|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 4, 2024 7:42:38 GMT -5
3. To assist, outreach and intervention programmes. These were cut thanks to austerity, despite a proven record of decreasing crime, as fewer vulnerable youths are roped in. 4. Drug Rehabilitation. Contrary to the right wing press’ insistence, this works. Not 100% of the time, but often enough to reduce the cycle of abuse. This in turn helps prevent relatively low level crime, from mugging and shoplifting to burglary, as fewer addicts means fewer people turning to crime to feed their addiction. These are an excellent example of why I call for abolishing the police. Drug treatment should not be a police function! That's a task for the health care system, not for law enforcement, and it's obscene that it has been so thoroughly absorbed into police responsibility that few people can even imagine a world where the cops aren't involved in it. And when the cops have gone so far beyond any reasonable scope of responsibilities half measures aren't going to be effective, we need to burn down the entire system and start over from a blank slate.
If I was attacked in front of an officer, I would expect the officer to intervene at personal risk without a firearm, even if the attacker was armed. Sure, and I'd expect the same in the US, even if only because so many cops are eager to find any excuse to use force against someone and stepping in to defend a victim of an unprovoked attack makes them the hero. The only difference is they'd be likely to use their gun, and if I'm attacked by someone I absolutely want them to use that gun and stop the attack as quickly and effectively as possible. The issue is that it's just not a realistic scenario. Cops can't be everywhere and only the dumbest criminals are going to attack someone in front of a cop. The attack is far, far more likely to happen away from cops and be over in seconds, minutes at most. Even cops with the best of intentions can't instantly teleport to the scene of a crime and 5-10 minutes response time is optimistic. Anywhere outside of dense urban areas that response time is likely 30 minutes or more. That's more than enough time for someone to do whatever harm they want to inflict on you, and that's assuming you're even able to call for help before the attacker silences you. If you're concerned about being the target of violence you are far better off having a gun and knowing how to use it effectively. |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 4, 2024 9:08:26 GMT -5
3. To assist, outreach and intervention programmes. These were cut thanks to austerity, despite a proven record of decreasing crime, as fewer vulnerable youths are roped in. 4. Drug Rehabilitation. Contrary to the right wing press’ insistence, this works. Not 100% of the time, but often enough to reduce the cycle of abuse. This in turn helps prevent relatively low level crime, from mugging and shoplifting to burglary, as fewer addicts means fewer people turning to crime to feed their addiction. These are an excellent example of why I call for abolishing the police. Drug treatment should not be a police function! That's a task for the health care system, not for law enforcement, and it's obscene that it has been so thoroughly absorbed into police responsibility that few people can even imagine a world where the cops aren't involved in it. And when the cops have gone so far beyond any reasonable scope of responsibilities half measures aren't going to be effective, we need to burn down the entire system and start over from a blank slate.
I work in healthcare and see drug use as a healthcare issue. I don't think police should be involved in managing drug use. But it is relevant to this discussion as drugs currently occupy a huge amount of policing effort for culture war reasons. The only roles I see for police in drugs is disrupting organised crime (which would largely be better served by decriminalising and/legalising the specific drugs, depending on the drug), and dealing with people driving under influence. There are plenty of documented instances of US cops not stepping in to protect people, which is also how you have ended up with legal precedent stating that the cops don't have a duty to protect the public when they were sued over it. In addition, there are plenty of instances of them hitting bystanders/the victim with guns when trying to hit the attacker (or sometimes when trying hit someone who is using a gun in self-defense against the attacker). Frankly, I would not expect to be protected by a US officer if attacked in front of them. I accept that it is fairly rare that such events occur, but then I see you neatly clipped out the part of my post where I acknowledge that it probably doesn't outweigh the harm of coppers. However, it does provide a rationale for patrols for preventing/reducing street violence specifically. I'd rather guns were not more common in the UK seeing as violence is low and rarely lethal here. Doubly so as there is a very high chance my partner would have successfully committed suicide in the past with a gun when they were unsuccessful with the methods available to them. I think society would be less safe with firearm proliferation. |
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 4, 2024 12:52:28 GMT -5
If we got rid of police, what makes you think the powerful wouldn't be able to keep minorities and undesirables in line?
