The military police

[fiksal]

I agree, militia is last viable option on the table, but it can sux too - CHAZ/CHOP militia did so great job - more black people died there in a month than police killed in a year (Area to Area, Year to Year).

Didnt actually follow what they did. And I dont of course want to see the militia, but if worst comes to worst, why not.

Do we really need to repeat forceful clearing and beatings by a church near White House?
Portland's beatings and kidnappings?

This is normal police work, done the same in any Western country - Police did the same to Yellow Vest in France and preatty much every European contry do the same during any G7 or G20 meetings.
The very same is also done in Hong Hong.

You are right, but that's not ideal is it? We shouldnt be tolerant of that.

Minneapolis murder by cop?

How this Trump fault? How about Police Chef? Mayor? Governor (but I think governor would be a streach too far as well)?

It's not, and it's not clear if the police officer in question is a Trump's fan - I never wondered. I am being honest in that I am sweeping them under the same rug with the same broom however. Maybe I am not being fair to them, but I am not sure I need to be.

Some crazy people on a truck running down and gunning down a guy? Mysterious hanging of a woman? Executions of a guy just sitting on a bench by firing squad?

I'm not sure if I think about the same case, but you mean the truck guy from Charlottesville like 2-3 years ago?

Actually, no, I have missed Charlottesville. The running down happened in the south somewhere, some yahoos followed a jogger and shot him after a confrontation.
The firing squad I am referring to is a video from police camera showing a squad of guys approaching a guy who they got called on. Apparently about a bb gun. He is told to comply with their commands, he sits down instead - they gun him down.

I can find source for the above if this doesnt ring a bell.

I do agree that some speech from politician could push some nutjob to action, but this is valid for all politicians left, right and center. Hardly a Trump fault, albeit he's first president to overdose Twitter like some kind of fragile teenager.

I have zero problem holding all politicians accountable to what they say. We zero in on Trump and not some public servant because he is at the top of the branch that can very easily exercise force, and does so.

Trump's fault here varies from case to case. From him insighting violence, to him being indifferent to violence. He regularly condemns victims of violence, a whole groups of people. I am trying to remember a time where he honestly condemned or acted against the guilty in the time where it was needed.

Then of course his direct involvement - the clearing of protesters, the federal military police, the concentration camps.

As I honestly said, I am passed the point of trying to distinguish between him, his followers or people that he inspires. It's a pointless exercise to me.

Concentration camps that's been active for few years now?

You mean the camps for illegals? Wasn't these created by Obama with his VP Biden? I don't have problem with calling these camps bad, but hearing these from Democrats seems like Hitler calling out Stalin.
P.S. Have you heard about camps in China? I haven't heard of US camps harvesting organs and using slave labor - albeit I could strech my definition and qualify US prison system as some form of slave labor.

Yes, the camps for refugees or anyone deemed illegally crossing, even against what US laws say. Some were set up during that time indeed. I am unfamiliar with abuses that were going on there, but I have zero problems for calling to prosecute them for that. I encourage that.

So that's bad enough as it is, I am however specifically referring to different camps, camps setup for children only.
Trump camps are more special in this, they are large, more people are involved, more kids are separated, more kids are permanently and intentionally permanently separated. If we prosecuted Obama era officials, it should be noted that the few cases we are aware of, the goal was to re-unite families wrongfully divided, and not instead.

And we know it's the goal. The zero tolerance was signed by Trump himself. They later lost in court at least once. But if I am not mistaken that didnt result in any closures.


EDIT: apologies for making my post larger yet.
While comparison to other countries are interesting, but they are so far interesting only as examples of what to be or not to be. I am not familiar with Chinese prisons, but I am familiar with law enforcement in Russia as I am with US one. I dont want either system, I want better. There are parts of either that can be salvaged, but the goal should be "better", not - lets not fix it because it can be worse.

Paramilitary groups threatening city officials?

You mean that one gun right rally in one state where governor wanted to confiscate all guns?
As far as I remember the rally was peaceful and I don't mean current definition of "peaceful".
I'm quite sure current events and movement to defund police actually prove they were right - I bet everyone think they dodge a huge bulet now.
Not to mention YOU endorse militias, so naturally when militias takeover they will tell the goverment what to do, not the other way around - if goverment will resist then what can they do? Call the police? Call federals? LOL.
The only option would be the national guard, but Militia would eat them for brekfast. Not to mention that after defunding the police, the next item on the list is the guard.

Probably that fits, I meant the paramilitary groups in Michigan, during the quarantine.

At some point as we go down a list of bandits and pseudo terrorists, we should end up with people who will swear to protect its citizens. Is it naive to think they exist?

[mr.WHO]

Didnt actually follow what they did. And I dont of course want to see the militia, but if worst comes to worst, why not.

If you will end up with no other options then why not, but it's more likely you end with Mexico style Cartel-run zones then some kind of Happy utopia of kind, honest and patriotic militia.

You are right, but that's not ideal is it? We shouldnt be tolerant of that.

Then show me the example of better solution. The only thing that comes to my mind is British police, but apparently, according to the left they are also violent and racist.
Riot police tactics is the same everywhere, but if you want to find way worse example, the "Tiananmen square" is a good reference point.

Actually, no, I have missed Charlottesville. The running down happened in the south somewhere, some yahoos followed a jogger and shot him after a confrontation.
The firing squad I am referring to is a video from police camera showing a squad of guys approaching a guy who they got called on. Apparently about a bb gun. He is told to comply with their commands, he sits down instead - they gun him down.

I can find source for the above if this doesnt ring a bell.

People are nuts, especially with all the COVID and economic problems - if you're keen to do violence because what Trump/Biden said then I'm rather sure you would be keen to do violence for any other reason.

As fo Police - this and many other cases seems much more like very bad training. US police is woefully undertrained comparing to other police forces, to the point they looks more like rag-tag militia than profesional force. Defunding will not change this (but shifting budget from military grade equipment to training and psyhological screening would help much more). This will only demoralize police even more and make that even worse people will get into police force. You must be naive to belive there will be enough good people willing to risk their life for ****** pay and no respect.

So that's bad enough as it is, I am however specifically referring to different camps, camps setup for children only.
Trump camps are more special in this, they are large, more people are involved, more kids are separated, more kids are permanently and intentionally permanently separated. If we prosecuted Obama era officials, it should be noted that the few cases we are aware of, the goal was to re-unite families wrongfully divided, and not instead.

Given that significant number (15-30%) of these children had no genetic relation to their suppose parent I see a choce between bad and worse. You have either children camps that will discourage travel with children, or you will have child trade.
I'd rather prefer US camp than travel with some random people who bought me just to get into US.
This is nothing more than using children as live shields.

At some point as we go down a list of bandits and pseudo terrorists, we should end up with people who will swear to protect its citizens. Is it naive to think they exist?

Absolutely naive. See CHAZ/CHOP militia, within the month they become triggerhappy shooting their own (like in wet dream of stereotypical racist cop).
At best you will get to your utopia with a pile of bodies, that would make previous system looks like paradise.

[Vertigo 7]

Why arent Federal officers arrested? That's I'd do

They arent following the rules, why should city police?

Well, why do you expect the police to do anything to federal office if local authorities defunded the police?
Really smart.
I rather expect most of police actually busy with submitting their CV for federal position, so it would be detrimental, if they would go against their prospective employeer.

Same with gun ownership.
"Why do you need guns? only police should have guns"
<proceed to defund the police>
<Charge Missouri Couple for defending their front porch from angry mob>

Democrats makes new Trump voters better than Trump himself.

With all the supposed knowledge you have about US, which all seems to come from Faux News, it would behoove you to learn what defunding the police actually means.

I'm sure like every hillbilly, you hear those words strung together and your immediate reaction is "Dey takin der jerbs!!!" and sure, maybe some police will be laid off. But the goal isn't to get rid of police. Instead is to shift money away from police to have more social services to deal with things like mental health issues and so forth that the police just aren't qualified and equipped to deal with appropriately.

