This is what happens when you abolish the police (Montreal police strike of 1969).

Someone send this to AJ Acosta.

Stop being intentionally obtuse. Very few people want to abolish police.

We don’t need men with guns writing accident reports, settling neighbor disputes, responding to noise complaints, and all the other stuff that takes up 90% of their time.

pool wrote:

Stop being intentionally obtuse. Very few people want to abolish police.

We don’t need men with guns writing accident reports, settling neighbor disputes, responding to noise complaints, and all the other stuff that takes up 90% of their time.

?

Sounds like Canadians don’t understand what an experiment is.

If you say, “let’s see what happens when there are no police,” and then use the military to do the same job, you’re not really changing any variables.

You’re also eliminating the variable of time. Of course things will get a little unruly to start. Give it time.

If you were testing the effect of leaving a campfire burning in a fire pit without throwing water on it, you wouldn’t throw milk on it at the first sign of it growing. Even though you didn’t use water, you still defeated the purpose of the “test.”

I found this part in the wiki write-up so typical of these kinds of events and similar to what is going on today...

"The leader of the 'Operation McGill Français' protests was ironically a part-time Marxist political science lecturer from Ontario named Stanley Gray who could barely speak French, but who declared that McGill must become a French-language university to end "Anglo-elitism", rallying support from the Quebec separatist movement."

abolisher wrote:

pool wrote:

Stop being intentionally obtuse. Very few people want to abolish police.

We don’t need men with guns writing accident reports, settling neighbor disputes, responding to noise complaints, and all the other stuff that takes up 90% of their time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html

?

I would argue this person is a fringe voice. She makes a lot of great points that would support reducing our reliance on police, but I am not convinced a world with zero police is the answer, makes sense, or is a majority view even within the "defund police" crowd.

Here's a counterweight to what you posted, also an Op-Ed from the NYT.

Given these pieces ran two days apart I can understand your confusion. I apologize for saying you were being intentionally obtuse. I will say that your link is the first time I've read someone say that defund the police literally means abolish them.

Most articles if you search around clarify that defund the police means using less police in situations that do not require force.

pool wrote:

Stop being intentionally obtuse. Very few people want to abolish police.

We don’t need men with guns writing accident reports, settling neighbor disputes, responding to noise complaints, and all the other stuff that takes up 90% of their time.

+1

pool2 wrote:

Most articles if you search around clarify that defund the police means using less police in situations that do not require force.

They have to clarify because they've coopted the phrase. To the people who coined the term it is literal.

pool wrote:

We don’t need men with guns writing accident reports, settling neighbor disputes, responding to noise complaints, and all the other stuff that takes up 90% of their time.

Assuming your percentage is correct (unlikely), that's 90% of what they are hired to do. Your whole objection is that they do 90% of their job while having a gun ready in case they need one?

How are they supposed to predict, in a violent country like the U.S., which of the 90% of things they are called to - e.g. a domestic abuse call - will turn into the 10% of times -- e.g., some drunk abuser starts threatening everyone with a weapon -- that they need a gun?

You want two sets of law enforcement - one that responds to the 90% and the other that responds to the 10%? That sounds incredibly expensive and inefficient. Also, again, how does dispatch know who gets sent to what? There are plenty of areas in the U.S. where a neighbor dispute or a noise complaint is the beginning of a gunfight. You people just seem so incredibly naive about how things are.

They aren't all armed men, by the way. Plenty of female cops.

What that story illustrates clearly is we need to abolish all governments and simply have a highly professional and trusted by all police force.

abolisher wrote:

pool wrote:

Stop being intentionally obtuse. Very few people want to abolish police.

We don’t need men with guns writing accident reports, settling neighbor disputes, responding to noise complaints, and all the other stuff that takes up 90% of their time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html

?

The person said "very few." One person's ignorant opinion does not disprove the statement that few people want to, literally, abolish the police. The few people who do have likely lived very wealthy lives and have never seen or experienced crime.

