You must log in or # to comment.
Slavery is not a necessity. Dealing with people too dangerous to participate in society is a necessity.
when was the last time the police actually protected someone from harm? they play candy crush while waiting for children to get mowed down. burglar empties your house? sorry, not way to figure that out. rape victim? yeah yeah we’ll put your rape kit somewhere we won’t even remember. ice thugs asking for the door dash lady in your house? we’ll just lie and say you have to give her up.
but wait, you’re lawfully exercising your first amendment? nah nah we better make this a war zone.
the job of the police is to protect capital, not you.
Police find the perpetrator in thousands of murders and rapes a year. Is that not worthwhile to you?
Believe me, I am fully aware of the problems with the justice system. It needs vast improvement, but that doesn’t mean it does not serve a necessary service.
Shooting innocent civilians in the face is not a necessity.
Police and prisons are not a necessity for dealing with dangerous people. Because police are the dangerous people.
Okay, so what do you do with a John Wayne Gacy, or a Timothy McVeigh?
You make an extremely abstract and general statement. Then you give very specific cases as to why your abstraction is correct, with absolutely nothing connecting the abstraction to the specific. You take a huge system of oppression like the prison industrial complex, all of the horror and injustice that it creates, and then justify its existence because of two specific cases. Interesting how both those cases were white men when BIPOC people are much more likely to be victimized by police and carcerial punishment.
Those cases to point to a very thin segment of the population, so it too is an abstraction. No discussion about if society somehow produces killers, like for instance school shooters in the USA.
Even though there are problems with your argument, I admit there are problems with the demand “abolish police and prisons”. Because often there isnt discussion as to how exactly we can practically do it. Like what if we could abolish 50% of police and prisons, then more, then more? The word “abolish” does have many of the problems that maximal and radical demands often have. But then, you need to consider why people are totally uncompromising on their commitment to abolition.
The abolitionists before and during the civil war were a very slim minority of people, and they could not conceive of how slavery would actually end. Lincoln and the North did not want to end slavery, they wanted to preserve the union. It wasnt until the slaves freed themselves and went over to the northern armies to heroically fight for their freedom, that the process of abolishing slavery was inevitable and irreversible.
But then prison labor was used to subsidize parts of the economy where paying free workers was still unprofitable. As such, the tradition continues to this day.
So if you would like to argue that institutionalized state-slavery is justified because of the presence of a few serial killers, then it shows how little will you have to even think about it, and that you would rather just not think about the suffering of all the people victimized by the police and prison.
And that is your right, to stay ignorant on this issue. I’m sure there are many domains in which you are exceedingly knowledgeable. But many people are and have been directly and severely harmed by the prison industrial complex and the police, and when you mak such substanceless, abstract arguments, then it appears to those people you are on the side of the system that victimizes and exploits.
You might ask yourself which group you have more in common with. You dont have to want to free serial killers, you just have to want to free people who deserve to be free. Instead of ignorance, ask yourself, could this system that affects millions of people, more than anyone else in the world, often by orders of magnitude, could this system be made more just? Could the number of people incarcerated be decreased? And then either get to work making that happen, or get out of the damn way
That was an awful lot to say to not answer a simple question.
Sorry i posted an edit with a link. I just can’t stand people using fallacies to invalidate other people’s arguments. A logical fallacy is an example of where to begin to look for logical errors or assumptions in an argument, it doesn’t mean that if you can fit parts of an opponent’s argument into one of the categories in this list that it is insta-invalid. Doing this shows a compulsion to win rather than understand, and we are talking about a situation where maybe 12000 people have already died. Nobody wins, but further losses might yet be avoided.
It was a long comment telling you to get serious. If youre not serious then why should anybody who does know, even bother with you, if youre making no effort to appear as somebody who actually cares about anything that actually matters
The other poster said police and prisons are not necessary. I think it is an entirely valid question to ask what they propose be done about serial murderers, rapists, child molesters, and the like.
Okay, so hypothetically you’re presented with a person too dangerous to participate in society. What are you going to do at the time, call the police and wait 40 minutes?
You can already reduce many incidents from happening in the first place by fixing the material and sociological causes.
You and your community look-out for and defend each other at the time, rather than hoping an officer will come and do so after the fact. How to deal with the person is contextual and up to the communities consensus. I personally would say redeem those you can, kill those you can’t.
How to deal with the person is contextual and up to the communities consensus
Lynchings. What you are describing are lynchings.
I personally would say redeem those you can, kill those you can’t.
So you need somewhere to “redeem” these people. That is called a prison or a mental institution. You need people to capture and hold these people to be redeemed. Those are called police. You need a system to determine who can’t be redeemed in a way that is fair and thorough. That is called a justice system. The irredeemable are killed in things called executions.
I agree the system we have is bad, but solutions rapidly turn into reinventing the wheel.
