Abolish the Police

[wildcat09 29260]

Since the evolution of smartphones that revealed to everyone what cops were really like, they've been performing what is essentially a nationwide wildcat strike. It's not an isolated problem and it isn't unique to big or small departments. Baltimore had its notorious slowdown. In 2020, the fucking head of the NYPD's union doxxed the mayor's daughter on Twitter, an implicit threat to the mayor (the head of their union was recently indicted for fraud for embezzling from the union).  Earlier this month, San Francisco PD refused to participate in a burglary raid because they hate their DA. There's fucking thousands of examples of shit like this.  And of course, this week in Uvalde the cops stood outside for an hour while a gunman massacred children and teachers, and threatened parents (seeming to have arrested at least one) who wanted to go help when it was clear to them that the cops wouldn't.

The Supreme Court has ruled that police have no obligation to help you, even if the state passes a law mandating that they do.  And yet, the Supreme Court has also immunized them almost completely from any accountability, to the point that they cannot be sued for robbing you. 

American police have been elevated above the law and lionized as heroes, despite the fact that nothing is actually expected of them and they in fact prioritize protecting themselves to serving the people.  They no longer answer to civilian control in any real sense. No sane society would tolerate this. Defunding the police is thinking too small. They need to be abolished and replaced with something else that is actually expected to do the fucking job and is accountable to the people for its actions.

[ClubWhatever 12087]

Exposure, outrage, reform:  Yes

Abolishment:  No

[Henry Hill 3156]

[BigHorn'13 3355]

29 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:

Exposure, outrage, reform:  Yes

Abolishment:  No

TSRH.  

Like a controlled burn, the whole concept of what a ___ department in policing is will come out better in the long run. 

Oh and fuck the police. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by BigHorn'13
Fucking auto correct

[Poe It Up 126]

[Nivek 16861]

1 hour ago, ClubWhatever said:

Exposure, outrage, reform:  Yes

Abolishment:  No

Actually it is recruit a new statewide law enforcement agency and then abolish the local ones.   All the protections and bullshit are there to protect the police but this new law enforcement agency will have a different name and thus not have the bullshit associated with it.  Fuck, don't even give them a name just use a symbol like Prince. 

[StassneyHorn 6540]

Lets just take the lawyers who scroll the internet all day and make them LEOs.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2799]

I like the tribal cop in Reservation Dogs.

[wildcat09 29260]

Those of you who disagree, specifically what public service do you think the police exist to provide? Do you think they should be legally compelled to actually provide that service? If you do and you recognize they're not currently compelled to do so, how do you think we can go about legally compelling them?

Anyone have an answer as to how to make the cops we've got do their fucking jobs?

Edited May 26, 2022 by wildcat09

[StassneyHorn 6540]

I want cops to sweep up car wrecks so firemen can find their next reason for existence.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

[Ghost of LL 15492]

I don't mind the idea of tearing it down and starting over.  Perhaps something along the German model (almost all police are at the state level).

[hookemATL 11611]

Let's make the teachers be police as well.  They are always bitching about their poor pay and "mistreatment".  HELLLOOOOOO here is a 2nd job with great pay and benefits where the state will let you do whatever you want without consequence (not like in the classroom where mentioning that people were owned by people as a matter of practice in America could get you fired/reprimanded).

[Vegas64 665]

I think the phrase "Abolish the Police" is jarring because it brings to mind anarchy and crime explosion, etc.

Really what you are advocating for is the abolishing everything we know about the institution of police and instead standing up some other institution which would ACTUALLY serve the same vision statements and mission statements and practical purposes which you could call Xolice. 

I'm with you in spirit, but the glaring issues I see are in practicality.

You are going to have to hire McKinsey or someone like that to come in and the organizational change management is going to be a nightmare. Imagine the optics of paying McK $1bn to stand up a nice police institution.

Also you will have to manage a transition, probably a tiered and over time, so you have the old police institution rolling off while the new one onboards. You can't just flip a switch on something like this and have any gaps or downtimes or literally (lots) of people will die. Not just criminals who are going to criminal no matter what, but especially if opportunistic criminals can exploit gaps and holes.

So this whole venture is going to cost billions if not trillions and take decades. In order to justify the lift there will absolutely have to be quantifiable ROI and improved metric forecasting. That's a $100mm and 5 year engagement in professional services just itself.

This is the tip of the iceberg on why I think "Abolish the Police" is a fun internet battle cry but realistically a 0% option. 

"Reform the Police" is the only practical option at our size and scale.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Vegas64

[The Original Greaser Bob 2799]

Fuck McKinsey!>>>Fuck the Police!

[Brisketexan 104628]

44 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

"Reform the Police" is the only practical option at our size and scale.

But also impossible, and opposed, VIOLENTLY, by an entire political party and their sycophants.  Every fucking time one of you says "well, actually, the practical path is X," shove that up your ass, because there is an entire political movement in this country dedicated -- and willing to use violence to back it up -- to preventing any of those practical paths.

We won't reform the police, because the American right will defend every last thing they do.  America is Texags.  Look at it.  Don't look away.  That board reflects the current governing ethos of our nation and state.  Ask the Texags crowd if they are in favor of "reforming the police."  Their answer is our political reality.

[Muny_Tex 292]

You have to start and finish with eradicating the unions; no meaningful reform/rebuilding can occur outside that framework.

[Brisketexan 104628]

17 minutes ago, Muny_Tex said:

You have to start and finish with eradicating the unions; no meaningful reform/rebuilding can occur outside that framework.

You have to start with a government that will let you do that.

Go ahead and propose a "no police unions" bill to the Texas lege.  Please record your interactions with legislators as you pitch your idea.

These are people who fight each other to prove who can suck off the police the hardest.

[Sbbruin 21738]

22 minutes ago, Muny_Tex said:

You have to start and finish with eradicating the unions; no meaningful reform/rebuilding can occur outside that framework.

Public employee unions run California.  And will from here to eternity.

[Vegas64 665]

31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But also impossible, and opposed, VIOLENTLY, by an entire political party and their sycophants.  Every fucking time one of you says "well, actually, the practical path is X," shove that up your ass, because there is an entire political movement in this country dedicated -- and willing to use violence to back it up -- to preventing any of those practical paths.

We won't reform the police, because the American right will defend every last thing they do.  America is Texags.  Look at it.  Don't look away.  That board reflects the current governing ethos of our nation and state.  Ask the Texags crowd if they are in favor of "reforming the police."  Their answer is our political reality.

You aren’t wrong.

You also aren’t understanding the complexity and impossibility of abolishing police and replacing the institution of criminal law enforcement with something else better suited and led to enforce laws.

A good analogy would be, you wouldn’t just say let’s abolish I-35 in Austin and all the highways because they suck and we will have a new better system. It’s a 25 year project and takes 5 years of planning and then 5 years of support afterwards and costs billions of dollars and the projects of demolishing the status quo and creating something new have to co-exist somehow, and be managed. 

“Abolish the police” no matter how emotionally or morally justified is political rhetoric no different than saying Police Reform is impossible and can never happen. 

[Brisketexan 104628]

Just now, Vegas64 said:

You aren’t wrong.

You also aren’t understanding the complexity and impossibility of abolishing police and replacing the institution of criminal law enforcement with something else better suited and led to enforce laws.

A good analogy would be, you wouldn’t just say let’s abolish I-35 in Austin and all the highways because they suck and we will have a new better system. It’s a 25 year project and takes 5 years of planning and then 5 years of support afterwards and costs billions of dollars and the projects of demolishing the status quo and creating something new have to co-exist somehow, and be managed. 

“Abolish the police” no matter how emotionally or morally justified is political rhetoric no different than saying Police Reform is impossible and can never happen. 

Correct.  Neither will happen.  You'll get continued shitty, awful, hideous policing, and you'll continue to get leaders who demand that we bow and worship cops in gratitude for the privilege of having them occasionally beat and shoot us and rarely actually protect us.

Perhaps you've heard of my ledge.....

[Nivek 16861]

1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

You aren’t wrong.
You also aren’t understanding the complexity and impossibility of abolishing police and replacing the institution of criminal law enforcement with something else better suited and led to enforce laws.
A good analogy would be, you wouldn’t just say let’s abolish I-35 in Austin and all the highways because they suck and we will have a new better system. It’s a 25 year project and takes 5 years of planning and then 5 years of support afterwards and costs billions of dollars and the projects of demolishing the status quo and creating something new have to co-exist somehow, and be managed. 
“Abolish the police” no matter how emotionally or morally justified is political rhetoric no different than saying Police Reform is impossible and can never happen. 

Um. Reform hasn’t worked. They don’t want reform. It is not a training issue and oversight of the police and Internal Affairs operates like an HR department at Harvey Weinstein's company.    The cost of $1 billion would be a drop in the bucket compared to the waste that is going on in law enforcement.  The fucking postal service has a SWAT team, as does the park rangers.   There is so much bloat they have to invent shit to spend it on including motivation speakers who promote killing and fucking.  

Our law enforcement system is broken and the problems are entrenched. It is much easier to start anew.

So we should keep trying to appeal to the Mad King or start a new country?

Edited May 27, 2022 by Nivek

[BigHorn'13 3355]

2 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

I think the phrase "Abolish the Police" is jarring because it brings to mind anarchy and crime explosion, etc.

Really what you are advocating for is the abolishing everything we know about the institution of police and instead standing up some other institution which would ACTUALLY serve the same vision statements and mission statements and practical purposes which you could call Xolice. 

I'm with you in spirit, but the glaring issues I see are in practicality.

You are going to have to hire McKinsey or someone like that to come in and the organizational change management is going to be a nightmare. Imagine the optics of paying McK $1bn to stand up a nice police institution.

Also you will have to manage a transition, probably a tiered and over time, so you have the old police institution rolling off while the new one onboards. You can't just flip a switch on something like this and have any gaps or downtimes or literally (lots) of people will die. Not just criminals who are going to criminal no matter what, but especially if opportunistic criminals can exploit gaps and holes.

So this whole venture is going to cost billions if not trillions and take decades. In order to justify the lift there will absolutely have to be quantifiable ROI and improved metric forecasting. That's a $100mm and 5 year engagement in professional services just itself.

This is the tip of the iceberg on why I think "Abolish the Police" is a fun internet battle cry but realistically a 0% option. 

"Reform the Police" is the only practical option at our size and scale.

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

But also impossible, and opposed, VIOLENTLY, by an entire political party and their sycophants.  Every fucking time one of you says "well, actually, the practical path is X," shove that up your ass, because there is an entire political movement in this country dedicated -- and willing to use violence to back it up -- to preventing any of those practical paths.

We won't reform the police, because the American right will defend every last thing they do.  America is Texags.  Look at it.  Don't look away.  That board reflects the current governing ethos of our nation and state.  Ask the Texags crowd if they are in favor of "reforming the police."  Their answer is our political reality.

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You have to start with a government that will let you do that.

Go ahead and propose a "no police unions" bill to the Texas lege.  Please record your interactions with legislators as you pitch your idea.

These are people who fight each other to prove who can suck off the police the hardest.

 

59 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

You aren’t wrong.

You also aren’t understanding the complexity and impossibility of abolishing police and replacing the institution of criminal law enforcement with something else better suited and led to enforce laws.

A good analogy would be, you wouldn’t just say let’s abolish I-35 in Austin and all the highways because they suck and we will have a new better system. It’s a 25 year project and takes 5 years of planning and then 5 years of support afterwards and costs billions of dollars and the projects of demolishing the status quo and creating something new have to co-exist somehow, and be managed. 

“Abolish the police” no matter how emotionally or morally justified is political rhetoric no different than saying Police Reform is impossible and can never happen. 

 

57 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.  Neither will happen.  You'll get continued shitty, awful, hideous policing, and you'll continue to get leaders who demand that we bow and worship cops in gratitude for the privilege of having them occasionally beat and shoot us and rarely actually protect us.

Perhaps you've heard of my ledge.....

Bottom line, choose your verbs wisely for the scary white folk.  Abolish, defund, whatever in the like will send them to the pearls and label you an anarchist...

Maybe reestablish or better yet, a remodel!  Get the most well known conservative(s) on HGTC or some such and have them spearhead the initiative. But what do I know...

[Gil Bang 25898]

[gmr548 16517]

This is my pet radical belief. For the vast majority of citizens, they are the most dangerous armed gangs in the country. Investments in education and poverty alleviation are more effective at preventing crime. Most violent crime is driven by passion in the heat of the moment. The American police state is as cost-ineffective as the healthcare system.

At the very least, I strongly believe street level patrol cops should not carry firearms. They’ve shown that they can’t be trusted with them, and I’m not sure what benefit they provide in light of Uvalde.

[David Dennison 18661]

 

[pacman 7330]

 

 

 

[HenryJames 65890]

 

[WBT 20422]

On 7/8/2022 at 10:21 AM, pacman said:

 

 

 

[wildcat09 29260]

Stolen from DT:

 

And let's take a peek at San Francisco under their new, not a pussy lib DA:

 

 

[chainsaw 9838]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Stolen from DT:

 

And let's take a peek at San Francisco under their new, not a pussy lib DA:

 

 

Who is the new DA over there

[TheStoicPaisano 9904]

Click thru for Dale Gribble.

Edited January 29, 2023 by TheStoicPaisano

[TwiceHorn 31283]

On 5/26/2022 at 4:57 PM, Vegas64 said:

I think the phrase "Abolish the Police" is jarring because it brings to mind anarchy and crime explosion, etc.

Really what you are advocating for is the abolishing everything we know about the institution of police and instead standing up some other institution which would ACTUALLY serve the same vision statements and mission statements and practical purposes which you could call Xolice. 

I'm with you in spirit, but the glaring issues I see are in practicality.

You are going to have to hire McKinsey or someone like that to come in and the organizational change management is going to be a nightmare. Imagine the optics of paying McK $1bn to stand up a nice police institution.

Also you will have to manage a transition, probably a tiered and over time, so you have the old police institution rolling off while the new one onboards. You can't just flip a switch on something like this and have any gaps or downtimes or literally (lots) of people will die. Not just criminals who are going to criminal no matter what, but especially if opportunistic criminals can exploit gaps and holes.

So this whole venture is going to cost billions if not trillions and take decades. In order to justify the lift there will absolutely have to be quantifiable ROI and improved metric forecasting. That's a $100mm and 5 year engagement in professional services just itself.

This is the tip of the iceberg on why I think "Abolish the Police" is a fun internet battle cry but realistically a 0% option. 

"Reform the Police" is the only practical option at our size and scale.

Yep. Abolish the police is another sort of misnomer with bad connotations, like defund the police.  Still, it is going to require a lot of imagination and creative thought to redistribute traditional police functions among existing and new agencies.

I'm not sure having a state police force in lieu of locals is really the answer.  

However, I have long been in favor of disarming street/beat cops, maybe in favor of a taser.  Perhaps a much larger and better trained state-level agency might be the armed variant, called in in extraordinary or emergent circumstances.

[softlynow 1783]

IA needs to be the best funded, most prestigious, most feared section of every department/sheriff’s office. Federal funding and any seized funds (after vigorous reform in that arena too) goes to them ONLY. Give cops someone to fear, and hold them to the same standard as the rest of us in terms of charging them with crimes. Bagging a corrupt cop should be the fast track to electoral success for prosecutors, too. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

Ironic that the right wingers absolutely hate any sort of labor unions but when it comes to the corrupt police unions... crickets.

[Incredulity 11555]

32 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Ironic that the right wingers absolutely hate any sort of labor unions but when it comes to the corrupt police unions... crickets.

Then you aren’t listening.
 

Public employees should never be allowed to unionize.  

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

Okay, so one dipshit on a football message board has spoken.

[Hermanator 6944]

It's never going to happen. 

Two things would go along way towards improving the situation: 

1) restructuring the police-DA system

2) mandating spending massive amounts of time on police-citizen outreach programs. 

The first is completely changing the structure where DA's are responsible for bringing charges/indictments and trying cases against the police. The DAs rely completely on police to do their job and they're an elected political official. They can't afford to have the police pissed off at them if they want to get re-elected. There needs to be a new office that internal affairs reports to that is responsible for handling all cases against police and it needs to be robust. It's the checks and balances against the power of the police. 

The second is starting from the beginning with rookie cops in academy and spending the majority of their time out talking to and meeting citizens in their jurisdiction. Get to know them. Know where they live, know what they do, know what problems they have. Know what they need. Over time this will get the police to see them as people and not just evil threats, and it will foster trust between the citizens and police that will increase the flow of information to help solve crimes. 

Buuuuuuuuttttt...

This is the 21st century USA with full blown tribal politics and sensationalist bullshit where nothing gets improved and we're all just walking the proverbial plank waiting for the bottom to fall out. Where corporate America isn't interested in running a country but instead fleecing it, and all the politicians are in their pockets. 

So the best thing for us individuals to do is realize we were sold a giant ball of bullshit about these "freedoms" and "The American Dream" and in reality we live in a police state society where the authorities can fuck you over any way they want whenever they want and you have no recourse against it. So live your life doing everything you can to avoid any contact with them. Stay off the radar and keep your head down. Nothing will change for the better. 

[Incredulity 11555]

15 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

and in reality we live in a police state society where the authorities can fuck you over any way they want whenever they want and you have no recourse against it

It’s not just a police problem it’s also a problem of unaccountable bureaucrats enforcing a byzantine federal register that get further and further metastasized with each omnibus year end bill that the elected officials can’t  even be bothered to read.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

It’s not just a police problem it’s also a problem of unaccountable bureaucrats enforcing a byzantine federal register that get further and further metastasized with each omnibus year end bill that the elected officials can’t  even be bothered to read.

Well, except that police aren't a federal matter as a general proposition.

But, federal politicians pandering to their constituents by doing things to fund local police, to include militarizing them, has exacerbated the problem.  The whole "tough on crime" thing.

One of the central problems common to all law enforcement, from cops to DAs to probably judges is that they become jaded and disposed to look at defendants as animals.  And there's a racial component to that, as well.  And yes, there are some real animals out there, but it isn't all of them and certainly not these low-level offenders they keep brutalizing and murdering.

[Pasken 1309]

 

Dude was literally rolling on the ground when they started lighting him up. 3 Cops all opening fire.

 

 

 

[Brisketexan 104628]

You have one of our political wings in cult-like thrall to a man who PRAISES cops for beating suspects, and encourages them to be MORE violent (he literally said to hit suspects heads when loading them in cop cars).

Cops are violent pieces of shit because the prevailing political orthodoxy and power structure want them to be. It’s not much more complicated than that. We get the policing we have asked for. And even many of those who say “well, I don’t want it EXACTLY that way” continue to fully support leadership that has promised to keep it that way. This is how we want it to be.

[BevoAbyss 2057]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

the prevailing political orthodoxy and power structure want them to be

True. The ongoing massive intellectual collapse in America will — almost certainly — be followed by the descent into full-on fascism and theocracy. Then the police of America will be there to violently impose and defend the fascist-theocratic regime. The idea that the police will protect us non-fascists is laughable. The blue line flag tells you all you need to know.

