| Soundwave said: So instead of focusing on the problems, lets present some actual solutions that would probably go a long way in improving the situation: - Eliminate arrest and ticket "quotas". This leads to unneccessary harrassment of citizens who aren't doing anything particularily dangerous. Pay cops a higher wage if need be, but they shouldn't be arresting people or handing out tickets just to get a bonus or to get overtime hours so they can make a certain salary. This creates uneeded hostility between officers and the citizens they're supposed to be protecting. |
1) Many departments have this, with smaller ones trying but lacking budget. However, oftentimes the footage is either inconclusive or just doesn't show what the public wants it to. Most cop shootings are either good shootings or good faith errors. The former is not a crime and the latter is worthy of firing but does not meet the standards for murder under the law (might be strong enough for lesser charges, depends on the mistake). The bad shootings are the far minority so keep that in mind with regards to this.
2) I mean this is a classic conundrum of society, searching for impartial investigations and judges. Problem is elected officials can be worse than cops who are too tight with their comrades. For one, these people would have to be trained investigators which means the majority will likely be ex cops anyway. Second, if there's a mob outside demanding that an officer be "brought to justice" but then evidence seems to point to him just doing his job, what faith can we have that these people will do the right thing rather than do the thing that keeps them elected? I would first recommend restructuring of the IAB myself, creating greater and more distinct separating between it and other departments rather than trying to create an elected oversight commity. Also, States can already launch inquiries and investigations into local police conduct on statewide levels. And cops *can* anonymously turn in corrupt cops, but eventually they will HAVE to testify cause 1) the case will need witnesses and 2) the accused has a right to face his accuser. Also, keep in mind that corrupt cops are usually not the ones that end up shooting people. The last thing they want is IAB or the State investigating them. Just food for thought.
3) Police are managed on the State and City levels, always have been, so the emphasis on de-escalation will vary. Dallas, a department ironically mocked in this thread, is actually a very progressive and forward-thinking department in this area but more on that in a bit. Each area is different, but yes there is a growing school of thought that de-escalation is the way forward. Ironically, those who turn violent in response to Police incidents are the ones preventing this from progressing cause the moment a guy shoots 11 cops the kneejerk reaction from the public is escalation. Also, cops already cary a nightstick and a taser. Which is one of many reasons the vast, vast majority of cops never discharge their fire arm in the line of duty. And the vast, vast majority of cops don't drive tanks, they drive ordinary cars and cary a side arm and possibly a shotgun in the trunk. In fact, in my area (in between 3 good sized cities) I have never even seen a SWAT van or heavily armored car. And no police department *investigates* in those things.
4) That varies wildly from city to city. Most large city cops are well trained. In fact, most are well trained in general until you get out into the really small towns. Of course, there's more of them so there's greater odds of a careless or bad one here or there slipping in. Also, the time argument is just not an accurate evaluation. Dallas has an entry period of a bit more than 1 year and yet has been making major strides in good relations with the community, has greatly reduced the number of confrontations with the civilians, greatly reduced police involved shootings, and all this de-escalation has led to a reduction in crime to. Read here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/07/08/what-dallas-pd-does-right-and-why-doing-those-things-could-now-be-more-difficult/ It's not about time to enter the force, it's the quality of the training and the attitude and conduct of the police department in general and what they do to keep their cops top notch and focused on the mission and doing that mission right.
5) That usually happens naturally, a good point though.
6) Here I actually whole heartedly agree, petty enforcement is often very mismanaged. Not only does it breed tension (reducing it in Dallas has done wonders) but it also doesn't do what it's purpose is. The purpose is to maintain general order in daily conduct. But often they wind up pulling over people who made honest, understandable errors rather than people intentionally behaving recklessly. I would rather them pull over a quarter of people but have those people be genuine reckless drivers than pull over people who missed a sign at a speedtrap and were speeding for a whopping 5 seconds.
Not bad points, just trying to give a realistic picture of where things stand. Police in many areas do need improvement, I agree. However, we cannot fix the problem until we objectively evaluate the problem from an analytical perspective detatched from the emotional rollercoaster of current events. Examining it from a sensationalized position based on hyperbolic statemtents won't do. And that goes for criticizing AND defending the police. We have to nail *exactly* what things are like so that we can target these issues or we risk making sweeping statements and potentially sweeping changes that can have unforseen negative consequences.
