Hacker News Reader

Comment by bayesianhorse | Hacker News Reader

On a slightly apologetic note: There were actual, real, violent outbursts. If you put yourself in the shoes of a police officer, you might understand the police' reluctance to stand up to a potentially armed and certainly aggressive mob without any protective gear, and in completely standard police cars.

The individual misconduct of these officers should be prosecuted. But these rioting mobs won't stand a chance changing these "bullying" tactics or getting the police to "demilitarize".

In some part, the protective gear actually decreases the need of applying violence against protesters, because the officers don't have to defend themselves as "actively" when trying to control a crowd.

View on HN

While I can see your point you have to really see this in context.

Imagine a black community that largely feels (and by data proven to be) oppressed. Now that community has one of its children murdered by the police. When they want to take a stand they are confronted by a wall of heavily armed police that look like they could be fighting a war in Iraq (but as many have said they're even better armed).

What possible reaction do you envision the black community having? I applaud them for keeping their composure as well as they have. I could not do that.

As callous as it sounds: Responding with violence is not going to change a thing. Also, telling such a community that their anger isn't helping, also helps nobody.

Peaceful, non-violent resistance might work.

Citation needed.

Really. There were peaceful protests that were successful. But there were also many violent ones. Violence can and has changed many things.

I don't like violence, but I like those wrong etaist pacifist statements even less.

Edit: Or are you talking only about this specific situation and this is your opinion? Then nevermind, could very well be true here.

You can research Gandhi's non-violence principles.

In essence violence justifies counter-violence. The more the angry protesters threaten or attack the police, the less "wrong" the current response looks. Non-violence tries to starve the legitimization of excessive force.

This militarization is not a good idea and should be limited or abandoned. But "riots" are hardly making a point against military gear.

By your logic, assuming that violence justifies counter-violence, the arms upgrades etc. that the police have received in the past could be portrayed as a form of violence. (If not physical, then at least psychological as a form of intimidation or similar) Therefore, the violent reactions are justified, also if they are more violent than past ones.

No, I am not implying "ultimate" justification, but yes, it goes both ways. Look at the comments in this discussion to view evidence of how people are sympathizing with a rioting mob which destroyed or harmed the businesses, property and person of totally innocent third parties.

In the near east there is a similar problem. There is so much violence going on from both sides, that people can sympathize with cruelties from both sides.

Gandhi had no real impact on the world. The American Revolution did.

Colonists had to murder plenty of police and military.

I'm sorry. But Gandhi is just one of many who practised non-violence. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me the MLK, Jr. had no real impact on the world either?

I'll just go ahead and leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy's_speech_on_t...

The legacy of people who believed that violence is never justified, never necessary and can be overcome with compassion.

If you are on the street protesting the murder of an innocent young man and what you see staring back at you is a paramilitary force, what do you think your reaction is going to be?

The situation will escalate. The Police are escalating.

If you don't want a violent confrontation, don't send in a paramilitary force.

I guess the protective gear reducing the need to apply violence is why these cops are armed with assault weapons and have snipers watching the crowd?

On a slightly apologetic note: There was an actual, real, violent death of an unarmed civilian child. If you put yourself in the shoes of the civilian population, you might understand their reluctance to peacefully protest etc etc etc

So, one police officer might have unjustifiably shot a teenager, and you think that justifies killing or hurting all the other officers? Or that the police completely withdraws from a riot and lets it happen?

A teenager was murdered in cold blood, shot at point-blank range and then shot in the back while he was trying to get away. If that was your son or nephew or brother, would you think 'Oh, we should organize a peaceful march'?

Especially after decades of feeling oppressed and ignored, to have someone whose job is, ostensibly, to protect the public gun down an innocent child is intolerable, and the history shows that after a short internal investigation, while the officer is on 'paid administrative leave' (which may as well be a paid vacation), he will be found to have done no wrong and will be put back on patrol.

I'd be rioting in the streets too, if this were my kid. Except that if it were a white kid, everyone would be calling for his head, not just the black community in Ferguson.

I would hope I would call for a peaceful march. Also you are blindly assuming facts which aren't proven yet. I can understand the protesters, but I can't applaud the senseless violence.

> There were actual, real, violent outbursts. If you put yourself in the shoes of a police officer, you might understand the police' reluctance to stand up to a potentially armed and certainly aggressive mob without any protective gear, and in completely standard police cars.

That all sounds perfectly fine, reasonable.

But why are they kitted out like stormtroopers? South Korea has much, much better organised political protesters/rioters and their Combat Police[0] are much, much better at their job than it looks like the US equivalent are, and all they've got is standard riot police kevlar armour, clear plastic shields and the helmets. Note that they don't look like troops occupying enemy territory either[1].

I can't see any justification for local police forces having military vehicles, and I think the optics of police in camo are hideous, unless that is actually the message you want to send of course.

I realise that the USA is legitimately exceptional in the number of guns floating around, illegal and legal, and that it is far, far more violent than any other first world country, for whites and blacks but why the shoddy police militarisation? You're not Mexico, there are no gangs as organised and competent as the Mafia who go toe to toe with the police.

And if a paramilitary force is needed, why doesn't each state have 100 full-time SWAT guys (or more, I really have no idea how many New York or California need.) and 400 guys who are cross trained? If you need more than 500 men with machine guns, it's time to call the National Guard.

[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Police_Agency_(South_K...

[1]http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=south+korean+riot+police...

> I can't see any justification for local police forces having military vehicles

Many years ago, Congress passed a law that has the DoD sell off vehicles it no longer needs to police for very good prices. The police get those vehicle for around $3000, which is much less than a conventional car would cost.

I would guess that for most departments, the low cost is their justification.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com