[Peace-discuss] Today in the Military *Military.com*

[Stuart Levy]

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:54:39PM -0500, John W. wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Barbara kessel <barkes at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> "The Hague restrictions do not apply to Law Enforcement Agencies,
> > however. Ballistics expert Gary Roberts said that is an inconsistency
> > that needs to be remedied, particularly at a time when so many other
> > types of destructive ordnance are allowed in combat." from the article
> > in the N-G today. (Great follow up for Memorial Day, don't you think?)
> >
> > Can someone explain to me what this little apparently parenthetical
> > comment means in an article that is all about military weapons in
> > combat? Is this referencing the Iraqi police, perhaps? Or our police?
> 
> 
> Given that they're discussing the Hague Conventions, which is/are an
> international agreement, and the article specifically says that the Hague
> restrictions do not apply to law enforcement agencies, I'd say it's all
> police anywhere in the world which are NOT included.  Thus they are
> individually free to decide whether or not to use hollow-point bullets.
> 
> American police definitely use hollow-point bullets.  The idea is, as
> previously stated, that if you've reached the point in a "situation" where
> it's either your life or your assailant's, you want ammunition that will
> stop your assailant in his/her tracks, not just infuriate him/her further.
> 
> 
> 
> > This technical/neutral-sounding tone is always there in discussions of
> > weapons and tactics in the local and state law enforcement agency
> > settings as well, where it is not a previous assumption that "killing
> > is their business" as it is in the military.
> 
> 
> In law enforcement, the use of force is an integral part of their
> "business".  I don't understand why any of this is surprising.
> 
> To use an analogy, do you expect every scientific discussion of, say, the
> relative merits of wind energy vs. solar energy to include an elaborate
> discussion justifying the use of alternative energy sources in the first
> place?

Well, considering what kind of force can be appropriate
should surely be prominent part of the discussion when looking at
new levels of force.  Barbara cuts to an essential issue --
killing *is not* supposed to be the business of the police.

If the article were talking about how desirable it would be for
the police to carry machine guns to ensure their own
safety when acting in dangerous situations (crack houses?
rowdy night clubs?  you never know what someone at a loud party
might be carrying), would you think that was unsurprising?

We see over and over again that measures which are supposed to be used only
in the most urgent situations come to be used routinely.  So tasers,
offered as a safer alternative to deadly force, get used on a student in the
UCLA library who refuses to show an ID.
 
> 
> 
> > As an example, you can read a research paper on Tasers done by the
> > Police Training Institute. If you cannot find it on their website and
> > you are interested, I can forward it to you. Barbara K
> >
> > On 5/27/08, Jan & Durl Kruse <jandurl at comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > The following article is on the front page of the News-Gazette today
> > > (Tuesday May 27).
> > > > The N-G has not reprinted the entire AP article posted at Military.com.
> > > > See link below for the entire article.
> > > > I find this article chilling.  But I suppose it is better to know what
> > the
> > > Military mindset is regarding weapons and the use of them  To me it
> > sounds
> > > as if some are looking for ways to legalize killing and to do so more
> > > effectively.
> > > > This is front page news today in our local paper.  What does that
> > imply?
> > > > This report seems so matter of fact.  That's what troubles me the most.
> > > >  JAN K
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > http://www.military.com/news/article/army-critics-debate-choice-of-bullets.html?col=1186032310810
> > > >
> > > > Army, Critics Debate Choice of Bullets
> > > > May 26, 2008
> > > > Associated Press
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss