When I read stories like the one you linked I wonder how a normal person won't get shot because they make some weird movement. Having a bunch of armed guys yell at you is a pretty stressful situation and a lot of people simply will not comprehend what's going on and not "comply" in some way.

Sometimes I wonder if cops have watched too many action movies and try to emulate these movies. How about first waiting and assess the situation? Why that rush and aggressiveness?

> wonder how a normal person won't get shot because they make some weird movement.

They do all the time. I saw a video where American police were yelling confusing instructions at a drunk guy clearly trying to do what they ask but unable to work out what they want and when he fell over they opened fire at him because he made a quick movement.

But its almost justified. I have seen videos where someone moves their arm just a bit and the police start shooting instantly before I even know what has happened and a gun falls out of the dead targets pocket.

Thats just what happens when any random stranger could be carrying a gun. Its almost unheard of for someone to be wrongly shot by police in Australia (Probably has happened but its no where near like America)

> Thats just what happens when any random stranger could be carrying a gun.

I'm not so sure about that. Admittedly I haven't spent the time to do reliable research, but I get the distinct impression that fewer people here are actively carrying weapons today than in, say, the 1950s. Yet over time the police seem to have an increasing amount of military gear, generally seem more on edge when I encounter them in public, and it feels much more like an "Us vs Them" thing is going on. It also concerns me that I can't seem to identify a clear root cause for why that would be happening.

Can confirm. I've never felt in danger around an Australian police officer, despite the fact they're packing.

I reckon even if I did something stupid around them I'd probably get pepper sprayed rather than shot.

You wouldn't want to be mentally ill though. Two cases spring to mind where (young, inexperienced) police shot people without cause. In one case, at a large park, shot a youth, with no one nearby, because he had a $2 steak knife. In another case, in the person's home, where the police had forcefully entered because of a report they might have been suicidal.

That's really sad, and I don't doubt at all that these things happen, but they are so uncommon, even for the mentally ill, it just isn't something I'm worried about. I've actually been pretty impressed at how restrained QPS officers are with how they deal with drunk and psychotic people. I was involved in a fair bit of this while working as a doctor in ED, as well as while working in a psychiatric unit.

If I was going to be mentally ill, I think Australia would be towards the top of my list somewhere of places I'd want to be.

There are rules of engagement that are stricter in a war zone. Also one of the incentives is the pay increases when geared up.

I think you've hit on something there: Incentives.

What are the incentives for the PD in an armed situation? To stay alive, yes, of course. But are there other incentives? The guns blazing approach indicates there are other incentives. If they wanted to 'just' stay alive, they'd put a lot of distance between themselves and the suspect, get a lot of back-up, etc.

But there is another possible incentive too: glory/honor. For many male-centric groups, dis/honor is a VERY powerful incentive. Taking down the 'bad-guy' and earning honor/glory through that act can be quite motivating.

But can you replace that incentive with another one that is less 'thrill seeking'? How about 'hazard pay', payed by the number of hours that an officer is in a life-threatening situation, escalating with the time spent on scene? Like, you corner a suspect, but the longer the standoff lasts, the more pay the officer gets, and the more officers there are on the scene, the more the pay increases? That'll incentivize the officers to wait things out, get back-up, give time for media to get on site, and probably decrease fatalities.

Or, you know, less guns on the streets too.

The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. The Federal Government exists in a cohesive world that requires cooperation. The States are exempt from that, exempt from actual challenges to their sovereignty because the Federal Government will protect them, and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior.

> The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias.

Only if you somehow manage to ignore everything the federal government is doing internationally (15 & 17yr wars [with no end], ignoring ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, etc).

> and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government

That's not true at all. For a very recent (today) example: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-...

I was very particular with my words. The outcome may not be agreeable but the Federal Government's military and rules of engagement are much more humane and nuanced than anything any of the state's have ever legislated. I don't agree with the ideology supporting the wars, or processes behind the drone strikes. That doesn't undermine my argument.

Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post.

> Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post.

You claimed "The States are exempt ... from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior" as an explanation for why the US Federal Government does not (or chooses to not) interfere with State militia. The lawsuit by the US DoJ against California's NN law demonstrates that your claim doesn't hold.

We're talking about the state's police departments, I just don't understand how you would expect recurring adjectives every single time just to avoid your "AHA I found a hole in his theory" filter. The Federal Government won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process.

> exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior

> won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process

Those two statements (by you) are quite different. I'm inclined to agree with the second one, as I've never heard of a federal agency taking over a local police department before. However, I'm inclined to disagree with the first (depending on the precise definition of oversight, of course). As just one example, consider the DoJ investigation of the SPD a few years ago. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/...

I guess you are the third person to chime in on this. I've already clarified multiple times that I thought the subject, the narrow subject, was very clear. In a topic sentence that specifically mentions well armed militias, the subsequent statements were related to that. It was carefully worded to deal with whatever rebuttals to the wording alone that overly semantical programmers might come up with while keeping my point, and it failed.

Also, yes, the federal government will assume administration of police departments if its FUBAR, local municipalities can even ask for it to happen, like San Francisco has done and received since 2016.

> In a topic sentence that specifically mentions well armed militias, the subsequent statements were related to that.

> The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias.

So this is referring only to "well armed militias", and we're defining that in such a way as to exclude any police forces?

> We're talking about the state's police departments

Ok, so "well armed militias" includes police departments then?

> It was carefully worded to deal with ... overly semantical programmers

The problem isn't overly semantic programmers, the problem is that you are contradicting yourself. To respond unambiguously only to your original comment then:

> The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias.

This is quite debatable, and depends on the definition of "well armed militias" as well as how one goes about judging how humane the behavior of a given large institution is. I'm also not very clear on it's relevance to the larger topic of police militarization.

> The States are ... exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior.

This technically depends on the definition of "oversight", but I think that for any reasonable definition it is very obviously false. Historically the federal government has stepped in on numerous occasions, either when they felt they had explicit authority (ex interstate commerce clause, intellectual property, etc), or when they felt that states were violating the constitutional rights of their citizens (ex my previously linked DoJ investigation of the SPD). In any of these cases it did not generally matter what the state laws said, as the constitution very clearly preempts those.

Exactly what happened here:

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/prank-swat-call-...

> I wonder how a normal person won't get shot because they make some weird movement.

Yes, that seems to be the key. If armed people point rifles toward you, lay flat on the ground, extend your arms away from your core, and wait. Eventually they will calm down and search you.

This has to be balanced by the need for fast responses when there is an actual real emergency. Heads will roll if the authorities come slowly or not at all for a real hostage situation.

I don't think the best outcomes for hostage situations are quick responses by heavily armed assault teams? I'm pretty sure the playbook is something like surrounding and controlling the area, establishing communications, and trying to work out a peaceful outcome. Whilst planning for an alternative option.

I am pretty sure thing are the way they are for a good reason that you and I have no insight to. Otherwise they wouldn’t be this way. Cops are not stupid and neither are the people running those teams. I doubt it gives them any pleasure responding to potentially deadly situations and putting their own lives at risk. Cops have families too. Perhaps we need to ask someone who knows better instead of speculating.

Turns out some times the authorities are morons, dude. Once upon a time we dumped radioactive material off the coast of SF and shot holes in the barrels to make them sink. I’m sure there was someone running around saying “there’s probably a good reason”. That dude would have been wrong.

I wouldn’t disagree with your first statement but HN tends to skew to a bunch of I’m a know it all attitudes. I’m just saying, things are not always as simple as they appear and while you can have an opinion on the matter does not make you authority on the subject. I forget the term for this concept but the news is always wrong depending on who is reading it.

You're referring to the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

There are stupid people in all walks of life. Or, people who do things because that’s how they’ve been done and they don’t want to rock the boat and that’s what their paycheck depends on.

Of course, but a fact does not make the opposit case.

In a real hostage situation you won't just rush in with full force. Most of the times the situation gets resolved with long negotiations wearing the hostage taker down.

They can respond quickly without charging in like action hero wannabes.

In that article the police are simply murderers, no one should get shot opening the front door.

Overly quick armed response usually has more downside than upside.

If it's a swatting, you might end up killing innocent civilians.

If it's an actual hostage situation, you can trigger a violent end to the confrontation when a negotiator might have sufficed.

Actually the problem is that if they show up and shoot someone, heads won't roll due to the excuse that "Well it could have been a real emergency so we came in shooting just in case."

How many incidents have their been in recent years where the cops acted too slowly and cautiously vs incidents where someone innocent died or was injured because they came in guns blazing?