And also, that Missouri couple was charged for endangering public safety. The protests weren't even on their property, yet they felt the need to go point guns at the people walking by. How would you like having guns pointed at you while you're walking down the street?

[mr.WHO]

I'm sure like every hillbilly, you hear those words strung together and your immediate reaction is "Dey takin der jerbs!!!" and sure, maybe some police will be laid off. But the goal isn't to get rid of police. Instead is to shift money away from police to have more social services to deal with things like mental health issues and so forth that the police just aren't qualified and equipped to deal with appropriately.

Ask yourself - did George Floyd had any mental issues? What social service would come to respond to his case?
How would shifting money from police to mental health issues would save him? With underpaid and undertrained cops there will be several times more of such George Floyd then further defunding and you will end up with Mexico style, cartel run zones.

And also, that Missouri couple was charged for endangering public safety. The protests weren't even on their property, yet they felt the need to go point guns at the people walking by. How would you like having guns pointed at you while you're walking down the street?

The road wasn't public road, it was closed community road and the front porch of their mansion was like 10 meters from the mob. These 2 vs several hundred people - seem even to me - if they cross the line they get shot, if couple would shot them for no reason, they would tear them apart - fortunately both sides did not crossed the line.
So many things could go wrong by sheer accident or plain stupidity that it's not even funny.
This is only a teaser of how things will look like when you take out the police.

[Vertigo 7]

I'm sure like every hillbilly, you hear those words strung together and your immediate reaction is "Dey takin der jerbs!!!" and sure, maybe some police will be laid off. But the goal isn't to get rid of police. Instead is to shift money away from police to have more social services to deal with things like mental health issues and so forth that the police just aren't qualified and equipped to deal with appropriately.

Ask yourself - did George Floyd had any mental issues? What social service would come to respond to his case?
How would shifting money from police to mental health issues would save him? With underpaid and undertrained cops there will be several times more of such George Floyd then further defunding and you will end up with Mexico style, cartel run zones.

Well apparently he told the police officers he was claustrophobic before he was thrown to the ground and murdered, so, probably. But even still, it's not as if George Floyd is an isolated case.

And also, that Missouri couple was charged for endangering public safety. The protests weren't even on their property, yet they felt the need to go point guns at the people walking by. How would you like having guns pointed at you while you're walking down the street?

The road wasn't public road, it was closed community road and the front porch of their mansion was like 10 meters from the mob. These 2 vs several hundred people - seem even to me - if they cross the line they get shot, if couple would shot them for no reason, they would tear them apart - fortunately both sides did not crossed the line.
So many things could go wrong by sheer accident or plain stupidity that it's not even funny.
This is only a teaser of how things will look like when you take out the police.

Sorry, that's not how things work in the US. The neighborhoods don't own the streets, the cities do. Anything the city/county/state/federal governments own own is public property, you know, the tax payers that paid for the things, with few exceptions such as military bases. Regardless, the protesters broke no laws. The couple did, specifically:

*571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:
...
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;...

http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.a ... =33874&hl=

Further more, St Louis police haven't been defunded. So that's a rather moot point, isn't it?

[mr.WHO]

Well apparently he told the police officers he was claustrophobic before he was thrown to the ground and murdered, so, probably. But even still, it's not as if George Floyd is an isolated case.

Mental health programs will do nothing to prevent such cases.
Training and regular mental health screening of police would help, but this require funding not defunding.
How is that all these anti-gun people screech that gun owners should be checked, yet forget about the ones that have gun in job description?

