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.
What does any of this have to do with unarmed civilians doing traffic stops???
Point is these seemingly irrational proposals occur because the public is losing faith in their police force.
One can claim this reactionary to recent events, but dismissing it as such fails to acknowledge the horrible optics created by the State Police scandal or Bill Evans going on WGBH with scathing remarks towards local unions.
Point is these seemingly irrational proposals occur because the public is losing faith in their police force.
One can claim this reactionary to recent events, but dismissing it as such fails to acknowledge the horrible optics created by the State Police scandal or Bill Evans going on WGBH with scathing remarks towards local unions.
I don't know anything about Bill Evans on WGBH. Does any of this (whatever) affect the Cambridge Police and their ability to enforce traffic laws? If there are issues there (or abuses with their union), then maybe they need to reform that rather than shoot themselves in the foot with such a poorly conceived idea and effectively throw the baby out with the bath water.
Forgive me for trying to go about this rationally.
I don't know anything about Bill Evans on WGBH. Does any of this (whatever) affect the Cambridge Police and their ability to enforce traffic laws?
While we might disagree on positions, I do recognize you're intelligent enough to make this connection.
When you have BPD Commissioners, such as Bill Evans or Ed Davis, going on WBUR or WGBH calling out the union arbitrators for not standing behind their termination decisions it causes bad optics both with Boston proper and neighbor communities, such as Cambridge, as the union is more or less a monolithic political entity which carries weight across city lines. The same friction played out with the body cam initiative, with Bill Evans very publicly calling out union leadership for encouraging it's members to not partake in the study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
If there are issues there (or abuses with their union), then maybe they need to reform that rather than shoot themselves in the foot with such a poorly conceived idea and effectively throw the baby out with the bath water.
Point is these communities, Cambridge or Boston, have pushed rational reforms (e.g., exploring body cam usage). However, when unions very publicly resist these reforms or a commissioners rightful termination of a quote "bad apple", it undermines the public's faith that any meaningful reform is possible given the current system.
This encourages more extreme policy ideas to manifest as city leadership forfeits the idea of meaningful reform within and instead seeks to circumvent or disrupt the current status quo. Do I think the policy idea floated is a good one? No, I don't support it ... I do, however, deeply understand the sentiment which leads to these policy ideas.
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.
I agree that there are differences between the U.S. and many of the countries where LEOs are unarmed, so it's not ever going to be an apples to apples comparison. But I do think there are areas in which we can look to some of those countries (the U.K. in particular which shares a lot of cultural similarities and is not immune from violent crime) for examples we can follow or modify for our own purposes.
I'm not looking for data on "what would have happened." I'm looking for data on the percentages of "routine" traffic stops that result in the officer facing some sort of escalation. And what percentage of those were identified (or could have been identified) as non-routine or higher risk stops before the officer approached the vehicle? None of the scenarios you used as examples are unique to the U.S. They happen in the countries where most police are not carrying guns as well. How do those places handle the same stops without guns? Stopping a robbery suspect or an individual with a warrant for a violent crime would definitely fall outside of "routine traffic stop" territory and should only be handled by the police - they'll know this most of the time when they run the plates. Hell, if they run a plate and the owner just has a record of prior violent crimes or associates who have records of violent crimes, then pass it along to the actual police. Of course, if the data says that a significant percentage of stops escalate beyond routine, then I'd reconsider unarmed traffic enforcement. But it's clear there's a lot of dissatisfaction with the status quo, and I would wager there's room in there for some change in how we handle most stops.
While we might disagree on positions, I do recognize you're intelligent enough to make this connection.
When you have BPD Commissioners, such as Bill Evans or Ed Davis, going on WBUR or WGBH calling out the union arbitrators for not standing behind their termination decisions it causes bad optics both with Boston proper and neighbor communities, such as Cambridge, as the union is more or less a monolithic political entity which carries weight across city lines. The same friction played out with the body cam initiative, with Bill Evans very publicly calling out union leadership for encouraging it's members to not partake in the study.
Like I said I didn't hear the interview, although it comes as no surprise that an ex commissioner would be at odds with the union. That kind of comes with the territory, just as a school superintendent is often in a back and forth with the teachers' union to include termination practices for bad employees. I don't see any calls to pull teachers out of the classroom, and have "techs" teach Algebra I since 90% of that instruction doesn't required a certified teacher with a degree. And while I'm not defending the unions at all and recognize that they do sometimes protect bad employees, I also recognize that they also have a side to tell that most likely wasn't covered by this interview. Don't think that the commissioner isn't a "political entity" as well with his own motivations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried
Point is these communities, Cambridge or Boston, have pushed rational reforms (e.g., exploring body cam usage). However, when unions very publicly resist these reforms or a commissioners rightful termination of a quote "bad apple", it undermines the public's faith that any meaningful reform is possible given the current system.
