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
Is there evidence to suggest that violent police are disproportionately ex-military? Is there anything less extreme we could do to reduce violence from both veteran and non-veteran police?