Sorry, that's not how things work in the US. The neighborhoods don't own the streets, the cities do. Anything the city/county/state/federal governments own own is public property, you know, the tax payers that paid for the things, with few exceptions such as military bases. Regardless, the protesters broke no laws. The couple did, specifically:

*571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:
...
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;...

http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.a ... =33874&hl=

Hmm, OK I see your point.
So to be in accordance with law, they should stay at the porch with guns pointing upward or downwards and only point them when someone step on their lawn?
Seems accetable to me, but the problem is mob mentality. people become braindead in crowds, so it would (or actually was) safer to show guns as soon as possible as a warning sign.
Pointing them at crowd wasn't best first option (both of them didn't appeard to feel trained/comfortable with weapons), but not exibiting them untill it's too late is even worse option.

Further more, St Louis police haven't been defunded. So that's a rather moot point, isn't it?

The police was overloaded with other cases - this is good approximation of how things will go with defunded police.

[Vertigo 7]

Well apparently he told the police officers he was claustrophobic before he was thrown to the ground and murdered, so, probably. But even still, it's not as if George Floyd is an isolated case.

Mental health programs will do nothing to prevent such cases.
Training and regular mental health screening of police would help, but this require funding not defunding.
How is that all these anti-gun people screech that gun owners should be checked, yet forget about the ones that have gun in job description?

Maybe, maybe not. There's no telling how things would be different if we had proper services to help with mental issues instead of police literally locking people up on 72 hours holds when someone is having a psychiatric break. It isn't about training the damn police officers, it's about having people trained to diagnose and deal with mental problems and leaving police to deal with actual law enforcement and only that. So instead of all the money that's going to police to deal with non law enforcement things, that money goes to where it can be better used. That's what defunding the police means; it's not some arbitrary "lets get rid of the police" republican scare tactic.

Sorry, that's not how things work in the US. The neighborhoods don't own the streets, the cities do. Anything the city/county/state/federal governments own own is public property, you know, the tax payers that paid for the things, with few exceptions such as military bases. Regardless, the protesters broke no laws. The couple did, specifically:

*571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:
...
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner;...

http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.a ... =33874&hl=

Hmm, OK I see your point.
So to be in accordance with law, they should stay at the porch with guns pointing upward or downwards and only point them when someone step on their lawn?
Seems accetable to me, but the problem is mob mentality. people become braindead in crowds, so it would (or actually was) safer to show guns as soon as possible as a warning sign.
Pointing them at crowd wasn't best first option (both of them didn't appeard to feel trained/comfortable with weapons), but not exibiting them untill it's too late is even worse option.

no, it wasn't the best option. Their weapons could have been holstered/slung but visible and no laws would have been broken. They put their fingers on the triggers and aimed their weapons at unarmed people that weren't even there for them or even trespassing on their property.

So on one side we have law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest, and the other, a not-so-law abiding couple pointing guns at people. Clearly, you don't have to be in a crowd to be 'braindead'.

Further more, St Louis police haven't been defunded. So that's a rather moot point, isn't it?

The police was overloaded with other cases - this is good approximation of how things will go with defunded police.

oh? St Louis has the 2nd largest police department in the state, 36'th nationally. You seriously going to suggest they were too busy to defend a rich, white neighborhood?

[fiksal]

@mr.WHO

I am on the phone, so quoting is impossible, and I will be brief.


Re: better option. US is not best by far. We can take British experience with policing, Norway and Sweden experience with prisons. Surely there are some experiences to share about who can handle cases that cops in US respond to, as Vertigo mentioned.

We have options if people sit down and work though them.


Re: militia, the example was always meant to be extreme, but as extreme as it is, I take that over pseudo fascist goon squads. Better die in a turf war than a concentration camp.


Re: camps. Speaking of them, the camps I mean don't do it because parents were proven not real - they do it under excuse that adults and children can't be detained together. They also don't track of who came with who, because it doesn't matter. A year ago or so when they were in court for this, there were up to 5000 children permanently or near separated that way. Also let's use the proper word - kidnapped. We know this because they admitted it, and social workers documented it.
So, honestly 25 to life to everyone facilitating this sounds like a reasonable plan I can get behind. I will ask Masterbagger to be my friend again if this succeeds.

Or you know, if 25 yrs is too long, guillotines work too)

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

Guillotines would be cultural appropriation of a French tradition, though. Even if they're going to say "we invented guillotine", as they did with pizza.

