Should the american police be disbanded?

I experienced a similar thing living in wealthy suburban areas. The cops are hesitant to give moving violations to wealthy people who pay a lot to the city in donations, or taxes, and so they drive like maniacs.

It’s not my imagination either. When I was in college, a gal my sister knew was scurrying across a crosswalk and got run over by some rich asshole in a minivan with kids in the back. The girl in the crosswalk got the ticket. After that they put in a stop light.

Some friends of mine were crossing that same crosswalk with the light red, and we had the walk sign. Some asshole in a minivan with 4-5 kids in the back went to go blow the light, and almost ran our group of 6 people over, coming to a screeching halt. When we pointed at the red light above our heads, she rolled down her window and yelled at us about how we don’t pay any taxes in that town!

I don’t think anyone in this thread disagrees that there’s problems in a lot of American police departments. I say things like, “What is an alternative used by another large society that works better?” and I get shouted down and called names like an, “Avowed authoritarian” and “coprophagic”. A central policing authority is a good idea, compared to the alternative, which is lax enforcement of laws, as you point out. Or worse still, periodic lynchings, witch burnings, etc. It is all about determining the training regimen, best practices and then enforcing those and holding the individual police accountable. These are all fixable problems in the current system, and I’ve yet to hear about an obviously better system which would really get me to seriously think about the idea of disbanding the system of a public municipal police force.

4 Likes

What’s funny is some of us say that ironically, and others take it as agreement with their anarchist views. Having some laws not enforced or erratically enforced breeds contempt for all laws. Not long ago I sat in a restaurant watching a parking agent ticket a car for being too close to the corner. There were at least 6 other cars there too close, but he only issued one ticket and left. WTF? Far as I could tell he chose the scummiest car, the person least likely to successfully fight a ticket, but also the least likely to pay it. No wonder they parking agency here doesn’t actually make money for the city.

If the laws were just, do you think force would be required to ensure compliance?

If there were no penalties for theft or murder, would you rush out and do them immediately, or would you need cause?

Serious questions, trying to get where you’re coming from.

are you arguing that laws against murder are unjust?

since people still commit murder despite laws and penalties does that mean those laws are unjust?

2 Likes

No; are you arguing that all laws are useless, since the things they forbid still happen? Just take my questions at face value, as questions, not arguments.

i’m not arguing, i’m seeking clarification of your point. you seem to be saying that if laws are just no force is required but since force is required the laws are not just, which utilizes the fact that the truth value of the contrapositive is equal to the original conditional as a method of proof. that is what it looks like you are implying. my questions above were an attempt to gain clarification.

i’m still seeking clarification because if that isn’t what you were saying in the comment i responded to i no longer have any idea what your point was in asking your questions.

edited to remove a redundant “the.”

3 Likes

I wouldn’t but some people would-- I’m sure plenty of people think they have cause, but that doesn’t mean it’s justified. If there were no penalties for minor infractions like running a red light or speeding then lots of people would do it when there was the opportunity, but it’s not like I would go driving just so I could run red lights.

When there is a benefit to breaking the law, people will do it, and if that infraction is not enforced more people will break the law. See: Wells-Fargo, JP Morgan-Chase, etc. I’m coming from the point of view that the problem isn’t the very concept of “police”, the problem is the police not doing their job properly, whether it’s letting rich white guys off with a fine or shooting innocent black kids.

[Edited to add: I came to this conversation late. I see three is a lot more being discussed here, but my comment was only an initial reaction to the idea “should the American police be disbanded” which I don’t see as a realistic solution.]

5 Likes

Right off the bat, let me say that I would be happy to work with you and people who agree with you! Police reform is a goal we can seek together and there’s strength in numbers. Ideological purity isn’t required.

There’s no point being made. I was trying to establish the base premises @some_guy uses. Conversations based on differing axioms can’t rely on reason or formal logic; they have to be completely emotional, and I’m better at communicating through reason.

An astounding number of people believe, axiomatically, that moral behavior is impossible without threat of punishment. This surfaces constantly in religious and philosophical discussions; many theists insist that without belief in divine retribution, humans would run amok, raping, stealing, murdering and marrying turtles. When atheists point out that they don’t do these things, and that many humans have a moral calculus that isn’t based on punishment, they’ll often be dismissed with the argument that deep inside they really do believe in hellfire, they’re just lying to themselves. See? I needed to know what ground I could stand on; sometimes there’s none.

In my area, the state has put armed, uniformed police in the schools. This is part of the normalization of the police state; children are conditioned from an early age to believe that force is the legitimate root of power, as Mao taught. Teaching and moral philosophy - the only true source of ethical conduct in my own opinion - are made subservient to a code explicitly based on hierarchy and punishment. Those at the top are immune to rules and punishment, those at the bottom are punished not for their deeds, but rather to provide an example of why you should grovel and cheat your way to the top.

I believe a culture and society can exist where everyone is educated to the physical limitations of their meat bodies, and that police would be completely unnecessary in any such culture, since every person would share the duties and responsibilities we currently off-load to a cadre of professional thugs.

I hope that in the previous two paragraphs I’ve provided the essence of my argument against police for @some_guy, @Urbanacus, @anon75430791, @navarro and anyone else interested. I don’t think simply disbanding police today would necessarily work (even though personally I’d be completely comfortable with that, since police have always been far more dangerous to me than criminals) and I understand arguments that social change is impossible to the degree I’ve described.

But I’ve many things to do and must avant.

I’ll be brief:

force is the legitimate root of power

Enforcement is not the same as force. Although they are often conflated in the US system.

People do do these things. Not society as a whole; individual outliers who are motivated to game the system to get ahead. My point is a system by which we keep the minority outliers in Check, without things devolving into lynch mobs and vigilante justice.

Of course I am interested in a system which would work without a central police force. There could be interesting concepts like a rotating force which is compulsory for all citizens, so everyone has to do Police duty one week a month, for example.

4 Likes

This argument falters on it’s need for binary results to input. People aren’t like that. Some people do the right thing because they perceive it innately, others need it pointed out and then they do it, while still others need the persuasion of punishment. Of the latter, some aren’t persuaded, and misbehave anyway. This is the human condition. If we were all logical and rational, we’d need only to have the “golden Rule” explained, and we’d be all set.

In any given society most people are not sociopaths, even in my city with no traffic enforcement most people obey the law, but it only takes a few to create chaos and the sense of risk. I’ll even go so far as to posit most Wall Streeters are probably moral people, but the ones that aren’t are able to do so much damage that they need cops as much as any street thug.

3 Likes

Indeed. And the vast majority of people who do so, are socially and economically disadvantaged.

I believe people’s minds are underlaid by neural networks, programmed by genetics and environmental influences. If you’ve never been taught enough rationality to completely understand the categorical imperative, then you will do harm to your fellow humans. If you’re born poor or of the wrong caste, you probably won’t be taught sufficiently.

I don’t really mind if other people have different opinions, motivations and goals. If they’re willing to put aside these differences long enough to hold police accountable for the theft, rape and murder they routinely commit, that’s good enough!

1 Like

You can remove all crime that has anything to do with being disadvantaged. You still have the tiny percentage of people whose neural networks are broken, irreparably. Some of the most hideous things ever done, were planned by people who’ve had as much learning as the societies of their time could provide. Some were even taught Kant, I’m sure.

Most people are good and don’t need laws against murder at all. Nearly all people can be taught good and wouldn’t need such laws if taught.

Some people don’t. And there’s a tiny enough number of these to leave the essential notion of humans as good undiminished, but a large enough number to make a society without some manner of defense against such as these hell.

After all, the police you describe with such eloquence aren’t the underclass in your model, surely? And yet, even if you poofed them away they’d still be with us, just as rapacious, just as incapable of empathy, just as destructive as you presently describe them as.

This all, of course, entirely avoids the problem of not crimes but, ah, destructive inconsiderations that the police can be a tool to avoid. Such as calling in a noise complaint when a neighbor refuses to tone matters down. Without an external authority, what are you left with? Organizing a shunning campaign? Revenge? Guns at dawn? Swords at a quarter past?

Besides.

Most countries get along quite well with their police, by and large. This seems an uniquely American problem. And while it is true that some countries don’t arm their police, others do and yet don’t find themselves with quite as many murdered children. Hardly any. None, in fact.

Why? What’s wrong with America? Plenty, in fact, but the chief problem, seen from the outside, is that the police are not just poorly trained (19 weeks is a hollow farce) but trained wrong. They are, in fact, trained to kill kids. Well, the authors of the training programmes don’t likely see it like that, but the whole ‘shoot paper pop-out targets’ business and the stressing of instant fire response (that’s what those courses are for) create people who’ll, even if they are nice, non-violent people, shoot first and then forget what question they meant to pose.

That’s not a defense of murder, of course, just an extension of complicity to the geniuses who decided to give military training to peace officers. It’s okay for the army because they operate in wartime. The expectation of hostility is there. But for a police officer to stroll into downtown Ferguson with reflexes optimized for Fallujah and a military carbine in-hand is to court disaster.

