5 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop Watch the short clip in https://www.reddit.com/r/in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop Watch the short clip in https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/rcgkis/us_delegates_discuss_police_scotland_deescalation/ https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/rcgkis/u... - American cops get shown Scottish cops' deescalation procedures, and they scoff at it. "When you say preservation of life, it is… everybody's life. Ours has a pecking order. I'm just being honest."

petesergeant 8mo ago
I mean the key point there I think is the one where they point out that Brits simply wouldn’t accept police regularly shooting people. Policing for the people by the people.* * and pretend Northern Ireland doesn’t exist, or course
- GJim 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - petesergeant 8mo ago
    If you need some context, you can look up the history of policing in Northern Ireland on Wikipedia, where British police were happily shooting other British people for many years.
    - GJim 8mo ago
      [flagged]
- roryirvine 8mo ago
  It's rare even in NI. PSNI had one single firearm discharge in the two year period covering October 2023 - September 2025. Plus 948 uses of irritant spray, 496 uses of their baton, and 38 taser discharges in the same period. And 23,489 uses of "unarmed physical tactics". That's for a population of around 2 million. By comparison, SFPD had 10 "officer involved shootings" in the past year for a population of 800k, a rate fifty times higher than that in NI.
  - Anthony-G 8mo ago
    True. The PSNI have had an excellent record – particularly given the difficult context they work in. I guess the above poster is thinking of the shoot-to-kill era of the 80s (still well within living memory): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northe...
    - roryirvine 8mo ago
      Yeah, it was very different back then. And not just the police - we had the army on the streets with weapons drawn, routinely aiming at passersby. The political situation in the late 1960s provided plenty of kindling, but it seems clear that most of the sparks that actually caused the conflagration came from the barrel of guns held by soldiers and the police. They were directly responsible both for the death of the civil rights movement and the collapse of the government, and without the heavy-handed response it's likely that the settlement of the late 90s would've happened 25 years earlier. It's actually a great example of why the militarisation of policing should be resisted at all cost.
  - BobaFloutist 8mo ago
    The one thing I'll say in defense of American cops is that they are police a population that's vastly more likely to have their own guns, too. Of course it's not like American cops have recognized the danger that poses and politically aligned themselves with reducing or restricting access to guns, so they lose a lot of credit there, but they are genuinely facing a better armed and therefore more dangerous population.
    - atherton94027 8mo ago
      Canada has the same rates of gun ownership as America and you don't see cops come up with guns blazing like they do here
      - dogemaster2025 8mo ago
        [flagged]
- watwut 8mo ago
  In Britain, there is independent civilian investigation when cops kill a person. It creates pressure to not kill, because you wont be judged by buddies.
  - tialaramex 8mo ago
    Well, the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) has mandatory referrals, not only when police apparently shot somebody, or they die in police custody, or in a traffic accident with a police vehicle, but also cases where the police were recently involved. e.g. Sharon calls police because she says her husband punched her, when officers attend Sharon now says he didn't mean to and seems reluctant to leave or for her husband to be arrested, attending officers decide to leave it as it is, an hour later Sharon is dead and her husband is her presumed killer - that's a police involved death and so that gets referred to the IOPC even though nobody thinks a cop killed anybody. However, the IOPC is not mandated to conduct investigations. So it is possible (though less likely for a shooting) that the IOPC will just kick it back to local police. It is also possible (and more likely) that they will oversee but use local police to do the actual work, just because that's much cheaper and their budget is limited.
- _menelaus 8mo ago
  Have you ever been to inner city America? Honestly curious. I couldn't imagine policing it without using a gun sometime.
EQmWgw87pw 8mo ago
So are we all just oblivious to the fact that in the US, civilians practically have access to military gear? How can you police that type of population with sticks and stones?
- cortesoft 8mo ago
  I can see the argument how you would treat a suspect with a gun differently than you would if they have a knife. However, American cops also use guns against suspects with knives or other weapons that they also use in places like Scotland. Why couldn’t American police use these techniques when the suspect doesn’t have a gun? I know the standard response is, “well, they COULD have a gun!”, but I don’t think that is a good enough reason to always go straight to extreme response. If a suspect is brandishing a knife, he probably doesn’t also have a gun.
  - EQmWgw87pw 8mo ago
    Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default. But I disagree, I think brandishing a knife is already extreme behavior, I don’t think it’s logical to think “because he has a weapon he probably doesn’t have another!”. And why would someone threatening people with a knife deserve benefit of the doubt?
    - tverbeure 8mo ago
      In most civilized societies, there's an extremely high chance that somebody wielding a knife doesn't have a gun.
      - nsxwolf 8mo ago
        Wielding a knife is a deadly threat so I am not sure what the relevance is.
        tverbeure 8mo ago
keybored 8mo ago
> > I'm just being honest. Just a salt of the earth officer telling it like it dog-gamn is. :|
- mmaunder 8mo ago
  I think she got a few "oh shit she spoke truth" reactions around her which is what prompted that.
Henchman21 8mo ago
That should be immediately disqualifying for an law enforcement officer. Saying that on the record should end their career immediately. Alas, we don't live in a just world and they will likely be continuously promoted.
- drsalt 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tomhow 8mo ago
    This kind of comment is unacceptable on HN. It breaches these guidelines... Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- slyall 8mo ago
  So what happens to all the other cops that believe that but don't say it?
  - account42 8mo ago
    They at least know that it's not acceptable.
  - Henchman21 8mo ago
    The same thing that happens to the folks that say it out loud now. Absolutely nothing.
- bean469 8mo ago
  Although just anecdata, I have heard the exact same point from US cops numerous times in private conversations

petesergeant 8mo ago

I mean the key point there I think is the one where they point out that Brits simply wouldn’t accept police regularly shooting people. Policing for the people by the people.* * and pretend Northern Ireland doesn’t exist, or course

GJim 8mo ago
[flagged]
- petesergeant 8mo ago
  If you need some context, you can look up the history of policing in Northern Ireland on Wikipedia, where British police were happily shooting other British people for many years.
  - GJim 8mo ago
    [flagged]
roryirvine 8mo ago
It's rare even in NI. PSNI had one single firearm discharge in the two year period covering October 2023 - September 2025. Plus 948 uses of irritant spray, 496 uses of their baton, and 38 taser discharges in the same period. And 23,489 uses of "unarmed physical tactics". That's for a population of around 2 million. By comparison, SFPD had 10 "officer involved shootings" in the past year for a population of 800k, a rate fifty times higher than that in NI.
- Anthony-G 8mo ago
  True. The PSNI have had an excellent record – particularly given the difficult context they work in. I guess the above poster is thinking of the shoot-to-kill era of the 80s (still well within living memory): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northe...
  - roryirvine 8mo ago
    Yeah, it was very different back then. And not just the police - we had the army on the streets with weapons drawn, routinely aiming at passersby. The political situation in the late 1960s provided plenty of kindling, but it seems clear that most of the sparks that actually caused the conflagration came from the barrel of guns held by soldiers and the police. They were directly responsible both for the death of the civil rights movement and the collapse of the government, and without the heavy-handed response it's likely that the settlement of the late 90s would've happened 25 years earlier. It's actually a great example of why the militarisation of policing should be resisted at all cost.
- BobaFloutist 8mo ago
  The one thing I'll say in defense of American cops is that they are police a population that's vastly more likely to have their own guns, too. Of course it's not like American cops have recognized the danger that poses and politically aligned themselves with reducing or restricting access to guns, so they lose a lot of credit there, but they are genuinely facing a better armed and therefore more dangerous population.
  - atherton94027 8mo ago
    Canada has the same rates of gun ownership as America and you don't see cops come up with guns blazing like they do here
    - dogemaster2025 8mo ago
      [flagged]
watwut 8mo ago
In Britain, there is independent civilian investigation when cops kill a person. It creates pressure to not kill, because you wont be judged by buddies.
- tialaramex 8mo ago
  Well, the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) has mandatory referrals, not only when police apparently shot somebody, or they die in police custody, or in a traffic accident with a police vehicle, but also cases where the police were recently involved. e.g. Sharon calls police because she says her husband punched her, when officers attend Sharon now says he didn't mean to and seems reluctant to leave or for her husband to be arrested, attending officers decide to leave it as it is, an hour later Sharon is dead and her husband is her presumed killer - that's a police involved death and so that gets referred to the IOPC even though nobody thinks a cop killed anybody. However, the IOPC is not mandated to conduct investigations. So it is possible (though less likely for a shooting) that the IOPC will just kick it back to local police. It is also possible (and more likely) that they will oversee but use local police to do the actual work, just because that's much cheaper and their budget is limited.
_menelaus 8mo ago
Have you ever been to inner city America? Honestly curious. I couldn't imagine policing it without using a gun sometime.

EQmWgw87pw 8mo ago

So are we all just oblivious to the fact that in the US, civilians practically have access to military gear? How can you police that type of population with sticks and stones?

cortesoft 8mo ago
I can see the argument how you would treat a suspect with a gun differently than you would if they have a knife. However, American cops also use guns against suspects with knives or other weapons that they also use in places like Scotland. Why couldn’t American police use these techniques when the suspect doesn’t have a gun? I know the standard response is, “well, they COULD have a gun!”, but I don’t think that is a good enough reason to always go straight to extreme response. If a suspect is brandishing a knife, he probably doesn’t also have a gun.
- EQmWgw87pw 8mo ago
  Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default. But I disagree, I think brandishing a knife is already extreme behavior, I don’t think it’s logical to think “because he has a weapon he probably doesn’t have another!”. And why would someone threatening people with a knife deserve benefit of the doubt?
  - tverbeure 8mo ago
    In most civilized societies, there's an extremely high chance that somebody wielding a knife doesn't have a gun.
    - nsxwolf 8mo ago
      Wielding a knife is a deadly threat so I am not sure what the relevance is.
      - tverbeure 8mo ago

keybored 8mo ago

> > I'm just being honest. Just a salt of the earth officer telling it like it dog-gamn is. :|

mmaunder 8mo ago
I think she got a few "oh shit she spoke truth" reactions around her which is what prompted that.

Henchman21 8mo ago

That should be immediately disqualifying for an law enforcement officer. Saying that on the record should end their career immediately. Alas, we don't live in a just world and they will likely be continuously promoted.

drsalt 8mo ago
[flagged]
- tomhow 8mo ago
  This kind of comment is unacceptable on HN. It breaches these guidelines... Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
slyall 8mo ago
So what happens to all the other cops that believe that but don't say it?
- account42 8mo ago
  They at least know that it's not acceptable.
- Henchman21 8mo ago
  The same thing that happens to the folks that say it out loud now. Absolutely nothing.
bean469 8mo ago
Although just anecdata, I have heard the exact same point from US cops numerous times in private conversations