Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

[WhiskeyGrinder]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html

Enough. We can’t reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police.

There is not a single era in United States history in which the police were not a force of violence against black people. Policing in the South emerged from the slave patrols in the 1700 and 1800s that caught and returned runaway slaves. In the North, the first municipal police departments in the mid-1800s helped quash labor strikes and riots against the rich. Everywhere, they have suppressed marginalized populations to protect the status quo.

So when you see a police officer pressing his knee into a black man’s neck until he dies, that’s the logical result of policing in America. When a police officer brutalizes a black person, he is doing what he sees as his job.

(snip)

I’ve been advocating the abolition of the police for years. Regardless of your view on police power — whether you want to get rid of the police or simply to make them less violent — here’s an immediate demand we can all make: Cut the number of police in half and cut their budget in half. Fewer police officers equals fewer opportunities for them to brutalize and kill people. The idea is gaining traction in Minneapolis, Dallas, Los Angeles and other cities.

[The Magistrate]

1. Welcome To Four More Years Of Trump, Sir

If this becomes perceived as the actual goal of the left and Democrats, that is what the result will be --- at least four more years....

[jimfields33]

4. Yep. I can't believe that some think this will help

If you think we have too many guns now, just wait.

[BannonsLiver]

104. Same folks who thought rebranding our party as a socialist party was a good idea

Actually winning elections is a tertiary concern to many.

[LuvNewcastle]

164. You've got that right.

Abolish police departments and each person will become his own police, judge, jury, and executioner. Anarchy cannot stand. Someone will come in to fill the power vacuum, and they will likely be worse than what we have now. If we focus on reform, however, progress can be made. It won't be everything we want but it is preferable to scrapping the current system and starting over.

[treestar]

177. Exactly.

Those who want to tear it all down and start over fail to recognize the risk that the right wing rather than the left will end up creating a tyranny. Police and courts developed and it advanced justice. Before that, it was personal, vigilante, could punish the wrong people too much or the right people too little. Today if I decide someone is a witch and want to have them burned at the stake, I will be institutionalized rather than allowed to convince enough people in the locality to burn someone. It's like people know zero history and have no way to imagine that if things are not perfect now, starting over at the beginning isn't going to work better than reform.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. Stop misgendering me.

If this becomes perceived as the actual goal of the left and Democrats, that is what the result will be --- at least four more years....

So say moderates every four years.

We're achieving serious discussions about police defunding and abolition now, even with Trump as president. There's never a bad time to talk about liberation.

[The Magistrate]

18. As You Wish, Ma'am

I will say that when someone takes a position which is spectacularly foolish, my assumption is that person is a man, women in my experience having more sense.

There is in fact no serious discussion of abolishing police going on, there is only some posturing by a few 'ultras' and hotheads who are incapable of achieving anything but alienating a great many people who might otherwise lend support to Democrats and left policies this year.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

26. Many of those who talk about abolishing the police have been working on the position for years, and

have the alternatives to back up the change. It's why the Minneapolis city council is taking the proposal seriously. It's not an overnight change. it's not a light switch. It's something that requires a fundamental restructuring of services acrosss the board. It's also why "defund the police (and move the money elsewhere)" isn't a solution, either -- abolition requires a complete rebuilding of infrastructure without replicating the systems of oppression built into not only policing, but social services, education, health care and other services.

For that reason, it's both subservient to and outside of electoral politics. It helps to have a DFL-oriented (Democratic) city council and mayor, as Minneapolis does. But it's also something that takes years of work, and as such, cannot rely on whoever controls a chamber, branch or seat. Some call it posturing, and some will allow the discomfort they feel to alienate themselves from the position. That's fine. It happens across issues, every cycle.

[The Magistrate]

39. I Support Disbanding The Minneapolis Department, Ma'am

Their election of Kroll as their union representative establishes that a clear majority of the department's officers are unfit to be police officers. I am glad to see the city council there pressing for this action. If successful, it may serve as an example of a solution to the problems of a culture of policing that has gone rotten to its core. But there will be policing of the city, by some authority, either county or state authorities, or a freshly recruited municipal force, and a good portion of the succeeding body's efforts will still be focused on law enforcement.

What you are speaking of is nothing less than a revolution. There can be no other plain meaning to 'a complete rebuilding of infrastructure without replicating the systems of oppression built into not only policing, but social services, education, health care and other services'. It is true enough that revolution is outside of electoral politics, though hardly reasonable to say revolution is subservient to electoral politics.

Electoral politics can neither deliver nor further revolution, electoral politics can only deliver incremental change. This may over time add up to changes which might strike some present day as revolutionary, but at no particular point along the course of administrations and legislatures could anyone sensibly point to something and say 'that's revolution'.

Electoral politics can, however, ensure that no progressive change can come about, by seeing to the holders of office being persons dedicated to the maintenance of 'the systems of oppression built into not only policing, but social services, education, health care and other services.' This is what occurs when rhetoric of revolution amid disorder alarms people who fear chaos as a threat to themselves. This feeling is most widespread among people who have only a little to lose, and know how precarious their position is, and how dependent it is on order. Fascist movements have a genuine appeal to working people and small holders, that many on the left frequently fail to appreciate. It is shockingly easy to mobilize those whose monetary and social positions are below par to support of reactionary politicians promising a traditional order.

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. "it's also something that takes years of work" - and that's why "abolish the police" is useless

to say now. What the advocates say (eg yourself - "a complete rebuilding of infrastructure without replicating the systems of oppression built into not only policing, but social services, education, health care and other services", or:

the nation must become good and public. The prison–industrial complex must be dissolved. Communities must rebuild labor organizing to shift capital, and the state must drastically disrupt rising wealth inequality. Congress may have to pass laws around prison labor, voting rights, gun ownership, and campaign finance, and decriminalize thousands of behaviors. Social workers and activists must work with communities to find solutions for patriarchal, homophobic, and mental health–based violence

http://bostonreview.net/law-justice/derecka-purnell-what-does-police-abolition-mean

is that there is a need for decades of remodelling the whole of society (certainly in the USA, but pretty much in any country). Then, you'll be able to "abolish the police". But making your current slogan "abolish the police" is pointless now; try "build a fair society". Since that comes first.

[The Magistrate]

120. Well Said, Sir

I doubt anyone discussing this here objects to 'building a fair society', or thinks that greater fairness in social and economic arrangements will not reduce the need for police.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

121. "Build a fair society" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

"Abolish the police" is a clear goal that means exactly what it says.

[muriel_volestrangler]

123. But we live in our current society, not some idealised one of the future

Hell, you live in the USA, and I live in the UK; we're not at the point of, say, Norway, which has a fairer society with much less incarceration, but is still nowhere near abolishing the police.

"Abolish the police" does not sound like a goal; it sounds like a policy. "Abolish the need for police" is a goal. And one that, when said, would be understood as a multi-generational goal, not what you propose to do if elected the next time.

[Tipperary]

106. Ha.

Your response made me laugh out loud seriously.

[Peacetrain]

45. Oh for the love of God.. attack the moderates again.. first of all lets us get Biden elected

and the senate and house republican and the majority of state houses... we can put the pressure on now to modify and change policing.. but completely get rid of it?? nah not going to work, and you will be giving the Trumpians exactly what they want..

