Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read a while back about how many police officers in Europe don't carry guns. Then I remembered this article about a local community near where I'm from that has been having uniformed officers patrolling city streets by foot.
It got me thinking, what if there were, say, 3 times as many police officers in a given city, all patrolling the city by foot, in the dense, walkable, heavily trafficked areas of course.
And what if they were only carrying non-lethal weapons? Things like guns that only shoot rubber bullets/bean bags. Possibly tasers.
I don't know if I'd advocate for this type of policing in urban centers with extremely high violent crime rates, but for many small/medium size moderate-high urban cities, I think this has potential.
I always think about how when I'm in Manhattan, the overwhelming presence of uniformed officers right on seemingly every street really helps you feel safe and protected. Could that type of thing apply to other cities and would the use of non-lethal weapons help with lowering the rate of police brutality cases?
........would the use of non-lethal weapons help with lowering the rate of police brutality cases?
Well, that's an interesting way of looking at things.
What's hand to hand? Potentially non-lethal, no?
But if I in, say, in a situation to stop someone from leaving when apprehended do a foot sweep on them and pile their face into the concrete, are people still going to scream police brutality? I think so.
The point is, if one doesn't obey the verbal order, things get nasty very fast.
The use of non-lethal weapons might increase police brutality. Officers are already much more liberal in their use of tasers. When you fire a bullet into someone you know it is going to be a big incident with reports and media attention but a good tasing or clubbing is easier to wash away.
In this country, with so many guns in the hands of citizens and criminals, is it wise to have police officers at a disadvantage? I think the unarmed officer will not be respected or feared by the serious criminal.
Adding 3x more officers is going to cost 3x as much and nobody has that in the budget.
I read a while back about how many police officers in Europe don't carry guns. Then I remembered this article about a local community near where I'm from that has been having uniformed officers patrolling city streets by foot.
It got me thinking, what if there were, say, 3 times as many police officers in a given city, all patrolling the city by foot, in the dense, walkable, heavily trafficked areas of course.
And what if they were only carrying non-lethal weapons? Things like guns that only shoot rubber bullets/bean bags. Possibly tasers.
I don't know if I'd advocate for this type of policing in urban centers with extremely high violent crime rates, but for many small/medium size moderate-high urban cities, I think this has potential.
I always think about how when I'm in Manhattan, the overwhelming presence of uniformed officers right on seemingly every street really helps you feel safe and protected. Could that type of thing apply to other cities and would the use of non-lethal weapons help with lowering the rate of police brutality cases?
Most Police Officers in Europe do carry guns, indeed many belong to gendarmeries.
The main places where police aren't generally armed in Europe are mainly places such as Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland), the RoI, Norway and Iceland. Outside of Europe, the police in New Zealand and some small island states don't carry guns but that's about it.
In most countries where police aren't armed, the unarmed police have armed support including armed response vehicles and specialist units.
In terms f the US it is home to over 40% of the worlds guns and has more guns than actual people, so I think the gun culture plays a big part in the need for police to carry guns.
It would result in open season on police. Dumb idea.
No-brainer. OP, have you forgotten, that lots of the bad guys have guns? The reason it works in Europe, is that in Europe, generally, the citizens don't own more guns than the police, they don't have automatic or semi-automatic weapons, uzis, and whatnot. Sure, some have licenses for hunting rifles, or whatever. But generally speaking, those countries aren't armed to the teeth. Do. you really want to sent unarmed cops out into a heavily armed society?
And the other problem with your scenario: "what if there were three times as many cops...". Are you saying you'd be ok with your local taxes being kicked up two or three notches, and possibly your state taxes, too, in order to pay not only the salaries for 3 times as many cops, but their retirement benefits, too? Really??
Yes, foot cops and bike cops do deter crime in certain areas with certain types of problems: homelessness, vagrancy, and petty drug-dealing, for example. Those patrols are deployed strategically. Nobody regards them as a panacea, that should be applied everywhere.
If you're about to commit a crime and you know there's a cop on the beat, you merely wait until the cop has walked to the far end of his beat. (Don't ask me how I know this.)
Money is an object making this discussion merely fantastic speculation, but if it weren't, how many cops would it take to effectively prevent crime? I doubt that 3x is anywhere near enough. They'd have to be stationed every 50 ft--24/7.
Along these lines, there was a movement several years ago to make crimes committed with a gun "Class X Crimes" rating capital punishment or life imprisonment. That merely made it advantageous for the criminal to turn what would have been a simple armed robbery into a murder-- same risk of penalty but no witnesses left.
We really shouldn't let politicians make laws. They're just too stupid.
The result would be anarchy. Hard core criminals running amuck. Increased gang violence. People barricaded in their homes at night. America is a violent country and loosening police control over the bad guys is lunacy.
If you're about to commit a crime and you know there's a cop on the beat, you merely wait until the cop has walked to the far end of his beat. (Don't ask me how I know this.)
.
It's obvious. The two-cop patrol can't be everywhere at once. I've seen a chase go down between one guy and another, shouting "STOP! THIEF!", on the main drag of one of those bike-patrol areas. No cops anywhere in sight or earshot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
