7 ms·

I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one. If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. They are civilian vehicles and all of the tasks you l

by yarrel 8y ago

I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one. If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. They are civilian vehicles and all of the tasks you list are civilian tasks. Militarization of the police force is a very, very, very bad idea.

tomschlick 8y ago
> I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one. Anecdotal opinions. I know plenty of vets who don't think MRAPs are a big deal at all. > If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. Armored cars cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy and outfit from companies like Lenco. MRAPs are bought for ~$1k (transport costs) from the federal government. > Militarization of the police force is a very, very, very bad idea. If the vehicles do the same tasks, in mostly the same way, what's the difference?
- sdenton4 8y ago
  It's exactly the riot cop problem. On the cop side, the more armor you have, the less you see and the more hostile the world /seems/; this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation. On the civilian side, you get to feel like you live in a goddamned war zone, with the police as combatants. It's not a nice feeling. My own approach is to treat cops as large, gun-wielding wild animals: maybe they'll be fine, but in any interaction there's a chance they'll fuck up your life permanently. And that's a direct consequence of having police on 'war footing' with the community, where the default reactions to problems are either violence or long-term imprisonment. And the ethics of this extends beyond my own interactions: if I see something illegal happening, calling the cops means putting people in extreme danger. As a result, I'm not going to call the cops for anything less than assault. Thus, police militarization works against actual enforcement of the law, because it estranges police from the population. (For a whole lot more, go listen to season 3 of the Serial podcast...)
  - tomschlick 8y ago
    > this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation. I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people. If people are rioting (actually rioting, not protesting) then I honestly don't care how the presence of a MRAP makes them feel. It's the police's job to stop the riot and they need tools to do that. > I'm not going to call the cops for anything less than assault. I'm glad you're not the majority. Because the world would be pretty shitty if all the police responded to was physical assaults and above.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - sdenton4 8y ago
      > I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people. Most of the time, police aren't being shot at. And they tend to react to peaceful protest exactly as if it were a riot. This is well documented. Here's an example I was present for: Peaceful protest at the university. Cops in riot gear show up, fly around in helicopters, etc. One of the cops pushes/bumps a girl who then bounces into another cop, who slams her against the hood of cop car, arrests her, charges her with assault, and tries to get her expelled from the university. (The same department, six months later, gave us this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4 ) > I'm glad you're not the majority. Because the world would be pretty shitty if all the police responded to was physical assaults and above. If that's not the world you like, let's fix the police!
      - tomschlick 8y ago
        > Most of the time Key phrase there. We expect our police to be equipped for any situation. So what happens when something like the North Hollywood shooting happens again and you have pinned cops/civilians? In that case officers had to commandeer actual money trucks and raid gun shops to get the equipment they needed to stop the shooters. > Here's an example I was present for If that's true then I'm all for punishments / legal action against officers that do wrong. > If that's not the world you like, let's fix the police! I'm all for police reform where evidence shows it can help.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If the vehicles do the same tasks, in mostly the same way, what's the difference? The difference is that the 1033 program comes with a use-it-or-lose-it utilization requirement, which means that the cheap transfer of military equipment has a built in incentive to overuse it. They are often suitable for tasks that police rarely face, which at a steep discount makes them seem like good deals anyway. But then they must be used soon to be kept. So they get used in less appropriate circumstances as a direct consequence of the terms of transfer.
  - tomschlick 8y ago
    > The difference is that the 1033 program comes with a use-it-or-lose-it utilization requirement It's my understanding that the requirement is a stop-gap for a single dept ordering 500 of these vehicles and parking them in a warehouse or selling them off. Basically if they use it for training and have it at the ready for call-outs then they satisfy the requirement.
briandear 8y ago
However, the French Gendarmes are a paramilitary police force. It’s part of the French military and under interior ministry control. Does France have concerns about this military-style police force? Just saying militarization is a “bad idea,” seems to be an opinion based on emotion rather than facts. It seems like any police force can be bad or good; the militarization doesn’t seem to have much to do with that. French Gendarmes are reasonably respected. Actual armed soldiers patrol tourist areas in France, and that hasn’t led to any particular oppression unique to militarization. It does however make French tourist sites vastly safer than most places in the world that don’t have such patrols. It’s really a question of training rather than equipment or appearance.
- tomschlick 8y ago
  Exactly. Even NYC has the "Hercules" team which is effectively a SWAT team that shows up at high risk locations as a show of force to deter terrorism. Last time I was in Time Square some of them were lining up for photos with the general public. The crowd seemed pretty at ease knowing that if shit went down those guys were there to stop it.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    In most cities in US, SWAT and local police are the same people wearing slightly different uniforms. This is not so in Europe, where there's a clear distinction between beat cops (who don't get MRAPs) and special forces.
- walshemj 8y ago
  Yes I think the fragmented nature of having hundreds if not thousands of "police" forces of various levels of training and background checks.
- incangold 8y ago
  Sure. But the French police barely use their guns, whereas the US police famously kill lots and lots of people. So for the purposes of the topic at hand, giving the US police military equipment is probably a bad idea. At least until there’s been an institutional culture shift, which will take decades at least.

