7 ms·

Just wanted to add that the abolish the police sentiment isnt as inane as it sounds on the surface. Abolish the police is about taking away responsibilities tha

Just wanted to add that the abolish the police sentiment isnt as inane as it sounds on the surface. Abolish the police is about taking away responsibilities that police have today and giving them to people more suitable. Police - people trained for aggression with weapons to stop violent criminals should not be handling: 1) mental health 2) homeless 3) drug addiction 4) domestic violence 5) traffic stops etc etc They should be called to handle 1) robbery in progress 2) active shooters etc The Not police should be trained in deescalation and should be familiar with all the social resources necessary to help people in the community. The not police should not be armed

lsh123 6y ago
Please add universal concealed carry laws (including all private spaces) and you have me onboard
- zarathustreal 6y ago
  I second this suggestion. If you want to take guns away from police at least allow me to legally defend myself. Imagine criminals being the only ones with guns.
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    "but that'll lead to more school shootings!", cry the people who've apparently never considered that school shootings are premeditated and the shooters tend not to care about the law.
    - zarathustreal 6y ago
      "Think of the children!" is nothing more than an appeal to fear, the oldest form of manipulation.
rpiguy 6y ago
Unfortunately, items 1, 3, 4, and 5 are all extremely dangerous. The Not Police would be in grave danger. There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. That guy on drugs could stab you, you could pull a car over and that person could have a gun, you could go to stop domestic violence and get attacked. Police brutality goes up proportionately with violent crime in their area. In other words, the more police deal with very dangerous people all the time and the more their reactions become more aggressive to everyone. It is no excuse for murder like what happened with Floyd, but there is a reason we don't send social workers out to domestic violence calls or drug calls... Plus citizens have the right to own guns (which I am ever thankful for now with rioting breaking out across the country). Unarmed Not Police would be a joke.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > The Not Police would be in grave danger. There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. That don't need to be armed with firearms. That's overkill (literally overkill, unfortunately) for community policing. They could have batons. Firearms should be restricted to specialists deployed only when needed for a specifically authorised task.
  - jabedude 6y ago
    > That don't need to be armed with firearms You're asking police officers to be less armed then the general public. 43 states are "shall-issue" and allow residents to conceal carry a firearm after completing required training and submitting an application.
    - newjersey 6y ago
      > You're asking police officers to be less armed then the general public. Can we at least agree that off-duty police officers working as security guards at a hospital or elsewhere should not under any circumstance carry a weapon (other than perhaps a stick or something) while on non-police duty? > Soon, from inside the room, there was shouting, sounds of a scuffle and a loud pop. During an altercation, two off-duty Houston police officers, moonlighting as security guards, had shocked Mr. Pean with a Taser, fired a bullet into his chest, then handcuffed him. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/hospital-guns-mental-health.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/hospital-guns-mental-h... > Mr. Pean said he was informed of the dismissal of the assault charges against him in a phone call to New York, where he is finishing college. He said he was relieved but remained deeply disturbed by his experience, noting that his family spent more than $100,000 in his defense. “If I was someone else, I could have ended up in jail,” he said. > After the incident, federal health officials conducted an emergency investigation and faulted the hospital for the shooting, saying that St. Joseph had created “immediate jeopardy to the health and safety of its patients” and ordered that it restrict use of weapons and provide more training in dealing with mentally ill patients. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/us/alan-pean-hospital-guns-mental-health.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/us/alan-pean-hospital-gun... In addition, perhaps if a police officer is not "on duty", felony assault charges should not be possible. This may sound harsh but imagine a bus driver goes on a walk and someone hits him on the head with a stick. Does that carry felony assault charges as well? I think many people are saying a police officer's testimony should be void in a court of law if they do not have other evidence (in which case the evidence can stand on its own without the officer's testimony).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
danenania 6y ago
