Minneapolis Cop Murders A Black Man

[BabaYaga 15,625]

1 minute ago, John Lawrence said:

Haven't certain countries legalized most drugs and focused on treatment?  And addiction rates have dropped (along with all the other benefits of legalization)?

Wasn't Portugal one?  It certainly seems more humane.

We have lost the war on drugs.  And created a massive black market with all the attendant criminal organizations/violence.  Time to wave the white flag.

On certain drugs, absolutely.  I think they still have a list of drugs that are not legal, but it's not long.  

[immortal13 4,059]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Drug addiction is a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.  You more than likely are not going to see an increase in addiction if drugs are legalized and thus, ostensibly, easier and cheaper to obtain.  That has certainly been the case in legalizing jurisdictions such as Portugal.

Do you honestly think the war on drugs curtails the supply of drugs sufficiently to limit the number of addicts?

Because it is a demand-side problem it is a health problem.

You would still have the same violence due to the cartel/dealer conflicts

[hobbes2702 13,478]

3 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Something tells me that if Minnesota asked their citizens to vote to defund/disband the police it would be overwhelmingly rejected. 
 

This is the definition of “mob rule” and exactly what our founders warned against and tried to prevent. I’d move quickly to remove all sitting city council members. What an abuse of power. 

No it isn’t. Do you think those city council members were voted into office or just given the chair? Their job is to listen to citizens and make decisions. This is literally democracy in action.

[BabaYaga 15,625]

3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

No it isn’t. Do you think those city council members were voted into office or just given the chair? Their job is to listen to citizens and make decisions. This is literally democracy in action.

I think he's talking about listening to all sides.  Not just those shouting the loudest to defund and denounce.  I'b be curious to see what percentage of people screaming to defund actually live in the areas hit the hardest by violent and recurring crime?  My guess is they are concerned that a reduction in LE in their communities will result in a spike in crime rates from those taking advantage of overt signaling that LEs will be winding down.  

Example - The damage to the black community has been catastrophic. Minneapolis alone had 170 black-owned businesses destroyed in the first two days of the protests. These companies are mostly uninsured. They had low-income housing projects burned to the ground. Now you are dialing back protection and response?  

[hobbes2702 13,478]

@BabaYaga

I’m tired of having to tell people to look at the MPD and their background. See what that police dept is all about, why the people are upset, and how long this has been going on. The response of the council isn’t reactionary. It’s a decision made after years of abuse from this police dept.

Im also tired of explaining that police are not disappearing. Law enforcement will still exist. Stop creating a strawman of some lawless society with no law enforcement. It’s bullshit, it’s untrue, and it doesn’t do anything to add to the discussion about the perceived merits or lack thereof of community based law enforcement.

Edited June 8, 2020 by hobbes2702

[Brisketexan 106,900]

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The military gear may not be used all that frequently in civil rights violations, but it is symbolic of the need and desire of the police to project force against the citizenry.  That is, it perpetuates the notion that the citizenry is the enemy. That in itself is no bueno. 

As far as I can tell, outside of isolated SWAT scenarios against a barricaded shooter, military gear is used and justified most often by warrant service.  While it ostensibly protects the boys in blue from dangerous armed criminals about to be searched or arrested, what it actually does is increase their invulnerability and thereby make them more likely to engage in highly risky warrant service endeavors, like no-knocks generally.

Without the gear, I believe the popo would be more circumspect about entering into and creating high-risk situations, out of a sense of self-preservation, if nothing else.  With a little advance thought, I can't imagine that they can't successfully serve warrants on even the most depraved criminals in a way that reduces the need for force and risk.

Excellent point.  The shift from "let's grab dangerous criminal X when he goes to his mailbox/is walking back to his car after buying a new pair of shoes" to "let's may a dynamic entry HOO-AH!" is dangerous for everyone -- the suspect, innocent bystanders, the cops themselves.  This may shock people, but most of us who have a huge problem with current policing don't ever want to see a dead cop ever again.  We would like them to all go home safely at the end of their shift.  Avoiding creating high-tension violent situations is a key way to make sure that happens.

24 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

So you don't see legalizing all drugs as making that problem worse?  We already know that drug addiction in many cases leads to more crime.

I'm just spitballing here.  I recognize that law enforcement is a problem in our country as is drug addiction and the crime related to drug addiction.  Making it legal doesn't put money in the addicts pocket to purchase drugs.

