbs.

------
Spooky23
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.

~~~
takluyver
> 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.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
I think part of the reason for UK police not wanting guns is primarily what
the UK police see as their mission: It is community policing, where UK police
try to work within and with the permission of the community because they feel
they're most effective that way (also called "policing by consent").
[http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine.php](http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine.php)

Police carrying guns makes them "scary" to the general public, and as such
damages their primary mission (see above). It is also hugely damaging to the
police's reputation when someone gets shot (even righteously) and would be
catastrophic if someone was illegitimately killed
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Meneze...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes)).

The US police is VERY militarized in Urban areas. They also seem to have an
"us Vs. them" attitude about the general public, and are less interested in
earning respect but rather taking it by force or coercion ("thin blue line,"
"respect my authority," "quit resisting," etc).

~~~
rayiner
> The US police is VERY militarized in Urban areas.

U.S. urban areas are very militarized. London, a city of 8 million people, had
100 murders last year. Over the last 20 years, the number broke 200 only once,
in 2003. Chicago, a city of only 2.7 million people, had 532 last year. And
this is way down from the peak. Murders in U.S. cities peaked in the early
1990's. L.A. county had 2,589 murders at its peak in 1993. New York peaked at
2,245 murders in 1990.

~~~
mitchty
This is true but a lot of these murders are gang related so it isn't quite a
great comparison not?

I know the topics of guns in america is a hot topic in general but even for
the usa the general trend is downward.

~~~
rayiner
Gang-related murders are the result of gang activity, and gang-activity is
very scary for a community. First, lots of teenagers and young people are gang
members, and gangs have major presences in inner-city schools, so even a
"gang-related murder" isn't like some mobster getting killed, but something
that hits really close to home in the community. Second, this activity is very
geographically segregated, which makes particular neighborhoods seem more like
war zones. Third, even a few innocent bystanders getting caught in the cross-
fire can have a chilling effect on the community. In Chicago this year, a kid
who sang at Obama's inauguration was gunned down in gang-related cross-fire.
Just one kid in a city of 2.7 million people, but it still had a tremendous
effect on the community.

The trend in America is definitely downward--murder counts in LA county and
NYC are about a fifth of what they were in the early 1990's, but they are
still 4x higher than London's (greater London is roughly similar in population
to LA county and NYC). And the militarization of the U.S. police didn't happen
overnight. It happened in the 1970's-1990's when crime rates in U.S. cities
skyrocketed. That apparatus hasn't demobilized in response to decreased crime
rates.

~~~
king_jester
> Gang-related murders are the result of gang activity, and gang-activity is
> very scary for a community. First, lots of teenagers and young people are
> gang members, and gangs have major presences in inner-city schools, so even
> a "gang-related murder" isn't like some mobster getting killed, but
> something that hits really close to home in the community. Second, this
> activity is very geographically segregated, which makes particular
> neighborhoods seem more like war zones. Third, even a few innocent
> bystanders getting caught in the cross-fire can have a chilling effect on
> the community. In Chicago this year, a kid who sang at Obama's inauguration
> was gunned down in gang-related cross-fire. Just one kid in a city of 2.7
> million people, but it still had a tremendous effect on the community.

Of course, the solution for this is not policing but rather to address the
fundamental social inequalities that make gangs thrive.

> And the militarization of the U.S. police didn't happen overnight. It
> happened in the 1970's-1990's when crime rates in U.S. cities skyrocketed.

Violent crime rates in cities have been on a declining trend since the late
70s/early 80s. The militarization isn't caused by violent crime, because we
would expect as rates fall that there would be no call to increase police
power at any given time. You are definitely right, the policing issue is
really institutional in nature, but as a systemic kind of effect it isn't
necessarily tied to any factual reality about crime.

~~~
gizmo686
>Of course, the solution for this is not policing but rather to address the
fundamental social inequalities that make gangs thrive.

I disagree that the fundamental reason for gangs is social inequality. The
feature that general makes gangs distinct from clubs is their use of force.
They use force for the same reason society at large uses force, to protect
property /enforce contracts/ensure fair play. Society at large has conceeded
this force to the government (specifically the police department), however
when the police fail to protect a certain group of people, then those people
may be forced to take enforcement into their own hands, which is exactly what
gangs do.

This problem stems largly from the war on drugs. There is a huge economic
force pushing for drug sales, so capitalism tells us that drugs will be sold.
However, the people engaging in the drug trade cannot rely on the legal system
for the protections any other business has, so they have to do it themselves.

