Harrington, you really should read the thread because you’re going over old territory. For every paranoid scenario you can come up with I can counter with a real world tragedy: What about the woman who called 911 because of a disturbance in the alley and ended up shot dead by the police? What about the concerned neighbor who called the police for a welfare check and a young woman was shot dead thru the front window?. . .
And then you have to disabuse yourself of the notion that the police are the only answer.
I’ll let others who are more articulate than I respond.
" *Rather, *we’retalking about a gradual process of strategically reallocating resources
So- who the fuck is the “we”- they got a mouse in their pocket? Because some are talking that, yes. But others are talking about abolishing all police.
And you keep insisting, for strawman purposes I guess, that those in the minority talking about abolishing all police are the only ones worth discussing here.
What a wonderful Utopia you describe, worthy of a screenplay. I could come up with many, many more real world examples of police calls that don’t end in tragedy, or any incident at all, and sometimes the presence of police prevents or mitigates a tragedy. But those incidences don’t get column inches, so I’m SOL. My understanding of your argument, pardon me if I’m wrong, is that sometimes police shoot and kill seemingly innocent victims, so let’s abolish them, for that and no other reason. In what other theater would that be acceptable? Medicine? Military? Mail delivery? Pharmaceutical manufacturing? Construction? In what other realm would rational humans abolish a useful body because sometimes they make mistakes? If you’re going to argue that police aren’t useful, then I’m done. I have nothing else to add and I think I’ll head over to MPSIMS.
Well, that’s a right strawman right there.
This is a neat idea, never proven to work. What social worker is going to respond to a scene where a group of armed people have taken hostages? Excuse me sirs, you really need to relax, focus on your spiritual self and become a better you. Oh, by the way, you think you could drop the guns? Kthanx. Not working? What is the community solution against armed criminals? Arm the community, well that’s suspiciously like police but with less restrictions and accountability. What in this plan deters or prevents armed criminals and what is the community solution to that obvious scenario?
Which leads to:
Ah, the solution is to make everyone wealthy, or at least wealthy enough so that they have little incentive to commit crime, especially violent crime. Give them police officer’s would-be pensions. The problem is that even wealthy people commit violent crime.
I don’t know, I guess I’m just really confused about how people think that the rest of the world will be less dangerous because police are no longer a solution. Maybe you’re not arguing to abolish police, maybe use them in a pinch hitter role if needed, but, the people in your link seem to want to abolish the police. Both arguments suffer because you either have to send in social workers ill-equipped to handle such a situation or you have to send in armed police, which is how it is now. Violent criminals with guns are not going to dissolve because we’ve worked out a community solution to crime.
Bullshit. A lot of it is, especially violent crime. Heat of passion, whatever you call it. A lot of crime, violent crime, isn’t strictly economic. I’m spitballing here, but I bet most murders have no economic motive.
Oh sweet Jesus. Cryogenically freeze me and wake me when this mythical world is discovered.
That police are ineffective is begging the question. The claim that police are actively harmful is dubious, and, even if true, can be changed.
Ok Alex Jones.
What the hell is a needless traffic stop? Your cite doesn’t explain. Are vehicles to run about like in The Road Warrior?
If I’m trampling well tread ground, and people are tired of discussing it, fine. My initial post was admittedly kneejerk based on the thread’s title and I don’t have the time or will to slog through nine pages of argument. That’s on me.
Is the stipulation of a pre-existing state necessary to show that other countries have better outcomes between police and citizenry? If so, I’m not aware of another America-like nation that reformed its police system. That said, it seems a commonly held understanding that nations like Canada and the UK have much better (not prefect) policies and outcomes in policing.
I’m not arguing for the continuation of the failed policies on the war on drugs. I agree that drug laws need to be reformed to ensure police are not required to enforce them.
Unfortunately those opposed to changing the status quo are fine with any examples from other countries that they think show that the U.S. is better, while dismissing all examples of other countries doing better because “we are totally different”.
We seem to be in agreement that dramatic change is needed with respect to police reforms, while at the same time being worlds apart on whether that change should come in terms of abolishing the police. Is it unreasonable to expect that abolishment is simply not a conversation starter, and that needed reforms can be negotiated and achieved without going to extremes that do not have the support of the majority of the population, including sympathetic political and community leaders?
Again, while I hope that less drastic measures are feasible, I would like to see examples of less drastic measures working, of not merely being window dressing. Power is easily given, but taking it back?
I would like to see examples of more drastic measures taken working first. This doesn’t strike me as shoot for the moon, end up among the stars if you miss scenario. More of a burn up on re-entry situation, if you even get off the launchpad.
IMHO, abolition of the police is a ridiculous idea and could only exist in a perfect society. George was a serial law breaker including an armed home invasion so he was no saint. The attending officers no doubt knew his past so he was likely viewed as dangerous. However, regardless of his background there’s no excuse to make the police judge, jury and executioner.
Another way to look at it is this: If we accept Canada/UK/whatever have better outcomes, we can use them as a model and work towards that, keeping in mind that neither Canada nor UK nor whatever, abolished their police force to achieve their results. They evolved incrementally, not from a place of abolition of police but from a likely more archaic and oppressive system, not unlike the US.
I see there are pages and pages to this debate which I’m disinclined to slog through, so I’ll just give my 2 cents (and a bargain at double the cost!!). I don’t think that, outside of a very small radical element anyone really wants to abolish the police. Only someone who isn’t in touch with the real world would want there to be no police. Hell, there aren’t, as far as I know, any major countries that don’t have some police in some form or another…not outside of either dystopian hell holes or very small countries with really stable and entrenched cultures. Certainly in the US it’s unfeasible to not have any police at any level, and I seriously doubt that a majority in either party wants this. My WAG is you are talking about less than 20% of either party is or would be really on board with no police…and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was under 10%.
So, what we are really talking about here is reforming the police, or restructuring how and what we, as a society, actually want the police to be, and from those requirements restructuring how we select police, pay police and train our police forces. It’s either that or basically what will happen is, ironically…the free market!! Which I think the folks pushing this would really be on board for. Because, basically, the actual outcome of no police would really mean that rich people would have and hire private police forces, like in the good old days (:dubious:), and poor people would be fucked. Middle class folks would probably be somewhere between those extremes, but certainly the outcome would be worse than currently, or they would have to pool together to buy protection as well.
Myself, I think one of the main issues with the police force…besides how we, as a society have kind of set impossible goals between enforcing often stupid laws and cutting crime while cutting salaries and demonizing them, rightfully or wrongfully…is the police unions that often protect bad police officers. That and by making police forces almost a separate class, often above the law or at least shielded by the long blue line, but at the same time often ostracized in their own towns or cities. Basically, again, we are pulling the police in various directions at once, and setting up the environment to be conducive to abuse, to often having candidates applying who aren’t acceptable but are taken anyway, are under paid and feel hounded.
In the end, IMHO anyway, we need to figure out what the police are really for, what laws we should and can actually enforce and how (like take a look at this whole war on drugs thingy and ask ourselves if it’s really what we want the police to be doing), and also, as a society, figure out and fix our systemic racial issues.
Because, basically, the actual outcome of no police would really mean that rich people would have and hire private police forces, like in the good old days (:dubious:), and poor people would be fucked. Middle class folks would probably be somewhere between those extremes, but certainly the outcome would be worse than currently, or they would have to pool together to buy protection as well.