In recent years, dozens of officers worked more than 1,000 hours of overtime annually. Experts say these levels of extra work can lead to accidents and poor decision making in use of force situations.
So they didn’t abolish the police, they reformed it. That doesn’t disprove my statement, which in itself was not a shot at you, merely commentary on what you said.
You said
They are an emergent property of large social systems. Society will re-invent the role. We might as well fill the niche in a manner we want, instead of a manner we dont want.
And I don’t disagree, I merely stated that police of some sort, regardless of name, is not just an emergent property, but also a necessity. I never said that the way Americans do policing is THE way to do it. I’m not American myself.
Firstly, we already live in a lawless society; see any of the actions Trump has taken since January. Its just a matter of “for whom does the law apply?”
That’s more an America problem than a “police is inherently bad” problem if you ask me.
TL;DR: Yes, I agree, policing in the US needs heavy reforms. But the moment you go around saying “abolish the police”, you’re not talking about reforms, or at least that’s not what most people are going to hear. They’re going to think they’re going to have to live in The Purge. So maybe stop referring to it that way and people will give your ideas, which are actually good, more consideration.
No. The abolished it. They didn’t reform it. They abolished it.
But the moment you go around saying “abolish the police”, you’re not talking about reforms, or at least that’s not what most people are going to hear.
Stop it.
Don’t both misinterpret what I said and then put words I didn’t put down into my mouth. If your balls shrink into your chest when you hear “abolish the police”, thats a you problem. Likewise, if you are basing your decision making on “what most people want to hear”, you probably are both a) not an effective strategist, and even further b) not a very good person.
Abolish the police. If you can’t do that, de-fund them. Tip-toeing around the sensitivities of a deeply immoral people isn’t a strategy that gets results. It only gets you halfway to no-where.
They still have a police mate. The city one was dissolved on the same day the county one started operations. There was not a day without police.
Likewise, if you are basing your decision making on “what most people want to hear”, you probably are both a) not an effective strategist, and even further b) not a very good person.
Maybe a better salesman than you though. Not that I’m a salesman at all.
You’re selling a nice system, but calling it total mayhem and anarchy. Nobody’s gonna want to buy it.
You seem to forget that people have to vote for things to happen. In a democratic system, anyway. If you want people to vote for police reform, call it police reform, not police abolishment. People read headlines, not articles. Most people read that a candidate is for police abolishment, it’s an immediate nope for them. People don’t want to live in a lawless society and nobody’s gonna read into what the candidate says they mean by abolishment.
So they didn’t abolish the police, they reformed it. That doesn’t disprove my statement, which in itself was not a shot at you, merely commentary on what you said.
You said
And I don’t disagree, I merely stated that police of some sort, regardless of name, is not just an emergent property, but also a necessity. I never said that the way Americans do policing is THE way to do it. I’m not American myself.
That’s more an America problem than a “police is inherently bad” problem if you ask me.
TL;DR: Yes, I agree, policing in the US needs heavy reforms. But the moment you go around saying “abolish the police”, you’re not talking about reforms, or at least that’s not what most people are going to hear. They’re going to think they’re going to have to live in The Purge. So maybe stop referring to it that way and people will give your ideas, which are actually good, more consideration.
No. The abolished it. They didn’t reform it. They abolished it.
Stop it.
Don’t both misinterpret what I said and then put words I didn’t put down into my mouth. If your balls shrink into your chest when you hear “abolish the police”, thats a you problem. Likewise, if you are basing your decision making on “what most people want to hear”, you probably are both a) not an effective strategist, and even further b) not a very good person.
Abolish the police. If you can’t do that, de-fund them. Tip-toeing around the sensitivities of a deeply immoral people isn’t a strategy that gets results. It only gets you halfway to no-where.
They still have a police mate. The city one was dissolved on the same day the county one started operations. There was not a day without police.
Maybe a better salesman than you though. Not that I’m a salesman at all.
You’re selling a nice system, but calling it total mayhem and anarchy. Nobody’s gonna want to buy it.
You seem to forget that people have to vote for things to happen. In a democratic system, anyway. If you want people to vote for police reform, call it police reform, not police abolishment. People read headlines, not articles. Most people read that a candidate is for police abolishment, it’s an immediate nope for them. People don’t want to live in a lawless society and nobody’s gonna read into what the candidate says they mean by abolishment.