Significantly expanding police training, and greater coverage of topics such as nonviolent de-escalation, community outreach, implicit bias training, and how to work with mentally ill individuals. Greater accountability through body cam programs, and community oversight boards for police departments everywhere. De-militarization of police, because right now, the police can legally buy surplus military gear and use it on American citizens, up to and including tanks. Frankly, I'd like to see most beat cops completely disarmed (but that seems unlikely to happen soon). I'd also like to see yearly community service requirements for police; make them volunteer their time in the communities they patrol, so they can feel invested in it and get to know the people there.

Your other suggestions may be good, but implicit bias training is a bad idea. The correlation between implicit bias and discriminatory behavior is weak to non-existent[1].

[1]https://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-Impl...

Yeah, implicit bias training is snake oil. It’s something they can pay consultants for to look like they’re taking action, without asking any difficult questions about the structure of the department.

I'm generally on board with everything you've said, but

>like to see most beat cops completely disarmed

seems absolutely crazy to me as long as the general public has such easy access to guns.

The British model - and i know we have a much lower level of gun ownership than the US, but hear me out! - is to have bobbies on the beat not be armed, but to have rapid response units available which are very heavily armed indeed [1] [2]. So, if police on the street encounter an armed criminal, they fall back, radio for support, and wait for a group of colleagues with assault rifles, sub-machine guns, and proper training in using them, to arrive.

I wonder if a similar model, with different details, could work in the US? In the limit, that could involve police cars or foot patrols working in pairs, one unarmed and doing the actual policing, and another one following some way behind, but not getting involved unless a gun was spotted. Put body cameras on the unarmed unit, with the armed officers watching a live feed, so they don't even have to wait for a call.

That said, as the wikipedia article points out, the British model does not extend to the whole of the UK - police in Northern Ireland routinely carry guns, which in 2020 is rather depressing.

[1] https://www.eliteukforces.info/police/CO19/weapons/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_firearms_in_the...

That could work in Massachusetts, Maryland or some other states with very low firearms ownership rates. I don't think it's fair to ask police to go out and police without at least letting them have (at their discretion) the same level of armament as the local law abiding citizens and holding them to the same standards when they do use force. Allowing a civilian police force to have things the local civilians can't have doesn't make sense IMO.

What cops really need is more training to not shoot first and ask questions later. 18yo marines manning checkpoints in the middle east are expected to more or less hold their fire until they come under fire. Domestic police should be held to similiar standards.

A different argument in favor of disarmed police is specifically relevant for the presence of an armed citizen (at least in very urban and central area where reinforcements can be minutes away, not half an hour)

You could say that disarmed police in regular patrols can be safer as it is less of a threat to a criminal. this would obviously not apply to known cases of dangers or cases were reinforcements are unlikely.

Why?

For some reason some Americans believe police officers should respond to non-violent reports and crimes fully armed instead if reserving armed response for cases which justify escalation of force.

You suggestion make sense to me, why haven't they been implemented? Is it lack of political will or lack of money?

The police get unbelievably huge amounts of money (like serious amounts of money) so it's not that.

Yesterday police in Columbus, Ohio replaced the American flag flying outside of their headquarters with a "Blue line" police flag. Just hours ago representatives of our nation's largest police force, the NYPD, posted on twitter the home address of the mayor's adult daughter.

It's a lack of political will, but that's kind of putting it mildly- it would be more accurate to say that the politicians are afraid of the police.

I didn't believe the comment about doxing the daughter of the mayor of NYC, but here it is:

"The SBA [Sergeant's Benevolent Association], run by union boss Ed Mullins, the mayor’s fiercest critic, included a photo of a computer screen which appeared to be his 25-year-old daughter’s arrest report. The report included her date of birth, New York state ID number, and various biographical details, such as height, weight, and citizenship status. It also included an apartment number and home address, which appeared to be Gracie Mansion, the mayor’s residence (though the zip code did not match.)

"Twitter’s policies expressly forbid users from posting personal information, including identity documents, including government-issued IDs. Posting home addresses “or other identifying information related to locations that are considered private” is also forbidden.

"The SBA’s tweet remained up for more than an hour before eventually being taken down after a several users (including this reporter) flagged the tweet for abuse. The account was temporarily locked until the tweet was voluntarily deleted."

https://gizmodo.com/nypd-union-doxes-mayors-daughter-on-twit...

NYPD precincts and officers have all changed their twitter profile picture to a badge with a "thin blue line" band covering the area where the identifying badge number is:

https://twitter.com/jhermann/status/1267524077130039305

Disturbing to see NYPD officers covering their badge numbers en masse like that (in the video a few tweets down).

There's just no procedure to implement police reforms nationally in the US right now; the police in each city are entirely independent, answerable only to their city government, and generally represent an important political bloc. In many cities, the reforms have happened and the general public doesn't really have a problem with the police. In others, there just hasn't been the political will to push meaningful reforms past the police union.

Other replies have some useful ideas, but I think it's important to strike right at the heart of the issue: lack of accountability and redress.

Something _like_: make police leadership legally accountable for the actions of their officers. I say something _like_ this because it's in the right direction, but probably not the exact solution necessary. Another similar approach is something _like_ forbidding police unions or otherwise completely neuter them [with respect to Officer's actions].

Ideas like community service are good, but I think it's important to have clarity of approach (drop racism as the driving force and focus on accountability) and efficacy (make real changes).

This issue is very murky even to Americans, but everyone will say they know what the problem is or they will deny that there is a problem. If their description of the problem aligns with predictable political leanings, they're likely taking an emotionally driven perspective.

We have a different problem in my country of residence in that policing is a federal/national function. There are two arms of police, crime is handled by national police and enforcing of city by laws is done by the city/metro police. It just feels like police don't have enough local leadership. I always thought the US system where the police report to the mayor enables the mayor (read local person) to have a fair say in how things are run. I guess mayors have enough on their plates and it must be hard to change a large body as big as the police. I am extrapolating my experiences moving large organisations to new IT systems which is often easier said than done.

In practice how it works in most large cities in the US is the mayor ends up deferring to police leadership because the police hold so much influence over local political conditions. Mayors that get tough on dirty cops find themselves riding a wave of crime atop the police deciding to simply stop policing certain sorts of calls or in particular areas.

Ah now that makes sense. Like most management jobs you don't really have as much power as you think you have. You need developers to be on your side otherwise you no going to achieve much with your team fighting you.

Americans would be safer, happier, and more prosperous if tomorrow we had half the number of police we have today. The various misguided "entrepreneurial" policies like forfeiture and federal drug war grants have swelled the numbers beyond what the populace can tolerate. We are a fairly violent nation, when compared to Europe (though not when compared to other colonized nations, like nearly everywhere in the western hemisphere), but for the most part violence levels are due to environmental and demographic factors, not police activity. The only exception, the Drug War, is a case in which increased police activity increases violence. So, far fewer police, please.