Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unblock

(52,238 posts)
4. i applaud that you're trying to come up with a solution
Sun Jul 10, 2016, 12:36 PM
Jul 2016

but i think we need to be more direct and proactive.

suing towns after the fact and trying to bankrupt them at a time when we want them to spend *more* on more sensible police training doesn't seem to me like a very effective plan. moreover, civil suits can take years to run their course. finally, this will force towns to cut back in other areas as well. if a town has one of these horrible incidents, i'm not sure how cutting library funding and road repair and so on will help the situation.

if i'm missing the point and it's really all about deterrence for other towns *before* a tragedy happens, unfortunately i think this won't be particularly effective either. many communities will simply "hope it never happens here" as they no doubt do already. when faced with the real cost of extra training against what they figure is a low-probability catastrophe, most people will overweight the real cost that's in front of them. remember that humans are terrible at evaluating risk, particularly low probability risk.

i'm thinking more of a national policy, i'm no expert, but i'll throw out a few ideas that may be stupid but maybe others can improve on them:
- require policy to volunteer in the communities they patrol, something like the way lawyers are required to do pro bono work.
- stop training police to empty their guns into center mass. i get that this is the most effective way to "neutralize a threat", but it's only appropriate in certain limited situations. at minimum, you have to be absolutely certain you're right, you have to be absolutely certain there's no need for more bullets after (e.g., no second threat) you have to be absolutely certain that nothing short of death is appropriate, etc.
- don't over train with target shooting. pulling out your gun and shooting should be a last resort, not something where muscle memory takes over.
- train police better in diffusing situations
- train police better in trying to arrest someone safely rather than immediately (e.g., be patient and wait for backup)
- train police in doing more from positions of safety, e.g., i'm not sure all traffic stops really require the police leave their car.
- you kill someone on the job, you lose your job unless clear evidence exonerates you. that's encourage police to wear body cameras.

+10000. And even in cases lacking strong evidence, pressure to fire is good too. Hoyt Jul 2016 #1
Real change is going to require making it impossible not MineralMan Jul 2016 #2
No offense. Interesting idea, but... arendt Jul 2016 #3
i applaud that you're trying to come up with a solution unblock Jul 2016 #4
How do you have a traffic stop without leaving the car? Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #5
A computer check on the tag tells you much unblock Jul 2016 #7
I don't think it works in most cases Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #9
i think technology can soon make those steps unnecessary unblock Jul 2016 #10
"Authorized drivers"? SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2016 #16
i'm thinking when i register a car, i can give the dmv my license and my wife's license unblock Jul 2016 #18
Quite a few people do not have email. Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #22
Snail mail then unblock Jul 2016 #25
Assuming the address is correct in the DMV Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #26
You're required to notify the dmv when you change your address unblock Jul 2016 #30
I agree, Travis_0004 Jul 2016 #31
The whole point is to reduce the number of times they have to do that unblock Jul 2016 #32
For things like a light that is out, MineralMan Jul 2016 #14
wouldn't RFID chips allow tracking of cars at all times? irisblue Jul 2016 #19
Well, it could. RFID is pretty much a short distance MineralMan Jul 2016 #23
Better and more training is important. MineralMan Jul 2016 #6
Some background on recent wrongful death suits against police MineralMan Jul 2016 #8
They are tort cases on contingency fee treestar Jul 2016 #11
the funding would be to help make a settlement acceptable to the lawyers unblock Jul 2016 #12
the beauty of contingency fees are treestar Jul 2016 #13
but the downside is that the depth of the defendant's pockets matter unblock Jul 2016 #15
we're only talking about the local government - police department treestar Jul 2016 #17
but how are the lawyers incentivized to accept them charging cops with crimes? unblock Jul 2016 #20
on a contingency fee, if it is a winnable case treestar Jul 2016 #33
i know the theory, but in practice there are problems unblock Jul 2016 #34
HELL YEAH !!!!!!!!!!! vkkv Jul 2016 #21
To other posters in this thread: before high tech gadgetry get rid of ticket quotas. Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #24
To MineralMan: Your suggestion is a good one. Use civil means when civic means fail. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #27
Excellent idea matt819 Jul 2016 #28
I think this is a GREAT idea! Kick and rec Ligyron Jul 2016 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The case for a well-funde...»Reply #4