3 ms·

Most of Europe is a good example of how much better policing can be done than we do it here. A pretty huge part of the problem is that our police act as vastly

Most of Europe is a good example of how much better policing can be done than we do it here. A pretty huge part of the problem is that our police act as vastly inferior substitutes to just proper social services. An incredibly simple and good example of how this could be done better is being demonstrated in Denver, where they have unarmed mental health first responders, because most of the time someone is in crisis they're only a threat to themselves, so being armed only makes the situation worse. They're also trained to view the public as the enemy (warrior training), making them a walking threat. Our police kill people at a rate many times higher than other comparably developed nations; about 60x the UK, for reference. Yes our gun ownership is higher, but the relatively low rate of police deaths shows that their readiness to resort to violence is unjustified. If we allocated even half of our police budgets towards social services, we'd live safer lives.

Jensson 3y ago
Your argument says that we can improve the police, not that the police is net negative. You said that there are strong arguments for the police being net negative, that is very extreme. Net negative means that society would improve if we just removed it without replacing it with anything. Can you defend that?
- delecti 3y ago
  "The police are a net negative" does not mean that they are irreparably terrible, and "net negative" even makes it clear that I think they have some benefits. But yes, I think freeing up that enormous amount of budget for almost any other purpose would be an improvement.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > But yes, I think freeing up that enormous amount of budget for almost any other purpose would be an improvement. Do you have good arguments for this? For example, if we dismantled the entire police force to reduce the government deficit, or to increase healthcare spending, or to reduce taxes, do you really think society would improve? Your examples above didn't dismantle the police entirely and had a very small set of alternative spending. It isn't consistent with what you said in this post. You need to explain why you think that dismantling the entire police force would be a net positive, how do you think that society would work without a police force?
    - PawgerZ 3y ago
      You keep bringing up dismantling the police force, but the person you're repsonding to never said that. Argue against their points, not the positions you have imagined for them in your head. > Your argument says that we can improve the police, not that the police is net negative. >Net negative means that society would improve if we just removed it without replacing it with anything. Can you defend that? Also, net negative means that their negative actions outweigh their positive actions. I don't know how you got the idea that negative == not repairable. You're putting arguments that they didn't say into their mouth. You're only arguing in false dilemmas.
    - asadotzler 3y ago
      If we demolished the police to spend instead on social services and taking care of more people with mental illness, improving fire and EMT services, and providing a very small number of detectives to handle investigating significant crimes, I believe my specific county would be overalls safer. The idea that maintaining public order takes a cop with a gun for every 300 or 400 citizens is just ludicrous. I live in a county with a large rural area and even here we have a cop with a gun for every 600 to 700 citizens which is still far too many. There are over 100 CHP for about 25 miles of highway in the area, for Pete's sake.
- ineptech 3y ago
  It can simultaneously be true that X causes more problems than it solves, and that the disappearance of X would cause even worse problems. Also, this is a common strawman: almost no one advocates police abolition over police reform, but discussions about police reform very often involve someone who advocates reform being asked to defend abolition anyway.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > It can simultaneously be true that X causes more problems than it solves, and that the disappearance of X would cause even worse problems No it can't, if removing X causes more problems then having X prevents those worse problems. > Also, this is a common strawman: almost no one advocates police abolition over police reform The person I responded to argued just this. This is what police being net negative means, that society would improve by removing the police. I wouldn't have said anything if he just thought that the police could use a budget cut or a reform.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>Our police kill people at a rate many times higher than other comparably developed nations; about 60x the UK, for reference. Yes our gun ownership is higher, but the relatively low rate of police deaths shows that their readiness to resort to violence is unjustified. TBF I still feel that's a gun problem. It's very hard to "accidentally" kill someone with a baton, taser, or even a knife (not that I know any police with a knife). Meanwhile, richochet bullets can kill someone in the complete opposite direction of fire if your're really unlucky. more likely, a shot misses and goes past the scene and into the crossfire of someone innocent. but as anyone battling 2A knows, that's (and was) going to be a very long debate.

Jensson 3y ago

Your argument says that we can improve the police, not that the police is net negative. You said that there are strong arguments for the police being net negative, that is very extreme. Net negative means that society would improve if we just removed it without replacing it with anything. Can you defend that?

delecti 3y ago
"The police are a net negative" does not mean that they are irreparably terrible, and "net negative" even makes it clear that I think they have some benefits. But yes, I think freeing up that enormous amount of budget for almost any other purpose would be an improvement.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > But yes, I think freeing up that enormous amount of budget for almost any other purpose would be an improvement. Do you have good arguments for this? For example, if we dismantled the entire police force to reduce the government deficit, or to increase healthcare spending, or to reduce taxes, do you really think society would improve? Your examples above didn't dismantle the police entirely and had a very small set of alternative spending. It isn't consistent with what you said in this post. You need to explain why you think that dismantling the entire police force would be a net positive, how do you think that society would work without a police force?
  - PawgerZ 3y ago
    You keep bringing up dismantling the police force, but the person you're repsonding to never said that. Argue against their points, not the positions you have imagined for them in your head. > Your argument says that we can improve the police, not that the police is net negative. >Net negative means that society would improve if we just removed it without replacing it with anything. Can you defend that? Also, net negative means that their negative actions outweigh their positive actions. I don't know how you got the idea that negative == not repairable. You're putting arguments that they didn't say into their mouth. You're only arguing in false dilemmas.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    If we demolished the police to spend instead on social services and taking care of more people with mental illness, improving fire and EMT services, and providing a very small number of detectives to handle investigating significant crimes, I believe my specific county would be overalls safer. The idea that maintaining public order takes a cop with a gun for every 300 or 400 citizens is just ludicrous. I live in a county with a large rural area and even here we have a cop with a gun for every 600 to 700 citizens which is still far too many. There are over 100 CHP for about 25 miles of highway in the area, for Pete's sake.
ineptech 3y ago
It can simultaneously be true that X causes more problems than it solves, and that the disappearance of X would cause even worse problems. Also, this is a common strawman: almost no one advocates police abolition over police reform, but discussions about police reform very often involve someone who advocates reform being asked to defend abolition anyway.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > It can simultaneously be true that X causes more problems than it solves, and that the disappearance of X would cause even worse problems No it can't, if removing X causes more problems then having X prevents those worse problems. > Also, this is a common strawman: almost no one advocates police abolition over police reform The person I responded to argued just this. This is what police being net negative means, that society would improve by removing the police. I wouldn't have said anything if he just thought that the police could use a budget cut or a reform.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>Our police kill people at a rate many times higher than other comparably developed nations; about 60x the UK, for reference. Yes our gun ownership is higher, but the relatively low rate of police deaths shows that their readiness to resort to violence is unjustified. TBF I still feel that's a gun problem. It's very hard to "accidentally" kill someone with a baton, taser, or even a knife (not that I know any police with a knife). Meanwhile, richochet bullets can kill someone in the complete opposite direction of fire if your're really unlucky. more likely, a shot misses and goes past the scene and into the crossfire of someone innocent. but as anyone battling 2A knows, that's (and was) going to be a very long debate.