Hacker News Reader

Comment by emptyfile | Hacker News Reader

I mean, you're talking about how you went shooting deadly firearms for fun on a family holiday, and then express disbelief that police would enter a suspects house with firearms drawn.

I'm not american but it seems pretty obvious to me why american police are trigger happy while in most other countries they are far less so.

View on HN

> I'm not american but it seems pretty obvious to me why american police are trigger happy while in most other countries they are far less so.

Can not be access to guns, I live in Switzerland and 'we' shoot a lot. Have a lot of firearms at home too. Yet our cops are all but trigger happy. So the reason must be another that what I think you are implying?

It seems pretty obvious to me that the police act partly according to how they were trained, and partly according to the esprit de corps and culture that has developed over time.

I agree with you and think it’s an extreme oversimplification to say that higher rate of gun ownership would lead to a more violent police force. Like the military, they are a tool that will behave and act according to the implicit and explicit expectations placed upon them from different sides.

> t seems pretty obvious to me that the police act partly according to how they were trained,

Not doing so is grounds for dismissal in a lot of precincts. It's why we hear stories of officers doing the ostensibly "right" thing by not killing a suspect, yet face dismissal. The department training guidelines dictate a use of deadly force in a scenario, and not doing so is seen as risking the lives of officers.

This is the hill American need to climb to reduce the likelihood of death and serious injury by police. There is a lot of judicial precedent supporting such policies as part of policing guidelines, so it is very unlikely the change will come from the courts. Instead, citizens will need to work at a local level to shift training and policy towards de-escalation.

Speaking of training and the military, the best trained personnel (Special Forces) are the ones least likely to pull the trigger. They are trained to hold back until they cannot anymore, and they are confident in their abilities. Very different from regular police. Even though the SF personnel are faced with situations far more dangerous.

Which makes complete sense - they have more training and experience and thus are more confident in their own ability to keep cool in a difficult situation and make split-second decisions, rather than what seems like low-level cops being scared to death and reactionary in their encounters. Whatever the reason for this pattern of behaviour, it's a disgusting outcome.

I don’t live in the US or Switzerland, but my guess is that in Switzerland, there is almost zero chance, statistically, for the police officer to be shot by suspect. In my country, I haven’t ever heard about police officer being shot, and coincidentally, I’ve never heard about a suspect being shot by the police unless it’s some kind of counter terrorist operation or something.

The behavior of American police behavior cannot be explained by the number that have been shot. That number has been trending downwards over the last few decades:

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

Regardless, the current actions in question were inexcusable even if police incorrectly believe they are in increasing danger in general. They simply had no reason to be brandishing firearms in this specific case.

It’s not about the number of officers being shot per se. I’m not trying to defend the US police. But I think it’s about the danger of the encounter. In my country, police don’t encounter suspects who are a) under the drug influence, b) very likely to be carrying a weapon and c) very likely to use that weapon. So here they are trained accordingly and police don’t shoot at suspects. In the US, it’s very different. My friend was once robbed by armed criminals in Los Angeles, which would be unthinkable where I live. So I guess the police in the US is trained to respond to such encounters because they have to. And the downward trend might be due various reasons, including aforementioned training that prevents police officer from being shot in the first place. It’s all just my guess, of course.

You're saying a lot here so it's a bit tough to respond specifically. But my point is the following: the danger police has decreased hence any talk of increased danger is certainly wrong. There may be a _perceived_ increase in danger, but that's not the same thing.

It seems pretty clear (to me) to be cultural. Not cultural in some static sense (e.g. American vs Swiss), but cultural as in the culture of policing in the US has been changing over time. Our police has treated American citizens as more dangerous while the opposite is true. The real question is why. Why have Americans idea of the level of crime in society so diverged from reality? Can this be reversed?

Perhaps it's all about training and the culture of "killology" that's seeping into our police forces [1].

Or maybe it's the fact that corporations pay police to "protect and serve" them instead of the general public [2].

Or it's the "perceived" danger from the cops' point of view?

[1] https://www.insider.com/bulletproof-dave-grossman-police-tra...

[2] https://readsludge.com/2020/06/19/corporate-backers-of-the-b...

> "In my country" > "In the US, it's very different"

If I had a dollar for every time someone on HN who doesn't live in the US nonetheless weighs in as an expert on American life I could retire.

Do you think a data scientist who had ethical concerns about covid data manipulation is a violent murderer? Do you think America in real life is like a movie with gun fights and explosions?

There is essentially zero risk of someone shooting a cop in a routine situation. They weren't raiding some druglord gang headquarters or ISIS terrorist operation.

Again, in my country criminals don’t carry guns and unlikely to be under drug influence = zero police shootings. Vs your country, where criminals do carry guns = lots of police shootings. No need to be American to connect the dots.

Honestly, being a cop is probably no more 'dangerous' than walking into any business establishment and getting blown away by an insane person.

I used to deliver pizza's back in the 90s, I never would've thought my job was top 5 for deaths, and cops were > 18th, but those are the statistics.

Switzerland has very different regulations, practices, and policies related to guns than America. Although gun ownership in Switzerland is high for a developed country it is still a fraction of what it is in America.

Switzerland and America are like chalk and cheese when it comes to gun ownership.

It is mostly lack of/improper training combined with fear.

Switzerland is a much smaller and safer country than the USA, people Europe would come up with much better comparisons if they compared the USA to the whole of Europe rather than their particular niche.

The trigger happiness of cops is unrelated to our rate of firearm ownership. In fact the percentage of American homes that own any firearm has been on the decline for decades, while cops have gotten much more aggressive and militarized.

Having guns is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

You need to have guns and a mixture of distrust and/or fear of the government.

There's a difference between target shooting and threatening someone with a gun, just like there's a difference between pentesting an OWASP training VM and actively deploying ransomeware at a hospital.

it seems the parent post is about a first time ever hands on experience with firearms, and realization its not like TV.

I'm glad you find it easy to characterize 330 million people as the same person. That's in no way fair or realistic. It's like saying all Europeans are the same.

That does not mean you should be pointing a gun at some one unless you intend to kill them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com