General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA World Where George Floyd And Ma'Khia Bryant Would Still Be Here Is A World Without Police
https://newsone.com/4143261/george-floyd-makhia-bryant-abolition-police/A single conviction of a single cop wont change the system that produced and enabled him; in fact, it will embolden it to continue business as usual under the pretext that it can deliver justice. For every rare criminal conviction of a killer cop, thousands more Black people will be murdered, maimed, raped, criminalized and dehumanized without consequence. Since 2005 there have been 140 police arrests on murder or manslaughter charges, while cops have killed over 1000 people a year on average since at least 2014.
(snip)
Each of these prosecutions consumed tremendous amounts of resources while leaving a murderous system intact. Not one of them stopped the next killing. Yet each is offered up as an illusion that the system will somehow hold itself accountable. The state will gladly sacrifice a few officers in unique and spectacular cases to preserve the status quo while enabling policymakers to peddle the idea that justice has been done.
Policymakers are already making it clear that they no longer feel pressure to continue with the political theater of passing legislation that would have done nothing to prevent Mr. Floyds death and would pour $750 million more dollars into departments like the one that employed Chauvin to investigate police killings after the fact. They will use Chauvins conviction to argue that the system is working just as it should, and to stifle any efforts at substantive systemic change. In other words, George Floyds murder is being used to recuperate the institution that killed him in the midst of one of the greatest crises of legitimacy it has faced.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)WhiskeyGrinder
(22,304 posts)For some people, that's a fair trade. For me, it's not.
Disaffected
(4,544 posts)where is this Utopia of which you speak??
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,304 posts)Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Much better than a police-free world at the mercy of unchecked criminality.
the society would be filled with rapists and pedophiles.
Watchfoxheadexplodes
(3,496 posts)Would be stacked like cord wood.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,304 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)that saves civilization is the thin blue line?
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,304 posts)Devil Child
(2,728 posts)RegularJam
(914 posts)The author argues multiple points not in contention. Conflates societal norms and personal responsibility. Obfuscates the meaning of words.
WarGamer
(12,326 posts)WhiskeyGrinder
(22,304 posts)they need. If Ma'Khia's mother had had the support she needed instead of the state taking her kid away and killing her, the driveway confrontation is pretty unlikely.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)A world with less cops could be a world that provides the resources necessary to people so that less cops are needed. And then, in a century or two, maybe we could get to that world with "no cops" that you speak of. Meanwhile we live in a world where politics matter. Calls to abolish or defund policing right now lead to the election of more right wing Republicans who then further militarize the police with their votes. We almost lost the House of Reps in the last election in large part due to that. Had the Republicans picked off a relative handful of additional Democratic seats there would be no George Floyd act, period.
Millions of voters watch coverage of mass shootings such as the one at the FedEx facility where a cop got killed rushing in to confront the shooter and they think Democrats who call for "defunding" police are bat shit crazy. Messaging does count. Yes we should be pushing for "public safety" reforms that will lead to all of us being more safe, and some of that means redirecting some funds so that armed police are not always the first responders to non-violent situations. But the wrong use of inflammatory rhetoric and talking points only makes the situation worse
Celerity
(43,069 posts)Madness.
even your own words betray you
no matter how effective a society is, there will ALWAYS be violence and crime at some level
and your 'no copper' fantasy is thus just that, a fantasy
msongs
(67,347 posts)WhiskeyGrinder
(22,304 posts)unlikely.
Ace Rothstein
(3,140 posts)LearnedHand
(3,387 posts)a world without order and community support and protection.
Ace Rothstein
(3,140 posts)In this current, violent country? No way. There's a few generations of people whose only response to a slight or wrongdoing is violence.
Happy Hoosier
(7,210 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)RegularJam
(914 posts)I like your wording.
LearnedHand
(3,387 posts)Bored in the USA
(3 posts)Theres so many cops who got away with murders on both black and white people (mostly black though) who had horrible jurys. I dont know if they were rigged but they had to be in such cases as that guy who pulled his pants up while crawling to the officer.
sarisataka
(18,472 posts)If a jury renders a verdict we don't like we do the trial again until they get it right?
If so I have a suggestion to save time and money...
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)you don't like the verdict. A person who is found innocent in a court of law is innocent and can't be tried for the same crime again period. What we could do is try the person for civil right violations as they did in the case of KKK folks in the South...my feeling is the trials of police officers who use excessive force or kill someone should be in federal court...such a crime should be a federal crime...takes it out of the local area where the cop is friendly with the DA and many of the judges perhaps.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,249 posts)because you would know that Double Jeopardy would absolutely prevent that.
DontBelieveEastisEas
(487 posts)WhiskeyGrinder, you are the leader and you get the call.
What happens?
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,304 posts)as a dodge: It depends. If you asked in bad faith, go ahead and mock. For you or anyone else who's truly curious about abolition (I know you're there!), keep reading.
It depends on the kind of world we've built without cops. The absence of cops means there's more room and resources for the presence of something else, and what abolitionists work for is the presence of systems and communities that are designed to support and care for people. We know the vast, vast majority of crime comes from unmet needs -- if people's needs are met, they don't turn to crime. Cops rarely prevent crime, aren't great at solving violent crime, and routinely retraumatize victims of crime -- not to mention create all sorts of victims of cop violence. What would happen if we built systems that actually helped people? We could do so while actively divesting these systems of white supremacy, which is baked into the prison industrial complex (as well as social work, health care and education, for that matter).
