Changing the inventory will reduce the appeal of police work for psycho assholes who fantasize about shooting protesters. Special weapons and vehicles should be reserved for centralized, specialized police forces who are called out when needed, if ever. Most cops should be issued a radio and a bicycle, so you attract people who want to look like [1] instead of [2].
How do you engender an idea of a UK/Canada-type cop in a country where there are more guns than people? I assume cops here are trained to see all citizens as armed threats, which systematically produces cops who are always on edge and ready to kill.
The whole thing feels like a deeper problem than just training cops to be nicer.
The incident that has sparked the current stretch of American decline involved police using force other than firearms against an unarmed man. It's clear that sending police to respond with violence to an incidence of passing counterfeit currency was perhaps not the appropriate response. Violence in American society has various structural root causes. It's not as simple as saying there are a lot of guns. Inequality, lack of opportunity, poor education, bleak built environment, and of course racism and the echoes of slavery are all aspects of the problem. Police violence can't solve any of them.
Hear, hear. It's particularly ridiculous since some large portion of the people who end up with a counterfeit bill have no idea that it's fake...
Once I pulled out a bunch of cash in a bar and exactly one bill, a $5, glowed brightly under the black light in the bar. I'd already handed it to the bar owner and I said, "Oh, that one must be a fake, I'll take it back" and he said, "No, it's fine." I was surprised!
(Under my fingers too, it was an obvious fake, but I didn't react in time.)
It's a pet peeve of mine when people on social media mischaracterize Canada.
We have shootouts in broad daylight in downtown Toronto on a fairly regular basis. All of our cops have guns and are trained to use them. We have 35 legal guns per 100 population and that doesn't account for the illegal handguns from the US which account for almost all of the gun crime.
Not enough people acknowledge this. The U.S. is a heavily armed country. It is very easy to (legally) buy military grade weapons in most states. Knowing that you could potentially get your head blown off anytime you pull someone over is going to lead to a very different psychology than you might see in a country like South Korea or Germany where very few people, if any, are armed. You can't just say, "Oh look how nice the police are in <Insert random western European country here>. Let's just do what they do".
This a much more complex issue than the media or either political party is willing to acknowledge.
The number of actual cops shot in the US is extremely low. Logging is five times as dangerous as police work and the most dangerous part of being a cop is the amount of driving they do.
Even miscellaneous agricultural work is more dangerous and they make 24k/year.
I'd say that any number over 0 is not Ok. That would be like saying only a very small percentage of the population gets killed by cops. Again, anything over 0 == Not Ok. And just because you can cherry pick a dangerous job that happens to be more dangerous than being a cop doesn't make being a cop any less dangerous.
If you want to save lives, then armed cops are killing far more people than cops are being killed every year. So, removing guns from a cops normal uniform would very much save lives.
> It is very easy to (legally) buy military grade weapons in most states.
I would love to know what you mean by "military grade" because by every definition I can think of this is so wrong it's either a statement with no bearing in reality, or an intentional lie.
I feel like this response is made in bad faith, since the meaning of "military grade" is fairly self-evident and straightforward, if somewhat imprecise. But in case this comment was made in good faith, perhaps by a non-native English speaker, here goes.
"Military grade weapons", in this context means light arms (rifles, pistols, etc.) similar in quality, function and performance to those commonly used by soldiers in the military.
In most states in the U.S. you can buy rifles similar to those used in the military. You can also buy kits to upgrade weapons from semi automatic to fully automatic and make all sorts of other enhancements to build up a nice little arsenal if that's your thing. I'm not a gun guy, but I have a number of friends who are, and frankly it's surprising what types of armaments are available to private citizens in the United States, even in states with supposedly restrictive gun laws.
Are you just assuming this, or are there numbers on how "nice like EU country" police actually get their heads blown off in larger numbers than the "racist murderer" police?
Perhaps it is you who need to look up the statistics of those cities. Only two police officers have been killed in Minneapolis in the last 20 years, out of more than 600 homicides in that city.
That really depends on where you're a cop. Most towns in the U.S. are very safe, so yes, in aggregate being a cop in the U.S. is very safe. But no one experiences the aggregate, and there are some incredibly dangerous places in the U.S. that you don't see anything similar to in other developed countries. Sure, being a cop in Scarsdale, NY is a pretty safe bet. Being a beat cop in Camden, NJ, not so much.
Really? The site that tracks police killed in the line of duty lists 1975 as the last time a Camden police officer died.
Another surprising fact is the last two NYPD officers to be killed on duty, the total of all NYPD officers killed on duty in the last three years, were both shot by other NYPD officers.
Just because you don't die, doesn't mean your job is safe. Most of the time, getting shot, stabbed, punched in the face, or hit by a car is not lethal. That doesn't make it ok or mean that you're safe. I'm pretty sure that if every time you went into the office, there was a good chance that someone would try to strike you, you'd quickly conclude that your workplace wasn't very safe.
It reminds of me of all the people still referring to Covid as a "bad cold" or "not a big deal" because the fatality rate is only 0.5%, completely ignoring any and all concern around morbidity, as if being stuck on ventilator or having permanent lung damage was just fine because it wasn't fatal.
The No True Scotsman of police getting shot. If you don’t provide statistics of these supposedly common incidents you have no argument, just some vague hand waving that it ‘doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen’.
I don't see that your argument is any more fair than the one you are replying to.