We have decades of data from the War on Drugs.  We tried fighting drugs as a law enforcement issue.  It's over.  Drugs won.  Usage and addiction rates hardly budged.  Because the demand will always be there.  I've used this analogy before -- imagine that we declared a legal "war on masturbation."  The rate of masturbation will go down 0.0%, and you will have turned functionally every American into a repeat criminal.  It's an ineffective means of dealing with the issue.

21 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

No, that's what you read.  Go back and actually read the post - it was about fatigue from riots that had been following peaceful protests....which was the case early on.  Then a Mea Culpa that they have in fact gone down dramatically - which everyone agrees is a fabulous thing.  That is the current event.

As for marching.  Good for you.  Doesn't mean someone that has an opinion that may differ slightly from yours is a partisan hack and  then of course you INSTANTLY devolve to partisan lines.  This is the political fuckery we need less of.  

If you don't see the huge counter-narrative in this country, focused entirely on "rioting and looters," and not just ignoring, but diminishing and even denying that there is a peaceful movement, I can't fix your ignorance.  I can, however, urge you to read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," which lays out the exact same pattern of response from the side of society that wanted to discredit MLK's movement.  This tactic of discrediting any effort for social change as just a bunch of "rioting and looters" is well over 60 years old.  It is entirely predictable, it is logically fallacious, and it comes from the same people it's always come from.

16 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This is a good example analyzing the efficacy of the broken-window theory.  A proactive approach in it'w own right (as much as you have have one).  I disagree crimes are typically committed by the desperate and impaired.  I think most are crimes of opportunity.  Thus a reduction in the number of LE's would correlate to a spike in crime rates in major metropolitan areas - also correlating to polling that people actually living in these areas (which is generally none of us fuck-wads pontificating about it) want MORE police.  Not less.  

I don't disagree with this.  That's why ALLOCATION of resources, as well as the manner in which those resources work, is important.  In neighborhoods that genuinely want and need more and better policing, we should focus on that.  Not just on "community policing" in general, but actually in recruiting potential police officers from within those communities.  Have the same officers, including officers from the neighborhood, regularly patrolling and working with community leaders and community members at large.  And those cops should be in uniform, not full battle rattle.  They are partners WITH the community, not warriors fighting against it.

Not all neighborhoods/areas need the same number or type of police presence.  Oh, and the vast majority of significant crimes are committed by the same bunch of predictable people.  In the neighborhoods you're talking about, folks know who the bad seeds are.  So, focusing both short-term and long-term efforts at addressing those bad seeds is an effective strategy.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Example - The damage to the black community has been catastrophic. Minneapolis alone had 170 black-owned businesses destroyed in the first two days of the protests. These companies are mostly uninsured. They had low-income housing projects burned to the ground. Now you are dialing back protection and response?  

Uhhhhhh holy shit

[Trey3216 15,452]

34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Drug addiction is a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.  You more than likely are not going to see an increase in addiction if drugs are legalized and thus, ostensibly, easier and cheaper to obtain.  That has certainly been the case in legalizing jurisdictions such as Portugal.

Do you honestly think the war on drugs curtails the supply of drugs sufficiently to limit the number of addicts?

Because it is a demand-side problem it is a health problem.

A few years back I did some napkin math based on some readily available statistics and came up with a number in the neighborhood of $150bn/ annually that the war on drugs is costing us.  That factors in police/DEA/ATF budgets, forgone taxes from legalized growing/sales, costs of incarceration, etc.  That's about .88% of US GDP annually, which is a fairly significant #.  

[dcar00 14,973]

13 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

@BabaYaga

I’m tired of having to tell people to look at the MPD and their background. See what that police dept is all about, why the people are upset, and how long this has been going on. The response of the council isn’t reactionary. It’s a decision made after years of abuse from this police dept.

Im also tired of explaining that police are not disappearing. Law enforcement will still exist. Stop creating a strawman of some lawless society with no law enforcement. It’s bullshit, it’s untrue, and it doesn’t do anything to add to the discussion about the perceived merits or lack thereof of community based law enforcement.

maybe you need a nap.

[hobbes2702 13,478]

Just now, dcar00 said:

maybe you need a nap.

You could also try being informed of what the issue is instead of spouting ignorant nonsense so that someone wouldn’t always have to educate you. It’s really hard these days to get informed so I understand. It’s not like there’s some massive, free way to get information about literally anything.

[dcar00 14,973]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

You could also try being informed of what the issue is instead of spouting ignorant nonsense so that someone wouldn’t always have to educate you. It’s really hard these days to get informed so I understand. It’s not like there’s some massive, free way to get information about literally anything.

you really do need that nap. 

