5 ms·

> The real question is how can we attract and retain officers that want to do the job? Maybe the job just doesn't make sense in modern America? If police as a

by cmh89 5y ago

> The real question is how can we attract and retain officers that want to do the job? Maybe the job just doesn't make sense in modern America? If police as a concept didn't exist already, no one would create it. If you broke it down into its parts, you find plenty of people who would sign up to handle mental health crisis and plenty of people to sign up to handle quality of life problems. You'd have a third group that wants to do the more dangerous stuff.

giantg2 5y ago
"If police as a concept didn't exist already, no one would create it." Is there any evidence of that? Seems there are quite a few who support them as-is and many more who want to see minor reforms. What do you mean by quality of life problems? How do we plan to staff in that model given police response time already averages 5 minutes (would it then be 15, or would we have 3x the cost to fill 3x the positions)?
- cmh89 5y ago
  > Is there any evidence of that? How could there be any evidence of that? > Seems there are quite a few who support them as-is and many more who want to see minor reforms. Sure, that's the not the same thing. Many people reflexively back the police because they perceive themselves as benefitting from the status quo or otherwise have it as part of their socio-political identity. Some people back the police because they think they are "good enough" and don't want to think about how to reshape the system. But that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a hypothetical. We have a list of problems such as theft, drunk driving, speeding, people in mental health crisis, domestic violence, crowd control, etc. In the hypothetical situation where we have all of these problems, but we don't have the police and never had, do you honestly think we'd assign all of these duties to one position? > What do you mean by quality of life problems? Cat in a tree, unwanted person, taking a report about a stolen bicycle, responding to a traffic collision. Non-life threatening situations that have absolutely no need for someone with a gun to respond. >How do we plan to staff in that model given police response time already averages 5 minutes (would it then be 15, or would we have 3x the cost to fill 3x the positions)? The police are unqualified to handle most of the calls they are called out to. You'd have different teams that respond to different types of calls. Non-armed responders are a hell of a lot cheaper and are able to respond to the majority of calls. You'd have a small group of armed LEOs who would respond to violent crimes in progress, and then you'd have hybrid responses to stuff like domestic violence where you need a social worker as the primary response and an armed person as a secondary security. You'd construct your force around those principles. Remember, most cops never fire their weapon.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "How could there be any evidence of that?" Studies, surveys, anything at all to back up your claim. Sounds like there isn't (use of absolutes in your statement was probably the problem). "Non-life threatening situations that have absolutely no need for someone with a gun to respond." Depends on one's perspective and a bunch of other factors. You might be surprised about how many people carry guns in various professions (medical workers, mental health worker, various first responders, the general public, etc). The vast majority of people never have to fire their weapon. Most never even have to use their weapon. It's utility isn't solely based on being fired. "In the hypothetical situation where we have all of these problems, but we don't have the police and never had, do you honestly think we'd assign all of these duties to one position?" Yes, mostly due to staffing issues like response time and cost, which is something you didn't really addresses in your answer. You also mention things like domestic violence, which is actually one of the most high risk calls you can get. You talk about armed personnel being more expensive. That's not exactly true. People become expensive based on the level of training they need/have. A gun is a part of that, but so are many other things like mental health training. You could still use police as responders for mental health issues with some level of training while waiting for existing social workers or medical professionals to arrive. Even under the model of using another type of person police likely have to show up in case things turn violent anyways. "The police are unqualified to handle most of the calls they are called out to." How so? Or is this another case of using the wrong words (most or unqualified)? If it's a matter of training, it may be cheaper to provide police with additional training rather than hire additional forces an incur all that overhead of benefits etc. The three things you mentioned were quality of life, violent situations, and mental health issues. You seem to accept that violent situations require police response, so would be qualified for that. Although there are numerous situations in the other two categories that could quickly turn violent an would likely require police presence even if they are not the sole responders. It sounds like the quality of life stuff are generally easy tasks that police are qualified to handle (you even mention a police report for a stolen bike). The mental health situations depend on the level of training. Relatively few departments have adequate mental health training. I think this could be handled with training on how to approach those situations and talk people down while the social worker or mental health professional arrives.
inawarminister 5y ago
>If police as a concept didn't exist already, no one would create it. Eh? Community policing has been an universal in every culture. Not in the way conventional "modern"/Western police forces are, which was invented in Paris, but city and village militias took turns standing guard and arrest/whack away violators, drunkards, thieves, etc. So if there's no police, expect communities to make their own. Hell, don't crime gangs like the Mafia have their own professional policing forces? To catch members who are too violent, or dissuade informing the state/police?

