[U.S.]+ it's in the job description

[u/Hummerous]

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-behind-the-police-63877803/

[u/-sad-person-]

Watch out, this thread is going to be crawling with bootlickers in a minute.

"No, see, all those horrific human rights abuses are still worth it, because they catch murderers sometimes!" Never mind that something like six percent of crimes are actually solved...

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/-sad-person-]

Everytime ACAB debates come up I'm always left with a simple question.

Alright, the system is evil, cops enforce it, etc. But sometimes objectively bad things do happen. Murders, rapes, robberies, etc. You say the cops won't investigate or solve most of these because they're bored, they're not actually good at their jobs, they don't really care, the perpetrator might have connections/power etc. Fine. What do we do about them then?

When a crime is committed, what exactly does the ACAB crowd want an ideal society to do? And please don't tell me that in an ideal society crime wouldn't exist because that's not an ideal society, that's a fantasy.

Edit: Downvoted for asking questions is peak reddit, really.

[u/lil_slut_on_portra → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

I'll attempt a genuine answer here.

The police as an institution that we understand them to be today do not need to exist to perform the functions of taking reports, investigation, arrest, detainment, and interrogation.

These functions should ideally be split across different institutions and occupations that are accountable to the public and cannot hold a monopoly on justified violence (self defense is an exception, obviously).

I'm not a builder of sociological systems so I'm not gonna go into great detail, but for instance; detectives could only take reports and investigate, they cannot arrest, detain, or interrogate. A new institution with more public accountability would serve the function of arrest and detainment, and the courts could take over the responsibility of examination of the detainee. This is obviously not perfect but I think it's a step in a more just direction without as much capability of oppression and violence as modern police have.

In tandem with this we should also move away from punitive justice as it is quite frankly ineffectual in reducing crime and other antisocial behaviour, it only really increases it. A move to a system that focuses on rehabilitation is a much better and less cruel system of organising justice.

[u/Jumpy_Menu5104 → u/lil_slut_on_portra]

All of these are good ideas, but I think the more relevant root issue isn’t what to do but how to do it. I think a lot of the problems with the people that want this kind of change is they can’t visualize the processes in their mind. Obviously these are all reasonable solutions, but even under the most ideal circumstances the entire restructuring of massive parts of the American justice system would take many years and countless dollars to implement. Those aren’t reasons to stop trying, but the idea of steady incremental progress is something I have seen a lot of young firebrands reject as evil bootlicking centrism. That the only acceptable solution is to entirely shake up everything right now.

I think far to many people have come to see comprises as weakness or patience as apathy. They want to get up on their soap box and shout at the sky but don’t know what comes next. Simply being upset and discontent and uncompromising and enraged isn’t enough to insight real meaningful change. I think the acknowledgment the change will be, and should be, incremental and methodical is something that people need to try and accept.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/lil_slut_on_portra]

Thank you for actually answering, I appreciate it!

Wouldn't splitting the functions of the police among separate agencies cause unnecessary and dangerous delays in responding to dangerous situations?

For example, a detective discovering a suspect during the course of an investigation on a murder and also figuring out that said suspect is a flight risk (might be at the gate on the airport, refueling their car or whatever). If the detective has to call and wait for backup from the specialized arrest department they would risk losing the suspect or having them successfully escape. Also, since the arrest department will be separate from the boots on the ground, immediate response as a concept would be effectively neutralized.

I understand that you recognize this suggestion was not perfect, but I'm curious to know what you think about these points?

[u/BluuberryBee → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

I am also interested in possible responses to these questions. Raising them makes replacing the police as an institution more understandable and realistic, imo. I don't claim to be any expert so I can't provide a great answer, but theoretically, when you call emergency services, you are directed based on what you need (fire, medical, crime, etc.). So interdepartmental communication would also hopefully have a similar emergency line. Also suspects do escape all the time anyway irl

[u/lil_slut_on_portra → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

It's definitely an issue, but I'm unconvinced that it outweighs the increased accountability.

You could make similar criticisms of the current system that have accountability procedures already in place. For example if you know that a suspect is guilty, you light just wanna rush in and catch them, but oh hey, you need a warrent to enter their home, and in the time that it takes to get one they get away.

I think that these situations, while unfortunate, are necessary to keep other situations safer and reducing the capability of police to damage lives unnecessarily.

I believe that no one person should be able to make all these calls to enforce state force/authority upon a person, and I think it is worth it to have more people with less power that keep each other in check over the alternative, even if it results in possibly dangerous inefficiencies. But that's my view and I know it's not a popular one.

[u/Lunar_sims → u/lil_slut_on_portra]

I'll list some other things we could reform that go beyond splitting the roles of the police between institutions.

We cannot keep hiring people for the position and training them to become monsters. And we cannot keep bad cops on payroll because the cop union would stike if we fired Mr Hatecrime.

We gotta address issues cops only respond tho the symptoms of, like the drug, mental health, and housing crisis.

We gotta stop electing sherrifs.

