[davros]

From afar, it seems to me like the big problem in US policing is a lack of calm professionalism. The de-escalation approach in the article would to me but just one aspect of taking a professional approach where safety and following rules and best practices is paramount (and prioritised over 'winning' against criminals).

[gonzo41]

I have had to patrol streets in Iraq during the surge in 2007, It was dangerous, but our ROE had escalations rules and everyone patrolled at a low ready with their helmets off. The intent was to make us a boring part of the background rather than an antagonist, and to make us look like we didn't want to be there as much as they didn't want us there.

Cop's look more and more like soldiers and I think you're right about the 'winning' being the main goal. Where i live, the cops are very tacticool, even though we have effective gun control and hardly any civilian vs police violence. All i think about is how much my back hurts now from carrying all that shit when I was in the military.

[save_ferris]

This is one thing I keep hearing from service members, that the rules of engagement are much more stringent and measured in the armed forces compared to standard LEOs.

What were some of the concrete rules/policies that you found effective overseas that could be effective here? I wish we as a society talked in more concrete terms around this topic.

[gonzo41]

I don't have the ROE cards anymore, but generally there was a 'wartime' and 'police or peace keeping'

In war like operations you'd still follow the rules of war, but generally you were shooting first to take objectives, there was a lot of latitude.

In peace keeping and non warlike, everything was about a force continuum.

- Ie we will patrol with weapons slung over our shoulders, with the weapons at 'action' (cocked but safe) and hands by our sides.

- If things change we actively patrol with our weapons (Still at action)-

- then you get to pointing weapons (action)

- cocking weapons (for direct crowd control, kinda silly because you lose a round at with this action but it makes the point you ain't stuff about)

- Then there's pointing with safety off, and closely followed by firing at people. (A lot is happening to get here in 'police' or 'peace keeping' scenarios)

Also our ROE had specifics such as, if your are engaged by IED or Ambush you can fire when fired upon but you can't fire at suspected targets (Like anyone on a cell phone), you have to confirm the threat. Which is pretty reasonable but in war like operations you may just fire at positions of cover because there could be enemy waiting there and you're generally trying to suppress an area. You don't want to do that in a heart's and minds kinda fight.

Anyway, I can't remember them all and they have probably changed over the last decade. But those are the main points and generally we didn't make the first move. we just waited.

I remember being shouted at by some kids and young guys for like an hour and just waiting them out. It was very frustrating but my rifle and grenades would have just created bigger issues.

[hef19898]

Back during the 2007, when you where in Iraq, I always cmpared US forces to European forces and, yes, European police. I thought, back then, it would be best to leave policing to the police. Mainly due to training, when you are trained for war, I assumed you would be more likely to act that way.

Now, it seems that I misjudged it. What say is basically shedding a very bad light at LE in the US, when even the military, in Iraq of all places, had better ROEs for policing than the actual police.

Maybe it is related to looking like a soldier, acting like a soldier, without being a soldier. No idea, all I can say is that I don't like the situation at all. Let's hope nobody is deploying the armed forces.

[rectang]

I have always suspected that US police are shunted into sub-optimal patterns because there are so many guns here that the odds a simple interaction will involve a firearm are much higher than they are in less-well-armed societies. Does anybody know if I'm right about that?

That doesn't mean that they can't do more de-escalation or take other steps, but the high prevalence of guns does seem like it would be a contributing factor.

(I realize this touches a hot topic (guns) but it's an honest question, and sympathetic to law enforcement.)

[Shacklz]

> will involve a firearm are much higher than they are in less-well-armed societies. Does anybody know if I'm right about that?

Switzerland (disclaimer; I'm Swiss) has also lots of weapons around, but if the police are ever shooting someone it's usually big news with investigations on whether it was really necessary.

From my laymen point of view, police training and holding them accountable to their actions is probably even a bigger factor than gun availability (although this is certainly a factor too). If I'm not mistaken, Swiss police training strongly encourages to back off if someone draws a weapon, trying to keep it cool, talk softly/slowly etc. It seems that in the US, the first hint of a weapon will result in drawn weapons by police and a 'drop your weapon'-shouting-contest; that's at least what seems to often happen in footage that ends up in the news where something goes wrong and someone ends up being dead.

Edit: One of the more memorable examples I saw was a video via NYT, where some guy was being arrested, tried to adjust his pants and was immediately being shot because the officer thought he was going for a gun. This is absolutely unimaginable in Switzerland; I would have to look it up for the facts but I think to remember a case where someone was shot holding (and threatening with) a fake-gun, and the officer who did so went to jail if I remember correctly.

[welterde]

Isn't it quite difficult to get a carry permit for a gun in Switzerland though? Making it not that likely that a random citizen the police officer encounters will actually have a loaded gun.

[snovv_crash]

There is mandatory military service for males, so you actually see a lot of guns being open-carried by people heading home for the weekend on public transport etc.

[welterde]

They are not allowed to be loaded however if I am not misinformed.

[snovv_crash]

Can you tell if there's a round in the chamber from the outside?

[hef19898]

According to the German, and French, police, illegal arms are the problem. Not the legal ones. And for the illegal ones, permits aren't important.

[pjc50]

White protestors were allowed to occupy a state building with guns without a single bit of teargas.

[exolymph]

Well yeah, if all of the protestors are armed, the police realize they can't escalate the situation and get away with it.

[andrewzah]

So the question here is: Would the response have been the same if all the heavily armored folk were black?

As a born and raised American, I'm inclined to think not. I could be wrong of course, but everything that I've seen and experienced growing up and living in the US has led me to believe otherwise.

I want to think that more protestors being armed would make a difference, but ultimately I believe it will just lead to escalation and more deaths by cop (and/or the national guard, as we're finding out in Louisville currently).

[mayniac]

"Would the response have been the same if all the heavily armored folk were black?"

There's precedent for this. In the 60s the black panthers open carried in California to protest, of course, police misconduct. Reagan signed in the Mulford Act [1], banning open carry in CA.

If BLM want stricter gun control laws (not sure if they do), all they need to do is arm themselves at protests.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

[michaelt]

In a historical precedent that doesn't particularly clarify the situation, in 1967 the Black Panthers were able to enter the California state capitol building with guns. [1]

Apparently they were let in, then arrested, then released without charge and their guns returned as they hadn't broken the law. However, they were there protesting against the 'Mulford Act' that intended to disarm them, and it was subsequently passed. So they didn't get shot, but they didn't get what they wanted either, and they did get banned from doing it again.

Of course, there's a lot more detail than I've put into this post, and society was pretty different at the time. Reagan supporting gun control? The NRA as a sporting organisation that supported gun control? And the panthers were Marxist? So I'm not sure it's a very instructive example about how the same thing would go today.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#Protest_at...

[frabbit]

Not to mention the Malheur Refuge standoff where heavily armed protestors were handled with kid gloves.

Maybe it's to do with having guns?

[creato]

A few of those protestors were chased through a road block and shot at, and one was killed. It is ironic that you are calling the police killing someone handling with "kid gloves" in a thread about deescalation between protestors and police.

(Don't get me wrong, what those protestors did was senseless and the epitome of entitlement.)

[TulliusCicero]

> A few of those protestors were chased through a road block and shot at, and one was killed.

This is a highly misleading way of describing the situation.

The police set up a traffic stop to arrest them. They fled the stop. Finicum told the police he wasn't going to surrender and that they'd have to shoot him. He reached for his gun in his pocket, and then he was shot.

If black men were only being killed by police after fleeing arrest, refusing to surrender, challenging the police to shoot them, and then reaching for a gun...then we wouldn't have much of a police violence problem.

[pjc50]

Given that one of the subjects of the protests is whether police can murder on mere suspicion of a weapon, I suspect not. The chances of a comparable hypothetical BLM armed occupation being allowed to live are small. If they surrendered they would likely be shot in the back of the head while handcuffed.

[kthxbye123]

Or the police would preemptively send a death squad to their house to murder them, as happened in the 60’s

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton

[moate]

Of course you’re right. It’s why people-police statements are constantly pointing out how these guys “put their life in the line every day” in reference to the dangerous criminals out there (while ignoring that most crimes are non-violent offenses, or at least offense that don’t involve a gun). The 2A people want the government to fear its citizen’s (in their mind this somehow prevents tyranny) and then complain when the state responds to violence with fear and violence.

It’s almost as if the American gun lobby wants both sides to need lots of guns and bullets for some reason...

[maxerickson]

Their aggressive approach is difficult to justify with statistics.

Despite the much higher relative levels, the amount of gun violence in the US still isn't all that high in an absolute sense, and police are not particularly the target of it.

[bluedino]

There have been almost no guns used against police during these protests.

[humanrebar]

But to rephrase, there was a LEO murdered in a drive-by shooting.

[bobbean]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests 200 cities have had protests. Out of the probably hundreds of thousands of people protesting, guns have been responsible for one death of an officer (as far as I know)