by cmh89 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

"If police as a concept didn't exist already, no one would create it." Is there any evidence of that? Seems there are quite a few who support them as-is and many more who want to see minor reforms. What do you mean by quality of life problems? How do we plan to staff in that model given police response time already averages 5 minutes (would it then be 15, or would we have 3x the cost to fill 3x the positions)?

cmh89 5y ago
> Is there any evidence of that? How could there be any evidence of that? > Seems there are quite a few who support them as-is and many more who want to see minor reforms. Sure, that's the not the same thing. Many people reflexively back the police because they perceive themselves as benefitting from the status quo or otherwise have it as part of their socio-political identity. Some people back the police because they think they are "good enough" and don't want to think about how to reshape the system. But that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a hypothetical. We have a list of problems such as theft, drunk driving, speeding, people in mental health crisis, domestic violence, crowd control, etc. In the hypothetical situation where we have all of these problems, but we don't have the police and never had, do you honestly think we'd assign all of these duties to one position? > What do you mean by quality of life problems? Cat in a tree, unwanted person, taking a report about a stolen bicycle, responding to a traffic collision. Non-life threatening situations that have absolutely no need for someone with a gun to respond. >How do we plan to staff in that model given police response time already averages 5 minutes (would it then be 15, or would we have 3x the cost to fill 3x the positions)? The police are unqualified to handle most of the calls they are called out to. You'd have different teams that respond to different types of calls. Non-armed responders are a hell of a lot cheaper and are able to respond to the majority of calls. You'd have a small group of armed LEOs who would respond to violent crimes in progress, and then you'd have hybrid responses to stuff like domestic violence where you need a social worker as the primary response and an armed person as a secondary security. You'd construct your force around those principles. Remember, most cops never fire their weapon.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "How could there be any evidence of that?" Studies, surveys, anything at all to back up your claim. Sounds like there isn't (use of absolutes in your statement was probably the problem). "Non-life threatening situations that have absolutely no need for someone with a gun to respond." Depends on one's perspective and a bunch of other factors. You might be surprised about how many people carry guns in various professions (medical workers, mental health worker, various first responders, the general public, etc). The vast majority of people never have to fire their weapon. Most never even have to use their weapon. It's utility isn't solely based on being fired. "In the hypothetical situation where we have all of these problems, but we don't have the police and never had, do you honestly think we'd assign all of these duties to one position?" Yes, mostly due to staffing issues like response time and cost, which is something you didn't really addresses in your answer. You also mention things like domestic violence, which is actually one of the most high risk calls you can get. You talk about armed personnel being more expensive. That's not exactly true. People become expensive based on the level of training they need/have. A gun is a part of that, but so are many other things like mental health training. You could still use police as responders for mental health issues with some level of training while waiting for existing social workers or medical professionals to arrive. Even under the model of using another type of person police likely have to show up in case things turn violent anyways. "The police are unqualified to handle most of the calls they are called out to." How so? Or is this another case of using the wrong words (most or unqualified)? If it's a matter of training, it may be cheaper to provide police with additional training rather than hire additional forces an incur all that overhead of benefits etc. The three things you mentioned were quality of life, violent situations, and mental health issues. You seem to accept that violent situations require police response, so would be qualified for that. Although there are numerous situations in the other two categories that could quickly turn violent an would likely require police presence even if they are not the sole responders. It sounds like the quality of life stuff are generally easy tasks that police are qualified to handle (you even mention a police report for a stolen bike). The mental health situations depend on the level of training. Relatively few departments have adequate mental health training. I think this could be handled with training on how to approach those situations and talk people down while the social worker or mental health professional arrives.

inawarminister 5y ago

>If police as a concept didn't exist already, no one would create it. Eh? Community policing has been an universal in every culture. Not in the way conventional "modern"/Western police forces are, which was invented in Paris, but city and village militias took turns standing guard and arrest/whack away violators, drunkards, thieves, etc. So if there's no police, expect communities to make their own. Hell, don't crime gangs like the Mafia have their own professional policing forces? To catch members who are too violent, or dissuade informing the state/police?