dimreepr

You have not, nice post +1. Are you suggesting the police give them a personal escort?

Why are you so fixated, with the idea that you can control people with force? When it's so much easier, and less dangerous (to everyone), with persuasion? Instead of attacking what I didn't say, please try addressing what I did say; and maybe answer a queation or two, I've asked a few... So you reply to an accusation of hyperbole, with hyperbole. You seem to get most of it, given what you've agreed to in this thread, please help me understand why do you find it so difficult to let go of the illusion of control (being a thing)? History is choc-o-block full of example's. You can't control what people believe with violence and chains, but you can persuade them to believe something else... 😉

If I were the chief of police I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with how many innocent people are being victimized by my police officer's. I would seek to change their attitude towards these innocent people and allow the court's to judge their guilt; the appropriate people doing the appropriate job. Why is it incompetent to assume innocence first? I'm not suggesting a passive approach to every police encounter; If a cop sees a mugger/rapist/murderer committing a crime, or they're being attacked, they should act appropriately and use whatever force is reasonable to arrest them.

All of which are created by the system, and a strong aggresive police force only exacerbates the situation; less aggresion does not equal weakness.

In the context of the thread, the risk is equivalent; it's the aproach to the risk that varied.

You're kidding, right??? 🙄 Do you know how much easier it is to make a bullet proof vest over a stab proof vest?

Do you really think the reality of the situation would be any different, if the gun was substituted by a knife? I've seen a guy get almost killed with an ash-tray...

Perhaps, but systemic racism encompasses all (at least 99.9%), maybe the majority have good intentions, but that doesn't equal a good outcome, if they go in with a bias other than, this human is human and wants to do human things after this encounter; that's the beauty of training/education, we get to understand what a human is.

My bad, I foolishly assumed this is a conversation and that my previous contributions would be taken into account. Perhaps we should try a different approach, maybe focus on de-escalation. Why?

What's your analysis of those figures?

Really, that was my point? I had no idea... It is when filtered by you, stop strawmaning. Perhaps more money is needed to train a correct approach, which has yet to be established, but that doesn't equate to the police needs more money (as the OP suggests) the money they have is more than enough, which has already been established.

How does that argue my point?

Why do they need to spend more money on training with the correct approach? When the money they spend on training the wrong approach, has been so successful in alienating the public.

Yes!!! Was I not clear? They have PPE, they have tazers, they have pepper spray; they lack the correct approach... So unless they want to buy bigger guns; why do they want more money? It was bought by Facebook... 😉

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).