Hacker News Reader

Comment by socialismisok | Hacker News Reader

Maybe it's time to reevaluate the role of police in our society. As an institution we've given them too many tools to exploit people, steal from people, do violence to people, and lie under oath.

When I read stories like this, of which there are many, or see studies that say 40% of police admit to commiting domestic violence, it sure makes me believe we've hired exactly the wrong set of people to hold power.

View on HN

In the US we need to recognize what the police has become first. An unconstitutional Paramilitary organization that has grown far far far beyond the remit of a peace keeping professional organization charged with keeping an ordered society

This is primarily a result of the War on Drugs, and expanded with the War on Terror. War's are fought by a military, not a police force.

While I agree that the weapons, armor, and technology generally given to police is not appropriate (especially at small town levels, vs county sheriff, swat.. etc), trying to label them as a paramilitary organization is only going to result in eyes rolling. "Recognizing" them as such is probably not the right place to start, if you're serious in trying to convince a larger swath of the population they need to be fixed.

It is more than just the equipment that makes them paramilitary, many dept mirror their organization structure after that of a military, down to the ranks, and uniforms including Service ribbons...

I don't disagree with your premise, but if something like half the country doesn't agree that the cops are fundamentally flawed, labeling them effectively as an extremist group will only further entrench their stance that "you're crazy, we're right."

Edit: for example, I think that your other post with the five bullet points could hold up to reasonable scrutiny when presented to the pro-cop crowd, but would likely fall on deaf ears with them if you lead off with the paramilitary framing.

In a non-corrupt civil society, the solution to this problem would have to have a much stricter and more punishing criminal code for law enforcement officers - if they get special rights and protections, they should be held especially accountable, in uniform, and out of it.

But prosecutors need cops, so they are very, very reluctant to prosecute cops.

prosecutors should be subject to same scrutiny

Given adequate pay there should be an infinite supply of honest people that want a career in law enforcement. Raise the pay until you get what you need. I'm sure it would still cost less than the lawsuits & other overheads of having to clean up after corrupt cops.

Then remove prosecutors. Make it so anyone can prosecute or trigger the sequence of events that follow within reason. At least remove the ability for prosecutors to take funding (wtf? who thought of this as a good idea?) and take away their ability to reduce sentences or negotiate which crimes are charged. The "crimes" should be part of the trial process and agreed by a judge or the jury or whatever mechanism you can think of.

Do a bunch of the above and I would argue that would satisfy both sides of the spectrum.

Give cops bonuses if they catch other cops up to shady stuff.

Currently cops who turn in other cops get beaten, harassed, and shot

Just for perspective, that 40% statistic that gets repeated is from a single small study in the early 90's.

The current systems definitely have problems. There are parallels with content moderation and government in general. How do you attract the right people to do the job, limit the damage from the wrong ones, and reform the system to be better for everyone?

Accountability would be a start. There are very few risks to becoming a criminal police officer so it's clear it'll keep happening.

i think that would require total replacement or abolishment of police unions. if youve never been to an LEO union hall, its alot like 4chan

Eliminate the job all together and refocus the money and effort into actually improving peoples lives instead of forcing them to live in fear of incarnation/death by state employees.

Assume people will abuse power if given the chance. Build system / rules accordingly.

That’s why the constitution is all about limiting the role of government.

My impression (from a number of sources, over time) is that, in American small town police departments, the standard for new-officer hires is usually little more than "he's been a cop, has no serious criminal convictions on record, and seems like our kinda guy". And that serious investigation into "problematic" officers often shows a pattern of job-hopping.

A Really Basic police reform step might be to institute minimum standards for hiring police. And assign the "background checks" job to a carefully monitored central specialty office.

1. Demilitarize the police force. Stop with a Ranks, and organization structure that mirrors that of a military

2. Bring back sheriff;s instead of having police forces report to a mayor or other executives, the head of the police force should be an elected position accountable to the people

3. Expand open records laws to include policy manuals for every police force, and create a Citizen Review Board that can have no more than 1 retired or former police officer, judge or prosecutor on it. Today many "Citizen" review boards are filled with insiders of the force, retired cops, family members, prosecutors,etc

4. Mandatory body camera's for all public interactions with at most a 3 strike policy where if the officer fails to record an interaction more than 3 times they are terminated

5. End Qualified immunity

Good list. Any actual accountability or repercussions would be a start.

It might help to start by getting rid of the ranks and other military trappings.

At least the military has rules of engagement, which are taken seriously. A friend of mine is a combat veteran. He had utmost contempt for Special Forces and contractors because they were above the law.

Cops rush to sweep everything under the rug. Military leadership make an EXAMPLE out of every rulebreaker.

This is easily verifiable as untrue. Look at reports for Afghanistan and Iraq. The situation around Gallagher and other special forces soldiers.

I'm not sure what you're talking about... but I can tell you that 99.9% of veterans and active duty have stories plural about extreme punishment to themselves or those they served with.

Every conflict has publicised atrocities that go completely unpunished or barely punished.

The list from just the last few decades is very long.

How do you square that with your view that there are consequences for bad behaviour?

I’m sure there are lots of petty power games and actual enforcement of rules back at base most of the time, but armies have a record of behaviour that is probably worse than any other profession.

Even your description of ‘extreme punishment’ sounds like it may be crossing into something that isn’t acceptable or legal. Hazing and such like isn’t discipline or rule enforcement.

