This is not a SFW instance. NSFW communities will be tagged, and efforts will be made to keep SFW communities clean, but proceed at your own comfort level.
Hang on to this take to make policing a bit less dangerous
Departments could have their officers start wearing less tactical uniforms, maybe blue shirt and pants. Maybe they could have the officers then walk around towns, visit local stores, go to town hall meetings to get to know the neighborhood. Maybe be seen doing some volunteering and helping the community out. You know have the officers be an upstanding citizen of the community that helps out. A person that the community trusts. They could also MAYBE just MAYYBEE be trained to de-escalate situations with negotiation tactics?
I know it’s a crazy idea, it’s never happened in the past. Remember we have always lived in an over militarized police state that shoots first and never asks questions.
Departments could have their officers start wearing less tactical uniforms, maybe blue shirt and pants. Maybe they could have the officers then walk around towns, visit local stores, go to town hall meetings to get to know the neighborhood.
Already the case for most PDs, and has been for decades.
Maybe be seen doing some volunteering and helping the community out.
Less common but still done; it’s usually labeled “performative” or “copaganda.”
They could also MAYBE just MAYYBEE be trained to de-escalate situations with negotiation tactics?
Already the case for virtually all agencies, and has been for decades.
I know it’s a crazy idea, it’s never happened in the past.
It’s not a crazy idea, it’s just that you don’t pay much attention to what’s going on so you don’t realize it’s already done; your priority seems to be circle-jerking.
They’re saying policing should go back to what it was a few decades ago before the extreme militarization of police that’s happened in the last few years.
The city I work in has a population of less than 4,000 and we border a major metro area. There’s no reason for us to have 25 police officers, all of which are outfitted with assault weapons and riot gear. We shouldn’t even have a SWAT team. If we ever need one we can call for help from the city next door.
They want enough cruisers that they have a backup for every single vehicle, and are now asking for an MRAP. And police get whatever they want while we have to fight for a goddamned printer.
They’re saying policing should go back to what it was a few decades ago before the extreme militarization of police that’s happened in the last few years.
That’s a slightly different sentiment. They proposed several individual things that should be changed without realizing they’re already that way.
The city I work in has a population of less than 4,000 and we border a major metro area. There’s no reason for us to have 25 police officers
That’s a ratio of 1:160, roughly on-par with Spain:
all of which are outfitted with assault weapons and riot gear.
I doubt that.
We shouldn’t even have a SWAT team. If we ever need one we can call for help from the city next door.
How does moving your militarization from City to County make things less militarized?
They want enough cruisers that they have a backup for every single vehicle, and are now asking for an MRAP. And police get whatever they want while we have to fight for a goddamned printer.
That’s pretty silly - you should be petitioning your city government about that. Barely relates to militarization, though.
I work in the same building with them. Every officer takes an AR and body armor to the squad car when heading out to man their speed trap and bring it back at the end of the shift to store in their air-conditioned locker (not just the locker room - the actual interior of each locker itself has its own thermostat and air supply).
All that being said, there is a need for specialized units. But the big change the US has seen over the past 25 years or so has been giving SWAT-style weaponry and resources to everyone. The traffic cops pullings people over for speeding in a school zone don’t all need riot gear and an AR in the trunk. Detectives performing investigations don’t need access to tear gas and flashbangs. But for major cities with thousands of occifers, having a few dozen specialists makes sense.
Small towns used to just call the state or nearby major city for assistance if they needed heavier equipment or tactical units. Now they all have the heavy equipment, and when they have it they’ll find an excuse to use it.
A nearby town had a mental health crisis recently with a kid threatening to kill himself. The police had just gotten a new-to-them MRAP, and instead of talking to the kid or just using the key the parents had given them, they drove a tank through the front of the house, deployed flashbangs, and tackled the kid.
So the kid now has more mental health issues AND the family lost their house.
Ah you think rifles are assault rifles. That explains a lot.
I work in the same building with them. Every officer takes an AR and body armor to the squad car when heading out to man their speed trap and bring it back at the end of the shift to store in their air-conditioned locker (not just the locker room - the actual interior of each locker itself has its own thermostat and air supply).
Sounds like 90% of your complaints have nothing to do with militarization, however valid they are.
All that being said, there is a need for specialized units. But the big change the US has seen over the past 25 years or so has been giving SWAT-style weaponry and resources to everyone. The traffic cops pullings people over for speeding in a school zone don’t all need riot gear and an AR in the trunk.
Even citing your own unverifiable anecdote you failed to explain how your traffic cops have riot gear, so I don’t know why you’re re-asserting it as fact.
Detectives performing investigations don’t need access to tear gas and flashbangs. But for major cities with thousands of occifers, having a few dozen specialists makes sense.
I’m sure they figure they want to be self-reliant and not have to depend on another agency. Is your county agency objectively the same quality or better? If so, as long as the plurality of voting residents of your city don’t mind the much higher response times in emergencies, your point here makes sense. Otherwise, it does not.
