I can't anything online to support your claims here so I'm going to stick with the official sources on these things, I found three to support the RCMP. Also the Toronto Police Service's staffing issues in 2017 were largely related to ongoing disputes with city council about reduced staffing numbers and morale. Violent crime is up largely in proportion with the amount of officers reduced over the period of 2010-2016.

Verno wrote on Jan 4, 2018, 15:19:
I've only been following this for kicks but that claim you just made seems way off base. I looked up the RCMP estimates, they peg it around 20 million total between both registered and unregistered.
That's their absolute highest pie in the sky figure too.

The RCMP's numbers don't make any real sense, they're based off of a bunch of stuff, but the key one is based off of the assumption of the number of guns turned in during the gun-grab back in the 90's. That in itself makes it useless, but walk into any farm in Canada and they'll likely have 2-3 unregistered rifles, probably a pistol or three as well and a buckload of ammo. Funny thing about that was there's been a few cases out in Western Canada with natives breaking into property, stealing things and so on and getting shot at by the farmers. Several of the cases went to court, and nearly all of them were either dismissed or the person found innocent.

As for the guns up here? Canadian cops have to deal with the exact same situation as south of the border. It was just a few years ago that police in BC were putting bullet resistant glass in their cars, and armor in the doors. The gangs had been escalating against each other, and it got so bad at one point that several of the gangs had "upgraded" to AP rounds. I'm sure you can figure out the complete shitshow in that one. But you should be paying attention to the big cities, because they're starting to go through the mass urban decay that happened in the US during the late 70's and early 80's. You seriously wouldn't want to be a constable in Toronto today, and most of them if they didn't have the "you must stay in this police service for 3yrs" in their hiring contract would drop out after 6mo-1yr. One of the reasons that said section exists is that even 6 years ago, the average constable only stayed on 18 months before moving to a smaller town/city or right up quitting.

I've only been following this for kicks but that claim you just made seems way off base. I looked up the RCMP estimates, they peg it around 20 million total between both registered and unregistered.
That's their absolute highest pie in the sky figure too.

I'm not personally concerned with the number of guns, I think I'm more worried about what kind of guns they are. Canada has a lot less "restricted" gun ownership compared to America where you can legally own things that should only be used in the military. I'm not sure this makes situations like this more palatable but I'm sure glad I'm not a police officer down here.

jdreyer wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 15:32:

There are 10 million guns in Canada. Not quite the ratio of the US, but still plenty.

Not correct. There's 10 million registered guns in Canada, the unregistered based on the governments own numbers could be as high as 70 million. That's because there was a gun-grab back in the 1990's, and a lot of people simply didn't register. Law or no law, people simply didn't give a shit.

Redmask wrote on Jan 1, 2018, 13:54:

jdreyer wrote on Jan 1, 2018, 13:33:
Fair enough, but we can and must do better. As I mentioned, one aspect of this is the lack of de-escalation/negotiations training. Another is a lack of national standards. The police in the US kill about 1000 people a year. In most other Western nations it's about one or two people per year. We need to get that number down.

What do you propose they do? Police already receive force escalation training. Or do you mean a national standard applied instead of state/municipal level training?

Police don't receive enough de-escalation training, typically only about 10 hours. Compare that to 100 hours of firearm training. At those ratios, you're more likely to go with what you know and are comfortable with. When all you have is a hammer...

And yes, we should have some national "standards." Just like the feds tie state highway funding to having the drinking age set at 21, so too the government can figure out a way to set general broad standards involving personality evaluations and the amount & type of negotiation/de-escalation training so that individual states are encouraged to adopt more & better programs.

Lastly, look at how other nations are handling these issues and see if there's something we can take away from their methods.

People get angry about the police borrowing tactics from the military but I think that's exactly what they should keep doing, they're just borrowing the wrong things. The military has excellent threat recognition and force escalation training designed specifically to minimize casualties and damage.

Certainly better / more training is critical. During the Ferguson riots, the police were all decked out in military gear. Soldiers were aghast at the lack of safety and protocol that the police used during those riots. Even in a war zone, soldiers had better discipline and safety protocols to avoid innocent casualties.

Which brings up my last point: in the military there are consequences for not following protocol. However, the police rarely face consequences. The police close ranks when one of their own screws up. Also, juries rarely convict officers. In addition to prosecutors being reticent to charge officers, they also get the best lawyers money can buy.

I will say, this is part of why I think "Blue Lives Matter" is stupid.

