US police use force on 300,000 people a year, with numbers rising since George Floyd: ‘relentless violence’
US police use force on 300,000 people a year, with numbers rising since George Floyd: ‘relentless violence’
Exclusive: groundbreaking Mapping Police Violence data estimates scale of physical force and civilian injuries
Police in the US use force on at least 300,000 people each year, injuring an estimated 100,000 of them, according to a groundbreaking data analysis on law enforcement encounters.
Mapping Police Violence, a non-profit research group that tracks killings by US police, launched a new database on Wednesday cataloging non-fatal incidents of police use of force, including stun guns, chemical sprays, K9 dog attacks, neck restraints, beanbags and baton strikes.
The database features incidents from 2017 through 2022, compiled from public records requests in every state. The findings, the group says, suggest that despite widespread protests against police brutality following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, overall use of force has remained steady since then – and in many jurisdictions, has increased.
You're viewing a single thread.
Good to know they've responded to the people's critiques of policing by doubling down on the problem. I hope more people start taking seriously the idea that we don't need the police, and in fact any value they may offer society is simply not worth the violence. We could legitimately make our society function better by disbanding the police entirely
"The answer is not to defund the police! It's to fund them! Fund them!!" - Joe Biden
And then he proceeded to give them money to buy more tear gas canisters and armored vehicles and liberals are surprise Pikachu face-ing when statistics like this come out.
In 100 years (if the earth lasts that long) I hope people look back at police abolition the way we look back at the abolition of slavery: as an obvious step towards a more equitable society.
For real. We need to deescalate things and I don't think that can start with the populace defending itself to stop defending itself. The cops are bullies. The answer isn't to lay down and wait for teacher to see we're getting beat up. We need to deal with the bullies by demonstrating that we're strong together
I think the main argument against disbanding the police is that we'd have no mechanism to prevent violence from former cops. I have no expectation that their behavior will improve if we just stop paying them.
Easier to throw them in jail when you strip them of qualitative immunity though.
Who exactly is going to throw them in jail?
If we remove the current police we have the room to reform them better. Also the FBI is less corrupt than current state level police.
Still corrupt. But less. The FBI can do it in the meantime.
But in reality we need police reform. We need to make them walk their beats again. They need to police the places they live, not neighboring counties. They should mostly not have guns. A good chunk of the force should be replaced with social workers. And qualitative immunity needs to go away permanently.
That's something I can get behind.
We do have a mechanism to prevent that, our right to bear arms.
LOL. Rights mean nothing if there's no enforcement.
Enforcement of your own rights is protected by yourself. The government doesn't enforce the right to free speech, it can't force you to say something. The government doesn't enforce the right to a warrant, the government is the one who makes cops enter your place without one.
The government also doesn't enforce gun ownership to anyone but the military and the militarized police. There is no "Government supplied and required to own and use firearm".
Governments rarely give you freedoms you never had before they came into power, they just remove the limits they enforced onto us. And they never do it willingly.
Also if we get rid of the police we might as well get rid of a good chunk of the government while we're at it. One of their core functions is to pass laws and with no enforcement arm there's no point having those.
I usually couldn't care less about electoralism, but if any politician has get rid of police and government as their platform, I will vote for them and campaign SO HARD.
Great news is that would be the last time you'd ever have to vote, too. I wonder what kinds of benevolent folks would step into that power vacuum, fun to think about.
This. The actual job of cops is to protect rich b*stards and their stuff from ordinary taxpayers. And making us pay for our own abuse with our own tax dollars.
If that goes away, they'll just hire mercenaries, instead. They won't give up that protection.
If there's no government and no police you get mafia. Ask me how I know
^(Hint: look at my instance)
y'all are acting like the rich don't already have mercenaries and mafia
Any examples of thriving modern societies without a law enforcement arm?
Easy. The US does not have "law enforcement."
The police have no duty to protect the law and they do not. They protect capital and only respond to crime after the fact.
and if you're not a member of the favored class they won't respond even then. In fact, they might make your situation worse just to do it. I got pickpocketed in Louisville and the police basically told me that not having my wallet anymore was a problem I'd have to navigate on my own. Later that day they busted me for driving without a license and vagrancy because I was trying to leave Louisville to return home to VA.
I cannot emphasize enough that when people ask questions to me when I say we should dissolve the police and start anew with some new mechanism for handling crime such as "who will you call when you're the victim of a crime" my answer is almost never the police because its very rare for them to do anything useful
You know anyone can look up arrest records and see how inaccurate your statement is.
That's not enforcement, that's the justice system after the fact.
Of course they can't do anything about a crime that hasn't been committed. Do you want police to follow people around to prevent crimes or arrest people they suspect will commit a crime.
As soon as they witness a crime they act. If you expect more than that you are looking for a police state.
Arrest records are also not an accurate portrayal of crime. There's a TON of wrongful arrests out there. Like... Its a monumental problem
Right, it's not a good representation of crime, because the number of reports are always higher than the number of cleared cases, hence the term clearance rate, which by the way is highest for crimes against persons(murder, rape, and manslaughter) despite the earlier claim that "police only protect capital".
Good thing there is a process to validate the arrests.
My issue with this is the notion that there are thriving modern societies. Our modern world is a complex web of torture and exploitation. The police in my country (the USA) act far more as maintainers of the status quo of torture than they do protectors of the populace from violent crime
In fact, the Courts ruled they don't actually have to protect you at all! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
EDIT: District Court
I mean, I think there are, most Nordics for one.
Whether US police is a uniquely thuggish corrupt arm of the moneyed establishment or not, is a different question.
