I said this in the other thread and everyone jumped all over me.

Nfce idea but do you really want to pay for another layer or two of busy body bureaucracy that has to be either on call or on patrol 24 hours a day?

Oregon has Dept of Transportation respond to motorists with trouble. They help with traffic control at accidents. No law enforcement duties.

As for traffic stops, are these new ticket writers going to be unarmed? Not sure I am willing to do traffic stops unarmed. I think traffic stops are the second most dangerous thinks cops do.

"Defunding" will be solved very easily. Portland, Oregon has about 100 vacancies in its PD. They are lowering standards to try and fill them. What sort of retention and recruiting problems do you think big cities are going to have in the future?

On the other hand community policing will be necessary since all those cop cars have been burned.

> I said this in the other thread
> and everyone jumped all over me.

It only got posted a few minutes ago. Give us a little time.

It's 7:00AM in Vaud. You miss the United States too much.

> do you really want to pay
> for another layer or two of
> busy body bureaucracy

And people are suddenly talking about drug counselors (et al.) as if they were actually successful at getting people off drugs (etc.). They mostly aren't. It's not that people haven't thought of it before… It's that until we actual can send a counselor out to convince the heroin addicted to shake the monkey, we need to stop him from clubbing old ladies to steal their purses.

We don't have cops collect bags of trash from public bins; there's a theme to their assignments. There's a lot to be said for have all the chores for which public comity will be assisted by respect for authority wrapped up into one uniformed personage. I don't think the problem is that cops are asked to do an improbable variety of things, but that we're not hiring the right guys to do them, and not administering consequences for them when they fail.

I do miss the States. And it is likely my July trip will be cancelled. *sniff*

Anyhow, in some of the articles I've seen they are talking about more cops for lower pay. Im thinking if they are having trouble hiring good people now, is a pay cut likely to attract the best and brightest?

> if they are having trouble hiring
> good people now, is a pay cut likely
> to attract the best and brightest?

✔

The only place in the US I can think of where cops handle running out of gas or needing a jump are in pretty rural areas. Most cities have transportation departments which are usually unarmed. This hasn't spread to rural areas because there just isn't the need or the resources for a separate department.

"Im thinking if they are having trouble hiring good people now, is a pay cut likely to attract the best and brightest?" ~NicoleK

Oddly enough, yes. The secret is eliminating the union. It is amazing how inefficient and destructive unions are. Especially public sector unions.

Traffic stops are second most dangerous police task, domestic violence calls are #1 most dangerous. So yeah let's give both those tasks to unarmed civilians. Sounds like a great plan. Im sure people will apply for those positions in droves....cops won't be the slightest sad to give them up though.

The responsibility for handing out speeding tickets and citations should be handled by a unarmed agency. Put the safety patrol in bright yellow cars and have them carry a bit of extra gasoline and jumper cables to help stranded motorists as part of their job-make road safety nice.

And what happens if that car is stolen, being used in a kidnapping, being used as a getaway vehicle in a robbery, or the driver is a wanted felon? What happens when the driver cannot provide license, registration, and proof of insurance?

Pretending that unarmed agents can handle situations currently handled by the police is to pretend that the only bad actors are the police.

It is to pretend that Trayvon Martin did not attack George Zimmerman; that Michael Brown was, in fact, a "gentle giant" who was in the act of surrendering with his hands up to the police; that George Floyd was not a recently-released violent felon.

It is to pretend that the Crips, the Bloods, and MS-13 are civic groups concerned only with the well-being of their neighborhoods.

It is willful ignorance and it will get someone killed.

In a 1995 Los Angeles Times article on routine traffic stops, CHP Sgt. Mike Teixiera said. "We probably get more murderers stopping them for speeding than we do by looking for them." How will an unarmed traffic warden deal with finding a dead body propped up in the passenger seat? Think that's a fantasy scenario? It's how serial killer, Randy Kraft, was captured in San Diego.

Police regularly find drugs, guns, and other illegal items during traffic stops. Routine traffic stops caught Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, Randy Kraft, and others. Why? Because people who tend to break other laws do not religiously follow traffic laws. How will unarmed traffic wardens handle these types of scenarios?

Most states have some form of traffic safety patrols today. They usually roll up after armed police secure the scene to help stranded motorists with gas, jumps, minor repairs, etc.

While it may make sense to have an unarmed agency available to provide routine welfare checks, traffic assistance, psychiatric assistance, drug intervention, etc., not all the situations calling for this are peaceful and safe. Let's not discount the role armed police can play in these situations.

Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern policing and origin of the British term "bobbies" for police officers, is alleged to have established 9 principles on which police forces should be founded.

Others speculate they were formulated in 1829 by the first two commissioners of the London Metropolitan Police Department.

No matter their origin, they're worth remembering.

PRINCIPLE 1: The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

PRINCIPLE 2: The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

PRINCIPLE 3: Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

PRINCIPLE 4: The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

PRINCIPLE 5: Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

PRINCIPLE 6: Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

PRINCIPLE 7: Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

PRINCIPLE 8: Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

PRINCIPLE 9: The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Principle 9 is the one violated with excessive citation issuance - also, Principle 2. Politicians need to study these as well and stop using the police as revenue collectors for a spendthrift government.

If you have a mentally ill person who thinks he is Jesus walking the streets naked with a knife in his hand, you do not call a mental health professional.

The elephant in the room, how much of the incompetence corruption and low approval of the police is being driven by a two fer?

The revenue model of law enforcement, plus mandated diversity hires allowing dem politicians to pack the police departments with both officers and way too many administrative civilians who are a large percent dead wood? The unions encourage this.

Which leaves the sadistic bad actors who enjoy this shit, doing the lions share of actual confrontations with criminals and the public?

I had a very low respect in general for Army officers whose goal in life, was to join law enforcement after leaving the service. Not all were bad, but a large percentage of them were looking for an opportunity to be a jackbooted thug, something the Army didn’t need or allow.

Conan, it is with #7 I see the most trouble.

The public calls police for every slight, real or imagined, with the expectation of being completely right. They flatly do not think it is their job to know anything about the law or to even make an attempt to know that foul pig soiling that uniform. Forget about asking local authorities what their hiring practices are.

It has been a LONG time since I've seen a citizen/police cooperative effort, and although those monthly cases where LivePD shows the public how to get rid of a bad guy exist, they're rare elsewhere.

Heh. Look how eager some right here are to claim that nobody would volunteer to run into MSD High School, armed, to actually save lives.

People have been sold fear and their own incompetence, and they are fully stocked.

Restaurant inspectors aren't armed because most restaurant owners and employees don't go around shooting and beating inspectors. Even if they want to. They also work bankers hours.

I guarantee you the instant one of these yellow car traffic law enforcement peeps gets shot in the face, someone lawmaker will think it a good idea to arm them and give them arrest authority. Just like someone thought it a good idea to give the Fed Department of Education a SWAT team.

How will they enforce the laws? what if I choose to remove my license plate, and flip them the bird if they choose to try and give me a citation? not like they can record my license plate and mail me the citation.

It has been a LONG time since I've seen a citizen/police cooperative effort....

Depends upon the neighborhood. In my California neighborhood, a small town suburb in the East Bay, the police were local and had good relations with the public.

In my old Charlotte neighborhood, the police regularly came to the local church to hold town halls or public safety classes. Everyone seemed to get along with them nicely. That was a mixed middle class neighborhood and fairly racially diverse, so it wasn't a racial issue.

My current neighborhood seems less diverse racially. It's relatively isolated, but a bit more affluent than the old one, judging by housing prices and proximity to downtown. Even though it's off a main thoroughfare, crime is not an issue here. I had the misfortune of moving into it at the onset of the quarantine, so I haven't been able to meet many of my new neighbors yet.

I think it's mostly in the larger cities, where the police live far outside the neighborhoods they patrol (in their cars) and, as a result, don't know the local traditions, characters, and mood. The police are an occupying force to many of the denizens of those neighborhoods.

I guarantee you the instant one of these yellow car traffic law enforcement peeps gets shot in the face, someone lawmaker will think it a good idea to arm them and give them arrest authority. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at June 10, 2020 8:21 AM

The union that represents the TSA officers called on the government to arm TSA officers after a TSA officer was shot and killed at LAX in 2013.

America's police are going to have great difficulty moving beyond the price of the Clinton peace dividend - i.e., keeping the military-industrial complex alive by selling its surplus toys to local police departments - and the North Hollywood massacre. The police officers are going to want AR-15s; their theory of escalation of violence means they're going to be primed to escalate situations. I don't know how you'd get the average police officer to escape from an "us vs. them" mentality in dealing with "civilians". Americans won't accept the British model; these demonstrations and the accompanying rioting are moving more guns than Pres. Obama's election.

