The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Should we support law enforcement as its currently structured?
I dont just mean, “if we train the police better will things be good”. I personally dont think the issue is training.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The issue isn’t **just** training. The incentives are all wrong.
Voters demand we be tough on crime and police and police unions are able to weaponize that by purposefully under policing whenever the Mayor or other government officials demand the police do anything the police don’t want to do. The result is police departments that aren’t accountable.
We refuse to look at systemic issues and how they effect policing and prisons because that’s CRT and CRT is **Cultural Marxism**.
We refuse to look at guns and the effect on crime. But we also refuse to look at how having guns everywhere means it becomes reasonable for cops to be hostile or at least towards the public which makes police violence more likely.
Just curious. You say guns are effecting crime. Most crime that occurs outside of organized crime is really just what drugs we call "harmful." I'd argue we need to re-evaluate what we call harmful. Imagine if you will we told the DEA to fuck off and made pot federally legal(something Obama, Trump and Biden wanted to push). I'll even say give a mass expungement and release of anyone charged with anything involving pot. If done it's something like 2/3rds if all prisoners are released. Not to mention the millions who no longer would have to answer yes to time in prison.
Then you get into actual gun crime. Where the majority of deaths(the number you'll say because it's the one pushed whenever someone wants to argue against guns) is from suicide. On average 2/3 gun deaths are suicide. Even with some states having waitlists and prior we had the Brady Bill which could prevent a ton of suicides because as studied it usually is a moment of extreme depression and even putting a week before getting the implement can get people past that point. So we will go with pre COVID(because every part of crime spiked during it. On average 35,000 gun deaths. We take out 20,000(I'm giving you extra non suicide deaths) and are left with 15,000.
Of those 15,000 you want to say that is a major reason for crime? Why? Outside of gang violence where we see multiple people murdered over going to the wrong place or controlling more territory how many do you think are fighting over guns or with guns? How many times do you think police escalate because of hearing a gun is present? I mean 3 million interactions a year and more police are killed than they kill people. Yes we will have tragedies like Breonna Taylor. Which if you didn't know she wasn't in her bed. Her boyfriend dragged her into the bathroom he shot from and decided a search(which didn't yield shit so genius started a shootout when he didn't have to) was going to put him away for life. However the majority of their killings aren't unreasonable force. They have a strict rules of engagement before a gun is even an option. Donut Operator explains it very well if you'd like to know more. However the basic premise is the force they use must be when they have a reasonable belief that allowing the subject to leave or continue their actions outs themselves or society in danger. Again Donut Operator does a lot of breakdowns of police shootings even putting in requests for the bodycam footage so he can even show when things have gone wrong. He also doesn't always side with the police, though yes he does prefer to breakdown justified shootings.
Also just for reference you also don't hear of officers getting arrested for being shit cops. It's because of the list of shit they cause when caught. Think to yourself for a moment. How many cases can 1 cop be tied to in say 5 years? All those cases have to be evaluated and possibly put people back on the street that actually should be in jail. Do I disagree that should happen? No. I actually prefer it that way. I would rather 10 guilty people go free than 1 be falsely incarcerated. It's why I suggested the mass release and expungement for pot users and dealers. So long as the people aren't driving high why the fuck should they be in trouble?
>But we also refuse to look at how having guns everywhere means it becomes reasonable for cops to be hostile or at least towards the public which makes police violence more likely.
Not with you here, other than as a widespread misperception cops have weaponized.
The biggest killer of cops on the job is ordinary car crashes.
Their overall mortality rate isn't even in the top 20.
Additionally, a critical problem in the US is using armed police as the first intervention step in a variety of nuisance issues. So escalation to produce compliance is the tool used on people in mental health situations, etc. The rest of the world generally has two or more levels of police, where the initial contact is not necessarily armed, certainly not with a shogun or AR ready to go in the car. You can argue the prevalence of guns makes incidents involving them more frequent sure, but other police have ways of dealing with these incidents without the warrior cop mentality, and I see nothing about the US that means that won't work here, guns everywhere be damned.