There's a lot of "serious" things to comment on by Mr.Who, Fiksal and Vertigo, but I believe everything's already been told.
Defunding police is just another way to give less power to peripheral government, even if after everything's happened it was the right thing to do. But, with a man like Trump at the steering wheel, disabling automatic transmission, traction control and break assist is only going to make the car crash.

[Vertigo 7]

Guillotines would be cultural appropriation of a French tradition, though. Even if they're going to say "we invented guillotine", as they did with pizza.

There's a lot of "serious" things to comment on by Mr.Who, Fiksal and Vertigo, but I believe everything's already been told.
Defunding police is just another way to give less power to peripheral government, even if after everything's happened it was the right thing to do. But, with a man like Trump at the steering wheel, disabling automatic transmission, traction control and break assist is only going to make the car crash.

Except it already crashed, and is on fire with a baby trapped inside and Trump is busy trying to sue the auto manufacturer instead of trying to put the fire out and save the baby.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

Guillotines would be cultural appropriation of a French tradition, though. Even if they're going to say "we invented guillotine", as they did with pizza.

There's a lot of "serious" things to comment on by Mr.Who, Fiksal and Vertigo, but I believe everything's already been told.
Defunding police is just another way to give less power to peripheral government, even if after everything's happened it was the right thing to do. But, with a man like Trump at the steering wheel, disabling automatic transmission, traction control and break assist is only going to make the car crash.

Except it already crashed, and is on fire with a baby trapped inside and Trump is busy trying to sue the auto manufacturer instead of trying to put the fire out and save the baby.

Except he's not sueing the car manufacturer, but his neighbour who has a perfectly maintained car with no accident record.

[Vertigo 7]

Guillotines would be cultural appropriation of a French tradition, though. Even if they're going to say "we invented guillotine", as they did with pizza.

There's a lot of "serious" things to comment on by Mr.Who, Fiksal and Vertigo, but I believe everything's already been told.
Defunding police is just another way to give less power to peripheral government, even if after everything's happened it was the right thing to do. But, with a man like Trump at the steering wheel, disabling automatic transmission, traction control and break assist is only going to make the car crash.

Except it already crashed, and is on fire with a baby trapped inside and Trump is busy trying to sue the auto manufacturer instead of trying to put the fire out and save the baby.

Except he's not sueing the car manufacturer, but his neighbour who has a perfectly maintained car with no accident record.

lol yeah or that. Either way, he's ignoring the real problems while creating whole new problems so he can ignore those and create other problems.

[mr.WHO]

Re: better option. US is not best by far. We can take British experience with policing, Norway and Sweden experience with prisons. Surely there are some experiences to share about who can handle cases that cops in US respond to, as Vertigo mentioned.

I think British model would be the only viable police option for US.
Swedish/Norway model do not scale up and can only work for very small and rich countries, with relatively homogenous societes.
IMO Swedish/Norway prisons are TOO GOOD. They look more like a hotel than a prison.
I admit they have well developed resocialization an training/work programs for prisoners, to re-enter the society after they finish the sentence - this is something work copying.
Prison should not be cozy - you should wish to leave it as soon as possible and never get back - this is something Sweden/Norway is doing wrong.

Maybe, maybe not. There's no telling how things would be different if we had proper services to help with mental issues instead of police literally locking people up on 72 hours holds when someone is having a psychiatric break. It isn't about training the damn police officers, it's about having people trained to diagnose and deal with mental problems and leaving police to deal with actual law enforcement and only that. So instead of all the money that's going to police to deal with non law enforcement things, that money goes to where it can be better used. That's what defunding the police means; it's not some arbitrary "lets get rid of the police" republican scare tactic.

