6 ms·

I think most are a third option; not theoretical, but neither occurring in America. Consider something like the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 10 men with rifles

I think most are a third option; not theoretical, but neither occurring in America. Consider something like the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 10 men with rifles and explosives terrorized an entire city causing hundreds of casualties. Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Against that sort of threat, I think the police having a few armored vehicles makes sense.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nitrogen 6y ago
Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Mainly because gurs in general aren't hard to get in America. Any would-be shooter has to fear not only cops, but armed civilians. And if they are spanning an entire city and the police aren't able to keep up, you'd definitely get recreational hunters with their rifles trying to take them down.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Maybe in a city like Dallas (I'm aware of the Charles Whitman case), but how many rifle-toting vigilantes could you really count on in San Francisco?
slg 6y ago
>Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America I don't think this is the right question to ask. There are a lot of things that one can reasonably think could happen in America. Do we need to prepare every police department in the country for all those situations regardless of the odds of the worst happening? Do the costs, both literal monetary costs and the harder to measure societal costs, of militarizing our police departments outweigh the potential that an increase in police firepower will allow them to save lives in this extremely remote possibility actually happens? Maybe we are just better off leaving some of these extreme outliers as something to be dealt with by the military if it ever happens here.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  It's a good point. Our largest and most targeted cities (e.g. NYC, DC) absolutely should have dedicated heavy weapons troops on call to respond in real time to a terrorist attack. Their equipment and training should be separate from workaday policing. Then most of the rest of the country just needs normal policing, because realistically, they're so unlikely to be a target. Look at all the big terrorist attacks that have happened in the past several decades. They've targeted huge international cities: DC, NYC, London, Paris, Mumbai. These are the kinds of targets (and the only kinds of targets) that plausibly need military-level policing on stand-by 24/7.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    > Our largest and most targeted cities (e.g. NYC, DC) absolutely should have dedicated heavy weapons troops on call to respond in real time to a terrorist attack. Absolutely not. The military does not handle issues like this on US soil. (If you meant something else by "troops", please choose your words more carefully.) I have zero confidence that, with such a force on standby all the time, departments will resist using that force for more mundane matters until it becomes routine. > They've targeted huge international cities: DC, NYC, London, Paris, Mumbai. These are the kinds of targets (and the only kinds of targets) that plausibly need military-level policing on stand-by 24/7. Would "military-level policing" have actually helped in any of these terrorist attacks? I fail to see how a tricked-out army would have stopped 9/11. I did a quick search for "terrorist attacks in washington dc", and nothing really came up, except for some theoretical worries and a few foiled plots, which clearly did not need "military-level policing" to deal with. I'm really tired of how "oh my, terrorists!" is used as an excuse for domestic militarization and draconian domestic policy. The threat of terrorism in the US is hugely overblown, and traditional policing at the local and federal level is what we need to handle these sorts of things, by catching them during the planning phases. And with most terrorist attacks, if you get to a point where there's an active attack, it's too late to do all that much that's meaningful, and bringing in militarized units has just as much potential to make the situation worse. Sure, there are exceptions, but not enough to warrant militarized police on call 24/7.
BelleOfTheBall 6y ago
> Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Is there any particular reason why a clear edge-case scenario should be our basis for arming police departments, which spend most of their time solving mundane domestic disputes, pulling apart drunken fights and responding to break-ins where someone's Playstation was stolen? We should orient policing towards deescalation based on what they usually face. If their most common problem is a drug addict high on PCP, they don't need a gun, they need proper training and, perhaps, a taser.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  I think the biggest problem with these vehicles is the aesthetics and the mindset they attract. But in this regard, those armoured vehicles are only a small part of the problem. Their dark uniforms should be replaced with light uniforms. Replace black and dark blue uniforms with baby blue, white or 'day-glo' neons. Do the same to their guns (white plastic 'furniture' where possible), cars, and armoured vehicles. It doesn't particularly bother me that they own armored vehicles (given the armed nature of the American public), but those vehicles should be repainted to look uncool to the sort of person who fetishizes military hardware and edgy 'punisher'/'tacticool' aesthetics. Basically, make the cops look less like the US Marines and more like UN peacekeepers (specifically their white vehicles.)
  - btgeekboy 6y ago
    In other words, you want more WA State Patrol (white cars, light blue uniforms) than Seattle PD (navy blue for both), it seems. Though I recall the move to the navy blue uniforms in Seattle was for cost reasons - their old baby blue uniforms were custom, so they cost more.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Yes basically, though I would like to see these sort of aesthetic changes across the board, not just to uniforms. The uniforms and the rest of their equipment should convey peaceful professionalism, not macho militarism.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
In the time it takes for an APC to show up some beat cop the rampage will be over. They will either run out of ammo and detonate suicide vests or someone will have managed to shoot the threat. An APC is of no use except when you know where and when you want it and those situations tend to not be the kinds of situations we want civilian police engaging in.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  The 2008 attack in Mumbai lasted numerous days.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Are you under the impression the Indian Army doesn't have APCs etc., then?
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      I am not. I am refuting the assumption that a coordinated terrorist attack would play out quickly. Even if the responding police/military are well equipped it remains possible that a terrorist attack could last for several days.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    You are picking one particular attack and are attempting to use that single, outlying instance to argue for things that will not be necessary in the 99% case. And the problem with military gear -- as we're currently seeing, plain as the day -- is that cops will not just save it for the truly dire situations; they'll use it more and more until it becomes a part of routine operations.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      There have been numerous attacks like that in other countries, some far more extreme. I chose a single example to illustrate my point, but that doesn't mean a single example is all that exists. Anyway, the cops aren't using these armored vehicles to kill people, they primarily do that with guns. It isn't the use of these vehicles that concerns me, but rather the role these vehicles play in recruiting macho edgelords to be cops (the sort prone to shooting people with guns.) To address this, I would like all their vehicles to be repainted, uniforms redesigned, etc. Aesthetics matter, it influences the sort of person drawn to the job. A police force with a particularly militarized aesthetic will attract men who want to LARP as occupying forces in Baghdad.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nitrogen 6y ago

Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Mainly because gurs in general aren't hard to get in America. Any would-be shooter has to fear not only cops, but armed civilians. And if they are spanning an entire city and the police aren't able to keep up, you'd definitely get recreational hunters with their rifles trying to take them down.

bigbubba 6y ago
Maybe in a city like Dallas (I'm aware of the Charles Whitman case), but how many rifle-toting vigilantes could you really count on in San Francisco?

slg 6y ago

>Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America I don't think this is the right question to ask. There are a lot of things that one can reasonably think could happen in America. Do we need to prepare every police department in the country for all those situations regardless of the odds of the worst happening? Do the costs, both literal monetary costs and the harder to measure societal costs, of militarizing our police departments outweigh the potential that an increase in police firepower will allow them to save lives in this extremely remote possibility actually happens? Maybe we are just better off leaving some of these extreme outliers as something to be dealt with by the military if it ever happens here.

CydeWeys 6y ago
It's a good point. Our largest and most targeted cities (e.g. NYC, DC) absolutely should have dedicated heavy weapons troops on call to respond in real time to a terrorist attack. Their equipment and training should be separate from workaday policing. Then most of the rest of the country just needs normal policing, because realistically, they're so unlikely to be a target. Look at all the big terrorist attacks that have happened in the past several decades. They've targeted huge international cities: DC, NYC, London, Paris, Mumbai. These are the kinds of targets (and the only kinds of targets) that plausibly need military-level policing on stand-by 24/7.
- kelnos 6y ago
  > Our largest and most targeted cities (e.g. NYC, DC) absolutely should have dedicated heavy weapons troops on call to respond in real time to a terrorist attack. Absolutely not. The military does not handle issues like this on US soil. (If you meant something else by "troops", please choose your words more carefully.) I have zero confidence that, with such a force on standby all the time, departments will resist using that force for more mundane matters until it becomes routine. > They've targeted huge international cities: DC, NYC, London, Paris, Mumbai. These are the kinds of targets (and the only kinds of targets) that plausibly need military-level policing on stand-by 24/7. Would "military-level policing" have actually helped in any of these terrorist attacks? I fail to see how a tricked-out army would have stopped 9/11. I did a quick search for "terrorist attacks in washington dc", and nothing really came up, except for some theoretical worries and a few foiled plots, which clearly did not need "military-level policing" to deal with. I'm really tired of how "oh my, terrorists!" is used as an excuse for domestic militarization and draconian domestic policy. The threat of terrorism in the US is hugely overblown, and traditional policing at the local and federal level is what we need to handle these sorts of things, by catching them during the planning phases. And with most terrorist attacks, if you get to a point where there's an active attack, it's too late to do all that much that's meaningful, and bringing in militarized units has just as much potential to make the situation worse. Sure, there are exceptions, but not enough to warrant militarized police on call 24/7.

