US police and the use of firearms

[xr-nut]

Chasing the idea that there is a "perfect solution" is going to get us in a situation much worse than we are currently in. The police have become militarized at the request of the citizenry wanting perfect safety while criminals become more violent. You do know that the police aren't some separate authority, right? That they operated according to the policies of the politicians and demands of the citizens? I am fine with rolling back policing, but doing so comes with an increase in crime, some petty, some not so petty.

There are a whole lot of people who are so comfortable in modern safety that they have disconnected their logic circuits on this topic. "Police are evil, and eliminating them will provide an overall reduction in violence!" Seriously?!? Go back and think about what you are saying before you open yer yap. You may be peaceful but there are plenty of people out there that are opportunists. Not everyone thinks like you do in the ways of peaceful community culture.

Also, you come across as a person suffering from massive amounts of "white guilt". Not sure if that was your intent.

I mostly agree with your sentiments, like I said, I do not know what the answer is. I understand that eliminating the police will unleash a hell like none of us have seen, and to be honest with you, I'd prefer to take that burden now and hopefully create a better future for all our kids. In a perfect world, could it be like the old west, where shitbags died on a rope as an example for everyone else to not be shitbags. In the big picture, I know that is how this whole mess got its start. Someone had to be the executioner.

And to address the "white guilt". I have openly stated that I live where I do for a reason. Am I a racist because of that? I don't feel like I am, though others may. I do not have friends of color, mostly because I just don't have friends and there really aren't to many colored folk here. So I like to think that I am NOT racist. Buttttt..... after watching that video I posted, I can sure empathize with them. It has 100% changed how I feel. Is that white guilt? I don't know.

there are plenty of areas that are currently "underpoliced" and police that are "underfunded" to the point that all they can do is respond to 911 maybe and maybe investigate horrific crimes.

those places exist. what do they look like? absolute shit holes. this isn't some novel idea that just hasn't been tried right enough before. there are whole cities that refuse to work with police, are they more safe than others? not a chance. are they bastions of freedom? fuck no. they are the embodiment of corruption and black holes for money. they STILL find ways to add more laws to be arbitrarily enforced.

To further you point please, IF we eliminate leo, those places you mentioned are still shitholes and likely will become more so. What happens to places like where I live? Do you think the good country folk out here will change over night and become like those shitholes? I like to think we would not.

 

[87manche]

Here is an idea.

Quit looking at this problem from the point of view of the average schmo who is getting pulled over periodically and has a beef with "the man".

Start looking at this problem as if YOU were responsible for the community safety. That means trying to prevent crime in all forms, catch/punish criminals, all while dealing with public criticism from all sides. Is eliminating the cops still an option for you? If so, what is your idea for what will replace the current police force? Remember, you are still responsible for maintaining peace and controlling crime. So, our safety is now in YOUR hands and failure means people will die and you will be treated to public humiliation for the rest of your life.

Ready? GO!

which is why you end all the bullshit, so that those resources can go towards actual crimes.
If it's not a rape, murder or theft, I don't give a fuck. You want to do heroin in your own home? Fine. We'l send the coroner out to collect you later.

What we really need to do as a society is stop asking for someone to protect everyone, especially when that is protecting someone from their own bad decisions.
Prohibition is exactly that, trying to protect people from themselves, "for their own good"
That's an impossible goal, and all we do is punish everyone for the actions of a few that will never change their decision making.

The precentage of americans using drugs before the war on drugs was roughly 1%. And after 50 years of all this bullshit it's still roughly 1%.
It will always be 1%.

Im not being willfully ignorant and youre taking my comment out of context. I never said it didnt happen. I know it does. I said its bullshit pulled by lazy LEOs

but you still think that it can exist and not be taken advantage of right?

I'd argue that it can't. You cannot give these tools to other human beings and expect them not to be abused.

 

[Provience]

To further you point please, IF we eliminate leo, those places you mentioned are still shitholes and likely will become more so. What happens to places like where I live? Do you think the good country folk out here will change over night and become like those shitholes? I like to think we would not.

Are the current rural areas being overpoliced in a way that is not explicitly tied to the war on drugs or gun control?