Small towns used to just call the state or nearby major city for assistance if they needed heavier equipment or tactical units. Now they all have the heavy equipment
Again, mostly because American voters have insisted the equipment and training is distributed down the pyramid in the wake of things like Columbine. There’s pros and cons, as described above.
The police had just gotten a new-to-them MRAP, and instead of talking to the kid or just using the key the parents had given them, they drove a tank through the front of the house
Are you conflating MRAPs with tanks?
I understand this and the Rifle vs. Assault Rifle issue can seem pedantic, but if you actually want to address concerns in an objective, solutions-focused manner, you should want to be accurate.
Obviously if you’re just venting it doesn’t matter, but I like to solve problems rather than (listen to a) vent about them, so you can just save yourself the effort.
I know what an assault rifle is. I used to work in the firearm industry and own over 50 personal guns. The police have select-fire rifles built on the Armalite platform. They’re assault rifles. The guns used by our department don’t have an M designation because they’re not US military spec or military issue. It’s like the difference between an M9 and a 92FS.
They have riot shields, tear gas, etc in the cruisers. They carry the heavy body armor and the weapons back and forth because they are sized/kitted out to the officer’s size and preferences and they share cruisers between shifts.
I know what an assault rifle is. I used to work in the firearm industry and own over 50 personal guns. The police have select-fire rifles built on the Armalite platform. They’re assault rifles. The guns used by our department don’t have an M designation because they’re not US military spec or military issue. It’s like the difference between an M9 and a 92FS.
I sincerely doubt 25/25 of the LEOs at your city’s PD have select-fire rifles, or even 10/10 of the patrol cars or whatever it works out to be with the following:
They have riot shields, tear gas, etc in the cruisers. They carry the heavy body armor and the weapons back and forth because they are sized/kitted out to the officer’s size and preferences and they share cruisers between shifts.
Are you asserting they’re donning these at every call? Otherwise what difference does it make if they have them available in seconds versus 20-minute drive to get the gear and a 20-minute drive back to the scene of a riot? Gas expenditure going towards oil barons or giving nasty people 40 minutes to do their thing before the cops get there rather than 1?
Patrol officers shouldn’t all be SWAT. That’s a specialist designation that should be reserved for extreme cases.
When everyone is outfitted and trained as a militarized unit, they treat more situations like a military exercise. When someone has a warrant because they forgot to pay a speeding ticket, they shouldn’t be breeching doors. When someone threatens to kill themselves, they shouldn’t respond with armored vehicles and sniper rifles.
That’s what the militarization of beat cops has done. They’re trained and equipped in a manner that causes them to take extreme measures that do not serve the needs of the public. Essentially, every police call is now an activation of SWAT, which is overkill 99.99% of the time.
We’ve actually needed a militarized response zero times in the history of our department, but they devote massive amounts of resources to the ability. Those resources would be better spent on fire prevention, infrastructure maintenance, and municipal projects while relying on our already-existing mutual aid interlocal agreements for heavy police response in the event it’s ever needed.
As for timing, right now if there were an emergency, our police would travel to go to a scene, gear up behind the cars, and make plans for a response, then engage. A SWAT team from a nearby agency would gear up and make plans while en route in the back of the van and be ready to engage just as quickly while being better trained for the job.
I know it’s a crazy idea, it’s never happened in the past. Remember we have always lived in an over militarized police state that shoots first and never asks questions.
Obvious sarcasm is obvious (though apparently not to you)
I missed it because the other 90% of your comment seemed sincere but was also incorrect, so you intentionally being insincere and incorrect for once went over my head.
Hang on to this take to make policing a bit less dangerous
Departments could have their officers start wearing less tactical uniforms, maybe blue shirt and pants. Maybe they could have the officers then walk around towns, visit local stores, go to town hall meetings to get to know the neighborhood. Maybe be seen doing some volunteering and helping the community out. You know have the officers be an upstanding citizen of the community that helps out. A person that the community trusts. They could also MAYBE just MAYYBEE be trained to de-escalate situations with negotiation tactics?
I know it’s a crazy idea, it’s never happened in the past. Remember we have always lived in an over militarized police state that shoots first and never asks questions.
Already the case for most PDs, and has been for decades.
Less common but still done; it’s usually labeled “performative” or “copaganda.”
Already the case for virtually all agencies, and has been for decades.
It’s not a crazy idea, it’s just that you don’t pay much attention to what’s going on so you don’t realize it’s already done; your priority seems to be circle-jerking.
Whooshed a bit there, eh?
They’re saying policing should go back to what it was a few decades ago before the extreme militarization of police that’s happened in the last few years.
The city I work in has a population of less than 4,000 and we border a major metro area. There’s no reason for us to have 25 police officers, all of which are outfitted with assault weapons and riot gear. We shouldn’t even have a SWAT team. If we ever need one we can call for help from the city next door.
