Another good instance of VT trolling a thread without offering anything in terms of ideas. Never offers ideas.
In America, we don't support the concept of No-Go Zones and a increasing lack of political and administrative sovereignty over areas of our interior. Our formula works, as the US is still around, and the British Empire is not, good chance the U.K. won't be around soon. You've made many mistakes, perhaps too many.
I don't necessarily like the idea of militias patrolling the streets beyond that of neighborhood watches. If you let the population get so liberal to the point gangs rule the streets, like in the Phillipines, a obvious Thermidorian Reaction will eventually kick in, human nature doesn't support a negative Oeconomia for multiple generations.... it is the central reason why feudalism was always experiencing peasant uprisings, the population would snap every once in a while from the abuse. Cops are a essential stop gap to stop-gap measure in societies on the brink, to pull back and for a res public to reassert itself, reform, and make sense of the mess it is in. Many peaceful societies have gone to shit overnight from lack of planning and general dishonesty about it's circumstances.
Where I live, we have a different problem, we have a police officer who made national news for NOT shooting someone who was holding a gun, he was a Afghanistan Marine veteran, and had a feeling the guy holding his girlfriend hostage wasn't going to shoot, as he seemed more interested in getting the cop to shoot him. He was still new on the force, but was the first responded. Another cop showed up, and shot the guy after pushing the first cop out of the way.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/us/wv-cop ... index.html
The guy had no bullets in his gun, was a suicide. The marine had far more combat experience, and was the first responder. He was fired, and sent off by the city. I've gone through two lawyers on crafting a new law and type of judiciary level to judge cases like this, and to get him recalled and offered his job back, with commendation. I'm set to meet with another lawyer soon.
Big problem is, which I've taken into account, is that any military or police unit is going to instinctively move to protect it's members under threat, or who have seniority. I saw this in Iraq with a friendly fire incident, a gunner opened up on some Iraqi police down the rode from out base who were screwing around at night. One laid down on the ground. Died for it, cause it was suspicious. No evidence of digging a roadside bomb, nothing. What happened? The specialist who shot them got promoted. I talked about it to a Lt. later on, and is became a hush hush situation of talking to a near whisper, trying to uncomfortably rebuttal that he didn't just kill him, he had a reason, I didn't really think he just murdered them. I said yes, and was rejected. Meanwhile, they scapegoated some scouts in my unit put in a very dangerous scouting/surveillance mission, where they had to kill to protect their position, and the US military, due to some political pressure to act somewhere to appease Europe (people like VT), put them through a trial for murder, and convicted them, even though training videos require people to question what to do under these very situations, kill or not kill to preserve your hiding place, with no solid answer as what to do (open ended morale conundrum). But the Army decided that someone had to face trial, and so it landed on them, because On of the privates new to accounts disliked the leader (he was a satanist, but only because he lost his family to a accident, the new guys didn't comprehend that fact, or why he was so hard on them in their training, so called Jag to get rid of him).
In the end, the guy who deserved to go to jail got promoted, and the guy who deserved our trust and gratitude, perhaps a medal for all the work he did, was sent to jail by a military command searching for a scapegoat for some sickos in Europe.
Politics mostly boil down to this insanity. My solution has been the creation of a new judicial alternative for police in my state, who if they loose their gun for not shooting, so long as they are not a trainee or intentionally placed by a superior in a cordon with specific instructions, keep pay for two months as they seek recourse by getting 5 sheriffs, police chiefs, or police colonels from the state to agree to hear the specifics of their case over. It would have to be voluntary for them to do the hearing, and signed off by 5 police leaders from across the state. He rulings will act as precedent, from a competent jury of peers, for the municipal level courts to take as evidence that the cops did, or did not, act competently, in choosing less force than others on the police force expect.
There is too much judgment, too many guys thinking they know so much. My town's police force in the last few years was nearly completely replaced, but in doing so, the new guys formed a police union, and refused to accept responsibility in par with their rank. They had rank, but claimed no training, no special police classes or schools, so refused to take responsibility. End result was a dispatcher would call in a call, and every cop would show up, in a gaggle fuck, with no coordination, whoever felt life being first was first, 10 cops in the front, none in the rear..... and then would stand around for 45 minutes watching as only one or two cops actually did anything. I resorted to taking photos of the gaggle fucks, and they would notice, and some would reposition it so it looked like they tried to do a cordon, but most failed, and just went on chit chatting, out of the way. They can pull off excellent highway maneuvers, but I'm fairly certain a senior citizen with a peg leg can evade them if they raid a house by going out the back, with no cops in sight, hobbling away.
It is in this environment of no obvious leaders, all young guys, that a mentality of someone being a Mr. Know It All pushing aside a cop with less seniority (never mind his combat experience, just a noob) can occur. Weak units, incompetent commanders who can't force conformity to advance tactics, trusting your team memebers gut instincts, is going to produce it's own absurd pecking order derived from serotonin substituting for situational awareness. It will make a police force stupid and unresponsive, save in the very worst ways.
It is important that police forces trust in the decision of first responders when they decide to de-escalate. It is sickening to me someone had to die because some idiot cop thought he knew better than one of his brothers, pushed him aside and shot. Even worst that the city went the safe road of blaming the cop for cowardness in not shooting, despite the evidence he was right. They are just trying to avoid a lawsuit.
So that's why I'm having such a hard time. Hard to find a lawyer willing to help craft this law. It is a completely new kind of Court, first I've ever heard of. I want that marine back on the force, one willing to listen to his gut and not shoot when he think things can be resolved less than lethally. He might get it wrong, but I'm willing to embrace that occasional possibility if it means creating a more civilized police force that encourages such thinking, exploring it, gaining experience in knowing when to shoot and when not to shoot.
It is a uphill battle. One I'm thinking I'll loose. I hate loosing on issues like this, but I'll keep refining it. My state doesn't produce many philosophers, so have in the long term a disproportionate amount of influence, in the Loooooonnnnnggggg term.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/us/wv-cop ... index.html
Please VT, shut your mouth in this thread unless you have something valid to add. Seriously, this is a philosophy forum, have ideas to trade. Form a well worded concept, retort with well thought out complex ideas. You never have ideas, but you should start now. Have no idea why you are even on this site.