What's in the News? 2.0

[Skyguy]

And like the ghouls they are the big entertainment company execs are planning to starve them out. Just ignore them until they broke and will take any deal to get income.

You have to admire how good a job the big money propaganda machine does. On one hand you've got the people who make the shows and movies we love being criminally under payed to the point they can't survive and on the other the soulless corporations we hate who make billions in profit of those people and I see so many people taking the corpos side. It's amazing.

[Azy]

People don't wanna be without entertainment.  This time the little guy is forcing them to give up something.  Well, if the corps would just negotiate a good deal it wouldn't be an issue, but it's not how people are seeing it. 

[Skyguy]

Welcome to capitalism. It’s not enough to make a solid profit, you have to make all the profit. No amount of money is ever “enough,” you must show eternal growth over last quarter no matter what. Let’s not beat around the bush, there’s plenty of money sloshing around Hollywood that they could give the people what they’re asking for, which isn’t outlandish, it’s just to be able to make enough to survive. That’s where we are as a country. People aren’t striking for additional benefits, they just want to be paid enough to live. The studios could easily pay these people well and still be wildly profitable, but they’d be slightly less profitable and that’s unacceptable

[Keelan]

People don't wanna be without entertainment.  This time the little guy is forcing them to give up something.  Well, if the corps would just negotiate a good deal it wouldn't be an issue, but it's not how people are seeing it.

Not only that, but part of this involves AI and the impact on their jobs. Unfortunately, there's some segments of the population (some I know personally) whose response is 'learn to code', and it's hard for me to blame them for feeling that way.

[Beorning]

Here in Poland, this awful situation seems the most important news piece of the last few days:

https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/07/19/police-intervention-against-woman-in-hospital-after-taking-abortion-pills-triggers-outcry-in-poland/

To summarize: even though Poland has near-total ban on abortion now, it's still not illegal for a woman to abort a pregnancy on her own. In spite of that, the following happened:

1. A woman named Joanna aborted her pregnancy by the way of taking an abortion pill.

2. She wasn't feeling well mentally afterwards, so she called her psychiatrist to talk. During the conversation, she admitted to the psychiatrist that she had aborted her pregnancy.

3. The psychiatrist reacted by sending both the paramedics and *cops* to the woman's apartment.

4. The woman was taken to a hospital for a medical exam. In the meanwhile, she kept being questioned by the cops, who demanded to know where did she get the abortion pill from.

5. In the hospital, the cops kept telling the doctors there that the woman a crime suspect (untrue, as she has not broken any laws). They also confiscated her laptop and phone (which was unlawful). They guarded the terrified woman as if she was a dangerous offender. And, worst of all, they followed her into an examination room and, also, tried to conduct a *naked cavity search* on her.

6. After all of this hit the media, the police issued a statement where they revealed the woman's status as a psychiatric patient, claimed she was supposedly "hysterical" and probably drunk and they were on the scene only to prevent her suicide attempt. They also complained that the hospital staff interfered in their work...

This is... beyond disgusting 

[GloomCookie]

Fuckin hell. Reminds me of a case a few years ago where this cop followed an unconscious person to the hospital because he was demanding a blood draw to prove that he was drunk at the time of the accident. The hospital staff had policies in place that required them to obtain consent before performing a blood test unless absolutely necessary to save the person's life. As this was a cop demanding the blood draw in order to prove guilt, the duty nurse refused. As a result, the cop arrested the nurse claiming she'd interfered in a police investigation.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/01/561337106/utah-nurse-arrested-for-doing-her-job-reaches-500-000-settlement

There's this tendency of some police (Not all, just some) to have a superiority complex because they arrest criminals, and so forget that there are procedures and other requirements, and then there's the Code of Silence where cops don't want to tear down their own even knowing they're bad cops. It blemishes the reputations of good cops and people don't trust even normal police interactions.

[TheGlyphstone]

Fuckin hell. Reminds me of a case a few years ago where this cop followed an unconscious person to the hospital because he was demanding a blood draw to prove that he was drunk at the time of the accident. The hospital staff had policies in place that required them to obtain consent before performing a blood test unless absolutely necessary to save the person's life. As this was a cop demanding the blood draw in order to prove guilt, the duty nurse refused. As a result, the cop arrested the nurse claiming she'd interfered in a police investigation.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/01/561337106/utah-nurse-arrested-for-doing-her-job-reaches-500-000-settlement

There's this tendency of some police (Not all, just some) to have a superiority complex because they arrest criminals, and so forget that there are procedures and other requirements, and then there's the Code of Silence where cops don't want to tear down their own even knowing they're bad cops. It blemishes the reputations of good cops and people don't trust even normal police interactions.

