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 think it would be great to undergo an experiment to see if some police duties can be better filled by civilians. It it fails, it fails, but I am certainly not against the experiment, despite the short term suffering it could cost some people. If there is a chance improvement can come out of it, then try it and see.
My fear is that this is not going to be a good faith experiment, but more of a dedicated process of cutting police. If the experiment fails, my fear is they will just keep it in infinitum with constant suffering.
But if somebody did a good faith experiment, I am OK with that.
you said....
I think it would be great to undergo an experiment to see if some police duties can be better filled by civilians.
change that list bit "Civilians" to "different professionals" and i agree with you. on every other point, i agree with you 100%
Seems like a good idea to me. Police are not trained psychologists. Many people, some police officers included, see a nail and use a hammer. That's all they know. Get a call about a drunk guy walking the streets... arrest him. How about... get him a ride home. Knock on the door, maybe the wife or girlfriend says "thanks" and puts him to bed. Makes him a nice pot of coffee in the morning for the hangover. And you keep that jail cell open for someone else that does need to be detained. If the response team finds the person is too dangerous, then they call in police to do their job.
Years ago, my girlfriend called the police after her roommate's boyfriend threatened her with a knife and chased her out of their apartment. Police did nothing. "Does your roommate pay rent?" Well, yeah, but she's a month behind. "Well, she's allowed to invite in whomever she wants, even if they threaten you."
Maybe a response team with domestic violence training would have led to a better outcome.
So many people think everything is binary. It isn't "get rid of all police and replace them with unarmed treehuggers singing Kumbaya." Do I want a dentist to fix my broken leg? Sure, he's qualified for one job but not necessarily for the other.
DV calls are amongst the most unpredictable and dangerous. A couple years back there were issues with the neighbors below me, and I did have to call the police. The man was beating his GF/partner up, I mean absolute screaming and terror, he was punching her and throwing her into the walls and out in the hallway against the walls and against other residents doors. An unarmed social worker responding to that? They would have undoubtedly been thrown into the wall as well. I certainly wasn’t going to go downstairs and ask him to please stop.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,545 posts, read 12,517,887 times
Reputation: 10464
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy
Seems like a good idea to me. Police are not trained psychologists. Many people, some police officers included, see a nail and use a hammer. That's all they know. Get a call about a drunk guy walking the streets... arrest him. How about... get him a ride home. Knock on the door, maybe the wife or girlfriend says "thanks" and puts him to bed. Makes him a nice pot of coffee in the morning for the hangover. And you keep that jail cell open for someone else that does need to be detained. If the response team finds the person is too dangerous, then they call in police to do their job.
Years ago, my girlfriend called the police after her roommate's boyfriend threatened her with a knife and chased her out of their apartment. Police did nothing. "Does your roommate pay rent?" Well, yeah, but she's a month behind. "Well, she's allowed to invite in whomever she wants, even if they threaten you."
Maybe a response team with domestic violence training would have led to a better outcome.
So many people think everything is binary. It isn't "get rid of all police and replace them with unarmed treehuggers singing Kumbaya." Do I want a dentist to fix my broken leg? Sure, he's qualified for one job but not necessarily for the other.
Definition of abolish
transitive verb
: to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) : to completely do away with (something)
Motivation matters. Implementing a means without understanding the ends is negligent at best and destructive at worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog77
can we agree that it’s worth finding the solution that results in the fewest violent encounters?
But that's not this group's aim. Their aim is not only to INCREASE violent encounters, but to become the ones DISPENSING that violence without fear of consequences. A power grab needs to be called out for what it is, even -- make that ESPECIALLY -- when it's packaged as something beneficial like "a solution that results in the fewest violent encounters."
Regardless of the motivation, can we agree that it’s worth finding the solution that results in the fewest violent encounters?
Yes, we can agree on that. Across the board we should be striving to preserve as many lives as possible.
Unfortunately, this isn't the goal of some of these zealots. It's the surface goal. The real goal is to abolish police. Abolish prisons. Abolish ICE. Install DA's who don't prosecute. These are goals that will get people killed.
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.
