4 ms·

Idea: disarm the police. In practice, very few police interactions require a firearm, so why have that as the default? If a police officer is working in a dang

by bogwog 6y ago

Idea: disarm the police. In practice, very few police interactions require a firearm, so why have that as the default? If a police officer is working in a dangerous neighborhood, then they can exercise their right to carry a personal firearm at their own expense. However, any decision to use the gun would be 100% the individual’s risk as they won’t be able to hide behind their departments policies and procedures as an excuse to shoot people. So a police officer deciding to shoot someone is no different from your neighbor deciding to shoot someone. It might also incentivize individuals to seek out real firearms training on their own. EMS people might be trained in mental health, but police officers are better prepared to deal with aggressive people, defend themselves (with batons, pepper spray, tasers, etc), and make arrests. For dangerous situations that require firearms, you can call in a completely separate organization dedicated to that, like SWAT or whatever. Or is this too naive and/or stupid?

leetcrew 6y ago
I think there's something to this idea. even in the most dangerous places in the US, the vast majority of criminals are not likely to shoot at police on purpose. cop killers almost always get caught and convicted (if they survive long enough to get to court), while in some cities the odds of getting away with killing a civilian free and clear are over 50%. certainly there are some enforcement roles where weapons aren't needed. for instance, if you need a gun to feel safe confronting a driver over a broken brake light, maybe it's just not worth pulling them over to begin with? in general, I think there ought to be more parity between what cops are allowed to carry and do to defend themselves and what is available to civilians. if every patrol car needs an ar-15 in the trunk to safely traverse an area, shouldn't people who actually live there be allowed to at least carry a pistol? or alternatively, if it's not okay for a civilian to carry any sort of firearm, why should it be okay for police?
- giantg2 6y ago
  I generally agree with the bit about increasing parity. Some policies seem to relegate citizens to a lower class. The part about the brake light doesn't sound like a good idea. Police do encounter people with more serious warrants while responding to minor infractions or calls. Some of these individuals are dangerous. It's best to have the equipment needed to deal with those situations. I think the shortfall is that some people lack the training to go with it.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    > The part about the brake light doesn't sound like a good idea. Police do encounter people with more serious warrants while responding to minor infractions or calls. Some of these individuals are dangerous. It's best to have the equipment needed to deal with those situations. I think the shortfall is that some people lack the training to go with it. are you saying police need to pull people over for minor infractions because a) this is a good way of catching people with serious warrants, or b) police need to pull over people for minor violations anyway and they need a gun in case the person turns out to be a violent criminal? in the case of a), I think this is the kind of fishing expedition bs that makes it hard for people to trust the police. the idea that they are not just going to ticket you for the thing they actually saw you do, but also make the most of the opportunity to look for anything else you've done / are doing wrong seems needlessly antagonistic. I would also question how much more effective this is than compiling a list of the fugitive's vehicles, known associates' vehicles, stolen vehicles, etc. and just checking the license plate reader against it. in the case of b), this is kinda my point. if there's a meaningful chance that the officer or the offender ends up dead in a traffic stop, this should probably increase the threshold for what kind of offense justifies a stop. a broken brake light isn't worth dying over for either party. just take a picture/video and send a ticket to the owner of the vehicle. in the case of an officer responding to a call, they no longer have the initiative to decide whether an interaction needs to take place. in this case, I think it is much more justifiable for the officer to be armed.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      The part you are missing in the B scenario is safety. Let's say one brake light is out. Now what happens if that person doesnt notice and the other one goes out? You could be looking at injury or death under the right circumstances. Then of course if you're saying that the offender is dangerous enough to attack a police officer,then surely they also pose a threat to the public. Getting those threats off the street is more of the A scenario perspective, but nobody said anything about fishing (there has to be reasonable suspicion). There's always a chance that a person (including a cop) becomes violent. Do we just remove all laws? I don't think so. On a side note, there are plenty of laws which are already not enforced or not consistently applied and should be taken off the books.
- briandear 6y ago
  > the vast majority of criminals are not likely to shoot at police on purpose. And the vast majority of cops don’t shoot people either.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
taway98236 6y ago
It's extremely naive and the fraternal order of police would never let it pass. I predict they'd all stand down rather than serving in such a ridiculous fashion. First you should take into account that the US is not the UK (or another European nation where police officers don't carry guns). We have a serious gang and violent crime problem here. Cities like Chicago are battlefields, there are multiple murders every weekend. On holidays, you can casually see 100+ murders take place in two days. Combine that with a big underclass population, wide availability of guns and drugs that induce and amplify psychotic behavior, intense racial hatred, hatred of the police, entire city blocks being infested with gangs, drugs and guns and do you really think disarming the police is going to solve anything? It's a recipe for disaster that's going to empower criminals and cause even more violence and death in the future. You can't pretend -like most progressives- these problems don't exist just because you're well-off, living in your upscale, well-patrolled neighborhood. This is you living in a bubble. Most of the folks advocating for disarming the police, should go take a stroll in South Side Chicago or east St. Louis.
pps43 6y ago
> disarm the police > they can exercise their right to carry a personal firearm at their own expense That's not disarming the police, just making them pay $500 out of pocket.
- bogwog 6y ago
  I guess "disarm the police department" would be more accurate
CincinnatiMan 6y ago
I think the issue with this is that you don't know ahead of time which situations will escalate dramatically and require a firearm. Plus, everyone knows police have firearms and so that alone may prevent escalation of a situation. I just don't think it's feasible in a country with so many guns.
galangalalgol 6y ago
Private citizens actually have a lower bar to prove a justified shooting in most places. Police are held to a higher standard already. In policy at least. Th practice of that policy may make it different.

