
Abolish the Police? Survivors of the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure - pseudolus
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/07/us/defund-police-seattle-protests.html
======
spaetzleesser
I really hate that in typical US manner this issue gets pushed to the extreme
so in the end a reasonable discussion can’t be had but it’s only a fight with
everybody digging in and not listening to each other.

Abolishing the police was always nonsense but there are plenty of areas where
police is overused and too aggressive. In my view there shouldn’t be police in
schools or hospitals. The drug war causes a lot of unnecessary arrests and
aggravation with a lot of neighborhoods. Bad cops often stay in the force
without consequences for clearly bad behavior. Cops don’t have enough training
so they aren’t prepared for difficult situation . The list goes on and on.

Addressing these issues would be good for cops, citizens and also public
budgets. But instead the country chooses to have this stupid fight where the
interested parties spend a lot of time distorting other views. Reminds me of
the typical healthcare discussions. It’s very sad.

~~~
moomin
I think the thing you're missing here is that the distortion (see the use of
the word abolish here, the proposal is defunding) is completely deliberate.

This divide didn't happen by accident, it's the product of decades of
deliberate political choices.

~~~
bobbygoodlatte
Social media algorithms amplify the most engaging content, and extreme
versions of political statements are very engaging. I don't think it takes
deliberate messaging tactics by one side or another for our current political
climate to emerge.

~~~
moomin
The strategy has been in place since the 1960s. Read up on the history of
anti-abortion in the US.

------
Threeve303
Abolishing the police combined with the protests (or riots) and the move
against the NRA creates a very uncomfortable environment for probably half of
the United States.

All in an election year no less.

Does no one remember 2000,2004 and 2016? Perhaps the DNC could write a book
called “How to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”

~~~
happytoexplain
You should be aware that I've talked to liberals in rural areas who feel
physically threatened by far-right rhetoric. I.e. the "the only good democrat
is a dead democrat" video, conservatives guarding voting locations with guns,
the president encouraging both these examples, etc. A couple of them have
taken up gun ownership _specifically because of this fear_. I absolutely
sympathize with both sides, but being "very uncomfortable" is nowhere near
one-sided.

~~~
syshum
I have never once encountered "far-right rhetoric. I.e. the only good democrat
is a dead democrat", sounds more like authoritarian propaganda to me

~~~
klyrs
Trump retweeted it. And yeah, it certainly does sound like authoritarian
propaganda.

~~~
syshum
He retweeted a supporter video in which the person clearly said "Dead
Politically" that was taken out of context by the media and other perpetually
offended left wing people ironically in the exact way the person in the video
said it would.

The cancel culture of the perpetually offended is simply insane

~~~
klyrs
Sorry, what cancel culture? Who got cancelled here? Did you "never" hear him
say the words "the only good democrat is a dead democrat," or are you actually
familiar with the video that was originally mentioned that you previously
denied the existence of?

And what does "politically dead" mean, anyway? Does it have anything to do
with cancellation?

~~~
happytoexplain
I know you're forming a rational argument, but of course what it "means" is
obvious from the video: It's just the arbitrary punchline in the typical bit:
"I'm going to support [murder|violence|hatred|oppression|racism|sexism]
against my political enemy - but it's _just a joke_! If you criticize me
you're dumb!" He could have chosen anything for the "it's just a joke!" part -
he happened to choose a strained analogy.

However, note well that, aside from his obviously being immoral, it doesn't
ultimately matter what he "meant" as much as what his crowd heard, and how
they reacted. This particular crowd's lust for killing democrats is above
board, and this may be a tiny sample, but it mirrors the stream of hatred and
desire for violence that we normally only hear in such undisguised words on
the internet - and occasionally in person - from "normal people" (i.e. not
leaders or other speaking personalities).

I sometimes wonder if there are leaders who, upon doing or saying something
evil, hear the reaction of their constituents, and feel any
remorse/disillusionment when they realize exactly how "not a joke" the hatred
is. Another example was the guy who viciously attacked the journalist who was
persisting aggressively - did he feel any guilt inside? What about when he saw
his constituents explicitly applaud his violence in the following days?

------
jkingsbery
"Aren't so sure" from reading the article seems like an understatement. Many
of the people featured in this article are suing the city for not doing it's
responsibility.

I get that police treatment is often inequitable, but I think we've had some
experiments this summer showing that some of the radical changes being
proposed have their own problems.