Because humans are a social animal living in the largest groups they can tolerate..having a group assigned to keep order within the group will always be a part of our existence.. we can change things, but the second you go into disbanding the police we will lose

No police...then the strongest bully on the block will fill in the vacuum.. that is that the problem we have now.. what we need is community policing just to start..but forget the disbanding crap... taint gonna work

[WhiskeyGrinder]

48. "Oh for the love of God.. attack the moderates again.."

How is "so say the moderates every four years" an attack?

first of all lets us get Biden elected and the senate and house republican and the majority of state houses... we can put the pressure on now to modify and change policing..

Which is what is happening in Minneapolis.

but completely get rid of it?? nah not going to work, and you will be giving the Trumpians exactly what they want..

This discussion and movement is happening with Trump in office right now.

Because humans are a social animal living in the largest groups they can tolerate..having a group assigned to keep order within the group will always be a part of our existence.. we can change things, but the second you go into disbanding the police we will lose

Do you mean lose the presidential election? We lost in 2016 without even breathing a word about police abolition -- and we even had the popular vote!

No police...then the strongest bully on the block will fill in the vacuum..

It's true, an absence of police needs a presence of something else. But if that presence is community support, then there isn't room for a bully.

what we need is community policing just to start..

Just to start...and then? "Community policing" is still policing, and relies on criminalizing appearances and existence that the current policing system is built on.

[customerserviceguy]

16. Agreed

Most of middle America thinks of the concept of a police force as a good thing to have.

[The Magistrate]

28. And At Present, Sir, Most Of 'Middle America' Thinks The Police Need Policing

The real root of the problem is that many police see violence not as one tool among many for coping with situations they encounter, but rather view violence as a perk of their job, as something they get to do when there is opportunity, to let off steam and relieve their own feelings of anger and disgust and fear. Even police with this view differ in their ability to judge if a situation is one in which it is appropriate to 'let go' in this manner, with some managing to refrain from committing outrages, while others frequently brutalize people who are not and never were any threat to them. Persons of color, owing to cultural prejudices native to the social strata from which police are typically recruited, tend to excite both fear and contempt in many police, with the result that persons of color are frequently the object of indulgence in such 'self-medicating' violence by police. The lack of criminal consequences for such behavior greatly exacerbates the problem, because it is very easy to give way to violent feelings when it is safe to do so. People who face some actual danger in consequence of their actions tend to exhibit great control over what they do.

[Magoo48]

20. Defund, dismantle, discard, disband, or shit can.

The system doesn’t work. The name POLICE doesn’t work. The training doesn’t work. The screening doesn’t work. The philosophy doesn’t work.

Reallocate all funds to incrementally replace police forces with new forms of community protection. Something both effective and compassionate.

No more roid-ragged cops, cop torture, cop murder, car chases, robo cop protocols, choke holds, back seat saunas. The blue gang is out of control.

Defund, reallocate, reimagine, rebuild.

[maxsolomon]

24. And this is what the Op-Ed advocates.

It's almost as if people responding didn't read it...

[Magoo48]

84. I read it.

I thought I was supporting it in my own words.

[maxsolomon]

212. I wasn't criticizing you.

I was concurring with you.

[Magoo48]

214. Yes.

[misanthrope]

82. You'd be lucky if that's all it was

I think another Trump term results in the death of the Constitutional Republic as we know it. We would pass the tipping point and descend into full autocracy.

[The Magistrate]

86. I Quite Agree, Sir

It would be a sort of 'herrenvolk democracy', on lines reminiscent of old South Africa....

[Arazi]

83. Please stop defaulting to binary gender roles

[The Magistrate]

87. Focus, People, Focus

This discussion is about alienating the mass of the public by calling for the abolition of police departments. Surely you can find a discussion where the focus is on alienating great swathes of the public by crying up your own particular hobby-horse.

[SlogginThroughIt]

135. Your use if the word sir is super annoying.

[The Magistrate]

141. To Each Their Own, Sir

And do bear in mind your annoyance might just amuse me....

[Arazi]

174. Or you can stop alienating allies with archaic and insulting misgendering

[I_UndergroundPanther]

154. Thanks for mentioning that.

The binary mentality here is silly,quit the misgendering .

[Tipperary]

181. How is someone supposed to know anyone's gender online?

I have been called dude, buddy, fella, guy, on this site. I am not a male, but I could not give a shit what anyone calls me online. How are they to know? Sometimes I correct them, but most times not.

[redgreenandblue]

91. And this is exactly where we are headed.

Six weeks ago the economy was a dumpster fire and Trump's mismanagement of the Covid crisis was the dominant news story. Now, the right has been served the perfect little culture war on silver platter to mobilize their base.

I get that confederate statues need to go. I wonder whether Columbus couldn't have waited until after November....

[grantcart]

155. On the bright side the OP managed a whopping 12 recs

This OP is the greatest argument to reinstate the 8nrec feature.

[The Magistrate]

170. It Is Suggestive, Sir

If this proposal meets such a poor reception here, with an audience far more to the left than is typical in the country at large, clearly it cannot command any wide popular support.

[grantcart]

171. I am thinking that our folks have their eyes on the prize.

[Owl]

175. Yes Indeed. Arghhh!

[totodeinhere]

198. Exactly. If we do not win the November election then anything we do now will be futile.

Trump absolutely must not win reelection. That must be our focus now. All of the issues involving police violence are very important, but without an ally in the White House it will only get worse, not better.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. The rub of course is the illegal ruling known as "Heller", this unconstitutional ruling

makes it difficult to abolish policing, sort of.

I am for FIRING all police at every level in the country and rehiring them using a battery of psyche testing meant to root out bigots, racists and violent hotheads. If you pass the test you get rehired, if you dont, you dont. Hire new people.

At the same time put actual judges on the SC who dont hate our Constitution, reverse Heller and guns go into locked up militia buildings making it possible to have unarmed police, but they wont be police.

The transition would take years because you need to keep some force but we created a hell on earth with guns.

[Ohiogal]

6. I agree with you 100% Eliot.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

11. Here's the thing.

I am for FIRING all police at every level in the country and rehiring them using a battery of psyche testing meant to root out bigots, racists and violent hotheads. If you pass the test you get rehired, if you dont, you dont. Hire new people.

The system itself is bigoted, racist and violent. It looks for people who will succeed in that system. The entire system must be dismantled and rebuilt.

[Eliot Rosewater]

33. Agreed...Completely...and the BULLSHIT Heller ruling which purposely IGNORES

what the 2nd says, allows so many guns that we find ourselves here.

[Straw Man]

209. There were plenty of guns before Heller.

Actually, it's the fear of new restrictions that is the primary driver for the spread of new gun ownership.

[NickB79]

15. Upwards of 80% of Americans agree with Heller's interpretation

That being that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective one.

There's a vast gulf between advocating new gun control laws, and locking up privately owned firearms in "militia buildings"'. Only one gets you electoral wins.

[Hoyt]

35. As Tony Scalia said in Heller, one should be able to keep a PISTOL in one's home

for protection. He specifically went no further than that, saying reasonable controls are otherwise permitted.

[customerserviceguy]

19. Consider the fact

that two decades of war in Afghanistan and Iraq has produced nearly a generation of police recruits who were under attack virtually every minute of every day that they left the barracks. Their minds go back to the war that they fought, and guide their activities on American streets.

Another "dividend" of Shrub.

[Hoyt]

37. I'm for giving no preference to xmilitary for that very reason.

[sarisataka]

22. Can the Supreme Court

Make an illegal ruling, seeing as they are the ones who interpret the law?

And not really sure what Heller has to do with police. Crime has existed long before guns were invented.

[EX500rider]

178. Actually studies show there was a higher murder rate before firearms. nt

[brush]

25. Well thought out and sensible.

No society can exist without an entity which puts a check on crime. Putting the right individuals in that entity is what's critical.

[hack89]

85. Heller explicitly allows strict gun control

AWBs, registration, licensing, training and storage requirements all perfectly constitutional.

Since guns were not locked up in militia buildings before Heller, why do you think that is where they will be post-Heller?

[SMC22307]

3. Stop. This is a LOSING proposition and we can't afford a Trump second term.

How about a happy medium between no cops and murderous cops?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

17. Manslaughter cops? Assault cops?

[SMC22307]

43. Cops who show up to domestic abuse calls. Cops who secure the scene for EMTs.

Cops who run traffic for the fire department. Cops who keep staff safe in emergency departments. If you think Democrats can win on "no cops" you are truly delusional.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

46. .

Cops who show up to domestic abuse calls.

The ones who don't believe the victim, treat the two parties as equally culpable, tell the victim that the instigator just needs to cool off, tell the instigator that they totally see their side of it? The studies aren't solid (wonder why?), but the generally agreed-upon number is that 40 percent of police officers perpetrate IPV themselves.

Cops who secure the scene for EMTs.

Seems like a role that could be added to the EMT team itself, no?

Cops who run traffic for the fire department.

And this. Apprentice work, perhaps?

If you think Democrats can win on "no cops" you are truly delusional.

I don't support police abolition as a "Democrats win" issue. I'm a Democrat who supports police abolition.

[skylucy]

5. ...

[sarisataka]

7. Just to go down this rabbit hole a bit

I see an armed robbery in progress- who do I call when the police have been abolished?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

34. Cops rarely respond in time to stop an armed robbery in progress. So what does the victim

need after an armed robbery happens? Emotional/trauma support in the moment and referral for long-term care, a crisis team from their insurance company to determine what needs to be replaced, health care if they're injured, that kind of thing.

After that? It's like you want me to get started on my bullshit about abolishing the carceral state.

[sarisataka]

40. So if I understand

And take the concept to the furthest extreme, we would essentially decriminalize crime. Instead focus on the victim side of the equation?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

42. You're half right.

The crisis response focuses on the victim. But because we know the vast majority of crime is a result of people's needs not being met, the community commits to meeting those needs before crime happens. Why does someone commit armed robbery? To get cash for drugs to meet an addiction, pay a debt, buy food, steal shit to sell, what? People rarely act completely irrationally; there is some kind of self-interest behind it. When those interests are met, crime looks different.

[The Magistrate]

47. The Problem With That Line, Ma'am, Is That People Often Do Behave 'Irrationally'

A good proportion of violence is committed by people who cannot control their impulses, who enjoy feelings of rage, who imagine themselves continually slighted by the world and specific other people, and who enjoy being cruel for its own sake. It is a mistake to underrate the influence of irrationality, of psychopathy and sociopathy and other imbalanced mentalities, in human affairs. It would be nice if even most violent crime had some rational root, just like it would be nice if people actually did vote for their material best interests, but neither thing can be counted on.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

51. The thing is, most violent crime *does* have a rational root.

Personal conflicts are the biggest cause of murders. Interpersonal relationships and anger management can be taught and learned. Childhood trauma and lack of empathy are two of the largest pathways that lead to sexual assault. Both of those can be off-ramped in childhood through better parenting and schooling. Armed robbery is a crime of desperation, usually stemming from addiction or debt. All of these issues have interventions that we can provide. If we choose to.

it would be nice if people actually did vote for their material best interests,

As an aside, making assumptions about "best interests" is a mistake Democrats make all the time. People who take the trouble to vote do vote in their best interests. We just make the wrong assumption about what those interests are.

[The Magistrate]

75. Your Aside In Closing Is Sound, Ma'am

It is true that mistakes are often made in assessing what people perceive to be their best interests. A more or less standard left analysis supposes people will, or at any rate ought to, vote for their economic interests --- for a larger slice of the pie, and so for those policies that can get them that. This often leads to dismay, when people instead vote for things which bring them emotional satisfactions, for things which express tribal loyalties, or which support feelings of superiority to others, especially when their doing so actually harms their material interests, by putting into office people who will see to their wages being lowered, their work and working conditions made less secure, and leaving them more open to exploitation by various thieves in suits and ties.

The rest strikes me as well-meaning but a bit off to one side of things, and certainly off to the side of present circumstances. Even taking your terms for solid, a great many people are already present in such damaged conditions, and even if steps can be, or are taken, which will reduce the numbers of such people in future, that does not effect the present or near future. The extent to which people can be taught does not seem to me nearly so great as you suggest. I do not think the drives behind sexual assault are so easily tamed or so directly rooted in childhood trauma, it seems obvious some people are congenitally lacking in empathy, and will be so regardless of the circumstances of their upbringing, and I do not agree with your view that armed robbery is a crime of desperation in even most instances, let alone in all. Persons in the grip of addiction more often turn to property crime, or prostitution, than they do to violent endeavors. Armed robbery is a way to make a living, and a reasonably safe one for the robber, at least reckoned instance by instance. Go to the well too often, particularly in the same vicinity, then of course the risk increases. But very few instances of armed robbery are cleared by arrest, and often one arrest proves to clear a good many robberies. People who do not themselves break the law greatly overrate the efficiency of the police in enforcing it, and once a person has broken the law and gotten away with it, he or she will look on transgression with new eyes, which the law abiding cannot know.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

90. .

Even taking your terms for solid, a great many people are already present in such damaged conditions, and even if steps can be, or are taken, which will reduce the numbers of such people in future, that does not effect the present or near future.

Right, which is why abolishing the police is not a light-switch issue. But if we push for change assuming there will be no police, it makes the kind of changes necessary to build the safety nets that make police unnecessary clearer. There would definitely be a transition between what we have now and actual police abolition. The point is, we can start change now, real change that gets results, rather than setting up another commission with another reform that leads to another George Floyd and repeats the cycle.

The extent to which people can be taught does not seem to me nearly so great as you suggest. I do not think the drives behind sexual assault are so easily tamed or so directly rooted in childhood trauma, it seems obvious some people are congenitally lacking in empathy, and will be so regardless of the circumstances of their upbringing,

Science disagrees with both of your opinions here. 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.

and I do not agree with your view that armed robbery is a crime of desperation in even most instances, let alone in all. Persons in the grip of addiction more often turn to property crime, or prostitution, than they do to violent endeavors.

People who commit armed robbery don't start with it. They start with burglary and "move up" as the carceral state shunts them off into the criminal pipeline. Research, while sketchy, shows that paying for a drugs is a leading motivation of armed robbery, with only a fairly small number using it to "make a living."