Store clerks are also targeted because they are often alone and in poorly secure places. They have no choice weather or not to approach dangerous people because those people are approaching them. They have little or no training for handling these situations. They have no back up. They likely receive no pension or disability when injured. If they do something unwise in a dangerous situation, they will almost certainly be fired with no union to protect them.
I have no strong position in this argument, but, robberies and other armed crimes are regularly paired with a murder in order to get rid of the witness.
How do you think citizens feel? I consider anyone and everyone potentially armed and potentially a threat, yet I'm not blowing people away in the streets. Sounds like police need to change their tactics. Seems like society needs to change their expectations on what police are doing on a day to day basis.
Are criminal penalties too harsh? If you're looking at 25-life for a conviction, aren't you going to resist being apprehended with as much force as possible?
Unfortunately for us, democracy ensures idiots elect idiot politicians who employ idiot, evil police.
Of course your penalties are too harsh. Not just the lengths either. Your prisons are simply awful places. Prison rape is so common it has its own trope. (and people joke about it, disgustingly)
And there's so much more wrong than just the rape thing. Just google "amnesty us prison" if you need more examples.
If you show up for riot duty wearing [1], you're likely to walk away with injuries. If this goes through, make sure to track police injuries during riots if you want to be forthcoming. Violent protesters and instigators will throw things no matter whether you're in [1] or [2].
Bike squads on regular duty almost always look like [1] anyway. [2] might be a SWAT picture.
This is legitimately the argument I hear from my friends who are fans of open carry. Now, it's with AR's and AK's, instead of grenades, but that exact line is what they use. I find the fear simply fascinating and confusing.
Grocery stores are public places, homes are not. Homes can be located in gang territory. Police ambushes do happen. I'm not saying they get it right 100% of the time, but serving warrants and bike patrol have way different risks.
It's also entirely possible the warrant was unjustifiably a high risk warrant. In that case, SWAT could serve the warrant, and you get this situation. But that's not SWAT's fault.
>Obviously it's no one's fault. We should just accept things the way they are and change nothing.
I'm not saying that, you'd want to find out why the warrant was high risk or deserved a SWAT response. Someone made that call, and it may not have been SWAT themselves. And you should take actions to ensure it doesn't happen again and hold them accountable. If you find abuse of power, you need to get rid of that person.
The key theme here is that you usually don't get all of the details about why things happened. Sometimes it's honest mistakes. Sometimes it's abuse of power. Sometimes there's miscommunication.
That would be (partially) SWAT's fault. I don't expect police officers (SWAT or not) to be automatons who blindly follow orders. They need to stand behind their actions. They shouldn't serve a warrant like that unless they believe it to be a high-risk situation.
Quoting your source: "Dressed in riot gear, deputies from the Alameda County Sheriff's Office arrived at the house on Magnolia Street around 5:30 a.m." That confirms what jeffbee said. (Except the "old" part. If 34 is old, I'm in trouble.)
Sure they can. jeffbee was still correct. And no matter what other hats they might wear, it's inappropriate to show up like this when there's no reason to anticipate any violence.
We can't end this debate without the warrant. You can acknowledge that you don't have that information and there's a chance it was justified before they rolled up if any of the people were known to be affiliated with dangerous people. If you know of a way to figure out if every situation is going to be dangerous before it happens, definitely put that forward. I'll acknowledge that it could have been some bored SWAT guys just looking to show off and it was completely unnecessary show of force and waste of taxpayer money.
Justified? No. I agree there's a chance—a very very slim one—that they had information that would make me think their show of force was reasonable. But AFAIK, they didn't supply it. They didn't justify their actions to the general public or to any oversight agency, either ahead of time (understandable) or after the fact (less so), and nothing compels them to do so. They can execute the warrants as they see fit, using basically whatever ex-military hardware they like, without explaining themselves to anyone.
I further believe that this lack of justification is routine. Even if there was a good reason, that do this routinely without being either compelled or persuaded to supply it is by itself evidence our police are militarized.
American police collectively lost a lot of trust and authority. Obviously the most significant aspect is actually murdering people like George Floyd in plain sight while wearing a badge. But dangerous stunts like this are a contributor as well. Do they want to regain our trust?
I'm trying to figure out what kind of warrant you're imagining that would justify bringing a full SWAT team to evict squatters who were known protesters in an ongoing legal dispute with the property owner, not some gang kids.
You'll get things thrown at you regardless of your intent or response. The anonymous violent protestors among the crowd don't likely know the cops personally, they're just there to inflict damage when they decide to throw something. You can choose to wear appropriate gear for what you're doing and prevent some damage, or eat a glass bottle to the face, arms, or legs (cops can do bike patrol AND riot control and use different gear -- there's no change in gear issuance needed). Wearing bike squad gear to a riot won't stop those assholes from doing harm. They might even prioritize you for a chance to see blood.
> Most cops should be issued a radio and a bicycle, so you attract people who want to look like [1] instead of [2].
Having police on the roads is having a huge positive impact on drinking and driving. Let’s be careful not to over-correct when demilitarizing our police force.
That just strikes me as a disingenuous argument. No one can argue that drinking and driving is bad. But I would argue that drinking and driving is not correlated to SWAT teams being kitted out like they're on the ground in Afghanistan in 2004, and regular street police having access to military weaponry.
1: https://files.kstatecollegian.com/2014/08/08.27.14.BikeCop.G...
2: https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/c1200x675-w1200-q8...