There's a growing call to defund the police. Here's what it means(cnn.com)
cnn.com
There's a growing call to defund the police. Here's what it means
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/06/us/what-is-defund-police-trnd/index.html
59 comments
Do the police currently actually do any of those things for most victims of domestic violence?
Police can’t enforce restraining orders when the victim doesn’t have $10K’s to hire a lawyer to go to court and get the order in the first place. Getting such orders is hit or miss from what I’ve heard, even if you have the cash.
Instead, sand an unarmed social worker to recover the items. If the abuser escalates, or the social worker witnesses abuse, send the police to arrest the abuser and prosecute them for assault. Now, the prosecution has an unbiased witness to help them win their case.
90% of the time, the abuser won’t escalate, and the police won’t need to drive out. Repeat the exercise for all routine police actions. (Heck, we even have armed police enforcing playground rules in many schools.)
Having done that, and having eliminated 90% of the police’s workload, cut their budget 80%, and hold what’s left of the department to a much higher standard.
Police can’t enforce restraining orders when the victim doesn’t have $10K’s to hire a lawyer to go to court and get the order in the first place. Getting such orders is hit or miss from what I’ve heard, even if you have the cash.
Instead, sand an unarmed social worker to recover the items. If the abuser escalates, or the social worker witnesses abuse, send the police to arrest the abuser and prosecute them for assault. Now, the prosecution has an unbiased witness to help them win their case.
90% of the time, the abuser won’t escalate, and the police won’t need to drive out. Repeat the exercise for all routine police actions. (Heck, we even have armed police enforcing playground rules in many schools.)
Having done that, and having eliminated 90% of the police’s workload, cut their budget 80%, and hold what’s left of the department to a much higher standard.
I am doubtful that one or two social workers removing a child from a risk-filled home will be a generally safe procedure. At a minimum, they will need to protect themselves, and at some point we're talking about an armed, possibly violent (the abuser might see it as legal kidnapping) officer of the law.
A 10% rate of violence is huge, especially when irrationality and domestic abuse is involved. If armed police are reduced dramatically in number, will they be able to respond in ten minutes?
A 10% rate of violence is huge, especially when irrationality and domestic abuse is involved. If armed police are reduced dramatically in number, will they be able to respond in ten minutes?
What if you have armed officers there but we let the social workers make the decisions?
> it seems hard to avoid armed officials
Why on earth do they need to be armed? There is zero reason for a local police officer be carrying firearms. It's insane. Dis-arming all but specialist firearms officers should be the first step.
I find it really frightening when I visit the US and all the police are armed to the teeth.
Why on earth do they need to be armed? There is zero reason for a local police officer be carrying firearms. It's insane. Dis-arming all but specialist firearms officers should be the first step.
I find it really frightening when I visit the US and all the police are armed to the teeth.
Probably because of the relatively easy access to guns in the US. Statistically you have a 0.00029% chance of being shot and killed by a police officer in a given year, and that rate falls to 0.00001% if you aren’t armed and it probably falls another two orders of magnitude if you obey the law. The likelihood that you will be killed in a car accident in the US in a given year is 0.01% or 1000-100000 times more likely than being shot/killed by police. Two things can be true: the American system is imperfect and the American system is still relatively safe.
> Statistically you have a 0.00029% chance of being shot and killed by a police officer in a given year ... the American system is still relatively safe
What do you think is the chance of being killed by shot and killed by police in countries that don't arm their police like they're in a war zone, like the UK?
A lot lower, at around 0.000005%.
What do you think is the chance of being killed by shot and killed by police in countries that don't arm their police like they're in a war zone, like the UK?
A lot lower, at around 0.000005%.
Yes, it’s a difficult political problem in the US. Americans aren’t willing to sacrifice thousands of additional homicide victims annually (by disarming the police) in order to save a handful when the latter can be saved by better vetting, training, accountability, etc. We’re trying to minimize for loss of life, not just for loss of life by police.
> We’re trying to minimize for loss of life, not just for loss of life by police.
Do you realise that the general homicide rate in the UK is also lower, at 1.2 per 100,000, compared to 4.96 in the US?
Do you realise that the general homicide rate in the UK is also lower, at 1.2 per 100,000, compared to 4.96 in the US?
I am aware. Your mistake is thinking that disparity is caused by a disarmed police force.
I didn't say all officers need weapons. But domestic violence calls are notably dangerous, with high tempers and intoxicated people involved. Irrational violence should be anticipated in those situations.
