Labeled as discuss in The Break Room, started by mitch007, Jun 15, 2020
Yes, take a breath and consider the alternatives...
What do you think?
Nice find, Mitch.
Check out the video ratio likes to dislikes;
Nice video, Mitch. Thanks for posting.
The morons speaking of dissolving police departments would be the ones cowering in a corner and begging for someone to help them when the looters and rapists show up at their door. (the ones without money that is...the 'elites' with deep pockets will have their own private security)
Yes, there are bad apples....they are everywhere. Our own industry (domaining) is filled with junior rated con men/women with a couple top notch scum bags ripping people off from time to time.
We need a well funded, well trained police force. If police are not patrolling our streets, others will step it to fill the void...just look at fine citizens in Seattle that have taken over the police station.
(EDIT: I added the word 'domaining' above)
The video has made me emotional.Lately I have been very upset watching the news.
Spread the word and ideas from the video....
Most of us would agree defunding our police is the most ridiculous idea ever expressed......and the second is the 6 block "Republic of CHAZ" or "CHAP" in downtown Seattle, taken over by anarchists who have no use for the police and have thrown them out......
This crap needs to end.
I need a pill to chill out
Racism is the most ridiculous. Private law enforcement might be the solution. City cops cant seem to get it right. As soon as cops stop the BS...citizens will start feeling better. All this is law enforcement's fault. Fire them all. (The bad ones)
Perhaps we'll never get to a world where police in any way, shape or form is no longer necessary. But man oh man, is this "defund/abolish the police" conversation putting fear in some folks who have afforded to ignore what's been happening to their neighbors for so long.
I encourage folks to take a deep breath, listen, educate themselves, and hear what the conversation really is about.
A good place to start, even though it's not directly about "defund/abolish", is this brilliant documentary:
At least in the United States, policing has historically, intentionally, been structured to protect some more than others, and at the expense of others. Policing has been more about social control and protecting economic interest than crime control. This isn't opinion, it's fact, and if it sounds like it can't be true then you don't know your history.
Calls to defund the police are really, at least in the near-to-mid-term, about redirecting the funds to community protection systems that would be significantly better suited to different community needs. Really oversimplifying here, but police doesn't need to be in schools, armed officers should not be first responders in mental health situations, etc.
Abolishing the police isn't about abandoning the country to violence. It's about divesting funds toward initiatives that serve people's needs as they need to be served - housing, education, mental health. How on earth is it okay to have military-style gear and tanks available for local police forces, but we can't afford PPE for front-line medical workers?
Oh, and as to dealing with crime, do you have any idea how many crimes go unsolved in the United States?
Take a look here. Or do your own research. Nearly 40% of murders go unsolved. 70% of robberies go unsolved. Isn't that insane? How can we possibly do worse than that?
I wouldn't want to be a cop. It is a very thankless job, risking life and limb for average pay and few benefits. No wonder there are bad cops on the take, but what we're seeing in BLM is the response to generations of hurt embodied. It's an age old struggle that ought not be confused with any political/religious/anarchists, but the front of change becomes a magnet for extremists. That is what gets news (and the bad press that politicians wish to avoid). Now the talk in CHAZ is about the casual, calm peaceful gatherings and whether their allies (and picknickers) will still be there when the going gets tough...it's this generation's Woodstock.
One of the likely reasons 70% of robberies go unsolved is the cost benefit ratio. To make a serious effort at solving all such crimes would require more manpower, time, and money than police have at their disposal.
I suspect some of the "solved" robberies are only "solved" by dumb luck because they happen to find the missing property when the police actually solve a different case. As such, one solved case can result in multiple cases being cleared ("solved".)
At a minimum there need be strict and heavily enforced requirements for the use of lethal force.
Unless a cop is actually shot at, or is rescuing a person being shot at, there should be no excuse for shooting someone.
If it happens, the penalties should be the same as anyone else.
(Which gets into a whole different topic of sentencing injustice.)
The US needs to enforce Body Cams.
Need monthly Body Cams audit to make sure they record a minimum amount every month.
Why have Body Cams, if dont turn them on?
There have been so many levels of "reform" proposed and applied in different states with different degrees of success - but no amount of training seems to have worked - which is why we're now at the defund-abolish stage.