Same goes for the Second Amendment gun cults who will never resist the police. They will join with the police to install and the defend the fascist regime. The Supreme Court will back them. Meanwhile, MAGA and Fox News will be celebrating the new "freedom."

Edited January 30, 2023 by BevoAbyss
Typo

[Willfully Horn 7916]

8 hours ago, Incredulity said:

It’s not just a police problem it’s also a problem of unaccountable bureaucrats enforcing a byzantine federal register that get further and further metastasized with each omnibus year end bill that the elected officials can’t  even be bothered to read.

Another bs trope. Deep state level nonsense, even though there are undoubtedly shitty bureaucrats. Those folks are supposed to know and follow the laws. Otherwise, their job is at risk. Don’t blame the workers for mismanagement.

Of course, you are welcome to support your contention, and I will see if my view needs to evolve.

[Surly Bevo 24696]

I think policing has gone massively overboard in many areas over over militarization, an us-vs them confrontational approach with many/most of whom they are "policing", a lack of true accountability for their individual/collective actions, failures, crimes, etc and is therefore way overdue for massive reform.

That said, I will at least listen to anybody who wants to espouse the complete burn it to the ground and start over definition of abolish.  But you gotta admit to one thing.  That isn't an option until those who espouse that have won an armed/bloody conflict in this country.  

Edited January 30, 2023 by Surly Bevo

[Incredulity 11555]

49 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Those folks are supposed to know and follow the laws. Otherwise, their job is at risk. Don’t blame the workers for mismanagement.

Of course, you are welcome to support your contention, and I will see if my view needs to evolve.

Lena Kahn using tied house beer laws to stop Microsoft from acquiring Activision says hello.

Also, Robinson-Pactman pricing against Coke and Pepsi.  Something that hasn’t been enforced since the early 90’s.  
 

Point being, a predisposed bureaucrat can find something to enforce for any political purpose in the  gigantic pile of, “prosecutorial discretion” sitting unenforced on the federal register.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Incredulity

[Willfully Horn 7916]

23 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Lena Kahn using tied house beer laws to stop Microsoft from acquiring Activision says hello.

Also, Robinson-Pactman pricing against Coke and Pepsi.  Something that hasn’t been enforced since the early 90’s.  
 

Point being, a predisposed bureaucrat can find something to enforce for any political purpose is the gigantic pile of, “prosecutorial discretion” sitting unenforced on the federal register.

Your last sentence makes more sense to me than either example. Being chairwoman of the FTC does not jibe with my understanding of the term “bureaucrat,” given these examples of the term: “Tax collectors, government accountants, police officers, fire fighters, and military personnel.” 

 

I am also resistant to the contention that laws belong to the category of use them or lose them. Laws against insurrection come to mind when considering the merits of such an attitude.

Eliminating the “giant pile of “prosecutorial discretion”” is an act I can support, in theory. Is that not a management issue?

Edited January 30, 2023 by Willfully Horn

[Incredulity 11555]

8 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Being chairwoman of the FTC does not jibe with my understanding of the term “bureaucrat,

How does the chair of the FTC attain that position?  Appointment.  Hence, bureaucrat.

 

10 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Is that not a management issue?

That’s the whole point.

[Willfully Horn 7916]

20 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

That’s the whole point

 

10 hours ago, Incredulity said:

It’s not just a police problem it’s also a problem of unaccountable bureaucrats 

The disconnect between these two statements is why the trope is bs. Bureaucrats are not unaccountable. SCOTUS justices are unaccountable,

Edited to add that bureaucrats are generally hired. “The president can appoint approximately 2,000 people to top positions within the federal bureaucracy. These people are known as political appointees.,” not bureaucrats.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Willfully Horn
More

[Incredulity 11555]

33 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

 

Edited to add that bureaucrats are generally hired. “The president can appoint approximately 2,000 people to top positions within the federal bureaucracy. These people are known as political appointees.,” not bureaucrats.

Really?  Read your own description. Good lord.  Do I need to quote the Websters definition?