The Case for abolishing the police (4): “How you gonna stop bank robbers?”

Latest in a series of posts in the wake of the George Floyd murder

The 2020 NCC Peace and Social Justice Conference

Police-Free Future panel, October 15, 2020
video

Followers should find this discussion familiar.

For it is Councilman Reynolds who in his discussion of systemic racism has asked us to think beyond the police department to other societal and cultural factors that create problems that the police are then asked to deal with.

PV has two responses to such questions.

First, abolitionists take a “deeper view” of how to fight crime. Fighting crime is not about just catching and punishing a criminal after the fact of the crime. It’s taking a “holistic view,” asking why someone is committing a crime in the first place. That is, addressing the cause of crime. We fund the police more than other institutions that support the people and if properly supported themselves would mitigate the reason for crime. But most abolitionists recognize the need that there be a “subset of civil servants” who handle forceable intervention when necessary. Most abolitionists are open to that. Most police don’t actually fight crime or work to stop crime.

Though PV said he has two responses, Gadfly doesn’t see that he gave a second one.

Time for your 2-minute drill again. Aww, make it 3 this time.

So Gadfly was kinda surprised with this part of the presentation. It’s familiar territory that he didn’t expect to find.

to be continued . . .

One thought on “The Case for abolishing the police (4): “How you gonna stop bank robbers?”

  1. This does not make much sense, yet. Forceable intervention or police? What is the difference? Nothing, unless they are defined differently.

Leave a Reply