Cop in America doing a bad job, again

[MTF]

Fair points. I actually have seen a couple swat teams in different departments with that camo uniform you mentioned. Now that i think if it it is kind of silly. Sheriffs departments are usually tan/green uniform anyway, but i see your point.

In my dept all patrol cars have to check out a shotgun OR ar15, but only a handful are qualified and trained with the AR.

When I think about the camo and equipment thing, I just get the impression that they want to look like the military SOF that have been on the frontlines of the GWOT for the past 20 years almost and are therefore revered as the ultimate badasses and "cool guys". But its a completely different environment than a SWAT team is ever likely to face.

To be fair to SWAT, in the US they are as heavily armed as they are as a result of the North Hollywood shootout. Hell, it probably contributed to the militarization of all police forces. SWAT also have more and specialized training compared to regular officers so their proficiency isn't in question.

Patrol officers probably shouldn't have AR-15s because their training and proficiency requirements generally aren't all that much. For example, when I go to the gun range, I'll shoot more rounds in one outing than a patrol officer is required to for their yearly certification.

Yeah, a once in several decades event led to SWAT teams looking like the Army Rangers.

 

[choiboyx012]

To be fair to SWAT, in the US they are as heavily armed as they are as a result of the North Hollywood shootout. Hell, it probably contributed to the militarization of all police forces. SWAT also have more and specialized training compared to regular officers so their proficiency isn't in question.

Patrol officers probably shouldn't have AR-15s because their training and proficiency requirements generally aren't all that much. For example, when I go to the gun range, I'll shoot more rounds in one outing than a patrol officer is required to for their yearly certification.

Can’t speak for other departments but for us the officers who have AR15’s qualify monthly, while everyone else qualifies every 3 months.

the irony of only giving swat teams AR15’s is that in an active shooter situation, it is the regular patrol officers that are usually first on scene.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Can’t speak for other departments but for us the officers who have AR15’s qualify monthly, while everyone else qualifies every 3 months.

the irony of only giving swat teams AR15’s is that in an active shooter situation, it is the regular patrol officers that are usually first on scene.

Fair enough. It's been a while since I've looked into this subject. How many rounds are required to qualify?

 

[choiboyx012]

Fair enough. It's been a while since I've looked into this subject. How many rounds are required to qualify?

Honestly don’t know. They go through a certain course of fire. Probably around 30 rounds in total but I’d have to check

 

[MTF]

Can’t speak for other departments but for us the officers who have AR15’s qualify monthly, while everyone else qualifies every 3 months.

the irony of only giving swat teams AR15’s is that in an active shooter situation, it is the regular patrol officers that are usually first on scene.

In what percentage of active shooter situations do the responding officers even end up taking shots? I don't think there are stats on that, but I get the impression that the most common MO is that the shooters take their own lives pretty much around the same time any police arrive. Could be wrong obviously.

 

[arnie_ni]

In what percentage of active shooter situations do the responding officers even end up taking shots? I don't think there are stats on that, but I get the impression that the most common MO is that the shooters take their own lives pretty much around the same time any police arrive. Could be wrong obviously.

Or they get peacefully arrested if they are young white males

 

[Ludens the Red]

Lets hope it sticks, people do need to be patient though as it is going to drag out and could take months for a final decision and in the mean time he will be walking free.

Doesn't mean you should be murdered for a fraudulent check while 3 coppers stand by and watch you die. Is it right for someone to be killed by police for crimes like these? Is it ok for police to rampage through a neighborhood putting everyone at risk because someone stole a car radio and then gun them down? Tell me, as a police officer in this country, what crimes should constitute a death sentance by police?
I'm confused as to how unarmed people are killed by officers in the process of an arrest for selling loose cigarettes.
Definately not you, I can tell you have a good grasp of your responsibilities but collectively you guys just have no shame and a lot of you are a disgrace to the badge simply because you protect each other when you actually witnessing crimes committed by your colleagues. You are not above the law and that's the problem you guys have right now.

I think this is what makes it so bad.

Admittedly, coppers shooting armed civilians in self defence is unlikely to garner as many headlines, but the sheer volume of these bog standard petty crimes that result in someone losing their life is ridiculous. Even if for arguments sake the person is resisting (clearly not in Floyds case) why does it have to end in the person dying? People who commit low level crimes don't tend to be killers, they tend to just do what they do to feed a habit or survive and the overwhelming majority of them wouldn't hurt someone. The likelihood of their resistance resulting in your (the officers death) is so ridiculously low, especially with other officers around.