People who do not themselves break the law greatly overrate the efficiency of the police in enforcing it, and once a person has broken the law and gotten away with it, he or she will look on transgression with new eyes, which the law abiding cannot know.

Yep, the system is definitely broken, no matter whether a person wants punishment, shame and pain as the outcome, or rehabilitation and redemption.

[The Magistrate]

92. We Are Going To Have To Agree To Disagree, Ma'am

It does seem our views on the very nature of human beings in a society cannot be reconciled. I think things can be improved somewhat, but nowhere near so much as you appear to believe. I suspect there is a greater overlap in our views of how things ought to be than might be concluded from our exchanges here. This is probably so even in regards to immediate policies. But I will always place primary emphasis on what is actually achievable in the present political system, and so will oppose lines I consider to be counter-productive at best in terms of both putting into office people who might make some progressive advances, and keeping out of office people who certainly will forestall any improvements, and mean to make things worse. I will, in fact, place a higher value on achieving the latter than the former, as things are already bad enough, and I have never been inclined to risk a certainty on a chance at a possibility. I will say that I have enjoyed our exchanges here, and hope that the feeling is mutual, particularly since the commencement was a bit rocky.


"It is odd the doctrine of original sin has found so little footing, as it is the one dogma of Christianity susceptible to emperical proof."

"This is the best world possible. Everything in it is a necessary evil."

[I_UndergroundPanther]

157. Sociopaths

Are a big problem,along with narcissists,authoritarians.

The dark triad people are poisonous and a big barrier to a peaceful nation.

They can't be cured because they don't see themselves as needing to change. Any compassion they'll exploit it. It's who they are.

[The Magistrate]

165. I Agree

And there is no particular reason to believe these traits correlate with abusive or neglectful upbringing. In fact, they seem to have some benefit in reproductive success and social standing. Those who are good at being these things do very well, it is only the incompetent who end up prisons or asylums.

[sarisataka]

50. I can see where that applies

To a certain amount of crime.

I believe however you are not giving enough consideration to human nature. Many of the earliest stories from our mythology include description of violent crime. A desire to harm and destroy each other has been with us since the beginning.

I believe there are many people who do crime just because they like it.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

53. Thanks for taking my posts seriously.

There are definitely people who do crime because they like it. But when it comes to people who weren't traumatized into doing so, who hurt others because they are hurting, I believe that number is smaller than we think it is at first glance. It's a rare serial killer, for example, who didn't have an ugly childhood or traumatic untreated injury.

Many of the earliest stories from our mythology include description of violent crime.

Cain and Abel is a story for a reason, absolutely. But I also believe it's a story that's a warning about potential, not destiny. We can give in to fearing and hurting each other. We can find it easy to do so. We can also choose to do better.

[sarisataka]

58. Many ideas are outside of the box and simply radical

Ideas without any actual purpose but to shock.However when you explained the evolutionary aspect, that made it worthy of giving consideration. I think the eventual solution will be an imperfect combination of ideas.

But we never think outside of the box, we will never leave the box

[WhiskeyGrinder]

60. Again, thanks for walking this out with me.

[Polybius]

62. What happens if I subdue the robber?

Who do I call then?

[Jose Garcia]

64. A social worker

[Polybius]

66. Hmm

They would have to carry handcuffs.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

68. I can't tell if this is a good-faith question or not.

So, your mom? It's a Friday night and I've been drinking. In an abolitionist model, there would be community-based systems that could either be crisis-response or after-the-fact teams to mitigate harm. So is it a conflict resolution team? A harm reduction team, because the robber was looking for pills or cash? What outcome do you want? Do you want the robber to be punished, to provide restitution, to suffer, so get help, to be sorry? These are the kinds of conversations a community has to have. Right now, we rely on suffering and punishment and tell ourselves it's somehow restorative and rehabilitative. When we know it's not.

[jmg257]

79. I like the community-based crisis response team idea. We can train them, and arm them.

Teach them how to best handle a bad crisis/response, try to minimize harm to themselves and the poor people committing...whatever we would call "doing something bad". Maybe give the team outfits to distinguish them from the other people in the community so you know who they are when they respond?..

Of course we will have to make sure there is no racism, or other bias in the members.
I can see some issues in some communities where there may be some bias towards certain other members of the community.

Hmm.

[treestar]

95. Including collective evidence

against the perp.

[cwydro]

179. When I was in college, I lived way out in the country, and cops probably saved my life or at least

prevented an assault/rape.

It was spring break, so none of my friends were in the neighboring apartments. I was there because I worked through the break.

Some weird drunk lived nearby, and we all had kept an eye on him because he made remarks to the females in the complex. I was the only one there this evening, and he came over and knocked on the door. Asked if I wanted a drink. I was a young attractive college student at the time. I said no thanks, had to work (I didn't that night).

He went away, and then a few hours later near dusk, he returned drunk and belligerent. I had a glass window in the door, and he stood there hollering to come in. I had a baseball bat by the door. I told him I was going to call the cops and thank god I did.

I kept telling him to go away, then he broke the window. I had the bat in my hand and hit his wrist when he reached in to try and open the lock. I was absolutely beyond terrified.

I was so far out of town that probably 10 minutes went by before the cops showed. They skidded in, grabbed him and threw him away from the house. He fought them, but not very successfully. This was before the days of tasers I think. No guns were drawn but he got quite a smackdown. I was happy to see it.

He went to jail. I was so frightened that I went to stay with a friend in another town for that night. Not sure how you think cops can't help. They helped me that night.

Later I found out that I had broken a bone in his hand with the baseball bat. That made me happy too.

But god knows what would have happened had the cops not responded.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

189. I'm sorry that happened to you, and that your experience is being weaponized in the discussion.

Living in a rural area myself, I'm impressed you got the response time you did. It's unusual that the guy hung around for 10 minutes, particularly with a broken hand.

[cwydro]

190. He didn't just "hang around". He was kicking the door, swearing, smashing the other panes in the

window. He was bleeding and seemed unaware of that. I think the entire time period from his approach to my door to the cops arriving was over 30 minutes, but this is almost 40 years ago now.

I also was amazed that the deputies got there that fast, but maybe time shrunk in my mind. I fended this asshole off for quite some time.

So relating my experience is "weaponizing" - wow. That's a good one.

Perhaps you've noticed: most people here do not like the idea of abolishing the police. And this is DU.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

191. .

So relating my experience is "weaponizing" - wow. That's a good one.

Not at all. Hearing people's experiences is important. But people on all sides in the debate about where policing should go -- including myself! -- use other people's experience as weapons to make their points, and it doesn't always seem fair to those who have lived those stories. I was trying to acknowledge that, and clearly did it clumsily.

Perhaps you've noticed: most people here do not like the idea of abolishing the police. And this is DU.

I have noticed. It's definitely an unpopular concept. I still think police abolition is the right thing to do.

