I really don't see how cops are able to have their cake and eat it too, with the whole "gotta do whatever to get home at the end of the day" and "we bravely risk our lives to hold the thin blue line".
[0] http://samanthagouldson.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/uv_an...
Interesting idea, really. In addition to the warnings, the unholstering should also activate body and dash cameras (if not already on), and send a signal of the event to authorities (plural) which records the date/time/lat/lon/etc...
Meta: also, the US needs more of citizen-led policing a-la Michael A. Wood, Jr. where the police are part of, and communicate with, the community, instead of being merely a mandatory, occupying, paramilitary mafia resting on the monopoly on violence with impunity, lackadaisical/inconsistent training and blue wall of silence.
I was going to suggest connected guns (for additional data harvesting) but realised a connected gun that could be hacked is a terrible idea.
The strobe idea might have some merit for the deaf, or folks who don't understand the local language, so long as there is a long standing education campaign.
"Baton" is just a euphemism that papers over extreme violence.
An alternative I've seen used on campus is a big Maglight. I'll agree that it represents a step that's usually less violent that reach for a gun, but when I read of police striking a woman "21 times with a baton", I have a hard time.
Sure, your pitbull might be a lover but this type of dog is frequently in the news for biting people and killing children/elderly.
But that's not about the pitbull. It's about the asshole who brought his pre-muzzled dog to a dog park knowing it was vicious.
In my opinion, muzzling a dog you know is vicious before bringing them to the part is exactly what makes you a non-asshole. I don't understand why you're using "pre-muzzled" as a point against the owner.
Especially if he can still nip though the mask.
Really.. just make it harder to get a gun license. Only hunters and security personel should be able to get one. Plus a limited license for people who shoot for sports. No one whatsoever should be able to buy automatic machine guns and the like.
That won't immediately solve the problem, but is IMO the only way to start a solution.
What you SHOULD take away from cops are the supposedly NON-LETHAL weapons. Cops use them, as if they did no harm and don't think twice about using a less problematic option.
And yes, people should be able to own at least some kinds of guns. Though, I think you could constitutionally ban handguns: the 2nd amendment exists to let the people defend the homeland against external threats and possibly the government, not for personal defense. It's automatic rifles that people should be allowed to own.
We cannot disarm the population by fiat, because the Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right to bear firearms. Changing that would require radically altering either the composition of the Supreme Court, or the text of the Constitution.
Still, less guns on both sides seems more likely to succeed than disarming only the police.
The problem is, in the United States, you can't reduce the number of guns in civilian hands. But you can reduce the number of guns in the hands of the police. Strange, but true.
Extreme solutions are rarely the answer. I wouldn't walk through South-side Chicago unarmed as a civilian.
It's not an extreme solution. Regular policemen aren't armed in several countries: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18....
Nothing's going to happen to you walking around the south side of Chicago unarmed. It's this kind of cowardice and paranoia that causes so many police shootings in the U.S.
And those countries that article lists are the definition of apples to oranges when compared to the United States. The economic, cultural, gun ownership rate and racial situations are completely, utterly different. To use the logic that something works in any of those countries, particularly Iceland, therefore it'll work in the United states if just blindly applied, is the height of ignorance.
People of a particular political persuasion who do not live in Chicago (and, probably, many people of that persuasion who do) like to believe that violence in Chicago is motivated by race or class. In fact, white dudes carrying laptop bags are not the natural adversaries of the people doing the shooting in Chicago.
I think you should stop talking about Chicago now; the examples you've provided, all of them poor, are not making your arguments more persuasive.
What I won't let you do is move the goalposts. You invoked "south Chicago" as a symbol of urban violence so great that a person like yourself couldn't function in it unarmed. That was bogus on several different levels, only a few of which we've described so far.
Norway has 31.3 guns per capita. Iceland has 30.3. The US has 112.6.
