2mo ago

literally useless

164 comments

They don't care AFTER a crime has been committed either. Every time I tried to report my bike stolen (happened a lot, unfortunately) they just laughed at me for wasting their time.
The one time I needed them for an intervention they showed up very late, obviously against their will and were downright belligerent (I was the victim of a crime, they barely registered it).
ACAB, no exceptions.
- A bike? I had the same reaction trying to report my car stolen. Not worth their time. They couldn’t even cross reference their own data - a couple weeks later I was ticketed for abandoning my stripped car and charged for towing and storage fees. Reporting my car stolen was just an income source to them and I had to keep paying so it wouldn’t keep adding up
  
  The guy we work with told us that there's a pusher living on the floor below his apartment. It's really sad because the police do nothing about it, even though there have been so many complaints from the neighbors. Narcotics are forbidden here, except for CBD-only products.
- My friend had his bike stolen. He insisted on filing a police report even though the cops were clearly annoyed and straight up told him it was pointless. A couple months later he saw his bike chained up on the main street in his neighborhood. There were 2 cops out on the street so he approached them and explained the situation. One laughed at him and said, "What do you want us to do about it?" The other told him he would have to provide proof that that specific bike was his and that it wasn't just the same brand which is basically impossible.
  Then he said, "We won't be here much longer. Just go buy some bolt cutters and steal it back."
  
  Fuck the cops but ngl that last bit of advice kinda slaps
- In all fairness, this one time whilst living in London (UK) the police did recover my stolen bicycle.
  Frankly I totally didn't expect it and had only reported the theft to make sure it ended up in the theft statistics.
  I've been commuting by bicycle on and off for over 2 decades and got maybe 5 or 6 bicycles stollen in the meanwhile and this was the only one I ever got back.

It's not about preventing crime
The rich break laws constantly, with no consequences
The police are there to make sure that those who aren't wealthy enough to be insulated from the consequences of their actions know their place
- Take it a step back...the root cause of most crime (or at least non-white-collar property crime) is social and economic inequality, which is now and has forever been driven by the wealthy ruling class.
  Rich people cause all the crime.

My ex husband called the police on me two years ago because he wanted to kick me out and move in his new concubine.
When they showed up, they told me I could either go to jail or a mental institution, that I had to leave the house I was currently paying bills on.
They have denied that they did this, and refused to provide me a police report. I had zero protections in my divorce. The fact that I was evicted from my house meant that I did not have the documentation of the physical and mental abuse that I needed for court. Not that it mattered anyway, because my ex drained my bank account a few weeks later and made it impossible to get a lawyer.
- Supporting male dominance is part of their real job.
- That's a pig's job. I've watched those motherfuckers forge documents. They show up, shit on people, then cover up their misconduct and idiocy.

Crime prevention does indeed start with social programs. But it doesn't end there. I'm all for defunding the police and I do agree that in the US police is really out of hand, but let's not be naive here. Social programs aren't going to address organized crime, or crimes of passion, crimes of immaturity (tenagers are both immature hormone soups and capable of causing harm) or political extremism. Antisocial behaviours can appear even in the socialistest of the welfarest of the welfare states.
Not to mention that cops have at the very least also the role of maintaining order, which is different from preventing crime. Think traffic cops, or rowdy crowd marshalling, or stopping disorderly conduct in public, or (extreme example) breaking up the mob that wants to lynch the alleged pedophile, to make sure he gets due process.
I'm all for a profound overhaul of policing, and for deep changes to what first responders are called for what emergency, but, honestly there exist functions for which police is useful.
- Yep just look at Japan. Very safe and orderly country because of the cultural and societal upbringing of people and the pressure to behave. Still has organized crime, still idiots who break traffic laws, still has financial crimes, etc.
  
  Honestly, culture is only part of the reason.
  The majority of people having enough and making enough to live on, and having actually safety nets and access to affordable Healthcare means you don't need to commit crimes to survive. As always it's not perfect and things can always change, but having less wealth inequality really does wonders for a society
- Stop!!! You are making Blahaj Lemmy have a brain melt from all of that logic. They can't comprehend anything but the thought of a lawless shitshow ruled by a ruthless "communist" dictator, where they somehow still have rights for queer people.

