• 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?

9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Twilight Hue said:
Police are killing unarmed people. I don't see the connection.
Click to expand...
You really don't see it?

With guns - especially handguns - common, cops approach traffic stops and the like with the assumption that the interaction could turn deadly in a split second.

That's a big factor in why American police are so quick to shoot people, even if the victim proves to be unarmed.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Twilight Hue said:
Our Position

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
One way to reduce the occasion for police shootings - and shootings of police, for that matter - is through the use of technology.

With photo radar, red light cameras, etc., a lot of traffic enforcement doesn't need to involve a live police officer doing a traffic stop at all. Just put up the equipment, snap a photo of the infraction, and send the owner of the vehicle a ticket.

These tools wouldn't replace all traffic stops, but they can replace many of them.

There are also equity and transparency benefits: if every single car speeding by a set threshold gets a ticket, this eliminates a source of potential complaints about favouritism or discrimination by police.

Lots of people dislike photo radar, but I don't think that's important as the not-insignificant number of lives that hang in the balance.

I feel like the Black Lives Matter crowd and the Blue Lives Matter crowd could both find something in this. If a traffic stop creates a risk for both the motorist and the cop, then eliminate as many traffic stops as we can.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Suave

Suave

Simulated character
9-10ths_Penguin said:
You really don't see it?

With guns - especially handguns - common, cops approach traffic stops and the like with the assumption that the interaction could turn deadly in a split second.

That's a big factor in why American police are so quick to shoot people, even if the victim proves to be unarmed.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately. The U. S. has more firearms than people. It's not a bad assumption to presume somebody is armed. The N. R. A. is too politically powerful of a special interest group to allow for the disarming of civilians.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Suave said:
Unfortunately. The U. S. has more firearms than people. It's not a bad assumption to presume somebody is armed. The N. R. A. is too politically powerful of a special interest group to allow for the disarming of civilians.
Click to expand...
It's also a constitutional issue.

It's not a fantasy that one's government can potentally become dangerous for its citizens. A valid concern.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Twilight Hue said:
Maybe its time to look at alternatives...

What if Police used Ketamine Darts Instead of Bullets?
Click to expand...
Even better idea: what if American cops followed Peelian principles?

The nine principles were as follows:

  1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
  2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
  3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
  4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
  5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
  6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
  7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
  8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
  9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Click to expand...
Peelian principles - Wikipedia
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Twilight Hue said:
How about a combo of both?
Click to expand...
Police going around shooting citizens with drugged darts is hardly in line with this:

To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Police going around shooting citizens with drugged darts is hardly in line with this:

To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
Click to expand...
Nothing that removing qualified immunity couldn't cure.
 
Suave

Suave

Simulated character
Twilight Hue said:
It's also a constitutional issue.

It's not a fantasy that one's government can potentally become dangerous for its citizens. A valid concern.
Click to expand...
Come'on man! The U. S. Constitution was written when firepower was limited to flint locks. Also, do you think your A. R. 15 rifle can stop a tank?
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
"Disarming the Police. Would it work?": Would not work in India, IMHO would not work anywhere in the world. But if a police or a military person uses his/her power wrongly, they should be punished adequately. That is what Indian courts do. That is not to say that every atrocity is punished, but if it comes to the notice of the court, they would not ignore it even if the person may be of high rank in the organization. There have been many such cases in India.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Suave said:
Come'on man! The U. S. Constitution was written when firepower was limited to flint locks. Also, do you think your A. R. 15 rifle can stop a tank?
Click to expand...
No but there are valid tactical methods for using small arms fire on a tank.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
metis said:
Disarming the police would be completely, 100%, nonsensical. By doing as such, we might as well just turn the country over to militant militia groups, such as we see with the drug cartels in Latin America.
Click to expand...
Seems to work well enough in other countries.
 
The Hammer

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Twilight Hue said:
Our Position

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

In our country/Culture a fully disarmed police force is not feasible, nor practical.

But we need to rework police use of force. We also need to look at if we can implement other measures like experimenting with some aspects of policing being weapons free etc. We will always need something akin to SWAT, but the average police department needs not have tactical military grade weapons and gear, as many do now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top