Comment by utkarsh_apoorva | Hacker News Reader

Comment by utkarsh_apoorva | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

utkarsh_apoorva

Police brutality videos on twitter have left most of us, even in the developing world, in utter shock.

I am in Bangalore, India

For most of us in developing world, US has been a model state - with problems yes. But a great example nevertheless.

For God's sake, WE were supposed to be a third world country, always looked at with sympathy in popular media (usually grossly incorrect depiction though)

In India, civil unrest is common, and has increased over the past decade. Cops know one thing very very clearly - they are outnumbered. If civilians start to become violent, it will be impossible to control them.

So they stand down.

I have read umpteen number of articles talking about how policing could be improved in the US, from removing powerful weapons to changing the training programs.

I feel that the solution is probably simple - sensitisation to the fact that they are outnumbered. If war mentality is what they get into the field with, better factor everything in.

No army in the world engages with a superior force unprovoked.

People, the citizens, ARE the most superior force - not just morally, but Truly . F*ing . Practically.

This equation changes when the police are militarized. In the wake of the War on Terror, it is now a common occurrence for police departments around the US to purchase excess or outdated equipment from the military. They are allowed to use chemical warfare against civilians in ways that wouldn't be allowed in actual combat. They have electrical equipment that can track or jam civilians' phones. They have literal tanks. The list goes on and on. Even if civilians outnumber the police, there would be a mass slaughter of civilians if it came to all out combat.

> They have electrical equipment that can track or jam civilians phones.

A thought popped into my head as I read this, how would the founders apply the right to keep and bear arms today? Would it extend to digital weaponry? Both offensive and defensive?

The question is interesting, but any answer is more projection of one's beliefs than any actual grounding in reliable fact.

In the context of the 18th century, the forces that a government could bring to bear would either be a centralized army (that would take months to get anywhere in what is now the US, due to its large size), or the very localized militia forces, which would be responsible for local defense until the regular army could arrive. In the specific context of the US, the main threats would have been Indian raids and slave revolts, where immediate action from local militia would have been essential for response. One of the pivotal events of the American Revolution was the British attempt to disarm the Massachusetts local militias, and it's my belief that this is why the Second Amendment is worded the way it is.

At the same time, we must recognize that our modern world is alien to those who lived 200 years ago. Services once provided by a collective civic obligation (such as the militias of that period) are now institutions provided by the government or by private individuals under contract of the government. And the realistic threats we face are vastly different. I imagine that given these circumstances, they would take a much narrower view of Second Amendment, casting it more as a right to personal self-defense rather than a right to private military rebellion against the government acting unlawfully.

>casting it more as a right to personal self-defense rather than a right to private military rebellion against the government acting unlawfully.

Then again, it might be hard to drum up support for a ban on rebellions, among people who were at the time in the middle of a rebellion.

I imagine that support would have been quickly reestablished amongst people making the laws once they got a grip on power.

By the time the Bill of Rights was written, the rebellion had been over for years. The American revolution ended in 1783[1], whereas the Bill of Rights wasn't written until 1789[2].

That's not to say they might not have been sympathetic to rebellion still, but they definitely weren't "in the middle of" one. Note that Washington himself literally led the American military against a rebellion during his presidency[3].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

The Confederate States (during the American Civil War) prohibited states from seceding... and this was only a few months after they had seceded from the US!

It would depend on which corporations owned the founders

Traditional arms still work fine for keeping the police at bay, provided you and your friends have enough of them.

Well encryption was already ruled as munitions previously, though restrictions have lapsed a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

So I assume you have a right to bear encryption and related tools. Thank 2A for your iPhone ;)

> how would the founders apply the right to keep and bear arms today?

Not as fundamentally a right to keep countermeasures (whether classical weapons or alternative devices) to militarized standing police forces, because that is completely missing the point of the RKBA.

The RKBA exists and was seen as vital to the security of free states because the existence of a universal, well-equipped citizen militia was the thing which made it possible for the citizenry to demand that the government over which they had democratic control not hire large standing internal and external (which ultimately end up as backstop internal) security forces in the first place — because those were seen as fundamentally incompatible with liberty — but instead rely on small cadre forces plus mobilizing the civilian militia for internal and external security. The founders wrote quite a bit based on the dangers of standing armies, but they didn't write a prohibition into th Constitution, just provided the tools that they saw as making standing armies unnecessary. They didn't write as much about standing paramilitary police forces because at the time of the founding those weren't a thing, but pretty much every concern they expressed about standing armies applies to paramilitary police forces, which are just standing armies that are exclusively deployed internally for use against the citizenry, with additional force.