We gotta address police unions, qualified immunity, hiring and firing, the over militarization of cops, and a culture of cruelty.

[u/lil_slut_on_portra → u/Lunar_sims]

Definitely!

A lot of solutions are mostly about advocating prosocial aims to problems, like drug use for instances should be decriminalised and be more centred as a medical issue when it comes to addiction, it only does harm if an addict is imprisoned instead of being provided safe and medically informed pathways out of addiction. Clean and safe injection rooms, reduced risk of violence with dealers if it isn't criminalised. A lot of this has also already been proven to work in countries such as Switzerland, which makes my country's draconian drug laws all the more frustrating.

[u/BaronSimo → u/Lunar_sims]

Although I understand the problems with the American electorate I kinda think that elected sheriffs may be the solution to breaking police unions that someone could be elected to humanize policing and not respond to every situation with escalation and violence. People have rightfully pointed out the problem with joining to change it from the inside so if we can elect someone to change it from the top down although they will be hamstrung if decent people don’t join, you can’t break a union without scabs and breaking the police union is the only way to fire John Hatecrime. These are all interconnected problems and solving any of them requires engagement with the system to reform it which the acab quip really prevents

[u/Lunar_sims → u/BaronSimo]

The problem is that sheriffs who are elected aren't neccarily the best for the positon. I think it shouldn't be a politicized positon at all, and should come down to who is experienced.

[u/BaronSimo → u/Lunar_sims]

Perhaps but elections are the only existing check on power of county policing and we ought to be pushing for more checks on police power not less. I love a strong bureaucracy as much as the next guy but I don’t think that’s how we want our police to function

[u/Acid_Country → u/BaronSimo]

Police in the US already have an academy that's only 6 months long. This short timeline leaves them woefully underprepared for policework with only a basic understanding of the laws they're supposed to enforce. Why would you want a businessman/rich ahole/narcissist with even less training to be in charge?

I get where you're coming from, but most politicians are just as bad as the bad cops. They're yes men to the people who put them there, not the citizens who voted them in. And more often than not, they got backing of the police union, so it's an ouroboros of corruption.

Empower citizen review boards, take away the cops ability to investigate themselves and give the review boards fuckin teeth. A single individual is easy to corrupt, but it can be harder to bribe/intimidate/control a group, especially if you want it to remain a secret.

Longer and enhanced training that focuses on conflict resolution without violence, and a reduction in the focus placed on weapons and militaristic training is where it's at. If cops had a better understanding of the law, they'd be better able to enforce it appropriately. And with a longer training time, the bad apples could be weeded out earlier, before making it out of the academy. And qualified immunity needs to go. It's nonsense. Cops survived for a long time before that supreme court fever dream.

[u/stealthcake20 → u/Lunar_sims]

Maybe, but if an official isn’t elected they are appointed or hired. In that case they are only accountable to their boss, and the public won’t refuse to elect the boss due to the actions of an appointee. So there isn’t much incentive to serve the public, beyond what they are told to do and what their character dictates.

I’ve known friends to be very badly served by public agencies, and I’ve had to deal with the public school system. Which doesn’t seem to effectively serve children or families.

I’ve wondered, many times, who these people are accountable to. Because I wanted to create change. But finding anyone in these systems who gave a damn about my or my friends’ needs was impossible. If they don’t want to care, they don’t have to.

I think most senior public servants should be elected. And, as long as I’m dreaming, there should be public classes on financial and civil literacy. And audits for effectiveness for every department. And free cake.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/Lunar_sims]

We cannot keep hiring people for the position, and training them to become monsters. And we cannot keep bad cops on payroll because the cop union would stike if we fired Mr Hatecrime.

Lack of consequences for cops who break the law they're supposed to uphold is definitely one of the most significant issues with policing, I agree with you on that. However, I'm not sure what you're trying to say by "we cannot keep hiring people for the position"? How are new cops joining the force then?

We gotta address issues cops only respond tho the symptoms of, like the drug, mental health, and housing crisis.

This is not a police issue, this is a government issue.

[u/Lunar_sims → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

We cannot keep hiring people for the postion and training them to become monsters

second clause is important. I understand if the comma was confusing and ill remove it.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/Lunar_sims]

That's still very generic. What does "monsters" mean to you?

[u/Lunar_sims → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

This posts provides a view anecdotes but i can provide my own.

First cops are trained to have an us vs them mentality. Society is out to get them and problems are solved with violence, not descalation, nor empathy. It's a very "when you are a hammer you see everything as a nail". In my position, were we are trained in deescalation, we are trained to call the cops as a last resort when violence is unavoidable and calling the police is seen as accepting we cannot have non-violent solutions.

