4 ms·

There is a difference between showing up with bullet-proof vests and handguns, and showing up with full body armor, assault rifles, and grenades. It is a matte

There is a difference between showing up with bullet-proof vests and handguns, and showing up with full body armor, assault rifles, and grenades. It is a matter of mitigating the risk of innocent people being killed by the police.

icameron 14y ago
Handgun or rifle, I don't imagine any police would take a shot if there was a chance of innocent bystanders being struck.
- cobrausn 14y ago
  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooti... Imagine harder. This kind of thing happens all the time.
ceejayoz 14y ago
> There is a difference between showing up with bullet-proof vests and handguns, and showing up with full body armor, assault rifles, and grenades. Yes, there is. The full armor, assault rifles, grenades, etc. come into play because of past situations like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout where cops had to raid gun stores for rifles because their handguns/shotguns weren't cutting it.
- gav 14y ago
  By your logic, if any criminal ever fires a RPG at a police car, it makes sense for them to upgrade all police cars across the country to Strykers.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    Hardly. Cops today still don't generally go after routine criminals with a full SWAT team and getup. They're usually 1-4 men with vests and pistol/shotgun. When there's a known/probable gunman, it's prudent to take extra precautions - larger team, better armor, weapons that'll work if the criminal's wearing his own armor. No sense getting killed in a shootout that was predictable. If people start running around with RPGs, I'd expect reports with gunmen waving rocket launchers to be met with armored vehicles and the like. Luckily, this doesn't seem likely.
    - betterunix 14y ago
      "Cops today still don't generally go after routine criminals with a full SWAT team and getup" http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-p...
sukuriant 14y ago
I'd rather the police have and use sufficient gear than find themselves in a situation where they're outgunned or harmed. At the same time, they need to know when, where and how to use their weapons, so we reduce or eradicate unnecessary casualties.
mpyne 14y ago
Good luck getting police to show up to anything involving armed criminals without all that kit after the L.A. North Hollywood shootout of 1997 [1]. Not to mention the Dorner police slayings or the two homicidal maniacs in upstate New York in just the past few months. If you want to respond with anything less than the best possible tools available to ensure you survive the event then you can certainly make that choice. But I couldn't in good faith tell someone else to make that choice. If you're a bystander near a heavily armed criminal the only safe place to be is far away. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
- cobrausn 14y ago
  When I was an MP (military police), they taught us a bit about escalation, wherein you only use what is necessary for the task at hand and reevaluate as the situation changes. Cops certainly do not need to be using 'weapons that belong on the battlefield' as their go-to weapon for any raid unless it is suspected that there may be body armored opposition (an absurdly rare occurrence - worth treating as an outlier). It would not be unreasonable to have one or two rifles on standby, in case a situation escalates beyond what was expected. I do not like this trend of increasing para militarization of the US police forces. You are supposed to trust a police officer. It is hard to trust someone wearing BDUs and carrying assault weapons - you are more likely to respond fearfully, which can often make things worse.
  - sneak 14y ago
    > unless it is suspected that there may be body armored opposition You mean like in the case where someone deceives them into thinking someone well-equipped and violent is in a certain location? Swatting is a hard problem. We can't really put strong authentication in place because of the asymmetry of needing anyone to be able to report a violent crime in progress at any time at any location. And the anonymous report is, indeed, cause for suspicion that a crime is being committed, and if that anonymous report further claims that the bad guys are heavily armed and/or wearing body armor, that is cause for suspicion that they may indeed be telling the truth and the bad guys are ready to rock and roll at the drop of a hat. It's a sticky situation.

icameron 14y ago

Handgun or rifle, I don't imagine any police would take a shot if there was a chance of innocent bystanders being struck.

cobrausn 14y ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooti... Imagine harder. This kind of thing happens all the time.

ceejayoz 14y ago

> There is a difference between showing up with bullet-proof vests and handguns, and showing up with full body armor, assault rifles, and grenades. Yes, there is. The full armor, assault rifles, grenades, etc. come into play because of past situations like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout where cops had to raid gun stores for rifles because their handguns/shotguns weren't cutting it.

gav 14y ago
By your logic, if any criminal ever fires a RPG at a police car, it makes sense for them to upgrade all police cars across the country to Strykers.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  Hardly. Cops today still don't generally go after routine criminals with a full SWAT team and getup. They're usually 1-4 men with vests and pistol/shotgun. When there's a known/probable gunman, it's prudent to take extra precautions - larger team, better armor, weapons that'll work if the criminal's wearing his own armor. No sense getting killed in a shootout that was predictable. If people start running around with RPGs, I'd expect reports with gunmen waving rocket launchers to be met with armored vehicles and the like. Luckily, this doesn't seem likely.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    "Cops today still don't generally go after routine criminals with a full SWAT team and getup" http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-p...

sukuriant 14y ago

I'd rather the police have and use sufficient gear than find themselves in a situation where they're outgunned or harmed. At the same time, they need to know when, where and how to use their weapons, so we reduce or eradicate unnecessary casualties.

mpyne 14y ago

Good luck getting police to show up to anything involving armed criminals without all that kit after the L.A. North Hollywood shootout of 1997 [1]. Not to mention the Dorner police slayings or the two homicidal maniacs in upstate New York in just the past few months. If you want to respond with anything less than the best possible tools available to ensure you survive the event then you can certainly make that choice. But I couldn't in good faith tell someone else to make that choice. If you're a bystander near a heavily armed criminal the only safe place to be is far away. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

cobrausn 14y ago
When I was an MP (military police), they taught us a bit about escalation, wherein you only use what is necessary for the task at hand and reevaluate as the situation changes. Cops certainly do not need to be using 'weapons that belong on the battlefield' as their go-to weapon for any raid unless it is suspected that there may be body armored opposition (an absurdly rare occurrence - worth treating as an outlier). It would not be unreasonable to have one or two rifles on standby, in case a situation escalates beyond what was expected. I do not like this trend of increasing para militarization of the US police forces. You are supposed to trust a police officer. It is hard to trust someone wearing BDUs and carrying assault weapons - you are more likely to respond fearfully, which can often make things worse.
- sneak 14y ago
  > unless it is suspected that there may be body armored opposition You mean like in the case where someone deceives them into thinking someone well-equipped and violent is in a certain location? Swatting is a hard problem. We can't really put strong authentication in place because of the asymmetry of needing anyone to be able to report a violent crime in progress at any time at any location. And the anonymous report is, indeed, cause for suspicion that a crime is being committed, and if that anonymous report further claims that the bad guys are heavily armed and/or wearing body armor, that is cause for suspicion that they may indeed be telling the truth and the bad guys are ready to rock and roll at the drop of a hat. It's a sticky situation.