The Anaheim Police Department said it wanted to be the first department with a Cybertruck, according to an internal email obtained by 404 Media. But the company advertising the modified vehicles hasn’t actually made one yet, the police said.
Gallacher later told 404 Media that the email was something of “a joke,” but reaffirmed the agency’s wish to obtain a Cybertruck before other agencies, even if more for “community engagement” than using it as a patrol vehicle.
and this is why defund the police was such a hot topic. To those on the other side, they think we mean “Get rid of all police, zero funding, go away”
When in reality it’s “Uh, they literally have too much money, they’re buying literal tanks. What if we took some of that tank/cybertruck money and gave it to trained professionals who could help in conflict situations?”
Honestly? Considering how little the police actually do to help anyone, versus the huge amount of harm they cause, I’m not entirely convinced that “Get rid of all police” wouldn’t be a good idea, even if they got replaced with basically nothing. And I’ve seen a lot of leftists who felt similarly. So “those on the other side” aren’t entirely wrong; they just don’t understand how incredibly bad police are.
This doesn’t mean we should replace the police with literally nothing — obviously things investing in social services and crisis intervention would be great. It’s just that I find it hard to do worse than what currently exists.
I’m not a fan of all or nothing, I think there’s a place for a well trained police force. Look at Europe and the UK, they aren’t armed, but they have power still. Someone has to take care of the person who stole a car and is speeding down the freeway going 100+, crisis councilors aren’t going to be driving trying to perform a PIT maneuver.
I think it’s a blend, in my example the police would bring them into custody, and then trained people work with them after that working out what happened and working with the justice department. There are many things that police aren’t needed at, like domestic issues, but there are plenty we do need them at too. (However, reforming the police needs to happen, I’m not saying they are perfect right now.)
European police is very much armed. Also the UK has armed units even if your usual beat cop is limited to pepper spray and a baton or whatnot.
Elsewhere police regularly carry pistols, but are also trained in how to not use them. In my state there’s even an assault rifle (actual one) in every police car. Decades pass without anyone getting shot.
I think it’s a blend, in my example the police would bring them into custody, and then trained people work with them after that working out what happened and working with the justice department.
Nope. Police is not trained to deal with e.g. a psychotic person seeing zombies, if they try to take them into custody they’re only going to make things worse. It’s fine if police are first to the scene, but they should be trained enough to a) recognise that the person is psychotic, not actually threatening anyone b) call for backup from the people in white coats with haloperidol shots and c) shoo away bystanders. Perimeter duty. Yes, after 2 1/2 years training you’re on perimeter duty get used to it that’s your job.
There are many things that police aren’t needed at, like domestic issues, but there are plenty we do need them at too.
That’s probably the bulk of what beat cops are doing over here, short of investigating noise complaints on behest of the municipality and documenting traffic accidents, car thefts, maybe a break-in, whatever. Which is also why they always, and I mean always, come in male/female pairs.
The core problem is that there are so many things that can help prevent the problems from arising to begin with that need to be done before policing is even considered. Better healthcare, housing, education, etc. Police are, at best, a last resort solution to desperate cases, and they tend to be hammers looking for nails as a result. It might be possible to do it well, yes, but it’s very hard, and you should really be looking for a less antagonistic solution first.
To take your idea of “speeding at 100+” as an example: This could be solved by replacing cars with public transport, such that people don’t really have so many opportunities to go 100+ to begin with, or by using traffic calming techniques to make it feel too unsafe for anyone to want to try, or using alternative road layouts to make it significantly harder to pull off at all (e.g. roundabouts). There are many options, almost all of which are better – and less punitive – than the police.
Also, tangential, but…
crisis councilors aren’t going to be driving trying to perform a PIT maneuver.
The modern concept of police is relatively recent, it was invented during the industrial revolution.
In Rojava they replaced the police with community patrols whose members are elected and accountable for their actions. Different ways are possible.
