"Ideally, police wouldn’t carry guns at all, but the proliferation of firearms in the United States makes implementing such a policy very difficult."
It's also very difficult for dogs to speak English and pigs to fly.
As Bernie said, there is NO CITY ON EARTH without police. There has never been a society since the dawn of civilization that didn't maintain order with the credible threat of violence. The fact that anyone takes this discussion seriously for one second is honestly a travesty.
That’s the thing about many on the left- they think of things that would be ideal to have in a perfect world, but then want to implement them without the perfect world existing yet.
The police in all of those places have access to guns as necessary, so nice try but no. And you conveniently omitted the first part of my comment quoting Barkan, who correctly notes "the proliferation of firearms in the United States makes implementing such a policy very difficult." Very difficult as in impossible.
You do not think America needs a heavily armed domestic army because you are afraid of your fellow citizens, but you DO think it is absolutely necessary for cops to carry guns because your fellow citizens are heavily armed and will shoot the police if the police are not also heavily armed.
I accept your admission that I was right all along. Thank you - it takes a big man to admit not only when he's wrong, but is also a paranoid maniac who lives in fear of his fellow citizens.
Maybe seek professional help with that paranoia. But you've taken a good first step, and I congratulate you.
No, you finally stopped putting words in my mouth. But now you are up to some low-accuracy mind reading. And projection, while you are at it. Oh well. Seems this was too hard for you after all.
No it does not sound like that because I never said anything remotely like that. Those are just the words you keep trying to put in my mouth. It could not be a better example of a strawman.
It is sad that a large number of Americans view their fellow citizens as homicidal maniacs just waiting for any excuse to riot for the sheer joy of it, and therefore need to constantly suppressed by a militarized domestic security force.
Perhaps if you read what I wrote again, you'll understand my point. I tried to rephrase it, but then realized it was as simple and clear as I could make it.
It is a shame you think Americans need a heavily militarized police force to keep the population in check.
Again, I said absolutely nothing about Americans needing a heavily militarized police force to keep the population in check. Perhaps you are responding to the wrong comment.
“ Ultimately, I think the Norwegian model is the most successful: well-funded, genuinely rehabilitative facilities that focus on making prisoners, upon release, functioning members of society should be the norm.”
The U.S. is a very different place from Norway. Norway does not have the levels of crime the U.S. does. Nor does it have a permanent multi-generational underclass that celebrates criminal culture. Until those issues are fully addressed by our society, a retributional model of prison is more appropriate than a rehabilitative model.
The liberal “soft on crime” approach has led to deteriorating levels of safety in major cities across the U.S. When a felon-in-possession charge is given a six-month home confinement by the local progressive DA, when the Feds will ask for ten years, is demonstrative of liberal policies on crime.
As decades of criminology show, most
criminals do not become “functioning members of society” upon release. How could they if they never had the normative cultural values in the first place?
A “permanent multi-generational underclass that celebrates criminal culture”: did you not read the part where Black representatives are more, not less likely than woke White elites to want to fully fund and even increase the budgets of police departments? I’ve worked in majority-Black and majority-White K-12 settings and can guarantee you that the majority of Black people don’t celebrate criminal culture. Now, they do look at 200 years of slavery and Jim Crow and actually agonize over the fate of the criminals in their communities and wish those people get rehabilitation and job training in jail, but they don’t wish the police don’t exist.
Prison and police abolitionists often resort to motte-and-bailey tactics. They’ll say “abolish all prisons, let everyone free”, but when you actually press them on the subject, they’ll explain how it’s actually not abolishing prisons now, but rather working toward abolition.
This movement is the first thing in about 20 years of following politics that I genuinely don’t understand. Obviously if you are going to have laws you need some mechanism for law enforcement. So it must be a political tactic but then they keep insisting no we literally want to abolish the police. And if it’s a tactic then it’s not a very good one because it just makes them look like crazy people
"Ideally, police wouldn’t carry guns at all, but the proliferation of firearms in the United States makes implementing such a policy very difficult."
In the United States? Do you mean NYC? Why are we worrying about northern idaho, Vermont, New Hampshire or Texas, states with constitutional carry or close to it, and just say NYC? That was an odd bit of phraseology.
Is it because NYC has ultra strict gun control, and there’s still ‘gun violence’?
To state that NYC cops need to carry firearms because of the “proliferation of firearms in the United States” is poor wording at best, disingenuous at worst.
Other than that, you’ve the best ear for nyc politics and its shenanigans.
The fundamental thing here is that no one thinks defund is going to happen, most certainly the activists making it a litmus test. It's Potemkin politics; there is no there there.
Something I’ve noticed is living in wealthy Brooklyn neighborhoods provides a warped perception of what it means to live in NYC. Relative to the wealthier parts of Manhattan, these Brooklyn areas are cleaner/provide an ability to have a lower fear of crime as the people around you are generally living in the area (perhaps due to minimal centers providing social services?)
If you live in one of these neighborhoods and read about increases in crime in NYC it’s easy to write it off and say: “What do we need police for? New York isn’t nearly as bad as it’s made out to be”. It’s easy to become an advocate for defunding the police while not understanding why those in other boroughs are not.
Progressives seem not to understand that police officers are human beings who respond to incentives, and that the police as an organization also responds to incentives. Reform involves re-casting the incentives to encourage good behavior and active policing, but the incentives have all gone the other way, towards motivating cops to stand down, with very apparent consequences in day to day life - the locked up shelves, the epidemic of turnstile jumping, the reckless driving, the return of transgression on the subways - I could go on).
In NYC, the police have defunded themselves: like other urban departments, the NYPD is hundreds of officers down from authorized staffing. Retiring cops cite the feeling that the public does not have their back, that we no longer want them to actually police the city, and that this destroys the satisfaction of the job that makes the risks worth taking. The rest of them are going back to the hardly-working 90's, knowing that society apparently approves the practice of nullifying their work by letting repeat criminals go as soon as they are brought in. Those are some pretty powerful incentives. As a society we should be paying attention to this, and mid-course correcting. But we aren't.
It is extremely clear to me, as an ordinary citizen, that the progressive caucus in Albany has chosen to prioritize the interests of some abstract pity object called "social justice" over the most basic security needs of the general public. It explains why they will not - cannot - admit to themselves that the cluster of laws called "bail reform" is janky legislation that is unpopular for the reason that it is bad policy and should be scrapped. They have given every excuse under the sun (it's Covid, it's not as bad as the 90's, opponents can't prove it's not good, etc.) Currently the policy is to refuse to talk to reporters for reporting the actual news. But, they have the unaccountable power to ignore this. It is their legacy.
It's a bad track record, here as in other areas (housing, for one). So why should anyone listen to them about anything on this subject?
Defund was always a bad way to articulate what I think activists meant to say. I like what you have emphasized and that is demilitarization of various aspects of policing. That said, we have so many social and economic issues which were amplified by Covid measures and lockdowns that any discussion about defunding sounds crazy to most people. Hoping that thoughtful and substantive conversations can be had to identify each subset of criminal issues and identify solutions that make sense. At this moment I fear that we are not able to address these issues rationally. Everyone on all sides needs to take down the rhetoric and prepare for some incredibly challenging next few years. We must keep in mind that our first responsibility is to the law abiding citizens who deserve to have safe streets and living conditions. Police reform where needed should be the focus when it comes to excessive force - not defunding. And lastly we must address the failures of closing psychiatric institutions without an infrastructure to cope with people who are dangerous. And that’s going to cost a fortune.
Ross, your comment section is currently a cesspool for reactionaries. Not sure this is what you intended as someone who wants to defun- *ahem* "demilitarize" the police.
In your attacks on abolitionists, you've made your own case weaker. You've compared defunding the police to defunding public schools, to being unable to solve crimes. So then, what is the case to strip them of the militarized weapons, tactics, and surveillance? Again, many of the comments underline few have gotten the wiser.
My comment is that the police are ok but the union is too strong and prevents accountability. DSA mandates will make us a Republican city, and I definitely do not want to live through that again.
"Ideally, police wouldn’t carry guns at all, but the proliferation of firearms in the United States makes implementing such a policy very difficult."
It's also very difficult for dogs to speak English and pigs to fly.
As Bernie said, there is NO CITY ON EARTH without police. There has never been a society since the dawn of civilization that didn't maintain order with the credible threat of violence. The fact that anyone takes this discussion seriously for one second is honestly a travesty.
That’s the thing about many on the left- they think of things that would be ideal to have in a perfect world, but then want to implement them without the perfect world existing yet.