The most powerful thing civilians could do, but it would require nearly 100% participation, is just stop working. Everyone, everywhere. It would be painful, but nothing strong comes without pain.

This seems like an interesting idea, citizens could do things that are legal and peaceful but which convey a strong message. Other examples might be to stop buying, driving minimum speed everywhere (though you might still get ticketed for blocking traffic), submitting complaints, turning off services for a month, living without using power for a while (difficult but possible), and making telephone calls.

What else is within the power of people to control themselves in a legal and peaceful fashion? One thing business and government really does not like is uncertainty and it doesn't take much random disruption to mess with plans, especially now when things are already messed up. It would have to be something people can easily do, without much impact to themselves, that a lot of people will agree to do, which will have a noticeable impact on a sector that has been behaving badly. Company/product bans have been attempted without much success, but if people are motivated perhaps it is possible. It would essentially be citizens going on strike. It doesn't necessarily have to be directly related to the bad actor. I'm not sure there is a way citizens could strike against the police since few people usually interact with the police on a daily basis, but they might strike against government with the stated goal of changing governments oversight of the police.

There have got to be lots of ways the police, government, and business rely on ordinary people. That reliance is power and in many cases it would be legal, legitimate and peaceful to exercise that power.

American military doctrine is about being the superior force via tactics and equipment, being able to easily dispatch a larger or less trained enemy.

American policing has inherited this idea.

Too bad they didn't inherit the training and rules of engagement to go with it.

For a hilarious contrast, I once witnessed an example of "police brutality" in Delhi... a police officer pulled over a car with four guys inside. I don't speak Hindi so I don't know what he was saying, but the four guys piled out of the car, threw the cop against the car and threatened him until he literally just ran away.

Police may be outnumbered but the US already called in the military in many cities.

- US Police: 1.2 million full-time or part-time [1]

- US Military: 1.29 million active [2]

- US Population: 329.74 million [3]

I believe they're outnumbered by about 131 to 1.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_...

[2]: https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military

[3]: https://www.census.gov/popclock/

Most of that military/police population are adult physically able males. The regular population is everyone, if you constrained that population to males/females 18-60 then subtracted the military/police numbers, you’d be closer. It’s probably more like 150:1. Also consider all those officers know how to use weapons, have certain training, it starts to get closer than you think.

We have too many police and active military and too many things are illegal that shouldn’t be. The problem is that the military is basically welfare for small towns and southern states.

> The problem is that the military is basically welfare for small towns and southern states.

Bingo. I served for the financial incentives (though I enlisted from a misguided sense of patriotism immediately after 9/11). My father, my brother, aunts and uncles, and even cousins who served; All of us from small rural towns in the midwest. I needed to obtain the means to pursue higher education and this was my path. What you so succinctly said here is completely spot on.

> The problem is that the military is basically welfare for small towns and southern states.

When I read comments like these, I get a little bit sad. What is it about the ease of communication that the internet enables that people think its ok to say such things? Is this what bravery is in the 21st century? This is a perversion of honesty and people wonder why there is so much division! Our forbears had it right, it really isn't everything that you think that you should say out loud.

Sure the OP is generalizing, but I don’t think the US military is seen in a positive light.

We spend an insane amount of GDP on the military complex. We know for sure military strikes have killed many civilians in other countries. Now with the President’s orders of “Dominate the battle space”, the Military with the police is hurting their own citizens.

It’s not about Bravery, the individual soldiers could be brave, but they’re still following directions of superior leaders with personal selfish motives.

The military and police are supposed to protect their country and citizens. They are doing the opposite. I don’t respect them.

My statement wasn't in defense of the military. Rather it was a defense of my fellow citizens in the south who were unfairly characterized in the parent comment.

Because it's true. The US military is primarily a jobs program. Very few join because they're brave, most join because joining will pay for college and improve your future job prospects. They're forced to become brave, to avoid poverty.

Normally, I'm a fan of doing the math...

Subtract the population that supports the current police's actions. And the (large majority, I'd guess) that don't care. And the ones that can't physically get involved or won't. Then add a force multiplier for superior training, tactics, organization, and equipment.

The result is not a pretty calculation.

It's bound to be 50/50, full on confusion, Putin chuckling while 120 guns per 100 people do the job. Instead you can confront the bully. It's been done before.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com