|
I also want to point out, before a certain class of poster shows up: you can absolutely believe in and demand police abolition/reform without personally being able to explain every single detail of what it would like. The people asking you to can't even accurately describe the system we currently have.
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
jabby posted:Broken windows is a nice theory that the people in charge grabbed hold of to justify the draconian policies they wanted to implement anyway. Also, the first part you said you're willing to believe is empirically incorrect too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 10:09
|
|
|
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. This is like asking 'what happens if my coworkers at a worker cooperative don't want me to work there anymore?' For one thing, thats already how it works except only people who arbitrarily hold positions of power make the decision. Obviously instituting a system where there was meaningdul community input on how violence was managed in the community would have basic agreements about what is and isn't permissible, what kinds of decisions are up to the community and what aren't and systems of accountability and appeal to ensure those agreements aren't violated. I don't even believe you think you're trying to 'be constructive' but if thats really your goal it might help to frame your questions in a way other than 'given the dumbest possible interpretation of your stupid idea what if a worst case scenario that could only happen if the implementation if your proposed policy is badly bungled (which I basically have no conception of outside of context clues from reading the name) happens to me? just trying to learn!'
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 10:18
|
|
|
Apologies if you're a person who is more likely to be targetted by e.g. racism, state violence, disenfranchisement etc. and you are seriously asking out of self interest but racist white communities already actively utilize the police (and economic and other mechanisms besides to drive people out of their communities. Advocates for.community policing and police reform do not also believe in abolishing civil rights, which should be obvious, and if it turned out that these reforms/reinventions were more harmful than the previous system (they obviously couldn't be but whatever) then they would advocate reforming back. People proposing this arent fanatically comitted to simple majority vote local democracy, they want an end to unnecessary violence and oppresion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 10:24
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:No, but that’s one effect that community policing could have in some areas. That’s the issue. Shut up, idiot. Edit: Its already been explained to you that reforms or wholy new sytems of governance for managing community health and safety may have situations that still allow for harms, your vague feara do nothing to invalidate the proposal and in fact completely ignore the massive harms already caused by the existing system. What is your proposal for reforming the racist US police state that never produces any harms or unjust outcomes? Or do you believe that black Americans are currently living in the best of all possible worlds? ( do not answer this, instead, please shut up: idiot) Crumbskull fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Jun 4, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 10:44
|
|
|
enki42 posted:How do you figure? Police departments have a lot to improve right now, but they could also be a lot worse. Police still at least sometimes investigate crimes committed against POC. In most cities, violence against LGBT communities is far, far reduced from where it was in the past (while I won't pretend all problems are solved, bathhouse raids and things like that are no longer a routine thing). Police do receive at least some training in de-escalation and mindfulness (notably, there was a significant amount of this in Minneapolis). Abolition of a police force is a requirement where police force is defined as violent arm of the state weaponized for social control of minority and working class populations and defense of capital interests. People have already repeatedly explained that there are many functions currently handled by police (wellness checks, dv investigation, mental health crises, sexual assault investigations etc.) that could be better handled by people with totally different training, culture and goals. You guys are doing the same thing people do to anarchists when they say they want to see power more distributed and a more democratic society and then you say 'WELL HOW WILL WE STOP ROVING GANGS OF BANDITS WHEN THERE IS NO RULES'. People have already posted answers to your questions and more in depth resources if you want to learn more.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
enki42 posted:How do you figure? Police departments have a lot to improve right now, but they could also be a lot worse. Police still at least sometimes investigate crimes committed against POC. In most cities, violence against LGBT communities is far, far reduced from where it was in the past (while I won't pretend all problems are solved, bathhouse raids and things like that are no longer a routine thing). Police do receive at least some training in de-escalation and mindfulness (notably, there was a significant amount of this in Minneapolis). I'm not committed to that, which I said explicitly. Not sure if you aren't reading other people's posts or you're just stupid. Please read a book about the subject (which is complicated) and then come back with specific questions or shut up. Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
Once again, literally no one who is for 'police and prison abolition' is advocating for replacing the racist US police state with completely unformalized town by town mob justice. If thats what you think is being discussed then you should probably take a little bit of time to read about the topic outside of an SA thread before wading into the discussion. It would certainly be nice if everyone had the patience to hand hold your dumb asses but given the fact that the country has erupted in mass police violence I think its fair that some of us aren't in the mood. Complaining that people get mad when you totally mischarecterize what they are proposing out of ignorance (at best) and repeatedly propose stupid gotcha 'what if' scenarios or handwaving empirical evidence that policing as currently constructed in the US does exactly what you are saying you're worried reform/abolition would do (exacerbate crime and racist violence) because the US is 'just too racist' is bullshit, sorry. If you can't read the word Police Abolition without interpreting it as 'remove all state and civic functions currently within the domain of police forces and replace them with nothinf' then you're either a baby brain or even worse you are being disingenuous in order to support the status quo because you are ideologically commited to the notion that a thin blue line protects us from the dangerously murserous impulses lurkinging in the heart of man. Which, you can definitely believe that but if you do please don't pretend you're interested in this conversation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
And yes i'm conflating your posts with CelestialScribe's because I believe you are two sides of the same stupid/evil coin. If you can't take on new information because someone is mad or frustrated with you: grow up. Edit: also, I'll stop posting in this thread, sorry. Crumbskull fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jun 4, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted: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? Its not, I've already acknowledged that it definitely will. I've also already suggested mechanisms that would mitigate this risk, as have several other posters. I don't even know why I am continuing to engage with you since you keep asking the same question over and over in bad faith except that I must be as stupid as you are! Community policing DOES NOT MEAN that every community designs its own system of justice from scratch, it does not mean an end to any and all kinds of federalism or networking of local agencies and organizations who would be replacing the police in their roles. Advocates of community policing are not suggesting, for example, abolishing the concept of rights. But you know that, you're just also an rear end in a top hat! To the person asking about detectives, I'd suggest looking at other ingestigative models such as e.g. forensic accountants, OSHA/L&I, environmental dlcomplaing investigators etc. who all manage to find answers to their questions without routinely torturing and otherwise forcefully coercing a bunch of people. You also have to understand these proposals within the broader context of further societal changes, if your argument is: community policing won't work if literally everything else stays the same then NO poo poo, the reason policing as it is currently constructed has the problems it does is not because the police just got unlucky and hired only the bad guys for two hundred years, its because the police are there to exert social control through violence and maintain capitalist white supremacy. If you replace the police with a community driven system of violent oppresion and maintenance of capitalist white supremacy (what CS seems hell bent on imagining, presumably because they don't care to imagine a world that isn't specifically designed to maintain white racial oligarchy but draw your own conclusions) then duh, yeah, you'd inevitably end up with a lot of the same problems. Luckily, a lot less people are actually comitted to that system than people realize, and even more people can be disuaded when it becomes clear how much they and their community (even white ones!) stand to benefit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
My job, in real life, is organizing mobile and manufactured home communities (trailer/caravan parks) into cooperatives. Under that model, the community creates mutually agreed upon rules, elects RECALLABLE directors, sets their own rent and annual budget and etc. Does this model have a ton of problems? Do bad actors act in racist ways or commit theft or otherwise do harm to the community? Yes, of course, its people. Is every single one of those communities better off than when the land they lived on was owned and controlled by some landlord or private equity group? Of loving COURSE they are, not a single person in any of my communities no matter how frustrated they get with their co-op has EVER suggested just going back to having a landlord. Is it possible to conceive of a community so racist that they drive out all of their non-white members? Sure, as a really perverse thought experiment I guess, but I've never seen a situation even approaching that AND if there was one the democratic nature of the organization provises a ton of mechanisms for even a single individual to fight back against this unfair treatment. Mechanisms that are not present in any way shape or form in a for-profit individual or shareholder owned park. Literally every single piece of historical and academic evidence points to the glaringly obvious fact that organizations that are meaningdully democratically governed by thier STAKEHOLDERS produce better outcomes than the alternative.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
Have I seen racist landlords with a ton of power and no accountability be insanely racist and punative? Yeah, routinely. And if you can't understand the parallels here then your resistance to the idea of police abolition/community policing etc. likely stems from a broader issue of you being thick as poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
ronya posted:How large are the cooperatives that you organize? Do you have any cooperatives as large as a small US town - let's say, 5,000 to 10,000 people? Obviously I don't, the U.S.A would never allow something. However, there is plenty of evidence that, at every firm size but SPECIFICALLY larger sizes, graft, corruption and fraud are considerably reduced in cooperstively owned and operated enterprises. I think people tend to oversell Mondragon in a big way and probably don't take into account its unique cultural context when using it as an example BUT its pretty hard to argue that their system of governance and political economy hasn't had significantly better outcomes than those of pretty much every other region in europe, particularly during times of crisis. Chiapas, Nicarauga, Syria, Reggio Emellia, etc. Plenty of examples of networked and federated small direct democracy groups managing comple regional ecenomies in many different contexts. If you'd like to provide some evidence to support your assertion I'd love to see it because it is counter to what I've been able to find in my research so far, genuinely would be helpful for my capstone if you could share this with me. (Somewhat related: is it your assertion that graft and petty theft are uncommon right now? I'm pretty sure, for example, wage theft is the single.most common crime in the usa and I'm pretty sure a.meaningfully representative 'justice' system would spend a lot more time stopping the mass exploitation of the working class, but who knows you seem to have thought about this a lot)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2020 06:30
