Print

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

[Virtz]

But I'm sure your woke solution would work wonders for the US homicide rate.

Oh well when you put it that way....

I then get to ask you - can you show me the evidence that anything they do currently helps?

Because there is evidence that when they back off to try and show us what for, that crime actually decreases in response.

Yeah, that article about ignoring minor crimes sure is convincing with regard to homicide. Clearly if police stopped investigating homicides, they'd actually go down.

The only solution to police violence is to disarm the police. And so disarmed they must be.

Yeah, it's not proven that the "only solution" is that. In Australia we have armed police, but police shootings are extremely rare. Which suggests it's more about the culture than what equipment the cop turns up with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#Australia

Note there was a high point of 10 people shot in Australia 1 year by police, and a low of 1 person shot (but that was only 2 years before the one with 10, so there's no real trend there), with the most common outcome being 3 people killed per year.

Also as for Virtz's assertion that police homicides aren't an issue, because they are lower than the total number of homicides. Well, let's consider the stats. there are 1000 shooting deaths by US police per year, out of a total homicide rate of about 15000, and about 2/3rds of all homicides are by firearm. So a full 10% of firearm homicides are by the police, contributing 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people out of the total US murder rate of ~ 5.0 deaths per 100,000 people. 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people is about average for the total homicide rate of many European nations. So the American police kill about as many people as all the murderers in a typical European nation, on a per-capita basis.

If you compare the total homicides vs police homicides in UK and Australia, you're looking at the police causing about 1% of homicide deaths, rather than something approaching 10% of homicide deaths caused by police in the USA. So the argument that we should look elsewhere for blame because you're "more likely" to be killed by someone who's not a cop doesn't really hold water. The police killing people is a big issue far below the point where they are responsible for 50% of all deaths.

Sure, other non-cop people kill more people than cops do, but that's a completely unrelated issue. You can't "pre-arrest" individual citizens. But the police are public servants. You definitely have the democratic right to prevent them from doing the same. Arguing that it's not a problem because it's "less" is like arguing that employees stealing stock is not an issue that should be focused on because customers steal more stock than employees do.

Reason I brought up statistics was to say how unreasonable it is to be paranoid about police coming to kill you for no reason when you're under considerably greater threat from the average citizen. See the post I was responding to for context. I did not say they point to there being no issue with police shootings in general. There I'm of the opinion that you cannot really compare the US to other nations without considering cultural differences, such as high amount of weapons among civilian population, violent disdain for police, a strong culture of individuality and personal liberty (kind of at odds with being incarcerated), romanticization of actual violent criminals and criminal lifestyles, and so on.

I'm sure they'd be up to the challenge of dealing with the US's drugged up, psychotic criminals and its ridiculous anti-police culture.

Oh so Americans are the problem then, that's why we let slip the leash on police violence? It's not the illegals or the terrorists but just the average American citizen that excuses shoot first and look for reasons later? Because we're just so unruly over here? Not like other countries don't have problems with drugs, mental illness, a resentment of the police state culture, gang violence and criminal activity and areas of extreme lawlessness. Everything must be idyllic over in Europe then, what with their constant terrorist attacks, riots, immigration problems and the like. Surely they'd be TOTALLY unable to deal with American problems of law enforcement, like non-emergency calls resulting in someone being dead with 5 seconds within their home. That's why they can "get away with" not carrying guns all the time and not shooting to kill within 10 seconds of arriving on scene.

Or maybe, just maybe...other countries have actual experience with jack-booted police thugs in their history and so are more wary of giving them too much power, assumption of innocence and license to kill.

On average European countries have a 4th or 5th of the homicides per capita the US does. I'm gonna guess the average Euro cop doesn't deal with the same amount of the same kinds of crimes. To take the UK as an example, here's a list of police officer deaths. Note how recently there've been years with zero deaths. If these were proportional to the US by population, they would have a fifth of the police deaths the US does (they don't). This would suggest the US is more violent towards police than this "experienced" country where common police offiers don't get guns.

