12 ms·

It boggles my mind that the average voter is ok(or at least ok enough not to make an issue out of it) with the status quo of how police departments operate. I'

by anm89 5y ago

It boggles my mind that the average voter is ok(or at least ok enough not to make an issue out of it) with the status quo of how police departments operate. I've just come to terms with the fact that what seems acceptable to me in regards to how the police operate is drastically different than the consensus.

colechristensen 5y ago
I'm not ok with it, but the two sides of the issue seem to be status quo with more resources vs. actually shutting down law enforcement. The thought of going into small scale politics with my ideas has crossed my mind but A) I think I would alienate both sides and B) seriously concerned that someone would come try to shoot me (from either extreme).
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  Small scale and NYPD aren’t in the same league. IIRC if the NYPD was a military organization it would be the fifth largest military in the world. Which itself may or may not be a problem.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    Tokyo metro is larger but the Japanese use their police as community servants.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      Japan is an insular, rigid and heavily values oriented society. Overall their crime rate is exceptionally low. It would be hard to apply Japanese policing styles to fundamentally different societies. That doesn't mean we can't learn good lessons from them, but we need to remember it's never an apples to apples comparison.
      - unknown_error 5y ago
        (edit... sorry, don't know how this turned into a long rant. Started typing over lunch and just couldn't stop... feel free to skip this, just a stream-of-consciousness dump.) Somewhere between Japanese idiosyncrasies and American exceptionalism, we could learn a lot from other developed societies. We just don't, because we're arrogant, ignorant, and proudly so. We mask our social ills with flags and nationalism, even though there's hardly a cohesive America left to be proud about. IMO this isn't some academic problem like fusion, but a problem of people and politics. Speaking of values, there's a good values overlap between the police, the military, Scouting, religion, gun culture, and conservative politics & politicians. All are hierarchical, patriarchal, heavily focused on in-group loyalty and proud displays of status and power. It's a self-reinforcing good-ol-boys network that's fighting back against cultural extinction. The thin blue line, the whatever %ers, the MAGA folks... all are part of the same general in-group. To them they are the only legitimate America, and everyone else is an outsider, intruder, imposter, hellbent on destroying everything they hold dear. They don't want a multicultural America; multi-ETHNIC might be OK, but only if they fall in line and know their place. This is not really about the tactics of policing, or training, or body cameras, but about people whose identities rely on power, status, and tradition rather than collective well-being and social innovation. Japan is on the other side of that spectrum of collectivity. Japan is lucky (in this context) in that they are also overwhelmingly homogenous, so there isn't much of a outgroup to rebel against. They have plenty of social problems but militarized policing isn't one of them. To the Western world, aside from its bleeding-edge aesthetics, Japanese society is heavily hierarchical, traditional, patriarchal, conservative, orderly... similar to the good-ol-boys we have here, except there, there isn't really much of a challenge to that power structure. There's no Japanese BLM equivalent to put that in sharp contrast with other elements of their society (which exist only on the fringe). American culture, in contrast, has largely moved on (by % of population) from the good-ol-boys lifestyle, but those elements in our society are still there, and still clinging on, and hold a disproportionate amount of political power and an overwhelming amount of the firepower. Everyday, centrist Americans without significant exposure to violence and crime tend to be more welcoming of outsiders than the conservative elements, but can be easily swayed in both directions by political propaganda. Long ago the movements veered from discussions about tactical reform and into basically mass marketing with gospel-like, life-or-death overtones and tidy slogans and us-vs-them mentalities. There's no coming back from that... you can go from "police reform" to "culture war", but it's much harder to de-escalate from that and ask about, "Wait, wait, instead of getting rid of police officers, what if we provided community specialists alongside them..." Trump purposely escalated it into a us-vs-them thing, all the time, everywhere, across any divide he was able to weaponize, because it suited his campaign. We now pay the costs, as a society, with Biden sitting as a lame duck in the middle of it all, begging people to listen to him and be reasonable... but nobody does anymore. There's no one America anymore, just warring factions bound by a shared economy but no shared values. shrug Fundamentally a country this heterogenous is difficult if not impossible to govern. Maybe a EU-style model with more local autonomy would be more appropriate than federalism with supremacy. Our real flags now are either black, white, and blue or rainbow-colored, and the ol' stars and stripes are just hanging in tatters in the no man's land between them. Why not just acknowledge the reality and secede into more autonomous, culturally compatible regions and stop fight each other? There's room enough in the world for different societies & values systems, but not if they are forced by external factors to live by the same set of values against their consciences.
