Private Security Force That Works with Citizen Wants the Power to Arrest People(vice.com)
vice.com
Private Security Force That Works with Citizen Wants the Power to Arrest People
https://www.vice.com/en/article/epnz5j/citizen-private-security-los-angeles-arrest-people
49 comments
It's sad that the situation has come to this. Los Angeles and some other large cities have basically given up on enforcing minor crimes and so those who can afford it hire private security. Unfortunately this will make the situation worse for everyone in the long run by removing the pressure on the government to find real solutions
If this continues it will turn into South Africa where only the wealthy get justice (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_security_industry_in...).
I’m totally fine with police making as much as a software developer as long as they are competent and reasonably non-corrupt. Here is their starting wages, starting 70k without a college degree: https://www.joinlapd.com/salary should probably be a bit more if you want them to be able to afford houses in LA though.
I’m totally fine with police making as much as a software developer as long as they are competent and reasonably non-corrupt. Here is their starting wages, starting 70k without a college degree: https://www.joinlapd.com/salary should probably be a bit more if you want them to be able to afford houses in LA though.
> "Private security has zero authority on a public space," he later laments.
An excellent argument against the privatization of public space, such as those privately-owned parks publicized during the Wall Street protests.
An excellent argument against the privatization of public space, such as those privately-owned parks publicized during the Wall Street protests.
So what's the big deal here? This is no different than any chartered university police department, transit infrastructure police, port police or govern department specific security force. All those forces exist for no reason other than to prioritize calls that would get laughed off or a "we'll get to it when we get to it" response from a local or state police department.
The rent-a-cops employed by the company named in TFA have little difference from government rent-a-cops performing the same duties beyond who's letterhead they get their pay stubs on.
Frankly I think allowing security forces to have police powers is crap loaded with perverse incentives and ripe for abuse. But also I see no reason why being buddy-buddy with the .gov should get the above mentioned types of security agencies law enforcement power while a private security force securing a private facility cannot do the same. Rent-a-cop is rent-a-cop. Either they all get to arrest a hobo for peeing in a corner or none of them do.
The rent-a-cops employed by the company named in TFA have little difference from government rent-a-cops performing the same duties beyond who's letterhead they get their pay stubs on.
Frankly I think allowing security forces to have police powers is crap loaded with perverse incentives and ripe for abuse. But also I see no reason why being buddy-buddy with the .gov should get the above mentioned types of security agencies law enforcement power while a private security force securing a private facility cannot do the same. Rent-a-cop is rent-a-cop. Either they all get to arrest a hobo for peeing in a corner or none of them do.
Jennifer Government was satire and not a manual.
Seems like the natural corollary to defund the police. People who can afford to do so will hire private services.
That’s disingenuous, given that the movement is about allowing police to only focus on security rather than trying to solve every societal ill.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nskorpen/status/12841449250392637...
https://mobile.twitter.com/nskorpen/status/12841449250392637...
Who gets to gatekeep what the movement is actually about? I've seen quite a few at protests with signs saying "abolish the police". Seems like those people don't want police to focus on security.
AFAIK there hasn't been any polls to see preferences for the desired level of defunding w/in the movement. I wouldn't be surprised if 100% defunding was a plurality (but not a majority)
AFAIK there hasn't been any polls to see preferences for the desired level of defunding w/in the movement. I wouldn't be surprised if 100% defunding was a plurality (but not a majority)
The way that I would approach it is to try to take the strongest version of a given argument; particularly if that is the argument that the leaders/spokesmen in a movement are making.
It's certainly not the way disfavored movements or ideas are handled.
What do you mean? Outside of trolls, it seems like a common approach.
> I've seen quite a few at protests with signs saying "abolish the police".
The abolish/disband faction is a different faction from the defund faction, sharing with the other that both believe the reform cycle where police problems are dealt woth by increasing budgets for retraining or other reform measures, reducing resources for other services, which results in police roles expanding, resulting in new police problems from inserting armed law enforcement into nee and inappropriate roles needs to be broken.
The “defund” crowd says, lets wind that the other way and drive non-core roles and the funding to go with them to agencies outside of the police departments, so that the police department is focussed on roles that require armed law enforcement.
The “disband/abolish” crowd says lets go further, and redesign community services without an all-encompassing centralized paramilitary law enforcement service, with enforcement arms where necessary within agencies with focuses other than “law enforcement”.
(There's a fringe within the disband/abolish faction that would eliminate armed law enforcement as a local government function entirely, but they aren't typical of the disband/abolish movement much less the defund movement or an umbrella including both defund and disband/abolish.)
The abolish/disband faction is a different faction from the defund faction, sharing with the other that both believe the reform cycle where police problems are dealt woth by increasing budgets for retraining or other reform measures, reducing resources for other services, which results in police roles expanding, resulting in new police problems from inserting armed law enforcement into nee and inappropriate roles needs to be broken.
The “defund” crowd says, lets wind that the other way and drive non-core roles and the funding to go with them to agencies outside of the police departments, so that the police department is focussed on roles that require armed law enforcement.
The “disband/abolish” crowd says lets go further, and redesign community services without an all-encompassing centralized paramilitary law enforcement service, with enforcement arms where necessary within agencies with focuses other than “law enforcement”.
(There's a fringe within the disband/abolish faction that would eliminate armed law enforcement as a local government function entirely, but they aren't typical of the disband/abolish movement much less the defund movement or an umbrella including both defund and disband/abolish.)
This kinda feels like gatekeeping the “defund” movement.
When I walk by the 2MM house on Capitol Hill in Seattle with the “yes we actually mean defund the police” it’s just a bunch of misguided upper class people who are too sheltered to really know danger in their lives.
When I walk by the 2MM house on Capitol Hill in Seattle with the “yes we actually mean defund the police” it’s just a bunch of misguided upper class people who are too sheltered to really know danger in their lives.
> The abolish/disband faction is a different faction from the defund faction
Yes, but both use the slogan ‘defund the police’.
Yes, but both use the slogan ‘defund the police’.
> Yes, but both use the slogan ‘defund the police’.
No, the abolish/disband faction tends to use “abolish (or disband) the police”.
No, the abolish/disband faction tends to use “abolish (or disband) the police”.
Not according to this detailed reporting by vice:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-...
“For the last week, mainstream publications and centrist thinkers have tied themselves in knots trying to explain that when activists say they want to defund the police, they don’t really mean that; “defund the police” is a slogan that actually means “make police departments smaller and more accountable,” they say. But many people who say “defund the police” mean exactly that—defund and abolish police departments, and use that funding to lift up communities.”
Claiming it to be a clear cut distinction simply isn’t supported by the evidence.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-...
“For the last week, mainstream publications and centrist thinkers have tied themselves in knots trying to explain that when activists say they want to defund the police, they don’t really mean that; “defund the police” is a slogan that actually means “make police departments smaller and more accountable,” they say. But many people who say “defund the police” mean exactly that—defund and abolish police departments, and use that funding to lift up communities.”
Claiming it to be a clear cut distinction simply isn’t supported by the evidence.
Even that seems to suggest that 8 to abolition wishes to start by defunding police (but not abolishing! Those are clearly different: defunding is a step to abolishing, but 0 police funding would pretty clearly be abolished), perhaps with a long-term aim to reduce that funding to zero. But the way they use "defund" appears to mean decrease, not remove entirely, at least not yet.
Defunding as a step to abolishing, means abolishing the police is the goal.
Saying ‘at least not yet” doesn’t change the documented the fact that people use defund the police to mean abolish the police.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
Saying ‘at least not yet” doesn’t change the documented the fact that people use defund the police to mean abolish the police.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
I don't know how to tell you this any more clearly, but if "defunding the police is a step to abolishing the police" then "defunding the police" and "abolishing the police" must be distinct concepts. If they meant the same thing, you wouldn't need to do one first.
That’s like saying ‘putting toothpaste on your toothbrush’ and ‘brushing your teeth’ are two distinct concepts.
Obviously they are, but when some people say they are putting toothpaste on their toothbrush, they are doing so because they plan on brushing their teeth.
In just the same way, it is well documented that many people who say ‘defund the police’ mean completely defund them as a step towards abolishing them. There are people who are literally saying ‘when we say defund’ we mean abolish.
We’re not talking about whether in some abstract world a semantic distinction is possible. We’re talking about how activists are using a political slogan.
It’s hard to imagine you are really claiming that nobody who says ‘defund the police’ means to abolish the police.
Obviously they are, but when some people say they are putting toothpaste on their toothbrush, they are doing so because they plan on brushing their teeth.
In just the same way, it is well documented that many people who say ‘defund the police’ mean completely defund them as a step towards abolishing them. There are people who are literally saying ‘when we say defund’ we mean abolish.
We’re not talking about whether in some abstract world a semantic distinction is possible. We’re talking about how activists are using a political slogan.
It’s hard to imagine you are really claiming that nobody who says ‘defund the police’ means to abolish the police.
> It’s hard to imagine you are really claiming that nobody who says ‘defund the police’ means to abolish the police.
You're playing semantic games with "means" here, you're using it as a verb, "intends to" and not "is a synonym for", as we have been previously in the conversation. Breaking it down, people who intend to abolish the police almost by definition also support defunding it. Because that's a step towards abolishment.
So you're correct, I'm not claiming that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ intends to abolish the police"
I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people.
> Obviously they are, but when some people say they are putting toothpaste on their toothbrush, they are doing so because they plan on brushing their teeth.
This would be more compelling if there were people who felt that just putting toothpaste on the brush was the goal. But it isn't, because we both agree that there are some people who's only goal is to (partially) defund the police.
I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith.
You're playing semantic games with "means" here, you're using it as a verb, "intends to" and not "is a synonym for", as we have been previously in the conversation. Breaking it down, people who intend to abolish the police almost by definition also support defunding it. Because that's a step towards abolishment.
So you're correct, I'm not claiming that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ intends to abolish the police"
I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people.
> Obviously they are, but when some people say they are putting toothpaste on their toothbrush, they are doing so because they plan on brushing their teeth.
This would be more compelling if there were people who felt that just putting toothpaste on the brush was the goal. But it isn't, because we both agree that there are some people who's only goal is to (partially) defund the police.
I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith.
The defund the policers are getting me to probably vote R in 2022/2024, even though IMO Trump will never be someone I’d vote for, in which case I’ll not vote at all.
Democrats should have immediately distanced themselves from this movement.
Democrats should have immediately distanced themselves from this movement.
Wouldn't you rather the police focus on security rather than try to tacke every societal ill? One doesn't need to be a part of any labeled movement to agree with that.
Unfortunately that’s not what the vocal proponents of defund the police mean. When asked they say yes it literally means defund and reduce the police force.
It's like saying, here, we'll keep the price of a box of cereal the same (but reduce the mass on the sly).
It's like saying, here, we'll keep the price of a box of cereal the same (but reduce the mass on the sly).
I get that some vocal proponents mean “defund” in a very literal sense, but isn’t this always the case with these things?
There is always a group on the fringe, regardless of political faction, that wants the most extreme version of a policy.
The existence of such groups doesn’t mean that serious policy makers are actually on board with that extreme, nor do the majority of folks who support a more nuanced application of the policy (e.g. change how police are funded vs “defund”).
So I hear you, and yes, those people exist, but giving too much credence to the extremist position and wielding it as a scary straw man against the movement is also problematic.
There is always a group on the fringe, regardless of political faction, that wants the most extreme version of a policy.
The existence of such groups doesn’t mean that serious policy makers are actually on board with that extreme, nor do the majority of folks who support a more nuanced application of the policy (e.g. change how police are funded vs “defund”).
So I hear you, and yes, those people exist, but giving too much credence to the extremist position and wielding it as a scary straw man against the movement is also problematic.
Even viewing the situation charitably, the ostensible reformers here jumped behind a slogan that literally sounds like “eliminate police funding.” It’s like getting behind a “shut down immigration” slogan then claiming you really mean to shut down family based immigration in favor of a point system.
It’s not just bad messaging. Police reformers got behind an inflammatory and extreme slogan and realized after the fact that they had overplayed their hand and overestimated support for the extreme position.
It’s not just bad messaging. Police reformers got behind an inflammatory and extreme slogan and realized after the fact that they had overplayed their hand and overestimated support for the extreme position.
It’s a position definitely represented by real policy makers, and that actual cities have attempted to implement. It’s not accurate to call it a straw man.
The converse of your complaint is true - people pretending the extremes don’t have any power, and using the benign version of the phrase as cover.
Who wouldn’t agree with channeling funds to more appropriate professionals to deal with non-criminal situations that the police are currently drawn into?
The problem is not with this reasonable sounding policy objective. It’s that there are real policy makers who do mean abolish.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
The New York Times is not known for publishing ‘extremism’. It publishes mainstream opinions.
The converse of your complaint is true - people pretending the extremes don’t have any power, and using the benign version of the phrase as cover.
Who wouldn’t agree with channeling funds to more appropriate professionals to deal with non-criminal situations that the police are currently drawn into?
The problem is not with this reasonable sounding policy objective. It’s that there are real policy makers who do mean abolish.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
The New York Times is not known for publishing ‘extremism’. It publishes mainstream opinions.
That comic suggests the police are not supposed to handle things like gang violence or domestic violence? Too bad they didn't label those rocks in the second panel, I'm curious to see who is supposed to take care of gang violence if not the police.
"Defund the police" is a broad slogan endorsed by supporters of everything from police reform to police abolitionists. That makes it hard to know what anyone is talking about in terms of defunding the police. When someone says "Well, I think we have to have police" then the defund advocate can just explain what the phrase "really means" (to that specific advocate).
To use just a single rock from your comic example - saying "I think we should invest in job placement, education, and drug addiction programs to help mitigate the homeless problem" is really different from saying "Defund the police." For one thing, it lets people know what you are talking about - reducing the burden that homeless people place on police by reducing the number of in-need homeless. Suggesting a specific solution also focuses the conversation on solving problems.
Defunding the police is pretty unpopular[1]. The idea is opposed by the majority in all demographics, both major political parties, and supported by only 18% of Americans. My intuition is that solutions to specific sub-problems with policing (e.g. how will you address homelessness) would be much more popular and productive. Plus, you need to have the alternate solutions in place prior to defunding the police.
1- https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/...
"Defund the police" is a broad slogan endorsed by supporters of everything from police reform to police abolitionists. That makes it hard to know what anyone is talking about in terms of defunding the police. When someone says "Well, I think we have to have police" then the defund advocate can just explain what the phrase "really means" (to that specific advocate).
To use just a single rock from your comic example - saying "I think we should invest in job placement, education, and drug addiction programs to help mitigate the homeless problem" is really different from saying "Defund the police." For one thing, it lets people know what you are talking about - reducing the burden that homeless people place on police by reducing the number of in-need homeless. Suggesting a specific solution also focuses the conversation on solving problems.
Defunding the police is pretty unpopular[1]. The idea is opposed by the majority in all demographics, both major political parties, and supported by only 18% of Americans. My intuition is that solutions to specific sub-problems with policing (e.g. how will you address homelessness) would be much more popular and productive. Plus, you need to have the alternate solutions in place prior to defunding the police.
1- https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/...
It isn’t even remotely disingenuous to say that ‘defund the police’ is literally about abolition.
It is widely reported on:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/democrats-mean-it-when-the...
It is widely reported on:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/democrats-mean-it-when-the...
It sounds like South Africa. As garbage as US police can be sometimes, it's miles better than hoping you're within your private security force zone being afraid to leave it.
The USA police don’t ask you for a bribe or usually just mess with you with some notable exceptions.
Police in other countries though…
Police in other countries though…
This already happens in parts of the world where the police are ineffective in combating rampant crime.
Yes, and if the authorities become more ineffective, it mutates into warlords controlling territory. Really controlling, as in "de facto government".
This has already been the case in Seattle for a while, where even some upper middle class neighborhoods (not just wealthy enclaves) will organize a community-paid private security program just like businesses hire similar services. It’s necessary because the police have been woefully understaffed for a decade or more, and have been unable to investigate most crimes like burglaries. Here’s an article from over 5 years ago detailing the rise of private residential security in response to “blatant lawlessness” (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/citizen-anti-crime...). Unfortunately, re-reading this now, I can say that every problem detailed here has only become worse since then.
[deleted]