Should Police Departments Be Given More Money?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Dim, it's not that you contradicted any of your own posts...It's you directly strawmanning what you were quoting.

Please explain.

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're falling into the trap of, more force is always better and will always be effective. 

 

How can you read Alex's post and draw this inference? 

Edited July 1, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

Let me save you the bother, when all else fails the threat of electrocution, can de-escalate; before the final sanction.

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How can you read Alex's post and draw this conclusion? 

How can you not?

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

How can you not?

From reading this part of the post: 

43 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

In all seriousness persuasion and deescalation should be the main focus of training.  Physical force should be the last resort.  

 

If he thought more force was always better, why would he say that?

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

From reading this part of the post: 

And the rest of the thread is focused on training to deal with violence, with violence first. If I missed his conversion, I apologise.

[Curious layman]

Sorry for the ramble,

but a little surprised/shocked by the support for police officers using choke or blood holds or whatever. I'm not sure the image of police officers holding suspects in what appears to be a headlock is going to do their image much good. It's very easy for someone to panic in a situation like that and for the situation to get out of hand.

my personal opinion is that the police should use the example of care homes and psychiatric hospitals. These people face situations like the police all the time. Ok, not with guns, but still high pressure situations with very unpredictable people.

I used to work in care, some of the clients we looked after were prone to attacking you, so staff would receive special training. Some of these clients were huge, and I mean huge, due to side effects of their medication and whatever. Under no circumstances were we aloud to use chokes, arm twisting, pressure points etc.. instant dismissal.

Yet the training was quick, effective and worked. It was all about movement, balance and momentum, avoiding sensitive areas.

Maybe the police should put a priority in recruiting people from these backgrounds, social workers and maybe more people from older age groups might help too. They would definitely benefit from more training in mental health. Maybe include working at a psychiatric hospital or care home environment in their initial training. 

Oh, and to the OP, yes of course they need more money. That's the problem, there being expected to do far to many things with the money they have.

How about the same money, but less responsibilitys?

Edited July 1, 2020 by Curious layman

[swansont]

On 6/30/2020 at 2:36 AM, Alex_Krycek said:

From a purely objective standpoint, if you pay someone a marginal salary, expect them to work long hours in an extremely high stress environment,

Is this accurate? Are non-supervisory police on salary, or are they wage employees, who make a lot of their money on overtime (time and a half)?

Not sure it’s fair to say we “expect” them to work long hours. Also, on the list of dangerous jobs, there are only a couple that pay much more than policeman (on average). Most pay significantly less

https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/high-paying-dangerous-jobs

 

 

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I agree that the lack of training is systemic, and so the solution should be systemic as well, and that includes serious martial arts training, physical fitness standards, and...

 

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You insist on removing a potentially less fatal option

More broadly, I'm hoping we can acknowledge the current framing of the situation is deeply flawed. You both continue thinking with a "police must be able to dominate any situation" mindset and keep suggesting we need to offer them additional tools to maintain that dominance.

Sure... there will be examples of self-defense being needed, but in many/most cases it's simply not. The office could choose to walk away... re-engage another time in another way.

We need to stop thinking of police as crowd control... stop thinking of control at all... and start thinking about creating a healthier society that helps people to find... well, to find... help. Not punishment, but assistance. 

Part of the issue IMO is the focus on dominance. Embedded in the culture of most police departments is a driving motivation to be always in control of any situation no matter what the cost, but look at the cost it's bringing us! People sworn to protect and serve are too often the ones doing the killing... the beating... the brutalization... and all in the name of dominating the streets and controlling the situation. 

Adding more physical control techniques and training itself based on being better at fighting is not a way out of a situation where there's already too much fighting and too much martial enforcement. We need to let it be okay for the police to sometimes walk away, or to bring in someone skilled in mental health issues, etc... after all, does it really matter that much if we don't catch the guy selling loose cigarettes for a buck a pop right there in that moment? Will society fail if we catch up to him later when moods have calmed? No, of course not. 

Years ago, cops were the primary people who brought hurt individuals to doctors and hospitals. Then, the decision was made to spend that same money instead on ambulances and paramedics, etc. and the system we have today is far better... even though it entailed defunding the police a bit.

It's time to start thinking more like that (as continuing to dream up and offer new tools for dominating a free citizenry is part of what's allowing these problems to persist decade after decade after decade). 

