3 ms·

> This is what the LAPD is doing, and it makes sense. No, it doesn't. LAPD is not the fucking army. The army on foreign land during an invasion has to treat ev

> This is what the LAPD is doing, and it makes sense. No, it doesn't. LAPD is not the fucking army. The army on foreign land during an invasion has to treat everyone like a potential enemy that can take their lives. The police does not and should not act the same way against American citizens. Their job is to protect the citizens, not see every single one of them as a potential enemy. The police is being paid well. But what do they do? They don't hire more offiers with the money. Instead they buy tank-like vehicles, anti-air rockets [1], drones and train and equip the current officers to become more militarized (more SWAT teams, but also for regular officers). As an army man, have you ever thought about why the army is not allowed to act on US soil? Because the army is a much more aggressive brute force sort of authority, and that's not acceptable in a democracy (unless you want to inevitably live in a civil war-like zone, as a response to that from the population). That's why we have the police. If the police becomes the army, then that kind of screws everything up. [1] - http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nypd-shoot-planes-weapon/story?id=14608555 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nypd-shoot-planes-weapon/story...

mpyne 12y ago
> The army on foreign land during an invasion has to treat everyone like a potential enemy that can take their lives. That is not true at all. The U.S. Army occupying Germany in 1946 didn't treat the locals as murderous criminals either. The COIN mention by parent comment was not gratuitous: If you bother to go through the relevant Army and Marine Corps doctrinal guidance on counter-insurgency you'll see that gaining the support of the local population is the mantra. > As an army man, have you ever thought about why the army is not allowed to act on US soil? They are allowed to act on US soil. What they're not allowed to do is to act as police on US soil. And even that prohibition (Posse Comitatus) came from Congress in the 1860s, and only applies to Federal (Title 10) forces, not Army National Guard forces under the control of a state governor. And even with that, the Army is allowed to conduct certain missions on U.S. soil under "Defense Support to Civil Authorities". > Because the army is a much more aggressive brute force sort of authority, and that's not acceptable in a democracy The army has the capability and training to kill more people and break more things, sure, but that is not their only mission. Remember, in an actual war one of the core responsibilities of military forces under international law is not just combat, but military occupation, which is inherently a policing role. That can be in conjunction with local police forces, but the responsibility still belongs to the occupying army. Soldiers typically don't like that role, sure, but to say that an army is designed only to put bayonets through torsos is paranoiac at best.
kvcrawford 12y ago
What's funny is that the Rules of Engagement for the US Army are a million times more strict than the local police force. My buddy fought in the Battle of Wanat[1], and had to watch helplessly as insurgents moved into position with weapons, in plain view. He was not permitted to fire, unless fired upon. I certainly wish the police would adopt that aspect of the military. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wanat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wanat
Balgair 12y ago
Based on my OP, I meant it makes sense NOT in a moral way, but in a physics way. They are responding to their incentives as you would expect from any mammal. However, as was pointed out in another comment, the main justification of '25 minutes for backup' to explain the brutality is, in fact, false. LAPD response time is ~6 minutes (still, gotta see the data, the sigma on that Gaussian may be an hour or 30 seconds, we don't know). I agree with you, the people of LA need a better police force than this. However, they do not agree with us. If they did, you would see, at the very least, greater voter participation. Eric Garcetti was elected with a 23% voter participation of REGISTERED voters, of with there are 1.8 million in LA [0]. This was the lowest rate in 100 years. Doing the math, that mean only ~10% of Los Angelenos bothered to vote. Garcetti got a 'mandate' from ~6% of the population here. If LA wanted to see change, you'd see a much higher rate than that pitiful amount. The people of LA, for worse or better, must think things are just fine as they are. [0]http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/11/local/la-me-final-la-vote-20130611 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/11/local/la-me-final-la...

mpyne 12y ago

> The army on foreign land during an invasion has to treat everyone like a potential enemy that can take their lives. That is not true at all. The U.S. Army occupying Germany in 1946 didn't treat the locals as murderous criminals either. The COIN mention by parent comment was not gratuitous: If you bother to go through the relevant Army and Marine Corps doctrinal guidance on counter-insurgency you'll see that gaining the support of the local population is the mantra. > As an army man, have you ever thought about why the army is not allowed to act on US soil? They are allowed to act on US soil. What they're not allowed to do is to act as police on US soil. And even that prohibition (Posse Comitatus) came from Congress in the 1860s, and only applies to Federal (Title 10) forces, not Army National Guard forces under the control of a state governor. And even with that, the Army is allowed to conduct certain missions on U.S. soil under "Defense Support to Civil Authorities". > Because the army is a much more aggressive brute force sort of authority, and that's not acceptable in a democracy The army has the capability and training to kill more people and break more things, sure, but that is not their only mission. Remember, in an actual war one of the core responsibilities of military forces under international law is not just combat, but military occupation, which is inherently a policing role. That can be in conjunction with local police forces, but the responsibility still belongs to the occupying army. Soldiers typically don't like that role, sure, but to say that an army is designed only to put bayonets through torsos is paranoiac at best.

kvcrawford 12y ago

What's funny is that the Rules of Engagement for the US Army are a million times more strict than the local police force. My buddy fought in the Battle of Wanat[1], and had to watch helplessly as insurgents moved into position with weapons, in plain view. He was not permitted to fire, unless fired upon. I certainly wish the police would adopt that aspect of the military. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wanat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wanat

Balgair 12y ago

Based on my OP, I meant it makes sense NOT in a moral way, but in a physics way. They are responding to their incentives as you would expect from any mammal. However, as was pointed out in another comment, the main justification of '25 minutes for backup' to explain the brutality is, in fact, false. LAPD response time is ~6 minutes (still, gotta see the data, the sigma on that Gaussian may be an hour or 30 seconds, we don't know). I agree with you, the people of LA need a better police force than this. However, they do not agree with us. If they did, you would see, at the very least, greater voter participation. Eric Garcetti was elected with a 23% voter participation of REGISTERED voters, of with there are 1.8 million in LA [0]. This was the lowest rate in 100 years. Doing the math, that mean only ~10% of Los Angelenos bothered to vote. Garcetti got a 'mandate' from ~6% of the population here. If LA wanted to see change, you'd see a much higher rate than that pitiful amount. The people of LA, for worse or better, must think things are just fine as they are. [0]http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/11/local/la-me-final-la-vote-20130611 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/11/local/la-me-final-la...