4 ms·

Please explain how you'd govern your way out of a string of armed robberies committed by someone who goes from town to town.

maxbond 4y ago
Please explain why you think the conversation must boil down to this question, when police respond to a wide variety of incidents, very few of which involve violent crimes. Violent crimes are an important subset, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge the breadth of this topic. Armed robberies would probably require an armed response, which would certainly imply we'd need an organization with the resources to investigate this & dispatch armed people to interdict this robber. That doesn't imply this force should be patrolling the streets or have the power to pull people over arbitrarily, and if you believe we need people serving in those roles, it didn't imply they should be armed or that lethal authority should seamlessly blend from responding to armed robbers to responding to a noise complaint.
- quacked 4y ago
  You said: > I think the problem is actually that you can't imagine a world where we have rules and governance without a militarized force which uses violence to enforce those laws Then you said: > Armed robberies would probably require an armed response, which would certainly imply we'd need an organization with the resources to investigate this & dispatch armed people to interdict this robber. The only purpose for a paramilitary force in society is to respond to violence in an organized and accountable matter. There is no society that can possibly survive long-term without the organized ability to deploy violence on occasion. You keep bringing up nonviolent situations where armed police aren't the best response; I agree with you that the modern people we call "the police" could be reformed, curtailed in responsibility, and replaced with other community representatives, but the core function of police, which is deploy violence when needed, is not appropriate to fully remove from society.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    > The only purpose for a paramilitary force in society is to respond to violence This would be agreeable to me, at least in principle; the specifics would be important. However, the police force is used in all manner of ways. > You keep bringing up nonviolent situations where armed police aren't the best response You continue to downplay or ignore that this is the role police are put to, in the real world, and that it routinely results in violence and unnecessary incarceration
- HanClinto 4y ago
  "Armed robberies would probably require an armed response" You're the one who challenged us to think about how to enforce laws "without a militarized force". And now you're saying we'll need armed response. Which is it? This is why people who advocate getting "rid of the police" (your words) sound like they're talking out both sides of their mouth. "Get rid of police!" "No, I didn't mean to get rid of police entirely. Why would you think that?" It's not a good look. People who talk like this are self-sabotaging their side of the argument by using intentionally double-speak language. This will never go through so long as people continue to use phrases like "get rid of the police".
  - maxbond 4y ago
    There's no contradiction. You're looking for the first chance to dismiss what I'm saying without considering it. Again, the vast majority of what police do is unrelated to violent crime.

maxbond 4y ago

Please explain why you think the conversation must boil down to this question, when police respond to a wide variety of incidents, very few of which involve violent crimes. Violent crimes are an important subset, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge the breadth of this topic. Armed robberies would probably require an armed response, which would certainly imply we'd need an organization with the resources to investigate this & dispatch armed people to interdict this robber. That doesn't imply this force should be patrolling the streets or have the power to pull people over arbitrarily, and if you believe we need people serving in those roles, it didn't imply they should be armed or that lethal authority should seamlessly blend from responding to armed robbers to responding to a noise complaint.

quacked 4y ago
You said: > I think the problem is actually that you can't imagine a world where we have rules and governance without a militarized force which uses violence to enforce those laws Then you said: > Armed robberies would probably require an armed response, which would certainly imply we'd need an organization with the resources to investigate this & dispatch armed people to interdict this robber. The only purpose for a paramilitary force in society is to respond to violence in an organized and accountable matter. There is no society that can possibly survive long-term without the organized ability to deploy violence on occasion. You keep bringing up nonviolent situations where armed police aren't the best response; I agree with you that the modern people we call "the police" could be reformed, curtailed in responsibility, and replaced with other community representatives, but the core function of police, which is deploy violence when needed, is not appropriate to fully remove from society.
- maxbond 4y ago
  > The only purpose for a paramilitary force in society is to respond to violence This would be agreeable to me, at least in principle; the specifics would be important. However, the police force is used in all manner of ways. > You keep bringing up nonviolent situations where armed police aren't the best response You continue to downplay or ignore that this is the role police are put to, in the real world, and that it routinely results in violence and unnecessary incarceration
HanClinto 4y ago
"Armed robberies would probably require an armed response" You're the one who challenged us to think about how to enforce laws "without a militarized force". And now you're saying we'll need armed response. Which is it? This is why people who advocate getting "rid of the police" (your words) sound like they're talking out both sides of their mouth. "Get rid of police!" "No, I didn't mean to get rid of police entirely. Why would you think that?" It's not a good look. People who talk like this are self-sabotaging their side of the argument by using intentionally double-speak language. This will never go through so long as people continue to use phrases like "get rid of the police".
- maxbond 4y ago
  There's no contradiction. You're looking for the first chance to dismiss what I'm saying without considering it. Again, the vast majority of what police do is unrelated to violent crime.