zlacker

I don't know how your interactions with police have gone, but I've never had them show up when I called, and most accounts I hear are that they don't do anything at best when they do. At worst, they kill someone. Most of what they do is not stuff they should be doing.

There's some niche a well-trained police force can fill, but it's a lot smaller than what the poorly-trained forces do now. Almost no one is actually calling for a complete and permanent abolition of police. Just a redefinition of their role.

>>Kye+(OP)
The first line of the CHAZ demands:

> The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition. We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus. This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police

Also, I would look at the Baltimore police/crime post-Freddie Grey to see how diminished police action leads to much increased crime. What the BPD did was horrifying but so was the rise in crime once they became less active.

>>solida+I
With regular assholes you have the right to self-defense. With the police you don't.

>>deathg+c7
Without police or “criminal justice apparatus” your rights are merely theoretical.

>>throwa+T7
If you feel this insecure, you should purchase firearms and practice using them. Many of your neighbors are doing this.

>>jessau+8e
Or we could keep the police and purchase firearms.

>>jessau+8e
Why not have the government hire people to do that for me? Call it "socialized defense" or something.

>>liabil+Gh
Your experiences with this may have gone better for you than those of many of your neighbors went for them?

>>throwa+T7
I have a gun and my right to defend myself is a practical, factual statement. American police have no duty to protect you and are free from legal punishment if they choose to idly wait while you are assaulted and raped.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia...

>>liabil+Gh
American police departments have no duty to protect you. They are law enforcement officers who choose at their own discretion to arrive at your home seven minutes after you dial 911.

>>deathg+7l
Make it their duty to protect you.

>>zaarn+v11
What do you do with all of the people, and the entire system, that's been built and trained for a century to not do that?

I doubt many people are against the idea of a specialized government role that provides protection services.

What they are against is:

* Thinking we can get that role by reforming existing police systems, given how opposed police systems are to such reform

* That these systems need the absurd budgets of police departments

* That the role requires absurd levels of protection for violent actions

* That the role requires armaments in the majority of cases

Going form police to a role that fits those criteria is going to start with not having police.

>>static+5g1
You fire them all and rehire the ones that are capable of being proper police officers.

>>solida+I
On the other hand, rather "diminished police action", the NYPD went on strike for a couple months in 2014-2015 and crime actually went down. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0211-5

>>zaarn+Jg1
It's federal case law that the profession of policing doesn't require what you're asking.

>>zaarn+Jg1
I don't think they'd be qualified for the job.

>>monoca+gk1
Then you make it law that it becomes required.

>>static+Bk1
Then they don't get hired.

>>deathg+2l
You missed the point. You can assert your rights all the livelong day, but without a criminal justice apparatus all you have are a gun and some fine words. Given the relatively high mortality among armed gang members in America's underpoliced inner cities, your gun isn't the reason you and yours enjoy relatively low mortality--the difference is either one of policing or fine words, and I'm pretty sure it's not the latter.

>>zaarn+v11
It's really strange how people in this thread refuse to believe that the "reform the police" option even exists. As though we must either have a subpar police system or no police system at all. It's also strange how many people think that getting rid of the police will just work itself out.

1. Abolish police.

2. << A miracle happens. >>

3. Prosper.

>>throwa+Rm1
Many other countries have a police system that works much better than the US but obviously the only possible solutions in the search space are "Americanism" or "Nothing".

>>throwa+Rm1
"Reform" is a well known word in the US that translates to "do the very minimum necessary to shut most people up for a while". The fact that proponents of radical changes to policing have not come up with terms you like more should not be an indictment of their perspectives.

>>throwa+8m1
No, you are missing the point. Without a gun there is nothing keeping you safe aside from a cop's whims. If someone wanted to walk into your house/office and kill you, a cop would (1) stop them, (2) choose not to stop them and not get punished for it, or (3) not get to you in time to be of any help. Defending yourself is the fourth option you exercise with your right to self-defense. If you really think that cops are bad, arrange your life so that your life doesn't depend on their whims. I live in a state where at least two thirds of people own guns (usually multiple guns) and the crime rate is very low.

>>throwa+Rm1
If reform worked it would have already worked.

>>zaarn+v11
Right, because police rarely break the law?

>>zaarn+6l1
I guess I'm just on the side of: if the only thing we think police should be doing is something they already legally don't have to do, achieving the goal of getting that covered is better handled by tearing the entire system down and building a new system with a new name and new members than trying to force reform on orgs that have fought it tooth and nail. The actors that have gotten rulings like Warren v. District of Columbia obviously don't want reform in this area, and I don't see much success in forcing it on them. They have the time, resources, and inclination to fight it at every step, and piecemeal subvert the spirit of the reforms as they occur.

>>throwa+T7
If anything I would think them even more practical, but require one to be more active in their enforcement.

But that is the thing I don't see being recognize. While the current institute that is the police could pass away, society will still have rules and will still want enforcers of those rules (though not all rules are equally enforced). And you see this in any supposedly anarchic community, they still have social standards they enforce, they just do not rely the nearby government for enforcement of smaller issues (though there is still a reliance for larger issues, such as stopping annexation by an entity with a larger force). In turn this makes me think all such communities are actually minarchist instead of anarchist, which is a drastic difference in base assumptions.

>>deathg+kQ1
I really don't think I'm missing the point. I might be missing your point, since you seem to have misinterpreted the thread and gone off onto your own digression. I'm all for 2A and I don't think cops are bad, but guns aren't keeping the peace, the police are keeping the peace, even if they aren't a perfect institution. There are lots of places with lots of guns and few police, and they are not known for being nice places to live. This conversation has reached the absurd--those of us without guns aren't dying multiple times per day as your "without a gun..." comment suggests. I'm not interested in debating absurdities, so I'll leave you with the last word.

>>monoca+QU1
Maybe we haven't voted hard enough?

>>jessau+XP2
I'd say Minneapolis voted pretty hard the past couple weeks and are getting tangible results from it.

>>monoca+QU1
That's what I pointed out upthread, tear it down and rebuild it.

>>deathg+TQ1
Hence you ought to rebuild it from the ground up and if the police breaks the law they'll be punished for it.

Why is it so hard for americans to imagine that it's possible to have atleast a semifunctional police apparatus?

>>monoca+IR2
Absolutely. Now we realize the decades of voting more softly were just a waste of time.

>>throwa+8m1
police are not the reason we have safety.

a police force doesn't prevent you from being attacked, they only dispense justice after the fact and only sometimes.

welfare, courts and legal systems have a far larger impact than police as a means to prevent violence by having a peaceful way to resolve issues between individuals and ensuring basic needs are met. they also happen to be cheaper.

most violence happens at the edge of society where people cannot avail themselves of the court system. (drugs/prostitution)

>>zaarn+Lq3
I guess the point I'm dancing around is that words have power, and rebuilding a force called police is still a half measure. Don't just rebuild, but instead create a new force with a new name as part of gaining new semantics. People bring baggage with them when you use the same words.

>>jatone+kH3
Yes, I was using police as a shorthand for the criminal justice system. The fear of being caught and sentenced has a deterring effect on crime. The criminal justice system, however, depends on police, and police officers visible in the community also deters crime.

>>monoca+E84
I don't think that is true, plenty of police forces around the world call themselves police without feeling the innate urge to shoot at innocent protesters with lethal force.