<story><title>Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/police-military-gear.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>Shivetya</author><text>The equipment issue isn&amp;#x27;t going to solve anything, this is just lip service to the real problem. Police Unions have effectively created a system by which officers are nearly immune from prosecution and even if successfully prosecuted their record cannot travel with them in many cases.&lt;p&gt;Now one fix that removing some of the equipment will do will reduce the amount of psychological impact it has on those wielding it, as in reduce the Rambo effect. The idea of attaching military style equipment to the current problems is only for political purposes, they needed to blame Trump for the violence.&lt;p&gt;However in the end, there are few alternatives to fixing the police and their application and misapplication of force&lt;p&gt;1) Restrict conditions that can be placed in union negotiated contracts regarding officer behavior, culpability, and indemnification.&lt;p&gt;2) If not 1) then make it illegal for the unions to exist with regards to any public servant who is armed&lt;p&gt;3) civilian oversight boards that are veto proof against the police they monitor. Not only would they review incidents which are questionable they would have to involved in any use of concentrated force to include no knock warrants; something which should be illegal except in the most incredible cases.&lt;p&gt;4) holding elected and appointed officials of the localities, city, county, or state, accountable for the harm caused by their police forces.</text></comment>
<story><title>Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/police-military-gear.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>rconti</author><text>A common response to the idea of &amp;quot;police reform&amp;quot; is that it will make it harder&amp;#x2F;more expensive&amp;#x2F;etc to hire police, which we all agree we need.&lt;p&gt;As an armchair economist who believes that everything DOES happen at the margins, we can&amp;#x27;t completely ignore this, so I&amp;#x27;m at least somewhat sympathetic to the argument.&lt;p&gt;But what really kills the argument is looking at how our medical professionals have stepped up and responded to COVID-19, putting their lives on the line every day, with utterly inadequate gear. And still they serve.&lt;p&gt;Yes, if the police are less militarized and have more personal liability&amp;#x2F;responsibility, it will reduce the level of interest in the profession somewhat, but I think we have to not kid ourselves about the degree of such an impact.&lt;p&gt;This is before we get into whether we really even want &amp;quot;those people&amp;quot; (who are attracted to the militaristic side of policing) &amp;#x27;serving&amp;#x27; our communities at all.&lt;p&gt;Just as anti-pursuit policies have swept the nation to reduce officer-involved carnage, we can reduce escalation of violence.</text></comment>