George Floyd

The Case for Defunding Police Shouldn't Depend on How Much Privilege You Have

The police aren't good at solving crime in general, regardless of the victim's race, ethnicity, or income. Making this about "privilege" actually undercuts the strength of the argument.

|

Just a tip here: If you're trying to sell a concept that sounds as radical as defunding or abolishing police, you shouldn't use extremely loaded attack words like "privilege" in response to people's fears that they won't get assistance when they're victims of crimes.

Circulating through the internet today is a clip of an interview between CNN's Alisyn Camerota and Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender. Over the weekend, Minneapolis City Council members announced that they had enough votes to dismantle the city's police department and restructure it with an alternative system that Bender said would "actually keep us safe."

It's still not entirely clear what this alternative system will be. Given an opportunity to explain a bit further on CNN, Bender stumbled a bit. Camerota bluntly asked Bender who people are going to call when their home is broken into. Bender should have been very prepared for this question. Here's how she responded:

Yes, I mean I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors, and myself, too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege. Because for those of us for whom the system is working, I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done.

The first sentence of her response has been snipped out and circulated on Twitter as evidence that the #DefundPolice movement is yet another "social justice" trend that is intended to attack white people rather than to fix social problems.

The full context of the whole quote is better, and the earlier parts of the interview (you can watch it here) express the basic idea more capably. The message that Bender is trying to get across is that for many Americans, the police actually aren't terribly effective at either stopping or solving crimes. Plenty of data back that up.

But here's the thing: The police actually aren't terribly effective at solving crime in general, regardless of the victim's race, ethnicity, or income. Making this about "privilege" actually undercuts the strength of her own argument.

For example, Minneapolis has a terrible clearance rate for rape: Just 22 percent of its rape cases were cleared in 2018. A little over half the murder cases were solved in 2019. Both of those statistics are lower than the national average, but not by much. The FBI's data for 2018 have 33.4 percent of rape cases solved across the country. For murder and manslaughter, the figure is 62.3 percent. Less than a third of robbery cases are resolved. Only 19 percent of larceny or theft cases. Only 14 percent of burglary and auto theft cases.

So why fracture people's reactions politically? Most people do not, in fact, have the "privilege" of having the police solve crimes that have harmed them.

The past week's protests bolster Bender's argument better than any invocation of "privilege." Several cities saw police corralling, tear gassing, or otherwise escalating conflicts with protesters—while looters broke into stores just blocks away, without cops there to stop them. And when police did show, they didn't necessarily make things better. One incident, captured by the Fox affiliate in Los Angeles, showed police officers handcuffing a couple of black people who had been defending a store from looters, ignoring the reporter's attempt to explain to them that these were the people trying to help.

There is a strong case to be made that the police in much of America are not prioritizing crimes for which there are identifiable victims, getting entrenched instead in doomed campaigns to fight vices and enforce petty regulations that exist to bring revenue into the government.

There is a privilege at work here: People in poorer communities, often minorities, are much more likely to be targeted for this unnecessary enforcement, depriving the community of economic activity (and fostering more crime). While that's an important reason for the ongoing anger at the police, it's important to talk about reducing the reasons police are used.

The better answer to Camerota's question would have been to explain how dismantling the city's current police apparatus could be a step toward an environment where victims of a crime could call 911 and know that that's what the people on the other side of the call would focus on. The police wouldn't be arresting prostitutes and homeless people, or trying to find excuses to issue petty fines or seize drug suspects' assets. Minneapolis citizens wouldn't be calling out the police to deal with street vendors or petty feuds with neighbors.

I realize this comes off as tone-policing the tone police. But one thing I've learned from years of advocating reforms is to find values and language that you share with those you're trying to convince. So much success in reforming civil asset forfeiture, for example, has come from making sure people understand that citizens are having their money and property taken away without ever having been convicted a crime. Some readers are more shocked to see the government targeting poor minorities and immigrants who lack the resources to fight back and thus are left even poorer; others are more upset by the violations of our due process and property rights. Both groups' support is welcome.

We should never suggest that it's "privilege" for a crime victim to call for help and expect a response. That should be treated as the expectation. And if you want that expectation fulfilled, you should also want to dismantle every part of the police department that isn't about protecting people's lives, property, and civil liberties.

Advertisement

NEXT: New York Police Are Jailing Protesters For Days Without Charging Them

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Making this about “privilege” actually undercuts the strength of her own argument.

    That’s likely her (perhaps very recent) training kicking in.

    1. I am now making $35/h by doing a very simple and easy online work from home. I have received exactly $8471 last month from this online work. LBc To start making extra income please…

      visit this site………………………….Go to this link

    2. She couldn’t answer the first question anybody would ask about her “Argument”.

      Her being a moron is what really undercut her argument.

      …that she couldn’t answer that same question HOURS later shows that she really and truly has no clue.

      1. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder… Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open…
        Find out how HERE…… See More here

  2. Problems with the police goes across racial lines. They don’t care and this isn’t about police reform so much as societal reform. They are collectivists.

  3. But one thing I’ve learned from years of advocating reforms is to find values and language that you share with those you’re trying to convince.

    And how successful have you been with that tactic, Shackleford? Maybe it’s time to front-load the activism with highly polarizing language and blind accusations of racism against those for success you need desperately to convince.

    1. Evidently the only people Shackford is trying to convince are the ones who sign the checks, because he sure does not seem to be employing the values and language of the readers. At least judging from the commentary he is not.

      1. There are reforms worth advocating, but to advocate as an occupation doesn’t feel clean.

    2. “Find values and language that you share with those you’re trying to convince” Translation – bullshit word salad to appeal to ideological idiots whose emotions whitewash what they would intuitively know is bullshit.

      Same thing as selling socialism as kindness and sharing.

      1. Well if indirectly said…. 🙂

  4. The police aren’t good at solving crime in general, regardless of the victim’s race, ethnicity, or income. Making this about “privilege” actually undercuts the strength of the argument.

    Making it about race is designed to undercut the argument. This way nothing can be done to reduce the power of the state, while at the same time continuously telling us they’re fixing it.

    1. This x1000. This is an election year issue designed to get the black charged up. It’s astroturf.

      1. Fortunately I’v seen several blacks questioning the decision to reflexively support Democrats. Even those who’ve historically been loyal to Team Blue are starting to realize that the places where things such as police brutality happen most often have been run by Democrat’s for several decades. That these cities are wholly run by Democrats, and the city police policies in question have been in the hands of democrats for a very long time.

