3 ms·

That seems a fairly shortsighted estimation of what balances power between police and the people. And FWIW the UK is arming more of its police, since that is c

That seems a fairly shortsighted estimation of what balances power between police and the people. And FWIW the UK is arming more of its police, since that is clearly the country you are referring to.

jethro_tell 10y ago
>since that is clearly the country you are referring to no not really, there are a lot of countries without armed or heavily armed police forces. >That seems a fairly shortsighted estimation of what balances power between police and the people. So does the NRA's idea that the second amendment will allow people to overthrow the government if they still own guns. But at the end of the day, forcing your police force to think deescalation first has some real benefits. Carrying a fatal weapon and being trained that people within 25-30 feet are in your 'danger zone' has had a very poor outcome.
- hga 10y ago
  Carrying a fatal weapon and being trained that people within 25-30 feet are in your 'danger zone' has had a very poor outcome. But the "within 25-30 feet" at least has it being the truth in its favor. And none of this has changed, US cops have always been well armed, right? The problem I see is the switch from their being "peace officers" to warrior cops, or at the very minimum, having as their #1 objective making it home safely when their shift ends. Rather negates the "Thin Blue Line" concept of their being there to protect us, also calls into question their outsized benefit packages.
  - jethro_tell 10y ago
    >US cops have always been well armed, right Not really, they carried a revolver or .38 special, might have had a shotgun between the front seats or in the trunk, Using khaki as the only body armor. Now there are police whose primary weapon is an ar-15 and the backup is a semi-auto .40 mm glock. everyone else has an ar-15 in the trunk and a glock in hand plus varying levels of body armor. That's a far cry from having a 6 shot revolver on your hip just in case.
    - hga 10y ago
      By those days standards that was "well armed", some police and some criminals carried semi-autos, the 1911 was obviously popular being the military issue sidearm since that year, but it wasn't common. And a shotgun is a fearsome weapon at shorter ranges, out to 100 yards or so; it's just that an AR-15 is better for almost all police purposes, ditto for civilians for self-defense. And in the long run, I suspect trading their khaki for body armor and the disdain or worse of civilians will be viewed as a mistake.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > "within 25-30 feet" at least has it being the truth in its favor From what I've read, there is no basis for it.
    - jethro_tell 10y ago
      There is some basis for it. If someone actively and aggressively wants to stab you you should have your weapon drawn. But the training seems to be around assuming everyone within 30 ft wants to stab you.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        I know that's the training. What I've read is that there is no basis for that training. Do you know of the basis?
    - hga 10y ago
      Trying watching videos of the Tueller Drill. I've done it myself, timed the speed I could lunge 21 feet, it's true enough. And that's a minimum, allow more feet to realize there's a threat etc.

That seems a fairly shortsighted estimation of what balances power between police and the people. And FWIW the UK is arming more of its police, since that is clearly the country you are referring to.

jethro_tell 10y ago

>since that is clearly the country you are referring to no not really, there are a lot of countries without armed or heavily armed police forces. >That seems a fairly shortsighted estimation of what balances power between police and the people. So does the NRA's idea that the second amendment will allow people to overthrow the government if they still own guns. But at the end of the day, forcing your police force to think deescalation first has some real benefits. Carrying a fatal weapon and being trained that people within 25-30 feet are in your 'danger zone' has had a very poor outcome.

hga 10y ago
Carrying a fatal weapon and being trained that people within 25-30 feet are in your 'danger zone' has had a very poor outcome. But the "within 25-30 feet" at least has it being the truth in its favor. And none of this has changed, US cops have always been well armed, right? The problem I see is the switch from their being "peace officers" to warrior cops, or at the very minimum, having as their #1 objective making it home safely when their shift ends. Rather negates the "Thin Blue Line" concept of their being there to protect us, also calls into question their outsized benefit packages.
- jethro_tell 10y ago
  >US cops have always been well armed, right Not really, they carried a revolver or .38 special, might have had a shotgun between the front seats or in the trunk, Using khaki as the only body armor. Now there are police whose primary weapon is an ar-15 and the backup is a semi-auto .40 mm glock. everyone else has an ar-15 in the trunk and a glock in hand plus varying levels of body armor. That's a far cry from having a 6 shot revolver on your hip just in case.
  - hga 10y ago
    By those days standards that was "well armed", some police and some criminals carried semi-autos, the 1911 was obviously popular being the military issue sidearm since that year, but it wasn't common. And a shotgun is a fearsome weapon at shorter ranges, out to 100 yards or so; it's just that an AR-15 is better for almost all police purposes, ditto for civilians for self-defense. And in the long run, I suspect trading their khaki for body armor and the disdain or worse of civilians will be viewed as a mistake.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > "within 25-30 feet" at least has it being the truth in its favor From what I've read, there is no basis for it.
  - jethro_tell 10y ago
    There is some basis for it. If someone actively and aggressively wants to stab you you should have your weapon drawn. But the training seems to be around assuming everyone within 30 ft wants to stab you.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      I know that's the training. What I've read is that there is no basis for that training. Do you know of the basis?
  - hga 10y ago
    Trying watching videos of the Tueller Drill. I've done it myself, timed the speed I could lunge 21 feet, it's true enough. And that's a minimum, allow more feet to realize there's a threat etc.