I certainly DO think that the abolish of police would result in more violence. yes, some people would still have issues, they have them today, but I believe the amount of people killed over property lines would increase, rather than decrease, for one fairly common example. most rural sheriff aren't doing nearly as much as the city police are in terms of being invasive.

so no, I don't think rural areas would become "lawless" overnight. areas that are already under-policed aren't likely to get much worse, though they will get worse and areas that currently have decent engagement, which is the vast majority of populated areas, will degrade substantially.

oddly enough, those changes WILL significantly impact "black and brown" people at a much higher proportional rate. the whole concept is shit.


edit: i'll have to watch your video you posted to see, but it is still more dangerous to be the cop pulling somebody over than to be the person getting pulled over, and it isn't very dangerous to be the cop in general. I also feel stressed out being pulled over, but that doesn't mean it's because i'm colored or not. that is a mindset shift. the notion "oh fuck, now i'm getting pulled over this cop might kill me" is where the notion should end. it shouldn't end with "because i'm black" because, frankly, that isn't the case. Yes, I've been stopped by police for fitting a profile, yes I've been stopped by police for made up BS, yes I've been arrested, yes I've called the police and been happy they responded.

 

[Provience]

Yeah right. Too much nuance for the crowd that sits around rubbing their dicks on their ARs.

with an attitude like that, it is no wonder you can easily find people who fit your preconceived notions of ignorance and lack of nuance how about you further the conversation? add something that questions, provides information or presents an idea?

lazy fuck <-ad hom to illustrate my point

 

[Russell]

Your idea will result in the opposite of what you think. Good cops will find new careers outside law enforcement and the assholes, who don't care anyway or are on a power trip, will be the only ones left employed.

"If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" - Wait, that only works for citizens and not the police?

If they are not willing to work under conditions whereas their actions result in real consequences like the rest of us, then I hope the door hits them on the ass on their way out.

 

[Provience]

topical news story today from fox

https://www.foxnews.com/us/teen-in-critical-condition-after-being-set-on-fire-in-nyc

“Unfortunately in the neighborhood we feel like we’re not safe,” the mother said. “There was a shooting yesterday around the corner. We may need to have some police around the area.”

The 18-year-old victim, identified by police sources as Winston Ortiz, was stabbed three times then doused with gasoline and lit aflame with a match on the fifth floor of 1045 Woodycrest Ave. in Highbridge around 3 p.m.

...


Wednesday’s attack came a day after two men were shot on the corner outside the building, cops said.

A 21-year-old man was struck seven times in the 4:45 p.m. shooting. The other victim, 37, was shot in the foot, police said.

Both shooting victims were taken to Lincoln Hospital and are expected to survive, authorities said.

It’s unclear if the two incidents are connected. No arrests have been made in either as of Wednesday night.





The 34-year-old mother said the recent spate of neighborhood violence has left her fearing for her unsafe.

 

[idahojeep]

with an attitude like that, it is no wonder you can easily find people who fit your preconceived notions of ignorance and lack of nuance how about you further the conversation? add something that questions, provides information or presents an idea?

lazy fuck <-ad hom to illustrate my point

I have tried to discuss nuance and alternatives in another thread about cops but was met with exactly what I'm talking about. I don't see cops as the enemy but plenty here do. There is no perfect answer to the raging criminality that exists. People want to have safety but expect it to be perfect or non-existent. Neither can actually exist in this world because people are human, so we have to decide on a compromise. What is that compromise?

 

[Provience]

I have tried to discuss nuance and alternatives in another thread about cops but was met with exactly what I'm talking about. I don't see cops as the enemy but plenty here do. There is no perfect answer to the raging criminality that exists. People want to have safety but expect it to be perfect or non-existent. Neither can actually exist in this world because people are human, so we have to decide on a compromise. What is that compromise?

by all means, feel free to copy/paste your ideas here, otherwise, why bother posting such a lazy generalization?

 

[idahojeep]

by all means, feel free to copy/paste your ideas here, otherwise, why bother posting such a lazy generalization?