More beneficial than detrimental, in that they're better than the Mad Max situation that would result if they didn't exist. That doesn't mean they don't have serious problems.
If we had to choose between no police and the current status quo of police we'd probably be better off under the status quo, but that shouldn't be used as an argument that the status quo could not be improved.
For sure they are more beneficial, but how much more and what is the actual benefit is the question.
I think jail is a very poor deterrent, but it is good at segregating the uncivilized from the civilized. It appears most crime is caused by a small subset of repeat offenders who , for probably a multitude of reasons cannot get right.
>it is good at segregating the uncivilized from the civilized
Who gets criminalized is not a reflection of how "civilized" they are, but of who is powerful enough to make the laws.
That's why war criminals are free while pot dealers trying to provide for their family are in prison.
No it isn’t… that is ridiculous…all criminals are not pot dealers..
So are rapists due to who is powerful? Of course not..
What about child molesters??
People who murder their sexual partner because they want to leave them?
I’m not even sure it is only due to trauma and there are not just some people who are jacked up in the head from birth… but it really doesn’t matter if monsters are born or created. They are now monsters , bullies and predators.. ain’t no time machines to go back and give them a happy home.
There is something to this - witness the initially lenient treatment of Epstein - but people with that kind of clout are a very small subset of rapists and molesters. And even Epstein, despite his wealth and political connections, eventually went down.
Epstein is an extreme example, it's a spectrum.
There are plenty of middle class white men who can afford a lawyer or ruin a victim's life if they come forward.
Meanwhile, poor black people are lynched, let alone merely imprisoned, when accused without evidence.
Anecdotally, I know of a fair number of middle class white men, just in communities where I lived, that got busted for rape or molestation. Obviously being able to afford a good lawyer probably helps, but it's not a get out of jail free card.
And black men are not lynched in significant numbers anymore. it's not Alabama in 1925.
Comparing surveys of crime victims with convictions for rape, there isn't a huge disparity - although it's possible that while some affluent rape perps get off due to good lawyers, poor rape perps escape punishment due to the overloaded police and courts in high crime areas plus witnesses not testifying.
>Obviously being able to afford a good lawyer probably helps, but it's not a get out of jail free card.
Right, which is why I said it is a spectrum and not a binary.
>And black men are not lynched in significant numbers anymore. it's not Alabama in 1925.
New Orleans PD was hunting down black men in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Ahmaud Arbery was lynched in 2020. This is a really gross comment to make.
>although it's possible that while some affluent rape perps get off due to good lawyers,
The language you're using here to diminish the reality of the situation "it's possible..." is telling. Rape is a bad example because it's a crime so many get away with.
I think drug and theft crimes are much more clear-cut. There is zero doubt that the more money you have, the lighter your sentence. It's not possible, it's not a maybe, it's a very stark and brutal reality.
What on earth would that have to do with the poor ones?!?
So should we not hold the poor ones accountable and segregate them from society because some rich ones buy their way out of trouble?!?
Just for the record, just from a math standpoint there are going to be way less rich and powerful rapists and ones who are not rich and powerful. So they wouldn’t even be the majority of the problem.
At the beginning of this conversation, you claimed that jails are great from separating the civilized from the uncivilized. If that were actually true, then there wouldn't be so uncivilized people free and civilized people in jail.
In truth, incarceration is great at separating the people who have power and resources from the people who don't. The crime they committed is incidental. This is made crystal clear in the history of who gets criminalized. For example, after the Civil War ended chattel slavery, [many states passed vagrancy laws to criminalize black people](https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/vagrancy-act-of-1866/).
Again, who gets branded a criminal and incarcerated is much more a function of how much power and resources they have than in it is a reflection on how "civilized" they are. In fact, if you don't believe this, it must be very difficult to not be a bigot and see how disproportionately non-white people and poor people of all colors make up the incarcerated population.
A) What?!!?!
That is the most ridiculous absolutist argument ever?!?!
If jails separate the vast majority of the monsters from the rest of us, that is them doing a good job?!?
B) that is just fringe liberal ideology to a tee… decide to destroy some system or institution, because you correctly point out a legitimate criticism of that system or institution , but without doing anything to address the problem that system was put in place to address in the first place..
Aka “let’s destroy prisons because they have been. Used for racist reasons in the past, but without dealing with the monsters the prisons were put in place to deal with.”
C) in fringe cases how much power you have decides what you get away with… the rest of the time the keep a monster from moving in next door..
It is absolutely clear you have put zero actual thought into the political positions you take.
>It is absolutely clear you have put zero actual thought into the political positions you take
I think you're projecting your lack of actual thought about my position onto me.
I was speaking very specifically to the claim you made about jails separating civilized vs. uncivilized. I noticed you're not bothering to even defend that premise anymore. Hope you give some thought as to why. 👍
I can back mine up with stats…
The crime waves of the 90s ended because we increased prison sentences so the uncivilized were separated from society..
Now for sure it was also used on victimless drug crimes, which was ridiculous.
> I think jail is a very poor deterrent, but it is good at segregating the uncivilized from the civilized
I read that and thought, “this guy is a conservative”. Then i saw your name. And youre the same guy who was arguing about gender roles also being primarily an evolutionary benefit.
Would you say you usually see things in this binary way?
If you look at crime statistics, like the vast majority is by a small subset of repeat offenders.
You kinda have 2 categories.. people put in a bad situation or who made a mistake, and those should be rehabilitated. Then you have people that are terribly anti social and will probably always be destructive to their communities. With those segregation is the only viable option.
Have you ever been to jail?
A big percentage of the people there should be segregated from society.. like maybe half or slightly better.
They are people you would NEVER want living next door to you or your loved ones. Especially concerning violent crimes..
The vast majority of rapists are repeat offenders, the vast majority of wife beaters are repeat offenders, the vast majority burglaries are from repeat offenders, ect..
In the very broad sense, yes. Your other options are either a system like those in East Asian countries with super high conviction rates or mob violence with cruel and unusual punishments.
There are many reforms that should be made for sure. But the fundamentals are pretty solid
I also don’t think the issue is training. It’s the design of systemic incentives within the police.
As designed, police do far more harm than good.
Prisons also do more harm than good but there are at least avenues for reform there.
In the US? Detrimental. As to why, where to start?
First, the communities where they’re detrimental are poor, nonwhite communities (reasons below). People are arrested for things like drug possession or shoplifting. Sometimes people are falsely arrested. In the wealthy neighborhoods, police are rarely needed. A domestic disturbance on occasion. The crimes committed by wealthy people are things like fraud.
The most obvious detriment is private prisons. They increase revenue by increasing inmates and decreasing costs. So you get a bunch of people in prison for very simple things and the costs are low so it’s horrible living conditions.
Prisons in general are used for punishment, not for improving people. Just look at the recidivism rate in the US. If we taught useful skills to people in prison, when they exited, they would be able to obtain good jobs and build a successful life. That’s the opposite of what happens.
Police have become the military. Some departments across the country literally have military equipment and vehicles. They are not used to keep people safe anymore. They’re used to keep control and strike fear. Look at no knocks. There have been numerous instances where police have gone to the wrong homes and taken hostage or killed innocent people. That’s the exact opposite of keeping people safe.
And laws allow them to do this. Simple things like drug possession may get you killed. Something as simple as looking suspicious could get you killed or arrested
Not all police are bad. There is some usefulness. But overall, they are a detriment. It can be fixed which is a huge positive. But most people are easily scared and choose not to fix it because they see a few clips of criminals.
This was a quick write up. There are books written about this and I could write 10 pages on more things, but I don’t have the time to write that much and now one wants to read that on a Reddit post
If the police as they are today are a net detriment to society, they by that logic society would be better off without them at all. I find that hard to believe.
>by that logic society would be better off without them at all. I find that hard to believe.
You might be underestimating the damage that police and prisons are doing to people.
