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.

Holy shit I haven’t thought about frybread in like, a decade and now you made me think about it. How dare you.

Gid is gud

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.

It was a peaceful protest. The only danger was from the -checks notes- boys in blue sworn to protect them? That CANT be right.

You know, I’ve also never personally had too bad of an encounter with a cop. I mean, I was falsely arrested once, but the cops were chill, only half of them had their guns pointed at me for no reason. They were just doing their job though, the others were all super chill!

No. Doesn’t matter. You see DAILY that people are victimized. Not just in the states, you can look through this very thread for accounts of other people from other countries with terrible stories.

The very system of the state giving some non-elected individuals sole legal authority to excise violence against their peers, even ostensibly to prevent crimes we all agree are crimes, creates a power dynamic that leads to all sorts of problems we see today.

The quote is from a child. It’s almost like children speak that way sometimes.

The quote is from a child. It’s almost like children speak that way sometimes.

At least vigilantes aren’t above the law. We don’t reeeeeeally have police police, but we could have vigilante vigilantes.

I would add a measure of public election for every branch of LE, at minimum. If I MUST have a boot on my neck, I may as well get to choose it.

It’s a quote from a kid. Kids talk exactly like that sometimes.

As much as ACAB, I can admit that sometimes an armed response is necessary. It sounds like you danes have a well trained force, rather than some 6 week academy psychos with a hard-on for violence.

I don’t think you can have an institution whose purpose is violently policing your peers, either directly or implicitly, without attracting the least desirable of your population. Hell, describing them like that, they really do sound more like a gang.

So, I don’t want to be accused of moving goal posts. That’s not my intention here in the slightest.

This article and organization specifically look at organized crime - things like terrorist cells, cartels, mafia, etc. - no doubt a big concern, but also not the bulk of the crime that happens. That number going up isn’t a good thing, but it’s also entirely possible for that number to be going up for one reason, while the general crime levels are going down, faster, for other reasons.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/us-crime-rates-and-trends-analysis-fbi-crime-statistics

Looking at this article (first thing I found searching ‘violent crimes trend over years’) we can see a much different picture thatln we’d expect looking just at organized crime. The trend is MARKEDLY down from 1990 to today. The only period there even shows an increase, really, was during that little global pandemic we had.

THIS is the number that matters when someone says that the world is objectively safer today than it was in any other period of history. That, per 100k people, the number of them having violent things done to them is going down, steadily, and regularly.

It doesn’t even engage with what I said, it dismisses it out of turn.

To break it down for anyone else bothering to read this:

The natural conclusion to the points about HOAs and Gestapo is thus:

You don’t have to change the police system if it doesn’t exist. Why fix broken, when we can tear it down, see what we need and don’t need, and rebuild something else in its place.

This point has been entirely ignored. I didn’t think I had to spell it out entirely, but there we go. I’m done with this entirely. Good day.

Not doing this anymore. You clearly only intend to twist the words I’m saying, rather than apply a bit of logic and argumentative integrity. Have a good life.

Way to miss the point like you have this whole thread.

Same to you, bud.

Seems to be working out for me well. Have a good life, bud.

You know what would be better in each of those situations? The offending party not existing in the first place.

Don’t have to save the Jews if the Gestapo doesn’t exist.

No need to change the HOA if you don’t have a HOA.

I could tackle the IRS Example as well, except I actually believe in (some degree of) taxes. Good on the people for finally twisting the IRS’s arm on free file options though, they’ve been vastly limited until lately.