And then a negative feedback loop starts where the good cops are trained to be suspicious of people exhibiting hostility or fear as possible signs of wrongdoing, while the innocent person is scared and distrustful of the cop, making it more likely that an incident occurs.

[Beorning]

Fuckin hell. Reminds me of a case a few years ago where this cop followed an unconscious person to the hospital because he was demanding a blood draw to prove that he was drunk at the time of the accident. The hospital staff had policies in place that required them to obtain consent before performing a blood test unless absolutely necessary to save the person's life. As this was a cop demanding the blood draw in order to prove guilt, the duty nurse refused. As a result, the cop arrested the nurse claiming she'd interfered in a police investigation.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/01/561337106/utah-nurse-arrested-for-doing-her-job-reaches-500-000-settlement

Wait, this really happened? I recall seeing such a situation in a Chicago Med episode...

There's this tendency of some police (Not all, just some) to have a superiority complex because they arrest criminals, and so forget that there are procedures and other requirements, and then there's the Code of Silence where cops don't want to tear down their own even knowing they're bad cops. It blemishes the reputations of good cops and people don't trust even normal police interactions.

I don't think it's about the superiority complex of the cops... It's more about the fundamentalist attitudes of our government.

BTW. The Chief of Police gave a press conference today about this situation. Unexpectedly, he claimed that the cops didn't do anything wrong and they were just "following procedures". That the woman in question was a suicide risk and everything the cops did was to protect her. At the same time, he claimed that the cops needed to investigate the possibility of harmful substances being distributed - hence, the confiscation of the woman's phone and laptop.

Of course, the Chief didn't explain why a potentially suicidal woman wasn't taken to a psychiatrist instead of gynaecologist. And why, instead of letting the doctors do their jobs, the cops pestered her with questions about the abortion pill when she was being examined by the doctors. Why were 6 officers guarding her at one point. Why the cops tried to force a cavity search on her - is that how they "protect" potentially suicidal people? Also, no comment on why the cops - who only "followed procedures" - ended up confiscated the women's things... which was deemed unlawful later by the court?

Heck, even we assume that all of this was done just as suicide prevention, then it's the most botched suicide prevention ever. All people involved should be face disciplinary action... Instead, we get the Chief of Police doing a press conference on how his officers are being unjustly condemned for all of this.

And, of course, it's hard to take anything the Chief of Police says seriously. This is the guy who blew up his own office with a grenade launcher, remember? And faced no consequences, because the investigation that followed deemed that he did nothing wrong and that no procedures were broken. 

[Beguile's Mistress]

And then a negative feedback loop starts where the good cops are trained to be suspicious of people exhibiting hostility or fear as possible signs of wrongdoing, while the innocent person is scared and distrustful of the cop, making it more likely that an incident occurs.

All too often perception of the actor's behavior gets in the way of proper judgment.  "They didn't act the way the should have if they weren't guilty!"

[Al Terego]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/01/561337106/utah-nurse-arrested-for-doing-her-job-reaches-500-000-settlement

> Salt Lake City and the University of Utah will split the cost of the settlement.

If the tax payers end up shouldering the financial burden, what is the police's incentive to amend their ways?

[GloomCookie]

What this incentives is more Civil Asset Forfeiture. If the police department has to pay for cops doing bad, that eats into their budget. If that happens, the police are told to go look for more drug dealers and the like. Why? Because if they find drug dealers, they usually have large caches of money, and that money is seized as part of the arrest. That money is then treated as a separate legal entity and presumed guilty until proven innocent, meaning the court will not release it until they're satisfied it's not ill gotten gains. They deliberately make this difficult because then they can streamline the process. No one showed up to defend the $30,000 cash? Must be guilty, case closed. That money then goes into the police department. Do this enough times, who cares if the cops do something shady? They're just tough on crime, which is what most Americans want to hear.  Then you toss in stupid stuff like the city offering to pay it, then that's just more money in the pockets of the police department.

[Vekseid]

More and more municipalities will dissolve or otherwise replace their police forces. A few will be forced to accept reforms and oversight.

Especially as a number of departments are basically refusing to do their jobs.

Police approval is still falling. As it becomes a less and less respected profession more and more communities will resort to alternative solutions.

I expect it will happen faster than most pessimists here would think. This isn't some movement that requires a national constitutional amendment to see results. Municipalities just have to individually vote, sue, or in some cases fight for it.