>armies have a record of behaviour that is probably worse than any other profession

I believe we were talking about current affairs not "war bad". Cops on average have significantly worse behavior than military personnel and it's not even close. When we're talking about the military that also doesn't just mean FOB's in the Middle East.

>Even your description of ‘extreme punishment’ sounds like it may be crossing into something that isn’t acceptable or legal. Hazing and such like isn’t discipline or rule enforcement.

I appreciate your altruistic tone—legality is different while serving unfortunately. You are legally not considered a citizen or protected by laws that consider citizens. That being said this, the punishment I'm talking about is not hazing. It's more of what you would consider an overly severe sentence by a Judge.

I also should not have said "every" rulebreaker.

I was going to challenge the idea that any military were stipplers for rules of engagement, but you’ve challenged it in your own comment.

Some are more professional than others, but giving young guys guns and sending them into challenging situations is going to result in people getting shot.

Starting with making it a crime to lie as a police officer would go a long way in beginning to hold people accountable.

I think enforcing that would be the tricky part

But do you hire them?

Our taxes fund them, so in a sense, yes.

We could fund civilian organizations to perform many of the functions of police, and do so without weapons and oppressive technology. Then reduce our police forces.

Portland actually has such an organization: https://www.portland.gov/streetresponse

Denver also https://kdvr.com/news/local/study-denvers-star-program-reduc...

Ah yes Portland. The bastion of civil protection and order.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/10/82-of-portland-area...

Im going to guess we disagree about the state of policing, a couple of things you should consider though:

The Oregonian has a pretty obvious slant and bias in related reporting.

Another thing worth considering is “who’s benefiting” from all the reporting about “dirty” “homeless filled” “unsafe” Portland, as generally it’s conservative and pro police organizations that pull it out as a scare tactic to all the people in the suburbs or even more rural areas of the state.

Reduce or eliminate entirely? I'd advocate for the latter.

I would too, but I'd consider the former a win to a lesser degree.

The capital class will never allow for the elimination of police.

If they do, the result will be worse, because it will have been because they realized they could hire private security for cheaper than funding public protection.

If you don't like the unaccountability of cops, look forward to the accountability of Pinkerton private investigators.

eh, at least with Pinkerton PIs they are not literally on the same payroll as prosecutors and judges. There can be a little daylight between them.

Maybe I'm part of that "capital class", I'm not sure what that means exactly but I know I'd much rather look after my own affairs.

The capital class are the folks who will be able to hire bodyguards or pay subscriptions to private police forces if we do away with public police.

Because the alternative to public policing isn't no police; it's rich folk paying the interior-territorial arm of PMCs to march around their property with body armor and high-powered rifles, while the rest of the populace sorts things out themselves. We didn't always have public policing, and one can look at history to see what the prior alternatives were.

That's an assumption. I have my concealed carry card. I can/ do/ and would continue protect myself. Other people can do the same without resorting to hiring. There's also a long history of self protection without the use of hired goons.

> Other people can do the same without resorting to hiring

Not nearly as many as are currently protected by public police. I'm sure we can find a better alternative to the status quo than "Tell grandma she needs a license and some monthly range time." Better make sure we gift her a firearm with low kickback for Christmas; her wrist bones have been so frail these past few years...

I'm doubtful counting on the police in real time to help grandma if she's in trouble, they normally show up well after the damage is done. But you're right some people are not able to protect themselves but I'm still not convinced they would be worse off.

You are probably not part of the capital class, even if you have a lot of money. You're invested in doing your own security and don't publicly advertise whatever financial power you have in a way that might make you a target.

But realistically, you could have John Wick levels of combat skill and you would still have yawning holes in your security. You have to sleep and you can only be in one place at once, so there is only so much physical property you can fully protect. Wealthy capitalists outsource their security and mitigate their paranoia by dividing full awareness of their security surface between compartmentalized vendors, each of whom has to assume they're under surveillance by one of the others. If you are personally wealthy, congratulations, but I'm gonna guess you live somewhere with high public safety and never worry about your lawyers or accountants taking up with kidnappers or extortionists.

The capital class is not just about having a lot of money, but being able to leverage it in the acquisition of political and social power. If you have to conceal your power, do you really have it?

I don't think I would trust hired security, unless you are literally the richest person there could always be a higher bidder. The mercs could turn double at any time and you gave them the keys.

And not showcasing power, concealing or misdirecting the perception of your power or lack thereof, has been identified as an important strategy from Sun Tzu to Teddy Roosevelt.

One of the main roles of police is enforcing laws. Are you proposing to eliminate the enforcement of laws? If not, what is the group chartered with enforcing laws going to be called and how will it be different from police?

The article this comment is under is about police "breaking" the law, not enforcing it, so you can see I'm already skeptical of what you posit their role in society is. For not so important people like me the "enforcement" is non-existant, they show up after a crime has been committed, write a report, and do nothing. Not very different from no police force. The only time they actually do an investigation is when a bank is robbed or someone rich and influential is hurt. I'd rather just stop paying for the non-service I don't receive.

The article is also about other law enforcement agents enforcing the laws against that.

So we can trust them to break and enforce the law. Sounds confusing and like a net zero to me. Why are we paying for that?

For the record, the police are a civilian organization, the fact that they like to gear up in military equipment and pretend they're in a war is part of the problem

Of course. But it's common enough lingo to use phrases like "civilian oversight" to refer to non police community members.

The intent is to suggest unarmed, non law enforcement organizations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com