SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An Anonymous Coward writes:
Camden, New Jersey is a very low income neighborhood. According to this NY Times article, until recently it had typical low income policing--heavy on corruption and violence and low on compassion.
But now they have a new chief and things have changed --
"Handing a $250 ticket to someone who is making $13,000 a year" — around the per capita income in the city — "can be life altering," Chief Thomson said in an interview last year, noting that it can make car insurance unaffordable or result in the loss of a driver's license. "Taxing a poor community is not going to make it stronger."
Handling more vehicle stops with a warning, rather than a ticket, is one element of Chief Thomson's new approach, which, for lack of another name, might be called the Hippocratic ethos of policing: Minimize harm, and try to save lives.
Officers are trained to hold their fire when possible, especially when confronting people wielding knives and showing signs of mental illness, and to engage them in conversation when commands of "drop the knife" don't work. This sometimes requires backing up to a safer distance. Or relying on patience rather than anything on an officer's gun belt.
While not out of the woods yet, it sounds like there is hope for Camden and maybe it won't just continue to be written off as a war zone.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Entropy on Monday April 03 2017, @09:07PM (27 children)
Because a sane person with a knife is more dangerous than a crazy person? Seriously? How about deal with your own knife-wielding crazy person relative, and don't call the cops--if you do call the cops don't whine when the knife wielding crazy person gets shot.
As to tickets, speeding fines should pretty much be abolished.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @09:28PM (2 children)
Because a sane person with a knife is more dangerous than a crazy person? Seriously? How about deal with your own knife-wielding crazy person relative, and don't call the cops--if you do call the cops don't whine when the knife wielding crazy person gets shot.
As to tickets, speeding fines should pretty much be abolished.
As with everything it depends on the person. Some mentally ill people can be really dangerous (I've seen it) depending on the nature of their psychosis, however, most I suspect are very confused (much more common in my experience). A mentally ill person might be really paranoid and carrying the knife simply to defend themselves (against ninjas, aliens, unicorns, or whatever). If an officer can recognize that the person's perceptions are wonky, they can try to convince the person that they are on their side, and then get them the help they need. The truth is that most mentally ill people are more of a danger to themselves than anyone else.
(Note: I am a survivor of major mental illness)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @10:32PM
I just watched a movie about exactly that: Man Down (2015) [imdb.com] with Shia LaBeouf, Jay Courtney and Gary Oldman.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @11:19PM
This begs the question: so what do we do about this Entropy user?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday April 03 2017, @09:52PM (17 children)
> As to tickets, speeding fines should pretty much be abolished.
You do need incentives for people to respect the rules. If you abolish the fines, you have to abolish the "limit".
But fines should be like in Northern Europe, proportional to your income (or at least the value of your car). We have the tech.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03 2017, @10:03PM (4 children)
Fines based on income of the accused would make sense. That's why we won't ever see it in America. We never want any sense in our laws. Senseless laws are easier to write and to exploit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday April 03 2017, @10:18PM (2 children)
While computers could safely compute your fine without telling the cops exactly how much you make, I like the simpler idea of traffic fines based on your vehicle value (which most states compute already yearly for your license plate renewal).
If you have a car way above your income level, and use it like an idiot, you probably deserve a bigger fine than your neighbor driving a junker. This way, you always have the option of selling the car to pay your XL fine, and buy a cheaper one.
It's less fair than income-based, because very rich people only care about income-based fines.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mhajicek on Monday April 03 2017, @10:54PM (1 child)
Personally I think moving violations should be proportional to your vehicle's mass, since your potential for causing damage is already. But yes, any fine which is not made proportional to a person's financial status is discriminatory.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Tuesday April 04 2017, @02:49AM
And velocity -- the energy imparted in any crash is a function of both mass and velocity.
For example, a 440 pound motorcycle going 150 mph, has about 449 kJ of kinetic energy. A 2200 pound car going 67 mph has 447 kJ.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/kinetic-energy [omnicalculator.com]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:14AM
Fines based on income of the accused would make sense. That's why we won't ever see it in America. We never want any sense in our laws. Senseless laws are easier to write and to exploit.
