Al what I meant by escalation of force is I believe lethal force is often used too soon.
1) I don’t want officers or the public hurt when not absolutely necessary. Part of that to me is the discrepancy in action of force taken between the two in my geographical area. In Medford it’s been over a 100 years since a cop was shot. So take what I’m saying as a IMBY thing.
I think people are quick to applaud civil servants as “heroes” and less proactive to call them out for not taking risks that are reasonable given their profession. They are generally NOT more prone to OTJ violence than I am. And my company’s policy is I’m not allowed to carry a gun, or non-lethal tools.
2) funding. 3%?!!!!
LMMFAO BRO!!!! Our wonderous, corrupt and now disgraced former governor Kitzhaber promised 8% growth in the middle of the tech stock boom. Also during that time the period it took to be vested into the system I believe was 2 years...... Avwrage income in Oregon last time I saw it was $34k. Average STARTING pay for a MPD with bennies is $75k. County, and other cities are considerably less and closer to the $34k (but over). Starting wage for teachers (school district to district vary) averages around $29.5k and takes around 5 years to get respectable. Now THEY chose this to keep GOLDEN benefit packages and currently BALK at the prospect of healthcare with any co-pays or deductibles or h ing to put any amount into a 401k for retirement.
This is a real uneven playing field. Not an imagined one like white privilege or patriarchy.......and it’s crippling. And it’s ignored.
ZRX1200 wrote:
that's my belief also...that use of deadly force should be absolutely necessary - a last resort...in many states, the standard is what is "a reasonable police officer's judgement" ...that is much less restrictive than what should be the law of the land...
the SCOTUS determined in a 1985 case Tennessee vs Garner said the use of deadly force by police against a fleeing felon is appropriate when "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."[1] ...that seems to say it is necessary...many states are re-writing their laws governing the use of deadly force by police to require "necessity"
the 3% reference is not the level of increased funding for salaries...it is the multiplier in calculating police officer defined benefit pension payments...public safety retirements (cops and firemen) in most jurisdictions are the standard 3% of the highest salary at 50 years of age....
take the retiree's highest salary, multiply by number of years of service and multiply by 3%...the average cop starts at 20, retires at 50, where the formula stops increasing, working 30 years...at 3% he'll be paid 90% of his salary for the rest of his life...
without union dues and OASDI deductions and PERS contributions, his net is more than he was paid while working...many retired cops live to 75-80 years old, so they'll make more while retired...guess who pays? pensions are among the giggest line items in public safety budgets...
I agree that their rate of pay is out of line, compared to what teachers get...but police unions and fire unions are among the most powerful in local elections...you don't want them endorsing your opponent and campaigning against you...
another reason why campaign finance needs to be reformed...