~~~
adjkant
> the radical changes being proposed have their own problems

I'd like to point out that none of said changes have been implemented anywhere
in the US in any meaningful way. Save some minor defunding, I know of no
locale who has transferred any responsibility away from the police, which is
one of the main roads to abolition. As another poster said, this is a very
clear straw man. CHAZ was a result of protesting and an incredibly aggressive
Seattle PD, not an ideal people are looking to recreate everywhere.

~~~
jkingsbery
Fair point - you're right that the suggested policies have not been
implemented in a meaningful way.

My point was that some relatively minor changes (de facto abandoning
neighborhoods as in CHAZ, changes to bail laws in NY being two examples) have
led to some pretty drastic (negative) changes to safety.

~~~
adjkant
Where have bail laws caused any issue in NY? As a resident I haven't
encountered any such issues.

I wouldn't call "abandoning a neighborhood" a minor change either. It seems
clear to me it's very much a calculated political move to do that so people
can do exactly what you did - point and say "well we need police, look what
happened without them". This should have no bearing on reform laws and
abolition steps.

~~~
NovemberWhiskey
The article below provides a summary of the discussion on the NY bail law
impact:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/nyregion/crime-stats-
nyc-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/nyregion/crime-stats-nyc-bail-
reform.html)

~~~
adjkant
That's based on one month (January 2020) with clear political motivations
directly discussed by NYT in the article If you look at NYC crime YTD, it's
down 3% [1]. I don't see how thats a drastic or even minor change to public
safety.

Per your own link:

> "Law enforcement experts say crime statistics can rise or fall in any given
> month for numerous reasons and explain that it is far more important to
> track trends over longer periods of time."

One month just isn't representative of if a policy worked or not. Take March
2020 [2]. Crime down overall, including for assaults, something the NYPD
blamed the bail law on in January. I specifically cherry-picked March on
purpose - you can see if you look around that months go up and down. I'm not
saying it's an open and shut case in either direction, but there's no macro
rise as again evidenced on the YTD stats in the first source.

[1]
[https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statist...](https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs-
en-us-city.pdf)

[2] [https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p0402b/nypd-citywide-
cri...](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p0402b/nypd-citywide-crime-
statistics-march-2020)

~~~
NovemberWhiskey
Hey; I'm just providing a source that talks about it - I don't have a dog in
this fight.

~~~
adjkant
Didn't mean to come off as attacking, sorry :)

------
hevelvarik
This is rich. The comments are largely in favor of diminishing police funding
presumably to protect black people whereas black people want nothing of the
sort [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/81-black-
ameri...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/81-black-americans-
dont-want-less-police-presence-despite-protestssome-want-more-cops-
poll-1523093%3famp=1)

Truly bizarre

~~~
john-shaffer
Just FYI, you're likely to get downvoted for posting an AMP link. It's
generally best to link directly to the source.

------
Tycho
We can split hairs about 'defunding' vs 'abolishing', but I just get the
distinct impression that many people have got no real idea about the threat
that crime poses to the prosperity of a community (or city or state), and the
effort that is required to keep it in check. The occasional misbehaviour of
police officers is a small price to pay compared to the oppression and
privation wrought by widespread crime.

~~~
happytoexplain
Most of the examples that spurred this movement are killings that are
disproportionately either negligent or depraved heart _at the very least_
(let's pretend we can't form an argument that any of them were purposeful
murders that were not necessary to save the officer). Even given this benefit
of the doubt, it is _still_ reasonable for independent citizens of a free
nation to fight tooth and nail against such an assault on a tenant of
civilization: That the state _never_ kills you in the streets, _if they can at
all help it_. Further, I can't see from any angle how allowing these instances
to continue is a necessary price for preventing _widespread crime_.

