even if you don't think American police can be reformed (valid) you are just going to end up hiring new cops and calling them something else.
even if you don't think American police can be reformed (valid) you are just going to end up hiring new cops and calling them something else.
.... is it valid, though? is it? there's no viable alternative *but* reform, we shouldn't validate people with insane and unrealistic political views
it depends what 'reform' means. 'firing everyone and starting over' is technically reform
i think "firing everyone and starting over" is basically abolition?
I wouldn't call what Camden NJ did abolition, I doubt many would
i don't even know what you're talking about so i couldn't really comment
it's pretty much my best guess at how to fix at least some of the problems: www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...
so firing and then rehiring in the most literal sense, then, i thought something else was going on here
yeah the other big thing they did was disincorporate the city’s police department and instead make it subject to the county committee’s jurisdiction, which did help a bit because the camden city government is comically corrupt
They were going to have all the cops in Camden County be part of the new County Police, but the other cities wouldn't cooperate. So it was in effect a one for one replacement in terms of the agency jurisdiction. Still a good model IMO, if the state can replace a bad local force.
like I said, abolition will, barring the historically unprecedented, end up reinventing cops because they serve a vital social function in complex societies.
I'd settle for the next iteration of emergency reponse and criminal investigation to be a) separate if interlinked functions and b) actually under the control of the governments that pay them. For many (most?) cities is the US they're basically sinecured gangs with no real oversight or checks.
I don't believe in social darwinism for *people* but societies? the evidence is pretty clearly in favor
Do you think regular police should have guns?
fewer of them should. traffic cops do not need to be packing
the first time a cop gets shot during a traffic stop the rest of the cops (or not-cops) are going to riot. they're also the first line of defense when shit goes down because when there's a shooting, the nearest responding cops are all going to be traffic cops.
What do you think should happen to all those civilian owned guns?
the answer of what I think should happen and what is politically possible even in extraordinary circumstances are not the same
What do you think is the most that is politically possible?
maybe preventing new sales or creating a national firearms registry? you're not confiscating guns. of any type. that's a thing that's never going to happen, ever
my theory has always been an *extravagantly expensive* buyback program, (while also making certain configurations flatly illegal.) literally throw money at the problem. (and yes, its basically reparations for gun owners, but also what the fuck is money for, ya know)
If it worked to end slavery in Britain, I'm sure it can work to drastically reduce the number of loose guns! Although I don't think the US should get rid of all guns - there are bears etc. after all.
It would take decades. It's not entirely impossible, but it won't happen within our generation. It will take multiple generations of kids growing up where their only interactions with guns are their grandpa's old rifle in his safe that he's never gotten out in front of them.
Is there simply *no way* to enforce the rule of law without an armed force which acts like a gang, prizing loyalty among themselves above all and seeing themselves as bosses of the citizenry rather than servants, and culturally Right-tending-fascist? Because that's ALL countries, not just the US
No, there's ways to fix those problems. Maybe we don't know what they are yet, but we should try. Just that we know what "no police" looks like (it looks like police with even less accountability, in the best circumstances).