Interestingly on Civil Forfeiture the Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter again. Which is interesting as it takes four justices for them to agree to hear a case. So... someone has some new thoughts on it. They will be hearing the case in October 2023 at the earliest.

[Beorning]

More and more municipalities will dissolve or otherwise replace their police forces. A few will be forced to accept reforms and oversight.

Especially as a number of departments are basically refusing to do their jobs.

Police approval is still falling. As it becomes a less and less respected profession more and more communities will resort to alternative solutions.

Could I ask what these alternative solutions would be? Based on what I've seen, the police in the US has some serious problems - but is it really possible to just close the local PD? Who would enforce the law in the area, then?

[Beguile's Mistress]

Could I ask what these alternative solutions would be? Based on what I've seen, the police in the US has some serious problems - but is it really possible to just close the local PD? Who would enforce the law in the area, then?

In my state some small communities are facing an exodus of citizens who can't find jobs at home and move to larger urban centers for work.  Revenues drop and it becomes difficult to fund the police force.  Some communities merge these services to provide adequate protection while some begin to rely on state police to cover their needs.

[Oniya]

Could I ask what these alternative solutions would be? Based on what I've seen, the police in the US has some serious problems - but is it really possible to just close the local PD? Who would enforce the law in the area, then?

The exact solutions are going to depend on what the problem is.  Some examples would be:

1) Health-related responses - mental health/social workers/medical personnel responding to 'guy acting strangely' (who might be suffering from an insulin crisis, might be drunk, might be having a mental health crisis, might be overdosing.)

2) Pro-active responses to DV situations - programs like SafeLink that get victims in touch with counseling and shelters/exit plans - rather than arresting the perpetrator and pissing them off even more (and possibly exacerbating the situation when they return home.)

3) Community involvement - put simply, neighbors looking out for neighbors.  These can either be a replacement for 'the police station', or a supplement to it (Does this incident really need an officer, or would someone with a flashlight and a cell phone be sufficient to deal with it?)

[Beorning]

Hmm. What if an actual crime happens? What is there's a break-in, or murder, or a danger that needs to be stopped?

In regards to the situation listed above - what if an person under influence gets violent (things can get very ugly with some weird designer drugs)? What if the DV situation requires the spouse to be protected from the perpetrator?

Also, I'm not sure if a "neighbour with a flashlight" is a good solution. As I understand, the States have a problem with poorly-trained, triggerhappy cops. That definitely needs to be solved. But would a completely untrained, nervous neighbour with an improvised weapon (or a gun...) be a better option?

[ShadowFox89]

Hmm. What if an actual crime happens? What is there's a break-in, or murder, or a danger that needs to be stopped?

In regards to the situation listed above - what if an person under influence gets violent (things can get very ugly with some weird designer drugs)? What if the DV situation requires the spouse to be protected from the perpetrator?

Also, I'm not sure if a "neighbour with a flashlight" is a good solution. As I understand, the States have a problem with poorly-trained, triggerhappy cops. That definitely needs to be solved. But would a completely untrained, nervous neighbour with an improvised weapon (or a gun...) be a better option?

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/08/20/police-solve-just-2-of-all-major-crimes/

Cops don't stop/solve crime. They're mostly there to take taxpayer money to protect the interest of the wealthy.

[Oniya]

Hmm. What if an actual crime happens? What is there's a break-in, or murder, or a danger that needs to be stopped?

When you cut your finger, you get a bandaid.  When you gash a major blood vessel you call an ambulance.  You recognize the difference and escalate appropriately

In regards to the situation listed above - what if an person under influence gets violent (things can get very ugly with some weird designer drugs)?

This situation was under health-related:  The responders are medical professionals, trained to deal with these situations from a patient-care standpoint, not a criminal-detainment standpoint.  Paramedics are trained to deal with combative patients one way.  Police are trained to deal with combative criminal suspects a far different way, and that's the problem.

What if the DV situation requires the spouse to be protected from the perpetrator?

This situation was referenced as pro-active responses.  That is to say, helping the victim get out of the situation to a safe place before things get to that danger level.

Also, I'm not sure if a "neighbour with a flashlight" is a good solution. As I understand, the States have a problem with poorly-trained, triggerhappy cops. That definitely needs to be solved. But would a completely untrained, nervous neighbour with an improvised weapon (or a gun...) be a better option?

