My token, Progressive friend raised a question that has me puzzled.
My friend is fully invested in the BLM narrative. After several rounds of not-so-pretty dialog he coughed up a short list of changes that had the potential to reduce the number of incidents of police brutality.
Slight detour: Any large group of people will collect a few members of every pathology. If you have enough librarians or CPAs or well-diggers, a few of them will be psychopaths.
Some professions are more attractive to psycho/sociopaths because they offer more power with fewer (perceived) restraints.
I personally knew a kid who wanted to be a cop because he was bullied and he wanted pay-back.
So please accept the hypothesis that there are a few bad-apples sprinkled through police forces across the world. If I am talking out my azz, then educate me.
End of detour:
One of the changes he suggested was to eliminate single-person patrols. His thinking was that a a partner might give somebody pause before administering a gratuitous hickory shampoo.
What do my readers who are cops think?
I am of two minds.
It seems like the junior partner will have limited ability to influence the senior partner. The combination of a "normal" junior with a bad-apple senior partner is more likely to result in two, compromised cops than the senior moderating his behavior.
The other thought is that non-lethal methods work better with two people. One to stay on the TASER (for instance) and the other to cuff or call for help. Two cops and a TASER can maintain control and the situation is less likely to escalate to a lethal-force-needed situation.
One reason my Proggy friend likes "partners" is that cop unions would probably swoon at the possibility of increasing dues-paying members as two-cops-patrolling would drive up manpower needs. Getting unions on-board makes changes more likely.