This may not apply everywhere in the US, but my understanding is that most cops aren’t paid terribly well. Perhaps it’s ok if compared to a standard job, but when you account for the danger, required over time, and work schedule it becomes very not worth it.
A buddy of mine is a true believer type, he signed up to be a cop, went through a year of training and another year paired with another cop. PreCovid starting pay was $40k, 12 hr work schedule and every 28 days it flipped (so 28 days day shift followed by 28 days of night shift). One day he gets a call and his boss had switched him to a different district with 3x the commute without any communication. Finally a buddy of his caught a bullet in the head (and lived) from some guy who was on drugs and stole a car. He said he thought about it and for the money it wasn’t worth the emotional cost.
Strangely the problem with underfunding cops is who the fuck wants to be a cop? Yeah, after 25 years and multiple promotions you might make an ok or even good salary, but being a new cop is absolutely shit. In a system where the pay isn’t good, the hours are shit, and the risk to your life is high, who wants to be a cop?
The answer is either self sacrificing good guys or people who get a power trip on carrying a gun and using it. Add to it that this system is perpetuated by the type of people who pursue the job you end up with a whole department full of the type who hire these types.
So while you can defund the police, you can send them through training, you can institute new policy, but if you don’t attract a better quality of person then you’re gonna have the same problem over and over again.
Theoretically you could make the hours better (but that will require hiring more police to cover the same amount), you could reduce the danger (similar to London banning guns so beat cops don’t carry them either), or you can pay them more.
“Defund the police” doesn’t mean salaries. It means stop outfitting them with weapons of war.
I see why you thought that’s what I meant, but immediately following that I list several other potential solutions to overall bad policing. You can certainly defund the police, aka stop outfitting them with weapons of war, but it will not solve the fundamental problem of hiring bad candidates to make bad cops.
Indeed is reporting that the average starting salary is like $50k, and the average in the US is $60k. Policing also isn’t even in the top 25 most dangerous jobs. That link is also talking base salary, but even in the situation you’re describing, you’re talking overtime in the $20k+ range.
The problem with bad cops comes down to two main things:
- they’re not here for public safety or here to protect and serve, they’re here to protect capital.
- well, it’s really just the first one, but keeping that in mind, the system is setup in a way that the only outcome can be a corrupt police force. Legal civil forfeiture, qualified immunity, overly powered police unions (the only time I’ll complain about unions), deliberately low standards in hiring, deliberately not require the police to even know the law they’re supposed to enforce and probably a dozen things I’m forgetting. Police aren’t there for us, they’re there for capital.
Finally, police funding and increasing the number of cops has almost nothing to do with crime rates which is what calls to defund the police actually mean. Police are basically systematized violence where pretty much the only tools in their literal and metaphorical toolbelt are increasing levels of violence. The call to defund the police is more about funding the things that actually reduce crime – better education, economic outcomes, and people trained to deal with the types of issues that police are probably less qualified to deal with than the average retail worker like mental health crises. Advocates for defunding the police are instead advocating for spending to be allocated to people who are qualified to actually deal with these problems.
Anyway, tl;dr – if we offer cops better pay and better hours, we’re just going to be getting more expensive cops stealing our shit, incarcerating us at one of the highest rates in the world, and murdering people with less consequence than the cashier at Target gets for not upselling credit cards enough because while plenty of good people* become cops, policing as an institution in the US is corrupt.
* “Good” people and “bad” people are mostly a result of the systems and culture they exist in and very few are truly “good” or “bad.”
Of the responses I have gotten I feel like you have the closest response to the truth. Having good cops comes down to trust. If we had a police force of non-opportunistic saints who will go through anything to do the right thing then we might have something which meets the public’s expectation of the police. Short of that they are people who put their own lives and well being above that of the public. Police aren’t out there to save you, they aren’t really out there to stop crimes. They are out there to charge people with committing crimes. I feel like some understanding should be out there for the public though, police aren’t there to save you, they are there to charge people for having committed a crime. Ideally they will stop a crime as it is occurring or by their presence prevent a crime from occurring, but if you think the Police are there to save you then you’re wrong.
That’s the average scenario. That’s the Uvalde cop looking on as a school shooting occurs. The idea of a cop running into a school shooting is the “BEST” scenario.
Unfortunately the norm for police is far less than that, because the pay doesn’t incentivize better people to want to be police. It comes down to those the factors: pay, work life balance, and danger. Pick 2 of 3, low danger, high wages, or good work life balance.