------
makerops
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.

~~~
justinator
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.

------
dobbsbob
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.

~~~
chc
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.

~~~
Moral_
The charges were dropped.

~~~
jlgreco
Heads should roll for them being filed in the first place.

~~~
switch007
Rolling heads? The police? Their idea of decapitation is early retirement on a
full pension.

~~~
jlgreco
Ugh, I know right?

------
Caskman
"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

~~~
arh68
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)?

------
aidos
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).

~~~
lostlogin
What city were you in? I haven't experienced anything like this - but I've
always been in Auckland. That sounds bad.

------
vondur
A large number of police officers are former military personnel. It's not
surprising that this militarized philosophy is common among police today.

~~~
ihsw
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.

~~~
arh68
Yet they presumably chose to join the military, right? Is it really excessive
and abhorrent to suggest that those who decide to join the military would tend
towards militarized philosophies? They're not saints.

------
caycep
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....

------
mrjaeger
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.

------
fixxer
I'm in constant awe of the state of fear in this country.

------
nrivadeneira
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.

~~~
qohen
Forgive my pedantry, but: dangerous as it is, Brownsville is not a city, but
rather a neighborhood of Brooklyn, NY:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville,_Brooklyn

~~~
nrivadeneira
You are correct, but not forgiven. Sometimes I wonder why no mistake may go
uncorrected on the internet...

------
D9u
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!_

~~~
mililani
I find that hard to believe. I grew up in Hawaii, and I have come across lots
of dick head cops engaging in some heinous activities. I have several friends
from Oahu who would also agree with my statement.

~~~
D9u
O'ahu is _NOT_ the Big Island...

But the Big Island _is_ Hawai'i, and I've lived on this island for my entire
life, with the exception of military service.

------
bicknergseng
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.

~~~
bilbo0s
Murders are WAY down from their peaks in the 90's. And that's across the
board. So what violence are they encountering now, that they didn't encounter
in... say ... '93 when they had no APC?

~~~
knowaveragejoe
In continuing the devil's advocate angle here, there is a lot of scary stuff
going on in Mexico right now. Some of that spilling over the border(or more
realistically, the people and equipment are already here just unnoticed) is a
possibility.

~~~
bilbo0s
But that's supposition. Have there been any border skirmishes, or skirmishes
in cities with large Hispanic populations, (I assume you are talking about
Mexican Cartels), where the police faced these well equipped Mexican Cartels?

I don't know if there have or haven't... that was not snark, but a serious
question. My suspicion is that there have not been any such engagements.

~~~
rdouble
No. Cartel crime is almost exclusively in Mexico.

------
DanielBMarkham
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.

~~~
winthrowe
Here's a TED talk discussing such a military realignment:

[http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html)

------
schrodingersCat
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

~~~
xroche
You’re More Likely to be Killed by a Toddler than a Terrorist.
([http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/youre-more-likely-
to-...](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/youre-more-likely-to-be-killed-
by-a-toddler-than-a-terrorist.html))

~~~
digitalengineer
From the article: "–You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police
officer than by a terrorist"... Wow, so we need a war against... The police?
If we follow todays logic?

~~~
JonSkeptic
You misunderstand his point: what we really need is a war on toddlers.

~~~
daraul
Toddlers are assholes anyways. I really support this endeavor.

------
kevincennis
"But whether it's with the ubiquity of these SWAT raids, stop-and-frisk, or
the default geared-up, Robocop response to political protest, the relationship
between police and the public on the whole is growing increasingly
antagonistic -- and oddly, this comes during a period when both crime and on-
duty police deaths are at historic lows."

Author seems to completely miss the possibility that this is causal.

Edit: Just see gizmo686's comment below. Pretty much sums up my line of
thinking.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Or maybe the author doesn't want to pull something completely out his ass?
Isn't this what we criticize journalists for? Especially in social sciences
reporting?

There has been a lot of spilled ink regarding why big city crime has been
going down with lots of decent theories (abortion access, gentrification,
easier access to higher education, smarter policing, larger prison population,
etc) and I've never really heard that heavy handed SWAT tactics account for
this.

~~~
gizmo686
But the author is making a claim that this is a contradiction. There is an
obvious explanation that disagrees with the author that was ommited. That is
exactly what we complain about in journalism.

------
splrb
Anything that keeps us scared and submissive works well for the plutocracy.
Citizens should never think that they live in a neighborhood, oh no, they live
in a terrorist infested war zone.

------
socialist_coder
Yet another reason to not have guns in your house.

