How about, no.
No nation on earth exists without police.
How how does this show us how a location would fare without them?
Thank you. I’m going to sleep comfortably, in the Yukon, in December, with the blanket you provided.
When we know better, we do better. Let’s make better laws and implement better policies. You’re saying we can’t?
Yes. That happens and it’s bad. Let’s do better. There are bills being proposed that do just that. If they don’t go far enough, people should write their mayor, their police chief, their legislators and demand change. I think the protests worked in raising awareness so capitalize on it.
You cant figure that out? :dubious:
What are your thoughts on this? Instead of asking pointless questions, share with us your thoughts.
If you’re strictly speaking U.S., it doesn’t. If you’re thinking broadly, Mogadishu (generally, Somalia, circa early 90s), current Sudan might be indicators.
My thoughts on the matter are that unless you can show us how a location without police fared in the past, there is no way to predict how a location without police would fare in the future, especially when factoring in other public and/or private social organizations. Remember, even the few that actually want the police to completely disappear are not opposed to other social organizations coming in and alleviating problems.
I am speaking about the U.S., because the situation as it was in Somalia, and the situation as it stands now in Sudan didn’t/doesn’t factor in the various social programs that we have available here that would get even more funding redirected from the police.
“Other social organizations…” but under what stricture? The Mafia in the early to mid 20th Century America was a social organization which had no official oversight, no public approval, and operated ad hoc without fear of legal consequences, often terrorized citizens for personal gain (even with police presence!). I don’t see what you’re describing, absent rule of law (i.e. police), is different from that. You give organizations control without rule of law, that is bad for everybody but that organization. You’re presuming that wholesome, righteous citizens will, absent rule of law, prevail. That is unproven.
It doesn’t. But it’s fair to say that there are countries where police have a far better record than in the US so it tells us that things can be made better without resorting to outright abolishment of police presence in the community.
Quite true…but, just as do not have applicable models of areas without police, I am unsure if we have an applicable models of areas that have gone from the system we have now to the superior(in my opinion) policing systems you have pointed out. If you can point out an example, and I sincerely hope you can, my opinion would probably change.
Being mindful that violent crime rates were falling nationally and using critical thinking skills:
a) Drug use fell dramatically coincidentally with reduction of police force
b) Drug use fell dramatically because of reduction of police force
c) Drug enforcement fell dramatically because of the reduction in police force
Agreed. Who has said anything about giving control to organizations without oversight of rule of law.
Again (and again and again) noone is proposing abolishing rule of law. And, we are presuming nothing. We are offering a well thought out alternative to the current system, (that includes rules and laws) and you keep countering with unfounded, unproven personal paranoia.
mc
You didn’t state explicitly, but if I understand you’re argument, and maybe I don’t, the thread topic is "Abolish the police? You seem to be arguing in favor of that, yet you say you’re not for abolishing the rule of law. Who, then, will enforce the rule of law? You? A group of your friends? I haven’t read the entire thread (it’s 9 pages long), so if you could summarize your plan, without police, in which rule of law is maintained, I’ll be the first to board your train. At this point, I’m standing on the platform, waiting…
Rule of Law is great, and necessary, but without a body to enforce it, it’s meaningless. Without police, what’s the plan? If I’m treading old ground here, I apologize. I don’t have the time to read through nine pages. Maybe someone could summarize?
That’s a good point. Fewer arrests doesnt necessarily mean less crime. Which is why the Washington Post article cited says this
mc
But, as the thread topic makes clear, we’re not debating reduction in policing, we’re debating the abolition of policing (or police). That means no police, anywhere, anytime. If you call 911, if it still exists, you have to explain that you’re suffering a heart attack, not a thug breaking into your home. If a thug is breaking into your home, they’ll tell you good luck, let us know if you survive and need an ambulance. I know what you’re thinking, that police couldn’t help in that situation anyway, as immediate as it is. But there are many scenarios in which the police could help in emergent circumstances. Someone is breaking into my home. Alright, sending a unit. Perp hears sirens and runs. What is the perp going to hear without police? That’s right, Second Amendment, Old West, Yee Haw! We give part of our income to police for a reason. Or maybe the police get there before the perp can break into your home. I know we need better measures to control police, and I wish police would be more thoughtful in their actions, but abolishing police is an answer that people don’t even know the question to.
Missing in action, d) what was pointed before: that the war on drugs does prevent further reductions on the number of violent crimes. And it leads to more police justifications to resort to violence from the police.
That actually means that you did not read the tread. Some radicals do, but it is clear that they will not get everything they want, what is important is to realize that preventing any progress regarding police brutality is actually the item that should worry conservatives and republicans as it is losing more independents and moderates by resorting to wide brush accusations and argumentum ad absurdum lines.