From an outsider, to me part of the issue seems related to everyone having the right to bear arms and thereby the escalation in police response to elevated potential threats.
Hmm... I disagree that the status quo isn't working. Again, people need to check how much violent crime has declined from its highs in the 80s and 90s. The idea that our criminal justice system is a complete failure falls apart with even a cursory look at the overall crime numbers over time. That doesn't preclude reform. But it can be true that the police have been both 1. racially biased and 2. somewhat effective at reducing crime rates.
Edit to add: Also disagree that the police are purely reactionary. Again, the simple example of traffic violations. Yes the work of police enforcing traffic laws is reactionary. But their presence is unarguably preventative. A similar dynamic exists in other police work. I think some folks are sinking into a black & white thinking on this issue, which, frankly is often the province of extreme anti-government conservatives and libertarians.
Then I am sorry to say that you are only focusing on one minor thing that helped bring violent crimes down. Science (such as forensics) have greatly improved allowing those that might have been repeat offenders be caught sooner. Social programs such as Woman’s shelters also helped with violent crime rate deteriorating as they helped move victims away from their predators. Those are two off the top of my head, but if I had time to research it properly I would probably be able to find more direct causes than just having police, because that has been a constant throughout the history of the United States.
You know what else works for traffic violations as a preventive measure? Traffic cameras, stationary radar, roundabouts, speed bumps, drive programs and public transportation are much more preventive to traffic accidents than police. Not saying police don’t have a role on the road, but those that are really don’t need to have holstered weapon for doing that particular job.
I'm not only focusing on one thing, I am focusing on the thing that related to the discussion at hand. I have to say I don't appreciate people jumping to the ungenerous conclusion -- based on nothing I said -- that I am attributing the entirety of the drop in crime to good policing.
But I also do not think you can claim that the police in the USA are an abject failure all around and need to be completely reassembled without grappling with these important empirical measures of the problems they are created to address.
Moreover, I think your own post is making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions about the facts here. How do you know that policing is only "one minor thing"? I'd even add that the usage of forensic science cannot be entirely disentangled from policing quality as well.
If people are going to call for extreme measures, the burden of proof really rests upon them to prove their case. Every country in the world has police, most of them not unlike how police are in America. Haiti, a country founded by slaves has a police force. Spanish Latin American countries, which all abolished slavery at their independence also have police forces. These places also have problems with police brutality, corruption and impunity.
The example of major health care reform can serve as an instructive example. People calling for an overhaul of the US health system cite the examples of Canada, the UK, France, Germany, etc, pointing out the improved health outcomes, the lower health costs, the enormous bankruptcy problem. I find it troubling that people calling for a similar radical reform on police cannot muster this same kind of reality-based persuasion -- nor, it seems, do they even seem to feel obligated to do so. Instead, what I'm seeing is a kind of vague, doctrinaire form of argumentation, that I have to say, resembles what anti-government conservatives say. Arguments about the shortcomings in Canada's health care system are not sufficient arguments about abolishing it, are they?
And yet it seems folks are happy to argue on behalf of un-tested, empirically baseless suggestions for a radical restructuring of a key part of society via mere assertion.
When 'everyone has arms' is the norm, then police are seeing everyone as an armed threat. When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I do think this is a crucial point that gets missed in the debate. I'm pessimistic about gun laws changing, but it seems to me strongly connected that in a country with a very high crime violent crime rate relative to other high-income countries, that it would also have issues with higher rates of officer-involved killings. And I think that violent crime rate can be explained by the other outlier data point of the US, gun ownership.
And yet it seems folks are happy to argue on behalf of un-tested, empirically baseless suggestions for a radical restructuring of a key part of society via mere assertion.
I think it sounds radical because you're discussing it in vague terms. "Big changes are too big" is hard to argue against, and is not as meaningful of an argument, because it's not clear what specifically is too radical of a reform in your opinion.
Even the "abolish the police" policy--specifically, the one endorsed by folks who mean that phrase literally rather than as a convenient slogan--breaks down into more complicated and workable parts. Even they're not arguing that we should live in a world with no law enforcement.
That leaves the question of what we view as too "radical." These are the more-specific reforms I've heard people suggest, plus one I haven't heard but would suggest myself (number 4):
1. Fewer police officers should carry weapons, non-lethal weapons should be standard, and higher-end military equipment should not be in police hands.
2. Police officers need more training to handle potentially dangerous situations.
3. Officers should be trained to retreat and call for backup when they feel in danger rather than resorting to using weapons.
4. Other authorities should handle non-dangerous situations (e.g., a social worker doing a home visit).
5. Officers need mandatory body cameras to better document police conduct, and disabling or turning off those cameras should be grounds for dismissal and an independent investigation.
6. We should have an independent oversight group with the power to punish officers who break the law when their buddies try to cover for them (we can't trust the police to regulate themselves).
7. Abolish departments and have a new organization govern police officers instead. Again, this is replacing the leadership; not firing the rank and file.
8. Reduce police budgets.
9. Provide more funding for preventive services (e.g., hire more social workers to help at-risk groups).
Personally, I can get behind all of them except for number 8. A police service with less physical power to hurt people (1), less freedom to get away with abuse of power (5, 6, and 7), and more training to handle situations safely and responsibly (2 and 3) is going to be better at policing and less likely to hurt the people they're supposed to be protecting, especially if other folks are supporting them (9) or taking on some of their duties (4).
And yet it seems folks are happy to argue on behalf of un-tested, empirically baseless suggestions for a radical restructuring of a key part of society via mere assertion.
I think it sounds radical because you're discussing it in vague terms. "Big changes are too big" is hard to argue against, and is not as meaningful of an argument, because it's not clear what specifically is too radical of a reform in your opinion.
Even the "abolish the police" policy--specifically, the one endorsed by folks who mean that phrase literally rather than as a convenient slogan--breaks down into more complicated and workable parts. Even they're not arguing that we should live in a world with no law enforcement.
That leaves the question of what we view as too "radical." These are the more-specific reforms I've heard people suggest, plus one I haven't heard but would suggest myself (number 4):
1. Fewer police officers should carry weapons, non-lethal weapons should be standard, and higher-end military equipment should not be in police hands.
2. Police officers need more training to handle potentially dangerous situations.
3. Officers should be trained to retreat and call for backup when they feel in danger rather than resorting to using weapons.
4. Other authorities should handle non-dangerous situations (e.g., a social worker doing a home visit).
5. Officers need mandatory body cameras to better document police conduct, and disabling or turning off those cameras should be grounds for dismissal and an independent investigation.
6. We should have an independent oversight group with the power to punish officers who break the law when their buddies try to cover for them (we can't trust the police to regulate themselves).
7. Abolish departments and have a new organization govern police officers instead. Again, this is replacing the leadership; not firing the rank and file.
8. Reduce police budgets.
9. Provide more funding for preventive services (e.g., hire more social workers to help at-risk groups).
Personally, I can get behind all of them except for number 8. A police service with less physical power to hurt people (1), less freedom to get away with abuse of power (5, 6, and 7), and more training to handle situations safely and responsibly (2 and 3) is going to be better at policing and less likely to hurt the people they're supposed to be protecting, especially if other folks are supporting them (9) or taking on some of their duties (4).
I'm only discussing it in vague terms because no one has offered specifics in their reform proposals. What I've heard up until now from the posts on this forum is 1. complete abolition from one person. 2. someone else arguing for "root and branch" tearing down and rebuilding of the police. Neither of those are specific. Again, the onus is not on the skeptic to be specific. When Balrog said he was skeptical about polling, and I asserted my confidence, I made my argument citing specific points of data. When I argued on behalf of universal health care in the US on here, months ago, I cited specific, real-world examples, and some aggregate data points as benchmarks to at least attempt to persuade that something was superior.
Let's toss out the word radical for a second, due to its connotations. Nobody here calling for deep overhaul has come close to citing realworld examples or aggregate data to make their case. And I'm going to repeat, nobody here calling for big change seems to even feel obligated to make this style of persuasive case. I think that last thing is a huge problem. And I think it's reflective of a larger problem in society, where this argument without good epistemological grounding seems to be gaining traction.
FWIW, I'm glad elected Democrats at the national level and their nominee seem to be much more restrained in their proposals.
We are basically back to where we were two months ago with COVID-19. We utterly wasted everything we did as a society during April and May. Now 3 days in a row of 30,000+ cases, with no end in sight, and no indication the Governors of Arizona, Texas and Florida are going to do a single thing to mitigate it. The death count still isn't as high as it was then (both because it may be a lagging indicator, or younger people are catching the disease at this moment) but it's still high, and certain to go higher given these recent numbers.
I recall about a month back when the National Review published an article called "Where does Ron DeSantis go for his apology". I don't know. Maybe he should ask some of the bodies in the Palm Beach County morgue for one. I can't stress enough how much us "alarmists" were correct about this thing from jump street, and how those who were invested in it not being as bad as it looked took any scintilla of news they could to push for a massive reopening of normal life WELL before even this Administrations own guidelines (which were pretty nominal) said to do so.
This is, above all, the fault of collective American stupidity and arrogance. But I stress again, that there is currently only one side of our political divide that is catering to it. And I'm now fairly convinced it's going to cost them all levers of power up for grabs in November. But at at the cost of a quarter million American lives. And the sad thing is, they won't have their economy either. What an absolute disgrace this has all been.
And yet it seems folks are happy to argue on behalf of un-tested, empirically baseless suggestions for a radical restructuring of a key part of society via mere assertion.
I think it sounds radical because you're discussing it in vague terms. "Big changes are too big" is hard to argue against, and is not as meaningful of an argument, because it's not clear what specifically is too radical of a reform in your opinion.
Even the "abolish the police" policy--specifically, the one endorsed by folks who mean that phrase literally rather than as a convenient slogan--breaks down into more complicated and workable parts. Even they're not arguing that we should live in a world with no law enforcement.
That leaves the question of what we view as too "radical." These are the more-specific reforms I've heard people suggest, plus one I haven't heard but would suggest myself (number 4):
1. Fewer police officers should carry weapons, non-lethal weapons should be standard, and higher-end military equipment should not be in police hands.
2. Police officers need more training to handle potentially dangerous situations.
3. Officers should be trained to retreat and call for backup when they feel in danger rather than resorting to using weapons.
4. Other authorities should handle non-dangerous situations (e.g., a social worker doing a home visit).
5. Officers need mandatory body cameras to better document police conduct, and disabling or turning off those cameras should be grounds for dismissal and an independent investigation.
6. We should have an independent oversight group with the power to punish officers who break the law when their buddies try to cover for them (we can't trust the police to regulate themselves).
7. Abolish departments and have a new organization govern police officers instead. Again, this is replacing the leadership; not firing the rank and file.
8. Reduce police budgets.
9. Provide more funding for preventive services (e.g., hire more social workers to help at-risk groups).
Personally, I can get behind all of them except for number 8. A police service with less physical power to hurt people (1), less freedom to get away with abuse of power (5, 6, and 7), and more training to handle situations safely and responsibly (2 and 3) is going to be better at policing and less likely to hurt the people they're supposed to be protecting, especially if other folks are supporting them (9) or taking on some of their duties (4).
I'm only discussing it in vague terms because no one has offered specifics in their reform proposals. What I've heard up until now from the posts on this forum is 1. complete abolition from one person. 2. someone else arguing for "root and branch" tearing down and rebuilding of the police. Neither of those are specific. Again, the onus is not on the skeptic to be specific. When Balrog said he was skeptical about polling, and I asserted my confidence, I made my argument citing specific points of data. When I argued on behalf of universal health care in the US on here, months ago, I cited specific, real-world examples, and some aggregate data points as benchmarks to at least attempt to persuade that something was superior.
Let's toss out the word radical for a second, due to its connotations. Nobody here calling for deep overhaul has come close to citing realworld examples or aggregate data to make their case. And I'm going to repeat, nobody here calling for big change seems to even feel obligated to make this style of persuasive case. I think that last thing is a huge problem. And I think it's reflective of a larger problem in society, where this argument without good epistemological grounding seems to be gaining traction.
FWIW, I'm glad elected Democrats at the national level and their nominee seem to be much more restrained in their proposals.
All cops must reapply for their jobs. We can't do it at once, it would have to take place in waves. No one is allowed on the force without undergoing an extensive psychological profile to prove they are mentally fit to handle the job without flying off the handle. Require all officers to live within a certain square mile radius of the places they are policing. End qualified immunity (which no other occupation in this country enjoys) and require all brutality and wrongful death settlements to be paid out of the pension fund of the officers collectively rather than the city or municipality.
I'm only discussing it in vague terms because no one has offered specifics in their reform proposals. What I've heard up until now from the posts on this forum is 1. complete abolition from one person. 2. someone else arguing for "root and branch" tearing down and rebuilding of the police. Neither of those are specific. Again, the onus is not on the skeptic to be specific. When Balrog said he was skeptical about polling, and I asserted my confidence, I made my argument citing specific points of data. When I argued on behalf of universal health care in the US on here, months ago, I cited specific, real-world examples, and some aggregate data points as benchmarks to at least attempt to persuade that something was superior.
Let's toss out the word radical for a second, due to its connotations. Nobody here calling for deep overhaul has come close to citing realworld examples or aggregate data to make their case. And I'm going to repeat, nobody here calling for big change seems to even feel obligated to make this style of persuasive case. I think that last thing is a huge problem. And I think it's reflective of a larger problem in society, where this argument without good epistemological grounding seems to be gaining traction.
To be honest - I think it's a little unfair to hold and expect this thread to maintain that level of detail in the first place. I dont have any concrete proposals in mind, and so am not offering any. That doesnt mean that I do not believe we need to take steps in order to reform the police.
If I am polled by "__________" agency, their questions are probably going to be generic, looking to see if I am currently satisfied by the situation or not. They're not too likely to really dig into a 15 step program to rebuild the police until one has significant traction. The healthcare debate is a great proxy for this:
I'm fine with a poster coming in here and espousing the view that the American healthcare system isnt working. I do not expect that person to necessarily to know enough to be certain the answer is Medical for All vs Medical for all who want it, versus the ACA.
Since this conversation seems to be going away from the topic itself and rather to the manner in which it is being debated, I'll probably not speak on it further.
In other news - Trump really does believe that cases are only going up because we're testing more (Testing is pretty flat, the percentage of infections is going up). So much so that he's actually going to pull federal funding for some COVID 19 community testing centers in some states - Including Texas, which is one of those places that is now being looked at as a developing COVID 19 crisis.
They claim it is to transition to a better and more effective testing option, but I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense given the emergency is already happening there - and Trump is openly advocating for less testing.
Trump has been saying out loud from the opening days of this back in late February what his true thoughts are on testing. He doesn't want to do it because he looks at it as a scorecard of his success, and the lower the number, the better he assumes he is doing. First of all, we are now at 2.5 million cases and 125,000 deaths. So that cat is out of the bag. Whatever opportunity there was to keep the numbers low waved bye bye about 100 days ago.
Every epidemiologist in the world has been saying from the beginning "test, test, test, test, test, and when you're done testing, test some more". At this point their strategy is to literally just pretend it's not happening. That's what they're doing. They believe they can just will it away by ignoring it hard enough. Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis believe the same thing. There have been plenty of mistakes by liberal governors, no one had a playbook for this, but they sure as shit aren't PRETENDING what is happening isn't actually real. We had almost 40,000 cases today. That is far and away the most I have seen in a one day count. This is LONG past the time when New York and New Jersey was the epicenter of the outbreak. You can't blame this on a densely populated urban center anymore. We didn't just have China and Italy to learn from, we had states in our own fucking country. And we STILL can't get the message.
I think it sounds radical because you're discussing it in vague terms. "Big changes are too big" is hard to argue against, and is not as meaningful of an argument, because it's not clear what specifically is too radical of a reform in your opinion.
Even the "abolish the police" policy--specifically, the one endorsed by folks who mean that phrase literally rather than as a convenient slogan--breaks down into more complicated and workable parts. Even they're not arguing that we should live in a world with no law enforcement.
That leaves the question of what we view as too "radical." These are the more-specific reforms I've heard people suggest, plus one I haven't heard but would suggest myself (number 4):
1. Fewer police officers should carry weapons, non-lethal weapons should be standard, and higher-end military equipment should not be in police hands.
2. Police officers need more training to handle potentially dangerous situations.
3. Officers should be trained to retreat and call for backup when they feel in danger rather than resorting to using weapons.
4. Other authorities should handle non-dangerous situations (e.g., a social worker doing a home visit).
5. Officers need mandatory body cameras to better document police conduct, and disabling or turning off those cameras should be grounds for dismissal and an independent investigation.
6. We should have an independent oversight group with the power to punish officers who break the law when their buddies try to cover for them (we can't trust the police to regulate themselves).
