zlacker

>>miles+(OP)
They would need to restrict capabilities, not just cut off access to "military-style" gear. They make the same mistake with gun laws where they ban "military-style" weapons because they look scary, but allow weapons that are just as deadly because they have a wooden stock and don't look as scary as "military-style" weapons.

>>dx87+Pb
Why don't impressions matter?

It's important that more people see officers and get the impression that they are there to enforce peace, not dole out violence -- while still ensuring they have the tools to maintain safety and order. Large, threatening military-style vehicles don't send a good message to people who are already scared for their safety.

>>asdfma+5d
I think this is spot on, and not just because of creating the impression to people looking at police. I also think that if police see their tools as the tools of a soldier, they are more likely to act like soldiers.

I don't remember who said it, in relation to sports - "Look good, feel good, play good." I think how you look can absolutely affect how you behave.

>>ksdale+be
I think we should also make it legal for police departments to discriminate against combat veterans when hiring, and encourage them to do so. Perhaps as a token of fairness, this could be paired with a separate initiative to provide other sort of jobs to combat veterans.

People trained by the military to police occupied communities should not be allowed to act as civilian police in peacetime conditions.

>>catalo+pf
More vets might be a positive thing.

The rule of engagement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are significantly stricter than they are for America's cops. No firing until fired upon, limits on use of things like tear gas and riot gear, etc. They're also trained significantly more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/1...

> In contrast, soldiers continuously and over the course of their careers repeatedly train to employ techniques to deescalate stressful, unpredictable, and dangerous scenarios. They also know what steps they must take before resorting to lethal force. Most rules of engagement (ROEs) — the military’s term for rules that govern the circumstances when soldiers are justified using force — contain explicit instructions requiring soldiers to use verbal warnings, show their weapons, and exhaust all non-lethal physical options before resorting to deadly force.

>>ceejay+jg
> The rule of engagement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are significantly stricter than they are for America's cops.

Maybe on paper, but in practice they act with little if any respect for the communities they're in. For instance screaming at people and pointing rifles at their heads to "overcome" the language barrier. Or, as apologists phrase it, "use verbal warnings, show their weapons,"

Edit: Here is something else for the haters to consider:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology

After WWII, the American military conducted studies that determined a large portion of their soldiers were unwilling to kill people in combat. This was perceived as a problem and efforts were undertaken to make soldiers more willing to kill people. Among these measures was the use of human silhouette targets at gun ranges, a practice which is not coincidentally common for civilian police today: http://www.americantargetcompany.com/law_enforcement_targets...

It's not just a matter of whether an individual police officer was a combat veteran, but also a matter of whether he ever received training from a combat veteran (which is extremely common.) Look up Dave Grossman.