Ok. How does one stop or slow down the instances of ridiculous arbitrary laws that are expected by city leadership to be enforced by police? Let me ask, does your city/county/state have mandatory mask rules now? Our local health dept just passed one of these and the local sheriff has said his staff will not be enforcing it. IOW, local Karen, if you make a scene at the grocery store, unless you assault someone, no cop is coming. Who the hell has the time for that crap? I think my ire is directed at people who don't or won't look at some of this stupid shit from the side of people expected to enforce this crap.

 

[idahojeep]

by all means, feel free to copy/paste your ideas here, otherwise, why bother posting such a lazy generalization?

Also, the criminals will absolutely become more bold if LE is diminished or defunded entirely. The more it is allowed the worse it will get.

 

[xr-nut]

Are the current rural areas being overpoliced in a way that is not explicitly tied to the war on drugs or gun control?

May not be "over policed", as that is subjective, but I know that our local sheriff deputies DO pull people over for 1 mph over. Then they walk up to your car if full riot gear, with a drug sniffing dog in tow, looking for a reason to get you out of your car. The war on drugs is a huge, if the the biggest factor, in where we are with the police now.


so no, I don't think rural areas would become "lawless" overnight. areas that are already under-policed aren't likely to get much worse, though they will get worse and areas that currently have decent engagement, which is the vast majority of populated areas, will degrade substantially.

I am not niave enough to know that my reply of "we can police ourselves" would not result ultimately back to where we are now. someone has to be in chage of rounding up the shitbags.


edit: i'll have to watch your video you posted to see,

I look forward to your thoughts about the video and I appreciate the respectful dialog.

reply in red

 

[arse_sidewards]

there are plenty of areas that are currently "underpoliced" and police that are "underfunded" to the point that all they can do is respond to 911 maybe and maybe investigate horrific crimes.

those places exist. what do they look like? absolute shit holes. this isn't some novel idea that just hasn't been tried right enough before. there are whole cities that refuse to work with police, are they more safe than others? not a chance. are they bastions of freedom? fuck no. they are the embodiment of corruption and black holes for money. they STILL find ways to add more laws to be arbitrarily enforced.

I live in one of those places. The cops never hassle anyone for bullshit. They never go fishing. They don't do possession charges unless they're arresting someone for a different reason. They never respond to Karen's 911 calls. They just bust drug traffickers and get there as quick as they can when a violent crime gets called in. Frankly it's fucking great. An overstaffed police force is a bored police force and a bored police for is a dangerous police force.

 

[xr-nut]

Also, the criminals will absolutely become more bold if LE is diminished or defunded entirely. The more it is allowed the worse it will get.

To a point, without doubt. I am dreaming that along with the elimination of leo, we eliminate the court system also. That would allow each community to "police" themselves and eliminate the shitbags. Hopefully sending a message t o future would be shitbags. And yes I see the irony of eliminating police only to police ourselves.

 

[Provience]

Ok. How does one stop or slow down the instances of ridiculous arbitrary laws that are expected by city leadership to be enforced by police? Let me ask, does your city/county/state have mandatory mask rules now? Our local health dept just passed one of these and the local sheriff has said his staff will not be enforcing it. IOW, local Karen, if you make a scene at the grocery store, unless you assault someone, no cop is coming. Who the hell has the time for that crap? I think my ire is directed at people who don't or won't look at some of this stupid shit from the side of people expected to enforce this crap.

get out and vote, write letters, hold signs, rally, political protests, don't support politicians that support increased arbitrary laws, i.e. look good and hard at any candidate, R or D, and judge them against the others before signing off on it.

our state has a mask mandate, our sheriff said "we won't enforce" and fucking city busy body lawyer took the issue and got a recall petition started against him and filed a lawsuit against him because "her der, not enforce ma laws!" and the sheriff buckled, because that is a no-win in court when the state is fully pro-masking on the political/judicial side (yes, even the United States supreme court denied hearing a case with the remark 'federal judges are not the experts to determine what falls under 'emergency measures' in response to a pandemic, the courts need to stay out of it) and the sheriff changed his stance to "discretion of the officer at the scene" i.e. completely arbitrary and guaranteed for abuse.

do what you can to convince people that THE LAWS are the problem. It isn't the racist police or racist capitalism that are the issue, not really.