7. Abolish departments and have a new organization govern police officers instead. Again, this is replacing the leadership; not firing the rank and file.
8. Reduce police budgets.
9. Provide more funding for preventive services (e.g., hire more social workers to help at-risk groups).
Personally, I can get behind all of them except for number 8. A police service with less physical power to hurt people (1), less freedom to get away with abuse of power (5, 6, and 7), and more training to handle situations safely and responsibly (2 and 3) is going to be better at policing and less likely to hurt the people they're supposed to be protecting, especially if other folks are supporting them (9) or taking on some of their duties (4).
The problem with the police is that the entire institution at this point is built on a foundation of lawless brutality and unquestionable authority, and that needs to disappear. The actual police officers? They've been trained and work in that environment, and can't really be trusted to do any sort of enforcement in a way that's safe for citizens.
I linked resources discussing police abolition, and I think that DinoDin's dismissal is not particularly informed about what police abolition is, so we get alarmist rejections focusing on the false notion that no police would mean a violent lawless society even while it seems extremely likely the police are lynching Black men all over the US. Somehow the killing and other brutality that happens now is fine, I guess? And preventing it is bad? And the decades of activism and scholarship around police and prison abolition just doesn't exist?
I don't worship or have any respect for the police as an institution. We need to work out something better that doesn't murder people and doesn't use fake non-lethal weapons (tear gas, tazers, "rubber" bullets, all of which can kill and have, as well as caused permanent harm to people).
The second amendment isn't why police are like this. I linked to a story about one of the people who deliberately trains police to be "god's warriors" and convinces them (falsely) that being a police officer is far more dangerous than it actually is. I don't mean there's no danger. I mean that dying in the line of duty is a lot more likely for a garbage collector than a police officer in the US.
It's strange that the police are essentially doing whatever they want at this point, and when directed to do otherwise (such as in Minneapolis) simply ignore that direction and do it anyway. The "it" being using chemical weapons on protesters, shooting protesters directly with "rubber" bullets that were designed to be fired at the ground to ricochet up, not that this is much of an improvement. For an institution billed as law enforcement, police are actually pretty lawless right now.
Trump has been saying out loud from the opening days of this back in late February what his true thoughts are on testing. He doesn't want to do it because he looks at it as a scorecard of his success, and the lower the number, the better he assumes he is doing. First of all, we are now at 2.5 million cases and 125,000 deaths. So that cat is out of the bag. Whatever opportunity there was to keep the numbers low waved bye bye about 100 days ago.
Every epidemiologist in the world has been saying from the beginning "test, test, test, test, test, and when you're done testing, test some more". At this point their strategy is to literally just pretend it's not happening. That's what they're doing. They believe they can just will it away by ignoring it hard enough. Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis believe the same thing. There have been plenty of mistakes by liberal governors, no one had a playbook for this, but they sure as shit aren't PRETENDING what is happening isn't actually real. We had almost 40,000 cases today. That is far and away the most I have seen in a one day count. This is LONG past the time when New York and New Jersey was the epicenter of the outbreak. You can't blame this on a densely populated urban center anymore. We didn't just have China and Italy to learn from, we had states in our own fucking country. And we STILL can't get the message.
Quit counting the illegals, then we don't need the wall because the numbers will go way down, believe me.
This is LONG past the time when New York and New Jersey was the epicenter of the outbreak. You can't blame this on a densely populated urban center anymore. We didn't just have China and Italy to learn from, we had states in our own fucking country. And we STILL can't get the message.
And yet it seems folks are happy to argue on behalf of un-tested, empirically baseless suggestions for a radical restructuring of a key part of society via mere assertion.
I think it sounds radical because you're discussing it in vague terms. "Big changes are too big" is hard to argue against, and is not as meaningful of an argument, because it's not clear what specifically is too radical of a reform in your opinion.
Even the "abolish the police" policy--specifically, the one endorsed by folks who mean that phrase literally rather than as a convenient slogan--breaks down into more complicated and workable parts. Even they're not arguing that we should live in a world with no law enforcement.
That leaves the question of what we view as too "radical." These are the more-specific reforms I've heard people suggest, plus one I haven't heard but would suggest myself (number 4):
1. Fewer police officers should carry weapons, non-lethal weapons should be standard, and higher-end military equipment should not be in police hands.
2. Police officers need more training to handle potentially dangerous situations.
3. Officers should be trained to retreat and call for backup when they feel in danger rather than resorting to using weapons.
4. Other authorities should handle non-dangerous situations (e.g., a social worker doing a home visit).
5. Officers need mandatory body cameras to better document police conduct, and disabling or turning off those cameras should be grounds for dismissal and an independent investigation.
6. We should have an independent oversight group with the power to punish officers who break the law when their buddies try to cover for them (we can't trust the police to regulate themselves).
7. Abolish departments and have a new organization govern police officers instead. Again, this is replacing the leadership; not firing the rank and file.
8. Reduce police budgets.
9. Provide more funding for preventive services (e.g., hire more social workers to help at-risk groups).
Personally, I can get behind all of them except for number 8. A police service with less physical power to hurt people (1), less freedom to get away with abuse of power (5, 6, and 7), and more training to handle situations safely and responsibly (2 and 3) is going to be better at policing and less likely to hurt the people they're supposed to be protecting, especially if other folks are supporting them (9) or taking on some of their duties (4).
I'm only discussing it in vague terms because no one has offered specifics in their reform proposals. What I've heard up until now from the posts on this forum is 1. complete abolition from one person. 2. someone else arguing for "root and branch" tearing down and rebuilding of the police. Neither of those are specific. Again, the onus is not on the skeptic to be specific. When Balrog said he was skeptical about polling, and I asserted my confidence, I made my argument citing specific points of data. When I argued on behalf of universal health care in the US on here, months ago, I cited specific, real-world examples, and some aggregate data points as benchmarks to at least attempt to persuade that something was superior.
Let's toss out the word radical for a second, due to its connotations. Nobody here calling for deep overhaul has come close to citing realworld examples or aggregate data to make their case. And I'm going to repeat, nobody here calling for big change seems to even feel obligated to make this style of persuasive case. I think that last thing is a huge problem. And I think it's reflective of a larger problem in society, where this argument without good epistemological grounding seems to be gaining traction.
FWIW, I'm glad elected Democrats at the national level and their nominee seem to be much more restrained in their proposals.
Well we are discussing in vague terms because putting in the research to change one person's opinion on the internet is a waste of time. We're also not in the position to implement any changes brought forth. It isn't our fault that the bar you personally set for yourself to allow new ideas to flourish in your mind is too high.
But you really want real world examples: Here you go, using @semiticgod's 'vague' list:
1. Fewer police officers should carry weapons, non-lethal weapons should be standard, and higher-end military equipment should not be in police hands.
US has this:
Where officers in Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and Norway do not even carry a side arm. Granted, gun culture is different in those countries, but the US police do not need tanks. The perception of threat also needs to be eliminated. A vast majority of people are not going to gun down a cop because they were pulled over for speeding or running a red light. A fine is less intrusive than a murder charge especially with the use of Dashcams (being able to record licence plate, make, model and colour of car) and Bodycam (we'll get to those) to record the incident unfolding capturing the person in action. It does happen as this New York Post video shows but so do tragedies such as Philando Castile.
2. Police officers need more training to handle potentially dangerous situations.
3. Officers should be trained to retreat and call for backup when they feel in danger rather than resorting to using weapons.
I am going to add a word and say "proper training." David Grossman and his Killology training should be replaced de-escalation training. There are zero studies to determine if de-escalation tactics work in policing situations because, surprisingly, most police to not get this training as this article highlights and this study concluded.
We identified 64 de‐escalation training evaluations conducted over a 40‐year period, primarily in the fields of nursing and psychiatry. Policy Implications Although assessment outcomes reveal few adverse consequences and provide some confidence that de‐escalation trainings lead to slight‐to‐moderate individual and organizational improvements, conclusions concerning the effectiveness of de‐escalation training are limited by the questionable quality of almost all evaluation research designs. As such, important questions regarding the impact of de‐escalation training for police remain. Given the critical impact that de‐escalation training could have on officers and the public they serve, we conclude with a direct call to academics, practitioners, and funders across the field of policing to prioritize as soon as possible the testing of de‐escalation and other police use‐of‐force policies, tactics, and training.
4. Other authorities should handle non-dangerous situations (e.g., a social worker doing a home visit).
I don't think I can touch this one. But a hybrid of one police officer and one social worker doing home visits should help with the concern of violence happening towards that social worker going alone.
5. Officers need mandatory body cameras to better document police conduct, and disabling or turning off those cameras should be grounds for dismissal and an independent investigation.
Studies have been mixed on Body Cameras as these two articles 1 & 2 show. However, body cameras provide one of the two things needed in combating police misconduct: Transparency. The other is Accountability, which brings us to to:
6. We should have an independent oversight group with the power to punish officers who break the law when their buddies try to cover for them (we can't trust the police to regulate themselves).
I've mentioned this numerous times and pointed to Ontario's Special Investigation Unit and it's role in determining if police conduct was excessive.
"The SIU is a civilian law enforcement agency which investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit is independent of the police and is at arm’s length to the Ministry of the Attorney General.
The Director of the SIU is empowered under the Police Services Act with causing criminal charges to be laid against police officers where warranted on the basis of the evidence gathered during an investigation.
Since its inception in 1990, the SIU’s mission has been to nurture public confidence in policing by ensuring that the conduct of police officers, in cases which fall under the SIU jurisdiction, is subject to rigorous and independent investigations. This is reflected in the Unit’s motto: Independent Investigations - Community Confidence."
This unit eliminates the conflict of interest that a police have in investigating their own or even with a state attorney who needs to work with the police on a daily basis. The SUI isn't perfect, nothing is, but it does help.
7. Abolish departments and have a new organization govern police officers instead. Again, this is replacing the leadership; not firing the rank and file.
Case study would be Camden, New Jersey. which have been mentioned before in this thread. IMO, it is more of an union having too much power problem than an actual leadership problem and every community if different - it's why speaking in vague terms in necessary when having these types of conversations.
8. Reduce police budgets.
9. Provide more funding for preventive services (e.g., hire more social workers to help at-risk groups).
So, as I just mentioned, every community is different, but I am going to attempt to highlight two. Ottawa, Canada and Jacksonville, Florida and the differences in police budgets.
Ottawa spends $319.2 million Canadian ($233 million US) on policing where Jacksonville spends $358.5 million even though their population is similar 934,243 in Ottawa, 926,371 in Jacksonville) and their Cost of Living is similar as well (Jacksonville/ Ottawa)
Granted, communities are different, but does Jacksonville really need to spend +$100 million more in policing than in Ottawa? Could that $100 million be reinvested in other things such as Affordable Housing, or Drug, Alcohol or Mental Health counselling?
But as Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results." Obviously their policing methods are not working in Jacksonville as their crime rate is higher than 85% of the rest of American cities and comparing it to Ottawa there is a drastic difference that it is safe to say the status quo in Jacksonville isn't working and they need to figure out news ways of lowering their crime rate.
As I stated previously, police are mainly reactionary. They do not solve crime problems, they only respond to them. Investment needs to be made more into crime prevention measures than reactionary. I personally can not do that for Jacksonville. I do not have the training or the knowledge to highlight where their social structure is deteriorated.
As I stated previously, police are mainly reactionary. They do not solve crime problems, they only respond to them.
Not only that but there are far too many cases where they selectively enforce things. Saw a video the other day of a offduty cop involved with a fender bender with a regular dude and another cop showed up and the off duty cop started ordering around the poor dude and saying he was going to kill him or whatever and the female cop on duty did nothing other than say "just listen to him".
There's other times during the protests that cops have ignored violence against protesters from third parties. Or turned a blind eye on counter protesters.
This stuff happens all the time, selective enforcement and no accountability even up to murdering innocents.
This case should be as on people's minds as George Floyd. I just heard his pleas to the cops in the audio on a radio show, and listened to the family lawyer. This kid did nothing wrong. He was an introverted vegetarian. The cops are absolutey full of shit:
He was, in fact, as close to an "angel" as a human being could be. It didn't matter. What a shock. This makes my blood boil, and if you look into it, yours will as well.
Another example of a pointless piss your pants 911 call that resulted in a black person simply engaging in the mundane activity of buying a beverage at a convenience store and listening to music with headphones resulting in death. This might be the worst one I've ever seen.
US has this:
Where officers in Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and Norway do not even carry a side arm. Granted, gun culture is different in those countries, but the US police do not need tanks. The perception of threat also needs to be eliminated. A vast majority of people are not going to gun down a cop because they were pulled over for speeding or running a red light. A fine is less intrusive than a murder charge especially with the use of Dashcams (being able to record licence plate, make, model and colour of car) and Bodycam (we'll get to those) to record the incident unfolding capturing the person in action. It does happen as this New York Post video shows but so do tragedies such as Philando Castile.
Technically, it's more an APC (armored personnel carrier) than a tank, due to lacking cannon or very large caliber guns and being proof against small arms, not artillery.
They don't need it. It's a residual result of the bottomless "war on terror" funding after 9/11 when every two-stoplight town was given the opportunity to purchase tactical military equipment and what amount to siege weapons. Bin Laden's goal was that the US would destroy itself in fear. Mission accomplished.
Say what you want about Biden, I myself have said plenty. But this is 1000% on point as to how average people are thinking and why he's currently crushing Trump in the polls. No other reason:
Basically, law enforcement wants to always have an edge in combat capability. This is doctrine.
Unarmed? Cops have pistols.
Have pistols? Cops upgrade to semi-auto rifles and shotguns.
Have rifles? Out comes the SWAT team with full auto weapons and armored personnel carriers.
I presume that if you start having RPGs to go through APCs you will start seeing the national guard in actual tanks.
Side effect of every Tom, Dick, and Lucy having the "right to bear arms".
The NRA says this is a GOOD thing, because "criminals don't know who is armed". But then again, neither do the "good guys".
I'm long longer on the equivocating or moderation side in regards to defunding or abolishing the police. This heinous murder of Elijah McClain in Colorado, which was completely swept under the rug, is the final straw. Enough is enough.
I've always had a soft spot for people like Elijah. An extreme introvert, who I suspect was on the autism spectrum. Some jackass called in about someone wearing a ski mask and "waving his hands around". First off, he had on an open-faced mask because he had anemia. Anemia causes you to get cold very easily. He was waving his hands around because he was listening to music. He didn't initially hear the cops (who had NO business stopping him in the first place) because it was turned up loud. They then pin him to the ground and call paramedics who just inject fucking ketamine into his system without asking a single relevant medical question. This is what the audio reveals his last words were. If there is a hell, I hope these officers and the person who called him in burn in it for all eternity. Fucking monsters:
Well we are discussing in vague terms because putting in the research to change one person's opinion on the internet is a waste of time. We're also not in the position to implement any changes brought forth. It isn't our fault that the bar you personally set for yourself to allow new ideas to flourish in your mind is too high.
...
As I stated previously, police are mainly reactionary. They do not solve crime problems, they only respond to them. Investment needs to be made more into crime prevention measures than reactionary. I personally can not do that for Jacksonville. I do not have the training or the knowledge to highlight where their social structure is deteriorated.
This is a good and detailed post, and I appreciate the work you made in making it. I don't think some of your invective against me was necessary. The only standard I set was real world examples and data, standards I've easily risen to in the past. I'm also not opposed to deep reform, I'm in favor of it. I've said as much already.
And I'm sorry, folks but linking a list of books is not research. I'm curious of @BelleSorciere, how many police abolition books you've read and can personally vouch for?
None of these suggestions, even if taken in totality, really amounts to abolish the police, or even completely reform the police.
1. Getting rid of military grade equipment is probably fine. But it's worth noting that none of that stuff has been an issue directly in cases of police brutality. Almost all instances have victims dying via bare hands or pistol shots. Even during the protests, officers were beating or shoving people, hitting them with rubber bullets, and driving their squad cars into crowd. I didn't see abuse of military grade gear. This stuff also isn't eating up police budgets, they're, generally, gifted from the military. Now you can make the argument that they're creating a problematic psychology, but that's a specious argument. I think this is something of a red herring to throw into the discussion. Do I think police need these toys? No. But I also think the connection between them and the abuse we're talking about is tenuous.
2. More training great, this is exactly what I said in posts above. It's especially clear from the Floyd murder that those cops did not know what they were doing. Those cops did not think they were killing him. Alot of cops seem completely ignorant of how to do any kind of effective but non-lethal unarmed fighting or subduing. That's a huge problem.
3. Ties into two. And I agree. These are not actually "root and branch" reforms though. They are also not cheap. They could not just be a one time thing, but a permanent thing.
