What the **** is Wrong with American Cops?

[elgarak]

From my German perspective, training of US cops is ridiculously short. I read that the LAPD Academy is just a six-month program, followed by one year rookie status, where they do full duty together with a senior training officer.

Here in Germany, it's three years of training (with a lot of theoretical course work). They do internships in precincts, but not full duty, during that time. After that, they still have some probationary time (although that's probably not a full year).

 

[rockinkt]

From my German perspective, training of US cops is ridiculously short. I read that the LAPD Academy is just a six-month program, followed by one year rookie status, where they do full duty together with a senior training officer.

Here in Germany, it's three years of training (with a lot of theoretical course work). They do internships in precincts, but not full duty, during that time. After that, they still have some probationary time (although that's probably not a full year).

Still doesn't stop the claims...

https://www.dw.com/en/police-violence-in-germany-an-underreported-problem/a-50462692

 

[CORed]

The drug laws and enforcement in the USA are more draconian than most other democracies (I assume that is what you would really like to see your country’s law enforcement compared to, and not, say, China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia.) American police are quite zealous about arresting users for small possession of amounts of drugs for their own personal use. Due to the harshness of possession penalties in the USA ie; jail, there is likely a greater tendency for drug users to resist arrest by fleeing, fighting, etc. The result is quick escalation and a much greater chance of injury to one or more parties.

In Canada cannabis has been legal for nearly two years. There are no properly researched published reports of any noticeable changes in Canadian society due to legalization. Here simple hard drug possession and use is treated as a health issue rather than a crime. The users have no reason to fear interactions with the police so interactions between users and police rarely escalate beyond discussion.

The “drug abuse problem” and the consequences of escalation during police/user confrontations in the USA is much more due to your laws and enforcement methods than to any danger from the users themselves, or to other citizens from the users.

And yes, there is always a concern of petty crime by the drug users to get money to support their habits. Trying to use this as a reason to come down heavy on possession would be grasping at straws.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Drug prohibition is a disaster in America, and it's a very large part of what fuels the ongoing hostility between police and the African American community. And I do think it's not entirely the fault of the police. There is a "vicious circle" going on, a chasm of mutual mistrust that makes interactions between cops and minority citizens often much more violent on both sides than they should be. Legalization of cannabis seems to be happening at somewhere between a glaciers and a snails pace, piecemeal one state at a time (but hey that's the way we do things in 'Merica, for a lot of historical reasons that are largely irrelevant now) but hard drug usage needs to be treated as a medical problem rather than a criminal one here.

 

[rockinkt]

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Drug prohibition is a disaster in America, and it's a very large part of what fuels the ongoing hostility between police and the African American community. And I do think it's not entirely the fault of the police. There is a "vicious circle" going on, a chasm of mutual mistrust that makes interactions between cops and minority citizens often much more violent on both sides than they should be. Legalization of cannabis seems to be happening at somewhere between a glaciers and a snails pace, piecemeal one state at a time (but hey that's the way we do things in 'Merica, for a lot of historical reasons that are largely irrelevant now) but hard drug usage needs to be treated as a medical problem rather than a criminal one here.

Back in one of Criminology classes I remember a question put to us by a very well respected professor who was playing devil's' advocate in an attempt to make our Monday morning 8:30 AM fogged brains start working.
I kept the quizz and I quote the question asked by Dr. Paul Brantingham in its entirety.

In many inner cities - a hierarchical, extractive drug economy fills the void left by deindustrialization, resulting in accumulation of wealth at the expense of addicted customers and recreational users. That money generated by the illegal drug trade is a big part of the economy of the inner cities. If you legalize drugs and remove that economy - what are you going to replace it with?

 

[Steve]

Back in one of Criminology classes I remember a question put to us by a very well respected professor who was playing devil's' advocate in an attempt to make our Monday morning 8:30 AM fogged brains start working.
I kept the quizz and I quote the question asked by Dr. Paul Brantingham in its entirety.

In many inner cities - a hierarchical, extractive drug economy fills the void left by deindustrialization, resulting in accumulation of wealth at the expense of addicted customers and recreational users. That money generated by the illegal drug trade is a big part of the economy of the inner cities. If you legalize drugs and remove that economy - what are you going to replace it with?

