Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear

Re:Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access ... by rayiner on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @06:51PM (#23397446)

We agree on violent policing! Seriously, just look at where these cops firing rubber bullets and tear gas work. Almost all working for mayors with D besides their names. The level of police aggression isn’t palpably different whether you’re in Orlando or Minneapolis, and those two cities have vastly different politics.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access ... by eloff on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @07:07PM (#23397592)

I think everyone agrees they don't like violent policing. I think as per usual both sides will disagree about what the solution should be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access ... by maest on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @09:04PM (#23398525)

> I think everyone agrees they don't like violent policing

That is not completely true. For example, the narrative on thedonald.win wrt recent rioting is that most protesters are looters and that looters deserve being shot. They seem to be ok with militarized, strong-men police.

Also, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is used as a justification for violent policing. "Of course you're gonna get tazed/hit/shot at if you don't comply with orders/resist arrest/insult the officers."

Now, we can argue about how representative thedonald.win is to the entire population (I think a non-negligent part of the population subscribes to those views), but the point is, party affiliation does affect one's position wrt violent policing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access ... by eloff on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @10:05PM (#23398926)

True, everybody agrees is an oxymoron. What I mean to say is most people agree they don't like violent policing. I think that's probably true for some value of most.

[ Parent | on HN ]