I’m not an expert on any of this. Just a caveat, I’m sure anything I propose will have it’s share of flaws.

State law enforcement (men armed with guns apprehending private citizens) should be the LAST step. For in-the-moment intervention, cops are already useless - unless they happen to be on site already, whatever violence happen, will happen before they get there. There’s no good answer to stopping a determined violent individual, short of empowering people to defend themselves and others around them.

I think there’s always going to be some level of violent crime. Some people simply don’t function the same way. For these people, we clearly need some kind of active response force. It’s use should be limited, based on hard fact and actual threat to civilian life. We also clearly need some kind of (humane) separation for people who cannot or will not rehabilitate, people who cannot be reintegrated into our society. These are two of the only acceptable uses of state violence, in my opinion.

I don’t know the exact way it would look, but I’d like to see a move towards communities looking after themselves and those around them, in all aspects, and this includes safety and security.

Unfortunately, for property crimes, the only way to actually enforce property ownership is through violence, either direct threat of violence (break my shit and I’ll end you), or state violence (break my shit and the state will send armed men to apprehend you unless you reimburse me). We have to determine what level of property security versus violence we seem acceptable. I tend to fall a bit more extreme towards violence not being okay to protect property - I don’t think there’s a single piece of property worth killing or maiming an individual over. Thus, if the only way to protect property is this level of violence, I believe it is wrong to intervene. I don’t believe it is right for the individual to intervene, and I don’t believe it is right for the state to intervene. The sad truth is that most of what the police force does now is enforce these types of crimes.

Holy shit I haven’t thought about frybread in like, a decade and now you made me think about it. How dare you.

Gid is gud

I didn’t say that the policing model goes away, or that we should have secret police a LA the USSR.

The words I said were: your country’s economic model informs what laws you hold valuable.

This is easily true. We currently have the system in place of “get more, more good.” An abundance of our laws, some of the ones we hold most dear, adhere to that. Protecting property is one thing that our legal system and police force does well.

Contrast to a more equality based economic model. If our society values raising people who are down up, sometimes at a mild cost to someone who’s already doing well, then our laws change. Suddenly we see a value shift in our legal system from get more/protect what we have, to let’s help the downtrodden a bit.

Second, I said that this all informs what policing you have.

Again, this pretty naturally follows from the previous point. Police exist to uphold the laws, at least ostensibly. Their interfacing with society depends on what society has said we hold valuable enough to codify into law. This is where you might get such laws as rent control, where we have determined it’s valuable to set limits to the year over year increase someone has to pay for their dwelling, at the slight cost of some profit to the owner.

All of these things are connected. Correct, socialism isn’t a method of policing, but our method of policing is born of what our society holds valuable. It’s all connected.

I’m not going to keep going on this rhetoric treadmill with you. Once again, I agree in bulk with what you’re saying, I’m merely trying to point out why you’re not really having an impact with the words you’re saying. Im reasonably sure you know exactly what kinds of examples people want to see. Both refusing to supply them or acting ignorant to the request degrade your argument and make it feel like you aren’t arguing in good faith, you’re just shouting talking points.

Disarming: I don’t think there should be no weapons in the hands of law enforcement. Without significantly changing the mindset of how law enforcement must work in our society, yes, having the option to meet a significant resistance with firepower is required. To me, disarming is removing firearms from the average cop. None of the standard patrol officers you’re going to run into in your day-to-day should be carrying a pistol on their hip. Keep it locked in your trunk if you HAVE to have it reasonably accessible. Keep less-lethal options the on-your-hip ready options. Too often we see cops go for the pistol before even engaging with their suspect. I’ve had it happen to me, and we’ve all seen videos I’m sure. Let’s remove that from the equation entirely, keep the guns for after it’s escalated.

Realistically, should the police even BE stopping something like someone stealing a catalytic converter? In an ideal world, sure, but right now the scenario likely ends in either a cat being stolen, or a shootout. I’d rather just let the cat go and focus on the long-term solutions, like fixing the socioeconomic conditions that breed these crimes in the first place. This is also EXACTLY the kind of thing people are outraged over regarding police existing to protect property, not people.

Defunding: similar to disarming, you are correct in that simply removing funds won’t work. Again, I don’t think that’s the realistic end goal. Defujd in the sense that they do not need military level equipment. More, it’s reallocating the funds to things like training, oversight, maybe trading some armed officers for some mental health response personnel. Things like this.

Not in any way resembling what we have today. Good straw man tho.

At least they’re held accountable to someone or something. Even if we have to have 40 layers of vigilantism, it’s better than what we have with police today - essentially zero accountability. Qualified immunity exists, and police oversight boards are routinely voted against, etc.

I’m not an expert in this field, I don’t have all of the answers. I don’t think we can really get all of the answers on a topic as large as “how do we keep society safe” without trying things. I do think the thing we’ve tried for the last little bit has run its course, it’s shown us it doesn’t have much merit, and I’m ready for another system.

Cases where this has happened. Articles detailing actual, specific, times that these things have happened.

To be clear - I agree with you. I’m merely trying to point out why people seem to be talking past you, and you past them.

It was a peaceful protest. The only danger was from the -checks notes- boys in blue sworn to protect them? That CANT be right.

I mean, most individual crime comes from poor socioeconomic conditions. People don’t feel the need to steal shit, for instance, if they aren’t starving. Scarcity (be it real, physical scarcity of goods, or a perceived scarcity in, say, opportunity) creates motive for crime. Reduce scarcity, reduce crime.

Because cops routinely get anywhere in time to stop a crime. That’s one of the biggest flaws with the ‘cops make safe’ argument. They only work as a deterrent to crime if they’re actually there right when the crime happens. The only time they show up with any expediency is when there’s money to be protected.

Also, victim blame more.

You know, I’ve also never personally had too bad of an encounter with a cop. I mean, I was falsely arrested once, but the cops were chill, only half of them had their guns pointed at me for no reason. They were just doing their job though, the others were all super chill!

No. Doesn’t matter. You see DAILY that people are victimized. Not just in the states, you can look through this very thread for accounts of other people from other countries with terrible stories.

The very system of the state giving some non-elected individuals sole legal authority to excise violence against their peers, even ostensibly to prevent crimes we all agree are crimes, creates a power dynamic that leads to all sorts of problems we see today.

The quote is from a child. It’s almost like children speak that way sometimes.

The quote is from a child. It’s almost like children speak that way sometimes.

How your country runs economically informs what kinds of laws you hold valuable in society, informs what kind of policing you have. Socialism isn’t specifically about policing, correct, but to act like it’s not all interconnected is ludicrous.

Cool. Now give real actionable examples of this stuff happening. I’m not saying it doesn’t, I’m fairly sure it does. People keep prodding you for SPECIFIC EXAMPLES though, not just a definition.

At least vigilantes aren’t above the law. We don’t reeeeeeally have police police, but we could have vigilante vigilantes.

Can you elaborate on what makes you disagree with those points? Just for clarity, were talking the defunding and the disarming?

I would add a measure of public election for every branch of LE, at minimum. If I MUST have a boot on my neck, I may as well get to choose it.