Hacker News Reader

Comment by BelleOfTheBall | Hacker News Reader

> Is there any particular reason to think such a thing couldn't happen in America, where rifles and explosives aren't hard to get?

Is there any particular reason why a clear edge-case scenario should be our basis for arming police departments, which spend most of their time solving mundane domestic disputes, pulling apart drunken fights and responding to break-ins where someone's Playstation was stolen? We should orient policing towards deescalation based on what they usually face. If their most common problem is a drug addict high on PCP, they don't need a gun, they need proper training and, perhaps, a taser.

View on HN

I think the biggest problem with these vehicles is the aesthetics and the mindset they attract. But in this regard, those armoured vehicles are only a small part of the problem. Their dark uniforms should be replaced with light uniforms. Replace black and dark blue uniforms with baby blue, white or 'day-glo' neons. Do the same to their guns (white plastic 'furniture' where possible), cars, and armoured vehicles. It doesn't particularly bother me that they own armored vehicles (given the armed nature of the American public), but those vehicles should be repainted to look uncool to the sort of person who fetishizes military hardware and edgy 'punisher'/'tacticool' aesthetics.

Basically, make the cops look less like the US Marines and more like UN peacekeepers (specifically their white vehicles.)

In other words, you want more WA State Patrol (white cars, light blue uniforms) than Seattle PD (navy blue for both), it seems. Though I recall the move to the navy blue uniforms in Seattle was for cost reasons - their old baby blue uniforms were custom, so they cost more.

Yes basically, though I would like to see these sort of aesthetic changes across the board, not just to uniforms. The uniforms and the rest of their equipment should convey peaceful professionalism, not macho militarism.

Some of the black on the metal hardware comes from coatings to prevent rust and other corrosion, not to look cool. Custom colored coatings (cerakote I guess if you want light blue) would be much more expensive. It’s not just simply painted black. The other hardware that is painted is done for camouflage, and I’m betting the vehicles were sand colored when they got them as a black APC is gonna stand out real well in the desert.

I'm aware that black metal components often have a protective black oxide layer. In another post in this thread I mention that the plastic 'furniture' could be made white at least. And in common police firearms, namely glocks, that's most of the gun that could be recovered. I don't think the Glock company offers such guns presently, but if there were widespread police aesthetic reforms I don't think supply would necessarily be a problem.

As for camouflage, I think police should be forbidden from using it. If a bank robber needs to be ambushed from the bushes in some sort of 'Bonnie and Clyde' scenario, let the beat police call in specialists. These armoured vehicles don't need camo in the likely scenarios in which they'd ever be used, particularly since the entire premise of such vehicles in a police role is that they'd be impervious to the small arm fire they might encounter. In a military role they might get hit by an RPG, but such anti-armour weapons are exceedingly unlikely to be relevant to police.

I’m still failing to see how this will solve anything, as you’ve yet to explain why you’re scared of the color black. GLOCKS come in a few different colors of frames, but not white and the frames are made from nylon, not plastic, and you’ve still increased the cost of manufacture because of fear of a color.

SWAT teams need camouflage so they can park vehicles and stage raids at night or early dawn without announcing their presence.

Why did you decide all cops are bad and start a war against them?

You protect yourself from edge cases all the time, ever put on a seatbelt?

Risk is the chance of something happening coupled with the effect it would have. Perhaps the police should not be the ones protecting the public from a Mumbai style attack - possibly it should be the military - but it should be someone because of the grave consequences.

That does not have any link to whether police should routinely use de-escalation techniques (which they should).

There are hundreds of thousands of car accidents in the USA annually.

There has never been a Mumbai-style terror attack, and the National Guard could be activated for such a thing.

Some edge cases deserve more addressing than others.

> Some edge cases deserve more addressing than others.

Not only is no one arguing different, the "hundreds of thousands of car accidents in the USA annually" has been addressed (in several ways). Perhaps other problems may also be addressed?

> There has never been a Mumbai-style terror attack

No, only in most (if not all) of the other G8 countries, but have they had a Pulse nightclub attack or planes flown into buildings? How many have had a Bataclan or a London Bridge style attack?

Let's not split hairs.

> the National Guard could be activated for such a thing

Well, I did suggest “possibly it should be the military” so the National Guard, being part of the military, would fit.

In short, an edge case being rare does not imply that it should not be prepared for. What's the response time for the National Guard if terrorists start attacking people in the street?

Edit: typo

> What's the response time for the National Guard if terrorists start attacking people in the street?

'Hours' would probably be quick, since you'd probably need to get the governor's approval first.

What about SWAT teams?

This is a false equivalency. Putting on a seatbelt poses no danger and requires no effort. Giving police military-grade vehicles and weapons, on the other hand, costs money and isn't safe, considering their track record.

That you find a property or trait that is different between them does not make them a false equivalence. The comparison is about:

a) whether they are edge cases, which they are in terms of occurrence b) risk, which are comparable on a personal level

Additionally, when seat belt laws were introduced there were arguments about whether it was a moral hazard. Their requiring some effort (try strapping in a small child) and considerable danger to some (again, children, and pregnant women) was not relevant to that (ultimately wrong) argument and it's not relevant here either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com