[hobbes2702 13,478]

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

you really do need that nap. 

 

It’s ok the adults can handle it from here. HookEm. You’re welcome to join the discussion but be careful, there’s some big words you’ll have to deal with.

[Huckleberry 34,658]

59 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

So you don't see legalizing all drugs as making that problem worse?  We already know that drug addiction in many cases leads to more crime.

I'm just spitballing here.  I recognize that law enforcement is a problem in our country as is drug addiction and the crime related to drug addiction.  Making it legal doesn't put money in the addicts pocket to purchase drugs.

As noted by many others, we have a nation that tried this and drug addiction decreased.

Ask yourself a simple question, if all drugs are legalized are you going to go out and shoot up some heroin and smoke some meth?

Edited June 8, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Iceman 2,978]

but if the beer store was open at 7AM, I'd show up to church drunk...

wait, that's not really a factor, either...

 

When I tell family and friends I am "pro-legalization"  for mj, it draws some peculiar looks and comments.  I'm a lot more about "Make em legal, and when someone fucks up while under the influence, hammer their ass."

I disagree with chasing simple possession and folks who do a bit of pot on the weekend.   Of all of our society's issues, that's like chasing mice while getting trampled by the elephants.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Iceman

[ChickenSandwich 9,959]

53 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

No it isn’t. Do you think those city council members were voted into office or just given the chair? Their job is to listen to citizens and make decisions. This is literally democracy in action.

Just like the Austin city council getting rid of Uber and Lyft right?  
 

The mayor was elected as well, is he not also representing his citizens?  And ifyou are correct why not put it on a local ballot and hold a vote?

It’s pandering to mob rule plain and simple. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by ChickenSandwich

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

As noted by many others, we have a nation that tried this and drug addiction decreased.
Ask yourself a simple question, if all drugs are legalized are you going to go out and shoot up some heroin and smoke some meth?

It blows my mind that people refuse to accept this data. Several countries have legalized with positive results, but many Americans refuse to believe it.

What is even more odd is that they think that this 50 year old “war on drugs” can be won if we as a nation escalate it to some unknown level. If we just throw the right amount of money, police, laws and prison time at the problem, we will “win”. It hasn’t worked for 5 fucking decades. There is no magic number. So instead we have militarized police departments, wasted money that could have been used for education, hunger, homelessness, etc. we have broken homes, mostly amongst blacks and Latinos because fathers get sent to prison for some bullshit morality laws.

[dcar00 14,973]

4 minutes ago, Iceman said:

but if the beer store was open at 7AM, I'd show up to church drunk...

wait, that's not really a factor, either...

 

When I tell family and friends I am "pro-legalization"  for mj, it draws some peculiar looks and comments.  I'm a lot more about "Make em legal, and when someone fucks up while under the influence, hammer their ass."

I disagree with chasing simple possession and folks who do a bit of pot on the weekend.   Of all of our society's issues, that's like chasing mice while getting trampled by the elephants.

 

 

I'd be nice if that were to happen but they aren't going to hammer anyone if they fuck up.  its a mental health issue at that point, remember.  they aren't bad people. 

[EuroHorn 3,295]

2 hours ago, freyguy said:

but what about military babies?

 

That reminds me of Newport News Airport.  A ton of military flies in and out of that airport and the plane is about full when they get to boarding group 1. Lol. 

[hobbes2702 13,478]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

Just like the Austin city council getting rid of Uber and Lyft right?  

Elections have consequences.

But in reality I don’t know enough about the Austin Uber/Lyft situation other than it sounded like Austin put up unnecessary roadblocks. Again though I’m uninformed about it.

Now this situation from everything I can tell has violated no laws and is something completely within the control of the city council. And if you polled Minnesota they absolutely would lose. If you polled Minneapolis I would bet the results would be much much closer. The city council saw the response of their citizens to ANOTHER horrific crime committed by their PD and they responded accordingly. I don’t see anything that shows this is an abuse of power at all but I’m willing to listen to why you think it is.

[Iceman 2,978]

3 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I'd be nice if that were to happen but they aren't going to hammer anyone if they fuck up.  its a mental health issue at that point, remember.  they aren't bad people. 

I get your point, but we already have laws in place for DUI and so-forth.   If we have an employee show up drunk( legal, right?)  I am taking them for breathalyzer and their employment will be terminated.  Same goes for pot or  scripts.  Those laws/ policies should not change, IMO.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Iceman

[Brisketexan 106,900]

3 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

It blows my mind that people refuse to accept this data. Several countries have legalized with positive results, but many Americans refuse to believe it.

What is even more odd is that they think that this 50 year old “war on drugs” can be won if we as a nation escalate it to some unknown level. If we just throw the right amount of money, police, laws and prison time at the problem, we will “win”. It hasn’t worked for 5 fucking decades. There is no magic number. So instead we have militarized police departments, wasted money that could have been used for education, hunger, homelessness, etc. we have broken homes, mostly amongst blacks and Latinos because fathers get sent to prison for some bullshit morality laws.

Showing my age here, but this reasoning reminds me of the 2000 UT v. Stanford game.  We ran little Hodges Mitchell 19 times, almost all of them right up the gut for an average of .5 yards (he averaged 2.7 ypc because a couple of sweeps using his speed actually gained real yards).  By the 10th time we ran him up the gut to get stuffed -- just like the past 9 times -- I almost broke my friend's TV.  He actually had to force me back in my chair and tell me to chill.  I kept yelling, incredibly frustrated, "WHY IN THE FUCK DO WE KEEP DOING WHAT WE'VE ALREADY PROVEN DOESN'T FUCKING WORK?!?!?!?"  We ran him up the gut another 6-7 times after that....with the same results.

There is no "maybe if we do it this way, little Hodges running up the gut into that huge line will work."   There isn't.  We've been trying this for 50 years/all game.  If we keep doing it, the results will stay the same: failure.

[BabaYaga 15,625]

41 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Im also tired of explaining that police are not disappearing. Law enforcement will still exist. Stop creating a strawman of some lawless society with no law enforcement. It’s bullshit, it’s untrue, and it doesn’t do anything to add to the discussion about the perceived merits or lack thereof of community based law enforcement.

Attacking a perceived strawman with your own strawman.....quite the feat.  It's not a binary discussion - it's not ALL or NOTHING.  Go back over and actually read the posts.  The point being you are going to see a reduction in LE in areas that need LE the most.  Further, are you quantifying the responses from those in the communities being impacted the most?  Again, that was also part of the discussion.  Defund, defund, defund.....ok, but do the people in the defunded communities get a vote?  

I think most are in agreement that we need to see an outright end or abatement in the police unions, qualified immunity, and no-knock raids.  But we need MORE funding related to training and community outreach.  

[BabaYaga 15,625]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Showing my age here, but this reasoning reminds me of the 2000 UT v. Stanford game.  We ran little Hodges Mitchell 19 times, almost all of them right up the gut for an average of .5 yards (he averaged 2.7 ypc because a couple of sweeps using his speed actually gained real yards).  By the 10th time we ran him up the gut to get stuffed -- just like the past 9 times -- I almost broke my friend's TV.  He actually had to force me back in my chair and tell me to chill.  I kept yelling, incredibly frustrated, "WHY IN THE FUCK DO WE KEEP DOING WHAT WE'VE ALREADY PROVEN DOESN'T FUCKING WORK?!?!?!?"  We ran him up the gut another 6-7 times after that....with the same results.

There is no "maybe if we do it this way, little Hodges running up the gut into that huge line will work."   There isn't.  We've been trying this for 50 years/all game.  If we keep doing it, the results will stay the same: failure.

I think a better analogy is the Vietnam war.  Had certain steps been taken earlier, the outcome might have been drastically different.  But they weren't.  And the results speak for themselves.  Prolonged conflict just produces collateral damage.  Not much else.  

[BradInATX 9,208]

I wonder if you changed the scope of this discussion from MPD to the DMV, if the majority of you crying about this would still be on the side of the under-performing, bloated taxpayer-funded department that has constantly overstepped the scope and ethical boundaries of their department for years and years.

I also don't actually wonder. I already know the answer. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by BradInATX

[workswithseed 2,204]

Are going to relax gun laws now? If the police are going to be shrunken, that means answers to the calls will also be longer and longer. The first defense between you and an intruder is a gun by your side, but most big cities have very strict gun laws which hurt the whole community. 

[Brisketexan 106,900]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Attacking a perceived strawman with your own strawman.....quite the feat.  It's not a binary discussion - it's not ALL or NOTHING.  Go back over and actually read the posts.  The point being you are going to see a reduction in LE in areas that need LE the most.  Further, are you quantifying the responses from those in the communities being impacted the most?  Again, that was also part of the discussion.  Defund, defund, defund.....ok, but do the people in the defunded communities get a vote?  

I think most are in agreement that we need to see an outright end or abatement in the police unions, qualified immunity, and no-knock raids.  But we need MORE funding related to training and community outreach.  