There are plenty of times in human history where we did not have a police-style institution. Look at those times. Do you think they did not effectively do all the "bad" things that you claim the police are doing now?
If anything, the Police are an improvement over those times, as there is at least some accountability or check on their power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 4, 2024 19:45:01 GMT -5
I work in healthcare and see drug use as a healthcare issue. I don't think police should be involved in managing drug use. But it is relevant to this discussion as drugs currently occupy a huge amount of policing effort for culture war reasons. The only roles I see for police in drugs is disrupting organised crime (which would largely be better served by decriminalising and/legalising the specific drugs, depending on the drug), and dealing with people driving under influence.
Sure, but the person I was responding to was laying out their list of things we expect from the police, as in what we should have the police doing.
This is true, but most of those cases involve the police failing to come and assist the victim in time not cases where the crime occurred in front of the cop and the cop did nothing. I absolutely wouldn't rely on a 911 call to save me but I expect that even most US cops would save someone if an assault occurred right in front of them.
I clipped it because it wasn't relevant to the point I was addressing. It isn't a question of "does A outweigh B", it's a question of "does A even exist at all". And the answer is that A is almost entirely a comforting lie we tell ourselves.
I suppose that's a question for debate, and I think one that depends very much on your position in life. If you're a 250lb male athlete you're probably a lot safer in a world without guns because you can win most fights, or at least do enough damage that an attacker would prefer not to pick you as a victim. If you're a 100lb mostly sedentary woman you're safer in a world where everyone has guns. The threats you face don't get much worse because those 250lb male athletes can kill you just fine without a weapon but now instead of relying on an attacker voluntarily restraining themselves from hurting you too badly you're on equal ground and can kill them back. And speaking as someone far closer to that second category than the first I would much rather fight gun vs. gun than unarmed vs. unarmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 4, 2024 19:48:12 GMT -5
If we got rid of police, what makes you think the powerful wouldn't be able to keep minorities and undesirables in line? I don't think that. Abolishing the police is only one part of destroying the system and replacing it with something better. But the question here is what to do about police, not if the ruling class in general should be guillotined. |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 5, 2024 2:49:38 GMT -5
I suppose that's a question for debate, and I think one that depends very much on your position in life. If you're a 250lb male athlete you're probably a lot safer in a world without guns because you can win most fights, or at least do enough damage that an attacker would prefer not to pick you as a victim. If you're a 100lb mostly sedentary woman you're safer in a world where everyone has guns. The threats you face don't get much worse because those 250lb male athletes can kill you just fine without a weapon but now instead of relying on an attacker voluntarily restraining themselves from hurting you too badly you're on equal ground and can kill them back. And speaking as someone far closer to that second category than the first I would much rather fight gun vs. gun than unarmed vs. unarmed. [/div][/quote] The issue here is that guns escalate violence in general. I agree guns are a leveller for people of differing physical ability in a fight. I can very much see the appeal of that. However, they also immediately escalate any fight to the level of lethal force. Drunk idiots at a pub? More likely to be dead idiots. Road rage at a traffic light? Can be dead innocent bystanders. In addition, it is harder to run away from a gun than it is from physical contact. De-escalation and fleeing are less viable options. Again, I recognise the appeal for those who are less able to run away, but also that category grows once guns appear. Further to that, people carrying out non-violent crimes are more likely to bring guns and escalate to violence if interrupted, because anyone interrupting them is likely to be carrying a lethal weapon. This carries over to traffic stops by police, which are extremely rarely violent in the UK. A final point is that most violence with guns is suicide. Guns are a very accessible method of committing suicide, with higher success rates. Improving societal conditions and mental health services will reduce suicide attempts, but it won't eliminate them because mental health care can take time to work. I'd rather more of these remain unsuccessful. As mentioned, my partner has attempted suicide in the past and been unsuccessful. A family member too. I've treated dozens of intentional medication-dose suicide attempts (mostly paracetamol) and none of them were successful. I've even cared for someone who managed to shove a bread knife through their own liver, and they were not even operated on as an emergency. If that had been a gun, they'd almost certainly be dead before reaching the hospital. If I lived in the US, where guns are rife, I'd seriously consider carrying a gun to level that out. But the reality is that said gun would probably cause more harm to my family than protection. So, more agency at the cost of more risk and danger overall. |
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 927
|
Post by mdgv2 on Mar 5, 2024 3:27:11 GMT -5
Fair point on drug rehabilitation and intervention. These should be part of wider law and order, but not the purview of the “Bobby on the beat”.
