Gun violence cop deaths happen at a rate on the order of 1 per million population in the US. Gun violence cop deaths in Iceland have happened at a rate of about 1 per 2 million population (1 time in 2013). Maybe cops aren’t as threatened by violent criminals with guns as our entertainment tells us they are?
I think what I would favor is a refactor of the existing Bureaus that exist in the police departments and create a front-line tier that is primarily unarmed that would capture the 80% use case. The remaining 20% for more serious/lethal cases would be centralized at the state level and would only arrive on the scene if escalated to.
An Icelander once bit my sister.
I mean it’s more than just policy - we need to spend money and make this happen.
The only thing i’m on board with conservatives about is not making the perfect the enemy of the good. We need homeless shelters, mental health professionals, we need facilities and work programs and all that. But it doesn’t have to be perfect. We don’t need to spend a million dollars per homeless shelter bed, we don’t need AAA Ivy League $500k mental health professionals in every department. Just having ordinary people with training, education and clear guidelines doing the best they can with some additional resources. It’s better to have an imperfect system than a system that doesn’t exist at all.
Like, i’d love to set up “women’s and children’s sanctuaries” all over the country for women to escape abusive relationships. It doesn’t have to be a 4 star hotel.
To reduce police violence, the first thing that has to be done is hire from the community. The adversarial relationship between out-of-town cops and their patrol districts is a huge problem. If anything the confrontational attitude between police and their charges began (of course) during the Civil Rights era when whites moved away from cities into the suburbs - but the police went with them. Now suburbanite police are patrolling the “Escape from New Yorks” abandoned city centers which they no longer live in or understand and assume a confrontational and divisive attitude towards.
Bit of both it seems like. Was a stupid comment, but explainable.
This is one of the things though that keeps white moderates on Trump’s side- they don’t like Trump at all, but they’re afraid that if they lose, they’ll be the ones with the boots on their necks, because they know that’s what they’ve been doing, and they can’t imagine equality.
Civil asset forfeiture is another good addition to the list above. And let’s not forget a requirement for a certain percent of the force to live in the city they work. Or some sort of education/life experiences requirement so we aren’t hiring fresh out of high school kids. And making the union work within the boundaries of elected officials or completely disbanding it. While we’re at it, tear gas and less lethal (remember when they used to be called less than lethal?) rounds should not be used.
I’m sure there are more sound policy recommendations than those I came up with in a couple minutes in addition to what’s already been suggested. We have a “messaging problem” because there is no short, catchy phrase to explain all the ways that the current system is rotten.
Menzo
4542
I think it’s really difficult to use Iceland as a comparison. I worked for CCP and spent a lot of time there, and it’s so different than the US in so many ways.
First of all, it’s tiny. The population of the entire country is about that of Providence, Rhode Island, a smallish city in the US.
Second, it’s extremely homogenous. They’ve opened up the country a bit in the last ten years, but overall, it’s almost entirely white Icelanders, other than the tourists, who are also mostly white Europeans and Americans.
Third, culturally, they are very different, and they don’t have any Wild West fantasies that drive gun ownership and worship. Guns are very much tools, not toys.
I think no-knock warrants are indefensible. I get the theory that it is safer for the cops if they can burst into people’s homes heavily armed in the dead of night on the basis of a suspicion, but if the safety of cops is what matters maybe they should just be allowed to bomb the house? A search or arrest warrant shouldn’t be an authorization for an invasion. Send the same team of cops you send for the no-knock warrant, and knock on the door and announce yourself.
Yeah, I’d 100% agree that people can’t be expected NOT to fire back under those circumstances. And yes, ending qualified immunity is obviously vital for this and so many other things. In short, if they’re not going to be eliminated entirely, I think everything you’ve listed here is a must.
magnet
4545
That’s just one example. Police also do not routinely carry firearms in Norway, the UK, Ireland, or New Zealand. And Norway and New Zealand have almost as many guns as Iceland.
And yes, I’m sure there are differences between the US and each of those countries. But that doesn’t mean that disarming the police would not work in the US. We know the current system isn’t working, and as @scottagibson pointed out, the actual threat to police is exaggerated.
That our police death rates are comparable strikes me as an argument for armed police in this country, the implication of our relative general violence rates is that unarmed cops would get shot a lot in this country.
Menzo
4547
Again, the big difference is the 2nd Amendment. I would certainly agree that most cops don’t need AR-15s, but until we get real traction on real gun control that works, lots of them (maybe not all) need guns.
Indeed, something like 2/3rds to 3/4s of US cops say they have never fired their gun on duty. I’m guessing that of those who have, many didn’t need to, and a study of the rest would reveal that most cases happen with particular types of cops in particular situations, i.e. they are predictable. So arm those cops in those situations only.
You’re saying that if 100 or 1000 or 10,000 times as many cops were killed by guns in the US every year, that would convince you that cops didn’t need guns? Because that’s the consequence of what you’re saying here. It seems obviously wrong to me.
I’d call that a strong argument (one among many) that cops are doing a LOT of jobs that don’t require an armed police officer and would almost certainly be better handled by a specialist of some other type.
Ok, but that’s basically an agreement that we need far fewer armed cops.
Yes, it is. I thought that was a given. “Far fewer” is not “none.”
Is anyone here arguing that there should never be any armed law enforcement officers?
Cops going to arrest some violent criminal? Maybe someone needs a gun. Cops walking a regular beat in a mixed-use city neighborhood? Probably don’t need a gun. Cops driving around looking for bad drivers? Probably don’t need a gun.
Menzo
4554
I think Magnet is closest, but I don’t know if he’s for 100% disarmament.
That was my understanding of @magnet 's argument, yes. Perhaps I misunderstood.
Agreed.
That depends on the neighborhood, I’d imagine.
Clearly, and in fact it’s dubious whether cops should be doing that job at all.
None of the countries he has cited have 0 armed law enforcement officers.
