The vast majority of interactions with the public can be taken care of with non-lethal means, tasers, etc… (if any are even necessary).
Lethal weapons should be in a remote lock holster in their cruiser, and must be unlocked remotely by a supervisor on a per-case basis depending on the facts at hand (suspect’s history, potential risk, etc…)
Maybe that’s pie in the sky optimism, I don’t know.
The current version of Law Enforcement needs to be dumped and rebuilt from the ground up.
To Serve and Protect the People of Our Community
should be the standard. If this was the actual standard, you’d see a general decrease in overall weaponization.
End qualified immunity, require police to carry insurance like doctors do, end “police vs citizens”, “guilty until proven innocent”, and “you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide” mentality.
Malpractice insurance, and a regulatory college that can pull your license to practice law enforcement.
Bachelor’s in Social Work as a prerequisite to the additional Law Enforcement degree.
And civil forfeiture
Wrongful death suits paid from union pension funds should clear things up fast.
There’s no reason for ordinary citizens to have unlimited access to lethal weapons either.
Them first.
It’s a good thing ordinary citizens don’t have unlimited access to lethal weapons then.
I can think of several reasons right now, namely the fascistic government.
I don’t see anyone rising up.
So brave posting this on Lemmy.
You are of course, completely correct but this is hardly unpopular on this platform.
So brave posting this on Lemmy.
Other than Mastodon this is the only social media presence I keep around. So I’m limited. It was either here or c/showerthoughts. Figured it fit better here since controversial is a kissing-cousin to unpopular
Also, many countries do work like this. As usual this post presumes everyone is in USA.
deleted by creator
Do you really think this is unpopular?
Maybe not in the Lemmy-verse where well all tend to lean left. But certainly in America at large.
deleted by creator
It should be pre-emptive.
Johnny beat-cop walking the street dealing with traffic stops, vagrants, etc…; nothing that for the vast majority of times requires anything more lethal than a taser.
Suddenly they get called to attend a potentially dangerous scene with a high likelihood of violence occuring and the supervisor says “okay, based on the suspect’s history and the run down of the situation (or whatever), I’m authorizing weapons unlock for this one”.
Exactly.
The odds of being in line at Starbucks and having to respond to an armed gunman is incredibly low. Especially since said shooter is going to see the cops and decide to go next door or wait until they leave.
Similarly, a lone beat cop on patrol (or even a pair of them) aren’t going to be running towards the gunfire. If anything, we have documented proof that much larger numbers of cops would rather establish a perimeter and play flappy bird while keeping anyone from rescuing the hostages.
Contrast that with getting a call that they were to investigate a high risk disturbance and have use of their frearms authorized and unlocked.
But people love to pretend the world is Die Hard and everyone will be saved because that one cop got to carry his glock on an airplane or whatever.
Non-lethal weapons in the hands of the state is an oxymoron. Pigs shoot protesters in the face at near point-blank range with rubber bullets, which can blind, cause TBI, or even kill. They taser people in the head, which can cause TBI, or even kill. They sit on people’s neck’s until they die. They hit people in the head with batons, which (you’ve guessed it) can blind, cause TBI, or even kill. They put people in head-locks. They sick dogs on them. Did I mention that this force is applied before a person has even been charged with a crime?
All of those listed above are considered “non-lethal”.
You’ve posted a popular opinion on a left leaning social network. Pretty much any other community on Lemmy would be better suited for your post.
The fascist dystopia of watchmen allowed cops to be completely anonymous for their safety, but still restricted officers access to firearms. We’ve blown past the parody at this point.
Most police(wo)man in my country don’t carry weapons. Armed police have either batons and shields or guns (usually rifles). Police officers can apply for and be given service pistols if needed. Both guns and bullets have to be accounted for.
There is no reason for a run-of-the-mill citizen to have access to lethal weapons.
wow. first unpopular opinion I have had to downvote in awhile. I figure the trunk should be hardened from intrusion and be the emergency unlock thing.
I think the number of guns law enforcement has access to will be somewhat proportionate to the number of guns the public has access to. It’s completely reasonable to say “citizens don’t have guns so now law enforcement will not feel the need to regularly carry guns”
Unfortunately America has more guns than people, so I’m not sure we’ll ever get there
Then we don’t need to expect run of the mill cops to show up to life threatening situations.
As long as we pair them with psychics who can predict with absolute certainty how an upcoming encounter will play out, sure.
lethal weapons should be in a remote lock holster in their cruiser
They are
