As someone who loves parentbeticals (and ellipses, asides, and similar) holy crap that hurt to read hahah

No problem, friend. Certainly not the first thing my mind goes to when I consider eating my date :p

A date is a type of fruit, kinda similar to a plum.

Re: murder, it was more a personal clarification hahah, murder implies a swift execution, versus a slow change.

I do not claim to have the solution. That’s outside of my area of expertise. What I can say is that the implementation of policing we have now is failing, and I’d rather move towards something new than spin my wheels now.

I can also say that, with how everything else in our society is organized, our current system of policing is probably the most practical. Any kind of change to it will likely be predicated on many other facets of society changing first or in tandem. I have no illusions that it’ll be an easy change.

Well, I’d realistically suggest a slow strangle while we build up the alternative in tandem, maybe not “murder”, but I opted to use the wording of the poster I replied to.

We need to murder the concept of cops as we know them today. That’s the only murder we need. No individual’s death will fix a fucked up system, gotta kill the system itself.

You sound fun.

Oh nice. I missed out on the wiiu entirely, so I wasn’t aware it was as capable as it is!

Original Wii is a very capable CFW/piracy device as well.

Problem: money

Solution: get rid of money.

I’ll take my chances.

I’d like to… Spend some time… with some witches. Know which woods?

I dunno, have you seen the drivers out there? Pretty sure some of them are watching movies.

I’m not an expert on any of this. Just a caveat, I’m sure anything I propose will have it’s share of flaws.

State law enforcement (men armed with guns apprehending private citizens) should be the LAST step. For in-the-moment intervention, cops are already useless - unless they happen to be on site already, whatever violence happen, will happen before they get there. There’s no good answer to stopping a determined violent individual, short of empowering people to defend themselves and others around them.

I think there’s always going to be some level of violent crime. Some people simply don’t function the same way. For these people, we clearly need some kind of active response force. It’s use should be limited, based on hard fact and actual threat to civilian life. We also clearly need some kind of (humane) separation for people who cannot or will not rehabilitate, people who cannot be reintegrated into our society. These are two of the only acceptable uses of state violence, in my opinion.

I don’t know the exact way it would look, but I’d like to see a move towards communities looking after themselves and those around them, in all aspects, and this includes safety and security.

Unfortunately, for property crimes, the only way to actually enforce property ownership is through violence, either direct threat of violence (break my shit and I’ll end you), or state violence (break my shit and the state will send armed men to apprehend you unless you reimburse me). We have to determine what level of property security versus violence we seem acceptable. I tend to fall a bit more extreme towards violence not being okay to protect property - I don’t think there’s a single piece of property worth killing or maiming an individual over. Thus, if the only way to protect property is this level of violence, I believe it is wrong to intervene. I don’t believe it is right for the individual to intervene, and I don’t believe it is right for the state to intervene. The sad truth is that most of what the police force does now is enforce these types of crimes.

I didn’t say that the policing model goes away, or that we should have secret police a LA the USSR.

The words I said were: your country’s economic model informs what laws you hold valuable.

This is easily true. We currently have the system in place of “get more, more good.” An abundance of our laws, some of the ones we hold most dear, adhere to that. Protecting property is one thing that our legal system and police force does well.

Contrast to a more equality based economic model. If our society values raising people who are down up, sometimes at a mild cost to someone who’s already doing well, then our laws change. Suddenly we see a value shift in our legal system from get more/protect what we have, to let’s help the downtrodden a bit.

Second, I said that this all informs what policing you have.

Again, this pretty naturally follows from the previous point. Police exist to uphold the laws, at least ostensibly. Their interfacing with society depends on what society has said we hold valuable enough to codify into law. This is where you might get such laws as rent control, where we have determined it’s valuable to set limits to the year over year increase someone has to pay for their dwelling, at the slight cost of some profit to the owner.

All of these things are connected. Correct, socialism isn’t a method of policing, but our method of policing is born of what our society holds valuable. It’s all connected.

I’m not going to keep going on this rhetoric treadmill with you. Once again, I agree in bulk with what you’re saying, I’m merely trying to point out why you’re not really having an impact with the words you’re saying. Im reasonably sure you know exactly what kinds of examples people want to see. Both refusing to supply them or acting ignorant to the request degrade your argument and make it feel like you aren’t arguing in good faith, you’re just shouting talking points.

Disarming: I don’t think there should be no weapons in the hands of law enforcement. Without significantly changing the mindset of how law enforcement must work in our society, yes, having the option to meet a significant resistance with firepower is required. To me, disarming is removing firearms from the average cop. None of the standard patrol officers you’re going to run into in your day-to-day should be carrying a pistol on their hip. Keep it locked in your trunk if you HAVE to have it reasonably accessible. Keep less-lethal options the on-your-hip ready options. Too often we see cops go for the pistol before even engaging with their suspect. I’ve had it happen to me, and we’ve all seen videos I’m sure. Let’s remove that from the equation entirely, keep the guns for after it’s escalated.

Realistically, should the police even BE stopping something like someone stealing a catalytic converter? In an ideal world, sure, but right now the scenario likely ends in either a cat being stolen, or a shootout. I’d rather just let the cat go and focus on the long-term solutions, like fixing the socioeconomic conditions that breed these crimes in the first place. This is also EXACTLY the kind of thing people are outraged over regarding police existing to protect property, not people.

Defunding: similar to disarming, you are correct in that simply removing funds won’t work. Again, I don’t think that’s the realistic end goal. Defujd in the sense that they do not need military level equipment. More, it’s reallocating the funds to things like training, oversight, maybe trading some armed officers for some mental health response personnel. Things like this.

Not in any way resembling what we have today. Good straw man tho.

At least they’re held accountable to someone or something. Even if we have to have 40 layers of vigilantism, it’s better than what we have with police today - essentially zero accountability. Qualified immunity exists, and police oversight boards are routinely voted against, etc.

I’m not an expert in this field, I don’t have all of the answers. I don’t think we can really get all of the answers on a topic as large as “how do we keep society safe” without trying things. I do think the thing we’ve tried for the last little bit has run its course, it’s shown us it doesn’t have much merit, and I’m ready for another system.

Cases where this has happened. Articles detailing actual, specific, times that these things have happened.

To be clear - I agree with you. I’m merely trying to point out why people seem to be talking past you, and you past them.