when was the last time the police actually protected someone from harm? they play candy crush while waiting for children to get mowed down. burglar empties your house? sorry, not way to figure that out. rape victim? yeah yeah we’ll put your rape kit somewhere we won’t even remember. ice thugs asking for the door dash lady in your house? we’ll just lie and say you have to give her up.
but wait, you’re lawfully exercising your first amendment? nah nah we better make this a war zone.
the job of the police is to protect capital, not you.
Police find the perpetrator in thousands of murders and rapes a year. Is that not worthwhile to you?
Believe me, I am fully aware of the problems with the justice system. It needs vast improvement, but that doesn’t mean it does not serve a necessary service.
You make an extremely abstract and general statement. Then you give very specific cases as to why your abstraction is correct, with absolutely nothing connecting the abstraction to the specific. You take a huge system of oppression like the prison industrial complex, all of the horror and injustice that it creates, and then justify its existence because of two specific cases. Interesting how both those cases were white men when BIPOC people are much more likely to be victimized by police and carcerial punishment.
Those cases to point to a very thin segment of the population, so it too is an abstraction. No discussion about if society somehow produces killers, like for instance school shooters in the USA.
Even though there are problems with your argument, I admit there are problems with the demand “abolish police and prisons”. Because often there isnt discussion as to how exactly we can practically do it. Like what if we could abolish 50% of police and prisons, then more, then more? The word “abolish” does have many of the problems that maximal and radical demands often have. But then, you need to consider why people are totally uncompromising on their commitment to abolition.
The abolitionists before and during the civil war were a very slim minority of people, and they could not conceive of how slavery would actually end. Lincoln and the North did not want to end slavery, they wanted to preserve the union. It wasnt until the slaves freed themselves and went over to the northern armies to heroically fight for their freedom, that the process of abolishing slavery was inevitable and irreversible.
But then prison labor was used to subsidize parts of the economy where paying free workers was still unprofitable. As such, the tradition continues to this day.
So if you would like to argue that institutionalized state-slavery is justified because of the presence of a few serial killers, then it shows how little will you have to even think about it, and that you would rather just not think about the suffering of all the people victimized by the police and prison.
And that is your right, to stay ignorant on this issue. I’m sure there are many domains in which you are exceedingly knowledgeable. But many people are and have been directly and severely harmed by the prison industrial complex and the police, and when you mak such substanceless, abstract arguments, then it appears to those people you are on the side of the system that victimizes and exploits.
You might ask yourself which group you have more in common with. You dont have to want to free serial killers, you just have to want to free people who deserve to be free. Instead of ignorance, ask yourself, could this system that affects millions of people, more than anyone else in the world, often by orders of magnitude, could this system be made more just? Could the number of people incarcerated be decreased? And then either get to work making that happen, or get out of the damn way
Sorry i posted an edit with a link. I just can’t stand people using fallacies to invalidate other people’s arguments. A logical fallacy is an example of where to begin to look for logical errors or assumptions in an argument, it doesn’t mean that if you can fit parts of an opponent’s argument into one of the categories in this list that it is insta-invalid. Doing this shows a compulsion to win rather than understand, and we are talking about a situation where maybe 12000 people have already died. Nobody wins, but further losses might yet be avoided.
It was a long comment telling you to get serious. If youre not serious then why should anybody who does know, even bother with you, if youre making no effort to appear as somebody who actually cares about anything that actually matters
The other poster said police and prisons are not necessary. I think it is an entirely valid question to ask what they propose be done about serial murderers, rapists, child molesters, and the like.
Okay, so hypothetically you’re presented with a person too dangerous to participate in society. What are you going to do at the time, call the police and wait 40 minutes?
You can already reduce many incidents from happening in the first place by fixing the material and sociological causes.
You and your community look-out for and defend each other at the time, rather than hoping an officer will come and do so after the fact. How to deal with the person is contextual and up to the communities consensus. I personally would say redeem those you can, kill those you can’t.
