Police: Heroes or Villains?

[Betoni]

it's worth remembering that we don't have to argue hypotheticals about police reactions to crime and their efficacy, we have stats. If you look at the clearance rates for various types of crime in the States - ie the percentage of reported crime where someone gets charged with the offense or is killed in the attempt by the police - surprisingly few crimes are ever actually 'solved'. The highest clearance rate unsurprisingly is for violent acts like assault and murder at ~50%, but it drops off precipitously after that. 30% of sexual assault/rapes ever have charges laid. And these crimes overwhelmingly are carried out by people the victims know - relatives, neighbours, friends, etc. Cases for whom there is a much better evidentiary trail that investigators could follow.

For the most common types of 'stranger' crime, ie crimes carried out by people the victim doesn't know, the clearance rate for things like robbery, burglary and auto theft hover around 15%. 15%. For the vast majority of people who experience crime, their interactions in the police are that they file a report or call 911 during or post the event (since most burglaries happen when the homeowner is out, for example) and the case is never solved. And comparatively, the US spends an enormous amount of money on these police forces.

It's pretty obvious that this model of public safety doesn't make us appreciably 'safer', or provide much in the way of justice to victims of crime, and at an enormous cost to taxpayers.

You can't go, look this statistic shows only 15% of auto theft is solved, and this other statistic shows we spend a lot of money on police, the model of public safety that includes police, as is, clearly is not making us appreciably safer because by looking at these two statistic without any context or proper analysis we cant appreciate it, and expect to convince anyone. If you are really interested in understanding the problem of policing in the US you would at minimum study and preferably provide comparative data from history in the US on both the clearance rates, the number of crimes reported, and the budget of the police force. Additionally it would make sense to compare those statistics with some other countries. So, in short, your rather shoddy presentation of very limited data samples don't support your conclusions. As an added bonus your own source states that the budget of the US police in general are comparable per capita to other western countries.

[Shazbotdom]

So were supposed to just wait for the police, who may or may not help us? You do know that Constitutionally they are not obligated to help citizens? SCOTUS ruled on this already, and we see it first hand in Uvalde.

And with the lack of proper training they are getting (just look at all the 1A Audit Video's where they treat public photography like it's a crime), I honetly don't TRUST them to protect the public.

No,
The police do have major issues, and I’m not defending them.
But just because you don’t need them doesn’t mean nobody else does.

Why would you not be able to defend yourself with police existing?
It’s not either or…

It's pretty funny to think that people wouldn't be able to defend themselves without the police. History says otherwise.

[Uiiop]

it's worth remembering that we don't have to argue hypotheticals about police reactions to crime and their efficacy, we have stats. If you look at the clearance rates for various types of crime in the States - ie the percentage of reported crime where someone gets charged with the offense or is killed in the attempt by the police - surprisingly few crimes are ever actually 'solved'. The highest clearance rate unsurprisingly is for violent acts like assault and murder at ~50%, but it drops off precipitously after that. 30% of sexual assault/rapes ever have charges laid. And these crimes overwhelmingly are carried out by people the victims know - relatives, neighbours, friends, etc. Cases for whom there is a much better evidentiary trail that investigators could follow.

For the most common types of 'stranger' crime, ie crimes carried out by people the victim doesn't know, the clearance rate for things like robbery, burglary and auto theft hover around 15%. 15%. For the vast majority of people who experience crime, their interactions in the police are that they file a report or call 911 during or post the event (since most burglaries happen when the homeowner is out, for example) and the case is never solved. And comparatively, the US spends an enormous amount of money on these police forces.

It's pretty obvious that this model of public safety doesn't make us appreciably 'safer', or provide much in the way of justice to victims of crime, and at an enormous cost to taxpayers.

You can't go, look this statistic shows only 15% of auto theft is solved, and this other statistic shows we spend a lot of money on police, the model of public safety that includes police, as is, clearly is not making us appreciably safer because by looking at these two statistic without any context or proper analysis we cant appreciate it, and expect to convince anyone. If you are really interested in understanding the problem of policing in the US you would at minimum study and preferably provide comparative data from history in the US on both the clearance rates, the number of crimes reported, and the budget of the police force. Additionally it would make sense to compare those statistics with some other countries. So, in short, your rather shoddy presentation of very limited data samples don't support your conclusions. As an added bonus your own source states that the budget of the US police in general are comparable per capita to other western countries.

