zlacker

[parent] [thread] 22 comments
1. Animat+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-07-08 02:10:37
It started out with universal condemnation of a murder committed by the police in Minnesota.

And it's become a distraction from that. The US has a serious problem with police brutality and quality control. US cops killed 1,112 people in 2019. That's over 10x the rate for EU countries. The odds are worse if you're black, but more whites are killed by cops than blacks.

That's the problem. Statues don't kill. Flags don't kill. Cops kill.

replies(3): >>ericma+93 >>justin+Xb >>jariel+Oj1
2. ericma+93[view] [source] 2020-07-08 02:52:24
>>Animat+(OP)
Yea... but let’s dive into the statistics. 1,200 deaths from cops - some unknown number justified (a shootout or whatever) and quite literally millions or tens of millions of interactions.

I think we need police reform. As a military veteran I think there is no reason that an MRAP should be on American streets, but I also think the police have pretty large responsibilities and need more training too.

We also (and I’ll say that I am a 2nd Amendment proponent - within reason) have police who have to enter into situations where the other person may be armed, which adds to the stress level.

Frankly, if you look at the stats I’m not even sure we have a police brutality problem; instead we have more of a police abuse of power problem.

Solutions that come to mind:

More training

More pay

More strict hiring requirements

Abolition of police unions

Requiring police to carry insurance

No-hire once fired or terminated from a department (generally but there are specifics here to be discussed)

Sell off and no more spending on war equipment (MRAPs, assault rifles, smoke grenades, whatever)

Mandatory body cams, lack of use results in immediate suspension without pay while an investigation takes place, and if the camera is intentionally turned off immediate termination and no ability to be rehired anywhere in the country

That’s what I would start with

replies(3): >>Animat+B6 >>m0zg+V7 >>klyrs+rc
◧◩
3. Animat+B6[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-08 03:41:11
>>ericma+93
Police reform stopped during the current administration as the Department of Justice backed off from enforcing various court orders on some truly inept police departments. It will probably start up shortly after the current administration departs. How well it will be done remains to be seen.
replies(1): >>isoske+bc1
◧◩
4. m0zg+V7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-08 03:58:06
>>ericma+93
> no reason that an MRAP should be on American streets

It's not _on_ American streets. I lived in the US for 20 years and I've never seen one. Likely some SWAT teams purchased them for pennies on the dollar, but I'd argue SWAT teams need them, to reduce casualties when getting close to violent action.

> assault rifles

To the best of my knowledge assault rifles are not in use by US police. AR15 is not an assault rifle.

I saw plenty in London though.

But that's nuance - people younger than, say, 35, won't understand any of it. Literally nobody is interested in the actual reform at the moment. If they were, we'd see some serious proposals by now.

replies(2): >>klyrs+dd >>Gibbon+N72
5. justin+Xb[view] [source] 2020-07-08 04:58:10
>>Animat+(OP)
> US cops killed 1,112 people in 2019.

You probably already know this, but that number is a bit of a guess and almost certainly on the low side, since local police aren't required to report these numbers to the public or to any central authority.

◧◩
6. klyrs+rc[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-08 05:06:59
>>ericma+93
There's a whole host of tasks given to the police that they're completely unsuitable for. People keep getting shot when armed police attend wellness checks. Same with traffic stops. A lot of police interactions are with homeless, mentally ill people and/or addicts in need of care, not a damned bullet. The rare cases of active shooters do justify an armed response, but let's be honest, cops rarely respond quickly enough to make a difference in many of those situations.
◧◩◪
7. klyrs+dd[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-08 05:18:02
>>m0zg+V7
> But that's nuance - people younger than, say, 35, won't understand any of it.

Check yourself, pot, that's an awfully broad brush to be calling a kettle incapable of nuance with.

◧◩◪
8. isoske+bc1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-08 15:30:57
>>Animat+B6
Interesting it just stopped during this administration after not having been 100% fixed in previous ones.
replies(1): >>infogu+cu1
9. jariel+Oj1[view] [source] 2020-07-08 16:18:01
>>Animat+(OP)
"That's the problem. Statues don't kill. Flags don't kill. Cops kill."

And Americans shoot at each other and Cops at a rate >10x than Europe.

The misrepresentation in your comment, is that it doesn't account for the differing conditions the cops face.

'Cops kill' -> 'People who shoot at cops get killed'.

This isn't to say police violence is not a problem, but it's misrepresented by all of this narrative.

If Americans were not carrying guns everywhere, this would be an entirely different conversation.

replies(1): >>lliama+Fd2
◧◩◪◨
10. infogu+cu1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-08 17:23:28
>>isoske+bc1
There is no "100% fixed", only forward progress or regression. Forward progress was being made before the current administration; forward progress was stopped during this administration.
replies(1): >>isoske+Ry2
◧◩◪
11. Gibbon+N72[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-08 21:29:18
>>m0zg+V7
> AR15 is not an assault rifle

Means you don't know what and assault riffle is.

replies(1): >>lliama+td2
◧◩◪◨
12. lliama+td2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-08 22:16:01
>>Gibbon+N72
Assault rifles have selective fire (i.e. they can fire multiple bullets with each pull of the trigger). An AR15 is semi-automatic, which means only one bullet for each pull of the trigger.
replies(1): >>Gibbon+xr2
◧◩
13. lliama+Fd2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-08 22:18:17
>>jariel+Oj1
Most of the US, including the most heavily armed parts, have the homicide rate of Switzerland.
replies(1): >>jariel+fi2
◧◩◪
14. jariel+fi2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-08 22:50:41
>>lliama+Fd2
Yes, thanks for pointing that out (fyi interesting example because Switzerland has a lot of guns per capita) - but the general widespread availability of weapons makes them very accessible, both legally and illegally, in specific locations wherein people are going to use them for 'bad things'.

