CSNbbs

(07-31-2020 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]That headline had me feeling down, but the article adds a few silver linings - the guy who was stabbed received treatment right away from the "Antifa medics," the criminal who stabbed him was arrested at the scene and is being charged...

By the de-funded police?

(07-31-2020 10:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]That headline had me feeling down, but the article adds a few silver linings - the guy who was stabbed received treatment right away from the "Antifa medics," the criminal who stabbed him was arrested at the scene and is being charged...

By the de-funded police?

Yep! Which still fits within the my basic understanding of the defunding framework - move funding from police to other services for non-violent issues, but still rely on a funded police department to manage violent crimes.

(07-31-2020 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep! Which still fits within the my basic understanding of the defunding framework - move funding from police to other services for non-violent issues, but still rely on a funded police department to manage violent crimes.

But what happens when that "non-violent" situation turns violent?
And who makes the call as to what is a "non-violent" situation?
Based upon what?

(07-31-2020 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 10:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]That headline had me feeling down, but the article adds a few silver linings - the guy who was stabbed received treatment right away from the "Antifa medics," the criminal who stabbed him was arrested at the scene and is being charged...

By the de-funded police?

Yep! Which still fits within the my basic understanding of the defunding framework - move funding from police to other services for non-violent issues, but still rely on a funded police department to manage violent crimes.

So what other services will handle nonviolent crimes, such as burglary, vandalism, identity theft, and fraud?

(07-31-2020 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep! Which still fits within the my basic understanding of the defunding framework - move funding from police to other services for non-violent issues, but still rely on a funded police department to manage violent crimes.

But what happens when that "non-violent" situation turns violent?
And who makes the call as to what is a "non-violent" situation?
Based upon what?

The same thing that happens any time an interaction between a non-LEO and another person turns violent.

(07-31-2020 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 10:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]That headline had me feeling down, but the article adds a few silver linings - the guy who was stabbed received treatment right away from the "Antifa medics," the criminal who stabbed him was arrested at the scene and is being charged...

By the de-funded police?

Yep! Which still fits within the my basic understanding of the defunding framework - move funding from police to other services for non-violent issues, but still rely on a funded police department to manage violent crimes.

So what other services will handle nonviolent crimes, such as burglary, vandalism, identity theft, and fraud?

I do not have the depth of knowledge to provide that sort of information - I suggest you do some reading if you're actually interested in the topic.

I'm speaking rather quickly and off the cuff about an idea that I don't find immediately off putting. If you would like to argue why you find it so off putting, feel free.

You're asking me to write a policy plank about a topic in between work tasks. Do some research yourself.

(07-31-2020 12:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 10:58 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]That headline had me feeling down, but the article adds a few silver linings - the guy who was stabbed received treatment right away from the "Antifa medics," the criminal who stabbed him was arrested at the scene and is being charged...

By the de-funded police?

Yep! Which still fits within the my basic understanding of the defunding framework - move funding from police to other services for non-violent issues, but still rely on a funded police department to manage violent crimes.

So what other services will handle nonviolent crimes, such as burglary, vandalism, identity theft, and fraud?

I do not have the depth of knowledge to provide that sort of information - I suggest you do some reading if you're actually interested in the topic.

I'm speaking rather quickly and off the cuff about an idea that I don't find immediately off putting. If you would like to argue why you find it so off putting, feel free.

You're asking me to write a policy plank about a topic in between work tasks. Do some research yourself.

I have nobody but you specifying police only working violent crimes, so that's why I am asking you. I asked politely, and do not deserve this snippy response.

It sounds as though you are trying to avoid clarifying your thoughts on the grounds that you spoke without thinking. Is that about right?

You know as much about it as the people carrying the signs demanding it.

so...anybody...

If nonviolent crimes are to be handled by some other agency, I just want to know which agenc(ies) will handle which crime(s).

IOW, how does defunding work?

(07-31-2020 12:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep! Which still fits within the my basic understanding of the defunding framework - move funding from police to other services for non-violent issues, but still rely on a funded police department to manage violent crimes.

But what happens when that "non-violent" situation turns violent?
And who makes the call as to what is a "non-violent" situation?
Based upon what?

The same thing that happens any time an interaction between a non-LEO and another person turns violent.

So a bunch of social workers are going to get killed? IMO, that's probably the best thing about this idea.

(07-31-2020 12:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 12:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep! Which still fits within the my basic understanding of the defunding framework - move funding from police to other services for non-violent issues, but still rely on a funded police department to manage violent crimes.

