Rethinking Policing

57Brave

57Brave

Well-known member
Been reading of alternative policing methods

1) more use of technology in traffic policing
2) first responder being a psychological units for domestic issues
3) drastically limiting the scope of armed policing
4) more and better use of walking patrols
5) accountability
6) stricter entrance requirements
7) public / civic leadership
..........................................................................

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/14/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

////////

The history of policing is more and more becoming a "thing"
 
Just give everybody an AK47 and a bullet-proof vest and get one with it. That's the only direction things are headed.
 
Last edited:
The number 1 reform I'd implement is funding police through actual appropriations and not through fines and civil forfeitures. Currently, police departments are financially motivated to have as many interactions with people as possible. The more contact you make the more people you'll find driving drunk, possessing small amounts of drugs, having large amounts of unexplained cash on them, etc. All of this leads to more money for the police.

This also leads to police out there spending their time looking for absolutely stupid things. Why are we spending so much police time writing tickets for incredibly minor traffic offenses? Why are we pulling so many people over for expired tags or illegal window tint? Aren't there better uses of police time?

The more contacts police have with traffic stops, stop and frisks, etc, the more times you have an interaction escalate and a tragedy result. If you take away the financial motives police have to initiate these contacts, you'll see a drop in police shootings.
 
57Brave said:
Been reading of alternative policing methods

1) more use of technology in traffic policing
2) first responder being a psychological units for domestic issues
3) drastically limiting the scope of armed policing
4) more and better use of walking patrols
5) accountability
6) stricter entrance requirements
7) public / civic leadership
..........................................................................

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/14/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

////////

The history of policing is more and more becoming a "thing"
Click to expand...




Any how would any of this prevent or lessen major crimes?
 
thethe said:
Silly man. The goal has never been to reduce crime. Instability is the goal.
Click to expand...

They’re ****ing idiots.


57 lives in a crime free, white neighborhood. You think he cares about the well being of those living in the inner cities? No.
 
Last edited:
very quick turn around from "you don't care about the inner city" to "I hope they all die"

I like striker's idea. I think you could also get real liability on the police officers themselves (rather than indemnification by the city); as it is, the money paid out to violations doesn't work as a behavorial disincentive since the cops themselves don't pay either way.
 
Striker makes very good points. Along with that, I'd make the qualifications to become a police officer much harder. Becoming a cop shouldn't be so easy. The qualifications can be as basic as a high school diploma in many places and passing a PT test. Most of the towns I live near don't require a degree of any kind, but might require you to take a technical course and get a certification of some sort. And that's just for city cops. The sheriffs office qualifications are typically much lower. Why are we giving people barely qualified enough to work at Wal-Mart a badge?

Obviously you'll need to pay more qualified individuals more money, which is where Striker's idea comes into play. But the general idea is that if you have better candidates to choose from, it will lead to better cops in your precinct.
 
Small dents in the end results.

Focus is all wrong.

Goal should be to reduce criminality. But that is apparently an issue that can’t be discussed.
 
You reduce criminality by spending the money you save on actual stuff to help make people's lives better, which disincentivizes crime.
 
The savings you are talking about are negligible when allocated to the disadvantaged population.

We have thrown money at these underlying societal issues for decades with little to no improvement.

It’s much deeper than money.
 
lol, we have been stripping anything resembling "social welfare" since the sixties, it's literally the raison d'etre of the Republican project. Unbroken wrong streak continues.
 
Metaphysicist said:
lol, we have been stripping anything resembling "social welfare" since the sixties, it's literally the raison d'etre of the Republican project. Unbroken wrong streak continues.
Click to expand...

Wait you think funding for social welfare programs has gotten worse since the 60s?
 
Metaphysicist said:
lol, we have been stripping anything resembling "social welfare" since the sixties, it's literally the raison d'etre of the Republican project. Unbroken wrong streak continues.
Click to expand...

I know we have gone to the place where those with actual experience in something are the last ones we ask questions and needed reforms, ie teachers are the last ones to ask about education reform.

So, how about we look for our friend Toma4life, since he's an actual law enforcement person, with actual real world law enforcement experience, perhaps he might have some good suggestions.

Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top