>I just get the distinct impression that many people have got no real idea
about the threat that crime poses to the prosperity of a community

I can't disagree more strongly.

>... and the effort that is required to keep it in check

This I agree with. But this is a weak argument against people who live with a
constant background, and sometimes foreground, fear for their lives from their
own government.

~~~
Tycho
You have to consider the stochastic nature of crime and policing. The size of
the population, the size of the force, behaviour altered by substance abuse,
the prevalence of deadly weapons, the mental toll of dealing with criminals
every day, the presence of organised crime, the antagonism, the heat of the
moment, the type of personality needed to want to do the job: _of course_ you
are going to end up with _some_ bad encounters. That is the price of having
police.

The price of not having police is the constant and imminent danger and cost of
crime. We all have to avoid certain parts of our cities. Women can’t walk
safely at night even in the “safe” parts. Children can’t be left unattended.
Public goods are ruined by vandalism. The stabilising effect of family
households is lost as many flee to safer locations. Property values languish.
Nobody can invest in the area, lenders and insurers aren’t interested.
Innocent people are brutalised and they can’t rely on the police to protect
them. Violent criminals operate with impunity. These aren’t isolated
incidents, this is a trend of misery.

And this will be the legacy of many of these BLM protests/riots. More misery
heaped on the poorest communities. That’s why I say that many people seem to
have no real idea about the trade-off.

~~~
DanBC
> of course you are going to end up with some bad encounters. That is the
> price of having police.

> The price of not having police is the constant and imminent danger and cost
> of crime. We all have to avoid certain parts of our cities. Women can’t walk
> safely at night even in the “safe” parts.

And yet many countries don't have police forces that are pathologically
violent, and don't have no-go zones in their cities.

~~~
juniper_strong
If you look up "Gun Ownership" on Wikipedia, it claims there are around 850
million guns owned by civilians in the world, around 400 million of those 850
million are in the US.

Whatever your politics are, you can't begin to understand crime and policing
in the US until you internalize those numbers.

------
shadowgovt
If I understand correctly, the main call is for defunding the police, not
abolishing them.

~~~
miles7
I think for most people defund sounds like “take away all funding for” which
would be tantamount to abolishing.

~~~
shadowgovt
That's not what it means when we do it to schools.

------
PedroBatista
Human ego seems to be the most powerful thing in the Universe.

Whole communities commit "suicide" just to fuel the delusions of a handful and
the self-preservation of another handful. How many injustices have been
perpetrated in the name of justice?

No one comes out of this looking good, certainly not the police too.

------
keiferski
The reform movements of the last ~15 years have consistently failed to learn
one lesson: pick a simple, easy to understand slogan that leads to simple,
actionable goals. Occupy had the exact same problem and ultimately
accomplished nothing.

Obama and Trump both understood this and both chose slogans that virtually no
one can disagree with (“Change / Yes We Can” and “Make America Great Again.”)
Pretty easy to understand.

“Abolish the police” seems almost designed to fail as a slogan right from the
beginning.

------
azangru
I thought well over half of the US population "aren't so sure", not just
"survivors of the chaos in Seattle".

------
noarchy
People want security. That means different things to different people. Law
enforcement is not necessarily the same thing as security. Law enforcement
means just that, and the laws themselves may not be what many would consider
just. The laws are likely to reflect the prejudices of those in power, which
may lend itself to why we're seeing the clashes we're seeing in the US right
now.

Those with the resources to do so have on-site security. This ranges from
gated communities, to some condo/apartment buildings, and even shopping malls.
Even this isn't necessarily free of problems, but it needs to be seen as
something fundamentally different from law enforcement. So when we talk about
"abolishing" the police, we have to ask what we really want in its stead.

