Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZanyProgrammer | Hacker News Reader

Cops need to stop dressing like they are mercs in Iraq circa 2004. Tactical vests, cargo pants with a shitload of shit hanging off them-the average (non SWAT) cop now looks like they are ready to go off on a patrol in a hostile village. I'm an Army vet, and cops dressing like that does intimidate me a little bit-I can't imagine that they present the image of a friendly ally to the average person. Men should also grow their hair out and stop looking like they are in basic training or AIT.

View on HN

Another Army vet here and totally agree. I remember looking at pictures of Ferguson and seeing how they were setting up their kit and thinking "what are you guys doing? getting ready for an ambush?" They look so absurd...the one picture of the guy on top of the MRAP with a sniper rifle was equally absurd. Beyond how they look, it's like they're at times forgetting these are citizens and not enemy combatants.

Edit1: Here's the picture I was talking about[1]. Looks like an M110? With some kind of compensator?

Edit2: That Tac light on the end of your sniper rifle just screams "I have no idea wtf I'm doing but imma sit here and look cool."

[1] http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/0...

> Beyond how they look, it's like they're at times forgetting these are citizens and not enemy combatants.

This can't be stressed enough. What needs to be stopped is the false distinction of civilian vs non-civilian in police work and policy. That is strictly a military distinction in combat and does not apply to civilized enforcement of the law during normal circumstances. Cops are not above the law and are just civilians empowered to enforce the laws, nothing more.

It's also important to continually remind citizens that police officers are human beings too and not just implements the state uses to punish people. Stuff like a program a local police department started in cooperation with a local pizzeria where they stop children who are properly wearing helmets while riding their bicycles and give them a coupon for a free personal pizza and a thank you for doing the right thing.

It's been very positive for both children, parents and police in breaking down the notion that police are to be feared. More police departments need to do stuff like this to foster positive interactions with police.

I think the drug laws are one of the main reason that cops have isolated themselves from non-LEO. When was the last time you went to a party or even a dinner party and an off-duty police officer was present? The LEOs are isolating because they know that if they witness a crime such as drug use they can get in trouble if they don't report it. To avoid this they don't socialize outside other LEOs which I think reinforces the us vs them or citizen vs non-citizen distinction that needs to be broken down. The internet has really helped as some cops do participate in public forums and this type of socializing is crucial so that cops and cop culture are more integrated with civil society.

ObOffTopic:

> children [...] properly wearing helmets while riding their bicycles [given a] thank you for doing the right thing

So, children who are not wearing helmets then? I don't really get the strange idea that wearing helmets makes children safer on bikes. I grew up riding bicycles without a helmet, much as everyone else did, and has done since bicycles were invented. There were no cases (nor reports or warnings) of traumatic head injury due to lack of protection reported, to a good first order approximation. And even the statistically minor numebr of head injuries sustained by children on bikes has remained exactly that after the increase in helmet wearing. Research indicates there is no benefit provided by helmet wearing, and suggests it may even increase risky behaviour. [citation needed]

It's quite hard to find data on children only, as it happens, but the following quote gives the picture overall: "However, the Statistics Bulletin shows the UK cyclist casualty figure was 16,196 in 2006 compared to 16,297 in 2008 - an increase of about half a percent. For all road users, casualties fell from 258,404 in 2006 to 230,905 in 2008 - a reduction of 11.9%. During this period, helmet wearing increased by 3.6%." So no change in casualties with an increase in helmet wearing. This is borne out by other reports, and in general mandatory helmet wearing is discouraged as a net public health loss due to dimished cycling, causing less exercise and therefore a less healthy population.

Parents today, eh? Get those helmet wearing kids off my lawn! Thanks for listening ;)

I also like the subdued flag patch and ACUPAT trousers. Really sells the hipster "Ramadi 2006" vintage look.

Didn't even notice but when I looked again at the subdued flag patch I noticed he's got a mini eotech on the front rail of that gun. My platoon sergeant would have lost his mind.

Mind explaining the "eotech"/platoon sargeant being upset, for us civilians? ;)

Eotechs are, generally, optics designed for close quarters combat (though there are limited instances where it would be appropriate on a gun like that...maybe on a long gun from an unstable platform like a helicopter and you have a big target). Think inside of a building where you're shooting around corners or short hallways and you need both eyes open for depth perception. I was a platoon leader (lieutenant) and the platoon sergeant is the senior enlisted man in the platoon who is the most experienced with the technical side of combat. My platoon sergeant hated when people just tried to "look cool" with the things they put on their kit or gun that made no practical sense.

