How do people like this get elected? Seriously. (Boston, Cambridge: crime, school)

[porterhouse]

I think it’s just in vogue right now.

[cvap]

I'm all for defunding a multitude of government spending but police? Keep the schools closed as long as the school budget gets closed too. Everyone should pay for their own babysitting and teach socialism at home.
I believe the only cure is an all out red/blue armband civil war.

[lrfox]

New York and Philly are piloting similar programs: https://whyy.org/articles/philly-tes...-without-guns/

I wouldn't put myself in the "support" category without learning more details. However, there are nearly 20 countries where police don't carry guns except for select situations, so it's clear that there's room for some adjustment in our armed responses. I think there are structural and cultural issues that would prevent that from being possible in the U.S. to the same extent. However, I do think it's worth looking into ways in which we can safely reduce our dependency on armed law enforcement responding to every type of call/situation. I'd have to see data on traffic stops before I would support traffic stops being conducted without armed law enforcement. I'd also have to see what types of steps are in place should an unarmed LEO feel that conducting a certain stop would put them in danger. Really, I'd just want to see a lot more info. And I'd worry that a rush to implement any sort of change like this under the cloud of the "Defund the Police" movement might mean shortcomings in the planning which could be deadly.

But I absolutely think there are opportunities out there to cut back on armed responses to some calls and help with deescalation. I also support the continued adoption of programs like the state's Jail Diversion Programs which train police to recognize mental health crises (or pair them with social workers in some instances).

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by massnative71

In my life experience, with people who are consistently and rabidly anti-cop, criminality is the family business. Who is it? Father? Uncles? Brothers? Cousins?

That's total deflection. You didn't answer the question. Your defense of the indefensible is endless here. You were even defending the state cops on the Mass Pike. Like I said, my life experience is the adamant pro-cop people have lots of relatives who are cops.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

That's total deflection. You didn't answer the question. Your defense of the indefensible is endless here. You were even defending the state cops on the Mass Pike. Like I said, my life experience is the adamant pro-cop people have lots of relatives who are cops.

I'm not sure why this is such a controversial statement for some. At best, a large portion of society (<=40%) is fairly neutral or slightly unfavorable towards the police.

I know very few staunchly "pro-cop" types and they are almost always retired LEOs or spouses/children of LEOs. Plenty of fairly neutral or slightly favorable positions. Even the LEOs in my social sphere (most of which are 25-35, some 50+) convey a relatively neutral stance as, in informal social settings, they willing comment on issues of nepotism, incompetence, union protection, resentment towards MA state police post-scandal, etc. They would all advocate for traditional law enforcement roles, but they are simultaneously very aware of existing issues and the related optics.

Polling suggested a fairly neutral position from larger society. Some demographics (i.e., 65+ and Republicans) are highly favorable, but the total aggregate is closer to 55-60% favorable ... hardly a populous position.

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o...or-image-1.png

[id77]

Originally Posted by massnative71

The question to ask is how many traffic stops are "potentially" dangerous, in which that number would be 100%. If one pulls a gun on a meter maid, the "ability" to dispatch an actual cop for "backup" who could be 5 minutes away is not exactly an ideal scenario. Same idea as wearing a mask during a pandemic, which you seem very much on board with. You don't gamble with odds when it comes to human life.

If an idiot is willing to pull a gun on a meter maid because they caught him/her breaking a traffic law, we need to get that idiot off the streets.

The rate of casual traffic violations is appalling, and it's also a miracle more people aren't injured or killed as a result of this stupid and lazy disregard of the law. There's many who deliberately and knowingly do because they know they won't be prosecuted for it.

I think more armed cops is about the worst response to it, but a response is needed nonetheless. I'm really, really tired of the wanton traffic code violators. If the city and state aren't doing enough to stop sh*tbag double parkers, x-walk blowers, and red light runners, sooner or later it's going to become road rage, vigilante justice, and I think we can all agree that's not an answer either.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

That's total deflection. You didn't answer the question. Your defense of the indefensible is endless here. You were even defending the state cops on the Mass Pike. Like I said, my life experience is the adamant pro-cop people have lots of relatives who are cops.

Nope. You are trying to derail the topic, while making ridiculous assumptions. And I do not answer irrelevant closed questions like that, why even ask if you already (think) you know the answer? And "defending state cops on the Pike", huh??? But while we are on this side topic, my experience does not align with yours at all. Plenty of people are pro-law enforcement who have no personal relations to cops. Just like many are pro-military, pro teacher, pro nurse, etc. who don't happen to have a direct connection to these professions. I will say that my experience of those being "anti-cop", are in fact mostly on the wrong side of the law (or have family who are). Well...until the last few months when all sorts of people are jumping on that anti-police bandwagon.



So in short, I will answer your question if you answer mine. Otherwise, can we get back on topic (the Cambridge city councilors who proposed having unarmed civilians enforcing traffic laws)?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

I'm not sure why this is such a controversial statement for some. At best, a large portion of society (<=40%) is fairly neutral or slightly unfavorable towards the police.

I know very few staunchly "pro-cop" types and they are almost always retired LEOs or spouses/children of LEOs. Plenty of fairly neutral or slightly favorable positions. Even the LEOs in my social sphere (most of which are 25-35, some 50+) convey a relatively neutral stance as, in informal social settings, they willing comment on issues of nepotism, incompetence, union protection, resentment towards MA state police post-scandal, etc. They would all advocate for traditional law enforcement roles, but they are simultaneously very aware of existing issues and the related optics.

Polling suggested a fairly neutral position from larger society. Some demographics (i.e., 65+ and Republicans) are highly favorable, but the total aggregate is closer to 55-60% favorable ... hardly a populous position.

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o...or-image-1.png

What does any of this have to do with unarmed civilians doing traffic stops???

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by lrfox

New York and Philly are piloting similar programs: https://whyy.org/articles/philly-tes...-without-guns/

I wouldn't put myself in the "support" category without learning more details. However, there are nearly 20 countries where police don't carry guns except for select situations, so it's clear that there's room for some adjustment in our armed responses. I think there are structural and cultural issues that would prevent that from being possible in the U.S. to the same extent. However, I do think it's worth looking into ways in which we can safely reduce our dependency on armed law enforcement responding to every type of call/situation. I'd have to see data on traffic stops before I would support traffic stops being conducted without armed law enforcement. I'd also have to see what types of steps are in place should an unarmed LEO feel that conducting a certain stop would put them in danger. Really, I'd just want to see a lot more info. And I'd worry that a rush to implement any sort of change like this under the cloud of the "Defund the Police" movement might mean shortcomings in the planning which could be deadly.

But I absolutely think there are opportunities out there to cut back on armed responses to some calls and help with deescalation. I also support the continued adoption of programs like the state's Jail Diversion Programs which train police to recognize mental health crises (or pair them with social workers in some instances).

As you said, we cannot be compared to countries like Ireland that do not have an epidemic of guns floating around on the street. I also don't know what data you are going to find, as far as "what would have" happened had an unarmed civilian unknowingly stopped a dangerous criminal for a minor speeding violation only to turn out they had just committed a robbery or had a warrant out for a domestic...or they had 100 grams of fentanyl under their seat...or just a mentally unstable individual who doesn't think they should be pulled over for speeding. All these things that happen every day, that have the potential to turn out much worse without a badge and a gun present.

[mdovell]

this argument again eh. Anyway here's a few things to consider.

State police still have jurisdiction on state roads. That's a given

MBTA police still have jurisdiction as they do in much of the state

Amtrak police still have jurisdiction on the tracks (They ALL are armed. I've heard stories about kids in Springfield hoping to get Paul Blart mall cop. Supposedly they can whip out a gun as fast as the Secret Service)

Now this is where it kinda gets funny.Campus police are technically special state police. I had an argument on this about ten years ago. See Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 22C Section 63. So Harvard and MIT have legit police forces.

So I have to ask what exactly is this trying to infer? Look we aren't going to disarm police. But you can have a private security detail that is armed. So is the fear about the police or being approached by someone that is armed?

Speed limits in cities are about 25 mph now. It's not like you can do 60mph in a city or at least without hitting someone or something. If it's about a chase well there's mutual aid that pretty much means neighboring communities can assist (and vice versa) and the state police have jurisdiction.