zlacker

>>miles+(OP)
A common response to the idea of "police reform" is that it will make it harder/more expensive/etc to hire police, which we all agree we need.

As an armchair economist who believes that everything DOES happen at the margins, we can't completely ignore this, so I'm at least somewhat sympathetic to the argument.

But what really kills the argument is looking at how our medical professionals have stepped up and responded to COVID-19, putting their lives on the line every day, with utterly inadequate gear. And still they serve.

Yes, if the police are less militarized and have more personal liability/responsibility, it will reduce the level of interest in the profession somewhat, but I think we have to not kid ourselves about the degree of such an impact.

This is before we get into whether we really even want "those people" (who are attracted to the militaristic side of policing) 'serving' our communities at all.

Just as anti-pursuit policies have swept the nation to reduce officer-involved carnage, we can reduce escalation of violence.

>>rconti+Me
Taking away their toys would have a massive impact, don't concern troll that vital point away.

>>tehweb+Jm
For once I am not nearly as cynical and I believe that far from 'massive impact' - it will be negligible. It's only been a decade or so since a lot of this surplus has come in, moreover, I really don't believe most cops want this, or are naive enough to believe it will be a material part of their jobs.

I'm surprised to even see the argument offered, I'm very interested in hearing from someone with inside experience on this enlighten us as to how much these kinds of 'opportunities' actually affect morale.