You know why policing never changes?

[RandySF]

Because nobody is willing to do the hard work of going from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and root out these fucking contracts that LITERALLY let peple get away with murder.



Rant over.

[Karadeniz]

1. Needs to be done!

[PTWB]

2. Contracts and unions are NOT the problem.

The problem is the local departments are in bed with the local prosecutors and there are no uniform reporting standards, hiring standards and civilian oversight.

Local police and sheriffs should be disbanded and reformed at the state level, or perhaps even at the federal level.

Enough is enough. The system must change.

The problem with peaceful protests is they are easily dismissed and ignored. Cities on fire... not so easily ignored or dismissed.

Black lives matter. And as so many are demonstrating... state sanctioned murder of black men is going to get very expensive for this society.

[KentuckyWoman]

41. No no no no no

Federalizing local police? Even state... No... hell no.

It is bad enough as it is. Take away local accountability, add in a DJT and multiply the problems many fold.

I support unions but not when it protects poor training, low oversight or bad behavior that get people maimed or killed.

[Brainfodder]

3. Because the police ACTIVELY look for trouble?

[roamer65]

4. If they start trouble, it's job security for them.

That’s why I believe some the instigators are cops.

[Brainfodder]

8. Plus arrest quotas and probably some other incentives?

And worst of all: Privatized jails/prisons.... as motivation....

People are twi$ted a$$hole$!

[roamer65]

9. THIS.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. Because the system and infrastructure of the modern police force itself is oppressive and punitive.

Abolish it.

[Jedi Guy]

7. Abolish it? And replace it with... what, exactly? N/T

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. Full social, economic and political equality.

[Jedi Guy]

12. Even assuming you could wave a magic wand and make that happen...

There will still always be a need for police. No matter how utopian your system, there will always be some who refuse to play by the rules. You need law enforcement to deal with those people in some fashion.

Also, there will never be such a thing as full and perfect equality in any or all of those arenas, as nice as it might be.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

13. What do you need police for?

[Jedi Guy]

14. I just told you.

Some people in any society refuse to play by the rules. Law enforcement exists to deal with those people. Pretending otherwise is silly.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

15. People who break those rules don't do it for random reason. Most of the time, it's because their

basic needs haven't been met. And so very many of the "rules" are set up to keep people in the system once they're in the system. You're right, it's not something you can wave a wand and make happen. But a better way is possible.

[Jedi Guy]

16. True in some cases, but hardly true in all.

If someone steals food to feed their family, that's meeting a need. If they steal a bigscreen TV, that's taking a want. I don't think that most crime boils down to a basic need not being met. Some people are just assholes who have no problem taking things from others if they think they can get away with it. Some people just enjoy hurting others (see Trump, Donald John). Sadly, sometimes human beings are just really shitty for no reason at all.

And unless we get Star Trek style replicators and an infinite source of clean power, I don't foresee everyone's basic needs being met anytime soon.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

19. True, a TV is not a need. But it could be a sign of deeper needs -- especially if you're

talking about current events. A TV is easily moved and resold, quickly garnering cash without having to rob a bank or deal with people directly. It also shows a need for community. These are meet-able needs.

Trump was raised by monstrous parents who probably beat -- or at the very least scorned humiliated -- any affection or compassion out of him as a toddler. He clearly has needs that are not being met. But the police aren't solving Trump the adult problem. Are they meant to?

And unless we get Star Trek style replicators and an infinite source of clean power, I don't foresee everyone's basic needs being met anytime soon.

No reason not to work for it, though.

[Crunchy Frog]

24. Are you going to fix everyone's psychological problems?

That's quite an ambition and I wish you success.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

27. Would that I could! But the struggle goes beyond ensuring people have the psychological support

they need and includes economic, social and political equality as well. But the police are a symptom that we are not meeting these needs, and they should not be expected to do the dirty work the larger society refuses to do.

[Jedi Guy]

29. You addressed the TV scenario, but none of the others.

I was using Trump more as an illustration than anything else. Unfortunately, human beings are sometimes shitty for no reason at all, or for reasons that can't be explained by a need not being met.

Regarding basic needs, who gets to define what those are? Some are very obvious: food, water, clothing, shelter, medical care. I may consider something to be a basic need, and you may disagree. Is entertainment a basic need? If so, are all types of entertainment a basic need? Is TV a basic need? Are gaming consoles basic needs? For myself, I couldn't care less about TV, but I care very much about gaming. Is high-speed internet a basic need? If so, what speed threshold is considered unacceptably slow? Are mobile phones basic needs? If so, what models are considered acceptable? How do you define these things? Who prevails if there's a disagreement?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

34. Police don't define the needs of a community now, so I'm not sure why a world without them would

need someone else to define them?