        1. Some of the most hard core law and order people I know are black. Blacks because of the demographics of crime in this country are more likely to have been a victim of a crime or had a family member who was than white people and certainly upper class woke white people. They have a personal relationship with crime in a way that many whites do not. Sometimes, that means they hate the cops. But sometimes it means they hate criminals and support the cops. It goes both ways. And of course, a lot of black people are cops. Being a cop is a very good way for a black person to gain entrance into the middle class.

          I would say at least 40% or more of the black population fits the law and order pro cop side of the equation. If the Democrats really are going to go full retard and become the end all police departments party, I think there is a good chance a lot of that 40% will walk away from the party.

          1. We can only hope

          2. Trump and the GOP would be wise to parrot Shaun King’s comment that the places with the worst police brutality issues are places run by Democrats for a long time.

          3. I’m hoping the police union has some stones and will take this head on. This is the reason right here that Minneapolis Police Unions [and fire fighters] need to overnight blue flu strike and show the city what it looks like without emergency and police services. Don’t come back until they have secured an apology and resignation from the mayor and every city councilman, after they have been doxxed so that they know wht it’s like to not have anyone they can call. Mayors, city council, the DA…. nobody gets a police detail and no residential guard. Play hardball. No 911, no dispatch, no police reports for your insurance company. Here’s what your city looks like without police.

            The goal here for them is Party run law enforcement, and we know what that looks like in other countries. If you do not pay homage, you get no protection. If police play this passively, that’s exactly what we get.

            1. NYC cops proclaimed they were going to reduce activities to bolster Union negotiation goals. They did reduce arrests by 11%. Nobody noticed.

              1. Thats funny. Was there a big drop in revenue? If so, did that work for their contract negotiation?

        2. good.

        3. Even the police vote Democrat, as their unions dictate. From my point of view, I’m watching Democrats beat the crap out of each other.

    2. Yes the race argument is a red herring designed to draw attention away from the fact that the cities where these problems are occurring have been solely in the hands of one political party for decades or longer.

      Not that Shackford is ever going to speak that heresy in public.

    3. Right. There doesn’t seem to be a single Reason contributor that gets this:

      While the protests are ostensibly about police reform (and I’m sure that is the driving factor for some), the protests, riots, etc., have largely been co-opted as a convenient vehicle to fight the generic and amorphous “social justice” battle.

      And I suspect that is intentional—there are concrete measures that can be taken to solve police reform, and many of those measures would garner wide support.

      Consensus, however, is damaging to the cause of Racism, Inc.—the community organizers and race-baiters who thrive on an “us vs. them” narrative of victimized blacks versus privileged whites.

      The idea—consistently adopted by every Reason contributor—that the protests are designed to build consensus and bring about police reform is naive to the point of absurdity. No, they’ve been hijacked to stoke division and discord, and further cement big government policies as the “fix.”

  5. Petty feuds with neighbors have a tendency to escalate into assault and or homicide.

    1. That’s why Minneapolis is going to have social workers that you can call when you have a dispute.

  6. The case for defunding police needs to come AFTER you have a concept for how to reduce the ROLE of police. If you’re not repealing the laws and policies that you’re having the police enforce, then whatever you replace the police with are just going to be doing the same things. And if you don’t replace them, then how are you going to enforce the ban on plastic drinking straws?

    1. The role of the police isn’t going to be reduced until the idea that people have some right to “safety” is eliminated, and that’s not coming any time soon.

      As long as people believe they have a right to “safety” they will expect that right to be guaranteed by someone, and that means some type of police who are empowered to use force to guarantee a non-existent right to safety.

      The problem isn’t police. The problem isn’t systemic racism. The problem is that people think the government can and should guarantee their safety, so they they will always want the jack booted thugs around. They just don’t want to have to be reminded of that.

      1. WE don’t have a police out of a right to safety. We have police because the alternative is vigilantism. Police are actually there to protect the criminals from the public.

        1. You understand that, and I understand that,
          but somewhere along the line, Americans got it into their heads that they have a right to safety. You really only need to look at the corona virus nonsense and the massive, unaccountable power granted to state governors in the interest of keeping people “safe” FROM A FUCKING VIRUS. There is nothing more impossible than keeping people safe from a virus, and yet that’s what people expected and empowered the government to do. And then governments did what governments do- they used force in the interest of keeping the people safe from a virus.

          So, as long as they expect the government to keep them “safe,” they will continue to empower the government to use force on other people to do it.

          1. That is very true. And the police are there to keep us safe to some degree. By maintaining order they give everyone a measure of safety. I don’t have to walk around carrying a gun worried about people trying to rob and kill me because we have police and courts and a system of public order. The problem is that people have gotten it into their heads that the duty to provide some level of safety means they have a right to complete safety and are no longer responsible for their own safety in any sense and any misfortune they suffer must be the police or the government or someone’s fault besides the criminal who caused it.

            1. Which should I carry in my gun belt in the future? My .44 Magnum revolver, or my .45 Colt SAA?

              1. I would go with the .45 because it is lower velocity and less likely to kill or hurt someone other than the person you mean to shoot.

                1. And it is a classic belt gun.

              2. SAA is always the answer. Safer, quicker to shoot

                1. And I have always been partial to living in a Louis L’Amour novel.

              3. .44 magnum but loaded with .44 specials. Plenty good for any human target, less noise, less recoil, and as John notes, less risk of over penetration. Double action exists for a reason.

                1. Although, I am very partial to the .45 colt round. That’s why my carry revolver is a Redhawk.

            2. Hi Member Reason………
              Getting paid every month easily more than $16k just by doing simple job online. Last month i have exactly received $16839 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day online. Now everybody on this earth can get this job and start earning more cash online just by follow instructions here……..for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lotCopy Here…… SeeMore here

          2. “… in the interest of keeping people “safe” FROM A FUCKING VIRUS.”

            It goes deeper than that! Police power (subset of Government Almighty power) is to keep SPECIAL INTERESTS safe! Regulatory capture, concentrated benefits v/s diffuse costs, and all that.

            Speaking of which, in these here dangerous days of Mortal Hazards, STAY YE SAFE from the flute police!!!! I implore of ye, in the Sacred Name of Government Almighty!!!

            To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

        2. People bad mouth vigilantes, but the truth were they were the public’s reaction to a period of lawlessness on the frontier. It was the first attempts at organized policing in many boom towns. Historically speaking they were often organized by business owners and family men who were fed up with the criminal elements. Yes, they did occasionally go to far, but they also were responsible for the structures that led to decreased violence in many western boom towns. We frown on vigilante justice today because we live in a society that has had organized law enforcement for our entire life. If we end organized law enforcement, we will return to vigilance committees and 7-7-77 branded on trees.

          1. As I have read of it, western frontier vigilantes weren’t all that bad. Once or twice in a generation (20 years or so), violent thugs justified the vigilantes and their actions, in a given time, in a given small western town. Other than that, the western frontier was fairly peaceful. WHO gets the newspapers and the movies and the books riled up? WHAT makes a good, compelling, selling story? Violence and mayhem! So I believe… Not being an expert here, but from what I have read… Frontier justice wasn’t the boogey-man that it has been made out to be. And it was AFFORDABLE!!! We didn’t have ten tons of lawyers there, thriving on dragging things out! The horse thieves and murderers were hung in a week or two, not in 20 some years!

            1. Even after establishing a semblance of peace, the vigilance committees where in charge of hiring town constables/marshals and governing them. They maintained the power to hire and fire law enforcement as they saw fit.

            2. Different time, different place, different politics. In fact there’s nothing synonymous with frontier justice and what it might look like today. In a town of a couple hundred or thousand people, everyone knew who was trouble, who didn’t get along, and who was new to town.

              And for that matter vigilantism would not be the rule of law in any society where the police disappeared. Where the party is involved and says what police looks like, party thugs become the rule of law. It’s happened in every society where the party hired law enforcement.

          2. Exactly. Vigilantes were a rational response to an impossible situation. The choices were do nothing and be victims or take matters into your own hands. Not all vigilantes were bad people. In fact most were not. And they often got the right person. They didn’t just roam around terrorizing people.

          3. Again, I recommend watching the 2008 movie Appaloosa

            1. The book is better.

          4. But a hired security team just isn’t fun.
            We want to hear about the Lone Ranger and Batman, not Mall Cop – Tombstone edition.

        3. We have police because the alternative is vigilantism. Police are actually there to protect the criminals from the public.

          You act as if the probabilities of being on the lynched side of that vigilantism are equal. THAT is what is being undermined here. No – police are NOT the alternative to vigilantism. They are an AGENT of vigilantism. Vigilantism outsourced so that some people can voice their fears/superstitions/etc on 911 and others will act on that and ‘investigate’ whether it is grounded or groundless – or maybe just beat the shit out of someone else. That WAS in fact the origin of the professionalized police – of its transition from a nightwatchman/militia system to a slave/poor patrol system.

          That is the heart of the difference in perception. A difference in perception that is, for reasons that are somewhat agitprop, called ‘privilege’. That YOU can believe a 911 system that sets cops into motion is designed to protect you from ‘evildoers’ – while others see that entire system as a system that will more likely than not backfire on them so in fact offers them less than nothing.

          This ‘defund the police’ is as much of a challenge to the status quo as the original Black Panther idea. And right now, just as misunderstood. Whether that changes – I don’t know. Personally I doubt it because the thrill of vigilantism is far more American than apple pie.

          1. You’re a fool. Vigilantism isn’t where any of this goes. No society in the last century has done a damn thing other than turn it into Party rule. No standards, laws, or principles involved. It’s political thugs who run the enforcement thugs who are entirely responsible to them, not a court, not a constitution, not the public will. Just fealty to party thugs who rule that anyone who opposes them is the enemy of the people. There are countless examples, but not a single one where vigilantism has even taken a breath, let alone become rule of law.

            1. What the fuck do you even mean by ‘Party’? We don’t have any meaningful ‘party’ in most places in the US because 90% of the country is living in one-party-rule systems. And I can assure you – and you of course know this – that R’s in urban areas (one-party rule by D’s) are not ‘victims’ of police oppression. IDK about D’s in suburban/rural areas where there is one-party rule by R’s but I assume not.

              Legalizing vigilantism is exactly what criminalizing homelessness and the various ‘nuisances’ of the broken windows theory of policing is about. It is why our prisoner population (incarceration rate/100k peeps) went from a very stable 220 or so (had been around that level for at least the entire 20th century) in the early 1970’s to 900+ by the late 1990’s. We do not have a high prisoner population because we have BECOME more criminal than everywhere else on Earth since the 1970’s. Nor indeed has the US ever really been more law-breaking than other countries. We glorify criminals (from Jesse James to Bonnie and Clyde) more – and the violence that occurs here has always been more lethal – but we are NOT and have never been more frequent law-breakers. What changed was that we started throwing the book at people for nuisance offenses – our sentencing became ‘lock em up and throw away the key’. For everything. And what happens when every little nuisance becomes a potential 20-year sentence is that every contact with the police who are going to drag you into that system becomes far more ‘desperate’. The exact sort of ‘desperation’ someone on the receiving end of a vigilante mob formed for extralegal punishment of a nuisance offense faces.

              And it should be no surprise whatsoever that the highest incarceration rates now are in those states (the South and West) that HAD a long history of extralegal vigilantism BEFORE we prettified it and made it all respeckable like.

      2. There’s an easy way to eliminate the belief in a right to safety.

        Cut higher ed funding 100%. Dump all of it.

  7. The case for “defunding police” is shallow and ludicrous. The same people that think absolutely every aspect of life should be contingent on the approval of bureaucrats and politicians will revolt again when they figure out that nobody is shutting down the restaurant down the street that operates without a liquor license and won’t allow health inspectors in the building. Imagine the exchange:

    Inspector: We need to inspect your place if you want to stay in business. Let us in!
    Owner: Who’s going to make me?
    Inspector: I guess no one. Sorry to waste your time.

    Now imagine that it’s 3 hour wait queues to deal with active break-ins or domestic violence situations.

    I wish there would be some honest discussion in progressive circles in regards to what actually needs to happen to create the world they want. Their edicts only work because of threats of violence. There are certain character traits that are required for police officers to be effective at their jobs. No amount of training is going to stop a certain percentage of these people from behaving like power hungry assholes. The question that progressives need to ask themselves is: Is it worth sending a gun toting potentially hot-headed meathead to enforce my edicts on the average citizen? If you have to think about it too hard, the default answer should be no. Too bad there’s no chance of having THAT honest conversation.

    What I’m describing is almost certainly a lot closer to the world I want to see, but I’m pretty sure it won’t look anything like what these people think it will. I don’t think they’re going to like it.

    1. The goal isn’t really to eliminate police. It’s to replace the current police with the police of their choosing.

      The progressives will never have an honest dicussion about what needs to happen in order to get the world they want, because they might get it, and then what will they do? The point of the revolution is that that revolution never ends. There must always be some new evil to fight, and if we were to actually solve some of these problems, there’s no justification for continued #resistance.

      1. Exactly. The same people who want to defund the police, want speed cameras, laws against hate speech, and a huge number of other things. Who do these assholes think is going to enforce those laws if not the police?

        We don’t have a police problem, we have a law problem. If you don’t like police victimizing people, stop passing so many laws that give them a reason to do so.

        1. John, not gonna lie. Would love to see social workers trying to take people’s guns.

      2. The goal isn’t really to eliminate police. It’s to replace the current police with the police of their choosing.

        You’re telling me that large urban cities which are almost universally controlled by democratic machine politicians which operate, in many cases entirely, unionized police forces which are bought and manned by the exact same democratic machine commanders and officers– you’re telling me those people’s goal is to replace the current police (which they chose) with the police of their choosing? If there’s a more convincing argument to this I’d love to hear it but it sure seems to me like a whole ocean of crocodile tears flowing towards the status quo. Nothing is going to change. How can it? Why would it? To whose benefit would that be? Certainly not the people in charge. Cops are going to take a knee at a bunch of protest marches and the very next day go right back to shooting dogs and flashbanging babies and their masters will look on with pride at the accomplishments of their chosen minions.

        1. Of course it’s to replace the police with the police of their choosing. Uh, Cuba, Nicaragua, areas in Mexico where the cartels run the police, about half of Africa, Syria, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and the list goes on. You seriously think that police in those countries don’t dispense their “justice” as per party-rule? hahahahahahahahahaha You think it can’t happen here? So sad.

          While they’ve been fairly successful in getting chief’s in political position, the cop on the street sees exactly what the rest of us see, and that is trying to take away their right to defend themselves, setting free the repeat offenders that put police and citizens in danger, and trying to disarm the law abiding citizens. That makes the police unions some of the hardest for Democrats to crack. Conversely, when they put their party police in there, they won’t have such a big problem with police and guns because the troops will then be THEIR storm-troopers.

      3. I disagree. I think they know exactly what it looks like. They just don’t want YOU to know. It’s the same leftist bullshit that we have experienced for the last 20 years where they tell you what you get, but only after you vote for it.

        What it looks like is what every society has looked like after they’ve eliminated law enforcement that is responsible to courts, rule of law, authority of the courts etc. It becomes law enforcement that is only responsible to party rule. Enforcement thugs with fealty to their political thug masters. The challenge to authority therefore isn’t met with a retreat, but with brute force. It’s happened time after time while idiots sat around pretending their side arm was going to defend their liberty or the other fools who couldn’t see the logical outcome of their direction.

    2. I’m not going to say Twitter is destroying public discourse. I will say that it’s a lot easier for people to latch onto short catchphrases that you can stick in a hashtag instead of a well thought out policy. #DefundThePolice is catchier than #ButThinkAboutTheUnintendedConsequences.

      1. I will say that Twitter and other social media is destroying public discourse. It’s certainly making it easier and easier for politicians to pass what ever legislation they want by purposefully misrepresenting what’s in a given bill. The anti-lynching bill that I keep seeing headlines about is a perfect example. Maybe it’s an honest straightforward 2 page bill that does what its salesmen says it does. Maybe its 1200 pages of pork for lefty causes masquerading as an “anti-lynching bill” that really only mentions lynching on pages 354 and 892 and that it will still just be treated as murder, assault and kidnapping the way it always has been. We have no way of knowing because 1) they don’t want us to know 2) the arguments for the whole thing would require more work than a tweet.

      2. BINGO

      3. If you read the Propaganda sections of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Hitler would have LOVED Twitter. It fits perfectly:

        “All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (…) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.”

        “Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side. (…) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must, of course, be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.”

        1. Facebook is quite aware it is thoroughly making more and more people extremists.

          That is the plan.

  8. As a near anarchist, I don’t really like the police. But I’m not a full anarchist, so I understand their necessity in a system that still has as state. Because crime still exists and we’re not allowed to just go around imposing our own justice on others. So we need some small amount of police. The larger the city the more police we need. Mayberry can get away with two cops and a single bullet, but places like Minneapolis need a few more than that.

    But we all know what’s going to happen: Minneapolis is merely changing the name of the police force. They might actually believe the lie themselves that they’re sweeping away the old to make way for a new kind of community protection. But it’s still a lie. They’re changing it in name only, plus a few reforms.

    Because Minneapolis is still a progressive city! It didn’t suddenly turn libertarian. It still has a progressive policy prescription for the city, and that requires a police force to enforce their laws. Because laws are meaningless without enforcement.

    “Oh, but they’re not going to smash heads or choke windpipes,” I hear the proggies say, “They’ll just issue tickets and stuff. And maybe patrol the streets”. But tickets without the police are meaningless. Tickets and fines and any other government enforcement mechanism lack meaning without guns to back them up. If they really think this is a college campus where they can shame proggie administrators into rigid conformity with rightthought, they have another thing coming. That’s not how the real world works.

    So either they’re complete idiots and the state and feds will have to step in, or the lying sacks of shit. Either way they don’t deserve to be in office.

    What to do instead? Fire the police chief and his cronies. Immediately. Dump Qualified Immunity. Bust the Police Union. End the War on Drugs. Return all the military gear back to the military. Shove Internal Affairs through the woodchipper and get some actual community oversight. And just because we aren’t disbanding the police force does not mean we aren’t firing half the force. And that’s just week one. Week two we start with the new policies. No enforcement against non-violent crimes. No “broken window” policing. Beat cops actually out on beat, walking in the neighborhoods they’re supposed to be a part of.

    1. But we all know what’s going to happen: Minneapolis is merely changing the name of the police force.

      And in many cases, they’ll end up hiring the same people who were formerly police. Moreover, it’s likely that they’ll just create a new department so they’ll have both “Minneapolis Police,” and “Minneapolis NotThePolice,” and it will be even more expensive than things are now.

