The privatization of policing • Hacker News Board

Re: The privatization of policing

#141

Post by harimau777 » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:24 PM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #118

nucleogenesis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right - whether being oppressed by people with the veneer of accountability or by a private military force without any, we should just shut up and accept it all as-is because there can’t possibly be any other way to have security.

Compare the track record of US police to the police in nearly every other country, and then get back to me.

I'm not sure what you mean. This suggests that the per capita rate of police killing people is much higher than in the rest of the developed democratic world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...

Re: The privatization of policing

#142

Post by mikem170 » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #122

pleasantpeasant wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't see much particularly pro- about it, other than the fact that they seem more focused on treating people like people and not like case numbers. Was that part not true?

I think they were referring to how the article seemed to be one-sided. It didn't mention any of the controversy around their activities, like the article link [0] provided by the (currently) top rated comment in this discussion, which talked about how poorly trained these security people are, how they have broken the law, beat up and shot people, how the local prosecutors are not happy with some of this stuff, etc.

It would have been a more fair article if they mentioned this other stuff, but they didn't, it only painted these private security people in the best light possible. Call that a lie of omission. Some people feel this is manipulative.

[0] https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prose...

Re: The privatization of policing

#143

Post by harimau777 » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:31 PM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #86

detuned wrote: post #47

There 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…

So let me get this straight: A few bad police apples create a mass left-wing media outrage which results in the withdrawing of a public good (police protection), which results in people needing to hire private security, which results in even more objectionable actions taken by this less-accountable private security, than there were previously by the taxpaid police force? You don't say. I guess the only relative impro…

Saying that people pushing for police reform results in withdrawing police protection appears to be an unexamined logical jump in your reasoning. That's only the case because the police often choose to withhold police protection in response to police reform.

Re: The privatization of policing

#144

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:34 PM UTC

scifibestfi wrote: post #67

djha-skin wrote: post #9

As a country we have played around with private policing (the Pinkerton detective agency) after the civil war. We decided we didn't like it. Privatization of police is bad because only those with money get the benefits. What's this article does not talk about are the countless neighborhoods and streets that don't have security guards protecting them. The article puts security guards in a very pretty light and maybe t…

“People who voted to defund the police are now paying for private security.” This is what happens when luxury beliefs are realized.

[deleted]

Re: The privatization of policing

#145

Post by orwin » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:36 PM UTC

leeroyjenkins11 wrote: post #137

culi wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> copaganda Police budgets are higher than they've ever been in history and they're spending millions on social media and "strategic communication" https://therealnews.com/police-departments-are-spending-mill...

Maybe because some moron on Twitter can have people calling for the head of cops who shoot people trying to stab other people. And maybe they need to pay police more because no cop wants to make life and death decisions and have uninformed people asking why they couldn't shoot the knife out of their hands. Couple this with DAs unwilling to prosecute crimes and reclassifing crimes to hide how bad things are, also havi…

Certainly not to protect the children, else Ulvalde wouldn't have happened.

Re: The privatization of policing

#146

Post by mikem170 » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:36 PM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #86

detuned wrote: post #47

There 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…

So let me get this straight: A few bad police apples create a mass left-wing media outrage which results in the withdrawing of a public good (police protection), which results in people needing to hire private security, which results in even more objectionable actions taken by this less-accountable private security, than there were previously by the taxpaid police force? You don't say. I guess the only relative impro…

I wish the focus would have been on improving the situation with internal affairs, where the police are investigating themselves if an officer does something illegal. This doesn't seem right - the rest of our government is built on checks and balances.

To me it is bizarre that this hasn't been a bigger part of the narrative around these issues.

Re: The privatization of policing

#147

Post by nibbleshifter » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:40 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #64

zuzu89 wrote: post #45

Earlier 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

A combination of "supported" and "independent living" housing options is optimal, using shelters as a short term onboarding and sorting facility.

This also requires a solid policy around social and affordable housing as part of mixed use developments (as opposed to creating social housing "ghettos").

Needle exchanges and safe consumption facilities can be used for initial contact and outreach.

Basically you need to get people into a position where you can help them, then help them to the point where they can help themselves, and provide realistic pathways for this to happen - along with avoiding unrealistic expectations and avoiding pointless gate keeping such as demanding service users remaining clean/sober, etc.

Think of it as solving for Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You can fix their drug and mental issues later, right now you need them off the street where they get food/heat/water/shelter, health support, etc.

Re: The privatization of policing

#148

Post by culi » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:40 PM UTC

leeroyjenkins11 wrote: post #137

culi wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> copaganda Police budgets are higher than they've ever been in history and they're spending millions on social media and "strategic communication" https://therealnews.com/police-departments-are-spending-mill...

Maybe because some moron on Twitter can have people calling for the head of cops who shoot people trying to stab other people. And maybe they need to pay police more because no cop wants to make life and death decisions and have uninformed people asking why they couldn't shoot the knife out of their hands. Couple this with DAs unwilling to prosecute crimes and reclassifing crimes to hide how bad things are, also havi…

The average cop in the San Jose PD makes $131k and has great benefits compared to other jobs you can get without a degree

IMO less cops is a good thing. We put too much on them. They shouldn't be the ones responding to mental health crises, cats stuck in trees, and suicide attempts, muggings, car accidents, etc all at once.

Many cities are already experimenting with mental health first responders and similar things. This definitely seems like the right direction and will also alleviate concerns about less people wanting to become cops. It'll also mean people with more expertise can focus on specific needs of a specific situation.

Police already have some of the most powerful unions and are able to use taxpayer money to fund their own lobbying (to be funneled more taxpayer money, sigh). Many departments already have tanks, drones, and other military equipment that they only got because some "defense" contractor managed to convince a politician to subsidize them. Departments like NYPD also include fines and ticket fees into their budget expectations creating a strong incentive to be overly punitive. All of these are signs of an institution that's grown far too strong and desperately needs to be broken apart

Re: The privatization of policing

#149

Post by andonisus » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:49 PM UTC

mikrl wrote: post #104

ryukafalz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 resi…

It seems that the word “privilege” is doing all the heavy lifting here, but it sounds to me like it is a stand in for “having the ability to make anything but the default choice” (to remain in one’s location, in this case).

Re: The privatization of policing

#150

Post by throwayyy479087 » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:50 PM UTC

rjtavares wrote: post #59

BirAdam wrote: post #8

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.

I support private police because they insulate my family from others horrible policy choices. Life isn’t something you can retry.

If there aren’t private police options, I’ll just produce and distribute illegal arms, like many already do. Johnny Methhead gets 0 control over my life, regardless of how his apologists vote.