CDZ Abolish the Police?

task0778

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2017
12,310
11,414
2,265
Texas hill country
The latest call to action from some criminal-justice activists: “Abolish the police.” From the streets of Chicago to the city council of Seattle, and in the pages of academic journals ranging from the Cardozo Law Review to the Harvard Law Review and of mainstream publications from the Boston Review to Rolling Stone, advocates and activists are building a case not just to reform policing—viewed as an oppressive, violent, and racist institution—but to do away with it altogether. When I first heard this slogan, I assumed that it was a figure of speech, used to legitimize more expansive criminal-justice reform. But after reading the academic and activist literature, I realized that “abolish the police” is a concrete policy goal. The abolitionists want to dismantle municipal police departments and see “police officers disappearing from the streets.”

One might dismiss such proclamations as part of a fringe movement, but advocates of these radical views are gaining political momentum in numerous cities. In Seattle, socialist city council candidate Shaun Scott, who ran on a “police abolition” platform, came within 1,386 votes of winning elected office. During his campaign, he argued that the city must “[disinvest] from the police state” and “build towards a world where nobody is criminalized for being poor.” At a debate hosted by the Seattle Police Officers Guild, Scott blasted “so-called officers” for their “deep and entrenched institutional ties to racism” that produced an “apparatus of overaggressive and racist policing that has emerged to steer many black and brown bodies back into, in essence, a form of slavery.” Another Seattle police abolitionist, Kirsten Harris-Talley, served briefly in as an appointed city councilwoman. Both Scott and Harris-Talley enjoy broad support from the city’s progressive establishment.

What would abolishing police mean as a practical policy matter? Nothing very practical. In The Nation, Mychal Denzel Smith argues that police should be replaced by “full social, economic, and political equality.” Harris-Talley, meantime, has traced policing’s origins back to slavery. “How do you reform an institution that from its inception was made to control, maim, condemn, and kill people?” she asks. “Reform it back to what?” If cities can eliminate poverty through affordable housing and “investing in community,” she believes, the police will become unnecessary. Others argue that cities must simply “help people resolve conflicts through peace circles and restorative justice programs.”


Abolish the Police?

Me: absolute idiocy. Anarchy. Sure, racism still exists, not as bad as it once did but it's still a problem. And it exists everywhere, not just in the police force. And we should be doing a better job of rooting it out and firing those who cannot perform their duty in an impartial manner. Or, in some cases indict and convict them if the evidence warrants. For too many, they face little or no repercussions and that's ain't right.

But hell's bells guys, you don't abolish the police altogether, you do what needs to be done to make our institutions function more properly and honorably.
 
Perhaps the police in those jurisdictions should stand down for a few days, or maybe a week, especially the security details of those favoring abolishment.
 
Its complete and utter nonsense coming from the looney left. Furthermore, it will never ever happen in any city of more than 2000 people.
 
Abolish the police? Absolutely not- but, limit their authority, absolutely- they are not judge, jury and executioners- they used to be called Peace Officers- they didn't get the reputation as thugs until they began, systemically, acting like thugs- power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely- IF they are to be judge, jury and executioners abolish the courts- Nixon started the thuggish behavior with his labeling them Law En FORCE ment- using force is immoral- under the color of law doesn't change that- the founders abhorred a Standing Army for a reason- and yes, in a uniform, wearing a badge and carrying a gun, acting under the color of law, Country wide, is a Standing Army-
 
Never heard one single person ever say abolish the police, left right or center, many people want police held to higher standards.
 
Abolish the police? Absolutely not- but, limit their authority, absolutely- they are not judge, jury and executioners- they used to be called Peace Officers- they didn't get the reputation as thugs until they began, systemically, acting like thugs- power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely- IF they are to be judge, jury and executioners abolish the courts- Nixon started the thuggish behavior with his labeling them Law En FORCE ment- using force is immoral- under the color of law doesn't change that- the founders abhorred a Standing Army for a reason- and yes, in a uniform, wearing a badge and carrying a gun, acting under the color of law, Country wide, is a Standing Army-

The first 5 words: "Abolish the police? Absolutely not" are good, but the rest is nonsense.

"limit their authority" - it's already limited. If some abuse it and step over the line then they need to dealt with appropriately

"they are not judge, jury and executioners" - correct, they are not. Police officers do not go out on duty planning to execute somebody. True, some have badly misused their authority and should have been held accountable. Neither do they have the authority to act as judge and jury. They arrive on the scene where they were called, gather information, and take the appropriate measures as prescribed under the law. Usually after consulting with their superiors. Mistakes can and have been made and will continue to be made, sometimes they overreact and sometimes they are given erroneous information by the public. Sometimes excessive force is applied unnecessarily. And sometimes a suspect doesn't follow the cop's instructions, and as a result he or she runs the risk of getting shot if the officers think a violent attack is imminent.

"they didn't get the reputation as thugs until they began, systemically, acting like thugs" - police officers are not thugs, and shame on you for denigrated the large number of responsible and honorable officers based on the misdeeds of a few.

"using force is immoral" - bull crap. It is sometimes necessary to save lives, including their own.