This is the strategy used at Burning Man, and it seems to work quite well from what I’ve heard, though it’s admittedly not a very representative slice of society. There are “rangers” who deal with safety issues or disputes, and camps devoted to caring for people who might be having a bad trip (or other kind of episode) in a compassionate way. They will only call the police as a last resort. I think a similar approach at the community level would be great to see in the US. Rather than fighting the police head-on to try to make them respect our rights as they should (a tall order), we could instead try to make them largely redundant. Of course, there will always be some situations where armed police are necessary, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s less than 1% of the calls they’re currently responding to.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  Like you said, that's not representative. It means nothing. Of course, if you just add up all the cases across the country, then you don't need armed police in 99% of case. The problem is that you don't know which one percent does need armed police. You want police to be able to bring the situation under control as soon as possible, you don't want to wait for people to get stabbed or shot by some guy who couldn't be stopped otherwise.
  - danenania 6y ago
    It may not be the answer to all our problems, but when tens of thousands of people on tons of mind-altering substances are able to keep the peace without police or guns present, it certainly means something. It’s not as if there aren’t plenty of issues to deal with—issues that would surely be handled far more violently and less effectively by the police if there weren’t alternatives. “The problem is that you don't know which one percent does need armed police.” Perhaps there are more intelligent ways to triage than treating every situation like a military engagement? Often the cops showing up with guns drawn is what turns a situation violent.
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      > It may not be the answer to all our problems, but when tens of thousands of people on tons of mind-altering substances are able to keep the peace without police or guns present, it certainly means something. Anything that a bunch of yuppies do in their leisure time is not representative of anything else. It can not to be used to draw conclusions on what to do about, say, crime in the inner cities. > Perhaps there are more intelligent ways to triage than treating every situation like a military engagement? > Often the cops showing up with guns drawn is what turns a situation violent. Cops generally don't draw their guns unless there is a perceived threat. If there is a perceived threat, not having a gun puts cops at a severe disadvantage. Of course there's the option for cops to just not engage and let the situation play out. There's the option for cops just to not do any policing, to not even show up. That'll reduce victims of police brutality for sure. That's already happening in some areas and all these calls for defunding the police will surely have an impact there.
mikedilger 6y ago
I understand you see two roles that should be separated, and I won't weigh in on that - perhaps you are right. But let me highlight something that isn't so obvious in this discussion: Job #1 for police is to keep everybody alive, even the criminals. Everything else is secondary. They are not primarily trained "for aggression with weapons", they are trained in deescalation, social resources, helping the community, etc. And contrary to most TV shows and movies, use of a weapon is a rather rare event in a police officer's career. Whether police should or should not be armed depends entirely on whether the criminals are or are not armed. Here in New Zealand police have arms, but they are in lock boxes in their cruisers, and only brought out when necessary. Then there is a special "armed offenders squad" which comes in with sniper rifles and such and takes care of hostage situations, mass shooters, etc. If the current 'abolish the police' sentiment intends to send the message you are expressing, it's not sending it very effectively. My fear is that police will quit/retire in droves and not be easily replaced. That will cause inner city gang activity to increase. As I understand it, there are a small number of powerful remorseless hardened criminals forcing inner city youth into a life of crime via credible threats, and using them as pawns to distance themselves from the day to day criminal activity. The police are the only ones powerful enough to fight this and to protect these kids. Yes, they often do a shit job at it, and yes, they often are infected with racists and overly aggressive assholes, and even criminals using that position for the power it affords. But I think we'd do better if we focused on finding and weeding out the bad cops, rather than throwing out the entire institution.
missedthecue 6y ago
Many police shootings happen at mundane traffic stops. What happens to Not Police in these situations? https://youtu.be/LsrC5QV_Yrc https://youtu.be/LsrC5QV_Yrc https://youtu.be/mI4UxURjqEQ https://youtu.be/mI4UxURjqEQ https://youtu.be/DbaJTuoLpWM https://youtu.be/DbaJTuoLpWM https://youtu.be/-yUnT5aFygg https://youtu.be/-yUnT5aFygg https://youtu.be/4i86SUNFFzs https://youtu.be/4i86SUNFFzs You want unarmed people doing this? Your Not Police would be getting killed in any of those.
- milquetoastaf 6y ago
  But in almost all of those videos it didn't make a difference whether the police had guns or not?
shibeouya 6y ago
So when we have notoriously violent neighborhoods, can we send all the social workers to spread love and friendship and solve the problem?. If you believe police is not needed as a form of authority, you have been living in a privileged bubble for far too long. Travel, look around, and you will see the world is not as nice as you think it is.
alkibiades 6y ago
then why give it such an inflammatory divisive hateful name?

lsh123 6y ago

Please add universal concealed carry laws (including all private spaces) and you have me onboard

zarathustreal 6y ago
I second this suggestion. If you want to take guns away from police at least allow me to legally defend myself. Imagine criminals being the only ones with guns.
- DuskStar 6y ago
  "but that'll lead to more school shootings!", cry the people who've apparently never considered that school shootings are premeditated and the shooters tend not to care about the law.
  - zarathustreal 6y ago
    "Think of the children!" is nothing more than an appeal to fear, the oldest form of manipulation.

rpiguy 6y ago

Unfortunately, items 1, 3, 4, and 5 are all extremely dangerous. The Not Police would be in grave danger. There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. That guy on drugs could stab you, you could pull a car over and that person could have a gun, you could go to stop domestic violence and get attacked. Police brutality goes up proportionately with violent crime in their area. In other words, the more police deal with very dangerous people all the time and the more their reactions become more aggressive to everyone. It is no excuse for murder like what happened with Floyd, but there is a reason we don't send social workers out to domestic violence calls or drug calls... Plus citizens have the right to own guns (which I am ever thankful for now with rioting breaking out across the country). Unarmed Not Police would be a joke.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> The Not Police would be in grave danger. There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. That don't need to be armed with firearms. That's overkill (literally overkill, unfortunately) for community policing. They could have batons. Firearms should be restricted to specialists deployed only when needed for a specifically authorised task.
- jabedude 6y ago
  > That don't need to be armed with firearms You're asking police officers to be less armed then the general public. 43 states are "shall-issue" and allow residents to conceal carry a firearm after completing required training and submitting an application.
  - newjersey 6y ago
    > You're asking police officers to be less armed then the general public. Can we at least agree that off-duty police officers working as security guards at a hospital or elsewhere should not under any circumstance carry a weapon (other than perhaps a stick or something) while on non-police duty? > Soon, from inside the room, there was shouting, sounds of a scuffle and a loud pop. During an altercation, two off-duty Houston police officers, moonlighting as security guards, had shocked Mr. Pean with a Taser, fired a bullet into his chest, then handcuffed him. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/hospital-guns-mental-health.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/hospital-guns-mental-h... > Mr. Pean said he was informed of the dismissal of the assault charges against him in a phone call to New York, where he is finishing college. He said he was relieved but remained deeply disturbed by his experience, noting that his family spent more than $100,000 in his defense. “If I was someone else, I could have ended up in jail,” he said. > After the incident, federal health officials conducted an emergency investigation and faulted the hospital for the shooting, saying that St. Joseph had created “immediate jeopardy to the health and safety of its patients” and ordered that it restrict use of weapons and provide more training in dealing with mentally ill patients. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/us/alan-pean-hospital-guns-mental-health.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/us/alan-pean-hospital-gun... In addition, perhaps if a police officer is not "on duty", felony assault charges should not be possible. This may sound harsh but imagine a bus driver goes on a walk and someone hits him on the head with a stick. Does that carry felony assault charges as well? I think many people are saying a police officer's testimony should be void in a court of law if they do not have other evidence (in which case the evidence can stand on its own without the officer's testimony).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

danenania 6y ago

This is the strategy used at Burning Man, and it seems to work quite well from what I’ve heard, though it’s admittedly not a very representative slice of society. There are “rangers” who deal with safety issues or disputes, and camps devoted to caring for people who might be having a bad trip (or other kind of episode) in a compassionate way. They will only call the police as a last resort. I think a similar approach at the community level would be great to see in the US. Rather than fighting the police head-on to try to make them respect our rights as they should (a tall order), we could instead try to make them largely redundant. Of course, there will always be some situations where armed police are necessary, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s less than 1% of the calls they’re currently responding to.

