Four children arrested for not stopping a fight

[goodperson25]

3. If we're broadening to general theft instead of robberies, burglaries and civil asset forfeiture, we should also look at other legal and/or unreported/uninvestigated thefts as well. I wonder how well the Cops look if we include those statistics?

I mean cops kind of can't win with that one because if it's a little that means they are largely uneeded on that front , and if it's high then they are useless despite thier ridiculous levels of funding.

I was more talking about wage theft and the like. I wouldn't say the cops are useless when it comes to the ridiculously high numbers on that front.

[Draco Dracul]

3. If we're broadening to general theft instead of robberies, burglaries and civil asset forfeiture, we should also look at other legal and/or unreported/uninvestigated thefts as well. I wonder how well the Cops look if we include those statistics?

I mean cops kind of can't win with that one because if it's a little that means they are largely uneeded on that front , and if it's high then they are useless despite thier ridiculous levels of funding.

I was more talking about wage theft and the like. I wouldn't say the cops are useless when it comes to the ridiculously high numbers on that front.

How do they help on that? Unlike in fiction, cops are terrible at any kind of actual investigation, and that's especially true of white collar crime.

[goodperson25]

3. If we're broadening to general theft instead of robberies, burglaries and civil asset forfeiture, we should also look at other legal and/or unreported/uninvestigated thefts as well. I wonder how well the Cops look if we include those statistics?

I mean cops kind of can't win with that one because if it's a little that means they are largely uneeded on that front , and if it's high then they are useless despite thier ridiculous levels of funding.

I was more talking about wage theft and the like. I wouldn't say the cops are useless when it comes to the ridiculously high numbers on that front.

How do they help on that? Unlike in fiction, cops are terrible at any kind of actual investigation, and that's especially true of white collar crime.

I don't believe they help, I believe they are connected to how high those numbers are.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Cops just took more than burglars, and not other types of crime combined.

I mean, as defenses go, that is spectacularly shitty.

It's not a defense. Burglars are probably the most handcrafted of the jobs on the list. Cops seizing assets is less than half of the general theft types.

1. You knowingly or unknowingly removed robbery from the conversation which iirc does add up with the numbers.

I'm not seeing any evidence of that. Though what I was saying seems to have been reciprocated rather consistently across article platform sites, with The Hill being like the 5th one and only one I recognized, giving indication that it is possibly moderate-conservative propaganda rhetoric.

This I found pretty interesting:

California's law actually requires, in property seizures of more than $25,000, that the police agency gain a conviction and the legal standard requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. California law-enforcement agencies don't like that higher standard, so they circumvent the state law. They participate in something called "equitable sharing"—i.e., they invite the feds into their operation, take the property using the lower federal standard, and then split the loot.

[clearspira]

Shit like this is why I've become a police abolitionist because you can't reform this shit.

Police abolitionist? As in, you think that we should have no police at all or have you just picked a word that you don't really know the meaning of?
In either case, perhaps you should look up what the world looked like before the police were invented. Does Mad Max mean anything to you?

I am pretty sure we made police after we figure out how to make loincloths.

The first modern police force was invented in 1829 in Britain. Before that the police were NOT there to protect the people, they were there to protect the government and the landowners. Big difference.

[Thebestoftherest]

Yeah but you might want to tell some of the police that, since they seems to be using the pre 1829 police play book.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Wait a second yeah.

[Riedquat]

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.

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).

[Thebestoftherest]

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.

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).

You are one hundred percent right, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to remove police unions or anything that remove accountability of those in law enforcement.

[goodperson25]

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.

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).

Being simple and basic is not an argument in of its self.

Also I will repeat that terms like Police have meaning. For example explain how being enforcers for the powerful (a pretty key role of police to many) is integral to avoiding Anarchy. (another term with rather loaded implications)