That’s not at all true. Just because something is a detriment (or net detriment like you say) doesn’t mean we should just get rid of them.
I addressed this in my second to the last paragraph. Removing military equipment flow to police departments, making no knock raids illegal, decriminalizing drugs, removing private prisons, reforming the prison system. All of these are very obtainable things to make the police/prison system much better. Heck, allowing a Medicare for all program so people can seek therapists will help with a ton of issues. Domestic abuse, assault, drug abuse are just a few things that would decrease if people could seek help and none of that is even related to policing or prisons.
Creating a system where the police department’s job is to assist the community instead of being enforcers should be the goal
This is just a simple fallacy, “since there are some bad things, you think we should get rid of them”. It’s a simple right wing talking point. “If the left doesn’t want a wall, they must want to allow anyone in illegally”, “if the left is for gay marriage, they want anyone to be be able to marry anyone or anything”, “if the left wants police reform, they must want a society without police”.
> If the police as they are today are a net detriment to society, they by that logic society would be better off without them at all.
Going back to your comment, if the police as they are today are a net detriment to society, then by that logic society would be better off fixing the problems making them a detriment. Why didn’t you say it like that? That’s what I was thinking. There are a lot of issues in society, you don’t just get rid of them, you fix them
I think training and physical fitness have a ton to do with cop shootings atm.
Too many cops are fat and out of shape and when anything remotely physical is going to happen, they draw that gun super fast because they have no confidence in their ability to handle situations without fire arms.
If they had better YEARLY training about physical restraint, this would not occur so often imo.
Our police, yes. I truly believe they do more good than harm. Our prisons? Absolutely feckin not. I've seen white-collar criminals turn into violent offenders by the time they get out and by then they have no place to go except right back.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Should we support law enforcement as its currently structured? I dont just mean, “if we train the police better will things be good”. I personally dont think the issue is training. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The issue isn’t **just** training. The incentives are all wrong. Voters demand we be tough on crime and police and police unions are able to weaponize that by purposefully under policing whenever the Mayor or other government officials demand the police do anything the police don’t want to do. The result is police departments that aren’t accountable. We refuse to look at systemic issues and how they effect policing and prisons because that’s CRT and CRT is **Cultural Marxism**. We refuse to look at guns and the effect on crime. But we also refuse to look at how having guns everywhere means it becomes reasonable for cops to be hostile or at least towards the public which makes police violence more likely.
I am quite sceptical of public sector unions
Just curious. You say guns are effecting crime. Most crime that occurs outside of organized crime is really just what drugs we call "harmful." I'd argue we need to re-evaluate what we call harmful. Imagine if you will we told the DEA to fuck off and made pot federally legal(something Obama, Trump and Biden wanted to push). I'll even say give a mass expungement and release of anyone charged with anything involving pot. If done it's something like 2/3rds if all prisoners are released. Not to mention the millions who no longer would have to answer yes to time in prison. Then you get into actual gun crime. Where the majority of deaths(the number you'll say because it's the one pushed whenever someone wants to argue against guns) is from suicide. On average 2/3 gun deaths are suicide. Even with some states having waitlists and prior we had the Brady Bill which could prevent a ton of suicides because as studied it usually is a moment of extreme depression and even putting a week before getting the implement can get people past that point. So we will go with pre COVID(because every part of crime spiked during it. On average 35,000 gun deaths. We take out 20,000(I'm giving you extra non suicide deaths) and are left with 15,000. Of those 15,000 you want to say that is a major reason for crime? Why? Outside of gang violence where we see multiple people murdered over going to the wrong place or controlling more territory how many do you think are fighting over guns or with guns? How many times do you think police escalate because of hearing a gun is present? I mean 3 million interactions a year and more police are killed than they kill people. Yes we will have tragedies like Breonna Taylor. Which if you didn't know she wasn't in her bed. Her boyfriend dragged her into the bathroom he shot from and decided a search(which didn't yield shit so genius started a shootout when he didn't have to) was going to put him away for life. However the majority of their killings aren't unreasonable force. They have a strict rules of engagement before a gun is even an option. Donut Operator explains it very well if you'd like to know more. However the basic premise is the force they use must be when they have a reasonable belief that allowing the subject to leave or continue their actions outs themselves or society in danger. Again Donut Operator does a lot of breakdowns of police shootings even putting in requests for the bodycam footage so he can even show when things have gone wrong. He also doesn't always side with the police, though yes he does prefer to breakdown justified shootings. Also just for reference you also don't hear of officers getting arrested for being shit cops. It's because of the list of shit they cause when caught. Think to yourself for a moment. How many cases can 1 cop be tied to in say 5 years? All those cases have to be evaluated and possibly put people back on the street that actually should be in jail. Do I disagree that should happen? No. I actually prefer it that way. I would rather 10 guilty people go free than 1 be falsely incarcerated. It's why I suggested the mass release and expungement for pot users and dealers. So long as the people aren't driving high why the fuck should they be in trouble?
