3 ms·

we shall definitely be angry with this policeman involved in this case, and the particular process/law to let this happen. However, here is the question to eve

we shall definitely be angry with this policeman involved in this case, and the particular process/law to let this happen. However, here is the question to everyone reading this article. How many of you are projecting this angry to the all policemen, the whole police system, institution and law enforcement? How much of you say " what we could do to make police better?" how much of you say "police is evil and we will defund police" maybe think about why?

hobs 5y ago
How many articles about police brutality with no punishment by their superiors do you need to start questioning that there might be systemic abuse? The reason why people say defund the police is because "we'll make it better!" is the same repeated statements that have gone literally nowhere, police abuse continues unchecked to the point where we have to write and publicly humiliate public officials to do their damn jobs.
- sayonaraman 5y ago
  The only result of “defund the police” movement so far has been an explosion in violent crime. The murder rates skyrocketed in 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/upshot/murder-rise-2020.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/upshot/murder-rise-2020.h...
  - Afforess 5y ago
    Literally no police departments have been "defunded" yet - even in places where they have been trying, the cuts have not taken effect. Any stats about a rise in crime is very misleading. The cause of the rise in crime is in no way related to systematic policy changes in funding because there have been no changes made.
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    My understanding is that "defund the police" is to advocate that police is no longer the default caller and the default receiver of money when it comes to broad social issues like, say, a mentally ill person acting erratically, or a homeless person is behaving in crisis, or a similar nonviolent occurrence. The money should instead bolster our public health, public education, and social security and child care services. This is in response to the fact that the police broadly get an obscene amount of money and apparently have very little social good to show for it with no accountability.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > My understanding is that "defund the police" is to… It means different things to different people. Some want to literally abolish police, some want to reduce funding.
girvo 5y ago
> how much of you say "police is evil and we will defund police" maybe think about why? No. They say "this current implementation of our police force are constantly committing evil acts and we should decide as a society whether that is acceptable". Maybe you should think about why you think your opinion is superior to theirs. I imagine you're not on the receiving end of said evil acts. Dismissing the pain of members of the same society as you seems a bit rough, in my opinion.
ModernMech 5y ago
The proposed solution is transparency and accountability, but this seems to be a non starter with entrenched interests. We want body camera evidence, well body cameras are always conveniently off or the recording is missing. We want consequences for cops who abuse their authority, well they get fired and picked up in an adjacent county. It’s maddening. That’s why “defund the police” got started: just build a new system that actually works to “protect and serve” where old entrenched interests have no power to block progress. The police can still have some role, but it will be diminished and vestigial. To fix policing we need real transparency, and real accountability. I don’t think we want an opaque, unaccountable organization with a legal monopoly on violence roaming our streets, do you? So why are police so resistant to being held accountable, the way we all are in our roles in society? If any other organization were throwing grenades into cribs and tasering innocent people, there would be immediate and fundamental changes to bring that behavior to a grinding halt. But because it’s “the police” we tolerate this. Why?
- ryandrake 5y ago
  Why not a parallel police force whose job is to help people rather than hurt them? Model it after the Fire Department--they're here to just help and not harm. This unarmed "Helper Force" would be responsible for aiding citizens in trouble, advocating for victims, helping solve property crimes and other societal ills that typically go unenforced these days. You know, actually protecting and serving. After this "Helper Force" has been around for a while, ask the citizens to decide funding between them and the Original Force who spend their time on the violent side of policing: tazing deaf people, beating up minorities, and shooting everything that moves.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    This is something that would be a great idea. For instance, my wife was in the middle of a mental health crisis so I called 911. That's what you do in this scenario. What she needed at the time was a trained psychiatric professional, not armed police officers that arrived at the door, clueless as to how to deal with her condition. Maybe armed officers are necessary in some of these scenarios, I can agree with that, but they shouldn't be the only ones at the door. The problem is: how do you get this off the ground? Well the obvious way would be to take the money that the police spend on mental health calls and use some of that to fund the helper force. The problem is when you take money away from one group to give to another, there's always going to be objections, and that's what I think happens a lot of the time. I think the police like their role in society, and don't want to give it up quietly.