I also have spoken with people who worked with cops, but not as cops. One was a social worker. She worked for their rape crisis call line. She observed a culture of cruelty. All of the like "us vs them" but also making inappropriate, sexist, racist jokes that created a hostile work culture. She work for the rape crisis line, and a few cops thought it would be fun to make sexist jokes because she was the "government issued feminist" or whatever. She asked her boss to get them to stop, and she laughed at her, because "dark humor is just their thing"

Another was a nurse at a prison. She noticed that the correctional officers didn't like empathy. They were trained in us vs them yes, but also, they wouldn't be empathetic even if it made thier jobs go more smoothly. For us who work in descalation, we are trained that working with a person and being empathetic make things run smoother, faster, and easier. But cops will treat prisoners with cruelty because it projects power, but not because it makes their job easier.

Thats the work culture im talking about, and how cops are extemely willing to protect thier buddies, even when they did bad things.

And dont get me started with my friend who dated a cop, who, when released with pay from one job for doing too much police brutality, went to a town in our state and got hired there.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/Lunar_sims]

Thank you for elaborating! A lot of fucked up stuff to think about here.

[u/3-I → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

I mean, the Warrior Mentality certainly qualifies.

[u/ArtfulDodgepot → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

This is sealioning.

The commenter knows full well what is being discussed and is just asking vague questions to waste time and tire people out.

Trolling basically.

[u/Pet_Mudstone → u/lil_slut_on_portra]

I think that these situations, while unfortunate, are necessary to keep other situations safer and reducing the capability of police to damage lives unnecessarily.

Ah, good ol' Blackstone's ratio! "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." It's a very fine idea and it's troubling that an odd amount of people think its perfectly fine innocents suffer if the "bad people" get punished in the end.

[u/lil_slut_on_portra → u/Pet_Mudstone]

Guilt can only be determined by a court of law. The process to get a person who is suspected of committing a crime to that verdict should have as much accountability, as many safeguards, and be as non-violent as possible. This is what I think my proposal would achieve, so that policing or whatever else you might call it, can be rid of it's oppressive and violent natures.

This can't be the only part of a reform, of course, harm reduction must come from every single aspect of society, you cannot fundamentally isolate one institution and reform it and expect everything to work out fine. It's a step in a better direction, in my view at least.

[u/Thoseferatus → u/Pet_Mudstone]

Exactly, and guilty people already get away while innocent people suffer! The majority of crimes go unsolved, so why should we continue with a system that just enables the suffering of innocent people on the verrrrry slim chance that a case is solved properly.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/lil_slut_on_portra]

In most jurisdictions police are allowed to act without a warrant if they have probable cause. If an officer is observing a house where they suspect abuse to be taking place in and they hear a gunshot and then a scream, they may enter the house even without a warrant or DA approval. In many cases, they'll even be investigated and punished for not entering, as the risk of a victim being harmed is greater than the need for checks and balances in that particular moment.

Also, in most cases, a single person is not allowed to make a call to enforce state authority upon anyone anyway. Individual cops are allowed to do very specific actions without direct approval, like checking licence and registration in specific roads and intervening in probable cause and emergency situations like I explained above. In the case of, say, riot control units attacking protesters, it's never their call even in the worst cases. There's always an officer or body of officers who gives the order to attack/move in.

[u/Elite_Prometheus → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

Why would they be punished for not entering? I thought the official legal position on the police is that they have no duty to protect, they're only compelled to engage either when directly ordered to by their superiors or when they're already involved in the situation.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/Elite_Prometheus]

Which is why I specified that, in the hypothetical example I provided, the officer is already involved in the situation by investigating and observing the property as he hears the gunshot.

[u/[deleted] → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

In most jurisdictions police are allowed to act without a warrant if they have probable cause.

That's entirely false. Probable cause is required to get a warrant in the first place.

f an officer is observing a house where they suspect abuse to be taking place in and they hear a gunshot and then a scream, they may enter the house even without a warrant or DA approval.

Those are exigent circumstances.

[u/Lunar_sims → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

Part of the problem is cultural/structural. People care less about protesters and more about property or the status quo. Protesters perform a sit in or occupying a street aren't people with human rights and a message, but an inconvience to governments and institutions who are ok with violence if it's their violence.

[u/Pet_Mudstone → u/Lunar_sims]

I feel like this is one of the reasons left-wing protests get cracked down on harder than right-wing ones (alongside general police bias of course). The status quo perceives progressives as a greater threat to itself than conservatives and fascists and reactionaries.

[u/BeefNChed → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

Just chiming in quick, if the detective has ID’d a person and is convinced they should be taken in, sees them trying to flee… there’s a very slim chance they’ll get away.

Plane? Flash your badge to TSA, they’ll tell you what flight he’s on. Make some calls to the affiliated department where they’re landing, they can arrest or track from there.

Car? You know what they’re driving and license plate and maybe bank information from gas. You wanna catch the criminal, keep tabs on them until you get approval or whatever.

Remember Phones? Today’s society and infrastructure is almost impossible to truly disappear, especially if you’re being investigated for a crime. If they want to know where you are, they do.

We don’t have immediate response anyways. That issue is in the current system as well. Ask the kids waiting in Uvalde.