And yeah, just keep treating singular incidents as anything but anecdotal. Clearly all 1000 of the annual shootings look like that one and only death awaits anyone who calls the police.

[PTTG??]

I think that US cops are influenced by NRA propaganda.

[Frumple]

Yeah, that article about ignoring minor crimes sure is convincing with regard to homicide. Clearly if police stopped investigating homicides, they'd actually go down.

Fairness where it's due, given the nature of most homicides, it's fairly likely they wouldn't increase much. Consideration of those sorts of consequences don't tend to really play into the decision-making involved with most of 'em, so the preventative effect of investigation probably isn't actually particularly large.

Cops no longer casually killing people isn't quite equivalent to stopping investigations, though. If it was associated with a general reduction in police abuses it probably would have good odds of reducing homicide, by sheer dint of the societal benefits that would start sprouting up if cops stopped regularly abusing communities. That'd take a lot of serious fucking reform, though.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, that article about ignoring minor crimes sure is convincing with regard to homicide. Clearly if police stopped investigating homicides, they'd actually go down.

Fairness where it's due, given the nature of most homicides, it's fairly likely they wouldn't increase much. Consideration of those sorts of consequences don't tend to really play into the decision-making involved with most of 'em, so the preventative effect of investigation probably isn't actually particularly large.

And the response was, predictably, a misreading of the article.  The police were still in operation.  Just not "pro-actively".  They ceased their active presence on the streets, but were still open to receiving calls and reports.  And what this showed is that when they scaled back their presence in communities and intruding into people's lives, they received significantly less reports of criminal activity.

Yeah, it's debatable how relevant this is to homicide specifically, but it's something.  I provided something.  In fact, I provided multiple things, some of which did directly relate to homicide.  Specifically, actual cases of police knowingly and willingly refusing to prevent homicides in progress, sometimes literally right in front of their faces, and then courts repeatedly ruling that they don't have any responsibility to prevent homicides if they don't want to.  Pretty relevant to any claim that police are effective at reducing homicide rates.  But you conveniently cherry picked the one link out of 4 that wasn't directly homicide-related.

Now if you want to be taken seriously, try providing something in response which proves that existing police equipment, protocol, or culture are at all effective at preventing homicides or crime in general.  This bit here

But I'm sure your woke solution would work wonders for the US homicide rate.

is an implicit statement that disarming police would result in homicide rates getting worse than they currently are.  Left unquestioned, this is meant to slip under the radar the base assumption that the current state of armed police has some desired effect of reducing or suppressing homicide rates, better than a disarmed police force would.  I'm guessing you didn't expect to be asked to back this up?

[Virtz]

I think that US cops are influenced by NRA propaganda.

Probably. Don't see why else they'd want citizens carrying more weapons under the idea of self-defence when that scenario is so rarely the case in shootings.

Yeah, that article about ignoring minor crimes sure is convincing with regard to homicide. Clearly if police stopped investigating homicides, they'd actually go down.

Fairness where it's due, given the nature of most homicides, it's fairly likely they wouldn't increase much. Consideration of those sorts of consequences don't tend to really play into the decision-making involved with most of 'em, so the preventative effect of investigation probably isn't actually particularly large.

And the response was, predictably, a misreading of the article.  The police were still in operation.  Just not "pro-actively".  They ceased their active presence on the streets, but were still open to receiving calls and reports.  And what this showed is that when they scaled back their presence in communities and intruding into people's lives, they received significantly less reports of criminal activity.

Yeah, it's debatable how relevant this is to homicide specifically, but it's something.  I provided something.  In fact, I provided multiple things, some of which did directly relate to homicide.  Specifically, actual cases of police knowingly and willingly refusing to prevent homicides in progress, sometimes literally right in front of their faces, and then courts repeatedly ruling that they don't have any responsibility to prevent homicides if they don't want to.  Pretty relevant to any claim that police are effective at reducing homicide rates.  But you conveniently cherry picked the one link out of 4 that wasn't directly homicide-related.

