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

51–60 of 236 posts

Re: The privatization of policing

#51

Post by rainsford »

rayiner wrote: post #12

> People who voted to defund the police are now paying for private security. Multnomah County, where downtown Portland is located, is bluer than blue. Joe Biden won there by more than 79 percent of the votes in 2020. And these people want their private security to come with guns. Leaving aside the quibble about whether anyone literally voted to “defund the police,” I do find this phenomenon interesting. Our “progress…

Isn't it a fairly reasonable and consistent position to be in favor of armed professionals with a specific need to carry a weapon but opposed to everyone being able to carry a weapon around whenever they feel like it? The situation you mention is only a gotcha or a contradiction if you assume "gun control" means "nobody should ever have a gun for any reason", which I don't think is an actual view held by many people.

Re: The privatization of policing

#52

Post by BobbyJo »

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…

It talks about that near the end.

Re: The privatization of policing

#53

Post by nemo44x »

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 hope they stay. The last thing anyone wants is for them to leave the hellholes they voted for and turn nice places into new versions of them. I know many people in places like Austin and Boise are very nervous about the types of people moving in and not picking up on local values.

Re: The privatization of policing

#54

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: The privatization of policing

#55

Post by mcbutterbunz »

landemva wrote: post #37
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.

Until the lines get blurred and an off-duty police officer starts moonlighting for private security who violates your rights while you're in commission of a crime and now the question of qualified immunity while off-duty becomes a question. It doesn't seem too unlikely where in the not-so-distant future these private security companies would be made up of accredited police officers.

Re: The privatization of policing

#56

Post by MilStdJunkie »

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 the "grounded in Biblical truth" bit that got me, to be honest. What the hell kind of paper puts that on their masthead?

I get just as jiggly when Sagan preaches about nukes, given the . . ahem . . standing of the World Peace Council (WPC)

I walked away from a paycheck with a similar deal[1], because I didn't want that money to be attached to my name. Context, context, context, context.

You think that the money's not going to get inside your judgement? All that Robert Novak? You're a better man than me. I'd be tootin whatever horn the security services brings me in a bloodstained briefcase, just like my hero Bob.

[1] Although it was an aerospace systems integrator that, for whatever reason, boasted about its CEO-led prayer lunches. On its public website. Whew. Sorry folks, Jesus is for after hours.

Re: The privatization of policing

#57

Post by hinkley »

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…

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 they are probably more accurately a public than private sector organization, which might be the key here to avoiding conflicts of interest with respect to the common good. I don’t want bands of hired thugs or the return of the Pinkertons. That’s basically step 2 on the route to a Stephensonian dystopia.

Re: The privatization of policing

#58

Post by rayiner »

rainsford wrote: post #51
rayiner wrote: post #12

> People who voted to defund the police are now paying for private security. Multnomah County, where downtown Portland is located, is bluer than blue. Joe Biden won there by more than 79 percent of the votes in 2020. And these people want their private security to come with guns. Leaving aside the quibble about whether anyone literally voted to “defund the police,” I do find this phenomenon interesting. Our “progress…

Isn't it a fairly reasonable and consistent position to be in favor of armed professionals with a specific need to carry a weapon but opposed to everyone being able to carry a weapon around whenever they feel like it? The situation you mention is only a gotcha or a contradiction if you assume "gun control" means "nobody should ever have a gun for any reason", which I don't think is an actual view held by many people.

It’s both consistent and reasonable. We had the same policy back in old country: the common people were disarmed, while wealthy people (like my family) had armed guards.

Re: The privatization of policing

#59

Post by rjtavares »

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…

I'm shocked (but not totally surprised) at the response to the concept on HN. I cannot even imagine how one could think this is a good thing - necessary, I can understand, but not a good thing.

I don't even know how to argue that this is bad. I'll just lose all my faith in society if this ever happens where I live.

Re: The privatization of policing

#60

Post by MonkeyMalarky »

kneebonian wrote: post #32
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.

The Bloods being another infamous example of gang starting out as self-protection.
Post reply on HN