Do we even need police?

[Philjia]

The police fulfil several important and specialised functions, but it is not strictly necessary, or even desirable, for them to be carried out by the same body. Detectives and other investigators should be independent of other branches of law enforcement so as to avoid conflicts of interest when crimes are committed by other law enforcement, and uniformed officers have duties which they are not procedurally or morally equipped to deal with. People who are trained to kill, while regrettably sometimes needed, should not be the same people who police most, if not all, communities. The police, especially in the US, need to be broken up into more constituent parts based on function, demilitarised, and have their funding diverted into multiple streams to prevent it being so readily abused.

[Ostroeuropa]

The posse system worked back when almost everything was legal.

Society is now too complex for that to work, and it's dubious if it worked back then too. I'd wager a number of murderers got away with it because the posse just blamed someone they didn't like.

Posse System? What's that?

There used to be no such thing as the police. Just the elected Sheriff who had the power to deputize citizens when a crime was reported. The citizens would then form an armed mob and carry out the arrest before being disbanded. This is how law enforcement worked for like, thousands of years in cases where there weren't soldiers acting as law enforcement.

The US in particular was fond of this system and it forms part of the reasoning behind the 2nd and 3rd ammendments.

The 3rd ammendment "No quartering of troops" and lack of a standing army seems bizarre today, but it's down to the whole;

"If I asked you to tell me what a police officer looked like before the 1900s, what would your answer be? If it was 'A soldier', you win a prize.".

The 3rd ammendment and lack of a standing army was the founding fathers answer to police brutality and a militarized police.

In context the 3rd ammendment is an anti-police ammendment and that's why it slots in between "Get a warrant" and "The people must be armed".

But you know. Defund the police is socialism and conservatives love the constitution and shit supposedly.

Ironically the hardcore "No, literally abolish the police" position is one the founding fathers espoused. It's why their grievance against the British mentions law enforcement activities by the redcoats constantly. Once you understand that the army *were the police* you start to view their independence declaration differently in light of modern incidents.

You could pretty much get the declaration of independence and word for word repeat those sections with the modern context about the US police as an explanation for why Americans are seceding from their own government.

[Ethel mermania]

Posse System? What's that?

There used to be no such thing as the police. Just the elected Sheriff who had the power to deputize citizens when a crime was reported. The citizens would then form an armed mob and carry out the arrest before being disbanded. This is how law enforcement worked for like, thousands of years in cases where there weren't soldiers acting as law enforcement.

The US in particular was fond of this system and it forms part of the reasoning behind the 2nd and 3rd ammendments.

The 3rd ammendment "No quartering of troops" and lack of a standing army seems bizarre today, but it's down to the whole;

"If I asked you to tell me what a police officer looked like before the 1900s, what would your answer be? If it was 'A soldier', you win a prize.".

The 3rd ammendment and lack of a standing army was the founding fathers answer to police brutality and a militarized police.

3rd amendment was specifically against the British armys habit of having soldiers being quartered in private homes during the colonial period

[Atheris]

Posse System? What's that?

There used to be no such thing as the police. Just the elected Sheriff who had the power to deputize citizens when a crime was reported. The citizens would then form an armed mob and carry out the arrest before being disbanded. This is how law enforcement worked for like, thousands of years in cases where there weren't soldiers acting as law enforcement.

The US in particular was fond of this system and it forms part of the reasoning behind the 2nd and 3rd ammendments.

The 3rd ammendment "No quartering of troops" and lack of a standing army seems bizarre today, but it's down to the whole;

"If I asked you to tell me what a police officer looked like before the 1900s, what would your answer be? If it was 'A soldier', you win a prize.".

The 3rd ammendment and lack of a standing army was the founding fathers answer to police brutality and a militarized police.

In context the 3rd ammendment is an anti-police ammendment and that's why it slots in between "Get a warrant" and "The people must be armed".

But you know. Defund the police is socialism and conservatives love the constitution and shit supposedly.

Ironically the hardcore "No, literally abolish the police" position is one the founding fathers espoused.

...No.

[Ostroeuropa]

There used to be no such thing as the police. Just the elected Sheriff who had the power to deputize citizens when a crime was reported. The citizens would then form an armed mob and carry out the arrest before being disbanded. This is how law enforcement worked for like, thousands of years in cases where there weren't soldiers acting as law enforcement.

The US in particular was fond of this system and it forms part of the reasoning behind the 2nd and 3rd ammendments.

The 3rd ammendment "No quartering of troops" and lack of a standing army seems bizarre today, but it's down to the whole;

"If I asked you to tell me what a police officer looked like before the 1900s, what would your answer be? If it was 'A soldier', you win a prize.".

The 3rd ammendment and lack of a standing army was the founding fathers answer to police brutality and a militarized police.

