So what's plan B if defunding cops creates anarchy?

[The Cazistan]

Do away with the state that allowed it to happen and crackdown on lolbertarians and anarkiddies

I would unironically hate libertarians were it not for how bitterly they cling to their guns.

I fully agree with and endorse this post

[VlaRiSsiA]

The US spends 10 times as much money on its police than healthcare. This has been shown during the recent events, with medical personnel not even having enough masks while police are in full military gear. I don’t think taking some of the money from the police and giving it to healthcare will cause anarchy, it just doesn’t work like that. You don’t have to be a quasi-police State to not have an anarchy. Funny thing since many authoritarian regimes like China use the argument that not having nigh martial law would cause anarchy in order to maintain power. Police are overfunded and many other sects like health and educational underfunded. It would be better if all sectors of public spending were funded properly instead of some being more funded than others. I don’t think plan B is that necessary since having properly funded sectors of the government works well on just about every other developed country.

[Liriena]

Better training would probably help, as would other incentives for higher hiring standards. However, these tragedies are not just born from lack of training and subpar screening of aspiring cops. They're also born from within the officers and authorities already in those departments, and in the governments that fund and enable them. There are deep-seated problems with the siege mentality taught to police officers by their own leaders as well as by some of those who train them. There are problems with accountability, not just within the police departments themselves, but also when it comes to criminal prosecutions of police officers. There are also problems with the criminal justice system as a whole, in terms of both legislation and unwritten policies. A lot of the laws that police are used to enforce are unjust. A lot of unwritten policies implemented by police departments are motivated by reasons that have nothing to do with protecting their communities (see: civil asset forfeiture and the over-reliance on overzealous enforcement of fines).

You wouldn't just need better cops, if you wanted to keep the police as an institution. You would need to get rid of a shit ton of people and policies and cultural baggage.

A seige mentality? Now what might cause that? Could it be that police departments are demoralized and under constant attack from both politicians and our corporate media?

I'm sure that's many cops' excuse, but there's no hiding the "motivational speakers" and lecturers that cops resort to, many of whom quite explicitly teach cops to think of themselves as being infallible murder machines.

The "attack" from politicians, the media and the general public came after, not before, this siege mentality manifested. Cops have enjoyed decades of copaganda and political support. Entire generations were raised on media that glorified the "tough on crime" philosophy, while their elected representatives voted for "tough on crime" laws which set police loose on entire communities.

The demoralizing hostility cops face now? They earned it. It didn't come ex nihilo.

You aren't going to make them feel less under attack by demonizing and attacking them as much as possible. Honestly, they're completely justified in feeling under attack.

No, they're not. If they can't take criticism from the public, who they serve... if they feel "under attack", threatened by public criticism... then they're clearly too sensitive a bunch to be trusted with the safety of the public.

I mean, for heaven's sake, politicians get a lot more hate that police officers do. If a bunch of politicians threw a tantrum and started killing their own voters because of how sad and anxious the criticism they get makes them, would you ask voters to be kinder to politicians?

[Liriena]

Who knew copaganda would one day join forces with gun control propaganda?

I'm Pro-2nd Amendment. But if you're going to have a heavily-armed civilian population then you also need to accept the fact that cops who police them are gonna wanna be heavily-armed as well.

I don't know, I feel like having a heavily armed civilian population could also be used as a reason to think the opposite. A heavily armed civilian population could be presumed to be better equipped to act in self-defense, so why have regular cops armed all the time, unless it's for something really, really serious?

[Liriena]

I'm sure that's many cops' excuse, but there's no hiding the "motivational speakers" and lecturers that cops resort to, many of whom quite explicitly teach cops to think of themselves as being infallible murder machines.

The "attack" from politicians, the media and the general public came after, not before, this siege mentality manifested. Cops have enjoyed decades of copaganda and political support. Entire generations were raised on media that glorified the "tough on crime" philosophy, while their elected representatives voted for "tough on crime" laws which set police loose on entire communities.

Hate towards police has been building for years.

But not in the political or cultural mainstream. Obama opposed BLM, and Clinton and Biden both played a main role in the implementation of pro-cop "tough on crime" policies. Mainstream media continues to produce a wide variety of shows and news stories sympathetic to cops. You see story after story celebrating cops for acts of charity, or movies glorifying cops as baddass heroes, or series dedicated to the quasi-infallibility of cops' instincts when it comes to catching bad guys. Not to mention the reality TV shows.

The demoralizing hostility cops face now? They earned it. It didn't come ex nihilo.

How? Most police shootings are justified, and there is zero actual evidence cops are gunning down black men in the streets.

"Most police shootings are justified", says the criminal justice system whose legitimacy is tightly intertwined with the legitimacy of the police.

How does a cop I'm Nebraska deserve hate for something that happened in Minneapolis?

All cops, by virtue of being cops, choose to participate in a system that is riddled with systemic injustices. By becoming a cop today, you choose to participate in stuff like the war on drugs, civil asset forfeiture and the criminalization of the homeless and the mentally ill. And you choose to participate in an institution where a disturbing percentage of members are abusers.

You aren't going to make them feel less under attack by demonizing and attacking them as much as possible. Honestly, they're completely justified in feeling under attack.

No, they're not. If they can't take criticism from the public, who they serve... if they feel "under attack", threatened by public criticism... then they're clearly too sensitive a bunch to be trusted with the safety of the public.

I mean, for heaven's sake, politicians get a lot more hate that police officers do. If a bunch of politicians threw a tantrum and started killing their own voters because of how sad and anxious the criticism they get makes them, would you ask voters to be kinder to politicians?

This isn't just public criticism. Cops have quite literally been gunned down in retaliation for this shit.[/quote]
How many? How often? And with impunity?

[Kowani]

I'm sure that's many cops' excuse, but there's no hiding the "motivational speakers" and lecturers that cops resort to, many of whom quite explicitly teach cops to think of themselves as being infallible murder machines.

The "attack" from politicians, the media and the general public came after, not before, this siege mentality manifested. Cops have enjoyed decades of copaganda and political support. Entire generations were raised on media that glorified the "tough on crime" philosophy, while their elected representatives voted for "tough on crime" laws which set police loose on entire communities.

Hate towards police has been building for years.

This is false.

The demoralizing hostility cops face now? They earned it. It didn't come ex nihilo.

How? Most police shootings are justified,

Citation needed.

How does a cop I'm Nebraska deserve hate for something that happened in Minneapolis?

They uphold the same system.

[Liriena]

I don't know, I feel like having a heavily armed civilian population could also be used as a reason to think the opposite. A heavily armed civilian population could be presumed to be better equipped to act in self-defense, so why have regular cops armed all the time, unless it's for something really, really serious?

Because having untrained civilians enforce the law leads to even more innocent people being killed.

But here's the thing, though: if by "enforcing the law" you mean solving crimes once they've already been committed and making arrests once a warrant has been issued... sure. But if you mean stopping violent crime as it's happening... well... if civilians have the tools to defend themselves when facing an immediate, imminent threat to their safety, having cops roaming around armed to the teeth all the time seems superfluous at best, specially when they're not very likely to get there on time in many cases anyway.

[The Chuck]

Welp... anyone who knows me partially already knows my answer...

[The Cazistan]

Boogaloo lolberts should unite with leftnat statists
one struggle against anarkiddies and c*ntrists

[Aclion]

The second amendment is plan B.

[Farnhamia]

So what's plan B if defunding cops creates anarchy?

Do away with the state that allowed it to happen and crackdown on lolbertarians and anarkiddies

*** Warned for trolling ***

[The Cazistan]

Do away with the state that allowed it to happen and crackdown on lolbertarians and anarkiddies

*** Warned for trolling ***

could you define "trolling" for me?

[Farnhamia]

*** Warned for trolling ***

could you define "trolling" for me?

Read the Rules. "Lolbertarians" has been repeated ruled as trolling, posting in such a way as to evoke an angry response from others.

[The Cazistan]

could you define "trolling" for me?

Read the Rules. "Lolbertarians" has been repeated ruled as trolling, posting in such a way as to evoke an angry response from others.

alright then thanks

[Liriena]

But not in the political or cultural mainstream. Obama opposed BLM, and Clinton and Biden both played a main role in the implementation of pro-cop "tough on crime" policies. Mainstream media continues to produce a wide variety of shows and news stories sympathetic to cops. You see story after story celebrating cops for acts of charity, or movies glorifying cops as baddass heroes, or series dedicated to the quasi-infallibility of cops' instincts when it comes to catching bad guys. Not to mention the reality TV shows.

Stopped reading there. You can't be serious. Obama heavily sympathized with them during his term.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/o ... lling.html

"Most police shootings are justified", says the criminal justice system whose legitimacy is tightly intertwined with the legitimacy of the police.

It's a statistical fact.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1UI017

Instead, the authors found variances between local crime rates played a key role in predicting who was most likely to be killed by police.

In areas with high rates of violent crime by blacks, police were more than three times more likely to shoot dead a black person than a white person, the study found.

Why are you citing a part of the article that's not about whether the shootings are justified?

Also:

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/231291

Political or threat explanations for the state's use of internal violence suggest that killings committed by the police should be greatest in stratified jurisdictions with more minorities. Additional political effects such as race of the city's mayor or reform political arrangements are examined. The level of interpersonal violence the police encounter and other problems in departmental environments should account for these killing rates as well. Tobit analyses of 170 cities show that racial inequality explains police killings. Interpersonal violence measured by the murder rate also accounts for this use of lethal force. Separate analyses of police killings of blacks show that cities with more blacks and a recent growth in the black population have higher police killing rates of blacks, but the presence of a black mayor reduces these killings. Such findings support latent and direct political explanations for the internal use of lethal force to preserve order.

Crime causes these shootings, not racism.

It's actually both. In fact, the two are kind of historically intertwined.

If you want change then you need to look toward politicians, not cops.

Cops are the ones choking innocent men to death and shooting peaceful protestors, and have historically been the state-sanctioned vanguard of white supremacism in the United States.

When it comes to systemic racism, police is just as responsible for it, and tainted by it, as the established political power.