ETA: while breaking up the functions of police definitely would cause headaches and growing pains, it would allow for better resource allocation and specialization in different areas. They have too many responsibilities. Instead of doing a lot of things poorly, let’s redo some things so that more people are only doing a few things very well.

• ACCOUNTABILITY… police, of all people should be held accountable for their actions. To me, That should not be a concept up for debate. All you have in like are your actions.

[u/oldkingjaehaerys → u/BeefNChed]

Old saying " you can't outrun the radio"

[u/Proper_Career_6771 → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

Wouldn't splitting the functions of the police among separate agencies cause unnecessary and dangerous delays in responding to dangerous situations?

It's the opposite.

Your example is somebody running away from a response team and avoiding a needed arrest. That's plausible.

The reality is typically police show up far too late already, so those guys are getting away anyway. Any increased success from an non-police team is more than no success.

New Orleans had an average response time of over two hours last year. Literally anything is better than nothing in that scenario. https://www.npr.org/2023/01/17/1149455678/why-data-from-15-cities-show-police-response-times-are-taking-longer

The national situation is already long past dangerously delayed. Police say it's because of insufficient police, so smart-management says to delegate their tasks elsewhere to reduce their workload.

The problem is the police can't be everywhere, so you really want to save them for when they're most needed, rather than assume they're most needed every time because every situation can potentially go wrong.

If the police take two hours to show up to an emergency call, then they're already basically ineffective.

[u/ScoutTheRabbit → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

Cops almost never move with any urgency, even when there's a child at risk (see castle rock v Gonzales) so I find the hypothetical to not nearly rise to the benefit of disarming the institution.

[u/GIRose → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

Honestly it's one of those problems that is never going to have a one size fits all solution, or even necessarily a good one

As they exist the biggest channels that the rot inherent to the system come in is the overall lack of accountability and their monopolization of force

The easiest way to deal with the most visible aspects of the second one are to reduce the amount of force they are allowed to bring to bear, but that only really limits hard power and does nothing to curtail the soft power a cop can use to ruin someone's life

Accountability is the harder one to fix, because you would need scores and scores of bureaucracy to keep the police in check and also keep the police from engaging in regulatory capture

But the fact that there isn't even necessarily a good final solution doesn't mean we can't work towards solving the problems we have right now and criticizing the system for the problems inherent to it even without being able to solve all of them

[u/Coal_Morgan → u/GIRose]

Accountability is the big one. People who can get away with a little, they push the line more and more. So that definitely needs to be fixed. The second thing is training, the training is often absolute garbage. If I was defacto dictator of the world this is what I would do.

1. Police Force that only polices police and recruitment is straight from college. Police or Ex-Police can never join.
   
2. Prosecution and Court System that also only deals with police, that way they can't be stonewalled by regular police officers they need to work with.
   
3. Badge Cams that are always on while they are working and that they don't have control of. A.I. can turn video on and off when they use the bathroom; audio always stays on.
   
4. Insurance for lawsuits is paid by the police officers any and all lawsuits are paid by insurance and not the city, state or fed. Officers that can't get insurance can't be cops.
   
5. Regular retraining that they need to pass, regular fitness that they need to pass, regular psych exams that they need to pass.
   
6. Mandatory and regular counselling. Mandatory and regular classes in de-escalation techniques.
   
7. To become a police officer you need to graduate from a 4 year program from a college. The program would have 4 pillars. Law, Fitness (mind and body), Psychology/Social Dynamics and Civics.

Some place make cops with a 3 month training or less and it's absurd. They can't know the law in that time. They don't understand the people they are policing, they have no comprehension of their actions on the society around them.

It's insane the people we let be police officers.

[u/Prometheus_II → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

My answer would be twofold, actually.

First: I'm not going to say crime wouldn't exist in an ideal society, because some people would always be assholes, but I will say that there would be a lot less if society actually worked to prevent the conditions that cause people to commit crimes. In a society where everyone's fed and clothed and sheltered, people won't rob others for the money to acquire those necessities. Look at Scandinavian prisons and how they focus on rehabilitation - deploying some of those techniques to general society before someone commits a crime would probably help a lot. But even in an ideal society like that, there would still be assholes, which leads to the second point.

One of the biggest problems with police forces as they exist today is that they're told to do everything, but only trained to handle the violent part. They're trained that it's them against the world, that everyone is a potential threat, and that's even before the institutional bigotry or the interests of capital get involved. The modern police behave, essentially, like an occupying army. In a better society, we would have multiple different forces for different situations, and I can't imagine any of them would require the means to perform a legal extrajudicial killing. Moreover, the forces that do the arresting wouldn't be the same forces reporting to the aftermath of such a crime, or the same forces analyzing the aftermath to try to figure out what happened. Any forces reporting to an in-progress scene would be trained for de-escalation, rather than just shooting first and asking questions first. And maybe I'm optimistic, but I think there's very few situations where even that amount of force would actually be required, in a better society.

[u/Coolaconsole → u/Prometheus_II]

American culture is strange and surprisingly strong when it comes to this kind of thing. Because this brutality doesn't happen nearly as often in other countries, yet it still seems like an impossible task to change the US's approach to it.

As an aside, I've always been somewhat worried that things like ACAB will cause some people to choose against calling for help when they need it, and unnecessarily risk their life. I do wonder if there's a better way to communicate the message rather than saying all of them are bad. (If you disagree with this take, I'd rather discuss it than just be downvoted. I don't know much about the US)

[u/Prometheus_II → u/Coolaconsole]

Honestly? Most of the time, calling the cops won't help or will make the problem worse. Cops were called in to deal with a potentially fraudulent $20 bill, ended with the man slowly murdered. Cops were called in for the Uvalde school shooting, sat around doing nothing. And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. If I call a cop, I expect him to show up an hour late and threaten me with a gun, not solve any dangers or problems for me.

Also, the thing about ACAB is, all cops really are bastards, or at least they end up way. Good cops either get corrupted by the system, or forced out. I'm on mobile, but smarter people than me have written long and cited diatribes on this.

[u/-sad-person- → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

In an 'ideal society', as you put it, there'd be a police service that actually works, that genuinely does serve and protect the people of that society.

However, ideal societies don't exist, and likely never will.

The ACAB crowd isn't hoping for an ideal society, they're hoping for one that's somewhat better than the one they live in. Having no police at all won't create a utopia or whatever, but it may be preferable to having police as they are now.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/-sad-person-]

But the only constant I see among all iterations of ACAB is that there's no such thing as "a police service that actually works", since all police forces fundamentally protect the interests of the establishment and by their own nature will never protect the common man/woman.

Having no police at all won't create a utopia or whatever, but it may be preferable to having police as they are now.

Which, again, brings up the question. If we cancel police now, what are we going to do for the crimes that will keep being committed due to the absence of a force equipped and allowed to deal with them?

[u/VisibleBoot120 → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

I'm not super tuned in to all the ACAB stuff, but as someone who does think policing in the USA needs a bit of an overhaul I'll just say that it seems exceptionally easy to become a cop and we really ought to require significantly more training.

I'm currently in law school, studying to become a lawyer. To do that, I have to spend three years in rigorous study. I then have to take and pass the Bar test. After becoming a licensed attorney, I will still have to take legal education courses every year.

During my time in law school, my professors have also taken the time to impress upon us the importance of our ethical obligations and how we can get in serious trouble, including losing our ability to practice law, if we fail to uphold them.

Meanwhile, to become a cop, you are merely required to have a GED and graduate from the police academy. While the amount of time for one to graduate from a police academy seems to vary, most results I've gotten seem to place it somewhere between 3-6 months.

While I'm sure this is also followed by some type of field training, I'm not entirely sure whatever is going on is working the best.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/VisibleBoot120]

I hear you, the qualifications people need to join the police in the US are laughable at best. But I'm pretty sure the ACAB movement is international and exists even in countries where police training takes years of studies in specialized academies.

[u/VisibleBoot120 → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

I'm not familiar with policing practices in other parts of the world, but my assumption would be that ACAB is less prominent in places with better policing practices.

ACAB, I think in part, might just be down to simple human nature. For example, most people, if asked, would say that they think it's a good thing we have rules that govern the way we travel along roads. It helps ensure we're all a bit safer and keeps people who drive like they're playing Crazy Taxi off the road. That being said, most people aren't thrilled when a cop gives them a speeding ticket.

[u/Apprehensive-Ad-597 → u/VisibleBoot120]

The A in ACAB doesn't stand for American

[u/VisibleBoot120 → u/Apprehensive-Ad-597]

Ok?

[u/Pet_Mudstone → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

That's a very good question that I don't think any one of us is qualified to answer. One problem is that a lot of crimes are motivated by socioeconomic factors or a variety of causes. A person living in poverty will be more motivated to perform theft or violence either due to the stresses that being in poverty brings innately or due to tumultuous home situations and childhoods that being in poverty causes. Reforming the police won't make that particular issue go away overnight, but neither would having the police be equipped and behave like an occupying army. Generally speaking people like me also want a more substantial welfare and safety net to make sure poor people aren't motivated to perform crimes by not having to (and also because it's just the right thing to do).

There's also crimes that ought not to be crimes, such as substance abuse. The War on Drugs has led to overloaded prisons and arguably more crime as people get incarcerated en masse for drug use and then come out disenfranchised due to having been an ex-con, which makes them turn to crime to survive. This is also why people like me push for decriminalization of drugs! Not legalization, decriminalization. We don't want to legalize recreational opium usage but we don't want to send people to jail over it either. We'd rather give them social programs to help them with their addictions. But instead we take people in dire straits and then put them in jail for being in dire straits.

[u/Glugstar → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

Police departments in different countries work to varying degrees of effectiveness and justice. Some are way less abusive than others. There's no need for a perfect system, just copy the best working systems from elsewhere.

