Emerg Services Confusion Over The Hate Of Police By Some Veterans?

[Ka-9]

please explain in which wars free speech, rights to protest, criticize the state and it's thugs and oth...

Well man is stupid- so many, likely most wars were idiotic.


However to answer you're question. Why not ask the survivors of the Holocaust? WW2 I'd say was pretty essential.

Has there ever been a purely 100% Anarchist principled state that was successful? Serious question.. I have no clue.

 

[Ka-9]

State sector policing is relatively recent in the English speaking world (it's mostly since the middle of the 19th century) so it is hardly an essential requirement for our civilization. and our advanced economy is more inspite of than because of state sector policing.

Would you rather exist in the times before then? Really? If so...then I imagine you must be one hard motherf**** lol.

 

[Virtues]

please explain in which wars free speech, rights to protest, criticize the state and it's thugs and oth...

The revolutionary war... are you serious or are you trolling me.

 

[Ronin]

Why not ask the survivors of the Holocaust? WW2 I'd say was pretty essential.

Can we f*cking not. With this rhetoric. Using a tragedy that left more than two ethnicities decimated and traumatized to xth generation those that survived/escaped... for something as a rhetorical debate.

 

[joeylittle]

I'm just curious what else you would have done?

I said it, in my message: use the policy that puts saving human life, first. It's not a national standard.

This article is good: Police 'de-escalation' training — how it could help Chicago

The Metro Police Department, whose 2,500 officers patrol both Las Vegas and parts of Clark County, began exploring these questions after 25 officer-involved shootings took place in 2010, the most in 20 years. Facing mounting criticism from the public as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, the department became the first in the nation to go to the Justice Department for help. An exhaustive review led to more than 70 recommended changes.

Las Vegas revised its policy on officers' use of force, adding a commitment to preserving the "sanctity of life" when at all possible and clarifying when deadly force is warranted. Generally, police across the country have long relied on a U.S. Supreme Court decision that...identified three factors to weigh: the severity of the crime committed by the suspect, whether he posed a physical danger to the officer or the public and if he actively resisted. To further clarify when officers can use force, Las Vegas added five elements to consider, including whether the suspect appears to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, if he is armed and how close police backup might be.

Things like body cams are smart protections for both the officer and the civilian - but they aren't going to affect the way people are trained to respond. Las Vegas put energy into training de-escalation, and they are committed to it as a policy.

It's just smart, and I really cannot find an argument against it. The hardest part seems to be just making sure that the more seasoned officers are willing to be on-board, because it's a culture shift and their behavior is going to influence the entire department. But, as was seen in Las Vegas - they didn't have a reason to be against it. There is no reason to be against de-escalation, unless you have an anger management problem; and then, you shouldn't be policing, period.

Give the article a read, if you've got time. I'd like to know what you think.

 

[sedna]

92 people dead in 6 years? that's an average of 15.3 people per year. For Chicago not only is tha...

@Florian7051 I agree gun control is not the problem, because it's not possible to control guns with laws to a significant degree.

The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is 11 years. In surveys done on prison inmates and ethnographic studies the evidence shows that most guns are passed among friends, relatives and social networks. There's a mostly guesswork estimate that each gun seized has been used in approx. two violent crimes.

The problem with gun control is that unlike drugs, people who sell guns illegally are doing it here or there for a little money on the side. It isnt arms dealing. Drug dealers get caught because its a full scale business and easier to find.

Another factor is how easy it is to make a gun. Thanks to 3D printing, its even easier, and they're getting better all the time.

The first one was called " The Liberator ".

I got my first gun after moving to a high crime neighborhood in the city when I was 19. I went through 5 or 6 of those by the time I was 30, and I have no idea where they went, because I cant remember how I got rid of them.

Maybe this will surprise you, I always vote liberal and I'm happy to see stricter gun laws on ballots.

My attitude is that it cant hurt and it might help a little.

 

[sedna]

Thanks Coco,
none of this is personal to you - you touched on some really interesting points though
@...

@Anarchy I always have a hard time figuring out how to reply to your posts! You make me think in roundabout ways that take some effort.

On one hand, I can't disagree with anything that you've said here. From Corporate logic, it makes perfect sense. If I were considering the structure of public policing and pay incentives from a CEO and CFO group think tank, I'd say what you suggest is the most likely way to rebuild a system that will succeed.

It's the reason for contract soldiers, and its the reason many excuse themselves from re-enlisting in the military to become contract soldiers. I've known some British working for a PMF and had some very interesting conversations about why they were doing it. In each case the motivation was money and how quickly they were earning it. They also had several months off at a time between tours of duty. I recall one saying he had 3 months home, then would go to Afghanistan for 6 months.
His plan was to pay off debt and buy a house in Australia so he could retire at 40.

