Hacker News Reader

Comment by paloaltokid | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com