Sadly, this one never gets old:
--Anatole France
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday April 03 2017, @10:18PM (8 children)
If you abolish the fines, you have to abolish the "limit".
There's no problem with that, if the "limit" is inappropriate. Which happens when legislators pull numbers out of their arses. There are ways of setting "limits" (actually "guidelines" is a better word if you're trying to minimise the road incident rate) but they're avoided because they reduce the appearance of legislators' omniscience.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday April 03 2017, @10:52PM (6 children)
In Canada, if the "limit" is printed on a orange sign (instead of a white one), it is merely a guideline.
Often used for poorly banked or narrow sections of road.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 04 2017, @12:09AM
In Europe, the round red sign with black-on-white number in the middle is a strict limit.
Anything advisory is white or blue or yellow, usually in a square.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @01:52AM
The more you know.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday April 04 2017, @04:49AM (3 children)
In Canada, if the "limit" is printed on a orange sign (instead of a white one), it is merely a guideline.
Same here in Oz (yellow-orange). I'm suggesting maybe we should scrap the white ones altogether since they're just being used as revenue raisers (at least over here) and the connection between speed limit and safety depends an awful lot on conditions (weather, traffic density etc).
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:21PM (2 children)
Here in my state (US), we tried "reasonable and prudent" for a highway speed limit, twice. Both times, the legislature bowed to outside pressure and replaced it with numerical limits.
The first numerical limit was imposed under the threat of the withholding of federal highway funds, so the legislature "enforced" the limit with a US$5 fine, which could be paid to the ticketing officer on the spot. Motorists would often keep a few fivers in the glove box, just in case.
The second limit was instated after the state's restoration of "reasonable and prudent" was roundly mocked on late-night talk shows, especially after a noted racer sped across the state, and successfully argued that, due to his experience and skills, he was within the "reasonable and prudent" limits. Now our limits and fines are in line with surrounding states.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:13PM (1 child)
Here in my state (US), we tried "reasonable and prudent" for a highway speed limit, twice. Both times, the legislature bowed to outside pressure and replaced it with numerical limits.
Were the "reasonable and prudent" times long enough to get any meaningful incident rate data?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday April 07 2017, @02:22AM
Sorry it took so long to respond--its been a busy week.
"Reasonable and prudent" [missoulian.com] was in place until 1974, and then for 5 years from 1995-99, and traffic fatalities went down [motorists.org] during the latter period; however, statistics at the time weren't fine-grained enough [missoulian.com] to definitively show that the policy was responsible. [mediatrackers.org]
I haven't been able to find statistics prior to 1978 online, and none of the stories I've seen about the policy talk about the period before 1974, so I can't tell you the effect of the first "reasonable and prudent" period.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @04:42AM
Like the street that is 45 mph for its entire run through the various cities, except for 600 feet. For that stretch, which makes up its entire portion through a particular city, it is 25. Not hard to figure out where the city gets a full 20% of its revenue.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday April 04 2017, @12:11PM (2 children)
Even the car value doesn't work in the frozen north "many" people have a beater pickup truck with a snow blade on it and at least half have all the legal and insurance stuff and a speeding ticket for 1/50th the cost of their vehicle would be like $20.
If your goal is changing behavior, people speed to "save time" so the logical punishment is wasting their time in community service. Go work at the recycling center on Saturday and we'll see how much time you "saved".
Another interesting way to F with speeders "saving time" is to stop giving tickets and let them drive away in a couple minutes, instead haul them down to jail for a couple hours until a judge charges them and releases them. I'm not saying make speeding a federal felony level of punishment but simply let the wheels of justice grind slowly as they usually do. Oh you're in a big hurry? Try hurrying from jail for a couple hours.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 04 2017, @04:45PM
Let's not waste too much cop time either...