[totodeinhere]

199. Do you agree that anyone who commits an armed robbery deserves to be apprehended and tried?

If not they may continue to commit crime and eventually a robbery will go wrong and an innocent bystander might get killed. We need police to investigate serious crimes and apprehend the perpetrators. But they must conduct their job without any racial bias.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

200. If you like my posts on police abolition, wait 'til I get started on prison abolition.

[totodeinhere]

201. I would not abolish prisons outright.

But I would abolish prisons run by private companies and I would only incarcerate the most violent criminals and those who commit egregious white color crimes such as Trump and some of his cronies. Our incarceration rate is an outrage. The fact that people of color are disproportionately incarcerated is also an outrage. But even the most progressive societies such as the Western European democratic socialist countries maintain some sort of prisons. But of course they incarcerate many less than we do.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

203. Interestingly, for-profit prisons are responsible for less than 10 percent of the incarcerated

population. Privatization isn't nearly as widespread as many think.

[EX500rider]

205. And as someone who's GF was in the Fla prison system for 3 year (drug charge)

The State run womens prison outside Ocala was a medieval hellhole while the private one in Quincy was more like a college campus with fences around it. She was so happy when she got transferred.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

210. Better that she didn't have to be incarcerated at all, IMO.

[EX500rider]

211. I agree but my point was most the people on DU who bad talk the private prisons..

...haven't actually been in one. (although my knowledge is about Fla ones, your state may differ)

[RhodeIslandOne]

148. Someone will probably say if you're getting held up, "you have too much".

I mean, I suppose we're edging towards that level of naval gazing.

[Goodheart]

8. Sheesh. NO, JUST NO.

The answer is to require that police live within the neighborhoods they serve... that they be one of the very same people they're policing.

[at140]

12. Your proposal is the Best solution

If they abolish the police, I will be forced to buy many guns and ammo. Don't want to go that road.

[SlogginThroughIt]

136. I see massive problems with cronyisme even worse than today.

If we can only have people policing their own neighborhoods there will be even more segregation and cronyism than we already have. There will be even more localized “above the law” winners and losers. Law (at least on the front third) will become much more subjective.

I do agree that is sounds right to have more police living in their neighborhoods. I am not sure it will work out the way it seems like it should.

[Happy Hoosier]

9. This is a disastrous argument

It never fails. We always manage to find a way to blunt our momentum.

[maxsolomon]

13. Who's "we"?

Looks like 1 person in the NYT Editorial Page.

A person who directly addresses the typical knee-jerk reaction I see in this thread.

"When people, especially white people, consider a world without the police, they envision a society as violent as our current one, merely without law enforcement — and they shudder. As a society, we have been so indoctrinated with the idea that we solve problems by policing and caging people that many cannot imagine anything other than prisons and the police as solutions to violence and harm."

[Happy Hoosier]

70. The collective left of center.

It doesn’t even matter if the author is correct. It’s a losing argument. Way too many people do not understand the difference between political aspiration and political possibility.

[The Magistrate]

77. Hear Hear, Sir!

"Way too many people do not understand the difference between political aspiration and political possibility."

[Sapient Donkey]

80. The complete abolishment of police doesn't seem too popular here on DU.

Everyone seems to support massive changes, but generally the majority do not seem to agree with the notion of a complete abolishment. At least from what I've seen on here. Now, if you go to certain "parts" of twitter, then you can find a lot more support for it. But I don't know how much twitter represents the actual population.

[maxsolomon]

213. Because they will not focus long enough to understand the argument?

I suppose you're right about that; knee-jerk reactions are the coin of the realm.

Short and punchy, like "You have to Dominate!" is so much easier to sell.

[Demsrule86]

14. You can't abolish the police but you can reform the police. Keep it up and Trump will win.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

21. Minnneapolis has been reforming its police for 150 years. The result is the murder of George Floyd.

[treestar]

96. Like that is the only thing they've done in 150 years

Let's abolish teachers while we are at it. 160 years of regulating them has left it possible for some teacher somewhere to have sex with an underaged student.

Let's abolish doctors. Some have even purposely killed patients.

[Demsrule86]

108. If we run on eliminating police Trump may win and we get nothing...in fact it would likely be

worse. May be that in order to fix Minneapolis, we may need to fire all of police and start over, but that is a reform move...and in the end there will be a better force...you have to be reasonable...and consider the optics and politics. If we lose, we get nothing.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

110. I don't support police abolition as an election issue.

Trump is president now and the conversation is still happening.

[The Magistrate]

125. It Can, Ma'am, Be Made An Election Issue By The Enemy

This discussion here was kicked off by a leader in the Sunday New York Times, after all, which is about as visible as things get. 'Conversation' on this subject on the left, prominently featured, will be picked up by the enemy and presented as 'what Democrats want' by a veritable hydra of christo-fascist agitators, who will pump it into the public through social media and friendly news media. Already Democratic candidates are being asked if they want to 'de-fund the police' routinely, and if this line is pressed much further at present, by July they will being asked 'do you support abolishing the police?' It would be hard to produce a line more likely to do damage to left and progressive progress during an election year, particularly during an election year in which street chaos is a predominant feature. Right now, oddly enough, that chaos is working for us. Press this line, and the enemy will make it work against us. The academic and activist left has, unfortunately, no idea at all how to present an issue in a way which may gain mass support, and indeed has a positive genius for selecting lines that are guaranteed to repel a great many voters.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

126. Republicans twist every message. I'm not interested in watering something down and doing the work

for them.

[The Magistrate]

127. You Are Handing A Man A Knife Hilt-First, Ma'am

You are doing the work for him, if pressing 'abolish the police' as a line in this election campaign.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

138. Could be. You could say I did it when I worked during a presidential election year on the gay

marriage initiative in my state, which, Republicans said, would destroy the family as we know it. I did it when working on the anti-voter-ID initiative, which Republicans said would lead to massive voter fraud and undermine democracy. Tbh I find the Very Reasonable Voices of those who vote for the same people I tend to more frustrating and disruptive than the outright opposition of those who don't.

[The Magistrate]

139. Your Annoyance, Ma'am, Is Not The Best Measure Of Whether A Course Is Sound Or Not

[Hav]

30. I'm starting to think that's the plan and the right happily picked it up

This is a slogan that could have been the disingenuous framing by Repub spindoctors for sensible and needed reform proposals that might incorporate some of the things that are supposedly meant with one interpretation of defunding the police. When you hear defund, your first thought doesn't go to just reduced funds that may get distributed to other causes. It plays right into the fears and feelings of insecurity that helped Trump. And when you then escalate that to "literally abolish", then I have to question either the motives or the ability for rational thinking.

[Demsrule86]

107. Yep, words matter.

Something has to change...we are not talking about eliminating police...in Camden they still have a police force, but it is a very different force with different expectations.

[jmg257]

23. I'm confused - abolish, or reduce by half?

Either way I’ll take reciprocal carry nationwide.

