7 ms·

Maybe it's time to reevaluate the role of police in our society. As an institution we've given them too many tools to exploit people, steal from people, do viol

Maybe it's time to reevaluate the role of police in our society. As an institution we've given them too many tools to exploit people, steal from people, do violence to people, and lie under oath. When I read stories like this, of which there are many, or see studies that say 40% of police admit to commiting domestic violence, it sure makes me believe we've hired exactly the wrong set of people to hold power.

para_parolu 4y ago
But do you hire them?
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Our taxes fund them, so in a sense, yes. We could fund civilian organizations to perform many of the functions of police, and do so without weapons and oppressive technology. Then reduce our police forces.
  - wlesieutre 4y ago
    For the record, the police are a civilian organization, the fact that they like to gear up in military equipment and pretend they're in a war is part of the problem
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Of course. But it's common enough lingo to use phrases like "civilian oversight" to refer to non police community members. The intent is to suggest unarmed, non law enforcement organizations.
  - NegativeLatency 4y ago
    Portland actually has such an organization: https://www.portland.gov/streetresponse https://www.portland.gov/streetresponse
    - wlesieutre 4y ago
      Denver also https://kdvr.com/news/local/study-denvers-star-program-reduced-crime-costs/ https://kdvr.com/news/local/study-denvers-star-program-reduc...
    - joemazerino 4y ago
      Ah yes Portland. The bastion of civil protection and order. https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/10/82-of-portland-area-voters-want-more-police-oregonianoregonlive-poll-finds.html https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/10/82-of-portland-area...
      - NegativeLatency 4y ago
        Im going to guess we disagree about the state of policing, a couple of things you should consider though: The Oregonian has a pretty obvious slant and bias in related reporting. Another thing worth considering is “who’s benefiting” from all the reporting about “dirty” “homeless filled” “unsafe” Portland, as generally it’s conservative and pro police organizations that pull it out as a scare tactic to all the people in the suburbs or even more rural areas of the state.
  - muaytimbo 4y ago
    Reduce or eliminate entirely? I'd advocate for the latter.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      I would too, but I'd consider the former a win to a lesser degree.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      The capital class will never allow for the elimination of police. If they do, the result will be worse, because it will have been because they realized they could hire private security for cheaper than funding public protection. If you don't like the unaccountability of cops, look forward to the accountability of Pinkerton private investigators.
      - muaytimbo 4y ago
        eh, at least with Pinkerton PIs they are not literally on the same payroll as prosecutors and judges. There can be a little daylight between them. Maybe I'm part of that "capital class", I'm not sure what that means exactly but I know I'd much rather look after my own affairs.
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        The capital class are the folks who will be able to hire bodyguards or pay subscriptions to private police forces if we do away with public police. Because the alternative to public policing isn't no police; it's rich folk paying the interior-territorial arm of PMCs to march around their property with body armor and high-powered rifles, while the rest of the populace sorts things out themselves. We didn't always have public policing, and one can look at history to see what the prior alternatives were.
        muaytimbo 4y ago
        That's an assumption. I have my concealed carry card. I can/ do/ and would continue protect myself. Other people can do the same without resorting to hiring. There's also a long history of self protection without the use of hired goons.
axus 4y ago
The current systems definitely have problems. There are parallels with content moderation and government in general. How do you attract the right people to do the job, limit the damage from the wrong ones, and reform the system to be better for everyone?
- phreack 4y ago
  Accountability would be a start. There are very few risks to becoming a criminal police officer so it's clear it'll keep happening.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - rolph 4y ago
    i think that would require total replacement or abolishment of police unions. if youve never been to an LEO union hall, its alot like 4chan
- krolden 4y ago
  Eliminate the job all together and refocus the money and effort into actually improving peoples lives instead of forcing them to live in fear of incarnation/death by state employees.
- treeman79 4y ago