Hmm, interesting. In Poland police deal with psychical brekadown by assisting paramedics and mostly only when the person could be dangerous/violent.
Now I recall, we have a lot of cases where police is called to some nuts with axe or knife thretening their neighbours, but to my suprise it's rarely end with use of guns and even when guns are used, in most cases they are not shot to death.
I think think putting money on training is money well spent. 10-20 years ago we had many cases where our police was undertrained with guns ending up with not able to hit anything or hitting innocent bystanders.
This has changed now - if guns are used by police, it ends up with detaining the target with little to no injuries to anyone.

Actually, the domestic abuse and such cases are also covered by non-police social offices and police is not first choice unless life threatening situation - I was assuming the same would be in US - if not and you deal with it by sending the cop, then you are right, it's f*cked up!

no, it wasn't the best option. Their weapons could have been holstered/slung but visible and no laws would have been broken. They put their fingers on the triggers and aimed their weapons at unarmed people that weren't even there for them or even trespassing on their property.

So on one side we have law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest, and the other, a not-so-law abiding couple pointing guns at people. Clearly, you don't have to be in a crowd to be 'braindead'.

Agree, holstered, but visible weapons would be the best course of action.
I wish media could rise above all this left-right BS and do a proper, analytical case study and recommendations for both sides - this would save more lives than the usual panic/outrage porn they serving.

oh? St Louis has the 2nd largest police department in the state, 36'th nationally. You seriously going to suggest they were too busy to defend a rich, white neighborhood?

As funny is this sounds, the fact was that police was nowhere to be found.
Again, I might be biased by how the things work in Poland, but here when you have gatherings or protests, you should have police oversight. It's not unusual to see small 50-100 person protest overlooked by 1-2 policeman and sometimes even a paramedic in the summer.

[Vertigo 7]

Maybe, maybe not. There's no telling how things would be different if we had proper services to help with mental issues instead of police literally locking people up on 72 hours holds when someone is having a psychiatric break. It isn't about training the damn police officers, it's about having people trained to diagnose and deal with mental problems and leaving police to deal with actual law enforcement and only that. So instead of all the money that's going to police to deal with non law enforcement things, that money goes to where it can be better used. That's what defunding the police means; it's not some arbitrary "lets get rid of the police" republican scare tactic.

Hmm, interesting. In Poland police deal with psychical brekadown by assisting paramedics and mostly only when the person could be dangerous/violent.
Now I recall, we have a lot of cases where police is called to some nuts with axe or knife thretening their neighbours, but to my suprise it's rarely end with use of guns and even when guns are used, in most cases they are not shot to death.
I think think putting money on training is money well spent. 10-20 years ago we had many cases where our police was undertrained with guns ending up with not able to hit anything or hitting innocent bystanders.
This has changed now - if guns are used by police, it ends up with detaining the target with little to no injuries to anyone.

Actually, the domestic abuse and such cases are also covered by non-police social offices and police is not first choice unless life threatening situation - I was assuming the same would be in US - if not and you deal with it by sending the cop, then you are right, it's f*cked up!

We used to have welfare services where people with actual medical training would show up to deal with people and the police, if they were involved, were there only as backup. But all of that went away quite some time ago, for who knows why, and those government services were disbanded with the police taking over the responsibility of responding to calls for people with mental issues. And since then, instead of people getting help, they tend to get shot like the one guy whose mother called the police to help with her son, she answered the door when the police arrived and called her son over, he was holding a screw driver and the dumb cop responded to that by ordering him to drop the screw driver then shot him 3 or 4 times. Or another case where a guy with down syndrome and his social worker had the police called on them for some absurd reason. The guy with the issues was sitting in the middle of the road playing with a toy truck, the social worker was shielding the guy from the police that surrounded him, hands raised and telling the cops what was going on, and one of the damn cops shot the social worker. Again, these are not isolated issues.

And no, it's always the police that show up for any domestic issues.

We used to have dog catchers too that would find stray animals and take them to shelters. Again, something else the police does when called, in most states. Some states, like California, have actual sworn law enforcement officers (Humane Officers) that deal with issues of animal abuse/cruelty, dangerous animals loose in the public, etc. But most states it's the same cops that write speeding tickets. The difference between the two being one doesn't usually carry a gun, the others always do and the one is a trained animal behavior specialist, and the other is more likely to just shoot the animal.

no, it wasn't the best option. Their weapons could have been holstered/slung but visible and no laws would have been broken. They put their fingers on the triggers and aimed their weapons at unarmed people that weren't even there for them or even trespassing on their property.

