Should Police Departments Be Given More Money?

[dimreepr]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell 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?

Yes!!! Was I not clear? They have PPE, they have tazers, they have pepper spray; they lack the correct approach... So unless they want to buy bigger guns; why do they want more money?

10 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

What happened 'To Protect and Serve'.

It was bought by Facebook... 😉

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

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?

It seems the answer is “no”

40 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

What happened 'To Protect and Serve'.

Apparently it’s a slogan and not an obligation.

[iNow]

I also take issue with the conflation of “lack of training” with “not enough funding.” There’s lots of money there already, it’s just not being applied to training. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Yes!!! Was I not clear? They have PPE, they have tazers, they have pepper spray; they lack the correct approach... So unless they want to buy bigger guns; why do they want more money?

It was bought by Facebook... 😉

Why would you want to spend more on training? Perhaps for more training toward the correct approach?

Or do you just wind them up and send them in a different direction?

[Alex_Krycek]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

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

Circular logic.  Most people would agree that if someone is already predisposed to violence, then having more tools to inflict it would amplify their instincts.  However, the premise that those who know martial arts are already more likely to use violence is completely unsubstantiated.  I would say the opposite is true.  A person would be less likely to use violence if he or she knows martial arts.  

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Circular logic.  Most people would agree that if someone is already predisposed to violence, then having more tools to inflict it would amplify their instincts.  However, the premise that those who know martial arts are already more likely to use violence is completely unsubstantiated. 

That wasn't the premise.

The premise was that there are people on the police force predisposed to use violence/excessive force.

16 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I would say the opposite is true.  A person would be less likely to use violence if he or she knows martial arts.  

On what do you base this?

[Alex_Krycek]

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

That wasn't the premise.

The premise was that there are people on the police force predisposed to use violence/excessive force.

Right, but the whole crux of what I have been arguing is that the police's predisposition towards violence results from a lack of training, defaulting instead to a fear based response to violence which is a misplaced attempt to control chaotic situations. 

Martial arts training would significantly offset / negate this fear based response, thus greatly reducing the unnecessary violence carried out by officers.  

Quote

On what do you base this?

My experience and understanding of martial arts culture.  You will be hard pressed to find a martial arts school that actively encourages its students to go out and commit acts of violence.  In fact, the opposite it true.  As iNow can probably attest, the core principles of martial arts are having a high respect for everyone around you, avoiding violence whenever possible; instead opting for a peaceful solution, and reaching your highest physical and mental potential.  Martial arts isn't about glorifying violence.  On the contrary, it's about understanding the true consequences of violent actions and working to effectively manage the sometimes inevitable chaos that confronts us with an intelligent and disciplined response.  

 

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why would you want to spend more on training? Perhaps for more training toward the correct approach?

Why do they need to spend more money on training with the correct approach?

When the money they spend on training the wrong approach, has been so successful in alienating the public.

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Why do they need to spend more money on training with the correct approach?

When the money they spend on training the wrong approach, has been so successful in alienating the public.

I already provided data at the outset that shows how little money is being spent on police training in the US.  That's already been established.  

[dimreepr]

Just now, Alex_Krycek said:

I already provided data at the outset that shows how little money is being spent on police training in the US.  That's already been established.  

How does that argue my point?

[Alex_Krycek]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why do they need to spend more money on training with the correct approach?

When the money they spend on training the wrong approach, has been so successful in alienating the public.

 

Just now, dimreepr said:

How does that argue my point?

Your point seems to be that because there has been little to no money spent on police training, it's futile to actually devote resources to adequate training because the "wrong" approach (inadequate training) hasn't produced the right results. 

Your point is a non sequitur.  If any organization was afraid to adopt a new direction because of unsuccessful policies in the past, absolutely nothing would be accomplished ever.

[MigL]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The premise was that there are people on the police force predisposed to use violence/excessive force.

Those people should be screened out in the hiring/training process, or if their behavior is predisposed to violence, the unions shouldn't be allowed to keep them on the force, where they can repeat violent incidents.

