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

31–40 of 236 posts

Re: The privatization of policing

#31

Post by flandish »

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…

Thank you for this reply. It’s scary to see how many are so ready to “defund police” by “funding corporate ability to murder” (my quotes re sentiment) - which is what happened with Pinkertons, etc.

If those homeless camps have drug problems - the lowest hanging fruit may seem like enabling a private police force, but the hanging fruit will be in actually helping the drug problem…

Re: The privatization of policing

#32

Post by kneebonian »

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…

There's an alternative to that as well. When the poor couldn't pay for the private police they didn't just give up on security they just created their own police force, the Italian Mafia the Irish mob, etc. Almost all of these started to provide security to communities that were otherwise not being provided for.

Re: The privatization of policing

#33

Post by tekmate »

gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #28
MilStdJunkie wrote: post #13

"Emma Freire is a senior writer for World magazine" which promises - on its masthead image - the following: "Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth" The Federalist, American Conservative, Former Robert Novak Journalism Fellow. Alrighty then.

I see you played the man and not the ball. I like that approach. You can quickly prevent a team from fielding if you break their legs.

it's interesting, when you start getting into debating politics in your teens it's easy to fall into the trap of attacking authors instead of arguments, then as you get older you try to be better about this and then it turns around again as you age because giving the people the benefit of the doubt again and again and spending time dismantling their arguments only for them to turn around and publish the next article repeating the same things is a waste of time

Re: The privatization of policing

#34

Post by kneebonian »

rayiner wrote: post #17
djha-skin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. They may only be the 1% of portlanders who own businesses, but they own 100% of the businesses. The other 99% have to buy bread from somewhere, so it totally affects them. Further, it's happening because of how they voted. 2. Anyone who's ever been to Portland wouldn't or couldn't call it an average city. Even before the pandemic there were homeless people everywhere. I couldn't turn my head and not see a tent. It…

It’s interesting that Portland is seeing record homicides because it’s far more gentrified than ever. Portland had only 54 homicides in 1993, when crime was much higher nationally, and Portland specifically was much seedier. Last couple of years are close to double the 1993 peak, but population growth since then is only 50%.

No this is incorrect, I know people that left from Portland and Seattle following the "firey but mostly peaceful protests" the fact of the matter is they gutted the police, the police that remain know that if they actually do their job they're likely to be the next national outrage, and they are being told by their bosses and the politicians to do nothing. As such the criminals now know they can run wild with no prevention it isn't gentrification it is what happens when an entire city turns their back on any semblance of law and order. Portland will not recover for a long time if ever.

Re: The privatization of policing

#35

Post by prottog »

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 always a balancing act, I suppose. Portland, like many other West Coast cities, is set in a truly beautiful location, with a marvelous blend of mountain and water; and with all the big city amenities on top of it, it does make for a strong proposition.

I myself moved from a big metro area to a smaller and quieter (but unfortunately not safer) city in a different region of the country, because I didn't care for those big city amenities all that much. But I can easily see how someone could live with the faults.

Re: The privatization of policing

#36

Post by giantg2 »

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…

Does Oregon have the strictest laws? I thought they aren't doing anything new when compared to NJ, CA, or NY.

Re: The privatization of policing

#37

Post by landemva »

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…

Fourth, if private security violates your rights you can sue. When government violates your rights they typically get the case dismissed due to 'qualified immunity' which USSC made up in 1970s.

Re: The privatization of policing

#38

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

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.

I think it is a hard question to answer.

In a very real sense, most people do not even recognize there is an actual option to move. Yes, there are all sorts of costs associated with the moving and there is stress to be incurred as a result, but I think most people do not even entertain the idea of living anywhere else compared to where they are for numerous reasons including familial ties.

And then there is the 'why should I leave' aspect of it? Maybe if I stick it out, it will get better ( especially if I own that piece of land ).

In short, I would like to be able to say that it is economically prohibitive to do so, but, I dunno, I moved from the old country to US. And separately the moment I heard a first shot in my neighborhood in Chicago ( and police came to my door asking if I saw anything ), I was out of there in a couple of months in the suburbs.

I think people feel safer being where they have always been ( as unsafe it may be to an audience from a statistical point of view ). It is the environment they know. For all they know, anywhere else may be even worse.

Re: The privatization of policing

#39

Post by giraffe_lady »

gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #28
MilStdJunkie wrote: post #13

"Emma Freire is a senior writer for World magazine" which promises - on its masthead image - the following: "Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth" The Federalist, American Conservative, Former Robert Novak Journalism Fellow. Alrighty then.

I see you played the man and not the ball. I like that approach. You can quickly prevent a team from fielding if you break their legs.

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 nothing is gained by pretending otherwise.

Re: The privatization of policing

#40

Post by baby »

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.

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.

Post reply on HN