This, by the way, is the legit Chicago shooting map:
The awful truth of Chicago is that unless you're a black person aged 16-40, crime in Chicago poses very little risk to you, very much including at those times you find yourself in the highest-crime neighborhoods in the city. Which is what makes Chicago's use as a rhetorical device in conversations about violence so galling.
You'd think noticeable outsiders, who dress like they have some money, carrying valuables (or at least a recognizable laptop bag) would be a target in places with essentially double the US national average crime rate. You're the local, why isn't that the case?
Further, many many people who live in those neighborhoods do it daily with hardly any criminal problems. Property crime is a thing, cars/houses do get broken into more frequently in those areas than other areas but the incidence difference is such a small difference that it is virtually indistinguishable from a human perspective than any other part of the city. Look at the numbers and see just how low the rate is even at double the average.
Person crime on the other hand is heavily targeted. Young poor black men who live in those areas are incredibly more likely to be shot than anyone else. The reasons for this are complicated (though easy access to Indiana guns mixed with gang violence describes most of it). But its not just mid-upper-class white guy tourists who don't have to worry about their personal safety that much, its also older black folks.
The gun violence problem in Chicago is very real and in need of solving. But its not because white people are in danger for wondering into the wrong neighborhood. The armed police problem is also very real and in need of solving. The CPD is literally one of the worst examples you could use as an example of appropriate use of violence as part of their jobs.
For the record I'm also not blind to some cops being murderous dicks. I just think disarming cops would ignore the root of the problem and cause at least as many issues as it solves. But that's another issue.
A word of warning: I wouldn't take this bet if I were you.
But, I'd bet the cost of his ammo to the cost of a nice dinner that he's more likely to be invited to a bbq than accosted in Englewood.
Further, I'd bet an even money amount that he's in more danger from the armed police in Englewood than he is from the people living there and thats knowing he's white.
Well I'll admit, you and kasey_junk have given me something to think about. As I said though, I find it confusing that my University had a rash of random muggings over cell phones, almost a victim of one such (or similar) attack myself, and yet in a place with nearly twice the average crime rate and certainly more shootings/robberies/thefts per capita I'd apparently be relatively safe. And you guys are actually defending it, so... I don't know. Maybe crime is different in Chicago. Or maybe Englewood is fine and I'm just naming the wrong street over, that heyjackass map isn't exactly precise. Regardless, thanks for your perspective, it's something I didn't have before.
For the record I'm also not blind to some cops being murderous dicks. I just think disarming cops would ignore the root of the problem and cause at least as many issues as it solves. But that's another issue.
As far as being comfortable with, and trained to use all the tools at their disposal (which should include better deescalation techniques): agreed.
The preceeding idea is kind of stupid, but then again, an advertisement of proximity to deadly force and the liklihood of extrajudicial summary execution probably has some utility. Something that tells you that a line is about to be crossed, from which there is no return.
That little detail about police interaction isn't something that gets a whole lot of lip service. It's usually all "heroes" and implicit trustworthiness.
Is calling the police the best of all possible solutions in this scenario. How do the police know which one of you is the offender?
As a side note, in the confusion of an arrest, it's easy for a suspect to not realize how much the situation has escalated, and for a police officer to repeatedly give conflicting orders to a suspect, both of which result in a needless death.
Here's an idea: Police should have a loud speaker and strobe light on their uniform that trigger when they unholster their firearm. The speaker should repeat over and over until they re-holster their weapon:
"SIREN BLARE A POLICE OFFICER HAS DRAWN THEIR WEAPON. REMAIN STILL UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS OR YOU WILL BE SHOT."
The strobe light should trigger constantly to let the deaf know an officer has drawn their weapon.
There's two reasons for this:
1. It should make it clear to a suspect that they are dangerously close to being shot, and should very quickly change their behavior
2. An officer should not be allowed to give orders to a surrendering and motionless suspect as long as they have their weapon unholstered.
If they wish to give commands to the suspect, they should re-holster their firearm and possibly switch to a less lethal device if the situation calls for it.