3rd amendment was specifically against the British armys habit of having soldiers being quartered in private homes during the colonial period

Right, but dude, why do you think it's in there in between regulations on law enforcement and the need for people to be armed, as well as in the context of sections of the constitution banning a standing army?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI

[Ethel mermania]

3rd amendment was specifically against the British armys habit of having soldiers being quartered in private homes during the colonial period

Right, but dude, why do you think it's in there in between regulations on law enforcement and the need for people to be armed, as well as in the context of sections of the constitution banning a standing army?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI

The constitution doesn't ban a standing army.

[Ostroeuropa]

Right, but dude, why do you think it's in there in between regulations on law enforcement and the need for people to be armed, as well as in the context of sections of the constitution banning a standing army?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI

The constitution doesn't ban a standing army.

The constitution only allows an army to be raised for 2 years before being disbanded.
The US government gets around it by just continually "raising" it again before the deadline.

It does however allow a standing navy. Which is why for most of US history, the marines did most of the work of the army.

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... 8_C12_1_1/

"Prompted by the fear of standing armies to which Story alluded, the framers inserted the limitation that no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years."


Those fears are directly related to the Army and Police being the same thing at the time.

The US was in part founded because of riots in response to police shootings.

[Thermodolia]

So replace the police force with a police force. Because that makes sense.

When the latter is different from the former, yes, it does.

Press X to doubt.

Also people aren’t going to volunteer for police services. Volunteer fire departments have trouble keeping volunteers because Ya don’t make money and need another job to survive which incidentally cuts into volunteer fire fighting.

"Volunteer" doesn't have to mean "unpaid". I would think that you'd know this, having yourself volunteered to serve in the armed forces. The army did pay you, didn't they?

Volunteer firefighters aren’t paid dude. They all have day jobs. The same thing would happen here. Also you do realize that people volunteer to be cops right? Just in the same way that I volunteered to be in the military

[Ethel mermania]

The constitution doesn't ban a standing army.

The constitution only allows an army to be raised for 2 years before being disbanded.
The US government gets around it by just continually "raising" it again before the deadline.

It does however allow a standing navy. Which is why for most of US history, the marines did most of the work of the army.

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... 8_C12_1_1/

"Prompted by the fear of standing armies to which Story alluded, the framers inserted the limitation that no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years."

It said congress can not fund an army for more than 2 years, not that congress can not legislate the creation of a standing army. It just can't fund longer periods of time at one shot.

[Atheris]

Right, but dude, why do you think it's in there in between regulations on law enforcement and the need for people to be armed, as well as in the context of sections of the constitution banning a standing army?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI

The constitution doesn't ban a standing army.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:

[Congress shall have Power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years[.]

[Ostroeuropa]

The constitution only allows an army to be raised for 2 years before being disbanded.
The US government gets around it by just continually "raising" it again before the deadline.

It does however allow a standing navy. Which is why for most of US history, the marines did most of the work of the army.

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... 8_C12_1_1/

"Prompted by the fear of standing armies to which Story alluded, the framers inserted the limitation that no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years."

It said congress can not fund an army for more than 2 years, not that congress can not legislate the creation of a standing army. It just can't fund longer periods of time at one shot.

I agree that's how the government has gotten around it due to the poor wording of the article. But the reasoning behind it is extremely clear given the historical context and the arguments being made at the time.

[Nevertopia]

Sanghyeok with a real spicy banger once again. We dont need police, we need good police.

[Ethel mermania]

The constitution doesn't ban a standing army.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:

[Congress shall have Power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years[.]

Thats not a ban

[Ethel mermania]

It said congress can not fund an army for more than 2 years, not that congress can not legislate the creation of a standing army. It just can't fund longer periods of time at one shot.

I agree that's how the government has gotten around it due to the poor wording of the article. But the reasoning behind it is extremely clear given the historical context and the arguments being made at the time.

I think the wording was intentional, I don't disagree the framers had a fear of standing armies and were looking to put limits around it. (see the 2nd and 3rd amendments) But that is very different than banning them.

[Major-Tom]

Yes, we do. I've had my life saved by a cop, a community advocate couldn't have done the same for me I reckon.

That said, I'm a standard looking white guy. Many working-class people, black people, other people of color etc, they feel the full brunt of systemic classism and racism within Departments, and ordinary people regardless of color or creed can fall victim to an unjust police officer or an unjust Department. We need to work for police reform, abolish qualified immunity, and ultimately make sure that police officers need a college degree and a helluva lot more training.

In addition, the behemoths known as police unions need to be structurally reformed and weeded out of their frat-like mindset of unyielding allegiance to one another, even when an individual commits some serious wrongdoings.

Our PDs in the US are often institutionally crooked, but the knee-jerk response would be to abolish them, but that simply isn't the logical or thought-provoking response. We can ultimately do a lot more with a lot less empty rhetoric.

I'm sure some people had their lives saved by their feudal lord's men-at-arms. Some people had their lives saved by Spartan hoplites. Some people had their lives saved by slave patrols. While saving lives is obviously a very good thing to do, I'm a big fan of lives and the saving of them, that alone does not justify the existence of an organisation or system.

Respectfully, you completely glossed over the rest of my point. I started with an anecdote and moved down to my rationale for why we need radical reform.

[Ostroeuropa]

I agree that's how the government has gotten around it due to the poor wording of the article. But the reasoning behind it is extremely clear given the historical context and the arguments being made at the time.

I think the wording was intentional, I don't disagree the framers had a fear of standing armies and were looking to put limits around it. (see the 2nd and 3rd amendments) But that is very different than banning them.

If this were the case why did the US go so long without a standing army?

[Senkaku]

No police. Only the Panopticon

[Ethel mermania]

I think the wording was intentional, I don't disagree the framers had a fear of standing armies and were looking to put limits around it. (see the 2nd and 3rd amendments) But that is very different than banning them.

If this were the case why did the US go so long without a standing army?

While the Continental army was disbanded after the revolution The US army predates the constitution

And on this topic I think we agree, a police force is necessary in a modern society.

[The Two Jerseys]

Seven hundred thousand police officers in the US, "but lets railroad them all over the actions of a negative minority element".

police shootings are definitely NOT in the minority, they happen way too often, you just don't pay attention apparently

The number of people murdered in Philadelphia in 2019 (347) is about 3800% higher than the number of people shot by the Philadelphia Police Department in that year (9).

But no, it's the police who are trigger-happy...

[The Reformed American Republic]

Yes, we do. I've had my life saved by a cop, a community advocate couldn't have done the same for me I reckon.

That said, I'm a standard looking white guy. Many working-class people, black people, other people of color etc, they feel the full brunt of systemic classism and racism within Departments, and ordinary people regardless of color or creed can fall victim to an unjust police officer or an unjust Department. We need to work for police reform, abolish qualified immunity, and ultimately make sure that police officers need a college degree and a helluva lot more training.

In addition, the behemoths known as police unions need to be structurally reformed and weeded out of their frat-like mindset of unyielding allegiance to one another, especially when an individual commits some serious wrongdoings.

Our PDs in the US are often institutionally crooked, but the knee-jerk response would be to abolish them, but that simply isn't the logical or thought-provoking response. We can ultimately do a lot more with a lot less empty rhetoric. For those who say, too, "we can replace the police with (X)," you're ostensibly replacing them with, well, the police. Hence why PD and Court reforms make a lot more sense.

To be honest, I think its almost all classism over racism, as people like OJ Simpson are treated very well in jail and prison and by our criminal justice system. Class seems to be the thing that gets people out of trouble, not race. I'm not saying you won't find racism, but I think class plays a much bigger role. The wealthy can pay to get away but poor people pay the price.

[Thermodolia]

Yes, we do. I've had my life saved by a cop, a community advocate couldn't have done the same for me I reckon.

That said, I'm a standard looking white guy. Many working-class people, black people, other people of color etc, they feel the full brunt of systemic classism and racism within Departments, and ordinary people regardless of color or creed can fall victim to an unjust police officer or an unjust Department. We need to work for police reform, abolish qualified immunity, and ultimately make sure that police officers need a college degree and a helluva lot more training.

In addition, the behemoths known as police unions need to be structurally reformed and weeded out of their frat-like mindset of unyielding allegiance to one another, especially when an individual commits some serious wrongdoings.

Our PDs in the US are often institutionally crooked, but the knee-jerk response would be to abolish them, but that simply isn't the logical or thought-provoking response. We can ultimately do a lot more with a lot less empty rhetoric. For those who say, too, "we can replace the police with (X)," you're ostensibly replacing them with, well, the police. Hence why PD and Court reforms make a lot more sense.

To be honest, I think its almost all classism over racism, as people like OJ Simpson are treated very well in jail and prison and by our criminal justice system. Class seems to be the thing that gets people out of trouble, not race. I'm not saying you won't find racism, but I think class plays a much bigger role. The wealthy can pay to get away but poor people pay the price.

Case and point Caitlyn Jenner. She literally murdered someone with her car yet because she’s rich and famous she walks while the rest of us would be fucked in the ass

[The Two Jerseys]

If this were the case why did the US go so long without a standing army?

While the Continental army was disbanded after the revolution The US army predates the constitution

And on this topic I think we agree, a police force is necessary in a modern society.

Technically the US has always had a standing army, there's one Regular Army artillery battery that has an unbroken lineage back to 1776.

[Atheris]

Technically the US has always had a standing army, there's one Regular Army artillery battery that has an unbroken lineage back to 1776.

Really? Which one?