  Assume people will abuse power if given the chance. Build system / rules accordingly. That’s why the constitution is all about limiting the role of government.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  My impression (from a number of sources, over time) is that, in American small town police departments, the standard for new-officer hires is usually little more than "he's been a cop, has no serious criminal convictions on record, and seems like our kinda guy". And that serious investigation into "problematic" officers often shows a pattern of job-hopping. A Really Basic police reform step might be to institute minimum standards for hiring police. And assign the "background checks" job to a carefully monitored central specialty office.
DocTomoe 4y ago
In a non-corrupt civil society, the solution to this problem would have to have a much stricter and more punishing criminal code for law enforcement officers - if they get special rights and protections, they should be held especially accountable, in uniform, and out of it.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  But prosecutors need cops, so they are very, very reluctant to prosecute cops.
  - rolph 4y ago
    prosecutors should be subject to same scrutiny
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Given adequate pay there should be an infinite supply of honest people that want a career in law enforcement. Raise the pay until you get what you need. I'm sure it would still cost less than the lawsuits & other overheads of having to clean up after corrupt cops.
  - zo1 4y ago
    Then remove prosecutors. Make it so anyone can prosecute or trigger the sequence of events that follow within reason. At least remove the ability for prosecutors to take funding (wtf? who thought of this as a good idea?) and take away their ability to reduce sentences or negotiate which crimes are charged. The "crimes" should be part of the trial process and agreed by a judge or the jury or whatever mechanism you can think of. Do a bunch of the above and I would argue that would satisfy both sides of the spectrum.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    Give cops bonuses if they catch other cops up to shady stuff.
    - feet 4y ago
ineptech 4y ago
It might help to start by getting rid of the ranks and other military trappings.
- HarryHirsch 4y ago
  At least the military has rules of engagement, which are taken seriously. A friend of mine is a combat veteran. He had utmost contempt for Special Forces and contractors because they were above the law.
  - yamazakiwi 4y ago
    Cops rush to sweep everything under the rug. Military leadership make an EXAMPLE out of every rulebreaker.
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      This is easily verifiable as untrue. Look at reports for Afghanistan and Iraq. The situation around Gallagher and other special forces soldiers.
      - yamazakiwi 4y ago
        I'm not sure what you're talking about... but I can tell you that 99.9% of veterans and active duty have stories plural about extreme punishment to themselves or those they served with.
        lostlogin 4y ago
        Every conflict has publicised atrocities that go completely unpunished or barely punished. The list from just the last few decades is very long. How do you square that with your view that there are consequences for bad behaviour? I’m sure there are lots of petty power games and actual enforcement of rules back at base most of the time, but armies have a record of behaviour that is probably worse than any other profession. Even your description of ‘extreme punishment’ sounds like it may be crossing into something that isn’t acceptable or legal. Hazing and such like isn’t discipline or rule enforcement.
UberFly 4y ago
Just for perspective, that 40% statistic that gets repeated is from a single small study in the early 90's.
phpisthebest 4y ago
In the US we need to recognize what the police has become first. An unconstitutional Paramilitary organization that has grown far far far beyond the remit of a peace keeping professional organization charged with keeping an ordered society This is primarily a result of the War on Drugs, and expanded with the War on Terror. War's are fought by a military, not a police force.
- shortstuffsushi 4y ago
  While I agree that the weapons, armor, and technology generally given to police is not appropriate (especially at small town levels, vs county sheriff, swat.. etc), trying to label them as a paramilitary organization is only going to result in eyes rolling. "Recognizing" them as such is probably not the right place to start, if you're serious in trying to convince a larger swath of the population they need to be fixed.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    It is more than just the equipment that makes them paramilitary, many dept mirror their organization structure after that of a military, down to the ranks, and uniforms including Service ribbons...
    - shortstuffsushi 4y ago
      I don't disagree with your premise, but if something like half the country doesn't agree that the cops are fundamentally flawed, labeling them effectively as an extremist group will only further entrench their stance that "you're crazy, we're right." Edit: for example, I think that your other post with the five bullet points could hold up to reasonable scrutiny when presented to the pro-cop crowd, but would likely fall on deaf ears with them if you lead off with the paramilitary framing.
dawnerd 4y ago
Starting with making it a crime to lie as a police officer would go a long way in beginning to hold people accountable.
- feet 4y ago
  I think enforcing that would be the tricky part

para_parolu 4y ago

But do you hire them?

socialismisok 4y ago
Our taxes fund them, so in a sense, yes. We could fund civilian organizations to perform many of the functions of police, and do so without weapons and oppressive technology. Then reduce our police forces.
- wlesieutre 4y ago
  For the record, the police are a civilian organization, the fact that they like to gear up in military equipment and pretend they're in a war is part of the problem
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Of course. But it's common enough lingo to use phrases like "civilian oversight" to refer to non police community members. The intent is to suggest unarmed, non law enforcement organizations.
- NegativeLatency 4y ago
  Portland actually has such an organization: https://www.portland.gov/streetresponse https://www.portland.gov/streetresponse
  - wlesieutre 4y ago
    Denver also https://kdvr.com/news/local/study-denvers-star-program-reduced-crime-costs/ https://kdvr.com/news/local/study-denvers-star-program-reduc...
  - joemazerino 4y ago
    Ah yes Portland. The bastion of civil protection and order. https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/10/82-of-portland-area-voters-want-more-police-oregonianoregonlive-poll-finds.html https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/10/82-of-portland-area...
    - NegativeLatency 4y ago
      Im going to guess we disagree about the state of policing, a couple of things you should consider though: The Oregonian has a pretty obvious slant and bias in related reporting. Another thing worth considering is “who’s benefiting” from all the reporting about “dirty” “homeless filled” “unsafe” Portland, as generally it’s conservative and pro police organizations that pull it out as a scare tactic to all the people in the suburbs or even more rural areas of the state.
- muaytimbo 4y ago
  Reduce or eliminate entirely? I'd advocate for the latter.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    I would too, but I'd consider the former a win to a lesser degree.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    The capital class will never allow for the elimination of police. If they do, the result will be worse, because it will have been because they realized they could hire private security for cheaper than funding public protection. If you don't like the unaccountability of cops, look forward to the accountability of Pinkerton private investigators.
    - muaytimbo 4y ago
      eh, at least with Pinkerton PIs they are not literally on the same payroll as prosecutors and judges. There can be a little daylight between them. Maybe I'm part of that "capital class", I'm not sure what that means exactly but I know I'd much rather look after my own affairs.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        The capital class are the folks who will be able to hire bodyguards or pay subscriptions to private police forces if we do away with public police. Because the alternative to public policing isn't no police; it's rich folk paying the interior-territorial arm of PMCs to march around their property with body armor and high-powered rifles, while the rest of the populace sorts things out themselves. We didn't always have public policing, and one can look at history to see what the prior alternatives were.
        muaytimbo 4y ago
        That's an assumption. I have my concealed carry card. I can/ do/ and would continue protect myself. Other people can do the same without resorting to hiring. There's also a long history of self protection without the use of hired goons.

axus 4y ago

The current systems definitely have problems. There are parallels with content moderation and government in general. How do you attract the right people to do the job, limit the damage from the wrong ones, and reform the system to be better for everyone?

phreack 4y ago
Accountability would be a start. There are very few risks to becoming a criminal police officer so it's clear it'll keep happening.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rolph 4y ago
  i think that would require total replacement or abolishment of police unions. if youve never been to an LEO union hall, its alot like 4chan
krolden 4y ago
Eliminate the job all together and refocus the money and effort into actually improving peoples lives instead of forcing them to live in fear of incarnation/death by state employees.
treeman79 4y ago
Assume people will abuse power if given the chance. Build system / rules accordingly. That’s why the constitution is all about limiting the role of government.
bell-cot 4y ago
My impression (from a number of sources, over time) is that, in American small town police departments, the standard for new-officer hires is usually little more than "he's been a cop, has no serious criminal convictions on record, and seems like our kinda guy". And that serious investigation into "problematic" officers often shows a pattern of job-hopping. A Really Basic police reform step might be to institute minimum standards for hiring police. And assign the "background checks" job to a carefully monitored central specialty office.