But what happens when that "non-violent" situation turns violent?
And who makes the call as to what is a "non-violent" situation?
Based upon what?

The same thing that happens any time an interaction between a non-LEO and another person turns violent.

So a bunch of social workers are going to get killed? IMO, that's probably the best thing about this idea.

I think this will quickly devolve into a social worker accompanied by an armed cop...so more demands on a smaller force and a larger payroll to hire all the SW, thus requiring more tax increases.

When you line up the dominoes and push the first one...

(07-31-2020 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]So what other services will handle nonviolent crimes, such as burglary, vandalism, identity theft, and fraud?

I think this is being presented too much as a binary equation.

Let me start by saying that my comments here neither support nor disagree with the idea that such things NEED to happen... I am merely engaging in a 'pretend police didn't exist and I'm starting from scratch... what would they look like' endeavor. Many of those supporting 'defund the police' are doing just this... but as with many situations, they are often 'shouted down' by those who quite literally want to eliminate police... and that is a non-starter.

Although there is certainly specialization in policing, I do not believe that the talent pool across the country supports the idea that these people can be 'experts' in all of the things that they are routinely asked to do. I also believe that (in the simplest example) some talent is missed because of some rules designed around that 'generalist' premise. If all police are expected to go through 'basic' which includes physical standards... then you might miss out on a REALLY talented computer guy who has been living in his basement taking online classes... or a really talented CPA who could uncover fraud, because he's physically handicapped.

I'm not stating this as facts... that we don't ever hire such people... I'm just trying to set a framework for the idea

I want swat people to be trained like military... If I need swat, that's what I need them to do. These may not even be considered cops anymore. They are 'state guard'.

I want armed patrol to be trained to address armed suspects. These are police.

I want unarmed patrol trained to address unarmed suspects.... and these guys may not actually be 'police'. Have THESE people 'patrol' the neighborhood like a neighborhood watch does... and call for help if they need it.

The argument against this is that unarmed situations sometimes turn, but situations also almost never have one person responding. If they do, then that person being armed makes little difference because they're not coming in at the ready and will be surprised. If you're concerned and alone, you monitor... don't approach... just talk and call for armed police.

Is it a radical departure from what we do? In some ways, absolutely. So what? Business makes similarly radical changes with some regularity.

Rather than look at this from the idea that there is an underlying and potentially nefarious purpose... let's look at it from the standpoint of a consultant.

If this is literally the best we can do, then let's at least demonstrate that.

(07-31-2020 01:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think this will quickly devolve into a social worker accompanied by an armed cop...so more demands on a smaller force and a larger payroll to hire all the SW, thus requiring more tax increases.

When you line up the dominoes and push the first one...

How often is it a single cop? That's a serious question. If it's a single cop then it likely has to be an armed one. If it's two, I think the cost to hire, train and retain a social worker (or someone with that skill set, they don't need a degree) to go along with that cop would be less. Some of them are slinging coffee right now.

(07-31-2020 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]So what other services will handle nonviolent crimes, such as burglary, vandalism, identity theft, and fraud?

I think this is being presented too much as a binary equation.

Let me start by saying that my comments here neither support nor disagree with the idea that such things NEED to happen... I am merely engaging in a 'pretend police didn't exist and I'm starting from scratch... what would they look like' endeavor. Many of those supporting 'defund the police' are doing just this... but as with many situations, they are often 'shouted down' by those who quite literally want to eliminate police... and that is a non-starter.

Although there is certainly specialization in policing, I do not believe that the talent pool across the country supports the idea that these people can be 'experts' in all of the things that they are routinely asked to do. I also believe that (in the simplest example) some talent is missed because of some rules designed around that 'generalist' premise. If all police are expected to go through 'basic' which includes physical standards... then you might miss out on a REALLY talented computer guy who has been living in his basement taking online classes... or a really talented CPA who could uncover fraud, because he's physically handicapped.

I'm not stating this as facts... that we don't ever hire such people... I'm just trying to set a framework for the idea

I want swat people to be trained like military... If I need swat, that's what I need them to do. These may not even be considered cops anymore. They are 'state guard'.

I want armed patrol to be trained to address armed suspects. These are police.

I want unarmed patrol trained to address unarmed suspects.... and these guys may not actually be 'police'. Have THESE people 'patrol' the neighborhood like a neighborhood watch does... and call for help if they need it.