Why then so often does the force needed to restrain them need to be them being shot to death or choked to death, these officers have other protective equipment. But this is where you get that grey area, especially in the states because the cops carry guns. The defence of "the suspect could have gone for my weapon and I feared for my life" will be the easy get out clause. I've gotten into so many scraps with shop lifters, road traffic offenders, drunks and you scrap for a bit but once it's all said and done, ten minutes later you're having a conversation about football and they're apologising to you. It's kinda mad to think that half way across the world these sort of interactions are ending in somebody dying.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Honestly don’t know. They go through a certain course of fire. Probably around 30 rounds in total but I’d have to check

I see. Last time I went to the range I let off between 400-500 rounds. It's an unfortunate reality that departmental budgets limit the time and resources available to officers to train officially. Here in Canada I know that many LEOs have their own personal firearms that they train with on their own time as well (although they can't do that with ARs and such anymore).

 

[Sara125]

Great news will be convictions. A show trial, him getting off scott-free and then getting a go-fund me that sets him up for life, is still very probably the more likely outcome.

Ah yeah this is true, can’t count our chicken eggs before they hatch.

 

[Grinner]

I’ve heard this criticism a lot, but what specific aspect of militarization are people having issue with? Is it the riot gear and equipment during riot events? Or regular patrol officers having AR15’s? Shotguns equipped in police vehicles? Is it the SWAT teams and their tools?

Dressing like soldiers in a war zone. Those MRAP vehicles for small town departments.

 

[choiboyx012]

In what percentage of active shooter situations do the responding officers even end up taking shots? I don't think there are stats on that, but I get the impression that the most common MO is that the shooters take their own lives pretty much around the same time any police arrive. Could be wrong obviously.

I wouldn’t know the percentages of that. But I’m pretty confident that most active shooter incidents are contacted first by patrol officers and not swat. My department actually had an active shooter and it was patrol officers who shot and stopped the suspect.

the north Hollywood incident was a big turning point, but also Columbine high school. The responding officers were criticized because they set up on the perimeter and waited for SWAT, which believe it or not was standard protocol. And a bunch of kids got shot and killed as a result. That was over 20 years ago, and just look at how many active shooter incidents/domestic terrorism have happened all over the country and the world since then.

Now patrol officers are trained and called upon to respond to active shooters head-on and not wait for SWAT while innocent people get popped off. So now you have the question of how much do you equip your patrol officers to respond to the ever increasing active shooter incidents at schools, churches, airports, office buildings, etc?

 

[Maagge]

Look at this for a headline. I actually laughed out loud at it which i know isnt the correct repsonse but its funny the hoops so media jump through not to call a spade a spade

That's fecking wild, man. It makes it sound like Chauvin was just kneeling down and Floyd happened to be there. What a shame Chauvin didn't notice him until about ten minutes later.

 

[arnie_ni]

That's fecking wild, man. It makes it sound like Chauvin was just kneeling down and Floyd happened to be there. What a shame Chauvin didn't notice him until about ten minutes later.

Yea its an absolute joke of a headline

 

[Walrus]

Yea its an absolute joke of a headline

I read it and didnt have a problem with it. It is an objective and factual account of what happened, which is frankly what I want from my media.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I wouldn’t know the percentages of that. But I’m pretty confident that most active shooter incidents are contacted first by patrol officers and not swat. My department actually had an active shooter and it was patrol officers who shot and stopped the suspect.

the north Hollywood incident was a big turning point, but also Columbine high school. The responding officers were criticized because they set up on the perimeter and waited for SWAT, which believe it or not was standard protocol. And a bunch of kids got shot and killed as a result. That was over 20 years ago, and just look at how many active shooter incidents/domestic terrorism have happened all over the country and the world since then.

Now patrol officers are trained and called upon to respond to active shooters head-on and not wait for SWAT while innocent people get popped off. So now you have the question of how much do you equip your patrol officers to respond to the ever increasing active shooter incidents at schools, churches, airports, office buildings, etc?

IMHO, they should give patrol officers CZ Scorpion Evo 3 S1s.

