How is “what happens if someone is the victim of a violent crime” a stupid question? It’s extremely straightforward and specific.
The police determine who committed the crime, arrest them, charge them, and they are prosecuted under a trial system.
Note that I’m telling you what is SUPPOSED to happen, like specifically which people are empowered to do what, but under this slogan you have, you can’t even do that. You refuse to even attempt to do so because you know that it’s going to sound ludicrous.
1 Like
OK, let me rephrase. Under “abolishing the police”, what is your PROPOSAL for how a violent crime against someone should be dealt with? My proposal is that we have a written law which specifies what crimes are and how they should be punished, and that there should be a state-run body tasked with apprehending people who violate these statutes and handing them to a court system for justice to be carried out. What’s yours?
1 Like
OK, the question “what would happen” was a bullshit one because reality frequently doesn’t match the proposal of how something ought to work. Conceded. With that out of the way, what’s your proposal?
What Happens Now:
Well, if the victim of a violent crime is a person of color or an unattractive woman, there is likely a cursory investigation and if the crime isn’t solved in the first 48 hours, the perp likely goes free.
If the victim is a white child, a Netflix special will be produced.
If the victim is an attractive young white lady, the investigation will dominate the news cycle for months.
DOG PD
WE WILL TRACK YOU DOWN: ALL BARK AND ALL BITE
Grunching but is a big part of this some semantic confusion over ‘abolish’?
“Abolishing The Police” is
- Consistent with the existence of some kind of state-run law enforcement body who can be summoned if crimes are being committed
- Not consistent with such a state-run law enforcement body; these are mutually exclusive ideas
0 voters
Am I wrong or are many in the “abolish the police because what we have now is awful” group also in the “I’m not voting for Biden just because Trump is awful” group? Seems ironic.
2 Likes
Indeed
Seems pretty consistent to me.
People want to change the entire system
Or people want to pretend the system is fine with a few tweaks like shooting people in the leg. You’re voting for someone that actually said that hahahaha.
5 Likes
Don’t take chemo.
Just shoot that cancer dead.
I think this is a great way to present the goals of an anti-police-violence movement:
The goals are specific, achievable, and every point is easy to present in a way that will seem immediately reasonable to most people. I would only like to add another point about demilitarization of police departments.
By contrast, “abolish the police” seems like a pretty bad slogan. Even on Unstuck many people’s first reaction will just be “how does that work?” It’s also a complete non-starter. “Defund the police” is a little better, in that at least it sounds less incredible. But it’s also still less concrete than the points in the image: it doesn’t answer the question “why defund the police.”
The choice does matter. Finding ways to present issues concisely and persuasively is an enormously important part of social movement success.
1 Like
Another helpful thing would be to abolish nazi loving websites and those who moderate them.
3 Likes
Don’t want to upset the tankies around here too much, but…Abolish the State! (or at least do your best to subvert or ignore it)
1 Like
Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out. Alternatively, I’d also love to borrow the presentation style from 8cantwait but apply it to some of the points in this thread:
1 Like
Crime
Each community has an autonomous police agency, which "controlled the community police and served as the first instance of jurisdiction over internal affairs.[41] Each community also has its own judicial council and, according to Grubacic and O’Hearn, “has the freedom to decide on the specifics of the punishment according to local context.”[42] Zapatistas say they almost never imprison criminals. Instead, they generally assign community service as a punishment. Neils Barmeyer has observed a prominent use of fines as punishment in Zapatista communities.[43]
According to Grubacic and O’Hearn, there is an emphasis “on transformative rather than punitive justice. The parties involved can negotiate on compensation, and when the perpetrator has to take a loan from relatives to pay the fine, the participation of the family helps prevent further transgressions.”[44]
Gustavo Esteva argues that the Zapatista territories are “the safest place in Mexico and perhaps one of the safest in the world.”[45] In the Zapatista communities, land is communally owned and no one goes hungry, so one could argue that there is little to be gained from theft. With a significant degree of control over their work, education, culture and communities, the Zapatistas experience a comparably low level of alienation. “There are only two men in jail in the whole of the Zapatista area today,” says Esteva in a 2013 talk. “And these two guys are in jail because they committed the worst possible crime. They were cultivating marijuana. The problem in that case is not just the use of marijuana. The problem is they can give the government a pretext to attack the Zapatistas and to attack the communities.”.[46]
3 Likes
The Weeds coming in hot with a defund the cops podcast.
1 Like
I appreciate your contrarianism, but na.