undefined | Better HN

0 pointsDanBC12y ago0 comments

It's not completely free. They need to pay to store it, insure it, run it. They need to have staff (diverted from their other tasks) to maintain it and operate it and bureaucrat it.

There's a hit to their public image too. When your home or car is burgled you don't want to see a tank.

And, as toomuchtodo hints at, heavily arming a police force leads to those guns being used. Ignoring "bad guys" for a moment, shooting innocent dogs of innocent people is probably a bad thing. Shooting innocent bystanders is probably a bad thing.

http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/05/nypd-baby-you-know-we-love...

Obvious Popehat bias, but still, it's pretty alarming.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

Houshalter12y ago· 2 in thread

>It's not completely free.

True but it's really no different than a truck or existing police vehicles cost-wise. And it's free. In fact it looks pretty similar to police vehicles already in use: http://i.imgur.com/DQFJESy.jpg

>And, as toomuchtodo hints at, heavily arming a police force leads to those guns being used.

Perhaps, but this is a vehicle, not a gun. It's just a big bullet proof truck.

kbenson12y ago

Nothing is ever free, it's paid for at some point. In this case, it's our tax dollars, which could be spent on something more worthy. I know for my state, if I could direct all that money towards trade programs for prisons, I think that would be a much better investment towards serving the same goals, even if it takes longer to pay out.

nitrogen12y ago

As the parent post mentioned, the shape of the tool shapes the perceptions of the user. Giving militarily designed equipment to police forces might influence them to behave less like peace officers and more like military officers.

gohrt12y ago

Shooting dogs of guilty people is a bad thing, too.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse