Are all police officers corrupt?
NO! Not all police officers are corrupt! I’ll tell you a story which happened 3 years ago when I got my first vehicle (Honda Activa). I wasn’t comfortable wearing a helmet and had decided to wear helmet only when I had to go through main roads.So, one day I had to go my friends place to show him my new bike and he lived nearby, so I obviously didn't wore a helmet and to my misfortune a cop was standing at the intersection! I PANICKED and just raced my bike in front of him. He saw me and instantly got on his bike and started chasing me! Now I panicked ever harder and was riding recklessly to lose him. After 5 mins or so, he cornered me. I was sure that hes gonna take me to the police station and call my parents but instead he just saw my frightened face and calmed me down. Then he asked me why was I running? I explained him that I didnt wore a helmet and panicked. He just laughed at me and asked me to show my license and papers. So, I took out the papers and handed it to him. He checked them and told me that he’ll let me go this time because it was the first time I did something like that and gave me a 30 min long lecture about not to be afraid of policemen and also explained me the importance of following traffic rules while riding.After that incident, no matter how near the destination is, I always wore an helmet.PS: This is my first answer on Quora. Apologies for any grammatical mistakes I made. Have a good day/night! :)
Should the US act as the world's police?
I think that when a country demonstrates that they can operate effectively, without commercial or religious or political bias, they will be allowed to police the world. Until then, let everyone be, and fix your own problems first.
Are police officers LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE?
Both, so you are screwed
What if all American police officers were disarmed and trained to act exactly as the London England police department (with the exception of S.W.A.T. teams)? What would this result in all across the board?
Very very difficult to say.The US police don’t keep use of firearms data . Most other countries do for their police forces. We simply don’t know how often US police officers really need to use their weapons or how often they actually do.For example in 2016 the UK police armed response units were called out just over 12,000 times, discharged a gun at seven of those call-outs and killed 3 people. That suggests that, in the UK, the need to actually fire a weapon is incredibly low - remember that the armed reponse units are generally only going to be called out when a firearm/terrrorist or other serious threat to life is involved - i.e. they go to the most high risk incidents.Also UK police tend to use batons or tasers in situations - man with knife etc. - where the US police would shoot them - tasers were used 11,000 times by British police last year (although the majority of thsoe were ‘red-dotting’ the suspect rather than actual discharge - the equivalent of pointing a gun I suppose).The variables that would make it a lot more dangerous for US police to try to act like UK ones are several but the most important ones are:Criminals are much more likely to be armed themselvesTheir expectation is that the police are armed and are very likely to shoot themThe prison term for so many felonies is so harsh under US law that a criminal may feel there is ‘nothing to lose’ in shooting the police officerIn the UK it is very very rare for a police officer to be killed or to kill in the line of duty (certainly outside of Islamic terrorism cases).There have only been a total of 6 UK police officers shot dead in the past 20 years and none at all in the last 5 years.So getting shot really isn’t something that the UK police officer needs to worry about and by default they can assume a ‘policing by consent’ de-escalation posture not a military type ‘command and control’ posture when dealing with the public.US police deaths are significantly higher - about 150 a year including FBI agents over that same 20 year period - the vast majority by guns. It seems unlikely (at least initially) that disarming police and other law enforcement officers would do anything other than increase that sad figure.
Is America a Socialist country because we have "Socialized Fire Departments, Police and libraries"?
The actual meaning of 'socialized' is basically 'publicly-funded'. That is what our fire departments and police are in the USA. Do you think that England, Australia and Canada are 'Socialist' countries? I ask because they have the type of medical systems that Americans refer to as 'Socialized Medicine'. If you are surprized by this information that I suggest that you read some information on exactly what 'Socialized Medicine' means. This is a pretty brief yet concise description. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine Am I wasting my time trying to clarify this because people who already have a negative connotation don't care about reality and believe what they want to believe despite the facts? I suppose the answer to that question lies in the fact of whether or not you read the link or not.
What would happen if the USA got rid of all its welfare services?
Let's see --massive homelessness -- millions of the working poor use their paycheck to cover rent, relying on welfare for food. But hunger wins. Within a few months, landlords would be going broke all over the country.housing prices collapse -- a large percentage of houses and apartments are rented to the working poor. With mass evictions comes landlords unable to cover mortgages. Foreclosures soar and the frail housing market collapses again.with far less tax money going to poor people, let's assume the government uses the cash to pay down debt instead of offering tax rebates. This drops interest rates and frees up capital for business loans. That would be stimulative, but with far fewer consumers, the economy is sliding into massive recession. Business will contract, not expand.the recession will go world wide quickly, just as it did in 2008, but with fragile economies around the world, the damage would be far worse.homelessness drives up crime. Since state income usually is tied to sales tax (way down) and property tax (declining), states will cut programs for everything but police and prisons. The results will be more cops and far more inmates, driving up costs dramatically.restless homeless voters make for an unhappy electorate. Tax cuts, when they do come, only benefit people who pay taxes, so that will not satisfy them. A series of increasingly progressive candidates will arise to power with populist messages.within a few years, the president and congress will face a massive political backlash. They will be voted out of power in an election similar to 1932.This time, instead of New Deal reforms that allowed rich people to keep their possessions, the anger would be so great that waves of socialism would sweep the country. Unions would roar back in offices and factories and workplaces around the country. The likelihood of civil war would loom large.Good luck with that.