How to deal with the person is contextual and up to the communities consensus
Lynchings. What you are describing are lynchings.
I personally would say redeem those you can, kill those you can’t.
So you need somewhere to “redeem” these people. That is called a prison or a mental institution. You need people to capture and hold these people to be redeemed. Those are called police. You need a system to determine who can’t be redeemed in a way that is fair and thorough. That is called a justice system. The irredeemable are killed in things called executions.
I agree the system we have is bad, but solutions rapidly turn into reinventing the wheel.
If you’d describe those as lynchings, what would you describe what happened to George Floyd? Or Breonna Taylor? Our cops lynch people all the time, but have the position of authority to avoid all consequences.
How do you ensure that the people who are allowed to use guns on people are “fair and thorough”?
I would describe those as murder, not collective community vigilantism.
Personally I would take guns away from most police. They would have to serve on the force for 4 years with no use of force complaints and then they would be allowed to carry a 6 shot revolver if necessary for their job. Ideally only calm, experienced officers who have earned public trust through years of practice in deescalation would carry and they would only be called in when deadly force is absolutely necessary to save lives.
Even with rules that describe appropriate behavior for law enforcement, we still run into issues. A lack of guns doesn’t stop what happened to George Floyd, and maintaining accountability against cops when they’re the only ones legally allowed to use violence is difficult.
It’s a dangerous power dynamic, and I’m not convinced there’s a real answer.
Most crime is the result of poverty, so I personally think that the best direction to go is a heavy focus on addressing the roots of poverty. Basic income is one option that can help, perhaps rent control and better public infrastructure/transportation. I’m for the idea of tax-funded housing you can apply for at no cost to you.
At least, as far as what we can do on a practical level within our own system, as much as I would prefer more radical solutions.
The unfortunate reality is that someone is going to have a monopoly on violence and it’s better to have a choice in who. Accountability is tough but possible. Body cameras and the ubiquity of smart phones has made it a lot easier to prove what really happened. These camera records need to be stored and processed by an independent federal agency though. Qualified immunity obviously needs to be dramatically curtailed. Cops should have to live in the neighborhood they patrol whenever possible. Eliminating anyone with the slightest hint of white supremacist leanings from candidacy. There are definitely things that can be done to cutrail the potential abuses of power.
No, it’s not and you’re attempt to frame it using negative connotations is obvious. What you are actually trying to say is vigilante justice or extrajudicial killing. But without law, it could also not be as such. You can host a communal tribunal and provide a verdict based on the overall consensus of the community.
Also you can keep people at home, you don’t have to house them in purpose built facilities, there isn’t that much crime once you remove material conditions. It’s not a full time industry. And if they’re not an active danger you can let them go out freely and rehabilitate them without confining them. Likewise you do not need police when the community is in charge of its defence.
That’s basically the model they use in the Zapatista Chiapas. Seriously this isn’t complicated but you are incapable of imagining any system beyond the one you know, even when such systems are literally being applied in the real world and with greater effect than the police/prison model.
You can host a communal tribunal and provide a verdict based on the overall consensus of the community.
That still has the essential problem of guilt being determined by popularity, not facts. Witches had trials like this before they were burned. There needs to be a system of rules to minimize bias and regulation of evidence to provable facts. That is why we have the jury trial system. Yeah, it still needs improvement but it’s a hell of a lot better than what you are describing.
Also you can keep people at home
Shoplifters and drug dealers, sure. But serial rapists and people who shoot someone in the face for looking at them funny? No way. They need to be locked up and we need someone to put them there. There will always be a certain amount of these people in any society and we have to account for that.
Likewise you do not need police when the community is in charge of its defence.
So basically “castle doctrine” states where people shoot kids who knock on the wrong door? Kyle Rittenhouse is an example of realistic “community defense”.
