This reads like it was written by echelons public relations department. Would you post an apple advertisement to hacker news?
The privatization of policing
181–190 of 236 posts
Re: The privatization of policing
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Maybe the same as when someone writes a bad check? That does not happen, not at the level of say shoplifting or something At most you can make a complaint, which will go to a prosecutor which will then decide if they want to file criminal charges, at which point the police would arrest someone. Which rarely happens for a single bad check. It is almost always CIVIL unless there is some other crime involved like iden…
I don't flat out argue with anything you are saying. It would be difficult to do a better job of catching wage theft. But if we're not going to put more effort into catching those criminals, why are we ok with putting more effort into catching shoplifters? Why are we allowing poorly trained armed security to roam public streets and sometimes harass, beat up, or shoot law abiding citizens, to the point that local pros…
You have created a Strawman in your head and now debating agaist that strawman and not anything anyone has said here or anywhere that I am aware of
This whataboutism around wage theft has no bearing on this converation nor is anyone in either government, or here in this discussion ever talked about not taking wage theft seriously
When wage theft is reported it gets investigated, and as the studies people have posted here show often gets recovered.
The problem here and why you are seeing private security is because unlike with wage theft when someone reports shoplifting or other property crime it is often completely ignored, with out even a response at all from the government.
You have this world view that is the exact opposite of reality, where by you believe wage theft is completely ignored by everyone but entire armies are fighting shoplifting
how about instead of engaging with whataboutism, strawmans and redherrings we talk about the actual issues of criminality
Re: The privatization of policing
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't flat out argue with anything you are saying. It would be difficult to do a better job of catching wage theft. But if we're not going to put more effort into catching those criminals, why are we ok with putting more effort into catching shoplifters? Why are we allowing poorly trained armed security to roam public streets and sometimes harass, beat up, or shoot law abiding citizens, to the point that local pros…
You have created a Strawman in your head and now debating agaist that strawman and not anything anyone has said here or anywhere that I am aware of This whataboutism around wage theft has no bearing on this converation nor is anyone in either government, or here in this discussion ever talked about not taking wage theft seriously When wage theft is reported it gets investigated, and as the studies people have posted…
Thank you!
Re: The privatization of policing
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
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's not necessary to evaluate every work completely stripped of context to engage with it honestly 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.
Merely mentioning the publication a writer voluntarily contributes to is not ad hominem are you serious lol. That is a simple fact about their body of work.
It is also not prejudiced to evaluate a single work of a writer in its context within their oeuvre, and to consider your own knowledge of their previous works when evaluating a new one. That is merely judgement, friend.
You might would have us so carefully prune away context that judgement becomes impossible, but it's not a moral failure of others that they approach this differently.
Re: The privatization of policing
#185Earlier 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…
This is kind of an odd take. I'm from a small town, leaving is looked at as the privilege because opportunity is short. Additionally, people who come from families where wealth or security is not common often need to support their families directly or indirectly. That kept me in my home state for a couple years. I likely won't be around to see some of my immediate family pass away, which is an aspect that sucks about geo-centralization of industries like tech that don't need geo-centralization.
All that to say I think you have the privilege statement backwards.
Re: The privatization of policing
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't flat out argue with anything you are saying. It would be difficult to do a better job of catching wage theft. But if we're not going to put more effort into catching those criminals, why are we ok with putting more effort into catching shoplifters? Why are we allowing poorly trained armed security to roam public streets and sometimes harass, beat up, or shoot law abiding citizens, to the point that local pros…
You have created a Strawman in your head and now debating agaist that strawman and not anything anyone has said here or anywhere that I am aware of This whataboutism around wage theft has no bearing on this converation nor is anyone in either government, or here in this discussion ever talked about not taking wage theft seriously When wage theft is reported it gets investigated, and as the studies people have posted…
I agree that wage-theft specifically is a tangent here. But I do believe there is more to talk about, this isn't something to dismiss so easily.
Why are we allowing the victims of shoplifting to hire armed guards with not enough training or accountability to selectively enforce laws in public spaces as they see fit, sometimes abusing law abiding citizens, as mentioned [0] earlier in this thread? Is that ok? Isn't the state supposed to have a monopoly on violence?
Even though it is easier to go after shoplifters than some other criminals, does that make these private police forces in public spaces ok? Wouldn't it be better if the store owners lobbied for more police and/or reforms (to make additional police more palatable to the public), or maybe move their businesses or close? That's what other crime victims have to do. Lots of crime victims are ignored by the government. There's nothing special about the victims of shoplifting, there are many other crimes that impact more people, as the parent poster mentioned with wage theft.
Or do we want a society where those with the resources can hire their own enforcers, armed guards for hire with 40 hours of training roaming the streets, and let everyone else fend for themselves? That might be a bad feedback loop, where those with money have their own police, and those without live more in danger. There are a number of other countries that have devolved to this.
Hopefully I did a better job describing what I was thinking, above. I don't see the justification for this one set of victims to be able to hire armed guards roaming the streets and harassing law abiding citizens, opting out of normal police protection, leaving other more numerous victims to fend for themselves. I trust abuses such as described in the original parent comment's linked article are the exception, but there is a history of problems (like Pinkerton) related to such things.
I game for feedback or your thoughts on the above, if you have any.
[0] https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prose...
Re: The privatization of policing
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. I…
That's fair. And balanced. Too bad our media seems to have given up on that.
Re: The privatization of policing
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
OK, I'll accept that criticism, that doesn't necessarily follow
Re: The privatization of policing
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
This is a massive injustice. Any way to fight this?
Re: The privatization of policing
#190First, 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…
If you remember your police history, the title of this story is wrong. It’s re-privatization of the police force. Giving the benefit of the doubt to your comments, there is one “private police force” that is doing well (and good) enough that people have started copying it, and that’s the Cahoots program from White Bird Clinic in Eugene Oregon. They are somewhat of a third party intervention system. And as a nonprofit…
Well, the Pinkertons were only semi-private. They got a federal contract from the Department of Justice in 1871, and it’s after that point that they hit the largest and most powerful state. That’s also when they began getting involved in violently suppressing strikes. This is the opposite of the actions mentioned in the article here. Additionally, the government moved against the Pinkertons as a result of their bad behavior.