Since The Post began tracking the shootings, black people have been shot and killed by police at disproportionate rates — both in terms of overall shootings and the shootings of unarmed Americans. The number of black and unarmed people fatally shot by police has declined since 2015, but whether armed or not, black people are still shot and killed at a disproportionately higher rate than white people

.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/protests-spread-over-police-shootings-police-promised-reforms-every-year-they-still-shoot-nearly-1000-people/2020/06/08/5c204f0c-a67c-11ea-b473-04905b1af82b_story.html%3foutputType=amp

[LisaL]

27. I don't think this will get support from majority of Americans.

[GulfCoast66]

41. Not even close to a majority on DU!

Which is full of people more liberal than the average democratic voter.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

55. Majority of Americans didn't approve of MLK at the time of his death, too, so.

[treestar]

99. Is there proof of that?

The Civil Rights Act had just been passed, by elected officials.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

100. Yes.

https://theharrispoll.com/we-honor-martin-luther-king-jr-not-for-his-victories-but-for-his-vision/

At the time of his murder in 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. had become the proverbial prophet without honor in his own land. A survey by the Harris Poll found that the 39-year-old civil rights leader appeared to have lost his grip on the American imagination. Three out of 4 white respondents said they disapproved of King’s work after his turn against the war in Vietnam. More striking, roughly half of all black Americans also disapproved.

[wellst0nev0ter]

131. Selective memory is a helluva drug

[treestar]

156. Sounds like some Vietnam issues there

Mixed in. Disapproval of MLK isn't 100% congruent with support for civil rights, either.

[The Magistrate]

166. True, Ma'am

That cost bhim a good deal of support, even among black people.

[JonLP24]

29. K&R

Many great points throughout the article.

[marie999]

31. When we lived in South Florida,

the police had to live within the city limits. Also, it was the civil service board that made up and gave the tests for hiring, and promotion for sergeants and lieutenants.

[dweller]

32. fuck it

we are descending into Thunderdome ...

all i got left
✌🏼

[NurseJackie]

36. Argh.

Please. Stop.

[Tipperary]

183. This. nt

[Hoyt]

38. Good long-term goal, I suppose. Are you aware of any country that has succeeded?

[ibegurpard]

44. So let it gain traction

In minneapolis, dallas, Los angeles, and other cities and we will observe the results and move foreward from there. Calls to try to make it into a national movement at this point will simply short circuit what progress has been made on gaining public support and defeat the purpose you're working towards.
I'm not your ally in abolishing the police. Not until I've seen proven long term solutions in this country that we can model on a large scale.

[Squinch]

49. You never answered my question: you see a rape in progress, an armed robbery in progress,

a murder in progress.

What do you do?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

54. Sorry, must have missed where you said this.

Wait until I tell you how terrible cops are when it comes to rape. The rape kits that get lost, that are never processed, that are fouled and useless. The attitudes cops pull when they talk to victims -- are you sure it was really rape? Things didn't just, you know, get out of hand? Dressed like that? At this hour? And on, and on.

Most rapes happen between people who know each other, so it's pretty unlikely that I would see one in progress. Cops generally don't interrupt a rape in progress. But rape victims centers had the funding that police departments do, they could provide the support a victim needs in a way that doesn't retraumatize them, unlike what currently happens.

Armed robbery, I've answered above.

Again, with murder -- people provide these examples like we're all tripping over murders happening in the street all the time? When that's not the case. Cops don't prevent these crimes from happening, but there are things that do, and that's where the money needs to go.

[Squinch]

56. So, let me get this straight: I am watching out my window as someone is being raped.

The cops have been eliminated. I have no one to call. Because some cops have handled rapes badly in the past, we should take away the recourse anyone has to stop a rape, and simply let it happen?

If simply letting it happen is as abhorrent to you as it is to me, what do you propose I do as I watch this happening?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

59. The cops generally aren't great about interrupting a rape.

So if you call the cops, the rape, happening out on the street outside your window, will probably be over by the time they get there. So what do they do? Take your name and birth date and interrogate the traumatized victim -- if you and the victim can convince the cops that the victim was a victim.

If there aren't cops, that doesn't mean there's no one to call. You could call a crisis team trained specifically to support rape victims in the immediate aftermath of an assault, who can then refer the victim to long-term trauma care if they feel they need it. Your community might have a response team of community members who can come out and check whether whatever happening is consensual or not, if you don't feel safe yelling out your window.

[Squinch]

72. That's a pretty disgusting answer.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

73. What's disgusting about it?

[jmg257]

74. Do we do anything about catching the rapist? Who makes the "arrest", if/when, the perp is known?

"arrest" - if that would still be a thing.

[BannonsLiver]

112. The social workers will track them down

[jmg257]

115. Easy peasy. 700+ hours of police training is just fluff.

[wellst0nev0ter]

133. Can't do worse than the police now.

They only clear one out of three rape cases.

The majority of rapists don't see the courtrooms. Majority of victims don't even REPORT sexual assaults because police are jackasses (sexual misconduct is the second most reported police misconduct)

[EX500rider]

196. Actually you can do worse...solving 33% of cases is better then zero. nt

[wellst0nev0ter]

202. "At Delta Airlines, our pilots land the plane 33% of the time"

"Because at Delta, we're much better than zero"

[EX500rider]

204. Somehow I don't think abolishing the Police is going to improve the stats. nt

[wellst0nev0ter]

206. The police are the ones raping women too n/t

[EX500rider]

207. And what % of the 800,000 sworn law enforcement officers are guilty of that exactly? nt

[wellst0nev0ter]

208. All of them, who think this is in any way okay

https://gothamist.com/news/former-nypd-cops-admit-having-sex-teen-their-custody-get-5-years-probation

[treestar]

184. And there never is a shortage of low paid social workers

even will illegal aliens willing to do it.

[jmg257]

76. Curious too: Someone decides to shoot up a school/theater/mall, who answers the 911 call?

Edit: AH - I see from reading more posts that there wont be any school/mall/theater/bar shootings cause all childhood/mental/??? issues that would lead one to shoot up a place will be resolved before hand. Well - most of em. (The rest...whatever.)

Got it.

[BannonsLiver]

114. Social workers and an unarmed "community action team" will respond, of course

[jmg257]

117. A "community crisis response team". (Aka "police")

Without guns, uniforms vehicles,...or training, I guess.
That’ll go well, esp. in the south.


So safe!!!

[BannonsLiver]

119. Keep in mind

Many of those pushing this recipe to lose were the same ones who thought it would be a terrific idea to rebrand the party as a socialist party. Winning elections is a tertiary concern to many of that POV.

[treestar]

185. that stands in opposition

to the right wing response, where we get out our guns and just kill the shooter. At least the shooter only gets one shot in before he/she is summarily stopped by the good guy/girl with a gun.

Our response is just as extreme on the other side, but better because it's our side.

The number of psychiatrists, psychologists, and lower paid social workers will be so great that we won't need guns or police officers. No one will ever be hurt or commit any crime and no psych worker will be bad at their job either.

[treestar]

98. why not both?

The cops cannot prevent crime.

Under your scenario, what happens to the rapist? The cops are to investigate and figure out who that is and submit them to the law.

Anarchy is not law. And Black people will still be shot by white people, or any people, and vice versa.

[Hav]

61. Yes, that is their logic: Individual anecdotes as the excuse

to deprive everyone else of the chance for help. And I'm not sarcastic. I've seen questions ike these asked several times and the answers offer absolutely nothing. Now, try to sell exactly this exchange you just had to the electorate.

[BannonsLiver]

111. It's pie in the sky nonsense

Totally reliant on humans doing the right thing. Good luck with that. What it will do is create tens of millions of new gun owners. I will be one of them in the OPs scenario. We need that as a country like we need another 4 years of Trump.