Start from here: Police officers are just agents of the local government.  That's what they are.

Nobody is saying that we don't still need agents of the local government dealing with a variety of issues.  The essence of the suggestion is that the "one size fits all" use of the police as the agents for multiple issues that really aren't best-suited for a law enforcement intervention is a good idea.

Perhaps we should use DIFFERENT agents of the local government to deal with the mentally ill?  And for general traffic enforcement?  And for interventions with the homeless?  Etc. etc. (again, the proposals are out there).

The problem is that we have 1) made the PD the ONLY tool of gov't interface with the public for numerous issues, 2) that tool has morphed into a violent hammer (warrior cops, militarized approaches) at the expense of any other role, and 3) inevitably, when all you have is a hammer of warrior copdom, then you tend to treat every problem/citizen as a nail way more than you should.

We need a more complete toolbox.  Nobody has said we no longer need hammers.  We just need to stop sending out the hammer when some sheetrock patch will do, or when a coat of paint will do, or when a precise screwdriver is called for.  That also means we stop spending all of our money on more hammers, and start spending some of that on paint and screwdrivers.

[BabaYaga 15,625]

11 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

The city council saw the response of their citizens to ANOTHER horrific crime committed by their PD and they responded accordingly. I don’t see anything that shows this is an abuse of power at all but I’m willing to listen to why you think it is.

Not disagreeing - like so many arguments, I think it boils down to the efficacy of the choices and which ones should be enacted?

Both sides - change is needed.  Ok, great.  But what?

Defund.?  Wholesale changes.  Top down overhaul?  

Or allow the precinct to more effectively remove bad apples, ergo it's time to tackle the Unions?  

Or both.....

[hobbes2702 13,478]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Not disagreeing - like so many arguments, I think it boils down to the efficacy of the choices and which ones should be enacted?

Both sides - change is needed.  Ok, great.  But what?

Defund.?  Wholesale changes.  Top down overhaul?  

Or allow the precinct to more effectively remove bad apples, ergo it's time to tackle the Unions?  

Or both.....

Oh so what I’ve been saying this entire thread? Ok cool

Just read the post from @Brisketexan

Edited June 8, 2020 by hobbes2702

[Burt Macklin 19,230]

25 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

As noted by many others, we have a nation that tried this and drug addiction decreased.

Ask yourself a simple question, if all drugs are legalized are you going to go out and shoot up some heroin and smoke some meth?

Yeah but why rely on actual data when he has a general feeling and a couple anecdotes to explain what will happen if we make that change? 

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The point being you are going to see a reduction in LE in areas that need LE the most. 

What is this based on? One of the biggest basis of de-funding police is not using them for calls relating to mental health and non-violent issues where cops aren’t needed. 
 

People seem to assume this whole platform is about spending less on current issues, but it’s much more about directing resources to the right places instead of just throwing the funding for all these issues to the police departments, who aren’t equipped to handle many of these issues well and therefore will use the money less efficiently. There will be some outright costs savings, like less spending on militarization of police, but most of the well thought out de-finding arguments I’ve seen are about decreasing police, scope, and thereby reducing their funding, but not just ignoring current spicier so issues all together putting no money towards them. 
 

 

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

But we need MORE funding related to training and community outreach.  

Your position of increasing money on training police for every type of dispute is much less efficient and will still cause a ton of issues because cops can’t specialize in all these types of disputes. Why not have more specialized departments to handle different issues instead of funnel everything to 911 and have every cop try to be trained on every issue, when there’s no way they can handle them all well?

 

[Brisketexan 106,900]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Are going to relax gun laws now? If the police are going to be shrunken, that means answers to the calls will also be longer and longer. The first defense between you and an intruder is a gun by your side, but most big cities have very strict gun laws which hurt the whole community. 

Not necessarily true.  If they aren't going to be spread thin by responding to non-urgent calls (see all of the types of things we should use other personnel for), they should still have similar availability for calls that require law enforcement.

When I call 911 at 1:00 am because someone is trying to jimmy open my door, I should have a cop dispatched today, and in future Austin with "defunded police."  Those police will be focused exclusively on calls regarding actual crime/serious risks of crime.  The cops I need should not be out there spread thin dealing withe mental health issues, homelessness, traffic patrols, etc.

[Burt Macklin 19,230]

4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Are going to relax gun laws now? If the police are going to be shrunken, that means answers to the calls will also be longer and longer. The first defense between you and an intruder is a gun by your side, but most big cities have very strict gun laws which hurt the whole community. 