Why was this allowed to happen? Because the police were sent into high-crime areas and told to treat them as if they were an occupying force. Except, they had .38 police specials and the opposition force had whole arsenals. So they got shot. A lot. The turning point was probably the 1986 fiasco in Miami. After that the police arsenals got horrifyingly upgunned (it’s interesting to note that the Ferguson police are one of the users of the .40S&W cartridge which is as hilariously overengineered a handgun cartridge as you are likely to find aside from lunacies like the .50AE) and, crucially, a whole new school of training focused on bringing the officer back home alive started.

Of course, as cold as it is to say, you can’t prioritize the officer going home alive because then the most logical thing to do is to shoot anyone you see as even slightly threatening. And indeed, that’s what the new training is about. To react to perceived threat with instant violence. That’s a horribly stupid thing to teach to people who are meant to work anywhere where there isn’t currently an actual war.

The original error was treating trouble spots as if they needed conquering, forgetting the Peelian principles that are precisely what differentiates the police from yet another gang. Then this error was compounded by optimizing police equipment[1] and training for conquest-policing and then, once the police roll into downtown trying to conquer it, well, it’s amazing how quickly it starts looking like a place that needed conquering in the first place.

This tragic state of affairs is perpetuated by Dave Grossman and his ilk who find a commercial opportunity in the further militarization of the American police. Worse yet, the worse it gets the more people who do want to abuse and hurt and kill will join the police force (which has no fitting method by which to reject them) and the less civic-minded non-violent people will want to join. There is a positive feedback that isn’t leading anywhere nice.

I wish I knew how to fix this, but I don’t. What I do know is that releasing this concentration of maniacs-with-a-mission from whichever strictures belonging to a police force brings is a bad idea. Oh and body cameras. Body cameras are brilliant and should be mandatory and universal.

[1] Which has culminated (one hopes!) in the absurd trend of giving police APCs with machine guns on. I have the gravest difficulty of imagining a scenario where that ends up a good idea which also doesn’t sound like the plot of a Michael Bay movie.

4 Likes

A change in training to focus on community outreach would also be a great start.

1 Like

Sure, and you don’t need a constantly active force of abusive thugs to deal with that tiny percentage. The citizenry can handle it just fine, as is quite frequently demonstrated. And <sigh> I do understand that many here are completely terrified out of their minds at the idea of someone without a uniform acting morally and ethically in the presence of threat, so we don’t need to revisit that meme.

The List has reached recursion and peak absurdity.

List of Things That Frighten Police (Updated 10/9/17)

Blinking LEDs
Photography & Video Cameras
Black/Brown Adults and Children
Direct Eye Contact
Breasts
Lyft
Peaceful protests
Halloween
Lesbians
Imaginary Black/Brown People
Puppies
Turtles
Rap Battles
Free Speech
Mail Carriers
Motorcyclists
Disabled People
Drawings of Penises
Two-Dollar Bills
Milk
Pregnant Women
Nurses
Journalists
Balloons
Students
Yarn
Police

6 Likes

Over the weekend I saw a cop buy four unbelievably crappy pistols from an estate sale.

He convinced the seller that there was no need to do the single phone call instant background check the State of Delaware normally requires, by flashing his police ID.

So now there’s a local cop with four untraceable cheap handguns, gee I wonder what he’s going to do with those?

I understand that police apologists will simply call me a liar and deny this happened, but it did.

I told the seller he was going to smoke a turd in hell for that one. He was not amused.

6 Likes

The number of serial killers killed by an alert citizenry defending itself: one.

I’m not sure empowering a caste of licensed killers due to the existence of a small number of serial murderers makes sense, given that cops kill far more people than serial killers do. Most serial killers, as I understand it, are found through intelligence and detective work.

Fair warning, John Paul Knowles murdered my late uncle’s first wife with my uncle’s rifle, and the cops held him responsible, so this isn’t an unemotional subject for me.

Are detectives and FBI agents and the like not police?

It is not necessary for them to be, no. This was actually in my first post that generated all the kerfuffle - private investigation is legal in the USA, and there’s no natural law that public investigatory bodies must have police powers. You really don’t need a uniform or the ability to commit legally sanctioned murders in order to perform investigations. Well, not to perform investigations ethically, anyway.

If we were going to nit-pick each others’ semantics rather than exchanging ideas, I could start taking a really different tack here, but luckily we’re not going to do that, right? :wink: