this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
824 points (98.9% liked)
Political Memes
7904 readers
2599 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not an anarchist looking for the abolition of police as a concept.
But the institution of policing in America needs a Truth and Reconciliation commission. Complete top to bottom scrapping and rework. And a lot of pigs need to go to prison for a long time.
Start by removing Qualified Immunity.
While this is definitely needed, I don't think it's a starting point.
IMO, a good place to start is instituting policies requiring LEOs/PDs carry liability insurance. Similar to doctors and other medical practices (in the US). An officer is found guilty or misconduct or violating a citizen's right? Penalties are taken out of their insurance and their premium increases. Can't afford the premium? Guess who's looking for a new job?
The way I see, the pigs can keep their criminal immunity, but civil matters will have a more direct financial incentive for them to behave like they have morals.
Fight police with capitalism!
I mean, if it works, it works. We've addressed a lot of societal problems via liability-based approaches. ADA ramps and disability access come to mind. It's not a perfect solution, but it's often a lot more tractable than trying to change the culture of an entire industry or profession. Activists spent decades trying to persuade architects and building owners to make their spaces accessible. But they simply didn't want to change. Designing public buildings with ramps and elevators can have real drawbacks, both practically and aesthetically, and the building industry didn't want to change. Congress could have made it illegal to not have ramps, a misdemeanor or felony, but who is legally responsible for a non compliant school? And does this sound like a law police would spend a lot of time enforcing? Are they going to devote resources to cracking down on inaccessible buildings?
In the end, it was simply easier to empower disabled people to be their own advocates. Let them sue building owners who won't make their structures accessible. No need to convince a prosecutor or bureaucrat that disability access is worth their time. The people most affected can lead the charge instead.
Overall, the approach has worked quite well. While not perfect, it has radically changed the degree of accessibility for disabled people to public buildings and spaces.
That's another "market economy" solution.
Maybe start with the training. It's ridiculously short in the US compared to European countries where the training takes usually multiple years, before you're allowed to go on your own
Longer training isn't going to help, they need better training
Of course is longer training going to help. Police school is like 3 Months in the US. Obviously that's insufficient, when it's 3 years in most European countries.
In a longer time you can watch them more closely how they behave under pressure, and you have more time to sufficiently train de-escalation tactics, basic psychology etc...
Makes sense. Make them a liability that not even the most corrupt officials wouldn't want to help because it'd be too costly.
Get rid of pensions, pay them more, and require a full year of (quality) training.
How would you strip police unions of their pensions without also destroying the savings of every other labor union in the US? Dissolving labor rights is not the right way to fight an anti-labor force, it's very "fighting fire with fire".
When did I say get rid of labor rights? Show me, I really don’t understand how you got that from what I said.
I said end police pensions (because they are choking city budgets), require better/more training, and pay them more. If we’re not going to get rid of police we should at least hold them to a higher standard and make the job more desirable. As it is it’s just a job for washed out bullies to go beat up minorities.
Calling for a reduction or end to poorly thought out pensions is not the same as destroying labor rights. It’s a different form of compensation. You are beingvery myopic about this
Police pensions are protected by police unions. Abolishing police pensions would almost certainly require kneecapping their labor rights. Sorry, I realize now that I left explanation of this logic step out of my first comment. What I am essentially asking is, how would you undermine police unions without also undermining all unions, and thereby all labor?
Here’s something crazy: they could negotiate an end to pensions. You’re the one using the word “abolish.” Not me. I said “end.” That’s a very open-ended word.
I also do not agree that the fate of all labor unions rests with the fate of police unions. That is a very convenient excuse to never enter a tough negotiation or compromise. Police unions enjoy all kinds of benefits that other unions do not as it is - I don’t see that shit trickling down to other ones, so why would the inverse apply?
This has definitely been attempted, in fact I would reckon that the majority of police contract negotiations begin on the topic of pensions as it is one of or possibly the largest cost associated with running a police agency. But as no union worth it's salt would ever budge on the one thing that is most important to it's members - Teachers, longshoremen, delivery people, factory workers, none of them have ever given up pensions because it would be wildly against their primary interest - It hasn't happened yet. What would you do differently to convince police unions to abandon their retirement plan (Or replace it with something that can be deducted from or penalized conditionally)?
As somebody who has actually worked in municipal government, I can tell you that these conversations are dead on arrival because police unions start refusing to police the moment it’s even uttered. It’s a trump card they don’t mind playing in the slightest and it needs to stop.
There cannot be any major changes until there are major revisions to or the total elimination of police pensions.
So how would you do that? I'm reading conflicting opinions from your comments. One comment back your entire point was that you can negotiate with police unions to end pensions (Strong disagree from me). Now it sounds like you're saying that you cannot negotiate ending police pensions as they will soft strike and stonewall (I do agree with this, they already react this way to much softer demands). I literally thought you were a new commenter just now until I read your username.
So how exactly would you do it? How would you convince police to end their pension programs, ostensibly in exchange for greater accountability for bad behavior?
I’m saying how it historically is been and how we need to stop letting ~~terrorists~~ police unions dictate the terms out the gate or threaten to not do their fucking jobs. You can infer. You’re not stupid, that’s clear
It’s a difficult hostage situation that can be solved. But not if you admit defeat before even trying
Hey, don't underestimate my stupidity! :P But from your avoidance, I do think I understand what you're suggesting. It's righteous, but I don't think it's viable. Certainly not from a civil society standpoint. Cops are often sad angry people, they often have a lot less to lose than most active and engaged community members.
I really do think that getting more judges to reject QE is a better path, less ability for cops to retaliate and far fewer institutional hurdles to surmount. No risk to existing labor rights for workers in other sectors. And there is already the precedent of several judges speaking out against QE and deciding not to adhere to it. There is also the precedent of most other common law countries not adhering to QE.
Police have unions (They function as professional organizations, but legally they are labor unions) largely to block legal changes like this. To defeat them, you'd need to somehow pass legislation on the state and federal level that mortally undermines the power of all labor unions in the USA. This would have knock-on effects for all US workers, as unions fight for and uphold labor protections that benefit those outside their ranks. For instance, two day weekends and 40 hour work weeks.
It seems clear to me that ending QE - Which is merely a judicial policy, it's not even law - Is by far the more potent, simple, and safe avenue of attack. But I'm interested in your thoughts on the above proverbial gun that police unions hold to the head of every US laborer.
No, you can have selective limits, tied to how much risk the job imposes on the surroundings (like universal regulation on any job requiring being armed). Unions are supposed to be about worker power against the employer, not against society.
Well unfortunately in the case of US police unions, it's an anti-labor force using a labor organization as a disingenuous hedge against accountability. And also at the end of the day a police union resisting insurance requirements for it's members actually is a case of workers (Class traitors, but workers all the same) organizing against their employer.
I think you could narrow it from "all labor unions" to "all public-sector unions." Unfortunately this still end up affecting teachers, firefighters, and various city workers.
Imagine a world where the top priority of the police team (not “force”) was to help and support the people. “Help” includes stopping confirmed bad guys but also includes finding the homeless a safe place to sleep.
Send all police trainees to social work school.
What a world that would be.
I think you're right but for the wrong reasons - I think it would be an absolute net positive effect but I still think the lines should be drawn between policing and social work and healthcare issues. Fair warning, I'm from the UK which has it's own issues with policing but nothing on the clusterfuck scale as it is across the pond.
Sending police officers (and ambulance staff, maybe even coastguard - in the civilian sense, not the American branch of the military) to do two or four weeks of social work attachment would work wonders. It would provide a great insight into the difficulties and behaviours of those in social or mental crisis, and give more soft tools to recognise and resolve issues.
That said, it shouldnt be policing agencies going to social work or mental health calls in the first place. People in crisis are often acting irrationally or unpredictably due to the very nature of the crisis they're experiencing, and when a lethal weapon is an optional available to the responders, then you'll have a less than spectacular outcome on occasions.
Ideally, additional funding should be centered around social work and mental health teams - perhaps having first responders for both so you don't have cops wading in with the best of intentions, and confronting something they aren't the best people to be dealing with - where a mental health ambulance or a social work rapid response team would bring a welfare call to a far safer conclusion.
I absolutely get that my view is very UK-skewed but if you keep putting armed cops into situations like that - then the public will get hurt, cops will get hurt, the taxpayer coughs up a fortune in legal costs .. all of which could fund better ways to respond to the homeless, the stressed, the neurodiverse, and other non-criminal issues that people phone in with good intentions.
Here in Portland, Oregon the city has a relatively new agency called Portland Street Response, tasked with responding to non-emergency calls located in public places. They have social work and related training, show up with a big van full of supplies, are unarmed, and trained in de-escalation. Sometimes if the call holds the possibility of escalating, they will show up with an armed police officer who's job is to be on the periphery if needed. The program has been wildly successful and popular, is expending, and it's largest most vocal opposition is... The Portland Police Bureau.
That all sounds awesome aside from the last sentence - I'm keen to know the rationale for their opposition.
I can only imagine that there's a concern that the Portland Street Response may be putting themselves at undue risk with the most volatile of clients... but even I can feel my back twitch from the amount of reaching I'm doing there!
Well if there's a weapon involved - Unstable person waving around a knife in public for instance, which is fairly common - It's automatically an emergency and PSR isn't involved (Which ironically means it has a much lower response rate, as the cops here are bad at showing up in time for emergency calls). I think the police are opposed to it because 1) It's money that might otherwise go to PPB, who already get millions of dollars in budget expansion every year and more importantly 2) It puts the lie to the myth that you need an intimidating security force with weapons to respond to all incidents when e.g. an unarmed 40 year old woman can diffuse a seemingly violent individual possibly in psychosis by offering them a peanut butter sandwich, asking them when the last time they napped was, and sitting down with them on a bench to talk about their feelings and issues for a half hour.
