iNow

You've shifted the goalposts, though. Your initial comment: "There will always be a need for police, especially in the current situation where citizens CAN'T safely walk down the street." You said, "citizens CAN'T safely walk down the street." When challenged, you submitted violent crime statistics. When challenged on those and asked what threshold of violent crime does/does not allow one to walk safely down a street, you shifted to "people FEEL unsafe." Okay, so what? Lots of racists "FEEL" unsafe when walking near a black person in the grocery store. That doesn't mean they ARE unsafe. Your original point was crap, and the updated moved goalposts version isn't much better. I agree with you that this is an unrealistic assumption. Where I think we may differ, however, is in the idea that every single cop in every single neighborhood and every single experience level needs to be armed and ready to deal with these folks at every second of every day, as opposed to specialized forces who are called in and only engaged in the rare situations where they're needed. I'm pretty sure police are not the primary thing preventing this from happening. Human nature is. Most humans are actually rather cooperative. There are clearly important exceptions, but a huge part of the reason our species has enjoyed success is our nature to help one another and our tendency to follow group norms. As I said, important (and regional) exceptions exist, but I struggle to accept your premise that police are the only thing stopping criminals from controlling others and driving us into a Mad Max dystopian hellscape. There. FTFY We seem to disagree in a fundamental way about human nature. This seems to drive most of our disagreements on the topic of policing. That's okay and you're clearly welcome to your opinion, just thought I'd point it out.

That doesn’t answer the question I asked. Violent crime rates are neither equivalent to not evidence of citizens being unable to walk safely down the street. Your hyperbole does a disservice to your otherwise reasonable points.

Wait, where is this happening exactly? I suspect the voices in your head mostly. There’s lots of opportunity to address inequality, but this is not the path... nor is this the thread. While I applaud your vigorous brother of the Marseillaise shtick, it’s totally off topic.

Can we please just agree that the risk from knives is not equivalent to the risk from firearms and move on from this silly tangent? Yes. Not perfect, but much better

Your higher critical functions can affect your more autonomous functions. Think of a fear or attractive loved one and your heart accelerates. Think of a gentle breeze or waves at the beach and your heart and related functions slow. I may not fully comprehend what you’re describing, but my first instinct is that this is not only common, but expected. Our thoughts and breathing have a tremendous impact on our physiology. It’s at the heart of meditation. Some of what happens within us occurs even absent executive control or higher critical intervention, but this does not mean these same processes cannot be influenced or affected or overridden by those higher processes. For example, you can consciously decide to hold your breath and stop breathing... but only to a point. Eventually, the more archaic reptilian parts of your brain will say, “hey idiot, stop that” and will take over so these processes persist even if you pass out. Honestly, this just sounds like you’re focusing on some things and noticing physiologist changes while you do that. Not really a big deal unless I’m totally missing what you’re trying to describe.

No. That’d perhaps make it easier to accept, though

I also take issue with the conflation of “lack of training” with “not enough funding.” There’s lots of money there already, it’s just not being applied to training.

My Trump supporting family members have already declared they’ll refuse the vaccine even if one becomes available, because freedom... or something. It’s not just the lack of leadership will and competence that’s an obstacle here, but ignorance and acceptance of anti-vax style propaganda

Please, my friend. Do not tempt the fates

I suspect your problem is with my use of the quantity “one”... lol

I agree, but is it equally unrealistic to suggest maybe not every single crime committed needs to be apprehended or enforced? Surely all of us have broken one law or another at some point in our lives and I suggest we’re better off as a whole for not being booked and prosecuted each time. “Each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.” ~Bryan Stevenson

First time interacting with dimreepr, eh?

Except, no. Even if I post as a full adherent to the stance YOU'VE personally been advocating... even then, AT BEST we could call them UNDER-trained. As we all know, however, they are NOT UNtrained, but the citizenry (as a general rule) very much are.

There's a lot I agree with in your post, as well. What I wonder is if every single beat cop walking the streets and driving into the gas station for a soda needs to be that highly trained, or if we can instead have smaller units more like SWAT intended solely for those situations with gangs and mafias and the other specialized situations you cite. In fact, we already do have those units... they're called the FBI. No. I'm saying they can intervene without violence, and if things turn violent, then other solutions can be put in place. There will always be exceptions and needs for additional force. Those are marginal issues, though, relative to what we're seeing across our nation more broadly. Don't sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect.

More broadly, I'm hoping we can acknowledge the current framing of the situation is deeply flawed. You both continue thinking with a "police must be able to dominate any situation" mindset and keep suggesting we need to offer them additional tools to maintain that dominance. Sure... there will be examples of self-defense being needed, but in many/most cases it's simply not. The office could choose to walk away... re-engage another time in another way. We need to stop thinking of police as crowd control... stop thinking of control at all... and start thinking about creating a healthier society that helps people to find... well, to find... help. Not punishment, but assistance. Part of the issue IMO is the focus on dominance. Embedded in the culture of most police departments is a driving motivation to be always in control of any situation no matter what the cost, but look at the cost it's bringing us! People sworn to protect and serve are too often the ones doing the killing... the beating... the brutalization... and all in the name of dominating the streets and controlling the situation. Adding more physical control techniques and training itself based on being better at fighting is not a way out of a situation where there's already too much fighting and too much martial enforcement. We need to let it be okay for the police to sometimes walk away, or to bring in someone skilled in mental health issues, etc... after all, does it really matter that much if we don't catch the guy selling loose cigarettes for a buck a pop right there in that moment? Will society fail if we catch up to him later when moods have calmed? No, of course not. Years ago, cops were the primary people who brought hurt individuals to doctors and hospitals. Then, the decision was made to spend that same money instead on ambulances and paramedics, etc. and the system we have today is far better... even though it entailed defunding the police a bit. It's time to start thinking more like that (as continuing to dream up and offer new tools for dominating a free citizenry is part of what's allowing these problems to persist decade after decade after decade).

I’m a fan of martial arts. Used to teach them for years (my avatar is a picture of me proving I could do over 100 pushups consecutively the night before I tested from 3rd degree brown belt into my 1st degree black belt... where I also went through over 100 katas and demonstrated my abilities in 20 different weapons forms). But you’ve obviously never met a cop in NYC or middle America if you think this Joe Rogan idea of yours is gonna change the issues we’re facing. The cops and donuts joke exists for a reason. This problem is systemic, and teaching a few more dudes some arm bars ain’t gonna address it from the core or kill the weed at its root.

So basically you’re suggesting we can only fix this problem by hiring members of the Gracie family to police our streets? Seems unrealistic, but okay. I think more is needed, like federally set bare minimum standards about what is and is not allowed and what happens when those thresholds are crossed. The defund the police objective is a poorly framed way of asking for funds to be out to better uses. It’s not at odds, it’s exactly what they’re seeking. Yes, who wouldn’t? But why present a false choice / false dichotomy? It’s not like those are the only 2 options available. They could also buy me a cheeseburger or get me engaged with a social worker.

No choke holds. Full stop. Blood choke. Air choke. Artichoke. It doesn’t matter. If you’re a cop you don’t choke others. That has to be one of the rules of engagement. We’re citizens with rights in a free society. We’re not willing fighters entering an octagon for a paycheck.

The training point is about more than just "recertification" each year being only 5 hours. The US also badly fails up front in preparing cops for their jobs in the first place. https://work.chron.com/long-train-cop-21366.html https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/06/america-police-violence-germany-georgia-britain/612820/ The rest of that 2nd article from The Atlantic also has good ideas on how to begin repairing our broken system.

Our evolution as tribal primates / mostly hairless apes whose ancestors spent more time warring with non-kin than cooperating together for greater common good... cooperation being a relatively recent addition to our species toolkit.

Let me say this another way: Their disparate experience is directly tied to the numbers

Nobody here is speaking in absolutes, JCM. Also, the people calling to defund ir dismantle the police are doing so in order for us to focus MORE on poverty and social safety net programs, so that last sentence about “let’s not worry about poverty” rings off-key. The higher rates for blacks ties directly to the disparate experience with police and the justice system more broadly.

The fact that you mention black on black violence at all is itself a problem. Violence tends to be more common within neighborhoods and neighborhoods tend to group like ethnicities together. That’s the only explanation needed. Proximity. That means white on white crime is also more common than white in black crime or vice versa. It means Asian on Asian crime is also more common than Asian on white crime or Asian on black crime, etc. Its a function of proximity, not a function of ethnicity. And yet every time we speak of the disparate experience within the US “justice” system of our black neighbors and family, otherwise well intentioned people like yourself put forth the old canard of black on black crime. Ask yourself, how come nobody ever speaks of white on white crime or Asian on Asian crime even though those are also more common for the same proximity reasons cited above? It’s almost certainly because the black on black crime idea is yet another distraction that we’ve simply become desensitized to, and it’s a tangent which keeps us from focusing upon and solving the real problems at play within the system itself.

For at least some crimes, we do have that data and I’ve shared some of it here