Again, learn what is actually being proposed. It’s not just cutting the police with no other solutions proposed. If mental health and other non-violent disputes are sent elsewhere to people who specialize in those issues, it will actually increase response times while needing less cops and therefore, less funding. 

[BabaYaga 15,625]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Start from here: Police officers are just agents of the local government.  That's what they are.

Nobody is saying that we don't still need agents of the local government dealing with a variety of issues.  The essence of the suggestion is that the "one size fits all" use of the police as the agents for multiple issues that really aren't best-suited for a law enforcement intervention is a good idea.

Perhaps we should use DIFFERENT agents of the local government to deal with the mentally ill?  And for general traffic enforcement?  And for interventions with the homeless?  Etc. etc. (again, the proposals are out there).

The problem is that we have 1) made the PD the ONLY tool of gov't interface with the public for numerous issues, 2) that tool has morphed into a violent hammer (warrior cops, militarized approaches) at the expense of any other role, and 3) inevitably, when all you have is a hammer of warrior copdom, then you tend to treat every problem/citizen as a nail way more than you should.

We need a more complete toolbox.  Nobody has said we no longer need hammers.  We just need to stop sending out the hammer when some sheetrock patch will do, or when a coat of paint will do, or when a precise screwdriver is called for.  That also means we stop spending all of our money on more hammers, and start spending some of that on paint and screwdrivers.

Fine, but most precincts are woefully underfunded.  So you are saying pour significant money and resources into these precincts to create entire new categories of LE.  And how does the coverage look?  LE's are generalists by necessity.  They have to be able to handle a myriad of scenarios as no two days are the same.  So we have a homeless cop.  They just work homelessness?  Nothing else?  Mentally ill?  How is this determined?  Squads of LPCs?  What does the implementation actually look like?  

LE response times are already woefully inadequate.  This is one of the biggest hindrances on the street.  Minutes turn into hours?  Is the entire LE community relegated to nothing more than an after-action response team?

[Brisketexan 106,900]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Fine, but most precincts are woefully underfunded.  So you are saying pour significant money and resources into these precincts to create entire new categories of LE.  And how does the coverage look?  LE's are generalists by necessity.  They have to be able to handle a myriad of scenarios as no two days are the same.  So we have a homeless cop.  They just work homelessness?  Nothing else?  Mentally ill?  How is this determined?  Squads of LPCs?  What does the implementation actually look like?  

LE response times are already woefully inadequate.  This is one of the biggest hindrances on the street.  Minutes turn into hours?  Is the entire LE community relegated to nothing more than an after-action response team?

No.  We send hammers out on hammer calls, screwdrivers out on screwdriver calls.  And this is the point -- not all of those tools are COPS.  They can and should be from a variety of other disciplines.  They are not law enforcement in the traditional sense at all.  Again, that's the entire point here -- they aren't hammers who we use as screwdrivers.  They aren't hammers at all.  You continue to think that all of these folks will be cops, as they are today.  No, no, no.  That's a shitty model.

We STOP making LEs generalists.  Yes, they'll still need some broad-based skills, but their primary duties will be crime prevention, crime intervention, and crime solution.  What does the implementation look like?  Do some homework.  For example, there are numerous jurisdictions that have gone to dispatching social workers and other mental health professionals to mental health calls instead of cops.  They don't show up in an intimidating uniform and a gun (which can heighten tensions).  They show up as a mental health intervention, and look the part.

[Gene Parmesan 4,064]

It's going to be something if I can buy some meth on Sunday but not a bottle of bourbon.

[hobbes2702 13,478]

[Burt Macklin 19,230]

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Fine, but most precincts are woefully underfunded.  So you are saying pour significant money and resources into these precincts to create entire new categories of LE.  And how does the coverage look?  LE's are generalists by necessity.  They have to be able to handle a myriad of scenarios as no two days are the same.  So we have a homeless cop.  They just work homelessness?  Nothing else?  Mentally ill?  How is this determined?  Squads of LPCs?  What does the implementation actually look like?  

LE response times are already woefully inadequate.  This is one of the biggest hindrances on the street.  Minutes turn into hours?  Is the entire LE community relegated to nothing more than an after-action response team?

This is not true at all.
 It’s not a necessity for LE’s to be generalists. That’s just how it’s currently set up, and it’s not working well.  And your assumption that specialization would increase response times is baseless. Having better specialization would improve response times by making it so cops can respond to violent crimes instead of spending so much time responding to complaints about the homeless, etc. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Burt Macklin

[BabaYaga 15,625]

2 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Again, learn what is actually being proposed. It’s not just cutting the police with no other solutions proposed. If mental health and other non-violent disputes are sent elsewhere to people who specialize in those issues, it will actually increase response times while needing less cops and therefore, less funding. 