Edited July 1, 2020 by iNow

[Alex_Krycek]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And the rest of the thread is focused on training to deal with violence, with violence first. If I missed his conversion, I apologise.

I stated before that the assumption was that the suspect is already intent on violence.  If the suspect isn't intent on violence, then of course, no physical force from the officer should be used.  

What I stated was, WHEN the suspect is already physically attacking the officers they need to be prepared to deal with it and control the situation.    

Your position is unrealistic.  If someone is intent on violently attacking another person, asking them nicely to stop simply isn't going to work.    

 

41 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

More broadly, I'm hoping we can acknowledge the current framing of the situation is deeply flawed. You both continue thinking with a "police must be able to dominate any situation" mindset and keep suggesting we need to offer them additional tools to maintain that dominance.

Sure... there will be examples of self-defense being needed, but in many/most cases it's simply not. The office could choose to walk away... re-engage another time in another way.

We need to stop thinking of police as crowd control... stop thinking of control at all... and start thinking about creating a healthier society that helps people to find... well, to find... help. Not punishment, but assistance. 

Part of the issue IMO is the focus on dominance. Embedded in the culture of most police departments is a driving motivation to be always in control of any situation no matter what the cost, but look at the cost it's bringing us! People sworn to protect and serve are too often the ones doing the killing... the beating... the brutalization... and all in the name of dominating the streets and controlling the situation. 

Adding more physical control techniques and training itself based on being better at fighting is not a way out of a situation where there's already too much fighting and too much martial enforcement. We need to let it be okay for the police to sometimes walk away, or to bring in someone skilled in mental health issues, etc... after all, does it really matter that much if we don't catch the guy selling loose cigarettes for a buck a pop right there in that moment? Will society fail if we catch up to him later when moods have calmed? No, of course not. 

Years ago, cops were the primary people who brought hurt individuals to doctors and hospitals. Then, the decision was made to spend that same money instead on ambulances and paramedics, etc. and the system we have today is far better... even though it entailed defunding the police a bit.

It's time to start thinking more like that (as continuing to dream up and offer new tools for dominating a free citizenry is part of what's allowing these problems to persist decade after decade after decade). 

I agree with most of this.  Over-policing needs to stop.  Mass incarceration needs to stop.  Racial profiling and systematic targeting of the poor needs to stop.  Policing for profit needs to stop.  Police brutality and use of excessive force definitely needs to stop.  Significantly more resources need to be allocated to social work, mental health facilities, and PERMANENT economic stimulus for chronically depressed areas to alleviate the vicious cycle of crime and poverty.  100% yes to all of that. 

However, at the present time there is still a need for police.  So the question is, what kind of police do we want?  Effective police require an investment.  Right now society isn't investing in police in the way it should.  Even the admirable Scandinavian nations with abundant social programs still have police - and as we've discussed, they pay for it. 

Like it or not, American society in its present form is still extremely violent.  There are numerous mafias and street gangs that would love to have complete autonomy if police are defunded and restricted in their ability to exercise authority, not to mention every two bit criminal with a grudge against society.  I'm simply saying that violent confrontation is a part of policing, and how officers respond to violent confrontation matters a great deal. 

If they're untrained, they'll reach for their gun at the slightest provocation.   If they're trained well, they will have a range of other options at their disposal to successfully diffuse the encounter.  Just trying to be realistic given the context of the situation, that's all.    

------

Here is an excerpt from Norway's 2020 budget whitepaper:

Security

Security is a prerequisite for freedom. Crime breeds insecurity. The population therefore needs to be protected by the rule of law, a strong and effective police force and a credible defence capability. This is reflected in the budget for 2020 with a NOK 2.5 billion increase in defence sector appropriations for, inter alia, investments in new submarines, maritime patrol aircraft and artillery for the Norwegian Armed Forces. We are preparing for an increase in military activity and strengthened emergency response preparedness. This meets the targets the Government has set in the 2017-2020 long-term plan for the defence sector, and will expand the defence budget by more than NOK 8 billion in real terms over the period covered in the long-term plan.