      1. Nope. Not gonna hire the old cops. First of all, a lot of them are alpha males. As a group, they know how to use firearms and are not the least bit afraid of guns.
        Gonna hire a bunch of -ism graduates at twice the salary, with even better benefits, who will spend the first year setting up committees and applying for federal grants.

        1. Except where are they going to get them and who will train them? This won’t be the Peace Corp, Minneapolis is a real city not a playground. The state may be Blue Democrat, but it’s not a progressive state. So unless they think the UMinn students have enough votes to keep them in office, they’ll find themselves out on the cold soon enough.

          1. I hear that a bunch of Somalian freedom fighters who have fire arms experience want to immigrate, and will work for reduced wages.

          2. And that is exactly the reasoning behind why the MPD should simply go on blue flu strike immediately.

            Put those politicians back on their heels by one Monday waking up to find that they don’t have a detail to take them into their cushy office guard their homes, nobody to protect their office building, nobody on 911 calls, nobody to call when the union doxxes them and they’ve got 100 people out front with a guillotine. Let the politicians figure out how the kid they hired with her 4 year social work or gender studies degree is going to go out and solve the drunk meth addict beating up his girlfriend and her 5 kids. After they stomp before the cameras for a day and ironically declare that the police union is playing politics, they will find a solution that doesn’t require stupid to be friend and served up on a stick. However, before they come back the union would be remiss if they didn’t first demand that everyone voting for this shit resign from office with a big mea culpa. Time to play adult hardball with these assholes.

      2. That would be funny actually. But only because I don’t live there.

      3. Ooo, maybe they can fight like the Municipal Police and Metropolitan Police of NY! Making popcorn.

    2. This woman made it very clear, getting rid of the police means no longer arresting minority criminals. It will absolutely mean arresting and charging anyone of any race who tries to defend themselves or their property against said criminals. It is just a fancy name for state sanctioned looting.

      1. Well, if they try to enact college-style Title IX policing, that’s probably what they’ll get. The will “expel” miscreants onto to discover that the miscreants aren’t moving out of the city. Even the college campuses still have actual cops.

        I mean, this sounds like an awful big dare on their part. “We dare you to vote us all out of office! We dare Trump to send the troops in!”

    3. Totally agree that Minneapolis is a completely Democrat run city and has been my entire life. Mayor Frey had the common sense to not state that he would abolish the police. We still need police, but need to make some significant changes.

      Republicans may be apathetic, but Democrats are even worse as they virtue signal and claim support for change, but end up support policies that ensure the continuation of a endless cycle.

      I would begin by reducing what police are responsible for enforcing. If a “Crime” does not have a victim then it really should not be a crime and should not be enforced by police. Police should not be enforcing the various whims of the nanny state such as the Minneapolis City Council is so keen on imposing.

      If there isn’t any immediate risk to life or property then it should not be handled by the police and should be tasked to a less intimidating resource. Police should not be seen as a profit center by cities.

      While it may be fine for some cities to have a very small team of specialty officers such as a bomb squad and perhaps swat team, the police should not be militarized. Still it would be better if the National Guard fulfilled these functions for the city if needed and not by the police. The police also should not have any military equipment, if public civility gets out of control then the National Guard would be called up.

      Regardless of what the police are named, they will still be the police. Even if laws are enforced by a group of woke virtue signaling liberal, they would still be the police.

    4. Seattle’s police have given up and allowed leftists to basically rule swaths of Seattle.

      THAT is what these goofs want.

  9. I agree with Bender on the idea that my privilege allows me to be less fearful of calling the cops if somebody is breaking into my house – I’m privileged to live in a place where people like Bender don’t exist and instead have politicians with an enormous respect for the Second Amendment. If I’ve got somebody breaking into my house, I don’t have to worry a bit about calling the police and neither does the guy trying to break into my house. Come to think of it, maybe the fact that there are plenty of homeowners in my neighborhood who wouldn’t think of calling the police in the event that somebody is trying to break into their house is what keeps the break-in rate around here so low.

    1. “Survivors will be prosecuted”

    2. Here here!

    3. From a post I saw yesterday from a D.C. native, someone you guys have heard of, the D.C. gun shops are full of Blacks and Muslims and other minorities. White crackers are still the majority, but just barely. This is a good thing. They can’t stop the government if the government chooses to crack down, but they will make the police stop and think before they decide to barge in and shoot some dogs in a non-knock raid.

      To the conservatives scared shitless of Muslims arming themselves: This is how they’re assimilating into white culture. God Bless the Second Amendment!

      1. It should be noted that the idea of the 2A only applying to the military was first espoused in court in defense of a gun control law in the 1840s that was designed to keep immigrants, indians, and free blacks from owning guns, since they couldn’t serve in the militia. The long history of xenophobia and racism as the root cause of gun control is something every prog seems to memory hole.

      2. Most conservatives are most worried about these liberals who are running out to buy guns, have no idea what to do, and end up causing accidents at home or gun ranges, giving gun owners a bad name or causing the place to be temporarily shut down.

    4. I agree with Bender on the idea that my privilege allows me to be less fearful of calling the cops if somebody is breaking into my house – I’m privileged to live in a place where people like Bender don’t exist and instead have politicians with an enormous respect for the Second Amendment.

      How is that a “privilege”? Cities get the police department they vote for. Democrat-run cities get gun hating collectivist because that’s what the people who live there vote for. Cities that have more sensible, less dangerous police departments tend to be cheaper to live in anyway.

  10. The message that Bender is trying to get across is that for many Americans, the police actually aren’t terribly effective at either stopping or solving crimes. Plenty of data back that up.

    But its also completely irrelevant. We call the police because the other options have been taken from us. They’re what we got.

    So, if she’s going to take the police away people want to know what is going to replace it. If we can’t call the cops – who are we going to call?

    If the plan is to get government out of policing and leave it up to the people to institute their own private police forces and arbitration – cool. I’m fine with that. If the plan is to disband the local cops, turn policing over to the sheriff and then rebuild the department from the ground up – cool. I’m fine with that.

    If the plan is to fire the cops and then stand around preventing anyone from doing anything to protect themselves while the government flails around, failing to find a viable alternative solution – fuck them.

    And that she can’t answer a simple ‘who ya gonna call?’ question tells me its the latter.

