|
Inmate Central Inmate Central, where civil and family-friendly discourse about off-audio topics (other than religion and politics) is welcome. |
|
|
|
Inmate Central Inmate Central, where civil and family-friendly discourse about off-audio topics (other than religion and politics) is welcome. |
|
In Reply to: "as a nation as crazy as a box of frogs." posted by E-Stat on July 21, 2020 at 17:36:58:
I have not been paying too close attention the defund the police in the USA but recently we have had an similar argument in Canada. It goes something like this.
There was a woman/girl in a university who went a little off the beam. She clearly needed some mental health but attending University she is a smart girl not a druggy or involved with crime. So the cop is sent. The cops are NOT trained for mental health problems - for that you "Should have" someone trained for it. In other words you don't have Beverly Crusher sent to a Klingon Fight - you send Worf for that - you send Beverly to deal with injuries. See - Star Trek always has the answers.
Anyway the Cop's job is tough - long days dealing with scuzz of the earth. The cop goes in and drags the woman down the hall - puts her face down - apparently punched the girl a few times - stepped on her head - so now there is a lawsuit etc etc. Cop looks bad here and was clearly unnecessarily violent.
The argument goes like this - why the hell are we paying people who are untrained to do that for which they are asked to do? Of course these problems will arise. And it is a WASTE of cop's time - they are dealing with this crap and not doing what they are supposed to be doing which is protect and serve. Not beat on people who nee mental health.
Not defending the cop but it's also unfair to put cops in these positions. Cops are not necessarily the brightest bulbs in the box - these people usually could not make into university let alone graduate from one. They have a fairly short training period - a year? six months? and then poof you have to deal with everything.
The idea then is to say - okay - cops you no longer deal with these 5 things that you are currently dealing with that you have no expertise in - and instead we allocate the funds to these other entities so that they can deal with the problems. A cop may still go to the scene but it will be the mental health official who deals with the girl.
And consider it from a Fiscal Conservative perspective. Had the girl been treated by an expert - chances are she would not have been beaten - no lawsuit which you the taxpayer has to pay for - lawyers and judges get paid and then whatever monetary damage comes out of the tax payer. Plus there is all the time and money spent investigating the officer and if she is fired they have to then spend a bunch of time and money hiring someone else.
There is this notion called "proactive spending" versus reactive spending.
If Hypethically - you could spend $1 billion now and annually starting in 2020 - so that in 2025 you don't get with $30 billion in reactionary spending because you have riots to pay for then from a fiscal conservative perspective it makes sense to be proactive than reactive.
Because right now the money is being spent regardless whether you think BLM is right or not or whether it's okay for people to be put in unmarked vans. These are all the morality/constitutional arguments - but a good Conservative should care about reducing the expenditure and debt.
I believe in the long run it is better and far cheaper to prevent a person from becoming a criminal or druggy or drain on the system than cheaping out in the now and then waiting a decade and having to spend many many times the money to arrest, detain, punish, treat, all these people.
Utilising money better. Why not?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: "as a nation as crazy as a box of frogs." - RGA 07/22/2000:26:16 07/22/20 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