Cops aren't social engineers. Their job is to enforce the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes but no. Their historical job is to enforce white supremacism and the interests of the dominant classes.

I feel as though this is sealioning rather than an actual attempt to get an answer.

Murder is wrong, and every life unjustly lost is a tragedy, but objectively speaking cops are not even in the top three most dangerous jobs.

[Liriena]

The second amendment is plan B.

Exactly.

Arm the poor.
Arm the workers.
Arm LGBT people.
Arm black people.
And, since nazis are getting ideas again, arm Jewish people.

[The Emerald Legion]

The second amendment is plan B.

Exactly.

Arm the poor.
Arm the workers.
Arm LGBT people.
Arm black people.
And, since nazis are getting ideas again, arm Jewish people.

This is America. No discrimination. Everyone should be able to be armed.

[Picairn]

People are arguing whether defunding the police is a good idea and I'm sitting here, like: How about we reform the entire structure of police training, equipment and social programs altogether?

This is an institutional problem, not a budgetary one. The entire police structure right now is a leftover legacy of the 80s' War on Drugs. It's time we bring the police into the 21st century.

But of course, that will cost more, not less.

[Rightonrighton]

Disarming the police (toward which defunding them is at best the first step) is plan B. Because plan A has failed horrifically.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

Make the US a colony again.

[Stellar Colonies]

Make the US a colony again.

Does that include just the territory occupied by the US right when it became a country, or all of it now?

'Cause I'd rather have the sovereign national government ruling me reside in D.C., rather than Sacramento, Mexico City, London, Moscow (sorta) or Madrid.

[North German Realm]

The reason 'defunding the Police makes anarchy' is because some of the former cops go on crime sprees when they can't fulfill their powerfantasies while in uniform, not because of any attributes of a society with a non-bloated law enforcement sector. Keep in mind, the "plan B" in this scenario is part of the whole "defund the police" thing: Take money from the cops, give it to other sectors where they can prevent possible violation of laws by fixing the socio-economical problems that lead to crime.

[Rojava Free State]

Is defunding really the same as abolishing, and do the police really need all that excess military gear? I would say no to both.

[Chan Island]

So we're hearing a lot of talk about defunding police and putting that money into social services instead. The idea, presumably, is that if these "social services" could somehow address every other possible motive for committing crime in the first place, we wouldn't need as much policing.

Here's the problem with that proposal... since when was anyone any good at predicting anyone else's motives for what they do?

No, really. I recall 2016, when the notion that respondents who claimed they'd vote Clinton if she were the candidate were lying through their teeth were met with "why would they lie"? Doesn't matter. They did. People do what they do for reasons neither you nor I nor the so-called "experts" who got it wrong could ever hope to comperehend. The delusion that if you do not anticipate their motives, such motives cannot exist, feels like a false dichotomy fit to rival "God of the gaps."

So now proposals to defund the police invoke the delusion that they have every possible motive for crime figured out; and they want us to, based on this tenuous reasoning, weaken the one institution known to hold crime back.

My question to them is; what if you're wrong? What is your plan B, if people have reasons for committing crimes that you fail to anticipate, predict, or comprehend, and these reasons are all unleashed? Is a return to policing as it was before possible, or would the change, or at least some of the effects thereof, be permanent? Is there a third option you could jump to from there, that might be relatively safer? If so, what is it?

My alternative? If we think we know why crime happens, then rather than defunding the police, why not address those supposed motives first, and then weaken police presence very slowly and gradually so if it works out badly we can reverse the trend before it's too late?

This post is forgetting the fact that right now, the police takes up like 50% of the average city's budget to the direct negligence of other services, demonstrably so.

You're looking at this whole thing completely wrong. If somebody says 'put money into mental health services' and the increased funding allows for them to take care of more people with issues, that doesn't necessarily mean that every potential criminal with issues is going to be barred. It doesn't even mean that the guy with bipolar who's planning on robbing a convenience store is going to be helped. But it will, in the larger scale, have a much bigger impact than plowing more money into the police's third tank.

And you're also very mistaken to say that police is the one institution to hold crime back. We know from other countries (and across the US, funnily enough) that welfare, healthcare, housing, jobs and education can and do impact the crime rates. The fact that these areas are neglected due to a lack of funding, a lack of funding directly correlated by over 50% of local budgets going to the police, is negatively affecting crime rates. It's irrational to conclude that the police are getting too big a slice of the pie, are feeling too powerful, and yet are not reducing crime.

Again, this doesn't mean that every crime will be stopped. That's why the call is to defund, not abolish the police. But it's foolish to say the police can stop every single crime when we damn well know that their workload could be drastically reduced by a bit more funding in other areas.

[Chan Island]

People are arguing whether defunding the police is a good idea and I'm sitting here, like: How about we reform the entire structure of police training, equipment and social programs altogether?

This is an institutional problem, not a budgetary one. The entire police structure right now is a leftover legacy of the 80s' War on Drugs. It's time we bring the police into the 21st century.

But of course, that will cost more, not less.

Institutions are directly impacted by their funding. Do you not think that these structures feeling all powerful and unaccountable is related to their vast amount of funding?

As it stands the police use that cash to buy military vehicles and spare assault rifles.