The Government is planning for a continued increase in police presence. The budget proposal allows for the recruitment of graduates from the Norwegian Police University College in 2020. In addition, appropriations are increased to cover the full-year effect of the recruitment of graduates in 2019. More funds for the police will strengthen the capacity of police districts to prevent, investigate and prosecute crime. It is proposed to provide the police and the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration with funds in order to enable the implementation of new Schengen systems for border control and monitoring. These systems will improve capacity for detecting and preventing crime, ID fraud and illegal migration. To facilitate follow-up of the Security Act, the Government is proposing to increase appropriations for the Norwegian National Security Authority (NSM). The proposal facilitates digitalisation and improved efficiency and quality in the security clearance of personnel. Moreover, the Government proposes initiatives to improve the ability to prevent, detect and manage security incidents in emergency preparedness communications.

Source:  https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/09814fbc520946869d6eaa65099c2983/national_budget_2020.pdf

Page 13.

--------

Note:  2.5 billion Norwegian Kroner is approximately 262,000,000 USD

----

And from Sweden's 2020 budget whitepaper:

The fight against crime and its causes will be intensified. Society must be strong enough to protect people from everything from petty crime to terrorism. The Swedish Police Service will be given additional resources. Work on employing 10 000 more people in the Police by 2024 will continue to strengthen the Police’s capacity to better fight serious organised crime, for instance. As the number of court cases is increasing and a larger number of criminals are being sentenced, the Swedish courts and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service will be allocated additional resources. The capacity to combat welfare crime and money laundering will be improved. The Swedish Prosecution Authority, the Swedish courts and Swedish Customs will be strengthened. Honour-related violence and oppression will be made visible, pre-empted, prevented and punished. The whole of society must play its part in combating and preventing crime.

Source:  https://www.government.se/4ad5f1/contentassets/e8bf49ea1bbe41fda780895657ae94e0/from-the-budget-bill-for-2020-budget-statement.pdf.pdf

Page 5.

-----

From the Finnish 2020 budget: 

PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY

EUR 816 million is proposed to the police force. The appropriation is used to launch measures that aim at increasing the police officer person-years to the level determined in the Government Programme, 7,500 person-years, by the year 2023. To ensure the performance of the operators involved in preventing and solving criminal offenses and the implementation of prosecution services, additional funding amounting to EUR 5.2 million is allocated to the prosecution service, courts, legal aid, and the Criminal Sanctions Agency. A one-off addition of EUR 2 million is proposed to focusing evidence on the District Courts.

Source:  https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161822/Budget review 2020 October 2019.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

Page 15.

------

The point is, even as safe and prosperous as these Scandinavian nations are, non of them are thinking about defunding their police forces.  US police by comparison are already woefully underfunded by State and local governments and we want to take more money away from them?  It's not logical.  

Edited July 1, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[MigL]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

We’re citizens with rights in a free society.

Have none of you guys ever been out at 3 or 4 in the morning, when bars let out, and belligerent drunks are looking to do property damage, start a fight, or get in their vehicle and drive off kill some unsuspecting pedestrian or another driver ?
Are you saying cops shouldn't stop these people because they are 'citizens with rights in a free society' ?
I'm fairly certain you cannot reason with those kinds of drunks until they've had a chance to sober up; but what would you suggest be done, INow, let them go on their way, or try to detain them ?
If you think they should be detained, then you have to provide cops with the means necessary to do so. If they fight back should the cop let himself be beat up, or should he try to incapacitate him with a choke hold, or other aspects of his training ? If they try to wrestle his taser or gun away from him ( yes, I've seen that, in Niagara Falls, NY ) should the cop let him go with a weapon, or should he stop him by any means necessary ?
If on the other hand, you think the cop should just back off, and let them do as they please, I'm not sure I wanna live in your "free society, where citizens have rights' but obviously no responsibility.

( Note that I ask a lot of questions as I'm genuinely interested in your answers )

 

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And the rest of the thread is focused on training to deal with violence, with violence first.

That seems to be a major problem, and I attribute it to the prevalent gun culture in the US. No cop wants to get shot, so even traffic stops are conducted with their guns drawn ( yes, I've seen that too, in Buffalo, NY). It's gotten so that even when someone wants to commit 'suicide by cop', the cops oblige him and shoot him, when he actually needed to be talked to ( or more exactly, listened to )
The lack of training that I note, is the inability of American cops to do a proper threat assessment when doing their job; as Dim rightly notes, violence is sometimes warranted, but it should not be the first recourse every time. That is the kind of training that I would like to see money spent on. But I don't think it's a 5 hour refresher per year, or even a few months per year; the US needs to get serious about police training.
I would also point out that Canadian police I'm familiar with, Niagara Regional and Ontario Provincial, are two of the best paid police forces in Canada, as a result they are exclusive and hard to get into; a simple College diploma will not suffice any more, almost all new recruits of the last 30 years have University degrees along with their Police Foundations College diploma.
That Nordic model that Eise suggested sounds interesting ( and very applicable ).