Officers writing parking violations might not need firearms, but traffic stops are also dangerous as individuals with outstanding warrants might be desperate to avoid arrest. Also, intoxicated people are famously bad drivers.
Officers writing parking violations might not need firearms, but traffic stops are also dangerous as individuals with outstanding warrants might be desperate to avoid arrest. Also, intoxicated people are famously bad drivers.
I just don't get this. Bringing a gun to a domestic dispute or a simple traffic stop sounds like lunacy and a lethal escalation to me.
I saw this recently in a nearby domestic dispute in Northern Ireland, which still routinely arms constables.
The antagonist had a kitchen knife and the first responding policewoman drew her pistol. But what now? She had gone straight to the lethal option and had no other recourse. The antagonist became more aggressive to defend himself.
Her colleague thankfully disarmed him with use of a truncheon.
The antagonist had a kitchen knife and the first responding policewoman drew her pistol. But what now? She had gone straight to the lethal option and had no other recourse. The antagonist became more aggressive to defend himself.
Her colleague thankfully disarmed him with use of a truncheon.
> She had gone straight to the lethal option and had no other recourse.
Not true. I presume that PSNI, like any law enforcement agency in the U.S., operates with some form of a use of force continuum that ranges from officer presence to deadly force. One of the most important aspects of that continuum that is taught to officers is that you can move up and down the continuum as the situation dictates. If you draw your sidearm you are not obligated to remain at that level of the use of force continuum. You should continue to make every effort to gain control of the situation, and deescalate.
At the same time, you are not obligated to use a lower level of force than that which you are facing, and a kitchen knife is a deadly weapon. It's very much a training issue as much as anything to educate officers in deescalation techniques, less-lethal weapons and control techniques, and scene management to minimize casualties. In the situation you describe though, it was absolutely appropriate for her to draw her sidearm, while still doing everything in her power to regain control of the situation so that she would not need to use it.
Not true. I presume that PSNI, like any law enforcement agency in the U.S., operates with some form of a use of force continuum that ranges from officer presence to deadly force. One of the most important aspects of that continuum that is taught to officers is that you can move up and down the continuum as the situation dictates. If you draw your sidearm you are not obligated to remain at that level of the use of force continuum. You should continue to make every effort to gain control of the situation, and deescalate.
At the same time, you are not obligated to use a lower level of force than that which you are facing, and a kitchen knife is a deadly weapon. It's very much a training issue as much as anything to educate officers in deescalation techniques, less-lethal weapons and control techniques, and scene management to minimize casualties. In the situation you describe though, it was absolutely appropriate for her to draw her sidearm, while still doing everything in her power to regain control of the situation so that she would not need to use it.
> Not true. I presume that PSNI, like any law enforcement agency in the U.S., operates with some form of a use of force continuum that ranges from officer presence to deadly force.
That's not what the person you're replying to means.
They mean despite what other options the officer had available to them, they had already reached for the lethal option (drawing their pistol) and from there had nowhere to go but threatening to kill or actually killing.
As soon as an officer turns up with a firearm, you have irreversibly escalated the situation to out-of-control insanity.
That's not what the person you're replying to means.
They mean despite what other options the officer had available to them, they had already reached for the lethal option (drawing their pistol) and from there had nowhere to go but threatening to kill or actually killing.
As soon as an officer turns up with a firearm, you have irreversibly escalated the situation to out-of-control insanity.
This is all things I have been told by people I personally believe. I'm open to statistical evidence either way on the particulars.
I, much like I imagine you to be, grew up in a country where guns are restricted and rare.
In the US, that's not the case and any attempts to restrict gun ownership meets huge political hurdles. Even if those restrictions are what other countries would deem to be common sense, e.g. Switzerland or New Zealand.
I think it's all kinds of crazy to sell guns in supermarkets with next to no checks on who owns them, but I get why police would want to have guns in the US.
In the US, that's not the case and any attempts to restrict gun ownership meets huge political hurdles. Even if those restrictions are what other countries would deem to be common sense, e.g. Switzerland or New Zealand.
I think it's all kinds of crazy to sell guns in supermarkets with next to no checks on who owns them, but I get why police would want to have guns in the US.
> sell guns in supermarkets with next to no checks on who owns them
Yea, A, you might be able to get a single shot hunting rifle in a walmart in a rural part of the USA... but it may not work to begin with because it's a cheap piece of crap. You're really not going to buy some eggs, milk, loaf of bread and an AK in the same store in the USA. Stop believing bullshit.
B, Neil Steinberg for the Chicago Sun Times believed the same thing of "no checks". He got denied a gun because he got picked up for beating his wife a few years prior. Then blamed the store for the deny. Which, a gun store clerk/owner is in full legal right to deny service to anyone, even if the customer qualifies. The DEA encourages them to deny and report people if they feel the customer is purchasing a gun for malice... except, Neil beat his wife after drinking too much booze. So the DEA denied him on that one. Lots of people think they can get easily approved for a gun and realize real quick they can't. I've been in gun stores plenty of times to see people apply, wait and get denied.
Just like in countries where guns are illegal, you can buy guns on the black market.
If you actually know cops in the USA, they generally like those with conceal permit licenses. It means they're not prior felons, they don't want to lose their gun or the license, thus don't want to do anything stupid. There are exceptions, just like with anything else. "Sovereign citizens" are a special class of complete stupid. But a majority of legal gun owners have zero interest in doing anything stupid. I already know all of this is unpopular opinion and I'll get lambasted by non-gun owners. Whatever.
Yea, A, you might be able to get a single shot hunting rifle in a walmart in a rural part of the USA... but it may not work to begin with because it's a cheap piece of crap. You're really not going to buy some eggs, milk, loaf of bread and an AK in the same store in the USA. Stop believing bullshit.
B, Neil Steinberg for the Chicago Sun Times believed the same thing of "no checks". He got denied a gun because he got picked up for beating his wife a few years prior. Then blamed the store for the deny. Which, a gun store clerk/owner is in full legal right to deny service to anyone, even if the customer qualifies. The DEA encourages them to deny and report people if they feel the customer is purchasing a gun for malice... except, Neil beat his wife after drinking too much booze. So the DEA denied him on that one. Lots of people think they can get easily approved for a gun and realize real quick they can't. I've been in gun stores plenty of times to see people apply, wait and get denied.
Just like in countries where guns are illegal, you can buy guns on the black market.
If you actually know cops in the USA, they generally like those with conceal permit licenses. It means they're not prior felons, they don't want to lose their gun or the license, thus don't want to do anything stupid. There are exceptions, just like with anything else. "Sovereign citizens" are a special class of complete stupid. But a majority of legal gun owners have zero interest in doing anything stupid. I already know all of this is unpopular opinion and I'll get lambasted by non-gun owners. Whatever.
As far as I can tell, there's checks on criminal history, but not much else, but I'm happy to be corrected. Furthermore, those checks are dependent on state record being populated to a federal database and there's a suggestion that sometimes things gets missed. Maybe it's inevitable given the structure of policing in America.
You don't have to look far to find massacres committed by legal gun owners in the US: El Paso (2019), Las Vegas (2017), the list goes on. If someone can legally buy a gun and then do this, the checks are insufficient. Contrastingly, there hasn't been a similar event in the UK in my lifetime.
I'm not suggesting all gun owners are lunatics, bear ill will to others or do anything unsafe with their guns. Nonetheless, if someone can legally buy a gun and do anything with it, the arms race with police is inevitable.
You don't have to look far to find massacres committed by legal gun owners in the US: El Paso (2019), Las Vegas (2017), the list goes on. If someone can legally buy a gun and then do this, the checks are insufficient. Contrastingly, there hasn't been a similar event in the UK in my lifetime.
I'm not suggesting all gun owners are lunatics, bear ill will to others or do anything unsafe with their guns. Nonetheless, if someone can legally buy a gun and do anything with it, the arms race with police is inevitable.
As a fellow gun owner, you’re making a lot of big claims but only supplying anecdotes.
> you might be able to get a single shot hunting rifle in a walmart in a rural part of the USA... but it may not work to begin with because it's a cheap piece of crap.
My nearest grocery store in a major city is bi-mart and I can pick up some very nice semi-auto pistols along with my local dairy’s milk
> If you actually know cops in the USA, they generally like those with conceal permit licenses.
The cops I know generally hate conceal permits because it gives holders an inflated sense of their abilities on how and when to use the weapon in a high stress situation
Again, everyone’s got different anecdotes but they don’t make compelling arguments.
> you might be able to get a single shot hunting rifle in a walmart in a rural part of the USA... but it may not work to begin with because it's a cheap piece of crap.
My nearest grocery store in a major city is bi-mart and I can pick up some very nice semi-auto pistols along with my local dairy’s milk
> If you actually know cops in the USA, they generally like those with conceal permit licenses.
The cops I know generally hate conceal permits because it gives holders an inflated sense of their abilities on how and when to use the weapon in a high stress situation
Again, everyone’s got different anecdotes but they don’t make compelling arguments.
You can actually get some pretty quality handguns in some Walmarts, and Fred Meyer for that matter. And yes, background checks are required for most purchases. But not for private purchases or gun shows in most states. Doesn't need to be the "black market".
and yes, I do own 4 handguns, 2 shotguns (for trap), and .30-06 for moose hunting, and have a concealed carry permit.
and yes, I do own 4 handguns, 2 shotguns (for trap), and .30-06 for moose hunting, and have a concealed carry permit.
“ sell guns in supermarkets with next to no checks on who owns them,“
This is false.
One has to pass a federal background check and some states have additional checks and restrictions as well.
This is false.
One has to pass a federal background check and some states have additional checks and restrictions as well.
They didnt say no checks, they said next to no checks. There actually are relatively few federal restrictions - effectively anyone who is not a criminal can purchase (most) guns legally [0] (some states are more strict, though). Compared to virtually every other country in the world, that is "next to no checks". Many states have no background checks at all for private sales [1], though that wouldn't apply to purchases from a supermarket.
For example, contrast the UK, which in addition to outright banning most firearms such as handguns, requires a "good reason" to issue a firearms permit - and things like self defense are not considered acceptable reasons [2].
[0] https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/gun-laws.html
[1] https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/private-g...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_Uni...
For example, contrast the UK, which in addition to outright banning most firearms such as handguns, requires a "good reason" to issue a firearms permit - and things like self defense are not considered acceptable reasons [2].
[0] https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/gun-laws.html
[1] https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/private-g...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_Uni...
1. Sells guns in supermarkets. I searched for "Walmart guns" and got picture of guns on shelves on the Walmart website. I also found articles about panic buying ammunition during lockdown, and calls to reduce the range of guns on sale after various massacres.
2. Next to no checks. I looked at comments challenging my assertion and did a quick bit of research, finding articles such as [1] which suggests there are minimal checks that consume very little time. As far as I can tell, the checks are based on whether you've previously committed crimes which ignores whether you're likely to commit a crime with a gun in the future (such as the 2019 El Paso shooting). More alarmingly, I found suggestions that these checks are optional and performed at the discretion of the seller, although I didn't pursue it further to corroborate the claims.
What about the quote was false?
[1] https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/gun-control-facts
2. Next to no checks. I looked at comments challenging my assertion and did a quick bit of research, finding articles such as [1] which suggests there are minimal checks that consume very little time. As far as I can tell, the checks are based on whether you've previously committed crimes which ignores whether you're likely to commit a crime with a gun in the future (such as the 2019 El Paso shooting). More alarmingly, I found suggestions that these checks are optional and performed at the discretion of the seller, although I didn't pursue it further to corroborate the claims.
What about the quote was false?
[1] https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/gun-control-facts
Maybe criminals carry and use guns because they know the police have guns?
Let's lower the stakes with what we do control - the police carrying guns.
Let's lower the stakes with what we do control - the police carrying guns.
> Maybe criminals carry and use guns because they know the police have guns?
What? Of course criminals carry guns to threaten and harm other citizens, including other criminals. They aren’t principally concerned with defending themselves against the police.
What? Of course criminals carry guns to threaten and harm other citizens, including other criminals. They aren’t principally concerned with defending themselves against the police.
People carry guns either to impose their will on other people or to avoid having other people's will imposed on themselves. Neither of those motivations go away if the police stop carrying guns.
If the police aren't threatening to shoot you then you don't need a gun to shoot back.
As if the police were the only such threat, and the crime that police are supposed to protect us from isn't significant. Without police, I'd be more inclined to carry and I don't think that would be unusual.
This assumes criminals only carry guns to defend themselves against police shootings, which is obviously and amusingly incorrect.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I would like to see statistics on inconsistently or seldom enforced laws. Those seem to be a vector for corruption and should be considered for repeal. Minor drug crimes seem to fit this profile, but so do certain occupational regulations (certification to braid hair?). If we end up with fewer things for police to do, it sounds like a net win.
If you’re a young black man in DC, you have a 75% chance of eventually winding up in prison. Country wide, on an average day, 10% of black men in their thirties are serving time in prison.
This is mostly due to racial disparities in prosecution and sentencing than crime rates between races. Drug possession accounts for a significant fraction of the disparity: Whites use illegal drugs at a similar rate, but rarely go to prison for it.
https://www.mic.com/articles/86519/19-actual-statistics-abou...
http://www.sentencingproject.org/issues/racial-disparity/
This is mostly due to racial disparities in prosecution and sentencing than crime rates between races. Drug possession accounts for a significant fraction of the disparity: Whites use illegal drugs at a similar rate, but rarely go to prison for it.
https://www.mic.com/articles/86519/19-actual-statistics-abou...
http://www.sentencingproject.org/issues/racial-disparity/
Yes we need to address the root causes of the crime problem: poverty, racism, and addiction. Many types of crimes (theft, drug dealing) are caused because people have been marginalized and have no other means of making money. This is to a large extent caused by racism. Also a lot of crime is related to addiction, which can lead to catastrophic consequences when handled by police.
While poverty, racism, and addiction. are a factor, the root cause of crime is over criminalization of society [2] that creates a cycle of crime that once started it is very hard to escape from.
The thousands upon thousands of sooo called "victimless" crime that it used to dump millions of people in to the criminal system which then society punishes for the rest of their lives by denying them opportunities in all segments of life from Jobs to Housing to access to government assistance.
Often time people have "no other means of making money" due to this cycle of over criminalization, they were busted with a small amount of weed, from that point they were a "convicted criminal" where by many employers will deny them a job, schools will deny them admission, landlords will deny them housing, etc.
We have a narrative in this nation that a Misdemeanor Conviction Is Not a Big Deal [1], this is a false narrative one that the legal system pushes because they often over charge individuals with felonies then "allow" them to plea out to a "lesser" misdemeanor to improve the efficiency of "justice".
The biggest flaw in the system is that we have created so many criminal laws that we need to make the "justice system" an assembly line of contract negotiation
[1] https://time.com/76356/a-misdemeanor-conviction-is-not-a-big...
[2] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/overcriminal...
The thousands upon thousands of sooo called "victimless" crime that it used to dump millions of people in to the criminal system which then society punishes for the rest of their lives by denying them opportunities in all segments of life from Jobs to Housing to access to government assistance.
Often time people have "no other means of making money" due to this cycle of over criminalization, they were busted with a small amount of weed, from that point they were a "convicted criminal" where by many employers will deny them a job, schools will deny them admission, landlords will deny them housing, etc.
We have a narrative in this nation that a Misdemeanor Conviction Is Not a Big Deal [1], this is a false narrative one that the legal system pushes because they often over charge individuals with felonies then "allow" them to plea out to a "lesser" misdemeanor to improve the efficiency of "justice".
The biggest flaw in the system is that we have created so many criminal laws that we need to make the "justice system" an assembly line of contract negotiation
[1] https://time.com/76356/a-misdemeanor-conviction-is-not-a-big...
[2] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/overcriminal...
Also, financial education. Simple things like paying off your credit card before putting money into savings, when it's worth fixing your car or not, or just the basic principals behind how things are priced. I heard a lot about an item only costing X amount of money to make in materials, but the company was charging X*10 for it; many people never learn how and why things get priced the way they do.
It does seem weird that if I just want a report for insurance purposes, that the people that get sent out to help me get that paperwork carry guns.
Edit: What's nice about cops versus, for instance, the Department of Motor Vehicles is that police make home visits. Maybe some of the boring stuff could be done by non-violent agencies that make home visits, like child protective services.
Edit: What's nice about cops versus, for instance, the Department of Motor Vehicles is that police make home visits. Maybe some of the boring stuff could be done by non-violent agencies that make home visits, like child protective services.
Seems like it would make more sense to change that aspect of the system rather than to defund the police altogether, no?
Not sure if you read the article, but different people mean different things by "defund the police." One thing that's obvious is that pretty much every police department is going to have some amount of defunding, due to state and local budget problems that are expected to arise due to decreased tax revenue. My concern is that not enough leaders will try to reimagine what gets built in its place, given those budget constraints.
Not to say there isn't any consideration. Some people say that poverty, mental health issues or lack of quality education is a driver of crime and that we need to divert resources. Others, people like me, want to experiment to replace some of the things police do, study it, follow the evidence and maybe eventually build something entirely different.
What I love about this debate is it's causing people to think about, often for the first time, why we've set it up this way.
Not to say there isn't any consideration. Some people say that poverty, mental health issues or lack of quality education is a driver of crime and that we need to divert resources. Others, people like me, want to experiment to replace some of the things police do, study it, follow the evidence and maybe eventually build something entirely different.
What I love about this debate is it's causing people to think about, often for the first time, why we've set it up this way.
There are many items involved in this. Defunding things like SWAT and military vehicles for police forces is a reasonable thing to do as most of those police forces don't need these things. If you look at all these particular issues then what was the policing policy that caused them? I think you need to examine why those were executed to get a sense of how to not repeat those mistakes. You've also got to look inside a police force at the people that are police officers. There are a lot of less desirable personalities in there. I don't think throwing police forces to the wolves is the way to go as there are lots of good officers impacted by this. I think police need to evolve not be tossed aside to start from scratch and repeat the same mistakes.
Let’s assume a city (or two?) decide to abolish their police force (which is what defunding would achieve).
What then?
What then?
Not for reform reasons, but Camden, NJ did exactly that in 2012:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193971/Camden-poli...
The county police became the de facto police department for Camden, which is a model for what would likely happen in any city: the police or sheriff’s department for the next largest jurisdiction encompassing the city would start policing the city.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193971/Camden-poli...
The county police became the de facto police department for Camden, which is a model for what would likely happen in any city: the police or sheriff’s department for the next largest jurisdiction encompassing the city would start policing the city.
Wait if the county police become your police if there's no other police department, then why does any city spend their taxes on their own police? And presumably if there's no county police the state police have jurisdiction.
> Wait if the county police become your police if there's no other police department, then why does any city spend their taxes on their own police?
Policy-wise the motivations for retaining a city police department can be differences in crime between urban and suburban/rural areas, and population density & subsequent patrol officer density - and as a subset of that, response times. I would imagine that cities, and specifically the elected leaders, are also under significant pressure from police unions to retain their departments. Furthermore, disbanding a police department for any major city means that the county or state police department suddenly has to take on the workload of what was previously being done by hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of city police, and no department is prepared for that.
> And presumably if there's no county police the state police have jurisdiction.
There are many cities in the US that are outside of any county, and are their own incorporated entity on par in the hierarchy with the surrounding counties. As such the state police would be the most likely department to take over policing. Again though, that's a major resource burden and logistics problem; any feelings about the pros and cons of reduced police presence aside no policy maker is likely going to be comfortable with that kind of impact.
Policy-wise the motivations for retaining a city police department can be differences in crime between urban and suburban/rural areas, and population density & subsequent patrol officer density - and as a subset of that, response times. I would imagine that cities, and specifically the elected leaders, are also under significant pressure from police unions to retain their departments. Furthermore, disbanding a police department for any major city means that the county or state police department suddenly has to take on the workload of what was previously being done by hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of city police, and no department is prepared for that.
> And presumably if there's no county police the state police have jurisdiction.
There are many cities in the US that are outside of any county, and are their own incorporated entity on par in the hierarchy with the surrounding counties. As such the state police would be the most likely department to take over policing. Again though, that's a major resource burden and logistics problem; any feelings about the pros and cons of reduced police presence aside no policy maker is likely going to be comfortable with that kind of impact.
Private security. Everyone gets a private security contract with ex-cops, with an emergency number to call. The rich will be well-protected, the poor mostly left to fend for themselves.
That won’t be better, it will be far worse, but it’s a thing people can do, so in the absence of other things to do, it may end up as the thing that is done. Desperate people do foolish things if they see no alternative.
That won’t be better, it will be far worse, but it’s a thing people can do, so in the absence of other things to do, it may end up as the thing that is done. Desperate people do foolish things if they see no alternative.
Imagine this on any significant scale. The richest become a law unto themselves. They become the de facto government by virtue of control over the largest armies. If you didn’t like the 1% before, why would you give them absolute power and the monopoly on violence?
I don't want a world where I get police service as part of amazon prime, but it would still be better than a lawless world.
It has been done in variouse degrees in Central Europe after revolution of 1989. Old structure has been disbanded, new formed under new leaders, policemen went through verification and many with record of violence has been let go.
It had sent a signal that police is to serve civil society and not be part of oppresion apparatus.
https://www.dcaf.ch/transforming-police-central-and-eastern-...