The argument against this is that unarmed situations sometimes turn, but situations also almost never have one person responding. If they do, then that person being armed makes little difference because they're not coming in at the ready and will be surprised. If you're concerned and alone, you monitor... don't approach... just talk and call for armed police.

Is it a radical departure from what we do? In some ways, absolutely. So what? Business makes similarly radical changes with some regularity.

Rather than look at this from the idea that there is an underlying and potentially nefarious purpose... let's look at it from the standpoint of a consultant.

If this is literally the best we can do, then let's at least demonstrate that.

This is a good perspective and focuses on the big picture idea at hand and more of the what can be done. I think these conversations work better at this level - debating the specific nuances when we can't agree on whether the fundamental issue is even an issue.

Once we can agree on that, then it makes sense to debating what potential crimes deserve armed responses.

(07-31-2020 02:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 01:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think this will quickly devolve into a social worker accompanied by an armed cop...so more demands on a smaller force and a larger payroll to hire all the SW, thus requiring more tax increases.

When you line up the dominoes and push the first one...

How often is it a single cop? That's a serious question. If it's a single cop then it likely has to be an armed one. If it's two, I think the cost to hire, train and retain a social worker (or someone with that skill set, they don't need a degree) to go along with that cop would be less. Some of them are slinging coffee right now.

Well, first off, you know a degree will be required. Thatls how we "know' they are "qualified".

But I think the progression goes like this:
1. Send out a social worker in place of a cop
2. After enough bad results, send a social worker with a cop escort.
3. If it still has bad results, send a social worker with two cops.

When a situation goes bad and one of the cops kills a black man, we are back at square one. systemic racism resulting in black deaths.

I don't think social workers are trained to handle domestic violence - they mostly know how to fill out forms and tick boxes. But I don't think they have the background to handle anything else either.

(07-31-2020 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]ssue.

Once we can agree on that, then it makes sense to debating what potential crimes deserve armed responses.

And which are better handled by a sociology major with a clipboard. All I asked are which ones those are. Let's work backward from "Which ones require a gun" to "which ones can be handled without a gun".

Certainly, a gun is not needed to cite building code violations. But we already have inspectors to do that.

A gun is not needed to arrest arrest a shoplifter...unless the shoplifter resists.

A gun is not needed to arrest a drunk driver...unless he resists.

C'mon, guys - give me some specifics.

Quote:1) I don't find it mind-numbingly unlikely for LEOs to abuse their power. To suggest that abuse of power by LEOs is mind-numbingly unlikely is to ignore all of the abuses of power by LEOs that have occurred throughout history (see a lot of our Supreme Court cases). The DHS/FPS leaders have admitted they didn't have probable cause to arrest the guy, but try to get around that by saying he was just detained. The more reading I've done on this, suggests that is a load, given that DHS/FPS threw him into a van and transported him somewhere else (which is basically an arrest).

And a little more reading will find you that the probable cause for a detainment << probable cause for pressing charges. In short, once detained, the cops have a limited time to hold you until they either have to press charges or spring you.

Quote: Just think about the loopholes that opens if true - as long as police don't ever say you're under arrest, they can basically whisk you off the street and take you away until you learn to say the magic words of "let me see my lawyer."

And you hit on the Third Golden Rule of being stopped by the police and why the police never mention 'what state you are in'. Ask them if you are free to go, and if not are you being detained, or are you being arrested. Various protections kick in at every point. i.e. some kick in at a stop, some kick in at a detainement, some at arrest, and some at charging.

(07-31-2020 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]ssue.

Once we can agree on that, then it makes sense to debating what potential crimes deserve armed responses.

And which are better handled by a sociology major with a clipboard. All I asked are which ones those are. Let's work backward from "Which ones require a gun" to "which ones can be handled without a gun".

Certainly, a gun is not needed to cite building code violations. But we already have inspectors to do that.

A gun is not needed to arrest arrest a shoplifter...unless the shoplifter resists.

A gun is not needed to arrest a drunk driver...unless he resists.

C'mon, guys - give me some specifics.

All I can describe is what I've seen on TV, COPS or movies or whatever...

Nearly every time I've seen a stop, there have been two people.... sometimes twelve. For a shoplifter, maybe the armed cop is at the door in case the guy runs. An unarmed 'social worker' confronts the shoplifter. He does not corner him nor does he provoke him. If the guy complies, no problem... if not, the cop at the door comes in.