Case and point Caitlyn Jenner. She literally murdered someone with her car yet because she’s rich and famous she walks while the rest of us would be fucked in the ass

She did? When?

[Ifreann]

Of course we don't need the police. We managed just fine without them for quite some time. Most of human history, in fact. Certainly every society has had something going on in the way of community defence, but those things were not the police, they had wildly varying powers and duties in different times and places, and there is no reason to believe that going forward our societies will always need to have our community defence take the form of the police.

We also managed just fine without modern medicine, or modern appliances. Most of human history, in fact.

Humanity is durable together, but that doesn't mean that our suffering doesn't necessitate solutions.

And it doesn't mean desperately holding on to the things we have now out of a false belief that we cannot do without them. We can do away with the things we have now so as to put in place new and better things, just as we did in the past to the things that were then modern when we invented the things that are now modern.

That being said, I would rather have police answering to a central state, which the people can control and oversee,

Well, therein lies the rub, eh? The people can't control and oversee the modern centralised state. Look at the lengths the American people have been going to in an effort to get the police to stop killing them. Months and months of protests being attacked by the very police forces they were protesting, all for a few reforms here and there. The people do not have control over the forces who are policing them.

than dozens of different militias and watchmen answering to separate towns and villages. Decentralization means less coordination, less coverage and less effectiveness in capturing criminals. Not to mention that these militias and watchmen can be weaponized and cause local wars whenever there is tension between towns and villages.

The people who propose to have the power to break into my house and beat the shit out of me, to kill me if I resist and to drag me away to a cell if I don't, should be answerable to me and every other person over whom they propose to have that power.

---

I'm sure some people had their lives saved by their feudal lord's men-at-arms. Some people had their lives saved by Spartan hoplites. Some people had their lives saved by slave patrols. While saving lives is obviously a very good thing to do, I'm a big fan of lives and the saving of them, that alone does not justify the existence of an organisation or system.

Yes, because who needs doctors and a health system when we have medieval healers doing the same thing.

My point is that just because the system we have now results in some good things does not necessarily mean that we ought to keep that system. Just like how the systems we had in the past did sometimes have good results did not stop us from abolishing them and replacing them with the systems we have now.

Are you seriously comparing modern society and ancient times? Police is needed, you might have criticism against it, but it's abolition is just dumb.

I'm sure people said likewise about all the monarchies we've abolished throughout the ages.

Policing isn't just neighborhood policing, it's also combating human trafficking and drug trafficking, cartels, mafia, gangs. How are you gonna fight that without police? The army? Because all those forces you mentioned would be the modern days military and policing requires a different way of doing things, obviously.

We can fight those things with whatever organisations we find it necessary to establish to replace the police. We can find better ways to fight them than just sending in the police to beat people up and arrest them. We can look at the conditions in society that lead people to committing crimes and see if we can change those conditions instead of just locking up the people who commit crimes.

---

When the latter is different from the former, yes, it does.

Press X to doubt.

"Volunteer" doesn't have to mean "unpaid". I would think that you'd know this, having yourself volunteered to serve in the armed forces. The army did pay you, didn't they?

Volunteer firefighters aren’t paid dude. They all have day jobs.

"Volunteer" doesn't have to mean "unpaid", but sometimes it does mean that.

The same thing would happen here.

Would it? Why? If this is happening in a society where people need to be paid in order to live, then I don't see why we shouldn't pay the people who will be defending our community.

Also you do realize that people volunteer to be cops right? Just in the same way that I volunteered to be in the military

And just like you volunteered to be in the military and still got paid, people can volunteer to be in theoretical future community defence forces and still get paid. This is true, even though people sometimes volunteer to do things and don't get paid.

---

I'm sure some people had their lives saved by their feudal lord's men-at-arms. Some people had their lives saved by Spartan hoplites. Some people had their lives saved by slave patrols. While saving lives is obviously a very good thing to do, I'm a big fan of lives and the saving of them, that alone does not justify the existence of an organisation or system.

Respectfully, you completely glossed over the rest of my point. I started with an anecdote and moved down to my rationale for why we need radical reform.

And I agree that you need radical reform. All the reforms you mentioned would be good and helpful. But however much you reform the police, they're still an institution that is not accountable to you but that has power over you, the power of life and death. They still serve the state and capital and their role is not to protect and serve you, but to keep you from disrupting the economy and threatening the upward flow of wealth.

[Muralos]

Technically the US has always had a standing army, there's one Regular Army artillery battery that has an unbroken lineage back to 1776.

Really? Which one?

Case and point Caitlyn Jenner. She literally murdered someone with her car yet because she’s rich and famous she walks while the rest of us would be fucked in the ass

She did? When?

Here’s a report on the car crash Jenner was involved in: https://abcnews.go.com/gma/culture/cait ... d=52637141

Perhaps not murder, but it may constitute vehicular manslaughter...