Maybe it’s because I live in a country where the police don’t carry guns (and sex work is legal), but I found it really hard to put my finger on exactly what they are advocating for here.
They seem to be saying that police only exist to enforce middle class interests? I don’t think that’s entirely true.
I would like to see more change in how policing is done, but the idea that communities self-police is idealistic. Sure they do in some ways, but it can be just as selective and just as damaging as anything police do.
I think the idea is more that police are actually mandated to enforce state power through violence. Middle-class usually just match up in their interests with the interests of the state. Even in countries where police don’t carry guns, they are still used to forcefully combat protests or other things which oppose or obstruct government interests, and they still enforce laws unequally among different demographics (and to be clear, even when they don’t carry guns around with them normally, they will still go get guns whenever they feel they need to).
Community policing is important in that it eliminates the use of one group to police another. White middle-class cops being used to police poor minorities, for example. Does it eliminate all biases? Of course not. But studies have shown that police are far less likely to employ excessive force against members of their own neighborhoods and communities.
There’s a lot of issues with this self policing thing that I don’t think is considered. If there’s nobody whose job is policing then you’re expecting people to put their lives on the line for strangers for free. What happens to isolated people? Who do they call? Who decides on what actually happens in justice? If someone killed your relative for example, and you were allowed to take that person and torture them, then would you? Many would.
There might be problems with current systems in different places, but the whole “get rid of the police” thing doesn’t make sense.
I think your questions reveal a lot more about how you envision society working, than they do to question the validity of alternatives. Are you under the impression that police have existed a phone call away for most of history? Why do you sound like you think they underpin all social order?
you’re expecting people to put their lives on the line for strangers for free
Not at all. Why are you under the impression that community labor is uncompensated? That has never been the case. Hell, even right now gated communities often hire private security guards.
What happens to isolated people? Who do they call?
Who do they call now that can actually intervene? Police response times in rural communities are often northward of 45 minutes already. People who live isolated like that already take steps ensure their own protection (including by organizing with their nearest neighbors).
Who decides on what actually happens in justice?
Are you under the impression that police oversee trials or sentencing or set punishments? Police have nothing to do with “what actually happens in justice”. I feel like you are confusing “police-less” with “society-less”. Police do not underpin all social systems. Are you aware that police have not existed for most of human history?
Look, no offence, but I think you are under a lot of really fundamental misunderstandings about the role of police in our current society, nevermind alternative models of policing.
Police are not omnipresent, instantly-available guardians. Police are not the creators or interpreters of law, nor are they responsible for punishments for breaking laws. They don’t even determine if a law has been broken, that’s what a court does. The only single thing that police are mandated to do is to investigate and intervene in activities which may violate laws.
They have no legal obligation to protect you.
They have no legal obligation to intervene before a certain threshhold of crime occurs.
They can legally stand by and watch someone shoot you, and arrest them afterwards, and in fact often they have.
Modern-day US police, as an institution, are not rooted in the city-guards of the Middle Ages, they’re a progression from slave-catching patrols, and their system of roving around looking for ‘trouble’ is a much more direct analogue to British colonial occupation forces in Africa than to the Bobby stationed in a police box on the street corner back home.
Your ideas just add way more questions. You suggest that you want to go back to a time before policing existed, what does that look like to you? We certainly had a form of policing for thousands of years, before that what? Tribal justice? Thats not as nice as you think.
You talk about trials but that requires something to happen first. Are you expecting these citizen helpers to do that? What qualifications are you offering here?
You state that you envision these citizen helpers as being compensated, that suggests that you want people employed to police… you know what those people are called?
The idea that one of your examples is hiring private security comes from a place of privilege.
You complain about police not turning up for 45 minutes, but want to replace them with what? What do you envision in these ‘community helpers’ who will turn up immediately and fight crime? I think you’re thinking of a superhero film.
You seem to have an odd idea of what a police force is.
Then you start going on about US police as if that’s the discussion here.
You suggest that you want to go back to a time before policing existed
No, I am pointing out that police are not some integral part of human social systems.
We certainly had a form of policing for thousands of years
Yes, which were not the ones we have now.
Are you expecting these citizen helpers to do that? What qualifications are you offering here?
Do you know that citizens already can make arrests? What do you mean by “qualifications”?
The idea that one of your examples is hiring private security comes from a place of privilege.
No, I am making the point that “protecting people” is not synonymous with “modern nation-state authority” like you seem to be suggesting, not saying “let them hire guards”. Was that seriously your takeaway from what I wrote? The whole point is that you can have people protecting other people, without the people doing the protecting being police.
You complain about police not turning up for 45 minutes
I didn’t complain about that, I stated that it is the current reality for people in many rural/ isolated places, so police are already effectively absent the role of protecting them. They must and do protect themselves already. Your ignorance of how rural communities operate, while simultaneously trying to make claims about their vulnerability without police, is astounding.
turn up immediately and fight crime
Not anymore than police already don’t, which is my point. Neighbors are who you call to come help after the immediate emergency is done. The immediate emergency you handle yourself. You call the police when it’s wrapped up, to cover yourself. Police aren’t EMTs. Anything that a 2-person police unit can do , you and 1 other person can as well, and you can do it immediately.
You seem to have an odd idea of what a police force is.
I’m very interested in what you think a police force is, because it sounds far more to me like you’re the one speaking from a place of privilege if you think they’re benign protectors of the citizenry.
Then you start going on about US police as if that’s the discussion here.
I’m sorry, was the article in relation to somewhere other than the US? No? Cool!
What do you mean by “qualifications”?
police
the US
This best summarizes this discussion.
PS:
was the article in relation to somewhere other than the US?
You’re in a thread started by someone clearly stating they don’t live in the US, so you tell us who went out of context where.
The person (liv) who commented did not ask what is being advocated from a non-US perspective, they asked what is being advocated in the article, because them coming from a non-US perspective made it difficult for them to understand the article’s suggestion.
You’re the one demanding we discuss this with a blind eye to the US.
But this makes me very interested to hear what part of police in your country (or any non-US country) you think are fundamentally different than what I’ve stated as it relates to the US?
There are a few countries where I think there are genuinely different dynamics with the police, but they’re not in Europe.
I imagine it would look in some ways like Burning Man. I’ve only been once a long time ago, but when I went we had social order without police.
On the extremely rare occasions someone was out of line, tearing down art or picking fights with people, random burners would step into the policing role and get the guy under control.
It worked pretty well. In our case it was a city of about 40,000 that only existed for two weeks, so it’s hard to say how it might scale. But that was my first exposure to anarchy as a governmental model, and it worked extremely well. As in, not only was Black Rock City functional, it was also incredible.
It just wouldn’t work in the real world. Burning man is a group of like minded individuals.
Many people would just steal all your shit at every opportunity if they knew they could get away with it.
if they knew they could get away with it
Why do you assume that not having police means they would get away with it?
Yeah I guess if we had a force to police what you can and can’t do it’ll be alright.
We’d also need some sort of court system to make sure justice is done so you can’t just accuse people.
But to be serious all of human history and the way criminals currently operate even with a police force.
But to be serious all of human history and the way criminals currently operate even with a police force.
i mean, i hope you understand that “all of human history” is not a very compelling argument in response to “why do you assume people would commit crime if they knew they could get away with it”. people don’t just commit crimes for no reason. there are, for the vast majority of people, clear factors in why they commit crimes that don’t really have to do with Getting One Over on people and that can be socially addressed or disincentivized without any need for cops.
there are, for the vast majority of people, clear factors in why they commit crimes that don’t really have to do with Getting One Over on people and that can be socially addressed or disincentivized without any need for cops.
I agree, but can we deal with those issues? Like take drugs for example, can we fix all addicts? We can make treatment free but some addicts don’t want to be fixed, they have too much trauma, they’ve been through too much, they want to drug themselves to oblivion, and crime, theft specifically, will often be needed in that system. We can make drugs free and legal, but then they’ll be dead which is no win.
What about something more severe like domestic violence? If you take a man for example, who likes to control his partner through violence, there’s interventions that we can take to help, but they’re not perfect, we have better odds if we intervene with children, but that involves time travel.
Literally nothing that you brought up requires cops to solve.
What do you propose?
And when those people eventually get caught, they would be dealt with by the populace. Consequences for people’s actions is the same deterrent that currently “stops” people from stealing shit all the time (i.e. people still steal shit with the existence of police)
And when those people eventually get caught, they would be dealt with by the populace.