    1. If the plan is to fire the cops and then stand around preventing anyone from doing anything to protect themselves while the government flails around, failing to find a viable alternative solution

      That is exactly the plan. I guarantee you this bitch is all about ending the private right to own guns and restricting the right to self defense and defense of property to the maximum extent possible. She doesn’t want the police to come and do anything about the person who breaks into your home. But, if you shoot that person or do anything except accept being a victim, that bitch will have the government all over you if she has any say in it.

      This plan is nothing but state sanctioned looting and political terror.

      1. “Who do I call if my neighbor owns an illegal gun?”

        1. That bitch may hate the police but I guarantee she fucking loves the ATF.

        2. “Who do I call when my neighbor isn’t using re-usable shopping bags? Who do I call about the 8-year-old’s lemonade stand? Who do I call when the sales clerk misgenders me?”

          1. You are so yesterday – – –
            that re-usable shopping bag has been magically transformed into a germ ridden C19 factory.
            That 8 year old has his dad on the porch with a 12 gauge for security, i wouldn’t call anybody about that.
            Take what ever gender the clerk assigns you; they are probably carrying.

      2. But if there are no cops, who’s to prevent you from defending yourself? They going to send the dog catcher after you?

        1. There are always enforcers.

          1. Yes! ALWAYS enforcers. Are they responsible to the courts or to the party. That’s the question.

  11. You think about calling the police after you have made sure the drop gun is in the perp’s dead hand.

    1. Is it cheaper to dispose of a gun than of a body?

  12. Of course, if you suggest to Ms. Bender that law-abiding citizens might arm themselves to protect their lives and property, she’d probably have a “gun crime” fit.

    1. Guns sales are WAY upately. These law abiding citizens seem to be coming to the conclusion that the government can’t- or won’t- protect you.

  13. Let me rephrase the question:

    Who does a poor black woman call when her home is being broken into?

    Who does an undocumented person call when their home is being broken into?

    Who does a transgender man call when his home is being broken into?

    1. Who does the black man call when the white mob is outside his house planning to lynch him because a white woman accused him of rape? I would love to hear her answer that question.

      1. Presumably he would call the same person/group/whatever as the folks in my questions, however I’m not the one proposing the new system so I haven’t been briefed on the details of how it will work, which is why I, and everyone else, are asking these questions

      2. Who does the black man call when the white mob is outside his house planning to lynch him because a white woman accused him of rape? I would love to hear her answer that question.

        Believe all women?

    2. Maybe they should rethink this position, because it will really suck for the white supremacist narrative if it ends up being all those deplorable, gun toting racists who end up protecting their vulnerable neighbors.

      1. Wanna know how you end up with people joining white supremacist groups in massive numbers? Take away all their protection [perceived or real], and leave folks with the one option of joining a group that DOES offer protection. That’s how.

        Same shit that happens in urban areas where police are not effective or trusted. Joining criminal gangs isn’t just for kicks and grins. In some areas, this is how you get by.

  14. “The first sentence of her response has been snipped out and circulated on Twitter as evidence that the #DefundPolice movement is yet another “social justice” trend that is intended to attack white people rather than to fix social problems.”

    I only saw the first part, so I’m glad she didn’t just end it there. But I still don’t think the rest of the statement is much better.

    “Because for those of us for whom the system is working, I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done.”

    She’s still acting like racism is a convenient scapegoat, even though there is little evidence that racism is the root of the cop problem. Look at the Australian woman who was shot by the Somali cop for trying to get his attention. If there was such a thing as institutional racism how would that happen? She has no idea what the real issue is, but she has a hammer so she’s pretty sure there must be a nail somewhere.

    1. More unarmed white people were killed by cops last year than black people. Their only answer to that fact is “it disproportionaly” affects blacks. Well so what? Does that make it okay when it affects white people?

      They talk about institutional racism and other bullshit rather than actual solutions that would limit the powers of police and reduce the ways and number of times they interact with the public because they don’t want a solution to this. You are never going to solve “institutional racism”. They can’t even explain what it is. All it really is is a placeholder that since no one can define it will never go away and thus always be a justification for giving these assholes whatever they demand.

      1. It’s a religion John they are evangelicals they don’t care about the truth or evidence they feel they have all the answers and that’s enough.

        1. I would say it is more cult. Most Christians I know admit that they believe in God because of faith, and that they cannot prove his existence. They also admit that the Bible, especially Genesis is not literal (I know the poorly worded, dual choice polling says different). The SJW on the other hand don’t realize that their religion is not fact based, and requires faith. They believe they are pushing a fact based, science based approach. And they become really unhinged when you show them differently.

          1. I grew up with very religious parents, in a religious school and know a whole lot of very serious Christians. I am not one of them and I used to like to argue with them when I was a teenager. Twenty years ago, many of them used to become really unhinged when you would argue with them too. I feel like that has become far less true for the majority of them in the last decade and there’s much less self-seriousness. I think what really changed a lot of minds was the realization that they were losing the culture war and they had become the object of relentless ridicule by mainstream secular culture.

            I think there’s a good chance that internet culture may swing the pendulum back and expose the SJW puritan types to non-stop ridicule in a way that might, in a generation, grant them enough time to become comfortable with self reflection and be a little less unbearably self-righteous. Of course, I could be wrong and find myself apologizing for my heresy in front of a neo-Bolshevik firing squad. Only time will tell!

            My hope is

            1. Given that the SJW run these companies and they have allies who oppose any restrictions on them because “BUT MUH PRIVATE PLATFORMS!”, your hope is unlikely to occur.

            2. I’m not seeing it happen that way. Party policing has been around in many countries for decades and nobody is self-reflecting. It’s just a different entitlement. There are things you don’t come back from.

              As for your correlation, I don’t see any relevance, nor would I suggest it’s the single cause to which you attribute it.

              First, generations change priorities [I’ve seen it happen many times, but it is just a change, not an evolution.] While you are correct in noting the liberalization in certain social areas, other areas have become far more conservative from a missional standpoint. Grandparents viewed the church as the 4 walls where as the grandkids see a larger role in voluntary outreach care-giving.

              Second, maybe it’s you who is arguing less…. therefore, so are they… back. My daughter also says my wife has stopped arguing with her as much as she did when my daughter was 14. We almost always ascribe the change in circumstances to someone else evolving, not ourselves.

