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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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:
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...
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.
This is completely backwards. If anything the veterans are the one not shooting first and asking questions later because that kind of conduct is/was not allowed overseas. They also tend to have a little more perspective as to what does and doesn't constitute a threat.
>>>People trained by the military to police occupied communities should not be allowed to act as civilian police in peacetime conditions.
I've brought this up before: US law enforcement has a long-established training relationship with Israel. Is it any surprise that American police have a "siege mentality" when they are being trained by a country that is basically dealing with a multi-decade insurgency/hybrid war?
You're quite right; this is another aspect of the same sort of problem: Police being trained by the military or by military veterans (be they American or foreign.)
When the matter of police training is raised, much consideration is given to the training police aren't receiving but should receive. I think too few consider the matter of training the police are receiving but shouldn't be.
I would love to see some statistics before discriminating against veterans. My intuition says combat vets would make better police officers because they would likely be better trained, and are used to dealing with high pressure, dangerous situations.
The military's RoE are also very strict with severe consequences for violating. Contrary to what some think, soldiers are not running around shooting every person they see.
Study suggests ex-military cops are 2.9x more likely to be involved in a shooting if they had been deployed, and still 1.9x if they were ex-military but not deployed.
It's worth considering that people who leave the military to join another high risk of violence job may simply be violence seeking individuals, and that a randomly selected solider who was required to be a policeman would not show this effect. But given we can't really control that, we'd likely be better hiring fewer ex-military vets.
Another search suggests vets are over-represented in police jobs by about 3.5x their baseline rate
Is there evidence to suggest that violent police are disproportionately ex-military? Is there anything less extreme we could do to reduce violence from both veteran and non-veteran police?