 

[idahojeep]

To a point, without doubt. I am dreaming that along with the elimination of leo, we eliminate the court system also. That would allow each community to "police" themselves and eliminate the shitbags. Hopefully sending a message t o future would be shitbags. And yes I see the irony of eliminating police only to police ourselves.

Would you happen to be an An-Cap? I have been getting into quite a bit of Murray Rothbard lately. :D

It's too late because people are too lazy and like everything done for them. Even the thought of the effort it would take makes me tired.

 

[Provience]

reply in red

as for your first response, yes pulled over for any minor infraction just for 'cause' to bring about a search is fundamentally tied to drug scheduling. the laws are the problem. I'm very okay with pulling people over who are driving erratically or unsafe and detaining them if they are under the influence. high on heroin or aerosol doesn't matter to me. if we keep the laws and start with defunding the police, we still have a mass criminal incentive and then we have sporadic enforcement which is very dangerous, leads to higher profiling, because you need to move your limited resource to your most likely candidates, and more abuse.

it's fucked.

if we end the war on drugs and gun control, what does that same traffic stop then look like? even if they show up in full riot gear, they lose the justification to expand the search. sure, there might be more 1mph over speeding tickets pushed out at first, but i'll take that adjustment period over the increased violence of destabilization.

 

[Provience]

I live in one of those places. The cops never hassle anyone for bullshit. They never go fishing. They don't do possession charges unless they're arresting someone for a different reason. They never respond to Karen's 911 calls. They just bust drug traffickers and get there as quick as they can when a violent crime gets called in. Frankly it's fucking great. An overstaffed police force is a bored police force and a bored police for is a dangerous police force.

so the laws on the books just exist then to be used as made up reasons for encounters and enhancements? must be great, as long as you don't fit the mold of people getting targeted I agree that overstaffed is not a great ideal, but understaffed isn't great either. remove the BS laws and they still wouldn't respond to karens calls, or they would show up, take a report and she can be told to pound sand and maybe shell learn something about the laws. Remove drug laws, or dramatically re-envision them, and they can respond to the violent crime even quicker and, potentially, respond to violent crime before it escalates.

as an example, the first "death" associated with seattles "chop" after the police pulled out of capital hill was due to a fight that went on for ~30 minutes before somebody got shot. if the police were reasonably trusted, called and able to respond with 10 minutes even, it is HIGHLY likely that the crime of assault wouldn't be prevented, but the crime of homicide would have been.

 

[Provience]

To a point, without doubt. I am dreaming that along with the elimination of leo, we eliminate the court system also. That would allow each community to "police" themselves and eliminate the shitbags. Hopefully sending a message t o future would be shitbags. And yes I see the irony of eliminating police only to police ourselves.

we've been there and done that, it flat doesn't work for population centers. it results in highly tribal situations, violent gangs are prevalent in no small part due to 'self policing' and make it very easy to cross the leap from minor violence in the name of protection to major violence in the name of control

 

[clodhopper]

In a perfect world, could it be like the old west, where shitbags died on a rope as an example for everyone else to not be shitbags. In the big picture, I know that is how this whole mess got its start. Someone had to be the executioner.

The American West has been so romanticized in books and movies that it has been forgotten how risky it was living in that time. Where everyone was armed and lived politely, not so incredibly bad, but criminals were rarely brought to justice and certainly no one was there to stop them except... you. Sheriffs were not everywhere and citizen posse was typical. Anyone who has problems with police doing it right will be horrified by general citizens seeking revenge. No one really wants to go back to that system if they truly understand what life would look like.

 

[idahojeep]

get out and vote, write letters, hold signs, rally, political protests, don't support politicians that support increased arbitrary laws, i.e. look good and hard at any candidate, R or D, and judge them against the others before signing off on it.

our state has a mask mandate, our sheriff said "we won't enforce" and fucking city busy body lawyer took the issue and got a recall petition started against him and filed a lawsuit against him because "her der, not enforce ma laws!" and the sheriff buckled, because that is a no-win in court when the state is fully pro-masking on the political/judicial side (yes, even the United States supreme court denied hearing a case with the remark 'federal judges are not the experts to determine what falls under 'emergency measures' in response to a pandemic, the courts need to stay out of it) and the sheriff changed his stance to "discretion of the officer at the scene" i.e. completely arbitrary and guaranteed for abuse.

do what you can to convince people that THE LAWS are the problem. It isn't the racist police or racist capitalism that are the issue, not really.

