re: Arkansas cop who felt threatened by protestors accidently shoots/kills colleague

quote:

---

Salyers

---

Checks out guys

Lol nice melt

ETA: shite

quote:

---

but only one side has made any type of proposal at the congressional level and it was shot down.

---

Dems passed one in the house after the Senate Bill failed. It's the one the White House demanded house Republicans to vote against. Both parties can now claim the "see? We're on your side, they aren't" card.

quote:

---

left leaning city council members across the country are advocating for some level of defending of their police departments. where is this strong opposition to any police reform you speak of?

---

Every opposition here to any talk of the aforementioned cities defunding police departments. Do you just ignore those? They're threads full of people who don't even read the subject matter before saying "lib filth are ruining merica."

quote:

---

Dems passed one in the house after the Senate Bill failed. It's the one the White House demanded house Republicans to vote against. Both parties can now claim the "see? We're on your side, they aren't" card.

---

ahh, i missed the Dem one. But yeah, i hate when both sides play that, "well, you didn't vote for my _____, you must hate _____". fricking politicians.

quote:

---

Every opposition here to any talk of the aforementioned cities defunding police departments. Do you just ignore those? They're threads full of people who don't even read the subject matter before saying "lib filth are ruining merica."

---

you and i are both intelligent enough to know that any sort of defunding of the police will not have an impact on the perceived police brutality. and will likely only result in less policing, thus worse crime rates. we also know that the real answer is: proper training and proper hiring. and that shite costs money. (so police can apprehend and detain criminals without the need of lethal force)

quote:

---

You didn't melt so why would I say that? I don't just randomly say you're melting. I say it when you throw your hissy fits

---

quote:

---

Proper training costs money but, as in the Minneapolis example, you "defund" by moving certain non violent or emergency situations and put them in the hands of more qualified people so more of the police budget, even if it's smaller, goes towards actual police work.

There was a story here the other day of a 90 year old man who called 911 because his AC unit broke. Police responded then went to home Depot, got a new window unit, and replaced the old one. While an awesome and heart warming story, it's a complete waste of police funding and not what 911 is for. If there was a civilian wing of the city like Minneapolis proposed, they could take care of stuff like that and free up time/money for better hires and training.

---

maybe. this is a good point. i can see it either way.

i don't think 'defunding' is the answer - ever - in regards to our police force. more is better, we've got data everywhere to prove that. now, could there be a group added to field the type of issues like your example below, sure. i wouldn't be opposed to that. maybe in the long term it would save taxpayers money even.

to me it seems like you are also pointing out another problem communities should address.

the proper explanation and routing/dispatching of these emergency situations? You're right - this was a misuse of police time. but i wonder if dispatch lazily just threw the issue over the fence to the police per say. or did their due diligence to get an explanation of the problem before deciding to dispatch it. if that makes sense.

quote:

---

i don't think 'defunding' is the answer - ever - in regards to our police force. more is better, we've got data everywhere to prove that

---

I use defunding loosely and that's why I bring up Minneapolis. They call it defunding, but it's more restructuring and adding oversight. I too think more is better, but, to paraphrase NKOTB, it has to be more of "the right stuff." You and I are probably in agreement that you can't just throw more tanks and guns at it, you have to throw better trained and more capable officers out on the streets.

quote:

---

now, could there be a group added to field the type of issues like your example below, sure. i wouldn't be opposed to that. maybe in the long term it would save taxpayers money even.

---

I think if you're able to remove this cost from the police budget and take some of the "savings" to apply to training in addition to raising pay to attract better candidates, a whole lot can improve just there and you can still "defund" because you're lower than the original budget.

quote:

---

the proper explanation and routing/dispatching of these emergency situations? You're right - this was a misuse of police time. but i wonder if dispatch lazily just threw the issue over the fence to the police per say. or did their due diligence to get an explanation of the problem before deciding to dispatch it. if that makes sense.

---

I see what you mean, but who else is there to send? It's kind of a catch 22 because the cops are usually the only ones with the manpower to dispatch to these types of things quickly. To me, that's the whole idea behind the "citizen patrol" type proposals. If there's a group of citizens you can dispatch for these types of things and they have the same fast response time, it again frees a lot of police resources that can be better applied elsewhere.

But I believe you did kinda imply that reform shouldn't be limited to just the police department or structure therein, and I would absolutely vehemently agree with you. I think the single most important cog in the entire machine of "defund the police/police reform" starts from the half conceded and failing "war on drugs." A lot of good could be done in this country if we could divorce ourselves from the for profit prison system and ending the criminalization of taking a substance into your own body would be a great first step in that process.

quote:

---

Now I am totally guessing here, I have 0 data to back this up. Speculation only. Let's say Minneapolis has 1,000 911 calls per day. How many are obvious police or fire? How many are obvious stupid calls that no one will get called out for? And how many fit into this unarmed trained person responding? My guess would be 90-5-5 (Here is where I am just speculating, but feel like this has to be close). So are we going to defund the police by 50%, expect them to still handle 90% of 911 calls, and give that money to a group to only handle 5% of the calls? There is a disconnect in this logic that has to be thought through.

---

You bring up a very valid point. I don't think it can be a cut and dry "we're cutting your budget by this so deal with it." They need to go through at least 5 years worth, and ideally 10-15 and beyond, of data on budget breakdowns, number of calls resulting in every outcome from "deployed taser and subdued" to "cat rescued from roof" to "officer down, need assistance" etc. The data needs to be combed through to where you have a complete picture to accurately say "we have X% of calls each year that would be better served by an unarmed citizen patrol" and determine budgetary decisions accordingly.

I will not support anything in my city that isn't fact based like that.

quote:

---

You bring up a very valid point. I don't think it can be a cut and dry "we're cutting your budget by this so deal with it." They need to go through at least 5 years worth, and ideally 10-15 and beyond, of data on budget breakdowns, number of calls resulting in every outcome from "deployed taser and subdued" to "cat rescued from roof" to "officer down, need assistance" etc. The data needs to be combed through to where you have a complete picture to accurately say "we have X% of calls each year that would be better served by an unarmed citizen patrol" and determine budgetary decisions accordingly.

I will not support anything in my city that isn't fact based like that.

---

Sadly, we appear to be seeing major cities taking knee jerk reactions and are trying to do just that. Hopefully they slow down and realize they need to think this through a little more, a lot more.

quote:

---

For as "liberal shithole" as everyone here says Austin is, I've actually been really surprised by it. It's more of a geeky/nerdy liberal vibe for lack of a better description.

There doesn't seem to be the angry caveman mob that needs to be placated so the city won't be able to trot out some half assed BS without being called out on it loudly.

At least I hope anyways.

---

I've only spent a weekend there, but it seemed fun enough. Hope all is going well for you.