Police somewhat deter crime, sometimes. Sometimes they prevent a crime from being worse. For example, they race to a crime in progress and try to stop it if it is still going on.
I don't think you could have a successful society without laws, and you need someone to enforce those laws. But, the modern US police force is so far from what you'd want if you were designing things from the ground up.
- Cops do not like confronting actual criminals - criminals are dangerous. But they love to intimidate and force total acquiescence from regular people and excuse it by saying 'its what we have to do 'in case' they are a criminal'.
  Once criminals figure out that cops don't want to confront them, those criminals learn to accommodate that. So they get worse. They figure out who they can rob and intimidate with impunity - and it's mostly the poor. But also, they can break into middle class people's cars, porch pirate, even B&E into homes, and cops don't want to deal with that. So many people post on reddit bc cops won't do a thing if, for example, a disabled person has their motorized wheelchair stollen, so people try to play detective on their own. Have a stalker or an ex who has credibly threatened your life? That might only help them catch that person if you are actually murdered.
  Cops deter crime in wealthy areas, but the rest of us are on our own.
  Fear of being caught might deter the naive from testing if they can get away with shit, but in reality, there is essentially a truce between cops and criminals, and if you know how to be too much work and risk to bother catching, a lot of what we consider 'criminals' don't have a lot to worry about.
- They also escalate crime. By a lot.
  Welfare checks. Minor incidents. Petty theft.
  Suddenly it's a dead guy.
  
  Agreed but that does not at all relate to "they show up after the crime happens," which is a brain-dead take.
- This is saying police aren't the answer to solving all crime and that the need for them would be greatly reduced if a society were to look after it's people instead of leaving them to wallow in misery and strife. It's not anti police to say that at all. Police are misused in many societies as a tool for all situations and then teach them only how to be a hammer.
- Those kinds of crimes are exceedingly rare, and many (such as rampage killings) are the result of systemic issues that could be addressed in other ways (not merely just regulating firearm access).
- I don't think you could have a successful society without laws, and you need someone to enforce those laws
  This is a very post Renaissance take.
  
  Law enforcement in some form has existed far prior to the Renaissance.
  
  Is it?

The police are worse than useless. They exist to generate revenue for themselves, and they occasionally murder people.

I realise I may be pissing into the wind here, but people don't typically stop at one crime. If you catch the person who did it, that stops them from carrying on doing crimes.
Of course, social programs also help.
- Is this fact or feeling?
  People I know that work with criminals attest that the vast majority of crimes are opportunistic encounters by ordinary people and “career criminality” is rare.
  Of course “I know people who say” isn’t much fact either but it’s more then nothing.
  
  It's definitely not fact. In fact, the Prison Industrial Complex causes MORE crime than doing literally nothing would, let alone actually investing in amelioration of the root causes.
  
  Are these people working with repeat offenders though? Or those going through the system for the very first time?
  
  The Mafia has entered the chat...
- It seems pointless to argue this. Clearly it is true some of the time and not true others. Even some of the opportunistic petty stuff could have been prevented by timely interventions, especially social welfare programs
  However There is evidence that “broken windows” policing doesn’t work, and “stop and frisk” just breeds resentment
  But imagine if police had a good reputation for helping people, lived up to “protect and serve”, actually were a thin blue line keeping civilization civil, cared about preventing crime, investigating crime, seeing justice done. Imagine if they spent their time on issues that matter. Imagine if they were able to handle substance abuse and mental illness for the good of the victims, connect the desperate up with social welfare programs. Just by slogans alone we could have a much better world while preventing a huge portion of crime.
- I mean you can also say that that threat of jail does prevent people from committing crimes. But this seems like a pretty hyperbolic group, not really a lot of room for nuance. A lot of these ACAB people could see a cop sacrificing his life to save an orphanage full of children and still call him evil for being part of a broken system with bad people in it.
  
  It really is. I also think a lot of the power users here just aren't that bright, to be honest.

Never call the pigs unless you want to see you or your loved ones executed or enslaved. Call family, friends, or neighbors you trust before you call the pigs. Develop mutual aid networks BEFORE you need them.
- yeah man I'll call my fucking 75 year old neighbour when some 17 year old chav's are stealing my shit on a tram, or trying to stab me. Are you a fucking rock or something??????? I cannot comprehend how stupid of an idea that is. Like yeah sure you might have neighbours that can help, but not everyone does. Not everyone can help either, and not everyone is useful/safe. I'm calling the cops 10/10 times.

"Mom, I know your intentions are good, but aren't the Police the protective force that maintains the status quo for the wealthy elite? Don't you think we ought to attack the roots of social problems instead of jamming people into overcrowded prisons?”
“Look, Lisa! It's McGriff the Crime Dog! Hello Lisa! Help me bite crime! Ruff ruff!”
The Simpsons

Yeah yeah I know, ACAB and everything.
Police don't just show up, they walk around. At least in non-police states like the US.
And wherever they walk around, crime is prevented. Because a robber isn't going to snatch a purse when a police is looking right at them. A drug dealer isn't going to sell drugs in front of the police station. And people drive slower and don't go into a road rage when the police is riding close by.
So no, police does prevent crimes.
- If they are only preventing opportunity, the crime will just take place at a different place or time when an officer is not present. The program's mentioned are aimed at reducing the motive for crime, which applies at all places and times.
  
  It creates marginalized and crime hubs too. Police chooses to be present somewhere (where there's a perceived interest) and chooses not to somewhere else. Also crime is not viewed equally among the different spheres of society and police just creates its own type of systemic violence in relation to that.
- The threat of violence from police and incarceration by police are also associated with the presence you mention. These also prevent crime from happening.
  The “problem” is that it’s physically impossible to have police everywhere, all the time, for that prevention to be meaningful. It’s diminishing returns and exponential cost. So programs to prevent people from turning to crime, like jobs programs, pay so they aren’t suffering in poverty, affordable and accessible mental health and regular health care, addiction treatment, decent housing, etc. are the logical next steps.
  But no. We just hire more cops, give them more guns, and the equivalent of military armored vehicles. They choose violence.
- I rarely see cops walking and I'm not in the states. That might normal where you are but I can guarantee that cops have to be called, pretty much everytime you need one. They aren't the deterrent you think they are.
  Also when I see one I don't think they are increasing safety and security.

There one area where they can actually prevent/decrease crime. Let's say of all the crimes the police currently commit, they decided (hypothetically) to hold themselves accountable and stop doing those crimes. That would have a direct effect on the police crime rate.

God damnit I still remember this, and I'm in my late 40's
Scruff, McGruff, Chicago Illinois, 60652
- 🎵Write to me, Stick Stickly, PO box 963, New York City, New York State, 10108!🎵
- Rattle rattle thunder clatter boom boom boom....

It's a bit disingenuous to pretend police and punishment in general are not a deterrent. Yes, reducing police has shown to reduce crime for some time in certain case studies, but not removing them.
- however, just like the severity of punishment, after a point the more police you have see diminishing returns, and in serious over policing cases you start to get more crime because they start looking for reasons to hand out fines and smaller charges to justify/fund their job. However, prosperity reduces the amount of crime more than anything, in a given population.

Sometimes they invent crimes that didn't happen. You could say they're creating crime.
- I'm pretty sure that they're frequently creating crime.
  Whether making it up on the fly, or accusing perfectly innocent people of wrongdoing, or... There's a long list...
  
  I just read Framed by John Grisham and Jim McCloskey...and it's insane how far the police and prosecution will go to "save face".
  There's one story in that book where the actual murderer came in to the police station AND CONFESSED with details that only he could have known, because he felt guilty about the wrong person being tried for the murder...and prosecution continued on the innocent person, while the actual murderer was ignored.
  It's an enraging read. I actually had to put it down a few times, because I was so frustrated.
  And, of course, as bad as it is that these innocent people are being prosecuted (and some even executed), another problem is that the actual murderer is still roaming free...and many of these crimes are now unsolved, because the police were so focused on the innocent person that they ignored everything else.

Mentally ill, non-violent, habitual drug user here. I can attest that, regardless of my moral condemnation of policing, a good 60 percent of my encounters with police have contained abuse, incompetence, or gross misconduct.
Oh, and I'm a white man with blue eyes, and 5'1".

I've been saying it for forever, happy people don't do crime.