I used to be of the reformist mindset; rationally, there seem to be so many things we can implement to make policing better and safer for everyone, right? From better training, to a more diverse police force, to body cams, to separating armed from non-armed police officers, to 8cantwait reforms like de-escalation, force continuum, and duty to intervene.
But it's become abundantly clear as I've educated myself more over the last couple of weeks that incremental reforms can't change a system that is purposefully designed a certain way.
There was a meme circulating on social media recently comparing the number of hours required to go through barber school vs. police academy, it was something like 1500 vs 700 hours. Sure, we can increase police training. Sure, we can stop allowing former Afghanistan soldiers with PTSD to become cops. Sure, we can disarm officers sent to respond to situations that do not involve firearms (aka most police work).
But no reform will bring meaningful change as long as there's a blue code of silence, as long as "bad apples" know they can act with impunity because the union will back them, as long as armed cops will shoot unarmed people in their own homes and go unpunished, as long as any cop can claim fear for their life when faced with an unarmed teenager in a hoodie.
There was a narrow window of opportunity for police forces around the country to prove they are truly up to serve and protect everyone. They chose to shoot at journalists, tear gas and pepper spray people sitting on their porch, run their bikes into pedestrians and then arrest them, push elderly men, and continue to kill and maim. How the fuck do you reform that?
So yeah, abolish is the right goal here.
OK, now have you really thought this through to the end?
How exactly do you see this coming to fruition and resulting in a positive outcome?
The positive outcome would be communities no longer in fear. The coming to fruition will take courage and a commitment to "serving" and protecting. Good cops could probably participate. But the biggest help would be the diverted funds I'd imagine.
To begin with, we just need to look at what we're asking cops to do today (much too much), and see how we can replace some of their functions with specialized, unarmed first responders. Rather than having strangers armed with guns who don't even live in the neighborhood respond to all calls, allow - and support - communities looking out for themselves. Non-violent community patrols with civilian oversight.
Redirect money from militarizing local police forces to education and housing. Stop giving paid leave and pensions to criminal cops. Require cops to be liable for misconduct settlements. Reprioritize spending and invest in crime prevention by providing for people's needs, rather than proactively trying to meet prison quotas.
Rethink what crime is. What we're really afraid of when we hear "abolish the police" is that there will be no one out there to catch the bad guys who steal and stab and rape and kill - right? But many (most?) cops spend their days roaming around handing parking tickets and looking for people who "look" suspicious. Let's decriminalize most drug use and stop looking for teenagers to throw in prison for 15 years for smelling like weed. Decriminalize sex work.
If we focus on what communities need, and provide for those needs, crime will go down. If we decriminalize activities that perhaps should have never been criminalized to begin with, crime will go down. Over time, there would be less and less need for active and proactive policing.
And still, we may never get to fully actualizing the meaning of "abolish." We may always need active, armed police forces to respond to the dangerous crimes we're so afraid of. But the "abolish" direction is a hell of a lot better direction than the one this country is currently on -- which has been, if it still needs spelling out: let's criminalize activities that allow us to imprison black and brown folk, because the 13th amendment allows us to continue lawfully enslaving people as long as they've been convicted of a crime.
There are decades of literature on the subject. This book isn't a bad place to start.
The problem in United states is, police force are controlled by county and not by state. If a state control police force they can properly train the person and transfer him/her to other county if any misconduct. And also police in US shoot to kill people & they don't shoot in arm or leg to disarm them, their logic is simple dead man is easy to deal in court then an injured guy suing them.
No police force ha ha... welcome to jungle...Can any one point me a country without Law Enforcement? Just stupid idea, who will handle riots? who will attend people in distress, How about armed robbery ? Who will investigate Murder?
Even during civil war Syria, Afghan had police forces usually manned by persons from rebel factions.
A lot of people agree that change might be needed but not nearly as many people have the time or inclination to make the change happen.
If the powers that the police have were relaxed there are just too many people waiting to capitalise. The unfortunate truth in almost all areas, jobs, races, religions etc is that a few will spoil it for the majority.
We will always need police with power to protect us. The side effect of that's going to be a certain amount of corruption and excess of force.
The pain and grief caused by some people in authority is terrible but would pale in comparison to what would be dealt out by people in a world without them.
I rarely see police, and I rarely see crime. I dont think people are good because of police.
I rarely see police either but that's mainly because they are vastly understaffed, underpaid, underfunded and undertrained. I see a lot of crime.
I don't think people are good because of police either but I think some people are bad because of a lack of them.
I want to know that when someone is bad I can ring the police and I'll be offered a certain amount of safety.
I'd rather have the police and not need them than need them and not have them.
Camden, city of 70k people has successfully fired all police and restarted from ground up. Serious crime rate went down by 40% immediately and had stayed at the low level for 7 years now.
What happens with the other 60% of serious crime? Who catches the criminals? Did crime "go down" or was it just reported way less because of the lack of a police force? What were the migration statistics for the city immediately before and after the police were fired? Have conviction rates gone up or down as a percentage in relation to "arrests" (or whatever they do now). What is the population density? What is the diversity in races and religions? Was it a particularly crime ridden city to start with or was it a 40 percent drop of an already small amount? Is there any way to know that the new system has no corruption? Are there any rehabilitation statistics with repeat offender statistics to compare to those before the firing of the police force? What's taken the place of the police force? Without knowing the full story it not easy to know whether or not it has been a success.
Well, you can google the full story, can't you?
Yes, it was crime ridden city.
They might have hired the same number into new and different force, so, no, it is not underreporting. Instead, it is being more integrated into community.
They rehired about 25% of the force, might have had better stats if they did not perhaps.
New corruption or not, for a city to lose almost half of its crime rate is huge. That is lots of saved lives, physical and mental trauma, property etc.
Camden is a complicated story, some good takeaways, but not a straightforward hopeful example -- here's a pretty good roundup.
What you're responding to, and what a lot of people's knee-jerk fear-ridden reaction to the conversation is, is the assumption that the goal is to do away with all police at once overnight and not have anything in place to replace it with. That is of course absurd and you know it. It takes a lot of work and consensus and some trial and error. It starts with agreeing that things are not okay as they are - and if you are a human being capable to listen to your neighbors for a minute, it's obvious they are not okay.
People are doing the work. These things are happening, change is happening in Minneapolis, in Seattle, in New York. And nowhere is anyone proposing firing all cops overnight without a plan in place.
Who is we? Who is us? Doesn't power come with responsibility? If you are a corrupt and abusive force shouldn't you be stripped of power and punished too? Why do we have to accept "side effects" and "collateral damage" - just to protect the status quo, just because we're too fearful to imagine better alternatives that don't unlawfully choke and imprison and murder innocent neighbors?
Each community is different, has different needs. Each crime is different, every 911 call may not be about a crime. But to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Camden has a long way to go. It still has one of the highest murder rates in New Jersey — and a fair share of sceptics. Eugene O’Donnell, a criminology professor at John Jay College in New York City and former NYPD officer, has called for Camden to produce more information that would help people gauge the efficacy of their reforms. He wants to see numbers to show how many crimes are solved and evidence to show that the recorded crime drops are not a result of the public simply reporting fewer crimes. “I think it’s mostly PR,” said Mr O’Donnell. “I have tons of questions for the chief that I have not seen answered, and I’d be the first to put my hand up and say I’m wrong if they could show evidence that they actually do police work that solves problems.”
A piece from an FT.com article.
From reading a bit about it it just sounds like they replaced the police with better trained police (a lot like the police force where I live in the UK who are unarmed) but nobody is perfect and how long untill the better trained police make a mistake or begin to become corrupt (which is inevitable) and protesting starts again? There is clearly an issue in the US policing system that needs to be addressed but taking them or their powers away isn't the answer.
An issue that's probably equal to the policing strategy is the way the media choose to portray certain aspects and the way they pick and choose what to report and what slant to put on it. As mentioned above it's unlikely that anyone would want the complete removal of any kind of police force but that's how the news networks would make it sound. All news networks have a slant or bias towards a political party etc and will scew stories to rile the populous. There are an incredible amount of followers and slaves to the media out there who are easily manipulated and believe everything they read on Facebook or Twitter and just as many people eager to virtue signal to anyone's who's prepared to listen/watch.
Separate names with a comma.