They want enough cruisers that they have a backup for every single vehicle, and are now asking for an MRAP. And police get whatever they want while we have to fight for a goddamned printer.
No.
That’s a slightly different sentiment. They proposed several individual things that should be changed without realizing they’re already that way.
That’s a ratio of 1:160, roughly on-par with Spain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers
I doubt that.
How does moving your militarization from City to County make things less militarized?
That’s pretty silly - you should be petitioning your city government about that. Barely relates to militarization, though.
I work in the same building with them. Every officer takes an AR and body armor to the squad car when heading out to man their speed trap and bring it back at the end of the shift to store in their air-conditioned locker (not just the locker room - the actual interior of each locker itself has its own thermostat and air supply).
All that being said, there is a need for specialized units. But the big change the US has seen over the past 25 years or so has been giving SWAT-style weaponry and resources to everyone. The traffic cops pullings people over for speeding in a school zone don’t all need riot gear and an AR in the trunk. Detectives performing investigations don’t need access to tear gas and flashbangs. But for major cities with thousands of occifers, having a few dozen specialists makes sense.
Small towns used to just call the state or nearby major city for assistance if they needed heavier equipment or tactical units. Now they all have the heavy equipment, and when they have it they’ll find an excuse to use it.
A nearby town had a mental health crisis recently with a kid threatening to kill himself. The police had just gotten a new-to-them MRAP, and instead of talking to the kid or just using the key the parents had given them, they drove a tank through the front of the house, deployed flashbangs, and tackled the kid.
So the kid now has more mental health issues AND the family lost their house.
Ah you think rifles are assault rifles. That explains a lot.
Sounds like 90% of your complaints have nothing to do with militarization, however valid they are.
Even citing your own unverifiable anecdote you failed to explain how your traffic cops have riot gear, so I don’t know why you’re re-asserting it as fact.
I’m sure they figure they want to be self-reliant and not have to depend on another agency. Is your county agency objectively the same quality or better? If so, as long as the plurality of voting residents of your city don’t mind the much higher response times in emergencies, your point here makes sense. Otherwise, it does not.
Again, mostly because American voters have insisted the equipment and training is distributed down the pyramid in the wake of things like Columbine. There’s pros and cons, as described above.
Are you conflating MRAPs with tanks?
I understand this and the Rifle vs. Assault Rifle issue can seem pedantic, but if you actually want to address concerns in an objective, solutions-focused manner, you should want to be accurate.
Obviously if you’re just venting it doesn’t matter, but I like to solve problems rather than (listen to a) vent about them, so you can just save yourself the effort.
I know what an assault rifle is. I used to work in the firearm industry and own over 50 personal guns. The police have select-fire rifles built on the Armalite platform. They’re assault rifles. The guns used by our department don’t have an M designation because they’re not US military spec or military issue. It’s like the difference between an M9 and a 92FS.
They have riot shields, tear gas, etc in the cruisers. They carry the heavy body armor and the weapons back and forth because they are sized/kitted out to the officer’s size and preferences and they share cruisers between shifts.
I sincerely doubt 25/25 of the LEOs at your city’s PD have select-fire rifles, or even 10/10 of the patrol cars or whatever it works out to be with the following:
Are you asserting they’re donning these at every call? Otherwise what difference does it make if they have them available in seconds versus 20-minute drive to get the gear and a 20-minute drive back to the scene of a riot? Gas expenditure going towards oil barons or giving nasty people 40 minutes to do their thing before the cops get there rather than 1?
Patrol officers shouldn’t all be SWAT. That’s a specialist designation that should be reserved for extreme cases.
When everyone is outfitted and trained as a militarized unit, they treat more situations like a military exercise. When someone has a warrant because they forgot to pay a speeding ticket, they shouldn’t be breeching doors. When someone threatens to kill themselves, they shouldn’t respond with armored vehicles and sniper rifles.
That’s what the militarization of beat cops has done. They’re trained and equipped in a manner that causes them to take extreme measures that do not serve the needs of the public. Essentially, every police call is now an activation of SWAT, which is overkill 99.99% of the time.
We’ve actually needed a militarized response zero times in the history of our department, but they devote massive amounts of resources to the ability. Those resources would be better spent on fire prevention, infrastructure maintenance, and municipal projects while relying on our already-existing mutual aid interlocal agreements for heavy police response in the event it’s ever needed.
As for timing, right now if there were an emergency, our police would travel to go to a scene, gear up behind the cars, and make plans for a response, then engage. A SWAT team from a nearby agency would gear up and make plans while en route in the back of the van and be ready to engage just as quickly while being better trained for the job.
Obvious sarcasm is obvious (though apparently not to you)
I missed it because the other 90% of your comment seemed sincere but was also incorrect, so you intentionally being insincere and incorrect for once went over my head.