EDIT: Downvotes don't change the fact that you didn't read the article. Nobody is advocating for 'the purge'. Read the article or stop replying to my comment.
EDIT 2: If you're too lazy to read this article (it's dense, I get it), here are some others:
Take the rod out of your own eye. What do you believe and why? Is it based on facts?
Step back for a second. Some of these cities that are currently being ravaged by riots in the US are being run by left/liberal democrats. In places like Chicago/Detroit, they've been run by black democrats for years!
It is about class. They are well off minorities in power who are using the system to keep themselves in power, just like their non-minority counterparts. They are part of the problem. What if this is less about race and more about class (and yes, systemic racism is likely leading to more black people being kept in that lower class, but that's actually a slightly different issue).
In a period of extreme civil unrest, do we really need less security? Disbanding the police didn't work in Iraq. It turned things to chaos.
How about just more police, with less guns, less expensive vehicles, and get rid of all private prisons?
(I've responded to another comment in more depth if you're interested in that sort of thing.)
> How about just more police, with less guns, less expensive vehicles, and get rid of all private prisons?
How about we disarm all street cops (think 'parking enforcement officer'), end the war on drugs, and spend our money on things that actually help: healthcare for all, housing for all, public transportation, and social programs.
> Disbanding the police didn't work in Iraq.
I'm not familiar, could you share a link? I'm not sure that I understand the parallel, especially if you're thinking of the Iraqi Republican Guard ("elite troops of the Iraqi army directly reporting to Saddam Hussein" [0]).
The fact that you're asking me a question like that illustrates that you haven't read anything that I've said.
Community self-defense is absolutely necessary, and I'm not taking the position that acts like murder should be shrugged off. No amount of healthcare and housing and social programs will completely eradicate anti-social behavior, and at the end of the day we need to maintain public safety.
My point, which has been echoed by the various links that I've shared (and the article (which you're commenting on (which you should read!))), is that the vast majority of public safety problems don't need to be solved by the police. Quoting an article, because explaining this repeatedly is getting exhausting:
> Part of our misunderstanding about the nature of policing is we keep imagining that we can turn police into social workers. That we can make them nice, friendly community outreach workers. But police are violence workers. That's what distinguishes them from all other government functions. ... They have the legal capacity to use violence in situations where the average citizen would be arrested.
> So when we turn a problem over to the police to manage, there will be violence, because those are ultimately the tools that they are most equipped to utilize: handcuffs, threats, guns, arrests. That's what really is at the root of policing. So if we don't want violence, we should try to figure out how to not get the police involved.
People experiencing mental health crises don't need cops, they need social workers. Someone with a broken tail light doesn't need a cop, they need someone who can quickly and safely replace their tail light.
There are a small number of situations where public safety might require violence, but police officers are over-armed and under-qualified for the vast majority of calls they show up to. Last year the most common 911 call in my city was for an "unwanted person" [0], which I understand to mean 'experiencing homelessness', where cops really can't do anything to help. I'm optimistic that our communities would be better served by less-armed and more-qualified professionals who can use tools other than violence.
Your starting assertion: "The fact that you're asking me a question like that illustrates that you haven't read anything that I've said" is unnecessarily combative.
I was basing my question on the part of your comment where you suggested:
"How about we disarm all street cops"
I am generally in agreement that many first line encounters between cops and civilians could be better served by social workers, EMS, etc. but was curious about the idea of unarmed police in the US and how that might play out, especially in situations where the civilian is armed (which is not always known by dispatch nor the cops themselves, until it's too late).
Nitpick: Cops are civilians too. Every time the cops show up, the community has to deal with an "armed civilian".
> situations where the civilian is armed (which is not always known by dispatch nor the cops themselves, until it's too late)
Cops aren't the only government employees that interface with the [potentially armed] public though. Parking enforcement officers don't have guns, and it doesn't seem to me that they're regularly ambushed. I've found three cases where this has happened, although I'm sure there are others:
Anyway, yes, there are lots of people with guns, and that means that they may act erratically (to neighbors and government employees).
Showing up with guns and threatening them with violence makes many people behave more erratically, not less, and my hope would be that we don't have to worry about "what if that guy has a gun" because 'maintaining public safety' means replacing their broken headlight rather than giving them a ticket and a court date and demanding to search their vehicle while you're at it.
Sure: literally zero people who want to defund the police think that we should just snap our fingers tomorrow and fire every cop. The article explains this, but if HN commenters have the unfortunate habit of responding to the title rather than the contents.
Quoting an open letter [0] that's uncontroversial in 'defund the police' circles:
> Black communities are living in persistent fear of being killed by state authorities like police, immigration agents or even white vigilantes who are emboldened by state actors. According to the Urban Institute, in 1977, state and local governments spent $60 billion on police and corrections . In 2017, they spent $194 billion. A 220 percent increase. Despite continued profiling, harassment, terror and killing of Black communities, local and federal decision-makers continue to invest in the police, which leaves Black people vulnerable and our communities no safer.
>Where could that money go? It could go towards building healthy communities, to the health of our elders and children,to neighborhood infrastructure, to education, to childcare, to support a vibrant Black future. The possibilities are endless.
>We join in solidarity with the freedom fighters in Minneapolis, Louisville, and across the United States. And we call for the end to police terror.
>JOIN US IN DEMANDING YOUR LOCAL OFFICIALS TAKE THE PLEDGE TO:
> 1. Vote no on all increases to police budgets
> 2. Vote yes to decrease police spending and budgets
> 3. Vote yes to increase spending on Health care, education and community programs that keep us safe.
Nobody wants a situation where law enforcement magically disappears at midnight and we devolve into 'the purge'. We want to take the money spent on violence and spend it on solving problems instead of criminalizing symptoms. There's a nice Q&A by the author of The End of Policing [1] if you want to a more casual overview, although the ebook [2] is currently free.
EDIT: Downvotes don't change the fact that you didn't read the article. Nobody is advocating for 'the purge'. Read the article or stop replying to my comment.
EDIT 2: If you're too lazy to read this article (it's dense, I get it), here are some others:
- https://www.newsweek.com/defund-police-movement-growing-here...
- https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/06/03/457251670...