~~~
shadowgovt
> Law enforcement is not necessarily the same thing as security

I'm having difficulty finding my source right now, but it appears that in
cases of homicide by someone unknown to the victim, a police officer is the
perpetrator in between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 incidents. These statistics don't
consider whether the killing is justified; they just observe that if people
know of someone who was killed by a stranger, there's a 1-in-3 or 1-in-4
chance that stranger has a uniform.

And as we know, people's perceptions of safety are more important than actual
statistics. We rewrote the nature of air travel in response to 9/11.

~~~
victoro0
How would that imply lack of security? Wouldn't it be perfect if every single
homicide by a stranger was by a cop? It would mean that a cop was there every
time to stop the criminal before they hurt someone.

~~~
shadowgovt
That's assuming that the only people cops shoot are criminals.

in point of fact, legally, almost everyone the cops shoot are innocent people
in the eyes of the law.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Innocent in the eyes of the law, meaning what? No prior convictions? Not
convicted of the crime for which the police officer is looking for the
perpetrator? Of course they're not; they haven't even been arrested yet. And
once they're dead, nobody's going to bother to prosecute and convict them.

For example, we recently had an armed robbery outside a bar here. Police came
looking for the perpetrator. They found a man who they suspected might be the
robber. He ran from them. They chased him. He turned around with a gun in his
hand. They shot and killed him.

Now: Was he innocent in the eyes of the law? He wasn't convicted of that
robbery. He wasn't even arrested for it. They _would_ have arrested him (or at
least detained him), but he fled, and then turned around with a gun.

So I'm not sure that "innocent in the eyes of the law" says very much. Other
than escaped prisoners, _everyone_ the police encounter is innocent in the
eyes of the law, at least on the issue for which the police are confronting
them.

~~~
shadowgovt
> Was he innocent in the eyes of the law?

Yes.

> I'm not sure that "innocent in the eyes of the law" says very much.

It says that we still believe in the rule of law, not in just allowing cops to
be judge, jury, and executioner on our streets. To be sure, shootings due to
self defense happen, but we have entire protests and riots in the United
States right now over how often cops kill innocent civilians without
justification, and are protected by the system from any consequences.

------
cyberdrunk
Am I the only one under impression that the article is chaotic and it's hard
to tell from it what is the extend of the damage done and who and to what
degree contributed to it?

------
collyw
Was anyone surprised by this? Defund / Abolish the police sound like the
stupidest ideas ever.

~~~
dleslie
As an outsider looking in, it seems to me like reducing the scope of
responsibility , and increasing accountability, of your police forces would be
a boon to public safety.

~~~
kevin_b_er
We've tried to hold police accountable for murder. Charging them results in
incidents like the entire police force rallying behind the one and just not
doing their job anymore. And nearby police refusing to do their duty as well.

This happened in Atlanta. You can't even bring charges against a cop, let
alone make it to a trial, without horrendous outcry and mass refusal to do
their job.

[https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-
po...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-police-not-
answering-calls/index.html)

~~~
dleslie
Where I am we have many levels of public safety enforcement; I've heard that
in the USA there's a lot less variety in policing?

Ie, bylaws are enforced by armed and armoured officers who have full power to
arrest.

Is that true? It seems to me that dividing the forces would help to break
their unified defensive behaviour.

------
1312
A reminder that police "do not owe a specific duty to provide police services
to citizens based on the public duty doctrine."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)

------
dorian-graph
> “Seattle’s unprecedented decision to abandon and close off an entire city
> neighborhood, leaving it unchecked by the police, unserved by fire and
> emergency health services, and inaccessible to the public”

Is this what people advocating for abolish the police are advocating for?
Removal of health services? Isn't it literally the opposite, to have more and
more varied health (and social) services, that people are advocating for?

"Abolish the police" is a scale where there is an extreme end where they may
call for completely removing police from across the USA. From what I've seen,
that isn't what the majority who are calling for abolishment are aiming for.
Maybe "abolish" was a poor choice of a word.

