It does seem to be some peoples solution to EVERY problem though.
preventable police shooting. Looks like there are more preventable justified police shootings than what we are typically led to believe. Some people didn't have to die, and just blaming the victim doesn't get at the truth of the matter.
count me in. Many of the cops I know well have told me this same thing. In fact, ALL of the cops I speak to tell me this.
Here's the problem. Police department funding is at record lows in many places and costs are at record highs. In fact, that is one reason why Mari thinks civil forfeiture is a necessity, to better fund our men in blue.
Now I disagree with that, on constitutional grounds, but his point about the shortages in funds for these programs and the police in general, is quite accurate.
So are you, and the public at large, willing to pay more taxes to better fund the police? You think those higher taxes are going to go over well in poor, urban neighborhoods? Can they afford higher taxes?
Its a real problem Matt.
Its a real problem Matt.
It was a total disaster. Some French moved to the UK and other nations, many famous people in France threatened to do the same, business owners said they would relocate those businesses outside of France, etc etc etc
The just "stick it to the rich" sounds great in theory, but doesn't help in any practical sense and actually hurts society.
No, I don't have the answer either, but SOMETHING needs to be cut AND we need real growth policies to expand the tax base (i.e. increase the number of people working) or we are going to lose our safety nets as well.
It does seem to be some peoples solution to EVERY problem though.
The just "stick it to the rich" sounds great in theory, but doesn't help in any practical sense and actually hurts society.
No, I don't have the answer either, but SOMETHING needs to be cut AND we need real growth policies to expand the tax base (i.e. increase the number of people working) or we are going to lose our safety nets as well.
Forgive me for not knowing my American political history (it's almost like we aren't taught it in school in Europe or something, weird), but wasn't there some absurdly high tax rate on the very rich (90%+? I don't know where I'm pulling that number from) in the not too distant past?
Oh, and the 'something' to be cut? The somewhat inappropriately named 'defence' budget. Whether you agree with the wars that have been waged in recent years or not, surely the notion that too much has been spent in doing so is not debatable?
but they were more than offset by huge loopholes and tax shelters which allowed most of the truly rich to pay no taxes whatsoever. People love to spread the myth about the Reagan tax cuts for the rich, but the truth of the matter is taxes actually went up for the rich under Reagan as thousands of millionaires found themselves paying taxes for the very first time.
Unfortunately the Tax Reform Act of 1984 was amended so often and so quickly that in just a couple of years it was bore little resemblance to it's original form
to improve the de-escalation training issue:
1. Change the culture. Meaning, make it OK to ask for help, and not making taking control as rapidly as possible the main goal, but rather the safety of all those involved. Reduce the competitive spirit of the job. Hard to do when everyone is competing for promotion, so the criterion for promotion needs to reflect the importance of having the ability to communicate with a broad spectrum of people, and de-escalation skills. Side note; there are times when taking control as rapidly as possible is the best solution to safeguard and maintain the safety of all involved, However, that should not be the operating procedure across the board.
2. Redistribute the pie. Perhaps trimming 2 to 3 percent of the top 3 or 4 categories, represented in the chart, and spending it for de-escalation training may go a long way.
A thought that comes to mind is the asset forfeiture program as it relates to drug busts of major proportion.
It was a few years ago and I still lived in Los Angeles when an asset forfeiture maneuver was done involving a yacht owned by a local businessman (can't recall the name offhand) who was importing cocaine and marijuana into the US from Colombia via the Panama Canal. His yacht slip was in Marina Del Rey.
The boat was valued at $12 million US, the drugs they confiscated (3 tons of high grade Colombian blow, 1 ton of marijuana) had an estimated street value of $200 million (mostly from the high price of pure coke at that time).
The marijuana was destroyed, but all but 2 pounds of the cocaine were NEVER ACCOUNTED FOR!
The yacht in question wound up being sold at auction for under $500,000 to the Marina Dey Rey Yacht club representing an anonymous bidder. A few years later, it wound up in the posession (for a short time) of Rafael Pérez, disgraced police officer and a key figure in the Rampart Division corruption scandals of the late 90's as well as suspected murderer of rapper Notorious B.I.G.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal
Asset forfeiture is a sham under its current configuration. It should bring $500 million to $1 Billion a year into law enforcement coffers, and this is assuming all the drugs themselves can be accounted for in evidence lockers.
I have no doubt my tale of corruption is but one example, and there are hundreds if not thousands across the US.
On the other hand, if a mere 2% of our defense budget was trimmed by cutting the waste and redundancies (theres that word again) and those monies ($11 billion +) then transferred to education and law enforcement, it would go a great distance towards easing the budget restrictions currently in place. Even the most ardent hawks acknowledge there is a factor of waste in our military appropriations and budgeting process.
how many times does it happen that Congress votes to finance weapons systems, planes, etc. when the generals, admirals and the Pentagon does not even want them. I'm not an expert on Asset forfeiture, however I think it would work, and still protect the innocent if the property where held until the person was found guilty, then sold for profit to support the police department who made the bust. Or, return the property if the person has been found innocent, or had no charges brought against him/her.
So there's more money to better train the ones we have? We really don't need so many police in this country. Nor do they need tanks and military equipment. Why is it that when it comes to not executing US citizens, what the cops need is more training that we can't afford, but funding never seems to be an issue when every podunk town in America has armored humvees, tanks and SWAT teams