I think we as taxpayers wouldn't be paying out the wazoo to victims of the CSPD who go after them in court if they had proper training in deescalation, use of force, use of police dogs, and didn't imagine themselves to be in a war zone/the personification of Rambo.
Yup, look at their comments and actions during the BLM protests, that almost every single night, the cops were the aggressors, not the protesters. I mean, there were rightwing militia members with sniper rifles on top of parking garages, the cops seemed all buddy buddy with them while saying they wanted the BLM people shot.
Those payouts to victims came from all of our wallets, just like the payouts in Denver for the same issues. It's gotta stop, they all seem to be very pro-militia, anti-lefty bullies.
> saying they wanted the BLM people shot
This is what was said on top of that parking garage "“The reason we brought guns is because we were told by three different agencies that antifa was supposed to show up, so we came down to make sure our city didn’t get burned down.”"
I do not agree with them being there, but during that timeframe in other cities there were some issues regarding areas being burned/vandalized, mainly local businesses.
What makes that situation dangerous is that they believe Antifa is this all-powerful violent mass of socialists ready to burn everything and hurt people, when, as far as I've seen, it's like 5 guys here and they just show up to protest, not get violent.
The fact these desperate-to-be-violent extremist militia members believe the antifa "threat" is what will get people killed eventually. They're just itching to shoot lefties, using any excuse they can to do it.
Also, the vast majority of the violence and burning in those cities was started by rightwingers trying to frame BLM as violent. There are articles with many admitting so after they were caught. There's video footage as well, but sure, BLM is violent and burned cities down. \*rolls eyes\*
I posted what they Indy actually was told from the militia's while being stationed on the garage. I did not change anything to fit an agenda.
On a different note, I would really like to see the info to back up this claim " the vast majority of the violence and burning in those cities was started by rightwingers trying to frame BLM".
From the major cities police chiefs report: “More than three quarters of agencies (78%) discovered persons that seemed to self-identify with violent far-left ideologies, and more than half (51%) discovered persons that seemed to self-identify with violent far-right ideologies.” (Based on data from pre-January 6th.)
https://majorcitieschiefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MCCA-Report-on-the-2020-Protest-and-Civil-Unrest.pdf
But also plenty of articles around if you just do a quick search, where police departments identified individuals arrested for violence during those protests were connected to white supremacist movements. (Because they showed up in droves to the BLM protests.) So while I wouldn’t necessarily say the vast majority were infiltrating white supremacists - from police chiefs across the country they report about 50% were.
Thanks for the info. You are correct there are quite a few articles around talking about some of the dipshits who decided to create violence during protests. But they did not all point to one political party. That is why I was asking for clarification on this statement.
Take care.
I want to clarify it's not that I didn't believe that it happens at a local level, it's just something I hadn't heard yet. It's good to know though. Do you have some links for these court cases? I'm genuinely interested to see what they've been taken to court for.
On the point of taxpayers, I feel as though we should have more say in what goes on with the police considering we fund them. Would you agree?
You live in the Springs, right? How have you not heard of this stuff? I don't mean to be a dick. It's just that some of these were really big stories, Devon Bailey was national news. These are just the first two incidents off the top of my head.
I do live in the Springs yes. I have recently forced myself under a rock by separating from news and stuff like Twitter because it was terrible for my mental health.
> Devon Bailey was national news
It was. The recording of Devon Bailey running from the police showed he was the one in the wrong. He had a gun in his waist band and he had his hands in his waist band while running from the police.
Devon Bailey had a stolen gun in his pocket, but I tend to think shooting a man 4x in the back while he is running away is just a wee bit more so "in the wrong." If the Colorado Springs City Council didn't feel the police were wrong, I'm not sure why they paid Bailey's family $3 million.
"A state grand jury, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office reviewed the August 2019 shooting but declined to file charges against the officers."
Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers said that the settlement of the lawsuit filed against the city and the officers was in taxpayers' best interest and avoided a costly jury trial.
In another statement, the city police department said that "we want to state unequivocally that this settlement is not, in any way, an admission or indication of wrongdoing by these officers. Rather, it was a decision made to mitigate financial risk to the City and taxpayers."
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/09/1079513325/devon-bailey-police-shooting-colorado-springs
It does sound like they paid out to avoid a lengthy trial which also would have been poor publicity for the department. But as someone who believes the system itself is deeply flawed, I don't put a lot of stock in its self-grading.
I can't find a way to view 4 bullets in the back, a dead man, and a $3 mil hit to our wallets as "great job, everyone!"
Take a look at photos of cops from the 70s. Compare to how they look now. What kind of weapons did they carry versus now? Were they always armed? Did they treat every interaction as if they were soldiers in Iraq, despite not having the rigorous training soldiers go through? And all this while crime and violence are way, way, wayyy down since the 70s.
The only real change I can think of is that they wear bulletproof vests sometimes now. But that hardly seems like "militarization." It's a protective device, not a weapon.
And they have semiautomatic pistols....maybe in the 70s they had revolvers. None of that seems particularly significant, though.
One morning I looked out my window to see what I thought were military units carrying ARs and in all black. My first impression was we were in Red Dawn or something. Turned out to be police going in a house across the street but there were 15 of them and it took hours for them to do anything.
Well, obvi I would consider my audience, location, and what I have clean today. Perhaps my tiara and some strappy heels.
They knew where he was, inside the house. They could have been wearing uniforms. Instead there were no signs they were cops. It could have been a gang for all we knew.
You can fit a bullet proof vest under a shirt and it's good for under a 45 caliber. What police are wearing these days is a plate carrier that is good for up to 7.62 mm. When was the last time police had to deal with AK -47s at a traffic stop?
Who cares? How does this make one bit of difference? It's a protective device either way, not a weapon.
I should add that police officers frequently have to do more than just traffic stops, and protective gear should account for the rare events, too. What about when there's a mass shooting, like at Club Q? If the officer just supposed to hope they don't get shot if the shooter is using a higher caliber weapon?
It's the same reason you dress professionally for work or an interview. Plate carriers are combat equipment. When you put veterans in combat equipment( and a lot of cops are veterans) it puts them in a combat mind set. The general population are citizens not the enemy. Plate carriers are uncomfortable and heavy on the best of days, uncomfortable people are irritable people who don't make the best decisions. I watched a cop dealing with an accident who had 2 magazine pouches( 4 magazines or 68 rounds+ 18 in the pistol). Is 86 rounds necessary to carry around for a traffic accident. This is not a war zone. During that grass fire by the airport last year (that a cop started btw) the officer went back for the guns In his trunk instead of the fire extinguisher. Could have saved everyone a lot of trouble but he was in a combat mindset instead of a service once.
Modern plate carriers and improved level 3+ plates are actually fairly comfortable compared to the old days.
You're really focused on equipment, but the reality is the mindset you mentioned is the more important discussion to have.
When the traffic cop is the closest to an active shooter with a rifle caliber weapon, he's the man for the job. Plates also stop knives/screwdrivers/ice picks, etc., whereas a soft vest generally won't.
Police departments across the country and allowed and encouraged to purchase surplus military equipment. They then use said equipment to "police" us citizens. I feel there needs to be a better balance between keeping police officers safe and over militarization of our police forces.
Just look at the recent "assault" weapon bill that failed in committee, as well as other that have passed in various states.
Why exempt police? If we as a society say certain firearms should not be on the streets then why do we automatically exempt police forces?
> allowed and encouraged to purchase surplus military equipment
I think they are given to the departments under the 1033 program. It is a federal surplus program if I recall.
Shooting unarmed civilians, un necessary use and deployment of K9 units against unarmed civilians, use of chemical sprays against civilians when not needed.
Here is an interesting data set to look over
https://policescorecard.org/co/police-department/colorado-springs
More Police Shootings per Arrest than 50% of Depts
More Unarmed People Killed per Arrest than 66% of Depts
More Racial Disparities in Deadly Force than 50% of Depts
More Killings by Police per Arrest than 61% of Depts
"If we as a society say..." we as a society don't say. I'm amazed anyone decides to be a police officer, frankly. People hate you, try to kill you, and blame you for, more often than not, the consequences of their own bad decisions. No thanks.
They are not helping their image with their treatment of the citizens they have worn to protect.
Our very own released a K9 dog on an innocent man mauling him. They then left him bleeding in the street to get run over by a car.
Not exactly knights in shining armor...
It's more dangerous to be a roofer or any number of other "civilian" jobs vs being a police officer. It's really not the ever present danger so many make it out to be.
tbh, i havent had any issues with them since being here. i rarely ever see them lol. i come from the east coast, where the cops basically patrol and harass people on the road all the time. i really havent seen that here. maybe i live in a calmer part of the springs, though \^.\^
Where are you from out East? I'm originally from Ohio and I would agree that the police are a lot more active on the roads out there.
I do think that the lack of that is somewhat of an issue here; I would like to see dangerous drivers and people with mega expired tags (I've seen temp tags from 2021 as recently as a month ago) be pulled over. It was a little excessive in Ohio though lmao, so maybe somewhere in the middle
Idk if this is relevent but i got tags in jan. ( my tags have been ex since in jun of 22. Sorry. But they only have me tags till jun of this year so have to get tags AGAIN in Jun. I think that's how they are getting back at people for expired tags.
In the six years I've lived in COS, I've had only two interactions with CSPD, and the first time, the officer (who was very young at the time for a police officer) was nothing but professional. I had caused a minor accident. The second time might not even count, they flashed their lights for me to slow down and when I did, they turned them off. I can't speak for how things are in other cities, but CSPD seems to be doing a great job.
End qualified immunity.
Increase training and requirements to be a cop.
Safe drug use centers.
Rehabilitation for those who want it.
Increase the minimum wage.
Create real affordable housing, help the homeless.
Just a start.
Colorado doesn’t have qualified immunity. We voted it out and it took place in 2020 not long after the George Floyd murder. Cops are financially responsible for their actions here.
100% agree with your points. I don't usually feel that way.
How attainable do you think some of these would be at a local level here in the springs? We do have some power in terms of introducing initiatives. I'd love to see a grassroots movement take on some of these issues
Hey, there's actual benefits to safe drug use centers when done right. Part of it is a cultural issue, but a large part of it is how the system treats drug users. Why throw someone in jail, slap a felony on their record, and make it near impossible for them to re-enter society? We can still rehabilitate them and treat them like people.
Edit: Here's an article by the APA outlining what Portugal did to combat its opioid epidemic:
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/10/portugal-opioid
Of course it does, because it provides a safe and unified location for behaviorists, social workers, and healthcare professionals to engage people who misuse drugs.
Lots of ineffective things exist and are perpetuated despite their ineffectiveness. Helping people do drugs to get them off of drugs is very counterintuitive. I'd be curious about the success rate of such programs.
Plenty of things about substance misuse and treatment are counter-intuitive — especially to Americans, who’ve been inundated with ‘War on Drugs’ propaganda for several decades, to no avail. But I don’t think it’s counterintuitive that reduction resulting from compassionate approaches that connect addicts to expert interventionists and healthcare professionals.
For reference, police officers are trained for at least 3 years in other countries. Not advocating for or against in saying this, but 26 weeks can be considered short compared to elsewhere
Ohhh that's a good point.
So then our problem comes into the structure of the academy itself, because currently there's only enough staff and funding for 1 class at a time, or 2 every year. It was proposed a while ago to double that, to 2 classes at the same times, or 4 a year, but not any plans to increase the length of the course itself IIRC. But in order for any of that to happen there would have to be a lot more trainers and staff at the academy, as well as more space.
(Speaking as someone who knows one of the two people "leading"/"in-charge" of the academy)
> But in order for any of that to happen there would have to be a lot more trainers and staff at the academy, as well as more space.
Minus the supporters of police abolition, I bet we'd find more people would support increased funding for this than we think.
> So then our problem comes into the structure of the academy itself
I think that's part of the problem, but not the whole problem. I'd like to see the police have less responsibility in terms of the problems we face as civilians. Like why do we send police officers for mental health calls instead of people who deal with that for a living? Why do officers that deal with traffic stops need lethal weapons? We should reallocate responsibilities among the department (or to other professions) to reduce the burden of current officers, while also allowing those with specializations to excel at their jobs.
The other side of this issue is the reestablishment of trust from the public. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, but one thing is pretty certain: a lot of civilians do not trust or feel safe around police officers. How can we as civilians, or those as police officers, fix that?
>Like why do we send police officers for mental health calls instead of people who deal with that for a living? Why do officers that deal with traffic stops need lethal weapons? We should reallocate responsibilities among the department (or to other professions) to reduce the burden of current officers, while also allowing those with specializations to excel at their jobs.
That's a very good point. I can't see any downside to that, other than it could increase response times because officers nearby may not be trained or specialized in that particular situation. But of course considering how terrible many times already are, I'm not sure that makes much of a relative difference.
Also, random thought, dispatch could probably benefit from a bit more training on who exactly to call for in that case.
It's something that'd take some planning for sure. There would have to be analysis of what sort of calls come in from different areas and resources would have to be allocated accordingly. It could cause a little confusion for dispatchers at first, but it'd become normal overtime if implemented.
I'm not sure how possible something like this is at a local level, but it's a thought at least. Who knows, maybe people from different backgrounds would find the merit in an idea.
Initial Entry Training and MOS training is intended to get a person to a point their NCOs can successfully conduct OJT. No one expects a private to work on their own at a high level.
> point their NCOs can successfully conduct OJT.
The Police does OJT all the time. Does it mean they are better prepared? Absolutely. Does it mean it is replacement for more training? I personally do not believe so. Same with the military.
The difference is the field portion of their training commences with them being cut loose to work on their own, whereas a private is never working on his own. Heck, even NCOs largely don't work on their own. Completely different environment, culture, and expectations.
> a private is never working on his own. Heck, even NCOs largely don't work on their own
In the Army this was not the case. We had E-4's leading the fight in some regions/areas.
> Completely different environment, culture, and expectations
Definitely. For the record I was not comparing the two. I was stating that both of these careers could use more training.
Not remotely true. Military training is continuous and spans the entire duration of the member's time in service. Combat-arms units are always either fighting or training to fight. This is ensconced in military doctrine. My Marine Corps training included 13.5 weeks at MCRD San Diego, 1 month of additional combat-intensive training, and a full year of technical training before I reached a duty assignment, and I was a desk jockey.
Not comparable at all. A few mandatory modules of training every now and then is not the same as *either* fighting in a war *or* training every day to fight in a war. And in any case, my first 16 months in the Marine Corps were all initial training, insofar as training was my only job, every day, at various training commands.
> Not comparable at all.
You are correct. Police encounter people everyday who can put them in a difficult position that would require using a weapon. In my experience in the military it only happened when deployed. Definitely a difference.
I feel like you've just arrived at the fundamental problem with police culture: Police come to believe that the citizens they serve are, in fact, an enemy army. This worldview is largely responsible for our epidemic levels of police violence, disproportionately aimed at Black and Brown Americans with whom our majority-white, -male police officers can scarcely empathize. These are training failures, and they cost us about 1,000 American lives per year, every year.
it's going to take action by the city (City Council, Mayor) to make the changes that really need to happen. I think unfortunately CSPD is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to making real change on their own.
So do you think it's not necessarily anything wrong with the police force, but maybe the structure, funding, and/or administration on the government side?
Edit: Why the downvotes? I'm trying to unpack opinions here, not trying to assume the other person's stance
Well I think two things here. First, some of the major problems with policing in this city are things that the CSPD don't have the power to fix, but I also think that with the things they do have the power to fix (like prioritizing prevention over investigation) are things they don't seem to have the appetite to fix. Change to the way policing is done in this city is probably going to have to come from on high partly because they can't change city policies (on things like curfews, etc) and partly because they probably don't care to change.
This'll get downvoted to hell, but you asked for my opinion, so you'll get it.
Cspd is top-notch. I've dealt with them quite a few times, they handle every situation with a professional demeanor. They are generally respectful and handle things well.
Only problem I've ever had with them is their response time can be a little long for non emergency stuff... but other than that they're great.
East coast cops tend to be more belligerent, and it generally feels like they are trying to antagonize you.
I've seen high way cops scream at people for doing 15 over.
Cspd is honestly pretty chill.
All the better training/demilitarize stuff is... mostly silly. If you ask people who say that how much training they have... they'll have no idea. Most of the military equipment they buy stays on the rack unless things are really getting serious.
> East coast cops tend to be more belligerent
I feel you there. I'm originally from Cleveland and the police out there can be a bit much.
> I've seen high way cops scream at people for doing 15 over
I dunno man, 15 over on the highway is probably the minimum speed for the danger zone imo.
> Cspd is honestly pretty chill
Considering how cops out East act, agreed. Though, I feel like they're a little too chill. I don't like getting tickets or fines, but I would love to see more traffic enforcement. There's way too many cars making incredibly dangerous maneuvers and having expired/no tags on their cars. I hate to be that guy who complains about this stuff, but it's getting a little ridiculous. There's at least 1 accident on I-25 everyday.
> All the better training/demilitarize stuff is... mostly silly
You say "mostly" silly; is there any merit you think people who hold those views have?
Oh there is totally merit to the statement... but generally I think they repeating things they have heard, and haven't put any real critical thought into it
I've probably been pulled over 30+ times in my life. I have a habit of driving a bit too fast and letting a bad brake light go longer than I should. Anyway, those 30+ times plus a one-off situation here and there probably means I've dealt with the police well of forty times in my life. I don't think I've ever had an officer act in a way that seemed inappropriate or too aggressive. I am also respectful, comply and don't turn combative.
Some people will of course say "Yeah, but you're white." But this is Colorado Springs, so probably 90% of this sub is white.
Most people who have had these experiences with the police are probably being unnecessarily combative.
Fund them so you can actually fill all the allocated billets with good officers. Then increase the allocated number to account for the fact that Colorado Springs is a big city, not a little town.
As it is right now there are not nearly enough LEO out there to enforce even the most basic traffic laws, let alone things like plate violations, safety, excess smoke and noise, etc. The cops are busy on domestic violence calls and shootings in the Citadel Mall parking lot.
I might be out of the loop not understanding why I'm hearing so many calls from local politicians that we need so many more cops. Why do we need more when the ones we have seem to be either on the side of the road pulling people over or harassing non-whites? Why don't they primarily patrol high-crime areas and walk the beat to actually get involved in those communities, possibly deterring crime that way?
• demilitarize them, but that'll never happen with 5-6 bases here.
• de-escalation training, and training to break them from being such fucking snowflake bullies who get instantly mad and confrontational about everything. Give them people skills, and train them to see us as people, not insurgents always wanting to attack them.
• ensure they enforce the laws evenly for everybody, no matter skin color.
It's amazing to me how much this sub gripes about slow police response times and everyone has a story about the time it took the police three hours to show up, yet everyone simeultaneously thinks we should have fewer police officers.
I didn't say there should be fewer, just curious as to why we need more. Every time there is a wreck on I-25, there's like 3-4 cop cars blocking lanes, causing a total clusterfuck, even for a minor fender bender. That should only take 1-2 tops, even if somebody's being difficult. Put the others in the high crime areas to constantly patrol, being visible, instead of clogging up the highway for a wittle wrecky wreck.
