5 ms·

Police being killed due to a lack of equipment is the bigger issue in my opinion.

• penagwin 7y ago
  Is that better than Police + otherwise innocent people from being hurt/killed because the people freaked out with a miniature army charging at them yelling?
  • bdibs 7y ago
    Of course not, but does that happen a lot? There is no perfect solution, so I think it's better to go with the one that most often protects lives. I don't have the numbers, but I'd assume wearing body armor and having proper equipment protects more lives than it causes harm (via "freaking out").
• jtmcmc 7y ago
  really? because police killing people is my much bigger concern...
• mindslight 7y ago
  What is the injury rate for parking enforcement or process servers?
• stonogo 7y ago
  I would agree with you, if that ever happened in the United States.
  • dmix 7y ago
    You never know. Susan from accounting might be packing, waiting for the random day they get surprised raided by the feds...
  • drak0n1c 7y ago
    It did happen in 1986, back when the FBI agents were woefully outgunned. The current trend of militarization is a reaction to that incident, and now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout
    • dmix 7y ago
      > between eight FBI agents and two serial bank robbers and murderers. What does a SWAT team responding to a heavily-armed bank robbery have to do with raiding the offices of a well-known biotech startup in San Francisco over billing irregularities?
      • drak0n1c 7y ago
        The parent comment asked a rhetorical question implying that FBI officers never died due to being under-equipped. I provided a counter-example, and that event was what motivated a lot of heavier armament in the FBI. The problem is not that they have equipment, it's that they are incentivized to abuse the entire toolbox for every situation under the sun.
        • dmix 7y ago
          Just because you can find a very weakly related example doesn't make it a good counter-example. If you can find a single example where raiding a corporate office over financial reasons (or basically anything not involving weapons, violent crime, or a dangerous person) required anything beyond a holstered service weapon then I'll be convinced...
          • speedplane 7y ago
            > If you can find a single example where raiding a corporate office over financial reasons (or basically anything not involving weapons, violent crime, or a dangerous person) required anything beyond a holstered service weapon then I'll be convinced... What about raiding a business selling counterfeit goods, like knock-off watches or pharmaceuticals? What about prostitution or sex trafficker rings? It's plausible that given the shady nature of the business, someone may do something stupid.
          • kelnos 7y ago
            The parent wasn't justifying the behavior, but was pointing out that the escalation in militarization of law enforcement can count the 1986 Miami FBI shootout referenced as one of its causes.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • dragonwriter 7y ago
    It has, in fact, happened on numerous occasions. It happens less often now because police have taken precautions against it. There are legitimate bases for debate about the details of those precautions, but “there was no problem for them to address” is not one of them.