zlacker

Police were able to brutalize protesters in the 1960s with much simpler equipment than they have today. The equipment is not the problem.

>>twblal+(OP)
All the more reason to not give the police even more powerful tools with which to brutalize people. If the equipment is not the problem, take it away. That's one less thing to worry about.

>>paloal+C
This isn't true. Modern tools are significantly less lethal, and give police more options on the spectrum of escalation before having to draw their service pistol. This is why protests were much more deadly in the 1970s.

>>twblal+(OP)
True but modern weapons have made it possible for a single officer/small group to brutalize people much more efficiently.

You can really only beat one person at a time with a club. You can spray rubber bullets and water pumps into a crowd.

>>remark+p4
We're not talking about the same thing here. Of course it's better if the police can manage crowds and protests without anyone dying. Ideally no police person ever has to draw their service weapon and fire.

What seems less defensible is police coming in with things like tanks. Personally, I would prefer to see police de-escalate rather than escalate.

>>twblal+(OP)
The equipment is not the only problem. But it is a very big problem, and it’s the easiest to solve. So let’s solve it.

>>aboots+dy
If it's easy to solve, then it should be a footnote in a much more difficult to tackle solution.

Right now, this reads very much like a deflection of the core issues at hand. This will not alleviate the core issue at all in the long term, but gives the appearance that lawmakers are "doing their best" to solve the problem. That they've "taken first steps" and that protests should stop.

No.

This is an extremely common tactic and will lead to no long term changes.

While it is hard to argue against what you're saying, your comment is actually doing the same thing as what the lawmakers are doing - detracting the conversation from the core issue.

>>remark+p4
I don't think any police force needs an armored APC except for the most extreme cases and even then call in the national guard in those situations.

>>remark+p4
Were protests much more deadly in the 1970's? I'm not actually sure they were. Do you have easy access to any data that supports that?

>>hysan+9C
That’s a great point. To your point, tackling the root of the problem should address the military hardware issue. I yield the point.

>>hysan+9C
To not have demilitarization of the police as a prominent item on any list of required changes would be insane. But obviously it is only one of many changes needed.

"This is an extremely common tactic... "

So what? Trolls don't get to win just because they are clever. Required changes are required whether or not this or that group wants to use a given change as a talking point or to manipulate the greater goals.

>>remark+p4
I would argue that "less lethal" tools are used more often, and in cases in which the lethal option would be completely unnecessary. This has the effect of increasing the lethality of these engagements. For example, using a taser during a traffic stop. Using tools like tasers lowers the bar to using the tool in the first place, rather than reducing risk to the receiving party. False logic at the end of the day.