-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why do America's police need an armored tank?
- Thread starter Lucky Forward
- Start date
- Status
elrechazao said:
The "militarization" of police has had the effect of saving police officer lives.
The prevalence of body armour for officers, SWAT teams, and better tactical/defence training began in the 70s, which, coincidentally, was the decade which saw the most police officers killed in the line of duty.
As these measures have proliferated, so have the death rates for police officers declined.
edit: the link I got these stats from has died. However:
The deadliest year in United States Law Enforcement history was 1974. That year, 268 police officers were killed in the line of duty. In fact, the 1970s was the deadliest decade for law enforcement in history. A total of 2,182 officers were killed, or an average of 218 per year.
When did SWAT teams come about? The idea for SWAT is attributed to Daryl Gates of the LAPD, in 1968. The first deployment of SWAT was in 1969, and in 1971, the LAPD formed the first full-time SWAT team.
The FBI's Hostage Rescue Team was created in 1982. In Canada, the first RCMP ERT was formed in the 70s. These sorts of units expanded throughout the 80s and 90s.
What happened to law enforcement fatalities in that period? Well gee, they decreased. From the 1970s figure of 218 per year, the 1990s saw an average of 152 fatalities per year. Quoth the article I found these stats in:
So, in the three decades following the development and growth of SWAT teams, police officer fatalities went from an average of 218 per year in the 70s, 187 in the 80s, and 152 in the 90s. The "militarization" of police, as you put it, had a purpose. It has saved lives.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
So police officers should ease off using protective equipment against people that would do them, and civilians, harm in order to achieve a better humanity?mkenyon said:
Ivan A Nguyen
Member
What good is an armored car when half the guys are riding on the outside? I say we invest the money in training.Lucky Forward said:
HeadlessRoland
Banned
Because our criminals have automatic weapons and explosives?
ChiTownBuffalo
Either I made up lies about the Boston Bomber or I fell for someone else's crap. Either way, I have absolutely no credibility and you should never pay any attention to anything I say, no matter what the context. Perm me if I claim to be an insider
I'm ok with a SWAT team having onr of these, and thats who the vehicle is made for. SWAT guys go into horribly escalated situations whete unfortunately, violence has usually taken place and the potential for more may be unavoidable. Its certainly more responsible than giving beat cops MP5's or P90's.
If I saw that thing on my street I would feel the call go straighten up and fly right. And to move, if that thing was on my streets my neighbors clearly suck.
If I saw that thing on my street I would feel the call go straighten up and fly right. And to move, if that thing was on my streets my neighbors clearly suck.
ElectricBlue187
Member
that's not a tank mate
this is a tank
this is a tank
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
mkenyon said:
...yes. Of course. And since we're not talking about the police getting brand new RPGs, I went ahead and cut out your strawman dingleberry.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
ElectricBlue187 said:that's not a tank mate
this is a tank
So is this.
elrechazado
Banned
No commentary on the well documented downsides to this militarization? You accept as a given that police survivability which is fantastic is only achieved through the system we have. I have seen no evidence for this proposition, and the negative intended and unintended consequences have had a real societal cost that you seem to ignore.Boogie said:
elrechazao said:
I have seen no evidence that it is a Self Evident Bad Thing. Those who espouse it seem to prefer simply to use such terms as "Militarization of Police" as some sort of Boogeyman that is self-evident.
First, what do you define as the "militarization of police"? Personally, I find the term annoying, and used as an effective way of co-opting the language of the debate/issue.
Second, what are the well-documented downsides to it? Other than anecdotes where the police hit the wrong house. It seems silly to decry the existence of SWAT teams for errors that lie with the investigation and, ultimately, the affiant.
I have not "accepted that police survivability" is only achieved through the current system. I have not "ignored" any possible negative consequences to it.
I was simply providing a perspective that is always overlooked in these threads, backed up by some choice statistics, granting, of course, that correlation != causation.
I am not personally interested in pie-in-the-sky fantasizing about what "system" might limit police fatalities. I live and work in the real world, and as it currently exists, there is evidence that these measures help me to come home alive at the end of the day.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
ClosingADoor
Member
What is the downside? Do you suddenly have less liberties when SWAT teams (not regular police) are driving different vehicles?elrechazao said:
BloodySinner
Banned
That picture is awesome. I'll give you guys that.
