ACLU Has Concerns Over Military Weapons Used By Local Police | Hacker News Reader

ACLU Has Concerns Over Military Weapons Used By Local Police

stlouis.cbslocal.com

35 pointsOGinparadise16 comments

I was getting ready to go on a rant about how unfortunate it is that so much more money and effort is spent on what you might call aggressive tactics (guns, grenades, gas) versus peaceful resolution tactics (negotiation skills, psychology training, de-escalation techniques). Then I realized that I actually don't know what the relative proportions are. Does anyone know where to find that out?

Note, the case of the Michigan girl killed by SWAT :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Aiyana_Jones

This particular incident made national news, but when it happens to adults (usually less privileged adults), sadly, it often goes unnoticed except by local news. And then usually it's just a sentence or two on the local blotter.

"Less privileged adults"? The hell is that supposed to mean?

BME aka Black and other Minority Ethnic groups

Maybe police should have to obey the Geneva convention:-) cops are allowed to use ammo that would be considered a war crime if used by armed forces.

Really? What kind of ammunition is that?

Frangible rounds.

Aren't they designed so they couldn't go through a target preventing anyone behind from getting shot by the same round? My knowledge of ammunition is inadequate by any measure, but I thought the frangible rounds were supposed to be more "humane", though I could have just been fooled by marketing.

Yes, that's one of the reasons why police use them. As for what kind of ammo is supposed to be more "humane", it depends on how you define the word. Keep in mind that law enforcement and militaries tend to use different kinds of weapons, and that changes the ammo they use.

aka dum dums as I understand for a solder to use something like hydrashock in a war zone would be a war crime - also the police use of tear gas is a little dicey legally if you used it in afganistan.

It seems inevitable that as more and more highly lethal weapons are found among citizens, the police will justify militarization as the appropriate response.

Like Joshua said "The only winning move is not to play".

You are gonna get all Rambo wannabes with tanks, IED proof vehicles and drones trying to act soldiers while arresting grandmas over not cutting the grass.

I use grandmas to highlight the fact that most arrests, by far, aren't of the Al Qaida or Mexican drug cartel member caliber

That flash grenade example seems contrived. The incident sounds like the result of poor decisions made by the police, not because of the usage of that grenade.

Don't give them military weapons and allow them to make such stupid mistakes. Would you feel any better if they "made a mistake" with a tank?

A grenade that stuns your senses isn't even closely comparable to a tank.

His point still stands in principle. The more powerful a weapon given to an individual or group, the more irreparable damage they are capable of. It therefore makes sense to limit their ability to cause harm with their social charge and responsibility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com