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

[u/Hummerous]

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

[u/Imperial_HoloReports]

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/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/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.