Your professor is either somewhat naive, or this was before the results of decriminalization and legalization were known. Canada is in the process of replacing the illegal cannabis economy and has noticeably reduced the stigma and consequences of hard drugs possession and use. There is still an underground drug market. It has not been replaced with anything but it is smaller. The noticeable difference is in the consequences for those who have to deal with law enforcement, and the in the consequences for law enforcement personnel compared to our neighbours to the south.

This raises so many questions. May I ask what your response was to the question? Was there a perceived need among your fellow students to replace it with anything? Do you think that maintaining an underground/black market economy is a valid reason to keep drugs illegal? Did your prof think it was/is? Or was it intended to be entirely rhetorical?

 

[Mumbles]

From my German perspective, training of US cops is ridiculously short. I read that the LAPD Academy is just a six-month program, followed by one year rookie status, where they do full duty together with a senior training officer.

Here in Germany, it's three years of training (with a lot of theoretical course work). They do internships in precincts, but not full duty, during that time. After that, they still have some probationary time (although that's probably not a full year).

That's why I keep saying the same.

The more I think of it, the more I suspect Michael Wood Jr. was right - these guys react to much of any encounter with a black guy like they're terrified, which is why pretty much anything they don't suspect has that screaming commands and firing their guns wildly. Tamir Rice was "expected" to run when they drove up - when he just sat there, they lost control driving on the grass. But it's Rice's fault.

 

[arthwollipot]

You know something else that's wrong with American cops?

Dave Grossman. Take that guy out of the picture and things might improve.

 

[Suddenly]

That's why I keep saying the same.

The more I think of it, the more I suspect Michael Wood Jr. was right - these guys react to much of any encounter with a black guy like they're terrified, which is why pretty much anything they don't suspect has that screaming commands and firing their guns wildly. Tamir Rice was "expected" to run when they drove up - when he just sat there, they lost control driving on the grass. But it's Rice's fault.

Maybe it is because I have significant experience with this issue, but I see it as beyond obvious.

Police academy training, at least here, has become far more militaristic/survivalist. When I have to make small talk with cops I'd often get them talking about the academy, and experiences vary a lot with age.

They now spend a lot of time going over films of cops being shot, for one thing. Which is where a lot of this comes from.

 

[lomiller]

Back in one of Criminology classes I remember a question put to us by a very well respected professor who was playing devil's' advocate in an attempt to make our Monday morning 8:30 AM fogged brains start working.
I kept the quizz and I quote the question asked by Dr. Paul Brantingham in its entirety.

In many inner cities - a hierarchical, extractive drug economy fills the void left by deindustrialization, resulting in accumulation of wealth at the expense of addicted customers and recreational users. That money generated by the illegal drug trade is a big part of the economy of the inner cities. If you legalize drugs and remove that economy - what are you going to replace it with?

The last thing we need is another thread filled with hand wringing about jobs “disappearing”. As long as people want more goods/services there will always be jobs for people providing those goods and services. Should this ever NOT be the case we would be living in a world where robots provide everyone with everything they could ever want free of charge and without anyone ever having to lift a finger themselves. Truly, what a hell hole that would be

 

[lomiller]

You know something else that's wrong with American cops?

Dave Grossman. Take that guy out of the picture and things might improve.

With all the talk of how militarized US policing is, it’s easy to forget that even as a military strategy these tactics fail. A major reason why the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan failed was because US troops sent there were trained to view the citizenry as a potential threat against which they must defend themselves at all costs. When you point a loaded rifle at someone, it really doesn’t matter how many times you say “we’re here to help”, they will not consider you a friend. If the locals hate you, you are never going to create peace, order and stability.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Back in one of Criminology classes I remember a question put to us by a very well respected professor who was playing devil's' advocate in an attempt to make our Monday morning 8:30 AM fogged brains start working.
I kept the quizz and I quote the question asked by Dr. Paul Brantingham in its entirety.

In many inner cities - a hierarchical, extractive drug economy fills the void left by deindustrialization, resulting in accumulation of wealth at the expense of addicted customers and recreational users. That money generated by the illegal drug trade is a big part of the economy of the inner cities. If you legalize drugs and remove that economy - what are you going to replace it with?

It isn't at the expense of addicted customers. Getting high is great. People like it. The high from drugs is a benefit.

People get benefits and costs wrong all the time. Getting high is a benefit. Having a job is a cost

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It isn't at the expense of addicted customers. Getting high is great. People like it. The high from drugs is a benefit.

Then they come down from the high and feel awful. So they have to take more drugs - and more, and more. Now they have to take drugs just to not feel awful. That's what addiction is - and it's not a benefit to the 'customer'.