Slavery is not a necessity. Dealing with people too dangerous to participate in society is a necessity.
when was the last time the police actually protected someone from harm? they play candy crush while waiting for children to get mowed down. burglar empties your house? sorry, not way to figure that out. rape victim? yeah yeah we’ll put your rape kit somewhere we won’t even remember. ice thugs asking for the door dash lady in your house? we’ll just lie and say you have to give her up.
but wait, you’re lawfully exercising your first amendment? nah nah we better make this a war zone.
the job of the police is to protect capital, not you.
Police find the perpetrator in thousands of murders and rapes a year. Is that not worthwhile to you?
Believe me, I am fully aware of the problems with the justice system. It needs vast improvement, but that doesn’t mean it does not serve a necessary service.
Shooting innocent civilians in the face is not a necessity.
Police and prisons are not a necessity for dealing with dangerous people. Because police are the dangerous people.
Okay, so what do you do with a John Wayne Gacy, or a Timothy McVeigh?
You make an extremely abstract and general statement. Then you give very specific cases as to why your abstraction is correct, with absolutely nothing connecting the abstraction to the specific. You take a huge system of oppression like the prison industrial complex, all of the horror and injustice that it creates, and then justify its existence because of two specific cases. Interesting how both those cases were white men when BIPOC people are much more likely to be victimized by police and carcerial punishment.
Those cases to point to a very thin segment of the population, so it too is an abstraction. No discussion about if society somehow produces killers, like for instance school shooters in the USA.
Even though there are problems with your argument, I admit there are problems with the demand “abolish police and prisons”. Because often there isnt discussion as to how exactly we can practically do it. Like what if we could abolish 50% of police and prisons, then more, then more? The word “abolish” does have many of the problems that maximal and radical demands often have. But then, you need to consider why people are totally uncompromising on their commitment to abolition.
The abolitionists before and during the civil war were a very slim minority of people, and they could not conceive of how slavery would actually end. Lincoln and the North did not want to end slavery, they wanted to preserve the union. It wasnt until the slaves freed themselves and went over to the northern armies to heroically fight for their freedom, that the process of abolishing slavery was inevitable and irreversible.
But then prison labor was used to subsidize parts of the economy where paying free workers was still unprofitable. As such, the tradition continues to this day.
So if you would like to argue that institutionalized state-slavery is justified because of the presence of a few serial killers, then it shows how little will you have to even think about it, and that you would rather just not think about the suffering of all the people victimized by the police and prison.
And that is your right, to stay ignorant on this issue. I’m sure there are many domains in which you are exceedingly knowledgeable. But many people are and have been directly and severely harmed by the prison industrial complex and the police, and when you mak such substanceless, abstract arguments, then it appears to those people you are on the side of the system that victimizes and exploits.
You might ask yourself which group you have more in common with. You dont have to want to free serial killers, you just have to want to free people who deserve to be free. Instead of ignorance, ask yourself, could this system that affects millions of people, more than anyone else in the world, often by orders of magnitude, could this system be made more just? Could the number of people incarcerated be decreased? And then either get to work making that happen, or get out of the damn way
That was an awful lot to say to not answer a simple question.
Sorry i posted an edit with a link. I just can’t stand people using fallacies to invalidate other people’s arguments. A logical fallacy is an example of where to begin to look for logical errors or assumptions in an argument, it doesn’t mean that if you can fit parts of an opponent’s argument into one of the categories in this list that it is insta-invalid. Doing this shows a compulsion to win rather than understand, and we are talking about a situation where maybe 12000 people have already died. Nobody wins, but further losses might yet be avoided.
It was a long comment telling you to get serious. If youre not serious then why should anybody who does know, even bother with you, if youre making no effort to appear as somebody who actually cares about anything that actually matters
The other poster said police and prisons are not necessary. I think it is an entirely valid question to ask what they propose be done about serial murderers, rapists, child molesters, and the like.
There are such people in governments, even of the most recent superpower on the earth.
Okay, so hypothetically you’re presented with a person too dangerous to participate in society. What are you going to do at the time, call the police and wait 40 minutes?
You can already reduce many incidents from happening in the first place by fixing the material and sociological causes.
You and your community look-out for and defend each other at the time, rather than hoping an officer will come and do so after the fact. How to deal with the person is contextual and up to the communities consensus. I personally would say redeem those you can, kill those you can’t.
Lynchings. What you are describing are lynchings.
So you need somewhere to “redeem” these people. That is called a prison or a mental institution. You need people to capture and hold these people to be redeemed. Those are called police. You need a system to determine who can’t be redeemed in a way that is fair and thorough. That is called a justice system. The irredeemable are killed in things called executions.
I agree the system we have is bad, but solutions rapidly turn into reinventing the wheel.
If you’d describe those as lynchings, what would you describe what happened to George Floyd? Or Breonna Taylor? Our cops lynch people all the time, but have the position of authority to avoid all consequences. How do you ensure that the people who are allowed to use guns on people are “fair and thorough”?
I would describe those as murder, not collective community vigilantism.
Personally I would take guns away from most police. They would have to serve on the force for 4 years with no use of force complaints and then they would be allowed to carry a 6 shot revolver if necessary for their job. Ideally only calm, experienced officers who have earned public trust through years of practice in deescalation would carry and they would only be called in when deadly force is absolutely necessary to save lives.
Even with rules that describe appropriate behavior for law enforcement, we still run into issues. A lack of guns doesn’t stop what happened to George Floyd, and maintaining accountability against cops when they’re the only ones legally allowed to use violence is difficult. It’s a dangerous power dynamic, and I’m not convinced there’s a real answer. Most crime is the result of poverty, so I personally think that the best direction to go is a heavy focus on addressing the roots of poverty. Basic income is one option that can help, perhaps rent control and better public infrastructure/transportation. I’m for the idea of tax-funded housing you can apply for at no cost to you. At least, as far as what we can do on a practical level within our own system, as much as I would prefer more radical solutions.
The unfortunate reality is that someone is going to have a monopoly on violence and it’s better to have a choice in who. Accountability is tough but possible. Body cameras and the ubiquity of smart phones has made it a lot easier to prove what really happened. These camera records need to be stored and processed by an independent federal agency though. Qualified immunity obviously needs to be dramatically curtailed. Cops should have to live in the neighborhood they patrol whenever possible. Eliminating anyone with the slightest hint of white supremacist leanings from candidacy. There are definitely things that can be done to cutrail the potential abuses of power.
No, it’s not and you’re attempt to frame it using negative connotations is obvious. What you are actually trying to say is vigilante justice or extrajudicial killing. But without law, it could also not be as such. You can host a communal tribunal and provide a verdict based on the overall consensus of the community.
Also you can keep people at home, you don’t have to house them in purpose built facilities, there isn’t that much crime once you remove material conditions. It’s not a full time industry. And if they’re not an active danger you can let them go out freely and rehabilitate them without confining them. Likewise you do not need police when the community is in charge of its defence.
That’s basically the model they use in the Zapatista Chiapas. Seriously this isn’t complicated but you are incapable of imagining any system beyond the one you know, even when such systems are literally being applied in the real world and with greater effect than the police/prison model.
That still has the essential problem of guilt being determined by popularity, not facts. Witches had trials like this before they were burned. There needs to be a system of rules to minimize bias and regulation of evidence to provable facts. That is why we have the jury trial system. Yeah, it still needs improvement but it’s a hell of a lot better than what you are describing.
Shoplifters and drug dealers, sure. But serial rapists and people who shoot someone in the face for looking at them funny? No way. They need to be locked up and we need someone to put them there. There will always be a certain amount of these people in any society and we have to account for that.
So basically “castle doctrine” states where people shoot kids who knock on the wrong door? Kyle Rittenhouse is an example of realistic “community defense”.