For the drunk driver, same thing.... Armed cop back at the patrol car watching closely, unarmed guy speaking to the person. The minute the guy starts pulling his arms back or resisting arrest, the first person doesn't keep pressing him... he instead backs off and the other guy comes in barking orders and is appropriately aggressive. Maybe he brings a tazer to the other guy?

Mostly though, we don't go through the charade that I see happening on COPS... where the police manipulate people who are often clearly under the influence... which to me means they are incapable of giving consent to a search or whatever else.... and yet cops often seem to use that situation to 'trap' people. The pull someone over, they ask to search the car... the person says 'no'... so they make them move away from the car and they essentially search it... but from a minor distance... and if they see something that even LOOKS suspicious (I remember one guy actually saying... that looks like ash on the floorboard... well yeah, the guy is a smoker... and the cigarette ash is 'in plain sight' probable cause to not need permission. Another time a guy said... that looks like Marijuana on the back seat, and it turned out to be something completely different... I can't remember exactly what, but it was like a candy wrapper. One guy had something in the passenger seat back pocket... and the cop called it 'in plain sight' because you could tell that there was something there, even though you couldn't see what it was? Is that drugs??

So other than to get uneducated, poor, sometimes intoxicated people to implicate themselves in what are most often some pretty petty crimes, initiated by traffic stops for 'failure to signal' or 'failure to come to a complete stop', which CREATES the very hostile environment being described... What the hell are we doing? When you consider how most poorer people get their licenses, I'm surprised that they even know the traffic laws.

An episode the other day, they see a guy make a quick stop at a known drug house... They then stop him for failure to come to a complete stop... They keep pressuring him 'why are you so nervous man? I'm just asking questions? Come back here and keep talking to me. You're not under arrest. Where were you going?'

I get that this is successful... I get that we often find open warrants... I get that these people often have committed crimes... but are we really addressing the problem??

Pull the guy over because he made a quick stop at a drug house and you simply want to let him know you're watching and see if he's already impaired. If he's intoxicated, book him for that. Run a warrant check, book him for that. This whole charade, telling people they aren't under arrest and we're just talking to get stupid people to implicate themselves just doesn't sit right with me. That's not protecting and serving... that's setting up and tricking... often to people struggling in life as it is.

(07-31-2020 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And you hit on the Third Golden Rule of being stopped by the police and why the police never mention 'what state you are in'. Ask them if you are free to go, and if not are you being detained, or are you being arrested. Various protections kick in at every point. i.e. some kick in at a stop, some kick in at a detainement, some at arrest, and some at charging.

See my comments above. Uneducated and especially impaired people don't know their rights. I know they often say they do, but they're almost always wrong.

(07-31-2020 09:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]ssue.

Once we can agree on that, then it makes sense to debating what potential crimes deserve armed responses.

And which are better handled by a sociology major with a clipboard. All I asked are which ones those are. Let's work backward from "Which ones require a gun" to "which ones can be handled without a gun".

Certainly, a gun is not needed to cite building code violations. But we already have inspectors to do that.

A gun is not needed to arrest arrest a shoplifter...unless the shoplifter resists.

A gun is not needed to arrest a drunk driver...unless he resists.

C'mon, guys - give me some specifics.

All I can describe is what I've seen on TV, COPS or movies or whatever...

Nearly every time I've seen a stop, there have been two people.... sometimes twelve. For a shoplifter, maybe the armed cop is at the door in case the guy runs. An unarmed 'social worker' confronts the shoplifter. He does not corner him nor does he provoke him. If the guy complies, no problem... if not, the cop at the door comes in.

For the drunk driver, same thing.... Armed cop back at the patrol car watching closely, unarmed guy speaking to the person. The minute the guy starts pulling his arms back or resisting arrest, the first person doesn't keep pressing him... he instead backs off and the other guy comes in barking orders and is appropriately aggressive. Maybe he brings a tazer to the other guy?

Mostly though, we don't go through the charade that I see happening on COPS... where the police manipulate people who are often clearly under the influence... which to me means they are incapable of giving consent to a search or whatever else.... and yet cops often seem to use that situation to 'trap' people. The pull someone over, they ask to search the car... the person says 'no'... so they make them move away from the car and they essentially search it... but from a minor distance... and if they see something that even LOOKS suspicious (I remember one guy actually saying... that looks like ash on the floorboard... well yeah, the guy is a smoker... and the cigarette ash is 'in plain sight' probable cause to not need permission. Another time a guy said... that looks like Marijuana on the back seat, and it turned out to be something completely different... I can't remember exactly what, but it was like a candy wrapper. One guy had something in the passenger seat back pocket... and the cop called it 'in plain sight' because you could tell that there was something there, even though you couldn't see what it was? Is that drugs??

So other than to get uneducated, poor, sometimes intoxicated people to implicate themselves in what are most often some pretty petty crimes, initiated by traffic stops for 'failure to signal' or 'failure to come to a complete stop', which CREATES the very hostile environment being described... What the hell are we doing? When you consider how most poorer people get their licenses, I'm surprised that they even know the traffic laws.

An episode the other day, they see a guy make a quick stop at a known drug house... They then stop him for failure to come to a complete stop... They keep pressuring him 'why are you so nervous man? I'm just asking questions? Come back here and keep talking to me. You're not under arrest. Where were you going?'

I get that this is successful... I get that we often find open warrants... I get that these people often have committed crimes... but are we really addressing the problem??

Pull the guy over because he made a quick stop at a drug house and you simply want to let him know you're watching and see if he's already impaired. If he's intoxicated, book him for that. Run a warrant check, book him for that. This whole charade, telling people they aren't under arrest and we're just talking to get stupid people to implicate themselves just doesn't sit right with me. That's not protecting and serving... that's setting up and tricking... often to people struggling in life as it is.

(07-31-2020 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And you hit on the Third Golden Rule of being stopped by the police and why the police never mention 'what state you are in'. Ask them if you are free to go, and if not are you being detained, or are you being arrested. Various protections kick in at every point. i.e. some kick in at a stop, some kick in at a detainement, some at arrest, and some at charging.

See my comments above. Uneducated and especially impaired people don't know their rights. I know they often say they do, but they're almost always wrong.

I don’t watch “Cops”. Sometimes I watch Alaska State Troopers, North Woods Law, or Lone Star Law. I don’t see what you see. I see guys following a protocol.

But if we replace two cops with a social worker and cop, what have we gained?

(07-31-2020 10:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t watch “Cops”. Sometimes I watch Alaska State Troopers, North Woods Law, or Lone Star Law. I don’t see what you see. I see guys following a protocol.

But if we replace two cops with a social worker and cop, what have we gained?

I haven't seen those shows.... but I see guys follow protocol on COPS as well... the show essentially shows them following every protocol almost perfectly... but as I said, that protocol seems to be at least in part to set some people up for failure.

I'm not saying these cops are bad people and certainly not racist or anything else... and of course a lot of these people have committed crimes and need to be stopped and arrested... I just see a vicious and somewhat pointless circle.... and more important, I see cops manipulating people who are often clearly intoxicated or are suffering from long time effects of addiction and are quite honestly, no match for the police who are specifically trained to do this. They implicate themselves left and right in ways that sober, educated people most likely never would.

If these manipulations are stopping murders or child abuse, no problem... but in almost every case I've seen on COPS, they're simply adding another drug possession charge to someone.

I've used the term social worker as somewhat of a catch-all for someone whose job it is to do the 'protect and serve' portion of cops current jobs, and have the cop do the 'enforce and arrest' portion.

The goals would be...
1) expand the available talent pool for these positions... where those who are really good at 'controlling difficult situations' can do that, and those that are really good at de-escalating difficult situations' can do that... as opposed to trying to find twice as many people who are especially good at both.

2) de-escalate more situations. Of course we see many cops, especially the good ones do this as well... these are mostly very good people... but there is just something different, especially to someone who isn't 'all there' about being confronted by someone with their hands on their belt just inches away from three or four weapons.... and being confronted by someone who looks like your barista.

3) integrate law enforcement more into social services... or put social services into action on the streets with people, not behind a desk with paper. I'm much more concerned with these petty criminals than I am with the ones who are engaging in bigger crimes. Those people go away for longer periods and get counseling and drug rehab. It doesn't always work for sure, but at least they have a chance. These petty people are expected to do it mostly on their own.

I've seen an awful lot of people who need counseling and therapy and because they can't afford it or don't know how to access it, they self-medicate. I've seen some of these people on COPS. Those people don't know they have a problem... and traditional cops aren't in a position to help. They simply arrest and move on. These people need social workers to recognize the factors from the start and get them moving in the right direction.

It's not systemic racism nor even bias based on race... it is instead systemic bias in favor of those who know the system better... which is quite often the police, wealthier/more educated people.... and the really dirty criminals... but not the petty ones.

