Four children arrested for not stopping a fight

[Draco Dracul]

Situations such as what the US currently has being disqualified outright does not mean the underlying assessment is sound, the argument that the existence of something means something else (not sure how else to word that) is somewhat iffy territory logic wise. (I believe there's at least one misplaced word altering the meaning of that sentence, so that's fun)

Terms used like Police and Law also have meaning to us, even if we are only talking about hypothetical societies.

The argument boils down to that without police all bets are off when it comes to law. Whilst they might not be any good at preventing serious career criminals from carrying on as they wish there's a hell of a lot of low-level nastiness and opportunism that people generally don't find is worth the risk, but no police? Go to town! You may as well have no law then.

Even though they suck at it, high profile stuff is what the police are best at solving. Low level nasty shit the police don't do anything about.

It's not iffy ground to claim that there is a significant deterrent effect, it's very simple and basic. You don't want police? Well you're asking for anarchy (or at best ill-organised vigilantism with even less accountability).

Why would they have less accountability? Because no accountability is more accountability than the police as not only are police immune from reprisals, but they are given paid vaccinations when the murder people.

[Yukaphile]

Well, police abolition is never going to be mainstream and you risk enabling the right the more you push it.

[CharlesPhipps]

Well, police abolition is never going to be mainstream and you risk enabling the right the more you push it.

The radical crazy people who want no police whatsoever are generally anarchists and not exactly mainstream either.

[ProfessorDetective]

I just want Andy and Barney to:

1) Have a much longer training period.

2) Have better training in deescalation and less-lethal conflict resolution.

3) Be better screened for mental issues and xenophobic dispositions.

4) Not be kitted out like a space marine just to get a cat out of a tree.

5) Not have a budgetary allotment that's quintuple the fire department's or the school's.

Simple as that.

[Draco Dracul]

I just want Andy and Barney to:

1) Have a much longer training period.

2) Have better training in deescalation and less-lethal conflict resolution.

3) Be better screened for mental issues and xenophobic dispositions.

4) Not be kitted out like a space marine just to get a cat out of a tree.

5) Not have a budgetary allotment that's quintuple the fire department's or the school's.

Simple as that.

Even if we acknowledge that we need violence people with the state sanctioned duty to do violence, why do those need to be the same people that perform wellness checks, get cats out of trees, or even does investigations?

Because a huge part of why cops escalate quickly has nothing to do with the training, but with the fact that it self selects for people that want to do violence even though that should in theory be a small part of the job.

[ProfessorDetective]

I just want Andy and Barney to:

1) Have a much longer training period.

2) Have better training in deescalation and less-lethal conflict resolution.

3) Be better screened for mental issues and xenophobic dispositions.

4) Not be kitted out like a space marine just to get a cat out of a tree.

5) Not have a budgetary allotment that's quintuple the fire department's or the school's.

Simple as that.

Even if we acknowledge that we need violence people with the state sanctioned duty to do violence, why do those need to be the same people that perform wellness checks, get cats out of trees, or even does investigations?

Because a huge part of why cops escalate quickly has nothing to do with the training, but with the fact that it self selects for people that want to do violence even though that should in theory be a small part of the job.

Yeah, have... Emergency Response(?) be a distinct thing from Community Upkeep(?) and Criminal Investigations.

Also municipalize EMTs. We all consider them part of a trinity with the Pads and FDs, anyway, and with less cash going to giving every patrol car an M16 w/ underbarrel grenade launcher...

[TGLS]

Doesn't the fire department get cats out of trees

[ProfessorDetective]

Doesn't the fire department get cats out of trees

Okay, poor example... Uhm... Kitted like a space marine to direct traffic?

[Nealithi]

I just want Andy and Barney to:

1) Have a much longer training period.

2) Have better training in deescalation and less-lethal conflict resolution.

3) Be better screened for mental issues and xenophobic dispositions.

4) Not be kitted out like a space marine just to get a cat out of a tree.

5) Not have a budgetary allotment that's quintuple the fire department's or the school's.

Simple as that.

Now personally I think you want Andy and William O. 'Bill' Gillespie

[CmdrKing]

Well, police abolition is never going to be mainstream and you risk enabling the right the more you push it.

Predicating whether something is worth exploring or advocating for based on how 'the right' will react is a fool's game: the right does not operate based on facts or in good faith, and will simply make things up to suit their narrative.

You'll note that not a single Democrat campaigned on "Defund the Police", and indeed universally said "well that's a step too far but we understand your concerns", yet republicans assigned it as their agenda. They did this because "democrats don't support the police!" is already their narrative, and they would have said that no matter what happened out in the world because they are liars who care only about power.

Instead the point is to open opportunities to explain why people say those things and how they might look in the real world.

Setting aside any talk of particular sins, modern policing more closely resembles an organized crime syndicate than public service. This is an unacceptable state of affairs, but also a natural outgrowth of what tasks are considered under their purview and the latitude they are given to exercise their duties. And so we must consider how to change these underlying facts to get a better outcome. Imposing more limits on their activities has been the main focus of liberal 'police reform' efforts, which have been of negligible effectiveness because few people in places of oversight have the desire or in some cases safety to actually exercise that oversight.

So instead we must consider ways to change what the police are and are not meant to do. If we allow that, at present, some public service must be able to respond to situations with armed force, we should still consider how frequent and severe those situations are, and thus how large that element of our new Police should be. For myself, I would suggest that what we currently call SWAT should be the only ones that require the sort of armament and license to employ force we currently assign to literally all police, and the remaining services apart from them wouldn't really be Police as we understand them anymore.

Consider honestly how many situations we currently assign to Police that actually require "someone armed and licensed to kill by the state" as a response. Traffic? That doesn't really require a HUMAN, let alone an armed one. Investigation? Happens after a crime, being armed isn't really very important. Serving warrants? In some circumstances perhaps, but it seems that simply deploying support from the armed service to support/supervise those situations would achieve the same end. Various domestic disturbances? Introducing weapons to those situations when they weren't there previously is the worst possible option! The point being, rather than "Police Abolition" being a call for a society to unravel, it's an acknowledgement that we must better consider how we respond to societal disturbances and how much we specialize those sent to respond for particular tasks.