Again:  Sometimes you don't need the cops.  I specified a flashlight because it's not a weapon.  It does, however, let everyone see what's going on (which makes people less nervous), and that maybe the figure in the hoodie only has a drink and a bag of Skittles.  And if you do have to use it as a weapon, you're less likely to hit the wrong person.

The major thrust I've seen is towards not calling the cops for everything.  Currently, it's 'Drunk guy outside?  Call the cops.'  'Party next door too loud? Call the cops.'  'Weird noise? Call the cops.'  'Dog running loose?  Call the cops.'  When you're calling people whose primary tool is a gun, then every problem has the potential to become a target.  That's why you deploy people who are trained with other tools. 

Alternative solutions.

[Regina Minx]

One of the things that I've found most horrifying about police policy in America is that all police officers, at all times while on duty (and most of the time while off duty as well) are expected to be armed with a firearm, and can be disciplined and even fired for not carrying their firearm. Soldiers, marines, sailors, and air corp personnel are not armed in their daily military life. But the police feel the need to carry lethal weapons at every moment of the day, because, apparently, enforcing laws and keeping the peace requires that police officers always have the option of shooting back (shooting first more often than not). It doesn't matter if you're a traffic cop on a two-lane highway in Arkansas or a white collar investigator in Los Angeles, if you're a cop on duty you carry a gun or you pack your bags.

I started thinking about this when I watched a true crime documentary about Stephanie Lazarus, who was convicted in a cold case homicide in 2009. Lazarus had murdered her boyfriend's ex all the way back in 1978 and gotten away with it until new DNA evidence was discovered. Lazarus was a patrol cop back in the 70s, but by the time she became a suspect in the crime, she had moved through the LAPD to the Commercial Crimes Division as a detective. I will repeat: Lazarus was, in 2009, a detective that investigated art theft. Art. Theft. Now, I don't know much about the world of art theft in Los Angeles, but I have a background suspicion that it's not what you would call a violent or dangerous assignment. One here the suspects you're investigating and the crimes you're trying to solve are going to shoot you when you knock on the door. Nevertheless, as a police officer, Lazarus was armed and as such the detectives investigating the crime had to trick her into going into the jail under the pretense of speaking with a criminal informant, as that's apparently the one time and place in the entire fucking universe that cops aren't armed. When they go into jail, apparently, they lock up their weapons.

Just think about this. An art theft detective is armed because she has to be in order to investigate stolen paintings. If that isn't nuts I just don't know what is.

[Beorning]

When you cut your finger, you get a bandaid.  When you gash a major blood vessel you call an ambulance.  You recognize the difference and escalate appropriately

True, but if you dissolve your local PD, doesn't escalating (when the need arises) become much harder? I realize there are multiple levels of police forces in the States - but, if you need to call state police to intervene, doesn't the intervention time become longer?

Not saying it necessarily would be that way - I'm genuinely curious here.

This situation was under health-related:  The responders are medical professionals, trained to deal with these situations from a patient-care standpoint, not a criminal-detainment standpoint.  Paramedics are trained to deal with combative patients one way.  Police are trained to deal with combative criminal suspects a far different way, and that's the problem.

That's true - the cops' training doesn't necessarily give them the best tools to deal with psychiatric patients etc. Even back here, we've had some cases where the cops encountered such people and it ended very badly. On the other hand, I don't know about the States, but back here the EMT crews aren't trained to deal with violent patients and do ask the police for assistance when needed. A drug user might be ultimately a person in need of medical assistance - but some drugs do send people on hyper-aggressive rampages. And our EMTs aren't trained to deal with such levels of violence on their own. Sometimes, cops *are* needed.

This situation was referenced as pro-active responses.  That is to say, helping the victim get out of the situation to a safe place before things get to that danger level.

Sure, but this assumes the pro-active responses work. What if they don't? What if a social worker arrives to the scene and there's a woman being beaten by her husband right there? Will the social worker be able to help her?

Again:  Sometimes you don't need the cops.  I specified a flashlight because it's not a weapon.  It does, however, let everyone see what's going on (which makes people less nervous), and that maybe the figure in the hoodie only has a drink and a bag of Skittles.  And if you do have to use it as a weapon, you're less likely to hit the wrong person.

Again, it's true. But, on the other hand, what if there's a suspicious person lurking around, the proverbial neighbour goes out to check - only for the suspicious person to pull out a knife?

Also, considering the prevalence of firearms in the States, I fear the situation when the neighbours start carrying guns when going out for such checks. "Just in case", you know.