Having unarmed police do traffic stops sounds ok in my town which is peaceful. But in some areas when they pull someone over it is a stolen car, the occupants are on drugs, or are wanted for a violent crime. I have seen plenty of videos of drivers attacking the officer.

One thing that would help is to emphasize to officers that if someone does not instantly comply with orders it can be because they are too drunk to comply, are having a medical issue, or don't speak english. Failure to instantly comply is not a reason to beat someone.

If it well known that the traffic cops are unarmed, there will few incidents. The traffic police should trained for politeness, avoiding confrontation and walking away at any sign of belligerence or trouble and then calling the armed police. If they do happen to stop criminals, the criminals could simply "escape" by yelling or showing a weapon.

Fundamentally, the "defund" initiative is based on a false narrative. It assumes that police presence in black neighborhoods is just to oppress the minority. It denies that there is a crime problem and asserts that blacks are simply being harassed. The fact is that car theft in south side chicago is 30 times higher than the suburbs. 17 unarmed black men were killed by cops last year nationwide vs 7000 killed by not cops (mostly other black men). To test whether progs really believe the narrative, ask why they don't live in S. Side chicago.

Fundamentally, the "defund" initiative is based on a false narrative. It assumes that police presence in black neighborhoods is just to oppress the minority. It denies that there is a crime problem and asserts that blacks are simply being harassed. ~ cc at June 10, 2020 9:49 AM

The quote below is from the LA City Council's proposal to defund the police to the tune of $150 million - per Spectrum One News (hat tip to IRA Darth Aggie at June 10, 2020 9:41 AM on today's other thread).

American society is founded on a racial hierarchy, one that is born out of slavery, followed by Jim Crow segregation and corporate abuse of labor. As such, police departments are asked to enforce a system of laws that are designed to reinforce and maintain economic and racial inequality.

So, the narrative is that American society itself is the problem - thus giving the "reformers" license to upend everything in the name of racial and social justice.

“I guarantee you the instant one of these yellow car traffic law enforcement peeps gets shot in the face, someone lawmaker will think it a good idea to arm them and give them arrest authority. Just like someone thought it a good idea to give the Fed Department of Education a SWAT team.“

And the calls will begin again to *disarm*the rest of us, in the name of safety for these defenseless traffic cops, so we will be totally at the mercy of criminals who don’t follow the laws anyway.

To test whether progs really believe the narrative, ask why they don't live in S. Side chicago.

Yeah. You got me there. I mean, my job, my family, my friends and everything I know isn't on Chicago's South Side. But you got me there! Wow. Owned.

Yeah. You got me there. I mean, my job, my family, my friends and everything I know isn't on Chicago's South Side. But you got me there! Wow. Owned.

Kevin at June 10, 2020 11:39 AM

Clearly, you don’t live there because you are racisss.
And can’t find a good safe place to park the Beamer.....

Off-topic and personal:

NicoleK, I think that you and my daughter might be neighbors. She and her family live in a charming little village at the foot of the Jura near Nyon.

We had planned to visit this month, and are sad that it fell through :( Our grandson is 20 months, and Skype is nice, but not the same. He now says "B' jour" and waves to everyone he sees.

I hope the tradition of three Swiss kisses will continue.

If they do happen to stop criminals, the criminals could simply "escape" by yelling or showing a weapon.

Why would anyone stop for them?

"The traffic police should trained for politeness, avoiding confrontation and walking away at any sign of belligerence or trouble and then calling the armed police."

What fluffy bunny planet are you from? You have no idea what even the basic definition of "offender" is, do you?

You can't get a smoker to respond positively this way, much less a criminal.

TUNE IN TO AN EPISODE OF LIVEPD and see what the street outside looks like, since you haven't been there in a while - if ever.

This would be a great idea if Alex Tabarrok is willing to demo it for us first. Let him show the cops how to pull over a speeding car whose driver and occupants are unknown and see how well he handles it when they turn out to be drug runners who are willing to kill.

Until then, he comes across as just another academic who has "great" idea but never leaves the Ivory Tower.

> TUNE IN TO AN EPISODE OF LIVEPD

Too late, even for capital letters.

But, ahem— TELEVISION IS WHAT GOT US INTO THIS… IT WAS NEVER GOING TO LEAD THE WAY out.

Turn off your motherfucking TV set.

"So yeah let's give both those tasks to unarmed civilians."

Seems to work in other countries.