Just for clarities sake, there is one big sticking point here that I want to make clear. Pay, hours, etc cannot incentivize a fix to this system because it’s not about attracting good people or bad people or dumb people or smart people, it’s about the system. If cops made $120k starting with 5 weeks of vacation and only had to work 32 hour weeks, we would not see significantly different outcomes because it is simply the institution and systems and culture that are the problem. Honestly, that would probably only increase the problem since it just further removes police from the normal humans they’re policing. Probably also instead of attracting people that are mission driven, it attracts mercenaries, basically. This is how we get billionaires; they’re mostly not evil, just so far removed reality and doing one of the most human things possible – rationalizing our own behavior for our benefit.
The idea that there are purely good or purely bad people is mostly a myth. There are people that we could objectively define as purely good or purely evil, but they’re the outlier. Nazis for example. The truth is even scarier than the myth. In most of our depictions, nazis are homogenous blob of pure evil. While nazi’s certainly had some purely evil people, the truth is the vast majority were just average people exposed to a system that creates an evil outcome. Of course, there were also purely good people in that as well, but the system often led those people their graves, or they had to be the right combination of good/smart to resist and stay alive. But most people just participated or closed their eyes and went about their day.
The problem is not the people, it is the system and pay and benefits aren’t going to fix it.
Now all that said, the Uvalde cops clearly over-index on little tiny dick bitch ass cowards and kinda blow a hole in my thesis. I wouldn’t call them evil, but just speaking statistically you would think even one of them out of the scores of cops there would have had even an underdeveloped backbone. The cowardice shown here should be something that lives into myth and legend and the way people say “Benedict Arnold” to mean “traitor” they should say “Uvalde cop” to mean “coward.”
Pay is definitely not the problem and there’s plenty of places in the US where I’d argue they’re overpaid, in fact.
Care to elaborate? I won’t argue that funding for the department isn’t a problem, but at least in my own anecdotal relation of an individual experience that seems to be the problem.
There’s lots of places in the US where cops are paid significantly above median wages for the region as their base pay and then they’re also eligible to earn time and a half in nearly as much overtime as they could possibly want on top of being allowed to work extra side jobs in uniform for third parties.
They’re also typically one of the largest parts of most major cities’ budgets.
Fuck cops. They are overpaid if anything for what little they fucking do.
I took some time in thinking about your response, I want you to know that. That said, “There’s lots of places in the US where cops are paid significantly above median wages for the region as their base pay,” doesn’t mean much in the context of my original statement. My original statement said very much the same in fact. Cops, on paper, get paid above average and have tons of opportunity for overtime. What your response misses is the danger associated and the expectation of overtime.
It’s one thing when you can have unlimited overtime and another when you are expected to take unlimited overtime. There is also a disconnect when that overtime comes with an expectation of being shot and killed. With those expectations it’s no surprise that police are the largest portion of a city government. If you have a group of people that you expect to work long hours, work extra overtime, meet the municipality’s needs, and potentially die in their duty, then they should command a large portion of the budget.
If you don’t want to pay people to do these things then you can’t be upset that they don’t do those things. You get the cops that you pay for. I’ll be the first to say Fuck the Police, but I’ll also be the first to say we get the Police we pay for.
I disagree that the overtime is expected. It’s a benefit available to them that isn’t available to the general public.
I also strongly disagree about the relative “danger” of their job.
My dad was a firefighter for 30 years. He got paid less than most cops and faced significantly more danger on every shift than most cops.
Fuck the police. They were shitty since their inception.
Full stop
The pay only sucks at the start, then you learn how to exploit overtime and pick up detail shifts.
Yeah, but that comes back to the same point where pay incentivizes bad cops. It’s not quite that clear cut, but it’s not far from the truth. I don’t begrudge someone working a second job, and assuming we’re talking about good cops not getting kickbacks, police shouldn’t have to work two jobs to make ends meet.
There is no danger!!!
They aren’t even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US. Pizza delivery is more dangerous.
Please stop with the copaganda talking point about danger.
There is a difference in danger, Construction tends to be one of the most dangerous jobs there is, but getting injured in a construction accident is fundamentally different from getting shot as a cop. Other jobs might be more “dangerous,” but the nature of the danger is pretty important.
It doesn’t help that cops are expected to do so much. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not an excuse to do fucked up things to people, but it is probably a contributing factor. Like mental health for being a police officer can’t be good. This is part of the reason so many people want to defund the police; it isn’t about giving them less money, it’s about moving funding to programs that are more focused so police can focus on their job and not try to be a mental health counselor as well.