I'm not saying police lives don't matter. But no one is saying that. Absolutely no one. When a police officer dies in the line of duty, it makes national headlines. Even if he just gets in a traffic accident it will at least make local headlines in the nearest city. When there's a major incident, like what just happened in Colorado, it dominates the news. Because most of the time the cop killed is a hero, and our culture will always venerate our heroes, absolutely rightly in these cases.

And if you've ever been to an officer's funeral, or even just seen the procession driving from the church to the cemetery, you've seen how blue lives matter. You'll never see a better attended funeral. The death of an officer is a big, big, big deal.

But incidents like that unarmed guy killed in the hotel room... that shows that blue lives matter to the point that they take precedent over innocent lives. That cop shot and killed an innocent, unarmed guy. A drunken dipshit, sure, but it was still 100% the fault of the cop that the guy died. The cop pulled the trigger. And the system found he shouldn't be penalized for that. Killing an innocent person, with even a tiny shred of reason for it, is something blue lives are allowed to do. The system would rather keep futures of blue lives bright and out of jail than elevate the life of someone innocent they gunned down.

Blue lives matter. Everyone knows this. Every day we see evidence of this. But it's really frustrating when the system shows they matter more than an innocent person a cop mows down. We'll see if this cop sees any jail time.

jdreyer wrote on Jan 1, 2018, 13:33:
Fair enough, but we can and must do better. As I mentioned, one aspect of this is the lack of de-escalation/negotiations training. Another is a lack of national standards. The police in the US kill about 1000 people a year. In most other Western nations it's about one or two people per year. We need to get that number down.

What do you propose they do? Police already receive force escalation training. Or do you mean a national standard applied instead of state/municipal level training?

People get angry about the police borrowing tactics from the military but I think that's exactly what they should keep doing, they're just borrowing the wrong things. The military has excellent threat recognition and force escalation training designed specifically to minimize casualties and damage.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 1, 2018, 13:16:
So you actually have nothing meaningful to add or actual facts. Got it.

Sorry I forgot to bring my anecdote book with me, all I used was statistics and facts, silly me.

Redmask wrote on Jan 1, 2018, 10:24:
I'm sorry you're butthurt I debunked your dumb anecdotes about how friendly the police were when you went on a fucking vacation but nothing you said there addresses my point. There are a lot more guns in America and a lot more gun violence in America, period. You can quibble about percentages and nitpick until you're red in the face but the police in America have a significantly different situation to deal with due to America's deficient gun control laws. That's not to say there aren't problems with training and militarization either but you're only telling part of the story and hiding behind hyperbole.

It's fine to blame the police for their mistakes but we also have to recognize the challenges they face because ultimately it will affect us. Saying 'golly Canadians are so friendly' so its all the training without recognizing other factors is ridiculous. When we're comparing ourselves to other countries to look to make changes, we also need to consider context as that will lead to more appropriate change here. We can't just blanket apply everything from other countries and expect to get the same result.

Fair enough, but we can and must do better. As I mentioned, one aspect of this is the lack of de-escalation/negotiations training. Another is a lack of national standards. The police in the US kill about 1000 people a year. In most other Western nations it's about one or two people per year. We need to get that number down.

Redmask wrote on Jan 1, 2018, 10:24:
Ad hominems and non sequitors

So you actually have nothing meaningful to add or actual facts. Got it.

I'm sorry you're butthurt I debunked your dumb anecdotes about how friendly the police were when you went on a fucking vacation but nothing you said there addresses my point. There are a lot more guns in America and a lot more gun violence in America, period. You can quibble about percentages and nitpick until you're red in the face but the police in America have a significantly different situation to deal with due to America's deficient gun control laws. That's not to say there aren't problems with training and militarization either but you're only telling part of the story and hiding behind hyperbole.

It's fine to blame the police for their mistakes but we also have to recognize the challenges they face because ultimately it will affect us. Saying 'golly Canadians are so friendly' so its all the training without recognizing other factors is ridiculous. When we're comparing ourselves to other countries to look to make changes, we also need to consider context as that will lead to more appropriate change here. We can't just blanket apply everything from other countries and expect to get the same result.

Redmask wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 09:19:
Those countries don't have 300 million gun owners to worry about, it's probably a lot easier to be friendly when you don't have to worry about every single person in the country having a gun.

See, that little bullshit nugget gets trotted out all the time and it is absolute nonsense. There are ~327 million people in the United States. Of those, 36% either own guns or have access to guns. Now, if I do the math that is ~118 million people. However, of that 36%, only about 12% actively handle their firearms. So that is ~14 million people. Or 4% of the total population. 4%.