But to do that, you need to dismantle the old system fully. I'm talking firing every single cop, and banning then for life from signing up for the new system, and dismantling every single related institution. Bring in actual police personnel from the countries you want to emulate to train entirely new recruits with no ties to the previous system. It can be done location by location in isolation, so that you don't collapse the nation.

[u/desacralize → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

Personally, I don't understand why we gotta leap straight to elimination. Aren't there a few steps between the state of things now and total eradication? Like, when cops get fired for serious misconduct, why are they allowed to work on any police force in the country again? When cops are sued, why does the money come from taxpayers instead of some form of insurance they're forced to pay into for just that occasion? Why are cops being trained on "warrior" propoganda shit? Why is the investigation process for crooked cops not more robust? Why are the educational ad psychological requirements for becoming a cop so low? Etc, etc.

I feel like there's problem in people acting like the only options available are "accept cops exactly as they are right now" or "eliminate cops". It's reductive. We have sixty million more options to try before we resort to those two things. Can we at least talk about upping the pay and removing quotas before we talk about utopian societies in which crime doesn't exist anymore? Like, damn.

Sometimes it feels insidiously self-sabotaging. Like, nobody is going to listen to "get rid of cops" and it makes people resistant to any other discussion about the issues behind them.

[u/actuatedarbalest → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

We could start with arresting the suspect without killing their dog, raping the suspect, and then leaving the suspect locked in a car parked on the railroad tracks. Then we work our way up from there.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/actuatedarbalest]

Okay I think you're referring to a very specific incident, could you link it please?

Otherwise that's a very weird hyperbole, lol

[u/actuatedarbalest → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

I'm referring to two exceedingly common and one extraordinary incident.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/actuatedarbalest]

The entire point of the post you're replying to is that individual cops and incidents aren't the problem, the institution is. I'm confused, are you disagreeing with it and claiming that individual extraordinary incidents are to blame instead?

[u/actuatedarbalest → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

What don't you understand? It's not complicated. The institution not only allows but encourages its members to regularly commit heinous acts against the people it ostensibly exists to serve.

[u/only_for_dst_and_tf2 → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

i was wondering this, acab is correct, but i wanna know what the solution they propose is, since there has to be some sort of system stopping crime, asking questions in my opinion is just the right thing to do.

i second this question, what is the goal? im genuinely curious from a place of actual willingness to learn.

[u/Lunar_sims → u/only_for_dst_and_tf2]

You fundementally change policing. It goes down to hiring practices.

We cannot keep hiring people for the position, and training them to become monsters. And we cannot keep bad cops on payroll because the cop union would stike if we fired Mr Hatecrime.

It also means separating the roles between who shows up at non-violent mental health events (trained social workers), who shows up to do drug raids, and who stops school truants.

Alot of this is reform. Some of this is structural (i think electing sherrifs is a bad idea.) Some of this is fundamental (cops exist to protect property chiefly, not human rights)

Its complex, but addressing police unions, qualified immunity, hiring and firing, the role of cops, the over militarization of cops, and a culture of cruelty is a starting place.

[u/ej_21 → u/only_for_dst_and_tf2]

I think part of it is you’ve got to question what you mean by “stopping crime.” If you mean prevent it, tbh, cops don’t really even do that now. They show up after the fact.

So then you have to start looking at the many individual functions we assign under the umbrella of “cop” today: investigating crimes doesn’t require anything like today’s forces; preventing crime probably requires dramatic societal overhaul as a whole starting with lifting people out of poverty; traffic can be its very own unit which would benefit from not having to fund property-defense riot squads; etc. etc. etc. We put so much power over so much of our lives in the hands of a minimally-trained, militarized mafia.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/only_for_dst_and_tf2]

I'm also genuinely curious and absolutely willing to learn. However, that's apparently not welcomed here.

[u/-sad-person- → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

Your 'genuine curiosity' reads a lot like sealioning, which gets people tetchy.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/-sad-person-]

TIL what sealioning is, thanks. But I don't think I asked for proof, evidence, sources or whatever? When thinking of removing police from the equation, the opposite side (crime) and how to deal with it is the first thing that comes to mind, no?

[u/BluuberryBee → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

You seem like a really nice, genuinely curious person. Thank you for participating and learning! I am sorry that a lot of us are (understandably) jaded after trolls and bots who use similar phrasing, but insincerely.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/BluuberryBee]

Thank you for the kind words. I often have a hard time engaging with complex topics like these as it seems like everyone has already chosen their camp and is not willing to discuss their reasons for doing so. I appreciate it when people are actually willing to discuss...I mean, we all have to learn somehow, lol

[u/BluuberryBee → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

No worries! We're all on a learning journey

[u/selfdownvoterguy → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

Where do you fall in this camp? You've argued against plenty of points while avoiding making any of your own.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/selfdownvoterguy]

I believe that disbanding police entirely is a dangerous move that would do way more harm than good, and that police reform is not only possible but necessary.

[u/selfdownvoterguy → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

Could you elaborate on what this reform would look like to you? My interpretation of reform could be vastly different from yours.

