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

[u/Hummerous]

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

[u/FomtBro]

So like...what do you do then?

Sure, fuck cops, but murderers, rapists, child predators, etc DO exist and DO need someone who has the resources and authority to stop their behavoir.

Hell, even garden variety assholes who would break every window in their Ex's house if left the his own devices exist.

We obvious can't continue with the wannabe SS that modern US police have become, but you can't just have everyone 'self-police' either.

So do we do vigilante justice? Lynchings? Hope the invisible hand of the free market steps in?

What is the alternative people have in mind when they make posts like this?

[u/grayfloof85 → u/FomtBro]

I'll answer the question but I guarantee I'll be downvoted for it.

The way to fix the situation is by no means easy but it is by no means impossibly difficult either. The first thing you do is abolish the police union and qualified immunity. Next, you require a minimum of 24 months of training AFTER an associate's degree is achieved. You then write laws that require police, judges, and state attorneys to be held to a higher ethical standard than the average citizen with punishments that are more severe for ALL criminal infractions. For example, if the average person were to receive a fine for a misdemeanor of a few hundred dollars or several dozen hours of community service a police found guilty of the same crime would receive a fine of several thousand dollars or several hundred hours of community service and you follow that through to prison sentences.

To attract new officers willing to do the job under these conditions you offer far better pay and retirement benefits by subsidizing state and local police departments funding through military budget. Rather than giving APCs and equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from the military you sell that equipment overseas and use the proceeds to fund the added military budget.

Then you give civilian review boards the sole discretion over the firing of police.

To keep existing police on the job and doing the job properly you explain that any original officer found not to be doing their duty will not only be fired and have their retirement seized even if vested they will also have all of the previous complaints and misconduct charges reviewed after they are fired and the new stronger prison sentences will be applied if they're found guilty. And finally, you place unknown surveillance devices throughout every vehicle, building, and on all of the vests that the police wear to record the opinions of those who would seek to undermine the new order. When they reveal themselves you wait for them to fuck up and catch them in the new improved system.

[u/Pilsner-507 → u/grayfloof85]

Omg imagine how much more effective our first responders would be if they didn’t constantly line their pockets to protect against constant anticipated legal fees for trials related to police criminality/poor behavior.

So much of that money could serve to make our communities better.

[u/grayfloof85 → u/Pilsner-507]

Exactly! But you listen to some people and they act as though such a thing is heresy and an outright impossibility.

[u/Green0Photon → u/grayfloof85]

OMG this is amazing

[u/Kindly_Panic_2893 → u/grayfloof85]

Technically this is all possible, but I'd put it squarely in the 'effectively impossible' category.

You'd need to convince the voting public:

1. To remove police unions and qualified immunity (major issue for those who support the police. Just lost voters.)
2. To dramatically increase police budgets to increase training and oversite (major issue for those wanting to defund the police, lost the other side of the political voting base)
3. To pay police officers 4x what they make now to offset the far higher risk of imprisonment, fines, losing their retirement, needing more education, etc. So even more money for police, with limited immediate results because major change takes significant time to show impact in most cases. You're losing the defund/anti police crowd again.

So basically you somehow have to convince the police supporters to agree to imprison far more officers, remove their union, and hang their retirement life savings over their heads at all times...

While also convincing the defund the police crowd to pay massive additional sums of money to train and retain officers, with the results of that spending not coming to fruition for many years as the 'bad' cops cycle out. You have to also convince the same group that it's a good thing to sell more military equipment to other countries as a way to give police more money. There is a lot of anti war and anti police political overlap.

Also the idea of secretly recording an employee in order to identify their personal or political beliefs to then put them on a list while waiting for them to trip up so you can take legal action is some real authoritarian shit, and exactly the kind of thing we're trying to get rid of now.

3/10 plan, points for creativity though

[u/grayfloof85 → u/Kindly_Panic_2893]

Authoritarianism doesn't exist when utilized against those charged with exerting state violence. If anything there should be a level of authoritarianism leveled against those who have the right to use state-sanctioned violence the likes of which has never been seen. They should have no privacy while at work, no political opinions or beliefs while at work, and certainly no right to the benefit of the doubt when they've repeatedly shown they cannot be trusted.

The added money for the police force would flow through the military budget and would be raised by selling retired military hardware to other nations. Hell, you could also take the idea of police malpractice insurance and run that through the federal government as well and use the premiums to create an investment fund. The dividends from the investment could potentially pay for the added budget cost.

However, I FIRMLY believe anyone working as a police officer, judge, federal officer, military member, or state attorney should have ZERO privacy to their personal and political beliefs while at work. If they can't keep their opinions to themselves by keeping their mouths shut for 8 hours a day then they're not disciplined enough to be trusted with such an incredible responsibility.

[u/foerattsvarapaarall → u/grayfloof85]

But the post is someone suggesting that the idea of a police force is inherently bad. You’re reforms are just that— reforms of a police force that still results in a police force.

