9 ms·

Unless police see what they believe is a crime in progress, they aren't supposed to enter a private residence without permission anyway, right? I'm not sure ho

Unless police see what they believe is a crime in progress, they aren't supposed to enter a private residence without permission anyway, right? I'm not sure how that can't be easily dealt with even in the problematic states by saying that permission for the police to enter the premises is also permission for them to record.

giantg2 5y ago
They could be responding to a non-criminal call, like a welfare check. Permission to enter isn't considered the same as permission to record in some states. Yes, they could change the laws about recording. In many cases, not just for police, they probably should.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > They could be responding to a non-criminal call, like a welfare check. Armed law enforcement responding to calls without an evident need for armed law enforcement is itself a problem.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    Probably true, and goes to complaints from police officers that they're also expected to be counselors as well as enforcers. On the other hand, asking someone to go into a situation that may put themselves at risk (for some cases of welfare checks) without appropriate training or equipment (or leaving the distinction of which is which to some third party not on the scene) doesn't seem like a good idea either, and at the point where you have a force that's equipped to protect themselves and possibly restrain others, that begins to sounds a lot like a police force, so I can see why they just use the police. There's probably some solutions along the lines of different shifts for those with different training with different load outs, or additional trained personnel in sets of police, but all of those also have some problems I can see and don't address officers being dispatched that are prone to use force because of a prior altercation that day/week or trauma at some prior date.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Armed law enforcement responding to calls without an evident need for armed law enforcement is itself a problem. It’s fairly obvious that in a country where citizens are free to be armed, police must be armed too.
    - kbenson 5y ago
      I think what's being discussed is not that police should be unarmed, but that police should not be the first choice to respond to situations where they currently often are.
      - throwawayboise 5y ago
        Yes, police should not be the welfare patrol. However they are, because they are out and about and often would be the nearest public authority to respond to such a need, and governments don't want to fund the social programs that they legislate. It's the same reason teachers are imposed upon to be defacto child-welfare social workers. Police should enforce the law/investigate crimes. Teachers should teach. If we're going to have social welfare programs, we need to provide personnel to do that work, not pile it upon other professions as an unwanted secondary responsibility.
        zepto 5y ago
        > we need to provide personnel to do that work, not pile it upon other professions as an unwanted secondary responsibility There could be police who want it as a responsibility as long as they are trained and compensated. That is another possibility.
        rapjr9 5y ago
        We can do what we want with our own money, we don't have wait for politicians to allocate it. Give directly to causes that help people. People have the money (power)! Tax yourself! Fund social programs that replace this function of policing directly. If government does not work we can route around it. Create Kickstarters for good causes.
    - 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

They could be responding to a non-criminal call, like a welfare check. Permission to enter isn't considered the same as permission to record in some states. Yes, they could change the laws about recording. In many cases, not just for police, they probably should.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> They could be responding to a non-criminal call, like a welfare check. Armed law enforcement responding to calls without an evident need for armed law enforcement is itself a problem.
- kbenson 5y ago
  Probably true, and goes to complaints from police officers that they're also expected to be counselors as well as enforcers. On the other hand, asking someone to go into a situation that may put themselves at risk (for some cases of welfare checks) without appropriate training or equipment (or leaving the distinction of which is which to some third party not on the scene) doesn't seem like a good idea either, and at the point where you have a force that's equipped to protect themselves and possibly restrain others, that begins to sounds a lot like a police force, so I can see why they just use the police. There's probably some solutions along the lines of different shifts for those with different training with different load outs, or additional trained personnel in sets of police, but all of those also have some problems I can see and don't address officers being dispatched that are prone to use force because of a prior altercation that day/week or trauma at some prior date.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Armed law enforcement responding to calls without an evident need for armed law enforcement is itself a problem. It’s fairly obvious that in a country where citizens are free to be armed, police must be armed too.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    I think what's being discussed is not that police should be unarmed, but that police should not be the first choice to respond to situations where they currently often are.
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      Yes, police should not be the welfare patrol. However they are, because they are out and about and often would be the nearest public authority to respond to such a need, and governments don't want to fund the social programs that they legislate. It's the same reason teachers are imposed upon to be defacto child-welfare social workers. Police should enforce the law/investigate crimes. Teachers should teach. If we're going to have social welfare programs, we need to provide personnel to do that work, not pile it upon other professions as an unwanted secondary responsibility.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > we need to provide personnel to do that work, not pile it upon other professions as an unwanted secondary responsibility There could be police who want it as a responsibility as long as they are trained and compensated. That is another possibility.
      - rapjr9 5y ago
        We can do what we want with our own money, we don't have wait for politicians to allocate it. Give directly to causes that help people. People have the money (power)! Tax yourself! Fund social programs that replace this function of policing directly. If government does not work we can route around it. Create Kickstarters for good causes.
  - 5y ago