Like you said, that's not representative. It means nothing.
Of course, if you just add up all the cases across the country, then you don't need armed police in 99% of case. The problem is that you don't know which one percent does need armed police.
You want police to be able to bring the situation under control as soon as possible, you don't want to wait for people to get stabbed or shot by some guy who couldn't be stopped otherwise.
It may not be the answer to all our problems, but when tens of thousands of people on tons of mind-altering substances are able to keep the peace without police or guns present, it certainly means something. It’s not as if there aren’t plenty of issues to deal with—issues that would surely be handled far more violently and less effectively by the police if there weren’t alternatives.
“The problem is that you don't know which one percent does need armed police.”
Perhaps there are more intelligent ways to triage than treating every situation like a military engagement?
Often the cops showing up with guns drawn is what turns a situation violent.
> It may not be the answer to all our problems, but when tens of thousands of people on tons of mind-altering substances are able to keep the peace without police or guns present, it certainly means something.
Anything that a bunch of yuppies do in their leisure time is not representative of anything else. It can not to be used to draw conclusions on what to do about, say, crime in the inner cities.
> Perhaps there are more intelligent ways to triage than treating every situation like a military engagement?
> Often the cops showing up with guns drawn is what turns a situation violent.
Cops generally don't draw their guns unless there is a perceived threat. If there is a perceived threat, not having a gun puts cops at a severe disadvantage.
Of course there's the option for cops to just not engage and let the situation play out. There's the option for cops just to not do any policing, to not even show up. That'll reduce victims of police brutality for sure. That's already happening in some areas and all these calls for defunding the police will surely have an impact there.
"Cops generally don't draw their guns unless there is a perceived threat."
Yeah and these "perceived threats" include kids with toy guns, unarmed people with their hands up, and people lying on the ground dying.
Many cops have learned, whether through training or culture, to point their guns first and ask questions later, at a huge cost to society. It seems you don't have sympathy for the people affected by this, but many of us do.
I have a lot of sympathy for police too. They have a dangerous and thankless job, and we all rely on them. But my sympathy ends at those who abuse their power, and those who protect the abusers in their midst.
People who would rather kill another human than accept any risk in trying to defuse a situation peacefully don't have what it takes to do this extremely difficult job, and they should look for another line of work.
> Yeah and these "perceived threats" include kids with toy guns, unarmed people with their hands up, and people lying on the ground dying.
Yes, unfortunately, those people were perceived as threats and the officers involved weren't taking any chances.
Those are, for the most part, accidents. How many children are run over because people are carelessly driving? Would you ban cars for everyone?
> Many cops have learned, whether through training or culture, to point their guns first and ask questions later, at a huge cost to society.
Yes, many people have had bad training or are just not made for the job. These are still people whose lives are at the frontline and they aren't even paid that well. I don't think the solution is to defund or disarm everyone involved.
> It seems you don't have sympathy for the people affected by this, but many of us do.
This is a disingenuous statement. You have to look beyond some exceptional and sensationalized cases, at the day-to-day reality of policing. If you disarm the police, they will stop policing those areas that are affected by crime the most. Criminals with guns will get free reign. More people will get shot, just not by cops.
More affluent people will not be affected by this, they could have it either way, it wouldn't make a difference. Their sympathy may be real, their intentions may be good, the outcome will still be bad.
> I have a lot of sympathy for police too. They have a dangerous and thankless job, and we all rely on them. But my sympathy ends at those who abuse their power, and those who protect the abusers in their midst.
Of course, if you just add up all the cases across the country, then you don't need armed police in 99% of case. The problem is that you don't know which one percent does need armed police.
You want police to be able to bring the situation under control as soon as possible, you don't want to wait for people to get stabbed or shot by some guy who couldn't be stopped otherwise.