Jump to content
Alex_Krycek

Should Police Departments Be Given More Money?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

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...

Of course the situation would be different..   There are so many ways to protect yourself from a knife that you can't protect yourself from a gun. 

It's a totally different ballgame.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Of course the situation would be different..   There are so many ways to protect yourself from a knife that you can't protect yourself from a gun. 

It's a totally different ballgame.   

You're kidding, right??? 🙄

Do you know how much easier it is to make a bullet proof vest over a stab proof vest?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

35 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Do you think it would be better if there is an Armed Fast  Response Unit that deals with situations with firearms in?

Yes. Not perfect, but much better 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, iNow said:

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?

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had 3 different cell mates over the course of 6 years that killed their wives with hammers. I want hammer control!  Thanks to drunk drivers who are obviously not to blame, vehicles kill thousands every year. Don't be complacent in these countless deaths, turn over your deadly vehicles IMMEDIATELY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iNow said:

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?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, iNow said:

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 

I don't think you can expect a street bobby to wear two hats, where they are expected to be friendly and calm one minute then in possible kill-mode the next. The dynamics are too much. It needs to be separated, I think.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I think there are some officers who have this initial mindset going in, but I think they are the small minority.  In my view most have aspirations to protect their community and do what good they can.  

I’ve seen that attitude elsewhere, and have no reason to think it’s smaller in a profession where it can be exercised as part of the job.

 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

What is more problematic is the cultural and behavioral conditioning that takes place over the years within police departments due to sustained exposure to extreme stress, and the resulting conformity and group identification that occurs.  If there is not a genuine recognition by society of the dangers police face and an attempt to train, equip, and support them accordingly, then a "survival at all costs" mentality driven by fear will continue, and officers will be further alienated from society.  

I think what’s more damaging is the enabling attitude that gives us the thin blue line. That behavior I have seen, when I was in the military. Covering for a comrade’s bad behaviors instead of doing your duty. So when someone behaves badly, the system fails to expose the culprit, and people fail as well.

 

 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The series exposes exactly the dilemma that many police departments in the US are facing: no resources, no funds, and an out of control, hostile environment.  It also shows a change to extremely aggressive policing of "high crime" areas in response to public pressure.  As I said before, I think aggressive policing is the wrong approach, especially if impoverished communities are not given increased funding for jobs, education, housing, and other necessary services.  

Can you clarify who are the out of control, hostile ones in this?

Aggressive policing is one of the systemic problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, swansont said:

I’ve seen that attitude elsewhere, and have no reason to think it’s smaller in a profession where it can be exercised as part of the job.

I think what’s more damaging is the enabling attitude that gives us the thin blue line. That behavior I have seen, when I was in the military. Covering for a comrade’s bad behaviors instead of doing your duty. So when someone behaves badly, the system fails to expose the culprit, and people fail as well.

Agreed.   And this needs to be thoroughly understood and addressed with a robust system of checks and balances.  Greater accountability must coincide with enhanced training.

Quote

Can you clarify who are the out of control, hostile ones in this?

Aggressive policing is one of the systemic problems.

Gang members, drug dealers, drug addicts, rapists / sex offenders, violent thugs of various kinds.  There's no shortage of very bad people out there who commit crime on a daily basis, and who are only encouraged by a weaker police force.  

Edited by Alex_Krycek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

NO

They should get out of our business and find another line of work I have NEVER needed a hired merc

I'd rather die than let them capture me again. Deal with your own problems losers let God defend you and if He doesn't you're just a chicken.

Anarchy

Edited by IDoNotCare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

NO

They should get out of our business and find another line of work I have NEVER needed a hired merc

I'd rather die than let them capture me again. Deal with your own problems losers let God defend you and if He doesn't you're just a chicken.

Anarchy

Anarchy has been tried.  It doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Anarchy has been tried.  It doesn't work.

This is just hired guns, completely throws off natural selection. And it doesn't work either. It's not polite to judge, imagine what they do on NCIS SPU, pure judgement. Is Jury is no more fit to judge than anyone else, God set up misery and the human response. Look through one eyeball, and you can't see past your nose, look through two and you can see right through it. If the electrons in our synapses are entangled than our memory is not local, and our senses and thoughts and feelings are one eyeball. 

At some point you need to consider the fact that police are really not able to do anything about crime. They do not prevent it. They just put a woman or man with their own gender and provide food and shelter. Personally I'm for mixing genders in a safe place where they can do what any person should be doing. I think the combination of religion and law is entirely homosexual in nature and otherwise pointless. 

Edited by IDoNotCare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Gang members, drug dealers, drug addicts, rapists / sex offenders, violent thugs of various kinds.  There's no shortage of very bad people out there who commit crime on a daily basis, and who are only encouraged by a weaker police force.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy Wisseau said it best, "If everyone /effed/ loved each other, the world would be a better place."

 

Did you know that the male and female population are about equal, remove lectins from our diets early on and everyone would be pretty, another interesting fact. 

 

Between police under the pretense of anti-stalker protocol which is just determined coitus and the STD myth, I'm surprised anyone has sex ever. Then religion just strips polygamy from us which is in fact our natural hunter gatherer state. We take sex far too seriously, and then repress it beyond belief, and the result is death and murder. 

We need to get into the psychology of all criminals, and it has one root. We are designed for reproduction, we will take a sexual partner over food and shelter every time. Think about how no too people have the same response to visual stimuli regarding primary, secondary and tertiary sexual characteristics. The issue becomes apparent, it's blatantly obvious that criminals can be manipulated from an early age into impoverished or imprisoned status via sexual preference and this is the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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

Nor does it stop criminals from terrorizing the innocent.  If you were Chief of Police, how many innocent people would you be comfortable victimizing in the name of this pacifistic approach?

Ultimately I agree that much more investment is needed to lift the downtrodden out of poverty, so that crime is not their best option. Until that happens there still needs to be a competent police force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Gang members, drug dealers, drug addicts, rapists / sex offenders, violent thugs of various kinds.  There's no shortage of very bad people out there who commit crime on a daily basis, and who are only encouraged by a weaker police force.  

But if we had better social services, wouldn't the prevalence of such people be reduced? Obviating the need for some of the police?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Nor does it stop criminals from terrorizing the innocent.  If you were Chief of Police, how many innocent people would you be comfortable victimizing in the name of this pacifistic approach?

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.

52 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Ultimately I agree that much more investment is needed to lift the downtrodden out of poverty, so that crime is not their best option. Until that happens there still needs to be a competent police force.

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.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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.

 

You seem to be under the impression that the police commit more violence than actual criminals.  This is an exaggeration that isn't supported by the facts.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why is it incompetent to assume innocence first?

Straw man.  I never suggested the police shouldn't assume innocence first.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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.

You still haven't addressed the issue of violent crime that occurs on a daily basis.  You're operating under the somewhat naive assumption that if police just "leave well enough alone" then violent criminals will just play nice.  It doesn't work that way.  Police have to be proactive in shutting crime down before it happens.  More robust social policies would be a great long term solution, but for now local communities where violence regularly occurs want the police there to mitigate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

You seem to be under the impression that the police commit more violence than actual criminals.  This is an exaggeration that isn't supported by the facts.

I did not get that impression from @dimreepr's posts. He seemed to be holding the view, which I share, that those charged with upholding the law must be scrupulous in following it meticulously themselves. This must not only be a matter of following the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law also. Not only should there be no bending of the rules, but every effort should be made to be demonstrably fair and equitable in discharge of their duties. I am not sure how you have misread dimreepr's stance (I hope I have not), but the result is that you have constructed a strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Area54 said:

I did not get that impression from @dimreepr's posts. He seemed to be holding the view, which I share, that those charged with upholding the law must be scrupulous in following it meticulously themselves. This must not only be a matter of following the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law also. Not only should there be no bending of the rules, but every effort should be made to be demonstrably fair and equitable in discharge of their duties. I am not sure how you have misread dimreepr's stance (I hope I have not), but the result is that you have constructed a strawman.

That goes without saying.  We've already discussed the fact that there must be much greater accountability in addition to increased social services to offset the effects of poverty.  I've already said that I totally agree with a radical increase in funding for impoverished communities and much stricter accountability.

However, there is still the question of what happens in the interim, before the long term benefits of more funding kick in.  We're trying to address the question of violent crime that is pervasive in communities with under-funded police departments.  I asked Dim Reaper what his position would be regarding violent crime and he dodged the question, putting the focus on police officers rather than those who actually commit the vast majority of the crime.  

Avoiding the real problem that violent crime presents to communities by blaming police officers for everything will do nothing to stop the robberies, assaults, and murders happening across he country.  It's wishful thinking to believe that we can merely defund the police and magically all crime will vanish.

This is the whole point of the thread.  There will always be a need for police, especially in the current situation where citizens can't safely walk down the street.  The only way to progress beyond this impasse is to first recognize the need for police, and then actually give the police the tools, resources, and training they need (and yes, with greater accountability as part of that approach).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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.

This is all innevitable in a system like this, the police will ALWAYS end up on the wrong side of justice. As I said in another topic:

"You have to pump money into the system, but you are not all allowed education. That’s communism, that’s the Left, that’s the Right, that’s universal in all countries. You HAVE to pay taxes. You see an RBE is so radically liberating that none of these are requirements enforced by gunpoint. I regress, we aren’t forced to work at gunpoint directly because they trick you, you see, they knock off Maslow’s first tier of most basic needs and then get a criminal to resist so they can kill ‘em. "

 

 

So no, police do not need more money or guns. We the sheeple need guns for class warfare and hostile takeover. Anarchy.

May there be bank robberies, may the decadent be ripped from their luxuries homes and forced to fend for themselves on the cold streets I say! Let's do this, who is with me!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

There will always be a need for police, especially in the current situation where citizens can't safely walk down the street. 

Wait, where is this happening exactly?

1 hour ago, IDoNotCare said:

May there be bank robberies, may the decadent be ripped from their luxuries homes and forced to fend for themselves on the cold streets I say! Let's do this, who is with me!?

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iNow said:

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. 

I agree, these are specific situations each most of the time involving either barfights or people who deal drugs, etc. The Zodiac killer is one in a million. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.