3 ms·

Most of the examples that spurred this movement are killings that are disproportionately either negligent or depraved heart at the very least (let's pretend we

Most of the examples that spurred this movement are killings that are disproportionately either negligent or depraved heart at the very least (let's pretend we can't form an argument that any of them were purposeful murders that were not necessary to save the officer). Even given this benefit of the doubt, it is still reasonable for independent citizens of a free nation to fight tooth and nail against such an assault on a tenant of civilization: That the state never kills you in the streets, if they can at all help it. Further, I can't see from any angle how allowing these instances to continue is a necessary price for preventing widespread crime. >I just get the distinct impression that many people have got no real idea about the threat that crime poses to the prosperity of a community I can't disagree more strongly. >... and the effort that is required to keep it in check This I agree with. But this is a weak argument against people who live with a constant background, and sometimes foreground, fear for their lives from their own government.

Tycho 6y ago
You have to consider the stochastic nature of crime and policing. The size of the population, the size of the force, behaviour altered by substance abuse, the prevalence of deadly weapons, the mental toll of dealing with criminals every day, the presence of organised crime, the antagonism, the heat of the moment, the type of personality needed to want to do the job: of course you are going to end up with some bad encounters. That is the price of having police. The price of not having police is the constant and imminent danger and cost of crime. We all have to avoid certain parts of our cities. Women can’t walk safely at night even in the “safe” parts. Children can’t be left unattended. Public goods are ruined by vandalism. The stabilising effect of family households is lost as many flee to safer locations. Property values languish. Nobody can invest in the area, lenders and insurers aren’t interested. Innocent people are brutalised and they can’t rely on the police to protect them. Violent criminals operate with impunity. These aren’t isolated incidents, this is a trend of misery. And this will be the legacy of many of these BLM protests/riots. More misery heaped on the poorest communities. That’s why I say that many people seem to have no real idea about the trade-off.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > of course you are going to end up with some bad encounters. That is the price of having police. > The price of not having police is the constant and imminent danger and cost of crime. We all have to avoid certain parts of our cities. Women can’t walk safely at night even in the “safe” parts. And yet many countries don't have police forces that are pathologically violent, and don't have no-go zones in their cities.
  - juniper_strong 6y ago
    If you look up "Gun Ownership" on Wikipedia, it claims there are around 850 million guns owned by civilians in the world, around 400 million of those 850 million are in the US. Whatever your politics are, you can't begin to understand crime and policing in the US until you internalize those numbers.
- dTal 6y ago
  The point is that all of those bad things you cite are already the case for "the poorest communities". To the people who live there, the police are worse than useless - not only do they manifestly fail to prevent crime, but more people die when they turn up. That is where "defund the police" comes from.

Tycho 6y ago

You have to consider the stochastic nature of crime and policing. The size of the population, the size of the force, behaviour altered by substance abuse, the prevalence of deadly weapons, the mental toll of dealing with criminals every day, the presence of organised crime, the antagonism, the heat of the moment, the type of personality needed to want to do the job: of course you are going to end up with some bad encounters. That is the price of having police. The price of not having police is the constant and imminent danger and cost of crime. We all have to avoid certain parts of our cities. Women can’t walk safely at night even in the “safe” parts. Children can’t be left unattended. Public goods are ruined by vandalism. The stabilising effect of family households is lost as many flee to safer locations. Property values languish. Nobody can invest in the area, lenders and insurers aren’t interested. Innocent people are brutalised and they can’t rely on the police to protect them. Violent criminals operate with impunity. These aren’t isolated incidents, this is a trend of misery. And this will be the legacy of many of these BLM protests/riots. More misery heaped on the poorest communities. That’s why I say that many people seem to have no real idea about the trade-off.

DanBC 6y ago
> of course you are going to end up with some bad encounters. That is the price of having police. > The price of not having police is the constant and imminent danger and cost of crime. We all have to avoid certain parts of our cities. Women can’t walk safely at night even in the “safe” parts. And yet many countries don't have police forces that are pathologically violent, and don't have no-go zones in their cities.
- juniper_strong 6y ago
  If you look up "Gun Ownership" on Wikipedia, it claims there are around 850 million guns owned by civilians in the world, around 400 million of those 850 million are in the US. Whatever your politics are, you can't begin to understand crime and policing in the US until you internalize those numbers.
dTal 6y ago
The point is that all of those bad things you cite are already the case for "the poorest communities". To the people who live there, the police are worse than useless - not only do they manifestly fail to prevent crime, but more people die when they turn up. That is where "defund the police" comes from.