3 ms·

As an outsider looking in, it seems to me like reducing the scope of responsibility , and increasing accountability, of your police forces would be a boon to pu

As an outsider looking in, it seems to me like reducing the scope of responsibility , and increasing accountability, of your police forces would be a boon to public safety.

andrew_ 6y ago
It really should. But in a highly polarized, incredibly litigious society like the US, that would likely lead to more trench-digging, and sadly the opposite of an increase to public safety.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Obviously the details would be contentions but I think reducing the scope of policing in abstract is widely supported across America. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who can't think of an entire category of behavior the government is currently in, and should not be, in the business of micromanaging with violence. But when people say "abolish the police" they do not come across as meaning "reduce the scope of policing in a careful manner" to a sizeable fraction of the other people in the country.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  >But when people say "abolish the police" they do not come across as meaning "reduce the scope of policing". Some people, sure, but that's understandable given their extremely dire situation. Regardless, in my experience, most people do in fact flesh out reasonable ideas while using the phrase. Further, by far most "phrases" I've heard in person are of the "defund/reform" variety. But of course "abolishment" gets disproportionate attention, and there's always the trap of just listening to news sources and online forums where the phrase "abolish the police" is quoted with no chance given to the people for more context.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    I agree that the ideas put forth are generally reasonable but a national political slogan shouldn't require "but wait I don't mean that in the literal sense" explanation. You can't have a catch phrase and then complain when it's taken literally. A phrase like that was a marketing disaster waiting to happen.
    - happytoexplain 6y ago
      I agree - it's perfectly reasonable to take it literally. It's not equivalent to the mostly-willing-misinterpretation of the phrase "black lives matter". However, I don't think it's as simple as "complaining when taken literally". My point is that people should be more charitable - this phrase didn't originate from a committee's meditations. The situation it arose from is terrifying, disastrous, intolerable, an emergency, etc. On scales smaller than the national one, e.g. at community level, it's quite literally a fight for life and civilization. The extremity of the phrase is commensurate with the extremity of the circumstances - this is a spontaneous cry, not a diplomatic thought. We should talk about this situation with that reality in mind. Of course despite all this qualification, the phrase is used, if far from ubiquitously, and if you add onto that the way news and human drama naturally works, then the phrase never had a chance to not be a widespread part of the image of the national movement. We should not allow people to attempt to literally abolish the police, but we should try to understand why that has become one of their slogans, and not use it as a catch-all for dismissing the movement in a single repeated sentence (e.g. how the root post of this thread has done - not something you've done).
kevin_b_er 6y ago
We've tried to hold police accountable for murder. Charging them results in incidents like the entire police force rallying behind the one and just not doing their job anymore. And nearby police refusing to do their duty as well. This happened in Atlanta. You can't even bring charges against a cop, let alone make it to a trial, without horrendous outcry and mass refusal to do their job. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-police-not-answering-calls/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-po...
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  > Charging them results in incidents like the entire police force rallying behind the one and just not doing their job anymore ... which could be considered a win for the section of America that the police oppress.
- dleslie 6y ago
  Where I am we have many levels of public safety enforcement; I've heard that in the USA there's a lot less variety in policing? Ie, bylaws are enforced by armed and armoured officers who have full power to arrest. Is that true? It seems to me that dividing the forces would help to break their unified defensive behaviour.

As an outsider looking in, it seems to me like reducing the scope of responsibility , and increasing accountability, of your police forces would be a boon to public safety.

andrew_ 6y ago

It really should. But in a highly polarized, incredibly litigious society like the US, that would likely lead to more trench-digging, and sadly the opposite of an increase to public safety.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Obviously the details would be contentions but I think reducing the scope of policing in abstract is widely supported across America. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who can't think of an entire category of behavior the government is currently in, and should not be, in the business of micromanaging with violence. But when people say "abolish the police" they do not come across as meaning "reduce the scope of policing in a careful manner" to a sizeable fraction of the other people in the country.

happytoexplain 6y ago
>But when people say "abolish the police" they do not come across as meaning "reduce the scope of policing". Some people, sure, but that's understandable given their extremely dire situation. Regardless, in my experience, most people do in fact flesh out reasonable ideas while using the phrase. Further, by far most "phrases" I've heard in person are of the "defund/reform" variety. But of course "abolishment" gets disproportionate attention, and there's always the trap of just listening to news sources and online forums where the phrase "abolish the police" is quoted with no chance given to the people for more context.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  I agree that the ideas put forth are generally reasonable but a national political slogan shouldn't require "but wait I don't mean that in the literal sense" explanation. You can't have a catch phrase and then complain when it's taken literally. A phrase like that was a marketing disaster waiting to happen.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    I agree - it's perfectly reasonable to take it literally. It's not equivalent to the mostly-willing-misinterpretation of the phrase "black lives matter". However, I don't think it's as simple as "complaining when taken literally". My point is that people should be more charitable - this phrase didn't originate from a committee's meditations. The situation it arose from is terrifying, disastrous, intolerable, an emergency, etc. On scales smaller than the national one, e.g. at community level, it's quite literally a fight for life and civilization. The extremity of the phrase is commensurate with the extremity of the circumstances - this is a spontaneous cry, not a diplomatic thought. We should talk about this situation with that reality in mind. Of course despite all this qualification, the phrase is used, if far from ubiquitously, and if you add onto that the way news and human drama naturally works, then the phrase never had a chance to not be a widespread part of the image of the national movement. We should not allow people to attempt to literally abolish the police, but we should try to understand why that has become one of their slogans, and not use it as a catch-all for dismissing the movement in a single repeated sentence (e.g. how the root post of this thread has done - not something you've done).

kevin_b_er 6y ago

We've tried to hold police accountable for murder. Charging them results in incidents like the entire police force rallying behind the one and just not doing their job anymore. And nearby police refusing to do their duty as well. This happened in Atlanta. You can't even bring charges against a cop, let alone make it to a trial, without horrendous outcry and mass refusal to do their job. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-police-not-answering-calls/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-po...

shadowgovt 6y ago
> Charging them results in incidents like the entire police force rallying behind the one and just not doing their job anymore ... which could be considered a win for the section of America that the police oppress.
dleslie 6y ago
Where I am we have many levels of public safety enforcement; I've heard that in the USA there's a lot less variety in policing? Ie, bylaws are enforced by armed and armoured officers who have full power to arrest. Is that true? It seems to me that dividing the forces would help to break their unified defensive behaviour.