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

The privatization of policing

compactmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 236 posts

Re: The privatization of policing

#101

Post by rootusrootus »

Zigurd wrote: post #72
opportune wrote: post #64

Earlier 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?

Because the rough sleeping is not the cause of their problems, so just addressing that by itself won't make their problems go away.

Re: The privatization of policing

#103

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

giantg2 wrote: post #36
kodah wrote: post #22

I 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…

Does Oregon have the strictest laws? I thought they aren't doing anything new when compared to NJ, CA, or NY.

Gun laws, you mean? Not technically, because the courts have temporarily halted measure 114, but if allowed to go into effect? Yes, absolutely.

114 is poorly written, with several "the authorities will develop and manage this process" without providing additional funding to do so, nor definite timelines. One example is background checks - currently if OSP doesn't complete the check in a certain timeframe (3 days) the FFL is allowed to release the firearm. Under 114, there is no limit. OSP can delay approvals forever, thus effectively denying certain people or groups of people from obtaining a firearm, all at their discretion.

There are other dumb things as well (i.e. many shotguns would be illegal because of the magazine capacity limit, the requirement for "approved" training, but little definition of what that looks lime, etc).

And through all of it, those who obtain firearms illegally will continue to do so, thus bypassing all these new measures anyway.

Re: The privatization of policing

#104

Post by mikrl »

ryukafalz wrote: post #49
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is a hard question to answer. In a very real sense, most people do not even recognize there is an actual option to move. Yes, there are all sorts of costs associated with the moving and there is stress to be incurred as a result, but I think most people do not even entertain the idea of living anywhere else compared to where they are for numerous reasons including familial ties. And then there is the 'why…

> for numerous reasons including familial ties This is a big one. I don't live in the Portland area, but anytime I've considered moving any large distance away from where I am I've always rejected it because my family/friends are all in this area. As much as I might like it a lot somewhere else, I'm not willing to uproot my social ties for it. As I see it the alternative is to stay and advocate to make things better,…

Not attacking you, but I’m not sure if this is privilege or not.

I’ve uprooted for greener pastures twice in my life, and it has paid off both times. If I didn’t, I’d be impoverished and possibly hooked on (the scary) drugs.

If fluffy social aspects outweigh your immediate economic concerns, it stands that you are privileged enough to make the choice to stay still.

On the other hand, uprooting requires a certain resilience and fortitude that not everyone has. People who can torch their old life to chase something better are privileged in a way too, are they not?

Re: The privatization of policing

#105

Post by pleasantpeasant »

pmarreck wrote: post #88
pleasantpeasant wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author works at The Federalist Society. A conservative online magazine. Honestly, why is this article even on HN? It's copaganda but with an even worst twist of being a pro-private military force. The militarization of the police has been an on going issue since the 90s and now we're jumping to having corporations hiring random goons as a private police force for the wealthy and their corporations.

[flagged]

You're putting in a lot of words in my mouth and it's a bit weird how aggressive you're coming off here.

There's nothing I'm proposing here at all. I'm only critical of the obvious pro-private militarized police force, which every American should be. And this article is blatant propaganda for that agenda. The author herself works at The Federalist Society, a far-right conservative magazine.

Re: The privatization of policing

#106

Post by janalsncm »

Maybe I was not savvy enough to detect that “defund the police” was actually a call for privatization. What many people rightly identified at the time was a need for reallocation of police funds to things like social workers.

All of the increases in social problems we’ve seen in the last 40 years are the tax that we pay for increasing wealth inequality.

Re: The privatization of policing

#107

Post by culi »

pmarreck wrote: post #84
wahnfrieden wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

because taxation to fund a public good is not theft in your world there are only private security firms. if you're not up to date on your dues, oh well, they'll happily watch you get robbed I guess. EDIT: I was unaware of the "wage theft" problem and assumed this was angling at "taxation is theft," my bad

GP was pointing out that things like wage theft is a much bigger priority over petty shoplifting.

The combined value of all robberies (shoplifting, mugging, etc) in 2012 was $341 million while wage theft alone accounts for $933 million yet we spend far more trying to prevent the former and hardly do anything to prevent the latter which primarily affects minimum wage workers

https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-fo...

Re: The privatization of policing

#108

Post by n8cpdx »

phpisthebest wrote: post #83
kodah wrote: post #22

I 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…

It that a PPB issue or a policy of local prosecutors? I dont know about Portland but in many "progressive" cities there is a directive to not prosecute minor property crimes (i.e car break ins, shoplifting, etc) unless there was violence involved (i.e a Car Jacking at Gun Point) So the police have naturally reacted by not arresting anyone for those crimes, why bother to arrest them if they are just turned back out in…

A bit of both. PPB is a tiny force for a city the size of Portland. 313 patrol officers over 3 shifts for a city of 650,000. https://www.portland.gov/police/open-data/ppb-staffing-repor...

But even if they were fully staffed and had time to “criminalize homelessness”, the DA is reluctant to prosecute.

But even if the DA presses charges, there is a huge public defender shortage. Loads of people are being set free and having cases dismissed for want of legal representation.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/car-thefts-dismissed-...

In summary:

- police don’t have time or resources to investigate anything that isn’t a homicide (with some exceptions)

- the DA won’t prosecute, to the point that criminals actively know to commit crimes in MultCo

- if the DA does take the case, it will be dismissed because there aren’t enough public defenders

Re: The privatization of policing

#109

Post by mikrl »

nemo44x wrote: post #53
lifeinthevoid wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hope they stay. The last thing anyone wants is for them to leave the hellholes they voted for and turn nice places into new versions of them. I know many people in places like Austin and Boise are very nervous about the types of people moving in and not picking up on local values.

>I know many people in places like Austin and Boise are very nervous about the types of people moving in and not picking up on local values.

This sounds like knee jerk nativism. How many people would it take to move and overwhelm an entire city’s culture? Let’s assume a plurality of 30% could do it. I think a wave of people of that size is going to cause problems whatever their political beliefs are.

Re: The privatization of policing

#110

Post by culi »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #91
pixl97 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, you did not answer his question, and came up with some gibberish. https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-fro... >What this report finds: This report assesses the prevalence and magnitude of one form of wage theft—minimum wage violations (workers being paid at an effective hourly rate below the binding minimum wage)—in the 10 most populous U.S. states. We find that, in these states, 2.4 million…

[flagged]

Some stats:

US Police have taken $68 billion without due process from citizens in the past 20 years

https://boingboing.net/2020/12/21/us-police-have-stolen-68-b...

I personally know a lot of houseless folks who've just had their wallets and personal belongings taken from them making it nearly impossible to get other forms of help.

Post reply on HN