ClosingADoor
Member
Why give a criminal time to get up and grab a gun? Of course mistakes are made and that should be prevented as much as possible, but I don't have any issue with a criminal getting his door kicked in without knocking.Boogie said:
I just had a run in with a police officer today, I fucking hate the police. A lot of them spend more time writing traffic tickets or trying to bust teens for drugs then, you know, actually protecting people, finding criminals, etc. I also hate that you have to talk to them like they are fucking kings or something, if you treat other people like dirt you sure as hell don't deserve my respect.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Jeels said:
LQX said:
These two posts together like this crack me up.
I honestly think part of this is our government's fault not the actual policeman/woman's fault. I've had several run-ins with the police and yeah most of them are traffic related, one was on foot in an area that had just been burglarized, and the rest aren't worth mentioning because they were back in High School. Frankly, all but one of the cops was a reasonable fellow even if I did think they were a hassle and wasting time doling out tickets. While I'm sure there's some out there that want to just pull people over all day and issue tickets and treat people like shit I don't think most of them go into it for that, but that it's just an unfortunate necessity if they want the job, well the traffic infraction part, people who are dicks are just dicks regardless. I honestly feel a lot of the cops I dealt with also weren't one hundred percent satisfied with a lot of the stuff they were doing but what really are the options for a cop who likes the important parts but hates the unimportant parts of his job? They can't just not do the things they hate because I imagine the city wouldn't keep them on if they never wrote out tickets and then what, that cop who was a nice fella would probably just be replaced with a power hungry dick who'll not only write the ticket the first guy wouldn't but also be a dick about it.Jeels said:
And in some locations, unfortunately, I think being a cop requires a personality type that most here would think are dicks. Just true. A good natured, quiet, bend-over-backwards to accommodate you policeman probably isn't going to survive very long in some big cities, so the level of crime and probable exposure to violence probably demands a fittingly more violent and aggressive police force to properly counter it. Edit- Essentially, in many areas I feel the police are a mirror reflection of the populace they're policing.
I still wish we'd split off the police-police and the traffic police, I think it'd cost cities more money but I think it'd really help with the police's reputation. Have the ticketers just be glorified meter maids with their own cars, uniforms and whatnot and have the police-police stay as they are and only deal with the real shit. Sure, all I'm doing is shifting grievances but, well, I guess but nothing.
Submarino Conversível
Member
Here's Rio de Janeiro's Armored Trucks, the Caveirão:
Here's it in action on Rio's favelas:
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...search_sort=relevance&search_category=0&page=
Here's it in action on Rio's favelas:
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...search_sort=relevance&search_category=0&page=
mAcOdIn said:
Perspective from the inside: From most of the talk I've heard in three years, very few like giving tickets. Traffic Nazis notwithstanding.
A good point. As I once said on this topic in another forum,
"That's part of why people think cops are assholes, because we have to be in control of a situation, we have to make people believe that they will not win a physical encounter."
As much of a dick as I can be on here, I'm pretty meek on the job, some days I feel I'm too nice to be a cop.
Submarino Conversível said:Here's Rio de Janeiro's Armored Trucks, the Caveirão:
Here's it in action on Rio's favelas:
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...search_sort=relevance&search_category=0&page=
Yeah, you couldn't pay me enough to be a cop in Rio. :-/
homicide rates per 100k:
Canada: 1.6
USA: 6
Brazil: 29.2
Yeah, I can't imagine most really do.Boogie said:
That approach doesn't get near enough credit either though as I'm sure it's stopped more people from trying shit and has in turn prevented more civilian casualties than being nice would have.Boogie said:A good point. As I once said on this topic in another forum,
"That's part of why people think cops are assholes, because we have to be in control of a situation, we have to make people believe that they will not win a physical encounter."
As much of a dick as I can be on here, I'm pretty meek on the job, some days I feel I'm too nice to be a cop.
Not saying American police don't have issues, I think we have more beatings than we should, but I don't always disagree with some of the beatings people get up in arms over either. I think we use the taser way too much here but that's another lose-lose scenario for the police because one way or another they have to stop people and the people bitch if it's with physical force, with a taser or with a gun, I guess some people just think every situation has some magical line of dialog that could have been chosen to make everything better. And I know a lot of people take issue with the police pursuing dangerous criminals in dangerous ways, whether it be car chases, or shoot outs, you always have a few people saying they should let off and that the civilian risk isn't worth it but that always seemed to undermine the concept of a police force in my eyes. If we as a society no longer allow them to aggressively pursue violent criminals then not only would they obviously be ineffective in combating violent crime but it also feels like they'd lose that legitimacy to combat any other crime as well, if all you have to do to get away is run, well, why not run? Why have police at all at that point? They'd be doing nothing but policing the few people that want to be policed! Damn, what was that city in the US where the mayor was trying to make it illegal for the police to pursue criminals even on foot? Such a stupid idea.