Progressivism has already destroyed nyc. All the sane people are escaping while they still can: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/escapefromnewyork
So you literally post links to your own blog every week?
Don't let the door hit you in the way out, Mr Self Promotion.
Every city in the world, as long as you ignore every city in Iceland, Ireland, Norway, the United Kingdom, among some other smaller nations.
Otherwise, great point!
The police in all of those places have access to guns as necessary, so nice try but no. And you conveniently omitted the first part of my comment quoting Barkan, who correctly notes "the proliferation of firearms in the United States makes implementing such a policy very difficult." Very difficult as in impossible.
Try bringing your strawman out again!
But to summarize:
You do not think America needs a heavily armed domestic army because you are afraid of your fellow citizens, but you DO think it is absolutely necessary for cops to carry guns because your fellow citizens are heavily armed and will shoot the police if the police are not also heavily armed.
I see.
Glad you are finally getting it! See, that wasn't so hard.
I accept your admission that I was right all along. Thank you - it takes a big man to admit not only when he's wrong, but is also a paranoid maniac who lives in fear of his fellow citizens.
Maybe seek professional help with that paranoia. But you've taken a good first step, and I congratulate you.
No, you finally stopped putting words in my mouth. But now you are up to some low-accuracy mind reading. And projection, while you are at it. Oh well. Seems this was too hard for you after all.
Really sounds like you are advocating for a heavily armed domestic army because you are afraid of your fellow citizens.
So not much of a straw man after all.
No it does not sound like that because I never said anything remotely like that. Those are just the words you keep trying to put in my mouth. It could not be a better example of a strawman.
It is sad that a large number of Americans view their fellow citizens as homicidal maniacs just waiting for any excuse to riot for the sheer joy of it, and therefore need to constantly suppressed by a militarized domestic security force.
Americans? Once again, just about every human on earth is under the jurisdiction of police force.
This almost seems like a response to my post, except it doesn't address anything I said.
You were responding to *my* post, which had nothing to do with militarization. Don't expect me to chase your straw man.
Perhaps if you read what I wrote again, you'll understand my point. I tried to rephrase it, but then realized it was as simple and clear as I could make it.
It is a shame you think Americans need a heavily militarized police force to keep the population in check.
Again, I said absolutely nothing about Americans needing a heavily militarized police force to keep the population in check. Perhaps you are responding to the wrong comment.
“ Ultimately, I think the Norwegian model is the most successful: well-funded, genuinely rehabilitative facilities that focus on making prisoners, upon release, functioning members of society should be the norm.”
The U.S. is a very different place from Norway. Norway does not have the levels of crime the U.S. does. Nor does it have a permanent multi-generational underclass that celebrates criminal culture. Until those issues are fully addressed by our society, a retributional model of prison is more appropriate than a rehabilitative model.
The liberal “soft on crime” approach has led to deteriorating levels of safety in major cities across the U.S. When a felon-in-possession charge is given a six-month home confinement by the local progressive DA, when the Feds will ask for ten years, is demonstrative of liberal policies on crime.
As decades of criminology show, most
criminals do not become “functioning members of society” upon release. How could they if they never had the normative cultural values in the first place?
A “permanent multi-generational underclass that celebrates criminal culture”: did you not read the part where Black representatives are more, not less likely than woke White elites to want to fully fund and even increase the budgets of police departments? I’ve worked in majority-Black and majority-White K-12 settings and can guarantee you that the majority of Black people don’t celebrate criminal culture. Now, they do look at 200 years of slavery and Jim Crow and actually agonize over the fate of the criminals in their communities and wish those people get rehabilitation and job training in jail, but they don’t wish the police don’t exist.
One obvious explanation is that most black people aren't part of the criminal underclass?
Prison and police abolitionists often resort to motte-and-bailey tactics. They’ll say “abolish all prisons, let everyone free”, but when you actually press them on the subject, they’ll explain how it’s actually not abolishing prisons now, but rather working toward abolition.
This movement is the first thing in about 20 years of following politics that I genuinely don’t understand. Obviously if you are going to have laws you need some mechanism for law enforcement. So it must be a political tactic but then they keep insisting no we literally want to abolish the police. And if it’s a tactic then it’s not a very good one because it just makes them look like crazy people
"Ideally, police wouldn’t carry guns at all, but the proliferation of firearms in the United States makes implementing such a policy very difficult."
