Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The point isn't that those were good old days, but that things do have the potential to be different. The manhunt and mob justice model, for all that it was, didn't have occupations lines of always-on-the-edge Punisher wannabes shouting random commands and shooting random (or not so random...) people.

There is zero advantage of armed enforcement for 90% of laws, and the cops barely even bother to help with the other 10% anyway. All that stuff can and should be assigned elsewhere, and preferably the massive rotting weight of all our useless victimless crimes thrown out as well. This isn't even going so far as to challenge the state's supremacy, just to put crimes before a judge before guns start being drawn.

[SalmonGod]

Sure.  All of human history before police was just violent chaos, I guess?  Everyone just murdered each other with impunity and that's how we all lived until after thousands of years, finally, someone invented police to save us from ourselves.

The point isn't that those were good old days, but that things do have the potential to be different.

And yes, thank you, that was my point.  It was just to put in perspective the notion that it's impossible to have a society without police.  You can argue details as to whether police have made society better, or whether the different circumstances of modern society require them.  But my point was that we had civilization for thousands of years without police.  They are not strictly a requirement to be capable of doing society.

And no, I don't personally believe that life before police was just rife with violent chaos.  Barbarians and bandits and wild west shootouts weren't the daily life experience of everyone for thousands of years.  Yes, they happened.  But our Hollywood depictions of history focus on them because they're sensational and suitable for entertaining media, not because they defined life in those ages.

[TamerVirus]

Bringing back the days of the sheriff and the posse, y'all

[Arbinire]

pretty convenient that these riots...excuse me, "protests" are happening worldwide now, but only in countries criticizing China for how they're dealing with Hong Kong.

[SOLDIER First]

is there, like, a point to this post

[Il Palazzo]

'The Chinese are behind it all'

[Egan_BW]

That's hilarious.

[Rolan7]

Hey maybe sheriffs should be answerable to the people
by being elected officials
all the time instead of just sometimes

Because it's complicated to be mad at someone for appointing a bad police chief or sheriff.  Much easier to be mad at the person who was appointed.  Maybe with enough effort you might even get them ousted!  And a replacement appointed...
(Of course even election is vulnerable to minority "interests" (lives) being discounted, but it's at least simpler.  Not hidden behind a layer of plausible deniability)

[martinuzz]

Isn't superman for hire, with his latest movies being such a failure?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Joe Arpaio was an elected sheriff and he made Maricopa County so bad the police brutality there got its own wikipedia page. He literally fomented armed insurrection against the federal government by turning his department into a counterintelligence agency and threatened to assassinate federal judges. He was sheriff for 24 years before finally losing an election, and then was rewarded for his service with a Presidential pardon right as it looked like he might actually face some consequences for his actions.

And right now, he's running to become sheriff of Maricopa County once again. See if he doesn't win.

Democracy! is not the cure for this ill. All of America's racist past was plenty democratic...for the people who's lives mattered.

[Frumple]

Yeah, not really. Remember 200 years ago people didn't generally have to go work for 8 hours leaving their houses unattended while their kids were also mandatorily required to go to school. People who had wealth back then generally did have armed guards, and poorer people lived in extended families and/or their home was their workplace. Without police people are going to have to really take home security into their own hands.

Haha holy shit, wait a second, you think police actually help much or at all with home security now?

I can't tell if it's a joke or you've just never had the chance to get something stolen from your home before. Cops aren't particularly good for deterrence or retrieval on that front, from what I've seen. Having your neighborhood (and/or surrounding ones) not be a fucking ruin is your better bet there :V

[Reelya]

I don't know about that: Joe Arpaio had his job through elections. Trump has his job through elections. Electing the police chiefs isn't some cure-all, it's actually probably worse than the disease. At least now, there are people who can dismiss the chief of police if things aren't going well. If that position is elected, you can't do that, you need to wait for the next election to get rid of them. So, real bad idea, and doesn't solve the problem.

Yeah, not really. Remember 200 years ago people didn't generally have to go work for 8 hours leaving their houses unattended while their kids were also mandatorily required to go to school. People who had wealth back then generally did have armed guards, and poorer people lived in extended families and/or their home was their workplace. Without police people are going to have to really take home security into their own hands.

Haha holy shit, wait a second, you think police actually help much or at all with home security now?

I can't tell if it's a joke or you've just never had the chance to get something stolen from your home before. Cops aren't particularly good for deterrence or retrieval on that front, from what I've seen. Having your neighborhood (and/or surrounding ones) not be a fucking ruin is your better bet there :V

But you haven't considered the situation where cops literally don't exist. Definitely, people would attempt many more crimes if there were no law enforcement officers who could stop them. Say there are 100 burglaries in your area, and the cops actually solve 5 of them. Then you say that they only stopped 5, so it was a waste of time, only 5% effective. But if there were no such thing as police in the first place, there would be 1000 burglaries. So they actually stopped 900 burglaries. Not by catching burglars, but by existing. That's kind of the point. the cops can't effectively stop that many crimes, but the mere existence of the threat in principle prevents many more crimes being committed in the first place.

It's the opportunity costs of not having police in the first place that you're not taking into account. If you don't at least nominally have police, you effectively live in a lawless place. And what happens when people realize there are no laws whatsoever? Extra bad shit, that's what. You're going to have racists just gunning down other people, and the most you can do about it is to complain on social media because that's legal now since there are no laws, hit and run drunk drivers killing kids with impunity. Not illegal now, because there's nobody to arrest or stop drunk drivers.

[Frumple]

I mean, you say that, but would they? Most to all of the reasons a burglar does or doesn't hit a house has exactly sod all to do with police presence. They're well aware the cops are probably going to do bugger all about them, preventative or otherwise. Getting rid of cops wouldn't change the calculus much at all.

Frankly, I could see a reverse correlation involved; fewer cops ruining lives and pushing people to/keeping them on the edge could easily mean fewer people having reason to steal crap from folks homes. Bringing cops to heel and/or getting rid of their adverse influences for your area is part of making your neighborhood be unruined, ha.

[martinuzz]

I don't think removing the police will significantly reduce 'reason to steal'.
Insignificant compared to poverty.

[Reelya]

I mean, you say that, but would they? Most to all of the reasons a burglar does or doesn't hit a house has exactly sod all to do with police presence. They're well aware the cops are probably going to do bugger all about them, preventative or otherwise. Getting rid of cops wouldn't change the calculus much at all.

Frankly, I could see a reverse correlation involved; fewer cops ruining lives and pushing people to/keeping them on the edge could easily mean fewer people having reason to steal crap from folks homes. Bringing cops to heel and/or getting rid of their adverse influences for your area is part of making your neighborhood be unruined, ha.

So you're arguing that making every legal won't cause more things that are currently illegal to occur? Basically you'd be legalizing murder, rape, slavery, etc. There have to be at least a few people who, if police literally didn't exist would think "well dang, I'm going to kidnap me some sex slaves". Hell, breeding sex slaves would be legal. And you're asking "what could go wrong if the police didn't exist". Like, fucking everything could go wrong. Before the idea of "modern police forces" they did in fact have laws, you could be arrested. There were armed people who enforced the laws. This idea that there was no "policing" and everything was fine is bullshit.