dimreepr

I hate to say strawman, but did you miss the post about initial training/cop school?

On reflection, there's much anecdotal evidence of troubled kids coming good after join a boxing gym. So perhaps your right to include martial arts training, but I maintain the cor training should be de-escalation and martial arts training be voluntary. Because, while there's some evidence that volunteer trainee's do become less violent outside of the ring, there's nothing to suggest the same is true for a conscript. So in answer to the OP, no the police should noy be given more money to train, they have enough already; it was never about investment, it's about attitude and the initial approach.

It's the right approach, if you have ten years of full time training behind you; because then one is more likely to walk away from a fight, because of the training. Otherwise the Dunning and Kruger affect suggests it will promote aggression, which does equate to "using more violence". Of course not, hence the PPE, tazers and pepper spray and unfortunately, guns. But if we don't start with that approach, how will we ever know? Assuming they can't be reasoned with, will only prove your assumption... So in conclusion, let's try teaching the police to assume they can be reasoned with, before we resort to hiring a ninja. Indeed, but one assumption at a time...

So, you don't want to increase spending to train the police in martial art's? Then what's wrong with trying a tazer first? Besides I didn't say he/she was attacking anyone... Then let's spend the budget on that option.

Violence (and extra training in violently dealing with violence) as a solution to America's policing problem's, was that not clear after 3 page's? Let me introduce an extreme example, as you seem so fond of them: How do you stop a sword weilding civilian with clear mental issue's, with a choke hold? You could just shoot him/her with a 9mm, but I'm not sure how that's better than a tazer, or rigidly sticking to a policy of de-escalation...

I was joking... What's your excuse?

So, by that logic a choke hold is ok, so long as no-one dies...

At least with a tazer, if anyone dies, it's by accident.

Did you notice this part of my post "for the extreme case's"? I think I'd choose to be shot by a tazer over a 9mm, and you're going to have to cite that claim. The police don't need more money to train, they need to be trained correctly, with de-escalation "so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance." and NOT martial arts.

Apples and oranges, all it does is illustrate how long it takes to become proficient in a physical technic, such as martial arts. which should be, largely, unnecessary for a police officer in almost all case's (they have PPE, pepper spray and tazers for the extreme case's).

https://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/Learning/Curriculum/Initial-learning/Pages/Initial-learning.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_academy#:~:text=Basic%20police%20training%20requires%20three,2%20years%2C%20Master's%20degree). The problem isn't the amount of training they receive, it's the type of training they receive. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

And the rest of the thread is focused on training to deal with violence, with violence first. If I missed his conversion, I apologise.

Let me save you the bother, when all else fails the threat of electrocution, can de-escalate; before the final sanction. How can you not?

Please explain.

Wow, it's almost like you haven't read my most recent posts.

You're falling into the trap of, more force is always better and will always be effective.

Well, they could try a tazer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b08sndpw I'm not sure if you can listen to this (shame), so let me summarise: Alfie Moore is a British police sargent with 20ish years of experience, he was trained in martial arts, specifically how to put someone in a swan neck wrist lock "so long as they came at me slowly with a partially bent wrist" and in his career, so far, nobody has. The point is, it takes many years of dedicated training and specific circumstances to perform said wrist lock at full speed. A far more effective, and less time consuming, method is to learn how to persuade them not to attack in the first place; the art of fighting without fighting...

The part of the problem starts way before that, "It's OK to put a person in a choke hold, because..."

Of course we should, we can't find no-place; but we can find a better-place, even if you don't want to look...

And yet the serpent didn't care about the dress code. If we accept the NT is an explanation of the OT, then the sermon on the mount comes into play; the birds in the field didn't care about the dress code either. It seems to me that the message here is, because of our knowledge we spend to much of today, worrying about tomorrow. https://www.becomingminimalist.com/recognizing-happiness/

That's tomorrow, today is when I'm alive and that's the only chance I've got, to live...

I like that +1, (Edit) but if the tumor is not malignant, why do we need to care, or cure? Give it time... Ozymandias. 😉

I understand the analogy, especially as time allows the tumor to spiral out of control. But, forgive me, it seems a little arogant. I prefer to think of it in terms of a cure, like a perscription/course of antibiotics that we fail to finish. Until we need it again, "look on ye mighty and despair". It could be argued that mindfulness is an emerging modern variation. God is just a distraction, since we've filled the gaps.