It really is a ludicrous, child like approach to a complex problem.

[Squinch]

130. It is all those things, and we need it like we need another 4 years of Trump, but if

we keep pushing for it, we WILL get another 4 years of Trump.

[treestar]

97. Take out your 2nd amd right gun and shoot the perpetrator

dead. Oh, wait.

[Squinch]

101. No. If you're being raped or robbed or murdered you just have to grin and

bear it, apparently.

[EllieBC]

129. That sounds awful.

Be raped or robbed for “the cause”? Well that sound like a great way to keep the GOP in power forever.

[wellst0nev0ter]

132. Author of the article already answered your question

Try reading sometimes:

What about rape? The current approach hasn’t ended it. In fact most rapists never see the inside of a courtroom. Two-thirds of people who experience sexual violence never report it to anyone. Those who file police reports are often dissatisfied with the response. Additionally, police officers themselves commit sexual assault alarmingly often. A study in 2010 found that sexual misconduct was the second most frequently reported form of police misconduct. In 2015, The Buffalo News found that an officer was caught for sexual misconduct every five days.

[EllieBC]

140. That didn't really answer it.

“Not all or most rapists are arrested and prosecuted anyway!” is not a good argument for, “women just need to be a casualty of the cause”.

[wellst0nev0ter]

145. Nobody is asking women (or anyone) to be rape victims

I will not engage in this bad faith argument.

[Squinch]

149. Lol! That's exactly what you are asking! You're demanding that the

only recourse for victims of violent crime be removed. You're offering no alternative. You're just saying, "Well, they weren't that good at it anyway, so let's just not do anything."

[wellst0nev0ter]

151. Highlight where I said "let's not do anything"

I'll wait

[Squinch]

152. The part where we asked "what do you do if you are being raped?"

and you answered with a quote that gave no answer and rather essentially said cops aren't that good about rape anyway.

If you have an alternative to police to stop a rape or robbery or murder in progress, do let us know. That was the original question and so far no one has answered it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

153. Try again

And let's try to avoid non sequiturs this time.

Where did I say "let's do nothing"? I'll wait

[Squinch]

160. You can wait all you like, and you can act as if you are making a point, but

you and I both know you aren't.

You are advocating taking away the only recourse people have when faced with violent crime, and when asked for an alternative YOU are quoting non-sequiturs from the article. Quotes that don't offer an alternative at all.

And that is, as I have said before, a monstrously privileged response.

So eat your popcorn and have the last word that I am sure your soul cries out for. But you and I both know you STILL haven't answered the question, and that is because you have no answer.

So, bye.

[wellst0nev0ter]

161. Cheers!

[Squinch]

143. That is no answer whatsoever. If one is being raped, one should just

take one for the team because police sometimes don't handle rape well?

If your excerpt offers a different course of action to the one I've described, do tell what it is, because I don't see one in there.

[wellst0nev0ter]

144. Solving rapes is already a crapshoot with the police

I'm sorry. I'm done with them. Social workers might be a better alternative than the KKKeystone Kops.

[Squinch]

146. So we won't do anything about rape, or robbery, or murder at all.

Because you are done with them.

So I was right. You expect victims of violent crime to just take it for the team.

That is some monstrous privilege right there.

[treestar]

158. No form of crime is ever going to be ended

People have to start reporting it. They will not be shunned or laughed at. We have evolved as a society on that. People being dissatisfied with what the police did happens with every crime. There are always people who think they know someone else's job; any profession will get dissatisfaction from people who expect far more than is really possible.

[wellst0nev0ter]

159. Police clear less than half of violent crimes

And less than one in five property crimes.

That is pathetic, and that is with reported crimes and well-funded police departments.

I'm done with them.

[treestar]

176. Doctors don't save every life

though doing their best. Are you done with them?

There are going to be police, that's a part of civilized society. No crime would be prosecuted without them. Before there were police, there was only vigilante justice and ecclesiastical punishments, which were not exactly ideal. People were burned as witches or accused unfairly and killed. Police and courts developed to advance justice.

[wellst0nev0ter]

180. Apples and Oranges

Hospital deaths can be random tragedies, but the inability to solve crimes is usually due to simple laziness and lack of will of commitment.

Even at that, doctors are still liable for preventable death and injuries, while the police are usually not liable for literally murdering people.

Defund the police. Replace them with people who actually care about solving crimes and bringing about restorative justice.

[treestar]

182. Is that realistic?

Last edited Sun Jun 14, 2020, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

How do you prove cops are lazier than doctors. As a rule and not just assign one level of laziness to all in each profession.

Preventable deaths vs. no deaths is apples and oranges. If police solve only 50% of crimes, the others might not be possible to solve. Why assume they were and that the police just deliberately ignored them. Many murders are unsolved - ever watched Cold Case?

Police can be sued like doctors can be sued.

How do you identify people that "actually care?" And why is it not gross generalization to presume every office in uniform today doesn't?

[wellst0nev0ter]

186. Police officers are lazy, period.

Proof:

Tens of thousands of rape kits go untested across USA

This is despite police being well funded and well staffed.

>Police can be sued like doctors can be sued.

No, police are not personally liable. Successful lawsuits are paid out by taxpayers.

>How do you identify people that "actually care?"

You go to victim advocate groups first.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

52. Reductions make sense to me.

I honestly think many cops have too much time on their hands, so they fill it by creating trouble.

[Codeine]

57. This position fundamentally ignores

the inescapable fact that a significant portion of any given population is human garbage who will seek to victimize weaker individuals given a chance.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

162. I agree

The sociopaths,narcissists authoritarians are a problem. They do not change even therapy makes them worse.

If we could find and sort out dark triad personalities from the rest of us I'd be all for abolishing the police for people with empathy.

Problem is we are stuck on a planet with bad abusive people who see nothing wrong with their bad behavior and see no reason to change or stop.

[Polybius]

63. If cops are abolished, we better not dare try to pass any gun-control

Because if they are abolished, for the first time in my life I'd want a gun. Probably an AR.

[Jose Garcia]

65. Who would enforce any gun control laws if there were no police?

[Polybius]

67. And who comes to arrest suspects in crimes?

Wonder if the OP thinks jails should be abolished as well.

[Polybius]

69. I've got another one, what happens if someone is doing 90 mph in a 50?

Who pulls them over?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

71. Hee, you're onto me.

[jmg257]

81. NO crime, so no arrests, and so no jails. No laws, no lawyers, no judges. Its easy if you try.

?itemid=4596954

[Sugarcoated]

78. That's a loser

...not gonna help us win.

[Baclava]

88. Better abolish the 911 system too, no ambulance will respond to crime scene victims if it isn't safe

Idiot, sit down and STFU

[Tommy_Carcetti]

89. Abolishing public law enforcement means...

...turning public safety over to the likes of George Zimmerman.

It would turn an already very bad situation into an exponentially worse one.

It is a terrible and counterproductive idea, full stop, and that is why it will not gain any traction.

[Squinch]

173. One would have to be stunningly privileged to advocate it.

[aidbo]

93. bUt WhaT aBOut teH OptICs?!!?

