Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How much do we need the police?

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 505 posts

Re: How much do we need the police?

#81

Post by tathougies »

jbay808 wrote: post #35
js2 wrote: post #3

I know folks don't always click through, so I'll highlight what I found most insightful: > Part of our misunderstanding about the nature of policing is we keep imagining that we can turn police into social workers. That we can make them nice, friendly community outreach workers. But police are violence workers. That's what distinguishes them from all other government functions. ... They have the legal capacity to use…

This framing of the police seems very strange to my Canadian sensibilities. I'm curious about whether Americans largely agree with this description.

Canadians do not have violent warlords on their streets.

You don't understand what it's like to live in our (mainly South Western) cities, and live with threats of drive-by shootings, vandalism, and getting caught in gunfire. My dad worked driving around downtown LA and surrounds for 20 some odd years and there was more than a few times he was caught in gang-based gunfire. This was in the 80s and 90s mostly, and things have become safer since then, I'll grant that, but it's not perfect.

This is ridiculous. People complain about the police having war weapons. Certainly, it seems nuts, but it's also nuts that our cities -- at any time -- can turn into a warzone.

People act as if the cops are over-armed. This weekend alone there were 21 homicides in Chicago. Altogether, there have been 231 just this year. To put that in perspective, the entire nation of Canada had only 651 in 2018 (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=351000...). The fact is that Chicago will have more homicides this year than the entire nation of Canada, as will LA, and many other cities. The police seem like soldiers because we have asked them to fight a war, and we're okay with civilians being collateral damage.

Instead of figuring out how to end this war (hint: it's not drugs... if we legalize drugs, they'll just find something else to do, like child prostitution, unless you wanna legalize that too), and admitting what the problem is (most gangs are coming in from Central America and Mexico), we pretend the militarization of police is because some white guys want to play soldier. Give me a break.

Here are the kinds of violence we expect American police to deal with on a regular basis. These kinds of things should not be happening in america, period, and it's high time we figured out how to stop them to protect ourselves and our police:

1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-16/ms-13-co...

2. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/gang-members-sentenced-...

3. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/12/tyshaw...

My goodness, can you imagine potentially having to deal with that and then turn around to give some one a parking ticket? It's no wonder the police go nuts, and only the sadistic / psycopathic end up staying in. It's no wonder you can be 'too smart' for American policing. Anyone with a brain and time to think would go absolutely crazy pondering the dregs of society they are forced to deal with.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#82

Post by haecceity »

kenz0r wrote: post #64
josephg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s made much more true because that’s the image police forces in America have of themselves. “We’re here to beat up the bad guys”. Police here in Australia are far from perfect, but they are much more seen as part of the community. They don’t even carry firearms any more. In Australia I wouldn’t hesitate to contact the police or talk to them on the street if something happened. (Just like I wouldn’t hesit…

Just to correct you on firearms. Police officers in Australia are generally issues firearms (semi-automatic pistols).

I thought British police mostly don't carry firearms.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#83

Post by derekp7 »

js2 wrote: post #3

I know folks don't always click through, so I'll highlight what I found most insightful: > Part of our misunderstanding about the nature of policing is we keep imagining that we can turn police into social workers. That we can make them nice, friendly community outreach workers. But police are violence workers. That's what distinguishes them from all other government functions. ... They have the legal capacity to use…

I wonder if it would work to have the police split into two separate units (kind of like how the swat team is separate). So you have a general response police unit, which is unarmed or lightly armed (taser / nightstick, etc). They would respond to most situations, and would be highly trained in de-escalation techniques. Then have the backup units be the muscle. In situations that they feel are dicey, the backup could show up at the same time, but hang back unless they are needed.

The main problem with this is that they don't know what they will be facing when they get to the scene. In most cases things go smoothly (traffic stops, domestic calls, detective work). But when things go bad they go bad quickly.

Of course if the first-responding police wore different uniforms, then there may be less chance of escalation. And people would know that as soon as the first responder has to call backup, then things will get really bad for them -- kind of like if you harass a social worker, you will have a very bad day.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#84

Post by tom_ »

haecceity wrote: post #82
kenz0r wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to correct you on firearms. Police officers in Australia are generally issues firearms (semi-automatic pistols).

I thought British police mostly don't carry firearms.