by yarrel 8y ago

tomschlick 8y ago

> I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one. Anecdotal opinions. I know plenty of vets who don't think MRAPs are a big deal at all. > If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. Armored cars cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy and outfit from companies like Lenco. MRAPs are bought for ~$1k (transport costs) from the federal government. > Militarization of the police force is a very, very, very bad idea. If the vehicles do the same tasks, in mostly the same way, what's the difference?

sdenton4 8y ago
It's exactly the riot cop problem. On the cop side, the more armor you have, the less you see and the more hostile the world /seems/; this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation. On the civilian side, you get to feel like you live in a goddamned war zone, with the police as combatants. It's not a nice feeling. My own approach is to treat cops as large, gun-wielding wild animals: maybe they'll be fine, but in any interaction there's a chance they'll fuck up your life permanently. And that's a direct consequence of having police on 'war footing' with the community, where the default reactions to problems are either violence or long-term imprisonment. And the ethics of this extends beyond my own interactions: if I see something illegal happening, calling the cops means putting people in extreme danger. As a result, I'm not going to call the cops for anything less than assault. Thus, police militarization works against actual enforcement of the law, because it estranges police from the population. (For a whole lot more, go listen to season 3 of the Serial podcast...)
- tomschlick 8y ago
  > this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation. I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people. If people are rioting (actually rioting, not protesting) then I honestly don't care how the presence of a MRAP makes them feel. It's the police's job to stop the riot and they need tools to do that. > I'm not going to call the cops for anything less than assault. I'm glad you're not the majority. Because the world would be pretty shitty if all the police responded to was physical assaults and above.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - sdenton4 8y ago
    > I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people. Most of the time, police aren't being shot at. And they tend to react to peaceful protest exactly as if it were a riot. This is well documented. Here's an example I was present for: Peaceful protest at the university. Cops in riot gear show up, fly around in helicopters, etc. One of the cops pushes/bumps a girl who then bounces into another cop, who slams her against the hood of cop car, arrests her, charges her with assault, and tries to get her expelled from the university. (The same department, six months later, gave us this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4 ) > I'm glad you're not the majority. Because the world would be pretty shitty if all the police responded to was physical assaults and above. If that's not the world you like, let's fix the police!
    - tomschlick 8y ago
      > Most of the time Key phrase there. We expect our police to be equipped for any situation. So what happens when something like the North Hollywood shooting happens again and you have pinned cops/civilians? In that case officers had to commandeer actual money trucks and raid gun shops to get the equipment they needed to stop the shooters. > Here's an example I was present for If that's true then I'm all for punishments / legal action against officers that do wrong. > If that's not the world you like, let's fix the police! I'm all for police reform where evidence shows it can help.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If the vehicles do the same tasks, in mostly the same way, what's the difference? The difference is that the 1033 program comes with a use-it-or-lose-it utilization requirement, which means that the cheap transfer of military equipment has a built in incentive to overuse it. They are often suitable for tasks that police rarely face, which at a steep discount makes them seem like good deals anyway. But then they must be used soon to be kept. So they get used in less appropriate circumstances as a direct consequence of the terms of transfer.
- tomschlick 8y ago
  > The difference is that the 1033 program comes with a use-it-or-lose-it utilization requirement It's my understanding that the requirement is a stop-gap for a single dept ordering 500 of these vehicles and parking them in a warehouse or selling them off. Basically if they use it for training and have it at the ready for call-outs then they satisfy the requirement.

briandear 8y ago

However, the French Gendarmes are a paramilitary police force. It’s part of the French military and under interior ministry control. Does France have concerns about this military-style police force? Just saying militarization is a “bad idea,” seems to be an opinion based on emotion rather than facts. It seems like any police force can be bad or good; the militarization doesn’t seem to have much to do with that. French Gendarmes are reasonably respected. Actual armed soldiers patrol tourist areas in France, and that hasn’t led to any particular oppression unique to militarization. It does however make French tourist sites vastly safer than most places in the world that don’t have such patrols. It’s really a question of training rather than equipment or appearance.

tomschlick 8y ago
Exactly. Even NYC has the "Hercules" team which is effectively a SWAT team that shows up at high risk locations as a show of force to deter terrorism. Last time I was in Time Square some of them were lining up for photos with the general public. The crowd seemed pretty at ease knowing that if shit went down those guys were there to stop it.
- int_19h 8y ago
  In most cities in US, SWAT and local police are the same people wearing slightly different uniforms. This is not so in Europe, where there's a clear distinction between beat cops (who don't get MRAPs) and special forces.
walshemj 8y ago
Yes I think the fragmented nature of having hundreds if not thousands of "police" forces of various levels of training and background checks.
incangold 8y ago
Sure. But the French police barely use their guns, whereas the US police famously kill lots and lots of people. So for the purposes of the topic at hand, giving the US police military equipment is probably a bad idea. At least until there’s been an institutional culture shift, which will take decades at least.