Ideas from around the world for better community policing.

Uncategorized 1 Minute

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/24/21296881/unbundle-defund-the-police-george-floyd-rayshard-brooks-violence-european-policing

A great article that addresses our policing methods with ideas that are not new and have had some very effective outcomes.

“Defund” police might have a lot of merit. It doesn’t mean abolishing police, but rather revamping the system so resources are used more effectively.

The summary explains why we should try to revamp our policing on a serious level and it could very well save a load of money and lives.

“That means there will be failures. Things will go wrong. Systems will break down. Programs will fall apart. Violence may temporarily increase in some places. Occasionally, a violence interrupter or mobile crisis worker will be seriously injured or killed.

But our current system already represents a kind of profound failure. We live in a country that has built the largest system of human incarceration on earth, where agents of the state kill unarmed members of the communities they are supposed to protect and terrorize those who are still alive. Where peaceful protesters are beaten in the streets.

The question, then, isn’t whether we are willing to live with failure; communities across the country already live with failure every single day. That failure, at least in part, stems from the fact that police officers in the United States are tasked with responsibilities — from traffic patrol to mediation to crisis response — that amplify the risk of unnecessary violence.“

Published by lenrothman

Published

27 thoughts on “Ideas from around the world for better community policing.”

  1. The four proposals sound reasonable to me. They are:

    1) Create specialized traffic patrol officers

    2) Deploy community mediators to handle minor disputes

    3) Create a mobile crisis response unit

    4) Experiment with community self-policing

    It occurs to me, however, that we shouldn’t need them. Ideally, a healthy, rational society would police its own behavior to the point that law enforcement need only intervene when the crime is severe or violence is likely — in other words, when armed police make sense.

    That’s not the world we live in, but it, too, is a world we can create through enlightened action. I tend to think that better schools and stronger families are better investments than police reform and the expansion of state responsibilities.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  2. …”police reform and the expansion of state responsibilities”.

    You were pretty good until this last line. Reform is necessary and shifting funds to community services and other things to help make society more fair and equal (as you noted, by the way) will require state involvement to get it moving. We just can’t tell the police, “OK, your budget is cut by x%, the money being diverted to [1), 2) 3) and 4)]. Go forth and do the right thing.” It will take a concerted effort by all parties involved to make it happen.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

        1. RE: “Keeping the stats quo ain’t gonna make things better.”

          I don’t assume that the status quo is bad.

          Like

          Reply

          2. RE: “Being a white male in a suburban neighborhood, of course you don’t.”

            Is that a personal attack?

            Like

          4. “I don’t assume that the status quo is bad.”

            Your opinion, of course.

            I think 1000 policing killings per annum, untold other injuries, the highest incarceration rate in the world and warehousing the mentally ill in jails and prisons is an abomination.

            That is the status quo.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. RE: “I think 1000 policing killings per annum…”

            In a country with a population of 350 million, 1000 fatal police shootings is all but a non-existent problem. As Heather Macdonald notes: most of those shootings were of armed and violent suspects:

            https://www.dailywire.com/news/mac-donald-statistics-do-not-support-the-claim-of-systemic-police-racism

            As lamentable as the status quo may be, there is little justification in the numbers for concluding that better management of the problem is either needed, or would be preferable.

            Like

          6. “In a country with a population of 350 million, 1000 fatal police shootings is all but a non-existent problem.”

            That is nonsensical.

            If the UK kills only 24 in the last decades, and we kill 20,000, even taking into consideration the population difference of about 5 times or so, we are still through the roof.

            The UK is very close to us culturally, linguistically, historically and with a crime problem and hooliganism that could be worse than ours in some instances.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. RE: “No, just an observation of someone who has never had to deal with discrimination in any way, shape or form.”

            Since you can’t, and _don’t know that to be true, it is just another unwarranted assumption on your part.

            Like

          8. Prove me wrong. Explain when you have been discriminated against for the color of your skin, the way you pray, who you love, or any other way.
            If not, then you have either 1) proved my assumption to be accurate or 2) you are lying to yourself.

            Like

  3. “… and the expansion of state responsibilities.”

    I got the idea that it was not an expansion, just a shifting of resources. Keep some armed police for the violent stuff, but since the problem is with minor offenses and the mentally ill, our traditional response of lethal force is not working.

    Education and encouraging stronger familial bonds are excellent ideas. To a degree that involves better household incomes and family planning. Those two items are what gives people, especially women, more control over their lives.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. RE: “I got the idea that it was not an expansion, just a shifting of resources.”

      Do you support these reform proposals only if they don’t cost more?

      Like

      Reply

      1. They might cost more, or less. It depends upon what costs are considered. Having the highest incarceration rate in the world by far has a huge cost on its own. The impact on families and children when a father or mother is killed has a cost. The damage from opioid, alcohol, and other addictions have costs.

        What we are doing now is very expensive already.

        We have no problem spending trillions as if we can’t print money fast enough. I am sure we can find some monies in the interim to support state efforts to reform how policing and justice is dispensed in the US.

        And we can use what people have often referred to: states as incubators of ideas before trying a one size fits all from DC.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          1. Honestly, WTF are driving at.

            Resources are available. Maybe they will be enough, maybe not enough. But to just say that we cannot do better than kill 1000 a year, maim perhaps more than that, and incarcerate at a rate that no other country does is the point.

            You are nitpicking irrelevancies to the main issue. Can we do community policing in a better way.

            Is that clear enough?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “You are nitpicking irrelevancies to the main issue.”

            It’s what he does. It’s juvenile and, more often than not, slightly irrelevant. Changing his name to Nancy-nitpicker would be appropriate.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “You are nitpicking irrelevancies to the main issue.”

            It is not nitpicking to point out flawed reasoning.

            You have asserted that we have a problem with community policing, but so far you haven’t said what the problem is. First you said it was a misallocation of funds, then you said money wasn’t the issue, but the statistics were unacceptable, then you said we are not enough like another country.

            When you come up with a solid description let us know. Until then, I stand by my original observation that the proposals you shared sound reasonable to me, but other investments would likely be more effective.

            Like

          4. The article I posted addressed all those questions.

            You disagreed and said so.

            You are nitpicking the funding issue when that is really not the crux of the issue.

            If you can’t grasp that, then I am done.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. What a Bullshit article.

    Rayshard Brooks was no asleep in his car, he was passed out drunk in the drive through. Unless his car was delivered to the location by a helicopter, he had driven there drunk. Of course he was going to be arrested.

    Would you want your child or spouse killed by him the next time he headed for Wendy’s barely able to stay conscious from intoxication?

    It would have been malfeasance by the police to not take him in and see him prosecuted.

    Like

    Reply

    2. “Would you want your child or spouse killed by him the next time he headed for Wendy’s barely able to stay conscious from intoxication?”

      Of course not. But summary execution is not wanted either. All of the information necessary to arrest him later was in the possession of the police. They could have let him run away (no threat to the public while running intoxicated), and arrested him at a later time at his home.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment