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

161–170 of 236 posts

Re: The privatization of policing

#161

Post by olonn »

mxkopy wrote: post #157
phpisthebest wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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…

[flagged]

why would a store exist if you didn’t have to pay for stuff in it?

Re: The privatization of policing

#162

Post by mlindner »

phpisthebest wrote: post #68
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…

>>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…

> I know this will be an unpopular take but property crime like shoplifting is not a "victimless" crime against evil "corporations" and when it allowed to occur unchecked it creates an over all unsafe condition for everyone.

I have trouble taking anyone seriously who claims those are "victimless crimes". There's little common ground I can find because their fundamental facts tend to be so backward. Shoplifting ruins people's livelihoods and corrupts the social contracts of a society over time. It gradually erodes the living standards of people living in an area.

Re: The privatization of policing

#163

Post by thatfrenchguy »

baby wrote: post #40
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.

SF is similar and the excuse almost always is: job opportunities. We can actually move out now that we work remotely but my SO’s salary would be decreased by her company based on change of location and she doesn’t want that. Writing that I do realize that its actually second. First reason for most people is probably just inertia.

SF has so many neighborhoods where homelessness is not an issue though?

Re: The privatization of policing

#164

Post by mlindner »

lifeinthevoid wrote: post #26
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…

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.

Completely agree. I don't understand why anyone would move anywhere near places like this. These are places to run away from as fast as you can get away. Even the rare crazy person that's walking down the street screaming random nonsense around where I am (a richer part of north San Jose) unnerves me and I think they should be locked up somewhere out of sight and out of mind. I plan to move away from here at some point.

Re: The privatization of policing

#165

Post by lbarrow »

lifeinthevoid wrote: post #26
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…

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.

It's bizarre. I live in Chicago and don't have to deal with anything like this. The West coast has a really strange set of blinkers on about these problems.

Re: The privatization of policing

#167

Post by prepend »

mikem170 wrote: post #140
brk wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property theft and wage theft are two very different categories of theft. The average police department does not get involved in wage theft, which would be something more involving lawyers, maybe ultimately leading to an arrest warrant carried out by a police force. And of course this is another example of an "AND" decision, not an "OR" one. We can enforce and prosecute property theft crimes, which absolutely needs t…

> Property theft and wage theft are two very different categories of theft. This kind of reinforces the parent's point. They are both theft (shoplifting and wage theft), and yet so many people are ok ignoring the numerically worse problem (wage theft). The fact that the police don't get involved and lawyers are required to rectify wage theft just shows how far we as a society don't care to defend those people. Meanwh…

> yet so many people are ok ignoring the numerically worse problem (wage theft).

I think this is a false argument as I don’t think people are ok ignoring wage theft. Others have pointed out as these aren’t exclusive options but, specifically, I’ve never heard anyone espouse that wage theft is ok.

It seems to me that in a conversation concerning sexual harassment, someone points out that everyone is ok with human trafficking because it is worse, yet HR departments aren’t working to stop human trafficking.

Re: The privatization of policing

#168

Post by prepend »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #125
wahnfrieden wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I often hear this whataboutism and am not sure why. Do you see the problems or solutions somehow in competition? Can people not care about two things?

I think the reasoning goes something like:

1) corporations are guilty of wage theft and not prosecuted

2) shoplifting harms corporations

3) harming corporations is ok because they are guilty.

Different in scale, but I think it’s similar to the “it’s ok to punch a Nazi” rationale.

Re: The privatization of policing

#169

Post by AlbertCory »

gwillen wrote: post #116
AlbertCory wrote: post #50

> The guards turn up within minutes and apprehend the shoplifter. Stop right there. Here's how it could go: Guard: Wait right here, please. S: Am I under arrest? Guard: Please wait. What is your name? S: So I'm free to go? Guard: Please wait. What is your name? S: Buh-bye.

Shopkeepers have the legal power to detain shoplifters in most US jurisdictions. They've just historically (in the modern era) been too afraid to use it.

I thought of that after writing that.

A lot of legal questions come down to a game of chicken, unfortunately. Who is willing to bear the most risk?

Maybe if it really was shoplifting, it goes more like this:

Guard: Wait right here, please.

S: Am I under arrest?

Guard: You are being detained until the police arrive. What is your name?

S: Oh, I'm detained? Funny, I don't notice any cuffs. So I think I'll leave now (drops goods & hops on bike).

Guard: (ponders: If I tackle him, what happens?) Calls police.

Now what?

Re: The privatization of policing

#170

Post by mikem170 »

jaywalk wrote: post #154
mikem170 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Property theft and wage theft are two very different categories of theft. This kind of reinforces the parent's point. They are both theft (shoplifting and wage theft), and yet so many people are ok ignoring the numerically worse problem (wage theft). The fact that the police don't get involved and lawyers are required to rectify wage theft just shows how far we as a society don't care to defend those people. Meanwh…

How would you suggest that police get involved in wage theft?

Maybe the same as when someone writes a bad check? It's my understanding that people get arrested for that, it's not left just to lawyers and civil contract courts (which not everyone can afford).

Maybe also make wage theft easier to prove, with a required paper trail like an employment contract and signed time sheets, more investigators, etc.

I'd be curious how other countries might handle this better, there's often places that have already done a good job of figuring stuff like this out. The cynic in me worries that dollars count more than votes, and that the system is not as interested in protecting employees as it is protecting employers.

Post reply on HN