Title. Keep seeing a growing distinction on social media’s between proponents of police abolition and reform, the abolition crowd wants to abolish all forms of law enforcement entirely. How would that even work in regards to armed and violent offenders?

You could do a little reading on it and find out.

Crime is a consequence of condition

This is all assuming that citizens never have any urge to commit violent crimes or create pure anarchy. How can we all be safe when serial killers, rapists and violent offenders aren’t reprimanded and punished for their crimes?

And this is assuming that all humans are inherently good, which is entirely false and delusional.

This s*** is crazy to me. This would pave the way for warlords and militias to thrive

Because in the old world and in some concurrent spaces as of today communities actually engaged w/ one another closely and thrived off of it, if any odd ball activity surfaced the community would know who it would be instantaneously and deal with the offender appropriately on a wide scale agreed approach.

Crime is only bred out of condition as stated from one of the posters above and anarchy is often miscontrued to be extremist as poorly depicted among mainstream media outlets etc please do some research.

It’s abolishing police as we’ve come to know them, not law enforcement altogether. There would still be people trained to respond to violent situations, it’s just more about not having the people trained to respond to violent situations respond to EVERY single type of call, so, say, when a woman is sexually assaulted, someone actually equipped to deal with that responds, not two d***heads with guns who don’t like women anyway asking her what she was wearing.

Please go and actually read on the topic

law enforcement does need to be abolished altogether because policing's entire inception is based upon capitalism and is anti-black.

This lol its not about rebranding law enforcement its about abolishing it

Yeah every place that has police is peaceful asf right 👍

A division a la firemen/paramedics for each type of domestic disturbance

and only bring in armed security officers (who has the goal of deesculation) when absolutely necessary/confirmed immediate threat (which can get tricky if callers know they have to describe it a certain way to get someone with gun to pull up)

someone pulling me over for speeding doesnt need a gun

it is a wild question tho bc all we know is prisons and police

but i saw a great meme that said they only get like 1% of rapists and s*** anyway

and theyre both rooted in racist origins

so eh interesting times

None of the stuff I’ve seen is no police with straight up nothing to replace it. I’m seeing a lot of talk of redirecting city funding in an effort to help eliminate the social circumstances that lead to crime with people trained to respond to specific situations.

Totally. Rapists get the lightest sentences possible when anyone even bothers to go after them.

people reject ideologies outside their own because they refuse to adopt a new way of living, it's scary for alot of people bc that means of abandoning their only way of life but this law enforcement s*** has to go in completion or we're gonna be effaced fast in worsening conditions now more than ever if we continue to let the f*** s*** slide.

decades of desensitization has people putting a dollar/property over a child's life we've gotta get the people to stop loving their oppressors overall or s*** ain't gonna shift.

Here’s a site about removing anything resembling a police force. If it’s doable, I’m with it:
8toabolition.com

Agreed but that would require people to move away and establish their own new communities from the ground up, so I think something like that could take a while to start and ultimately reach success

Specifically in big cities and counties, we’re just not at the point yet where we can live with all crime going unattended. Because there will always be crime, especially when you’re talking about a mass scale of people

We can start with defunding police and passing strict legislation to hold them accountable for murders. Also remove the weird brotherhood aspect within the police force, they are the biggest snitches on earth yet they won’t snitch on their coworker for choking an innocent man to death smh.

At the end of the day the primary concern should be that there are multiple communities whose experience with the police is so overwhelmingly negative, they can see no redeeming quality in having a police force as the current one is doing nothing for them. This in itself is enough of a reason imo to at least have this convo.

But seeing “invest in community self-governance” on that sheet absolutely baffles me. The police are not non-human robots, they are a just a sample of humanity who’ve been given power and are abusing it.

Why would anyone think that the worst prejudices, opinions and nature of individual police officers wouldn’t be held by many in the general public too?!

And in a country where guns are absolutely rife surely you’re just inviting disaster. It will be all of 5 mins before an innocent black man is murdered by a white neighbourhood watch - and imo they’ll be more likely to get away with it as if the community is policing itself surely an expansion of “stand your ground” type laws is a fairly likely outcome

Fellas itt living in a f***ing fairyland thinking crime would completely stop cause conditions got better lol

Imagine thinking these commies have an idea how fix this

People are stupid op.

Definitely all for the protests but not sure this idea is practical or sensible at all? Would have to see legislative details

I've personaly been inside before and I think the fact that a person that killed someone is in the same cell as a person that stole some food from a grocery store is beyond f***ed up

the system has many flaws and windows that only a select few can take advantage of.

Everything from trigger-happy officers to corrupt judges with false accusations is a cry that people work for the system and not the other way around.

the worst criminals never saw a jail cell so I dont think anything at this point would make a difference.

The final point is a really interesting one. I live in the UK so the principles behind arming police here basically follow what you’ve said - we have specific armed response units for major things, and police guarding politicians or other similar security type situations. The police you see here on a day to day basis just patrolling a neighbourhood or responding to 99% of crimes would only have a taser at the very most.

This works well and naturally to me the idea that something like speeding would be attended by an armed officer who could escalate to deadly force at any point is insane.

However - to some extent I feel like our system functions like this because the threat of gun crime is so low. There are hardly any firearms in the country and laws are so tight that, aside from a few select scenarios, any citizen carrying in a traffic stop scenario will be doing so completely illegally (likely with an illegaly owned weapon) and so on balance is probably a violent criminal.

So my question is, how do you apply this to the US, where anyone could have a weapon, even if it’s illegal to carry outside the home or whatever? How do you convince a police force that even though on balance the people they’re dealing with are more likely to own a gun(s) than not, including possibly some serious high powered s***, they shouldn’t be armed?

7 out of 8 of these are just flat out ignorant and easily debunkable lol.

Only one even slightly reasonable is providing safe housing for everyone.