"in a uniform, wearing a badge and carrying a gun, acting under the color of law, Country wide, is a Standing Army" - pure nonsense. Police officers have no authority outside of their own jurisdiction. They are not about to band together into a 'Standing Army'. Absolute rubbish.
 
The biggest problem that we have is that everyone mistakenly believe that by becoming a police officer that person somehow becomes better then every other human. They fail to understand that the person is still human, still subject to the same mistakes, same thoughts, same feelings. Until we can some how create better humans then those things will still remain.

A police officer still wants to remain alive at the end of the day. Threaten someone, any ones life and they will respond.

We have good and bad in all walks of life. There are bad doctors, bad lawyers bad everything. We have no way to successfully weed out bad from the good without them being on the job. We can play with all the psychological tests we want but that will never weed out the bad from the good.
 
End the failed social experiment of Prohibtion regarding the war on drugs.
This war on the citizens has done more to erode rights, emboldened the cartels, sowed distrust of law enforcement, created turf wars over a flourishing black market, wasted police resources, and has been an expensive futile effort to control human behavior, which only has had the opposite desired effect.
 
Police officers have no authority outside of their own jurisdiction.
In their jurisdiction they are a standing army- systemic abuse is not confined to a jurisdiction- as for the rest of your commentary: One man's trash is another man's treasure. Most laws are about "treasure" confiscation- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder- I see no beauty in abusing authority- law en FORCE ment is not a Peace Officer-
 
That's been on the agenda for a few years in some places like Chicago.There are activists calling for it.

The problem with what these people are proposing is that the police are on the front line making arrests after said law has been broken. Therefore, change the law and they won't have to make arrests. People are doing that anyway, no?

John Locke Second Treatise. What now?

Here is the situation. I give up my right to play vigilante which I consented to. It appears that a large group of people have clearly withdrawn their consent.

I'm going to tell you what's going to happen. That pendulum is going to be forced to swing so hard to the right........you're going to have something to cry about.
 
Last edited:
Most laws are about "treasure" confiscation-
As in confiscation to the state of property, such as a $40,000 vehicle for minor drug offenses or seeking sex through prostitution.
The story of the black guy who died during arrest for the crime of selling single cigarettes.
Our police have become revenue collectors for the state and morality enforcers for politicians.
 
Police officers have no authority outside of their own jurisdiction.
In their jurisdiction they are a standing army- systemic abuse is not confined to a jurisdiction- as for the rest of your commentary: One man's trash is another man's treasure. Most laws are about "treasure" confiscation- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder- I see no beauty in abusing authority- law en FORCE ment is not a Peace Officer-

Most laws are NOT about 'treasure' confiscation, but rather deal with issues of public safety and security. There are such things as 'speed traps' where local police issue speeding tickets to the unwary at the direction of the local gov't. Not as much as there used to be though, and we ought to disallow such crap. For that we have to depend on the local news to inform us of what's going on, and sometimes the local news is somewhat squelched.

There is no systemic abuse, there are places where the abuse of power is quite minor and other places where it is a significant problem. What happens in NYC has nothing to do with what happens in Chicago, Detroit, Idaho, or anywhere else. It is a local problem that should be addessed locally.

A peace officer is generally a law enforcement officer, which may include a variety of positions responsible for enforcing laws, such as police, probation officers, correctional facility personnel, juvenile justice employees, attorney generals, and others. The precise definition of a peace officer is governed by state laws, which vary by state.

Peace Officer Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Dude: if the police do not enforce the laws, there won't be much 'peace'.
 
Last edited:
Me: absolute idiocy...

I agree. However, that is if you take the slogan and movement by only their exact words. Because I think we need to exactly abolish the, practices, of the current racist police system.

For example, do you think law-abiding, hardworking negros like mr. David Jones within the ghetto, want police abolish? Absurd.

Police protection is the main reason Jones is able to come home each day to his impressive-looking, ghetto abode. Yes. Police keep the ghettos' thugs limited to just, walking right on by, when they see the appetizing homes of the ghettos' law-abiding hardworking negros like Jones.

IMHO when we all agree that *sure racism still exists in America* at the very same time that we 1)refuse to define what that phrase means here in real time plus 2)refuse to acknowledge any victims identified as currently getting raped by White racism ... then this creates the problem known as, paying only lip service, to solving a decades-old crisis. Yes. IMHO we are then deceiving our own power as White citizens re: forcing tangible change within the racist practices and the misconduct of USA police agencies ---toward Black citizens.

This is our country, not Black people's country. They have never controlled any aspect of America. We do! So...If we ever stop playing pretend about why the police can do, whatEVER they do, then we are no longer those White people who evolve problems of inequality.
 
We have these things called elections. It's not some vague-ish unknowable race floating above people randomly striking out. That is a diversionary tactic in and of itself.
 
We can't abolish law enforcement in the United States because it's part of making America great again!
 
LOL about 1/10th of one percent of police are arrested each year 1100 arrested a year and there are over 1 million armed police. 1000 people are killed a year by police with almost all of them JUSTIFIED killings. The press and idiots have lied to you about a problem that does NOT exists. Name any other profession where 1/10th of one percent are bad.
 

Forum List

Back
Top