Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smeeprocket]

But you don't understand! The dangerous ones might actually fight back!

not that they would get a change, the cops would empty their clip into them long before they could actually do that.

[SalmonGod]

We may see a movement of people resolving not to call the police.

[smeeprocket]

yea and there are times when you need them, but my fear would be it would all end in someone being murdered by them, or beaten, or fake charges.

[Bauglir]

Of course, the police won't complain since it makes their lives easier and probably won't affect their paychecks since good luck trying to defund police departments.

[smeeprocket]

I wouldn't do it as protest, tbh. I'm just scared shitless the cops being there means someone's going to die.

[UXLZ]

It will get ripped apart by the police for infringing on their turf.
Also, something like that is just as open to abuse as the current police system. Almost.

[smeeprocket]

Kind of like Blackwater right? That worked.

Or how they have privatized some fire depts

[Baffler]

There are actually lots of companies that do that. The railroad and mall police are good examples (both are often sworn in as government employees.) But beat patrols are mostly public because private companies in that line of work are mostly concerned with loss prevention. It is theoretically possible, and was even an established practice in the 70's and 80's. Boston still contracts patrols of a few lower income areas to a private company, some of their officers have powers of arrest but not all.

[UXLZ]

It will get ripped apart by the police for infringing on their turf.
Also, something like that is just as open to abuse as the current police system. Almost.

And if someone actually moral runs it...?

Although funding would be a problem. Some kind of neighbourhood watch would probably be more effective.

Still won't work. Either the moral person will slowly be corrupted or eventually replaced by someone else who *will* be corrupted.

A neighbourhood watch would definitely better idea, though there are still issues with that. They're less likely to blow the head off of someone for reaching into their pocket because they'll know he has asthma and is getting his pump since they actually know the area they're protecting.
Still rife with potential for abuse, though. The concept for the Police appears to actually be quite sound, but the issue is it seems to have devolved into a sort of 'us vs. them' mentality rather than 'protect and serve'.

[smeeprocket]

you have a neighborhood watch, you are going to have a George Zimmerman, all full of piss and vinegar and revved up and ready to be a hero.

[Darvi]

you have a neighborhood watch, you are going to have a George Zimmerman, all full of piss and vinegar and revved up and ready to be a hero.

Or you could have a Sandford.

E: Even worse. The police were the good guys in that movie.

[Descan]

yea and there are times when you need them, but my fear would be it would all end in someone being murdered by them, or beaten, or fake charges.

I think I remember someone here saying "Don't call the police unless you're willing to ruin their life, the situation being that serious." Seems apt.

Also, I think a lot of problems on the local level would be fixed if police recruited locally to the places they're patrolling. Even if for SOME reason, no one of good-enough quality to be an officer lives in that area and wants to join, deputizing residents to patrol the area (I.E. not a full officer but still a paid patrolperson with powers of arrest and on the payroll), the drop in quality would (in my view) be offset by the gains from having an actual resident who people know and (hopefully) trust be the face of the law. Not to mention if it's a particularly gang/crime/meth-labs/etc-ridden area, there might be good social effects? See it as a way out/up, maybe. Legitimate paycheque opportunity if nothing else... I don't know. Just ideas.

Officer cameras (this includes the legal and digital infrastructure to make it, you know, actually impactful. I.E. police departments don't have control over the tapes, the word of the camera trumping the word of the officer, etc.) and such would also help, but none of this really helps fix the corruption issue that is so prevalent.

[SalmonGod]

yea and there are times when you need them, but my fear would be it would all end in someone being murdered by them, or beaten, or fake charges.

I think I remember someone here saying "Don't call the police unless you're willing to ruin their life, the situation being that serious." Seems apt.

Also, I think a lot of problems on the local level would be fixed if police recruited locally to the places they're patrolling. Even if for SOME reason, no one of good-enough quality to be an officer lives in that area and wants to join, deputizing residents to patrol the area (I.E. not a full officer but still a paid patrolperson with powers of arrest and on the payroll), the drop in quality would (in my view) be offset by the gains from having an actual resident who people know and (hopefully) trust be the face of the law. Not to mention if it's a particularly gang/crime/meth-labs/etc-ridden area, there might be good social effects? See it as a way out/up, maybe. Legitimate paycheque opportunity if nothing else... I don't know. Just ideas.

That was me.  Something I've repeated a few times in my time here.

Honestly, along that same premise, it should just be standard and strictly enforced protocol that situations are assessed as much as possible before engaging a suspect.  This includes identifying the suspect and calling up or summoning associations to guide de-escalation efforts, and provide general information about the suspect's personality/mannerisms/conditions.  There should be no excuse for officers not to know for example that the suspect has a heart condition, is asthmatic, has a concealed carry license, is a veteran with PTSD, etc before engaging them, unless they're actively running around shooting people and there's no time for a little bit of research.

[smeeprocket]

yea and there are times when you need them, but my fear would be it would all end in someone being murdered by them, or beaten, or fake charges.

I think I remember someone here saying "Don't call the police unless you're willing to ruin their life, the situation being that serious." Seems apt.

Also, I think a lot of problems on the local level would be fixed if police recruited locally to the places they're patrolling. Even if for SOME reason, no one of good-enough quality to be an officer lives in that area and wants to join, deputizing residents to patrol the area (I.E. not a full officer but still a paid patrolperson with powers of arrest and on the payroll), the drop in quality would (in my view) be offset by the gains from having an actual resident who people know and (hopefully) trust be the face of the law. Not to mention if it's a particularly gang/crime/meth-labs/etc-ridden area, there might be good social effects? See it as a way out/up, maybe. Legitimate paycheque opportunity if nothing else... I don't know. Just ideas.

That was me.  Something I've repeated a few times in my time here.

Honestly, along that same premise, it should just be standard and strictly enforced protocol that situations are assessed as much as possible before engaging a suspect.  This includes identifying the suspect and calling up or summoning associations to guide de-escalation efforts, and provide general information about the suspect's personality/mannerisms/conditions.  There should be no excuse for officers not to know for example that the suspect has a heart condition, is asthmatic, has a concealed carry license, is a veteran with PTSD, etc before engaging them, unless they're actively running around shooting people and there's no time for a little bit of research.

that is pretty much what they do right now. :/

[Xantalos]

I think he meant the suspect, but unfortunately it seems to be the case with the police.