That means that 96% of the entire United States are not actively handling their firearms or even using them infrequently to target practice. The overwhelming majority of the country is, for all intents and purposes, willfully unarmed. Yet cops, or their unions or the bought and paid for politicians, in the US act like they're in the middle of fucking Mogadishu in the middle of an active, volatile global conflict.

But, no, clearly all this murdering of civilians by police is the fault of unarmed civilians because, hey, 4 WHOLE FUCKING PERCENT OF THE NATIONAL POPULATION may or may not be armed at any given time.

Any more horseshit talking points that bootlickers like to trot out that need to be debunked?

Canada does not have much gun violence.

jdreyer wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 15:32:
There are 10 million guns in Canada. Not quite the ratio of the US, but still plenty.

I think you mean not even close to the same and Canadians aren't allowed to own automatic weapons of any kind, most semi-autos or any form of modified gun. There is also a significantly lower ratio of handgun ownership and a much stricter licensing process that includes references, a safety course and a background check. These differences are also reflected in our gun violence statistics which are much higher. It's one facet of a much larger gun control problem.

jdreyer wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 15:34:

Kxmode wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 11:51:

Quboid wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 11:44:

Retired wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 10:14:
I think anyone stating a human should die because of their job is a puke.

No one stated that, come on.

Beamer: "If a cop is ready to kill, he needs to be ready to die," implying the cop isn't enforcing the law but committing murder.

It doesn't say that at all. It means that police need to be focused less on self preservation, and more on protecting the citizenry.

Yup. That needs to be their primary concern. Not self protection, but protecting the innocent.

If they kill a wholly innocent, unarmed man, because they thought he may have shot them, but they haven't even determined he has a weapon, they've failed at their task.

If a cop isn't willing to die to protect the innocent, he shouldn't be a cop. There are a near infinite amount of jobs out there, let's leave the one where people more interested in self-preservation routinely find themselves in position to kill innocent people to people willing to make 100% certain they're not making a mistake when they opt for self-preservation. The police vocation is full of heroes who will put their lives on the line.

This guy was not a hero and should not have been a cop.

jdreyer wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 15:38:
Police training is handled at the state level, and varies from state to state. Training may or may not include a psyche eval.

This
Psychological Evaluations Lack Mandates, Standardization

Kxmode wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 15:11:
Beamer's comment implies police officers put themselves purposely in a situation where the only solution is deadly force. Your point and my point align and say police officers are trained both physically and mentally to avoid the situation Beamer suggested.

Dude, no. I meant that they should be trained for this, not that they adequately are (which I think - not sure - you meant), and even ignoring the post Beamer was agreeing with, jdreyer's interpretation seems obvious to me.

Kxmode wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 13:50:

Quboid wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 11:56:

Kxmode wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 11:51:
Beamer: "If a cop is ready to kill, he needs to be ready to die," implying the cop isn't enforcing the law but committing murder.

It seems obvious to me that Beamer meant that if someone chooses to put themselves in life-threatening situations - and is paid handsomely accordingly - then they should accept that they're going to be in life-threatening situations. That means accepting danger as part of the job, so not killing any possible, hypothetical threat as soon as possible.

All police officers are trained not to put themselves in life-threatening situations regardless of the fact that each situation has the potential to become one. In other words, police officers typically go into a situation with caution. They also go through extensive psyche evaluations to ensure they aren't half-cocked lethal weapons.

Police training is handled at the state level, and varies from state to state. Training may or may not include a psyche eval.

Kxmode wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 11:51:

Quboid wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 11:44:

Retired wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 10:14:
I think anyone stating a human should die because of their job is a puke.

No one stated that, come on.

Beamer: "If a cop is ready to kill, he needs to be ready to die," implying the cop isn't enforcing the law but committing murder.

It doesn't say that at all. It means that police need to be focused less on self preservation, and more on protecting the citizenry.

Redmask wrote on Dec 31, 2017, 09:19:
Those countries don't have 300 million gun owners to worry about, it's probably a lot easier to be friendly when you don't have to worry about every single person in the country having a gun. Policing in America is a shitty job but someone has to do it. All we can do with situations like this is get rid of the incompetent ones or the unfortunate guys with PTSD. The problem with police isn't that they make mistakes, its that they circle the wagons and try to hide them. Cops cover up for other cops, justice is delayed by tedious investigations that tend to end without charges and you rarely hear a cop criticize another. The thin blue line bullshit needs to die. When you kill someone "by accident" you should end up as a mallcop with some pepper spray. If it was malicious then you need to go to prison like the rest of us would. I'm sorry but we have enough people wanting to be cops that we can afford to lose a few who fuck up that severely.

There are 10 million guns in Canada. Not quite the ratio of the US, but still plenty.