Effective drug rehab and youth intervention as noted can stop crime happening in the first place. And all the time the Police are running around trying to catch relatively low level criminals (whether underlings of organised crime or not), resources for tackling those doing the organising as distracted.
Maybe we also need to reconsider how the Prison Service operates (in the UK specifically for this opinion). There’s little point in putting a relatively petty criminal behind bars if it’s just going to expose them to career criminals. Halfway houses have been tried for those recently released, but seemingly to mixed results, as once again it’s sometimes just leaving them prey to career criminals again, when they’re especially vulnerable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 5, 2024 6:36:43 GMT -5
The prison system definitely needs massive reform from an ineffective punishment-based system to a rehabilitation-based system. Will safe money, reduce recidivism, and be more humane. Not as emotionally charged though, so much harder to sell to the electorate...
|
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 5, 2024 10:38:07 GMT -5
If we got rid of police, what makes you think the powerful wouldn't be able to keep minorities and undesirables in line? I don't think that. Abolishing the police is only one part of destroying the system and replacing it with something better. But the question here is what to do about police, not if the ruling class in general should be guillotined. Fair enough keeping it on topic. Just abolishing the Police in isolation without a larger system reform seems..... unwise. Why, because then you just get power hungry, unethical autocrats and authoritarians with weaponry filling the gap anyway. I am all for reducing the Police and limiting their role, and replacing many of the jobs we ask them to do with a strong social safety net and resources myself. In our current society their are two public institutions that we ask to carry almost all of the heavy lifting for societal improvement; Schools and Police. Neither institution was designed to do what we are now asking them to do. |
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by skyth on Mar 5, 2024 15:02:14 GMT -5
The police should have more mental health care training, etc. As they are the ones that are called to crisis situations that require it.
|
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 5, 2024 15:43:10 GMT -5
Or we could have actual experts go with the Police on some calls.
There is no way Police will recall all the training they get, much less adding more training on for specific situations.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by skyth on Mar 5, 2024 15:58:05 GMT -5
Problem is mixing in people untrained in dangerous situations. Unfortunately, you won't know going into a call where it will end up, thus having the police officers responding having a very wide range of training is a better solution. Once things get de-escalated and you have a better understanding of the situation, getting the appropriate expert in is preferable. However, the initial encounter, you'll need someone that has skills in multiple areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Mar 5, 2024 15:58:12 GMT -5
I think it would make sense to create a new emergency service for that. "Parapsychs" or something. Police may still need to be involved for incident control as normal, but having a paramedic equivalent for psychiatric emergencies leading the response makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 5, 2024 20:10:46 GMT -5
The police should have more mental health care training, etc. As they are the ones that are called to crisis situations that require it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 5, 2024 20:30:18 GMT -5
This is arguably a good thing though, for two reasons:
First of all, the "escalation" is often nothing more than the victim being able to fight back. If you punch someone and they respond by shooting you that's technically an escalation but I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for the aggressor who picked a more dangerous target than he expected.
Second, it's often a lack of escalation that provokes conflict. If you know every home has an armed owner willing and able to shoot you the moment you kick open the door are you going to risk robbing a house? I bet you're at least going to make absolutely sure nobody is home when you do instead of breaking in whenever you feel like and trusting that even if you lose a fight with the residents you won't be injured too badly. If you're a bigoted asshole are you going to try to beat up a trans woman for "tricking" you at a bar if you know she's carrying a pistol and perfectly capable of killing you? Bullies love unarmed victims and hate it when people can fight back.
And this is absolutely a valid point. I would in no way suggest that everyone must be armed, I acknowledge that even with a much better mental health care system there will still be people who should not own guns for their own safety. But in a government policy context I think those numbers are small enough that you'll have something like herd immunity and vaccines, where enough people are armed that the deterrent factor still works.
|
|
