Comment by stuzenz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stuzenz | Hacker News Reader

I can't help but wonder if the aggressive nature of U.S. police officers are out of fear that people might have guns - and that it just starts a cycle of escalation along with citizen rights being ignored. It is a real contrast to NZ where officers are smiling, friendly and disarming when they approach you - this would be the norm here even if you are a patched gang member.

We do have issues, here in NZ (racial profiling being one of them) but I am glad we don't have any additional issues brought about by the police having an overriding default concern that citizens could be armed.

I may be over simplifying it - but it is the biggest difference I can see.

To try to add some perspective for myself I compared some stats last week between NZ and the US.

You are __97x__ more likely to be killed by U.S police than you are by NZ police.

I came to this conclusion through looking at 5 years of NZ data and 6 years of U.S data. As a side note it seems to be agreed that the U.S deaths by police is under-reported due to there being no National database and processes in place to collect the data. On the flip side, keep in mind that NZ only had a sample of one police caused death over 5 years, so the NZ stats would change drastically with any increase in deaths.

I really hope the conversation can move to gun control - assuming the U.S. police professional standards to the public would more easily change if guns were off your streets.

The stats were derived from this following links: Sources

https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/tactical-opt...

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

I also wonder if that the high number of ex-military in the U.S. police force also plays into the military-mindset of 'us versus them' approach towards the community.

Don't think it's fair to compare US to NZ. The New York -> City <- is more populated and complex than New Zealand.

And guns are nearly banned in NYC as well.

Does population size really matter? We are talking about interactions at most of a few people to a few people. Whether it be Auckland with a population of circa a million or NY with their population - I don't think it matters when you are talking about the interactions of a few people.

I am a kiwi, but have lived in Japan for two decades as well. You could just about swap out my mentions of NZ for Japan as a second example, but I can see some comparison there not being considered fair either

I think it is fair to look for comparisons in other countries - my main point is that racial profiling happens in other countries too - but the acceptable professional standards for police engagement with the community are vastly different to what seems to be the norm in the States.

For where most of my life experience lies, whether it be Japan, Australia or New Zealand, people are not afraid or nervous of interacting with the police.

Some root cause analysis to shine the light on where the issues are would be helpful I think. I think racial issues are a partial-cause - but there are racial issues in NZ, Japan and Australia where you don't have anything like the same aggressive nature of police interaction.

It just feels like the U.S. discourse on the subject is on the side effects versus the root cause. I could be wrong - but would love to see it discussed.

Points that I see different are:

- there're terrorists, they have attacked the US and might try to attack again. Police is the 1st line of defense.

- Both Japan and NZ are island s. Border control is easier to some extent. There criminals crossing borders with drugs and other illegal stuff - and illegal immigrants as well.

- Social differences: hundreds of billionaires, billions of poor people.

- Race differences: people from every part of the world wants to live there. So there's a considerable number of Latins, Asians, Middle East, Africans, plus the racial issues with afro descents. It's not easy to provide security to all those differences, each has their own culture.

I think the article linked by @antoncohen sums up the situation nicely:

https://medium.com/s/story/fearing-for-our-lives-82ad7eb7d75...

I don't think the reasons you have given should give the U.S police license to default act aggressively towards others - due to being in fear of their lives.

From my perspective, the U.S. police are not in fear of their lives through fear of immigrants or terrorists. They are trained to be in fear of someone having a gun pointed at them.

almost none of those issues are handled by local police forces beyond being manpower arm to other federal agencies.

and racial issues are a major component to what these protests are about our current policing system doesn't work well w/ diverse populations.

arrest related deaths top 1k/year (bjs.gov) in the US that means every 3 years police kill more people than the largest terrorist attack in US history. they are far more dangerous than any terrorist group to american lives.

so yeah reforming them is probably a good idea.

Please, don't get me wrong, I have all the respect to NZ, that I consider a heaven in the Earth. My initial sentence might have sounded harsh but I didn't mean to.

No, not taking anything the wrong way. I wanted to get some views and you are providing them - thanks for that

'kia mihi'

The aggressiveness of police does come from fear. That fear comes from training[1]. And it is fear that people they come in contact with will have a gun. The fear is absurd and not founded in reality.

In California it is illegal for a regular non-law enforcement officer to have a gun in public or in the passenger compartment of their vehicle. Open carry, concealed carry, unloaded, doesn't matter, all illegal. Open carry used to be legal in California, but was banned after the Black Panthers used that right to protect black people from police abuses[2].

In the 1960s the National Guard and federal law enforcement were used to protect protesters against the police abuses[3].

Now only the police abusing us are allowed to carry guns, and the National Guard and federal law enforcement are being sent in to help the police abuse us.

I think the police need to give up their guns before the public have any more of their gun rights stripped aware.

[1] https://medium.com/s/story/fearing-for-our-lives-82ad7eb7d75...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches

Thanks for the information. Interesting comment on California gun laws.

When I was working in IBM Research (a little under 20 years ago) as an Intern I took a trip to Cupertino and one of my bosses had me reach under his passenger seat to show me they had a pistol there. It was the first and only time I have seen a civilian with a pistol.

I was somewhat disappointed and sad by it, I assumed he was legally carrying it - obviously that assumption was wrong.

I don't think I have ever seen NZ police with a side firearm - the approach has worked here. Our risk in NZ is that the police will become more armed over time.

> I was somewhat disappointed and sad by it, I assumed he was legally carrying it - obviously that assumption was wrong.

Not necessarily, he could have had a CCW.

Only those with major political connections get CCWs in Santa Clara county, even 20 years ago.

This is true. However, the parent didn't specify who the person was or where he lived. So while unlikely it is still possible.

It specifically referred to the boss working in Cupertino, CA.

> Open carry, concealed carry, unloaded, doesn't matter, all illegal.

It's way more complicated than that.

Unloaded open carry is allowed outside of a municipality and when hunting or fishing.

Depending on where you live, a CCW is not exceedingly difficult to obtain and it's valid throughout the whole state.

You can have one unloaded without a CCW in the passenger compartment, so long as it is in a locked case not including the glove compartment.

Also unloaded open carry was legal until 2012.

Edit: Also there is a good chance that one of a number of current court cases will force CA to either make open carry or concealed carry shall issue or unrestricted.

Gun control is an extremely polarized topic here. “Right to bear arms” is part of the second amendment in constitution. As long as that stays there, we’ll have far more gun related deaths than any other western nation per capita. The NRA is well funded and lobbies (bribes) republicans to vote against anything gun control related. There is just so much money to be made from guns that we’re happy to sacrifice human lives as a trade off.

This is unlikely to change unless all President, Congress and Senate overwhelmingly agree it’s a problem and need to be changed. I don’t think it will happen unless there is a real massive shootout. Like millions of deaths.

May be 2100, we’ll get our shit together and realize what a horrible idea it was to let it linger so long.

> The NRA is well funded and lobbies (bribes) republicans to vote against anything gun control related.

A very large majority of gun owners hate the NRA (Negotiating Our Rights Away) since they tend to sit back and watch (and support) our rights be legislated away, for example, the 1934 NFA, the 1968 GCA and 1986 Hughes amendment; and, after they lose a position, they give a never fight it again. Many Republicans are not much better.

There are gun control group that also lobby quite a bit. It's not one sided.

These protests and riots/looting are doing more for gun rights than any argument could ever hope to achieve.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com