|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 12 2017 00:58 Nyxisto wrote:
policing by consent and all of this community stuff is only possible if the population is disarmed, because there'll never be mutual trust between police and citizens if the former don't hold the monopoly on force. So in a sense the statement that "police is built through brutal force" is correct, it just happens to be that this should have happened in the abstract.
That's why it's possible for the police in the UK to never shoot a bullet or approach anybody without automatically threatening them.
I'd prefer the population to be armed rather than only the criminals in the population to be armed. It's simply rubbish to assume citizens that exercise their 2nd amendment rights erode mutual trust.
It's no excuse for police training for SWAT style home breaches or the Castile cop.
|
On September 12 2017 01:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 12 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2017 00:03 kollin wrote:On September 11 2017 22:23 Sermokala wrote:
In a non judgemental or demeaning tone, what exactly is "symbolic reperations"? I love never assumed that a literal reperations plan was talked about seriously but I'm hesitant in opening the door to any kind of race based improvement plan. I could see a general agreement that "we all failed to integrate the slaves from the south into the economic political and cultural structure of our nation on an equal standing with any other group we've had done just far" and then embark on a comprehensive plan to better the people who live in ghettos and trailer parks equally based on socioeconomic standing.
Also on an aside a policing who's sole legitimacy is based on brute force? Racist and overly violent I can understand but is this a seriously argument that police only have brute force for legitimacy? All polices legitimacy is built through brute force. We just don't mind because, ideally, the brute force is used to protect us. Not really. The police's legitimate use of force comes from accountability and the collective democratic will to imbue them with powers. In theory at least. That's the point being made. That ideally when a police officer waves you over you should believe that he is doing so in your best interest and in line with the obligations society has placed upon law enforcement officers. Therefore you should happily comply, not out of fear but because his successful job serves your interests. But in reality you comply because you know you will be forced to comply. That reality is a failure of policing. Add this to the list of reasons being a cop should require a law degree and should be an extremely well paid career. They don’t need a full blown law degree(they don’t need contracts or bankruptcy law), but they need better training on how law functions. But like all things, there is resistance from police to do that. They also don’t like mandatory requirements that they turn over all evidence collected to the DAs.
That's a good first step, but even then police can still selectively enforce the law pretty heavily. It's hard to argue an absolute strictness would be anything but a disaster, but highly subjective enforcement is pretty detrimental too.
|
On September 12 2017 01:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 12 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2017 00:03 kollin wrote:On September 11 2017 22:23 Sermokala wrote:
In a non judgemental or demeaning tone, what exactly is "symbolic reperations"? I love never assumed that a literal reperations plan was talked about seriously but I'm hesitant in opening the door to any kind of race based improvement plan. I could see a general agreement that "we all failed to integrate the slaves from the south into the economic political and cultural structure of our nation on an equal standing with any other group we've had done just far" and then embark on a comprehensive plan to better the people who live in ghettos and trailer parks equally based on socioeconomic standing.
Also on an aside a policing who's sole legitimacy is based on brute force? Racist and overly violent I can understand but is this a seriously argument that police only have brute force for legitimacy? All polices legitimacy is built through brute force. We just don't mind because, ideally, the brute force is used to protect us. Not really. The police's legitimate use of force comes from accountability and the collective democratic will to imbue them with powers. In theory at least. That's the point being made. That ideally when a police officer waves you over you should believe that he is doing so in your best interest and in line with the obligations society has placed upon law enforcement officers. Therefore you should happily comply, not out of fear but because his successful job serves your interests. But in reality you comply because you know you will be forced to comply. That reality is a failure of policing. Add this to the list of reasons being a cop should require a law degree and should be an extremely well paid career. They don’t need a full blown law degree(they don’t need contracts or bankruptcy law), but they need better training on how law functions. But like all things, there is resistance from police to do that. They also don’t like mandatory requirements that they turn over all evidence collected to the DAs.
Part of my reason for wanting them to have a law degree is a filtration process to get people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Simply put, current day cops come from too low on the ladder in my eyes.
|
if you're requiring a law degree i think you're vastly limiting the socioeconomic climate of police officers relative to what exists today. and quickly, since you're already cutting anyone who can't get a degree be it due to price or intelligence
and i mean talk about distrust. there's already a perception that the police are outsiders among marginalized groups. you'd exacerbate that ten fold this way.
|
law degree is too much; but there is a problem with a disconnect between the kind of people who want to become cops, and the kind of people the public would want to be cops.
|
A lot of research shows better educated police officers leads to less discrimination in practice - I believe that's a big reason why joining the police in the UK now requires a degree level qualification.
|
yea it's certainly hard to argue against having the best and brightest carry guns and enforce law. i just have a harder time seeing it executed, and seeing it succeed. at least here in the states.
the only way i'd see it going well is having the force subsidize the education. and that's far too much spending for americans, giving away tuition is a big no-no for some reason.
edit:: hmm apparently TFA isn't what i thought it was, i might be confusing it for some other academic subsidy program.
|
A four year degree with continued training is sufficient. I believe being a police officer should be just as burdensome as being a teacher.
|
I see the solution to encouraging better police cadet qualifications as being part and parcel with revising our high school-into-college transition system. The incentives are all over the place and its startlingly obvious that we are not doing enough to make police work and other less academic, yet publicly essential jobs attractive. In terms of personal anecdote, the cops with associates degrees have bigger chips on their shoulder than those without.
|
On September 12 2017 01:40 Plansix wrote:
A four year degree with continued training is sufficient. I believe being a police officer should be just as burdensome as being a teacher.
