U.S Police shooting

[Galen Selanno 351]

@WuBz, police brutality is a worldwide crime, not the least of which takes place in the United States. Because I live in a place where police brutality is seen on a daily basis, and because I've seen multiple cases of it myself (a cop threatened to shoot me if I reported one case I saw), I can say that America is one of the most dangerous nations to be a civilian in. And you'd expect America to be a stable, calm, accepting place, right? WRONG!! The police run wild here. Nobody reports abuse, and they're still looked up to as our protectors and saviors. Don't ask me why.

[VitalSpark 1,830]

Also there is major problems because we all know the U.S police force is corrupt in almost all states

 

Although corruption is an ongoing problem in most police forces (albeit usually on a small scale), I don't think it's the root cause for many police shootings.

 

The real problem is that the police in the US appear, rightly or wrongly, to be terrified of the very populations they're supposed to be protecting. This gives them, especially new recruits, itchy trigger fingers.

 

Sorry Police force should not be based on consumer demand. It needs to be blind like justice. Watch Robocop if you want to see what a Company police force is like minus the robocop.

 

Quite.

 

Whatsmore, apart from perhaps telecommunications, I can't think of any formerly nationalised industry that when privatised, has actually delivered on the efficiency improvements and cost savings that were promised.

 

In the UK at least, privatizing the water companies hasn't led to significant price changes or infrastructure improvements (almost a third of water caught in UK reservoirs ends up leaking out of poorly maintained water pipes). Probably because the water supplies were divided up geographically, so there's effectively no competition between them. There might be more than a dozen different companies, but no matter where you live, only one will be serving your area.

 

Trains have not just failed to improve, but gotten actively worse since privatization. Again, there's a lack of competition for consumers. There are dozens of companies, but if you need to catch a train from A to B, there will only be one or two serving that particular route.

 

Royal Mail was sold off at a fraction of its value, and the price of a stamp has gone from £0.46 to £0.62 in the last three years. Competitors eat its business in high-profit areas like London, which Royal Mail has traditionally used as a way of subsidising providing a service to remote areas like the Scottish Highlands. (Royal Mail is legally obliged to continue serving them, but its competitors have no such obligation.) Royal Mail was established in 1516, privatized in 2013, and will be dead and carved up within a decade. Once that happens, the government will end up stepping in to subsidize some other company to maintain a postal service for remote parts of the UK.

 

The police would be the same. In fact, the UK already has some experience in this. Security for the 2012 Olympic Games was outsourced to a private company, G4S. At the last minute the army had to be called in to assist because they hadn't trained staff fast enough. They finally announced they had enough staff on 8 Aug 2012. The games had started on 25 Jul, and finished on 12 Aug. G4S also have various contracts with the prison service, including monitoring parolees using electronic tags. At one point they were discovered to have been being paid money to monitor parolees who had since died, or had already been re-arrested and were behind bars again.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Vital Sparkle

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

Sure, but as with every government-run industry, it's horribly inefficient and far more expensive than it would be if privately owned

Privatizing something like the police won't really have the advantages of private industry because there isn't really a free market when it comes to government contracts. You're more than likely going to end up with an industrial complex where a single company will hire people on the government side responsible for these contracts so you end up with an incestuous pool of government/private workers who are all way too close to each other. You'll end up with a business with no competitors that has latched onto a customer with near infinitely deep pockets who is not very hard to sell more and more crap to. ( the government)

 

I'm also not in love with the idea of "voting out" an entire police force because of the transition period where you'll have a police force that hasn't settled in yet.

[LZRD WZRD 1,929]

Privatizing something like the police won't really have the advantages of private industry because there isn't really a free market when it comes to government contracts. You're more than likely going to end up with an industrial complex where a single company will hire people on the government side responsible for these contracts so you end up with an incestuous pool of government/private workers who are all way too close to each other. You'll end up with a business with no competitors that has latched onto a customer with near infinitely deep pockets who is not very hard to sell more and more crap to. ( the government)

I'm also not in love with the idea of "voting out" an entire police force because of the transition period where you'll have a police force that hasn't settled in yet.

Won't have the advantages of private industry? It's already been shown to have these advantages.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"The cost of San Francisco's private patrol specials is $25–30/hour, compared to $58/hour for an off-duty police officer."

 

"In Reminderville, Corporate Security outbid the Summit County Sheriff Department's offer to charge the community $180,000 per year for 45-minute response time emergency response service by offering a $90,000 contract for twice as many patrol cars and a 6-minute response time."

 

"Private police have a contractual responsibility to protect their customers. In Warren v. District of Columbia, the court found that public police have no such responsibility. Thus, they cannot be sued if they fail to respond to calls for help, for instance."

 

 

Also, ideally you wouldn't have to vote out a police force, since they'll be doing their best to provide the best and cheapest service possible. If they do fail to do so, I think a little adjustment time is worth a superior product. Also I fail to see how we would end up with a monopoly in this situation.

[Marine_Vet_Brony 317]

Won't have the advantages of private industry? It's already been shown to have these advantages.

From Wikipedia:

"The cost of San Francisco's private patrol specials is $25–30/hour, compared to $58/hour for an off-duty police officer."

"In Reminderville, Corporate Security outbid the Summit County Sheriff Department's offer to charge the community $180,000 per year for 45-minute response time emergency response service by offering a $90,000 contract for twice as many patrol cars and a 6-minute response time."

"Private police have a contractual responsibility to protect their customers. In Warren v. District of Columbia, the court found that public police have no such responsibility. Thus, they cannot be sued if they fail to respond to calls for help, for instance."

Also, ideally you wouldn't have to vote out a police force, since they'll be doing their best to provide the best and cheapest service possible. If they do fail to do so, I think a little adjustment time is worth a superior product. Also I fail to see how we would end up with a monopoly in this situation.

Might want to quote something else beside wikipedia.

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

Sure, but as with every government-run industry, it's horribly inefficient and far more expensive than it would be if privately owned

If it makes you feel safer, private security is a thing. Personally, though, I think an officer charged with upholding the law needs to be an employee of the law.

[Snow Frostflame 3,568]

just because you hear a few stories about a few corrupt cops doesn't mean all cops are corrupt there are more good ones then bad ones out there..... as for using lethal force cops can only kill someone when someone elses or their own life is at stake, sure maybe recruits get a bit scared and pull out the wrong fire arm but it annoys me when people confuse the police the ones keeping our asses safe from criminals, as mindless psychotic trigger happy killers

[LZRD WZRD 1,929]

Might want to quote something else beside wikipedia.

I could but that would be way too much effort for a post on a My Little Pony forum

 

If it makes you feel safer, private security is a thing. Personally, though, I think an officer charged with upholding the law needs to be an employee of the law.

I'd feel safer knowing my tax money isn't going to funding an inferior and more expensive service.

[Milky Jade 138]

Well, let's just say that bad policework has a way of publicizing itself.