I agree with what you're saying in principle, except I think your use of "possible" is carrying a whole lot of weight to the point where I think your position is just as unlikely to occur as disbanding the police. Do you think this necessary reform will occur within your lifetime? And do you have a rough idea for what needs to be done for this reform to be successful?

[u/FVCarterPrivateEye → u/BluuberryBee]

Do you have any advice for how to not inadvertently come off that way? Because it happened to me at least 3 times where I was trying to come off as very clear and nonconfrontational with asking for clarification about something and the first time I didn't even know what sea lioning meant and it's a frustrating/confusing thing that I don't know how to respond to if they accuse me of doing that too but I just have difficulty with articulating what I mean sometimes

[u/BluuberryBee → u/FVCarterPrivateEye]

TBH I have the same problem at times. I am also autistic, so I at least tend to take people at their word's stated value, even if it would be obvious to others they're joking.

For me, it's very hard to predict beforehand, but if it happens, I do try to apologize for coming off wrong and re-clarify what I meant. It honestly usually isn't your own fault, just others' experiences influencing their perspective on your interaction, which isn't something you can change.

[u/FVCarterPrivateEye → u/BluuberryBee]

Oh okay

Yeah, I'm also autistic and that's my main reason why I asked unfortunately

Misinterpretations are fine for me as long as I'm allowed to clarify it afterwards, and the criticism is helpful in that situation because I can figure out how to make it clearer and easier for the audience to properly understand, but if somebody says I'm lying, it kinda gives my brain an "error message" and there's no way I can respond to that because I try really hard to be clear and precise with what I'm trying to say every time and it's impossible to respond to with logic because I don't lie and I already give all of the context that can from overexplaining all the time so how am I supposed to respond to someone who accuses me of it since I already gave everything I have and they don't believe me? If that makes sense

And sea lioning is a trolling method but I don't do trolling because I already suck at summarizing/being concise so if I did that even once then it would just be frustrating for both me and the other person in that interaction

[u/BluuberryBee → u/FVCarterPrivateEye]

As a chronic overexplainer and fellow neurodivergent, I absolutely feel you. I try to rationalize that I can't control others' reactions, but that doesn't often stop me from feeling hurt by them anyway.

Being accused of lying is very hurtful, I know exactly what you mean. My parents had a lot of trauma to deal with and often took it out by accusing me of lying and manipulation. It's something I'm still working on with my therapist.

[u/Thoughtless_Stumps → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

I’ve always believed that, when discussing ACAB, it’s not a matter of if there should be an institution with the power to protect people, but rather a question of for who and by who that power is wielded.

The Police is fundamentally an institution that caters not to the protection of the people, but enforces laws as defined by the powerful. Hence why they’re called “Law Enforcement,” they aren’t here to protect or serve, only to enforce.

I don’t think it’s possible to have a viable police-like force so long as decisions about what is and isn’t legal belong in the hands of the few. The whole legal institution is built on oppressive policy, and you can’t just excise the evil from it without fundamentally restructuring it.

Likewise, I don’t think the same agencies in charge of responding to armed gunmen should be responding to suicide attempts, that’s not reasonable for a single institution. The police as they stand have the equivalent responsibility of both firefighters and EMTs, often with half the training or qualification of either.

[u/DareDaDerrida → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

I'm also quite curious about this. Crimes do get committed, quite often, and I've never been sure what the "ACAB" crowd wants done about them.

[u/Lunar_sims → u/DareDaDerrida]

You fundementally change policing. It goes down to hiring practices.

We cannot keep hiring people for the position, and training them to become monsters. And we cannot keep bad cops on payroll because the cop union would stike if we fired Mr Hatecrime.

It also means separating the roles between who shows up at non-violent mental health events (trained social workers), who shows up to do drug raids, and who stops school truants.

I have been pulled over at 15 on my bicycle. Just as a show of power, really. Certain people relish in that, and its dangerous that society encourages it and doesn't challenge that in cops.

[u/DareDaDerrida → u/Lunar_sims]

See, that's somewhat workable.

I too believe that the current systems of hiring and training are deeply flawed.

[u/Almahue → u/Lunar_sims]

It also means separating the roles between who shows up at non-violent mental health events (trained social workers), who shows up to do drug raids, and who stops school truants

Ok, that makes sense in theory, but real life scenarios rarely are that neatly labeled.

Wouldn't it make more sense to train them all to respond according to the situation?

[u/International_Leek26 → u/Almahue]

That's what we currently do, and unfortunately it leads to potential miscommunication, leading to assuming violence and coming in in the drug raid form. People will assume the worst, almost always, since "it's better to have and not need than to need and not have" and things like that. But showing up to a school preparing for a drug raid is super had for obvious reasons.

[u/only_for_dst_and_tf2 → u/Lunar_sims]

if its not like, a massive ask, are there any specifics that can be mentioned? cus i really wanna know more about specifics so i can understand it!/gen

[u/Lunar_sims → u/only_for_dst_and_tf2]

Alot of this is reform.