It should also apply retroactively, none of this grandfathered in bullshit. you have 8 years to get a 4 year degree or you are out of the force with no pension.
|
Some states require a 4 year degree. I think most used to but did away with it when they couldn't get enough officers.
|
Requiring a 4 year degree without addressing the ever-growing higher ed bubble and all the shit that'll fly when it pops is to put the cart before the horse.
|
On September 12 2017 01:44 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 01:40 Plansix wrote:
A four year degree with continued training is sufficient. I believe being a police officer should be just as burdensome as being a teacher. It should also apply retroactively, none of this grandfathered in bullshit. you have 8 years to get a 4 year degree or you are out of the force with no pension.
I wish you luck with that hard line stance, since police unions exist. But in general I agree. I think a more productive metric is for departments to want over half their force to have 4 year degrees in 8 years, by whatever means necessary.
On September 12 2017 01:46 farvacola wrote:
Requiring a 4 year degree without addressing the ever-growing higher ed bubble and all the shit that'll fly when it pops is to put the cart before the horse.
Which comes first, the great amazon strike or the higher ed implosion?
|
On September 12 2017 01:40 brian wrote:
yea it's certainly hard to argue against having the best and brightest carry guns and enforce law. i just have a harder time seeing it executed, and seeing it succeed. at least here in the states.
the only way i'd see it going well is having the force subsidize the education. and that's far too much spending for americans, giving away tuition is a big no-no for some reason.
a little Teach for America but for cops.
The way we do it in the UK is primarily through an apprenticeship scheme, with the money coming from a levy on businesses with (I think) over £3m per year spent on salaries. It means police officers can study for a policing degree while working and earning money too.
|
United States42283 Posts
On September 12 2017 01:44 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 01:40 Plansix wrote:
A four year degree with continued training is sufficient. I believe being a police officer should be just as burdensome as being a teacher. It should also apply retroactively, none of this grandfathered in bullshit. you have 8 years to get a 4 year degree or you are out of the force with no pension.
I see a lot of criticism of police pensions and I want to remind everyone that they're not an unearned benefit. They're part of the compensation package that the police receive for labour already performed. Pensions aren't a conditional bonus at the end of a career, they're the product of a career of mandatory payroll deductions. Saying "out with no pension" is as realistic as saying "out, and also we're seizing your 401k". If an employee is vested into a pension scheme then they get the pension.
|
On September 12 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 00:58 Nyxisto wrote:
policing by consent and all of this community stuff is only possible if the population is disarmed, because there'll never be mutual trust between police and citizens if the former don't hold the monopoly on force. So in a sense the statement that "police is built through brutal force" is correct, it just happens to be that this should have happened in the abstract.
That's why it's possible for the police in the UK to never shoot a bullet or approach anybody without automatically threatening them. I'd prefer the population to be armed rather than only the criminals in the population to be armed. It's simply rubbish to assume citizens that exercise their 2nd amendment rights erode mutual trust. It's no excuse for police training for SWAT style home breaches or the Castile cop.
Most people aren't criminals and most interactions involving the police probably also do not involve dangerous criminals. But if you're in a place where everybody could be armed and has the means to kill you, your first thought as a police officer will not be to "serve and protect" and engage people like citizens, they'll engage them like they're dangerous.
The fact that you immediately draw the attention to "armed criminals" shows how deep this goes instinctively. The permanent threat thinking is so baked in that everything involving police matters automatically involves 'criminals' and danger and the need to protect yourself.
And of course a widespread presence of guns indicates a lack of trust. That's why guns exist, they're tools to kill and nothing else. Carrying them around at all times doesn't exactly scream trust.
And the trust issue extends into the other direction as well. To be wiling to give up the right to use force citizens need to be able to trust the government with it.
|
The problem with public sector pensions as I see it isn't that pensions are earned or unearned, it's that many pension funds were/are mismanaged, unlucky, subject to "creative" public accounting that undermined their payout potential, or a combination of the three. Further, many public sector retirement funds do stupid shit like start/prolong hopeless derivatives suits that only get asshole lawyers rich. This is why the Detroit bankruptcy case is so fascinating if you dig into its details; the insane things that account administrators and politicians did with retirement funds required virtually dead-even balancing of pensioner's rights against those of operational creditors, and in the end, it was impossible for the pensioners to avoid a pretty significant haircut in order for the city to stay afloat.