(07-31-2020 11:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2020 10:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t watch “Cops”. Sometimes I watch Alaska State Troopers, North Woods Law, or Lone Star Law. I don’t see what you see. I see guys following a protocol.

But if we replace two cops with a social worker and cop, what have we gained?

I haven't seen those shows.... but I see guys follow protocol on COPS as well... the show essentially shows them following every protocol almost perfectly... but as I said, that protocol seems to be at least in part to set some people up for failure.

I'm not saying these cops are bad people and certainly not racist or anything else... and of course a lot of these people have committed crimes and need to be stopped and arrested... I just see a vicious and somewhat pointless circle.... and more important, I see cops manipulating people who are often clearly intoxicated or are suffering from long time effects of addiction and are quite honestly, no match for the police who are specifically trained to do this. They implicate themselves left and right in ways that sober, educated people most likely never would.

If these manipulations are stopping murders or child abuse, no problem... but in almost every case I've seen on COPS, they're simply adding another drug possession charge to someone.

I've used the term social worker as somewhat of a catch-all for someone whose job it is to do the 'protect and serve' portion of cops current jobs, and have the cop do the 'enforce and arrest' portion.

The goals would be...
1) expand the available talent pool for these positions... where those who are really good at 'controlling difficult situations' can do that, and those that are really good at de-escalating difficult situations' can do that... as opposed to trying to find twice as many people who are especially good at both.

2) de-escalate more situations. Of course we see many cops, especially the good ones do this as well... these are mostly very good people... but there is just something different, especially to someone who isn't 'all there' about being confronted by someone with their hands on their belt just inches away from three or four weapons.... and being confronted by someone who looks like your barista.

3) integrate law enforcement more into social services... or put social services into action on the streets with people, not behind a desk with paper. I'm much more concerned with these petty criminals than I am with the ones who are engaging in bigger crimes. Those people go away for longer periods and get counseling and drug rehab. It doesn't always work for sure, but at least they have a chance. These petty people are expected to do it mostly on their own.

I've seen an awful lot of people who need counseling and therapy and because they can't afford it or don't know how to access it, they self-medicate. I've seen some of these people on COPS. Those people don't know they have a problem... and traditional cops aren't in a position to help. They simply arrest and move on. These people need social workers to recognize the factors from the start and get them moving in the right direction.

It's not systemic racism nor even bias based on race... it is instead systemic bias in favor of those who know the system better... which is quite often the police, wealthier/more educated people.... and the really dirty criminals... but not the petty ones.

But these defunding actions are meant to curb systemic RACISM.

Sounds like your problem lies more with the drug laws and less with an uneven, racist enforcement of them.

Enforce the laws you have.

Change the ones you don’t like.

Neither of those has anything to with defunding.

(08-01-2020 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]But these defunding actions are meant to curb systemic RACISM.

Sounds like your problem lies more with the drug laws and less with an uneven, racist enforcement of them.

Enforce the laws you have.

Change the ones you don’t like.

Neither of those has anything to with defunding.

My problem lies with the systemic issue of poverty breeding desperation that leads to poor education and crime

I think it addresses the actual problems rather than the articulated concerns that get the headlines and attention

I think it attempts to address the very real situation that exists, where meaningful portions of our population see the police as 'the enemy'. It doesn't matter if we think they shouldn't or whatever.... meaningful parts of our educated and informed, law abiding population 'fear' the police, almost all of whom are just out there to protect them... and the illegal, but not intentionally dangerous parts of our population who could really use and mostly WANT help, do too.

I'm not trying to solve the 'defund the police' people's problem. I'm trying to solve the real one. I think the idea of defunding the police as articulated by the REASONABLE people within that group are not remotely arguing to get rid of police... they are merely arguing for a refocus of police assets and resources.

Cops should focus on the most dangerous criminals... the ones who create these problems... THAT is the 'systemic' issue... that poor people are easily manipulated by the promise of easy money... and not on the 'low hanging fruit' of habitual drug use. Get those people treatment, therapy and jobs so that they can get off drugs.

It's like going after the pimps to get the drugs and manipulation out of prostitution... and for those who want out, getting therapy and job training... for those who choose it, let them work with police on keeping it safe and 'clean'. Or going after the criminals who commit crimes with guns, not the guy who peacefully owns a gun that he didn't register for fear of it being confiscated.... and absolutely not the guy who legally owns one.