If you get raided by overzealous police that don't even identify themselves
properly, and you have a gun that you try to use for self defense... EOF

~~~
gizmo686
In other words, you shouldn't have a gun because some scary men might break
into your house and point their guns at you.

~~~
lmm
You shouldn't have a gun except for things you care about more than your and
others' lives. Having one makes it far more likely for a violent encounter to
escalate into a lethal one.

------
base698
Relevant via The Wire:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA5za4VsskM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA5za4VsskM)

------
known
Cop/Soldiers are banned from thinking out of the box

------
kunil
Oh boy you have to visit Turkey sometime.

It is not just war, it is a religious war! They attack people while chanting
"Allah Allah Allah...".

------
rayiner
How did we get here? When gangs and organized crime turned the cities into war
zones in the 1970's and 1980's.

~~~
roc
Then why did the practice only catch on and spread like wild-fire after crime
had already begun its plunge?

And why, after crime has continued to drop dramatically, has SWAT-ification
continued to increase (if not accelerated) rather than plateau or even drop in
response?

~~~
rayiner
Once you've built up an organization like that, it's hard to demobilize it.
Public unions basically make it impossible to shrink police forces.

~~~
roc
Blaming unions would probably have worked better, back before the banking
crisis forced many communities to do exactly what you suggest can't be done.

That said, you do raise a good point that it's career-suicide to advocate
reducing police budgets in the US unless absolutely necessary -- and even then
it isn't ever well-received.

(Which makes the (in)ability to actually reduce staffing a secondary problem,
at best.)

But none of that excuses continued _growth_ in the face of plunging crime, let
alone the _acceleration_ in _use_ of such tactics.

------
run4yourlives
Since I can't flag the story, I'd like someone to explain to me how in the
hell they consider this "Hacker News".

Seriously, this article, and all 22 comments of this discussion belong on
reddit.

~~~
mindstab
If you think limited freedom cultures are good for our work go on ahead
ignoring this stuff. Or realize that we generally need a good free society to
work in and flourish in and these are all precursor warnings to more political
crack downs that could drastically curb the hacker scene in the US. There are
already increased cases of security researchers getting the SWAT treatment
followed by jail. Who thinks thats good. These articles are digging deeper
into the why this is happening trying to look for ways to prevent it before it
tanks the US tech scene.

I'd say that's relevant but if you disagree put your fingers in your ears,
close your eyes and wait another decade and we'll see

~~~
run4yourlives
_If you think limited freedom cultures are good for our work go on ahead
ignoring this stuff._

I exist outside of HN.

HN though is where I want to see technology articles and discussion, not
politics.

From the guidelines:

 _Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they 're
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon._

~~~
lmartel
Between this and the PRISM stories, some hackers seem to think the interesting
new phenomenon of a US surveillance state run by warlords is just as important
to talk about as the Nth new javascript framework or blog post about MVPs.

------
Shivetya
Simple, do you see the limits to preventive actions they can take in most
cities? Have you read how "rights" activist are going to strip NYC cops from
doing just that which has resulted in an incredible drop in murders and
similar crimes?

We got there because we stopped police from policing and instead forced them
to respond to situations left to build until they explode.

We got there by telling them, no you can't look at that guy because of where
he lives, where he doesn't live, his skin color, the type of clothing he
wears, or such.

~~~
king_jester
> Have you read how "rights" activist are going to strip NYC cops from doing
> just that which has resulted in an incredible drop in murders and similar
> crimes?

You are no doubt referring to stop and frisk. I'm so tired of having to say
this to folks, but the violent crime rate in NYC has been dropping since
before stop and frisk was a policy. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence
or study that gives a direct causation for the fall in violent crime rates in
NYC, even though Bloomberg and Ray Kelly will continue to claim otherwise.

> We got there by telling them, no you can't look at that guy because of where
> he lives, where he doesn't live, his skin color, the type of clothing he
> wears, or such.

If you think the race and poverty oriented profiling that the police employ
make you safer, you are totally mistaken. They encourage harm to communities
of predominantly black and hispanic people, they encourage imprisonment of
those people, they encourage the destruction of those communities, and they
encourage the increased power of the police force over all aspects of a city.

~~~
buuda
There is very good evidence that the reduction in crime is related to the
levels of lead in blood. The correlation between crime and lead levels is
found on the international, national, state, city and even block by block
level.

Stop and frisk can be legally done, but the way the NYPD implements it is
clearly discriminatory. There is no better way to create a criminal than to
treat someone like one from adolescence.

[http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-
li...](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-
gasoline)

