• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Sure, but they’re under-resourced for cybercrimes. They have a lot of beat cops out giving tickets and beating up black people, but probably nobody who knows anything about credit card scams.

    Local police need a readjustment of priorities and tiers of staff. Ideally we’d have:

    1. no force authorization and no weapons, can only issue citations - these would be your beat cops pulling people over, directing traffic, and responding to minor disputes
    2. detectives - no force authorization, but can investigate crimes - these show up after the crime to collect evidence
    3. armed enforcers - can arrest and use lethal force, and only show up if the first two groups can’t handle it; this is what we have today, but ideally would be a much smaller group than 1

    The cybercrime division would fall under group 2, and would probably be just one or two people trained on that type of detective work.

    Each tier should have a different uniform, so the public knows exactly who they’re dealing with, and each tier would be required to have body cam footage live-streamed to HQ. The first group makes up the biggest part of your force, and which is bigger between 2 and 3 depends on the types of crime that are prevalent in your area.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Right, and nobody is claiming they need more funding. It’s a resource issue, they don’t have the resources (i.e. people) to handle cybercrimes, so they hand it off to an org that does (e.g. FBI). They could get the resources by adjusting how they hire (e.g. in my proposal, 1 would be paid less and make up the bulk of the force, leaving more money for 2 and 3), but that’s not how they operate, so they don’t have the resources they need to investigate certain types of crimes.