|
|
|
If 'communities' are 'more vulnerable to graft' as they get bigger irrespective of how they are governed then I'm a little confused about your inital response to my post. I apologize but I can't get into my Zotero right now due to having no wifi in this boatyard but when I do I'll share some contemporary research that demonstrates pretty much exactly the opposite of Dow's theoretical analysis is true when you look at actually existing cooperative firms. I won't dispute that lack of access to capital is an issue for anti-capitalist firms because, no loving poo poo. You're right that its a lot of yada yada theory that scans if you largely already accept biz school dogma, its also just fortunately objectively wrong! Cooperative firms do not get 'graftier' as they get bigger, although I'm now assuming you got a.graduate degree in business so I suppose I'm not terribbly surprised if you hear poo poo like that commonly. And like I said, if you don't understand how complex political economic organizations which utilize direct democracy and equal representation for stakeholders with a commitment to mutual self-aid and a concern for community might possibly serve as a model for what community policing would look like, well.....
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2020 09:09
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Celestial Scribe what do you think community policing means?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 08:26
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Based on the discussion I’ve read and the literature I’ve read, I think community policing falls into two buckets or explanations: 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 08:40
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I believe a lot of communities would. I also believe some communities would end up killing each other. Cool man.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 08:48
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted: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? Cool, you want to abolish the police and you can imagine a scenario where local democracy becomes genocide. Established.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 08:52
|
|
|
Rapulum_Dei posted:Can you think of any examples where local communities enforce their own rules and punishments? Because I can. Buddy, I'm aware of WHOLE COUNTRIES that do this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 09:13
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I think this is the crux of a lot of the problems here. 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. Stop and frisk - not neccessary, no one needs to be doing this. Rampaging elephant in the downtown corridor - dispatch some small armed force with very clear boundaries on their permitted action and robust systems of accountability should they cause undue harm.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 02:14
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Serious question: Setting aside the fact that our current system is notoriously bad at stopping the mob from taking over, can you clarify what you mean by the mob taking over?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 03:50
|
|
|
Intentionally or not Celestial Scribe is doing textbook concern trolling and no one should feel compelled to continue answering their questions. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 03:54
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Creating their own monopoly on violence and setting up, for example, a protection racket or whatever violent method of extracting wealth. However any other situation where people won't desist from using violence for personal gain under the given model? I haven't read a single person advocating for a system where there is no body authorized to use force in the name of the community when neccessary. If your worry is that some violent gang would terrorize the populace to the point that they had free reign to extract then A) we have that now and B) yeah, that sounds like a coup and you'd probably use an army or militia?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 04:06
|
|
|
Violence is not the primary lever of organized crime though. In a community where people's basic needs were met and participation in the permitted fornal economy is low barrier I really don't imagine this situation taking hold, especially with sensible rules regarding things like drug use. A lot of the questions itt seem to be 'what if a really large number of evil people works in a concerted fashion to cause harm to the community' and every system is vulnerable to that, it happens all the time and THATS THE SYSTEM WE CURRENTLY HAVE ENSHRINED IN OUR LAWS!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 04:10
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:Organized crime is usually under the purview of Federal agencies, no? Are we lumping all of those Federal agencies in with Police? I'd have to add some nuance to my responses if so (gently caress ICE though it literally has no purpose.) Now we are getting somewhere! I'm actually NOT that familiar with any thinking around how to abolish or reform federal investigative bodies. This is an interesting read about what levers the federal government has to reform local policing that I found looking for answers though: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gawwpoCIcJuUWVU I do expect that even in the kind of radically decentralised system that is currently a very remote possibility local communities would want to participate in federative or at least networking activity in order to manage inter-community issues but yeah I'm not sure what kind of reform/replace I would advocate for the FBI or NSA for example. Top of dome I'd say drastically delimited ability to surveil and clear instructions to stop loving entrapping people would be a good start. I do think, unfortunately, that human trafficking is unlikely to stop being an issue and so you'd need to preserve some kind of body for handling that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Apologies. I was repeating what appeared to be the most common voices using the word abolition in this thread. Thanks for explaining further that that isn't the same as the broader abolition movement Social Work in its current punitive, carceral form also really needs be dramatically reformed as well. Social workers for the state are currently part and parcel with the criminal justice system unfortunately. The difference though is that social workers as a whole wouldn't go to war to resist those reforms.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 06:50