So on one side we have law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest, and the other, a not-so-law abiding couple pointing guns at people. Clearly, you don't have to be in a crowd to be 'braindead'.

Agree, holstered, but visible weapons would be the best course of action.
I wish media could rise above all this left-right BS and do a proper, analytical case study and recommendations for both sides - this would save more lives than the usual panic/outrage porn they serving.

oh? St Louis has the 2nd largest police department in the state, 36'th nationally. You seriously going to suggest they were too busy to defend a rich, white neighborhood?

As funny is this sounds, the fact was that police was nowhere to be found.
Again, I might be biased by how the things work in Poland, but here when you have gatherings or protests, you should have police oversight. It's not unusual to see small 50-100 person protest overlooked by 1-2 policeman and sometimes even a paramedic in the summer.

There's no requirement for police to be present during a protest here. Even that aside, they're just a phone call away.

What you have to understand is that the right to protest is guaranteed by the 1st amendment of the US constitution. If I were so inclined, I could go gather up people right now and start marching down the streets in my neighborhood to demand the city make the traffic flow one-way through my streets. So long as we're not breaking any laws, which those protesters were not, the police have no reason to be involved and their presence could be considered tantamount to stifling free speech rights as they are so frequently deployed to intimidate protesters instead of actually protecting people and property.

[RegisterMe]

I think British model would be the only viable police option for US.

The British model might be "the only viable model for the US" but it is radically different in concept, even before you consider cultural differences regarding firearms. This is a one pager, and still forms the basis for policing in the UK nearly 200 years after it was written.

https://www.durham.police.uk/About-Us/D ... cement.pdf

Compare and contrast with the current approach to policing in the US. It wouldn't require an evolution in policing, you would have to tear down the entire law enforcement (the clue is in the second word there) apparatus and start again, building on the principles of consent.

Policing in the UK is also far from perfect. And, as in other countries, the police seem to form the "last line" for when other public services fail, an obvious example, unfortunately, being mental health issues.

Anybody interested in UK policing (not to mention a personal account of mental health problems) could do worse than read Blue and Crossing the Line by John Sutherland, former borough commander for Southwalk. I've met him, he's a good man who cares deeply both about the public he served and the police force he served in. They're both reasonably short, and very readable.

[fiksal]

@mr.WHO

I would be interested to try British model. It seems more service oriented than enforcement. At least the patrol cops.

Prisons is another complex topic. There was actually a time when US prisons were reform oriented more than slave labor and punishment. I personally think the approach of reintegration is better than approach of making harden criminals.

The punishment only approach results in people you don't want to see on the streets.

@BrasatoAlBarolo

You are right! They will be called Freedom Chops

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

First of all: you shouldn't have private prisons, because private businessmen wants money, so they're asking for laws bringing slave labor or more prisoners.
I'm sure there's a lobby asking for severe punishments for small criminals: they usually don't give problems. E.g. dream punishment would be something like 10 years if I catch an 18 y.o. with a couple grams of weed: big money for the prison.

[fiksal]

Oh indeed, private prisons is a huge conflict of interest.
They should be undone and replaced with State prisons.

The so called mandatory minimums disproportionally hit minor offenses and victimless crimes. The whole weed criminalization should be undone too and all records cleared.

Some mandatory minimums can be useful though, so that certain criminals don't get to walk on murder charges because a judge feels their faith forgives them.

[Mightysword]

The problem with the police in the US is the expectation for them is way too high. Yeah I say it, our expectation is too high in term of what we expect them to be. Think about the different situations the police got called on, and ask in any other job would it be reasonable to ask an employee to mentally prepared to deal with them. You can say "moar training please!" but frankly, there is a limit what it can do, not to mention the quality. Anyone work in the US, assuming for a mid-size up company and not in a seasonal/temporary capacity probably would receive a lot of trainings. Ask yourself how deep those training goes? Frankly quite a lot of time it feels they're there more on the liability front, so the employers can say "we did train our staffs!" if something happens, they do very little in actual preparation.

