3 ms·
Can't disagree more. I am disgusted by abuse of power. One law enforcement officer who use excessive force or breaks the rules is too many. They should all be
by susiecambria 2y ago
Can't disagree more.
I am disgusted by abuse of power. One law enforcement officer who use excessive force or breaks the rules is too many. They should all be found and prosecuted. Systems which perpetuate abuse of power should be torn down and rebuilt. Systems which are designed to find fault with one group should be replaced by ones which are more deliberate and fair.
The big fundamental issue is that at least in the US, there is a significant need for law enforcement. There's trafficking, child abuse and neglect, drug proliferation, crimes against persons and property. And too many agencies are not provided with the support they need to best serve the community. For example, making social workers available to resolve what are fundamentally non-law enforcement issues would restrict the reliance on armed officers. And I say this as someone with an MSW who has spent 25 years working on local public policy issues, often ones including the police.
I'd love for the police not to be needed. Hell, I want firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics to get paid to hang out in the station because there are no calls for them to respond to. But if there are bad guys out there, I want trained and competent officers to respond, to protect me and mine. And you and yours.
Having better systems built and maintained is hard work and long-term diligence is necessary. In Washington, DC, for example, the police and fire clinic is underfunded and the quality of the work performed by credentialed professionals is generally sloppy. There are several instances where officers were put back on the street following what I understand to be poorly executed clinical assessments. Elected and appointed officials were aware of the situation and shrugged their shoulders. The problem was dull, boring, and technical, not shiny, new, and sexy.
- snypher 2y ago>But if there are bad guys out there, I want trained and competent officers to respond, to protect me and mine. And you and yours. The problem is the actual risk to self that most people face is vastly overstated in media. We do not need anywhere the degree of military-styled response to situations that do not require it, esp when it can be deployed anonymously at only the cost of a phone call.
- tptacek 2y agoThis "anonymously at the cost of a phone call" thing doesn't get us anywhere. It's possible to do that because armed robberies happen, and people expect to be able to call in a police response to those on the phone. If you can propose a plausible alternative system that doesn't rely on "anonymous" calls, do so, but you can't just leave that argument hanging out there. "Hello, 911? Someone is breaking into my house. I think they have a gun!" "Authenticate yourself."
- jazzyjackson 2y agoSWAT doesn't show up for home invasions, they're more of a hostage rescue force. Besides, the swatter here wasn't impersonating a person begging for cops to rescue them, they impersonated the guy with authority to give the order to do it. I don't think it's too much to ask for these guys to use Signal or Matrix or /something/ with the ability to actually authenticate identity
- tptacek 2y agoWe don't even have a SWAT team in our muni and people have been "Swatted" here.
- ryandrake 2y agoI don't think OP is arguing against police or policing, they are arguing against the process that allows a single phone call to result in a pre-escalated military-style armed response. There are other ways to investigate an anonymous phone call claiming this-and-that than to immediately kick the door in guns blazing.