So the answer is less about the call for an active shooter, and more about how we better prevent active shooters. We're not great about preventing those now, so clearly cops aren't the answer. So why does someone become an active shooter? That's where to start.
DontBelieveEastisEas
(487 posts)I honestly do not think I am in bad faith.
I believe any honest person would understand that you did not answer the question at all.
You have a great talking point, and like a politician you circle any question back to the talking point, hoping that it sinks in.
The thing I'm trying to show you, is that you will be disregard as a person living in a cartoon if you do not have some vision of how an emergency situation could successfully play out. You, probably hate to answer it, because it loses the idea of the COMPLETE abolishment. And you worry that then your talking point would get foggy. ( I don't think so)
However, in my opinion, discussing this idea with you is so clouded in needing you to acknowledge that there does need to be enforcers, that it is hard for me to embrace the further conversation of creating that better vision with you.
It would be better for someone to start an OP about a realistic vision, that contained all or most of what you are saying, while also mentioning that there would, of course, still be an emergency police force.
911 Call - A group of people are cutting down all of the power lines around town.
911 - Call A person just forced me out of my house and said they would be living there now.
911 Call A group is using the Highway, all day long, to hold drag races.
It looks obvious that you will need police or the military, etc to handle these things.
Perhaps everyone can have a gun and a gang like the Hatfields and McCoys to take care of it themselves?
If you do not answer, "what happens"? It may be you that is in bad faith. Just dodge and back to the Talking Point.
Since you said there would be NO POLICE, then what will you do when the call comes in?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)a group of people cutting down power lines all over town? I suspect the response of the police as they are today in cities across the US would be inadequate and increase the danger to all involved.
I've already heard the rest of your argument for decades. When I was young there was a bumper sticker that said, If you don't like the police next time you're in trouble call a hippie. It seemed like a better alternative at the time and still probably is, although hippies are harder to find now.
DontBelieveEastisEas
(487 posts)What is it that you think I am arguing for?
I am arguing for an answer to what would we do in those situations.
I suppose, until I see a better alternative, I'm arguing for at least a minimal police force.
We could have less police than we do now.
Have appropriate non-police response units.
Create less poverty.
Have better mental health support.
Better physical health care.
Decent housing/shelter and food available for the homeless.
Free college.
So, what is it that you think I am arguing FOR, that you are not for?
PS they are cutting them down for the Copper. ( they figure no one will stop them)
PSS When YOU get the 911 call, and you are the leader, what do you do?
BGBD
(3,282 posts)fair when the police are abolished and instead of patrol cars it's Toyota pickups with bed mounted M-60s and loads of guys with "RWDS" tattoos and Pinochet shirts running around instead. The Mosul model of society will be great.
Don't assume that getting rid of the police and adding some social services is going to stop crime, especially now. You best be ready to start carrying a gun and enforcing justice yourself. That's essentially how it was done in the Old West.
I'm guessing most people don't have the stomach for that and are going to be much more in favor of letting police keep dealing with all the fucked up shit in the world so they don't have to.
What do you do when a pedophile moves in next door? A kids starts shooting at the local middle school? A man murders his family? Are we going back to public hangings by lynch mobs?
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)NickB79
(19,224 posts)You're relying on an entirely pro-active approach to prevent crime and lawlessness, devoting resources to prevent people from turning to crime and violence. Policing, on the other hand, is largely a reactive approach, going after people that have already become violent and/or criminals.
It sounds like Utopia, and I'd love to believe it could work.
That said, I question whether we could ever reach such a world, given the history of violence that human societies worldwide seem to have in common.
yagotme
(2,911 posts)Hunters. Want to keep your game for your tribe? Run off or kill interlopers. Need more food? Kill off your neighbors, take theirs. Deep down, we're animals, just like in the wild. Society is what keeps us, as humans, "decent". Societal evolution has taken eons, and is still a work in progress. Older generations have to accept new norms, or die off. Seen any videos of toddlers smacking each other in the head? Well, they don't know better, haven't been taught. Some people have never really learned, or something is wrong with them chemically/internally. Some people just don't have the "I shouldn't do that" switch. Some mass murderers, for example. They know it's "wrong" to kill, they just can't help themselves, due to pleasure of it, etc.
Police are needed, at times, and if you get rid of them, you're probably going to get something much worse.
Calculating
(2,955 posts)Better than ready to buy some guns and defend yourself and your family.
Progressive Jones
(6,011 posts)Willto
(292 posts)It's hard for me to take eliminating all police as even being a serious suggestion. To genuinely believe that you could do such a thing and it would improve society is so naive it's scary. Sorry but there are some very bad people in the world. People who will do whatever they feel they can get away with doing. And without any form of law enforcement what they can get away with would become unbounded. And what recourse will honest citizens have to stop them. Who will they turn to? A social worker? No they would be forced to take the law into their own hands. Our country would dissolve into a swirling mess of emboldened criminals vs private citizens forced to defend themselves. It would become a world of violent criminals vs vigilante justice. In other words a hot violent mess. Name me one country on this earth that has abolished all police. Because I can't think of a single functional example.
Raine
(30,540 posts)because that is exactly what would happen. People will create their own citizen's police force, taking the law into their own hands. Wild West anarchy is what it would be ... no thanks!
Response to WhiskeyGrinder (Original post)
herding cats This message was self-deleted by its author.