And they're commiting suicide at a rate of 22 every single day here in the US.....that's right, ex soldiers from the middle east wars can't cope & can't integrate back into society as we know it........so there's no way most of these ex soldiers should be behind a badge. I just don't know the number of how many are getting jobs as police officers.
And they're commiting suicide at a rate of 22 every single day here in the US.....that's right, ex soldiers from the middle east wars can't cope & can't integrate back into society as we know it........so there's no way most of these ex soldiers should be behind a badge. I just don't know the number of how many are getting jobs as police officers.
Enfuego, ask yourself a question.
Are these shootings the cost of doing business for law enforcement in America and we should chalk it up to that?
Or can incidents like the Minnesota 1 or this guy in CA or some of the others actually be fixed?
If you think the answer is that they can be fixed then that is an issue of policy and protocol. Once we acknowledge institutional failures in the justice system then we can fix them.
Are these shootings the cost of doing business for law enforcement in America and we should chalk it up to that?
Or can incidents like the Minnesota 1 or this guy in CA or some of the others actually be fixed?
If you think the answer is that they can be fixed then that is an issue of policy and protocol. Once we acknowledge institutional failures in the justice system then we can fix them.
Norway cops do not even carry guns anymore.
The country also has a low prison rate, with less than 4,000 of its 5 million citizens in jail, and low recidivism rates.
The United States, on the other hand, is home to the world’s largest prison population. Roughly one in every 100 American adults is incarcerated. Recidivism here hovers above 76 percent.
How can the situation with police be so different in these two countries?
‘What can the Scandinavian experience teach us?’
A 2014 case study found that police department policies have a greater impact on how often a police officer uses his or her weapon than whether the officer even has a weapon in the first place.
Ross Hendy, a New Zealand police constable and PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge, authored “Routinely Armed and Unarmed Police: What can the Scandinavian experience teach us?,” a study which focused mainly on Norway and Sweden.
Hendy found that officer safety might be jeopardized when officers are routinely armed because armed officers more likely to engage in dangerous situations, yet departmental policies were of greater importance to influencing how officer behavior, particularly in tense situations.
To illustrate how this works, he used the image of a police officer pointing a gun at a criminal suspect, inviting the reader to imagine what would be going on inside that officer’s mind.
He wrote: “One might consider that an officer staring down the barrel of a gun may not necessarily factor in the subtleties of whether a warning shot is appropriate, or whether it would be best to shoot for the leg or chest, especially in a critical incident.”
In this case, he was comparing Norway with other Scandinavian countries whose police are routinely armed — notably, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. He found that even when Norwegian police are armed they threaten to shoot at a rate far higher than the other countries. He attributes this to federal policy.
Hendy wrote:
“In other words, when considering the impact of routinely arming a routinely unarmed police force, these data show us that it is more likely that departmental policies will have a greater effect on the police officer’s decision-making process than whether the officer is routinely armed or not.”
This guy points responsibility at the police departments and federal policy. There are a lot of factors no doubt.
The country also has a low prison rate, with less than 4,000 of its 5 million citizens in jail, and low recidivism rates.
The United States, on the other hand, is home to the world’s largest prison population. Roughly one in every 100 American adults is incarcerated. Recidivism here hovers above 76 percent.
How can the situation with police be so different in these two countries?
‘What can the Scandinavian experience teach us?’
A 2014 case study found that police department policies have a greater impact on how often a police officer uses his or her weapon than whether the officer even has a weapon in the first place.
Ross Hendy, a New Zealand police constable and PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge, authored “Routinely Armed and Unarmed Police: What can the Scandinavian experience teach us?,” a study which focused mainly on Norway and Sweden.
Hendy found that officer safety might be jeopardized when officers are routinely armed because armed officers more likely to engage in dangerous situations, yet departmental policies were of greater importance to influencing how officer behavior, particularly in tense situations.
To illustrate how this works, he used the image of a police officer pointing a gun at a criminal suspect, inviting the reader to imagine what would be going on inside that officer’s mind.
He wrote: “One might consider that an officer staring down the barrel of a gun may not necessarily factor in the subtleties of whether a warning shot is appropriate, or whether it would be best to shoot for the leg or chest, especially in a critical incident.”
In this case, he was comparing Norway with other Scandinavian countries whose police are routinely armed — notably, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. He found that even when Norwegian police are armed they threaten to shoot at a rate far higher than the other countries. He attributes this to federal policy.
Hendy wrote:
“In other words, when considering the impact of routinely arming a routinely unarmed police force, these data show us that it is more likely that departmental policies will have a greater effect on the police officer’s decision-making process than whether the officer is routinely armed or not.”
This guy points responsibility at the police departments and federal policy. There are a lot of factors no doubt.
So why put cameras in police cars and add surveillance if there is no problem? Why is that a reform that has been taken?
Is that a load of shit? Are you against it? If so, why?
Why would reforms only be trigged if something is being done at a "high rate". Plenty of changes for the better take place when problems aren't massive in scale.
Is that a load of shit? Are you against it? If so, why?
Why would reforms only be trigged if something is being done at a "high rate". Plenty of changes for the better take place when problems aren't massive in scale.
Problem is, the public being fed all this by the media doesn't see it like you do......& if things get out of hand even more, it could get ugly.
When you think about it. It all comes down to a cops judgement and perception. How he perceives a kid walking down a street with a hoody. All of it is his perception. Whether right or wrong. Which IMO....is fucked up. So I got to rely on this mother fuckers perception of the world whether he is going to fuck with me or not?
Now arm him with a gun. His judgement, his perception. That's what people are relying on. And we all gamble here....and now we are gambling with our lives. If you ask me that system is rigged. Lmao. No wonder so many of yall are on this forum all day. Fuck going outside lol
yall are safe on this forum. Nobody gonna shoot you. Talk all the shit we want
Now arm him with a gun. His judgement, his perception. That's what people are relying on. And we all gamble here....and now we are gambling with our lives. If you ask me that system is rigged. Lmao. No wonder so many of yall are on this forum all day. Fuck going outside lol
yall are safe on this forum. Nobody gonna shoot you. Talk all the shit we want
