• entwine413@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Violence is often the solution, but it shouldn’t be the first solution we try.

    It’s stupid to assert that law enforcement should be completely unarmed. There’s absolutely legitimate situations where it’s in the public’s best interest. Now, the situations that do require it aren’t super common, but they exist.

    • state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Violence is always the solution. If there’s an example for major changes implemented without at least an implicit threat of violence, that’s the absolute exception. All big changes always require (the threat of) violence.

    • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      2 days ago

      In the US at least, law enforcement is overarmed. We’d cut back on a lot of unnecessary violence if, say, officers kept their guns in the trunk rather than on their hip.

    • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      So, a such a situation would require Special Weapons? And maybe Tactics?

      SWAT teams exist ostensibly for this reason, but arming everyone works too.

      • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        That works a lot better in countries where everyone and their mom doesn’t have a gun. Though good god we don’t train cops enough to justify giving them a gun