My local community is pretty on top of the nanny shit and the state sees things like this more for cities and counties to decide, so no statewide mandate. Which is good. Stupid things introduced are met with widespread ire and rowdy meetings ensue. The locals were up in arms and might replace the health board for introducing such an idiotic mandate.

I do think that other PDs and SDs have nanny boards and leadership to deal with that includes the expectation of collecting $ for all the stupid laws. Lots of cops don't like having to enforce that crap but they like having a job so they can take care of their families. Some cops are just badge heavy dicks and janes, those make the job more difficult for the rest. JMHO.

 

[clodhopper]

"If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" - Wait, that only works for citizens and not the police?

If they are not willing to work under conditions whereas their actions result in real consequences like the rest of us, then I hope the door hits them on the ass on their way out.

Tough guy, got it.

The criminal chooses to be there, the cop doesn't. I don't know what you do for a living, but should your boss expect you to be financially responsible for every mistake or accident, discovered now or later, that you make on the job? Nearly everyone would shit a brick if that policy was enacted at their place of work.

 

[arse_sidewards]

so the laws on the books just exist then to be used as made up reasons for encounters and enhancements? must be great, as long as you don't fit the mold of people getting targeted

I'm no fan of having that hanging over everybody's heads but even in the free states there's just so many damn laws that enforcement is what winds up mattering and cops who have plenty of real crime to fill up their day tend to be reasonable in my experience and observation. Ideally the laws would be just but that's kind of a pipe dream in most places so enforcement is the next best place to solve the problem.

I'm fully on board with getting rid of all the drug laws but once that's done there's still tons of other BS laws they'll use.

 

[Provience]

My local community is pretty on top of the nanny shit and the state sees things like this more for cities and counties to decide, so no statewide mandate. Which is good. Stupid things introduced are met with widespread ire and rowdy meetings ensue. The locals were up in arms and might replace the health board for introducing such an idiotic mandate.

I do think that other PDs and SDs have nanny boards and leadership to deal with that includes the expectation of collecting $ for all the stupid laws. Lots of cops don't like having to enforce that crap but they like having a job so they can take care of their families. Some cops are just badge heavy dicks and janes, those make the job more difficult for the rest. JMHO.

good, keep it up, keep pushing back to keep the laws changed and get them reduced. send that shit up and get your federal representatives on board

 

[Provience]

I'm no fan of having that hanging over everybody's heads but even in the free states there's just so many damn laws that enforcement is what winds up mattering and cops who have plenty of real crime to fill up their day tend to be reasonable in my experience and observation. Ideally the laws would be just but that's kind of a pipe dream in most places so enforcement is the next best place to solve the problem.

I'm fully on board with getting rid of all the drug laws but once that's done there's still tons of other BS laws they'll use.

I agree that it is certainly a pipe dream, but I think it is a much better pipe dream than "defund the police", especially in a place like you describe where the police are already only focused on "major" crime. defund won't make that any better

edit: drugs and guns are the two biggest justifications for escalation currently. once those prohibitions are repealed, i'm all for taking a look at what happens and where to head next

 

[clodhopper]

so the laws on the books just exist then to be used as made up reasons for encounters and enhancements? must be great, as long as you don't fit the mold of people getting targeted I agree that overstaffed is not a great ideal, but understaffed isn't great either. remove the BS laws and they still wouldn't respond to karens calls, or they would show up, take a report and she can be told to pound sand and maybe shell learn something about the laws. Remove drug laws, or dramatically re-envision them, and they can respond to the violent crime even quicker and, potentially, respond to violent crime before it escalates.

Pretty much there with ya.

