I think there's something to this idea. even in the most dangerous places in the US, the vast majority of criminals are not likely to shoot at police on purpose. cop killers almost always get caught and convicted (if they survive long enough to get to court), while in some cities the odds of getting away with killing a civilian free and clear are over 50%. certainly there are some enforcement roles where weapons aren't needed. for instance, if you need a gun to feel safe confronting a driver over a broken brake light, maybe it's just not worth pulling them over to begin with?

in general, I think there ought to be more parity between what cops are allowed to carry and do to defend themselves and what is available to civilians. if every patrol car needs an ar-15 in the trunk to safely traverse an area, shouldn't people who actually live there be allowed to at least carry a pistol? or alternatively, if it's not okay for a civilian to carry any sort of firearm, why should it be okay for police?

I generally agree with the bit about increasing parity. Some policies seem to relegate citizens to a lower class.

The part about the brake light doesn't sound like a good idea. Police do encounter people with more serious warrants while responding to minor infractions or calls. Some of these individuals are dangerous. It's best to have the equipment needed to deal with those situations. I think the shortfall is that some people lack the training to go with it.

> The part about the brake light doesn't sound like a good idea. Police do encounter people with more serious warrants while responding to minor infractions or calls. Some of these individuals are dangerous. It's best to have the equipment needed to deal with those situations. I think the shortfall is that some people lack the training to go with it.

are you saying police need to pull people over for minor infractions because a) this is a good way of catching people with serious warrants, or b) police need to pull over people for minor violations anyway and they need a gun in case the person turns out to be a violent criminal?

in the case of a), I think this is the kind of fishing expedition bs that makes it hard for people to trust the police. the idea that they are not just going to ticket you for the thing they actually saw you do, but also make the most of the opportunity to look for anything else you've done / are doing wrong seems needlessly antagonistic. I would also question how much more effective this is than compiling a list of the fugitive's vehicles, known associates' vehicles, stolen vehicles, etc. and just checking the license plate reader against it.

in the case of b), this is kinda my point. if there's a meaningful chance that the officer or the offender ends up dead in a traffic stop, this should probably increase the threshold for what kind of offense justifies a stop. a broken brake light isn't worth dying over for either party. just take a picture/video and send a ticket to the owner of the vehicle.

in the case of an officer responding to a call, they no longer have the initiative to decide whether an interaction needs to take place. in this case, I think it is much more justifiable for the officer to be armed.

The part you are missing in the B scenario is safety. Let's say one brake light is out. Now what happens if that person doesnt notice and the other one goes out? You could be looking at injury or death under the right circumstances. Then of course if you're saying that the offender is dangerous enough to attack a police officer,then surely they also pose a threat to the public. Getting those threats off the street is more of the A scenario perspective, but nobody said anything about fishing (there has to be reasonable suspicion).

There's always a chance that a person (including a cop) becomes violent. Do we just remove all laws? I don't think so. On a side note, there are plenty of laws which are already not enforced or not consistently applied and should be taken off the books.

so first off, and sorry for the pedantism, cars are required to have three brake lights in the US. if a single one is out, it should be replaced promptly, but it is by no means an urgent problem. anyways, I don't want to debate this specific example in depth. if you don't agree, I'm sure you can think of some other example of an offense that gives legal grounds for a traffic stop but doesn't really justify it. frankly I am of the opinion that a lot of low-level violations (traffic and otherwise) exist primarily as a means to circumvent the default protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but we may just have to agree to disagree on that one.

the thing that strikes me as particularly tragic about these police shootings is how many of them started as confrontations over fairly minor offenses. would it be so bad to just let a few more people get away with petty crimes? or better yet, can't we find a way to hold these people accountable that doesn't involve a face-to-face encounter with an armed officer?

Older models might have 2 lights. Some motorcycles might have only one.

"gives legal grounds for a traffic stop but doesn't really justify it."

What do you consider justification? According to the law and police regulations, it would be justified. Logic also supports the idea that if there is a law on the books, it should either be enforced or removed. In this case the law has the purpose (as almost all traffic laws do) of promoting safety.

"circumvent the default protection against unreasonable search and seizure"

How so? As I stated before, the law's purpose is to promote safety. Also, when you sign your registration card or driver's license, you are agreeing to obey the traffic laws. This isn't just some made up excuse to violate people's rights.

"can't we find a way to hold these people accountable that doesn't involve a face-to-face encounter with an armed officer?"

We already do this for some infractions like red light cameras (what a disaster) and speed cameras. It's possible this could be expanded further, but probably wouldn't be able to fit all driving laws or areas. Also, what's wrong with the officer being armed? This shouldn't have any negative impact on the stop and should be reasonable since there is a likelihood that the person could be armed too, which most of the time is not also not a problem.

This is the year 2020 - I'm sure we can do better than this. If the police see a problem with your vehicle, there should be a way for them to look up your license plate and send you a notice, rather than stopping you in a way that could put both you and themselves at risk.

We already do this for speed cameras and red light cameras (a disaster). The main problem with just sending a notice for other things would be providing proof of the infraction. And even then, there would still be situations where the the is a safety concern that would be better met by stopping the person (stuff like DUI for example).

> the vast majority of criminals are not likely to shoot at police on purpose.

And the vast majority of cops don’t shoot people either.

It's extremely naive and the fraternal order of police would never let it pass. I predict they'd all stand down rather than serving in such a ridiculous fashion.

First you should take into account that the US is not the UK (or another European nation where police officers don't carry guns). We have a serious gang and violent crime problem here. Cities like Chicago are battlefields, there are multiple murders every weekend. On holidays, you can casually see 100+ murders take place in two days.

Combine that with a big underclass population, wide availability of guns and drugs that induce and amplify psychotic behavior, intense racial hatred, hatred of the police, entire city blocks being infested with gangs, drugs and guns and do you really think disarming the police is going to solve anything? It's a recipe for disaster that's going to empower criminals and cause even more violence and death in the future.

You can't pretend -like most progressives- these problems don't exist just because you're well-off, living in your upscale, well-patrolled neighborhood. This is you living in a bubble. Most of the folks advocating for disarming the police, should go take a stroll in South Side Chicago or east St. Louis.

> disarm the police

> they can exercise their right to carry a personal firearm at their own expense

That's not disarming the police, just making them pay $500 out of pocket.

I guess "disarm the police department" would be more accurate

I think the issue with this is that you don't know ahead of time which situations will escalate dramatically and require a firearm. Plus, everyone knows police have firearms and so that alone may prevent escalation of a situation. I just don't think it's feasible in a country with so many guns.

Private citizens actually have a lower bar to prove a justified shooting in most places. Police are held to a higher standard already. In policy at least. Th practice of that policy may make it different.