People get benefits and costs wrong all the time. Getting high is a benefit. Having a job is a cost

BobTheCoward gets things wrong all the time. Having to pay for your addiction is a cost. Having a job benefits your bank balance. But when you are an addict you probably can't hold down a job, so you must turn to crime to finance your addiction.

In many inner cities - a hierarchical, extractive drug economy fills the void left by deindustrialization, resulting in accumulation of wealth at the expense of addicted customers and recreational users. That money generated by the illegal drug trade is a big part of the economy of the inner cities. If you legalize drugs and remove that economy - what are you going to replace it with?

Broken window fallacy. Drug trading is a drag on the economy. It's why poor neighborhoods get poorer. But legalizing drugs won't make much difference. It could even increase criminal activity, because legal drugs might be a bit cheaper and easier to get - making more addicts who can't hold down a job and have to turn to crime.

We only have to look at one legal drug - alcohol - to see what it could do to the economy.

The cost of excessive alcohol use in the United States reached $249 billion in 2010, or about $2.05 per drink. Most (77%) of these costs were due to binge drinking...

most of the costs resulted from losses in workplace productivity (72% of the total cost), health care expenses for treating problems caused by excessive drinking (11% of total), law enforcement and other criminal justice expenses (10%), and losses from motor vehicle crashes related to excessive alcohol use (5%).

 

[cullennz]

You know something else that's wrong with American cops?



Dave Grossman. Take that guy out of the picture and things might improve.

Far out.

Never heard of this bloke but just reading about him he sounds Ike a complete knobend, on an ego driven power trip.

 

[Ziggurat]

But legalizing drugs won't make much difference. It could even increase criminal activity, because legal drugs might be a bit cheaper and easier to get - making more addicts who can't hold down a job and have to turn to crime.

That’s part of it. Another part is that legalizing drugs won’t make most drug dealers go straight. They will often turn to other forms of crime in order to make a living, because most of them are involved in the drug trade to begin with because they either cannot or do not want to work in the legal labor market. Legalization won’t change that. I can’t say what the net effect of legalization will be, but there are definitely significant costs to doing so.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

there is a mountain of empirical evidence that de-criminalizing drugs, coupled with easily and cheaply available rehabilitating services, massively decrease criminality, which should be obvious to everyone.

If drugs are cheap and easy to get, you don't have to strain your budget to get them, and you don't have to isolate from the community to use them. And, of course, you don't kill yourself with laced/contaminated/too concentrated drugs.

The only victim of de-criminalizing drugs is the prison-industrial-complex.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

there is a mountain of empirical evidence that de-criminalizing drugs, coupled with easily and cheaply available rehabilitating services, massively decrease criminality, which should be obvious to everyone.

And not just drugs. Make theft, rape, and murder legal - and watch those crime stats drop!

 

[llwyd]

And not just drugs. Make theft, rape, and murder legal - and watch those crime stats drop!

Well, drug prohibition is little different from those things - and it has been a gigantic boon to organized crime (with all the attendant things that you mention here) plus of course to police forces too, and also prisons which is a huge industry in the USA.

 

[quadraginta]

And not just drugs. Make theft, rape, and murder legal - and watch those crime stats drop!

Exactly. Because recreational drug use is just like theft, rape, and murder. And they should all be treated the same.

Oh ... wait.

 

[rockinkt]

Your professor is either somewhat naive, or this was before the results of decriminalization and legalization were known. Canada is in the process of replacing the illegal cannabis economy and has noticeably reduced the stigma and consequences of hard drugs possession and use. There is still an underground drug market. It has not been replaced with anything but it is smaller. The noticeable difference is in the consequences for those who have to deal with law enforcement, and the in the consequences for law enforcement personnel compared to our neighbours to the south.

This raises so many questions. May I ask what your response was to the question? Was there a perceived need among your fellow students to replace it with anything? Do you think that maintaining an underground/black market economy is a valid reason to keep drugs illegal? Did your prof think it was/is? Or was it intended to be entirely rhetorical?

