Should Police Departments Be Given More Money?

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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." 

I was joking...

What's your excuse?

[Alex_Krycek]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I was joking...

What's your excuse?

Excuse?  For what?  

Be specific about what point you disagree with.  

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Be specific about what point you disagree with.  

First time interacting with dimreepr, eh?

[Alex_Krycek]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

First time interacting with dimreepr, eh?

Ha.  Just following protocol.  

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Excuse?  For what?  

Be specific about what point you disagree with.  

Violence (and extra training in violently dealing with violence) as a solution to America's policing problem's, was that not clear after 3 page's?

Let me introduce an extreme example, as you seem so fond of them: How do you stop a sword weilding civilian with clear mental issue's, with a choke hold? 

You could just shoot him/her with a 9mm, but I'm not sure how that's better than a tazer, or rigidly sticking to a policy of de-escalation...

[Alex_Krycek]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Violence (and extra training in violently dealing with violence) as a solution to America's policing problem's, was that not clear after 3 page's?

Straw man.  Never did I state that violence is the solution to America's policing problem.  Is that not clear after 3 pages?

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Let me introduce an extreme example, as you seem so fond of them: How do you stop a sword weilding civilian with clear mental issue's, with a choke hold? 

You could just shoot him/her with a 9mm, but I'm not sure how that's better than a tazer, or rigidly sticking to a policy of de-escalation...

If the sword wielding civilian tries to attack the police then he / she would represent a lethal threat and so deadly force would be justified.    If he / she is mindlessly swinging the sword around in a park then the cops should use a Time, Distance, Cover tactic to approach him.   That is, they should assess the situation from afar from behind cover and only if he attacks respond with commensurate force to stop him.  And yes, if they can talk the person into putting the sword down, that would be the best option.  A taser might work in this situation but you have to be relatively close to use a taser, so that would put the officers in quite a lot of danger.  

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Straw man.  Never did I state that violence is the solution to America's policing problem.  Is that not clear after 3 pages?

So, you don't want to increase spending to train the police in martial art's?

3 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If the sword wielding civilian tries to attack the police then he / she would represent a lethal threat and so deadly force would be justified.

Then what's wrong with trying a tazer first?

Besides I didn't say he/she was attacking anyone...

28 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

And yes, if they can talk the person into putting the sword down, that would be the best option.

Then let's spend the budget on that option.

[Alex_Krycek]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So, you don't want to increase spending to train the police in martial art's?

Yes, I do.  But being better at martial arts doesn't equate to "using more violence".  It would mean the officer knows how to control and mitigate violence when it is used against them.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Then what's wrong with trying a tazer first?

Tazers get used by untrained officers all the time because they're "non lethal".  They are over-used IMO and present too great a risk of causing sudden cardiac arrest.  It might make sense in this case unless the suspect wielding the sword is also wearing a suit of medieval armor.  

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Then let's spend the budget on that option.

I'm all for it, however, many times people cannot be reasoned with.  It's unrealistic to think officer can always talk people out of being irrational.  

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

It's unrealistic to think officer can always talk people out of being irrational.  

I agree, but is it equally unrealistic to suggest maybe not every single crime committed needs to be apprehended or enforced?

Surely all of us have broken one law or another at some point in our lives and I suggest we’re better off as a whole for not being booked and prosecuted each time. 

“Each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.” ~Bryan Stevenson

[CharonY]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Surely all of us have broken one law or another at some point in our lives and I suggest we’re better off as a whole for not being booked and prosecuted each time. 

Add the fact that studies suggest that black and Hispanic folks are disproportionately target (e.g. for jaywalking) plus the fact that poor folks get disproportionately punished for minor infractions it does not seem like a great system to begin with (or at least has substantial issues).

[MigL]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Surely all of us have broken one law or another at some point in our lives

Speak for yourself, criminal  .

[iNow]

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

Speak for yourself, criminal  .

I suspect your problem is with my use of the quantity “one”... lol

[Alex_Krycek]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

I agree, but is it equally unrealistic to suggest maybe not every single crime committed needs to be apprehended or enforced?

Many things should be decriminalized.  It's hard to know where to begin.  Thankfully there has been progress with the legalization of cannabis and certain naturally occurring psychadelics. 

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Surely all of us have broken one law or another at some point in our lives and I suggest we’re better off as a whole for not being booked and prosecuted each time. 

I agree that society is over policed.  It's part of the rigged game of our plutocracy - systemic white collar crime / fraud that does substantial damage to society is ignored while the lower classes are over policed (i.e. oppressed) to fuel a for profit incarceration system.  The system couldn't be more broken.  

 

 

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The system couldn't be more broken.  

Please, my friend. Do not tempt the fates 

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Yes, I do.  But being better at martial arts doesn't equate to "using more violence".

It's the right approach, if you have ten years of full time training behind you; because then one is more likely to walk away from a fight, because of the training.

Otherwise the Dunning and Kruger affect suggests it will promote aggression, which does equate to "using more violence".

14 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I'm all for it, however, many times people cannot be reasoned with.  It's unrealistic to think officer can always talk people out of being irrational. 

