4 ms·
Ultimately this type of behavior erodes all trust in law enforcement in the communities where this kind of policing is practiced. A vicious cycle is amplified w
by torpfactory 10y ago
Ultimately this type of behavior erodes all trust in law enforcement in the communities where this kind of policing is practiced. A vicious cycle is amplified whereby residents learn to put little trust in police and in turn police decide to use more and more force, believing those (untrusting) residents would use violence against them.
As a side note, why don't police approach dangerous criminals the way radiological workers approach "hot" material. I'm not sure how "danger" should be enumerated but I'd imagine it decreases with the square of the distance. Unless there are other bystanders nearby who might be hurt, closing the distance to suspects seems to be one of the more dangerous things an officer could do. Seems like containing someone and letting them cool off is safer for both parties.
- dmd 10y agoRe your side note: That's how police forces almost everywhere in Europe are trained.
- ende 10y agoThis. It could be argued that most police don't even need a firearm if their role is not suppressive. In fact, a better division of labor based on a better rules of engagement may even negate the need for the concept of a generalist police officer. Large numbers of containment and assessment roles could largely clear (of bystanders in danger) and control an area until the situation can be assesed properly. Maybe engagement is required and maybe its not. In the event it is, only a small pool of highly trained officers need be draw from to apply lethal force. If its not and an arrest can be made peacefully, then yet another class of police could handle the actual arrest and custody. Dividing the process across different roles should help reduce the spillover of tension and aggression from one phase to the next.