[Jedi Guy]

36. That bit had nothing to do with police.

I was pointing out that "basic needs" vary from one person to the next. What's the objective standard? Who decides what it is?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

39. Is there an objective standard now?

I'm confused about the change of topic from police abolition to basic needs. There are some things we know: We know that if people, particularly children, don't have the food, emotional support and physical shelter they need, they can't thrive. In our model of late-stage capitalism, we know adults need to be able to provide for food, shelter and transportation to get to the job that provides for food and shelter, or they can't thrive and help build their communities.

We're doing a shitty job in building that kind of world now, even with police. If you're interested in continuing to build a world where people can develop their full potential through economic, social and political equality -- which my fellow Democrats say they do -- then I'm here for it. If you're shitposting about how you might murder someone if you don't get fiber-optic broadband, then I suppose we're done.

[Jedi Guy]

40. I asked an honest question, which you either can't or don't want to answer.

I said nothing about murdering someone if I don't have fiber. I asked who gets to decide what is or isn't a basic need? If you say X is a basic need, and I say X+1 is a basic need, which of us prevails? In the event of a disagreement, is there a basic, objective standard on when a need is or isn't met? If so, who decides what that is?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

42. We know people die without food, water, and sleep; shelter and human contact are also deeply

important. Some might argue "health care" is a need. Beyond that, people's needs vary, and they certainly change over time; but in all cases, people know when their needs aren't being met, and we have all sorts of systems -- also imperfect -- to try to meet those needs.

If you say X is a basic need, and I say X+1 is a basic need, which of us prevails?

This is where I get confused -- your language, such as "prevail" and "disagreement," suggests a conflict. And it's true -- under late-stage American capitalism, there are a lot of inherent contradictions in the messages people get about how they could be living and how they're actually living. How do you deal with feeling you have needs that aren't being met?

[Crunchy Frog]

18. So if some frat boys gang rape a young woman

the poor little dears just haven't been getting their needs met? And we don't arrest them, or press charges, or hand out prison sentences, because law enforcement is bad?

I don't want to live in your world.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

20. If cops protect us, why didn't they stop the rape?

Why did the men rape in the first place?

[Crunchy Frog]

22. I don't care. I just want them removed from society where they can't hurt anyone else.

Why don't you tell me why the men raped in the first place? You seem to have some expertise on the subject.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

26. While people are responsible for their actions, research has found several factors that can lead to

a two-fold path of sexual violence in men. Men who rape generally distrust or feel angry about women and relationships, and tend to see sex as a game to win. Early childhood experiences -- such as abuse, neglect, assault -- are accurate predictors. Lack of empathy -- which must be nurtured, and childhood is the time to do it -- is another.

Combined with other factors in a frat -- heavy peer pressure, a concentration of the toxic masculinity present almost everywhere in our culture, heavy alcohol use and perceptual biases -- well, no wonder they're such shitholes. With all that we know, why aren't there more police there?

[Crunchy Frog]

32. So we'll just redo everyone's childhood, ban frats, ban liquor,

and somehow ban toxic masculinity without a police force.

Oh, but now you're actually calling for more police.

Guess what? You win the discussion. I'm done.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

35. What? I fucking LOVE liquor! Why on earth would I ban it?

Look, I get it. It sounds like a crazy idea. But putting words in my mouth about wanting to "ban toxic masculinity" and call the police to enforce that ban got me like...

[Jedi Guy]

23. Expecting/demanding that law enforcement preemptively stop all crime is not reasonable. N/T

[Crunchy Frog]

25. Sure. Just deploy millions of therapists to fix everyone

before they do something bad. What could be simpler or more sensible?

[Jedi Guy]

30. I know, it's amazing no one's thought of it before, isn't it? N/T

[WhiskeyGrinder]

28. You're right, we certainly ask the police to do a lot more than they should.

What should they focus on?

[Jedi Guy]

33. Pretty much what they do now, but with some changes.

I'd like to see more training on deescalation and conflict mediation, so that verbal disagreements stay that way instead of escalating into hands-on brawls or worse. Do away with the training that results in a mindset where citizens are referred to as "civilians."

I'd like to see more training on how to deal with people experiencing a mental health crisis. Every department should have a crisis unit with in-depth training on how to help people in crisis.

I'd like to see things like chokeholds and headlocks barred from use.

I'd like to see more training on the force continuum so that officers don't immediately try to solve every problem with their sidearm.

I'd like to see better psychological screening to weed out the ones power-tripping on having a gun and a badge.

I worked as a police dispatcher and became friendly with a number of the officers I dealt with. I rode along with them from time to time, just to hang out and see how the other half lives. I can sympathize with a lot of their worries and concerns. It's not an easy job, and sometimes it's a deeply depressing job. It is, however, a necessary job if society is to function properly. I'd just as soon fix it rather than abolish it.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

37. What if deescelation, conflict mediation and mental health crises were dispatched to highly

trained crisis response teams of social workers, family counselors, and/or psychologists? People whose job is helping those in crisis?