The crazy belief that eliminating the cops and replacing them with policing by citizens is going to fix anything is nutz. The majority of people pay taxes to have others do stuff for them. We pay police to do a job we don't want to do, either because it is distasteful or we want to focus our efforts on other things. Do you really want to pull your few hours a week doing community policing after a long day at work? No, so you will pay someone else to do it full time. Wait, that sounds a lot like the police we already have. No? please explain how untrained citizens will be more trustful and honest than the cops we currently employ? (Not directed at you Prov, just in general)

The police operate at the direction of the municipal leadership (city state fed whatever), who respond to the demands of the citizens to get the re-election vote. Want to change it? Get involved in the community to change expectations, run for election to get controlling input on the actions of the police and work to change the metrics used to evaluate the police, change the protocols they operate under, change the laws they are expected to enforce. That sounds so monumental, maybe I'll just post a meme and change my facebook pic to protest.

 

[arse_sidewards]

I agree that it is certainly a pipe dream, but I think it is a much better pipe dream than "defund the police", especially in a place like you describe where the police are already only focused on "major" crime. defund won't make that any better

edit: drugs and guns are the two biggest justifications for escalation currently. once those prohibitions are repealed, i'm all for taking a look at what happens and where to head next

I agree but I think there's a ton of room for the cities to do less policing in general without changing the laws. You shouldn't go full Commiefornia and ignore property crime but if reducing budgets leads to a greater portion of the funds available being spent on real crime instead of harassing people for petty crime I consider that a win.

 

[gt1guy]

Maybe a half dozen times a year, or less, the cops smoke a person they shouldn't have..............................................out of 330 million people. At least half the time, we find out the real story and realize the person had earned said smoking. So now we're down to what 3-4 people out of 330 million.

I'm sorry but, this wide spread, out of control problem of cops killing innocent people....................DOESN'T EXIST. And you all know damn good and well that we hear about each and every time it happens, because that's how we also learn after the fact that dude deserved killing most of the time.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015 stats were the newest, there were 53.5 million interactions between cops and the public. And you can count on one hand the number of times the cops kill a innocent person.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp15.pdf

In 2015, an estimated 21% of U.S. residents age 16 or older— about 53.5 million persons—had experienced some type of contact with the police during the prior 12 months (figure 1). This was down from 26% of residents in 2011. A similar percentage of residents experienced police-initiated (10.8%) or resident-initiated (10.7%) contact. The most prevalent specific types of contact with police occurred when drivers were pulled over during a traffic stop (8.6% of residents experienced this) or when residents reported a crime, disturbance, or suspicious activity to police (6.7% of residents)

How many times a year do the cops haul a bad guy off the streets that has no business being on the streets? I'm talking about the folks that give no value to human life. I'm talking about the one's who are killing other folks that didn't deserve to die. My guess would be more than 3-4 a year.

 

[Weasel]

So realistically the Tribal lands around here have very little police, basically they are "Defunded". It doesn't work.

People go missing quite often and are never found, alot of cold cases.
Communities don't do jack as the attitude is if it doesn't happen to me I don't care.
Courts are pretty lacking.

Something interesting I didn't know was that alot of local res crimes spiked when Meth came into play. Once the local LE stepped up with dogs and more emphasis on "drugs" the rates dropped back off.

 

[Provience]

I agree but I think there's a ton of room for the cities to do less policing in general without changing the laws. You shouldn't go full Commiefornia and ignore property crime but if reducing budgets leads to a greater portion of the funds available being spent on real crime instead of harassing people for petty crime I consider that a win.

except that sort of "win" is absolutely, in no way, not even close, to what any of the vocal "defund" movements want or desire, or any sort of way that departments that have cut or modified budgets or claimed "defund" have done or are proposing.

that's why I don't like to use the term or even show support for it in any way.

 

[clodhopper]

So realistically the Tribal lands around here have very little police, basically they are "Defunded". It doesn't work.

People go missing quite often and are never found, alot of cold cases.
Communities don't do jack as the attitude is if it doesn't happen to me I don't care.
Courts are pretty lacking.

Something interesting I didn't know was that alot of local res crimes spiked when Meth came into play. Once the local LE stepped up with dogs and more emphasis on "drugs" the rates dropped back off.

So, if they don't care about the crime level, then the reduced policing is what the people want/like? I suspect they have given up caring since things don't change, and would otherwise like better policing... until the cops pull them over. Police them mutherfkkers over there, but leave me the hell alone. Not me, them! Maybe the native americans needed to get the AIM thing more widely accepted like the BLM thing.