BelleOfTheBall 6y ago

> Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get? Is there any particular reason why a clear edge-case scenario should be our basis for arming police departments, which spend most of their time solving mundane domestic disputes, pulling apart drunken fights and responding to break-ins where someone's Playstation was stolen? We should orient policing towards deescalation based on what they usually face. If their most common problem is a drug addict high on PCP, they don't need a gun, they need proper training and, perhaps, a taser.

bigbubba 6y ago
I think the biggest problem with these vehicles is the aesthetics and the mindset they attract. But in this regard, those armoured vehicles are only a small part of the problem. Their dark uniforms should be replaced with light uniforms. Replace black and dark blue uniforms with baby blue, white or 'day-glo' neons. Do the same to their guns (white plastic 'furniture' where possible), cars, and armoured vehicles. It doesn't particularly bother me that they own armored vehicles (given the armed nature of the American public), but those vehicles should be repainted to look uncool to the sort of person who fetishizes military hardware and edgy 'punisher'/'tacticool' aesthetics. Basically, make the cops look less like the US Marines and more like UN peacekeepers (specifically their white vehicles.)
- btgeekboy 6y ago
  In other words, you want more WA State Patrol (white cars, light blue uniforms) than Seattle PD (navy blue for both), it seems. Though I recall the move to the navy blue uniforms in Seattle was for cost reasons - their old baby blue uniforms were custom, so they cost more.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Yes basically, though I would like to see these sort of aesthetic changes across the board, not just to uniforms. The uniforms and the rest of their equipment should convey peaceful professionalism, not macho militarism.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

In the time it takes for an APC to show up some beat cop the rampage will be over. They will either run out of ammo and detonate suicide vests or someone will have managed to shoot the threat. An APC is of no use except when you know where and when you want it and those situations tend to not be the kinds of situations we want civilian police engaging in.

bigbubba 6y ago
The 2008 attack in Mumbai lasted numerous days.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Are you under the impression the Indian Army doesn't have APCs etc., then?
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    I am not. I am refuting the assumption that a coordinated terrorist attack would play out quickly. Even if the responding police/military are well equipped it remains possible that a terrorist attack could last for several days.
- kelnos 6y ago
  You are picking one particular attack and are attempting to use that single, outlying instance to argue for things that will not be necessary in the 99% case. And the problem with military gear -- as we're currently seeing, plain as the day -- is that cops will not just save it for the truly dire situations; they'll use it more and more until it becomes a part of routine operations.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    There have been numerous attacks like that in other countries, some far more extreme. I chose a single example to illustrate my point, but that doesn't mean a single example is all that exists. Anyway, the cops aren't using these armored vehicles to kill people, they primarily do that with guns. It isn't the use of these vehicles that concerns me, but rather the role these vehicles play in recruiting macho edgelords to be cops (the sort prone to shooting people with guns.) To address this, I would like all their vehicles to be repainted, uniforms redesigned, etc. Aesthetics matter, it influences the sort of person drawn to the job. A police force with a particularly militarized aesthetic will attract men who want to LARP as occupying forces in Baghdad.