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

[massnative71]

You can't make this stuff up.


https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/07...ond-dangerous/
Cambridge proposal to use unarmed civilians for traffic stops, instead of police, is ‘beyond dangerous’

[BostonMike7]

That is the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard

[GeoffD]

I'd like real data on the percent of routine traffic stops that actually require armed police. I'll bet it's extremely low. Call for backup on anything that looks sketchy. Transmitting cameras on the meter maids who take over basic traffic detail. A human at the police station can roll backup for anything iffy including people mouthing off at the meter maid.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

I'd like real data on the percent of routine traffic stops that actually require armed police. I'll bet it's extremely low. Call for backup on anything that looks sketchy. Transmitting cameras on the meter maids who take over basic traffic detail. A human at the police station can roll backup for anything iffy including people mouthing off at the meter maid.

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.

[thenewtexan]

In theory, it makes sense. Ninety nine percent of the time, police don't need to use their guns to give a speeding ticket to a soccer mom. My only concern is the logistics and training (i.e. how to recognize something "iffy") and what will police response time to those situations be if they're too busy fighting violent crime? If no other towns go ahead with this, will Cambridge become the lone target knowing there is a "middle man" involved?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by thenewtexan

In theory, it makes sense. Ninety nine percent of the time, police don't need to use their guns to give a speeding ticket to a soccer mom. My only concern is the logistics and training (i.e. how to recognize something "iffy") and what will police response time to those situations be if they're too busy fighting violent crime? If no other towns go ahead with this, will Cambridge become the lone target knowing there is a "middle man" involved?

IDK, but if I'm a drug runner I would certainly feel more comfortable doing my business in a city where I know there's little chance of being pulled over for a burnt out blinker. And no, I don't think too many other towns will follow their lead. Even Cambridge probably won't, I don't see this as much more than a couple of stray loony council members grandstanding to their loony base. Unlikely to gain traction beyond that, although it's "Cambridge" so you never really know.

[porterhouse]

Originally Posted by massnative71

IDK, but if I'm a drug runner I would certainly feel more comfortable doing my business in a city where I know there's little chance of being pulled over for a burnt out blinker.

It's relatively common knowledge in Cambridge that the chances of being pulled over for a traffic violation are slim. The city government has quietly but steadily discouraged the police department against traffic stops due to profiling concerns. The city has lowered the speed limit in well orchestrated PR stunts several times in recent years. City council and committee meeting minutes on public record have the police as much as admitting that enforcement is not a priority and they feel unable to enforce traffic laws effectively.

One has to be driving very erratically or aggressively to get pulled over in Cambridge. All the more reason police need to handle these stops. The thought of meter maids being to give out speeding tickets...LOL.

[BostonMike7]

Didn't something similar happen years ago with one of the state's police agencies? I don't recall which one off the top of my head.

But somewhere, someone thought it would be good to save a few bucks and hire non-police officers to do some minor tasks. They were civilians. Well, since they were doing some sort of minor police related duties, they went through the same training program as officers. Then, after establishing a program where they go through the same training as cops, and did some tasks that cops were doing, they decided to unionize and try and fight for the same benefits as cops were getting since they were going through the same training program and performing some police duties. Then after that, they said well, since we now get trained and paid like cops, why can't we carry guns? And eventually they were made full police officers.

Now, I can see that just being an old wive's tale, but I can also see it playing out for real here. You can't just pluck Joe 6-pack from the street and give him authority to start pulling over cars. He will need to be trained, and such training can be intensive and take time. Once these pseudo cops hit the street, it's only a matter of time before they pull over the wrong person, and something bad happens. At that point, I can see them saying "why are we risking our lives as cops, when we don't get paid the same, nor carry weapons to defend ourselves". Yes, I realize it's Cambridge and not Blue Hill ave & Morton st.

A stretch maybe.....but the world isn't sunshine and roses like the politicians of Cambridge like to believe.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

Didn't something similar happen years ago with one of the state's police agencies? I don't recall which one off the top of my head.

But somewhere, someone thought it would be good to save a few bucks and hire non-police officers to do some minor tasks. They were civilians. Well, since they were doing some sort of minor police related duties, they went through the same training program as officers. Then, after establishing a program where they go through the same training as cops, and did some tasks that cops were doing, they decided to unionize and try and fight for the same benefits as cops were getting since they were going through the same training program and performing some police duties. Then after that, they said well, since we now get trained and paid like cops, why can't we carry guns? And eventually they were made full police officers.

Now, I can see that just being an old wive's tale, but I can also see it playing out for real here. You can't just pluck Joe 6-pack from the street and give him authority to start pulling over cars. He will need to be trained, and such training can be intensive and take time. Once these pseudo cops hit the street, it's only a matter of time before they pull over the wrong person, and something bad happens. At that point, I can see them saying "why are we risking our lives as cops, when we don't get paid the same, nor carry weapons to defend ourselves". Yes, I realize it's Cambridge and not Blue Hill ave & Morton st.

A stretch maybe.....but the world isn't sunshine and roses like the politicians of Cambridge like to believe.

Sounds like how the Registry cops got their start.


Of course, this is all conjecture. I've never seen any real world data on it. The police are the most self-serving union on the planet. Of course they're going to claim that any routine traffic stop is taking their lives in their hands. Same for guarding the hole detail work.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Sounds like how the Registry cops got their start.


Of course, this is all conjecture. I've never seen any real world data on it. The police are the most self-serving union on the planet. Of course they're going to claim that any routine traffic stop is taking their lives in their hands. Same for guarding the hole detail work.

Since you are clearly hiding under a rock as well, please do us all a favor and don't run for any kind of office either. And comparing a traffic stop to "guarding a hole" is asinine.