              Third, perhaps the bigger priority has less to do with what they believe, but more transitionally from “I am my brother’s keeper” to “if you’re gonna fuck up, who am I to stop you?” A little more libertarian view of relationships, but not necessarily one of moral evolution.

              Likely a combination of several or all factors.

      2. More unarmed white people were killed by cops last year than black people. Their only answer to that fact is “it disproportionaly” affects blacks.

        Of course, it doesn’t even do that.

  15. extremely loaded attack words

    Extremely loaded? Like 10+1 rounds? Attack words? Literal violence!

    1. 17+1. I am looking to acquire a P320/M17. Hell maybe even the extended magazine, then 21+1.

  16. “The message that Bender is trying to get across is that for many Americans, the police actually aren’t terribly effective at either stopping or solving crimes.”

    And what Bender is going to replace the police with is, is what? She does not seem to have an answer to that basic question, and the runaround about privilege is a deflection from that. The police are not great at solving crimes. We will acknowledge that. What system would be better, while acknowledging that lack of perfection is not a good enough reason for giving up entirely.

    A society that does not secure in their persons and property is one that is in decline. Frankly, the poor require defense of their persons and property more than wealthier segments of society, as they have relatively more to lose in a burglary or mugging.

    From the article, what I get is the corruption of the police is a symptom of the priorities the state and local governments have given law enforcement. They will not end just by disbanding the police force and giving their duties to another body.

    1. I would say the police are very effective at stopping crime. Crime rates are very low in most places and low overall by historic standards. You really have to hand it to Shackford for being as consistently stupid as he is. He actually believes that having a police debarment doesn’t deter and prevent crime. Wow.

      1. And, again the question is their effectiveness is compared to what. What would be more effective and less prone to the reckless disregard towards the safety of the people some they interact with some officers show?

        Again, a lot of the problems with police have to do with the priotrities the governments they operate under decide for them.

        1. Both you and John have good points. It’s ludicrous to suggest that there isn’t some percentage of the population that only behaves because they’re afraid of being arrested. Of course cops are a deterrent. It’s going to be fascinating to watch what happens in some of the places the proposed changes actually happen. There’s always the chance that some of it counterintuatively does some unanticipated good.

          I hope most of this is allowed to be done at the state and local level so we can see the results of some of the loonier proposals from a distance. Unfortunately I just saw a headline that Schumer and Pelosi have already cooked up something at the Federal level. I’m afraid to click on it.

          1. They decided the cops need more funding. Are we surprised, it’s their answer to everything, throw more money at it.

            1. Well I don’t think SanFranNan is going to find that her taking a knee is symbolic enough of her contrition if she’s going to vote for more police funding. She’s gonna quickly “evolve” on this one. Either by clarifying to say just the opposite, or by saying she wants to federalize the police force. If not, she’s gonna get depantsed and booed down.

    2. Frankly, the poor require defense of their persons and property more than wealthier segments of society, as they have relatively more to lose in a burglary or mugging.

      This is just horseshit. I saw a video a couple days ago with a reporter talking with a very angry black woman who was commenting on the looting. She had a very eye-opening answer in response to the question – But why aren’t you angry that this is happening in your neighborhood?. She said – This isn’t our neighborhood. We don’t own ANYTHING.

      At core she’s right – and her statement made me realize – this issue is also at least partially about something we no longer want to understand anymore – land. The police do not exist to protect the owner of a boombox or a car from the theft of that. The police do not exist to protect your person since obviously they are only called into those situations post-facto. They exist to protect the land and property owner. In feudal terms – they are an agent of the nobles/kings, not of the serfs.

      And there’s a real obvious disconnect in a neighborhood where everyone who lives there rents. Where until 20 years ago, they couldn’t even buy because redlining was a formal and explicitly racial discrimination. Where when that was lifted for a couple years, the only result was lending that was almost entirely scams/frauds (all of which were initiated by the lenders not the borrowers). None of which were punished when that bubble burst. And which post-bubble have resulted in the closure of that window – de facto redlining reimposed.

      Where the existing land/property owners (residential and commercial) continue to benefit from the govt subsidies that have been in place since roughly WW2 – and from the transition of local govt away from land/property taxes to income/sales taxes. IOW – police presence now paid for by the serfs not the nobles. All of which not only drives up the price of that land (erecting a barrier to entry for non-owners that is in fact inflation but is not called inflation in even our measures of inflation) but also increases the rentier drain on current incomes there (creating a barrier to exit).

      Where the obvious – historically ‘American’ – solution is well leave there and move to a place with lower land prices and ‘homestead’ there to truly build ‘your’ neighborhood there. But seriously – name ONE rural community in the US that is actually trying to attract homesteaders who have been otherwise redlined out of land ownership (or even the younger generation that has effectively been inflated out of ownership). To attract population growth. There are plenty of rural communities trying to attract hedge fund money – but hedge funds and corporate ownership are hardly homesteaders/residents. There are some states – roughly a triangle from WI to KS to ND – that understand the whole homesteader/corporate owner issue but who can’t accept any changes in land use. IOW – they only want younger big-ag farmers to replace older big-ag farmers.

      So in the cities – those residents are propertyless serfs. And now angry because THEY are the ones who are the object of that supposed ‘benefit’ of police presence.

      1. You are finally partly right, but forgot to include the final chapter. Because they don’t own anything [and why should they own anything they haven’t bought], they don’t have to worry about fixing it or buying another one either.

        At most they are inconvenienced for a time and then politicians will come in and throw massive money at BRAND NEW stuff. Nobody really cares how they treat a rental car either so long as it isn’t charged against their credit card.

        But if you’re stupid enough to believe there aren’t black businesses that have been severely hurt or destroyed, then you should be laid to rest in your moronic delusion. Last count, there was an estimate that 6200ish black owned businesses and uninsured properties have been devastated.

        You do bring up a substantial point however. Without something at stake or flesh in the game, people don’t care. Since you can’t GIVE people property, then the alternative should be employed to make people care. Charge them… actual taxpayers fund this shit, so why shouldn’t the neighborhoods that benefit pay part of it? Everyone gets a $50/person annual fee for services. If you have mom and 8 kids, you get charged $850/yr for living there which goes directly to your neighborhood improvement. If costs go up in that community, so does your bill. You want to see people stop this shit, start charging them a participation fee in their own community. That’s how the rest of us do it.

