Hacker News Reader

Comment by splithalf | Hacker News Reader

Places without high crime (armed robbery, murder,etc) can decrease policing because those areas don’t have high crime. Those are not the areas where police violence is an issue. So your solution effectively does nothing.

View on HN

I would argue that police in inner cities are a bit like the drunken reveler looking for their keys under the street light because they can't see anything elsewhere.

Could certainly use a few more detectives poking around Wall Street...

think a bit more on why lots of police could possibly generate high crime rates

If more police _caused_ more crime to occur you would see it quite clearly in in small wealthy suburban communities where over policing is very real (think about places where the police mostly focus on truant high school kids and rich people with domestic disturbances). Rather, police violence is a problem in dangerous high crime areas like the Oakland Bart station, not in undeniably over policed areas like Beverly Hills. As long as a lot of violent crime is reported in these places, politicians will be obligated to have police there to protect the public. Bart without police won’t fly with anyone. You can defund the cops in Beverly Hills, for sure, but that seems counter productive if your concern is police violence. Private security will just move in a soak up those dollars with even less accountability to the public.

There's a very good, entertaining movie that is great rebuttal to this take. It's called Beverly Hills Cop. give it a watch and then reread what you wrote here lol

Reply on news.ycombinator.com