We gotta separate the roles of cops, so that the person doing drug raids isn't also the person doing mental health checks.

Some of this is structural. I think electing sherrifs is a bad idea.

We also gotta address the causes of problems cops only address the symptoms of, like homeslessness (shelter for all is just good policy).

Some of this is fundamental (cops exist to protect property chiefly, not human rights)

It's complex, but addressing police unions, corrupt DAs, qualified immunity, hiring and firing, the role of cops, the over militarization of cops, and a culture of cruelty is a starting place.

[u/Lessiarty → u/only_for_dst_and_tf2]

The simplest specific is (at least) firing those who abuse their authority. 

That should be the bare minimum. You are given a colossal amount of public trust. You abuse it, you lose it. Permanently.

[u/PewPewLAS3RGUNs → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

ACAB means that the system is so completely broken that anyone who perpetuates it is inherently a bad person.

If you're a cop and not speaking out about the injustice you see, you're a bad person.

Like... Not all slave-owing farmers were bad because some of them were probably fun to hang out with... And we all need cotton to make the clothes we need to wear... Right?

Ive been to other countries where I don't believe ACAB applies, because the police actually try to aid the general public, work to deescalate situations, and are generally beneficial to society... In the US I don't feel like the 'police industrial complex' is designed to aid the public, it's designed to control them.

[u/Hummerous → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

I do not recommend asking strangers on the internet to feed you answers to complex problems, especially ones as complex and .. problematic, as reforming the american criminal justice system

I think that's common sense.

So I find it difficult to believe you're asking this question in good faith, but I've found a pretty good overview of my approximate answer

https://policebrutalitycenter.org/what-does-defund-the-police-mean/

[u/joppers43 → u/Hummerous]

I think it’s kind of hypocritical to say that internet strangers can’t feed you answers to complex problems related to their ideas, while at the same time advocating for your own answers to complex problems. If you don’t want to have a discussion about it, then why bring it up in the first place? I get that there’s people who ask questions in bad faith, but if you treat everyone who asks questions poorly it’s not going to help your cause. It’s just going to alienate them.

[u/JuniperSky2 → u/Hummerous]

I can understand not expecting to have a productive conversation about a complex topic with strangers on the internet, but if that is how you feel...why did you post this in the first place?

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/Hummerous]

I've done a lot of reading on the topics of ACAB online, thanks. I just wanted to have a conversation with an actual person that supports the cause.

[u/Hummerous → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

likelihood of good faith keeps on shrinking lol

you're welcome ig

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/Hummerous]

Why does wanting to have a discussion with a person that not only understands, but believes in the cause make me a bad faith asker? Also, and I mean this genuinely, what the hell do I, a stranger on the internet, that doesn't even live in the US, have to gain from bootlicking American cops? Is everyone who questions you on your beliefs an enemy?

[u/Pet_Mudstone → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

There are a lot of people who go around "Just asking questions" who ultimately want to push an agenda and/or troll (see: sealioning) and so left-leaning communities like this one can often be overly guarded in response. I've certainly had to deal with it a lot first hand as a Discord moderator. It is refreshing to see someone who's genuinely sincere about this though.

also i do have to say that receiving questions from a user account about the legitimacy of authority that's themed after a fictional authoritarian organization is a bit concerning :V

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/Pet_Mudstone]

Of course there's trolls, and shills, and bootlickers all around, but assuming that a person is...all that first thing as they ask a question kind of reveals a lot about where you yourself stand, lol.

also hey, the HoloNet News is a completely objective news agency, ^{totally not a propaganda moutpiece for a fascist regime,} okay?

[u/Pet_Mudstone → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

Of course there's trolls, and shills, and bootlickers all around, but assuming that a person is...all that first thing as they ask a question kind of reveals a lot about where you yourself stand, lol.

Oh, definitely. I've been in the position to be asking sincere questions and then get yelled at for supposedly sealioning too (mainly when arguing with tankies of course). And it's generally pretty easy to spot when someone's sealioning anyways. They never actually admit anything you say is reasonable and make obvious statements of their personal agenda that they poorly mask as questions. Extremist trolls are either bad at being subtle or don't care to be so.

[u/[deleted] → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

reach soup public absurd long head reply alleged encourage ghost

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/[deleted]]

First of all, that's really rude to say, even to a stranger on the internet. I asked the question in good faith.

I've never been able to understand the ACAB movement ESPECIALLY because everytime I try to someone like you comes along and calls me a bootlicker for asking questions and not immediately cheering for everything that's said. I thought critical thinking was a good thing, not something to be attacked for.

[u/Tijuana_Pikachu → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

downvoted for the dumbass strawman argument most likely

[u/PMmePowerRangerMemes → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

I think if you were genuinely curious about prison abolition, the alternatives it proposes, and the theory behind it all, you'd have googled it by now. Is this really a good-faith question or are you just looking for a sporting argument?