4. I'll pass on this, as you did. It's an option worth considering, but it's also going to be so hyper specific that I'm not interested in adjudicating cases.
5. I think everybody agrees about bodycameras, and this was an initiative during the Obama admin after the events in Ferguson, MO.
6. Yes, impunity and corruption are probably the biggest issue. Maybe second only to poor training. I think everyone is in favor of something like this. But creating a police for the police isn't cheap!
7. This suggestion highlights something that I think is worth mentioning. I don't think all departments are the same. Because of the broad demographics of the USA, and the extremely local partitioning of police, I think it's actually hard to generalize about them. This is one of the biggest issues I have with the vague nature of the discussion. Because of white flight, many city police departments are probably heavily black and latino, and might not have a huge racial bias problem. However those same department could still have a corruption/impunity problem. Likewise some departments may be relatively quite good on a lot of measures. Some departments might be bad on every metric.
8. Again, I think if merely "reducing police budgets" is set as a benchmark, this will allow mayors and city councils to do just that, say they met activists goals' of "defunding the police" and wash their hands of the issue. As I've said above in several different ways, and for several different reasons. There isn't compelling evidence that this should be a benchmark. And even if it's worthwhile with some municipalities, it might be the complete wrong answer in others. I think a number of high crime rustbelt cities, that already struggle with funding their police might not be well served by this. For example, this seems to be in direct competition with points 2, 3, 5 and 6.
9. Ties somewhat into four, but I've always advocated for more social welfare in the US on this front. And of course I agree that doing so helps reduce crime. But again, I don't want to get into details about what emergency call warrants an officer versus someone else. I also don't think it's helpful to get too carried away with throwing every economic/social policy we like into this discussion. Yeah, I absolutely think if the US had single payer healthcare that would make life less economically precarious, and would probably reduce crime. Same with increased options for drug addiction.
Lastly, I just want to say that I still think it's problematic that none of my vociferous critics address the magnitude of the problem. As I've said above, the US averages about 1,000 police involved killings a year. Many of them are not considered controversial. That contrasts with 15-17,000 homicides, and 40,000+ automobile related fatalities (6,000 pedestrians are killed by autos). I'm not trying to derail the discussion with those numbers to talk about another subject. But it strikes me as odd what is getting called an epidemic that requires thoroughgoing reform, is merely asserted as such, without even a hint of attempting to talk about the size of the problem. And I don't think you can ignore the possibility that broad, sweeping and, in some cases untested, reforms might have unintended consequences. Especially considering that these related issues dwarf police violence.
It's not just about the deaths of unarmed men (which, frankly, should never happen). This is about state-sanctioned violence and discrimination that has gone on with near impunity that African-Americans have been telling us about for decades, but is only being taken seriously because of technology. It's about daily interactions with cops that have no business taking place that are only happening because of their skin color. It's about legitimately worrying your son or husband might not even return from the grocery store, not because they were struck by lightning or hit by car, but because another human who is ostensibly supposed to protect them saw them as less than an animal (as my recent example from Colorado makes abundantly clear).
If the deaths aren't enough for you, you only need look at the BEHAVIOR of the police in response to the protests to make an even BETTER argument for total reform. The video library of needless incidents of violence over the last month is as big as the Criterion Collection at this point.
Want an even BETTER one than that. Here is what the head of the main police union in NYC is saying as of yesterday:
No matter what anyone thinks of Bill DeBlasio (who has frankly been a shit Mayor), he WAS elected by the people of New York to run the city. And winning that election gives him control over the NYPD in the same way winning a Presidential election gives you control over the military. What is being suggested here is nothing less than circumventing civilian control over the police force (through a democratically-elected mayor) and declaring themselves (as I have used these exact words before this happened) an autonomous force answerable to no one. It's one step from a military coup.
While we're at it, let's discuss this cop who was recently fired in NC:
“Piner tells Moore later in the conversation that he feels a civil war is coming and he is ‘ready.’ Piner advised he is going to buy a new assault rifle in the next couple of weeks. A short time later Officer Piner began to discuss society being close to ‘martial law’ and soon ‘we are just gonna go out and start slaughtering them fucking ni—–. I can’t wait. God, I can’t wait.’ Moore responded that he would not do that. Piner stated, ‘I am ready,'” according to the summary.
“Officer Piner then explained to Cpl. Moore that he felt society needed a civil war to “wipe ’em off the fucking map. That’ll put ’em back about four or five generations.'”
Where do all the African-Americans he stopped unjustly over the years, or the people who got convicted based on the testimony of an eliminationist cop, go to get justice??
Now just imagine the volume of things that we AREN'T catching them doing red-handed by way of cell phone cameras or audio recordings. What still goes on in the dark. I'd sooner trust the testimony of a street corner drug-dealer than a cop at this point. At least they're honest about what they are.
In 2015 the NYPD went on "strike" sort of and did the absolute minimum they were required to do. The result? Violent crime did not increase.
"When New York police officers temporarily reduced their “proactive policing” efforts on **low-level offenses**, major-crime reports in the city actually fell, according to a study based on New York Police Department crime statistics."
In 2015 the NYPD went on "strike" sort of and did the absolute minimum they were required to do. The result? Violent crime did not increase.
"When New York police officers temporarily reduced their “proactive policing” efforts on **low-level offenses**, major-crime reports in the city actually fell, according to a study based on New York Police Department crime statistics."
What are we really doing with all these fines and bullshit offenses?? All it does is trap people in an endless cycle of poverty. A fine for an open container in NY is $150. There is a mandatory surcharge of of nearly $100 for every violation. That is nearly $300. If you are making $8.00-$9.00/hr, that is half your paycheck. Either groceries or rent is now out the window for the month. How do you catch up?? In many ways, you can't. Maybe you turn to more serious crime, or maybe you commit more of these "broken window" offenses because of your despair. Who is benefiting from the overwhelming focus on what amounts to petty bullshit?? It seems so much of what amounts to "policing" is really nothing more than "let's make sure people who are more well off don't have to see anything that makes them uncomfortable". To me, it's fairly obvious that the prime focus of law enforcement is serving as an unofficial security force for the wealthy.
This isn't even all strictly race-based, though that's a main component. If you've ever driven a "beater" car, you get a small taste of what life is like for minorities, because cops will readily admit (because I've asked them off the job before) that driving a shitty car makes them more likely to pull you over. Why should this ever be the case?? Does anyone ACTUALLY give a fuck if someone's muffler isn't up to code?? Sometimes scraping together $500.00 for a car that barely runs is all that keeps people going.
In 2015 the NYPD went on "strike" sort of and did the absolute minimum they were required to do. The result? Violent crime did not increase.
"When New York police officers temporarily reduced their “proactive policing” efforts on **low-level offenses**, major-crime reports in the city actually fell, according to a study based on New York Police Department crime statistics."
What are we really doing with all these fines and bullshit offenses?? All it does is trap people in an endless cycle of poverty. A fine for an open container in NY is $150. There is a mandatory surcharge of of nearly $100 for every violation. That is nearly $300. If you are making $8.00-$9.00/hr, that is half your paycheck. Either groceries or rent is now out the window for the month. How do you catch up?? In many ways, you can't. Maybe you turn to more serious crime, or maybe you commit more of these "broken window" offenses because of your despair. Who is benefiting from the overwhelming focus on what amounts to petty bullshit?? It seems so much of what amounts to "policing" is really nothing more than "let's make sure people who are more well off don't have to see anything that makes them uncomfortable". To me, it's fairly obvious that the prime focus of law enforcement is serving as an unofficial security force for the wealthy.
Don't get me wrong, it's exactly how I think policing should be done. Resources devoted less to minor street offenses and more to serious ones.
However, that can't be considered as analogous to the defunding of police or an alternative to police forces in general.
In 2015 the NYPD went on "strike" sort of and did the absolute minimum they were required to do. The result? Violent crime did not increase.
"When New York police officers temporarily reduced their “proactive policing” efforts on **low-level offenses**, major-crime reports in the city actually fell, according to a study based on New York Police Department crime statistics."
What are we really doing with all these fines and bullshit offenses?? All it does is trap people in an endless cycle of poverty. A fine for an open container in NY is $150. There is a mandatory surcharge of of nearly $100 for every violation. That is nearly $300. If you are making $8.00-$9.00/hr, that is half your paycheck. Either groceries or rent is now out the window for the month. How do you catch up?? In many ways, you can't. Maybe you turn to more serious crime, or maybe you commit more of these "broken window" offenses because of your despair. Who is benefiting from the overwhelming focus on what amounts to petty bullshit?? It seems so much of what amounts to "policing" is really nothing more than "let's make sure people who are more well off don't have to see anything that makes them uncomfortable". To me, it's fairly obvious that the prime focus of law enforcement is serving as an unofficial security force for the wealthy.
