[jMyles]

> Super innocent example: A 14 year old kid breaks their leg and the cops show up to them in agony and crying.

This seems like the same argument. What does enforcement of the laws have to do with medical aid? Why has our society conflated these two things?

I assert that the state has an interest in injecting law enforcement concepts in all sorts of situation precisely because it opens up uncertainty over its public nature.

Instead, we need law enforcement to be its own discrete activity, and among its norms for it to be entirely public and based on public consent.

Why are we rehashing this almost 200 years after Robert Peel's work?

[eric_h]

You used the term "first responders" a post or two up. Police are often the "first responders" to numerous incidents, enforcement or otherwise, simply because they are near the scene and are (rightfully) trained in basic first aid and generally have first aid supplies in their cruiser. Police _should_ be trained to and respond to incidents other than enforcement actions. They are members of our communities, they are employed to protect us (ostensibly).

It is generally the idea that all police do or should do is enforce the law that leads to divisiveness and brutality.

[lostlogin]

Police are people who are trained to deal with stress, qualified to take witness statements (which insurance often requires), have a level of medical knowledge, can get places fast and can get more help (and possibly better qualified help) quick. Why wouldn’t you want them there?