How much do we need the police? • Hacker News Board

Re: How much do we need the police?

#61

Post by evan_ » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 11:28 PM UTC

linuxftw wrote: post #56

evan_ wrote: post #24

In Eugene, OR, where I live, there is a program called CAHOOTS ("Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets") which is more or less the mental health equivalent of an ambulance. They're dispatched by non-emergency operators to situations such as mental health crises, public intoxication, and welfare checks- things where police officers would be asked to serve as a social worker, as the article puts it. My understan…

Where I'm from, the ambulances wouldn't respond to 911 calls without a police escort. Once the CAHOOTS people start getting attacked and killed, the program will end.

What is your ideal outcome from posting this?

Re: How much do we need the police?

#62

Post by djrobstep » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 11:29 PM UTC

josephg wrote: post #32

js2 wrote: post #3

I know folks don't always click through, so I'll highlight what I found most insightful: > Part of our misunderstanding about the nature of policing is we keep imagining that we can turn police into social workers. That we can make them nice, friendly community outreach workers. But police are violence workers. That's what distinguishes them from all other government functions. ... They have the legal capacity to use…

I think that’s made much more true because that’s the image police forces in America have of themselves. “We’re here to beat up the bad guys”. Police here in Australia are far from perfect, but they are much more seen as part of the community. They don’t even carry firearms any more. In Australia I wouldn’t hesitate to contact the police or talk to them on the street if something happened. (Just like I wouldn’t hesit…

I don't know what part of Australia you're in, but literally every cop I've ever encountered here carries a firearm.

They also have a pretty decent rep for brutality themselves, particularly if you're indigenous.

So you are presenting a very misleading view.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#63

Post by krapp » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 11:29 PM UTC

Avicebron wrote: post #37

PaulKeeble wrote: post #16

The American police force seems to be a catch-all for the vast amount of social problems caused by unequal access to healthcare, limited social security and a host of puritan laws that ignore peoples needs. Making drug users criminals despite the massive numbers of them drives up prices and decreases access causing large amounts of crime out of social problems caused by missing social systems. The drug war has also c…

I find it surprising that these relatively well known issues aren't even considered topics for public discussion. I understand that the solutions are hard, but plenty of hard problems have been solved by determined societies. The police are symptoms of a problem in how wealth and services are distributed within our society. Fix this and we won't need para military police suppressing the proletariat.

>I find it surprising that these relatively well known issues aren't even considered topics for public discussion.

Because they're all considered "leftist" if not "socialist" politics now, and the Overton window of acceptable discussion in the US has moved very far to the right over the last four years.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#64

Post by kenz0r » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 11:29 PM UTC

josephg wrote: post #32

js2 wrote: post #3

I know folks don't always click through, so I'll highlight what I found most insightful: > Part of our misunderstanding about the nature of policing is we keep imagining that we can turn police into social workers. That we can make them nice, friendly community outreach workers. But police are violence workers. That's what distinguishes them from all other government functions. ... They have the legal capacity to use…

I think that’s made much more true because that’s the image police forces in America have of themselves. “We’re here to beat up the bad guys”. Police here in Australia are far from perfect, but they are much more seen as part of the community. They don’t even carry firearms any more. In Australia I wouldn’t hesitate to contact the police or talk to them on the street if something happened. (Just like I wouldn’t hesit…

Just to correct you on firearms. Police officers in Australia are generally issues firearms (semi-automatic pistols).

Re: How much do we need the police?

#65

Post by jm4 » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 11:29 PM UTC

jbay808 wrote: post #35

js2 wrote: post #3

I know folks don't always click through, so I'll highlight what I found most insightful: > Part of our misunderstanding about the nature of policing is we keep imagining that we can turn police into social workers. That we can make them nice, friendly community outreach workers. But police are violence workers. That's what distinguishes them from all other government functions. ... They have the legal capacity to use…

This framing of the police seems very strange to my Canadian sensibilities. I'm curious about whether Americans largely agree with this description.

I don't. Whether or not you agree with this gross oversimplification is going to depend on your worldview, your experience and whether you feel disenfranchised by the system. It has nuggets of truth - the police do step in to handle violent criminals - but this assessment is largely a subjective interpretation.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#66

Post by xkcd-sucks » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 11:31 PM UTC

jbay808 wrote: post #35

js2 wrote: post #3

I know folks don't always click through, so I'll highlight what I found most insightful: > Part of our misunderstanding about the nature of policing is we keep imagining that we can turn police into social workers. That we can make them nice, friendly community outreach workers. But police are violence workers. That's what distinguishes them from all other government functions. ... They have the legal capacity to use…

This framing of the police seems very strange to my Canadian sensibilities. I'm curious about whether Americans largely agree with this description.

Yes. Generally speaking, the expected value of any encounter with police is negative. They generally won't help you (although they may call someone who can help), but they might give you a hard time. The most common "good interaction" is one where they show up, insinuate that they could make trouble, and decide not to.

It's slightly better in very small towns where everyone knows everyone and e.g. the chief's kids go to school with your kids

Re: How much do we need the police?