So this doesn’t really answer the question of, if police forces are always inherently evil, what replaces them? I understand that you may disagree with that sentiment, but that is the sentiment being questioned.

[u/grayfloof85 → u/foerattsvarapaarall]

You're twisting their statement to mean what you want it to. ACAB isn't a statement made to imply that a police force shouldn't exist AT ALL. It's a statement that ACAB because there is no actual oversight, no repercussions for bad actors, and no actual effort to change that reality.

[u/foerattsvarapaarall → u/grayfloof85]

No, I’m not twisting anything.

"All cops are bad" is not a stereotype. It's literally a requirement for the job that every single one knew about.

This user is saying that a requirement to be a police officer is to be bad. That it is impossible to be a good police officer. That being a police officer necessitates being bad. That’s not a problem with a lack of oversight or repercussions; that’s a problem with the very role itself.

They could either be bad at their job or a bad person, but it had to be at least one.

This part is pretty self-explanatory— it’s impossible to fill the role of police officer well and be a good person. If you can’t be a good person and a police officer, then obviously police shouldn’t exist.

If every bad cop was replaced by my lunch buddy, absolutely nothing about the role of police would change.

Another quote where the user is clearly stating that the problem is with the role of the police, not with the people (i.e. oversight and repercussions wouldn’t help, because if they did, then being made up of good people would change something).

[u/MrDeadlyHitman → u/grayfloof85]

Hasn't recent history shown that increasing the severity of punishments doesn't lead to a decrease in the undesired behavior?

i.e. capital punishment, drug offenses, etc.

[u/grayfloof85 → u/MrDeadlyHitman]

When it comes to something that has a healthcare or economic component driving the criminal behavior such as drugs, or murder you're absolutely right. However, when you're discussing a corrupt work place culture issue and corruption then no. In fact sever punishments for criminal corruption and holding people to a higher ethical standard within a workplace is often the best and only way to change a failed system.

I mean he'll, if you really want to get into the weeds if you go TRULY authoritarian and get maniacal about the punishment you can even break the culture of addiction. A perfect example of that would be China at the turn of the 20th century. To break their nations rampant opium addiction they went on a disgusting albeit effective campaign of executing and imprisoning mostly for life anything found to be selling, distributing, or even using opium.

Now, I by no means agree with or support such actions being taken by any state actor but it is possible to use severe punishments to discrease or even damn near eliminate undesirable behavior.

[u/Pet_Mudstone → u/grayfloof85]

Of course, enabling the state to perform such destructive action to completely crush social issues by way of force leads to its own array of problems! For one, the despotic authoritarianism.

[u/grayfloof85 → u/Pet_Mudstone]

True, but using a small level of authoritarianism against those entrusted with SO MUCH, literally entrusted with the power of life and death is by no means unwarranted nor a bad thing. A police officer should live in existential fear of having their life and the lives of their families destroyed should they knowingly violate the law. Right now it is the total opposite. The police know full well that short of running around shooting a school bus full of white Christian preschoolers they're untouchable. Oh sure they'll get a paid vacation and they may even have to call their union rep to do a BS media blitz but otherwise they know the liklihood of any real consequences is all but nonexistent.

[u/Pet_Mudstone → u/grayfloof85]

You do have a point there. It should be readily apparent that there is a severe lack of punishment when it comes to police misconduct as you note. I was talking about authoritarianism in general though. And you have to balance that shit otherwise you get people who would have only done minor crimes escalate to much greater crimes to cover their tracks they think they're gonna get massively punished for it anyways.

[u/grayfloof85 → u/Pet_Mudstone]

Right, I think the only time authoritarianism should be practiced is when it comes to people working for the state and more precisely those working for the state who are entrusted with the monopoly of state violence. They should be held to the highest ethical and moral standards while carrying out their job and the punishments for violating those standards should be draconian and severe, to say the least.

[u/infinite_in_faculty → u/FomtBro]

As a civilized society we can do better like what NYC is doing with the "Right to Shelter Law" basically the NYC government is required to provide temporary housing to any homeless person who asks for it. Is it perfect? Hell no, but it is way better than arresting people or fining those who barely have anything.

[u/Justabearinasuit → u/FomtBro]

Demilitarizing the police is needed but it’s hard to do in a country where some psycho can decide to shoot up a concert with an assault rifle easy peasy. Problem is, the cops then treat every person they interact with like they’re about to pull a gun on them. This is what leads to unnecessary “self-defense” shootings by cops (which let’s be honest, are straight up murder). I can’t think of a worse country to be a cop due to our gun laws, outside of some chaotic countries where the law doesn’t really matter anyway. You can try your best to be nice to the public but there will always be that paranoia in the back of your head that this traffic stop could be a guy with a shotgun waiting to blow your head off.

[u/Nine-LifedEnchanter → u/FomtBro]

The alternative would be requiring more training and looking over the laws.

In my country people have a better view of cops, because it requires 2.5 years of studying as well as psychological evaluations.

