Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:10 am
I think at this point, the burden is on pro-police people to prove that any such deterrent exist, and if it does exist to prove that it outweighs the negatives of police as they are today.
Burden of proof on the defense. I have heard that somewhere before.
Let me start with I think the issue on police is too broad a term. Much like racial statements. All police are X. Change the word police with blacks and suddenly this is a fascinatingly different conversation.
Let's mention a few things that you mentioned else where. You don't need police for traffic stops.
People scream entrapment and abuse on traffic cameras all the time. There is a couple that has gotten hundreds of speeding tickets for their
parked car. Because the service used insists the cameras are correct and it snaps a picture of their parked car every time someone speeds down their street. Including police cars responding to something. Cameras at stop lights, people have been screaming how this is an invasion of their privacy. And that while the number of people running lights has gone down. The number of people being rear ended skyrocketed. Because the first car chose to stop and the guy behind him just assumed he could run the light right behind the first. Personally, you cannot be naked in your car. That is public nudity. Then being in your car is not private. But it has been fought and many of those cameras have been disabled. I know NJ did this concept, don't know if any others did. But they put empty police cars near areas people were known to speed. Just the possible presence of police made people slow down to obey the law. Then people complained that the empty cars made them slow down so they were removed. . . I am sensing a pattern here. So on police presence deterring at least some crimes I think the answer is yes.
Why do police need to be armed. Because they need to be able to be called upon at a moment's notice to handle armed people? There are a few well filmed scenes of multiple police vehicles responding to just two guys with rifles or rifles and body armor and just out gunning the police till the police went to a nearby gunshop and upgraded. So as long as the citizens can exceed the police they need weapons. Good ones. Would I love it if they could have a ST phaser and just stun suspects instead of lethal force? Absolutely.
Now when it comes to police I have had a share of bad interactions, stupid interactions, and good interactions. Not including ones I have heard in all three categories. The state trooper coming to me and saying I picked a bad place to break down. Honest officer I didn't pick, the car did. I had two policemen arrive at my apartment. A neighbor had called them about me smoking marijuana. (I can't believe I got that spelling right on the first try). I was told why the officer was there. I was asked why it took so long to answer the door. I had been in the bathroom. I offered the officer to come in and look, just mind my cat. That is when he asked if I was allowing
them in. And I leaned out my door and there was a second officer on the stairs. I still said yes. They closed their books. Stepped just inside my apartment. Noted they smelled nothing like weed in there and went on their way. No charges. Maybe eight minutes of my time.
Another interaction I was stopped waiting for a light to change and I was way back. Officer pulled up behind me and told me I could pull up next to the guy at the front of the line. The light has an informal left and right turn area and stacking two across is common and not ticketed. But it is not painted on the road since it can be a little tight. I pointed out some of the extended mirrors and I was not comfortable I could fight in a van with the space. I was back further because though they were faded. The signs on the curb and the lines on the road noted the emergency vehicle exits for the police. So I was not blocking. She waved and went about her business. Light changed and I went on mine.
Police is in and of itself not a dirty word or evil in its own right.
If you had to ask me what I thought was an underlying issue. I would say governments using the police for profit. From ticket quotas to asset forfeiture these funds funnel money into town coffers. Some, possibly most, do this for personal gain. I know of mayors using public works to do work on his privately owned golf course. He 'borrows' town funds for projects that directly improve things for him. I was told he is intending to run for governor. . .
To towns just having what seem to be piss poor spending issues. I know it probably has a name but I don't know it or how to find it. But there is a use it or lose it spending idea for budgets that is insane. Basically if you department gets $100000 this year for a budget. If come the end of the year you only spent $98000. Then the next year all you get is $98000. You may not bank any savings you lose the excess and it is trimmed from future budgets. This has departments going hand and mouth for six months. Spend on a few things for four or five months. Then blow the rest on frivolous things to spend what is left. Just so they keep a budget for the next year. And I have used winters around here in my town as an example. So last year was rather mild, little in the way of snow. But this year we get those noreasters that pile it up in banks taller than the children. The cost to clear the roads is way different from year to year. Things don't stay the same. Why can't the excess on a light year be banked against a bad year? Why must all money be spent and them more demanded by the government?
Bringing it back to police. One thing I have consistently read is that real proper patrols improve neighborhoods. Not blaze down the street at eighty like they did in Camden. I mean some driving. And some getting out of the cars and being known by the people. Being part not apart of/from the community.
TL;DR Too many people say "If a cop didn't see it, nothing happened."