Also - that the vast majority of gun owners are 'very responsible' doesn't change the fact that as cops pull people over, there is a reasonable likelihood people will have weapons, which ratchets up the likelihood that someone, even in a 'good area' will do something bad. The likelihood is small, but enough to make a difference.

When I've been pulled over in the US, often the officer approaches and doesn't quite come to the side of the window, remains slightly out of sight, they might have one hand on the flashlight and seem to be quite concerned about visually inspecting inside the car as a precaution. In Canada, I don't really see this. I believe this is a function of the likelihood of weapons.

Also, America differs in citizens likelihood of doing something pretty outrageous when confronted with police. I'm not sure why this is, I guess a cultural attribute - but again, combine this with weapons, and it makes policing materially more dangerous.

Here's the data on high-speed chases in the US [1] and a 'high point' for high speed chases in the UK as a comparison. [2]

Here are the number of US police killed in the line of duty [3], it's quite a lot, and the number of UK police killed [4] (it amounts to about 1 per year).

A lot of guns, a propensity for more violent acts, I think really does shift the equilibrium.

Which doesn't justify excess violence by cops of course, but it's a different context.

[1] https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5906

[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/05/police-pursuit-d...

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36748136

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officer...

replies(1): >>lliama+uX2
◧◩◪◨⬒
15. Gibbon+xr2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-09 00:07:59
>>lliama+td2
Assault weapons are light weight short barrelled rifles designed to be used in close quarters. That's it.
replies(2): >>lliama+1w2 >>pandam+AJ2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
16. lliama+1w2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-09 00:54:38
>>Gibbon+xr2
That is a carbine. Actual assault rifles have selective fire and are heavily regulated.
replies(1): >>Gibbon+qy2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
17. Gibbon+qy2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-09 01:23:26
>>lliama+1w2
You spouting politically motivated revisionism here. You can do that but I'm not signing up.
replies(1): >>lliama+hF2
◧◩◪◨⬒
18. isoske+Ry2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-09 01:28:02
>>infogu+cu1
That’s such a vague characterization that I don’t even want to bother finding out what the person who says it thinks “progress” is.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
19. lliama+hF2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-09 02:53:07
>>Gibbon+qy2
The terms I am using are defined pretty clearly on Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbine

You may be confusing "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" which are different categories. The AR15 does usually qualify as an "assault weapon". The definition of assault weapon is looser, and includes a number of features (such as barrel shrouds and flash suppressors") the sole purpose of which is to make the gun safer to use, and have nothing to do with making them actually more dangerous.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

If you have different sources, feel free so share.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
20. pandam+AJ2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-09 03:53:57
>>Gibbon+xr2
Assault weapon != assault rifle. Former is a generic term w/o commonly agreed definition, latter is a rifle with the characteristics the GP listed, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
replies(1): >>lliama+4X4
◧◩◪◨
21. lliama+uX2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-09 06:52:27
>>jariel+fi2
> Yes, thanks for pointing that out (fyi interesting example because Switzerland has a lot of guns per capita)

Indeed, the choice was intentional.

> but the general widespread availability of weapons makes them very accessible, both legally and illegally, in specific locations wherein people are going to use them for 'bad things'.

While I don't think the problems of those specific locations should be ignored, their problems are also not a good justification to abridge the rights of people who live outside of those places.

> Also - that the vast majority of gun owners are 'very responsible' doesn't change the fact that as cops pull people over, there is a reasonable likelihood people will have weapons, which ratchets up the likelihood that someone, even in a 'good area' will do something bad. The likelihood is small, but enough to make a difference.

The impact of civilian gun ownership on police interactions is not something I've given much thought, and is worth exploring.

However, I will note that there are many sheriffs across the U.S. which actually encourage their county residents to own guns. There are many, many legitimate defensive guns uses each year.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
22. lliama+4X4[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-09 21:15:44
>>pandam+AJ2
Is there anything in the definition of assault weapon that has to do with a shorter barrel though? I'm genuinely curious where this person came to the conclusion that it was relevant.
replies(1): >>pandam+cZ4
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
23. pandam+cZ4[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-07-09 21:29:43
>>lliama+4X4
Probably some local law? There are 50 states and much more cities, every one of them can have an "Assault Weapon" legislation with whatever definition they want, starting from the color and ending with the "shoulder thing that goes up".

Also, barrel length is one of the most common theme in firearms bans. Usually those consist of legal limits on the minimum barrel length in an effort to prevent people from concealing it, I guess.

[go to top]