I live in LA. This is more complicated than you think. Example: I take the bus, because, screw traffic. It's nicer and easier. We are at Santa Monica and Westwood and a cop car pulls up right next to me. I'm higher up, and this light takes a long time, so I get a good long chance to view the cop car over.
I was surprised. The damn thing was rusted to all hell. There was a thermal scanner on the top, but good lord if it actually worked. Most of the BNC cables (yes, really, like in freshman lab) were frayed up. The top was totally rust, and a bit of liner was coming through. Remember, in SoCal, we get rain maybe 5 times a year. This car was OLD.
The thing about LA cops is that they are sensible and responding to incentives correctly. The LA basin is gigantic and they have to patrol all of it. Add in the low taxes for police support, and you get the main problem of a street officer: Backup is 25 minutes away. It's just you and your partner most of the time. This, above all else, explains the LAPD.
The US Army ran into a similar problem in Iraq right after the fall. We became the police, effectively. Problem was, just like in LA, the area was too big for the force size. All small houses, all just sprawl, no back-up. Things started out just the same as in LA. You are FORCED, in order to protect yourselves, to be the Biggest Badass all around. You must culture a sense in the populace that you DO NOT FUCK WITH the US Army. Brutality is necessary. This is what the LAPD is doing, and it makes sense.
Thing is, Iraq taught us a lot about COIN, COunter INsurgency. What the army ended up doing, and it was much more successful, was you deputize the local leaders. Make them hash things out among themselves. Only call the Army when you really need them. They do not become a patrol force, but a real big hammer that whomps on things. Patrols are the job of local deputies.
The LAPD, being in California, cannot do this. The legal system here in the states will not allow for local deputations of people in Compton and Koreatown. Just from a benefits and payment perspective alone you can't do this.
So, the LAPD is doing the best it can to stay alive, which is the situation the taxpayers of LA county have put them in. You want less drones and a better police force in LA? Pay them more to get more people on the streets. Give them back-up. Then they won't be so brutal, because they won't be alone. Otherwise, drones and the like are here to stay
> This is what the LAPD is doing, and it makes sense.
No, it doesn't. LAPD is not the fucking army. The army on foreign land during an invasion has to treat everyone like a potential enemy that can take their lives. The police does not and should not act the same way against American citizens. Their job is to protect the citizens, not see every single one of them as a potential enemy.
The police is being paid well. But what do they do? They don't hire more offiers with the money. Instead they buy tank-like vehicles, anti-air rockets [1], drones and train and equip the current officers to become more militarized (more SWAT teams, but also for regular officers).
As an army man, have you ever thought about why the army is not allowed to act on US soil? Because the army is a much more aggressive brute force sort of authority, and that's not acceptable in a democracy (unless you want to inevitably live in a civil war-like zone, as a response to that from the population). That's why we have the police. If the police becomes the army, then that kind of screws everything up.
> The army on foreign land during an invasion has to treat everyone like a potential enemy that can take their lives.
That is not true at all. The U.S. Army occupying Germany in 1946 didn't treat the locals as murderous criminals either.
The COIN mention by parent comment was not gratuitous: If you bother to go through the relevant Army and Marine Corps doctrinal guidance on counter-insurgency you'll see that gaining the support of the local population is the mantra.
> As an army man, have you ever thought about why the army is not allowed to act on US soil?
They are allowed to act on US soil. What they're not allowed to do is to act as police on US soil.
And even that prohibition (Posse Comitatus) came from Congress in the 1860s, and only applies to Federal (Title 10) forces, not Army National Guard forces under the control of a state governor.
And even with that, the Army is allowed to conduct certain missions on U.S. soil under "Defense Support to Civil Authorities".
> Because the army is a much more aggressive brute force sort of authority, and that's not acceptable in a democracy
The army has the capability and training to kill more people and break more things, sure, but that is not their only mission.
Remember, in an actual war one of the core responsibilities of military forces under international law is not just combat, but military occupation, which is inherently a policing role. That can be in conjunction with local police forces, but the responsibility still belongs to the occupying army.
Soldiers typically don't like that role, sure, but to say that an army is designed only to put bayonets through torsos is paranoiac at best.
Based on my OP, I meant it makes sense NOT in a moral way, but in a physics way. They are responding to their incentives as you would expect from any mammal.
However, as was pointed out in another comment, the main justification of '25 minutes for backup' to explain the brutality is, in fact, false. LAPD response time is ~6 minutes (still, gotta see the data, the sigma on that Gaussian may be an hour or 30 seconds, we don't know).
I agree with you, the people of LA need a better police force than this. However, they do not agree with us. If they did, you would see, at the very least, greater voter participation. Eric Garcetti was elected with a 23% voter participation of REGISTERED voters, of with there are 1.8 million in LA [0]. This was the lowest rate in 100 years. Doing the math, that mean only ~10% of Los Angelenos bothered to vote. Garcetti got a 'mandate' from ~6% of the population here. If LA wanted to see change, you'd see a much higher rate than that pitiful amount. The people of LA, for worse or better, must think things are just fine as they are.