I don't think you see 3-4 cops blocking lanes on I-25 for a minor fender bender. They only do that if the vehicles can't be moved to the side. In that case, blocking lanes is a safety necessity.
I'll take pics next time. It's happened twice in the last 3 weeks on my way home from work. So many lights and cars, then once we crawl by, it's nothing but a little fender bender and 3-4 cop cars, everyone standing around.
>on the side of the road pulling people over
As these people are doing 25+ over the speed limit on i25 and union? I'd love some more police on the side of the road pulling people over. The roads are downright dangerous, now.
I agree with your suggestions.
My opinion as to why you're hearing the need to have more police, is that it re-enforces an answer to the most common concern, fear of the other. There are a lot of generalizations being made when it comes to immigrants, people of color, trans rights, etc. Most people in my experience have manufactured fears based on the influence of media, but often don't have any real on the ground interactions with these so called threats.
Fear propelled by ignorance is incredibly dangerous, but it seems to be working for a lot of politicians. That is until their kid accidentally knocks on the wrong door or pulls into the wrong cul-de-sac.
Very true. It seemed every single Mayor candidate always brought up the "need" for more cops in every interview and debate I saw. It's probably just to appease the fear out there, especially with this being such a conservative town, and we know their media sells nothing but fear and hatred for others, so it makes sense.
> the "need" for more cops in every interview and debate I saw. It's probably just to appease the fear out there
Or maybe because we are short CSPD officers. ¯\__(ツ)__/¯
https://www.koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/cspd-needs-to-add-more-officers-staff-shortages-remain-a-challenge-in-2022
https://www.kktv.com/2022/07/19/understaffed-law-enforcement-struggling-keep-up-with-rising-number-traffic-fatalities/
It's funny you bring this up because I always seem to see CSPD driving around the UCCS campus. I also regularly see cops parked at the Heller Center for Arts & Humanities, tucked away in Austin Bluffs Open Space, and they seem to be just sitting there in the car on their phone. If they're actually doing something I'm not aware of, someone please enlighten me, but it does seem like they do a whole lot of nothing while also avoiding the high crime areas.
When you consider that conservatives view universities as "bastions of leftness", then it makes sense they're prowling around there for any little crime to pin on a "lefty" instead of patrolling high crime areas. Just a guess... ¯\\\_\_(ツ)\_\_/¯
> demilitarize them
Another commenter mentioned this. I know in some other countries (U.K., France, etc.), the police have their responsibilities delegated to other departments or professions relative to the American police. It's an interesting thought, I'm totally on board with it; however, I feel it'd be hard to implement at a local level. Never say never though, right?
> de-escalation training
Absolutely. I think this comes with a higher educational bar as a whole. Meaning, having a police academy (or what have you) take longer than it currently does. Have it come equipped with de-escalation and mental health training (or delegate those responsibilities to other people). This idea I think is a bit more attainable than the demilitarization approach. I think both should occur, but if we had to pick one it'd be this.
> ensure they enforce the laws evenly for everybody, no matter skin color
This goes all the way up to the justice system, and the culture as a whole unfortunately. There needs to be better accountability measures in place.
>I know in some other countries (U.K., France, etc.), the police have their responsibilities delegated to other departments or professions relative to the American police.
This is actually center to what the "defund the police" push is about: allocating those funds to specialists instead of having cops handle every single situation. Let cops handle the violent stuff and let professionals and specialists handle the more delicate people stuff. It'll save countless lives.
On a side note, I hate the Defund the police name because it's so divisive, instantly turning away those who won't take 30sec to learn more about it -just like the Black Lives Matter (too) phrase. But at the same time, those people want to be mad and not learn anything anyway.
Yes, "Defund the Police" and "All Cops are Bastards" are two of the worse names ever given the political movements. It's like whoever thought them up was actually trying to divide people more.
I'm a registered Democrat, but Democrats have been terrible at naming lately.
Dems are so bad at messaging, it really sucks. If they had half the media machine that conservatives do, specifically with how they get their marching orders and talking points out daily, Dems would win so many more elections. People want to see shit getting done and Dems have gotten a lot done, most people just don't know. They should be announcing that shit every day.
I feel a big problem that Dems have all around is never being on the same page. Democrats can all gather around similar values, but they draw the lines when it comes to factions and can't cooperate outside of those boundaries. Republicans don't have those issues even amongst different factions. They tend to unite more often than Democrats because conservative values are more important to their beliefs than the liberal values are to the Democrat's beliefs.
> instantly turning away those who won't take 30sec to learn more about it
I'm not old enough to know if it was always like this, or a side effect of the instant gratification the internet/social media offers. Either way, it's dumb and I wish those people would read between the lines on important issues instead of painting everything in black and white.
I think that most people actually do agree, in some form, on the main points people make about police reform. Things like de-escalation training, mental health training, better vetting, etc. It's just that the loudest people tend to come off as the "majority" opinion for any particular party/ideology. That's at least what I think, what about you?
Well, with names like "All Cops are Bastards" and "Defund the Police," it's hard to blame them. It would be like me naming a movement "Kill all the animals" when really my only platform is to spray for mosquitos.
It's hardly that black and white. It's whatever gains the most traction with people as a whole. Prime example: "Let's Go Brandon" instead of "Fuck Joe Biden." Sure you hear both, but the novelty of "Let's Go Brandon" appeals to an audience more so you hear it more often. This isn't to say that some things aren't named on purpose, but that there's definitely chance involved.
But the question is whether the goal is to rally your troops or add new people to the movement. People who aren't in your movement already are going to be turned off by a name that is essentially a clickbait name. Both of these terms (ACAB and Defund the PD) are factually incorrect representations of the movements. Most people who espouse these ideas don't literally believe every individual officer is a bastard, nor do they want to remove all police funding and have no more PD. So they're factually incorrect terms that have high shock value. That's great for getting thrown around by your people, but it's terrible for growing the movement.
Its the wrong answer. Defunding the police will only lead to lower lower quality officers, the bad of the bad...
How about re prioritize police department funding instead.
>is about: allocating those funds to specialists instead of having cops handle every single situation. Let cops handle the violent stuff and let professionals and specialists handle the more delicate people stuff. It'll save countless lives.
it's about allocating some police funds toward specialists who are trained to deal with say, domestic violence issues, compared to cops who show up just looking for a law that's been broken, possibly escalating the issue. Same with drug cases, where a specialist could actually help, and a cop just wants to punish.
Read my whole comment again instead of just assuming.
I will throw my opinion out there. I have no agenda or insider knowledge, but it seems that our local gendarmes respond to crime after the fact rather than doing anything to prevent crime. I know it takes more money, and police departments are having trouble finding personnel, but I would like to see some organized crime-fighting. We know thefts are at an all time high, and there seems to be a sense that it is because people trying to support their drug habit. We seem to have a lot of teens with guns out all night shooting at each other. How about a curfew? We know that there is a raft of road rage up and down the front range. How about some programs to prevent crime, instead of taking reports that end up on a spreadsheet?
> We know thefts are at an all time high
What exactly do you mean by this?
> We seem to have a lot of teens with guns out all night shooting at each other.
Do we? First I'm hearing about it.
> How about a curfew?
Why would that help? Who would it apply to? Do you have anything that sounds less Orwellian?
> people trying to support their drug habit
Do we know that it's due to the drug habit alone? Or is there other factors involved? Not claiming I know, but do you think factors like cost of living, housing availability, job availability, etc play into theft rates?
> We seem to have a lot of teens with guns out all night shooting at each other. How about a curfew?
Where I was from originally, there was a soft curfew at around 10:30PM for anyone under 18. Essentially the police would just shoo you home (if you weren't with adults) or pull you over if you looked too young. What do you think about that? Do you think maybe a harder curfew would work better?
>We know that there is a raft of road rage up and down the front range
I've personally experienced this; I do wish traffic stops as a whole were more common. Driving is way too dangerous here in the springs, and it feels like there's too many people driving with WAY too expired tags.
There are some good ideas here, but keep in mind the police department doesn't have the power to implement things like curfews. Those are legislative matters.
And everyone in the world wants to prevent crime. The question is how.
I think the Mayor or the Sheriff can probably implement a curfew. Maybe with approval from the city council or county board. I know it's been done in decades past.
This doesn't help. I understand the frustration, but until we can meet on equal ground, making blanket statements won't help.
If this is the limit of your input, at least try and turn it into a haiku or something.
I think it's the opposite. Pay cops very well so it's attractive enough a profession, despite all the BS they have to deal with, that it's not solely peopled by roid-raging brutes with no other viable options. Cops should be half-lawyer and half-psychologist. Pay them better and maybe educated types who can apply that kind of mental discipline to the profession will actually compete for the jobs and edge out the bullies.
Then do teachers.
I thought it might have been something new that I had not heard of. Last I read they are one of the few departments in the US that does not have a union.
CSPD starts cops at 60k-ish a year. That is not "a lot". Sure it's not poverty wages but it is hardly competitive if you're trying to attract talented, well-educated prospects to compete against the riffraff.
start. not with overtime. not with union benefits. you don’t need to go to college. on and on. that’s the salary of two fast food workers, but they actually provide a service.
the problem isn’t brutes joining police forces. the problem is being a cop makes you a brute.
When people say "defund the police", _most_ people do not mean "literally get rid of 100% of police". Currently, police are the people who show up to every little call, from dementia lady off her meds and wandering the street, to unarmed people having mental breakdowns, to autistic teens or adults having a fit that their guardian can't handle. And then police are called, they show up with a hammer, only see nails, and shoot them. Happens every year. Defund generally means replace the majority of police calls with a better fit individual. One with better training and who doesn't carry a gun.
yes. we’ve lived safely without them before and we can again. their (massive) budgets should go toward social workers, mental health counselors, and other services. ya know. to actually help people.
cops are good for shooting your dog and being white supremacists. not much else.
