Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Alex_Krycek last won the day on July 27 2019

Alex_Krycek had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

37 Good

1 Follower

About Alex_Krycek

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Psychology, Archaeology

Recent Profile Visitors

2028 profile views
  1. A case from several days ago in north London . It's a perfect example of an arrest that officers never should have attempted. They claim they smelled cannabis from the driver's car (something that shouldn't be a crime anyway). The officers then aggressively harassed Ryan Colaco in his vehicle until they smashed in the windows and drug him out of his car. Colaco was then physically assaulted, strip searched at the police station, and then released with no charges. His damaged vehicle was not repaired and officers did not apologize. This kind of policing is overt thuggery, and has no benefit to society other than to justify a paycheck for officers.
  2. It depends what crime we're talking about. The police are required to enforce the law, not walk away from fights. What offenses should be decriminalized is up for debate (and I believe there are many), but if a suspect is being violent or aggressive towards other people, then the police have a responsibility to subdue and detain him / her. Example. Let's say I call the police on my neighbor who is being drunk and disorderly. My neighbor is smashing trash cans in the street and has broken several car windows with a baseball bat. When the police arrive my neighbor attempts to hit the officer with the bat. In that situation I certainly wouldn't want the officers to walk away from the fight. My neighbor, emboldened by the retreating police, might smash my car windows next, enter my home or otherwise damage my property. The police have a responsibility to protect me and my family's safety even if they have to use force against my drunken neighbor. There is no evidence of this being the case.
  3. Many things should be decriminalized. It's hard to know where to begin. Thankfully there has been progress with the legalization of cannabis and certain naturally occurring psychadelics. I agree that society is over policed. It's part of the rigged game of our plutocracy - systemic white collar crime / fraud that does substantial damage to society is ignored while the lower classes are over policed (i.e. oppressed) to fuel a for profit incarceration system. The system couldn't be more broken.
  4. Yes, I do. But being better at martial arts doesn't equate to "using more violence". It would mean the officer knows how to control and mitigate violence when it is used against them. Tazers get used by untrained officers all the time because they're "non lethal". They are over-used IMO and present too great a risk of causing sudden cardiac arrest. It might make sense in this case unless the suspect wielding the sword is also wearing a suit of medieval armor. I'm all for it, however, many times people cannot be reasoned with. It's unrealistic to think officer can always talk people out of being irrational.
  5. Straw man. Never did I state that violence is the solution to America's policing problem. Is that not clear after 3 pages? If the sword wielding civilian tries to attack the police then he / she would represent a lethal threat and so deadly force would be justified. If he / she is mindlessly swinging the sword around in a park then the cops should use a Time, Distance, Cover tactic to approach him. That is, they should assess the situation from afar from behind cover and only if he attacks respond with commensurate force to stop him. And yes, if they can talk the person into putting the sword down, that would be the best option. A taser might work in this situation but you have to be relatively close to use a taser, so that would put the officers in quite a lot of danger.
  6. Excuse? For what? Be specific about what point you disagree with.
  7. More directly accountable. Right now what does the officer do if someone has a heart attack after being tased for too long? Blame it on the taser. "Oops sorry, but not my fault." If the officer is trained to apply a blood choke, and knows full well the correct application of it and the consequences of using it improperly, there is no plausible defense. The officer kills someone by failing at their training, indict for manslaughter. The end. It would offer more control and accountability, overall.
  8. Makes no difference. If a taser leads to accidental cardiac arrest, it shouldn't be used. It's also speculation. You have no way of knowing which deaths by taser at the hands of police were intentional or not. It all depends on the officer's motivation, how long they tased the suspect for, etc. If anything it provides a more convenient excuse. "Oops, I was trying to use non-lethal force and tase the suspect but it seems he had a heart attack."
  9. So you think tasers are a good idea then? I couldn't disagree more. There have been so many issues with tasers causing sudden cardiac arrest. They've basically been classified as torture devices under the United Nations.
  10. That's definitely a huge part of it. There's a huge focus on "survival at all costs". "Better to be judged by 12 than carried out by 6." To me this primal fight or flight position reflects a mindset of extreme scarcity and fear, again as a result of not feeling competent in their operating environment. Here's the full quote from that wikipedia entry you linked to: "In an analysis of training requirements in several states by Gawker "found Louisiana law enforcement recruits typically attend 360 hours of training, while the national average is slightly more than 600 hours. Louisiana requires less hours of training for law enforcement than the 1,500 hours needed to become a certified barber, the website said. Washington, D.C., requires the most police academy training hours in the nation, at 1,120." Less training than a barber. There you go. Pretty much says it all. Further, there are two aspects of training. How long cadets train to become an officer, and how often they train per year to maintain a high level of proficiency with numerous skillsets (such as martial arts, negotiation / persuasion skills, overall physical fitness, etc). In the wikipedia page you linked to I saw no references to the amount of hours required to MAINTAIN such skillsets, which is crucially important. The 600 hour average is only to become a police officer, if I understood correctly.
  11. Well, now we're getting into a semantics argument about what "trained", "untrained", and "under-trained" actually mean. Let's compare two groups who are expected to manage violent confrontations on a daily basis: US Special Forces and Police Officers If US special forces train three times as long for a deployment (example: 18 months training time for a 6 months tour) then that training ratio is 3:1, or 300% training time for the required job role. Conversely, lets assume the average American police officer works 250 days a year at 8 hours a day (a conservative estimate of a basic 40 hours work week with holidays). That would be 2000 hours of work time per year. If the police are only training 5 hours a year on average (lets assume), then that ratio (in hours) would be 5:2000, or 0.3% training for the required job role. Given this, it's more or less irrelevant whether you call the officer "untrained" or "undertrained". In any case, such an amount of training is woefully inadequate to the expectations of their job. Now, the obvious objection you'll raise is that the US Police aren't special forces, and they are preparing for different environments. Nevertheless, the police are being expected to deal with extremely dangerous situations on a daily basis, and while their training regiment should be significantly different than those preparing for war, nobody can argue that only a few hours a year is acceptable for what police are tasked with dealing with.
  12. Her sign should read: "Untrained Cops Can Panic and Act on Impulse"
  13. I stated before that the assumption was that the suspect is already intent on violence. If the suspect isn't intent on violence, then of course, no physical force from the officer should be used. What I stated was, WHEN the suspect is already physically attacking the officers they need to be prepared to deal with it and control the situation. Your position is unrealistic. If someone is intent on violently attacking another person, asking them nicely to stop simply isn't going to work. I agree with most of this. Over-policing needs to stop. Mass incarceration needs to stop. Racial profiling and systematic targeting of the poor needs to stop. Policing for profit needs to stop. Police brutality and use of excessive force definitely needs to stop. Significantly more resources need to be allocated to social work, mental health facilities, and PERMANENT economic stimulus for chronically depressed areas to alleviate the vicious cycle of crime and poverty. 100% yes to all of that. However, at the present time there is still a need for police. So the question is, what kind of police do we want? Effective police require an investment. Right now society isn't investing in police in the way it should. Even the admirable Scandinavian nations with abundant social programs still have police - and as we've discussed, they pay for it. Like it or not, American society in its present form is still extremely violent. There are numerous mafias and street gangs that would love to have complete autonomy if police are defunded and restricted in their ability to exercise authority, not to mention every two bit criminal with a grudge against society. I'm simply saying that violent confrontation is a part of policing, and how officers respond to violent confrontation matters a great deal. If they're untrained, they'll reach for their gun at the slightest provocation. If they're trained well, they will have a range of other options at their disposal to successfully diffuse the encounter. Just trying to be realistic given the context of the situation, that's all. ------ Here is an excerpt from Norway's 2020 budget whitepaper: Security Security is a prerequisite for freedom. Crime breeds insecurity. The population therefore needs to be protected by the rule of law, a strong and effective police force and a credible defence capability. This is reflected in the budget for 2020 with a NOK 2.5 billion increase in defence sector appropriations for, inter alia, investments in new submarines, maritime patrol aircraft and artillery for the Norwegian Armed Forces. We are preparing for an increase in military activity and strengthened emergency response preparedness. This meets the targets the Government has set in the 2017-2020 long-term plan for the defence sector, and will expand the defence budget by more than NOK 8 billion in real terms over the period covered in the long-term plan. The Government is planning for a continued increase in police presence. The budget proposal allows for the recruitment of graduates from the Norwegian Police University College in 2020. In addition, appropriations are increased to cover the full-year effect of the recruitment of graduates in 2019. More funds for the police will strengthen the capacity of police districts to prevent, investigate and prosecute crime. It is proposed to provide the police and the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration with funds in order to enable the implementation of new Schengen systems for border control and monitoring. These systems will improve capacity for detecting and preventing crime, ID fraud and illegal migration. To facilitate follow-up of the Security Act, the Government is proposing to increase appropriations for the Norwegian National Security Authority (NSM). The proposal facilitates digitalisation and improved efficiency and quality in the security clearance of personnel. Moreover, the Government proposes initiatives to improve the ability to prevent, detect and manage security incidents in emergency preparedness communications. Source: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/09814fbc520946869d6eaa65099c2983/national_budget_2020.pdf Page 13. -------- Note: 2.5 billion Norwegian Kroner is approximately 262,000,000 USD ---- And from Sweden's 2020 budget whitepaper: The fight against crime and its causes will be intensified. Society must be strong enough to protect people from everything from petty crime to terrorism. The Swedish Police Service will be given additional resources. Work on employing 10 000 more people in the Police by 2024 will continue to strengthen the Police’s capacity to better fight serious organised crime, for instance. As the number of court cases is increasing and a larger number of criminals are being sentenced, the Swedish courts and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service will be allocated additional resources. The capacity to combat welfare crime and money laundering will be improved. The Swedish Prosecution Authority, the Swedish courts and Swedish Customs will be strengthened. Honour-related violence and oppression will be made visible, pre-empted, prevented and punished. The whole of society must play its part in combating and preventing crime. Source: https://www.government.se/4ad5f1/contentassets/e8bf49ea1bbe41fda780895657ae94e0/from-the-budget-bill-for-2020-budget-statement.pdf.pdf Page 5. ----- From the Finnish 2020 budget: PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY EUR 816 million is proposed to the police force. The appropriation is used to launch measures that aim at increasing the police officer person-years to the level determined in the Government Programme, 7,500 person-years, by the year 2023. To ensure the performance of the operators involved in preventing and solving criminal offenses and the implementation of prosecution services, additional funding amounting to EUR 5.2 million is allocated to the prosecution service, courts, legal aid, and the Criminal Sanctions Agency. A one-off addition of EUR 2 million is proposed to focusing evidence on the District Courts. Source: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161822/Budget review 2020 October 2019.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y Page 15. ------ The point is, even as safe and prosperous as these Scandinavian nations are, non of them are thinking about defunding their police forces. US police by comparison are already woefully underfunded by State and local governments and we want to take more money away from them? It's not logical.
  14. Sure, it would be great if we could hire Obi Wan Kenobi to teach the police some Jedi mind tricks so psychotic, drug addled, violent criminals would peaceably comply when verbally persuaded to do so. In all seriousness persuasion and deescalation should be the main focus of training. Physical force should be the last resort. Deadly force the absolute last resort. However, sometimes physical force can't be avoided and police need to be adequately trained to use it.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.