hobs 5y ago

How many articles about police brutality with no punishment by their superiors do you need to start questioning that there might be systemic abuse? The reason why people say defund the police is because "we'll make it better!" is the same repeated statements that have gone literally nowhere, police abuse continues unchecked to the point where we have to write and publicly humiliate public officials to do their damn jobs.

sayonaraman 5y ago
The only result of “defund the police” movement so far has been an explosion in violent crime. The murder rates skyrocketed in 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/upshot/murder-rise-2020.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/upshot/murder-rise-2020.h...
- Afforess 5y ago
  Literally no police departments have been "defunded" yet - even in places where they have been trying, the cuts have not taken effect. Any stats about a rise in crime is very misleading. The cause of the rise in crime is in no way related to systematic policy changes in funding because there have been no changes made.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  My understanding is that "defund the police" is to advocate that police is no longer the default caller and the default receiver of money when it comes to broad social issues like, say, a mentally ill person acting erratically, or a homeless person is behaving in crisis, or a similar nonviolent occurrence. The money should instead bolster our public health, public education, and social security and child care services. This is in response to the fact that the police broadly get an obscene amount of money and apparently have very little social good to show for it with no accountability.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > My understanding is that "defund the police" is to… It means different things to different people. Some want to literally abolish police, some want to reduce funding.

girvo 5y ago

> how much of you say "police is evil and we will defund police" maybe think about why? No. They say "this current implementation of our police force are constantly committing evil acts and we should decide as a society whether that is acceptable". Maybe you should think about why you think your opinion is superior to theirs. I imagine you're not on the receiving end of said evil acts. Dismissing the pain of members of the same society as you seems a bit rough, in my opinion.

ModernMech 5y ago

The proposed solution is transparency and accountability, but this seems to be a non starter with entrenched interests. We want body camera evidence, well body cameras are always conveniently off or the recording is missing. We want consequences for cops who abuse their authority, well they get fired and picked up in an adjacent county. It’s maddening. That’s why “defund the police” got started: just build a new system that actually works to “protect and serve” where old entrenched interests have no power to block progress. The police can still have some role, but it will be diminished and vestigial. To fix policing we need real transparency, and real accountability. I don’t think we want an opaque, unaccountable organization with a legal monopoly on violence roaming our streets, do you? So why are police so resistant to being held accountable, the way we all are in our roles in society? If any other organization were throwing grenades into cribs and tasering innocent people, there would be immediate and fundamental changes to bring that behavior to a grinding halt. But because it’s “the police” we tolerate this. Why?

ryandrake 5y ago
Why not a parallel police force whose job is to help people rather than hurt them? Model it after the Fire Department--they're here to just help and not harm. This unarmed "Helper Force" would be responsible for aiding citizens in trouble, advocating for victims, helping solve property crimes and other societal ills that typically go unenforced these days. You know, actually protecting and serving. After this "Helper Force" has been around for a while, ask the citizens to decide funding between them and the Original Force who spend their time on the violent side of policing: tazing deaf people, beating up minorities, and shooting everything that moves.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  This is something that would be a great idea. For instance, my wife was in the middle of a mental health crisis so I called 911. That's what you do in this scenario. What she needed at the time was a trained psychiatric professional, not armed police officers that arrived at the door, clueless as to how to deal with her condition. Maybe armed officers are necessary in some of these scenarios, I can agree with that, but they shouldn't be the only ones at the door. The problem is: how do you get this off the ground? Well the obvious way would be to take the money that the police spend on mental health calls and use some of that to fund the helper force. The problem is when you take money away from one group to give to another, there's always going to be objections, and that's what I think happens a lot of the time. I think the police like their role in society, and don't want to give it up quietly.