Live data from Hacker News

How much do we need the police?

npr.org

271–280 of 505 posts

Re: How much do we need the police?

#271
post #41

It's true that police are asked to be solutions for social problems for which they are unsuited. However, the reason this interview is topical has to do with someone paying for cigarettes with a possibly counterfeit bill and refusing to give them back. That seems to me to be an entirely reasonable reason to call the police.

Seeing how George Floyd moved to Minneapolis to do ministry work I bet he didn’t even know the bill was counterfeited.

We've banned this account for trolling. Doing this will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: How much do we need the police?

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some rural communities the police can be hours away, if there's even an officer on shift right now. Virtually everyone in those communities has guns and it works out pretty well.

Yes and many small message boards on the internet don’t require folks to hold a moderator role. It doesn’t scale.

There's a reason "roof Koreans" are a meme. They were successful in keeping their businesses safe while the rest of the city was looted.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#273
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's a terrible experiment! For one, you're in a situation where the only people with serious weapons are criminals and police (because non-criminals could generally trust the police to handle violence for them). You haven't armed the populace, you haven't set up civilian watches, you haven't done any of the things that would happen in a society actually set up to be sustainably police-free. You took a society…

> You haven't armed the populace, you haven't set up civilian watches Isn't that reinventing the police, just with a different name?

To some extent, But, for instance, while private citizens may have guns for self-defense, they're unlikely to have tear gas, rubber bullets, armored vehicles, Stingrays, etc. And community watches that are run by actual community members are likely to have a very different set of priorities from a professional police force.

I'm not at all saying that this by itself would eliminate racially-disproportionate violence done by the police (and you could argue that it'd risk increasing it, in fact - George Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch leader, not a cop). But it would straightforwardly eliminate a host of excesses from militarized equipment and training to asset forfeiture to the blue wall to qualified immunity to even (relatively) minor things like quotas.

(And to be clear, I'm not saying that "arm the populace and set up civilian watches" is a complete or good replacement for the police - I'm just saying it seems like the minimal possible step to take if you're carving the police out of a society that evolved around having police. If you don't even take that step, the results of a "natural experiment" of a day without police aren't meaningful. But it's not an actual policy proposal; a serious attempt at getting rid of the police would in fact want to be careful about making an even less-accountable shadow police.)

Re: How much do we need the police?

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um okay... That's a demand for more police and police like units not less

It's a demand for accountants, lawyers, and law enforcement that focuses on egregious offenders and systemic injustice, eliminating the root causes of crime. Not tear gas and tanks. You were speaking about crime in the 70s and 80s. That probably has a lot to do with the War on Drugs [0] (have we won yet?), brought to you by the same administration who gave us Iran-Contra [1], which largely introduced the US (LA speci…

> It's a demand for accountants, lawyers, and law enforcement that focuses on egregious offenders and systemic injustice, eliminating the root causes of crime. Not tear gas and tanks.

Right, that's another word for police.

> That probably has a lot to do with the War on Drugs [0] (have we won yet?)

No, but that didn't cause gangs, and you know it.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/first-drugs-then-oil-now... It doesn't seem that way at all. They will just mutate. There's lots of illegal stuff to sell, that cannot reasonably be legalized.

It definitely seems that way to me. $150B estimated market FTA is much smaller than the $400B estimated for drugs. Humans are much more difficult to traffic than drugs so there would be much higher operating costs and risks due to the fact that it is not a victimless crime. https://www.worldometers.info/drugs/

Um, okay, but there's lots more other than humans to sell. You can sell endangered animals. You can sell stolen oil (yes, gangs steal fuel too). You can sell all kinds of illegal things that we simply cannot outlaw.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that’s just the short term. Look at places like Somalia or Afghanistan to see what happens when law and order breaks down in a systematic way. The issue isn’t even just “crime” in the sense of robbery, etc. When there is no police, organized crime can take over. When we lived in Bangladesh in the 1980s, a minibus full of criminals showed up at the gate of our house. (This being Dhaka in the 1980s, we had a brick…

The demand in Seattle to defund the police isn't calling to totally remove funding. It's calling for a 50% reduction in the budget. Just a heads up that "defund the police" isn't actually that different from "we need to rethink the roles where we have police"

If their budget is reduced, the police will choose where to cut services in such a way as to inflict maximum fear in the population, to cause their budget to be restored.