 

[arnie_ni]

I read it and didnt have a problem with it. It is an objective and factual account of what happened, which is frankly what I want from my media.

He did more than kneel on him. He put his whole body weight through him.

I understand you point though so id just be arguing for the sake of it

 

[Fortitude]

Ah yeah this is true, can’t count our chicken eggs before they hatch.

Unfortunately, we usually can.

 

[BobbyManc]

I read it and didnt have a problem with it. It is an objective and factual account of what happened, which is frankly what I want from my media.

If it was the other way round and it was a black man who had murdered a cop in that manner there is not a chance in hell the headline would be phrased that way.

 

[Walrus]

If it was the other way round and it was a black man who had murdered a cop in that manner there is not a chance in hell the headline would be phrased that way.

Maybe, but two wrongs dont make a right. I would rather my media sources give an objective and unbiased headline (which is what this appears to be) than the sort of clickbait and sensationalism we are usually subjected to.

 

[BobbyManc]

Maybe, but two wrongs dont make a right. I would rather my media sources give an objective and unbiased headline (which is what this appears to be) than the sort of clickbait and sensationalism we are usually subjected to.

Oh come on, ‘kneeled on his neck before he died’ is the most gentle possible way of asserting what actually happened. It’s not biased to say something like ‘suffocated him by kneeling on his neck’. The phrasing is problematic, it implies the kneeling was incidental - think of it as ‘fired a gun at the suspect before he passed away’. It’s the opposite of being objective because it’s clearly skewed in the accused’s favour.

 

[MTF]

Now patrol officers are trained and called upon to respond to active shooters head-on and not wait for SWAT while innocent people get popped off. So now you have the question of how much do you equip your patrol officers to respond to the ever increasing active shooter incidents at schools, churches, airports, office buildings, etc?

All the body armor, helmets, etc in the world/that they want. But as far as weaponry, one of those air rifles that they use to compete in the Olympics .

 

[Walrus]

Oh come on, ‘kneeled on his neck before he died’ is the most gentle possible way of asserting what actually happened. It’s not biased to say something like ‘suffocated him by kneeling on his neck’. The phrasing is problematic, it implies the kneeling was incidental - think of it as ‘fired a gun at the suspect before he passed away’. It’s the opposite of being objective because it’s clearly skewed in the accused’s favour.

I am confident that mine will be the unpopular opinion on this, but the cause of death is presumably not yet official. Of course we have it on camera that the guy cleared appeared to be choked to death, but in a nation where half the country (plus the president) is so eager to declare "fake news" with minimal - if any - excuse, I dont see an issue with the headline sticking purely to the 100% established facts. Essentially, a headline that explicitly states that Chauvin killed Floyd, opens it up to criticism. The fact that they state in the headline that it was a white officer already sets the narrative adequately, in my view, not to mention the fact that they are literally reporting that he has been charged with murder and manslaughter.

There are far bigger battles to be fought than a media headline that is objectively true and agrees with the generally accepted version of events.

 

[arnie_ni]

I am confident that mine will be the unpopular opinion on this, but the cause of death is presumably not yet official. Of course we have it on camera that the guy cleared appeared to be choked to death, but in a nation where half the country (plus the president) is so eager to declare "fake news" with minimal - if any - excuse, I dont see an issue with the headline sticking purely to the 100% established facts. Essentially, a headline that explicitly states that Chauvin killed Floyd, opens it up to criticism. The fact that they state in the headline that it was a white officer already sets the narrative adequately, in my view, not to mention the fact that they are literally reporting that he has been charged with murder and manslaughter.

There are far bigger battles to be fought than a media headline that is objectively true and agrees with the generally accepted version of events.

I started this mess but ive come round to your line of overall thought..i still think it could have been a bit tougher and slightly more colourful in the language used without going as far as saying he killed him.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

Now patrol officers are trained and called upon to respond to active shooters head-on and not wait for SWAT while innocent people get popped off. So now you have the question of how much do you equip your patrol officers to respond to the ever increasing active shooter incidents at schools, churches, airports, office buildings, etc?

To be honest there's no solution of substance here, at least not without addressing the fact you've population that have access to ridiculous bits hardware at the local flipping supermarket. The police in turn need to be equipped better because no one wants to fundamentally deal with mass shootings cos 'Murica lurvs gunz and the cycle continues.