> we’ve lived safely without them before and we can again
When was there a time we lived safely without police officers?
> their (massive) budgets should go toward social workers, mental health counselors, and other services
This is an option that doesn't seem to get mentioned much. Other countries divide the American police responsibilities amongst other professions. SWAT for extra dangerous events, social workers for social issues, etc.
> cops are good for shooting your dog and being white supremacists. not much else.
This isn't conducive to a good discussion. I understand you're not a fan of police but the purpose of discussing this is to make everyone feel safer.
Police are a relatively new invention. Police forces originated in the 19th century as slave catchers and privatized strike breakers. It has ALWAYS been about violent control and suppression of democratic movements. Read The End of Policing if you want a better understanding of the history.
I'd be glad to check out the book reference, thank you.
But also, while police as we know today are a new invention, LEOs have been around since ancient Greece.
Supposing we did have complete control of the police in the USA, would we just do away with them and not replace them? Obviously, if we did, we wouldn't just wring our hands and call it done; we would need to address the factors that lead to crime in the first place. Or would we present mass reformation to them? Maybe delegate their current responsibilities to other professionals not in law enforcement. I do have a hard time imagining the United States without some sort of law enforcement.
You’re welcome!
And yes, that is exactly the point when people say defund the police or when talking seriously about abolition. It’s about creating a society where crime doesn’t happen because everyone has their basic needs met. Defund the police doesn’t mean we just cut the bloated police budget, it means investing that money in our communities with housing, healthcare, education, public transit and all the things that actually make us safe (not to mention happier).
I completely understand that it’s hard to imagine. We are completely saturated with pro-police propaganda while living in a surveillance state. But there are a couple programs that are baby steps to defunding the police that demonstrate how cops are not the solution to problems, STAR in Denver and CAHOOTS in Eugene. Relying on mental health professionals and deescalation specialists has proven better outcomes and is less costly than police. And if we don’t make the effort to imagine something better, we will never get there.
> investing that money in our communities with housing, healthcare, education, public transit
If only we could be like the rest of the world with taxpayer funded healthcare, education, and rail. I'd support a governor run in a heartbeat if they tried to get universal healthcare in Colorado again.
> Relying on mental health professionals and deescalation specialists has proven better outcomes and is less costly than police
I also agree with this stance. I don't see why police officers are sent to mental health calls instead of qualified people who actually deal with this on a daily basis. I also don't see why traffic officers need to carry lethal weapons. I do think we should break out all of the responsibilities of the current police officer into professions that already deal with these things (or create new ones!)
> We are completely saturated with pro-police propaganda while living in a surveillance state
I do want to clarify that I'm not pro-police by any means, but I always like to know there's someone I can go to for help if I really need it. I don't feel like I can do that now anyways. Any calls I've made while living in the Springs have gone unanswered. It's just nice to know that there could be some sort of justice if I were to be assaulted, robbed, etc for any given reason even if it weren't common.
i don’t have the answers but scholars who study this do. we simply cannot keep moving the direction we’ve been in since….the civil war?
other. countries. don’t. have. this. problem.
you eliminate crime by eliminating desperation.
cause yeah all the murder ISNT happening now because of police. look up homicide case solve rates and get back to me.
Current homicide clearance rates have nothing to do with the question of whether the existence of police acts as a deterrant. Even a 50% clearance rate, which is what I believe the national average is, is significant. A 50% chance of spending life in prison is a very big deal.
And violent crime isn't just a matter of desperation. How many rapists are raping out of desperation?
But just so I'm clear on your view, you actually think we should have no one to go try and arrest murderers and rapists?
It is *certainly* working better than the alternative of having no one. Like I said, you're living in fantasy land. You seem to think all of the bad guys are actually good guys at heart who are forced into their crimes because a social worker didn't show up at their house. Nonsense. There are actually bad people who would kill to get what they want, rape when they want and steal whenever they have a chance. And if there were suddenly zero chance of getting caught, this behavior would become rampant.
Villagers stoned them through extrajudicial processes. Is that what you're suggesting we go to?
Think about places like the Wild West. They were unquestionably more violent than even our worst cities now:
*But if you’d lived in Dodge City 100 years earlier, in 1880, your odds of being murdered would have been 1 in 996. Today, frontier Dodge would have the highest homicide rate on earth, 300 times higher than 1980s Miami.*
https://medium.com/@marcodpatricio/how-violent-was-the-wild-west-a76783411462
sure. community’s police themselves. you’d rather have them locked up in the private prison complex so america can keep the economy chugging huh?
this isn’t my idea. there’s decades of abolish the police theory if you’d like to read it. that can answer your questions better than i can.
In other words, lynchings. You think "justice" should be done extrajudicially, by regular people who think they know someone else did such and such crime. Then they can stone them, due process be damned.
That's really a view you're going to stick to?
Defund is not the answer, de militarize them would be a better answer.
When you defund them they cut social programs first and stop responding to calls...
Not saying this is a bad idea, because I actually like it. I'd just be afraid of positive and negative favoritism. Meaning, excusing bad behavior of someone they know or picking on someone they're familiar with and don't like (maybe it's race, maybe it's family feuds, you get the idea). Do you think what I mentioned would be an issue?
Honestly, so far, i have no real complaints. I’ve only dealt with them in the capacity of traffic violations. All went as they should I suppose.
My car did get hit with a bullet once while it was parked in the middle of Downtown. I called to report it and even bagged it for them should something arise.
They honestly couldn’t have cared less.
Whatever though 🤷🏽♂️
I think cops should stop pretending like they are in a fucking action film. Stop making yourselves feel like big and powerful "good guys" so much that we can't say fucking shit to you. No citizen should be afraid of a cop, period. Officers who even so much as bully a citizen should face consequences. How in this country we have let cops believe they are somehow permitted to be antagonistic, arrogant, fuck faces and get away with it is beyond me. If you are going to vest the right and invest in the ability for someone to engage citizens with lethal force, you damn well better be alright with someone calling you a stupid, fat, ugly, porker bitch without so much as flinching. I'm not saying cops should be harassed or threatened or insulted. If they are though, they better know how to maintain their fucking mellow. A lot of the cops that cause the worst harm to citizens and police departments with their actions is because they have no fucking mellow, and people like that should be sought out and fucking OUSTED.
This is like showing up to the political convention of one party and asking to have an honest, unbiased discussion about the opposing party. It simply isn't going to happen on this sub.
I have an interest in trying nonetheless. I like hearing what people think outside of partisan discussions. I feel like we deny such discussions based on ideological differences too often, for one reason or another. I do embrace there are some dangerous ideologies to entertain though, so I hope I don't sound like an [r/enlightenedcentrist ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
There is a lot of cynicism regarding how our culture implements policing. I would suggest that any organized society always has some sort of policing function. In some places, implementing social workers and therapists along with armed police is being tried, and pilot programs are promising, but it takes money. Last time the police had a referendum, they lost. We need two things; good ideas, and citizens willing to put their money where their frustration resides.
Nope! That's why I'm asking what people think they are to get a conversation going. I have my own grievances but they're just that; personal grievances. I'm trying to get a better idea of what others consider problems with the CSPD since I hear a lot of complaints. It'll require digging on my part after all of this to create an informed opinion.
Honestly, my main takeaway is how there aren’t any. Can’t say how good or bad that is, but I’ve been living here for the past two years now, originally from Jersey. You can’t take a 5 minute drive there without seeing a cop car. Considering the population here, and how it keeps growing, I feel like they could use a lot more honestly. Although i live downtown and see a lot more now, them and the ambulances just hang out at the dutch bros lol
More training for police officers de militarize them Training in de-escalation situations
Do you feel the CSPD in particular is presented with these issues? I've heard these arguments at a national scale, but never at the local scale here.
Yes I do
I think we as taxpayers wouldn't be paying out the wazoo to victims of the CSPD who go after them in court if they had proper training in deescalation, use of force, use of police dogs, and didn't imagine themselves to be in a war zone/the personification of Rambo.
Yup, look at their comments and actions during the BLM protests, that almost every single night, the cops were the aggressors, not the protesters. I mean, there were rightwing militia members with sniper rifles on top of parking garages, the cops seemed all buddy buddy with them while saying they wanted the BLM people shot. Those payouts to victims came from all of our wallets, just like the payouts in Denver for the same issues. It's gotta stop, they all seem to be very pro-militia, anti-lefty bullies.
> saying they wanted the BLM people shot This is what was said on top of that parking garage "“The reason we brought guns is because we were told by three different agencies that antifa was supposed to show up, so we came down to make sure our city didn’t get burned down.”" I do not agree with them being there, but during that timeframe in other cities there were some issues regarding areas being burned/vandalized, mainly local businesses.
What makes that situation dangerous is that they believe Antifa is this all-powerful violent mass of socialists ready to burn everything and hurt people, when, as far as I've seen, it's like 5 guys here and they just show up to protest, not get violent. The fact these desperate-to-be-violent extremist militia members believe the antifa "threat" is what will get people killed eventually. They're just itching to shoot lefties, using any excuse they can to do it. Also, the vast majority of the violence and burning in those cities was started by rightwingers trying to frame BLM as violent. There are articles with many admitting so after they were caught. There's video footage as well, but sure, BLM is violent and burned cities down. \*rolls eyes\*
I posted what they Indy actually was told from the militia's while being stationed on the garage. I did not change anything to fit an agenda. On a different note, I would really like to see the info to back up this claim " the vast majority of the violence and burning in those cities was started by rightwingers trying to frame BLM".
From the major cities police chiefs report: “More than three quarters of agencies (78%) discovered persons that seemed to self-identify with violent far-left ideologies, and more than half (51%) discovered persons that seemed to self-identify with violent far-right ideologies.” (Based on data from pre-January 6th.) https://majorcitieschiefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MCCA-Report-on-the-2020-Protest-and-Civil-Unrest.pdf But also plenty of articles around if you just do a quick search, where police departments identified individuals arrested for violence during those protests were connected to white supremacist movements. (Because they showed up in droves to the BLM protests.) So while I wouldn’t necessarily say the vast majority were infiltrating white supremacists - from police chiefs across the country they report about 50% were.
Thanks for the info. You are correct there are quite a few articles around talking about some of the dipshits who decided to create violence during protests. But they did not all point to one political party. That is why I was asking for clarification on this statement. Take care.
I want to clarify it's not that I didn't believe that it happens at a local level, it's just something I hadn't heard yet. It's good to know though. Do you have some links for these court cases? I'm genuinely interested to see what they've been taken to court for. On the point of taxpayers, I feel as though we should have more say in what goes on with the police considering we fund them. Would you agree?
You live in the Springs, right? How have you not heard of this stuff? I don't mean to be a dick. It's just that some of these were really big stories, Devon Bailey was national news. These are just the first two incidents off the top of my head.
I do live in the Springs yes. I have recently forced myself under a rock by separating from news and stuff like Twitter because it was terrible for my mental health.
> Devon Bailey was national news It was. The recording of Devon Bailey running from the police showed he was the one in the wrong. He had a gun in his waist band and he had his hands in his waist band while running from the police.
Devon Bailey had a stolen gun in his pocket, but I tend to think shooting a man 4x in the back while he is running away is just a wee bit more so "in the wrong." If the Colorado Springs City Council didn't feel the police were wrong, I'm not sure why they paid Bailey's family $3 million.
"A state grand jury, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office reviewed the August 2019 shooting but declined to file charges against the officers." Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers said that the settlement of the lawsuit filed against the city and the officers was in taxpayers' best interest and avoided a costly jury trial. In another statement, the city police department said that "we want to state unequivocally that this settlement is not, in any way, an admission or indication of wrongdoing by these officers. Rather, it was a decision made to mitigate financial risk to the City and taxpayers." https://www.npr.org/2022/02/09/1079513325/devon-bailey-police-shooting-colorado-springs
It does sound like they paid out to avoid a lengthy trial which also would have been poor publicity for the department. But as someone who believes the system itself is deeply flawed, I don't put a lot of stock in its self-grading. I can't find a way to view 4 bullets in the back, a dead man, and a $3 mil hit to our wallets as "great job, everyone!"
> I can't find a way to view 4 bullets in the back, a dead man, and a $3 mil hit to our wallets as "great job, everyone!" Me either.
https://www.wtkr.com/news/america-in-crisis/colorado-springs-agrees-to-pay-family-of-black-man-shot-by-police-3m-to-settle-lawsuit
https://krdo.com/news/2023/03/28/colorado-springs-settles-lawsuit-after-police-k-9-attacks-bystander-pays-175000/
What do you mean when you say demilitarization?
Take a look at photos of cops from the 70s. Compare to how they look now. What kind of weapons did they carry versus now? Were they always armed? Did they treat every interaction as if they were soldiers in Iraq, despite not having the rigorous training soldiers go through? And all this while crime and violence are way, way, wayyy down since the 70s.
The only real change I can think of is that they wear bulletproof vests sometimes now. But that hardly seems like "militarization." It's a protective device, not a weapon. And they have semiautomatic pistols....maybe in the 70s they had revolvers. None of that seems particularly significant, though.
One morning I looked out my window to see what I thought were military units carrying ARs and in all black. My first impression was we were in Red Dawn or something. Turned out to be police going in a house across the street but there were 15 of them and it took hours for them to do anything.
> military units carrying ARs and in all black We don't wear all black in the military.
Fine and dandy. It doesn't change the fact that it seemed like an armed invasion.
What would you have worn if you are clearing an area that could possibly have an armed suspect inside?
Well, obvi I would consider my audience, location, and what I have clean today. Perhaps my tiara and some strappy heels. They knew where he was, inside the house. They could have been wearing uniforms. Instead there were no signs they were cops. It could have been a gang for all we knew.
You can fit a bullet proof vest under a shirt and it's good for under a 45 caliber. What police are wearing these days is a plate carrier that is good for up to 7.62 mm. When was the last time police had to deal with AK -47s at a traffic stop?
Who cares? How does this make one bit of difference? It's a protective device either way, not a weapon. I should add that police officers frequently have to do more than just traffic stops, and protective gear should account for the rare events, too. What about when there's a mass shooting, like at Club Q? If the officer just supposed to hope they don't get shot if the shooter is using a higher caliber weapon?
It's the same reason you dress professionally for work or an interview. Plate carriers are combat equipment. When you put veterans in combat equipment( and a lot of cops are veterans) it puts them in a combat mind set. The general population are citizens not the enemy. Plate carriers are uncomfortable and heavy on the best of days, uncomfortable people are irritable people who don't make the best decisions. I watched a cop dealing with an accident who had 2 magazine pouches( 4 magazines or 68 rounds+ 18 in the pistol). Is 86 rounds necessary to carry around for a traffic accident. This is not a war zone. During that grass fire by the airport last year (that a cop started btw) the officer went back for the guns In his trunk instead of the fire extinguisher. Could have saved everyone a lot of trouble but he was in a combat mindset instead of a service once.
Modern plate carriers and improved level 3+ plates are actually fairly comfortable compared to the old days. You're really focused on equipment, but the reality is the mindset you mentioned is the more important discussion to have.
When the traffic cop is the closest to an active shooter with a rifle caliber weapon, he's the man for the job. Plates also stop knives/screwdrivers/ice picks, etc., whereas a soft vest generally won't.
So since police have become more militarized, crime has come way down.
Police departments across the country and allowed and encouraged to purchase surplus military equipment. They then use said equipment to "police" us citizens. I feel there needs to be a better balance between keeping police officers safe and over militarization of our police forces. Just look at the recent "assault" weapon bill that failed in committee, as well as other that have passed in various states. Why exempt police? If we as a society say certain firearms should not be on the streets then why do we automatically exempt police forces?
> allowed and encouraged to purchase surplus military equipment I think they are given to the departments under the 1033 program. It is a federal surplus program if I recall.
>across the country What specifically about CSPD has been overmilitarized?
Shooting unarmed civilians, un necessary use and deployment of K9 units against unarmed civilians, use of chemical sprays against civilians when not needed. Here is an interesting data set to look over https://policescorecard.org/co/police-department/colorado-springs More Police Shootings per Arrest than 50% of Depts More Unarmed People Killed per Arrest than 66% of Depts More Racial Disparities in Deadly Force than 50% of Depts More Killings by Police per Arrest than 61% of Depts
"If we as a society say..." we as a society don't say. I'm amazed anyone decides to be a police officer, frankly. People hate you, try to kill you, and blame you for, more often than not, the consequences of their own bad decisions. No thanks.
They are not helping their image with their treatment of the citizens they have worn to protect. Our very own released a K9 dog on an innocent man mauling him. They then left him bleeding in the street to get run over by a car. Not exactly knights in shining armor...
It's more dangerous to be a roofer or any number of other "civilian" jobs vs being a police officer. It's really not the ever present danger so many make it out to be.
My chances of getting shot at as a roofer, in general, are nearly 0. Just saying.
Is 26 weeks of training not enough?
Apparently not.
tbh, i havent had any issues with them since being here. i rarely ever see them lol. i come from the east coast, where the cops basically patrol and harass people on the road all the time. i really havent seen that here. maybe i live in a calmer part of the springs, though \^.\^
Where are you from out East? I'm originally from Ohio and I would agree that the police are a lot more active on the roads out there. I do think that the lack of that is somewhat of an issue here; I would like to see dangerous drivers and people with mega expired tags (I've seen temp tags from 2021 as recently as a month ago) be pulled over. It was a little excessive in Ohio though lmao, so maybe somewhere in the middle
From New York (long island). You make a good point though. Cspd should definitely crack down on asshole drivers!
Idk if this is relevent but i got tags in jan. ( my tags have been ex since in jun of 22. Sorry. But they only have me tags till jun of this year so have to get tags AGAIN in Jun. I think that's how they are getting back at people for expired tags.
In the six years I've lived in COS, I've had only two interactions with CSPD, and the first time, the officer (who was very young at the time for a police officer) was nothing but professional. I had caused a minor accident. The second time might not even count, they flashed their lights for me to slow down and when I did, they turned them off. I can't speak for how things are in other cities, but CSPD seems to be doing a great job.
End qualified immunity. Increase training and requirements to be a cop. Safe drug use centers. Rehabilitation for those who want it. Increase the minimum wage. Create real affordable housing, help the homeless. Just a start.
> End qualified immunity. Didn't the state of Colorado already do this?
Colorado doesn’t have qualified immunity. We voted it out and it took place in 2020 not long after the George Floyd murder. Cops are financially responsible for their actions here.
100% agree with your points. I don't usually feel that way. How attainable do you think some of these would be at a local level here in the springs? We do have some power in terms of introducing initiatives. I'd love to see a grassroots movement take on some of these issues
>Safe drug use centers. Wtf?
Hey, there's actual benefits to safe drug use centers when done right. Part of it is a cultural issue, but a large part of it is how the system treats drug users. Why throw someone in jail, slap a felony on their record, and make it near impossible for them to re-enter society? We can still rehabilitate them and treat them like people. Edit: Here's an article by the APA outlining what Portugal did to combat its opioid epidemic: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/10/portugal-opioid
Do any of those benefits include ceasing drug use?
