Meaningful Police Reform

Floridaman

Well-known member
Good luck with that. Cops won't have a great feeling knowing that if a criminal manages to overpower them, they'll get their hands on a gun that can penetrate their body armor. (Also, odds are high that departments would go with the Ruger Five-Seven instead, just from a price perspective, assuming it was reliable enough.)
If they get the rifle they have the same option, why not gives cops those stupid biometric locks the gun control people were trying to force everyone else to use.
 

Laskar

Would you kindly?
Founder
So another round of 'We need the leftist media to stop habitually lying and deceiving people.'
Not just the news media, but cop shows with cowboy cops who bend the rules and rough up suspects to get their man. Of the cop shows I've watched, only Blue Bloods takes a nuanced approach to police conduct, and even that is a borderline case due to Danny Reagan's temper. Cowboy cops can be interesting and compelling characters, but when every cop show adopts that cynical view of policework, it shapes the public perception of how our justice system operates.

I don't see this changing anytime soon because most entertainment producers are convinced that the American public would rather watch Dirty Harry than Superman. That's why a lot of television shows are fifty minutes of awful, cynical people being awful to each other, with Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones as stand-out examples.

If they get the rifle they have the same option, why not gives cops those stupid biometric locks the gun control people were trying to force everyone else to use.
Because those damned things don't work, and most cops wear gloves.
 

Senor Hortler

Permanently Banned
Permanently Banned
I probably don't have a good opinion here but I'll throw my uninformed one out anyway.

One thing we need need need* is for Cops to have partners again and work in pairs. This is really freakin' basic for police safety and peace of mind. With somebody backing you up all the time you feel safer and more confident, and you are safer with some backup. My step-brother is a (long retired) homicide detective in Los Angeles County and when they started sending him out alone instead of with a partner he basically starting aging like Obama did in 2008. Even my store has a rule that we open with two people because the risk of attack at open goes down by something like 92% from two people (boss researched it in detail) instead of one.

I'm not always fond of British things but I like some aspects of their police force. In particular they make a difference between "Bobbies" who are the neighborhood cop who's job it is to maintain a good relationship with the neighborhood, and the heavily armed types that deal with actual threats**. Right now police have to react to everything from "my neighbor's music is too loud at 11:00am" to "guy with a bloody axe is chopping down my front door." I think having a Bobbie type cop who's training puts a heavy emphasis on diplomacy, de-escalation, and maintaining a good relationship with the public would help more with the former, with more traditional heavily armed cops reserved for situations where violence is more likely. Perhaps both could be combine with Bobbies being paired with SWAT types so that the Bobbie can be the face in every situation that isn't going to devolve into violence and the SWAT type having her back and making sure the situations that do devolve into violence are contained.

*six more needs redacted.

**The UK doesn't let the street cops even be armed, I'm not proposing going that far but rather an emphasis in training and possibly a uniform designed for appeal and style rather than intimidation.
Your idea of the bobby is very outdated. They don't exist in anymore; we tend to operate on targeted police action. The 'bobby' doesn't exist anymore, and has been soft replaced with the PCSO scheme which puts a single man 'bobby' volunteer rather than a full officer. Our 'lack' of police brutality doesn't come from a good system, it comes from the fact that police brutality is very rare anyway; along with our police not actually killing those who brutalize but rather bring them in and then simply don't charge them so they trend towards not getting reported..
 

WyldCard4

Well-known member
Honestly, the right wing people I follow (gun rights activists, economics nerds, libertarians) have a ton of overlap in their concerns with the left wing intellectual criticism of policing, the two groups just can't help but fighting whenever they try talking to each other.

A lot of the current ideas bouncing around trying to claim "defend the police isn't really defunding the police" are pretty old libertarian issues involving too much police power, not enough police liability, and use of force. My biggest concern over the current protests is that they'll scare people enough they accept police brutality to try and get the chaos to stop.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
Honestly, the right wing people I follow (gun rights activists, economics nerds, libertarians) have a ton of overlap in their concerns with the left wing intellectual criticism of policing, the two groups just can't help but fighting whenever they try talking to each other.

A lot of the current ideas bouncing around trying to claim "defend the police isn't really defunding the police" are pretty old libertarian issues involving too much police power, not enough police liability, and use of force. My biggest concern over the current protests is that they'll scare people enough they accept police brutality to try and get the chaos to stop.

