4 ms·

I've been exposed to the world of law enforcement a few times in my career. They're mostly good people, with a few bad apples. They're granted extraordinary a

by nugget 4y ago

I've been exposed to the world of law enforcement a few times in my career. They're mostly good people, with a few bad apples. They're granted extraordinary authority by society and should be subjected to scrutiny from outside agencies and third parties. Defunding the police seems more likely to hurt than help the most at-risk communities. If anything, they should get more funding, and it should be used to raise hiring standards and increase in-service training time particularly around mental health awareness, civil rights (first and fourth amendment law), appropriate use of force, and de-escalation tactics. They're subjected to a lot of job related PTSD but receive almost no mental health counseling or support. I'd also separate privacy and security (especially privacy) from the debate over funding or defunding the police. The solution to abuses like the Accurint breach is to dramatically reverse the proliferation of sensitive personal data held in the digital ecosystem. If it's not there, it can't be found and exploited.

93po 4y ago
> Defunding the police is more likely to hurt than help the most at-risk communities. Citation needed. Policing has been tremendous, irreparable harm to disadvantaged groups. You're completely missing the point of defunding - you're almost there when you say there should be more funding. There needs to be funding around non-police community work. Also the "few bad apples" phrase doesn't work as you're using it. The point is that a few bad apples spoils the bunch - it makes them all rotten. Which is very true even though you weren't intending it that way. Even if most cops wouldn't directly do something awful, most cops will stand aside and say nothing when they see a fellow cop do something awful. Which is literally how George Floyd died.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  to be fair I believe you're also missing a citation showing better than isolated data of defunding creating better long term outcomes for sufficient stakeholders without unacceptable negative outcomes for others.
  - 93po 4y ago
    So it's okay to have ruinous effects on disadvantaged groups so that advantaged groups don't suffer mild negative effects of less policing?
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  > Which is literally how George Floyd died. We also could have learned the lesson years earlier such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tony_Timpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tony_Timpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tony_Timpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tony_Timpa
drewbeck 4y ago
Two issues I see with your line: 1. we've been increasing funding consistently for … forever. It hasn't resulted in improved outcomes. 2. cops don't want better hiring standards (sounds like you want to fire some cops? they don't want that), better use of force standards (sounds like you want to give non-cops more ways to prosecute cops if they break a couple too many noses? nope) 3. de-escalation?? sounds like you want to put cops in the line of fire without proper tools. Nope. Cops will always and forever defend their right to fuck shit up and not suffer the consequences. Cops will NEVER go for the ideas you suggest, and any money you send them for "training" will only turn into luxe contracts for ex-cops and extra overtime for everyone. Cops love being cops because of what the institution is now, today. The toxicity, the freedom to do shit without consequences, the lucrative overtime, all of it. And cops are incredibly good at agitating when they are threatened – oh you want to make it so we can't shoot people? Okay we're not going to do any work at all for months. Or maybe we send someone's cousin around the way to scare you – you think that's a problem … call the cops! The problem imo with the "mostly good people" line is that it ignores the fact that in a harmful institution most "good people" will just go along with whatever is happening. Any "good cop" who speaks up against a fellow cop gets their face bashed in (see the current case in SF where they straight up killed another cop in a training exercise …). Good people in shitty situations can make harmful choices and generally don't do the (very difficult and dangerous) work of speaking up to change things. Defund. We need something new.

by nugget 4y ago

93po 4y ago

> Defunding the police is more likely to hurt than help the most at-risk communities. Citation needed. Policing has been tremendous, irreparable harm to disadvantaged groups. You're completely missing the point of defunding - you're almost there when you say there should be more funding. There needs to be funding around non-police community work. Also the "few bad apples" phrase doesn't work as you're using it. The point is that a few bad apples spoils the bunch - it makes them all rotten. Which is very true even though you weren't intending it that way. Even if most cops wouldn't directly do something awful, most cops will stand aside and say nothing when they see a fellow cop do something awful. Which is literally how George Floyd died.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
maerF0x0 4y ago
to be fair I believe you're also missing a citation showing better than isolated data of defunding creating better long term outcomes for sufficient stakeholders without unacceptable negative outcomes for others.
- 93po 4y ago
  So it's okay to have ruinous effects on disadvantaged groups so that advantaged groups don't suffer mild negative effects of less policing?
maerF0x0 4y ago
> Which is literally how George Floyd died. We also could have learned the lesson years earlier such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tony_Timpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tony_Timpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tony_Timpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tony_Timpa

drewbeck 4y ago

Two issues I see with your line: 1. we've been increasing funding consistently for … forever. It hasn't resulted in improved outcomes. 2. cops don't want better hiring standards (sounds like you want to fire some cops? they don't want that), better use of force standards (sounds like you want to give non-cops more ways to prosecute cops if they break a couple too many noses? nope) 3. de-escalation?? sounds like you want to put cops in the line of fire without proper tools. Nope. Cops will always and forever defend their right to fuck shit up and not suffer the consequences. Cops will NEVER go for the ideas you suggest, and any money you send them for "training" will only turn into luxe contracts for ex-cops and extra overtime for everyone. Cops love being cops because of what the institution is now, today. The toxicity, the freedom to do shit without consequences, the lucrative overtime, all of it. And cops are incredibly good at agitating when they are threatened – oh you want to make it so we can't shoot people? Okay we're not going to do any work at all for months. Or maybe we send someone's cousin around the way to scare you – you think that's a problem … call the cops! The problem imo with the "mostly good people" line is that it ignores the fact that in a harmful institution most "good people" will just go along with whatever is happening. Any "good cop" who speaks up against a fellow cop gets their face bashed in (see the current case in SF where they straight up killed another cop in a training exercise …). Good people in shitty situations can make harmful choices and generally don't do the (very difficult and dangerous) work of speaking up to change things. Defund. We need something new.