3 ms·

I think one possible reform is that SWAT teams should belong to a separate department than the regular police. If the situation gets out of hand, then the polic

I think one possible reform is that SWAT teams should belong to a separate department than the regular police. If the situation gets out of hand, then the police can call in the SWAT. But we shouldn't be expect regular beat cops and detectives to be the people kicking down doors with bullet proof vests. The two jobs require very different skillsets and temperaments. Unfortunately because of the long-running wars in the Middle East, the US has no shortage of combat veterans with experience in these types of urban warfare situations. I'd definitely a trust a SWAT department filled with ex-special forces more than I'd trust a small-town cop LARPing in military gear. The second benefit is that a lot of times, I think police start itching to break out the military gear because they have it and think it looks cool. By separating the departments, it removes that incentive. They're not going to hesitate calling in SWAT, when the situation's genuinely dangerous. But they're going to think about letting an outside agency step on their turf for everyday situations.

bigbubba 6y ago
> I'd definitely a trust a SWAT department filled with ex-special forces more than I'd trust a small-town cop LARPing in military gear. I know soldier worship is the national religion or something, but I think that's something you should reconsider: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30281075/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30281075/ More research needs to be done, but there is evidence that police officers with military backgrounds are more likely to be involved in shootings. Consider also that some of the training soldiers receive today is meant to overcome the natural tendency of soldiers to deliberately miss when shooting at the enemy. Consider also that the mindset of a veteran who seeks out a job with the police is not necessarily representative of the typical veteran mindset. It's a subset of veterans, those who wish to work with guns and have authority over others.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  tl;dr: 10-years of data were pulled from Dallas PD. "Records were abstracted for 516 officers. In the adjusted models, veteran LEOs who were not deployed were significantly more likely to be involved in a shooting than non-veteran officers. Veterans with a deployment history were 2.9 times more likely to be in a shooting than non-veteran officers." Interesting food for thought. I've heard many arguments about ex-military folks training in rules of engagement making them less-likely to use a weapon in a frivolous scenario. But, maybe that's not borne out by the data. Or there's a selection-bias thing. Either way, good point. I think what the parent was getting at though, was that this would silo the guys with all the guns and stuff in a way that they're used only in more carefully-considered situations as opposed to giving every yahoo on the force an MRAP, a tactical vest full of 123123 mags for their AR-15, and a fuzzy mandate to enforce the 'thin blue line.' You both make really, excellent points, honestly.
- scollet 6y ago
  I'd prefer police carrying a two-year degree (with an emphasis on negotiation and deescalation) more than anything else. Most able people can learn to use a gun. Most anyone can use it lethally.

bigbubba 6y ago

> I'd definitely a trust a SWAT department filled with ex-special forces more than I'd trust a small-town cop LARPing in military gear. I know soldier worship is the national religion or something, but I think that's something you should reconsider: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30281075/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30281075/ More research needs to be done, but there is evidence that police officers with military backgrounds are more likely to be involved in shootings. Consider also that some of the training soldiers receive today is meant to overcome the natural tendency of soldiers to deliberately miss when shooting at the enemy. Consider also that the mindset of a veteran who seeks out a job with the police is not necessarily representative of the typical veteran mindset. It's a subset of veterans, those who wish to work with guns and have authority over others.

phobosanomaly 6y ago
tl;dr: 10-years of data were pulled from Dallas PD. "Records were abstracted for 516 officers. In the adjusted models, veteran LEOs who were not deployed were significantly more likely to be involved in a shooting than non-veteran officers. Veterans with a deployment history were 2.9 times more likely to be in a shooting than non-veteran officers." Interesting food for thought. I've heard many arguments about ex-military folks training in rules of engagement making them less-likely to use a weapon in a frivolous scenario. But, maybe that's not borne out by the data. Or there's a selection-bias thing. Either way, good point. I think what the parent was getting at though, was that this would silo the guys with all the guns and stuff in a way that they're used only in more carefully-considered situations as opposed to giving every yahoo on the force an MRAP, a tactical vest full of 123123 mags for their AR-15, and a fuzzy mandate to enforce the 'thin blue line.' You both make really, excellent points, honestly.
scollet 6y ago
I'd prefer police carrying a two-year degree (with an emphasis on negotiation and deescalation) more than anything else. Most able people can learn to use a gun. Most anyone can use it lethally.