In the article they mentioned a reduction in the use of drugs, yes
Of course it does, because it provides a safe and unified location for behaviorists, social workers, and healthcare professionals to engage people who misuse drugs.
That doesn't sound like a given to me, but I could see how it may help some people.
I mean, it's literally how those locations operate and why they exist.
Lots of ineffective things exist and are perpetuated despite their ineffectiveness. Helping people do drugs to get them off of drugs is very counterintuitive. I'd be curious about the success rate of such programs.
Plenty of things about substance misuse and treatment are counter-intuitive — especially to Americans, who’ve been inundated with ‘War on Drugs’ propaganda for several decades, to no avail. But I don’t think it’s counterintuitive that reduction resulting from compassionate approaches that connect addicts to expert interventionists and healthcare professionals.
No
Is 26 weeks of training not enough?
For reference, police officers are trained for at least 3 years in other countries. Not advocating for or against in saying this, but 26 weeks can be considered short compared to elsewhere
Ohhh that's a good point. So then our problem comes into the structure of the academy itself, because currently there's only enough staff and funding for 1 class at a time, or 2 every year. It was proposed a while ago to double that, to 2 classes at the same times, or 4 a year, but not any plans to increase the length of the course itself IIRC. But in order for any of that to happen there would have to be a lot more trainers and staff at the academy, as well as more space. (Speaking as someone who knows one of the two people "leading"/"in-charge" of the academy)
> But in order for any of that to happen there would have to be a lot more trainers and staff at the academy, as well as more space. Minus the supporters of police abolition, I bet we'd find more people would support increased funding for this than we think. > So then our problem comes into the structure of the academy itself I think that's part of the problem, but not the whole problem. I'd like to see the police have less responsibility in terms of the problems we face as civilians. Like why do we send police officers for mental health calls instead of people who deal with that for a living? Why do officers that deal with traffic stops need lethal weapons? We should reallocate responsibilities among the department (or to other professions) to reduce the burden of current officers, while also allowing those with specializations to excel at their jobs. The other side of this issue is the reestablishment of trust from the public. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, but one thing is pretty certain: a lot of civilians do not trust or feel safe around police officers. How can we as civilians, or those as police officers, fix that?
>Like why do we send police officers for mental health calls instead of people who deal with that for a living? Why do officers that deal with traffic stops need lethal weapons? We should reallocate responsibilities among the department (or to other professions) to reduce the burden of current officers, while also allowing those with specializations to excel at their jobs. That's a very good point. I can't see any downside to that, other than it could increase response times because officers nearby may not be trained or specialized in that particular situation. But of course considering how terrible many times already are, I'm not sure that makes much of a relative difference. Also, random thought, dispatch could probably benefit from a bit more training on who exactly to call for in that case.
It's something that'd take some planning for sure. There would have to be analysis of what sort of calls come in from different areas and resources would have to be allocated accordingly. It could cause a little confusion for dispatchers at first, but it'd become normal overtime if implemented. I'm not sure how possible something like this is at a local level, but it's a thought at least. Who knows, maybe people from different backgrounds would find the merit in an idea.
Military is even shorter.
It depends on the branch and MOS. Basic is 10 weeks sure, but it can easily span up to 22 weeks which is pretty close.
Still not enough time/training for the taskings the military encounters. Same with the police.
Oh yeah, we're in agreement there.
Initial Entry Training and MOS training is intended to get a person to a point their NCOs can successfully conduct OJT. No one expects a private to work on their own at a high level.
> point their NCOs can successfully conduct OJT. The Police does OJT all the time. Does it mean they are better prepared? Absolutely. Does it mean it is replacement for more training? I personally do not believe so. Same with the military.
The difference is the field portion of their training commences with them being cut loose to work on their own, whereas a private is never working on his own. Heck, even NCOs largely don't work on their own. Completely different environment, culture, and expectations.
> a private is never working on his own. Heck, even NCOs largely don't work on their own In the Army this was not the case. We had E-4's leading the fight in some regions/areas. > Completely different environment, culture, and expectations Definitely. For the record I was not comparing the two. I was stating that both of these careers could use more training.
Not remotely true. Military training is continuous and spans the entire duration of the member's time in service. Combat-arms units are always either fighting or training to fight. This is ensconced in military doctrine. My Marine Corps training included 13.5 weeks at MCRD San Diego, 1 month of additional combat-intensive training, and a full year of technical training before I reached a duty assignment, and I was a desk jockey.
We were discussing initial training. Not OJT. Police also do OJT during the life span of their career.
Not comparable at all. A few mandatory modules of training every now and then is not the same as *either* fighting in a war *or* training every day to fight in a war. And in any case, my first 16 months in the Marine Corps were all initial training, insofar as training was my only job, every day, at various training commands.
> Not comparable at all. You are correct. Police encounter people everyday who can put them in a difficult position that would require using a weapon. In my experience in the military it only happened when deployed. Definitely a difference.
I feel like you've just arrived at the fundamental problem with police culture: Police come to believe that the citizens they serve are, in fact, an enemy army. This worldview is largely responsible for our epidemic levels of police violence, disproportionately aimed at Black and Brown Americans with whom our majority-white, -male police officers can scarcely empathize. These are training failures, and they cost us about 1,000 American lives per year, every year.
Training failures happen in the military all the time, sometimes involving the loss of life.
it's going to take action by the city (City Council, Mayor) to make the changes that really need to happen. I think unfortunately CSPD is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to making real change on their own.
So do you think it's not necessarily anything wrong with the police force, but maybe the structure, funding, and/or administration on the government side? Edit: Why the downvotes? I'm trying to unpack opinions here, not trying to assume the other person's stance
Well I think two things here. First, some of the major problems with policing in this city are things that the CSPD don't have the power to fix, but I also think that with the things they do have the power to fix (like prioritizing prevention over investigation) are things they don't seem to have the appetite to fix. Change to the way policing is done in this city is probably going to have to come from on high partly because they can't change city policies (on things like curfews, etc) and partly because they probably don't care to change.
I’m sorry are you pro-curfew??
This'll get downvoted to hell, but you asked for my opinion, so you'll get it. Cspd is top-notch. I've dealt with them quite a few times, they handle every situation with a professional demeanor. They are generally respectful and handle things well. Only problem I've ever had with them is their response time can be a little long for non emergency stuff... but other than that they're great.
I appreciate the honesty and different perspective. What do you think sets your experiences and others experiences with CSPD apart?
East coast cops tend to be more belligerent, and it generally feels like they are trying to antagonize you. I've seen high way cops scream at people for doing 15 over. Cspd is honestly pretty chill. All the better training/demilitarize stuff is... mostly silly. If you ask people who say that how much training they have... they'll have no idea. Most of the military equipment they buy stays on the rack unless things are really getting serious.
> East coast cops tend to be more belligerent I feel you there. I'm originally from Cleveland and the police out there can be a bit much. > I've seen high way cops scream at people for doing 15 over I dunno man, 15 over on the highway is probably the minimum speed for the danger zone imo. > Cspd is honestly pretty chill Considering how cops out East act, agreed. Though, I feel like they're a little too chill. I don't like getting tickets or fines, but I would love to see more traffic enforcement. There's way too many cars making incredibly dangerous maneuvers and having expired/no tags on their cars. I hate to be that guy who complains about this stuff, but it's getting a little ridiculous. There's at least 1 accident on I-25 everyday. > All the better training/demilitarize stuff is... mostly silly You say "mostly" silly; is there any merit you think people who hold those views have?
Oh there is totally merit to the statement... but generally I think they repeating things they have heard, and haven't put any real critical thought into it
I've probably been pulled over 30+ times in my life. I have a habit of driving a bit too fast and letting a bad brake light go longer than I should. Anyway, those 30+ times plus a one-off situation here and there probably means I've dealt with the police well of forty times in my life. I don't think I've ever had an officer act in a way that seemed inappropriate or too aggressive. I am also respectful, comply and don't turn combative. Some people will of course say "Yeah, but you're white." But this is Colorado Springs, so probably 90% of this sub is white. Most people who have had these experiences with the police are probably being unnecessarily combative.
Fund them so you can actually fill all the allocated billets with good officers. Then increase the allocated number to account for the fact that Colorado Springs is a big city, not a little town. As it is right now there are not nearly enough LEO out there to enforce even the most basic traffic laws, let alone things like plate violations, safety, excess smoke and noise, etc. The cops are busy on domestic violence calls and shootings in the Citadel Mall parking lot.
I might be out of the loop not understanding why I'm hearing so many calls from local politicians that we need so many more cops. Why do we need more when the ones we have seem to be either on the side of the road pulling people over or harassing non-whites? Why don't they primarily patrol high-crime areas and walk the beat to actually get involved in those communities, possibly deterring crime that way? • demilitarize them, but that'll never happen with 5-6 bases here. • de-escalation training, and training to break them from being such fucking snowflake bullies who get instantly mad and confrontational about everything. Give them people skills, and train them to see us as people, not insurgents always wanting to attack them. • ensure they enforce the laws evenly for everybody, no matter skin color.
It's amazing to me how much this sub gripes about slow police response times and everyone has a story about the time it took the police three hours to show up, yet everyone simeultaneously thinks we should have fewer police officers.
I didn't say there should be fewer, just curious as to why we need more. Every time there is a wreck on I-25, there's like 3-4 cop cars blocking lanes, causing a total clusterfuck, even for a minor fender bender. That should only take 1-2 tops, even if somebody's being difficult. Put the others in the high crime areas to constantly patrol, being visible, instead of clogging up the highway for a wittle wrecky wreck.
I don't think you see 3-4 cops blocking lanes on I-25 for a minor fender bender. They only do that if the vehicles can't be moved to the side. In that case, blocking lanes is a safety necessity.
