First, I like this model of private policing. In the instance the article sites, the security force went at the heart of the problem rather than throwing someone into a cage. That’s a good thing. Second, if you have a failure from a public institution, a private alternative is a good thing. You get more competition, which often yields better results. Third, this isn’t very thought out, but trimming public police forc…
I'm shocked (but not totally surprised) at the response to the concept on HN. I cannot even imagine how one could think this is a good thing - necessary, I can understand, but not a good thing. I don't even know how to argue that this is bad. I'll just lose all my faith in society if this ever happens where I live.
The privatization of policing
71–80 of 236 posts
Re: The privatization of policing
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> will be in actually helping the drug problem… while this should be obvious to anyone who has seen the camps, we still get articles that claim "the obvious answer to homelessness" is just more housing. Of course we need more housing but how do cheaper rents convince addicts to change their lifestyle? it's the conventional argument that's being brought up all the time while claiming "everyone's ignoring it". doing so…
From what I’ve read, the homeless people who sleep on the street and generally create trouble (due to severe addiction and other mental issues) are only about 1/3 of the homeless. A lot of the other homeless you would never recognize as homeless, don’t sleep rough, and are not necessarily “chronically homeless” - those are the ones that would benefit from cheaper housing
Re: The privatization of policing
#73I just moved to Portland and I live in SouthEast (where this article is talking about). It was a shock seeing guards dressed in the same kit I wore in Afghanistan. They're not exaggerating the homeless situation here either. There's tons, and many of them are addicted to fentanyl or meth. The political situation is exactly as they described. The county and city in Portland have a weird relationship. They're both "Pro…
My car, in the same month, was rear ended by an uninsured driver with a history of DUIs and a family history of crime and bankruptcy. When my car was rear-ended the trunk popped open and all of the contents were stolen by a 3rd party. In all of these times, calls to 911 failed often and it often took hours to get connected to an operator. Even when I found my girlfriend’s car in a high-crime, high-transient part of the city the police would not assist, nor provide a police report for hours. When my car was totaled by an uninsured driver police did not provide a police report, and when I made a FOIA request none was on record.
The private security here, particularly on/near Hayden Island and around N/SE. Portland are completely justified when they have to use force or project force against shoplifters, squatters and other criminals because it results in business closures which depresses the local economy. Unfortunately Measure 114 was heavily funded by out-of-state billionaires who want to disarm citizens, this measure increases police power, but is fortunately currently blocked due to its unconstitutionality.
The wilderness is beautiful here, unfortunately many people turn a blind eye to the violence and crime because it’s a direct result of their own voting and demonstration history. I’ve found that police dispatchers here don’t ask much info about crimes in progress or physical details of criminals. I’m not sure if it’s because they don’t want to add to federal or state records or because they understand that police can’t/won’t actually arrive on the scene. This being said, I’ve taken reasonable and logical precautions to safeguard myself and my property against crime that any free-thinking patriot would take because I don’t want to end up like a person I talked to - they were kidnapped at gunpoint and taken from ATM to ATM withdrawing money recently, his passport and all forms of ID were taken, marooning him here. Every day in this city I see so many cars with windows bashed in and car glass shards on the floor, even in trendy neighborhoods there’s a new puddle of glass shards every morning right off the main streets.
The tents on sidewalks keep people in wheelchairs from using them, forcing them onto city roads where drivers are not anyways lucid. Needles, trash and human waste is a biological hazard that collects even on notable streets like 23rd and particularly on Burnside.
An unusual contradiction is that many people here who call themselves progressive ignore victim’s voices - victims of property time, assault, kidnapping and robbery. I do see that normal citizens here project a sense that they care for others but not when those others are victims of crimes.
Enclosed, closed-off parking, living in controlled-access housing, living on upper floors away from the sounds of paramedic sirens and insane screaming is something I’d recommend. I do also recommend getting a CHL in your county.