I'd like to see things like chokeholds and headlocks barred from use.

Interestingly, departments that do so often go through a cycle of trying to "reform" the use of these techniques, including requiring fellow officers to intervene if they see them using excessive force. Minneapolis had just instituted that requirement...last year, IIRC.

I'd like to see more training on the force continuum so that officers don't immediately try to solve every problem with their sidearm.

Well, Chauvin certainly showed restraint along that line.

I'd like to see better psychological screening to weed out the ones power-tripping on having a gun and a badge.

Because pre-employment psychological screening is meant to test suitability for a job, and not a person's mental state, the job is going to need, at the very least, a redefinition.

I worked as a police dispatcher and became friendly with a number of the officers I dealt with. I rode along with them from time to time, just to hang out and see how the other half lives. I can sympathize with a lot of their worries and concerns. It's not an easy job, and sometimes it's a deeply depressing job. It is, however, a necessary job if society is to function properly. I'd just as soon fix it rather than abolish it.

I disagree that without it, society could not function properly. I believe it can, if the resources we put into policing would go elsewhere.

[Jedi Guy]

38. Going point by point...

1) You don't dispatch a social worker, family counselor, or psychologist to a volatile scene. The department I worked for had a crisis unit that was rolled as a follow-up and only entered once other officers had secured the scene. They weren't full-fledged officers themselves.

2) There are other control methods that are effective without carrying the risk of lethal consequences. Too much can go wrong with even a "properly applied" headlock or chokehold. Better to just take them out of the playbook.

3) Snide remark aside, pretty sure you knew what I meant. But my use of force continuum concern is spot on in what happened to George Floyd. That was an excessive use of force against a cuffed man who was no threat to the officers, the public, or himself.

4) I didn't say a thing about pre-employment screening, you did. There's no reason officers can't be required to undergo periodic psychological evaluations.

5) Then we have a fundamental disagreement. You seem to think that some wonderful utopia is possible, if only we spend the money in the right place. I believe that, human nature being what it is, law enforcement will always be required. All things being equal, I'd just as soon not try your experiment where we abolish law enforcement. I don't see it going well.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

43. To continue...

1) You don't dispatch a social worker, family counselor, or psychologist to a volatile scene. The department I worked for had a crisis unit that was rolled as a follow-up and only entered once other officers had secured the scene. They weren't full-fledged officers themselves.

If social workers, family counselors and psychologists had the training to handle volatile scenes in a model focused on long-term growth for everyone involved rather than punishment or order, I'm betting they would use high-risk force less than cops do.

2) There are other control methods that are effective without carrying the risk of lethal consequences. Too much can go wrong with even a "properly applied" headlock or chokehold. Better to just take them out of the playbook.

I say throw out the playbook, which is a tool of a dehumanizing, punishment-based system that offers little room for restitution or rehabilitation.

3) Snide remark aside, pretty sure you knew what I meant.

I am definitely an asshole online.

4) I didn't say a thing about pre-employment screening, you did. There's no reason officers can't be required to undergo periodic psychological evaluations.

So if the job changes a person in a way that they become more brutal, that sounds like a problem with the job, no?

5) Then we have a fundamental disagreement. You seem to think that some wonderful utopia is possible, if only we spend the money in the right place. I believe that, human nature being what it is, law enforcement will always be required. All things being equal, I'd just as soon not try your experiment where we abolish law enforcement. I don't see it going well.

I don't think a utopia is possible; I do think a better way is possible, and yes, money needs to be spent in different places. I'm thrilled the Minneapolis School District divested from the MPD yesterday. I like to talk about police abolition (wait until I get started on decarceration!) to see where people's attitudes toward the police are entrenched, and think about what that means for building community.

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. I think it is partially political. The two parties are not all the same.

The Dems come into power and attempt to make changes. The Republicans come into power and reverse the attempts.

voting is important and it is evident that the two parties are not the same.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

11. Minneapolis has a Democratic mayor and a Democratic city council and is represented by

Democratic reps and senators in the state house and Democratic reps in DC and two Democratic U.S. senators and has a Democratic governor with a Democratic House and Republican Senate. Now what?

(And to be exact they're DFLers, not Democrats.)

[Evergreen Emerald]

17. Well I did say partially based on who is in power.

The Dems are more open to change. Now we fight for specific change.

[pecosbob]

21. No-fault mandatory retirement from police employment after any incident that takes life

aside from any legal punishment determined necessary. Permanent ban on employment as a LEO anywhere in the nation.

[aikoaiko]

31. And a lot of people don't mind bad cops if we think...

...they are protecting us from something worse.