That was a long time ago, in that conversation he listed off the reasons that he left the military, which he'd joined really young. I cant remember the details anymore, just that it was hard for him to make the decision but felt the compensation for PMF was outweighing any drawbacks for ending his military career. I'm sure he's been enjoying himself on an Aussie beach somewhere with his kids for the last decade, if he wasnt killed. As a not relevant side note here, that guy was the first person who I saw severe PTSD in their eyes. I've thought about him a lot over the years.

So from those viewpoints, I have to agree that the solution you suggest is the best resolution.

The problem is, I can't imagine how that could realistically be implemented in the U.S.

In the U.K. I think it could be, and fairly easily as well. In the States if something like that were to be seriously attempted, I think it would have to start with test areas. I doubt the public would accept it, unless they thought the government was still involved, at least in the initiation of it.

It's possible it would work as a sort of hybrid organization, which I'm now going to spend my commute time trying structure, so thanks a lot Anarchy. :D

This is the kind of thing my OCD brain doesnt let go of. Whats worse, is that I dont have any idea how local politics work, because I dont bother with it, and thats probably where the biggest sticking point would be. A theory like this has to end a branch in the chain of government somewhere, that ends more jobs as well as creating new ones. Probably the issue would be, how much resistance to re-framing the concepts of who does what, and what they will accept being called for doing it.

Someone could always do me a favor and post a definitive reason why it cant possibly work, that way so I can drop it.

 

[Ka-9]

Can we f*cking not. With this rhetoric. Using a tragedy that left more than two ethni/ cities decimated and...

What the hell are you talking about? Respectfully of course.

Rhetoric? The factual genocide of 6 million used as an example to teach a self professed Anarchist why men and women died protecting others? Discussing WW2 is rhetoric?

 

[Virtues]

Give the article a read, if you've got time. I'd like to know what you think

I read the article and I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think it's great if this new method can reduce crime while preventing loss of life, than I'm all for it. It's really tough to pick the program apart without actually going through the training, but if it's working then I'd say it's worth a go in other cities. I think the big takeaway from that article is that it was first implemented with senior officers with credibility on the force. Without them taking to it, it never would have stuck. It was a good read.

 

[Ka-9]

Sorry, but it's a more complicated situation than that. You should read the link @Chang...

Who ignores bad ones, hell I agree with you there are bad ones.

BUT.... what everyone here fails to ever realize.... even the best cop can screw the pooch. It's called adrenaline, fear, and being human. So if 95%?..90% of police shooting are justified...or arguably justified, then having another...3-5% that may be a cop making an honest mistake, and maybe....1% that are intentional murders, justifies labelling a crime wave of Blue Hethens killing for fun? C'mon.

Those reports point put what..... policing isn't a perfect science?

 

[Sideways]

if 95%?..90% of police shooting are justified...

I'm not sure that this is a strong part of your argument. We aren't talking about some government clerk calculating the wrong amount of stamp duty, we're talking about people with guns taking human lives.

I think I agree largely with the original premise: that a quarterback doesn't have a lot of credibility getting on his soap box with an anti-police tirade.

But I'm very uncomfortable with the way statistics are starting to be used to show that police shootings aren't such a big deal. We like to think of ourselves as a civilised society, where you don't get shot by police by because that officer has lousy training or too much adrenaline, and if you've stolen someone's tv to fund your drug habit, you get taken before a court, tried by the same laws that apply to everyone, and get standardised sentences handed out.

People shouldn't be getting shot in the streets by cops. Even if they're getting shkt in the streets in much greater numbers by thugs and gangsters, it shouldn't be used to suggest that police shooting people is okay, or doesn't happen enough to be an issue. Every dead body in the streets is an issue. Even if the person was a complete lowlife, we don't just shoot people. Lives matter.

 

[joeylittle]

even the best cop can screw the pooch. It's called adrenaline, fear, and being human.

Of course. Which is why putting consistent emphasis on training in deescalation tactics, instead of what the current training culture is, will make a huge difference. Some cops in the second article I posted were really clear that it was counter-intuitive to remember to slow down, not to rush the situation and try and master it with force but to take that split second to evaluate.

Humans will always make mistakes. But law enforcement is like medicine this way - there really needs to be a goal of 0% human error, and an acceptance that the reality will be not quite as perfect as that.

And the good news is, less people die on both sides. Less civilian deaths, less cop deaths. There's no need to defend a broken system when there's an actual solution that's been successfully implemented.

And honestly - if what it takes is a big debate started by a football player who sat for the anthem, then who cares, actually, how we get to the end result? This thread is an example. It's still running. Why? Because some vets were being interviewed about that football player, and you were incensed about it, and came, and posted here.

Change is possible, and it can be ambitious. Call me crazy, but it's worth talking about, isn't it?