#67

Post by creaghpatr » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 11:31 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #59

PaulKeeble wrote: post #16

The American police force seems to be a catch-all for the vast amount of social problems caused by unequal access to healthcare, limited social security and a host of puritan laws that ignore peoples needs. Making drug users criminals despite the massive numbers of them drives up prices and decreases access causing large amounts of crime out of social problems caused by missing social systems. The drug war has also c…

Agreed drug war is a total failure, policy-wise. Where is the middle ground between criminalizing everything and legalizing everything? Real lives are destroyed by drug abuse and particularly with regards to meth, fentanyl, etc it kills people. I can't imagine a world where we sell these things over the counter. Would that help or hurt communities?

Maybe there’s a legal path to meth but you can literally die from touching a small dose of fentanyl if you haven’t built a tolerance. Very dangerous for that to exist in a legal setting.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#68

Post by Sniffnoy » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 11:33 PM UTC

js2 wrote: post #3

I know folks don't always click through, so I'll highlight what I found most insightful: > Part of our misunderstanding about the nature of policing is we keep imagining that we can turn police into social workers. That we can make them nice, friendly community outreach workers. But police are violence workers. That's what distinguishes them from all other government functions. ... They have the legal capacity to use…

I find this silly. It acts as if people are incapable of assessing situations and then selecting the best action based on that situation.

Yes, police have the authority to use violence; that doesn't necessarily mean they have to have some sort of essence of violence that drives them to be violent all the time. Indeed, police in many situations do successfully negotiate situations without employing violence. So, clearly resolving situations peacefully is possible even while maintaining the capability of violence; just, often the police have no particular incentive to do so.

Indeed, you can look at the military; soldiers are also violence workers, and yet they seem to be much better at not being violent than the police are, staying disciplined and not firing until the rules of engagement allow them to, where the police seem to often start shooting as soon as they get a bit scared.

The problem is there's hardly any accountability; the feedback loop is horribly broken. A police offer's incentive ought be to employ violence precisely and only when it is called for. To, y'know, correctly use their judgment to discern in the moment what action is most appropriate. It is far from impossible! But since there's minimal accountability for police, well, that's not what happens.

Re: How much do we need the police?

#69

Post by selectodude » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 11:34 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #22

tehwebguy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think police stop rapes from happening? Rapes happen in peoples' homes where there are no police. Then, if the victim chooses to report it, they are often blown off by the police entirely unless the circumstances make it impossible to ignore.

Police try to find and arrest rapists, who would probably go on to rape other people if they weren't in prison.

Only if they decide they wouldn’t rather rape you too.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/19/us/police-sexual-assaults-mar...

Re: How much do we need the police?

#70

Post by pnw_hazor » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 11:35 PM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #27

js2 wrote: post #3

I know folks don't always click through, so I'll highlight what I found most insightful: > Part of our misunderstanding about the nature of policing is we keep imagining that we can turn police into social workers. That we can make them nice, friendly community outreach workers. But police are violence workers. That's what distinguishes them from all other government functions. ... They have the legal capacity to use…

I think it’s insane to expect police to handle those issues. The only thing they can do is “clean up” after the problems that society has otherwise failed to deal with. The very nature of their role is adversarial with the citizenry. They’re also under no obligation to protect anybody from anything. They carry guns to protect themselves, not you and me. If somebody intents to harm you, the best you could reasonably e…

Police count the bodies so to speak. Preventive/interventive policing doesn't fit well in a free country. Policing in free countries is pretty much a reactive system.

For example, in the recent mass protests, the police generally stay pretty chill until something triggers them -- one too many water bottles thrown after curfew, or whatever. Relatively, minor offenses by a few people in the crowd can trigger the police to shutdown the entire protest or the entire city. They can't be expected to do much else, except stand still as more bad actors (emboldened by police non-action) keep ramping up their provocations, eventually leading to the same outcome. Crowd dispersal and mass arrest is really their only tool when things start to slide out of control.

I can't imagine how a young police officer feels when their age peers are screaming epithets at them inches from their face, when last Tuesday some of the same people were crime victims and damn happy to see you. The old cops probably have zero fucks to give at this point.

Mayors and Chiefs are also stuck between doing too little or doing too much. Many careers have been ended by going too far in either direction.

It is interesting to see how different cities are handling the mass protests. I think LA and Atlanta are doing well now. They seem to calmly start arresting everyone who is still out right after curfew. I think last night, Atlanta began dispersing the crowds 30 seconds after curfew (they did use tear gas though). Similar for LA, where the cops and national guard slowly corner curfew violating groups of people and drivers. Then they systematically arrest everyone.

In contrast, Seattle, waits and waits hoping everyone will just go home, but that doesn't seem work. Eventually, it is late and inevitably the police get triggered and then it is tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber bullet time.

The Seattle process seems like it is designed to guarantee violent confrontation between protestors and police. Where the LA process seems like it designed to clear the streets safely before it gets dark, enabling LA police to focus on rioters or looters (if any)

Edit-to-Add:

Watching live as the Seattle Mayor is addressing a crowd at the City Hall, she can barely be heard over the crowd booing her. She is not going to get an outcome she is hoping for. I expect more violent police/protestors confrontation tonight.