|
https://twitter.com/andizeisler/status/1268713465322987521 I guess people are right, without cops there would be more rapists on the street.....but not for why you'd think
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
Mat Cauthon posted:Did you read any of the posted resources? Even one? Why is the wage comparison is between a cop and Fire dept EMT and not a firefighter? Is it because a firefighter makes more than either? It’s hard to asses the validity of those links you posted as they don’t cite their sources in the most part - one does link to a study which was on racial breakdown of traffic stops, not the impact of training. look at countries where police training is more comprehensive and professionalised and their comparative levels of police shootings - I think we all know what we’ll find. If you don’t want racist white police how are you going to do it without making more non-white non-racist people WANT to be police because at the minute it doesn’t seem like a large section of society want to step forward and police their communities better than they are being. Starting again from scratch _might_ be the best approach but if it’s not achievable (and it’s very likely not) then you have to find another solution that is. That’s why I think it’s counter productive to poo poo on anything that doesn’t get everything you want as fast as you want. Like yes, it may be insufficient, but it’s still better so what about getting there as start and then taking another step? Rapulum_Dei fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
Rapulum_Dei posted:Why is the wage comparison is between a cop and Fire dept EMT and not a firefighter? Is it because a firefighter makes more than either? Here, I found the community you are talking about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSBZGv5wzK4
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:17
|
|
|
How does that in any way relate to my post?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
Rapulum_Dei posted:How does that in any way relate to my post? Watch the clip. The police training, in this video, led a police officer to assault an elderly man and then an entire line of cops refused to assist him. The only one who stopped to help was the man WITHOUT officer training: The National Guard. In other words, officer training is the cause, not the cure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
Rapulum_Dei posted:
https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1180655701271732224 Bullet point number 2 doesn't show that this is true, because I'm not sure what "professional" training looks like without the restrictive policies happening first
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:40
|
|
|
if you think that clip shows why police officers don’t need to be more professional I don’t know what to tell you I did wonder after reading through some of the links posted has there ever been a case where the abolushionist approach has been taken. Post apartheid South Africa came to mind https://www.csvr.org.za/docs/policing/policereformandsouth.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
Rapulum_Dei posted:if you think that clip shows why police officers don’t need to be more professional I don’t know what to tell you They were professionally lined into a group, the old man was very professionally pushed to the ground, and they very professionally walked right over his bleeding skull. That clip is the very definition of professionalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1180655701271732224 That’s what he is saying but what is studies or data he basing that on? And it seems to be referring to USA only, so it’s fair to say you have to change WHAT is being taught, not how well. If your course is called ‘beating prisoners without leaving marks 101’ or ‘fundamentals of old man shoving’ its not really going to help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:47
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:They were professionally lined into a group, the old man was very professionally pushed to the ground, and they very professionally walked right over his bleeding skull. That clip is the very definition of professionalism. I got the point you’re making, I just think you’re wrong. Hope that helps. "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means" Inigo Montoya Rapulum_Dei fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 14:50
|
|
|
Rapulum_Dei posted:That’s what he is saying but what is studies or data he basing that on? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122417736289 This seems like most research in this thread comes from this document. I've not gotten through all of his sources yet so give me a couple days to report back with the specific charting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
That’d be good. I mean ‘implicit bias training’ is a crock of poo poo, that’s just teaching people to internalise their racism and use language that masks it. ‘His demeanour was evasive and his appearance incongruous to the surrounding context’ instead of ‘This is a nice neighbourhood, what’s that black guy doing here?’
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 16:10
|
|
|
Rapulum_Dei posted:That’d be good. If it is too difficult to attack internalized racism directly, then the means by which police have to commit violence should be removed. You are, in fact, proving my earlier point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
Rapulum_Dei posted:look at countries where police training is more comprehensive and professionalised and their comparative levels of police shootings - I think we all know what we’ll find. The problem with saying "look at other countries" is that there are other differences between countries besides the level of training in their police forces. For instance, mostly-white European countries tend to have lower country-wide rates of police violence and abuse simply because there's fewer minorities for them to abuse with total impunity, so they have to settle for beating and murdering immigrants, rowdy teens, and the occasional person with mental disabilities. The lower availability of guns to cops in European countries also changes the statistics, though that largely means that abuses take the form of beatings and less-visible discrimination that doesn't grab headlines in the same way as American police abuses. Even then, a quick Google shows that police abuses in lily-white Scandinavia don't look so different from those in America - and in some cases, they're even worse. A story about Swedish police gunning down an unarmed man with severe Downs Syndrome from behind sounds very familiar to us, but stories about the Swedish police creating a detailed database of all Roma (and only Roma) in the area? That's something that goes well beyond even the NYPD's gang database. German policing is marred by numerous cases of racist abuse and an extreme lack of accountability. Even in Norway, commonly brought up as an example of policing excellence for its extremely low rate of police shootings, tales like police strangling a black man to death for making a scene at a welfare office will sound quite familiar - that's basically George Floyd minus the smartphone cameras. And that's just the stuff that manages to make it into English articles - most police brutality doesn't even make the national news, let alone the international news, so the vast majority of info on European police brutality can be expected to be in those countries' native languages. It's not just a matter of individual police officers being racist. It's the fact that the policing system is racist at a fundamental level, because the core purpose of police departments is not to fight crime - it's to protect and enforce social and economic hierarchies. That's why the political and social forces driving police behavior are deliberately unaccountable to communities: because the reason for the existence of the police is to oppress and terrorize "undesirable" communities to keep the social and economic lessers in line. Why so sure that starting over from scratch is less achievable than incremental reform of the system? To me, it's the opposite. If you're starting with a pig farm and want to raise flying animals, then you're not going to be able to teach the feral hogs to fly no matter how professionally or incrementally you try to train them for it. Better to give up the whole endeavor of trying to strap wings to them. Instead, have some pork, bulldoze the pigpens, fill in the mud pits, and have a fresh start that's aimed to accomplish your actual goals without foolishly trying to reuse what you already have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
You’re advocating change by genocide and what amounts to civil war. Fair enough, I don’t think you’ll win though and if you do you’ll have a slightly different armed and angry group of people who think they know what’s best and can tell you what to do. If your honest belief is that any kind of police is unacceptable you should really be in the civil war & revolution discussion, not reform discussion. Iceland, Ireland, Norway ( who all have them in their cars) and the UK (excluding NI who are all armed) are the only European countries that don’t have all armed police forces so you’re just objectively wrong on that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
Rapulum_Dei posted:You’re advocating change by genocide and what amounts to civil war. Cops are not an ethnicity or a religion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
Servetus posted:Cops are not an ethnicity or a religion. Thankyou for that irrelevant fact. Are you implying that’s acceptable to “ bulldoze the pigpens, fill in the mud pits” because cops _chose_ to be part of that group? Like immigrants? genocide noun /ˈdʒenəsaɪd/ /ˈdʒenəsaɪd/ [uncountable, countable] the murder of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or race Rapulum_Dei fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
ronya posted:(Much better response than I deserved) Yeah we are derailing but I appreciate the discussion, I'll send you that stuff as soom as I'm able. Apologies for being so rude I'm in an incredibly foul mood and lashing out a ton. Crumbskull fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Rapulum_Dei posted:Thankyou for that irrelevant fact. Are you implying that’s acceptable to “ bulldoze the pigpens, fill in the mud pits” because cops _chose_ to be part of that group? Like immigrants? I'm confused since I took the metaphor as literally as you did, are you making a meat is murder argument?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
I think the equivalent to 'eating the pigs' is 'firing all the cops' and honestly, yeah. At this point it feels that it'd be easier to take new people without any experience, and train them into whatever shape we want things to have then try to untrain some deeply ingrained behaviour out of some folks. I don't think Main Paneframe was suggesting we kill and eat all the police officers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
https://theappeal.org/the-appeal-po...uyY438Zwj2VeQLI This should help
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Interesting read. Theres an assumptionby the guest that funding is EITHER for policing OR for communities. I agree with the host quote:forget Rahm’s $100 million police academy and cutting schools. You have, you know, we, we passed a defense budget for $719 billion dollars. The increase alone over two years ago was $82 billion even adjusting for inflation. So that’s an increase, the budget increase alone of $82 billion could have paid for public school for every public college kid in the country, which is a total of $70 billion and we have $12 billion leftover to pay off everyone’s ATM surcharges. Spending so much on a military and leaving health, eduction, infrastucture and policing the scraps is the problem here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Is it fair to say that a better way to think about "abolish the police" is "find things where the police are unnecessary or not the best solution", which right now could very easily be: Man, the posters in this thread use the term 'abolish' in a pretty weird way. IMO it is a little sophistic. They should call it Police Reduction, if they want to emphasize that they have different ideas from the more common kinds of police reform. If instead we were talking about abolishing the death penalty, I don't think the posters in this thread would accept the same kind of weaseling about the term 'abolish' that has been going on in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
Rapulum_Dei posted:Interesting read. Theres an assumptionby the guest that funding is EITHER for policing OR for communities. I agree with the host Eh, percentage of gdp wise US defense spending is at the level of European welfare states during the cold war. There's plenty of money in the system to pay for both, as those nations did then, you must be willing to collect taxes and spend it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Man, the posters in this thread use the term 'abolish' in a pretty weird way. IMO it is a little sophistic. They should call it Police Reduction, if they want to emphasize that they have different ideas from the more common kinds of police reform. First off, please don't take my word for it. I'm figuring this stuff out, and still don't fully agree with total abolition (my point there was that people for abolition and people for very heavy reform have pretty much the same goals and strategies right now). There are a ton of useful links by people who actually understand this stuff in the thread. Second, I would imagine that anyone for abolition in this thread genuinely does want there to be absolutely no police at all. All of them realize though that the way to get there is not to fire 100% of police tomorrow, it's to chip away at the institution until there's nothing left, starting with things like getting police out of schools, varying first responders, demilitarizing police, etc. Think of abolition as an end goal rather than an immediate tactic (again, I'm not even close to an expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong here). To take your death penalty example, plenty of folks who are 100% against the death penalty focus their advocacy effort on cases where they can get agreement, like cases with sketchy evidence, or particularly young inmates. That doesn't mean they're A-OK with the death penalty for serial killers. enki42 fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jun 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 14:24
|
|
|
For the people who genuinely consider 'abolish the police' as an end goal... And then what, like the title says?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
Cuntellectual posted:For the people who genuinely consider 'abolish the police' as an end goal... And then what, like the title says? That's off the top of my head. But something like that, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
Cuntellectual posted:For the people who genuinely consider 'abolish the police' as an end goal... And then what, like the title says? This question has been answered repeatedly in this thread and in depth in the many resources that have been posted. What abolitionists want to abolish is a police force that is used as a system of violent social control and mainenance of white supremacy and capitalist oligarchy. It is YOU who is being a weasel when you say that this would simply be a 'reform' of the police because it completely refuses to grapple with what the Police actually are. 'Lets keep the police but they will have a completely different role and purpose, be governed through totally new mechanisms and have a drastically altered scope of responsibility and authority' is just twice as obfuscatory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Start from scratch and build a better system; separate out their work into different aspects, like jobs for social workers and crisis counselors, investigators and detectives, traffic enforcement, interrogators/interviewers, drug treatment specialists, community patrol, etc. All of those should be civilians, unarmed, trained, to professional. Then have a group of people to do low risk arrests, evictions, etc. that are either unarmed or very lightly armed. Then have a group of armed people who only come out on arrests of known violent people, active shooters, etc. This makes complete sense and I am 100% on board with. But shouldn't it be grappled with that even a good number of abolitionists reject even this type of system? There seem to be a good number of people who truly believe that most of the activities you're describing should be conducted by individual communities in non-professional roles. E.g. volunteers. Separately, I've spent time reading some of the material suggested in this thread, and I still find it frustratingly scant on details when it comes to many different situations. For instance, they often ask, "what are we to do about disputes such as noise complaints, etc", and the answer given in these documents is usually that we would train communities in dispute resolution methods so people will be able to solve these disputes themselves. That may very well work. But I know several people for whom that wouldn't work, and so I ask again, what would we do in those situations? If the answer to that question is, "we don't know, we'll figure it out as we go", then...sure, I guess. But that answer isn't satisfactory, and the general public isn't going to be on board with it. They want to see specific answers for specific situations, and I think the abolitionist movement has to do more work in writing out how hypothetical situations would be dealt with if they want to enact real, widespread change. CelestialScribe fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Jun 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
And then hire an armed response unit that undergoes very different training than they receive currently, some detectives, and a ton of social workers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 00:33
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:
Not satisfactory to whom? I'm going to be honest, if abolishing this greatly improves the quality of life for black people, I really don't give a poo poo what this "general public" thinks. I think many more people are in favor of dismantling this current system than you think and finding out what arises from it. The majority people who aren't really behind that idea are the people who the system were designed to protect - the rich and the powerful. I equally don't give a poo poo about them either. Reforms may not be possible because we aren't acknowledging that the Police's function has never been and never will be to protect and serve. This is shown in practice and also in law; the police are fighting a domestic war right now against protesters to retain their power because the cat is completely out of the bag. Yuzenn fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Jun 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
For people who don't think abolition is workable, what then? We've tried reforms, and they don't work, so what's your plan? And please, be specific. I nominate my grandmother for head of the replacement-FBI and my mother can have the nuCIA. If that plan is bad, maybe disband them too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
Blaziken386 posted this in another thread:quote:-Traffic Control: unarmed, deals with clearing car crashes from the road, speeding tickets*, the drunk tank, etc. I would just add guaranteed healthcare/housing/food to this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 03:30
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:Not satisfactory to whom? I'm going to be honest, if abolishing this greatly improves the quality of life for black people, I really don't give a poo poo what this "general public" thinks. I think many more people are in favor of dismantling this current system than you think and finding out what arises from it. The majority people who aren't really behind that idea are the people who the system were designed to protect - the rich and the powerful. I equally don't give a poo poo about them either. I don’t know if you’ve ever implemented major process changes but people tend to get pissed off if they aren’t consulted and aren’t part of a process. What you hear me saying is “abolition won’t work because too many people disagree with it”. What I’m actually saying is “you will have broader support for abolition if you articulate how some existing processes will work in a community where police are abolished”. For instance, take my example of a noise complaint. How is that dealt with in a situation with no police? If someone doesn’t feel safe confronting another in person, who do they call? What happens if the confrontation turns violent? These aren’t ridiculous scenarios to address, and the failure to do so in favour of “gently caress it and figure it out later” is just not going to win abolition broad support. Better to spend the time articulating what the society will look like as much as you reasonably can. That will bring more people on board - and the more people you have who feel they have been consulted, the more successful police abolition would be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:For instance, take my example of a noise complaint. How is that dealt with in a situation with no police? If someone doesn’t feel safe confronting another in person, who do they call? What happens if the confrontation turns violent? This may not be like, an ideal abolitionist-style solution, but I think it's much better than two cops with guns showing up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 04:45
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Ok, I'll play along: you call 311 or something, the city sends a bylaw enforcement agent, who is not armed, but does has the authority to levy fines if necessary. They go to the location, speak to the people making excessive noise, attempt to de-escalate. If that works, great, they're let off with a warning. If they don't comply, they get a fine. If the bylaw enforcement agent feels threatened, they can call for a "bodyguard" - who is trained in self-defense, possibly armored, certainly does not have a firearm. Maybe a taser. Maybe. See, something like that sounds completely reasonable and I would be 100% on board with. But your approach seems to be the "replace police functions with other departments" which I agree with. What do abolitionists who want community policing propose for this sort of situation? It isn't articulated in any of the documentation I've read so far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Cuntellectual posted:For the people who genuinely consider 'abolish the police' as an end goal... And then what, like the title says? Why don't you read the thread? It's a whopping three pages of discussion dedicated to this exact question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I don’t know if you’ve ever implemented major process changes but people tend to get pissed off if they aren’t consulted and aren’t part of a process. As someone who lives in NYC and has dealt with filing noise complaints for years, cops have nothing to do with this . What an utterly disingenuous "what-about"-ism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 05:47
|
|
|
COVID-19 posted:As someone who lives in NYC and has dealt with filing noise complaints for years, cops have nothing to do with this . What an utterly disingenuous "what-about"-ism. Cops currently get a lot of odd jobs that could be better done by others (even like, outside the whole gently caress the police stuff). As an example, when my dad died of a heart attack (at home) it was a cop that stuck around and waited with my mom (and me, when I got there) for the coroner and stuff. He was fine (we're white and middle class, so of course he was), but like, we didn't need someone armed to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
COVID-19 posted:As someone who lives in NYC and has dealt with filing noise complaints for years, cops have nothing to do with this . What an utterly disingenuous "what-about"-ism. This is a really weird protest. Cops are involved in noise complaints in a huge number of places. I shouldn't have to point out to you that not every city is like New York. In a model where police hand those responsibilities over to another discipline, this situation is easily solved: they approach the neighbours instead of the cops. Under a community policing model, what does that look like? How do you approach a neighbour who says, "gently caress you, I'm not turning it down?" in that type of model? This is the type of question anyone will ask if they are curious/concerned by easily swayed into police abolition. It's not out really disingenuous to ask this sort of question, and if you think that's the case, then you're going to get absolutely nowhere in convincing people that this is the right thing to do. Every time they ask, "so what do I do if..." and you reply, "gently caress you, that's why", then they're not really going to listen to anything you have to say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 07:51
|
|