DocTomoe 4y ago

In a non-corrupt civil society, the solution to this problem would have to have a much stricter and more punishing criminal code for law enforcement officers - if they get special rights and protections, they should be held especially accountable, in uniform, and out of it.

socialismisok 4y ago
But prosecutors need cops, so they are very, very reluctant to prosecute cops.
- rolph 4y ago
  prosecutors should be subject to same scrutiny
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Given adequate pay there should be an infinite supply of honest people that want a career in law enforcement. Raise the pay until you get what you need. I'm sure it would still cost less than the lawsuits & other overheads of having to clean up after corrupt cops.
- zo1 4y ago
  Then remove prosecutors. Make it so anyone can prosecute or trigger the sequence of events that follow within reason. At least remove the ability for prosecutors to take funding (wtf? who thought of this as a good idea?) and take away their ability to reduce sentences or negotiate which crimes are charged. The "crimes" should be part of the trial process and agreed by a judge or the jury or whatever mechanism you can think of. Do a bunch of the above and I would argue that would satisfy both sides of the spectrum.
- triceratops 4y ago
  Give cops bonuses if they catch other cops up to shady stuff.
  - feet 4y ago

ineptech 4y ago

It might help to start by getting rid of the ranks and other military trappings.

HarryHirsch 4y ago
At least the military has rules of engagement, which are taken seriously. A friend of mine is a combat veteran. He had utmost contempt for Special Forces and contractors because they were above the law.
- yamazakiwi 4y ago
  Cops rush to sweep everything under the rug. Military leadership make an EXAMPLE out of every rulebreaker.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    This is easily verifiable as untrue. Look at reports for Afghanistan and Iraq. The situation around Gallagher and other special forces soldiers.
    - yamazakiwi 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you're talking about... but I can tell you that 99.9% of veterans and active duty have stories plural about extreme punishment to themselves or those they served with.
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        Every conflict has publicised atrocities that go completely unpunished or barely punished. The list from just the last few decades is very long. How do you square that with your view that there are consequences for bad behaviour? I’m sure there are lots of petty power games and actual enforcement of rules back at base most of the time, but armies have a record of behaviour that is probably worse than any other profession. Even your description of ‘extreme punishment’ sounds like it may be crossing into something that isn’t acceptable or legal. Hazing and such like isn’t discipline or rule enforcement.

UberFly 4y ago

Just for perspective, that 40% statistic that gets repeated is from a single small study in the early 90's.

phpisthebest 4y ago

In the US we need to recognize what the police has become first. An unconstitutional Paramilitary organization that has grown far far far beyond the remit of a peace keeping professional organization charged with keeping an ordered society This is primarily a result of the War on Drugs, and expanded with the War on Terror. War's are fought by a military, not a police force.

shortstuffsushi 4y ago
While I agree that the weapons, armor, and technology generally given to police is not appropriate (especially at small town levels, vs county sheriff, swat.. etc), trying to label them as a paramilitary organization is only going to result in eyes rolling. "Recognizing" them as such is probably not the right place to start, if you're serious in trying to convince a larger swath of the population they need to be fixed.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  It is more than just the equipment that makes them paramilitary, many dept mirror their organization structure after that of a military, down to the ranks, and uniforms including Service ribbons...
  - shortstuffsushi 4y ago
    I don't disagree with your premise, but if something like half the country doesn't agree that the cops are fundamentally flawed, labeling them effectively as an extremist group will only further entrench their stance that "you're crazy, we're right." Edit: for example, I think that your other post with the five bullet points could hold up to reasonable scrutiny when presented to the pro-cop crowd, but would likely fall on deaf ears with them if you lead off with the paramilitary framing.

dawnerd 4y ago

Starting with making it a crime to lie as a police officer would go a long way in beginning to hold people accountable.

feet 4y ago
I think enforcing that would be the tricky part