Threats to Americans, ranked (by actual threat instead of media hype)

[Double Edge]

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 :)

[SteveDaPirate]

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.

[Double Edge]

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.

[bfng3569]

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?'

[omon]

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

[Squirrel]

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?

"Research that, and get back to us."

[Bigfella]

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. ;)

Well, we know what Ozzies are afraid of....


[ATTACH]38358[/ATTACH]

[Samuels creek]

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?

[Monash]

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.

[Officer of Engineers]

I wonder if he'll return to try to rob the place again - boom, boom!

Boooooooooo!!!!!!!

[SteveDaPirate]

they are too militarized.

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.

[Monash]

Well, we know what Ozzies are afraid of....


[ATTACH]38358[/ATTACH]

I wonder if he'll return to try to rob the place again - boom, boom!

[Monash]

Which brings us back to societies perception of risk vs the reality. You may be right and the US may be over-policed, that's a topic that requires detailed analysis. However what is certain is that there is way to much political and media capital to be gained in the West (not just the US) from 'talking up' crime as a threat.

People are being bombarded with messages suggesting that crime of all types is out of control when in fact the opposite is true. It gets votes and sells media space sure, but it is not true. Across the entire developed world crime statistics reveal a broad trend towards steadily declining rates of crime and this trend is reflected across a broad range of crime types, not just one or two specific crimes. There are a range of reasons for this including social and economic factors, technology and yes -better/smarter policing but the trend is clearly evident. This generation is 'safer' than their grandparents were and their children and grandchildren will be safer still.

You may or may not have to many Police in the U.S., to many laws and to much emphasis on 'militarized policing' but that comes down to cultural and political issues which I think reinforce each other. For some reason it appears that the richer, healthier and safer people become the more insecure they seem to feel - obviously there are some very basic physiological and/or cultural issues at play. In the West at least people alive today are healthier, wealthier, better educated and more 'protected' from a diverse range of threats than any other generation in history. Yet they don't seem to feel happier or more secure as a result. Hence the contradiction between perception and reality.

[zraver]

Monash, you hit on the core of the problem- we have too many cops, too many laws and they are too militarized.

[Monash]

Z a couple of things, firstly hundreds of different professions from fire fighters to military personnel to air traffic controllers are employed by the 'government'. If your primary beef is that suing a cop means the taxpayer pays then every public servant is in the same boat! Every single one of them from the President on down through Senators/Congressmen/women to a lowly county records clerk, not just Police - so they would all have to take out personal liability insurance.

Secondly government agencies generally don't take out personal liability insurance and for a good reason. Its much cheaper for government agencies to cover their employees directly than it is to make their employees take out a policy. Theoretically they could go down that path but the result would simply be higher PS wages because the employee would have to be compensated for the addition cost via a wage increase - just like the costs of insurance are factored into the fees charged buy other professions and industries, which means higher taxes. Also no private citizen or company could hope to get cheaper coverage than State or Federal authorities and working out what level of cover was required by each government employee in the country would be a nightmare.

I suppose if you really wanted to you could make a special case for Police but they will demand and get pay increases to cover the cost, otherwise they would simply refuse to attend 'dangerous' call outs like domestics and just stick to 'safe' work like writing up speeding tickets, try getting a surgeon to perform a high risk operation without personal liability insurance cover and see how far you get. Technically you could circumvent the whole problem I suppose by just 'privatizing' at least local P.D.s but that would mean putting contracts out to competitive tender and whoever wins is going to factor the cost of commercial indemnity insurance into their quote anyway so you are back to square one.

As for bad cops they should be weeded out and fired but from what I can see you guys have way to many LEAs over there so its far to easy for poorly trained/dishonest or incompetent cops to hide or move agencies.

Finally there are still way more common/dangerous things to worry about over there than being shot by a cop. The only intelligent way in life to deal with risk is to identify the most likely and serious threats to yourself and your loved ones first and then do what you can to minimize them, starting and the top of the list and working down. So you could for example start with health issues and do things like exercise & diet will reduce the risk of heart attack. Personally, given the size of the US population and assuming you are an average, law abiding citizen then I'd probably be inclined to start worrying about being shot by a cop about the same time I start preparing for rogue badger attacks! i.e it wouldn't be high on my list of worries. However if I was to go into the meth business then I would suggest that my chances of being shot (by someone) would definitely be going up - and hence it would be higher on my threat radar.

As for any normal person, worrying about ultra low risks like 'death by cop' is simply a recipe for a strait jacket or an early grave due too stress, or both.

Cheers