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Like it or not, American society in its present form is still extremely violent.  There are numerous mafias and street gangs that would love to have complete autonomy if police are defunded and restricted in their ability to exercise authority, not to mention every two bit criminal with a grudge against society.  I'm simply saying that violent confrontation is a part of policing, and how officers respond to violent confrontation matters a great deal. 

There's a lot I agree with in your post, as well. What I wonder is if every single beat cop walking the streets and driving into the gas station for a soda needs to be that highly trained, or if we can instead have smaller units more like SWAT intended solely for those situations with gangs and mafias and the other specialized situations you cite. In fact, we already do have those units... they're called the FBI. 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Have none of you guys ever been out at 3 or 4 in the morning, when bars let out, and belligerent drunks are looking to do property damage, start a fight, or get in their vehicle and drive off kill some unsuspecting pedestrian or another driver ?
Are you saying cops shouldn't stop these people because they are 'citizens with rights in a free society' ?

No. I'm saying they can intervene without violence, and if things turn violent, then other solutions can be put in place. There will always be exceptions and needs for additional force. Those are marginal issues, though, relative to what we're seeing across our nation more broadly. Don't sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect. 

[iNow]

[Alex_Krycek]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Her sign should read: "Untrained Cops Can Panic and Act on Impulse"

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Her sign should read: "Untrained Cops Can Panic and Act on Impulse"

Except, no. Even if I post as a full adherent to the stance YOU'VE personally been advocating... even then,  AT BEST we could call them UNDER-trained.

As we all know, however, they are NOT UNtrained, but the citizenry (as a general rule) very much are. 

[Alex_Krycek]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Except, no. Even if I post as a full adherent to the stance YOU'VE personally been advocating... even then,  AT BEST we could call them UNDER-trained.

As we all know, however, they are NOT UNtrained, but the citizenry (as a general rule) very much are. 

Well, now we're getting into a semantics argument about what "trained", "untrained", and "under-trained" actually mean. 

Let's compare two groups who are expected to manage violent confrontations on a daily basis: US Special Forces and Police Officers

If US special forces train three times as long for a deployment (example:  18 months training time for a 6 months tour) then that training ratio is 3:1, or 300% training time for the required job role.  

Conversely, lets assume the average American police officer works 250 days a year at 8 hours a day (a conservative estimate of a basic 40 hours work week with holidays).  That would be 2000 hours of work time per year.  If the police are only training 5 hours a year on average (lets assume), then that ratio (in hours) would be 5:2000, or 0.3% training for the required job role.  Given this, it's more or less irrelevant whether you call the officer "untrained" or "undertrained". In any case, such an amount of training is woefully inadequate to the expectations of their job.

Now, the obvious objection you'll raise is that the US Police aren't special forces, and they are preparing for different environments.  Nevertheless, the police are being expected to deal with extremely dangerous situations on a daily basis, and while their training regiment should be significantly different than those preparing for war, nobody can argue that only a few hours a year is acceptable for what police are tasked with dealing with.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[dimreepr]

https://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/Learning/Curriculum/Initial-learning/Pages/Initial-learning.aspx

Quote

From April 2016 the Diploma in Policing (PC) for IPLDP was introduced as the minimum national qualification. This 10-unit qualification is available under Ofqual's Qualifications Credit Framework (QCF) and is administered through the main national awarding organisations.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_academy#:~:text=Basic%20police%20training%20requires%20three,2%20years%2C%20Master's%20degree).

Quote

In an analysis of training requirements in several states by Gawker "found Louisiana law enforcement recruits typically attend 360 hours of training, while the national average is slightly more than 600 hours.

 

The problem isn't the amount of training they receive, it's the type of training they receive.

 https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

Quote

Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance. Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift. But cops live in a hostile world. They learn that every encounter, every individual is a potential threat. They always have to be on their guard because, as cops often say, “complacency kills.

 

 

 

[Alex_Krycek]

 

Quote

The problem isn't the amount of training they receive, it's the type of training they receive.

 https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

That's definitely a huge part of it.  There's a huge focus on "survival at all costs".  "Better to be judged by 12 than carried out by 6."  To me this primal fight or flight position reflects a mindset of extreme scarcity and fear, again as a result of not feeling competent in their operating environment.  