This sounds good on paper - but what does the implementation look like?  LE responses are based upon urgency.  How do you know the person is mentally ill?  Is mental illness not associated in some way with most murder and aggravated assault and depravity?

It's not a perfect analogy.  Nor am I advocating for a military correlation - but look at our Spec Ops and JASOC teams and training.  Outside of the SMU and DEVGRU teams, THE fundamental tenet of each (SEALS, Rangers, Special Forces, MARSOC, etc) is their aptitude for general competency across the broad spectrum of scenarios and their ability to use discretion to navigate these stressful situations.  It's the same with the rank/file, just honed to heightened levels.  

If you read the old Stephen Ambrose books and watched Band/Brothers and Private Ryan, his central tenet of the effectiveness of the US fighting man vs. his German counterpoint was their ability to make decisions on the field without a centralized command and control center directing from the top down.  Hitler asleep on D-day, tanks not released to counter invasion, etc.  You get the point.  

It seems from a resource allocation standpoint it would be better served to allow the precincts to more effectively just remove bad apples.  End structural issues like immunity (which we had prior to 1967 and did just fine with) and allow the precincts to become more nimble.....not more bureaucratic.   

[Huckleberry 34,658]

I think the fact that the military immediately pops into your head as a great analogy for police is literally the entire problem. You almost recognized it, too, but that little flame flickered out. 

[BabaYaga 15,625]

1 minute ago, Burt Macklin said:

This is not true at all.
 It’s not a necessity for LE’s to be generalists. That’s just how it’s currently set up, and it’s not working well.  And your assumption that specialization would increase response times is baseless. Having better specialization would improve response times by making it so cops can respond to violent crimes instead of spending so much time responding to complaints about the homeless, etc. 

For many precincts, of course it is.  We're talking beyond NY, LA, etc.  As for not working "well", statistically, that is also not true.  You can argue about the legitimacy of the stats, but in every recurring category, stats are improving.  

But back to response times - LE's are engaged in the field.  They don't come screaming out on call like the firefighters.  They are actively patrolling based upon the frequency of calls.  So you are saying engage with actively patrolling specialists?  Who respond to dispatch calls.  So on the call, from a distressed citizen, how is the determination made that this goes to the specialist, of the other LEs?  That's what I'm trying to unpack?

[Iceman 2,978]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No.  We send hammers out on hammer calls, screwdrivers out on screwdriver calls.  And this is the point -- not all of those tools are COPS. 

I know you are being 100% sincere/ serious.  Still funny though...

[BabaYaga 15,625]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I think the fact that the military immediately pops into your head as a great analogy for police is literally the entire problem. You almost recognized it, too, but that little flame flickered out. 

Bless your heart....

[hobbes2702 13,478]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Bless your heart....

Our police are not soldiers nor should they be. That line of thinking is one of the foundational problems with modern policing.

[Burt Macklin 19,230]

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This sounds good on paper - but what does the implementation look like?  LE responses are based upon urgency.  How do you know the person is mentally ill?  Is mental illness not associated in some way with most murder and aggravated assault and depravity?

It's not a perfect analogy.  Nor am I advocating for a military correlation - but look at our Spec Ops and JASOC teams and training.  Outside of the SMU and DEVGRU teams, THE fundamental tenet of each (SEALS, Rangers, Special Forces, MARSOC, etc) is their aptitude for general competency across the broad spectrum of scenarios and their ability to use discretion to navigate these stressful situations.  It's the same with the rank/file, just honed to heightened levels.  

If you read the old Stephen Ambrose books and watched Band/Brothers and Private Ryan, his central tenet of the effectiveness of the US fighting man vs. his German counterpoint was their ability to make decisions on the field without a centralized command and control center directing from the top down.  Hitler asleep on D-day, tanks not released to counter invasion, etc.  You get the point.  

It seems from a resource allocation standpoint it would be better served to allow the precincts to more effectively just remove bad apples.  End structural issues like immunity (which we had prior to 1967 and did just fine with) and allow the precincts to become more nimble.....not more bureaucratic.   

JFC. Idk If I can think of anything I’d want less than for the system to be that cops “make decisions in the field without a centralized command and control center directing from the top down.”  If that’s your takeaway from all this, then you’re hopeless.  
 

