Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
notice_1006_html
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Threats to Americans, ranked (by actual threat instead of media hype)
Are you referring to police equipment or policies?
I have no qualms about the police having access to gear that is a step above what a well funded gang can buy, or for that matter what I can buy at the nearest sporting goods store.
Most of my issues with the police are rooted in what I consider to be stupid policies. Things like excessive use of "no-knock" raids for low level drug offenses is getting police and innocent people killed. Particularly when they raid the wrong house. I also take issue with the "gotcha" mentality that is such a part of traffic enforcement, I think visibility and deterrence is a much better policy that doesn't undermine the public trust.
Luckily these kinds of policy issues can be debated and changed, I don't condemn the police themselves for following the policies of their departments. I realize that some dirtbags manage to get on the police force just as they turn up in any organization, but I don't know if more are drawn to being cops or they are just in a position to be more of a jerk than usual.
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView Post
Boooooooooo!!!!!!!
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
As for your question Z it could be a combination of both factors but the issue will no doubt vary in extent from force to force depending on policy decisions made by those in charge.
Speaking from personal experience I can say that commissioners and their senior subordinates are incredibly focused on the media image of their respective forces, often to the point where 'image' is allowed to override operational practicalities. If X is going to look good on TV then do X even if doing Y would actually be better for operational reasons. Dressing uniformed Police up in lots of high tech paramilitary gear usually makes for a good photo opportunity, which makes the force look good on TV, which makes the senior officers look good to their political masters - so don the gear we do, even if the particular operation in question could have been conducted with far less 'dongles'.
Its not just Policing of course where 'image over substance' is the catch cry. This practice infests all areas of government and large sectors of private industry as well. It's the age we live in and it's only going to get worse.
Isn't the biggest killer in America prescription drugs? If not it would come close. How many suicides and murders related to misuse of prescription drugs by medics?
It isn't just the wildlife that is dangerous here AR. Even our bent sticks can kill.
....but seriously, have you ever seen a proper boomerang used for hunting? Mum has a genuine one at home. Several feet long, made of hardwood, sharpened & hardened. Surprisingly heavy. One decent blow could split your skull open or kill you. Besides, we don't have guns here, so our crims have to use something. ;)
Isn't the biggest killer in America prescription drugs? If not it would come close. How many suicides and murders related to misuse of prescription drugs by medics?
I can't really see a practical down side to it, though requiring insurance to exercise a right is problematic. A more workable solution would be to require liability insurance when issuing a concealed carry license. Either a specific carry license gun liability insurance or as part of existing personal/home owners/rental policies.
i do not see how it will do anything about those that carry guns illegaly, which are the probelm. it is not ccw holders that are the problem. why make life more complicated and expencive for all of them??
not to mention insurances are very relactant to cover intentional actions, be it auto policy or home\renter ins. have seen ins refuse to pay for damages\injury to dui victims
I've actually wondered if liability insurance could be the solution to the endless gun regulation debates in the US. Rather than relying on legislatures to make overly emotional decisions on what gun parts should be legal or banned, just make everyone that wants to own a gun carry liability insurance just as they would with a car or when renting an apartment. I can see a lot of positive aspects to such a scheme.
Responsible gun owners will pay a low insurance rate, while people who are careless or stupid get their rates jacked up
When accidents happen, destroyed property and injured people are swiftly compensated
More people will attend gun safety and education classes to get discounted insurance rates
Legislators can waste time on something else
liability insurance.... for gun ownership....
all I can think of is my last rental....... 'Sir, do you want the insurance'.....'you mean, the in cause I total it by 'accident' insurance, I'm covered?'
Monash, you hit on the core of the problem- we have too many cops, too many laws and they are too militarized.
Where i'm from its the lack of enough cops that is the problem. The reason is they are a cost centre and do not generate revenue. These are the reasons given when we ask for more cops.
How do you find the resources to employ so many ? high taxes.
Cops might be good where you are, you risk your life trusting them here. Every day its a new outrage- shooting a dog that had to be coaxed over to the cop, hacking womens phones to steal their private pics, no knock raid murders, rape....
i would like to pretend these things you mention do not happen. Otherwise it would get me in trouble if ever i had to deal with cops.
A lack of trust in the police is dangerous. It means better relations are in dire need.
what you said i hear many times here too false encounters is famous. who can say whether true or not.
How do you find the resources to employ so many ? high taxes.
A lack of trust in the police is dangerous. It means better relations are in dire need.
The way the police in most US cities work is that the fines associated with traffic and other minor violations go into the city coffers. As a result the police bring in funds that help offset the department's cost to the city. It sounds like an elegant solution but there are some negative aspects to it.
Police department are often under political pressure to increase the revenue they bring in and the police themselves end up being given "quotas" of tickets to hand out every month. This is quite often against department policy, but it is a political reality.
As a result, the public often views the police as being out to get them rather than being there to protect them. Most people's personal experience with the police revolves around traffic violations rather than serious crime. That says good things about the rate of serious crime, but the resulting lack of public trust is concerning.
The way the police in most US cities work is that the fines associated with traffic and other minor violations go into the city coffers. As a result the police bring in funds that help offset the department's cost to the city. It sounds like an elegant solution but there are some negative aspects to it.
Ah, your fines are much higher than mine. If fines were increased they would be an outcry, the public would say they are unfair and being fleeced.
Police department are often under political pressure to increase the revenue they bring in and the police themselves end up being given "quotas" of tickets to hand out every month. This is quite often against department policy, but it is a political reality.
As a result, the public often views the police as being out to get them rather than being there to protect them. Most people's personal experience with the police revolves around traffic violations rather than serious crime. That says good things about the rate of serious crime, but the resulting lack of public trust is concerning.
ok, so now i understand why Z says too many cops.
too little cops or too many cops we can't seem to find the right figure some how :)
Tweet
Comment