5 ms·

There are rules of engagement that are stricter in a war zone. Also one of the incentives is the pay increases when geared up.

gammateam 8y ago
The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. The Federal Government exists in a cohesive world that requires cooperation. The States are exempt from that, exempt from actual challenges to their sovereignty because the Federal Government will protect them, and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. Only if you somehow manage to ignore everything the federal government is doing internationally (15 & 17yr wars [with no end], ignoring ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, etc). > and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government That's not true at all. For a very recent (today) example: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-neutrality-lawsuit-against-state-california-0 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-...
  - gammateam 8y ago
    I was very particular with my words. The outcome may not be agreeable but the Federal Government's military and rules of engagement are much more humane and nuanced than anything any of the state's have ever legislated. I don't agree with the ideology supporting the wars, or processes behind the drone strikes. That doesn't undermine my argument. Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post.
    - pritambaral 8y ago
      > Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post. You claimed "The States are exempt ... from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior" as an explanation for why the US Federal Government does not (or chooses to not) interfere with State militia. The lawsuit by the US DoJ against California's NN law demonstrates that your claim doesn't hold.
      - gammateam 8y ago
        We're talking about the state's police departments, I just don't understand how you would expect recurring adjectives every single time just to avoid your "AHA I found a hole in his theory" filter. The Federal Government won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process.
        Reelin 8y ago
        > exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior > won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process Those two statements (by you) are quite different. I'm inclined to agree with the second one, as I've never heard of a federal agency taking over a local police department before. However, I'm inclined to disagree with the first (depending on the precise definition of oversight, of course). As just one example, consider the DoJ investigation of the SPD a few years ago. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/12/16/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/...
        gammateam 8y ago
        I guess you are the third person to chime in on this. I've already clarified multiple times that I thought the subject, the narrow subject, was very clear. In a topic sentence that specifically mentions well armed militias, the subsequent statements were related to that. It was carefully worded to deal with whatever rebuttals to the wording alone that overly semantical programmers might come up with while keeping my point, and it failed. Also, yes, the federal government will assume administration of police departments if its FUBAR, local municipalities can even ask for it to happen, like San Francisco has done and received since 2016.
Balgair 8y ago
I think you've hit on something there: Incentives. What are the incentives for the PD in an armed situation? To stay alive, yes, of course. But are there other incentives? The guns blazing approach indicates there are other incentives. If they wanted to 'just' stay alive, they'd put a lot of distance between themselves and the suspect, get a lot of back-up, etc. But there is another possible incentive too: glory/honor. For many male-centric groups, dis/honor is a VERY powerful incentive. Taking down the 'bad-guy' and earning honor/glory through that act can be quite motivating. But can you replace that incentive with another one that is less 'thrill seeking'? How about 'hazard pay', payed by the number of hours that an officer is in a life-threatening situation, escalating with the time spent on scene? Like, you corner a suspect, but the longer the standoff lasts, the more pay the officer gets, and the more officers there are on the scene, the more the pay increases? That'll incentivize the officers to wait things out, get back-up, give time for media to get on site, and probably decrease fatalities. Or, you know, less guns on the streets too.

gammateam 8y ago

The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. The Federal Government exists in a cohesive world that requires cooperation. The States are exempt from that, exempt from actual challenges to their sovereignty because the Federal Government will protect them, and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior.

craftyguy 8y ago
> The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. Only if you somehow manage to ignore everything the federal government is doing internationally (15 & 17yr wars [with no end], ignoring ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, etc). > and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government That's not true at all. For a very recent (today) example: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-neutrality-lawsuit-against-state-california-0 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-...
- gammateam 8y ago
  I was very particular with my words. The outcome may not be agreeable but the Federal Government's military and rules of engagement are much more humane and nuanced than anything any of the state's have ever legislated. I don't agree with the ideology supporting the wars, or processes behind the drone strikes. That doesn't undermine my argument. Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post.
  - pritambaral 8y ago
    > Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post. You claimed "The States are exempt ... from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior" as an explanation for why the US Federal Government does not (or chooses to not) interfere with State militia. The lawsuit by the US DoJ against California's NN law demonstrates that your claim doesn't hold.
    - gammateam 8y ago
      We're talking about the state's police departments, I just don't understand how you would expect recurring adjectives every single time just to avoid your "AHA I found a hole in his theory" filter. The Federal Government won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process.
      - Reelin 8y ago
        > exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior > won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process Those two statements (by you) are quite different. I'm inclined to agree with the second one, as I've never heard of a federal agency taking over a local police department before. However, I'm inclined to disagree with the first (depending on the precise definition of oversight, of course). As just one example, consider the DoJ investigation of the SPD a few years ago. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/12/16/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/...
        gammateam 8y ago
        I guess you are the third person to chime in on this. I've already clarified multiple times that I thought the subject, the narrow subject, was very clear. In a topic sentence that specifically mentions well armed militias, the subsequent statements were related to that. It was carefully worded to deal with whatever rebuttals to the wording alone that overly semantical programmers might come up with while keeping my point, and it failed. Also, yes, the federal government will assume administration of police departments if its FUBAR, local municipalities can even ask for it to happen, like San Francisco has done and received since 2016.

Balgair 8y ago

I think you've hit on something there: Incentives. What are the incentives for the PD in an armed situation? To stay alive, yes, of course. But are there other incentives? The guns blazing approach indicates there are other incentives. If they wanted to 'just' stay alive, they'd put a lot of distance between themselves and the suspect, get a lot of back-up, etc. But there is another possible incentive too: glory/honor. For many male-centric groups, dis/honor is a VERY powerful incentive. Taking down the 'bad-guy' and earning honor/glory through that act can be quite motivating. But can you replace that incentive with another one that is less 'thrill seeking'? How about 'hazard pay', payed by the number of hours that an officer is in a life-threatening situation, escalating with the time spent on scene? Like, you corner a suspect, but the longer the standoff lasts, the more pay the officer gets, and the more officers there are on the scene, the more the pay increases? That'll incentivize the officers to wait things out, get back-up, give time for media to get on site, and probably decrease fatalities. Or, you know, less guns on the streets too.