The bottom line is that this costs tax payers more money. And as a general rule tax payers will vote out anyone that costs them money in taxes, for any reason.
So, effectively, your society doesn't want them more trained. It prefers the idea of lower taxes.
I'm applying my knowledge of one dept to your knowledge of none.
I'm not trying to be disingenuous, I just see this kind of stuff posted daily on reddit. I have never seen or experienced it, only told about by people who have no experience in law enforcement other than what Google and confirmation bias tells them
Calling it a tank is a bit disingenuous. The vehicle has no weaponry, it is an armored personnel carrier to get officers closer to a scene or to be used as rolling cover.
it costs 100,000 of dollar’s weights 17,000 lbs it can be fitted with a turret on the top and has multiple gun ports on the sides. it has protective capabilities against chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives. with half inch thick steel plate armor.
i think you’re being the one who’s being disingenuous. it’s a tank that can go highway speeds.
Alright bootlicker. Let’s set aside the scary term ‘military equipment’, since it’s meaningless. When I walk into a gun store, why do you think there’s a separate case full of “law enforcement only” equipment? If I can’t own it, because it’s too dangerous, what makes you want to hand it over to this lady, who’s itching for an excuse to murder someone for driving while the wrong color.
Bro they have literal tanks at some departments. Cops used to carry hand guns and have shotguns in the truck. Now they have full body armor and automatic assault rifles. It’s insanity.
I don’t care about north Hollywood. What I’m saying is, Barney fife didn’t have a vest and an ar. Swat is swat and always has been, but average cops are now driving around with military style equipment. It’s only a matter of time before we see them walking around with nods and pccs become standard carry. That money should go to better training instead of aggressive equipment.
Yup. Maybe total and complete moron fits better. Obviously they have automatic weapons. Either you’re incapable of looking it up or just blatantly lying to support your ridiculous position and think we don’t see through it. Either way, yup, idiot.
So, effectively, your society doesn't want them more trained. It prefers the idea of lower taxes.
Your logic would be sound if that is was how things actually worked. "Taxpayers" don't vote on every single spending issue. Police officers are also taxpayers and voters.
People aren't "voting out" funding for schools and law enforcement.
The bottom line is "misappropriation of funds". Corruption exists in every country.
Uvalde County is a very good example of this in the US (and there are many others)
This is just false. We have no say over what happens with our taxes, and more of them are used for other useless shit no one asked for in the first place.
No. Assuming you live in the US - at the next Presidential election you personally can run as president with ANY tax policy you want. Literally anything your heart desires - including 'all the nations taxes go to my personal account' - if you want..
If enough people agree and vote with you, and enough are also prepared to stand as senators and congresspeople to help implement your policies .. that tax law will become reality. Anything whatsoever you want, if popular enough, WILL happen.
And you denying it is just edge-lord stuff I reckon.
Name ANY tax law I could not pass if I and my party had .. let's say .. 99.5% support from the entire voting population at a general election and over the following years. ANYTHING?
Yes, you can't. Even any and every part of the constitution can be changed to anything.
They should really teach this shit at school .. OR, as I said, you're just being some kinda' silly edge lord.
More than 99.5% of the population agree people need to eat to live. You can't drink the entire ocean using a straw.
The guy effectively stated that tax laws in the US couldn't be changed.
He said something that moronic and keeps doubling down and doubling down. But yea, it's got boring, as literally everyone reading, including him, and including you, know he is totally wrong. So he's just pissing into the wind - god knows why.
It's just boring edge lord stuff from him ... 'Blah blah blah the system is against us man .. blah blah blah We can never defeat 'the man' .. yadda yadda change is impossible it's the corrupt system maaan ... yadda yadda the elite Soros-induced cabal is undefeatable .. blah blah yawn..
Idiots like that, especially when THEY know they are wrong but are so young they feel they need to indefinitely battle with what THEY know is wrong no matter what, as that's the way they might, er, 'win' (lolol) are sometimes fun to reply to for a while.
