|
Crumbskull posted:If you're taking 'community policing' to mean 'everyone votes on who gets to live in the town' then you'd probably have to move! Good thing thats not what anyone is talking about when they propose this. No, but that’s one effect that community policing could have in some areas. That’s the issue. I mean it wouldn’t even bother me so much if community policing advocates would just admit: yes, community policing would result in some unwanted situations. But for some reason community policing will take place in environments where everyone will act in everyone else’s self interest? It’s a bizarre rejection of reality. For a lot of communities, this type of self policing would be great. But I - an idiot - can easily imagine situations where it isn’t great. Eg Someone has a dispute with a neighbour over something, it turns violent, they round up 20 of their friends with guns and demand that the other leaves. How would community policing handle something like? The response will be “we will an organise an even greater force to stop both”. But that isn’t always realistic, or will people even want to do it? Maybe not. Then you have a situation where someone is literally kicked out of a community. And what happens if that person doesn’t leave? What happens if one kills the other? Will that murderer receive justice? Only if the community believes that he should. He or she may just walk away free. The response to this will be, “this happens in communities now anyway”, and I agree, but I don’t see how community policing just doesn’t make that same problem worse. CelestialScribe fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Jun 4, 2020 |
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 10:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
This is all great discussion and I totally understand what everyone is saying. But I’m still struggling with this lack of answers to the scenario I posted - is it just that abolitionists sincerely believe such a scenario should never occur?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:https://medium.com/@micahherskind/resource-guide-prisons-policing-and-punishment-effb5e0f6620 This isn’t a helpful response and just appears to be hand waving a potential problem. If you think the scenario I outlined isn’t realistic, just say so. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:I'm trying not trying to engage with this incredibly unproductive thought exercise for scenarios and anecdotes that don't even exist anywhere. This wasn’t the scenario I outlined in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:The police do not protect minorities from racists, they ARE the racists. I genuinely don't know how many times that has to be explained to you. And I don't know how many times this needs to be explain to you, but there are multiple scenarios that you can imagine outside of a racist, white-nationalist power fantasy in which neighbours become interlocked in armed disputes and seek power to solve them when the threat of police escalation is no longer there. (This doesn't mean keep the police as they are now, it means that community policing has flaws that need to be addressed in some way). It is really, really not hard to imagine that in the absence of that state structure, bad actors attempt to obtain power in order to strong-arm others to do their will. Someone mentioned informal power structures before, and it's true - those exist, and they will exist, and right now, most of the solution to that problem seems to be one of a few things: - Look at this society, it didn't happen, therefore it won't happen - If it does happen, it's better than the current situation - People are better than you think and will be able to solve problems on their own None of these are satisfactory answers. If no abolitionist can seriously come up with a thought scenario in which community policing solves a problem like I just described (without dismissing it as "it will never happen"), then there are huge, huge numbers of people who will just never support the idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:You've convinced me man, please outline your proposal for community health, safety and violence mitigation that does not allow any conceivable harms to result? Why is it so difficult for you to conceive that community policing might result in the wrong communities policing wrongly, and to think of one or two ideas that the state could enact in order to stop that from happening?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 23:14
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:It is shocking how rapidly a single poster can drag an entire thread to a stop. How could there not be changes to a court system? The entire infrastructure of how evidence is collected and brought to a judge would need to be completely done away with under this scenario. I don't even know how a criminal court would work in a world run on community policing. Not to mention, in a world without law enforcement, who would actually see that a sentence is carried out? CelestialScribe fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jun 4, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
COVID-19 posted:Can you any specific cities that rely on police officers to fake care of noise complaints? I’m actually interested in this, and it seems like you think cops actually do some work to solve community problems, which is once again a laughable proposition. I can only speak from personal experience, but I know it’s been done in Denver. I don’t particularly understand why this is a surprising proposition to you? I mean, forget noise complaints if that really bothers you. I can think of examples where people get into an altercation and it turns violent. Under a model where police pass responsibilities to other departments, this is clear cut: they address the issue. A social worker might be there, certainly anyone would be unarmed, etc. Under a community policing model, I don’t see that situation ending well in a large number of communities. Does a complete abolition future contain explanations for how to solve that? I understand your inclination will be to say “it’s better than the current system so gently caress you”, but considering this forum is for you know, discussing and debating, I’d be interested in a substantial answer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 08:14
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:Celestial Scribe what do you think community policing means? Based on the discussion I’ve read and the literature I’ve read, I think community policing falls into two buckets or explanations: 1. An authorised system whereby current police functions are divided into different departments or governmental authorities. 2. A more anarchist structure whereby communities are given direct control over how to handle these situations with no external support from dedicated agencies. The first is easy for me to imagine and I’d support. The second I find harder to understand or imagine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 08:32
|
|
|
COVID-19 posted:Holy poo poo that suicidal man that those cops filmed themselves brutally beating actually ended up killing himself. I have repeatedly, repeatedly made comments in support of police abolition and providing different departments and agencies with the authority to do more. Mods, how is this allowed? We’re just allowed to misconstrue others positions and outright lie about them? My precious post literally contains support from me for abolishing police. At this point you’re just refusing to engage because I don’t know, you’re angry or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 08:38
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:Its difficult to imagine the second scenario because the outcome would definitionally be a product of the specfic community in question with its attendant blend of culture, values, needs and wanta etc. You asking an unanswerable question. But if I had to guess I figure most of the community would arrive at something that looked a lot like the first option, and I also believe that they would be able to come up with an appropriate response to neighbors playing their music too loud that didn't involve threatening them with violence or imprisoning them. I believe a lot of communities would. I also believe some communities would end up killing each other.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 08:46
|
|
|
COVID-19 posted:Huh? I lust have misunderstood your posts then, because it sounds like you’re weary of a system that lacks agencies with authority to enforce laws and regulations. I want to distribute police responsibilities to other agencies who could deal with most situations in better ways. Eg social workers, unarmed response, etc. how is that supporting the status quo in any shape or form?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 08:50
|
|
|
COVID-19 posted:“Police responsibilities” are simply oppressing PoC and poor people, shifting these responsibilities to other departments with different names and uniforms are still going to end up with a racist system and oppressed people. Is there any situation you can imagine where that isn’t the case? Or is decentralised community policing the only realistic scenario you see?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 08:59
|
|
|
COVID-19 posted:Fair enough, I envision “noise complaints” being noise from apartments nearby and not fireworks/explosives though. I know in my neighbourhood, a lot of complaints come from locals doing burnouts and street racing etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 09:02
|
|
|
COVID-19 posted:I think addressing the root causes of systemic issues would go a lot further than simply dealing with the outcomes of those societal problems. For instance, instead of having a uniformed agency deal with homeless people having psychotic episodes in a public area, we should give people homes and free psychiatric help. I 100% agree. Unfortunately it won’t solve all needs for some type of response. For instance, I don’t particularly see community justice would work in the case of a murder. Let’s say one takes place - do we feel comfortable leaving each individual community to respond in the way they feel is appropriate? Feels way too close to libertarianism. CelestialScribe fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Jun 7, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 09:06
|
|
|
COVID-19 posted:“Police responsibilities” are simply oppressing PoC and poor people, shifting these responsibilities to other departments with different names and uniforms are still going to end up with a racist system and oppressed people. Yuzenn posted:Abolition != complete lawlessness and nothing in place to deal with laws, it's completely dissolving what exists currently and spreading some of the responsibilities that the Police already shouldn't have and then the functions in which an armed force are required can remain but for a completely new and different and much smaller entity. I think this is the crux of a lot of the problems here. What is police abolition given these two opposing views?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 01:15
|
|
|
UnknownTarget posted:What it comes down to is "what happens when there's an active shooter or threat on my life". That's what gets people hung up. So I think any discussion of abolition should really lead with that to get doubters on board. The main response to that is, “cops don’t help you now anyway”. Which is usually true. But I don’t think that answer is really going to persuade people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:Mental wellness check-ups by social workers woth a robust suite of services on offer - example of a much better way to handle situations police are currently erroneously used to handle. Sure. But according to COVID19 and a number of other abolitionists, even what you describe is beyond what they would consider reasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Relative to my earlier example: yes, you may have a person who refuses to pay a traffic fine, then drives without registration after they've been disallowed from renewing their registration, etc., etc., but those people are a tiny fraction of the total number of people pulled over for a traffic infraction. Right! But for some reason, no one wants to answer what we do with these people. What do we do with folks who refuse to stop making noise at 2am? What about people who drive unregistered vehicles? What about people who stalk women? If different agencies handle these situations, great! No problem. If communities are left to handle these issues on their own, we are going to end up with a lot of communities that are safer. We are also going to end up with a lot of communities where people end up dead for all sorts of crimes. Maybe that’s better, on the whole, for a lot of people. It certainly isn’t a satisfying outcome for me. So until someone can answer how to navigate those situations with a community policing model, I’ll continue to advocate for defunding the police and spreading their responsibilities to other authorities and workers who are better equipped.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Add a fine to their property taxes or the property taxes of their landlord if they do not respond to a warning. That poo poo will be dealt with in either event. This is all great! But again, it’s not community policing. How would community policing deal with these situations?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 03:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Instead of asking the same few questions over and over again, why not try reading the thread so you can see people discussing answers to those questions? If you don't have anything to contribute besides asking the question in the thread title over and over again, it might be best to start lurking the thread instead of continuing to pretend that no one has tried to answer you. ...but people *haven't* answered those questions. That's my entire point. In a community policing model (not one where agencies have authority that used to belong to the police), how do communities deal with these individual problems? Everyone here who supports abolition seems to believe that communities will be totally fine in dealing with these types of incidents themselves. On the other hand, I don't know if you've seen this story, but this guy was falsely accused of being that piece of poo poo cop who assaulted three girls in Maryland: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/what-its-like-to-get-doxed-for-taking-a-bike-ride.html In a community policing model, who is to say these types of situations don't happen? What safeguards would be there to prevent the community from taking justice without due process (yes, I know, due process doesn't exist for anyone now). If the approach here is, "community policing will lead to false accusations and injustice, but it will be less injustice the now", then supporters should at least be honest about that. It's why I think the community policing model simply won't work. OTOH, distributing police responsibilities to new agencies, using social workers, unarmed community response groups, traffic enforcement, etc, would be a much better idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
Pustulio posted:What we do to replace the police as they are now is important sure, but I don't know if figuring that out is a higher priority than tearing the current system out by the roots. If that’s what must be done, then it must be done. But what strategies should be implemented to handle the transition period? I know a lot of people don’t want to acknowledge it, but there are problems that we as a society would need to address. Police do solve some crimes, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
If this thread isn’t for discussing those types of issues, then what is it for?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Not really. What is the mechanism by which some crimes are solved then in the current system?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 04:14
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Most aren't. I didn't say most are. I said some are. You're not even understanding what I'm saying. Follow my thread: - If the police system as it currently stands must be torn down, then it must be torn down - During this transition period, there are some serious crimes that police do solve that will need to be addressed (e.g. homicide). - How do we address those? The answer to this cannot be, "police only solve X percentage of murders", because replacing that with nothing means that 0% of those murders, or whatever, get solved. I'm asking, if we're tearing the police down, what do we do in the interim? That was what I was replying to.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 04:23
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Are you expecting that we tear down all police departments in a single day, and then just sit there like "oh poo poo somebody did a crime we didn't think of this"? I'm literally asking, what does the transition look like? How would it work? I literally asked that exact question. The OP says this: quote:What does actual police reform look like? Do we actually need police? How do you go about enforcing laws with or without them? I think these are all great thought experiments and I think there can be some real good info and resources and ideas shared. Forgive me for asking questions that are actually in the scope of the thread. It seems to me that most people just want to say, "it's been done elsewhere, let's do it and not care about the details". If that's what this thread is for, then fine, but that's not a robust discussion and not what's suggested in the OP.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:There's a lot of writing elsewhere so I'm not going to go into detail but the outline would be: Cool, thread over then.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:What do you need more detail on? I just think it's ironic that in a thread specifically marked for discussion about how a world without policing would work, what it would like, etc, that everyone instead just says "read these books", and "I don't know what it would be like, we aren't there yet". I mean...great, what is there left to discuss?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:What happens in the transition to single payer? Is there a point where we unhook the patients from the old system and plug them into the new Government respirator? Why won't people answer my question? ...do you understand there are complex consequences of moving from a major system to another? That's a really weird comparison to make. It's not just as easy as, "you're on the government plan now!" And even if it was from an individual's perspective, it still has huge ramifications for companies, tax ramifications, policies, etc. It's just super loving weird to basically create a thread that's all about discussing details, then say, "gently caress the details, who gives a poo poo". I am interested in discussing it, which is why I'm asking: if we start from the premise that the police system as we know it should be abolished, what does that transition period look like? But it looks like you're not really interested in discussing that, just repeating that it should be done, over and over. So whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:An interesting example, given 'noise complaints' are one of the primary excuses used for white people to call the police on nonwhite people for the crime of having a birthday party for their children, talking to friends, or listening to music in their garage in broad daylight, and have them be intimidated, brutalised, murdered and enslaved. While a business violating the civil rights act already has precedent as something police never respond to, and requires escalating lawsuits to get any sort of response. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to get a baby to sleep while your neighbours pump massive bass fuelled music at 2am, but it isn’t fun. Asking politely didn’t stop the problem. In a world that relies more on neighbourhood policing, how does the community deal with that issue? This is a perfectly reasonable question to ask - and one that communities will ask if police are defunded. So why does this thread have such a hard time answering it? If every question from a community is met with “concern trolling” then you’re never going to convince communities to get on board. And even if they aren’t on board, the question still remains: how does society deal with something like a noise complaint?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 13:34
|
|
|
Gort posted:It would seem logical for the first responder to a noise complaint to not be armed. No one here is suggesting they should be.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 14:13
|
|
|
Gort posted:That's the status quo, though. US cops responding to a noise complaint are armed. I think you misunderstood me - I don’t think people who respond to noise complaints should be armed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 14:23
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:The point is that no agent of violence should show up at all. If this is really a noise complaint problem, there is no need for violence or threats. Just be adults and talk it out. This is absurdly naive. Have you seriously never dealt with someone who refuses a request even when asked nicely?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Um, yes. Like a lot. I’ve lived in apartments where people have raucous parties all the time. And sometimes I ask them to turn it down cuz it’s midnight on a Monday, and sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. I have never, ever, resorted to threats of violence or violent authorities. And let’s say they don’t. Why should they be allowed to continue to inflict their behaviour on their neighbours without recourse? Isn’t that just allowing a new power structure to take hold once they realise that nothing they do will have consequence?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 14:37
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:In no way is "loud parties" a new power structure. Why should someone be allowed to do what they want with no consequence, if it negatively impacts their neighbours? I don’t know about you but saying “well, guess I tried, I’ll go back to my apartment/house and try to sleep while my neighbour blasts music until daylight because they can” sounds like a loving nightmare. You’ve clearly never had kids. CelestialScribe fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
Gort posted:There's a difference between, "No consequences" and "Agents of violence attack you". Right - so I’m asking, what would those be? How would that situation play out?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 14:59
|
|