It's not like people actually bring up your hypothetical(or not, mind) exonerating context when they defend police...wouldn't it just make more sense to just post said context yourself rather than move the goalpost only for one side?

[Nilokeras]

it's worth remembering that we don't have to argue hypotheticals about police reactions to crime and their efficacy, we have stats. If you look at the clearance rates for various types of crime in the States - ie the percentage of reported crime where someone gets charged with the offense or is killed in the attempt by the police - surprisingly few crimes are ever actually 'solved'. The highest clearance rate unsurprisingly is for violent acts like assault and murder at ~50%, but it drops off precipitously after that. 30% of sexual assault/rapes ever have charges laid. And these crimes overwhelmingly are carried out by people the victims know - relatives, neighbours, friends, etc. Cases for whom there is a much better evidentiary trail that investigators could follow.

For the most common types of 'stranger' crime, ie crimes carried out by people the victim doesn't know, the clearance rate for things like robbery, burglary and auto theft hover around 15%. 15%. For the vast majority of people who experience crime, their interactions in the police are that they file a report or call 911 during or post the event (since most burglaries happen when the homeowner is out, for example) and the case is never solved. And comparatively, the US spends an enormous amount of money on these police forces.

It's pretty obvious that this model of public safety doesn't make us appreciably 'safer', or provide much in the way of justice to victims of crime, and at an enormous cost to taxpayers.

You can't go, look this statistic shows only 15% of auto theft is solved, and this other statistic shows we spend a lot of money on police, the model of public safety that includes police, as is, clearly is not making us appreciably safer because by looking at these two statistic without any context or proper analysis we cant appreciate it, and expect to convince anyone. If you are really interested in understanding the problem of policing in the US you would at minimum study and preferably provide comparative data from history in the US on both the clearance rates, the number of crimes reported, and the budget of the police force. Additionally it would make sense to compare those statistics with some other countries. So, in short, your rather shoddy presentation of very limited data samples don't support your conclusions. As an added bonus your own source states that the budget of the US police in general are comparable per capita to other western countries.

The point is not that the US is not uniquely bad, it's that policing everywhere doesn't work. Throwing other countries in the mix, clearance rates are still very low for most of the common forms of 'stranger' crime.

[Ayytaly]

Police isn't the real problem, it's the justice system and its biases. In blue states recidivism has become more anecdotal than academic but that doesn't mean its increase isn't true.

No,
The police do have major issues, and I’m not defending them.
But just because you don’t need them doesn’t mean nobody else does.

Why would you not be able to defend yourself with police existing?
It’s not either or…

It's pretty funny to think that people wouldn't be able to defend themselves without the police. History says otherwise.

Unfortunately leftist politicians have made it harder for those who want to protect themselves from criminals.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Police isn't the real problem, it's the justice system and its biases. In blue states recidivism has become more anecdotal than academic but that doesn't mean its increase isn't true.

It's pretty funny to think that people wouldn't be able to defend themselves without the police. History says otherwise.

Unfortunately leftist politicians have made it harder for those who want to protect themselves from criminals.

Who the hell are these "leftist politicians"?

[Terminus Station]

American cops are objectively some of the most incompetently trained police force in the developed world.

[Greater Gyelidor]

Everyone seems to hate cops, but what's the first number your calling when your life is in danger? I think police are good, but your always going to have bad seeds no matter what.

[Kepler Technate]

Faced with several cases of police violence in the United States, and in several other countries, such as Brazil, which not so recently, but not so long ago, registered a case of a dead man asphyxiated inside a vehicle by federal highway police (or federal, I don't remember exactly) in Brazil. And after the protests over the George Floyd case, I started to get more and more curious about the subject, but I didn't care much at first, but after some time, I became more interested in the subject. Yes, I'm in favor of the police, but I'm just like that, because of the reality of my country that simply can't face crime because of corruption, and when it still can, an innocent person is unfortunately killed.
Many defend thieves with the argument of: "They are victims of society, as they are oppressed by the system" or "They just lack education, as the state did not offer it to them" for me are completely meaningless arguments, but that, with recent events, I think cannot be ignored.
I wanted to know more people's opinions about, and of course, more views on the subject that, at least for me, has been well discussed recently. I would like you to comment on what can increase crime and of course also on whether, in your opinion, corruption can have any connection with police violence.

It depends on situations. I don't need moral debate about police, in this case , police can be immoral and moral. No question about that. Defund the police? I dont think so.

