4 ms·

You have to be able to protect yourself.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
threatofrain 8y ago
In general the police show up long after the fact and are there to write reports for insurance. We are safe by the peace of those around us, and not by whether the cops can show up on time.
- apostacy 8y ago
  This is correct. In many places, the police actively avoid "hot calls", where if there is shooting, they will hang back until it is over before moving in.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Policing as an institution and career field needs to go through a revolution to make it more like medicine. Officers with militarized equipment shouldnt exist. Police with guns should need more-serious training and credentials, but at the moment, police departments across the country actively discriminate in favor of stupidity[1]. And this would not increase budgets. We dont need more governnment thugs. We need zero government thugs, and more public servants accountable to the public. 1 - https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
  - darkerside 8y ago
    I'd rather this then police come in hot, shooting first and asking questions later. Mass violence is the exception, not the rule, and police should be deescalating situations, not causing trouble.
    - apostacy 8y ago
      So, if you are being robbed, you would rather that the police wait a few blocks away?
      - darkerside 8y ago
        I'd rather nothing bad happen to anyone ever, given the option.
        apostacy 8y ago
        Sure, we'd all like nothing bad to ever happen. But, if you were being attacked by someone, would you prefer that the police "de-escalate" things by not engaging your attackers, or would you want them to come in "guns blazing"? You have to pick one or the other. Life doesn't give you a convenient third option.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > But, if you were being attacked by someone, would you prefer that the police "de-escalate" things by not engaging your attackers, or would you want them to come in "guns blazing"? You have to pick one or the other. Life doesn't give you a convenient third option. De-escalation is still active engagement; there is, in fact, a third option, and it was demonstrated in Parkland.
        darkerside 8y ago
        If they can walk over and deescalate, then of course I want them to deescalate. This isn't an action movie. Once bullets start flying, my odds of survival are likely going down, not up. Do you think a policeman's job is to be a hero, or a public servant? Because I think they should be public servants. If one shows heroism while in the line of duty, it's because he is a hero and a good person. Not because of a paycheck and a badge.
        apostacy 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

In general the police show up long after the fact and are there to write reports for insurance. We are safe by the peace of those around us, and not by whether the cops can show up on time.

apostacy 8y ago
This is correct. In many places, the police actively avoid "hot calls", where if there is shooting, they will hang back until it is over before moving in.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  Policing as an institution and career field needs to go through a revolution to make it more like medicine. Officers with militarized equipment shouldnt exist. Police with guns should need more-serious training and credentials, but at the moment, police departments across the country actively discriminate in favor of stupidity[1]. And this would not increase budgets. We dont need more governnment thugs. We need zero government thugs, and more public servants accountable to the public. 1 - https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
- darkerside 8y ago
  I'd rather this then police come in hot, shooting first and asking questions later. Mass violence is the exception, not the rule, and police should be deescalating situations, not causing trouble.
  - apostacy 8y ago
    So, if you are being robbed, you would rather that the police wait a few blocks away?
    - darkerside 8y ago
      I'd rather nothing bad happen to anyone ever, given the option.
      - apostacy 8y ago
        Sure, we'd all like nothing bad to ever happen. But, if you were being attacked by someone, would you prefer that the police "de-escalate" things by not engaging your attackers, or would you want them to come in "guns blazing"? You have to pick one or the other. Life doesn't give you a convenient third option.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > But, if you were being attacked by someone, would you prefer that the police "de-escalate" things by not engaging your attackers, or would you want them to come in "guns blazing"? You have to pick one or the other. Life doesn't give you a convenient third option. De-escalation is still active engagement; there is, in fact, a third option, and it was demonstrated in Parkland.
        darkerside 8y ago
        If they can walk over and deescalate, then of course I want them to deescalate. This isn't an action movie. Once bullets start flying, my odds of survival are likely going down, not up. Do you think a policeman's job is to be a hero, or a public servant? Because I think they should be public servants. If one shows heroism while in the line of duty, it's because he is a hero and a good person. Not because of a paycheck and a badge.
        apostacy 8y ago