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

Abolish the Police? Survivors of the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 159 posts

Re: Abolish the Police? Survivors of the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure

#71

Post by _zzaw »

dorian-graph wrote: post #7
collyw wrote: post #2

Was anyone surprised by this? Defund / Abolish the police sound like the stupidest ideas ever.

> Abolish the police What does this mean to you?

Tough question actually, because I know what it is intended to mean, and I also know what a lot of its most passionate devotees want it to mean.

I didn't disagree with any of the thinking behind it: shifting more funding and responsibility to social support/health professionals, and focusing more on the conditions that spawn crime rather than just stamping it out as it shows up. Seems like the difference between actually fixing the holes in your house vs. putting all your money into duct tape and basins. The first step towards fixing a broken system is identifying the root causes.

But there's that, and there's the vast majority of people I know who say every cop is an evil fascist and society would be better with no law enforcement at all. Given how many people think—and want—"abolish the police" to mean abolition in the most literal sense, it is hard to look past that definition, even if it's not the intended one.

It's simple: Radicalism breeds radicalism. I don't like those redneck survivalist guys with all the guns either, but it's getting a lot harder to tell them their doomsday fantasies are stupid when so many on the left sound like they consider CHOP to be a blueprint for a better society.

Re: Abolish the Police? Survivors of the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure

#72

Post by syshum »

adjkant wrote: post #65
syshum wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think I am, and reading thought the that story reinforced my statement "There is also a over riding belief that criminality is 100% related to systemic racism and poverty " as most of the commentary is about defunding the police and replacing that with some kind of social programs (aka socialism) under the belief that the reason people commit crime is solely do to economic hardship There belief is if we give p…

This is incredible stretching + straw man to frame this as a political boogey-man (socialism). Do you consider EMT's socialist? They are non-police first responders. Why not make more departments like this to address the massive over-jurisdiction of police responsibility?

>>This is incredible stretching + straw man to frame this as a political boogey-man (socialism).

It is not through when you expand the inquiry to writings and positions the same advocates and politicians have on other issues and topics. A clear pattern emerges .

>>Do you consider EMT's socialist?

That depends, since there is a large number of private EMT services who bill for their services directly no that would be socialism

For government run Police, Fire and EMT service that boils down to how the funding for those services are collected on if they are socialist in nature or not. Here we would get in a public finance debate.

That discussion however is not really at the heart of the matter, police respond to situations where there is an eliminate of physical danger, this includes medical emergencies. This is often desired by the EMT's themselves because situations people suffering a medical or metal issue can often turn violent.

Again the solution IMO is not eliminating the police from responding to these calls, but to provide proper tools, training and resources to he police to understand the situations better. If you want to send along a medical person or a counselor that is something worth looking into but I do not believe replacing the police as the first line respondors defending the police, abolishing the police, or is the solution here

Re: Abolish the Police? Survivors of the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure

#73

Post by _zzaw »

sascha_sl wrote: post #5
collyw wrote: post #2

Was anyone surprised by this? Defund / Abolish the police sound like the stupidest ideas ever.

Defund is not actually a bad idea. The police are tasked with handling the fallout of failing or non-existent social systems and have been scaled respectively - in fact police funding is growing every year, and not insubstantially. If you work in tech you should know what happens if you transfer too many responsibilities to one bloated team. These funds would be better invested in actual support systems. Homeless she…

Yeah, but calling it "defund" sounds a lot like "no more police, anywhere".

I think a lot of the insanity here could have been avoided if this was presented as what it was intended to be—a reallocation of resources based on a desire to more effectively address deep-seated problems that make society worse for everyone—and not as, you know, anarchy.

Re: Abolish the Police? Survivors of the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure

#74

Post by shadowgovt »

basch wrote: post #70
shadowgovt wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has less punch, and we're not talking about restructuring fire departments.

Is the goal to be as polarizing as possible, or to persuade people on the fence to come over to the party?

How many people, at this point in the first four years of the Trump administration, are still on the fence?

Re: Abolish the Police? Survivors of the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure

#75

Post by syshum »

happytoexplain wrote: post #63
Threeve303 wrote: post #19

Abolishing the police combined with the protests (or riots) and the move against the NRA creates a very uncomfortable environment for probably half of the United States. All in an election year no less. Does no one remember 2000,2004 and 2016? Perhaps the DNC could write a book called “How to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”

You should be aware that I've talked to liberals in rural areas who feel physically threatened by far-right rhetoric. I.e. the "the only good democrat is a dead democrat" video, conservatives guarding voting locations with guns, the president encouraging both these examples, etc. A couple of them have taken up gun ownership specifically because of this fear . I absolutely sympathize with both sides, but being "very u…

I have never once encountered "far-right rhetoric. I.e. the only good democrat is a dead democrat", sounds more like authoritarian propaganda to me

Re: Abolish the Police? Survivors of the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure

#76

Post by low_common »

spaetzleesser wrote: post #3

I really hate that in typical US manner this issue gets pushed to the extreme so in the end a reasonable discussion can’t be had but it’s only a fight with everybody digging in and not listening to each other. Abolishing the police was always nonsense but there are plenty of areas where police is overused and too aggressive. In my view there shouldn’t be police in schools or hospitals. The drug war causes a lot of un…

You need police in hospitals to maintain security for the patients in there. It's not uncommon to have incidents with people from the outside trying to assault/murder someone they know in the hospital. Criminals shot on the street still have to go to the hospital and this leaves an opportunity for their would-be-murderer to come in and finish the job.

Schools, it's sad but I'm in favor of school resource officers. Those people were good to have around and can serve as a role model.

Re: Abolish the Police? Survivors of the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure

#77

Post by _zzaw »

elil17 wrote: post #10

“Business owners describe a harrowing experience of calling for help and being left all alone.” No one advocating defunding the police was saying it would be good for business owners. The point of the whole movement is that police protect the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.

If you're looking at what happened to the business owners in the article and thinking that that's a step in the right direction, I think there are a lot of criminal-justice/police reform folks who would prefer that you did not try to associate yourself with what they're fighting for.

Telling America that the coffee-shop guy deserved to get harassed by a violent mob because he's a wealthy fatcat is the surest way to discredit any cause you're advocating for. And I'm saying this as someone who thought the ideas underlying DTP made a fair amount of sense.

Re: Abolish the Police? Survivors of the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure

#78

Post by notacoward »

syshum wrote: post #75
happytoexplain wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be aware that I've talked to liberals in rural areas who feel physically threatened by far-right rhetoric. I.e. the "the only good democrat is a dead democrat" video, conservatives guarding voting locations with guns, the president encouraging both these examples, etc. A couple of them have taken up gun ownership specifically because of this fear . I absolutely sympathize with both sides, but being "very u…

I have never once encountered "far-right rhetoric. I.e. the only good democrat is a dead democrat", sounds more like authoritarian propaganda to me

Have you considered the possibility that your experience might not be universal?

Re: Abolish the Police? Survivors of the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure

#79

Post by Tycho »

We can split hairs about 'defunding' vs 'abolishing', but I just get the distinct impression that many people have got no real idea about the threat that crime poses to the prosperity of a community (or city or state), and the effort that is required to keep it in check. The occasional misbehaviour of police officers is a small price to pay compared to the oppression and privation wrought by widespread crime.

Re: Abolish the Police? Survivors of the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure

#80

Post by tarboreus »

shadowgovt wrote: post #74
basch wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the goal to be as polarizing as possible, or to persuade people on the fence to come over to the party?

How many people, at this point in the first four years of the Trump administration, are still on the fence?

Pretty much everyone who matters if you're trying to convince people of something.
Post reply on HN