[ooky]

94. Don't agree with the rhetoric but do agree we can cut the police force in half.

And, I believe the way to do this is by municipalities rebuilding it from the ground up so that the objective is to focus on policing violent crimes and eliminating any police activity that serves little more than to hassle people who aren't a threat anyone. My guess is we could probably eliminate even more than 50%.

[wellst0nev0ter]

134. "The man who assaulted me remained free to attack others"

I think that is the problem that the "abolish the police" movement is looking to address. If the police can't do better, they should be gone.

Instead of the police, here I'd advocate for a squad of specialized sex crime investigators staffed not by police veterans by by victim advocacy groups. No more untested kits being thrown out, for example.

[wellst0nev0ter]

150. Right now we have well-funded police forces

That clear only one out of three rape cases.

Public schools fail students because they are defunded.

It's time to dismantle police forces and replace them with a must more responsive and accountable system because the current structure is clearly not working.

Yesterday's shooting of Rayshard Brooks proves that the police is not going to get the message and reform. There are millions of other ways they could have resolved it (write up a citation, call an Uber) but nope. They murdered a father of three daughters and a stepson.

The presence of unarmed peace officials instead of thuggish police would have had a different outcome, I guarantee it.

[BannonsLiver]

103. A bumper sticker solution to a complex problem

Sounds a lot like what I heard from a politician who recently ran for president twice on similar bumper sticker solutions and ideas. Good luck with that though.

[madville]

105. I could see DUIs making a big comeback

With no one to arrest drunk drivers, people won’t be worried about losing their drivers licenses anymore after downing a few at the local bar.

[BannonsLiver]

116. No worries

There will be community response teams to ensure there won’t be any drunk drivers.

[madville]

118. Yeah, the city can hire substance abuse counselors to make the rounds

at the bars every night to prevent people from driving drunk.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

124. What's a drivers license? No need for one, or insurance.

All the cars will be quickly stolen and wrecked, and buses burned.

Party like it's 999 A.D.

[madville]

128. You'e right

I can just quit paying my mortgage too since there won't be any police to come forcibly evict me from the house.

[jalan48]

122. I'll put this in the rainbows and unicorns file...

[Amy-Strange]

163. I'd still want someone official to solve murders or find missing persons, but...

-

they don't necessarily have to call themselves the police.
===========

[brooklynite]

167. My MiL lives close to the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle...

Because there are no police at the local precinct, it is now taking SPD longer to respond to 911 calls.

[hamsterjill]

168. No, we mean literally to abolish the bad cops

Surely, we cannot be advocating complete lawlessness and chaos, right?

How many of us have called the police for help in our lifetimes? I recently had two neighbors feuding WITH GUNS and I was quite relieved when the police showed up.

I’m sorry, but you completely lose me when you suggest that I should be expected to live next door to two neighbors fighting WITH GUNS and have no one to call to make them stop.

The police arrived, diffused the situation and took the two agitators to jail.

There are bad cops most definitely. There are cops who shouldn’t be cops, but we would fall into anarchy without law enforcement.

[Squinch]

172. One or two here ARE advocating we go "Lord if the Flies." It is

a ridiculous idea, one which is bizarrely naive and which will certainly be used against us in the election.

On the bright side it is only one or two saying it. On the downside, they're very prolific.

[hamsterjill]

192. Yes, I'm seeing the agitators.

I'm recognizing them even with as little time as I spend on DU these days. It's unfortunate.

The advocacy of this detracts from the true message that so many peaceful protestors are trying to get across. It will most definitely be used against us in the election, AND one way or another, it will be dealt with at some point because it won't be allowed to continue indefinitely by those in authority. That's the part that scares me.

I lived through the sixties and while I saw some change, the true change and expected change that was needed was not reached because of detractors and violence. Same basic concept happened when the ERA was trying to be passed for women's rights. There are ALWAYS bad eggs trying to screw up something.

You are right in that the bright side is that there are only one or two. As prolific as they may be, I do hope that clearer heads and calmer demeanors ultimately prevail so that we see true change and justice...and a little peace.

Thanks for your response.

[Tipperary]

188. I called the police while traveling once.

I had stopped for gas and saw, to my horror, a man punching the crap out of a woman in the front seat. Children were screaming in the back seat. I remember hearing my voice shaking talking to the 911 operator. Police arrived quickly. They had the man in handcuffs in seconds. I left soon after giving a statement, and wondered forever what happened with that family. Very upsetting, but so glad for the police that day.

[hamsterjill]

193. That must've been awful.

When the neighbors were fighting and had guns drawn, I called 911 and I was hysterical. It was a fight between two teenage boys and one of the fathers escalated it to guns. Then the second father came for pay back. Utter stupidity all around.

My house has a side entrance and it is next to the side entrance where the first father lives and had taken refuge in his house. The second father didn't know which house the first father had disappeared in to, and was actually banging on my door with the butt of the gun. I feared for my life.

The 911 operator stayed on the phone with me and was able to give me the location of the police as they were getting to my house. They were there in less than four minutes. I was grateful for the response, and frankly, grateful to have survived myself and that none of the other participants were hurt.

People do STUPID things sometimes in the heat of the moment and we need someone in authority to handle those situations. As I said in my earlier post, I know there are bad cops. We need to weed those out and re-examine use of force, etc. But to advocate for doing away with the police is sheer farfetched madness in my opinion.

[Amy-Strange]

169. Don't abolish the police, just...

-

take their guns away.
========

[Hortensis]

187. Nope. I already have plans for 911 -- speed dial for pizza. Yum!

[Amy-Strange]

194. Didn't someone actually do that, or...

-

am I watching too much porn?


A pizza sounds good, though!
===========

[Hortensis]

197. :) No, we'll be the first...

[Silent3]

195. Another in a long line of stupid "This obviously hasn't worked" arguments.

This is the recipe:

1) Point out the long history of some system or institution "not working", which is probably quite true, especially if "not working" simply means that institution has fallen far short of perfection, and has been corrupted and abused -- like all human institutions.

2) Propose some alternative which almost certainly has the great the advantage of never having been tried before (at least not on a large scale), so it hasn't yet had the opportunity to acquire the history typical of existing and past human institutions.

3) Point out how much better your proposed solution will be, not based on any significant large-scale experience of said solution being tried in real life, but simply based on armchair theorizing.

4) To the extent that anything similar has been tried, and didn't work so well, just say "they didn't do it right", implying that, of course, when your proposal is enacted it will be done right this time, naturally.

5) Respond to all objections to and tough questions about your proposal not by offering solid, evidence-based responses that directly address those concerns, but by harping on the known failures of existing solutions and/or by stating, again without evidence, that whatever happens under your proposal "can't be worse".

To ironically quote Donald Trump, the argument typically comes down to "What do you have to lose?"

[The Magistrate]

215. It Is a Pattern Followed Often, Sir

Contrast the reality of one thing with the ideal of another.

You can make feudalism look like heaven by contrast with the modern day employing that method. It was a stock in trade on both sides of the Cold War.

A fellow named Fitzhugh applied it to contrast free labor at the North with slavery at the South and managed at least within his printed pages to make it seem that what free workers at the North needed most for relief of their difficulties was to be owned by benevolent masters....