The federal government distributes funds to the states which in turn distribute money to nonprofits to give to victims of crime, 10% to my knowledge is supposed to go to victims of violent crime and sexual abuse, with 90% free to go to any victims of violent crime. I don’t see any organizations in Multnomah County that provide funds to people like my girlfriend and I who are victims of nonviolent property crimes, which I find curious because so many occur here.
Re: The privatization of policing
#74First, I like this model of private policing. In the instance the article sites, the security force went at the heart of the problem rather than throwing someone into a cage. That’s a good thing. Second, if you have a failure from a public institution, a private alternative is a good thing. You get more competition, which often yields better results. Third, this isn’t very thought out, but trimming public police forc…
Re: The privatization of policing
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for this reply. It’s scary to see how many are so ready to “defund police” by “funding corporate ability to murder” (my quotes re sentiment) - which is what happened with Pinkertons, etc. If those homeless camps have drug problems - the lowest hanging fruit may seem like enabling a private police force, but the hanging fruit will be in actually helping the drug problem…
> by “funding corporate ability to murder” (my quotes re sentiment) I don't know about the discussion, but what I'm taking away from the article is actually what policing could be if the shield of immunity that fuels the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude is taken away.
I think social services, crisis intervention, and mental health/drug help will benefit more and for longer.
That, though, goes against another deep seeded inherent “bonus” to keeping homeless homeless, addicts addicted, and police forces of all styles (pub/priv) in action:
Those “homeless” types scare an entire low/middle class of labor into accepting any wage no matter how exploitative, out of a fear if becoming one of “them.”
Re: The privatization of policing
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I’ve read, the homeless people who sleep on the street and generally create trouble (due to severe addiction and other mental issues) are only about 1/3 of the homeless. A lot of the other homeless you would never recognize as homeless, don’t sleep rough, and are not necessarily “chronically homeless” - those are the ones that would benefit from cheaper housing
Your conclusion doesn't follow. Why wouldn't people who sleep rough benefit from a housing first policy?
You would probably spend much more money on maintenance and cleaning than you would on the structure
Re: The privatization of policing
#77I just moved to Portland and I live in SouthEast (where this article is talking about). It was a shock seeing guards dressed in the same kit I wore in Afghanistan. They're not exaggerating the homeless situation here either. There's tons, and many of them are addicted to fentanyl or meth. The political situation is exactly as they described. The county and city in Portland have a weird relationship. They're both "Pro…
Maybe I'm a bit of a small-town boy, but I find it hard to understand that a lot of people choose to live in these conditions and don't move away to somewhere quieter/safer.
Re: The privatization of policing
#78I'm totally unsurprised that organizations with the means to do so would hire their own private security to try and fill in the gap.
The article clearly has an ideological bent, but as someone living in the area, they're more right than wrong with the observations. Even if you might disagree with the reasoning, the end result is accurately portrayed.
Re: The privatization of policing
#79There was a notable absence of opposing views in the article so I looked up "echelon security portland" and found a lot of objectionable actions they've taken. According to this article https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prose... they've been unaccountable to the public, they've lied about what people do (pretending they've attacked them), they've lied about their use of force, and attacked people…
>>hey've been unaccountable to the public, they've lied about what people do (pretending they've attacked them), they've lied about their use of force, and attacked people in tents to displace them. So a normal police force then? This is a natural reaction when property crime goes unenforced by the government. I know this will be an unpopular take but property crime like shoplifting is not a "victimless" crime agains…
Re: The privatization of policing
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see you played the man and not the ball. I like that approach. You can quickly prevent a team from fielding if you break their legs.
People's associations are part of their actions and a relevant part of the context of their writing. The commenter didn't necessarily entirely dismiss the article or the argument because of it, but it is potentially valuable information to have. It's not necessary to evaluate every work completely stripped of context to engage with it honestly. Articles are written by people, with motivations for writing them, and no…
It is a blatant ad hominem comment that adds nothing to the discussion of whether or not the arguments in the article are valid, but rather is an attempt to prejudice your opinion.