Police are defenders and protectors of society.

[Sordhau]

Everyone seems to hate cops, but what's the first number your calling when your life is in danger?

1911

[Japuile]

Police, like any institution established by people, is a reflection of the culture and customs of a given era or country. It maintained its noble meaning and calling to serve, but women slowly entered this institution, starting with the moral police.

There has always been racism, there has always been prejudice. Even among the police, therefore, we should strengthen the good deeds and attitudes with our positive reception, and stigmatize the bad ones. We can't think black and white.

[Floofybit]

Everyone seems to hate cops, but what's the first number your calling when your life is in danger?

1911

And what if you're kid or friend is home alone, with no weapon, and they are in danger? Let them have no chance to live?

[Sordhau]

1911

And what if you're kid or friend is home alone, with no weapon, and they are in danger? Let them have no chance to live?

Sounds like a situation that could have been prevented by having a weapon at home.

[Ifreann]

1911

And what if you're kid or friend is home alone, with no weapon, and they are in danger? Let them have no chance to live?

What would a cop do to help? Show up an hour later and kill the family dog?

[Floofybit]

And what if you're kid or friend is home alone, with no weapon, and they are in danger? Let them have no chance to live?

What would a cop do to help? Show up an hour later and kill the family dog?

Maybe if you didn't try to defund the police, we can fund them more so you can have police near. And if police are an hour away, maybe you need to move.

[Floofybit]

And what if you're kid or friend is home alone, with no weapon, and they are in danger? Let them have no chance to live?

Sounds like a situation that could have been prevented by having a weapon at home.

Ah yes, a 6 year old who barely knows how to call 911 will work a gun. Doesn't sound likely

[American Legionaries]

Sounds like a situation that could have been prevented by having a weapon at home.

Ah yes, a 6 year old who barely knows how to call 911 will work a gun. Doesn't sound likely

If you've left a six year old at home alone and they're the victim of a home invasion, they're already at the mercy of the criminal in their home.

[Ifreann]

What would a cop do to help? Show up an hour later and kill the family dog?

Maybe if you didn't try to defund the police, we can fund them more so you can have police near.

There was no defunding of the police, the police are enormously well funded.

And if police are an hour away, maybe you need to move.

Victim blaming.

[Floofybit]

Maybe if you didn't try to defund the police, we can fund them more so you can have police near.

There was no defunding of the police, the police are enormously well funded.

And if police are an hour away, maybe you need to move.

Victim blaming.

They need more funding if you really want more protection. Also, victim blaming? So I'm not allowed to say the victim did something wrong?

[Floofybit]

Ah yes, a 6 year old who barely knows how to call 911 will work a gun. Doesn't sound likely

If you've left a six year old at home alone and they're the victim of a home invasion, they're already at the mercy of the criminal in their home.

But with police, there is a higher chance of survival

[American Legionaries]

If you've left a six year old at home alone and they're the victim of a home invasion, they're already at the mercy of the criminal in their home.

But with police, there is a higher chance of survival

There's not.

[Rakhalia]

If you've left a six year old at home alone and they're the victim of a home invasion, they're already at the mercy of the criminal in their home.

But with police, there is a higher chance of survival

Considering how a recent amber alert left the missing child shot dead by the police, I'd suggest this isn't quite the case.

[Rakhalia]

There was no defunding of the police, the police are enormously well funded.

Victim blaming.

They need more funding if you really want more protection. Also, victim blaming? So I'm not allowed to say the victim did something wrong?

Blaming the victim for not orienting their schedules around the distance from the nearest police car is fucked up, yes.

[Floofybit]

But with police, there is a higher chance of survival

Considering how a recent amber alert left the missing child shot dead by the police, I'd suggest this isn't quite the case.

You have not the slightest idea of how many amber alert cases are solved by police. It's way more than you think.

Also, you say that this would be solved if you had a gun instead. But at least police have training. You don't. If all y'all had a gun, and there was no one to stop shootings, imagine how much hell that would put you through. Just saying

[Floofybit]

They need more funding if you really want more protection. Also, victim blaming? So I'm not allowed to say the victim did something wrong?

Blaming the victim for not orienting their schedules around the distance from the nearest police car is fucked up, yes.

No. If you don't have a police nearby, maybe, just maybe, they need more funding. You'd do the same with paramedics, wouldn't you? Also, I disagree. I thinks it's f-ed up to not live near protection