If you’d describe those as lynchings, what would you describe what happened to George Floyd? Or Breonna Taylor? Our cops lynch people all the time, but have the position of authority to avoid all consequences. How do you ensure that the people who are allowed to use guns on people are “fair and thorough”?
I would describe those as murder, not collective community vigilantism.
Personally I would take guns away from most police. They would have to serve on the force for 4 years with no use of force complaints and then they would be allowed to carry a 6 shot revolver if necessary for their job. Ideally only calm, experienced officers who have earned public trust through years of practice in deescalation would carry and they would only be called in when deadly force is absolutely necessary to save lives.
Even with rules that describe appropriate behavior for law enforcement, we still run into issues. A lack of guns doesn’t stop what happened to George Floyd, and maintaining accountability against cops when they’re the only ones legally allowed to use violence is difficult. It’s a dangerous power dynamic, and I’m not convinced there’s a real answer. Most crime is the result of poverty, so I personally think that the best direction to go is a heavy focus on addressing the roots of poverty. Basic income is one option that can help, perhaps rent control and better public infrastructure/transportation. I’m for the idea of tax-funded housing you can apply for at no cost to you. At least, as far as what we can do on a practical level within our own system, as much as I would prefer more radical solutions.
The unfortunate reality is that someone is going to have a monopoly on violence and it’s better to have a choice in who. Accountability is tough but possible. Body cameras and the ubiquity of smart phones has made it a lot easier to prove what really happened. These camera records need to be stored and processed by an independent federal agency though. Qualified immunity obviously needs to be dramatically curtailed. Cops should have to live in the neighborhood they patrol whenever possible. Eliminating anyone with the slightest hint of white supremacist leanings from candidacy. There are definitely things that can be done to cutrail the potential abuses of power.
No, it’s not and you’re attempt to frame it using negative connotations is obvious. What you are actually trying to say is vigilante justice or extrajudicial killing. But without law, it could also not be as such. You can host a communal tribunal and provide a verdict based on the overall consensus of the community.
Also you can keep people at home, you don’t have to house them in purpose built facilities, there isn’t that much crime once you remove material conditions. It’s not a full time industry. And if they’re not an active danger you can let them go out freely and rehabilitate them without confining them. Likewise you do not need police when the community is in charge of its defence.
That’s basically the model they use in the Zapatista Chiapas. Seriously this isn’t complicated but you are incapable of imagining any system beyond the one you know, even when such systems are literally being applied in the real world and with greater effect than the police/prison model.
You can host a communal tribunal and provide a verdict based on the overall consensus of the community.
That still has the essential problem of guilt being determined by popularity, not facts. Witches had trials like this before they were burned. There needs to be a system of rules to minimize bias and regulation of evidence to provable facts. That is why we have the jury trial system. Yeah, it still needs improvement but it’s a hell of a lot better than what you are describing.
Also you can keep people at home
Shoplifters and drug dealers, sure. But serial rapists and people who shoot someone in the face for looking at them funny? No way. They need to be locked up and we need someone to put them there. There will always be a certain amount of these people in any society and we have to account for that.
Likewise you do not need police when the community is in charge of its defence.
So basically “castle doctrine” states where people shoot kids who knock on the wrong door? Kyle Rittenhouse is an example of realistic “community defense”.
There are such people in governments, even of the most recent superpower on the earth.
Anyone remember what it took to abolish slavery?
Okay I’ll offer up the alternative.
Show any social worker or mental health professional a violent police interaction and in 90% of cases they will just shake their heads. They deal with the same shit every day and successfully manage many of the same situations without shooting anyone. The police universally try to respond as aggressively and counter productively as they can and it turns mental health crises into violence. Like yeah, there are situations where armed response is needed but so many of the common situations don’t require someone pointing guns at people. Go watch a random badge cam video and ask yourself, could a competent mental health worker resolve this? Food for thought, people frequently react in extreme ways to the police because they know how violent and unjust the situation will become with them involved.
For prison at a minimum just stop with the drug war shit. Stop sending people to jail for parking fines and weed and getting them wrapped up in the system so they lose their jobs. An ideal standard could, again, involve mental health treatment, counseling, and rehabilitation. If someone’s arrested for stealing shit, maybe they need to be put in a safe environment where they can learn skills, get a job and contribute to society. If they’re too dangerous, they need to be in a facility where they’re getting actual help and treatment until they aren’t dangerous if that day ever comes.
You may be thinking that this stuff is just vaguely cops and jails by some other name and at a hyper superficial level that may be in part, but the meat grinder we’ve built is definitely not the above in any stretch of the imagination.
There are even more extreme versions like the restorative (not just rehabilitative) justice systems built by the Zapatistas, I encourage people to seek out alternative proposals, there’s a whole world of ideas out there.