- anm89 5y ago
  I really don't think that shutting down departments is an opinion held beyond a very small but vocal group. Defund doesn't mean unfund.
  - zo1 5y ago
    The slogan caters to both sides. When campaigning to extremists, it's a dog whistle and means exactly what the words mean (defund or "abolish" police by virtue of removing their funding). Simultaneously, it's also "oh it just means defund, not unfund" for the tame and middle-ground activists that see problems in over-funded policing as well as for the apologists that want to legitimize the extreme "unfund" part of the movement. The problem at it's core is that politicians (including activists) and their platforms are not held accountable and their words are meaningless because they have no definition. Like just look at this thread. "Unfund" vs "Defund". How on earth are we supposed to infer that specific meaning and trust the other side to do so as well? It's like a recipe specifically designed for conflict and misunderstanding. Also a perfect recipe for back and forth definition debates like this one, instead of arguing about the core issues.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      Yeah, slogans are good for bumper stickers, or chanting at rallies, but but so good for reasoned debate. I suppose we could try to get rid of slogans entirely, but that doesn’t seem likely. I don’t know what a good alternative would look like.
      - bluGill 5y ago
        It is trivial for "the other side" to find a bad interpretation to any slogans. This is why slogan writers need to be very careful. In the case of "defund the police" the worst "other side" interpretation is easier to understand than what is intended. For other slogans "the other side" will make a point that looks contrived. It is possible for anyone to see that something is a bad slogan, and easy once you have hindsight. I have no idea how to write a good one.
- simonw 5y ago
  Genuine question: what do you think "defund the police" means? And a follow-up question: have you spent time trying to understand what the people who say that are campaigning for, or did you make a snap judgement? (Personally I think "defund the police" is a poorly chosen slogan because it is so easily misunderstood)
  - chipotle_coyote 5y ago
    > Personally I think "defund the police" is a poorly chosen slogan because it is so easily misunderstood This, many times over -- with the caveat that I haven't been able to think of a more accurate phrase that still fits on a bumper sticker. "Narrow the scope of responsibility for the police and reallocate funding to other resources to handle non-criminal duties" isn't very catchy, but it's closer to what most activists are calling for.
    - simonw 5y ago
      Yeah, it's hard for me to whole-heartedly criticize the slogan when the people who have made it stick have thought about this issue (and the way to promote it) a lot harder than I have. It's certainly been effective in spreading the idea!
  - briffle 5y ago
    > Genuine question: what do you think "defund the police" means? To some people, it means take some of the money from the police, and have actual trained counselors, mental health crisis workers, etc. I have heard of many that hold up CAHOOTS [0] in Eugene, OR as a model, that are MUCH cheaper than police, to help interceed in some cases, where police do not have the training. (the police training for gaining compliance seems to be using taser, force or weapon of some sort, since they are trained for extreme situations) To others it means completely abolish the police. However, I have heard very few with this view personally, but according to those on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum, this is what they all mean when they say it. [0] https://whitebirdclinic.org/cahoots/ https://whitebirdclinic.org/cahoots/
    - 5y ago
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  I assume you're talking about "defund the police" slogans that came about last summer and I feel that's an unfair characterization of an entire "side of the issue." There have been meaningful, varied, and thoughtful proposals for how to reform police getting ignored and tossed aside for decades, well before it all devolved into social media soundbyte sized talking points. You could possibly start with some of the writing of Radley Balko, given he did most of it while employed by the Cato Institute and Reason, and nobody is going to mistake him for being caught up in racial identity politics or leftist extremism. There used to be quite a push in some sectors of thoughtspace considered right wing about demilitarizing and disempowering American police. I don't know when the heck or why the heck the militia "let's kidnap the governor" types suddenly became friends of the police, but it certainly didn't used to be that way in the 90s and the days of Ruby Ridge and feds cracking down on right wing groups that liked to hoard guns and not pay taxes. Being against government tyranny used to also mean being against police tyranny and not just being against safety regulations and enforceable public health policies. In any case, to my mind, much of the issue here is that, as an issue, it's been nationalized. What "side" you're on entirely depends on your national political identity now. But police are not a national institution. They aren't regulated federally, except the actual feds, but the feds have their own problems. Many of their investigative techniques probably should be illegal, but they're not. The problems with local police are entirely different, in that they're often doing things that actually are illegal, but because they are insiders to the criminal justice system, nobody will punish them. They've managed over the decades to leverage public sentiment against hippies, communists, drug users, and various crime waves of the 70s and 90s to thwart any and all efforts at civilian oversight, leaving us in a position where the police police themselves. But it now seems like there is no alternative. As a now matter of national identity politics, as least in the voter consciousness, the only options are, as you said, totally shut down the police or give them even more tanks and bigger guns and less oversight. These aren't actually the only options. Reform proposals are different from city to city, but you better have a small city and hope the national news doesn't pick up on what you're trying to do. And you can't talk about it on the Internet, unless it's a neighborhood-only private group.
- johnjj257 5y ago
  AHAHAHAHAA this guy wants to go into politics but its TOO DANGEROUS AHAHAHA No wonder you're so uninformed you're too scared to walk out the door LOL Our IQ's would go down the shitter but we'd be spelling amazing! No one would give a shit about you or your ideas that's the real response, no one wants to hurt your dumbass no one cares
adamdusty 5y ago
Most people don't know how the police operate. Growing up, my stepfather was a police officer, and I have no idea how they operate. Other than the big stories of officers getting off with essentially murdering people, I don't think people are too dialed in to law enforcement.
- mkr-hn 5y ago
  I had a relative who thought the police were mostly fine until the 1960s when all that changed was they had TV cameras turned on their violence. Somehow the "bad apple" meme got corrupted: one bad apple does, in fact, spoil the bunch! It's a chemical thing.
  - stavros 5y ago
    Isn't the "bad apple" proverb exactly that one of them spoils the bunch? What did it get corrupted to?
    - mkr-hn 5y ago
      "One bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch" in response to police violence. This happens to phrases a lot. Also consider: "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" when the original purpose of that phrase was to mock the absurdity of the notion. edit: Merriam-Webster did a blog post on it https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-spoil-the-barrel-metaphor-phrase https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-...
      - stavros 5y ago
        Hm, right. It must be a corruption, because AFAIK the original proverb is "one bad apple spoils the bunch" (because of the chemical thing you mentioned).
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> boggles my mind that the average voter is ok(or at least ok enough not to make an issue out of it) with the status quo of how police departments operate I don't think we are. But the alternatives are quite awful, particularly when people are scared by elevated violent crime numbers. We're voting in New York on this issue. A common refrain is we don't want to become San Francisco. Given "defund the police" led Minneapolis to actually start working towards dismantling its police department [1], and given some extremists literally want to do that in New York, the moderate lane for police reform has been--hopefully temporarily--pinched in. My guess is we'll need to see a policy framework worked out in smaller cities before they can be applied to New York. This happened with cameras. It happened with disciplinary record disclosure laws. It's starting to happen with moving mental health and addiction calls to specialists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement_in_Minneapolis#Council_renews_plan_to_replace_the_police_department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement_in_M...
- ElViajero 5y ago
  > particularly when people are scared by elevated violent crime numbers. Crime has been down from the 1990s to 2020. People has been more and more scare of less and less crime. > "defund the police" led Minneapolis to actually start working towards dismantling its police department That is not the case, reading your link they are creating a "Department of Public Safety in Minneapolis to oversee policing, violence prevention, and community safety programs". So, from your link, nobody is dismantling the police department but they are changing its responsibilities and structure to be more effective with the current challenges. > some extremists literally want to do that in New York "extremists" > need to see a policy framework worked out in smaller cities before they can be applied to New York That is reasonable. Even better is to apply it to New York but in small scale. A little town and New York have little in common.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    Nobody is dismantling the police department here because as soon as they started talking about abolishing it, crime spiked and the community fought back. There's an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the debacle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement_in_Minneapolis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement_in...