 

[SteveJ]

I’ve heard this criticism a lot, but what specific aspect of militarization are people having issue with?

The mindset.

 

[Carolina Red]

I am confident that mine will be the unpopular opinion on this, but the cause of death is presumably not yet official. Of course we have it on camera that the guy cleared appeared to be choked to death, but in a nation where half the country (plus the president) is so eager to declare "fake news" with minimal - if any - excuse, I dont see an issue with the headline sticking purely to the 100% established facts. Essentially, a headline that explicitly states that Chauvin killed Floyd, opens it up to criticism. The fact that they state in the headline that it was a white officer already sets the narrative adequately, in my view, not to mention the fact that they are literally reporting that he has been charged with murder and manslaughter.

There are far bigger battles to be fought than a media headline that is objectively true and agrees with the generally accepted version of events.

I agree with you here.

 

[BobbyManc]

I am confident that mine will be the unpopular opinion on this, but the cause of death is presumably not yet official. Of course we have it on camera that the guy cleared appeared to be choked to death, but in a nation where half the country (plus the president) is so eager to declare "fake news" with minimal - if any - excuse, I dont see an issue with the headline sticking purely to the 100% established facts. Essentially, a headline that explicitly states that Chauvin killed Floyd, opens it up to criticism. The fact that they state in the headline that it was a white officer already sets the narrative adequately, in my view, not to mention the fact that they are literally reporting that he has been charged with murder and manslaughter.

There are far bigger battles to be fought than a media headline that is objectively true and agrees with the generally accepted version of events.

If he shot him in the head at point-blank range would we need confirmation that the bullet killed him? We know what killed him and pretending otherwise is pedantry, no one is disputing the cause of his death. ‘I can’t breathe’ were his final words. Let’s not pretend the headline is worded like that because of the absurd proposition that something other than the knee on his neck could have caused his death.

The headline has clearly been worded with care so as to present it in a way that is as favourable to the cop as possible. You basically conceded had it being the other way round the wording would be different. Therefore the explanation for why it is worded like that deserves scrutiny and it deserves to be called out. It is about deference to power and an unwillingness to be seen to criticise the police, even if that means it cannot call a spade a spade. You say it’s objective but it’s not, it’s on the opposite end of the scale to calling him a cold-blooded murderer. Objective and unbiased would be an account somewhere in the middle, one that at least makes explicit and unambiguous his responsibility for the death.

 

[Walrus]

If he shot him in the head at point-blank range would we need confirmation that the bullet killed him? We know what killed him and pretending otherwise is pedantry, no one is disputing the cause of his death. ‘I can’t breathe’ were his final words. Let’s not pretend the headline is worded like that because of the absurd proposition that something other than the knee on his neck could have caused his death.

The headline has clearly been worded with care so as to present it in a way that is as favourable to the cop as possible. You basically conceded had it being the other way round the wording would be different. Therefore the explanation for why it is worded like that deserves scrutiny and it deserves to be called out. It is about deference to power and an unwillingness to be seen to criticise the police, even if that means it cannot call a spade a spade. You say it’s objective but it’s not, it’s on the opposite end of the scale to calling him a cold-blooded murderer. Objective and unbiased would be an account somewhere in the middle, one that at least makes explicit and unambiguous his responsibility for the death.

This will be my last post on the matter;

The headline specifically references the fact that it was a white officer. It then also specifically references that he has been charged with murder and manslaughter. Clearly there is no attempt therefore, to try to change the narrative.
You are treating the current headline as being one end of the scale, when in fact it is not. If I wanted to write headlines deliberately trying to paint an alternative narrative then I could do a lot better than what they have come up with.

Again, in a nation utterly divided, and constantly crying "fake news", I am quite happy for media to be reporting the unadulterated facts. A headline saying "White police officer kills black man" is incendiary and invites argument and criticism, not least because it hasnt been officially established that that is the correct version of events. It simply does more harm than good [to report that].

Edit: for comparison, the BBC article headline is:
George Floyd death: Ex-officer charged with murder in Minneapolis

This makes no reference whatsoever to the circumstances or actions of either party, and it doesnt name the officer either. I would argue that this is a much "gentler" headline to the one you are objecting to.

 

[Rado_N]

I’ve heard this criticism a lot, but what specific aspect of militarization are people having issue with? Is it the riot gear and equipment during riot events? Or regular patrol officers having AR15’s? Shotguns equipped in police vehicles? Is it the SWAT teams and their tools?

I started watching that Flint docuseries on Netflix a while ago and had to turn it off because the militarisation was honestly making me sick.

Dudes just patrolling black neighbourhoods with fecking riot gear and assault rifles like they’re walking around Afghanistan. They had a tank for feck sake, and they practically had hardons they were so giddy about the shit they got to play with.

They also showed the officers watching the Philando Castile shooting and falling over themselves to justify it. It was disgusting.

 

[entropy]

I’ll play ball anyway....

Where is the logic behind this question? The cops killing people are street cops using handguns. If they were turning up in black neighbourhoods with tank guns and grenades, maybe just maybe you’d have a very small point.

I started watching that Flint docuseries on Netflix a while ago and had to turn it off because the militarisation was honestly making me sick.

Dudes just patrolling black neighbourhoods with fecking riot gear and assault rifles like they’re walking around Afghanistan. They had a tank for feck sake, and they practically had hardons they were so giddy about the shit they got to play with.

They also showed the officers watching the Philando Castile shooting and falling over themselves to justify it. It was disgusting.

........

 

[BobbyManc]

This will be my last post on the matter;

The headline specifically references the fact that it was a white officer. It then also specifically references that he has been charged with murder and manslaughter. Clearly there is no attempt therefore, to try to change the narrative.
You are treating the current headline as being one end of the scale, when in fact it is not. If I wanted to write headlines deliberately trying to paint an alternative narrative then I could do a lot better than what they have come up with.

Again, in a nation utterly divided, and constantly crying "fake news", I am quite happy for media to be reporting the unadulterated facts. A headline saying "White police officer kills black man" is incendiary and invites argument and criticism, not least because it hasnt been officially established that that is the correct version of events. It simply does more harm than good [to report that].

Edit: for comparison, the BBC article headline is:
George Floyd death: Ex-officer charged with murder in Minneapolis

This makes no reference whatsoever to the circumstances or actions of either party, and it doesnt name the officer either. I would argue that this is a much "gentler" headline to the one you are objecting to.

The BBC headline is completely fine as that is just a very brief headline of the latest development. It’s not comparable. The Time tweet was a longer account that attempted to describe the incident; one which I firmly believe was woefully inadequate in accurately reflecting what happened because it downplayed Chauvin’s agency in the death. It’s clear we disagree on that so we can leave it at that.

 

[entropy]

I am confident that mine will be the unpopular opinion on this, but the cause of death is presumably not yet official. Of course we have it on camera that the guy cleared appeared to be choked to death, but in a nation where half the country (plus the president) is so eager to declare "fake news" with minimal - if any - excuse, I dont see an issue with the headline sticking purely to the 100% established facts. Essentially, a headline that explicitly states that Chauvin killed Floyd, opens it up to criticism. The fact that they state in the headline that it was a white officer already sets the narrative adequately, in my view, not to mention the fact that they are literally reporting that he has been charged with murder and manslaughter.

There are far bigger battles to be fought than a media headline that is objectively true and agrees with the generally accepted version of events.

The issue here is that, even without the headline, trump’s dog whistling, the current state of political rhetoric, the police state in the US has its roots in white supremacy and the klan. Not addressing it at every turn does little to help dismantle it.

 

[entropy]

I hope you don’t think I am pointing it out because you quoted me earlier. It has nothing to do with it.

 

[Walrus]

The issue here is that, even without the headline, trump’s dog whistling, the current state of political rhetoric, the police state in the US has its roots in white supremacy and the klan. Not addressing it at every turn does little to help dismantle it.

I dont know what the surefire answer to Trumpism is. Hell, it doesnt seem like anyone has an answer yet that is known to truly work - its quite a new phenomenon. That said, it seems like at least a feasible strategy to me, to try to simply not give any ammunition to them. Stick to the facts, to things that cannot be denied and cannot be sensationalised or branded as bias. As the old saying goes - dont argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Trump is the most experienced idiot on the planet, pretty much. If you try to play him at his own game you will lose.

 

[entropy]

It's a start.

it is a setup. If they are starting with 3rd degree murder, they might end up giving him manslaughter at best. That means he will end up getting 3-5 year probation with a slap on the wrist.

 

[Ludens the Red]

........

Okay, now we’ve got that out of the way and you’ve been proven right. Congratulations.

If we focus our attentions on the Floyd killing or the other killings where It was uniformed patrol officers shooting these unarmed men dead with handguns, responding to low priority calls and routine stops.
How would taking away tank guns and grenades, assist with tackling the specific above problem?
And do you think your solution of stripping down the weaponry of the police force is even remotely realistic when civilians are allowed to own dozens of weapons?

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

it is a setup. If they are starting with 3rd degree murder, they might end up giving him manslaughter at best. That means he will end up getting 3-5 year probation with a slap on the wrist.

Looking at it practically and not idealistically, he isn't going to get convicted for first degree simply from the fact he's a copper and the victim warranted arrest regardless of how minor the crime is relative to how things played out. Even if the offcier's history paints the picture of a heavy handed racist POS, because the institutions that will prosecute are the structures he is a part of and they protect their own.

Which is why I for one am pleased for the pressures these riots are creating. Without it you can bet there'd be feckal happening, and it also needs to be apparent that if justice is not served there will be repercussions. Even if justice in this case means he get's a significantly lower sentence than he deserves.

 

[Grinner]

I dont want to get into the cops and their weapons to much, but i cant see any scenario that they will reduce their armoury, reduce their automatic weapons etc, with so many citizens having weapons.

The people of Davis near where I live successfully mobilised and forced the chief of police to change plans to buy an MRAP vehicle. The people rightfully pointed out the absurdity of a university town having the need for such a thing. This is the same town where that asshole cop famously pepper sprayed students who were peacefully demonstarting.

 

[entropy]

I dont know what the surefire answer to Trumpism is. Hell, it doesnt seem like anyone has an answer yet that is known to truly work - its quite a new phenomenon. That said, it seems like at least a feasible strategy to me, to try to simply not give any ammunition to them. Stick to the facts, to things that cannot be denied and cannot be sensationalised or branded as bias. As the old saying goes - dont argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Trump is the most experienced idiot on the planet, pretty much. If you try to play him at his own game you will lose.

It really depends on who you ask. According to me, the solution starts with recognizing that cops are actually THE ISSUE. And even without trump, innocent black folks and other minorities are going to be killed with no repercussions. They are over funded, over militarized and every time you try to hold them accountable it results in zilch. And to make matters worse, they have roots in white supremacy and the klan. Something which folks are afraid to recognize, let alone fix it.
Secondly, it is crucial that we recognize the works of people like Ruth Gilmore Wilson, Michelle Alexander, Eve Ewing, Heather Thompson, and more people like them who have spent their entire life studying these issues going all the way back to the 70s. Because a future with little or no police is actually the solution. And thirdly, mostly importantly, just recognizing the fact that cops are actually kinda useless when it comes to maintaining law and order. Because the ones actually causing the most damage to society in this day and age, are white collar criminals. Not poor minorities who’ve spent their entire life riddled with poverty and a system that barely recognizes them.

 

[Walrus]

It really depends on who you ask. According to me, the solution starts with recognizing that cops are actually THE ISSUE. And even without trump, innocent black folks and other minorities are going to be killed with no repercussions. They are over funded, over militarized and every time you try to hold them accountable it results in zilch. And to make matters worse, they have roots in white supremacy and the klan. Something which folks are afraid to recognize, let alone fix it.
Secondly, it is crucial that we recognize the works of people like Ruth Gilmore Wilson, Michelle Alexander, Eve Ewing, Heather Thompson, and more people like them who have spent their entire life studying these issues going all the way back to the 70s. Because a future with little or no police is actually the solution. And thirdly, mostly importantly, just recognizing the fact that cops are actually kinda useless when it comes to maintaining law and order. Because the ones actually causing the most damage to society in this day and age, are white collar criminals. Not poor minorities who’ve spent their entire life riddled with poverty and a system that barely recognizes them.

This is wildly idealistic and simply impractical. Whether it is right or wrong unfortunately doesn’t matter, it’s simply not going to happen any more than the leaders of Europe asking nicely if the US will just return to colony status.

To humour you a little though, you are talking about a country with the most gun-pride in the world. I’m not really sure what you expect to happen if you just take away the police, but it won’t be pretty.Hell, asking them to give up their guns might just be less viable than the previous paragraph.