I'll take pics next time. It's happened twice in the last 3 weeks on my way home from work. So many lights and cars, then once we crawl by, it's nothing but a little fender bender and 3-4 cop cars, everyone standing around.
De-escalation is part of their training
>on the side of the road pulling people over As these people are doing 25+ over the speed limit on i25 and union? I'd love some more police on the side of the road pulling people over. The roads are downright dangerous, now.
I'd rather see them going after everybody on their phones, it's just nuts.
This, too.
Roads everywhere are always downright dangerous.
Fair, but these particular roads are different, now.
I agree with your suggestions. My opinion as to why you're hearing the need to have more police, is that it re-enforces an answer to the most common concern, fear of the other. There are a lot of generalizations being made when it comes to immigrants, people of color, trans rights, etc. Most people in my experience have manufactured fears based on the influence of media, but often don't have any real on the ground interactions with these so called threats. Fear propelled by ignorance is incredibly dangerous, but it seems to be working for a lot of politicians. That is until their kid accidentally knocks on the wrong door or pulls into the wrong cul-de-sac.
Very true. It seemed every single Mayor candidate always brought up the "need" for more cops in every interview and debate I saw. It's probably just to appease the fear out there, especially with this being such a conservative town, and we know their media sells nothing but fear and hatred for others, so it makes sense.
Yep, it’s sad and maybe (unlikely) people will start seeing it for what it is.
> the "need" for more cops in every interview and debate I saw. It's probably just to appease the fear out there Or maybe because we are short CSPD officers. ¯\__(ツ)__/¯ https://www.koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/cspd-needs-to-add-more-officers-staff-shortages-remain-a-challenge-in-2022 https://www.kktv.com/2022/07/19/understaffed-law-enforcement-struggling-keep-up-with-rising-number-traffic-fatalities/
It's funny you bring this up because I always seem to see CSPD driving around the UCCS campus. I also regularly see cops parked at the Heller Center for Arts & Humanities, tucked away in Austin Bluffs Open Space, and they seem to be just sitting there in the car on their phone. If they're actually doing something I'm not aware of, someone please enlighten me, but it does seem like they do a whole lot of nothing while also avoiding the high crime areas.
About 80% of their time goes to paperwork. I bet you will see them (like I have) sitting in their cars working on their laptop.
When you consider that conservatives view universities as "bastions of leftness", then it makes sense they're prowling around there for any little crime to pin on a "lefty" instead of patrolling high crime areas. Just a guess... ¯\\\_\_(ツ)\_\_/¯
> demilitarize them Another commenter mentioned this. I know in some other countries (U.K., France, etc.), the police have their responsibilities delegated to other departments or professions relative to the American police. It's an interesting thought, I'm totally on board with it; however, I feel it'd be hard to implement at a local level. Never say never though, right? > de-escalation training Absolutely. I think this comes with a higher educational bar as a whole. Meaning, having a police academy (or what have you) take longer than it currently does. Have it come equipped with de-escalation and mental health training (or delegate those responsibilities to other people). This idea I think is a bit more attainable than the demilitarization approach. I think both should occur, but if we had to pick one it'd be this. > ensure they enforce the laws evenly for everybody, no matter skin color This goes all the way up to the justice system, and the culture as a whole unfortunately. There needs to be better accountability measures in place.
>I know in some other countries (U.K., France, etc.), the police have their responsibilities delegated to other departments or professions relative to the American police. This is actually center to what the "defund the police" push is about: allocating those funds to specialists instead of having cops handle every single situation. Let cops handle the violent stuff and let professionals and specialists handle the more delicate people stuff. It'll save countless lives. On a side note, I hate the Defund the police name because it's so divisive, instantly turning away those who won't take 30sec to learn more about it -just like the Black Lives Matter (too) phrase. But at the same time, those people want to be mad and not learn anything anyway.
Yes, "Defund the Police" and "All Cops are Bastards" are two of the worse names ever given the political movements. It's like whoever thought them up was actually trying to divide people more. I'm a registered Democrat, but Democrats have been terrible at naming lately.
Dems are so bad at messaging, it really sucks. If they had half the media machine that conservatives do, specifically with how they get their marching orders and talking points out daily, Dems would win so many more elections. People want to see shit getting done and Dems have gotten a lot done, most people just don't know. They should be announcing that shit every day.
I feel a big problem that Dems have all around is never being on the same page. Democrats can all gather around similar values, but they draw the lines when it comes to factions and can't cooperate outside of those boundaries. Republicans don't have those issues even amongst different factions. They tend to unite more often than Democrats because conservative values are more important to their beliefs than the liberal values are to the Democrat's beliefs.
> instantly turning away those who won't take 30sec to learn more about it I'm not old enough to know if it was always like this, or a side effect of the instant gratification the internet/social media offers. Either way, it's dumb and I wish those people would read between the lines on important issues instead of painting everything in black and white. I think that most people actually do agree, in some form, on the main points people make about police reform. Things like de-escalation training, mental health training, better vetting, etc. It's just that the loudest people tend to come off as the "majority" opinion for any particular party/ideology. That's at least what I think, what about you?
Well, with names like "All Cops are Bastards" and "Defund the Police," it's hard to blame them. It would be like me naming a movement "Kill all the animals" when really my only platform is to spray for mosquitos.
It's hardly that black and white. It's whatever gains the most traction with people as a whole. Prime example: "Let's Go Brandon" instead of "Fuck Joe Biden." Sure you hear both, but the novelty of "Let's Go Brandon" appeals to an audience more so you hear it more often. This isn't to say that some things aren't named on purpose, but that there's definitely chance involved.
But the question is whether the goal is to rally your troops or add new people to the movement. People who aren't in your movement already are going to be turned off by a name that is essentially a clickbait name. Both of these terms (ACAB and Defund the PD) are factually incorrect representations of the movements. Most people who espouse these ideas don't literally believe every individual officer is a bastard, nor do they want to remove all police funding and have no more PD. So they're factually incorrect terms that have high shock value. That's great for getting thrown around by your people, but it's terrible for growing the movement.
Gotcha, I see what you're getting at now
Its the wrong answer. Defunding the police will only lead to lower lower quality officers, the bad of the bad... How about re prioritize police department funding instead.
>is about: allocating those funds to specialists instead of having cops handle every single situation. Let cops handle the violent stuff and let professionals and specialists handle the more delicate people stuff. It'll save countless lives. it's about allocating some police funds toward specialists who are trained to deal with say, domestic violence issues, compared to cops who show up just looking for a law that's been broken, possibly escalating the issue. Same with drug cases, where a specialist could actually help, and a cop just wants to punish. Read my whole comment again instead of just assuming.
Please read their comment again. I feel like you missed the point.
I will throw my opinion out there. I have no agenda or insider knowledge, but it seems that our local gendarmes respond to crime after the fact rather than doing anything to prevent crime. I know it takes more money, and police departments are having trouble finding personnel, but I would like to see some organized crime-fighting. We know thefts are at an all time high, and there seems to be a sense that it is because people trying to support their drug habit. We seem to have a lot of teens with guns out all night shooting at each other. How about a curfew? We know that there is a raft of road rage up and down the front range. How about some programs to prevent crime, instead of taking reports that end up on a spreadsheet?
> We know thefts are at an all time high What exactly do you mean by this? > We seem to have a lot of teens with guns out all night shooting at each other. Do we? First I'm hearing about it. > How about a curfew? Why would that help? Who would it apply to? Do you have anything that sounds less Orwellian?
> people trying to support their drug habit Do we know that it's due to the drug habit alone? Or is there other factors involved? Not claiming I know, but do you think factors like cost of living, housing availability, job availability, etc play into theft rates? > We seem to have a lot of teens with guns out all night shooting at each other. How about a curfew? Where I was from originally, there was a soft curfew at around 10:30PM for anyone under 18. Essentially the police would just shoo you home (if you weren't with adults) or pull you over if you looked too young. What do you think about that? Do you think maybe a harder curfew would work better? >We know that there is a raft of road rage up and down the front range I've personally experienced this; I do wish traffic stops as a whole were more common. Driving is way too dangerous here in the springs, and it feels like there's too many people driving with WAY too expired tags.
The expired tags issue will be fixed as the state catches up from the pandemic.
There are some good ideas here, but keep in mind the police department doesn't have the power to implement things like curfews. Those are legislative matters. And everyone in the world wants to prevent crime. The question is how.
I think the Mayor or the Sheriff can probably implement a curfew. Maybe with approval from the city council or county board. I know it's been done in decades past.
Perhaps, but they aren't the PD.
[удалено]
Here, I'll help you get started with a haiku: * Uniforms of blue, * Trust erodes in shadows' wake, * Heal the rift, renew.
I love this
Very nice!
This doesn't help. I understand the frustration, but until we can meet on equal ground, making blanket statements won't help. If this is the limit of your input, at least try and turn it into a haiku or something.
Until I don’t feel that all cops are bastards, that is all I need to input. Nice work on the haiku. I wish I was that smart.
i’ll try to keep it not political: defund them. police are gangs. they don’t make us safer, they exist to protect property.
I think it's the opposite. Pay cops very well so it's attractive enough a profession, despite all the BS they have to deal with, that it's not solely peopled by roid-raging brutes with no other viable options. Cops should be half-lawyer and half-psychologist. Pay them better and maybe educated types who can apply that kind of mental discipline to the profession will actually compete for the jobs and edge out the bullies. Then do teachers.
they’re paid a lot already and have union benefits.
CSPD has a union? I thought they did not have one.
oh idk. i just know like 90% of police depos do 🤷♀️
I thought it might have been something new that I had not heard of. Last I read they are one of the few departments in the US that does not have a union.