It had sent a signal that police is to serve civil society and not be part of oppresion apparatus.
https://www.dcaf.ch/transforming-police-central-and-eastern-...
[deleted]
Then every other city toying with the idea watches them for the next year or so. What does happen when you take a major chunk of the budget of a city and reallocate it from "beating the shit out of your poorer citizens" to "helping your poorer citizens"? What happens when you no longer have people roaming the streets looking for someone to accuse of a crime because they have a quota of arrests to fill?
If the results are anywhere near as good as the groups pushing for police abolishment are projecting, then other cities toying with the idea decide to follow suit.
Eventually you even get to a place where even the rightwingers are proposing this in the slower-moving places, if marijuana legalization is any kind of model - I'm in a state with a very loose medical marijuana bill sitting on the Governor's desk that will be de facto recreational legalization, which was proposed and pushed through by Repubs, and that really kinda blows my mind.
If the results are anywhere near as good as the groups pushing for police abolishment are projecting, then other cities toying with the idea decide to follow suit.
Eventually you even get to a place where even the rightwingers are proposing this in the slower-moving places, if marijuana legalization is any kind of model - I'm in a state with a very loose medical marijuana bill sitting on the Governor's desk that will be de facto recreational legalization, which was proposed and pushed through by Repubs, and that really kinda blows my mind.
Here's the problem: People are not angels. This applies to the police (as we're seeing).
But it also applies to the non-police. They aren't angels, either. And in the absence of police, they aren't going to become angels. They're going to still beat their wives, they're going to still mug random strangers, they're going to still do protection rackets. And they may do even more of those things when they don't have to worry about being stopped.
And then, the victims aren't angels, either. If they use a Second Amendment defense to those problems, they're not going to do it perfectly. They're going to do it in anger. They're going to do it with vigilante justice, hitting more people than they should, and hitting some of the wrong people.
> If the results are anywhere near as good as the groups pushing for police abolishment are projecting...
In light of human nature, I'm not banking on the results being wonderful.
But it also applies to the non-police. They aren't angels, either. And in the absence of police, they aren't going to become angels. They're going to still beat their wives, they're going to still mug random strangers, they're going to still do protection rackets. And they may do even more of those things when they don't have to worry about being stopped.
And then, the victims aren't angels, either. If they use a Second Amendment defense to those problems, they're not going to do it perfectly. They're going to do it in anger. They're going to do it with vigilante justice, hitting more people than they should, and hitting some of the wrong people.
> If the results are anywhere near as good as the groups pushing for police abolishment are projecting...
In light of human nature, I'm not banking on the results being wonderful.
Well, it looks like Minneapolis is gonna make a go. https://theappeal.org/minneapolis-city-council-members-annou...
Isn't part of the argument for gun control that policing is robust enough to provide superior safety?
Yes. I've found a strange inconsistency with some of the people calling for the defunding of police - they were until very recently saying citizens didn't need guns because the police were always close by. Now they're saying the police are bad and we can take care of ourselves.
It's probably different people saying different things.
First, folks who have been calling for prison abolition, for instance, tend to be anti-gun control because it's a tool that's used to put more black and brown people in prisons. A lot of these folks also call for defunding police.
Second, this is different from saying "citizens don't need guns." That different argument is simply based on the idea that people are less safe when they have guns, not more safe. While some is due to accidents, much of it is suicides.
First, folks who have been calling for prison abolition, for instance, tend to be anti-gun control because it's a tool that's used to put more black and brown people in prisons. A lot of these folks also call for defunding police.
Second, this is different from saying "citizens don't need guns." That different argument is simply based on the idea that people are less safe when they have guns, not more safe. While some is due to accidents, much of it is suicides.
But what is the policy approach to protect law-abiding citizens from crazy exes and people who take an affinity to lynching? Saying "solve poverty" seems like both a huge leap in logic and frankly harder than "solving" crime.
I appreciate the discord between current political alliances, but explaining that it exists seems to imply that major reductions in policing is not a fully considered plan.
I appreciate the discord between current political alliances, but explaining that it exists seems to imply that major reductions in policing is not a fully considered plan.
You should read some books about prison abolition if you're interested in getting all the details about how it would work.
[deleted]
The alternatives in those particular situations (the neighborhood makes it work) looks a lot like vigilantism to me, which doesn't sound net safer. There's no particular requirement of equality or due process there, not even notionally.