Now if you want to be taken seriously, try providing something in response which proves that existing police equipment, protocol, or culture are at all effective at preventing homicides or crime in general.  This bit here

But I'm sure your woke solution would work wonders for the US homicide rate.

is an implicit statement that disarming police would result in homicide rates getting worse than they currently are.  Left unquestioned, this is meant to slip under the radar the base assumption that the current state of armed police has some desired effect of reducing or suppressing homicide rates, better than a disarmed police force would.  I'm guessing you didn't expect to be asked to back this up?

So you live in a country where mass shootings are becoming increasingly common, they're usually cut short by police response, and you're uncertain how police having no guns would effect this negatively? You really want police disarmed?

You provided some anecdotal situations where police failed to act appropriately (which I ignored, cause they're singular incidents you dug up from as far as 1975 and go in line with what I said earlier about false narratives). So let's bring up some cases where they did. In 2019 alone, cause I don't need to dig that far, and I have better things to do.
https://time.com/5530906/active-shooter-illinois-warehouse/
https://time.com/5599393/victims-viginia-beach-shooting/
https://time.com/5637378/gilroy-garlic-festival-shooting-what-we-know/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28adKNe3OJA - here's where they shoot him just as he's trying to run in after people who took shelter in a bar)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland%E2%80%93Odessa_shooting

So according to you, with disarmed police, these would end how exactly? The shooter would get bored? The police would red army charge him? The ultra-rare good-guy-with-a-gun scenario would actually start playing out after another couple dozen dead?

And in case you really think they could've handled those without guns, here's a classic where even with pistols and shotguns US police were underarmed for what they were facing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

[smjjames]

Red army charge him? I think you mean zerg rush (with bulletproof shields obviously).

More seriously though, I wonder how much the police misconduct compares to other countries (adjusted for population of course). I'm not denying that the police in the US have problems, but it does help to put it in perspective and context. I know reelya gave an Australia example, but since the UK gets compared so often as an example of how removing guns 'doesn't work', that might help.

Also, on the tangent of gun control, Australia has similar restrictions on guns as the UK does I believe, but we never hear about knife crime from Australia.

[Virtz]

Red army charge him? I think you mean zerg rush (with bulletproof shields obviously).

Afaik bulletproof shields aren't rifle-proof. Not to mention you can still get shot in the legs (particularly since bullets ricochet off hard surfaces), they'd be really cumbersome to carry on a daily basis, and they're not cheap. Somehow I don't see anyone with any sense of self-preservation doing a melee-only shield rush against a shooter.

[Naturegirl1999]

Red army charge him? I think you mean zerg rush (with bulletproof shields obviously).

More seriously though, I wonder how much the police misconduct compares to other countries (adjusted for population of course). I'm not denying that the police in the US have problems, but it does help to put it in perspective and context. I know reelya gave an Australia example, but since the UK gets compared so often as an example of how removing guns 'doesn't work', that might help.

Also, on the tangent of gun control, Australia has similar restrictions on guns as the UK does I believe, but we never hear about knife crime from Australia.

It was sarcastic

[nenjin]

And in case you really think they could've handled those without guns, here's a classic where even with pistols and shotguns US police were underarmed for what they were facing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Yeah, and a guy built a straight up KillDozer, so I guess that means now Cops need Sherman Tanks against the eventually day when it happens TWICE.

That's the mentality. Because something has happened, it will happen again, so we end up in a cycle of ever-escalating police power and resources. The threat may be singular and rare, but the effects of arming police and their mentality goes on every. Single. Day. These two are not equal. Yes, it's a tragedy when the worst case scenario happens and people die. But giving them more power, more guns and more permission to use them hasn't stopped anyone from doing anything, nor will it stop anyone in the future. We're trading on an unknown future for a very real and daily set of consequences around policing. No amount of guns, police aggression or other hardware is actually going to stop these things from happening. But the knock on effects of acting like they will is something all of society has to bear the burden of, including but not limited to: being afraid of the very people we rely on to protect us.