Yeah 100% on board with that. I think it's a great thing.
I'm just struggling to get my head around the police department's objection when Seattle-area cops generally generate more chill news than fuckups (not that good interactions make the news in any departmental arew really); and the introduction of this social work unit would likely take a huge chunk out of their workload (again an assumption based on UK style policing, apologies).
All very bizarre but yes, a huge step in the right direction. Love it.
Part of what I would call the PSA - Public Service Agency, so named due to the consistency with Public Service Announcements - would be patrol vehicles (Ford Transit Connect, RIP) that are marked with attention grabbing (not camouflaged) vehicles that help citizens with daily public issues.
• Need some assistance / instructions on how to get unemployment or other public assistance? We got you covered.
• Need some basic first aid and / or a call for an EMT? We got you covered.
• Need some information about how to get jobs, update a resume, or understand your skill set? We got you covered.
We need to remove most of the police from the streets, and inject the streets with helpful people who want to improve the cities, and help to mitigate the issues that cause a rise in crime.
We need to build a system of citizen empowerment.
Aww man, you made me cry a little bit for what could be.
IMO finding the homeless a safe place to sleep shouldn't be the job of the police. You don't call the police when there's a fire, you call firefighters. You don't call the police when someone's injured, you call an ambulance. Why would law enforcers be involved in helping a homeless person find shelter?
Maybe in this case you could expand the scope a bit. Police are responsible for public safety, and it's unsafe to sleep on the streets. OTOH, policing is law enforcement, deterring and investigating crime, etc. Homeless people are often committing crimes, either trespassing, loitering, using drugs, etc. It would almost certainly be better for them to be helped by someone who doesn't care about that part, and just wants them to get a safe place to sleep and a warm, healthy meal.
Instead of giving more jobs to police, shrink the police budget and hire new people to do those non-policing jobs.
Completely fair. Their job should be to call a social worker whose job it would be to find the homeless a safe place to sleep. This is in contrast to what police presently do.
Yeah, I want as little contact between the police and homeless people as possible.
We had that in our European country and it was pretty amazing. Police corruption dropped a shit ton as they were not above the law anymore.
Also get rid of the police Union as it currently is because apparently it is a major reason for a lot of the systemic issues being faced.
I have no problem with unions per-se, but when police officers break rules, they need to be held accountable and that simply doesn't happen most of the time because of the unions and even when held accountable, it's a slap on the hand and worst case, work in the city next door.
You've also got to demilitarise the police. End 1033 and claw back every iota of military gear. End killology training. Fund social workers to replace many of their duties. Etc etc etc too many things to name. It's so bad that anything approaching adequate reform sounds insanely radical
This is it IMHO, as long as the problems pile up (or get made up) and don't get solved by police, they're allowed to spend more and more public money on armored vehicles and other crap that doesn't help the community. This spending is what allows them to be both incompetent and wasteful or downright dangerous. "Follow the money"; who earns from all this?
Whatever the opposite of "poor, powerless minorities" is. It's a mystery I guess
Fully agree in that too.
US police forces are a goant fucking mess, but it's been this way for like a century. I've read way too much shit that already happened in the 1900s
This is just the "bad apples" take, repackaged. You think bad actors are to blame, and that if you weed them out the institution will be cleansed. You miss that the problem is the institution itself and it's very nature, not individual actors. If you reformed the institution to not be this way... Then you'd effectively be doing abolition, the thing you think that you're not looking to do. And it would likely be a much more radical change than you envision it to be.
I am looking for a reform of the institution.
What I mean is that I am rejecting the anarchist notion that there should be no such thing as law enforcement, reformed or otherwise. Because they reject the notion of a state at all.
You think you're looking to reform it, but I think you're actually looking to abolish it and you don't yet realize that. If you understand that the problem is institutional and not individual, and you intend to reshape the institution to correct this, if you are actually effective and complete in those efforts (And sensitive to why a law is enforced rather than merely the act of doing so for it's own sake) you will probably wind up with something that looks like community defense. Which is fundamentally different from policing in both form and mission.
Also, stop calling them cops
This "cop" word has this cool power connotation
Call them police officer, that is what they are
Subjective. I don't find the word cop all that cool, and nowadays it gives me a negative impression. Police Officer sounds just like a formal title, like Representative, Principal, Judge, etc.
Yeah, "cop" is typically used as a pejorative
Police Officer gives them an air of professionalism they don't deserve in most cases. Nobody says 'cops' who are also happy to see them.
Why abolish fundamentally violent and corrupt organizations when you can collaborate?
Most privileged take.
Only the most off-kilter revolutionary would consider that suggestion "collaboration."
And I suppose I'd be shot as a "collaborator" in your ideal upheaval of society?
Don't bother arguing with these idiots on here. Your take is 100% reasonable and I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of people would be for it.