The major thrust I've seen is towards not calling the cops for everything.  Currently, it's 'Drunk guy outside?  Call the cops.'  'Party next door too loud? Call the cops.'  'Weird noise? Call the cops.'  'Dog running loose?  Call the cops.'  When you're calling people whose primary tool is a gun, then every problem has the potential to become a target.  That's why you deploy people who are trained with other tools. 

Alternative solutions.

Oh, I agree in general. Especially in the US context. I certainly don't understand calling the cops on a drunk guy or a dog.

On the other hand, the loud party next door? I'm not sure who else you could call. I actually have a neighbour who, in the past, used to play music really loud. One day, he was playing loud music for over 12 hours. And, with him being a bit of a thug, we were genuinely afraid to go to him and demand that he turned the music off. The only solution was calling the cops - because only then he'd take the matter seriously...

One of the things that I've found most horrifying about police policy in America is that all police officers, at all times while on duty (and most of the time while off duty as well) are expected to be armed with a firearm, and can be disciplined and even fired for not carrying their firearm. Soldiers, marines, sailors, and air corp personnel are not armed in their daily military life. But the police feel the need to carry lethal weapons at every moment of the day, because, apparently, enforcing laws and keeping the peace requires that police officers always have the option of shooting back (shooting first more often than not). It doesn't matter if you're a traffic cop on a two-lane highway in Arkansas or a white collar investigator in Los Angeles, if you're a cop on duty you carry a gun or you pack your bags.

I started thinking about this when I watched a true crime documentary about Stephanie Lazarus, who was convicted in a cold case homicide in 2009. Lazarus had murdered her boyfriend's ex all the way back in 1978 and gotten away with it until new DNA evidence was discovered. Lazarus was a patrol cop back in the 70s, but by the time she became a suspect in the crime, she had moved through the LAPD to the Commercial Crimes Division as a detective. I will repeat: Lazarus was, in 2009, a detective that investigated art theft. Art. Theft. Now, I don't know much about the world of art theft in Los Angeles, but I have a background suspicion that it's not what you would call a violent or dangerous assignment. One here the suspects you're investigating and the crimes you're trying to solve are going to shoot you when you knock on the door. Nevertheless, as a police officer, Lazarus was armed and as such the detectives investigating the crime had to trick her into going into the jail under the pretense of speaking with a criminal informant, as that's apparently the one time and place in the entire fucking universe that cops aren't armed. When they go into jail, apparently, they lock up their weapons.

Just think about this. An art theft detective is armed because she has to be in order to investigate stolen paintings. If that isn't nuts I just don't know what is.

I don't know. Personally, I don't see it as a problem in itself. In Poland, the cops do normally carry guns and we don't really have a triggerhappy cops in spite of that. We do have problems with cops (especially under the current government), but these cases are more about cops abusing their authority or hurting (or killing...) people using hand-to-hand techniques. There was one recent case when a mentally ill man was shockingly gunned down by a patrol of cops - but that's the one case I can think of. In general, the trigger discipline is good.

Which is why I think the primary solution for police problems are proper training and accountibility. Back here, we do have a big problem with accountability these days (up to the top of police chain of command... the grenade launcher incident, I mean...), but the rules for using guns for Polish cops are really strict and *are* enforced. Our cops definitely aren't trained to use guns as their first resort, so we don't usually get senseless shootings by cops here.

[Azy]

One of the things that I've found most horrifying about police policy in America is that all police officers, at all times while on duty (and most of the time while off duty as well) are expected to be armed with a firearm, and can be disciplined and even fired for not carrying their firearm. Soldiers, marines, sailors, and air corp personnel are not armed in their daily military life. But the police feel the need to carry lethal weapons at every moment of the day, because, apparently, enforcing laws and keeping the peace requires that police officers always have the option of shooting back (shooting first more often than not). It doesn't matter if you're a traffic cop on a two-lane highway in Arkansas or a white collar investigator in Los Angeles, if you're a cop on duty you carry a gun or you pack your bags.

I started thinking about this when I watched a true crime documentary about Stephanie Lazarus, who was convicted in a cold case homicide in 2009. Lazarus had murdered her boyfriend's ex all the way back in 1978 and gotten away with it until new DNA evidence was discovered. Lazarus was a patrol cop back in the 70s, but by the time she became a suspect in the crime, she had moved through the LAPD to the Commercial Crimes Division as a detective. I will repeat: Lazarus was, in 2009, a detective that investigated art theft. Art. Theft. Now, I don't know much about the world of art theft in Los Angeles, but I have a background suspicion that it's not what you would call a violent or dangerous assignment. One here the suspects you're investigating and the crimes you're trying to solve are going to shoot you when you knock on the door. Nevertheless, as a police officer, Lazarus was armed and as such the detectives investigating the crime had to trick her into going into the jail under the pretense of speaking with a criminal informant, as that's apparently the one time and place in the entire fucking universe that cops aren't armed. When they go into jail, apparently, they lock up their weapons.

