You keep screaming into the wind of statements not made.
Actually, I’m quite comfortable opining that it’s something white people (men) co-opted in labor movements in the early 20th century in their quest to further the end goal of eradicating private property. You agree that should be abolished, too.
Why are only the police allowed to misidentify a phone for a gun? Civilians can’t shoot someone with a phone and say “I thought it was a gun!” and get away with it.
Yet police allegedly get expert level training on such things.
Something seems fishy…
The lived experience of people is important, and I value the literature regarding injustices suffered at the hands of police. But the baby gets tossed out with the bath water when evidence is ignored and labeled racist or apologist:
Criminologists Justin Nix and Scott Wolfe state in the Washington Post , “We have enough research evidence to be concerned about the immediate impact of drastic budget cuts or wholesale disbanding of police agencies: Crime and victimization will increase…These collateral consequences will disproportionately harm minority communities that need help, not further marginalization.” They go on to state that “Cities that have more police officers per capita tend to have lower crime rates. This does not necessarily mean we need to hire more police. Rather, having more officers per capita provides greater ability to dedicate resources to community- and problem-oriented policing approaches that have been shown to reduce crime and improve community satisfaction.”
How the hell do you have more police officers per capita without hiring more police?
Have the police kill more (black) people?
Wat
So, cities which are thriving have less crime and more money to spend on police?
Seems like the amount spent on police and the levels of crime could both be a function of the health of the city’s economy.
Is that really a confusing question or am I missing something obvious?
Police officers per capita is simple math: # officers divided by population
There are two ways to increase that number:
I don’t know about that. I’m sure there are plenty of old white guy, young black dude scenarios where that excuse would probably fly just fine.
Ah yes the august and definitely clear view of abolition as “adding and building” rather than the simplistic view of abolition as ending/eradicating something.
Yet you insist upon holding onto your simplistic view. Curious.
Simple != simplistic
ETA: you appear to be located below the joke, too, mysteryman
Basic is a troll of the worst variety. One who argues in bad faith barely concealed by some half cocked version of “reason”.
Has any topic benefitted from having the discussion dumbed down and taken back to 2010 22 level discourse? Of course not.
You seem really angry for a guy drinking champagne on a Puerto Rican beach.
ETA: why even post?
It is legitimate to question what comes next after abolishing the police in the same way that it is reasonable to ask “replace with what?” to people who advocate for repealing and replacing Obamacare.
Maybe you’re a troll and maybe you’re not, but to move things forward from sniping back and forth, I am going to reframe this debate.
I start with the assumption that there is general agreement on the ideas that there should be laws and that those laws should be enforced. The composition of those laws is not particularly important to this debate.
The question then becomes how we should enforce those laws and this is what the true debate is about.
My basic stance is that I believe the mechanism for law enforcement should be a government function. Even a Nozickian minarchist assigns some level of policing power to the state. I am flexible about what that can look like. Some people say that the definition of “police” is a government agency that enforces the law. I suppose that’s one way of looking at it, but does anyone refer to the IRS as cops when they enforce tax laws?
0 voters
They’re called much worse by their abolitionists
Been a long time since we had a troll as basic as Basic.
Hitchens admitted he “converted” to that view after moving to New York pre 9/11.
I have been lurking here since the site was created, but the only reason I created an account was so that I could ignore Basic. I’m pretty sure he is banned user anachronistic aka RAIDS. He posts exactly like him.
So pocketchads is not only the bravest and most genuine of us, legitimately risking his life for a better world. He’s also well read and has the intellectual chops to own the shit out of this basic guy on his own faux “reasonable” terms. I may be slightly in love at this point.