gridlockd 6y ago
Like you said, that's not representative. It means nothing. Of course, if you just add up all the cases across the country, then you don't need armed police in 99% of case. The problem is that you don't know which one percent does need armed police. You want police to be able to bring the situation under control as soon as possible, you don't want to wait for people to get stabbed or shot by some guy who couldn't be stopped otherwise.
- danenania 6y ago
  It may not be the answer to all our problems, but when tens of thousands of people on tons of mind-altering substances are able to keep the peace without police or guns present, it certainly means something. It’s not as if there aren’t plenty of issues to deal with—issues that would surely be handled far more violently and less effectively by the police if there weren’t alternatives. “The problem is that you don't know which one percent does need armed police.” Perhaps there are more intelligent ways to triage than treating every situation like a military engagement? Often the cops showing up with guns drawn is what turns a situation violent.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    > It may not be the answer to all our problems, but when tens of thousands of people on tons of mind-altering substances are able to keep the peace without police or guns present, it certainly means something. Anything that a bunch of yuppies do in their leisure time is not representative of anything else. It can not to be used to draw conclusions on what to do about, say, crime in the inner cities. > Perhaps there are more intelligent ways to triage than treating every situation like a military engagement? > Often the cops showing up with guns drawn is what turns a situation violent. Cops generally don't draw their guns unless there is a perceived threat. If there is a perceived threat, not having a gun puts cops at a severe disadvantage. Of course there's the option for cops to just not engage and let the situation play out. There's the option for cops just to not do any policing, to not even show up. That'll reduce victims of police brutality for sure. That's already happening in some areas and all these calls for defunding the police will surely have an impact there.

mikedilger 6y ago

I understand you see two roles that should be separated, and I won't weigh in on that - perhaps you are right. But let me highlight something that isn't so obvious in this discussion: Job #1 for police is to keep everybody alive, even the criminals. Everything else is secondary. They are not primarily trained "for aggression with weapons", they are trained in deescalation, social resources, helping the community, etc. And contrary to most TV shows and movies, use of a weapon is a rather rare event in a police officer's career. Whether police should or should not be armed depends entirely on whether the criminals are or are not armed. Here in New Zealand police have arms, but they are in lock boxes in their cruisers, and only brought out when necessary. Then there is a special "armed offenders squad" which comes in with sniper rifles and such and takes care of hostage situations, mass shooters, etc. If the current 'abolish the police' sentiment intends to send the message you are expressing, it's not sending it very effectively. My fear is that police will quit/retire in droves and not be easily replaced. That will cause inner city gang activity to increase. As I understand it, there are a small number of powerful remorseless hardened criminals forcing inner city youth into a life of crime via credible threats, and using them as pawns to distance themselves from the day to day criminal activity. The police are the only ones powerful enough to fight this and to protect these kids. Yes, they often do a shit job at it, and yes, they often are infected with racists and overly aggressive assholes, and even criminals using that position for the power it affords. But I think we'd do better if we focused on finding and weeding out the bad cops, rather than throwing out the entire institution.

missedthecue 6y ago

Many police shootings happen at mundane traffic stops. What happens to Not Police in these situations? https://youtu.be/LsrC5QV_Yrc https://youtu.be/LsrC5QV_Yrc https://youtu.be/mI4UxURjqEQ https://youtu.be/mI4UxURjqEQ https://youtu.be/DbaJTuoLpWM https://youtu.be/DbaJTuoLpWM https://youtu.be/-yUnT5aFygg https://youtu.be/-yUnT5aFygg https://youtu.be/4i86SUNFFzs https://youtu.be/4i86SUNFFzs You want unarmed people doing this? Your Not Police would be getting killed in any of those.

milquetoastaf 6y ago
But in almost all of those videos it didn't make a difference whether the police had guns or not?

shibeouya 6y ago

So when we have notoriously violent neighborhoods, can we send all the social workers to spread love and friendship and solve the problem?. If you believe police is not needed as a form of authority, you have been living in a privileged bubble for far too long. Travel, look around, and you will see the world is not as nice as you think it is.

alkibiades 6y ago

then why give it such an inflammatory divisive hateful name?