Thank you for providing some alternative ideas and thoughtful insight. From one internet person to another, I appreciate your comment during these sensationalist times.
I understand emotions are high on the topic and that’s valid.
I’ll give UK police some credit here.
They very capable and willing to take a minimum force approach to defuse a situation, to talk and calm things, rather than escalate violence.
I know they don’t always get it right, there’s always that 10% that’s out of control.
Generally speaking, they’re policing by consent, not force
Removed by mod
Abolish the police and replace them with this other thing that’s totally not just a better version of the police
A better version of the police would still be better.
Right. But the OOP is quite clear that replacing them with something better is not enough.
They’re letting perfect be the enemy of good. Which is a shame, because then nothing changes :-(
Yes, which is one reason so many of us are disagreeing with OOP.
So you’re the person the meme is referring to. Brave of you to admit it
It’s very easy to imagine a perfect society without police. Unfortunately we don’t live in imagination land
Exactly, as long as people keep hurting others you need someone to deal with that.
A lot of things we use police or sheriffs for can be transferred to entities that aren’t allowed to arrest or brutalize people. Evictions shouldn’t be served by a man with a gun. A speeding ticket shouldn’t either.
But when someone is committing an armed robbery or attacking another person we need someone to respond with force, but they need to be actually trained in de-escalation.
This would likely need to be paired with massive programs designed to improve society and reduce crimes.
America is a land of guns and violence and that probably can’t change. police and conservative society understand things stereotypically because it’s also sometimes true
Serving an eviction notice can get you shot when random people own guns and crime is normal
A car speeding could be armed dudes with drugs or something and they’ll kill you in the middle of an empty highway in Colorado or wherever
Dangerous violent assholes with guns have mental health episodes too 🤷♀️
I hear you, but if people know that someone giving them a speeding ticket will not be arresting or shooting them wouldn’t it serve them better to not pull guns and lead to anything more? Criminals today attack officers during a traffic stop because the officers are trained to fish for an arrest.
That’s not the sole reason criminals attack officers and there’s no reason to think you’d be safe
Why would it serve them better? They can just shoot you and drive away and it’s hundreds of miles to the nearer station
Hey man, agreed the current police force is bad, sure, but how about an alternative being the leading narrative? A good platform offers solutions as the primary policies rather than soapboxing to the choir.
An alternative is local communities be in charge of this themselves. The money spent on policing could be better used to build up services to avoid crime originating, for mental health services, for armed community defense, etc. Local communities don’t need to buy sonic weapons, apcs, and fit out riot squds.
As it stands police do very little to prevent crime, and rarely bother to solve a crime after it has been reported. What they do, do is a ridiculous amount of abuse towards innocent people.
We cannot get to that stage without first removing the barrier that is public perception that police prevent crime and keep us safe. Getting rid of them will allow organic means of defending a community to grow. The Black Panther are an excellent historic contemporary example of this in the media today, but they have to operate in constant opposition to the police which hinders them greatly.
Likewise we can see community defense in action in Rovaja and Zapatista’s - but that’s much harder to put into a meme compared to ‘police bad’ which most people understand.
local communities be in charge of this themselves
You think that’s gonna be a reliably good model? To me that sounds like another hellscape waiting to happen.
Agreed. Pretty sure Texas would implement the purge.
Yeah, I’m at least personally aware of alternatives, but I’m more commenting on the particular messaging of having the primary focus be on negating action. While it certainly is correct in stating the problem is the police as it exists along with the way the justice systems operates, my problem with the message isn’t “everyone knows, bro” or even the silly “it isn’t nuanced enough, bro”, but more along the lines of "the solution should be baked into the message ". Sure, the message could be police bad, acab, defend the police, etc, but even if we get everyone to hear and accept that message, how can they just not continue to feel helpless when no primary solution is proposed. Agreed there are plenty of solutions out there, but if the primary messaging out there is to say it’s bad, all those solutions are the priority. When everything is a priority, nothing is. I think this is the primary problem in leftist spaces that really muddies the waters as to what we want to do and why things implode under the sheer weight of numerous issues to solve.
A simple solution is to lead with the solution. Community policing is pretty easy to package well to make it fairly bipartisan. If you lead with community policing, you’re already giving an actionable step that helps people see an actual goal that solves an actual problem. The problem of police brutality is secondary in the messaging because that’s the problem we’re trying to solve. When providing the solution as the platform, the problem is apparent, and even highlighted. All the “nuance” is already practically implied. So yes, public perception is important in approaching these issues, but it’s inadequate with out a solution. You can get into the whole debate about why police as they exist is bad, or you could demonstrate the problem by showing why whatever proposed solution you have is a better option.
We used to have the police also run the ambulances, poorly. Folks stepped up and did it better, which is why we have EMT’s today.
Here’s a good introductory video about alternatives.
No, it’s not.