by anm89 5y ago

colechristensen 5y ago

I'm not ok with it, but the two sides of the issue seem to be status quo with more resources vs. actually shutting down law enforcement. The thought of going into small scale politics with my ideas has crossed my mind but A) I think I would alienate both sides and B) seriously concerned that someone would come try to shoot me (from either extreme).

IgorPartola 5y ago
Small scale and NYPD aren’t in the same league. IIRC if the NYPD was a military organization it would be the fifth largest military in the world. Which itself may or may not be a problem.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Tokyo metro is larger but the Japanese use their police as community servants.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    Japan is an insular, rigid and heavily values oriented society. Overall their crime rate is exceptionally low. It would be hard to apply Japanese policing styles to fundamentally different societies. That doesn't mean we can't learn good lessons from them, but we need to remember it's never an apples to apples comparison.
    - unknown_error 5y ago
      (edit... sorry, don't know how this turned into a long rant. Started typing over lunch and just couldn't stop... feel free to skip this, just a stream-of-consciousness dump.) Somewhere between Japanese idiosyncrasies and American exceptionalism, we could learn a lot from other developed societies. We just don't, because we're arrogant, ignorant, and proudly so. We mask our social ills with flags and nationalism, even though there's hardly a cohesive America left to be proud about. IMO this isn't some academic problem like fusion, but a problem of people and politics. Speaking of values, there's a good values overlap between the police, the military, Scouting, religion, gun culture, and conservative politics & politicians. All are hierarchical, patriarchal, heavily focused on in-group loyalty and proud displays of status and power. It's a self-reinforcing good-ol-boys network that's fighting back against cultural extinction. The thin blue line, the whatever %ers, the MAGA folks... all are part of the same general in-group. To them they are the only legitimate America, and everyone else is an outsider, intruder, imposter, hellbent on destroying everything they hold dear. They don't want a multicultural America; multi-ETHNIC might be OK, but only if they fall in line and know their place. This is not really about the tactics of policing, or training, or body cameras, but about people whose identities rely on power, status, and tradition rather than collective well-being and social innovation. Japan is on the other side of that spectrum of collectivity. Japan is lucky (in this context) in that they are also overwhelmingly homogenous, so there isn't much of a outgroup to rebel against. They have plenty of social problems but militarized policing isn't one of them. To the Western world, aside from its bleeding-edge aesthetics, Japanese society is heavily hierarchical, traditional, patriarchal, conservative, orderly... similar to the good-ol-boys we have here, except there, there isn't really much of a challenge to that power structure. There's no Japanese BLM equivalent to put that in sharp contrast with other elements of their society (which exist only on the fringe). American culture, in contrast, has largely moved on (by % of population) from the good-ol-boys lifestyle, but those elements in our society are still there, and still clinging on, and hold a disproportionate amount of political power and an overwhelming amount of the firepower. Everyday, centrist Americans without significant exposure to violence and crime tend to be more welcoming of outsiders than the conservative elements, but can be easily swayed in both directions by political propaganda. Long ago the movements veered from discussions about tactical reform and into basically mass marketing with gospel-like, life-or-death overtones and tidy slogans and us-vs-them mentalities. There's no coming back from that... you can go from "police reform" to "culture war", but it's much harder to de-escalate from that and ask about, "Wait, wait, instead of getting rid of police officers, what if we provided community specialists alongside them..." Trump purposely escalated it into a us-vs-them thing, all the time, everywhere, across any divide he was able to weaponize, because it suited his campaign. We now pay the costs, as a society, with Biden sitting as a lame duck in the middle of it all, begging people to listen to him and be reasonable... but nobody does anymore. There's no one America anymore, just warring factions bound by a shared economy but no shared values. shrug Fundamentally a country this heterogenous is difficult if not impossible to govern. Maybe a EU-style model with more local autonomy would be more appropriate than federalism with supremacy. Our real flags now are either black, white, and blue or rainbow-colored, and the ol' stars and stripes are just hanging in tatters in the no man's land between them. Why not just acknowledge the reality and secede into more autonomous, culturally compatible regions and stop fight each other? There's room enough in the world for different societies & values systems, but not if they are forced by external factors to live by the same set of values against their consciences.
anm89 5y ago
I really don't think that shutting down departments is an opinion held beyond a very small but vocal group. Defund doesn't mean unfund.
- zo1 5y ago