Don't get me wrong, it's exactly how I think policing should be done. Resources devoted less to minor street offenses and more to serious ones.
However, that can't be considered as analogous to the defunding of police or an alternative to police forces in general.
I don't think much of anything is going to change whatsoever. I think we'll get, at best, a law that bans chokeholds on a national level that will have so many caveats thrown in it will be essentially toothless.
Comments
I'm not only focusing on one thing, I am focusing on the thing that related to the discussion at hand. I have to say I don't appreciate people jumping to the ungenerous conclusion -- based on nothing I said -- that I am attributing the entirety of the drop in crime to good policing.
But I also do not think you can claim that the police in the USA are an abject failure all around and need to be completely reassembled without grappling with these important empirical measures of the problems they are created to address.
Moreover, I think your own post is making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions about the facts here. How do you know that policing is only "one minor thing"? I'd even add that the usage of forensic science cannot be entirely disentangled from policing quality as well.
The example of major health care reform can serve as an instructive example. People calling for an overhaul of the US health system cite the examples of Canada, the UK, France, Germany, etc, pointing out the improved health outcomes, the lower health costs, the enormous bankruptcy problem. I find it troubling that people calling for a similar radical reform on police cannot muster this same kind of reality-based persuasion -- nor, it seems, do they even seem to feel obligated to do so. Instead, what I'm seeing is a kind of vague, doctrinaire form of argumentation, that I have to say, resembles what anti-government conservatives say. Arguments about the shortcomings in Canada's health care system are not sufficient arguments about abolishing it, are they?
And yet it seems folks are happy to argue on behalf of un-tested, empirically baseless suggestions for a radical restructuring of a key part of society via mere assertion.
I do think this is a crucial point that gets missed in the debate. I'm pessimistic about gun laws changing, but it seems to me strongly connected that in a country with a very high crime violent crime rate relative to other high-income countries, that it would also have issues with higher rates of officer-involved killings. And I think that violent crime rate can be explained by the other outlier data point of the US, gun ownership.
Even the "abolish the police" policy--specifically, the one endorsed by folks who mean that phrase literally rather than as a convenient slogan--breaks down into more complicated and workable parts. Even they're not arguing that we should live in a world with no law enforcement.
That leaves the question of what we view as too "radical." These are the more-specific reforms I've heard people suggest, plus one I haven't heard but would suggest myself (number 4):
1. Fewer police officers should carry weapons, non-lethal weapons should be standard, and higher-end military equipment should not be in police hands.
2. Police officers need more training to handle potentially dangerous situations.
3. Officers should be trained to retreat and call for backup when they feel in danger rather than resorting to using weapons.
4. Other authorities should handle non-dangerous situations (e.g., a social worker doing a home visit).
5. Officers need mandatory body cameras to better document police conduct, and disabling or turning off those cameras should be grounds for dismissal and an independent investigation.
6. We should have an independent oversight group with the power to punish officers who break the law when their buddies try to cover for them (we can't trust the police to regulate themselves).
7. Abolish departments and have a new organization govern police officers instead. Again, this is replacing the leadership; not firing the rank and file.
8. Reduce police budgets.
9. Provide more funding for preventive services (e.g., hire more social workers to help at-risk groups).
Personally, I can get behind all of them except for number 8. A police service with less physical power to hurt people (1), less freedom to get away with abuse of power (5, 6, and 7), and more training to handle situations safely and responsibly (2 and 3) is going to be better at policing and less likely to hurt the people they're supposed to be protecting, especially if other folks are supporting them (9) or taking on some of their duties (4).
I'm only discussing it in vague terms because no one has offered specifics in their reform proposals. What I've heard up until now from the posts on this forum is 1. complete abolition from one person. 2. someone else arguing for "root and branch" tearing down and rebuilding of the police. Neither of those are specific. Again, the onus is not on the skeptic to be specific. When Balrog said he was skeptical about polling, and I asserted my confidence, I made my argument citing specific points of data. When I argued on behalf of universal health care in the US on here, months ago, I cited specific, real-world examples, and some aggregate data points as benchmarks to at least attempt to persuade that something was superior.
Let's toss out the word radical for a second, due to its connotations. Nobody here calling for deep overhaul has come close to citing realworld examples or aggregate data to make their case. And I'm going to repeat, nobody here calling for big change seems to even feel obligated to make this style of persuasive case. I think that last thing is a huge problem. And I think it's reflective of a larger problem in society, where this argument without good epistemological grounding seems to be gaining traction.
FWIW, I'm glad elected Democrats at the national level and their nominee seem to be much more restrained in their proposals.
I recall about a month back when the National Review published an article called "Where does Ron DeSantis go for his apology". I don't know. Maybe he should ask some of the bodies in the Palm Beach County morgue for one. I can't stress enough how much us "alarmists" were correct about this thing from jump street, and how those who were invested in it not being as bad as it looked took any scintilla of news they could to push for a massive reopening of normal life WELL before even this Administrations own guidelines (which were pretty nominal) said to do so.
This is, above all, the fault of collective American stupidity and arrogance. But I stress again, that there is currently only one side of our political divide that is catering to it. And I'm now fairly convinced it's going to cost them all levers of power up for grabs in November. But at at the cost of a quarter million American lives. And the sad thing is, they won't have their economy either. What an absolute disgrace this has all been.
All cops must reapply for their jobs. We can't do it at once, it would have to take place in waves. No one is allowed on the force without undergoing an extensive psychological profile to prove they are mentally fit to handle the job without flying off the handle. Require all officers to live within a certain square mile radius of the places they are policing. End qualified immunity (which no other occupation in this country enjoys) and require all brutality and wrongful death settlements to be paid out of the pension fund of the officers collectively rather than the city or municipality.
To be honest - I think it's a little unfair to hold and expect this thread to maintain that level of detail in the first place. I dont have any concrete proposals in mind, and so am not offering any. That doesnt mean that I do not believe we need to take steps in order to reform the police.
If I am polled by "__________" agency, their questions are probably going to be generic, looking to see if I am currently satisfied by the situation or not. They're not too likely to really dig into a 15 step program to rebuild the police until one has significant traction. The healthcare debate is a great proxy for this:
I'm fine with a poster coming in here and espousing the view that the American healthcare system isnt working. I do not expect that person to necessarily to know enough to be certain the answer is Medical for All vs Medical for all who want it, versus the ACA.
Since this conversation seems to be going away from the topic itself and rather to the manner in which it is being debated, I'll probably not speak on it further.
In other news - Trump really does believe that cases are only going up because we're testing more (Testing is pretty flat, the percentage of infections is going up). So much so that he's actually going to pull federal funding for some COVID 19 community testing centers in some states - Including Texas, which is one of those places that is now being looked at as a developing COVID 19 crisis.
More information here:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/coronavirus-federal-government-to-end-funding-some-covid-19-test-sites.html
They claim it is to transition to a better and more effective testing option, but I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense given the emergency is already happening there - and Trump is openly advocating for less testing.
Every epidemiologist in the world has been saying from the beginning "test, test, test, test, test, and when you're done testing, test some more". At this point their strategy is to literally just pretend it's not happening. That's what they're doing. They believe they can just will it away by ignoring it hard enough. Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis believe the same thing. There have been plenty of mistakes by liberal governors, no one had a playbook for this, but they sure as shit aren't PRETENDING what is happening isn't actually real. We had almost 40,000 cases today. That is far and away the most I have seen in a one day count. This is LONG past the time when New York and New Jersey was the epicenter of the outbreak. You can't blame this on a densely populated urban center anymore. We didn't just have China and Italy to learn from, we had states in our own fucking country. And we STILL can't get the message.
The problem with the police is that the entire institution at this point is built on a foundation of lawless brutality and unquestionable authority, and that needs to disappear. The actual police officers? They've been trained and work in that environment, and can't really be trusted to do any sort of enforcement in a way that's safe for citizens.
I linked resources discussing police abolition, and I think that DinoDin's dismissal is not particularly informed about what police abolition is, so we get alarmist rejections focusing on the false notion that no police would mean a violent lawless society even while it seems extremely likely the police are lynching Black men all over the US. Somehow the killing and other brutality that happens now is fine, I guess? And preventing it is bad? And the decades of activism and scholarship around police and prison abolition just doesn't exist?