Cops are not equipped to handle all types of issues that are currently sent to 911. Very few people would be, but cops most certainly are not. It’s a bad system. Increasing cops unilateral authority and Spending even more money on trainings that will still leave cops inadequately equipped to handle such a myriad of issues is about the worst “solution” I can imagine. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Burt Macklin

[Huckleberry 34,658]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Bless your heart....

The police are not the military. Citizens are not enemy combatants.

Learn it, live it love it.

Until you do, you are the naive fool in the conversation, not anyone else.

[Buzzrock 15,136]

Why the fuck are they in camo? I'm tired of these stupid motherfuckers pretending to be the military.  

National Guard

[BabaYaga 15,625]

1 minute ago, Burt Macklin said:

JFC. Idk If I can think of anything I’d want less than for the system to be that cops “make decisions in the field without a centralized command and control center directing from the top down.”  If that’s your takeaway from all this, then you’re hopeless.  
 

Cops are not equipped to handle all types of issues that are currently sent to 911. Very few people would be, but cops most certainly are not. It’s a bad system. Increasing cops unilateral authority and Spending even more money on trainings that will still leave cops inadequately equipped to handle such a myriad of issues is about the worst “solution” I can imagine. 

Fine.  You don't like the analogy.  Fuck you and fuck me.  So again, unpack how this works.  You call 911.  You are screaming and freaking out about imminent bodily harm.  The urgency and need to immediate and rapid response could not be more clear.  Then what?   Do you saddle current squad cars with a specialist trained in crisis mitigation?  

[BabaYaga 15,625]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The police are not the military. Citizens are not enemy combatants.

Learn it, live it love it.

Until you do, you are the naive fool in the conversation, not anyone else.

Which was never the fucking point....but you knew that......

[Pato del Muerto 53,506]

47 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

It blows my mind that people refuse to accept this data. Several countries have legalized with positive results, but many Americans refuse to believe it.

What is even more odd is that they think that this 50 year old “war on drugs” can be won if we as a nation escalate it to some unknown level. If we just throw the right amount of money, police, laws and prison time at the problem, we will “win”. It hasn’t worked for 5 fucking decades. There is no magic number. So instead we have militarized police departments, wasted money that could have been used for education, hunger, homelessness, etc. we have broken homes, mostly amongst blacks and Latinos because fathers get sent to prison for some bullshit morality laws.

It’s almost as if your last sentence was the real goal of the war on drugs. 

[Brisketexan 106,900]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

So you are saying engage with actively patrolling specialists?  Who respond to dispatch calls.  So on the call, from a distressed citizen, how is the determination made that this goes to the specialist, of the other LEs?  That's what I'm trying to unpack?

Better screening of the calls.  No, it won't be perfect.  An urgent call of "he's trying to kill me!" won't matter if it's an intruder or a mentally ill adult child -- law enforcement should respond.  And we are capable of doing this -- 911 operators already assist with discerning whether it's appropriate to send police, fire, or ambulance.  And we already have a 311 system for non-urgent calls (many of which are still responded to by cops, just not with any urgency, because we really don't have the other tools set up to deal with the issues).

No system is perfect.  I'm sure a future system will end up sending some cops on calls that could have been handled by someone else.  And on some other calls, they'll send other specialists who quickly realize the police need to be involved.

There are already prototype systems set up in many places (and let's not forget other countries when we look for models).

Hell, here's a stat I just read (I have not fact-checked, am just using it for discussion purposes) -- the Birmingham, AL budget for AMMUNITION for the cops is greater than the budget for their social services.   Whether that's precise, we all know that the scale is an issue.  We pour money into violent intervention tools and tactics, but few resources into systems that actually provide non-violent intervention and work towards long-term solutions.  

Metaphorically, we spend all of our "keep homes safe" money on firefighters, and little of it on good and enforced building codes, dangerous brush removal, etc.  There's no glamour and glory in requiring that houses be built with fireproof insulation, have working smoke detectors, and remove dense brush within 50 feet.....but it does more to prevent fire losses (both life and property) than all the trucks and sirens in the world.  We need to take the same approach with respect to protecting people and communities.

[hobbes2702 13,478]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Fine.  You don't like the analogy.  Fuck you and fuck me.  So again, unpack how this works.  You call 911.  You are screaming and freaking out about imminent bodily harm.  The urgency and need to immediate and rapid response could not be more clear.  Then what?   Do you saddle current squad cars with a specialist trained in crisis mitigation?  

What do you think 911 phone operators currently do? You call screaming and they hit a button and cop appears at your house? Seriously we already do this. They already decide which type of response you need. This is simply adding better options to deal with those situations.