You’re right though, being a police officer comes with an expectation that doesn’t match your pay. If you’re on the subway, there is a police officer in uniform standing nearby, and a guy attacks you, the expectation is that the cop would save you. However, in 2011 Maksin Gelman had a stabbing spree in NYC that culminated in an attack on Joseph Lozito. The attack occurred on a subway, with Lozito being stabbed in the head and face while police watched from the conductor’s booth. It wasn’t until Lozito had wrestled his assailant to the ground and detained him that the police helped him.
Lozito sued the NYPD for not helping him and the judge decided that it wasn’t the police’s duty to save his life. On the day of the assault the police didn’t even perform first aid on Lozito, it was another subway goer that save his life.
EDIT: I’ll be the first one to say fuck the police, but if you want actually good police then the first step is to pay them to match what you expect of them or else you’ll end up with a bunch of gun toting assholes who won’t do shit.
The US is politically older than most European countries.
European exceptionalism will lead to the complacency that leads to the kind of problems the US has.
I love the salty Euros downvoting clear historical fact.
Plus, it already did. In the 1930s.
Fuck this dumb inferiority-complex-having bullshit
Oof you think the US is superior.
Let’s not forget brexit. Americans aren’t alone in their dumbassarry
Or the recent wins of fascist parties in Europe.
Literally facist? I know about a few right wing ones, but none of them seem actually facist
Musolini’s grand daughter sends her regards:
I stand corrected! Didnt know they are self-proclaimed fashists… Thats a bold marketing campaign and terrifing that she got the seats she did.
Although the policies she supports are not really Musollini-like.
Giorgia Meloni is Italy’s current prime minister and also happens to be a proud founding member of the Neo-Facist party, and is the granddaughter of Benito Mussolini.
The fascist parties that want to stop immigrants on the borders? Remind me who was the previous president in US and who’s controlling the house now…
Do i need to make a nesting meme in this thread to show you mooks that you’re literally doing the meme right now?
Initial comment about dumbassery not in the USA.
Reply back about additional dumbassery not in America.
You: bUt WhAt AbOuT aMeRiCa?
I’m just saying that the “fascist” parties in Europe are no more “fascist” than American right wing parties. People support right-wing parties for different reasons. Calling it dumbassery is weird.
Why so sensitive?
Stopping immigrants at the border would actually be a horrendous policy and have devastating economic effects. Literally advocating for a terrible US policy that could be seen as inhumane and unethical.
Who’s advocating for it?
“I’m not saying we actually do it it’s the implication that we will do it”
Who’s saying that? Who’s we? I think you’re confusing mentioning something with endorsing it.
I fear the outcome of the three “state” elections in Eastern Germany later this year.
Pretty bold for a region that can’t last more than a generation or two before devolving into a police state so severe that it plunges the entire globe into armed conflict.
I know its funny to shit on Europe while they’re asleep but I find the gents on the bottom more relatable
Geographical awareness level = American
Congratulations 👏
Fuck off
My ad hominem response is “you’d be speaking German if not for us…stfu about your survival bs”
Sir this is a Berlinese grocery
I’m already speaking German. And elections here look a lot like all of that shit is going for round two. Hell, the right and some members of the more moderate, conservative party have held meetings in the last weeks where they openly discussed deportations of immigrants and German citizens that supported them.
Nice thing you tried in the forties, but you only got the tanks, not the spirit it seems.
And then russian…the EU seems to forget the reason they can dump their own gdp into their civilians is because of our military protecting them.
Edit: there are countless articles and journals on why this is true. Seriously get over yourselves.
deleted by creator
Yeah, nah.
You could have said: “I have no rebuttal” it would have made you at least sound more intelligent.
Everyone knows but apparently the euro kids who think we don’t support keeping putin from trying to butt fuck the EU into USSR 2.0
Hey fellow aussie
“How the fuck have they lasted this long as a country?”
Applies to Belgium far more than the US.
We’re younger than the US though.
You gotta give credit to the fact that in the time the United States has had it’s 1 republic, France has had 5 of them.
Or the fact that Europe tears itself apart like every 50 years
It’s probably because French citizens are smart enough to put their own well-being before their governing powers well-being.
Yeah we’ve been together for 200 years, but it’s not going well at all.
The French literally placed an emperor into power just shortly after a proletariat revolution. Let’s not go sucking their dicks just yet.
and Germany did that one thing…what was that again?
You talking about the time they decided to start a war with the entire world, or the time they decided to start a war with the entire world?
the one with the whole “there’s one acceptable phenotype and everyone else can be either worked to death or put to death” thing. Holly-something…
Whatever happens in politics, i will stay away from it – is the mentality of people. So no revolution or whatever we live the way goverment lets us
It’s probably because French citizens are smart enough to put their own well-being before their governing powers well-being.
In what way do they do this?
Chopping heads
“Everything is so bad. Yet they set nothing on fire? How do they expect to fix?” —some twitter lady’s french husband, commenting on the state of American politics
From this extremely boring Finnish perspective, you guys in America set things on fire all the time. If that happened here once, we’d give the event a name and would talk about it for decades.
fair, but we only set things on fire if the local american football team wins. or loses. or ties. or the game is cancelled. or at parades.
what’s wild is that we party like the french protest but we don’t really protest.
ACAB
Actually braindead 😂
Ratio’d
ACAB means the police is upholding unjust systems and laws, isn’t that cops as individuals are bad. Of course a large percent of them are domestic abusers and racist, but that’s an entirely different issue.
Yeah that might be convincing if it was tpss(the police system sucks) but instead the braindeads use ACAB, so…
If your slogan is inaccurate you will face resistance at every turn. Not to mention that some people using ACAB actually do think that all cops are personally bad.
Man, I actually agree with this… Most cops are bad, let’s start there. This said, there’s a lot of truth in the comment above the one I’m replying to. The system is absolutely corrupt. Civil asset forfeiture alone is a clear, objective example of it.
All my homies hate civil asset forfeiture
Whichever judge decided that you could sue a pile of money to indirectly violate its owner’s rights should be hanged for treason against the public
Words have social meaning, sorry not sorry.
ACAB means all cops are bastards
Because they enable if not encourage or participate in the problem.
Last, some does not mean the majority. Interesting that you’d be using this sort of logic, kinda tipping your hand…
Words have social meaning but that meaning is easy to twist and corrupt if the words are new and if the meaning is unclear, both of which are true for most liberal slogans tbh, especially ACAB. You can’t rely on conservative goodwill to interpret your slogan favorably when 1. you don’t agree among yourselves what “favorably” is and 2. conservatives don’t have goodwill.
Last, some does not mean the majority.
It doesn’t have to be a majority, just a significant enough portion that people hearing the phrase will have heard multiple people using it in two different and semi-opposite ways.
Interesting that you’d be using this sort of logic, kinda tipping your hand…
Fuck off, and don’t put me in a box. If you want to know my opinions you can ask me and I will answer truthfully. If I wanted to troll people and hide my real opinions I’d do something more interesting than arguing normally.
You can’t rely on conservative goodwill to interpret your slogan favorably when… conservatives don’t have goodwill
Right. But that just means you shouldn’t give a shit about making the name look nice for conservatives. They’re going to oppose it anyway, so might as well be inflammatory and get the most attention.
It also helps liberals (or moderates, however few remain) who haven’t encountered the phrase before get on board more easily so that you don’t spend time fighting your own allies.
Maybe, but being inflammatory gets you in the news so that moderates hear about it in the first place, which is where you get the chance to explain the true meaning.
Right, so conservatives don’t have goodwill which means they’ll twist anything regardless, self defeating argument
See point 1.
Wasn’t putting you in any box, just pointing out that generalization is bad, and that you were participating in that behavior. People will think what they want and not being informed enough of what the social implications of words mean is exactly why both sides are at odds. Get it or don’t get it.
Well I appreciate the reasonable response. I do think it’s important to reduce the ability of conservatives to twist liberal actions but you are right that a good portion will find a way to do it anyways :/
If you’re interested, and I think you may be, look into the solution to tolerance of the intolerant, cleared a lot of misgivings I had about the concept
The social contract one? Yeah it’a a very elegant way to avoid the issues for sure
Meh, don’t forget groups will deliberately misinterpret even the most perfect slogan.
Examples:
Black Lives Matter
Defund the Police
The first one especially, but while the second one is easily the more provocative and easily misunderstood one, it should elicit interest.
To be fair, it’s not that old, as far as countries go
It’s also been just over 150 years since the last civil war.
Define country, because the American government is actually one of the oldest continuous governmental systems in the world. Certainly the oldest republic that isn’t a micro-state.
Now if you want argue that France, for example, is an older country than America because there’s been a fairly stable region largely called France for several centuries you can, you’d just be wrong.
Now if you want to start talking about nations that’s different, but also a much, much blurrier subject in general.
I’m using the term to mean more or less the collectively agreed upon “identity” of a state. Not merely a single contiguous government (for the same reason you just bring up, people still consider France to be France even though the government has changed fundamentally many times over the years), but I’m not using it to just mean “nation” either, since were France to be completely conquered and annexed by a foreign power, the French nation, as in the group of people, would still exist, but the country would not, at least until such time as it could be recreated, or for a different reason, that one can have a national identity split between different states, or a state involving different such groups.
Try to manipulate people in other countries much?
Oi you got a loicense for this meme?