I don't worship or have any respect for the police as an institution. We need to work out something better that doesn't murder people and doesn't use fake non-lethal weapons (tear gas, tazers, "rubber" bullets, all of which can kill and have, as well as caused permanent harm to people).
The second amendment isn't why police are like this. I linked to a story about one of the people who deliberately trains police to be "god's warriors" and convinces them (falsely) that being a police officer is far more dangerous than it actually is. I don't mean there's no danger. I mean that dying in the line of duty is a lot more likely for a garbage collector than a police officer in the US.
It's strange that the police are essentially doing whatever they want at this point, and when directed to do otherwise (such as in Minneapolis) simply ignore that direction and do it anyway. The "it" being using chemical weapons on protesters, shooting protesters directly with "rubber" bullets that were designed to be fired at the ground to ricochet up, not that this is much of an improvement. For an institution billed as law enforcement, police are actually pretty lawless right now.
Quit counting the illegals, then we don't need the wall because the numbers will go way down, believe me.
Indeed. The extent of the shift in cases is highlighted by the decision of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to ask travellers from nine states with rising case numbers to be quarantined for 14 days.
Well we are discussing in vague terms because putting in the research to change one person's opinion on the internet is a waste of time. We're also not in the position to implement any changes brought forth. It isn't our fault that the bar you personally set for yourself to allow new ideas to flourish in your mind is too high.
But you really want real world examples: Here you go, using @semiticgod's 'vague' list:
1. Fewer police officers should carry weapons, non-lethal weapons should be standard, and higher-end military equipment should not be in police hands.
US has this:
Where officers in Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and Norway do not even carry a side arm. Granted, gun culture is different in those countries, but the US police do not need tanks. The perception of threat also needs to be eliminated. A vast majority of people are not going to gun down a cop because they were pulled over for speeding or running a red light. A fine is less intrusive than a murder charge especially with the use of Dashcams (being able to record licence plate, make, model and colour of car) and Bodycam (we'll get to those) to record the incident unfolding capturing the person in action. It does happen as this New York Post video shows but so do tragedies such as Philando Castile.
2. Police officers need more training to handle potentially dangerous situations.
3. Officers should be trained to retreat and call for backup when they feel in danger rather than resorting to using weapons.
I am going to add a word and say "proper training." David Grossman and his Killology training should be replaced de-escalation training. There are zero studies to determine if de-escalation tactics work in policing situations because, surprisingly, most police to not get this training as this article highlights and this study concluded.
We identified 64 de‐escalation training evaluations conducted over a 40‐year period, primarily in the fields of nursing and psychiatry. Policy Implications Although assessment outcomes reveal few adverse consequences and provide some confidence that de‐escalation trainings lead to slight‐to‐moderate individual and organizational improvements, conclusions concerning the effectiveness of de‐escalation training are limited by the questionable quality of almost all evaluation research designs. As such, important questions regarding the impact of de‐escalation training for police remain. Given the critical impact that de‐escalation training could have on officers and the public they serve, we conclude with a direct call to academics, practitioners, and funders across the field of policing to prioritize as soon as possible the testing of de‐escalation and other police use‐of‐force policies, tactics, and training.
4. Other authorities should handle non-dangerous situations (e.g., a social worker doing a home visit).
I don't think I can touch this one. But a hybrid of one police officer and one social worker doing home visits should help with the concern of violence happening towards that social worker going alone.
5. Officers need mandatory body cameras to better document police conduct, and disabling or turning off those cameras should be grounds for dismissal and an independent investigation.
Studies have been mixed on Body Cameras as these two articles 1 & 2 show. However, body cameras provide one of the two things needed in combating police misconduct: Transparency. The other is Accountability, which brings us to to:
6. We should have an independent oversight group with the power to punish officers who break the law when their buddies try to cover for them (we can't trust the police to regulate themselves).
I've mentioned this numerous times and pointed to Ontario's Special Investigation Unit and it's role in determining if police conduct was excessive.
"The SIU is a civilian law enforcement agency which investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit is independent of the police and is at arm’s length to the Ministry of the Attorney General.
The Director of the SIU is empowered under the Police Services Act with causing criminal charges to be laid against police officers where warranted on the basis of the evidence gathered during an investigation.
Since its inception in 1990, the SIU’s mission has been to nurture public confidence in policing by ensuring that the conduct of police officers, in cases which fall under the SIU jurisdiction, is subject to rigorous and independent investigations. This is reflected in the Unit’s motto: Independent Investigations - Community Confidence."
This unit eliminates the conflict of interest that a police have in investigating their own or even with a state attorney who needs to work with the police on a daily basis. The SUI isn't perfect, nothing is, but it does help.
7. Abolish departments and have a new organization govern police officers instead. Again, this is replacing the leadership; not firing the rank and file.
Case study would be Camden, New Jersey. which have been mentioned before in this thread. IMO, it is more of an union having too much power problem than an actual leadership problem and every community if different - it's why speaking in vague terms in necessary when having these types of conversations.
8. Reduce police budgets.
9. Provide more funding for preventive services (e.g., hire more social workers to help at-risk groups).
So, as I just mentioned, every community is different, but I am going to attempt to highlight two. Ottawa, Canada and Jacksonville, Florida and the differences in police budgets.
Ottawa spends $319.2 million Canadian ($233 million US) on policing where Jacksonville spends $358.5 million even though their population is similar 934,243 in Ottawa, 926,371 in Jacksonville) and their Cost of Living is similar as well (Jacksonville/ Ottawa)
Granted, communities are different, but does Jacksonville really need to spend +$100 million more in policing than in Ottawa? Could that $100 million be reinvested in other things such as Affordable Housing, or Drug, Alcohol or Mental Health counselling?
But as Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results." Obviously their policing methods are not working in Jacksonville as their crime rate is higher than 85% of the rest of American cities and comparing it to Ottawa there is a drastic difference that it is safe to say the status quo in Jacksonville isn't working and they need to figure out news ways of lowering their crime rate.
As I stated previously, police are mainly reactionary. They do not solve crime problems, they only respond to them. Investment needs to be made more into crime prevention measures than reactionary. I personally can not do that for Jacksonville. I do not have the training or the knowledge to highlight where their social structure is deteriorated.
Not only that but there are far too many cases where they selectively enforce things. Saw a video the other day of a offduty cop involved with a fender bender with a regular dude and another cop showed up and the off duty cop started ordering around the poor dude and saying he was going to kill him or whatever and the female cop on duty did nothing other than say "just listen to him".
There's other times during the protests that cops have ignored violence against protesters from third parties. Or turned a blind eye on counter protesters.
This stuff happens all the time, selective enforcement and no accountability even up to murdering innocents.
https://www.thecut.com/2020/06/the-killing-of-elijah-mcclain-everything-we-know.html
He was, in fact, as close to an "angel" as a human being could be. It didn't matter. What a shock. This makes my blood boil, and if you look into it, yours will as well.
Another example of a pointless piss your pants 911 call that resulted in a black person simply engaging in the mundane activity of buying a beverage at a convenience store and listening to music with headphones resulting in death. This might be the worst one I've ever seen.
Technically, it's more an APC (armored personnel carrier) than a tank, due to lacking cannon or very large caliber guns and being proof against small arms, not artillery.
They don't need it. It's a residual result of the bottomless "war on terror" funding after 9/11 when every two-stoplight town was given the opportunity to purchase tactical military equipment and what amount to siege weapons. Bin Laden's goal was that the US would destroy itself in fear. Mission accomplished.
Basically, law enforcement wants to always have an edge in combat capability. This is doctrine.
Unarmed? Cops have pistols.
Have pistols? Cops upgrade to semi-auto rifles and shotguns.
Have rifles? Out comes the SWAT team with full auto weapons and armored personnel carriers.
I presume that if you start having RPGs to go through APCs you will start seeing the national guard in actual tanks.
Side effect of every Tom, Dick, and Lucy having the "right to bear arms".
The NRA says this is a GOOD thing, because "criminals don't know who is armed". But then again, neither do the "good guys".