In the United States? Do you mean NYC? Why are we worrying about northern idaho, Vermont, New Hampshire or Texas, states with constitutional carry or close to it, and just say NYC? That was an odd bit of phraseology.
Is it because NYC has ultra strict gun control, and there’s still ‘gun violence’?
To state that NYC cops need to carry firearms because of the “proliferation of firearms in the United States” is poor wording at best, disingenuous at worst.
Other than that, you’ve the best ear for nyc politics and its shenanigans.
Most illegal guns in New York City come from other states with lax gun laws.
The fundamental thing here is that no one thinks defund is going to happen, most certainly the activists making it a litmus test. It's Potemkin politics; there is no there there.
Something I’ve noticed is living in wealthy Brooklyn neighborhoods provides a warped perception of what it means to live in NYC. Relative to the wealthier parts of Manhattan, these Brooklyn areas are cleaner/provide an ability to have a lower fear of crime as the people around you are generally living in the area (perhaps due to minimal centers providing social services?)
If you live in one of these neighborhoods and read about increases in crime in NYC it’s easy to write it off and say: “What do we need police for? New York isn’t nearly as bad as it’s made out to be”. It’s easy to become an advocate for defunding the police while not understanding why those in other boroughs are not.
Progressives seem not to understand that police officers are human beings who respond to incentives, and that the police as an organization also responds to incentives. Reform involves re-casting the incentives to encourage good behavior and active policing, but the incentives have all gone the other way, towards motivating cops to stand down, with very apparent consequences in day to day life - the locked up shelves, the epidemic of turnstile jumping, the reckless driving, the return of transgression on the subways - I could go on).
In NYC, the police have defunded themselves: like other urban departments, the NYPD is hundreds of officers down from authorized staffing. Retiring cops cite the feeling that the public does not have their back, that we no longer want them to actually police the city, and that this destroys the satisfaction of the job that makes the risks worth taking. The rest of them are going back to the hardly-working 90's, knowing that society apparently approves the practice of nullifying their work by letting repeat criminals go as soon as they are brought in. Those are some pretty powerful incentives. As a society we should be paying attention to this, and mid-course correcting. But we aren't.
It is extremely clear to me, as an ordinary citizen, that the progressive caucus in Albany has chosen to prioritize the interests of some abstract pity object called "social justice" over the most basic security needs of the general public. It explains why they will not - cannot - admit to themselves that the cluster of laws called "bail reform" is janky legislation that is unpopular for the reason that it is bad policy and should be scrapped. They have given every excuse under the sun (it's Covid, it's not as bad as the 90's, opponents can't prove it's not good, etc.) Currently the policy is to refuse to talk to reporters for reporting the actual news. But, they have the unaccountable power to ignore this. It is their legacy.
It's a bad track record, here as in other areas (housing, for one). So why should anyone listen to them about anything on this subject?
Great comment.
Defund was always a bad way to articulate what I think activists meant to say. I like what you have emphasized and that is demilitarization of various aspects of policing. That said, we have so many social and economic issues which were amplified by Covid measures and lockdowns that any discussion about defunding sounds crazy to most people. Hoping that thoughtful and substantive conversations can be had to identify each subset of criminal issues and identify solutions that make sense. At this moment I fear that we are not able to address these issues rationally. Everyone on all sides needs to take down the rhetoric and prepare for some incredibly challenging next few years. We must keep in mind that our first responsibility is to the law abiding citizens who deserve to have safe streets and living conditions. Police reform where needed should be the focus when it comes to excessive force - not defunding. And lastly we must address the failures of closing psychiatric institutions without an infrastructure to cope with people who are dangerous. And that’s going to cost a fortune.
fwiw nyc's budget is about 100 billion, not 200 billion.
Yes, it was a typo - fixed now! 200 is the state budget (220 or so)
Ross, your comment section is currently a cesspool for reactionaries. Not sure this is what you intended as someone who wants to defun- *ahem* "demilitarize" the police.
In your attacks on abolitionists, you've made your own case weaker. You've compared defunding the police to defunding public schools, to being unable to solve crimes. So then, what is the case to strip them of the militarized weapons, tactics, and surveillance? Again, many of the comments underline few have gotten the wiser.
My comment is that the police are ok but the union is too strong and prevents accountability. DSA mandates will make us a Republican city, and I definitely do not want to live through that again.
Many Progressives are DSA supported. https://www.defundnypd.com/