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I think we do need a reform initiative in addition to abolishing ideas. Simply because I don't think abolishing is in the near future, and incremental change serves a purpose, too. I mean, I don't even believe we are going to get meaningful reforms which is why I feel comfortable saying 'abolish' and trying to shift the window a bit. Realistically, and this is what the council people in MLPS are saying right now too, there is zero chance in hell of 'abolition' as in Police Department Disbanded and we'll figure out the next step after is going to happen. The police don't exist in a vacuum, they are a part of a larger political economic order. To meaningfully abolish the police the social order who requires them to function must also be transformed. 'Reform' is the only thing on the table period so thats what we are fighting for. Luckily, the distinction between 'reform' and 'changes in service of moving towards abolition' are not at all mutually exclusive. You can argue that this is 'diluting' the message of abolition in much the same way you can argue that advocating any kind of social order at all is 'diluting' anarchism or allowing markets of some kind during transitionary socialism is 'diluting' communism I guess, but we are nowhere near (in my opinion but I guess we'll see) the kind of rupture that would allow for that kind of revolution. In order to actually abolish the police we'd have to also be abolishing the wealthy and the white whose interests they maintain (which we should do but doesn't seem likely any time soon). But, if we know we want abolition it can give us clearer eyes when evaluating proposals for reform, like noticing that consent decrees have repeatedly proved useless and that deescalation and racial bias training and poo poo like that doesn't do anything either, etc. So when we see a proposal that says, for example, actually police need more money so they can get more training (probably going to need it for all the trick shooting) we can dismiss that out of hand.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 07:23
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted: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. drat dude, this is an EXCELLENT question. Thank god you are here to point out that people should think about strategies for transition. If it weren't for the good faith concern of folks like you I don't think we'd make any progress on this issue at all!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:It seems everyone here really is convinced that if we got rid of all law enforcement tomorrow that communities would step up and provide better systems. (I said law enforcement, not police). This was established like a week ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Everyone asking 'if we abolish the police then how will we stop roving gangs of murderers and rape squads' is really telling on themselves given that the primary function of police is to brutally enforce a racialized class system....
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:It's the same thing as those Christians who say "if everyone was an atheist and didn't fear hell, everyone would murder and rape indiscriminately!" like, naw just cause that's what you would be doing doesn't mean the same for everyone else. Literally the majority of crime is wage theft and corporate fraud, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2020 23:34
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't think most people understand what social workers actually do and the government systems they operate in. That said, my mum was an overnight emergency room intake social worker at a medium sized urban general hospital and managed to defuse a lot of potentially dangerous situations including being threatened with a big shard of glass one time without shooting a single patient! Hell, she didn't even tase any. But yeah, if the function of maintaining a racialised caste system and surplus labor through state violence is just shifted onto these 'support' agencies then the whole 'reformation' will be just that, re-forming policing under the guise of social services. This is why its hard to have much patience for 'what about bandits?' types of questions because they clearly lack an understanding of the social relationships that actually produce the modern police state (hint: its not to protect you from bandits), hopefully if anything comes from this moment at least there is a broader understanding of what we mean when we say that the oppressive structure of the police is part and parcel with the rest of our society. Craig Kilborn supremacy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2020 07:35
|
|
|
Yeah, that sounds like an opinion best kept to yourself, if I'm interpreting you correctly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2020 07:51
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Nobody thinks Law & Order is a realistic portrayal of the justice system just like no one thinks House is an accurate portrayal of the medical system or the X-Files of the FBI or whatever, it's entertainment, we all know it's bullshit. Tackle the actual propaganda in the news and poo poo, like parroting whatever BS the police provide and using the passive voice in every incident where a cop kills somebody. Law and Order absolutely is propoganda.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Oh, so you when you and others in this thread say that you want to abolish law enforcement, you really mean that you want to reform law enforcement. Ok, well that is a billion times more reasonable position It helps to read the thread before posting in it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
Trapick posted:This is the part I find incredibly spurious. Do you think Scalia was driven to think torture was good because he watched 24? I think it's infinitely more likely he thought that anyway (because he was a garbage human) and happened to like 24 and use it as an example. To say there's any causal link there is a really strong claim. Are you having a laugh?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2020 04:28
|
|