Another thing is the whole 'mental healthcare' thing, I feel these days they got thrown around way too casually by politician and citizen alike, and it doesn't feel it resonates with reality well. Have anyone here ever visited or volunteered in a mental care facility before? The people who work there have my respect because honestly, because you can not pay me enough to work there as a career. I don't think anyone can last long if they're only in for the money, the people who chose that career gotta be answering a higher calling or something. You need a mental fortitude that no training can give, and can only be acquired by constant exposure. The point here is: mental care is not something that simply more money will fix. We also gotta ask ourselves why the mental state of our society reached a point that mental care become a constant topic, in other countries it's often not even a point of discussion.

Lastly, and I'm not sure if this can be fixed since it's a deep rooted in the culture. WE ARE TOO RELIANCE ON THE POLICE AND COURT IN THIS COUNTRY. Why do we need police in schools, why do they get called over every little things? There is a reason why American is called a sue happy country, even when we don't include the frivolous lawsuits, people can seriously drag each other to court over anything. My hypothesis for this is because this culture put so much emphasis on personal liberty that we often need to rely on an authority figure (judge/magistrate/police) to provide satisfaction. This in turn both overwhelm and empower those authorities. Where I came from, a lot of thing would get settled before the law enforcement got involved, but that's only possible if the people are more open to interpersonal enterprising.

[Vertigo 7]

The problem with the police in the US is the expectation for them is way too high. Yeah I say it, our expectation is too high in term of what we expect them to be. Think about the different situations the police got called on, and ask in any other job would it be reasonable to ask an employee to mentally prepared to deal with them. You can say "moar training please!" but frankly, there is a limit what it can do, not to mention the quality. Anyone work in the US, assuming for a mid-size up company and not in a seasonal/temporary capacity probably would receive a lot of trainings. Ask yourself how deep those training goes? Frankly quite a lot of time it feels they're there more on the liability front, so the employers can say "we did train our staffs!" if something happens, they do very little in actual preparation.

Another thing is the whole 'mental healthcare' thing, I feel these days they got thrown around way too casually by politician and citizen alike, and it doesn't feel it resonates with reality well. Have anyone here ever visited or volunteered in a mental care facility before? The people who work there have my respect because honestly, because you can not pay me enough to work there as a career. I don't think anyone can last long if they're only in for the money, the people who chose that career gotta be answering a higher calling or something. You need a mental fortitude that no training can give, and can only be acquired by constant exposure. The point here is: mental care is not something that simply more money will fix. We also gotta ask ourselves why the mental state of our society reached a point that mental care become a constant topic, in other countries it's often not even a point of discussion.

The pretty obvious answer is we have a society that rewards people for screwing over their fellow citizens. There's only so much of that a person can take before they snap in one fashion or another.

Lastly, and I'm not sure if this can be fixed since it's a deep rooted in the culture. WE ARE TOO RELIANCE ON THE POLICE AND COURT IN THIS COUNTRY. Why do we need police in schools, why do they get called over every little things? There is a reason why American is called a sue happy country, even when we don't include the frivolous lawsuits, people can seriously drag each other to court over anything. My hypothesis for this is because this culture put so much emphasis on personal liberty that we often need to rely on an authority figure (judge/magistrate/police) to provide satisfaction. This in turn both overwhelm and empower those authorities. Where I came from, a lot of thing would get settled before the law enforcement got involved, but that's only possible if the people are more open to interpersonal enterprising.

I'm not sure what you're even really talking about here. Civil lawsuits don't involve police in their capacity as law enforcement officers. Police officers enforce criminal code, not civil. And what you may consider frivolous may not be to the person bringing the lawsuit. That's only for a judge to decide.