Which is why I am all for better qualified personnel to deal with particular cases. What I am not for is reducing the force when there is clearly a need for the ones we already have. They are even reducing cadet training. Ridonculous.
You're spot on... Its not about lowering the police or anything else negative towards the police... It's about having the police do police work and get better training.. T_Man
Policing should be prevention. Not door kicking and revenue collection. Robert Peel principles for policing. Number one: To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
Right. So how do we deal with culture that breeds crime and hopelessness? Continuous handouts are fiscally untenable and a burden on society.
I’ve just skimmed this thread and while I agree that we need to reform LE this seems rushed and more reactionary than a well thought out process. In Minneapolis where there was a major push to defund the police with the mayor famously being booed when he said he was against defunding this process has been put on hold. Even after the City Council votes to “defund” it was stated as it wasn’t going to be a rushed process and as is the city charter commission has put it on hold. This is an issue that definitely needs to be approached carefully. I agree that there are many services that should be taken out of LE hands but how we untangle that isn’t easy. I also believe that reform requires not defunding but actually more to train LE better and attract better people to the force.
Many of them lived through the 70s and 80s with US cities were violent, crime riddled hell holes. Since then, the US and most major cities have consistently invested in larger and larger police forces with a corresponding drop in violent crime...which has consistently lowered over the last 3 decades almost everywhere. Many of the "defund the police" people weren't even born when major US cities were so terrible so they have no point of reference. If its about shifting budgets to places that will lower crime, it is an interesting thought experiment...if it is actually about reducing police to near 0 levels (which BLMs own website claims despite what defenders say on the internet), then its going to backfire. We shall see. We are playing with fire. Maybe it'll work and crime will continue to go down in these big cities. Or maybe crime will skyrocket resulting in Republican law and order candidates sweeping the nation after people get tired of 20% increases in violent crime.
So it's time to stop corporate handouts as they are fiscally untenable and a burden on society and it's time we spent that money on educating children, solving a homelessness problem, addressing lack of health insurance that forces people into death and bankruptcy. That's a good start my friend, I'm with you on that one. Bootstrap sloganeering is so gauche.
Did you bother reading the article i posted? What problems do you see with what St. Petersburg is doing?
#1 - Response time. Are they going to have specially marked cars with sirens? #2 - Situations aren't always predictable which is why police responders are armed. #3 - more responders may be required and how many mental health experts (for example)are going to be available? Who else may respond quickly? Cops.
Read the article... do some research and you will find the answers (at least as they pertain to St. Petersburg).