That entire article lose credibility when the first line says because reform will not work. After that anything written can be viewed as an Onion article.

pool6 wrote:

pool2 wrote:

Most articles if you search around clarify that defund the police means using less police in situations that do not require force.

They have to clarify because they've coopted the phrase. To the people who coined the term it is literal.

"Reform the Police to stop them from attacking POC" didn't poll very high, but "Defund the Police!" is catchy.

Ironically, the people who will be most affected by defunding of the police will be the poor POC who are actually protected from their own neighborhood bullies. Unfortunately, this narrative is considered racist, so have at it. Defund away. Watch White Flight 2 play itself out, 50 years later.

Defunding police combined with a new emphasis on white collar remote work will allow all of urban America to descend into anarchy. Turn all of NYC and Chicago into Detroit, see how well that works for the woken.

slogans wrote:

pool6 wrote:

They have to clarify because they've coopted the phrase. To the people who coined the term it is literal.

"Reform the Police to stop them from attacking POC" didn't poll very high, but "Defund the Police!" is catchy.

Ironically, the people who will be most affected by defunding of the police will be the poor POC who are actually protected from their own neighborhood bullies. Unfortunately, this narrative is considered racist, so have at it. Defund away. Watch White Flight 2 play itself out, 50 years later.

Defunding police combined with a new emphasis on white collar remote work will allow all of urban America to descend into anarchy. Turn all of NYC and Chicago into Detroit, see how well that works for the woken.

This. I'd be very interested to know the real numbers/percentages on what black people in the inner cities think about defunding the police. If it happens, like you said, these communities are going to turn into anarchist hell holes. And that's a pretty keen observation about the teleworking. Tech is about the least black industry there is. I see inequality continually getting worse, but then anyone who read The Bell Curve would have known that for awhile now.

America Has a Silent Black Majority

They fear crime more than police and know rioters are opportunists, not revolutionaries.

This police thing is rather new, 1829 was when London England started with police. Before police, county sheriff and maybe a couple deputies made arrests for only the most serious offenses. Now, we have police. If you see an outsider in the neighborhood, white people far too often call police. How did the world function before police?

police: since 1829 wrote:

How did the world function before police?

trials lasted less than a day, convicts were hung or mutilated. towns were razed and pillaged for resources incessantly by neighboring communities. invaders committed mass genocide on native populations. disease kept the average age of death in the mid 30s which was directly related to the absurdly high infant mortality rate. feudal serfs worked farms their entire lives and then died. militarism was as much for survival as enrichment. humans were bought and sold. kingships were passed down through familial lineage for centuries, with democracy nothing more than a dream from the distant past

great point!

uh huh... no wrote:

police: since 1829 wrote:

How did the world function before police?

trials lasted less than a day, convicts were hung or mutilated. towns were razed and pillaged for resources incessantly by neighboring communities. invaders committed mass genocide on native populations. disease kept the average age of death in the mid 30s which was directly related to the absurdly high infant mortality rate. feudal serfs worked farms their entire lives and then died. militarism was as much for survival as enrichment. humans were bought and sold. kingships were passed down through familial lineage for centuries, with democracy nothing more than a dream from the distant past

great point!

lol. It's like some people never had a K-12 education.

If there is no police, crimes will still be committed.

Sure, no police. Tell me how you feel when the police aren't there to investigate your business being looted. Or when you were assaulted. Or a lithany of other crimes.

No police means Yes to problems.

The US has an issue with police brutality. That is an issue in police forces in Canada as well and I imagine just about any nation that has police officers (i.e. probably every single nation on earth)

The issue is getting corrupt officers out of the force, not getting rid of all police because a minority of them act out of line. Very dumb decision to get rid of police and scary to think of how society would function without police. Humans can evolve over time, become more empathetic and so forth. We are leaps and bounds beyond where we were 100 years ago, never mind 1000 years ago. But we simply aren't ready for a society without police. When will that be? I don't know, but to get 7 or 8 billion people who all live on one planet to behave themselves seems to be an impossible task not worth considering.