3 ms·

I don't think that this is related at all, actually. Criminals have been outgunning police for ages. It's literally impossible for police to have proper weapon

I don't think that this is related at all, actually. Criminals have been outgunning police for ages. It's literally impossible for police to have proper weapons deployed at every location at every time - just as it is literally impossible for the Marines in Afghanistan to have proper weapons at every place at every time. The criminals have the advantage of choosing when and where their crimes are committed, and the police the disadvantage of having to respond. This has been going on for thousands of years in all nations, yet this militarization is largely an American phenomenon.

smacktoward 13y ago
There's plenty of documentation showing how these shootouts led directly to American police forces up-arming themselves. For example, see this (http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/miami-shootout-20th-anniversary-memorial-service http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/miami-shootout-20th-anniver...) 2006 speech by John Pistole, then Deputy Director of the FBI (now TSA Administrator): What also undoubtedly saved future lives were the lessons learned that day—lessons that transformed law enforcement tactics and training. Most immediately, special agents were issued semi-automatic handguns to replace the revolvers that many of the agents carried that day. Or this (http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/print/story/2012/02/how-the-north-hollywood-shootout-changed-patrol-rifles.aspx http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/print/stor...) article from Police, "The Law Enforcement Magazine": The [1997 North Hollywood] shootout gave law enforcement a compelling reason to better arm patrol officers with semi-automatic rifles. There's plenty of room to argue whether this up-arming was an appropriate response to these events, but that's a very different question than whether or not they were connected.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  That evidence does not address the issue. In order to show cause and effect, you must account for the other experimental groups (nations) which were subjected to the same stimuli yet reacted differently (far less than 2.7 SWAT raids per 10,000 residents).
  - smacktoward 13y ago
    Again, these are different questions. You're talking about establishing a statistical model to determine whether nations, in general, would respond to such incidents the way the US did. I'm talking strictly about establishing why the US did what it did. If your point is that America is an outlier in this regard, I agree with you! But when you're trying to establish cause and effect in one specific case it doesn't really matter what other data points outside that case say. What matters is the internal dynamics specific to that case.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      When the specific causes are not unique but are shared amongst many other experimental sets, then yes you must explain why the cause had one effect in your set but did not have that effect in the other sets.
- hga 13y ago
  That's not what we're really taking about. "Uparming" individual officers from revolvers and shotguns to semi-automatic handguns and semi-auto "assault rifles", not inaccurately called "patrol rifles", not to mention concealable body armor, only makes sense. I in fact do or can do every one of those (my threat level is not high enough to routinely wear (uncomfortable) body armor). It's the "no matter who you have to kill, go home safely", and the routine use of frank paramilitary stuff like SWAT teams and no-knock warrant for threats that don't require them that's an issue. Or look at puppycide, it's telling that so many police encounters with civilian's dogs end with the latter being executed. The Postal Service doesn't try to get away with that.
wtvanhest 13y ago
From the wikipedia article. I'll admit, the first sentence is opinion of the author, but the rest backs up that opinion. I remember watching the 1997 video and the commentary afterward. There was a very large amount of support for adding military weapons to police departments. I'm sure that 9/11 happening just four years later helped to further arm police departments when budgets for 'anti terror' increased. How else to spend the money except on armored personal carriers and fancy new equipment? The ineffectiveness of the standard police patrol weaponry in penetrating the robbers' body armor led to a trend in the United States toward arming selected police patrol officers with semi-automatic 5.56 mm AR-15 type rifles.[14] Seven months after the incident, the Department of Defense gave 600 surplus M16s to the LAPD, which were issued to each patrol sergeant;[30] other cities, such as Miami, also moved to supply patrol officers, not just SWAT teams, with heavier firepower.[31] LAPD patrol vehicles now carry AR-15s as standard issue, with bullet-resistant Kevlar plating in their doors as well.[32] Also as a result of this incident LAPD authorized its officers to carry .45 ACP caliber semiautomatic pistols as duty sidearms, specifically the Smith and Wesson Models 4506 and 4566. Prior to 1997, only LAPD SWAT officers were authorized to carry .45 ACP caliber pistols, specifically the Model 1911A1 .45 ACP semiautomatic pistol.[33]
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  I would suggest that the stories about 9/11 anti terror funds and police being outgunned are mere rationalizations. The police departments can have all of these weapons, the issue is how they are deployed and the consequences for violating the terms of engagement. If police officers were regularly sentenced to prison for killing puppies, for no knock raids, or killing innocents, then there would hardly be any controversy.
  - wtvanhest 13y ago
    I agree but your first comment says "I dont think it is related at all". That is what I was responding to.

smacktoward 13y ago

There's plenty of documentation showing how these shootouts led directly to American police forces up-arming themselves. For example, see this (http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/miami-shootout-20th-anniversary-memorial-service http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/miami-shootout-20th-anniver...) 2006 speech by John Pistole, then Deputy Director of the FBI (now TSA Administrator): What also undoubtedly saved future lives were the lessons learned that day—lessons that transformed law enforcement tactics and training. Most immediately, special agents were issued semi-automatic handguns to replace the revolvers that many of the agents carried that day. Or this (http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/print/story/2012/02/how-the-north-hollywood-shootout-changed-patrol-rifles.aspx http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/print/stor...) article from Police, "The Law Enforcement Magazine": The [1997 North Hollywood] shootout gave law enforcement a compelling reason to better arm patrol officers with semi-automatic rifles. There's plenty of room to argue whether this up-arming was an appropriate response to these events, but that's a very different question than whether or not they were connected.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
That evidence does not address the issue. In order to show cause and effect, you must account for the other experimental groups (nations) which were subjected to the same stimuli yet reacted differently (far less than 2.7 SWAT raids per 10,000 residents).
- smacktoward 13y ago
  Again, these are different questions. You're talking about establishing a statistical model to determine whether nations, in general, would respond to such incidents the way the US did. I'm talking strictly about establishing why the US did what it did. If your point is that America is an outlier in this regard, I agree with you! But when you're trying to establish cause and effect in one specific case it doesn't really matter what other data points outside that case say. What matters is the internal dynamics specific to that case.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    When the specific causes are not unique but are shared amongst many other experimental sets, then yes you must explain why the cause had one effect in your set but did not have that effect in the other sets.
hga 13y ago
That's not what we're really taking about. "Uparming" individual officers from revolvers and shotguns to semi-automatic handguns and semi-auto "assault rifles", not inaccurately called "patrol rifles", not to mention concealable body armor, only makes sense. I in fact do or can do every one of those (my threat level is not high enough to routinely wear (uncomfortable) body armor). It's the "no matter who you have to kill, go home safely", and the routine use of frank paramilitary stuff like SWAT teams and no-knock warrant for threats that don't require them that's an issue. Or look at puppycide, it's telling that so many police encounters with civilian's dogs end with the latter being executed. The Postal Service doesn't try to get away with that.

wtvanhest 13y ago

From the wikipedia article. I'll admit, the first sentence is opinion of the author, but the rest backs up that opinion. I remember watching the 1997 video and the commentary afterward. There was a very large amount of support for adding military weapons to police departments. I'm sure that 9/11 happening just four years later helped to further arm police departments when budgets for 'anti terror' increased. How else to spend the money except on armored personal carriers and fancy new equipment? The ineffectiveness of the standard police patrol weaponry in penetrating the robbers' body armor led to a trend in the United States toward arming selected police patrol officers with semi-automatic 5.56 mm AR-15 type rifles.[14] Seven months after the incident, the Department of Defense gave 600 surplus M16s to the LAPD, which were issued to each patrol sergeant;[30] other cities, such as Miami, also moved to supply patrol officers, not just SWAT teams, with heavier firepower.[31] LAPD patrol vehicles now carry AR-15s as standard issue, with bullet-resistant Kevlar plating in their doors as well.[32] Also as a result of this incident LAPD authorized its officers to carry .45 ACP caliber semiautomatic pistols as duty sidearms, specifically the Smith and Wesson Models 4506 and 4566. Prior to 1997, only LAPD SWAT officers were authorized to carry .45 ACP caliber pistols, specifically the Model 1911A1 .45 ACP semiautomatic pistol.[33]

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
I would suggest that the stories about 9/11 anti terror funds and police being outgunned are mere rationalizations. The police departments can have all of these weapons, the issue is how they are deployed and the consequences for violating the terms of engagement. If police officers were regularly sentenced to prison for killing puppies, for no knock raids, or killing innocents, then there would hardly be any controversy.
- wtvanhest 13y ago
  I agree but your first comment says "I dont think it is related at all". That is what I was responding to.