They don’t, but Australia is not part of Britain, so different rules may apply.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#85

Post by loco5niner »

jbay808 wrote: post #35
js2 wrote: post #3

I know folks don't always click through, so I'll highlight what I found most insightful: > Part of our misunderstanding about the nature of policing is we keep imagining that we can turn police into social workers. That we can make them nice, friendly community outreach workers. But police are violence workers. That's what distinguishes them from all other government functions. ... They have the legal capacity to use…

This framing of the police seems very strange to my Canadian sensibilities. I'm curious about whether Americans largely agree with this description.

I'm an american and I do not agree with the description.

If I was ever in a bad situation and a cop suddenly showed up, I'd feel huge relief.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#86

Post by gruez »

tathougies wrote: post #81
jbay808 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This framing of the police seems very strange to my Canadian sensibilities. I'm curious about whether Americans largely agree with this description.

Canadians do not have violent warlords on their streets. You don't understand what it's like to live in our (mainly South Western) cities, and live with threats of drive-by shootings, vandalism, and getting caught in gunfire. My dad worked driving around downtown LA and surrounds for 20 some odd years and there was more than a few times he was caught in gang-based gunfire. This was in the 80s and 90s mostly, and thin…

>The police seem like soldiers because we have asked them to fight a war, and we're okay with civilians being collateral damage.

A war on... what? Drugs? Gangs? Are those things that can be fought with assault rifles and MRAPs? This whole situation is reminiscent of the wars of vietnam, iraq, and afghanistan.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#87

Post by macintux »

jorblumesea wrote: post #29

One of my current frustrations with American politics is how radical everything has become. The debate is now, either we don't have any police and defund them, or, we allow them to continue being completely unaccountable. Neither of those situations sound ideal. It feels like Europe and other places have a much more reasonable and nuanced view. Police get funded, and well funded, but the job requirements are strict,…

> The debate is now, either we don't have any police and defund them, or, we allow them to continue being completely unaccountable.

Did you read the article? The roadmap he laid out seems to be the middle ground you're looking for.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#88

Post by tathougies »

gruez wrote: post #86
tathougies wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canadians do not have violent warlords on their streets. You don't understand what it's like to live in our (mainly South Western) cities, and live with threats of drive-by shootings, vandalism, and getting caught in gunfire. My dad worked driving around downtown LA and surrounds for 20 some odd years and there was more than a few times he was caught in gang-based gunfire. This was in the 80s and 90s mostly, and thin…

>The police seem like soldiers because we have asked them to fight a war, and we're okay with civilians being collateral damage. A war on... what? Drugs? Gangs? Are those things that can be fought with assault rifles and MRAPs? This whole situation is reminiscent of the wars of vietnam, iraq, and afghanistan.

A war on people shooting each other on our streets? A war on child trafficking? It's not about drugs, it's not about gangs. It's about how both those things lead to homicides and child endangerment. I don't care if a group of kids wants to band together. I don't care if someone wants to take a substance so they can trip. I care when -- in pursuit of those things -- children die, people are beaten and sodomized, sons and daughters kidnapped, etc. Stop pretending.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#89

Post by gruez »

jbay808 wrote: post #73
glitchc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canadian police are no different. Living under a dangerous illusion.

I'd like to know why you think so. In my experience, at least in Vancouver, police tend to use violence and force as absolutely the last resort, and generally play a lot more of "social worker" type of role, especially when it comes to handling issues associated with drug addiction in the downtown east side. But I could be very wrong so I'm interested in hearing other viewpoints. Or maybe you're thinking of different…

>In my experience, at least in Vancouver, police tend to use violence and force as absolutely the last resort

Meanwhile on /r/all today... https://old.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/gvu8fz/cana...

Re: How much do we need the police?

#90

Post by Sniffnoy »

gowld wrote: post #79
Sniffnoy wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this silly. It acts as if people are incapable of assessing situations and then selecting the best action based on that situation. Yes, police have the authority to use violence; that doesn't necessarily mean they have to have some sort of essence of violence that drives them to be violent all the time. Indeed, police in many situations do successfully negotiate situations without employing violence. So, clear…

The military aren't police. Yes, they are pretty good at RoE, and when it's time to shoot, they shoot the hell out of their target. But their job is distinctly not to spend all day in pursuit of individual criminals and apprehending them. Military tries to avoid contact with criminals until it's fireball time.

Sure! The military shouldn't be police, and the police shouldn't be military. My point is just they suffice to demonstrate that it is possible to be a violence worker, and yet employ that violence with discretion; and to say that the police necessarily cannot is expecting too little of them.
Post reply on HN