Law Enforcment
 

The city fathers of San Jose, CA, have come up with a plan to help the police department stretched thin by budget restraints.

Chappie Jones? Harrumph, probably the spawn of some long haired Jesus freaks in a chartreuse microbus. :crone:
If you're an upstanding, god fearing patriot, doing nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.
Maybe the NSA, in return for all that data, will part with some of the $52 Billion they spend every year, to help San Jose fight terrorism.

The police can report back to the trash companies, in return for their service, where their trucks are, how long they stop, and how long it took to do each street. After all, Jeff Bezos says that's the best way to streamline operations, and weed out the deadwood.

My former employer is now using license plate readers to make sure people are parking correctly on a university campus. Guess it became too much for them to get out of their cars to check the stickers. Also, you can't back into a spot now, as Kansas doesn't issue front plates, hence defeating the purpose of the readers.

The NYPD Tactical Force are the guys they call when it's to much for the beat cops, or in this case the detectives, to handle.
Note the level of equipment, compared to the cops you've seen on TV during the last couple years. How things have changed.
Now I wouldn't deny cops personal protection, but I wonder how much the current designed to intimidate outfits, actually serve to escalate?

It is possible to police in a less violent and militaristic way.




I think the wider culture plays a huge role though, in terms of what people expect and accept. There is an element of American culture that wants its cops to be warriors. The tonal difference between the television portrayal of police work in America versus the portrayal in Britain is stark. You can see it in the reality tv shows that follow police about.

This is a clip from a show that follows CO19 - the armed response unit of the London Met.





I should clarify, I am not holding up the British police as paragons of virtue. We have many similar issues here of institutional racism, little hitlers using their uniform to justify overbearing behaviour, a 'them and us' attitude between police and community in some inner city areas, and cases of police brutality. There are occasional police shootings - and there have been shootings of unarmed black suspects (just much fewer). And there are downsides to not having them routinely armed and waiting on armed response, for instance, in the US the gun-wielding gang member would not still be at large this long after firing his weapon.

Sometimes they be sneaky. Futility Closet tells me...

I watched a Seattle PD uniformed officer (white woman) and a black man and a some other guy completely covered with motorcycle leathers helmet still on push a stalled Cadillac out of traffic the other day.

All is not lost.

:)

Ref the Russian Television reporting on the shooting. The suspect was emotionally disturbed with a knife in his right hand. It was held in an over-hand grip (idiot broadcaster thought thought meant knife overhead). The suspect was within the 21 foot danger zone. Law enforcement officers are taught a person with a knife can cross a distance of 21 feet and stab you before you can draw and engage. Legally justifiable. I ask any of you, what would you do if an emotionally disturbed person with a knife in his hand was approaching you and was within 5 or 6 feet?

Truth be told, I truly would have preferred the officers to have parked farther away and used a non-lethal device. However, very few departments are issued extended range Tasers and only have one rated to be used within the 21 foot range against a person with a non-lethal weapon. The suspect had a knife (lethal weapon). I sincerely doubt the officers are pleased with this event and it will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Point the gun at him and if he charges blow him away. Of course that's a no-no if he's running the other way. It doesn't make sense to try a Bruce Lee grab his wrist and subdue him while drinking tea with the other hand. That's movie stuff a takes years and years of specialized training

Naaaah, shoot the knife out of his hand and when he turns to retrieve it shoot the buckle off his belt so his trousers fall down around his ankles and trips him. After he falls to the ground, knock him out by conking him on the noggin with the butt of your pistol while holding a cup of COFFEE in the other hand. That's the 'merkin way.

Are you a screenwriter, or maybe sleazy paperbacks. :lol2:

Training officers to shoot first, he will answer questions later.

The police do a hard, dangerous, necessary job that I don't want to do. Thank you, police, for stepping up to do the work, thank you.

I, we, give the police license, authority to take many actions that are prohibited to the general public, notably the legal use of force. At this time, the police also has the hearts at minds of the majority of the public. Witness all the judgements in favor of the police where the actions of the officer are deemed "justifiable".

But I fear that the police's halo effect is diminishing, largely through their own doing. When we give them this additional power and authority, that comes with higher expectations, especially in the area of restraint, calmness, diplomacy, de-escalation. I'm not suggesting that police officers fail to defend themselves. I am saying that excessive force, deadly force, while providing self defense, has a cost in public trust. Cops' lives matter, but the cops' lives will be at greater risk as their stature as fair, public servants diminishes.

We all know the unequal impact negative examples have compared to positive examples. It doesn't take many bad, or even bad appearing incidents of police behavior to outweigh the good and necessary (and largely underappreciated) work they do. I believe it is good for our civil society and in the personal best interests of every police officer to do all they can to avoid deadly and excessive force, in an effort to rebuild the public trust.

The thing is - the majority of police officers do not shoot people. The overwhelming majority never kill anybody - but they routinely face the same threats their fellow officers face when they shoot someone.

The natural, and probably necessary given their job, brothers in arms mentality means that people who are temperamentally unsuited to a job in which they are entrusted with the right to apply armed force, don't get shuffled out of the system once that becomes apparent. At a local and organisational level they present a united front - which pitches them, as an organisation, in opposition to those criticising them: the public.

They need to get their fucking house in order if they want public support and therefore legitimacy to continue. This goes for many police forces, including the british police. The problem of a them and us attitude and closing ranks when criticised is common to this kind of organisation. But there is something particular going on with police forces in the US. There are many countries with routinely armed police where deaths from police shootings are nowhere near as common.

Very well put!

You crystallized the thought I had but could not perfectly express. It's in the best interest of everyone involved, the police and the public, for unsuitable individuals to be removed from such service.

Murder rates spike in US cities in 2015 after decades of decline

It simply can't be explained by any modern trend or phenomenon of our time.

Nobody will commit to an explanation. Of course, in our modern day, committing to an explanation might be committing Twitter-cide. There's nothing to gain by it. I'm sure we can figure it out since we understand crime and policing so well