|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 05 2020 21:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 17:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, as far as I know, a modern society needs a police force. It's one thing to disband a police department, but you need to create another one - or another structure that does the policing - straight away.
At that point, I call it reforming in depth rather than abolishing or disbanding, but I guess that's semantic. The article called it disbanding and others are calling it abolishing. It's not semantics, it's a very important distinction.
If GH of all people didn't particularly care for the distinction I don't see how it matters whether it's abolishing or disbanding.
Anyway, I would guess the city council there is having the same discussions there that have been had in this thread. My personal cop-out solution would be to split the police into two institutions, one non-armed and one armed, and have the non-armed one responsible for most day-to-day interaction with the public. Call the non-armed one "neighborhood watch" and the armed one "palace guard" or something.
|
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
On June 05 2020 20:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 19:24 Simberto wrote:
I still have a problem with the concept of a society completely without a police force. (Which is where "abolish" leads me to)
I can't think of an example of one beyond maybe very small groups of people.
That is not to say that the police force in the US isn't very shitty, and the whole US incarceration system is also disgusting. But i think some group of people is necessary to keep the peace, prosecute crimes and so forth.
I have a hard time imagining a society without one. How does that society deal with people stealing stuff from other people? What happens when someone muders another person? Does this society also not have any laws, or are the laws just not enforced? Do we assume that every single person would obey the laws of that society?
Or do we set up another organisation to do all the necessary things the police does, and just not call them police? At that point we are really just talking sematics. I think most people, myself included, assume some sort of replacement. I want something to take its place but I really do see the current system as broken beyond repair. It feels appropriate to wipe it clean and start over. The major issue at the moment is the idea that police occupy some elevated position in society. I consider most cops to be truly awful people.
Absolutely, there is a level of almost fetishisation of both cops and troops that goes beyond society merely respecting them into something approaching worship that, while not entirely to unique to America is certainly different from the culture we have over here and elsewhere I’ve experienced.
This is rather large problem because this status impedes necessary reform, segments of society cannot mentally process that the institution they venerate is broken and it’s reduced to ‘a few bad apples’, who if punished for their actions mean the system is fine.
An institution structured like this, which is held in such regard and gives people impunity is absolutely a goldmine of a gig for people with certain negative psychological profiles.
If the system needs such root and branch reform, there are no good cops. There are otherwise good people who are cops.
I’m very much pro reform here, although I fear it’s rather meaningless if not accompanied with wider justice reform and greater funding to other solutions to social problems.
As the report from the Minneapolis council who are talking about such things, mental health and addiction problems need dealt with by professionals in those fields, but underfunding and police union meddling sees them grow worse until they are a policing issue. Which should obviously not be the case.
Incarceration being over-applied and on such a scale when it has such huge effects on individuals and communities. The mere existence of even a single privately run prison is abhorrent.
|
On June 05 2020 20:38 Velr wrote:
I don't exactly like cops... I tend to avoid people that became one that I knew before despite never having had issues with cops. Yet calling them truely awful people seems very, very weird to me.
I was subjected to racism and brutality by police starting at 15 years old. The people I know who are cops now were once the bullies in high school. I can easily say as well here in the U.S they’re awful. There’s the rare few I’ve interacted with before that aren’t total shit but I’ve interacted with more shit heads.
|
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
On June 05 2020 22:33 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 21:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 05 2020 17:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, as far as I know, a modern society needs a police force. It's one thing to disband a police department, but you need to create another one - or another structure that does the policing - straight away.
At that point, I call it reforming in depth rather than abolishing or disbanding, but I guess that's semantic. The article called it disbanding and others are calling it abolishing. It's not semantics, it's a very important distinction. If GH of all people didn't particularly care for the distinction I don't see how it matters whether it's abolishing or disbanding. Anyway, I would guess the city council there is having the same discussions there that have been had in this thread. My personal cop-out solution would be to split the police into two institutions, one non-armed and one armed, and have the non-armed one responsible for most day-to-day interaction with the public. Call the non-armed one "neighborhood watch" and the armed one "palace guard" or something.
I hope the cop-out wordplay was intentional.
Isn’t that basically how most other police forces tend to function? We’ve got a limited amount of armed response units which require a lot of additional training to get on. Only seen them once in my time where they surrounded my favourite bar, kept us in the smoking area from re-entering and then swept the place. Thankfully a prank call or someone making a genuine mistake with whatever they were called for.
I’m torn, I think for the police to actually be seen as serving the community and for their symbolic role to shift, being unarmed is important to that end. Oh the other hand the possible presence of a gun in any interaction is still something to take into account and really this one area I have sympathy with cops sometimes.
Would only take a few neighbourhood watch being shot for law and order types and much of the public to turn against reforming the police in this particular direction.
|
It's mostly that the people that can't imagine a society without police don't have much imagination other than when it comes to what it is the police in the US do. It's not effectively policing psychos, preventing theft, violent crime, etc. It's overwhelmingly ticketing, responding to collisions, arriving after violent confrontations have concluded, etc.
Most people went immediately to "What about the people that want to steal my stuff!?!?" I think I saw a "what about psychos" and of course "you're so naive" from the folks that never bothered to look into whether in the decades people had been working on this stuff it might have come up.
You guys just watched pk do this same thing and now we've taken one step away from the immediate "the people you see on TV beating your grandpa bloody are bad" and folks lose the plot again.
|
On June 05 2020 22:33 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 21:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 05 2020 17:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, as far as I know, a modern society needs a police force. It's one thing to disband a police department, but you need to create another one - or another structure that does the policing - straight away.
At that point, I call it reforming in depth rather than abolishing or disbanding, but I guess that's semantic. The article called it disbanding and others are calling it abolishing. It's not semantics, it's a very important distinction. If GH of all people didn't particularly care for the distinction I don't see how it matters whether it's abolishing or disbanding. Anyway, I would guess the city council there is having the same discussions there that have been had in this thread. My personal cop-out solution would be to split the police into two institutions, one non-armed and one armed, and have the non-armed one responsible for most day-to-day interaction with the public. Call the non-armed one "neighborhood watch" and the armed one "palace guard" or something.
Because they're not doing away with the police forever. They're going to restructure and bring it back. The article itself, from the person who started the thread says:
“Several of us on the council are working on finding out what it would take to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and start fresh with a community-oriented, nonviolent public safety and outreach capacity,” he wrote.
There will be a police force. Just not in the same capacity it was before. And hopefully they make it better. Read the article.
|
One big problem is that people have let their imagination get the best of them in terms of understanding what criminality actually looks like in the real world, rather than in TV shows or other fictional depictions. It’s very easy for people to conjure up an imagined thief that has somehow chosen their home for looting, and very hard for them to do the same with regards to the daily interactions between authority figures and minorities.
|
On June 05 2020 22:39 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 20:27 Mohdoo wrote:On June 05 2020 19:24 Simberto wrote:
I still have a problem with the concept of a society completely without a police force. (Which is where "abolish" leads me to)
I can't think of an example of one beyond maybe very small groups of people.
That is not to say that the police force in the US isn't very shitty, and the whole US incarceration system is also disgusting. But i think some group of people is necessary to keep the peace, prosecute crimes and so forth.
I have a hard time imagining a society without one. How does that society deal with people stealing stuff from other people? What happens when someone muders another person? Does this society also not have any laws, or are the laws just not enforced? Do we assume that every single person would obey the laws of that society?
Or do we set up another organisation to do all the necessary things the police does, and just not call them police? At that point we are really just talking sematics. I think most people, myself included, assume some sort of replacement. I want something to take its place but I really do see the current system as broken beyond repair. It feels appropriate to wipe it clean and start over. The major issue at the moment is the idea that police occupy some elevated position in society. I consider most cops to be truly awful people. Absolutely, there is a level of almost fetishisation of both cops and troops that goes beyond society merely respecting them into something approaching worship that, while not entirely to unique to America is certainly different from the culture we have over here and elsewhere I’ve experienced. This is rather large problem because this status impedes necessary reform, segments of society cannot mentally process that the institution they venerate is broken and it’s reduced to ‘a few bad apples’, who if punished for their actions mean the system is fine. An institution structured like this, which is held in such regard and gives people impunity is absolutely a goldmine of a gig for people with certain negative psychological profiles. If the system needs such root and branch reform, there are no good cops. There are otherwise good people who are cops. I’m very much pro reform here, although I fear it’s rather meaningless if not accompanied with wider justice reform and greater funding to other solutions to social problems. As the report from the Minneapolis council who are talking about such things, mental health and addiction problems need dealt with by professionals in those fields, but underfunding and police union meddling sees them grow worse until they are a policing issue. Which should obviously not be the case. Incarceration being over-applied and on such a scale when it has such huge effects on individuals and communities. The mere existence of even a single privately run prison is abhorrent.
In most places, there's a mandatory 2 year service at a certain age. That it is completely voluntary here makes it seem as if those who do, are more noble or whatever. If everyone is the same, no one is unique.
|
On June 05 2020 23:08 farvacola wrote:
One big problem is that people have let their imagination get the best of them in terms of understanding what criminality actually looks like in the real world, rather than in TV shows or other fictional depictions. It’s very easy for people to conjure up an imagined thief that has somehow chosen their home for looting, and very hard for them to do the same with regards to the daily interactions between authority figures and minorities.
It is sad what all the copaganda has done to how people understand the nature of crime, and the relationships between criminals, cops, and society. I don't mind disagreeing but when it becomes rapidly apparent the critique comes from folks who haven't done so much as bothered to look at what percentage of police time and staff is used to do the things that they think society can't live without, or how effective they are, it's tiresome.
Just like the "why don't you protest peacefully and be nicer to white people to get change?" imo. The questions demonstrate the person hasn't engaged sincerely with this stuff at all and yet speaks as though their observations/emotions are novel or insightful rather than basic and long since addressed.
To the rhetoric (which is more nuanced than people grasp having no familiarity with the organizations they are working with), I promise you the police see it as "abolishing" them.
|
i’ve had a hard time in the past having anyone agree with me on this, but i think there’s also a culture reasonably unique to the US that anyone on the receiving end of some crime, regardless of its severity, has the ultimate right to kill the criminal.
like no, the punishment for unarmed robbery(looting or counterfeiting) is not death, and no one person should feel empowered to make that decision, cop or not. add in fear or disregard for black lives and here we are, just murdering people on the daily. part of me thinks the rampant gun fetishization is obviously to blame, though we know now guns really need not even be part of the equation. but i do believe, though without any support or evidence, that it has helped us get to this point.
i am all aboard the abolish the police train. there might be good
cops out there and it’s a shame they’ll suffer for the greater good, but time to scrap that shit.
|
On June 05 2020 23:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 22:33 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 05 2020 21:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 05 2020 17:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, as far as I know, a modern society needs a police force. It's one thing to disband a police department, but you need to create another one - or another structure that does the policing - straight away.
At that point, I call it reforming in depth rather than abolishing or disbanding, but I guess that's semantic. The article called it disbanding and others are calling it abolishing. It's not semantics, it's a very important distinction. If GH of all people didn't particularly care for the distinction I don't see how it matters whether it's abolishing or disbanding. Anyway, I would guess the city council there is having the same discussions there that have been had in this thread. My personal cop-out solution would be to split the police into two institutions, one non-armed and one armed, and have the non-armed one responsible for most day-to-day interaction with the public. Call the non-armed one "neighborhood watch" and the armed one "palace guard" or something. Because they're not doing away with the police forever. They're going to restructure and bring it back. The article itself, from the person who started the thread says: Show nested quote +“Several of us on the council are working on finding out what it would take to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and start fresh with a community-oriented, nonviolent public safety and outreach capacity,” he wrote. There will be a police force. Just not in the same capacity it was before. And hopefully they make it better. Read the article.
The new "community-oriented, nonviolent public safety and outreach capacity" doesn't look like police to me. Doesn't have police in the name, for one. If any law-enforcement group is called "police", how is GH's "abolish the police" meant to make any sense?
|
Here's part of why people tend to think US police are awful. They knock down this 75 year old guy, let him start bleeding out and just walk off. The one cop who thought about helping gets pulled back by his superior officer. That's not just a few bad apples. That's a bad culture and bad people.
|
On June 05 2020 23:25 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 23:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 05 2020 22:33 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 05 2020 21:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 05 2020 17:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, as far as I know, a modern society needs a police force. It's one thing to disband a police department, but you need to create another one - or another structure that does the policing - straight away.