I see your community service and I raise you a "stand at the edge of the exact road you were speeding on, for two hours for every extra 5 mph, holding a big sign that says "don't hit me, like you, I was only speeding"". Might teach a few people a good lesson.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:00PM
I don't do it to save time; I do it because it converts driving from a chore into entertainment! A fine usually changes my behavior for a couple months, because I could have bought a half dozen video games for that money. Community service would be a win/win as far as I'm concerned: no fine plus a free warm fuzzy feeling! ;)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday April 04 2017, @02:36AM (5 children)
The police are supposed to be professionals trained to deal with mentally ill people who have a weapon. Most people do not have that training and probably don't have the sort of less lethal weapons that will control a mentally ill person in mid-freakout.
If police just go around killing people, they will come to be treated as an under-powered occupying force. That would be unfortunate for the cops and then the community.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Tuesday April 04 2017, @03:55PM (4 children)
They are. They receive quite a bit of firearms training. You can try to cuddle a crazy knife wielding maniac from far away, via a loud speaker..But if they come close it's time to end it. Someone can close the distance and start stabbing with a knife in a disturbingly short time, and people don't just "switch off" when they are shot.
21 feet and you're stabbed with a knife, even if you start shooting immediately. You seriously expect them to play that game?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday April 04 2017, @06:36PM (3 children)
Yes, in fact I do. While wearing soft armor, of course. They should save the rubber bullets and nets they use on protesters for violently disturbed mentally ill subjects.
If you just want to kill, become an exterminator.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:39AM (2 children)
If a bullet won't stop a knife wielding maniac in 21 feet, why would a rubber bullet? Did you spend any time at all thinking of what it would be like to be in a house(with rooms measuring 8-16 feet) with a knife wielding maniac that can kill you if you're within 21 feet of him?
Also--A net? Are you serious? Did you get that from a video game or something?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:45PM
Actually, a bullet will stop someone if you hit them in a critical area. The 21 feet figure assumes you have to draw the weapon, take aim and fire. It's more like 10 if you have the gun out and safety off. You did note the part where I mentioned soft armor, didn't you?
And yes, a net. I have seen them demonstrated by police. Other options include keeping them bottled up until they fall asleep or calm down.
Perhaps the cowards should consider another line of work.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:48PM
1) At that range, a rubber bullet will go right through the skin and shatter bones, with potentially lethal results. So while it's not *quite* as deadly as a real gun, the initial result will be pretty similar. Anywhere that a gunshot would incapacitate someone, a close range rubber bullet would too.
2) The bullet most likely won't be effective at such short range not because they'll take the hit and keep coming, but because you won't be able to fire before they reach you. So you can argue all day about whether or not they should try to save that life, but either they have time to fire or they don't. If they have time, rubber bullets or real ones both probably work; and if not then neither one will do a damn thing. Standard police body armor should help here though -- that 20 foot range is for an attacker frantically charging a large, central target. Which is where the armor is.
So probably what you want is a weapon you can have trained on the suspect ready to fire, that isn't going to end up as a homicide if you accidentally bump the trigger, and which doesn't look so threatening that it's going to cause an attack in the first place. Taser sounds like the best option IMO, although it's still pretty far from ideal. Some cops also carry what seem to basically be blindingly bright flashlights, those *might* help depending on the situation, though only being blinded would still leave the suspect quite dangerous. If you can get something less lethal than a taser that still disables the suspect it could potentially be acceptable to use in a preemptive strike. But I think even tasers are too risky for any situation where the officer isn't in immediate danger.
And one final thought -- perhaps the primary focus of the officer under attack shouldn't be to incapacitate the attacker, but instead to get out of their partner's line of fire. I realize that's gonna be easier said than done, particularly while under attack and particularly indoors. But they've got better armor, more manpower, better weapons, and if something does go wrong they've got some medical training and a direct line to backup and an ambulance. Surely with all of that we can come up with a better solution than "Fuck it, just kill 'em."