But again, I still think the police are a mirror image of the populace they're policing, if the police in your town are overwhelmingly dicks it's probably because your town or city is populated overwhelmingly with violent dicks, so a lot of the issues people have with the police is probably also a societal issue that I believe we also share responsibility for.
mAcOdIn said:
heh, you unknowingly bring forward some interesting similarities and differences in policing between Canada and the US. The similarities being the controversy around the taser (I'm not taser-trained and glad for it, because I'd be hung out to dry if I used it on some coked-out dude who died afterwards). The differences being that vehicle pursuits are faaaaar more restricted in Canada than in the US. And the implications of a "no-pursuit" policy are essentially those which you have expressed here.
and here you again mirror what I have written on another forum:
"Generally speaking, I think that our police forces reflect the society that they police. Authoritarian regimes such as China and the Soviet Union were repressive, with no regard for human rights, and hence their police followed that pattern. Western societies have entrenched human rights, and have checks and balances in their political systems. And so it is with Western police services, which are subject to civilian oversight, checks and balances, and training that emphasizes conflict-resolution as much as physical training and defensive tactics.
And so it is, in fact, that even Western police forces over the past half-century or so have evolved to reduce their reliance on physical force, increased civilian oversight and accountability. Certainly in Canada, this shift has been reflected in the education levels of police, as today a police officer usually has some sort of postsecondary degree, often a full four-year Bachelor's, while fifty years ago that probably would have been unheard of. It's not a perfect system, but no system is. Yes there are corrupt cops and asshole cops, but you just have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis, and gradually tweak the system when those imperfections reveal themselves."
ChubbyHuggs
Member
Have you ever tried to stop a meth head?
A normal police car can't handle that kind of a beating if you rode into a mob of them.
A normal police car can't handle that kind of a beating if you rode into a mob of them.
I just find it kind of aggravating. You get pictures of Sweden where the criminals will set fire to cars along the interstate, plant fake bombs everywhere and do all other kinds of shit just to rob a bank and it works, seems like no one really goes after them. I don't want my police to be so lax that anyone willing to expend the effort is guaranteed a perfect robbery or crime and it's only some lone idiot who just flipped out that gets arrested, that's almost a tacit approval to create large organized gangs at that point. But I guess people would say that Swedish cops are nicer! So it's weird, I guess some people gladly accept a certain level of crime if it's convenient to them.Boogie said:
and here you again mirror what I have written on another forum:
But this I think is starting to become outdated or at least in the United States. I don't mind them having APCs or body armor in fact I think body armor and better weaponry is a no-brainer, especially in a country where I can buy all kinds of ridiculous firearms legally(which I support, I love guns), the cops should be as well armed as the population and have some chance of survivability, at a minimum. But I do think we've seen our police get more and more violent over the years in a way that I don't feel is very true to the original concept of policing but I also think they were responses to an increasingly violent and armed criminal aspect of our society as a whole, so it's not just the police or government's fault but also our own for allowing the fabric of our society to degrade as it has.Boogie said:
Rolling back police powers without also curbing our own behavior is either saying you want more cops to die for no reason or you want certain crimes to just be allowed to be committed because we no longer feel combating them is worth the powers granted to the police. If more people were more upfront with this it'd be ok I guess, I mean if we want to in a way condone hostage taking or armed robberies as a society fine, but it seems ludicrous to me to expect the same performance of the police in all conditions while removing many of their tools and assets, if you're going to remove some of their tools seems only rightly fair you remove some of the expectations of what we expect them to stop and counter.
HeadlessRoland
Banned
charsace said:
Do you know how many crimes annually involve the use of a class 3 weapon?
Jeels said:
Yeah. Writing traffic tickets is part of their job. Drugs are illegal. They are enforcing the law. What we pay them to do. Do you realize how many people are killed each year by people speeding, running stop signs and DUIing it? Its all a minor offense till someone gets killed.
All AK's on the market are semi-auto so its not a class III weapon. Modding it to fire full auto isn't hard either.HeadlessRoland said:
Edit: there you go $345 for an AK
http://www.impactguns.com/store/RI1165-N.html
HeadlessRoland
Banned
Zeke said:
Do you know how many automatic weapons are used in crimes in the US annually?
HeadlessRoland
Banned
Zeke said:
Well legally owned automatic weapons have an almost nonexistent history of being used in crime. Illegally owned ones are almost just as rare, we are talking dozens over decades. So police needing to counter these weapons, or even more stupidly attempt to restrict them is dishonest.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked