|
Community policing in America will be like HOA taking care of law enforcement. No thank you. A comprehensive reform and reduction in police related duties as discussed above seems to be the only way forward. Disarmament of officers, reallocation of non essential police duties (traffic, wellness etc.) to existing or additonally created organizations would likely do much to alleviate current problems. The police have too much of an overarching mandate so they can make a simple traffic stop and murder you for being the wrong skin color. Their mandate must be extensively narrowed to combatting violent crime/post crime investigation. Most importantly to me is an overhaul of the education requirements for officers though. Increase the education requirements for entry into the academy to a bachelor in one of the social sciences and increase the pay to attract a higher caliber of officer.
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
I've reread the thread to try and understand the abolish position accurately, it seems its referring to the use of lethal force? For example in the essay posted above the former cop refers to most of his calls as community policing calls, noise complaints disagreements etc. It gets slightly confusing at this point because to be able to deal with these low level antisocial calls (drunk and disorderly for example, or noise complaints) you still have to have police, just not necessarily authorized to use lethal force. Am I following here or missing something integral?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 08:49
|
|
|
Authority to coerce behavior on behalf of the state To elaborate; the state ranging from municipality to federal government depending on the scope of the issue flashman fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 09:03
|
|
|
Eminai posted:No, we do not need people with the authority to coerce behavior on behalf of the state to deal with noise complaints. A person trained in conflict resolution and de-escalation would be significantly better at solving noise complaints than our current system. Without a coercive lever there's no way to make someone be quieter. Have you never attended parties that got out of hand? Is the guy going to ask nicely or what? Even if the answer is do nothing and fine them or whatever you still have to enforce payment. The state (or community whatever you want to call it) needs a mechanism for enforcing the collective will. Edit: to nip in the bud a focus on a relatively trivial offense like loud parties one can easily extrapolate the thought chain to something much more significant, like a business violating the civil rights act. Without the ultimate threat of arrest the community is left with no avenue to change this behavior. flashman fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 09:20
|
|
|
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. No one is arguing for noise complaints to end up with people being "intimidated, brutalised, murdered and enslaved" though, or arguing for the status quo of civil rights violations not being addressed so this post only serves to some how imply racism? Not sure what the goal of it is actually besides to say "status quo bad". If you'd prefer you can change noise complaint to nonpayment of fines, driving without a license, or any other petty offense against the agreed upon social contract in a community. flashman fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 12:56
|
|
|
Gort posted:That's the status quo, though. US cops responding to a noise complaint are armed. Once again no one has said police who attend noise complaints must be armed. Why argue against a position that no one holds?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 14:23
|
|
|
So to cut through to the core of your argument it's that if the money that is spent on the current iteration of the police is instead spent on community programs then everyone will end up being community minded actors instead of self serving? Here lies the disconnect for me, I do not believe that society is made up of those who, without a credible form of coercion, (in the current system a series of increasing fines backed by the threat of incarceration for non compliance) will comply with community oriented desires. I don't see how you can look at the insane polarization of America and think that suddenly it will be kumbaya between the chuds and the sane people in the country. None of this is an argument for maintaining the police as they are today. No petty crime needs to be met with lethal force, or even officers whom are authorized and capable of doing so. My argument remains that you will still need an organization who compels people to act within the communities consensus for behavior. To focus on the noise complaint is to deliberately ignore the thrust of the argument because its easy to quibble about that in particular.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
There has been not one person since my first post who has suggested to leave the system as it is though so you are railing against a straw man.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
Id like to see a complete disarment of the current police force, some further segregation of duties so that even in a small town a traffic cop has no access to a fire arm. In large metros something along the lines of the British policing system where those authorized to use deadly force and with the capacity are seperate from the public facing officers, in smaller towns this will probably have to be achieved through some sort of strict authorization of force protocols with weapons locked up as the natural state of things. In addition to this I'd like the police force to be comprised of educated individuals instead of the barely literate bullies who are drawn to the profession as it stands. A requirement for post secondary to enter a police academy seems a good start. Independent elected oversight committees for each region with an automatic step up for officers convicted of a violent crime on duty, and the elimination of qualified immunity. The entire chain of replies came from a request for clarification on the abolish position however, and if abolish was shorthand for a complete overhaul or the actual elimination of the group responsible for coercing the desires of the state. The latter I do not see as a feasible or even desirable outcome.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 17:06
|
|
|
Don't conflate coercion with violence. A fine is a form of coercion, but it needs to be back stopped ultimately with incarceration, through violent means if neccessary. To remove this credible threat you lose all effective enforcement mechanisms. I'd suggest that the abolish viewpoint and reform are talking past each other as well and imprecise use of language the reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:Just so we can all move on, this has been agreed upon for pages now - but requires that all current people who occupy this employment space must be removed and replaced with a new unit that has the some of the same functions. I can understand some of the concerns and difficulties with operating within the purview of the US DOJ and how the independent oversight committee would work, not my area of expertise so I'm unable to craft a proposal that is realistic but it was more a desire. I don't neccessarily agree that with radical changes that the culture of the police won't change as well. It's my opinion that most of the toxic culture of the police is directly because of their unlimited authority for escalation of force in all scenarios. To remove that from officers in almost all cases will to me change the culture. That can be an area of disagreement though and not really a hill I'd die on. But to the point that everyone agrees that some sort of police will be neccessary, this was the first reply I got; Eminai posted:No, we do not need people with the authority to coerce behavior on behalf of the state to deal with noise complaints. A person trained in conflict resolution and de-escalation would be significantly better at solving noise complaints than our current system. Which I disagree with wholly and was the basis of any disagreement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
How do you evict someone without force? Anyway it's pretty inconsequential I guess if you'd like to replace "prison" with "the streets" I won't quibble the difference.
flashman fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:You said incarceration, not force. Ok you are right. I need to alter my statement be coercion backstopped by incarceration or homelessness then. It seems to me a distinction without a difference though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Driving people into homelessness will necessarily increase crime, not reduce it. Yeah I think it's a stupid idea as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:I'm not sure this is the best example, this happens every day. Not a whole lot of evictions use any force at all - the Sheriffs just padlock the door and everything in that apt or house now belongs to the landlord or land owner. Again it's not possible to base current rates of refusal to vacate with the theoretical where there is no one employed by the state to do anything about it, which is what was being talked about. Of course most people vacate now, the cops will be happy to violently displace you if you don't. The argument was that in lieu of the threat of incarceration you could just take people's homes for non compliance though, this is what I'm responding to, not my position.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
If one of your planks for police reform is the elimination of landlords you've lost the plot. Is this thread for feasible alternatives in current day America or "what ought to be"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
Yeah ok I got you, I agree with you that without police acting as agents of the state evictions would be difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
I think that satisfying people's material wants is given too much credit for stopping antisocial behaviors in the "zero cops" ideal. Removing people's needs does not mean removing their wants, or inherent human greed. If that was the case billionaires wouldn't exist.. At a point they'd be sated and stop collecting money. The discussion in cspam (or maybe here I am not sure actually) on the place of sex work in the socialist world comes to mind. The general consensus seemed to be that despite material needs being met there are obviously still wants that people will trade sex for. I am not of the opinion that sex work is criminal activity, but only suggesting that regardless of wants being satisfied the natural human greed will maintain money making criminal ventures much the same as they are today. Desperation is not the only reason for crime.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 10:40
|
|
|
Fewer also doesn't mean none. If you compartmentalize a large city I'm sure you can find areas with no police interaction, you make the assumption this is because their material needs are met, I believe it is due to knowledge that crime will dealt with more harshly in these wealthy areas. It seems there is a fundamental difference on the nature of man between those who think a state operated force are neccessary/unnecessary.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 11:12
|
|
|
For a trite example how long do you think a drug dealer would last on a street corner in a wealthy suburb compared to the inner city? Or a prostitute?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 11:18
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:They get their drugs and prostitutes by delivery. Likely, or travel into areas to partake in whatever antisocial behaviors and return home.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 11:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then what you are saying, then, is that crime in wealthy areas is not punished at all, because it is ignored or driven into poor areas, but not outside the access of the wealthy if they want to partake in "antisocial behaviour". I said it is the knowledge it will be dealt with more harshly, how exactly do you drive crime into poor areas otherwise? This is getting into the weeds anyway somewhat due to my poor example I guess. My belief I am attempting to describe is that regardless of material needs being met, without a coercive force in opposition individuals will still attempt to increase their holdings to satisfy more material wants. I myself am guilty of this as I'm sure many on the forums are , I have all my needs met and many of my wants. Yet I did not stop when my material needs were met and then redistribute my wealth to those in need, despite voting to increase taxes and support social programs and spending. Without being coerced (taxes) I continue to amass more wealth. I'm sure many leftists on these forums have received tax cuts and kept the money, despite meeting all their material needs. flashman fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 11:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because the police will come and hassle people for the normal crime of "existing while black in a rich neighbourhood" Wealthy people should not be above the law. Eliminating police will not make this the case though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 11:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wealthy people, however, are above the law, and I suspect you would still rather like to live in their part of town. Which points back to my initial assertion, that the police are clearly not required for a desirable society. And furthermore, that having one's material needs met, is a very significant factor when it comes to eliminating the need for police. This question is predicated on your assumption that crime is occurring at the same rate throughout society and that police simply deal with it in some areas and not others. A simplistic wealthy suburb vs inner city is used to make this point but for example in a small homogenous town of 50k there is no such distinction between areas and police presence is felt equally throughout. Where I was raised the drug dealers are middle class and most definitely under the scope of policing efforts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 11:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think it's just very strange that in order to fit the idea you seem to have that poor people are just inherently incapable of existing in a civilized fashion, you'd rather that everyone were subjected to brutal policing, rather than looking at the situation and asking why everyone cannot be afforded the freedom from police? I have elucidated what I think the police should look like in a previous post, "being subjected to brutal policing" is not what I'm talking about, I am arguing that a force tasked with enforcement of the states demands via coercion is neccessary. It cheapens your good arguments to use hyperbole like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 11:57