47 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You will be hard pressed to find a martial arts school that actively encourages its students to go out and commit acts of violence. 

Daniel Larusso would say Cobra Kai is one such school  .

[dimreepr]

47 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Your point seems to be that because there has been little to no money spent on police training, it's futile to actually devote resources to adequate training because the "wrong" approach (inadequate training) hasn't produced the right results. 

Really, that was my point? I had no idea...

47 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Your point is a non sequitur.  If any organization was afraid to adopt a new direction because of unsuccessful policies in the past, absolutely nothing would be accomplished ever.

It is when filtered by you, stop strawmaning. 

Perhaps more money is needed to train a correct approach, which has yet to be established, but that doesn't equate to the police needs more money (as the OP suggests) the money they have is more than enough, which has already been established.

Edited July 6, 2020 by dimreepr

[Alex_Krycek]

On 6/30/2020 at 1:36 PM, Alex_Krycek said:

 

Take a look at State and Local spending on police over the decades (source: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/police-and-corrections-expenditures#Question1Police)

 

 

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Those people should be screened out in the hiring/training process, or if their behavior is predisposed to violence, the unions shouldn't be allowed to keep them on the force, where they can repeat violent incidents.

Yes.  Setting higher standards for accountability and increasing external oversight would root out those who aren't fit to be cops.  

 

[dimreepr]

What's your analysis of those figures?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Right, but the whole crux of what I have been arguing is that the police's predisposition towards violence results from a lack of training, defaulting instead to a fear based response to violence which is a misplaced attempt to control chaotic situations. 

I disagree with this.

There are too many people who want power over others, and don't wield it responsibility. The police are a magnet for such people.

 

Quote

 My experience and understanding of martial arts culture.

Your experience is likely with people who joined that culture willingly. Getting martial arts training foisted upon you does not mean you have joined that culture. Just like training in other aspects of society — workplace training on e.g. sexual harassment and sexual assault hasn't won everyone over to a culture that respects women, for similar reasons. (feel free to substitute other culture subsets for that)

This is one reason the focus has been on attempts at fixing systemic problems and holding people accountable. You might not prevent one instance of excessive force by an individual, but if you don't tolerate such behavior, you might be able to prevent the next 20 instances the individual might have perpetrated, because they will no longer be on the police force.

 

 

[MigL]

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Really, that was my point? I had no idea...

Neither did anyone else  .
Maybe expand on your ideas a bit more ?

 

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

the money they have is more than enough, which has already been established.

It has been established for the current situation ( which is not satisfactory ).

 

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Perhaps more money is needed to train a correct approach, which has yet to be established, but that doesn't equate to the police needs more money

As the correct approach hasn't been established yet, chances are good that more money will be required.

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

Those people should be screened out in the hiring/training process, or if their behavior is predisposed to violence, the unions shouldn't be allowed to keep them on the force, where they can repeat violent incidents.

I'm not convinced you can effectively do the former, but I agree with the latter. As I said above, accountability is one of the main parts of the reform that is needed.

[studiot]

On 6/30/2020 at 7:36 AM, Alex_Krycek said:

Take a look at State and Local spending on police over the decades

I have a question about the barchart.

I don't know how the state and local funds are raised in your chart.

In the UK much of the 'local' spending is provided by central government, only some is raised locally

Quote

In 2018/19, local authorities in England received 31% of their funding from government grants, 52% from council tax, and 17% from retained business rates – revenue from business rates that they do not send to the Treasury.10 Mar 2020

 

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

Can you say how this works in other countries?

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

I disagree with this.

There are too many people who want power over others, and don't wield it responsibility. The police are a magnet for such people.

 

Your experience is likely with people who joined that culture willingly. Getting martial arts training foisted upon you does not mean you have joined that culture. Just like training in other aspects of society — workplace training on e.g. sexual harassment and sexual assault hasn't won everyone over to a culture that respects women, for similar reasons. (feel free to substitute other culture subsets for that)

This is one reason the focus has been on attempts at fixing systemic problems and holding people accountable. You might not prevent one instance of excessive force by an individual, but if you don't tolerate such behavior, you might be able to prevent the next 20 instances the individual might have perpetrated, because they will no longer be on the police force.

 

 

I agree +1

It is a knotty problem.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Neither did anyone else  .
Maybe expand on your ideas a bit more ?

My bad, I foolishly assumed this is a conversation and that my previous contributions would be taken into account.

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

It has been established for the current situation ( which is not satisfactory ).

Perhaps we should try a different approach, maybe focus on de-escalation.

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

As the correct approach hasn't been established yet, chances are good that more money will be required.

Why?

[Alex_Krycek]

On 7/6/2020 at 6:57 PM, swansont said:

I disagree with this.

There are too many people who want power over others, and don't wield it responsibility. The police are a magnet for such people.

I think there are some officers who have this initial mindset going in, but I think they are the small minority.  In my view most have aspirations to protect their community and do what good they can.  

What is more problematic is the cultural and behavioral conditioning that takes place over the years within police departments due to sustained exposure to extreme stress, and the resulting conformity and group identification that occurs.  If there is not a genuine recognition by society of the dangers police face and an attempt to train, equip, and support them accordingly, then a "survival at all costs" mentality driven by fear will continue, and officers will be further alienated from society.  

In short. I see the affect on officers as being mainly environment driven.  As to the lack of accountability and decay of culture within the department, there is a great book called: Delta Theory and Psychosocial Systems by Roland G. Sharp which is relevant to this discussion.  Sharp's theories would be very helpful in understanding why good officers end up behaving as they do.  (link:  https://www.amazon.com/Delta-Theory-Psychosocial-Systems-Roland/dp/110753173X/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=delta+theory+social+change&qid=1594563089&sr=8-9)

Also, for any Netflix people out there, there's a docu-series on this very topic called "FLINT TOWN".  It follows the Flint police department, one of the most underfunded in the nation, as its officers attempt to manage the crime and chaos of poverty stricken Flint Michigan. 

The series exposes exactly the dilemma that many police departments in the US are facing: no resources, no funds, and an out of control, hostile environment.  It also shows a change to extremely aggressive policing of "high crime" areas in response to public pressure.  As I said before, I think aggressive policing is the wrong approach, especially if impoverished communities are not given increased funding for jobs, education, housing, and other necessary services.  

 

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[StringJunky]

On 7/2/2020 at 6:48 AM, 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. 

Do you think it would be better if there is an Armed Fast  Response Unit that deals with situations with firearms in? I'm not saying US cops shouldn't be armed but that , by default, they don't deal with armed situations unless they have to. ARU's are generally in a constant state of readiness and training. They are picked for their attitude for such scenarios as well.

Edited July 12, 2020 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

42 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I think there are some officers who have this initial mindset going in, but I think they are the small minority.

Perhaps, but systemic racism encompasses all (at least 99.9%), maybe the majority have good intentions, but that doesn't equal a good outcome, if they go in with a bias other than, this human is human and wants to do human things after this encounter; that's the beauty of training/education, we get to understand what a human is.

[Alex_Krycek]

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Do you think it would be better if there is an Armed Fast  Response Unit that deals with situations with firearms in? I'm not saying US cops shouldn't be armed but that , by default, they don't deal with armed situations unless they have to. ARU's are generally in a constant state of readiness and training. They are picked for their attitude for such scenarios as well.

I don't think such a policy would work in the US as there are too many guns.  Encountering a firearm in the UK is a rarity, in the US its commonplace.  By the time the AFRU arrived it would be too late. 

Edited July 12, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I don't think such a policy would work in the US as there are too many guns.  Encountering a firearm in the UK is a rarity, in the US its commonplace.  By the time the AFRU arrives it would be too late. 

Do you really think the reality of the situation would be any different, if the gun was substituted by a knife? 

I've seen a guy get almost killed with an ash-tray...