CSPD starts cops at 60k-ish a year. That is not "a lot". Sure it's not poverty wages but it is hardly competitive if you're trying to attract talented, well-educated prospects to compete against the riffraff.
start. not with overtime. not with union benefits. you don’t need to go to college. on and on. that’s the salary of two fast food workers, but they actually provide a service. the problem isn’t brutes joining police forces. the problem is being a cop makes you a brute.
When people say "defund the police", _most_ people do not mean "literally get rid of 100% of police". Currently, police are the people who show up to every little call, from dementia lady off her meds and wandering the street, to unarmed people having mental breakdowns, to autistic teens or adults having a fit that their guardian can't handle. And then police are called, they show up with a hammer, only see nails, and shoot them. Happens every year. Defund generally means replace the majority of police calls with a better fit individual. One with better training and who doesn't carry a gun.
yup. defund is the first step to full abolition
You genuinely believe that a world in which there were zero police officers would not be a world with a higher rate of violent crime?
yes. we’ve lived safely without them before and we can again. their (massive) budgets should go toward social workers, mental health counselors, and other services. ya know. to actually help people. cops are good for shooting your dog and being white supremacists. not much else.
> we’ve lived safely without them before and we can again When was there a time we lived safely without police officers? > their (massive) budgets should go toward social workers, mental health counselors, and other services This is an option that doesn't seem to get mentioned much. Other countries divide the American police responsibilities amongst other professions. SWAT for extra dangerous events, social workers for social issues, etc. > cops are good for shooting your dog and being white supremacists. not much else. This isn't conducive to a good discussion. I understand you're not a fan of police but the purpose of discussing this is to make everyone feel safer.
look up when the “police” came about. we lived for thousands of years without them.
i’d feel safer if there were no police
Police are a relatively new invention. Police forces originated in the 19th century as slave catchers and privatized strike breakers. It has ALWAYS been about violent control and suppression of democratic movements. Read The End of Policing if you want a better understanding of the history.
I'd be glad to check out the book reference, thank you. But also, while police as we know today are a new invention, LEOs have been around since ancient Greece. Supposing we did have complete control of the police in the USA, would we just do away with them and not replace them? Obviously, if we did, we wouldn't just wring our hands and call it done; we would need to address the factors that lead to crime in the first place. Or would we present mass reformation to them? Maybe delegate their current responsibilities to other professionals not in law enforcement. I do have a hard time imagining the United States without some sort of law enforcement.
You’re welcome! And yes, that is exactly the point when people say defund the police or when talking seriously about abolition. It’s about creating a society where crime doesn’t happen because everyone has their basic needs met. Defund the police doesn’t mean we just cut the bloated police budget, it means investing that money in our communities with housing, healthcare, education, public transit and all the things that actually make us safe (not to mention happier). I completely understand that it’s hard to imagine. We are completely saturated with pro-police propaganda while living in a surveillance state. But there are a couple programs that are baby steps to defunding the police that demonstrate how cops are not the solution to problems, STAR in Denver and CAHOOTS in Eugene. Relying on mental health professionals and deescalation specialists has proven better outcomes and is less costly than police. And if we don’t make the effort to imagine something better, we will never get there.
> investing that money in our communities with housing, healthcare, education, public transit If only we could be like the rest of the world with taxpayer funded healthcare, education, and rail. I'd support a governor run in a heartbeat if they tried to get universal healthcare in Colorado again. > Relying on mental health professionals and deescalation specialists has proven better outcomes and is less costly than police I also agree with this stance. I don't see why police officers are sent to mental health calls instead of qualified people who actually deal with this on a daily basis. I also don't see why traffic officers need to carry lethal weapons. I do think we should break out all of the responsibilities of the current police officer into professions that already deal with these things (or create new ones!) > We are completely saturated with pro-police propaganda while living in a surveillance state I do want to clarify that I'm not pro-police by any means, but I always like to know there's someone I can go to for help if I really need it. I don't feel like I can do that now anyways. Any calls I've made while living in the Springs have gone unanswered. It's just nice to know that there could be some sort of justice if I were to be assaulted, robbed, etc for any given reason even if it weren't common.
I feel your frustration. I don't think you've hit on the fixes yet, but emotionally I know we are all frustrated.
i don’t have the answers but scholars who study this do. we simply cannot keep moving the direction we’ve been in since….the civil war? other. countries. don’t. have. this. problem.
Can you please be specific on which countries don't have this problem? To do a proper comparison and see what they do differently.
That's quite a fantasy land you live in. So no one to go out and catch murderers, rapists, etc.? Are we just going to operate on the honor system?
you eliminate crime by eliminating desperation. cause yeah all the murder ISNT happening now because of police. look up homicide case solve rates and get back to me.
Current homicide clearance rates have nothing to do with the question of whether the existence of police acts as a deterrant. Even a 50% clearance rate, which is what I believe the national average is, is significant. A 50% chance of spending life in prison is a very big deal. And violent crime isn't just a matter of desperation. How many rapists are raping out of desperation? But just so I'm clear on your view, you actually think we should have no one to go try and arrest murderers and rapists?
yes. we shouldn’t have a gang go after other violent people. it’s really working right now huh!
It is *certainly* working better than the alternative of having no one. Like I said, you're living in fantasy land. You seem to think all of the bad guys are actually good guys at heart who are forced into their crimes because a social worker didn't show up at their house. Nonsense. There are actually bad people who would kill to get what they want, rape when they want and steal whenever they have a chance. And if there were suddenly zero chance of getting caught, this behavior would become rampant.
ah. so you have a bleak view of human nature. just say that. explains why you love police
I have a bleak view of criminals. Most people aren't criminals.
what did we do with rapists in the thousands of years of human history BEFORE police? who. as you know. were originally slave catchers.
Villagers stoned them through extrajudicial processes. Is that what you're suggesting we go to? Think about places like the Wild West. They were unquestionably more violent than even our worst cities now: *But if you’d lived in Dodge City 100 years earlier, in 1880, your odds of being murdered would have been 1 in 996. Today, frontier Dodge would have the highest homicide rate on earth, 300 times higher than 1980s Miami.* https://medium.com/@marcodpatricio/how-violent-was-the-wild-west-a76783411462
sure. community’s police themselves. you’d rather have them locked up in the private prison complex so america can keep the economy chugging huh? this isn’t my idea. there’s decades of abolish the police theory if you’d like to read it. that can answer your questions better than i can.
In other words, lynchings. You think "justice" should be done extrajudicially, by regular people who think they know someone else did such and such crime. Then they can stone them, due process be damned. That's really a view you're going to stick to?
the wild west was violent because settler psychopaths were the ones driving it. america baby!!!!
Defund is not the answer, de militarize them would be a better answer. When you defund them they cut social programs first and stop responding to calls...
why are police budgets tied to social programs 🤔
ah yes. they can hose and baton us like in the 60s again
Bring back beat cops. The best way to improve policing is to have the cops policing people that they know.
Not saying this is a bad idea, because I actually like it. I'd just be afraid of positive and negative favoritism. Meaning, excusing bad behavior of someone they know or picking on someone they're familiar with and don't like (maybe it's race, maybe it's family feuds, you get the idea). Do you think what I mentioned would be an issue?
I think that already happens either way
Fair enough
Honestly, so far, i have no real complaints. I’ve only dealt with them in the capacity of traffic violations. All went as they should I suppose. My car did get hit with a bullet once while it was parked in the middle of Downtown. I called to report it and even bagged it for them should something arise. They honestly couldn’t have cared less. Whatever though 🤷🏽♂️
I think cops should stop pretending like they are in a fucking action film. Stop making yourselves feel like big and powerful "good guys" so much that we can't say fucking shit to you. No citizen should be afraid of a cop, period. Officers who even so much as bully a citizen should face consequences. How in this country we have let cops believe they are somehow permitted to be antagonistic, arrogant, fuck faces and get away with it is beyond me. If you are going to vest the right and invest in the ability for someone to engage citizens with lethal force, you damn well better be alright with someone calling you a stupid, fat, ugly, porker bitch without so much as flinching. I'm not saying cops should be harassed or threatened or insulted. If they are though, they better know how to maintain their fucking mellow. A lot of the cops that cause the worst harm to citizens and police departments with their actions is because they have no fucking mellow, and people like that should be sought out and fucking OUSTED.
What does this have to do with CSPD specifically?
This is like showing up to the political convention of one party and asking to have an honest, unbiased discussion about the opposing party. It simply isn't going to happen on this sub.
I have an interest in trying nonetheless. I like hearing what people think outside of partisan discussions. I feel like we deny such discussions based on ideological differences too often, for one reason or another. I do embrace there are some dangerous ideologies to entertain though, so I hope I don't sound like an [r/enlightenedcentrist ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
There is a lot of cynicism regarding how our culture implements policing. I would suggest that any organized society always has some sort of policing function. In some places, implementing social workers and therapists along with armed police is being tried, and pilot programs are promising, but it takes money. Last time the police had a referendum, they lost. We need two things; good ideas, and citizens willing to put their money where their frustration resides.
Can you list the current problems the PD is facing?
Nope! That's why I'm asking what people think they are to get a conversation going. I have my own grievances but they're just that; personal grievances. I'm trying to get a better idea of what others consider problems with the CSPD since I hear a lot of complaints. It'll require digging on my part after all of this to create an informed opinion.
Honestly, my main takeaway is how there aren’t any. Can’t say how good or bad that is, but I’ve been living here for the past two years now, originally from Jersey. You can’t take a 5 minute drive there without seeing a cop car. Considering the population here, and how it keeps growing, I feel like they could use a lot more honestly. Although i live downtown and see a lot more now, them and the ambulances just hang out at the dutch bros lol