They will, for example, say they cannot investigate the rape of a white woman, supposedly because lack of funds. But they will have plenty of funds to harass poor and non-white people for maybe smoking pot, but mostly for being poor and/or non-white.

We can see it right now, in that they teargas, shoot with rubber bullets, beat and arrest completely peaceful protesters and people just on their own porches but do nothing about looters. It is obvious why: looting makes protestors look bad (especially if news coverage cooperates with the police's narrative), makes people scared and proves that police are necessary.

Of course, the mafia can also provide safety if you obey them and pay them. Might even be a better deal for some populations than the current police.

If you want police that work for the population and are not an occupation force extracting tribute through use of force, you need to do more than reduce their budget. You need to punish the offenders (jail, not layoffs) and replace the people in charge (their union bosses and informal leaders, not just the nominal chief of police who might have little actual power).

Re: How much do we need the police?

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely seems that way to me. $150B estimated market FTA is much smaller than the $400B estimated for drugs. Humans are much more difficult to traffic than drugs so there would be much higher operating costs and risks due to the fact that it is not a victimless crime. https://www.worldometers.info/drugs/

Um, okay, but there's lots more other than humans to sell. You can sell endangered animals. You can sell stolen oil (yes, gangs steal fuel too). You can sell all kinds of illegal things that we simply cannot outlaw.

Those are all easier to face problems with even smaller markets and worse logistics. Do they have an underground refinery they take it to with 100 ft. tall fractional distillation towers, etc? Most things that people want are legal because most people want them - law is defined by community standards. There aren't many things besides drugs. They would have to start smuggling medicine or other things that people actually want to replace recreational drugs.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this a natural experiment? Anarchism isn't just "when there are no police" Obviously looting should be read as exposing underlying ills and unmet needs within society. Like are you suggesting the natural state of people is just to loot and behave completely selfishly? look how many people in just the US riots alone cooperated to form medical stations, to work against police tactics, to make sure protestors had…

> Like are you suggesting the natural state of people is just to loot and behave completely selfishly? Don't know about that, but there is ABSOLUTELY enough selfish/predatory/angry people in any population that will commit violent acts for profit and pleasure if the risks of being brought to justice disappears. I would not have guessed it would erupt as fast as it did in Montreal, but empirically, it did. I expect da…

Would this happen IF we had free guns for the populace who want them who pass background/mental evals (make owning a gun a right for all).

Then we democratize gun ownership. Next we create UBI so nobody has to steal to put food on the table, and guarantee jobs for anyone who wants one, and healthcare for all.

you end the poverty and almost-poverty and you stop a lot of the reasons behind WHY people loot when there's an opportunity to do so.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#279
post #175

"Police" (Edit:"modern police") is a 19th century invention, well after cities were a thing. If we get past semantics, a service that provides order and security to a community is needed. I imagine it more like social workers that also do criminal investigations for prosecutors instead of a military force for a city. Perhaps an unrelated armed "police" can help when deadly force is needed (gangs, armed criminals,etc.…

What you are describing is the London Metropolitan Police which are regarded as one of the worlds best managed police forces, where the average bobby are unarmed and where the code of conduct focus on public service.

It;s also worth noting that when the UK faced a similar problem with an undiverse militarized police force in northern Ireland they did this https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/police/patten/recommend.htm and launched a bunch of investigation(the Stevens enquiries) into past crimes of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

The problem in America blocking any meaningful solutions to genuine problems is the collective denial the American middle class have towards past sins and current systematic problems with the American way not that it's a new problem that have never been solved before.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing single-digits per decade incidents which incite national outcry, with triple-digits per year incidents which are taken as a fact of life in the US. And you're trying to set a narrative that somehow those are comparable. They are not.

Regarding single digits vs triple digits: absolute metrics are pretty useless unless the US population is the same size as AU.

In relative metrics, the US is still worse off by an order of magnitude. :(
Post reply on HN