I know in a good chunk of rural US training is a checkbox, something that just gets done. It’s the good ol’ boys who get into those positions, friends and family
In other words, we have too much money.
and this is why defund the police was such a hot topic. To those on the other side, they think we mean “Get rid of all police, zero funding, go away”
When in reality it’s “Uh, they literally have too much money, they’re buying literal tanks. What if we took some of that tank/cybertruck money and gave it to trained professionals who could help in conflict situations?”
Honestly? Considering how little the police actually do to help anyone, versus the huge amount of harm they cause, I’m not entirely convinced that “Get rid of all police” wouldn’t be a good idea, even if they got replaced with basically nothing. And I’ve seen a lot of leftists who felt similarly. So “those on the other side” aren’t entirely wrong; they just don’t understand how incredibly bad police are.
This doesn’t mean we should replace the police with literally nothing — obviously things investing in social services and crisis intervention would be great. It’s just that I find it hard to do worse than what currently exists.
I’m not a fan of all or nothing, I think there’s a place for a well trained police force. Look at Europe and the UK, they aren’t armed, but they have power still. Someone has to take care of the person who stole a car and is speeding down the freeway going 100+, crisis councilors aren’t going to be driving trying to perform a PIT maneuver.
I think it’s a blend, in my example the police would bring them into custody, and then trained people work with them after that working out what happened and working with the justice department. There are many things that police aren’t needed at, like domestic issues, but there are plenty we do need them at too. (However, reforming the police needs to happen, I’m not saying they are perfect right now.)
European police is very much armed. Also the UK has armed units even if your usual beat cop is limited to pepper spray and a baton or whatnot.
Elsewhere police regularly carry pistols, but are also trained in how to not use them. In my state there’s even an assault rifle (actual one) in every police car. Decades pass without anyone getting shot.
Nope. Police is not trained to deal with e.g. a psychotic person seeing zombies, if they try to take them into custody they’re only going to make things worse. It’s fine if police are first to the scene, but they should be trained enough to a) recognise that the person is psychotic, not actually threatening anyone b) call for backup from the people in white coats with haloperidol shots and c) shoo away bystanders. Perimeter duty. Yes, after 2 1/2 years training you’re on perimeter duty get used to it that’s your job.
The US approach to a paranoid schizophrenic scared shitless seems to be to make it worse by laying siege and throwing flashbangs.
That’s probably the bulk of what beat cops are doing over here, short of investigating noise complaints on behest of the municipality and documenting traffic accidents, car thefts, maybe a break-in, whatever. Which is also why they always, and I mean always, come in male/female pairs.
The core problem is that there are so many things that can help prevent the problems from arising to begin with that need to be done before policing is even considered. Better healthcare, housing, education, etc. Police are, at best, a last resort solution to desperate cases, and they tend to be hammers looking for nails as a result. It might be possible to do it well, yes, but it’s very hard, and you should really be looking for a less antagonistic solution first.
To take your idea of “speeding at 100+” as an example: This could be solved by replacing cars with public transport, such that people don’t really have so many opportunities to go 100+ to begin with, or by using traffic calming techniques to make it feel too unsafe for anyone to want to try, or using alternative road layouts to make it significantly harder to pull off at all (e.g. roundabouts). There are many options, almost all of which are better – and less punitive – than the police.
Also, tangential, but…
Of course not; PIT maneuvers would kill people.
!abolition@slrpnk.net
The modern concept of police is relatively recent, it was invented during the industrial revolution. In Rojava they replaced the police with community patrols whose members are elected and accountable for their actions. Different ways are possible.
Municipal police mostly came from the great railroad strike of 1871.
It was literally “abolish the police”, but the shitlibs watered it down to nothing as usual.
Or better training, so people don’t hate them. Though, there is laws too.
I know in a good chunk of rural US training is a checkbox, something that just gets done. It’s the good ol’ boys who get into those positions, friends and family
Well I’ve heard Cybertrucks are getting cheap because not many people want them.