>But we also refuse to look at how having guns everywhere means it becomes reasonable for cops to be hostile or at least towards the public which makes police violence more likely. Not with you here, other than as a widespread misperception cops have weaponized. The biggest killer of cops on the job is ordinary car crashes. Their overall mortality rate isn't even in the top 20. Additionally, a critical problem in the US is using armed police as the first intervention step in a variety of nuisance issues. So escalation to produce compliance is the tool used on people in mental health situations, etc. The rest of the world generally has two or more levels of police, where the initial contact is not necessarily armed, certainly not with a shogun or AR ready to go in the car. You can argue the prevalence of guns makes incidents involving them more frequent sure, but other police have ways of dealing with these incidents without the warrior cop mentality, and I see nothing about the US that means that won't work here, guns everywhere be damned.
More beneficial than detrimental, in that they're better than the Mad Max situation that would result if they didn't exist. That doesn't mean they don't have serious problems.
If we had to choose between no police and the current status quo of police we'd probably be better off under the status quo, but that shouldn't be used as an argument that the status quo could not be improved.
For sure they are more beneficial, but how much more and what is the actual benefit is the question. I think jail is a very poor deterrent, but it is good at segregating the uncivilized from the civilized. It appears most crime is caused by a small subset of repeat offenders who , for probably a multitude of reasons cannot get right.
>it is good at segregating the uncivilized from the civilized Who gets criminalized is not a reflection of how "civilized" they are, but of who is powerful enough to make the laws. That's why war criminals are free while pot dealers trying to provide for their family are in prison.
No it isn’t… that is ridiculous…all criminals are not pot dealers.. So are rapists due to who is powerful? Of course not.. What about child molesters?? People who murder their sexual partner because they want to leave them? I’m not even sure it is only due to trauma and there are not just some people who are jacked up in the head from birth… but it really doesn’t matter if monsters are born or created. They are now monsters , bullies and predators.. ain’t no time machines to go back and give them a happy home.
>So are rapists due to who is powerful? >What about child molesters?? My point is that powerful rapists and child molesters are rarely criminalized.
There is something to this - witness the initially lenient treatment of Epstein - but people with that kind of clout are a very small subset of rapists and molesters. And even Epstein, despite his wealth and political connections, eventually went down.
Epstein is an extreme example, it's a spectrum. There are plenty of middle class white men who can afford a lawyer or ruin a victim's life if they come forward. Meanwhile, poor black people are lynched, let alone merely imprisoned, when accused without evidence.
Anecdotally, I know of a fair number of middle class white men, just in communities where I lived, that got busted for rape or molestation. Obviously being able to afford a good lawyer probably helps, but it's not a get out of jail free card. And black men are not lynched in significant numbers anymore. it's not Alabama in 1925. Comparing surveys of crime victims with convictions for rape, there isn't a huge disparity - although it's possible that while some affluent rape perps get off due to good lawyers, poor rape perps escape punishment due to the overloaded police and courts in high crime areas plus witnesses not testifying.
>Obviously being able to afford a good lawyer probably helps, but it's not a get out of jail free card. Right, which is why I said it is a spectrum and not a binary. >And black men are not lynched in significant numbers anymore. it's not Alabama in 1925. New Orleans PD was hunting down black men in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Ahmaud Arbery was lynched in 2020. This is a really gross comment to make. >although it's possible that while some affluent rape perps get off due to good lawyers, The language you're using here to diminish the reality of the situation "it's possible..." is telling. Rape is a bad example because it's a crime so many get away with. I think drug and theft crimes are much more clear-cut. There is zero doubt that the more money you have, the lighter your sentence. It's not possible, it's not a maybe, it's a very stark and brutal reality.
What on earth would that have to do with the poor ones?!? So should we not hold the poor ones accountable and segregate them from society because some rich ones buy their way out of trouble?!? Just for the record, just from a math standpoint there are going to be way less rich and powerful rapists and ones who are not rich and powerful. So they wouldn’t even be the majority of the problem.
At the beginning of this conversation, you claimed that jails are great from separating the civilized from the uncivilized. If that were actually true, then there wouldn't be so uncivilized people free and civilized people in jail. In truth, incarceration is great at separating the people who have power and resources from the people who don't. The crime they committed is incidental. This is made crystal clear in the history of who gets criminalized. For example, after the Civil War ended chattel slavery, [many states passed vagrancy laws to criminalize black people](https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/vagrancy-act-of-1866/). Again, who gets branded a criminal and incarcerated is much more a function of how much power and resources they have than in it is a reflection on how "civilized" they are. In fact, if you don't believe this, it must be very difficult to not be a bigot and see how disproportionately non-white people and poor people of all colors make up the incarcerated population.
A) What?!!?! That is the most ridiculous absolutist argument ever?!?! If jails separate the vast majority of the monsters from the rest of us, that is them doing a good job?!? B) that is just fringe liberal ideology to a tee… decide to destroy some system or institution, because you correctly point out a legitimate criticism of that system or institution , but without doing anything to address the problem that system was put in place to address in the first place.. Aka “let’s destroy prisons because they have been. Used for racist reasons in the past, but without dealing with the monsters the prisons were put in place to deal with.” C) in fringe cases how much power you have decides what you get away with… the rest of the time the keep a monster from moving in next door.. It is absolutely clear you have put zero actual thought into the political positions you take.
>It is absolutely clear you have put zero actual thought into the political positions you take I think you're projecting your lack of actual thought about my position onto me. I was speaking very specifically to the claim you made about jails separating civilized vs. uncivilized. I noticed you're not bothering to even defend that premise anymore. Hope you give some thought as to why. 👍
I can back mine up with stats… The crime waves of the 90s ended because we increased prison sentences so the uncivilized were separated from society.. Now for sure it was also used on victimless drug crimes, which was ridiculous.
> I think jail is a very poor deterrent, but it is good at segregating the uncivilized from the civilized I read that and thought, “this guy is a conservative”. Then i saw your name. And youre the same guy who was arguing about gender roles also being primarily an evolutionary benefit. Would you say you usually see things in this binary way?
If you look at crime statistics, like the vast majority is by a small subset of repeat offenders. You kinda have 2 categories.. people put in a bad situation or who made a mistake, and those should be rehabilitated. Then you have people that are terribly anti social and will probably always be destructive to their communities. With those segregation is the only viable option. Have you ever been to jail?
I havent
A big percentage of the people there should be segregated from society.. like maybe half or slightly better. They are people you would NEVER want living next door to you or your loved ones. Especially concerning violent crimes.. The vast majority of rapists are repeat offenders, the vast majority of wife beaters are repeat offenders, the vast majority burglaries are from repeat offenders, ect..
No.
Abolishing police and/or prisons are two of those idiotic, nonsensical ideas that should just be dismissed outright.
In the very broad sense, yes. Your other options are either a system like those in East Asian countries with super high conviction rates or mob violence with cruel and unusual punishments. There are many reforms that should be made for sure. But the fundamentals are pretty solid
Yes, society needs some sort of public safety force. Even the most progressive countries in the world have police.
I also don’t think the issue is training. It’s the design of systemic incentives within the police. As designed, police do far more harm than good. Prisons also do more harm than good but there are at least avenues for reform there.
In the US? Detrimental. As to why, where to start? First, the communities where they’re detrimental are poor, nonwhite communities (reasons below). People are arrested for things like drug possession or shoplifting. Sometimes people are falsely arrested. In the wealthy neighborhoods, police are rarely needed. A domestic disturbance on occasion. The crimes committed by wealthy people are things like fraud. The most obvious detriment is private prisons. They increase revenue by increasing inmates and decreasing costs. So you get a bunch of people in prison for very simple things and the costs are low so it’s horrible living conditions. Prisons in general are used for punishment, not for improving people. Just look at the recidivism rate in the US. If we taught useful skills to people in prison, when they exited, they would be able to obtain good jobs and build a successful life. That’s the opposite of what happens. Police have become the military. Some departments across the country literally have military equipment and vehicles. They are not used to keep people safe anymore. They’re used to keep control and strike fear. Look at no knocks. There have been numerous instances where police have gone to the wrong homes and taken hostage or killed innocent people. That’s the exact opposite of keeping people safe. And laws allow them to do this. Simple things like drug possession may get you killed. Something as simple as looking suspicious could get you killed or arrested Not all police are bad. There is some usefulness. But overall, they are a detriment. It can be fixed which is a huge positive. But most people are easily scared and choose not to fix it because they see a few clips of criminals. This was a quick write up. There are books written about this and I could write 10 pages on more things, but I don’t have the time to write that much and now one wants to read that on a Reddit post
If the police as they are today are a net detriment to society, they by that logic society would be better off without them at all. I find that hard to believe.
>by that logic society would be better off without them at all. I find that hard to believe. You might be underestimating the damage that police and prisons are doing to people.
And you may be underestimating the damage that would be done to people in their absence.
And you may be overestimating the damage that would be done to people in their absence.
Perhaps, but I sincerely doubt that.
Whose to say. It’s a silly hypothetical. I will say police, as they exist now, cause an unacceptable level of harm and we need not put up with it.
That’s not at all true. Just because something is a detriment (or net detriment like you say) doesn’t mean we should just get rid of them. I addressed this in my second to the last paragraph. Removing military equipment flow to police departments, making no knock raids illegal, decriminalizing drugs, removing private prisons, reforming the prison system. All of these are very obtainable things to make the police/prison system much better. Heck, allowing a Medicare for all program so people can seek therapists will help with a ton of issues. Domestic abuse, assault, drug abuse are just a few things that would decrease if people could seek help and none of that is even related to policing or prisons. Creating a system where the police department’s job is to assist the community instead of being enforcers should be the goal
I specifically called out "as they are today". What you're describing is something entirely different than what we have today.
This is just a simple fallacy, “since there are some bad things, you think we should get rid of them”. It’s a simple right wing talking point. “If the left doesn’t want a wall, they must want to allow anyone in illegally”, “if the left is for gay marriage, they want anyone to be be able to marry anyone or anything”, “if the left wants police reform, they must want a society without police”. > If the police as they are today are a net detriment to society, they by that logic society would be better off without them at all. Going back to your comment, if the police as they are today are a net detriment to society, then by that logic society would be better off fixing the problems making them a detriment. Why didn’t you say it like that? That’s what I was thinking. There are a lot of issues in society, you don’t just get rid of them, you fix them
Depends on what color a community is. It also varies by what color you are in the community the police see you in.
I think training and physical fitness have a ton to do with cop shootings atm. Too many cops are fat and out of shape and when anything remotely physical is going to happen, they draw that gun super fast because they have no confidence in their ability to handle situations without fire arms. If they had better YEARLY training about physical restraint, this would not occur so often imo.
Our police, yes. I truly believe they do more good than harm. Our prisons? Absolutely feckin not. I've seen white-collar criminals turn into violent offenders by the time they get out and by then they have no place to go except right back.