3 ms·

What I don't really get is why the U.S. supposedly structured to avoid such militarization has given in the fear and allowed such militarization to happen and p

What I don't really get is why the U.S. supposedly structured to avoid such militarization has given in the fear and allowed such militarization to happen and propagate oppressive state arm usage. Every encounter with the police is expectedly a gunfight waiting to happen. Any just improperly trained officer is a danger to everyone around them (gun, plus gun ho culture, plus immunity plus possibly (per state/County) lack of supervision). I grew up thinking it was normal for an trainee officer or at formal events for an officer to not have a gun. It was an expected cultural disappointment to see an officer walks in with a gun on university grounds in the U.S. (not shock...). Case in point: European police to call about ak47 carrying robber hitting during the night a bank to the security guard: stay away and we will investigate and catch him later (they did, no gunfight) U.S.: Suicidal person holding no hostages at some store and asking for people to call the police to kill him: the two officers charge in and start a gunfight almost getting killed(just pick one of the posted YouTube body cam videos...) I am just speechless.

kbenson 5y ago
> Every encounter with the police is expectedly a gunfight waiting to happen. While many people may think that now, it is by no means the reality. The vast majority of encounters are non-violent. The U.S. has many problems with policing and they should be addressed, but you should not let the media control your perspective about how common these things are. Your examples are also not really comparable. Someone using a weapon for theft is not the same as someone looking to commit suicide by cop. The former is unlikely to kill someone without cause, the former is an unstable individual who is expecting no consequences to matter for their actions since they intend to be dead. Everyone in their vicinity is possibly in mortal danger. That doesn't mean the police acted correctly, but it's not comparable to the other scenario for the purpose of how police should act.
- jfengel 5y ago
  The encounters are non-violent, but the officer doesn't know that. When they pull over a driver, who reaches into the glove compartment or jacket for an ID, they have to be aware of the possibility that the person will pull a gun. Usually they don't. But they know that it could happen, and act accordingly. And the people they pull over know that one wrong move could turn into "I thought they were going for a gun". That encounter is incredibly tense, no matter how minor. One person always has a gun. The other might. There is no way to avoid that tension, given how many guns are out there. That's assuming the best of intentions on the part of the officer. Not all police officers are saints, and even small thumbs on the scale of their tension easily turn into tragedies. If the officer doesn't like the look of you, for whatever reason, the danger just went up. And if you're a member of a group that officers often don't like, you've brought even more tension to an already tense encounter. So yes, most people walk away from most encounters. But the potential for violence is always there, on the officer's hip, ready to be brought into use. Both the officer and you would be fools not to be acutely aware of that.
  - tehwebguy 5y ago
    What we need is a non-gun, nonviolent solution that’s expensive enough to afford sufficient lobbying money.

kbenson 5y ago

> Every encounter with the police is expectedly a gunfight waiting to happen. While many people may think that now, it is by no means the reality. The vast majority of encounters are non-violent. The U.S. has many problems with policing and they should be addressed, but you should not let the media control your perspective about how common these things are. Your examples are also not really comparable. Someone using a weapon for theft is not the same as someone looking to commit suicide by cop. The former is unlikely to kill someone without cause, the former is an unstable individual who is expecting no consequences to matter for their actions since they intend to be dead. Everyone in their vicinity is possibly in mortal danger. That doesn't mean the police acted correctly, but it's not comparable to the other scenario for the purpose of how police should act.

jfengel 5y ago
The encounters are non-violent, but the officer doesn't know that. When they pull over a driver, who reaches into the glove compartment or jacket for an ID, they have to be aware of the possibility that the person will pull a gun. Usually they don't. But they know that it could happen, and act accordingly. And the people they pull over know that one wrong move could turn into "I thought they were going for a gun". That encounter is incredibly tense, no matter how minor. One person always has a gun. The other might. There is no way to avoid that tension, given how many guns are out there. That's assuming the best of intentions on the part of the officer. Not all police officers are saints, and even small thumbs on the scale of their tension easily turn into tragedies. If the officer doesn't like the look of you, for whatever reason, the danger just went up. And if you're a member of a group that officers often don't like, you've brought even more tension to an already tense encounter. So yes, most people walk away from most encounters. But the potential for violence is always there, on the officer's hip, ready to be brought into use. Both the officer and you would be fools not to be acutely aware of that.
- tehwebguy 5y ago
  What we need is a non-gun, nonviolent solution that’s expensive enough to afford sufficient lobbying money.