I'd go further and say they need to do the same thing with their vehicles, like in Europe. Police officers and their cars are for public safety, and should be highly visible.

Here's a typical Swedish police car: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/images/2008/12/15/...

I think the intention in the US is that cop cars have to be less visible so that they can catch people committing "crimes" in order to fill quotas. The policy should be shifted to prevent or deter people from acting badly, and you can do that be just being more visible.

Lose the neon yellow, and you aren't far off from what an american police car looks like.

The marked ones. The tax collecting police cars look like any civilian car, with emergency lights hidden behind the back window and the front grill.

As a complete civilian, I'd say that police in all their gear do not look intimidating to me. Mostly it's the posture, the facial expression, the tone of voice that makes someone look friendly (or not). I look at them as I look at construction workers or garbage truckers: this is what they have to wear to do their job, not best-looking, not most comfortable. I can sympathize.

How is all this gear useful is another question.

They don't have to wear all that gear to do their job.

The on-street policemen have to, because their higher-ups order them to.

Whether these orders make sense is the question.

The posture and expression is a part of training often referred to as "Command Presence". I sympathize with the need to protect oneself on the job, but applying "Command Presence" to every situation also escalates problems which would have otherwise been non-issues.

Verily! But most policemen I meet look either neutral or relaxed and friendly. (Granted, I'm a Caucasian male, etc — but I rarely see the "command presence" appearance on streets of New York.)

With all that glorification of military and war since 2001 it's no wonder cops want to jump on the bandwagon.

Well I'd suggest that this actually started in 1971, when Richard Nixon started the Drug Wars. Since then the threshold for use of deadly force has been so lowered (hey every criminal could be a violent drug dealer connected to a violent drug network) because every civilian is a potential adversary.

Not very long hair though, after a couple inches it gets to be work to keep up and it's something perps can get a hold of. But yes, exactly, more than a buzz cut would be humanizing.

When you equip men for war, they start to think of themselves as soldiers.

At one time, we at least used to pretend that cops were public servants. We need to go back to that.

Vests are rather practical. The classic bat belt tends to give officers back problems.

Generally agree, but the short-cut hair makes a great deal of sense if you don't want a suspect pulling on your scalp.

Yet female cops get by just fine without high and tights.

Have you seen catfights? If they're serious about this "warrior" business, they should probably get buzzed down too.

EDIT:

Wow hivemind. It's for a similar reason that, in less hostile environments (say, machine shops), people with long hair put their hair back. It's like nobody's ever seen Bomb Girls before (much less any of the much more graphic images of, say, lathe accidents).

I'm not suggesting that the warrior mindset is acceptable...merely that, if they are going to carry themselves that way (i.e., as jackbooted thugs), they should probably go all the way.

De-escalation is more effective than the slight tactical advantage.

But de-escalation training is expensive, whereas equipment is often given almost for free from ex-military surplus or paid for from "anti-terrorism" federal funds.

Police in other Western countries receive significantly longer training courses than US police do. This is an issue rarely discussed in this topic. If people want de-escalation, they need to fund the longer training regime and more importantly pay for it.

>ex-military surplus

maybe reallocating funds from military to de-escalation training would reduce surplus and improve police image and effectiveness.

(disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about)

Has it really come to vilifying a haircut? The haircut is not to blame for anything here, it is all the people who may happen to wear it.

Short hair is pragmatic, but more importantly, it is a personal preference. Nobody should be criticized for wearing short hair. Doing that makes you no better than people who talk about "long-haired hippies" disparagingly.

It isn't just the haircut on its own. If there wasn't a history of this:

http://www.forgetthebox.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Ameri...

Like say the police looked more like this:

http://cdn.caughtoffside.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Swed...

Then haircut wouldn't matter. But I have yet to meet an American cop that didn't have a "military approved" haircut.

Off topic, but this brought to mind an amusing anecdote about Hunter S. Thompson. When he ran for Sheriff's office of Aspen, CO, he shaved his head bald and referred to the (ex-army, Republican) incumbent he was running against as "my long-haired opponent".

I see where you're going with that premise, but there's a particular character in The Wire that was one of David Simon's not-so-subtle devices to critique militarization of the police. A three-finger fade is wholly unnecessary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com