|
Bored As gently caress posted:Whenever I see anyone post "abolish the police" it boggles my mind. Even "abolish the current criminal justice system and build a new one" is a pipe dream, although that is slightly less insane than just having no police force. This is what always confuses me. What's supposed to happen when a citizen hurts another person in a fight? Who investigates and prosecutes organized crime? Who enforces court orders for protective custody? I feel as though some cop-like structure would emerge, whether it's military police, privatized security and investigation, organized crime, or political party enforcers.
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
Chichevache posted:I've seen leftists on twitter post about how when they need help they just call the people they trust and get a group together for protection. I understand that transpersons and other members of the queer community have a distrust of the police, but I don't understand how that doesn't lead to lynch mobs and street gangs. I don't want to debate this too thoroughly without the input of someone to properly defend it for fear of building a strawman. However, my concerns with that, beyond the dangers of mobs, is that it creates incredible restriction on travel (you don't have those connections with you in a different area), and supports localized minorities (i.e. those without of pluralities in the local area) even less. All of that will promote geographic segregation more successfully than is already accomplished.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
MonkeyWash posted:The Wichita Police have novel way to prevent another 'SWATing' accident. Rather than be competent they are pushing responsibility back to the public. I mean yeah, please stop killing unarmed civillians, but also a "hey, I have 12,000 followers on a video game streaming vitriol filled cesspool of a website and internet assholes are more likely to SWAT me, please call before shooting my dog because you think you're saving my life" form isn't necessarily a bad idea. This Week in Tech was just talking about the time they got SWATTed, a couple of plains clothes detectives stopped by the studio first and went, "Hey, is everything cool over here?" My theory on why they got that treatment was because they were a clearly a studio and people probably didn't come up with the idea of false police reports in the 21.1st century.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
EBB posted:I'm not differentiating any more since the "good guy in a bad department" theory isn't panning out at all. You're either in uniform being part of the problem via silent acceptance or active participation in lovely activities, or not. The sweeping changes needed to policing in the US need to come from an external governing body but pigs will fly before that happens in the current atmosphere.. I'll take it to detainment if we want to discuss further. I want to see the problems in the system fixed, but I do not understand the objective of your statement. The intended outcomes are not immediately apparent, and I ask that you help me understand what the intended outcomes are. I interpret the above statement as implying there is no value in separating an 'ethical cop' from a cop that has failed to meet ethical standards (I will refer to as an 'unethical cop'), and that all cops are 'unethical cops'. Is this interpretation accurate? This suggests that the only way to maintain an ethical position is to not be a member of the police force. The implicit encouragement seems to be 'don't fix it'. If you're a cop, you're clearly an unethical cop, because there are no other options. So if you're an unethical cop that aspires to be an ethical person, you must leave the force. If a person stays to try and change the culture of the police or more responsibly enforce internal administration their actions are doomed to failure and likely to alter that person's ethical aspirations. If seen to its conclusion then, no persons ethical or aspiring to be ethical should remain or join the police force. Does my interpretation follow your intent? If my interpretation matches your intent and we're in agreement on the expectations that follow, is the intended outcome of this sentiment: 1) that enough cops leave that the system fails, 2) that cops are so clearly unethical that the governed take action, 3) no outcome, no interest in second order effects, or 4) some other outcome? If 1, is the next less proximate intended outcome of this sentiment: a) state or federal governments are forced to step in to maintain order, (i.e. DOD forces utilized temporarily until new standards and force are created), b) system and private entities fill the void, (NGO groups, for profit security, etc), c) system fails and we realize that we don't need police forces, or d) some other outcome? If 2, is the next less proximate intended outcome of this sentiment: a) state or federal governments establish new regulations, b) state or federal governments establish a new force (i.e. gendarme) to consolidate the disparate police forces with a series set of policies more effective at matching the country's ethics, or c) some other outcome?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You could have the most pure and amazing point in the universe, but I stopped reading, because your writing style is unforgivable. My only point is someone please explain to me the next step after "cops suck, gently caress all cops." I don't get it, but a lot of people seem to behave as if it's obvious and the only thing that needs to happen is for cops to gently caress off and everything will be solved.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
UP THE BUM NO BABY posted:Well, we could do away with carceral capitalism and better invest in healthcare and education, or we can maintain our empire with more defense and law enforcement spending and cheap labor in prisons This is a position I understand. It doesn't demand getting rid of all cops, unless I'm misinterpreting it. Moreover, I don't believe encouraging cops whose ethics match that sentiment to leave the force will have any kind of positive effect on the likelihood of its outcome.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
EBB posted:Nobody is kidding themselves that violent, armed revolution is immediately around the corner. In the meantime I feel relatively powerless to do anything about the uniform culture. Police unions and the thin blue line will always protect their own, so change isn't going to come from within. The judicial and legislative bodies that should have oversight over policing bodies are also complicit in advancing this culture instead of stomping it out, as is their duty. As a civilian I cannot change internal police culture and don't feel that I can elect persons who care to or are able to change police culture. I have no desire to run for office. The best effort I can give is activism, and warning others that the people in uniforms are not there for the safety of the public any more. This makes sense, cynicism taking over because of perceived powerlessness. Thank you for taking the time to explain it because I hadn't thought about it from a focus on communicating sentiment over policy. What worries me is that without a nuanced discussion that considers objectives and means of obtaining those objectives, it's impossible for an actionable consensuses to emerge and drive public policy. Without objective and policy goals, you cannot hold your elected officials responsible for not voting towards those goals. The best we can hope for then would be for the noise to become large enough that politicians develop policies and offer them to the public to encourage their own elections and I don't see that happening by 2020. Edit: colachute posted:I vote for people who should be the ones solving this issue, because I don’t know how. Until they do, gently caress all cops. It does, thank you. Unfortunately, until there's a discussion on how to fix it (that doesn't necessarily have to come from you), I don't think any of the people you vote for will be able to do anything about it or be held accountable for not doing anything about it. piL fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:1) No more DoD freebies for police departments I think discussion like this really does help. There are over 700,000 police officers in these U.S., plus civilian support, just over half of the personnel in the U.S. Military. The U.S. spends $100 billion on law enforcement and $80 billion on incarceration a year, combining to 1/20th of our federal budget (though the spending isn't all from federal sources), just under 1/3rd of the $610 billion we spend on the military every year. These are big issues that will require nuanced answers. Numbers: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/08/07/how-much-do-u-s-cities-spend-every-year-on-policing-infographic/#7a9ab184e7b7 https://www.governing.com/gov-data/public-workforce-salaries/military-civilian-active-duty-employee-workforce-numbers-by-state.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States Edit: Good point about 3, I didn't consider that. piL fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Oct 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You see it’s illegal to eat or drink inside a bart station. Also known as posession with intent to distribute.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
Melthir posted:No one deserves to die. And yet everyone will.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I would expect you have to do something exceptionally dumb and/or dangerous on the roads to get pulled over right now. Cough cough, sniffs audibly through nose, "oh hello officer, yes here's my license and registration sorry it's kind of damp"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2020 03:37
|
|
|
LtCol J. Krusinski posted:Just imho moderation is the key, here and elsewhere. Look how well the CE thread runs with all the traffic and posters it see’s. That’s a result of good moderation. Part of why CE functions us these peripheral threads where you can tell people to take it outside so they dont mess up the furniture.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Woofer posted:Sorry you think the burden is on me to get cops to stop killing people. George's revenge.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
What's the thoughts on federal police force models? I don't mean the mix that exists in the US, but those models in other countries, like Police Nationale/Gendarmerie of France, the National Police Agency of Japan? Are there solutions there? It's a scary thought because any model would likely put more power in the hands of the executive branch of the federal government and never be agreed upon by congress anyway, but when I think about how to change something in the culture of the police force, I think about how difficult it would be compared to getting something at least weakly done by changing the curriculum at 29 Palms or Fort Benning than trying to hope city governments change the position of 17,000 different agencies with less authority and disparate training. I think about how hosed you'd be in the Navy for falsifying documents about keeping a tube of silicone coating out overnight, and how I spent two hours on training because some guy on a different class of ship blew out a Main Reduction Gear, and how even though I hated that training and having to do it, I'm never going to run an MRG without oil. I also think about when I get told to do a Preliminary Investigation, it's on someone I probably met a year ago since I move every 2-3 years, but at a police station, it's either be on someone you knew for 10 years, it's on a new guy, or it's by a new guy on a senior. That seems more difficult. Could there be a force, man trained and equipped Federally but operational authority held locally? Does the Coast Guard have the same problems as American police?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