The biggest issue in regards to liability seems to be the police unions.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Your idea of the bobby is very outdated. They don't exist in anymore; we tend to operate on targeted police action. The 'bobby' doesn't exist anymore, and has been soft replaced with the PCSO scheme which puts a single man 'bobby' volunteer rather than a full officer. Our 'lack' of police brutality doesn't come from a good system, it comes from the fact that police brutality is very rare anyway; along with our police not actually killing those who brutalize but rather bring them in and then simply don't charge them so they trend towards not getting reported..
It sounds like your police force outright fails at policing.
 

Senor Hortler

Permanently Banned
Permanently Banned
It sounds like your police force outright fails at policing.
53f.png

Our police force exists as a tax collection force and to shut down wrongthink from people on the internet. Little else, they helped cover up (and in the case of Amjad Dittah took part in) the rape of eighteen thousand girls, most recently arresting one of them for speaking out against her rapists for beating her to near death.

The entire police needs a ground up reworking, as they stand currently they are non functional and pathetic; they have no staff to come out to burglaries, but their 'hate crime units' are overstaffed and can be on you within minutes of a mean tweet.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Trump does it again. There you go the reform.

This youtuber who claims to be police supports it?
The reform seems like almost nothing, and doesn't go far enough, so of course cops like it. If cops like the reform, I'm disinclined to think it did anything.

They need to get rid of police unions and qualified immunity.

 

Arch Dornan

Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
The reform seems like almost nothing, and doesn't go far enough, so of course cops like it. If cops like the reform, I'm disinclined to think it did anything.

They need to get rid of police unions and qualified immunity.


They don't get the right to a labor union?
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
They don't get the right to a labor union?

Employees of the government should not have labor unions. They are literally and directly negotiating against the people of the nation and communities they nominally serve as a whole.

This is true for police, teachers, government bureaucrats, all of them. Being a 'civil servant' comes with some different responsibilities and privileges compared to working in the private sector.
 

Arch Dornan

Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Employees of the government should not have labor unions. They are literally and directly negotiating against the people of the nation and communities they nominally serve as a whole.

This is true for police, teachers, government bureaucrats, all of them. Being a 'civil servant' comes with some different responsibilities and privileges compared to working in the private sector.
That's going to be a harder nut to crack when the question gets raised at other jobs falling under 'civil servant'.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
They don't get the right to a labor union?
No. Public sector unions are a cancer. In a private sector union, both the union and management benefit by the company remaining profitable, and the workers having a living wage, but between these extremes, there is fierce competition to try to get as much benefit for one side as possible. This is all well and good.

Now compare this to government work. No one cares if the stuff is under any sort of budget, and the management is politicians, who want to give the unions as much as possible to buy votes. There is no accountability.
 

Arch Dornan

Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
No. Public sector unions are a cancer. In a private sector union, both the union and management benefit by the company remaining profitable, and the workers having a living wage, but between these extremes, there is fierce competition to try to get as much benefit for one side as possible. This is all well and good.

Now compare this to government work. No one cares if the stuff is under any sort of budget, and the management is politicians, who want to give the unions as much as possible to buy votes. There is no accountability.
If you get rid of them the police do have to be done better or it's just another repeat of what the Boston Police did in response to bad treatment in the early 1900s.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
If you get rid of them the police do have to be done better or it's just another repeat of what the Boston Police did in response to bad treatment in the early 1900s.
No, getting rid of them is just a good idea. Police should be paid well, but if police quit because they might be fired for being brutal, then good, problem solved.
 

Arch Dornan

Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
No, getting rid of them is just a good idea. Police should be paid well, but if police quit because they might be fired for being brutal, then good, problem solved.
If it was only that easy in theory. I'm sure the institutional rot sets in later and the police union comes back after getting treated like shit again. These things have a cycle. Get rid of one police force and when a new generation takes over the cycle continues.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
If it was only that easy in theory. I'm sure the institutional rot sets in later and the police union comes back after getting treated like shit again. These things have a cycle. Get rid of one police force and when a new generation takes over the cycle continues.
The police union is a large cause of the institutional rot, and is what makes it impossible to clear out. Basically, say you have a bad cop, like the one who killed George Floyd. Even before Floyd, he had 18 complaints. He should have been kicked out. But why wasn't he? I'd start by blaming the police union.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top