zlacker

I agree with you, I think there is a failing on two parts: firstly, police are ill equipped (training wise) to handle this and it was a systematic failure to deploy them like this. Secondarily, police (I would guess their union) have continually pushed to expand their ability to use force, giving the impression that they are well equipped to handle this.

On the first, I firmly believe that you should always deploy people who are accustomed to a more difficult or dangerous task. Managing large crowds of potentially violent people is far beyond the typical danger police face (usually peaceful, or one or two dangerous people). On the other hand, this is one of the scenarios the National Guard is trained for. And the level of force is likely lower than what they have trained for. The current response is like handingba Sev1 incident to an intern. They're just as or more likely to cause more damage as they are to help.

On the second point, handing armored vehicles and body armor to a group that isn't well versed in their use and effects on the opposing force is a bad idea. The outcome is inevitably the "five foot drop". When you your electronics don't work and you don't know how to fix them, people tend to give it a hard smack to see if that works. Likewise when your day to day policing doesn't work, deploying your heaviest armaments probably seems like a good idea.

I do still hold the officers accountable to a degree. The degree of force is incredibly one sided. However, more than them, I blame the system that put them in a situation they are so unequipped to handle.

>>currys+(OP)
> On the second point, handing armored vehicles and body armor to a group that isn't well versed in their use and effects on the opposing force is a bad idea.

This may be a topic of another discussion but I wouldn't call it a bad idea in a country where everyone and their dog has firearms, just saying...

>>axegon+81
Body armor, perhaps. I still think it creates a moral hazard; if you were in a situation where someone might shoot you, how much does the idea that your vital organs are protected influence your decision to keep yelling commands versus a decision to go back to your car, write down the license plate, and pick them up at home when you're prepared for the situation?

On the topic of armored vehicles, I vehemently disagree with distributing them to police forces. If there is a significant threat of a firefight, we have an existing domestic force that is trained to handle combat conditions. They are the National Guard. If things escalate to that point, the proper response is to call in the National Guard. They are both trained to handle that situation, and they have far more equipment than you could ever hope for. The National Guard has actual tanks, if it comes to that.

I will grant you, there is a very narrow middle ground of things that SWAT is equipped to handle but the National Guard would take too long to deploy. However I would contend that the military attitude SWAT-style tactics cause costs more in human lives than the small subsection of things SWAT needs to handle before the National Guard arrives.

The police should be a domestic force, charged with maintaining law and order among largely non-violent and lawful citizenry. The National Guard should be a force charged with handling violent and unlawful situations.

Traffic stops are well within the police jurisdiction. Standouts can be handled by police, so long as they don't plan on going in to the building. Taking a building full of hostile combatants with at-risk civilians should be handled by the National Guard. If the police feel at risk enough that they need more than a handgun, they should call the National Guard.

The police are not an invading army performing an occupation of hostile lands. They are public servants enforcing democratically chosen laws on a largely willing populace, of which they are part. Anything outside that scope should be handled by another branch that has been chosen and trained for that purpose.