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:The problem is that the state demands poverty. In order for the wealthy to acquire their absurd wealth, that money has to be extracted from somewhere. Specifically, it is extracted from extremely low wages combined with reduced public services through legal and illegal tax evasion. Inevitably, those hurt most by these systems will rebel through crime or riots, and that's why you need police. This seems an indictment of modern democracy rather than the police though. If the police are performing their duty as the enforcement arm of the states will appropriately then the answer is to change the states will, not the police.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 12:57
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:It is an indictment of capitalism, not democracy. Never forget that the earliest forms of policing in the United States were slave patrols. Democracy is not guaranteed to produce the outcomes you desire.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Like slavery? Seems like whenever it produces lovely outcomes, it requires systemic state violence to enforce it. Like the slave patrols. Maybe abolishing state violence would necessarily bring about a more equitable system. A collection of warlords does not seem a preferable option.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:You have 0 proof that a collection of warlords would result when state violence is removed. In fact, the United States existed for over a century without any police at all. Modern policing was only widespread around the 1880s in the United States. I might remind you that the rise of organized crime (warlords) were a direct result of police violence directed at civilians (prohibition). Ah yes the idyllic Pinkerton era. Edit: am I wrong in assuming most people in this thread are leftists? It seems I'm arguing against libertarians which is leaving me confused. flashman fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
Simply the fact that they were private enterprises put them a step removed from a force that serves nominally at the behest of the state, therefore the electorate. Do you not think that, in this vein of discussion, an end on the state monopoly on force won't result in Exxon and Google contracting Blackwater to protect their interests?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
It's an insanely circular argument here. Either you think man is fundamentally good and meeting the material needs of them will solve all crime and thus you don't need a coercive arm of the state or you don't and think you do. No one argues for the status quo but that is what everyone reverts to attacking. Most abolish people itt mean abolish in its current state and replace with some new form of community policing, so they actually mean reform in colloquial language. Once this was clear the thread made alot more sense. I stand on the side that there will still be crime no matter how much you pour into social programs without a means for the state to enforce laws (greed is a powerful motivator particularly when there is no consequences, I'm a bad person and would break laws for more money)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Why are you assuming there will be no consequences? There will still be jails and laws. We don't need a heavily militarized racist gang to enforce them though. This is where the word abolish is unclear, like I mentioned in my post.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:I think the problem is a lot of people (including myself) refuse to use the word reform because, as you see with Cuomo's statement today, people seem to think "well we wrote down on a piece of paper they're not allowed to choke people. Job done!" Is reform and we want a radical change instead. I understand that now, unfortunately even in this thread it's used both ways so it's quite confusing when most people mean reform.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
karthun posted:One thing that has always confused me about the abolition movement is do they want to abolish the current incarnation of the cops and replace them with something else while still keeping people who are empowered with the state's police power or are they talking about abolishing the state's police power itself? I can get behind replacement but I can not get behind abolishing the state's police power. It's the former and why abolish is such a confusing term to use. Then one out of ten actually mean removing the states coercive force and confuses the issue totally. It's like if when Lincoln abolished slavery he actually jsut meant chattel slavery and it was going to be replaced with indentured servitude
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
I'm not sure you will find many leftists to agree that the states monopoly on force is bad lol
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's literally the central tenet of the bottom left square of the political compass. Yes, otherwise known as almost no one
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
Yes, if you accept the niche anarchist viewpoint that the states monopoly on force is bad, which an overwhelming number of American leftists do not..
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
What is the "no coercive government force" solution to the plague of fireworks that the police have stopped doing anything about?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
Yeah I mean it's obvious that the police aren't doing anything about the fireworks, what should be done to stop them that does not neccesitate police action though?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
A gun is not neccessary to have the power of coercion. So you gonna just wander the streets asking the teens nicely to stop firing them off?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2020 17:03
|
|