[NullForceOmega]

I'd like to point out that the intent of the dozer was property damage, it was armed, but the weapon was only used to disable police vehicles.  The only death was the driver of the dozer itself, and despite what the Grand County police would like you to believe, the U.S. Army determined that he committed suicide.

[smjjames]

Red army charge him? I think you mean zerg rush (with bulletproof shields obviously).

More seriously though, I wonder how much the police misconduct compares to other countries (adjusted for population of course). I'm not denying that the police in the US have problems, but it does help to put it in perspective and context. I know reelya gave an Australia example, but since the UK gets compared so often as an example of how removing guns 'doesn't work', that might help.

Also, on the tangent of gun control, Australia has similar restrictions on guns as the UK does I believe, but we never hear about knife crime from Australia.

It was sarcastic

I mean that I was being more serious since I was using sarcasm in that first part.

[Naturegirl1999]

Red army charge him? I think you mean zerg rush (with bulletproof shields obviously).

More seriously though, I wonder how much the police misconduct compares to other countries (adjusted for population of course). I'm not denying that the police in the US have problems, but it does help to put it in perspective and context. I know reelya gave an Australia example, but since the UK gets compared so often as an example of how removing guns 'doesn't work', that might help.

Also, on the tangent of gun control, Australia has similar restrictions on guns as the UK does I believe, but we never hear about knife crime from Australia.

It was sarcastic

I mean that I was being more serious since I was using sarcasm in that first part.

oops. Sorry. I didn't mean to say your post wasn't serious. I meant to emphasize that your post was more serious than the quote that was responded to.

[Virtz]

And in case you really think they could've handled those without guns, here's a classic where even with pistols and shotguns US police were underarmed for what they were facing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Yeah, and a guy built a straight up KillDozer, so I guess that means now Cops need Sherman Tanks against the eventually day when it happens TWICE.

That's the mentality. Because something has happened, it will happen again, so we end up in a cycle of ever-escalating police power and resources. The threat may be singular and rare, but the effects of arming police and their mentality goes on every. Single. Day. These two are not equal. Yes, it's a tragedy when the worst case scenario happens and people die. But giving them more power, more guns and more permission to use them hasn't stopped anyone from doing anything, nor will it stop anyone in the future. We're trading on an unknown future for a very real and daily set of consequences around policing. No amount of guns, police aggression or other hardware is actually going to stop these things from happening. But the knock on effects of acting like they will is something all of society has to bear the burden of, including but not limited to: being afraid of the very people we rely on to protect us.

That's what you are doing, tho! You are looking at single instances to try and draw out some non-existent pattern of abuse and use that as a basis for disarming police and being paranoid. There's an estimated 850000 sworn police officers, doing a total of millions of civilian interactions daily, of which only about 3000 end in a shooting yearly, of which only about 1000 end in death, of which only a small percentage are unjustified. Have some self-awareness. This is like spreading the idea that airplanes are an unsafe mode of transportation all over again. It's based on media coverage and narratives, not reality.

And I only brought that particular case up as an example of police being underequipped to handle a situation, to draw an analogy to the idea of police having no firearms in case of a mass shooting. I didn't state they necessarily need the firepower to stop an armoured man at all times. Though introducing the AR15 into the police arsenal has hardly worsened matters, and it tends to be used very sparingly next to sidearms.

[Il Palazzo]

I can't believe people are advocating disarming the police in a country where the general populace is armed.

[Trekkin]

I can't believe people are advocating disarming the police in a country where the general populace is armed.

I think a lot of those same people want to disarm the populace, too.