At that point, I call it reforming in depth rather than abolishing or disbanding, but I guess that's semantic. The article called it disbanding and others are calling it abolishing. It's not semantics, it's a very important distinction. If GH of all people didn't particularly care for the distinction I don't see how it matters whether it's abolishing or disbanding. Anyway, I would guess the city council there is having the same discussions there that have been had in this thread. My personal cop-out solution would be to split the police into two institutions, one non-armed and one armed, and have the non-armed one responsible for most day-to-day interaction with the public. Call the non-armed one "neighborhood watch" and the armed one "palace guard" or something. Because they're not doing away with the police forever. They're going to restructure and bring it back. The article itself, from the person who started the thread says: “Several of us on the council are working on finding out what it would take to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and start fresh with a community-oriented, nonviolent public safety and outreach capacity,” he wrote. There will be a police force. Just not in the same capacity it was before. And hopefully they make it better. Read the article. The new "community-oriented, nonviolent public safety and outreach capacity" doesn't look like police to me. Doesn't have police in the name, for one. If any law-enforcement group is called "police", how is GH's "abolish the police" meant to make any sense?
A cursory glance at the organization guiding the council on this would go a long way for people:
We believe health, safety and resiliency exist without police of any kind. We organize around policies that strengthen community-led safety initiatives and reduce reliance on police departments. We do not believe that increased regulation of or public engagement with the police will lead to safer communities, as community testimony and documented police conduct suggest otherwise.
@Nev Cops lied and said he tripped on his own as well. My imagination fails when I try to imagine sincerely believing society needs the people in that video for any reason other than to keep poor people from rising up and taking back their stolen labor.
|
On June 05 2020 23:24 brian wrote:
i’ve had a hard time in the past having anyone agree with me on this, but i think there’s also a culture reasonably unique to the US that anyone on the receiving end of some crime, regardless of its severity, has the ultimate right to kill the criminal.
like no, the punishment for unarmed robbery(looting or counterfeiting) is not death, and no one person should feel empowered to make that decision, cop or not. add in fear or disregard for black lives and here we are, just murdering people on the daily. part of me thinks the rampant gun fetishization is obviously to blame, though we know now guns really need not even be part of the equation. but i do believe, though without any support or evidence, that it has helped us get to this point.
i am all aboard the abolish the police train. there might be good
cops out there and it’s a shame they’ll suffer for the greater good, but time to scrap that shit.
There’s no doubt in my mind that the popularity of the notion that violating property rights can and should be a death sentence is a huge part of the problem. It’s *extremely* common in my neck of the woods.
|
On June 05 2020 23:25 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 23:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 05 2020 22:33 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 05 2020 21:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 05 2020 17:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, as far as I know, a modern society needs a police force. It's one thing to disband a police department, but you need to create another one - or another structure that does the policing - straight away.
At that point, I call it reforming in depth rather than abolishing or disbanding, but I guess that's semantic. The article called it disbanding and others are calling it abolishing. It's not semantics, it's a very important distinction. If GH of all people didn't particularly care for the distinction I don't see how it matters whether it's abolishing or disbanding. Anyway, I would guess the city council there is having the same discussions there that have been had in this thread. My personal cop-out solution would be to split the police into two institutions, one non-armed and one armed, and have the non-armed one responsible for most day-to-day interaction with the public. Call the non-armed one "neighborhood watch" and the armed one "palace guard" or something. Because they're not doing away with the police forever. They're going to restructure and bring it back. The article itself, from the person who started the thread says: “Several of us on the council are working on finding out what it would take to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and start fresh with a community-oriented, nonviolent public safety and outreach capacity,” he wrote. There will be a police force. Just not in the same capacity it was before. And hopefully they make it better. Read the article. The new "community-oriented, nonviolent public safety and outreach capacity" doesn't look like police to me. Doesn't have police in the name, for one. If any law-enforcement group is called "police", how is GH's "abolish the police" meant to make any sense?