Of course not, hence the PPE, tazers and pepper spray and unfortunately, guns. But if we don't start with that approach, how will we ever know?

Assuming they can't be reasoned with, will only prove your assumption...

So in conclusion, let's try teaching the police to assume they can be reasoned with, before we resort to hiring a ninja.

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

Add the fact that studies suggest that black and Hispanic folks are disproportionately target (e.g. for jaywalking) plus the fact that poor folks get disproportionately punished for minor infractions it does not seem like a great system to begin with (or at least has substantial issues).

Indeed, but one assumption at a time...

[Alex_Krycek]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It's the right approach, if you have ten years of full time training behind you; because then one is more likely to walk away from a fight, because of the training.

It depends what crime we're talking about.  The police are required to enforce the law, not walk away from fights.  What offenses should be decriminalized is up for debate (and I believe there are many), but if a suspect is being violent or aggressive towards other people, then the police have a responsibility to subdue and detain him / her.

Example.  Let's say I call the police on my neighbor who is being drunk and disorderly.  My neighbor is smashing trash cans in the street and has broken several car windows with a baseball bat.  When the police arrive my neighbor attempts to hit the officer with the bat.  In that situation I certainly wouldn't want the officers to walk away from the fight.  My neighbor, emboldened by the retreating police, might smash my car windows next, enter my home or otherwise damage my property.  The police have a responsibility to protect me and my family's safety even if they have to use force against my drunken neighbor.  

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Otherwise the Dunning and Kruger affect suggests it will promote aggression, which does equate to "using more violence".

There is no evidence of this being the case.  

[Alex_Krycek]

A case from several days ago in north London .  It's a perfect example of an arrest that officers never should have attempted.  They claim they smelled cannabis from the driver's car (something that shouldn't be a crime anyway).  The officers then aggressively harassed Ryan Colaco in his vehicle until they smashed in the windows and drug him out of his car.  Colaco was then physically assaulted, strip searched at the police station, and then released with no charges.  His damaged vehicle was not repaired and officers did not apologize.  This kind of policing is overt thuggery, and has no benefit to society other than to justify a paycheck for officers.  

 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

There is no evidence of this being the case.  

On reflection, there's much anecdotal evidence of troubled kids coming good after join a boxing gym. So perhaps your right to include martial arts training, but I maintain the cor training should be de-escalation and martial arts training be voluntary.

Because, while there's some evidence that volunteer trainee's do become less violent outside of the ring, there's nothing to suggest the same is true for a conscript. 

So in answer to the OP, no the police should noy be given more money to train, they have enough already; it was never about investment, it's about attitude and the initial approach.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

On reflection, there's much anecdotal evidence of troubled kids coming good after join a boxing gym. So perhaps your right to include martial arts training, but I maintain the cor training should be de-escalation and martial arts training be voluntary.

Because, while there's some evidence that volunteer trainee's do become less violent outside of the ring, there's nothing to suggest the same is true for a conscript. 

So in answer to the OP, no the police should noy be given more money to train, they have enough already; it was never about investment, it's about attitude and the initial approach.

 

So you are okay with the current level of training (5 hours a year in some cases), as long as it is focused on de-escalation and other non physical tactics and strategies?

[dimreepr]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you are okay with the current level of training (5 hours a year in some cases), as long as it is focused on de-escalation and other non physical tactics and strategies?

I hate to say strawman, but did you miss the post about initial training/cop school?

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I hate to say strawman, but did you miss the post about initial training/cop school?

I asked a question. I put no words in your mouth.

Did you contradict "the police should not be given more money to train, they have enough already" in that post?

If so, or if somehow not, either way...how do you come to that conclusion?

[dimreepr]

On 7/2/2020 at 9:02 AM, dimreepr said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

  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.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by dimreepr

[swansont]

22 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The police are required to enforce the law, not walk away from fights.

These are two separate issues. One does not follow from the other

Quote

 

Example.  Let's say I call the police on my neighbor who is being drunk and disorderly.  My neighbor is smashing trash cans in the street and has broken several car windows with a baseball bat.  When the police arrive my neighbor attempts to hit the officer with the bat.  In that situation I certainly wouldn't want the officers to walk away from the fight.  My neighbor, emboldened by the retreating police, might smash my car windows next, enter my home or otherwise damage my property.  The police have a responsibility to protect me and my family's safety even if they have to use force against my drunken neighbor.  

(emphasis added) The courts have ruled that this is not the case in the US

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

They can back off and let you be attacked, and they are not being derelict in their duty. According to the law/courts.

 

Quote

There is no evidence of this being the case.  

If someone is predisposed to using violence, giving them more tools to do violence won’t result in more violence? Interesting take.

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

So question...Do you think the current training efforts would be sufficient, if they were re-focused as you would like, with no additional expenditures?

[Curious layman]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

The courts have ruled that this is not the case in the US

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

They can back off and let you be attacked, and they are not being derelict in their duty. According to the law/courts.

Let's say I was attacking you, if the police do not have a duty to protect you, do they not have a duty to stop me from breaking the law?

What happened 'To Protect and Serve'.