I've always had a soft spot for people like Elijah. An extreme introvert, who I suspect was on the autism spectrum. Some jackass called in about someone wearing a ski mask and "waving his hands around". First off, he had on an open-faced mask because he had anemia. Anemia causes you to get cold very easily. He was waving his hands around because he was listening to music. He didn't initially hear the cops (who had NO business stopping him in the first place) because it was turned up loud. They then pin him to the ground and call paramedics who just inject fucking ketamine into his system without asking a single relevant medical question. This is what the audio reveals his last words were. If there is a hell, I hope these officers and the person who called him in burn in it for all eternity. Fucking monsters:
This is a good and detailed post, and I appreciate the work you made in making it. I don't think some of your invective against me was necessary. The only standard I set was real world examples and data, standards I've easily risen to in the past. I'm also not opposed to deep reform, I'm in favor of it. I've said as much already.
And I'm sorry, folks but linking a list of books is not research. I'm curious of @BelleSorciere, how many police abolition books you've read and can personally vouch for?
None of these suggestions, even if taken in totality, really amounts to abolish the police, or even completely reform the police.
1. Getting rid of military grade equipment is probably fine. But it's worth noting that none of that stuff has been an issue directly in cases of police brutality. Almost all instances have victims dying via bare hands or pistol shots. Even during the protests, officers were beating or shoving people, hitting them with rubber bullets, and driving their squad cars into crowd. I didn't see abuse of military grade gear. This stuff also isn't eating up police budgets, they're, generally, gifted from the military. Now you can make the argument that they're creating a problematic psychology, but that's a specious argument. I think this is something of a red herring to throw into the discussion. Do I think police need these toys? No. But I also think the connection between them and the abuse we're talking about is tenuous.
2. More training great, this is exactly what I said in posts above. It's especially clear from the Floyd murder that those cops did not know what they were doing. Those cops did not think they were killing him. Alot of cops seem completely ignorant of how to do any kind of effective but non-lethal unarmed fighting or subduing. That's a huge problem.
3. Ties into two. And I agree. These are not actually "root and branch" reforms though. They are also not cheap. They could not just be a one time thing, but a permanent thing.
4. I'll pass on this, as you did. It's an option worth considering, but it's also going to be so hyper specific that I'm not interested in adjudicating cases.
5. I think everybody agrees about bodycameras, and this was an initiative during the Obama admin after the events in Ferguson, MO.
6. Yes, impunity and corruption are probably the biggest issue. Maybe second only to poor training. I think everyone is in favor of something like this. But creating a police for the police isn't cheap!
7. This suggestion highlights something that I think is worth mentioning. I don't think all departments are the same. Because of the broad demographics of the USA, and the extremely local partitioning of police, I think it's actually hard to generalize about them. This is one of the biggest issues I have with the vague nature of the discussion. Because of white flight, many city police departments are probably heavily black and latino, and might not have a huge racial bias problem. However those same department could still have a corruption/impunity problem. Likewise some departments may be relatively quite good on a lot of measures. Some departments might be bad on every metric.
8. Again, I think if merely "reducing police budgets" is set as a benchmark, this will allow mayors and city councils to do just that, say they met activists goals' of "defunding the police" and wash their hands of the issue. As I've said above in several different ways, and for several different reasons. There isn't compelling evidence that this should be a benchmark. And even if it's worthwhile with some municipalities, it might be the complete wrong answer in others. I think a number of high crime rustbelt cities, that already struggle with funding their police might not be well served by this. For example, this seems to be in direct competition with points 2, 3, 5 and 6.
9. Ties somewhat into four, but I've always advocated for more social welfare in the US on this front. And of course I agree that doing so helps reduce crime. But again, I don't want to get into details about what emergency call warrants an officer versus someone else. I also don't think it's helpful to get too carried away with throwing every economic/social policy we like into this discussion. Yeah, I absolutely think if the US had single payer healthcare that would make life less economically precarious, and would probably reduce crime. Same with increased options for drug addiction.
Lastly, I just want to say that I still think it's problematic that none of my vociferous critics address the magnitude of the problem. As I've said above, the US averages about 1,000 police involved killings a year. Many of them are not considered controversial. That contrasts with 15-17,000 homicides, and 40,000+ automobile related fatalities (6,000 pedestrians are killed by autos). I'm not trying to derail the discussion with those numbers to talk about another subject. But it strikes me as odd what is getting called an epidemic that requires thoroughgoing reform, is merely asserted as such, without even a hint of attempting to talk about the size of the problem. And I don't think you can ignore the possibility that broad, sweeping and, in some cases untested, reforms might have unintended consequences. Especially considering that these related issues dwarf police violence.
Edit to add: This site seems especially good https://www.themarshallproject.org
And comes at the issue from a lefty perspective, so folks arguing with me should find it to their tastes
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/04/19/the-chicago-model-of-policing-hasn-t-saved-chicago
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/02/13/is-the-answer-to-crime-more-cops
These two stories seem good to at least get a glance at how reform was attempted and what the challenges are to creating public safety. They stories also highlight a number of mere management reforms that wouldn't require all that much in terms of resources or even overturning of things. Chicago sending rookie cops disproportionately to the toughest neighborhoods being one example.
If the deaths aren't enough for you, you only need look at the BEHAVIOR of the police in response to the protests to make an even BETTER argument for total reform. The video library of needless incidents of violence over the last month is as big as the Criterion Collection at this point.
Want an even BETTER one than that. Here is what the head of the main police union in NYC is saying as of yesterday:
No matter what anyone thinks of Bill DeBlasio (who has frankly been a shit Mayor), he WAS elected by the people of New York to run the city. And winning that election gives him control over the NYPD in the same way winning a Presidential election gives you control over the military. What is being suggested here is nothing less than circumventing civilian control over the police force (through a democratically-elected mayor) and declaring themselves (as I have used these exact words before this happened) an autonomous force answerable to no one. It's one step from a military coup.
While we're at it, let's discuss this cop who was recently fired in NC:
https://portcitydaily.com/local-news/2020/06/24/fired-wilmington-cop-we-are-just-going-to-go-out-and-start-slaughtering-them-f-ni-i-cant-wait-god-i-cant-wait-free-read/
“Piner tells Moore later in the conversation that he feels a civil war is coming and he is ‘ready.’ Piner advised he is going to buy a new assault rifle in the next couple of weeks. A short time later Officer Piner began to discuss society being close to ‘martial law’ and soon ‘we are just gonna go out and start slaughtering them fucking ni—–. I can’t wait. God, I can’t wait.’ Moore responded that he would not do that. Piner stated, ‘I am ready,'” according to the summary.
“Officer Piner then explained to Cpl. Moore that he felt society needed a civil war to “wipe ’em off the fucking map. That’ll put ’em back about four or five generations.'”
Where do all the African-Americans he stopped unjustly over the years, or the people who got convicted based on the testimony of an eliminationist cop, go to get justice??
Now just imagine the volume of things that we AREN'T catching them doing red-handed by way of cell phone cameras or audio recordings. What still goes on in the dark. I'd sooner trust the testimony of a street corner drug-dealer than a cop at this point. At least they're honest about what they are.
"When New York police officers temporarily reduced their “proactive policing” efforts on **low-level offenses**, major-crime reports in the city actually fell, according to a study based on New York Police Department crime statistics."
What are we really doing with all these fines and bullshit offenses?? All it does is trap people in an endless cycle of poverty. A fine for an open container in NY is $150. There is a mandatory surcharge of of nearly $100 for every violation. That is nearly $300. If you are making $8.00-$9.00/hr, that is half your paycheck. Either groceries or rent is now out the window for the month. How do you catch up?? In many ways, you can't. Maybe you turn to more serious crime, or maybe you commit more of these "broken window" offenses because of your despair. Who is benefiting from the overwhelming focus on what amounts to petty bullshit?? It seems so much of what amounts to "policing" is really nothing more than "let's make sure people who are more well off don't have to see anything that makes them uncomfortable". To me, it's fairly obvious that the prime focus of law enforcement is serving as an unofficial security force for the wealthy.
This isn't even all strictly race-based, though that's a main component. If you've ever driven a "beater" car, you get a small taste of what life is like for minorities, because cops will readily admit (because I've asked them off the job before) that driving a shitty car makes them more likely to pull you over. Why should this ever be the case?? Does anyone ACTUALLY give a fuck if someone's muffler isn't up to code?? Sometimes scraping together $500.00 for a car that barely runs is all that keeps people going.
Don't get me wrong, it's exactly how I think policing should be done. Resources devoted less to minor street offenses and more to serious ones.
However, that can't be considered as analogous to the defunding of police or an alternative to police forces in general.
I don't think much of anything is going to change whatsoever. I think we'll get, at best, a law that bans chokeholds on a national level that will have so many caveats thrown in it will be essentially toothless.