But the way you are phrasing it I think you are skirting with the idea of anarchy as a (non) system of governance so the primary question here is if you think there is a need for any rules at all.
And if there is, how are they agreed upon, adjudicated and enforced in societies larger than a village.
Anarchy means "without rulers" not "without rules". Anarchists love rules.
https://harvardpolitics.com/nordic-racism/
And for the record. Yes. I am an anarchocommunist. If the cost of large societies is large scale violence, then maybe we should adjust our primary societal units into smaller, more communal units. The ideal government is one that protects the liberties of the populace from exploitation by others. As it stands our governments mainly function to ensure the exploitation continues. I'm not advocating the immediate abolishment of all government right now, but I want to make it clear that I don't think a society that justifies the violence it enacts as being necessary to maintain society is worth maintaining as is. Such a society requires adjustment
I’m not sure there will ever be a society that doesn’t require adjustment.
Anarchocommunism - I see. In my mind seems like a theoretical construct, a temporary situation that would quickly shift to something else either by internal or external forces, a construct similar to libertarianism.
And indeed historically this has been the case.
This “small communities” construct is also pretty unhealthy if you ever had any experience in small communities as I have.
Your neighbours are your oppressors and you theirs.
Societal norms of dress, sexual preference and everything else, are enforced by societal shame, isolation, expulsion and occasional beatings in extreme cases. The rumour mill would whip up neighbours into all kinds of idiocy. They know everything about you and you about them.
Anyone that has lived the village life that had any sense couldn’t get out of there fast enough and into the anonymity of a large city where the people didn’t police each other but if needed was the protection of an independent and dispassionate (from interpersonal animus) arbiter that mostly left them alone.
You're misunderstanding what I mean when I say smaller communities and that's partially on me. The largely anonymous city is the unit of organization I champion as being the ideal target. We want populous cities that are self organized and self sufficient. Personally, my experience with this independent and dispassionate arbiter has never been good, so my vision for community policing moves away from a paid police force to the mechanisms I've already invested myself more in in the forms of mutual aid and support.
Smaller in this case is a comparison between countries that span across nearly entire continents vs the idea of a city state. We also need to protect ourselves from multinational companies that are so anonymous and foreign to the people they exploit that it's impossible to hold them accountable
In which case how does a community of that scale operate without a rule enforcement arm?
Will there be environmental laws? Traffic laws? Food safety? Defence? Adjudication of differences?
How does it work?
Will someone be issuing driving licenses based on competence? Who’s going to check if I don’t have one?
If I don’t have the sense to drive properly or secure a dangerous load, or I drive drunk or I keep running people over or running red lights who is going to stop me?
If I assault or murder someone is it vendetta rules? What if someone accuses me of that but I haven’t done it - who figures out what happened? Are there investigators? Who’s going to stop me? Or defend me?
My issue with this notion is the implication that the modern world is uniquely tortuous and exploitative. Humans are violent, greedy, opportunistic apex predators. Our nobility and justice are individual and aspirational. The whole point of the complex web is to introduce friction and disincentives to that violence.
Should we try to minimize that violence? Absolutely! But our institutions are our attempt to crawl out of the jungle. Without police we'd have other violent gangs with even less oversight.
I encourage you to read Humankind by Rutger Bregman. The notion that humans are inherently animalistic, greedy, and violent has not been supported by the bulk of anthropological study throughout modern history, and his book does a good job of breaking down why there's such a divide between the perception of so-called "human nature" and the anthropological and sociological evidence.
TLDR: humans aren't inherently greedy, we respond to our systems and environment more than anything.
Thank you for this. I was about to bring up that history is littered with societies who had things pretty well squared away and were doing just fine before the touch of colonialism reached them. Societies that don't exist anymore because they stood in the way of "progress." Societies whose people were either enslaved, genocided, or both
Maybe relatively small societies, but there has always been violence in any society of consistent size.
That's a nice thought, and I certainly won't completely disregard our capacity for, but our extensive history of war and brutality proves that this absolutely universal. I'm not saying that every human is violent, but it's silly to suggest that there aren't violent humans at every stage of history.
What your original comment suggested was not that you acknowledged the human capacity for violence, which nobody can deny and I am not debating.
The comment implied - and this is an assumption so ingrained in our western society that nobody could blame you for it - that the only thing separating humans from violent, animalistic, or selfish impulses is societal structure and policing.
our institutions are our attempt to crawl out of the jungle
That just isn't demonstrable, as much as it may feel intuitive. It's a Hobbian philosophy.
I'm not here to pretend I can convince you otherwise in one comment thread, took me a long time to change my mind on that and I'm not anthropological authority. That's why I recommend the book, it's quite eye-opening. At least it was for me.
Specifically what I said was that individual choice separates humans from violent, animalistic, and selfish impulses. I said that societal structure introduces friction to disincentivize those impulses for those who would submit to them.
How would we deal with violent crime without a police force?
How would we have any violent crime without a police force to commit it?
Yes yes perfectly logical
I feel silly for not seeing it exactly that way before
You can move to a part of the world that doesn’t have police, right now, if you want to experience that life. Have fun!
how can you not see this was very obviously a joke based on the headline of the thread?
So obviously
see: Alaska
very high per capita rape and domestic abuse Police may commit a fair chunk of it, but certainly not all.
.... all you did with that comment is prove that you have no real answer. You went full idiot and only pushed away the people who were unsure about which side they're on. I wouldn't be surprised at all if you're a bootlicker troll and not just as dumb as you've made yourself look.
Buddy, if an off hand pun can change your political ideology it wasn't that strongly held to begin with.