I actually disagree, because they're a deterrant. "They show up after it happens" is an argument that could be applied to any deterrant, so it's obviously a bad argument. Police are a problem for other reasons than that they literally don't prevent any crime.
- They're not a very good one considering how they have a very poor case closure rate for serious violent crimes, and the state and federal justice systems of the US are disturbingly okay with false convictions and excessive retribution.
  
  sure, I don't disagree with you. The police are a moronic institution and ACAB, but this meme's dead stupid in order to farm worthless lemmy upvotes.
- How does that apply to cameras used as deterrents? They're present the whole time.
- It's probably accurate to say that police create more crime than they prevent
  
  I'd upvote that meme.
- Postponed, supressed or relocated potentially but not prevented and when crimes are postponed or supressed as such the desperation increases resulting in more violent and destructive crimes.
  The only way to prevent crime is to deal with the conditions that cause it.
- both are true?
  
  It is both true that police show up after it happens and they don't prevent crime? No -- there exist crimes that are prevented by the police. I'm sorry but even if this meme is batting for my team it's in my best interest to shoot it down because it just makes us all look stupid. I agree with the conclusion this meme makes, but the first half is so obviously wrong it is worth negative points in my opinion.

Fear of getting caught in progress or after criminal behaviour is literally THE factor for not doing crime. Everyone is capable of crime regardless of how well socialised we are. We either have no good reason to do crime, restrain our criminal "urge" or are at least unconsciously scared of getting caught. The intensity of punishment is not helping to deter crime. The chance of getting caught however is by far the largest deterrent.

I have seen the way people drive if there are no consequences for driving terribly and dangerously. I assure you it cannot be fixed with just speed/red light cameras, speed bumps, and social programs. (And honestly, cameras and especially speed bumps just make the road worse for everyone)

I agree with the post but not the title._{___}

Every law you pass, no matter how good your intentions, is another excuse for the gangbangers in badges to come beat up on us. I've tried to make a million atheists in my life and have made around 0. You can build public transit. You can't make not using it immoral. Who the fuck do you think you are? With your fucking prestigious, well- thought- out moral system? Fuck off. You guys shape the world, I'm going to throw bricks at your pigs.

Aside from the perpetrator, there is only one person guaranteed to be present at the scene of every violent crime.
That person's involvement is important.
- ... The victim???
  
  Correct.
  Police only show up after the crime has been committed, but the targeted victim was there from the very beginning. Once the violent crime has started, they are the first responding person with the motive and opportunity to end it.

There's a fair amount of research that suggests more police equals less crime. It's not just the number of police officers that impacts crime rates, but it is absolutely a variable according to most criminologists.
- Huh, there's a fair amount of evidence that police are criminals. It not just the number of police that drive up stats, but the lack of accountability.
  ACAB.
- https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/lifestyle/koreanheritage/20111014/30-low-crime-joseon-korea-was-overpoliced
  Fun story on this

I call bullshit.
Are you going to speed up when you see a cop car?
- No, but it doesn't mean I'll never speed again as soon as im out of their view. I'd say at best they delayed a crime from happening. But I get how that has its legitimate usefulness too.
  
  I’ve definitely come around to speeding as a civil engineering problem more than anything else (partly due to Lemmy but started on that other platform).
  In general people don’t take speeding seriously nor believe they will be a victim of dangerous driving. I don’t see how police enforcement does anything to change that. I’m sure it does for a few but in general, no. It even causes worse situations when you have people with their license taken away, no way to get insurance, yet have to rely on cars. Our current approach to speeding is just busy work for police and a tax on the unlucky.
  Yet different road design helps people drive at a reasonable speed by default, reduced collisions, protects the more vulnerable travelers from car travelers, and gives people multiple choices to get around. Most importantly we can have more scalable choices than simply “add another lane”
  Lets build infrastructure such that police are not spending so much time enforcing speed limits where we all know people will speed right up when the cop is gone
  DOWN WITH STROADS!
  
  I get annoyed by people who post about a problem but haven't done anything to understand it or come up with a rational solution.
  Screaming ACAB a million times may make them feel good, but it doesn't do anything useful.
- Folks temporarily slow down until they're gone. Which causes traffic jams and accidents.

164 comments