Just think about this. An art theft detective is armed because she has to be in order to investigate stolen paintings. If that isn't nuts I just don't know what is.

It isn't just low life street criminals who carry weapons to protect themselves and their activity.  Art theft can be big money, but we've been taught that drug cartels are more dangerous because it's drugs.  Not all drug dealers are violent either. All officers are armed because they don't know what kind of situation they are going into. 

I have a friend who is a cop, and I've had conversations with him about this stuff.  He's done drug busts where the people knew they were caught and there was no resistance.  And then he's been shot at over illegal gambling. 

He has voiced that sometimes he feels like an underpaid kindergarten teacher because of some of the things people call for.  During the period of zero tolerance in schools he freaked out on a principle for being called over one student giving another an aspirin.  Yeah, some schools took it that far.  He's not one of the bad trigger-happy ones, and would happily welcome some reform.  He's just as frustrated over this as the public.  It makes his job harder, and innocent people are getting hurt.   

One of his ideas was creating a separate division trained to be adult kindergarten teachers so to speak.  They would have more psychological training to de escalate problems that weren't actually crimes.  We both watch the show Station 19, and what they did on that show with the crisis one program and first responders (the firefighters in this case) going through special training to deal with those types of situations.  We agree that would be a great idea.  Or depending on the situation, both regular police and the specially trained people go, and the armed officers just stand by in case things go pear shaped.   

Neighborhood watch is a half decent idea.  The major potential problem with that is people could turn into vigilantes.  Private citizens can be just as racist as any cop, because cops are human beings, and private citizens also own guns. 

Investing in low income neighborhoods is another good idea.  A lot of crime is committed because people are desperate.  Do some things to lift people out of poverty and the crime rate will lower.  My friend has a really good stupid criminal story of a guy coming in to rob a gas station while he was there waiting for some made to order food.  On the way to the prison the guy explained he was super nervous because he'd never even thought about doing something like that before, he wasn't the hardened criminal type.  The only reason he did it was because he had lost his job and if he didn't find some way to get rent money then his family was going to get evicted.  He'd tried programs and charities, and got nowhere, and it was a last resort type of thing.  So yeah.... fix that.     

[Oniya]

You seem to be missing key points while hyper-focusing on specific hypothetical situations.

The exact solutions are going to depend on what the problem is.  Some examples would be:

*snip*

These can either be a replacement for 'the police station', or a supplement to it (Does this incident really need an officer, or would someone with a flashlight and a cell phone be sufficient to deal with it?)

When you cut your finger, you get a bandaid.  When you gash a major blood vessel you call an ambulance.  You recognize the difference and escalate appropriately
*snip*


The major thrust I've seen is towards not calling the cops for everything. Currently, it's 'Drunk guy outside?  Call the cops.'  'Party next door too loud? Call the cops.'  'Weird noise? Call the cops.'  'Dog running loose?  Call the cops.'  When you're calling people whose primary tool is a gun, then every problem has the potential to become a target.  That's why you deploy people who are trained with other tools. 

Alternative solutions.

[Elayne]

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-07-23/video-trans-man-beaten-la-county-sheriff-deputy

To contribute to the conversation- LA cop pulls over a trans person for having their air freshener hung incorrectly, beats them, then insists on a genital inspection.

I don’t really feel all that safe with the police.

[Elayne]

Also the video is very much a trigger warning - the whole incident was filmed.

[Regina Minx]

It isn't just low life street criminals who carry weapons to protect themselves and their activity.  Art theft can be big money, but we've been taught that drug cartels are more dangerous because it's drugs.  Not all drug dealers are violent either. All officers are armed because they don't know what kind of situation they are going into...

I'm not entirely sure how my thoughts about Stephanie Lazarus, who I repeat investigated art theft as a detective, transformed into a discussion about the violence of drug cartels. I admit that I have not made a study of art theft, but in those stories that do stand out in memory, precious few were committed at gunpoint. And, of course, I'll point out that not all officers are armed. The arming of police is something that varies from country to country. There are places where they have art theft but also unarmed police officers because apparently the thinking is 'why does every cop need to carry a gun?'