politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The problem is that they don't have time in the situations that get called in to. The nature of the reported crimes demands immediate action.
If they hesitate in those situations it could end like Uvalde.
But surely there's a practical middle between "shoot first, ask later" and "sit and wait an hour"
“Okay everyone gather up, the plan is we wait around for 30 minutes and start shooting our guns into the air.”
Or how about make a call to the registered number at the address the threat was called in at… then send a car over to verify.
You can literally de- escalate in 60 seconds and verify in as much time as it takes to send swat in to fuck shit up.
But... they have all that swat gear and they want to use it! And fucking shit up is about 90% of policing nowadays.
Wtf is a registered number at an address?
They call, gunman sees caller ID, freaks out, shoots everyone.
If they don't, gunman lies. They send a cop over. Cop get shot, gunman freaks shoots everyone.
I think the more pressing issues are:
I think if you got a jumpy gunman scenario they're going to start shooting when the police come roaring into the neighbourhood. A call might lead to a hostage negotiation scenario which will more likely to have people surviving than a gunfight between a jumpy gunman and even more jumpy cops with some hostages in the room.
Sure there are scenarios where a call back probably wouldn't be a good idea, but the 9/11 operator has a description of the scenario, and I'd think for most of them a call back would be fine.
So, no sweat on the part of the police force then.
Police can dick around for hours between receiving a call and taking any kind of action. Just ask the kids at Uvalde Elementary School.
The issue isn't about time, its about police training that dictates anything that makes them nervous is a target for gunfire. There is no sense of public preservation, its all just Cops-Against-The-World mentality. That's one big reason why cops will always, always, always shoot the family dog. There's simply no incentive to treat any animal as something other than a deadly weapon coming for their throats.
The same officers that spend thirty minutes dicking around outside playing one more round of Candy Crush on their phones will dome you through a window because you spooked them.
Oh yeah, there is a huge issue with that. But I maintain the issue is that the swatters are not being treated nearly as harshly as they should.
In a lot of ways, SWATing isn't a bug in the system but a feature. The ability to basically call in an airstrike on your neighbor creates a sense of terror that keeps people alienated of one another and absolutely horrified of what the local police might do to them.