A few words left off at the beginning. "Start Fresh". It's literally a rebranding of what the police do. The Reclaim the Block organization, that this is loosely based around, has on their front page a list of demands and they do not say abolish. They want it defunded and those funds spent on community level interventions.
+ Show Spoiler +TELL MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL TO DEFUND THE POLICE
In the wake of George Floyd's murder by MPD officer Derek Chauvin, and the Minneapolis Police Department's escalated violence against the city's grieving Black community, Minneapolis is in desperate need of visionary leadership.
We have called on the Minneapolis City Council to become these visionary leaders by pledging to defund the Minneapolis Police Department and invest in the resources that really keep us safe and healthy, especially in Black communities, Indigenous communities and communities of color. We have called on them to commit to the following by Saturday, May 30th at 8am:
1. To never again vote to increase police funding or to increase the police department's budget.
2. To propose and vote for a $45 million cut from MPD's budget as the City responds to projected COVID-19 shortfalls.
3. To protect and expand current investment in community-led health and safety strategies, instead of investing in police.
4. To do everything in my power to compel MPD and all law enforcement agencies to immediately cease enacting violence on community members.
Our city is on fire, our people are hurting, and Black communities are crying out for health and safety in the midst of pandemic. Now is the time to invest in a safe, liberated future for our city. We can't afford to keep funding MPD's attacks on Black lives.
Edit: Maybe you can answer this question then? How would the no law enforcement work, especially when it comes to things like domestic violence and drunk driving? Is there a society functioning without law enforcement right now that we can look at?
|
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me.
|
lol abolish the police, right
that way we can really accelerate the crash of society
maybe we can build some extra highways across the mexican border, too. then the country can be openly ran by criminals instead of secretly ran by criminals.
|
On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me.
First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist.
Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist.
|
On June 05 2020 17:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
You might not know very far. If you don't (haven't done research) perhaps you should assign your perception an appropriate value. What is needed is a way for society to prevent and mitigate the damage caused by unacceptably aberrant behavior.
The overwhelming majority of police/carceral interactions are not anything resembling what a healthy society would want or the science reflects is an effective way to do either of those things. The few that might (interrupting violent crimes in progress) while both a relatively rare occurrence to require an armed officer and often made worse by their presence, don't require anything resembling police as they exist or the training they have.
A healthy society doesn't need police because community accountability is sufficient when complimented with a society that cares for its members. When you starve people and drive Ferraris past them you need a large and violently repressive police force. A lot of the supposed need for police stems from the internalized need to protect property (or the people with it) from poor people.
You dismissed psychopathy, but you think either a caring society will be enough to sway them so they won't manipulate/exploit/.. ?
You think they will be caught during the act?
I agree that many issues stem from the (perceived) differences in wealth in our society, I'm willing to try to make it a truly egalitarian one, but I still think differences will pop up, making random crimes happen.
How would you solve an entire community (doesn't need to be a big community mind you) denying crime has even occured where one or a few individuals heavily crossed the line, simply because of them not wanting to lose face towards another community?
Every community is supposed to be nice and equal and good to each other after all.
|
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
On June 05 2020 23:24 brian wrote:
i’ve had a hard time in the past having anyone agree with me on this, but i think there’s also a culture reasonably unique to the US that anyone on the receiving end of some crime, regardless of its severity, has the ultimate right to kill the criminal.
like no, the punishment for unarmed robbery(looting or counterfeiting) is not death, and no one person should feel empowered to make that decision, cop or not. add in fear or disregard for black lives and here we are, just murdering people on the daily. part of me thinks the rampant gun fetishization is obviously to blame, though we know now guns really need not even be part of the equation. but i do believe, though without any support or evidence, that it has helped us get to this point.
i am all aboard the abolish the police train. there might be good
cops out there and it’s a shame they’ll suffer for the greater good, but time to scrap that shit.
I’m surprised you have struggled to get agreement on that, it seems patently the case. Even if one’s position is ‘and that is the way it should be’.
Not that segments of the population in other countries are pro the death penalty or lethal force, but largely they do at least reserve those views for those who are being extremely violent or threatening life.
Only in the States do I see people desperately trying to justify lethal force with ‘well the guy got a few parking tickets’
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
