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

‘Duty to intervene’: How some US cities are telling cops to police each other

star-telegram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: ‘Duty to intervene’: How some US cities are telling cops to police each other

#21

Post by jakelazaroff »

ashtonkem wrote: post #17
jakelazaroff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chokeholds were also banned by the NYPD since 1993, decades before Daniel Pantaleo used one to murder Eric Garner. Policies to improve the police’s war on us will be wholly ineffective. We need drastic changes, such as what it looks like Minneapolis is poised to do.

It is stunning at how effective the crackdowns have been at radicalizing the population against the police . Thoughts that were the absolute unthinkable left edge of political discourse are now policy in one city within a week . That’s lightning fast.

It’s true. I tend to be on that far left edge of political discourse, but had you asked me three weeks ago I would have bet a lot of money against the Overton window shifting so much and so quickly.

Re: ‘Duty to intervene’: How some US cities are telling cops to police each other

#22

Post by pyuser583 »

hymnsfm wrote: post #13

An idea I like better is defunding police departments then augmenting the staff with social workers. So much of police training is in dealing with people in crisis situations. Why not bring in experts instead?

Or training police to be social workers?

A good friend went through multiple police academies a few years ago. They all had lots of training in “social work” and “community policing” and “root causes of crime”.

Re: ‘Duty to intervene’: How some US cities are telling cops to police each other

#23

Post by thaumasiotes »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #5
wereHamster wrote: post #2

In Minneapolis, where Floyd died, a duty to intervene policy has been on the books since 2016, according to the city’s website. The policy reads: “It shall be the duty of every sworn employee present at any scene where physical force is being applied to either stop or attempt to stop another sworn employee when force is being inappropriately applied or is no longer required,” — word for word the same language used by…

>> Seeing how well that has worked in Minneapolis, what are the chances that this will work in Dallas? We have laws against murder and people still do it. But life in jail crosses their mind or at least should before doing it. Another thing they should do is make it a bit easier to sue them individually for clearly violating civil rights.

> Another thing they should do is make it a bit easier to sue them individually for clearly violating civil rights.

I don't follow this. If it wasn't clearly established that Officer 1 violated your rights by excessive use of force, how could it be clearly established that Officer 2 violated your rights by not preventing Officer 1 from doing whatever he did? By hypothesis, he couldn't reasonably have known that Officer 1 was committing a violation.

Re: ‘Duty to intervene’: How some US cities are telling cops to police each other

#24

Post by raxxorrax »

derefr wrote: post #9
andi999 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does getting dismantled mean? You close and reopen with the same people? Or you close and start from scratch with unexperienced ppl (assuming a large pool of applicants)?

One obvious option is to build a new police department entirely out of officers poached from the police departments of other counties/states—preferably from cities that manage to have both high racial diversity and low rates of questionable police violence. Other public-servant roles (e.g. postal workers) get relocated between cities this way all the time, being moved to where there’s demand. Another option is to jus…

I doubt that scales beyond small cities. You would get something far worse with private security. If you have Amazon Prime, you will get the right to refuse to testify though. Fun aside, it should also be noted that the people in your example are armed. I don't think that will meet any love with city dwellers.

Re: ‘Duty to intervene’: How some US cities are telling cops to police each other

#25

Post by [deleted] »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #19
andi999 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does getting dismantled mean? You close and reopen with the same people? Or you close and start from scratch with unexperienced ppl (assuming a large pool of applicants)?

The idea is to close it and not replace it. The only tool in the police toolbox is violence; despite this, they have become catchall first responders despite being wholly unequipped for most scenarios. We should treat drug use and mental illness as public health issues. We should treat homelessness by housing and feeding those who want help. We should treat domestic disputes with social work. These are complex issues…

[deleted]

Re: ‘Duty to intervene’: How some US cities are telling cops to police each other

#26

Post by andi999 »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #19
andi999 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does getting dismantled mean? You close and reopen with the same people? Or you close and start from scratch with unexperienced ppl (assuming a large pool of applicants)?

The idea is to close it and not replace it. The only tool in the police toolbox is violence; despite this, they have become catchall first responders despite being wholly unequipped for most scenarios. We should treat drug use and mental illness as public health issues. We should treat homelessness by housing and feeding those who want help. We should treat domestic disputes with social work. These are complex issues…

Let me get this right: so no police in that city? Seriously?

Re: ‘Duty to intervene’: How some US cities are telling cops to police each other

#27

Post by andi999 »

derefr wrote: post #9
andi999 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does getting dismantled mean? You close and reopen with the same people? Or you close and start from scratch with unexperienced ppl (assuming a large pool of applicants)?

One obvious option is to build a new police department entirely out of officers poached from the police departments of other counties/states—preferably from cities that manage to have both high racial diversity and low rates of questionable police violence. Other public-servant roles (e.g. postal workers) get relocated between cities this way all the time, being moved to where there’s demand. Another option is to jus…

One worry is, that looking at Franco Spain, he introduced the Guardia Civil to oppress ppl, and one mechanism was that no officer from the local community was allowed (at that community). That prevented police to fraternize with the local people. Also, could it not be perceived as a punishment for the police officers to get transfered, like: you did good work so please change city.

Re: ‘Duty to intervene’: How some US cities are telling cops to police each other

#28

Post by Yetanfou »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #19
andi999 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does getting dismantled mean? You close and reopen with the same people? Or you close and start from scratch with unexperienced ppl (assuming a large pool of applicants)?

The idea is to close it and not replace it. The only tool in the police toolbox is violence; despite this, they have become catchall first responders despite being wholly unequipped for most scenarios. We should treat drug use and mental illness as public health issues. We should treat homelessness by housing and feeding those who want help. We should treat domestic disputes with social work. These are complex issues…

How are you going to treat violent crime? What are you going to do about street gangs? No amount of social work, hand-holding or counselling will get at those.

Re: ‘Duty to intervene’: How some US cities are telling cops to police each other

#29

Post by kthejoker2 »

pyuser583 wrote: post #22
hymnsfm wrote: post #13

An idea I like better is defunding police departments then augmenting the staff with social workers. So much of police training is in dealing with people in crisis situations. Why not bring in experts instead?

Or training police to be social workers? A good friend went through multiple police academies a few years ago. They all had lots of training in “social work” and “community policing” and “root causes of crime”.

Why not just train developers to be designers?

Why do all these software product teams hire separate people for thhe two roles?

There's tons of classes on design available...

It's for the same reason, and based on the basic principles of natural selection and economics.

When you have two skills that are orthogonal to each other (make it work; make it pretty), group fitness is improved by separating those roles into different members of the group.

Letting one member or subgroup own both responsibilities always leads to the same outcome.

They optimize group selection and fitness for the responsibility that is most required for survival - developers for solving problems with code, cops for meeting force with greater force - and the other, like a vestigial tail, exists but is functionally useless.

Re: ‘Duty to intervene’: How some US cities are telling cops to police each other

#30

Post by jakelazaroff »

Yetanfou wrote: post #28
jakelazaroff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is to close it and not replace it. The only tool in the police toolbox is violence; despite this, they have become catchall first responders despite being wholly unequipped for most scenarios. We should treat drug use and mental illness as public health issues. We should treat homelessness by housing and feeding those who want help. We should treat domestic disputes with social work. These are complex issues…

How are you going to treat violent crime? What are you going to do about street gangs? No amount of social work, hand-holding or counselling will get at those.

This is not entirely true. Why do people join gangs in the first place? They feel outcast, need money, feel pressured, etc.

So let’s tackle those problems proactively. Invest in neighborhoods. Make sure there is economic opportunity. Provide ways for people to feel accepted by their community. The point is to try to stop these things before they become problems, rather than only deal with them punitively under threat of violence.

Of course violent crime will still exist. But we’re not even dealing with that particularly well today: half of all homicides in Minneapolis went unsolved last year [0]. The actual solution might not look anything like policing as we know it today.

[0] https://www.startribune.com/as-homicides-rise-minneapolis-po...

Post reply on HN