For sure, and it’s real problem that is stemmed from a combination of racial bias and legal right to get away with the ability to do some fucked up shit to people you don’t like.
But again, I feel that the “call a friend” or the “crime just doesn’t happen all that often” isn’t a good approach. I mean, the right is all for strapping themselves to the teeth and blowing away intruders at 3 am. Tell them to do that instead of calling a friend in the post police world. Some fools might like that.
What would calling the friend do?
Does he shoot the somebitch or does he call his friend who know a friend how can go hardcore on his ass? And what if he’s already booked for the night whoopin others?
Again this is gibberish.
Uprisings don’t have “leaders”. Demos come in two flavors ~ permitted or not. Permitted demos do have leaders, the permit holders. Not permitted assemblies are a free for all. Often some group will have made a “call to action” calling for the assembly. And while that group may, or mat not, have internal leaders… nobody is a leader of the assembly in general.
Often times demos will have “open mic”. There’s a queue, and anyone can speak in turn. Even crazy sounding folk. Even politicians. That’s what was happening in the vid that was posted.
A city council candidate was giving a stump speech on open mic.
I agree with all of that.
Thinking and saying that abolishing the police – your stated aim – is dumb and destructive isn’t concern trolling.
So our fellow UnStuckers posting “abolish” here, around our ~50 member virtual water cooler, are destructive, in some measurable IRL way? And the world would be a better place if they just STFU, again in a some measurable IRL way?
So the Movement For Black Lives (including BLM) is destructive, in some measurable IRL way? And the world would be a better place if they just STFU regarding “abolish”, again in a some measurable IRL way?
Saying I disagree with their aims isn’t concern trolling. Concern trolling is when you say you agree with their aims but not their methods.
I don’t want to get rid of police and policing.
How about responding to my follow up Qs regarding your claims of ‘destruction’?
That’s not how I’d use the term “concern trolling”. But I really don’t care to explore how you mean something else than i mean when using that phrase.
I think that policing deters and prevents crime. I think that eliminating policing would cause crime to increase. So having police and policing is vital to having a society where crime is kept to a minimum. There’s a natural friction between policing and oppression of the populace, particularly the disadvantaged, and we’re not doing enough to address that. Decreasing and mitigating that injustice is where we should focus our efforts on, not on eliminating the necessary and vital role that law enforcement has on preventing and punishing crimes.
Ultimately, the police are meant to protect and maintain the status quo and our current status quo sucks. They are an impediment to changing the status quo, but there’s an argument that we need the police or something like them to protect a new status quo if we can erect one more to our liking.
If we could build the world that we want to live in, the police or whatever organization we use to fulfill those functions would probably be a force for good. Right now, they are an obstacle to be defeated.
That’s the idea: Prefigurative Politics. This is classically expressed as “Building the new world in the shell of the old”. The preamble reads: “forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old”.
Proposal: let’s change the forum’s name to Unfuck Politics
unfuck u
If there was no consequences for murder, robbery, rape, I think that we would see higher rates of those crimes. There’s been research done that shows that more cops tends to lead to a decrease in violent crime, seems reasonable to assume that the reverse would be true. AFAIK no modern wealthy society has actually tested this proposition and I’m not eager to be a guinea pig for police abolition.
Hate to link to vox dot com and glesias but I think he’s right here.
I swear I don’t have a crush on you, I just realllly like giving you hearts 
I didn’t say the best way to deter crime is more cops. I said that there is evidence that more cops leads to less crime. So it stands to reason that fewer cops, or no cops, would lead to more crime.
As far as what the consequences for murder and other violent crimes in no cop land, you tell me. If there’s no cops to arrest violent criminals what are the consequences for violent crime? How does it work?
NoCopLand is starting to sound a like ACLand back on 2+2. It’s way better than what we have now but trying to define how it actually works always turns into roof roads.
Could be the name of our direct action arm
Take a step back. Should minimizing violent crime be our biggest priority?