4557

I’m not. I think that police should not routinely be armed. But of course (as in other countries) there should be specially trained teams that carry weapons for exceptional circumstances.

Ok, let’s take Minneapolis as an example. In the last 10 years, there have been 49 calls that resulted in officer-involved shootings. An average of 5 times a year. It’s extremely rare. And it makes me doubt that police effectiveness would be reduced if those officers had been forced to retreat and call for a special armed team.

4558

Why? What’s the evidence that arming cops to walk a beat is necessary? Citizens walk around in those neighborhoods without guns all the time.

4559

The type of violence that killed my friend. It would have been nice if a cop was there to stop it, but then training said cop would involve teaching them how to disable the gunman.

4560

Cases where the threat of the weapon is useful are (fortunately) going to far exceed cases where the weapon needs to be discharged. Someone up thread mentioned people waving a firearm around and saying “make me,” disarm cops and you’re going to see a ton of that. It’s just the nature of the gun-violence-loving craziness that has infested this country, a hell of a lot of our bad actors are armed.

4561

Just put the guns in locked cages that need to be unlocked over the radio by a supervisor. Am I the only person here who watched the Watchmen series?

4562

A radio works as well as a firearm in that scenario.

4563

Isn’t this a variation of the argument that low cop gun death rates prove cops need the guns? Can you respond to this, then?

4564

You’re saying that disarming cops is going to result in fewer officers getting shot? That seems obviously wrong to me.

4565

Can you please be clear that you’re actually asserting an argument that has the consequences I’m pointing out? Or do you agree that there is something wrong with that argument? I’m not trying to play a game, here.

Your rejoinder is not a consequence of my argument.

4566

My assertion is based on a foundational assumption, as is yours. My foundational assumption is that if cops aren’t armed, then rates of violence against cops are going to be higher. Ergo, if our rate is comparable to Iceland’s, that is (at least in part) a result of armed officers. If our rate was even lower than Iceland’s, that might imply that arming police was excessive. A rate higher than Iceland’s would imply that we live in the wild west and would further emphasize the need for armed police.

Now:

4567

Put me down for “no-knock warrants are indefensible.” There must be a tiny handful of situations where you couldn’t achieve the same goal (which is supposed to be to gather evidence or make an arrest, not perform an execution) with less extreme measures.

The purpose of the police needs to be redefined. Currently, their highest priorities are the preservation of private property and the safety of their own officers, when it should be the safety of officers, victims, and suspects equally.

4568

I think it would not result in significantly more officers being shot.

Arming all officers protects them if

  • someone wants to shoot a random cop (which is already unusual - most shooting victims are well-known to the shooter), and
  • is sufficiently rational to be deterred by the fact that the officer is armed, yet
  • is not sufficiently rational to be deterred by the fact that an unarmed officer can summon a squad of armed officers

All in all, a very improbable set of circumstances.

4569

This is not an answer to my question. In fact, you’ve already agreed with me that the low number of cop gun fatalities suggests that many cops need not be armed to do what they are doing; or, if you prefer, that cops should not be doing those things. Thus you’ve already agreed that we need fewer armed cops, based on the low number of cop gun deaths.

I have never said any such thing. I have said, and you have agreed, that the presence of cop guns is simply not a factor in many, many cop interactions, and cops could be unarmed in those situations, or those people could maybe not be cops. That says nothing whatsoever about the relationship between armed cops and cop gun deaths.

4570

This is both good news and a reminder of how stupidly difficult change apparently is. The SF board of supervisors is considering a resolution that amounts to nicely asking the civil service commission to maybe think about not hiring police officers with a history of misconduct.

4571

I would argue that the safety of officers should be the least important. Cops aren’t conscripted, they know what they’re getting in to. A lot of our current problems are because the safety of the cop is put as the highest priority, so they treat every interaction like it’s going to end up in an exchange of gunfire.

4572

“The bad apple sours the whole barrel.” To wit:

4573

Very much this. “To Protect and Serve.”

4574

I don’t even know what we’re arguing about anymore, honestly. I agreed with that pages ago. Time to step away I think.

I think you’re vastly overestimating the default level of rational in the human population. The window you’re talking about there is neither particularly narrow nor particularly uncommon, you’re basically talking about people that can consider short term consequences but not longer term ones. Imminent threat vs. abstract threat, etc.

4575

It looks like you spent several paragraphs to state what about black on black crime and then brought up your favorite scapegoat again… poverty.

We have an income inequality topic literally on this board. Black Lives Matter is not the workhorse to fix everyone’s problems nor an exercise on the perfect motto, so we can drag that what about my privilege people along.

I’m looking across the country right now, and into other nations. BLM is doing something right, obviously… and that’s because they didn’t stop when people tried to force or shame them to.

Duty to Intervene, I’m assuming this addresses the other cops standing around watching use of force go too far and then running behind their unions to say well I didn’t do it.

4576

Human populations in New Zealand and Iceland seem to be pretty rational. Are Americans subhuman?

Anyway, if you assume that your fellow citizens are generally irrational, then you deserve whatever shitty government you get.