How exactly do you imagine this happening? A tarnished reputation and nobody wanting to associate might work well for petty theft. But I would rather have some sort of court system for more complicated issues. But if you have a court system, you have to have some way of making a person show up, no?
I recently read about a system used by some groups in North America (I think, geography could be off) where people were held accountable by independent arbitration and a cultural expectation of reparations.
It’s hard to say how well it worked, the Europeans were idealizing the “exotic natives” and the communities were proud of their community and could have exaggerated it’s success. But they did this for a long time.
From what I understand, if I robbed your home, made off with your dog, and in the process hurt your mother, my direct community of family and friends would meet with your direct family and friends and hash out a way to make things better. My family and I might be on the hook to return the things I took, help you with repairing some clothing, and should you or your family need help for a period of time we would be obligated to help. If we couldn’t come to an agreement someone else from the community who was not involved would come to help decide.
Obviously this is primarily focused on preventing these things from happening in the first place. I don’t want my friends and family to be indebted to others, and through helping your friends and family, we might end up closer, making whatever caused the problem less likely to occur again.
As to how exactly we do such a thing today, thats tough. We have many complicated societal problems that make many feel disconnected from everyone around them. One thing is for sure though, police do not prevent crime, they do not solve crimes, and they sure don’t police evenly. We desperately need to try something different, and maybe a first step, in a weird way, is trying to connect with the people around you.
Yeah we could set up some sort of force to police these people.
We’d also need some sort of court to make sure these things were dealt with in a just way and people weren’t just accused and punished without evidence.
In our case it was a city of about 40,000 that only existed for two weeks, so it’s hard to say how it might scale
Keeping order is one thing, but police do a bunch of things no one else has time for.
Endless follow ups, liaising with social workers, taking long statements for inquests, or spending all day protecting someone’s right to peacefully protest.
None of those activities seemed necessary, or maybe they were happening without my knowledge
That’s due to the short duration of BM. There’s not enough time for societal conflicts requiring maintenance paperwork - domestic violence and family breakdowns, child custody battles, litigation involving multiple parties with warrants served for trial discovery. BM is also a self-selecting population of (let’s face it) upper-middle class people who are there for a generative purpose. It’s like saying you don’t notice the need for a welfare councilor or federal free lunch voucher program at a $100k/yr private school. That’s not a problem that comes up in that demographic.
It’s strange but there has never been an instance where police have made me feel safer.
I have an instance. I didn’t let someone in when they were in the right hand turn lane and wanted to go straight. They were simply too close and made their choice too slow. So instead they came in behind me. Then I noticed they were following me, so I immediately started driving to the nearest police station. On my way a cop was pulling out of a McDonald’s and I pulled into the suicide lane, honked irrationally, got the police attention and explained the situation. The car behind me immediately drove off speeding and while the cops didn’t chase after them, they had me pull into the parking lot and get information on the situation. Overall they were nice and I legit felt safer.
That said I’ve had cops point guns at me for minor trespassing. I’ve had cops stop me and search me. I’ve also seen cops helping the community, pushing someone’s broken down car with them and generally being helpful.
Overall I don’t think the issue is with police as a concept but instead with the current implementation of our police. “What if everyone just helped each other or looked out after each other” does not work at scale. In order for police to function correctly there must be trust there between the community and the police. If anyone can’t trust the police to protect then the police are broken and can’t serve.
Overall I don’t think the issue is with police as a concept but instead with the current implementation of our police.
Well sure, “police” is just a label. You can call an ad-hoc community-defense group in a stateless society “police” if you want. People aren’t opposed to the word itself, they’re opposed to what modern-day police as an institution are (enforcers of state authority against the populace).
The whole reason that US law forbids the US military from being deployed internally without congressional approval is because it was assumed that local police would be made up of members of the community they police, and not treat the community as an adversary, whereas a national military member would probably be from somewhere else.
Without getting into the slave-catching origins of police in general, the militarization of the police (as well as the large areas which they cover beyond just their local neighborhoods) has effectively turned our police into the very thing the Posse Comitatus Act was trying to prevent; an occupier force to impose government authority and the threat of violence in peoples’ everyday lives.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
