-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Disarming the Police. Would it work?
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How many of those countries have a heavily armed citizenship?
I like some of the aspects of an unarmed police. Perhaps limit guns to the top % selected by their own fellow officers, perhaps by secret vote. How does 20% sound? In addition a group like SWAT should be armed.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Police are killing unarmed people. I don't see the connection.
I cannot tell if you are serious. Fewer police with guns and only the top say 20%, chosen by their fellow officers. The point of the secret ballot would be to keep the vote honest about who is best with the guns and with lethal situations. If you're on the force, you're going to want the best people to carry the guns.
I'm not sure if this would work or not, nor am I certain that this would be the correct approach.
I did some checking, and according to this site (FBI Releases 2019 Statistics on Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the Line of Duty — FBI), 48 officers were killed in the line of duty by felonious acts. In the same year 1098 people were killed by police (• Number of people killed by police by ethnicity U.S. 2019 | Statista).
If it was a battle, that kind of lopsided kill ratio would indicate a major victory for the police.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
SWAT is the only aspect of a police force that ought to be militarized. Only for the most dangerous situations.
I like Norways system. Police only have weapons available in their patrol cars if needed but are generally unarmed.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
This is a good point. One thing that strikes me is that, when cops deal with members of the general public, they're dealing with ordinary people - not people who are skilled gunfighters or trained in weapons and combat.
Yet, many times when police shoot suspects, it's justified based on what they "could have" been. They could have had a gun. They could have been a terrorist or a gang member. Maybe they were in the cartel. But in the vast majority of cases, they're not what they initially thought.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not very often. You are listening to largely false narratives. Killing unarmed people is the exception, not the rule.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It certainly would.
Officers pick who among them has to carry. Secret ballot is best. The armed officer has greater responsibility and will be in more dangerous situations.
Suave
Simulated character
Let us please agree there should be no direct interaction between systemically racist white privileged human police officers and traffic violaters. I've reimagined policing whereby unarmed robotic traffic enforcers would issue traffic citations during traffic stops. Also, surveillance cameras and drones would identify traffic law offenders who would subsequently receive traffic tickets by mail. I m guessing the cost of a robotic cip is approximately $150,000 in addition to the cost of her human companion supporting police officer. I suspect traffic fines might have to be doubled for us to have the privilege of being served by unarmed robocops. However, if each robotic cop on average during her service life were to save one life from serious harm or death from a dangerous traffic stop, we would gladly pay twice as much as we do now for getting a traffic violation ticket.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The question at present is have these exceptions gotten worse over time?