  17. Complaining about clearance rates of actual transgressive crimes seems weird even for a libertarian. Clearance rates of rape, murder, robbery, etc of > 0% are better than the 0% clearance rate under a no-police system.

    1. Yes. And any clearance rate above 0% creates a deterrent effect which prevents crimes from happening at all. It also means dangerous people who would be out committing crimes are in prison and unable to do so.

      In fact, the clearance rate of crimes only indirectly reflects the police’s ability to prevent crimes, since those crimes have already occurred. You want to know how well the police prevent crimes, let’s disband all the police departments and empty all of the prisons. Does Scott not think the crime rate would go up in that case? Actually I think he doesn’t. I think he believes we could do that and things wouldn’t change much. I am not sure whether to call him stupid or insane or both.

      1. “It also means dangerous people who would be out committing crimes are in prison and unable to do so.”

        And thats how the majority of serial killers are stopped (or slowed down).
        Tons of unsolved murders aren’t solved because the killer gets busted for something else and ceases being a threat from there on

  18. The most favorable argument for defund the police from BLM as far as I can tell and have sussed out is that the reason there is so much violence and crime in the black community is a direct result of the amount of police arresting and harassing the black men and destabilizing the home. When they talk about white supremacy the most cogent explanation I can figure is they are talking about the war on drugs and the police state. It’s close to the mark to bad they are out and racial indentitarians and communists who have no interest in solving the problem by shrinking the gov. As far as I can tell they just don’t think the right people are in charge.

    1. We don’t have a police problem, we have a law problem. But BLM will never agree to that because they don’t want to solve the problem just use it as a tool to advance leftist politics. And their woke white backers don’t want to get rid of the drug war or the nanny state. Black lives matter but that doesn’t mean we let Negroes sell drugs to our children. This is what upper class Progs actually believe. They are total fucking phonies all of them

      1. I told my rather progressive cousin that the white progressives all suffer from one of the worst forms of racism, the “white savior” complex. He couldn’t disagree with me.

        1. That point always sends them over the edge. The truth always hurts. It always hits a nerve with them because deep down they know it is true.

        2. Try being a gay male in today’s SJW culture. It’s an utter nightmare. Not only have straight white chicks taken over our spaces (they even have bridal showers in bath houses now), but they have commandeered the entire gay rights movement. You think gay men are behind the trannie fad?? Think again. I’m an author of 8 gay-themed novels. 75% of writers and readers of this genre are heterosexual females. One of them actually told me as a white man I have no business writing non-white characters. That the irony escaped her completley did not surprise me. The arrogance of the PC Left is one of the most mind boggling things I’ve encountered in my entire 45 years. While these lunatics are complaining about white heterosexual Republican males attacking gay rights, they are doing precisely that. In the 50 years of gay pride not one right wing group has ever stopped a gay pride parade. But guess who is in the name of social justice and now covid??

        3. I have been cured of that.

    2. The War on Drugs and the War on Poverty both contribute equally to the destruction of the black community and home.

    3. There are very real issues in urban black communities. Many young men get arrested for drugs, cannot get a job due to the criminal records, and are forced to sell drugs for a living, roping more kids into minor drug crimes. There is actually a similar problem in rural communities, but that’s mitigated somewhat by being able to get a job as a farmhand or other low-skill job that they don’t care about drug use. Those jobs are far scarcer in the inner cities.

      Poverty and crime are vicious cycles.

      1. Exactly. Over-policing of low-level drug offenses starts a vicious cycle in minority communities.

  19. It’s mind-boggling that they bring privilege into this.

    Privilege is being so sheltered from the world that you believe getting rid of police will improve society.

  20. Victimhood is the biggest privilege anyone has ever enjoyed in human history. It’s now on the status of caviar, yachts and Pradas. Just ask Mr. Smollett. BTW, why no discussion of all the racist hoaxes? God, I hate the Left.

  21. Most cops you see doing the shootings on innocent civilians are not racists, they are sociopaths.
    Sociopaths choose jobs with power allowing them to legally fullfill their sociopathic behaviors.
    What you see when you see a cop snap and shot a non treatening person, to the sideration of his colleagues sometimes, it’s a sociopaths letting his pulsion cloud his mind and making him believe that the situation allow him to legally kill the civilian.
    Have you realised how the cops doing the killing is always cool after he shoot his victim ? No breakdown ?
    Sociopaths attack the weak, black have less power than white so they are easyest target.
    This police reforms will not reduced police brutality, just change the victims.

    1. The sociopaths need to be fired after the 2nd complaint, not retained after the 17th. The power of police unions is a big part of the bad-cop problem. Cities should give them their expensive health care and hold the line on disciplinary rules instead of vice-versa.

  22. “you should also want to dismantle every part of the police department that isn’t about protecting people’s lives, property, and civil liberties.”

    US courts have repeatedly ruled that police have no duty to protect peoples lives or property under any circumstance.

    No part of the police department is about doing those things.

    1. That judgement allows the police to do their jobs without being sued for failure. The police try, but they do mess up, and it is not a violation of your rights if they fail, misunderstand, or make a bad judgement call.

    2. MS I think you misunderstand court rulings. Police have a “job duty,” as in it’s literally their job, to protect people’s lives or property under some circumstances (not all, but also not none). What you’re referencing is a legal duty that you can be sued for. Just because police can’t be sued for failing to keep your dad from being killed, doesn’t mean they don’t have a job requirement to at least try.

  23. This is where I fail the Libertarian purity test. Wanna see what a society looks like without police? Say hello to Somalia, Yemen, or even parts of Mexico.

    1. ❤️ USA
      I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website…………..Online Jobs provid

    2. I don’t see most libertarians wanting to get rid of police protection.

      Consider requiring every property owner in a jurisdiction to hire a private security firm that does police work, just like drivers are required to have insurance where they choose among different firms. Wouldn’t you hire the firm with the highest crime clearing rate. That would bring markets to law enforcement and make it efficient rather than be run by unaccountable government cops.

      There are other state power reducing libertarian reforms such as ending qualified immunity, ending police unions, and getting rid of victimless crimes (as Shackford suggests by having them do less).

  24. The worst form of privilege I’ve seen lately is those saying it’s okay for homes and businesses to get destroyed in looting and riots because it will bring about change when it just so happens that the people saying it are in no danger of having their homes and businesses destroyed.

  25. Just because I don’t want to see the police defunded, doesn’t mean I don’t want to see major reforms in how police handle public safety.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.