What's funny is that the Rules of Engagement for the US Army are a million times more strict than the local police force.
My buddy fought in the Battle of Wanat[1], and had to watch helplessly as insurgents moved into position with weapons, in plain view. He was not permitted to fire, unless fired upon.
I certainly wish the police would adopt that aspect of the military.
So we have as many LAPD and LASD officers per square mile (roughly) as we had troops deployed to Iraq per square mile.
LA County:
25,000 officers. 4,752 square miles. About 5 per square mile [higher population density, so we'll call this roughly equivalent to Iraq]
Iraq:
171,000 Soldiers. 168,753 square miles. About 1 per square mile.
So, if we are going for equivalency, are you declaring LA county to be as dangerous as Iraq? And if so, why?
Please understand that these 25,000 officers are equipped with a budget of around ~5 billion [200k per officer]. I didn't total up all the little cities, I'm just extrapolating based on the LAPD+LASD budget.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/military_bud... Pay+Benefits per soldier is $110k. I doubt it costs $90k to equip a police officer every year. So, in theory, the LAPD+LASD should be properly equipped for a domestic policing force unless you think 90k/officer for support costs isn't enough?
I think what you are seeing is not 'They are in shitty situations' but rather 'the budget is not being properly handled' combined with some prioritization like 'maybe we need to focus on providing the human beings with the equipment and care they need vs surveillance spending'.
Thank you! I have been lookign for these stats for a while, but didn't find them.
To answer questions: No, LA is not NEARLY as bad as Baghdad after the fall. There are areas and situations where it MAY be comparable (Watts, '92, OJ, etc) but is 99% not even close to as bad.
Interesting though, I wonder what the diff is between, say, NY or NOLA and LA in cops/mile and $/cop. Hell, Dallas-FW even, thats a comparable sprawl set of cities.
90k for a cop job in LA is not very good. But then again, I'm thinking my life is worth WAY more than 90k. Though it really depends on person and family history, I guess.
Thank you most though for the 6 minutes stat. I had HEARD that LAPD was pretty isolated, but 6 minutes for average backup blows that out of the water for me. Still, I am not cop and I do not know if that is a long or acceptable time for backup (Obviously, compare to NYPD, London PD, Paris PD etc.). Still, you gotta check the data. It may be a gaussian distribution with a sigma of ~1 hour, we don't know, it may be ~30seconds for sigma.
"the budget is not being properly handled" With LAPD, no! Surely you jest! Watts, Rampart, OJ, Rodney King, Dorner, the Sherrifs Dept THIS year? No, the LAPD just has a few bad apples.
Thank you for the data, the time to source the data, and the sources themselves. This is why I come to HN, for the real story.
That's for a patrolman, as well. Senior Detectives down here in an urban area of Texas make $95,000 PA. And I learned that at least here, the pension is calculated as 75% of your last three years' salary averaged, cause a local cop just got brought up on manslaughter charges for shooting a black dude in the back of the head at point blank range.
I was surprised. The damn thing was rusted to all hell. There was a thermal scanner on the top, but good lord if it actually worked. Most of the BNC cables (yes, really, like in freshman lab) were frayed up. The top was totally rust, and a bit of liner was coming through. Remember, in SoCal, we get rain maybe 5 times a year. This car was OLD.
The thing about LA cops is that they are sensible and responding to incentives correctly. The LA basin is gigantic and they have to patrol all of it. Add in the low taxes for police support, and you get the main problem of a street officer: Backup is 25 minutes away. It's just you and your partner most of the time. This, above all else, explains the LAPD.
The US Army ran into a similar problem in Iraq right after the fall. We became the police, effectively. Problem was, just like in LA, the area was too big for the force size. All small houses, all just sprawl, no back-up. Things started out just the same as in LA. You are FORCED, in order to protect yourselves, to be the Biggest Badass all around. You must culture a sense in the populace that you DO NOT FUCK WITH the US Army. Brutality is necessary. This is what the LAPD is doing, and it makes sense.
Thing is, Iraq taught us a lot about COIN, COunter INsurgency. What the army ended up doing, and it was much more successful, was you deputize the local leaders. Make them hash things out among themselves. Only call the Army when you really need them. They do not become a patrol force, but a real big hammer that whomps on things. Patrols are the job of local deputies.
The LAPD, being in California, cannot do this. The legal system here in the states will not allow for local deputations of people in Compton and Koreatown. Just from a benefits and payment perspective alone you can't do this.
So, the LAPD is doing the best it can to stay alive, which is the situation the taxpayers of LA county have put them in. You want less drones and a better police force in LA? Pay them more to get more people on the streets. Give them back-up. Then they won't be so brutal, because they won't be alone. Otherwise, drones and the like are here to stay