This guy speaks for both a local sherrifs office and the US Marshal's Office? That seems problematic. If a Military CO made a video like this, can you imagine how fast their XO would have to take over?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
BrianM87 posted:That video is several years old and had nothing to do with ANTIFA. It's still stupid and had no business being made, but it's unrelated to current events. Didn't read the replies, turns out he resigned within 2 weeks and had to get one of the least respected jobs in America. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
Replying to a convo in current events, I'll like to here after to keep cop chat put of this thread, so this is non sequitur to the discussion already going on here. Defenestrategy posted:Thought experiment:if you saw a fellow cop get a little bit over zealous with putting boots into some kids head, would you stop the guy and report him knowing that that probably ends your career ascension, so you can't affect change on the department, or would you say to your self, 'well the kid might not die and this might be a one off thing and Ill definitely report him if he does something worse, and besides once I make captain I can really turn poo poo around.' Thats basically the issue you'd run into with leftists trying to affect change from the inside, and I personally couldn't make that compromise, and I feel anyone willing to make that kind of compromise shouldn't be apart of a leftist reformed police force anyway. There's this idea bouncing around CE thread right now that there's no point in leftists trying to be cops because a single cop can't make a single difference. But this seems to me to be the same issue with voting--a single vote doesn't matter. Leftists participating outnumbered in any public service field will certainly find a hill to die on before they've made meaningful change. For it to work, you would need enough to make a change or a large enough concentration (i.e. many from all over relocate and overwhelm the population in a single area) just like voting migration in the 19th century. With enough like minded people, within a hierarchical structure, the quantity of entrenched are smaller than those at the bottom and so they can't keep trading leader-for-whistle-blower forever. The difference compared to voting is that people are willing to trade the afternoon for what comes closest to the thing they believe in, but aren't willing to trade their dreams of a certain career to surround themselves with enemies and becoming a tool to enforce the will of the government when they disagree with the will of the government. With that being the state of things, I see only two ways to work towards replacing the current cohort of police officers: 1. A replacement campaign from the left and the center urging the likeminded into positions of public service. Maybe localized at first so success can be demonstrated. This will almost certainly fail because it opposes strong cultural throughlines in the left (ACAB, abolish-movements), not to mention I doubt people could sustain the motivation for the long game as required. 2. A large-scale conscription event that draws from the population evenly and as a whole which would reset the standard. Unlikely, since there's not a cause to surge police like there are with troops. Perhaps if federalization of police, in part, parallel or whole were to happen, though I'm not sure I really support that idea. Conscription could get bandied about if ACAB/abolition sentiment drove the numbers low enough, but I think tensions will continue to create a cycle where less people that want to be cops will drive up the power and prestige of those who remain cops along with the perceived need to fund and recruit, maintaining the status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2021 09:35
|
|
|
SpaceSDoorGunner posted:I’d say a significant minority of not the majority of existing cops think this way already and it clearly isn’t working. Thats his point I think. He's trying to show that if you do want to make things better you won't be able to. You'll change or quit or get fired first. Which I think goes to show its a number game. People follow the logic, "they're the bad guy and there's no point in me participating while disagreeing, because I won't be able to effect real change before I'm back out". The same logic though makes any large project impossible, what can one man do to force regime change in Nazi Germany? They'll get shot before they make it onto the beach in France! How could we ever build a skyscraper? It takes more manhours than I will be alive! These projects have constraints on them that frame the problem and make them solvable. You won't be alone, there will be a combined force of millions of troops from many countries fighting together. A big chunk are going to land on a specific day and though no one could last on that beach alone and any one would die, the scale will mean that most of those landing will live. You will not build a skyscraper alone, there will be a plan and there will be lots of people and lots of jobs to do and a single person will do a single person's worth of effort, but it will accrue and there will be a skyscraper. So, while I've been one who has claimed that the issue is that there are few like-minded people who are willing to go do the job of becoming a cop (im certainly not interested, for example), part of the lack of that willingness is probably a lack of a combined framework, a guarantee of sufficient numbers that its not a waste. Any one person absolutely can't make the culture change. It would require numbers. Which probably requires some sort of framework or a trust in institutions, both of which are currently unavailable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
McNally posted:lol yes Isn't that just a pasta of air-force-intel-officer.txt?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2024 07:10
|
|