News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why the US military usually punishes misconduct but polic... by gridlockd on Friday June 26, 2020 @09:09AM (#23651553)
Of course it helps to have a gun if your opponent has a gun, because both of you now have a risk of getting shot.

If I know you don't have a gun because you're one of these unarmed cops, I can completely dominate the situation. I can make you stand on one leg and do a recital.

> By analogy, people are allowed to own rocket launchers as well (it's true!) but that doesn't mean every beat cop should carry one.

Rocket launchers are not anti-personnel weapons and no ordinary criminal carries them or would be expected to carry them. The best weapon to neutralize a threat wielding a rocket launcher is not another rocket launcher, it's a rifle.

Should we arrive at the situation where criminals routinely arrive in armored personnel carriers or tanks, then we can talk about arming the police with rocket launchers.

Re:Why the US military usually punishes misconduct but polic... by sukilot on Friday June 26, 2020 @10:29AM (#23652344)
Right, so police need body armor, not handguns.
Re:Why the US military usually punishes misconduct but polic... by gridlockd on Saturday June 27, 2020 @04:15AM (#23660296)
Body armor might save your life, but it doesn't make you invincible to bullets. If you take a bullet with body armor, you're going down.

You're no threat whatsoever. You have no power in the situation, you can't get it under control, mitigate the threat, and so on.