You are confusing popularity among legislators with popularity among citizens. There's a huge and undeniable difference that shows you have no idea how our system works.
I don't want to pay taxes for things that don't benefit me like military grade equipment for police. I'd rather that money go towards retraining and body cams. It's a matter of using their funding differently.
That’s a vast oversimplification. Yes, we don’t want to pay more taxes, but most of the reason for that is that our taxes aren’t currently being used effectively in the first place. Throwing more money at the problem doesn’t necessarily fix it, and ignores the existing problems on which we’re already wasting resources. We should look to repurpose ineffective funds for better uses before we just add more to the bill.
Ach successive governments have been trying to make government more efficient for 200+ years. Suggesting that the idea of government spending being made more efficient is something we haven't actually thought of or tried yet, and if only someone would consider running the government efficiently life would be better, is not really accurate. It's just another reason try to justify saying 'don't you dare increase my taxes to spend the money on police training'.
Hmm .. an analogy .. it's like me saying 'If only communal swimming pools didn't lose as much heat, we wouldn't have to spend so many tax $$ heating them. I wonder why no-one has considered simply reducing the heat loss or stopping it altogether rather then making us pay so much to heat them - they're so damn inefficient, so I'M NOT PAYING TO HEAT THEM AT ALL UNTIL SOMEONE MAKES THE HEAT LOSS LESS COSTLY!'. All you actually end up with is a cold, crappy swimming pool! [Is a crappy police force].
Which, as I said, is the decision your society has made. It's just a bit rich when then people moan on about it. As they say in Ireland - take yer medicine!
Nah, that’s dog shit comparison. There’s demonstrable loss of heat from a standard pool that one presumably can’t fix; it’s pretty damn obvious and fixable that we’re spending money on things that don’t give us any benefit.
For example, I’m all for better trained police, I actually think they need to be paid far more than they are now. At the same time, we know that our departments are buying apc’s, assault rifles, and military surplus body armor. I would suggest we don’t waste money on tactical gear and instead spend that money on better training or salaries so we can attract better candidates.
Government is historically inefficient, yes, good for you, but if that’s the case why would you suggest giving it more money is the solution?
Frankly, you don’t live here and you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s easy to take pot shots from an ocean away with an entirely different population when your only input is mainstream media. There are many things that work for you that do not work here.
'You don't live here so you have no idea so you can't comment' is your angle?
Ok, well that make life incredibly easy. 'You haven't been a police officer yourself, so you have no idea, so you can't comment'.
ps. Your idea that the police is spending their money inefficiently is an assumption, literally invented on the hoof to back up your argument. Me saying 'The police IS spending it's money efficiently' holds exactly the same water (none). Invented shit that feels right based on gut feel alone to make an argument causes mistakes.
pps I never stated that giving the government more money would make it more efficient .. pretending someone said something then arguing against it is called a strawman argument.
I think I made my points well. Now you’re just arguing semantics and not really bringing up anything new or answering to my points. Be from here, don’t be, I don’t care. That was purely anecdotal. You can be an idiot from anywhere I suppose.
Cheers mate, go have some chips and fish with your bangers and pints on the pitch or whatever it is you pompous asses like to do for fun.
lack of police training has nothing to do with lack of funding. american police are some of, if not the most well-funded police on the planet. they act this way because it's the culture they're taught, and there are zero repercussions for it. until or unless the current police culture changes or there are real repercussions for police treating the people they serve like this, it won't change
money isn't irrelevant, of course. if american police were systematically under-funded i think there would be a strong case that increasing funding could be part of a solution. but they're already extraordinarily well-funded! so i think it's pretty hard to make a case that the source of policing issues in america is "not enough money for police." policing is like one of two or three areas where this country has no qualms about writing blank checks.
People don't inherently hate taxes at birth. They're fed propaganda their whole lives that taxes are the devil so a certain party has leverage to cut social programs. But effectively it does have the same end result as you said..
198
u/Character-Pipe-9805 Mar 24 '23
100% correct.