6 ms·

As people have done analysis of what percent of the time police spend on various types of calls, it becomes clear that we only need armed police for around 5%.

As people have done analysis of what percent of the time police spend on various types of calls, it becomes clear that we only need armed police for around 5%. investigation, forensics, traffic control, etc etc dont need weapons and tactical training. Let the armed police be like fire fighters and be specifically called in when needed.

j_walter 5y ago
That's not a fair analysis though. That's like saying EMTs only need morphine around 5% of the time, so they shouldn't have it in their ambulance. You don't know when you might need it, so you carry it all the time.
- imadethis 5y ago
  Not to be too snarky, but EMTs don't carry morphine. Restricted substances like morphine are only carried by paramedics (or some AEMTs in systems that still have them). As such, paramedics are dispatched to calls that require a higher level of care while ambulances staffed solely with EMTs are sent to less emergent situations. This lines up pretty well with what the GP described. This is in reference to American standards of care, other countries may be different.
  - hirsin 5y ago
    Far from snark, this certainly seems to reinforce the point. We have two levels of response, where one level is called in for more dire circumstances (life or death) and correspondingly has equipment capable of handling a worse situation.
- tacLog 5y ago
  I completely agree and you could prove it with a study. You would just have to answer for what percentage of those call did the responding parties (dispatch, the officer responding and the person calling it in) thought there was a need for armed police. I am willing to be that while only 5% turn out to need armed police, most of those 5% where uncertain, and a % far greater than that where armed police weren't needed, where very uncertain. It's just not possible to predict when you need to be armed. However, if you go down this line it is also not possible to predict when having a gun on your hip is going to make it more difficult to resolve the issue. There is a tradeoff here that is very hard to make policy around. Something that is being tried is for there to be unarmed medical oriented mental health response units available for calls that don't seem uncertain. I think the data coming out of these changes will change the way big cities operate their departments one day. > This is in reference to American standards of care, other countries may be different.
rich_sasha 5y ago
Police in the UK do not carry firearms, at all. Regular police have a taser, there are also firearms units on call when needed. This is an outlier even for Europe, where I believe it is standard to carry a pistol. This has some interesting consequences. The police effectively can’t position themselves in opposition to “the people of the street”. Two police officers against a rowdy pub is poor chances for the law. As a result, the training emphasises deescalation, talking people down from stupid ideas etc. This part seems particularly effective. Most days I still think it’s crazy the police here are effectively unarmed, but it does seem to work.
- whall6 5y ago
  Aren’t there like way more police per capita in the UK though?
  - gremloni 5y ago
    I don’t feel like that’s a bad thing. Way more non deadly police are a good thing in my opinion.
    - effingwewt 5y ago
      Seriously I'd rather have a 10x increase in police if it meant no firearms.
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    No idea, but if anything my impression would be the opposite. I know from a police officer friend of mine that on badly-staffed nights, Oxford (an affluent city of about 180k people) only had 2-4 officers on call. For anything from a bar fight to murder. You don’t get these American-style 10 police car buildups, unless it is literally a national emergency.
- anshumankmr 5y ago
  In India, most cops carry sticks called lathis. When terrorists attacked Mumbai 12 years back, a lot of them were unable to protect people as they did not have guns. Many of them died as well.

j_walter 5y ago

That's not a fair analysis though. That's like saying EMTs only need morphine around 5% of the time, so they shouldn't have it in their ambulance. You don't know when you might need it, so you carry it all the time.

imadethis 5y ago
Not to be too snarky, but EMTs don't carry morphine. Restricted substances like morphine are only carried by paramedics (or some AEMTs in systems that still have them). As such, paramedics are dispatched to calls that require a higher level of care while ambulances staffed solely with EMTs are sent to less emergent situations. This lines up pretty well with what the GP described. This is in reference to American standards of care, other countries may be different.
- hirsin 5y ago
  Far from snark, this certainly seems to reinforce the point. We have two levels of response, where one level is called in for more dire circumstances (life or death) and correspondingly has equipment capable of handling a worse situation.
tacLog 5y ago
I completely agree and you could prove it with a study. You would just have to answer for what percentage of those call did the responding parties (dispatch, the officer responding and the person calling it in) thought there was a need for armed police. I am willing to be that while only 5% turn out to need armed police, most of those 5% where uncertain, and a % far greater than that where armed police weren't needed, where very uncertain. It's just not possible to predict when you need to be armed. However, if you go down this line it is also not possible to predict when having a gun on your hip is going to make it more difficult to resolve the issue. There is a tradeoff here that is very hard to make policy around. Something that is being tried is for there to be unarmed medical oriented mental health response units available for calls that don't seem uncertain. I think the data coming out of these changes will change the way big cities operate their departments one day. > This is in reference to American standards of care, other countries may be different.

rich_sasha 5y ago

Police in the UK do not carry firearms, at all. Regular police have a taser, there are also firearms units on call when needed. This is an outlier even for Europe, where I believe it is standard to carry a pistol. This has some interesting consequences. The police effectively can’t position themselves in opposition to “the people of the street”. Two police officers against a rowdy pub is poor chances for the law. As a result, the training emphasises deescalation, talking people down from stupid ideas etc. This part seems particularly effective. Most days I still think it’s crazy the police here are effectively unarmed, but it does seem to work.

whall6 5y ago
Aren’t there like way more police per capita in the UK though?
- gremloni 5y ago
  I don’t feel like that’s a bad thing. Way more non deadly police are a good thing in my opinion.
  - effingwewt 5y ago
    Seriously I'd rather have a 10x increase in police if it meant no firearms.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  No idea, but if anything my impression would be the opposite. I know from a police officer friend of mine that on badly-staffed nights, Oxford (an affluent city of about 180k people) only had 2-4 officers on call. For anything from a bar fight to murder. You don’t get these American-style 10 police car buildups, unless it is literally a national emergency.
anshumankmr 5y ago
In India, most cops carry sticks called lathis. When terrorists attacked Mumbai 12 years back, a lot of them were unable to protect people as they did not have guns. Many of them died as well.