Seriously? The underground drug market in Canada is smaller? Where are you getting your numbers? The fact that the taxation of weed is so high the underground economy in that particular commodity has not really changed that much.
https://qz.com/1605614/canadas-black-market-for-weed-is-thriving-even-after-legalization/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/cannabis-one-year-illegal-sales-nb-1.5323130

Any shortfall has been replaced with the relatively recent introduction of meth and those sales and users are increasing. Drug dealers give out meth to increase customers. Meth is very addictive.
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/crystal-meth-addiction-canada

Besides - you are comparing the entirety of a Canada with the specific drug problems and violence of many inner core US cities. That is so wrong on so many levels I don't have the time or space to deal with such an incredibly huge lack of understanding and knowledge of the situation.

As an example of inner city drug use - because that is what Dr. Brantingham was talking about - have you ever spent time in Canada's own Downtown Eastside (DTES) of Vancouver? $350 million a year goes into drug use amelioration in that drug trade community alone and that area has been basically off limits to the Vancouver police for years. The economy is drug sales and welfare and wannabee saviours getting paid to run programs that have shown no effectiveness in decades.
Even the hookers (except the most desperate ones) have moved out as very few people with money will venture into that area.
The drug use in DTES has not been falling, it's been rising. The numbers of deaths from opioid addiction has been horrendous for a couple of years due to the introduction of Fentanyl and carFentanil and yet the numbers are still rising!

So far - the illegal drug trade has not disappeared or decreased in Canada and the human suffering because of it has increased so using Canada as an example of good drug policy is ridiculous.

No-one is "claiming that maintaining an underground/black market economy is a valid reason to keep drugs illegal" as you put it. Dr. Brantingham was calling for the legalization of street drugs back in the 1970s (when this took place) and I am in full agreement with him.
However, the question is still valid: IF you remove the drug trade - what are you going to replace the money it generates with? I suggested the money that is used on enforcement could be used to subsidize the creation of jobs. There will also be money for addiction centres - hopefully. However, as we see - throwing money at addiction and a hands off attitude by the police (basically decriminalizing both soft and hard drugs) has not stopped addiction or the corresponding black market sales (dealers will always find something to deal) in the DTES.

The experiment continues. No-one has the answers - yet.

 

[Steve]

Seriously? The underground drug market in Canada is smaller? Where are you getting your numbers? The fact that the taxation of weed is so high the underground economy in that particular commodity has not really changed that much.
https://qz.com/1605614/canadas-black-market-for-weed-is-thriving-even-after-legalization/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/cannabis-one-year-illegal-sales-nb-1.5323130

Any shortfall has been replaced with the relatively recent introduction of meth and those sales and users are increasing. Drug dealers give out meth to increase customers. Meth is very addictive.
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/crystal-meth-addiction-canada

Besides - you are comparing the entirety of a Canada with the specific drug problems and violence of many inner core US cities. That is so wrong on so many levels I don't have the time or space to deal with such an incredibly huge lack of understanding and knowledge of the situation.

As an example of inner city drug use - because that is what Dr. Brantingham was talking about - have you ever spent time in Canada's own Downtown Eastside (DTES) of Vancouver? $350 million a year goes into drug use amelioration in that drug trade community alone and that area has been basically off limits to the Vancouver police for years. The economy is drug sales and welfare and wannabee saviours getting paid to run programs that have shown no effectiveness in decades.
Even the hookers (except the most desperate ones) have moved out as very few people with money will venture into that area.
The drug use in DTES has not been falling, it's been rising. The numbers of deaths from opioid addiction has been horrendous for a couple of years due to the introduction of Fentanyl and carFentanil and yet the numbers are still rising!

So far - the illegal drug trade has not disappeared or decreased in Canada and the human suffering because of it has increased so using Canada as an example of good drug policy is ridiculous.

No-one is "claiming that maintaining an underground/black market economy is a valid reason to keep drugs illegal" as you put it. Dr. Brantingham was calling for the legalization of street drugs back in the 1970s (when this took place) and I am in full agreement with him.
However, the question is still valid: IF you remove the drug trade - what are you going to replace the money it generates with? I suggested the money that is used on enforcement could be used to subsidize the creation of jobs. There will also be money for addiction centres - hopefully. However, as we see - throwing money at addiction and a hands off attitude by the police (basically decriminalizing both soft and hard drugs) has not stopped addiction or the corresponding black market sales (dealers will always find something to deal) in the DTES.

The experiment continues. No-one has the answers - yet.

So your profs question was rhetorical. Thank you.

And we seem to be in agreement. Maintaining an underground economy is no reason to keep any drugs illegal.

The Canadian approach to illegal drugs results in enforcement that is much less dangerous for all parties than the American approach.