by bogwog 6y ago

leetcrew 6y ago

I think there's something to this idea. even in the most dangerous places in the US, the vast majority of criminals are not likely to shoot at police on purpose. cop killers almost always get caught and convicted (if they survive long enough to get to court), while in some cities the odds of getting away with killing a civilian free and clear are over 50%. certainly there are some enforcement roles where weapons aren't needed. for instance, if you need a gun to feel safe confronting a driver over a broken brake light, maybe it's just not worth pulling them over to begin with? in general, I think there ought to be more parity between what cops are allowed to carry and do to defend themselves and what is available to civilians. if every patrol car needs an ar-15 in the trunk to safely traverse an area, shouldn't people who actually live there be allowed to at least carry a pistol? or alternatively, if it's not okay for a civilian to carry any sort of firearm, why should it be okay for police?

giantg2 6y ago
I generally agree with the bit about increasing parity. Some policies seem to relegate citizens to a lower class. The part about the brake light doesn't sound like a good idea. Police do encounter people with more serious warrants while responding to minor infractions or calls. Some of these individuals are dangerous. It's best to have the equipment needed to deal with those situations. I think the shortfall is that some people lack the training to go with it.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > The part about the brake light doesn't sound like a good idea. Police do encounter people with more serious warrants while responding to minor infractions or calls. Some of these individuals are dangerous. It's best to have the equipment needed to deal with those situations. I think the shortfall is that some people lack the training to go with it. are you saying police need to pull people over for minor infractions because a) this is a good way of catching people with serious warrants, or b) police need to pull over people for minor violations anyway and they need a gun in case the person turns out to be a violent criminal? in the case of a), I think this is the kind of fishing expedition bs that makes it hard for people to trust the police. the idea that they are not just going to ticket you for the thing they actually saw you do, but also make the most of the opportunity to look for anything else you've done / are doing wrong seems needlessly antagonistic. I would also question how much more effective this is than compiling a list of the fugitive's vehicles, known associates' vehicles, stolen vehicles, etc. and just checking the license plate reader against it. in the case of b), this is kinda my point. if there's a meaningful chance that the officer or the offender ends up dead in a traffic stop, this should probably increase the threshold for what kind of offense justifies a stop. a broken brake light isn't worth dying over for either party. just take a picture/video and send a ticket to the owner of the vehicle. in the case of an officer responding to a call, they no longer have the initiative to decide whether an interaction needs to take place. in this case, I think it is much more justifiable for the officer to be armed.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    The part you are missing in the B scenario is safety. Let's say one brake light is out. Now what happens if that person doesnt notice and the other one goes out? You could be looking at injury or death under the right circumstances. Then of course if you're saying that the offender is dangerous enough to attack a police officer,then surely they also pose a threat to the public. Getting those threats off the street is more of the A scenario perspective, but nobody said anything about fishing (there has to be reasonable suspicion). There's always a chance that a person (including a cop) becomes violent. Do we just remove all laws? I don't think so. On a side note, there are plenty of laws which are already not enforced or not consistently applied and should be taken off the books.
briandear 6y ago
> the vast majority of criminals are not likely to shoot at police on purpose. And the vast majority of cops don’t shoot people either.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

taway98236 6y ago

It's extremely naive and the fraternal order of police would never let it pass. I predict they'd all stand down rather than serving in such a ridiculous fashion. First you should take into account that the US is not the UK (or another European nation where police officers don't carry guns). We have a serious gang and violent crime problem here. Cities like Chicago are battlefields, there are multiple murders every weekend. On holidays, you can casually see 100+ murders take place in two days. Combine that with a big underclass population, wide availability of guns and drugs that induce and amplify psychotic behavior, intense racial hatred, hatred of the police, entire city blocks being infested with gangs, drugs and guns and do you really think disarming the police is going to solve anything? It's a recipe for disaster that's going to empower criminals and cause even more violence and death in the future. You can't pretend -like most progressives- these problems don't exist just because you're well-off, living in your upscale, well-patrolled neighborhood. This is you living in a bubble. Most of the folks advocating for disarming the police, should go take a stroll in South Side Chicago or east St. Louis.

pps43 6y ago

> disarm the police > they can exercise their right to carry a personal firearm at their own expense That's not disarming the police, just making them pay $500 out of pocket.

bogwog 6y ago
I guess "disarm the police department" would be more accurate

CincinnatiMan 6y ago

I think the issue with this is that you don't know ahead of time which situations will escalate dramatically and require a firearm. Plus, everyone knows police have firearms and so that alone may prevent escalation of a situation. I just don't think it's feasible in a country with so many guns.

galangalalgol 6y ago

Private citizens actually have a lower bar to prove a justified shooting in most places. Police are held to a higher standard already. In policy at least. Th practice of that policy may make it different.