  The slogan caters to both sides. When campaigning to extremists, it's a dog whistle and means exactly what the words mean (defund or "abolish" police by virtue of removing their funding). Simultaneously, it's also "oh it just means defund, not unfund" for the tame and middle-ground activists that see problems in over-funded policing as well as for the apologists that want to legitimize the extreme "unfund" part of the movement. The problem at it's core is that politicians (including activists) and their platforms are not held accountable and their words are meaningless because they have no definition. Like just look at this thread. "Unfund" vs "Defund". How on earth are we supposed to infer that specific meaning and trust the other side to do so as well? It's like a recipe specifically designed for conflict and misunderstanding. Also a perfect recipe for back and forth definition debates like this one, instead of arguing about the core issues.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Yeah, slogans are good for bumper stickers, or chanting at rallies, but but so good for reasoned debate. I suppose we could try to get rid of slogans entirely, but that doesn’t seem likely. I don’t know what a good alternative would look like.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      It is trivial for "the other side" to find a bad interpretation to any slogans. This is why slogan writers need to be very careful. In the case of "defund the police" the worst "other side" interpretation is easier to understand than what is intended. For other slogans "the other side" will make a point that looks contrived. It is possible for anyone to see that something is a bad slogan, and easy once you have hindsight. I have no idea how to write a good one.
simonw 5y ago
Genuine question: what do you think "defund the police" means? And a follow-up question: have you spent time trying to understand what the people who say that are campaigning for, or did you make a snap judgement? (Personally I think "defund the police" is a poorly chosen slogan because it is so easily misunderstood)
- chipotle_coyote 5y ago
  > Personally I think "defund the police" is a poorly chosen slogan because it is so easily misunderstood This, many times over -- with the caveat that I haven't been able to think of a more accurate phrase that still fits on a bumper sticker. "Narrow the scope of responsibility for the police and reallocate funding to other resources to handle non-criminal duties" isn't very catchy, but it's closer to what most activists are calling for.
  - simonw 5y ago
    Yeah, it's hard for me to whole-heartedly criticize the slogan when the people who have made it stick have thought about this issue (and the way to promote it) a lot harder than I have. It's certainly been effective in spreading the idea!
- briffle 5y ago
  > Genuine question: what do you think "defund the police" means? To some people, it means take some of the money from the police, and have actual trained counselors, mental health crisis workers, etc. I have heard of many that hold up CAHOOTS [0] in Eugene, OR as a model, that are MUCH cheaper than police, to help interceed in some cases, where police do not have the training. (the police training for gaining compliance seems to be using taser, force or weapon of some sort, since they are trained for extreme situations) To others it means completely abolish the police. However, I have heard very few with this view personally, but according to those on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum, this is what they all mean when they say it. [0] https://whitebirdclinic.org/cahoots/ https://whitebirdclinic.org/cahoots/
  - 5y ago
nonameiguess 5y ago
I assume you're talking about "defund the police" slogans that came about last summer and I feel that's an unfair characterization of an entire "side of the issue." There have been meaningful, varied, and thoughtful proposals for how to reform police getting ignored and tossed aside for decades, well before it all devolved into social media soundbyte sized talking points. You could possibly start with some of the writing of Radley Balko, given he did most of it while employed by the Cato Institute and Reason, and nobody is going to mistake him for being caught up in racial identity politics or leftist extremism. There used to be quite a push in some sectors of thoughtspace considered right wing about demilitarizing and disempowering American police. I don't know when the heck or why the heck the militia "let's kidnap the governor" types suddenly became friends of the police, but it certainly didn't used to be that way in the 90s and the days of Ruby Ridge and feds cracking down on right wing groups that liked to hoard guns and not pay taxes. Being against government tyranny used to also mean being against police tyranny and not just being against safety regulations and enforceable public health policies. In any case, to my mind, much of the issue here is that, as an issue, it's been nationalized. What "side" you're on entirely depends on your national political identity now. But police are not a national institution. They aren't regulated federally, except the actual feds, but the feds have their own problems. Many of their investigative techniques probably should be illegal, but they're not. The problems with local police are entirely different, in that they're often doing things that actually are illegal, but because they are insiders to the criminal justice system, nobody will punish them. They've managed over the decades to leverage public sentiment against hippies, communists, drug users, and various crime waves of the 70s and 90s to thwart any and all efforts at civilian oversight, leaving us in a position where the police police themselves. But it now seems like there is no alternative. As a now matter of national identity politics, as least in the voter consciousness, the only options are, as you said, totally shut down the police or give them even more tanks and bigger guns and less oversight. These aren't actually the only options. Reform proposals are different from city to city, but you better have a small city and hope the national news doesn't pick up on what you're trying to do. And you can't talk about it on the Internet, unless it's a neighborhood-only private group.
johnjj257 5y ago
AHAHAHAHAA this guy wants to go into politics but its TOO DANGEROUS AHAHAHA No wonder you're so uninformed you're too scared to walk out the door LOL Our IQ's would go down the shitter but we'd be spelling amazing! No one would give a shit about you or your ideas that's the real response, no one wants to hurt your dumbass no one cares