Here's the full quote from that wikipedia entry you linked to: "In an analysis of training requirements in several states by Gawker "found Louisiana law enforcement recruits typically attend 360 hours of training, while the national average is slightly more than 600 hours. Louisiana requires less hours of training for law enforcement than the 1,500 hours needed to become a certified barber, the website said. Washington, D.C., requires the most police academy training hours in the nation, at 1,120."

Less training than a barber.  There you go.  Pretty much says it all.  

Further, there are two aspects of training.  How long cadets train to become an officer, and how often they train per year to maintain a high level of proficiency with numerous skillsets (such as martial arts, negotiation / persuasion skills, overall physical fitness, etc). 

In the wikipedia page you linked to I saw no references to the amount of hours required to MAINTAIN such skillsets, which is crucially important.  The 600 hour average is only to become a police officer, if I understood correctly.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Less training than a barber.  There you go.  Pretty much says it all. 

Apples and oranges, all it does is illustrate how long it takes to become proficient in a physical technic, such as martial arts. which should be, largely, unnecessary for a police officer in almost all case's (they have PPE, pepper spray and tazers for the extreme case's).

[Alex_Krycek]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Apples and oranges, all it does is illustrate how long it takes to become proficient in a physical technic, such as martial arts. which should be, largely, unnecessary for a police officer in almost all case's (they have PPE, pepper spray and tazers for the extreme case's).

So you think tasers are a good idea then?  I couldn't disagree more.  There have been so many issues with tasers causing sudden cardiac arrest.  They've basically been classified as torture devices under the United Nations.  

[dimreepr]

35 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So you think tasers are a good idea then?  I couldn't disagree more.  There have been so many issues with tasers causing sudden cardiac arrest.  They've basically been classified as torture devices under the United Nations.  

Did you notice this part of my post "for the extreme case's"? I think I'd choose to be shot by a tazer over a 9mm, and you're going to have to cite that claim.

The police don't need more money to train, they need to be trained correctly, with de-escalation "so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance." and NOT martial arts.

Edited July 2, 2020 by dimreepr

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Well, now we're getting into a semantics argument about what "trained", "untrained", and "under-trained" actually mean. 

Let's compare two groups who are expected to manage violent confrontations on a daily basis: US Special Forces and Police Officers

Or, maybe we don’t compare police and the military - especially the highly-specialized, elite forces within the military.

We do NOT expect a given police officer to manage violent confrontations on a daily basis. Over the scope of all police, a few will be faced with a violent situation on a given day, but there are ~800,000 police officers in almost 18,000 departments. Special forces in the military are less than 1/10 of that number.

It’s unreasonable to expect to train that many people, especially absent the selection criteria we have for special forces that the police lack. If you want these to be closer to analogous, you need to select a subset of police for this training.

 

[dimreepr]

At least with a tazer, if anyone dies, it's by accident.

[Alex_Krycek]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

At least with a tazer, if anyone dies, it's by accident.

Makes no difference.  If a taser leads to accidental cardiac arrest, it shouldn't be used.

It's also speculation.  You have no way of knowing which deaths by taser at the hands of police were intentional or not.    It all depends on the officer's motivation, how long they tased the suspect for, etc.

If anything it provides a more convenient excuse.  "Oops, I was trying to use non-lethal force and tase the suspect but it seems he had a heart attack."

Edited July 2, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Makes no difference.  If a taser leads to accidental cardiac arrest, it shouldn't be used.

Pure speculation.  You have no way of knowing which deaths by taser at the hands of police were intentional or not.    It all depends on the officer's motivation, how long they tased the suspect for, etc.

If anything it provides a more convenient excuse.  "Oops, I was trying to use non-lethal force and tase the suspect but it seems he had a heart attack."

So, by that logic a choke hold is ok, so long as no-one dies...

[Alex_Krycek]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, by that logic a choke hold is ok, so long as no-one dies...

More directly accountable.  Right now what does the officer do if someone has a heart attack after being tased for too long?  Blame it on the taser.  "Oops sorry, but not my fault." 

If the officer is trained to apply a blood choke, and knows full well the correct application of it and the consequences of using it improperly, there is no plausible defense.  The officer kills someone by failing at their training, indict for manslaughter.  The end.  

It would offer more control and accountability, overall.