This encourages more extreme policy ideas to manifest as city leadership forfeits the idea of meaningful reform within and instead seeks to circumvent or disrupt the current status quo. Do I think the policy idea floated is a good one? No, I don't support it ... I do, however, deeply understand the sentiment which leads to these policy ideas.
Not sure on what grounds the unions resisted these reforms on, but that's the kind of stuff reforms at the state level should have focused on rather than make it easier for cops to get sued without cause, etc.. Having meter maids enforce traffic laws, isn't going to do zilch in getting rid of bad cops. And as far as the sentiment that leads to these radical ideas, it is understandable that some uninformed members of the public might come out with their pitchforks. A politician or leader however, is expected to exercise better judgement than that (although maybe not in Cambridge?). That was my whole point right from the get go.
I agree that there are differences between the U.S. and many of the countries where LEOs are unarmed, so it's not ever going to be an apples to apples comparison. But I do think there are areas in which we can look to some of those countries (the U.K. in particular which shares a lot of cultural similarities and is not immune from violent crime) for examples we can follow or modify for our own purposes.
I'm not looking for data on "what would have happened." I'm looking for data on the percentages of "routine" traffic stops that result in the officer facing some sort of escalation. And what percentage of those were identified (or could have been identified) as non-routine or higher risk stops before the officer approached the vehicle? None of the scenarios you used as examples are unique to the U.S. They happen in the countries where most police are not carrying guns as well. How do those places handle the same stops without guns? Stopping a robbery suspect or an individual with a warrant for a violent crime would definitely fall outside of "routine traffic stop" territory and should only be handled by the police - they'll know this most of the time when they run the plates. Hell, if they run a plate and the owner just has a record of prior violent crimes or associates who have records of violent crimes, then pass it along to the actual police. Of course, if the data says that a significant percentage of stops escalate beyond routine, then I'd reconsider unarmed traffic enforcement. But it's clear there's a lot of dissatisfaction with the status quo, and I would wager there's room in there for some change in how we handle most stops.
But do any of these countries have actual civilians conduct traffic stops? I'm not talking about unarmed police offers who have all the training and use of force powers, and other means like tasers and batons save for the firearms...that countries like the U.K. use. And don't they now have armed units as well, in cities like London and Birmingham? But a big thing to note, is that the police in Northern Ireland have been armed all along. Why? Because just like in the USA (and unlike mainland U.K. in the past), there exists a threat of armed criminals. But you're right I'm sure we have stuff to learn from them, especially with the number of knives used in place of firearms. Are there a higher number of LEOs getting stabbed over there, or not?
I don't see how one can ignore the "what would have happened" aspect. Just as many people these days target cops, there have always been those much less hesitant to scuffle with an unarmed civilian vs. one with a badge and a gun. Pulling over a motorist (even for a minor violation), is a very tense situation. Their travel is literally being "seized". Americans don't like being told what to do, just look at current situations with masks and the abuse some store employees and restaurant workers have encountered. Can you imagine these same people being asked to hand over their license and registration...
Not sure on what grounds the unions resisted these reforms on, but that's the kind of stuff reforms at the state level should have focused on rather than make it easier for cops to get sued without cause, etc.. Having meter maids enforce traffic laws, isn't going to do zilch in getting rid of bad cops. And as far as the sentiment that leads to these radical ideas, it is understandable that some uninformed members of the public might come out with their pitchforks. A politician or leader however, is expected to exercise better judgement than that (although maybe not in Cambridge?). That was my whole point right from the get go.
Let us not forget this is a proposal, not law. For all we know, this was floated as known "non-starter" as signal to union leadership that a more rational compromise might be more mutually agreeable.
I don't see how one can ignore the "what would have happened" aspect. Just as many people these days target cops, there have always been those much less hesitant to scuffle with an unarmed civilian vs. one with a badge and a gun. Pulling over a motorist (even for a minor violation), is a very tense situation. Their travel is literally being "seized". Americans don't like being told what to do, just look at current situations with masks and the abuse some store employees and restaurant workers have encountered. Can you imagine these same people being asked to hand over their license and registration...
Cops will tell you that after domestic violence calls, traffic stops are the most dangerous.
I don't live there. But as long its not me or mine pulling cars over at 2am , its a great idea, until its not.
Perhaps the city councilors should take turns riding with the social workers to see how safe it is .You know " lead from the front "
I am of the mind the police need to be significantly defunded and a good chunk of police need to find a new career, but this is a God awful idea. My sister is a parole officer with a clinical background. She carries a gun every day. I know as a fact she deescalates situations where she could use force. I work with some amazing school resource officers who have dealt with difficult situations without physical force. I’ve seen crappy school resource officers escalate situations and use force and it clearly could’ve been avoided.
Police need to be armed. It’s the mindset that needs to change.
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.