adamdusty 5y ago

Most people don't know how the police operate. Growing up, my stepfather was a police officer, and I have no idea how they operate. Other than the big stories of officers getting off with essentially murdering people, I don't think people are too dialed in to law enforcement.

mkr-hn 5y ago
I had a relative who thought the police were mostly fine until the 1960s when all that changed was they had TV cameras turned on their violence. Somehow the "bad apple" meme got corrupted: one bad apple does, in fact, spoil the bunch! It's a chemical thing.
- stavros 5y ago
  Isn't the "bad apple" proverb exactly that one of them spoils the bunch? What did it get corrupted to?
  - mkr-hn 5y ago
    "One bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch" in response to police violence. This happens to phrases a lot. Also consider: "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" when the original purpose of that phrase was to mock the absurdity of the notion. edit: Merriam-Webster did a blog post on it https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-spoil-the-barrel-metaphor-phrase https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-...
    - stavros 5y ago
      Hm, right. It must be a corruption, because AFAIK the original proverb is "one bad apple spoils the bunch" (because of the chemical thing you mentioned).

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> boggles my mind that the average voter is ok(or at least ok enough not to make an issue out of it) with the status quo of how police departments operate I don't think we are. But the alternatives are quite awful, particularly when people are scared by elevated violent crime numbers. We're voting in New York on this issue. A common refrain is we don't want to become San Francisco. Given "defund the police" led Minneapolis to actually start working towards dismantling its police department [1], and given some extremists literally want to do that in New York, the moderate lane for police reform has been--hopefully temporarily--pinched in. My guess is we'll need to see a policy framework worked out in smaller cities before they can be applied to New York. This happened with cameras. It happened with disciplinary record disclosure laws. It's starting to happen with moving mental health and addiction calls to specialists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement_in_Minneapolis#Council_renews_plan_to_replace_the_police_department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement_in_M...

ElViajero 5y ago
> particularly when people are scared by elevated violent crime numbers. Crime has been down from the 1990s to 2020. People has been more and more scare of less and less crime. > "defund the police" led Minneapolis to actually start working towards dismantling its police department That is not the case, reading your link they are creating a "Department of Public Safety in Minneapolis to oversee policing, violence prevention, and community safety programs". So, from your link, nobody is dismantling the police department but they are changing its responsibilities and structure to be more effective with the current challenges. > some extremists literally want to do that in New York "extremists" > need to see a policy framework worked out in smaller cities before they can be applied to New York That is reasonable. Even better is to apply it to New York but in small scale. A little town and New York have little in common.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  Nobody is dismantling the police department here because as soon as they started talking about abolishing it, crime spiked and the community fought back. There's an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the debacle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement_in_Minneapolis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement_in...