Folks like to pretend otherwise, but let's be real, there are easily two dozen or so metropolitan areas that are facing or will face similar public debt problems.
|
my problem with public sector pensions (sometimes); they're given overly generous benefits, without requiring that all the money necessary to pay them are put in NOW. So it ends up with a huge future liability without properly budgeting for the needs for it; and tha twon't come due until current politicians have left office.
|
On September 12 2017 01:55 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:On September 12 2017 00:58 Nyxisto wrote:
policing by consent and all of this community stuff is only possible if the population is disarmed, because there'll never be mutual trust between police and citizens if the former don't hold the monopoly on force. So in a sense the statement that "police is built through brutal force" is correct, it just happens to be that this should have happened in the abstract.
That's why it's possible for the police in the UK to never shoot a bullet or approach anybody without automatically threatening them. I'd prefer the population to be armed rather than only the criminals in the population to be armed. It's simply rubbish to assume citizens that exercise their 2nd amendment rights erode mutual trust. It's no excuse for police training for SWAT style home breaches or the Castile cop. Most people aren't criminals and most interactions involving the police probably also do not involve dangerous criminals. But if you're in a place where everybody could be armed and has the means to kill you, your first thought as a police officer will not be to "serve and protect" and engage people like citizens, they'll engage them like they're dangerous. The fact that you immediately draw the attention to "armed criminals" shows how deep this goes instinctively. The permanent threat thinking is so baked in that everything involving police matters automatically involves 'criminals' and danger and the need to protect yourself. And of course a widespread presence of guns indicates a lack of trust. That's why guns exist, they're tools to kill and nothing else. Carrying them around at all times doesn't exactly scream trust. And the trust issue extends into the other direction as well. To be wiling to give up the right to use force citizens need to be able to trust the government with it.
Hardly. You presume both that police must be dolts and that citizens do not know how the fuck to lawfully carry a gun. Well, with your ridiculous presuppositions, I can see how you'd arrive at your conclusion.
Secondly, nope for why I "immediately draw the attention to." You said "if the population is disarmed." You cannot actually mean that, because criminals that already don't legally own a gun will also not be disarmed when you disarm the law-abiding.
Thirdly, the "widespread presence of guns" indicates a responsible attitude towards self defense and the deterrence of crime. The "lack of trust" bit is nothing more than a propaganda line. Talk to some actual gun owners. Don't let the internet or politically opposed groups rule your understanding of the issue. Police aren't somehow doomed to antagonistic relationships simply because of the second amendment.
|
On September 12 2017 02:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2017 01:55 Nyxisto wrote:On September 12 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:On September 12 2017 00:58 Nyxisto wrote:
policing by consent and all of this community stuff is only possible if the population is disarmed, because there'll never be mutual trust between police and citizens if the former don't hold the monopoly on force. So in a sense the statement that "police is built through brutal force" is correct, it just happens to be that this should have happened in the abstract.
That's why it's possible for the police in the UK to never shoot a bullet or approach anybody without automatically threatening them. I'd prefer the population to be armed rather than only the criminals in the population to be armed. It's simply rubbish to assume citizens that exercise their 2nd amendment rights erode mutual trust. It's no excuse for police training for SWAT style home breaches or the Castile cop. Most people aren't criminals and most interactions involving the police probably also do not involve dangerous criminals. But if you're in a place where everybody could be armed and has the means to kill you, your first thought as a police officer will not be to "serve and protect" and engage people like citizens, they'll engage them like they're dangerous. The fact that you immediately draw the attention to "armed criminals" shows how deep this goes instinctively. The permanent threat thinking is so baked in that everything involving police matters automatically involves 'criminals' and danger and the need to protect yourself. And of course a widespread presence of guns indicates a lack of trust. That's why guns exist, they're tools to kill and nothing else. Carrying them around at all times doesn't exactly scream trust. And the trust issue extends into the other direction as well. To be wiling to give up the right to use force citizens need to be able to trust the government with it. Hardly. You presume both that police must be dolts and that citizens do not know how the fuck to lawfully carry a gun. Well, with your ridiculous presuppositions, I can see how you'd arrive at your conclusion. Secondly, nope for why I "immediately draw the attention to." You said "if the population is disarmed." You cannot actually mean that, because criminals that already don't legally own a gun will also not be disarmed when you disarm the law-abiding. Thirdly, the "widespread presence of guns" indicates a responsible attitude towards self defense and the deterrence of crime. The "lack of trust" bit is nothing more than a propaganda line. Talk to some actual gun owners. Don't let the internet or politically opposed groups rule your understanding of the issue. Police aren't somehow doomed to antagonistic relationships simply because of the second amendment.
They aren't unilaterally aligned either though. I some of the other owners i know are definitely weary of the possibility of other folks carrying, heck its a big factor in why some of us started carrying in the first place. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they aren't, and it is a difficult assumption to make that everyone with a lawful gun will continue to be a law abiding citizen when pushed to the edge by some situation or another.
My guess is also that that mentality will vary regionally. and isn't just part of propaganda from the left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
