4 ms·

That doesn’t make sense. There are 300 million guns in America and plenty of crime happens every year. It’s true crime is down from the historical highs of the

That doesn’t make sense. There are 300 million guns in America and plenty of crime happens every year. It’s true crime is down from the historical highs of the 70s and 80s, but there are very much still murders and thefts that need to be investigated and punished. The reality is if police were abolished we’d go back to the bad old days of private detective agencies being used for security. Would you rather have some sort of unholy fusion of Blackwater and the Pinkerton detective agency performing policing tasks in our country?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
detaro 6y ago
The argument by most seems to be not "get rid of all police and then nothing", but rather to replace it as much as possible from the ground up. Which might very well mean re-allocating resources and removing responsibilities from police, e.g. around mental health, but not getting rid all law enforcement. Phrased this way and not as a "reform" because they believe attempting to reform the existing system slowly won't work.
mywittyname 6y ago
The bulk of crimes committed in the USA do not require traditional LEO aside from apprehensions. Investigations, evidence collection, interviews, etc can all be done by any old bureaucrat. Much like the FDA investigators and Fire Marshals don't need the authority of an LEO. There's no need for police to be first-responders in purely medical situations. It's unfair to expect that police also take up the burden of medical care. While we are at it, it's also silly that the fire department responds to non-fire medical incidents in their big ass fire truck. Doing so compromises their abilities to handle situations where their expertise is explicitly required. Every town in America does not need a SWAT team. Thsoe should be specialized agencies that serve a particular region and have a limited number of deployments. If we were building a system from scratch today, people would not suggest dumping these duties on beat cops.
- javagram 6y ago
  > Investigations, evidence collection, interviews, etc can all be done by any old bureaucrat. Much like the FDA investigators and Fire Marshals don't need the authority of an LEO. So a police detective? I don’t really see how renaming police detectives “Investigator” or some similar name shuffling changes or resolves anything. Unless you’re suggesting farming these tasks out to the private sector. I guess towns could contract with PIs or a private detective agency, but I find it hard to believe such a privatized agency would be any better than sworn LEOs in terms of corruption, brutality, etc. The comparison with a fire marshal is instructive; according to Wikipedia “Fire marshals may be sworn law-enforcement officers and are often experienced firefighters.” In other words, just like in the case of police detectives, it’s seen as a good thing for them to have experience and authority. > There's no need for police to be first-responders in purely medical situations. It's unfair to expect that police also take up the burden of medical care. While we are at it, it's also silly that the fire department responds to non-fire medical incidents in their big ass fire truck. Doing so compromises their abilities to handle situations where their expertise is explicitly required. I don’t think acting as EMTs is a big part of police calls. As you note, the FD often responds to such purely medical incidents as they are better trained and have better resources. I agree that the use of SWAT teams for small towns should be looked at. In my opinion, these specially trained officers should be part of state police or big cities only. State police could support local PDs if needed. In general, your post is about some types of police reform. It doesn’t interact with the post I originally responded to, which posited that “police” are “very much not necessary” in modern America.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

detaro 6y ago

The argument by most seems to be not "get rid of all police and then nothing", but rather to replace it as much as possible from the ground up. Which might very well mean re-allocating resources and removing responsibilities from police, e.g. around mental health, but not getting rid all law enforcement. Phrased this way and not as a "reform" because they believe attempting to reform the existing system slowly won't work.

mywittyname 6y ago

The bulk of crimes committed in the USA do not require traditional LEO aside from apprehensions. Investigations, evidence collection, interviews, etc can all be done by any old bureaucrat. Much like the FDA investigators and Fire Marshals don't need the authority of an LEO. There's no need for police to be first-responders in purely medical situations. It's unfair to expect that police also take up the burden of medical care. While we are at it, it's also silly that the fire department responds to non-fire medical incidents in their big ass fire truck. Doing so compromises their abilities to handle situations where their expertise is explicitly required. Every town in America does not need a SWAT team. Thsoe should be specialized agencies that serve a particular region and have a limited number of deployments. If we were building a system from scratch today, people would not suggest dumping these duties on beat cops.

javagram 6y ago
> Investigations, evidence collection, interviews, etc can all be done by any old bureaucrat. Much like the FDA investigators and Fire Marshals don't need the authority of an LEO. So a police detective? I don’t really see how renaming police detectives “Investigator” or some similar name shuffling changes or resolves anything. Unless you’re suggesting farming these tasks out to the private sector. I guess towns could contract with PIs or a private detective agency, but I find it hard to believe such a privatized agency would be any better than sworn LEOs in terms of corruption, brutality, etc. The comparison with a fire marshal is instructive; according to Wikipedia “Fire marshals may be sworn law-enforcement officers and are often experienced firefighters.” In other words, just like in the case of police detectives, it’s seen as a good thing for them to have experience and authority. > There's no need for police to be first-responders in purely medical situations. It's unfair to expect that police also take up the burden of medical care. While we are at it, it's also silly that the fire department responds to non-fire medical incidents in their big ass fire truck. Doing so compromises their abilities to handle situations where their expertise is explicitly required. I don’t think acting as EMTs is a big part of police calls. As you note, the FD often responds to such purely medical incidents as they are better trained and have better resources. I agree that the use of SWAT teams for small towns should be looked at. In my opinion, these specially trained officers should be part of state police or big cities only. State police could support local PDs if needed. In general, your post is about some types of police reform. It doesn’t interact with the post I originally responded to, which posited that “police” are “very much not necessary” in modern America.