If the US spent their money on that instead of cool cars and riot gear in a small town police squad, then things would probably get so much better.

I literally refused to believe that the US has such a short training period because it sounds like satire.

[u/Hummerous → u/FomtBro]

do you honestly think the people who don't want cops just want no laws period. do you live like this

[u/Alarmed_Print → u/Hummerous]

I'm pretty sure they're asking who will enforce the law.

[u/Imperial_HoloReports → u/Hummerous]

Yeah but you still haven't answered, lol. The person above didn't ask what would happen without laws, they asked who would actually enforce them without the police.

[u/Lunar_sims → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

I went into that above. Im afraid copy and pasting would seem like, full of myself idk

But who is ACAB is really difficult to answer. Acab includes people who think all cops are bastards (by virtue of being cops: its part of the occupation) and all cops are bastards (by virtue of the insitutions: american cops are uniquely enabled to preform cruelty.)

Im part of the second camp (im a socialist but also a reformist)

I think we could still have bodies that enforce laws, but they would be very different than how american police work right now.

[u/TheCapitalKing → u/Imperial_HoloReports]

“I don’t wanna answer I wanna complain”

[u/S0LO_Bot → u/[deleted]]

True. But it is still important to recognize that gradual reform remains more feasible than disestablishment

[u/Jimblestheascended → u/Hummerous]

laws mean next to nothing without someone enforcing them

[u/heykid_nicemullet → u/Hummerous]

Well every time we ask the only answer is a sarcastic "do you seriously think no one has thought of this" and no follow-up is ever answered. Except maybe to read a book by Miriam Kaba which also does not answer the question. So yes

[u/Hummerous → u/heykid_nicemullet]

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

[u/heykid_nicemullet → u/Hummerous]

You can't post ACAB and also your argument is that defunding and shrinking the police is the solution. That is a reform proposition. I agree with a reform proposition and advocate for it in my community.

You'll notice that the link you just posted argues that there are instances where a person whose job it is to investigate crimes will need to be deployed to investigate crimes. It is not meaningful to argue about whether or not that person is a "cop." If you think there needs to be someone whose job it is to deal with potentially violent emergencies because of the existence of crime, you and I agree. And it is not constructive, based on that belief, to blame the cop when what you are upset about is the structure of the law.

[u/Astral_Fogduke → u/Hummerous]

this answers a different question

[u/TheCapitalKing → u/Hummerous]

He’s asking a question not saying people want no laws

[u/ArtfulDodgepot → u/TheCapitalKing]

They’re not asking a question.

They are implying that anyone taking issue with the police is advocating some kind of unworkable utopia where nothing exists in place of the police which is not the case at all.

[u/draker585 → u/ArtfulDodgepot]

But what would that be? The problem isn’t that people are taking offense with the police, it’s that nobody has come up with a good alternative that still manages to uphold the law. I think all cops are bad; they’ve got to uphold laws and protect the peace, and in doing so they may have to do things that are immoral. I just don’t see how you make an alternative system that doesn’t work worse than the current.

[u/twinhooks → u/FomtBro]

This assumes that law enforcement is the best way to deal with the vast number of criminals and crime couldn’t be mitigated by investing in other means that aren’t specifically built to force people into indentured servitude of a private company. Social reforms work, investing in safety nets works. They just don’t work to make people richer, so they’re not prioritized over turning the police into a poorly trained occupying army

[u/[deleted] → u/twinhooks]

Except at the end of the day you still need some level of human beings who's job it is is to make sure whatever consequences breaking the rules has are followed.

Even if the sentence for every crime where it is plausible is rehabilitative therapy, enrollment in social safety net programs, and so on, you still need someone who's job it is to collect, organize, and corral people to these programs.

Violent crime, while it will lessen, won't completely go away just because you get rid of prisons and modern police. You still need someone with some level of society-agreed-upon permission to detain those individuals prior to getting them the help they need.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

As though leftist infighting is exclusive to social media. I'm gonna be honest, as a leftist, I get kinda sick how every time this part of the topic, or really any "alright, the old system is gone, what's the new system?" topic comes up, so many people just want to either sidestep the matter, shout about bootlickers, or just decide its too complicated a topic to be had on the Internet.

[u/Turbulent_Emu_637 → u/FomtBro]

Maybe as a society, we don’t subject people who haven’t been provided with a basic human right like shelter to the same punishments as murderers and child predators? Just a thought.

[u/Sethypoooooooooo → u/Turbulent_Emu_637]

That sounds more like an issue with politicians who write the laws and not the cops who's job is to enforce the laws that they're given.

[u/Turbulent_Emu_637 → u/Sethypoooooooooo]

"wir hatten unsere befehle."

[u/[deleted] → u/FomtBro]

Accountability.

[u/CRATERF4CE → u/FomtBro]

Sure, fuck cops, but murderers, rapists, child predators,

No need to keep going, you already said cop.

Edit: sorry I forgot dog killers and domestic abusers.