3 ms·
Fair enough.. It is definitely an idea with a lot of merit. I guess I have three questions: 1) Do you think this is politically feasible? Being seen as "tough
by suresk 9y ago
Fair enough.. It is definitely an idea with a lot of merit. I guess I have three questions:
1) Do you think this is politically feasible? Being seen as "tough on crime" is almost never a bad thing in any kind of election, and what you are proposing feels decidedly the opposite of that. Further, even if you aren't disarming existing officers, they have unions and a fair amount of political clout.
2) Do you think you could find enough people willing to do this job unarmed?
3) I definitely see how this would lead to less escalation in a lot of situations (escalation seems to be the default behavior of police now), and it could prevent some of the high-profile police shootings that have been in the news lately. But it also seems like a high percentage of them (the one in this SWATting situation, Michael Brown, the 6 year old in Bexar County last week, Aiyana Jones) would be handled by armed officers anyway, so that only solves part of the problem, right?
- jsjohnst 9y ago> would be handled by armed officers anyway Exactly. Expecting police to go to an active shooter / hostage situation unarmed seems rather flawed. That said, I think many other situations police officers are in don’t warrant being armed.
- tptacek 9y agoI want to be clear that this idea doesn't have much to do with SWATting. What makes SWATting so evil is that it's deliberately designed to place officers in the scenario most demanding of readily deployed lethal force. Having said that: 1. Yes, I think it's feasible. Not in DFW or Maricopa County, but test cases in places like Madison and Columbus? Remember: big cities already have people like this --- parking enforcement, traffic direction --- and most cities are facing pension problems due to the assault forces they already have. 2. Clearly we can find the people to do the work. TSA staffs unarmed people at checkpoints designed to catch armed terrorists. Big cities already put unarmed officials in adversarial contact with citizens. 3. It only solves part of the problem. But I'd hope that by gradually relegating assault officers only to those scenarios where escalation was known to be required going in, we'd eliminate the kinds of snap-judgement mistakes police make in routine confrontations that end up with firearms deployed.
- suresk 9y agoThose are all good points. I guess the one part I remain a skeptic about is whether or not people are going to be ok with it, much less demand it. It feels like the underlying attitude towards policing is the sticking point - the same attitude that lets police literally get away with murder would also prevent people from demanding unarmed police. Perhaps I overestimate how pervasive this attitude is, especially in big cities. It is definitely something I'd love to be wrong about.
- scaryclam 9y agoCommenting on 2, yes, it shouldn't be a problem at all. In the UK, police don't carry lethal weapons routinely. In fact, knowing a few of them who are active and a couple retired, even the use of a baton is usually not required at any point in their careers. They rely more on teamwork and communication than physical weapons. I also know an officer from an armed unit. He says he's bored 99% of the time as he's only of use to a tiny amount of call outs and has never had to fire his weapon while on duty in the public. As to 3, the UK police do escalate sometimes, and I think some of their behavior is disgusting, but at least it results in non-lethal harm (and hopefully disciplinary action) when there are no armed units involved.
- user5994461 9y agoThe UK doesn't allow anyone to buy a gun, and certainly not a military grade assault rifle.