The more common level I've seen is advocating for replacing parts of policing
for more appropriate systems and services.

I'd call this article a straw-man argument, but there are those on the extreme
end of the scale, apparently.

~~~
hartator
> “Abolish the police” is a scale

Words have meaning though. No one on the political board is against reforms
but “abolish”, “defund”, or “shut down” mean what it means.

~~~
badRNG
"Let's move funds from police departments to public health infrastructure, and
additionally, use remaining funding on accountability mechanisms"

doesn't exactly roll off the tongue at a protest.

~~~
goda90
"Reform public safety" works though

~~~
shadowgovt
Has less punch, and we're not talking about restructuring fire departments.

~~~
basch
Is the goal to be as polarizing as possible, or to persuade people on the
fence to come over to the party?

~~~
shadowgovt
How many people, at this point in the first four years of the Trump
administration, are still on the fence?

~~~
tarboreus
Pretty much everyone who matters if you're trying to convince people of
something.

~~~
shadowgovt
I suspect we're well past the time of convincing and into the time of doing.

~~~
basch
In the 7 or 8 swing states that matter, you think the election is already
decided in each of them? I would expect a bunch more defectors if the economy
is still in ruin by then, and a bunch of 'moderates' who end up deciding based
on how recent foreign policy turns out.

Remember, most people are single issue voters. The rest of everything he does,
doesnt matter.

~~~
shadowgovt
Possibly, but this administration has been so polarizing that at this point, I
think it's a lot more about getting like-minded people out of their chairs and
to the polls than it is finding more like-minded people.

It's been year after year of polarizing decisions and rhetoric. At this point,
basically everyone's dug in on how they feel about this direction for America.

------
adjkant
Remember back when people had such issue with the language and phrasing of
"Black Lives Matter" until people (over 50%, according to recent polls)
finally came around after George Floyd? "Abolish the police" is going to be
the same scenario in time.

Please, do your research on what abolition actually looks like. This article
does not describe abolition, it describes a PR tactic the Seattle PD decided
to pull as punishment to protestors. Linked below is one with actual interest
and nuance.

[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2020/6/12/21283813/g...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2020/6/12/21283813/george-floyd-blm-abolish-the-police-8cantwait-
minneapolis)

If you look around and see incredible injustice, great. Don't spend your time
policing the language and methodology the oppressed use to argue for their
rights, go do things and help them be more effective. This is a classic white
liberal issue of "I support the ideas but not the way to them" that has been
around for centuries.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/17/martin-
luth...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/17/martin-luther-king-
polite-racism-white-liberals/)

"We do not need allies who are more devoted to order than to justice" \- MLK

~~~
CapricornNoble
>>>This is a classic white liberal issue of "I support the ideas but not the
way to them" that has been around for centuries.

"The white liberal is the worst enemy to America, and the worst enemy to the
black man....The white liberal aren’t white people who are for independence,
who are moral and ethical in their thinking. They are just a faction of white
people that are jockeying for power. The same as the white conservative is a
faction of white people that are jockeying for power. They are fighting each
other for power and prestige, and the one that is the football in the game is
the Negro..." \- Malcom X

[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8869214-the-white-
liberal-i...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8869214-the-white-liberal-is-
the-worst-enemy-to-america-and)

~~~
adjkant
Was looking for this when I was typing that post up! Should have known it
would be Malcom X. There's another great quote along the lines of "those
concerned with how something is said than what is said" that I can't seem to
remember the source on either that is very relevant here too.

------
rayhendricks
Cutting the Seattle police departments budget by 50% would be the perfect way
to provide an argument for Trump Republicans that the alt-left/Antifa are out
to get you .

This combined with the portland protests will get Trump re-elected and keep
the GOP majority in the senate.

This is what you call __a diversion __from the real issue which is COVID, that
republicans have not managed well at all.

The CHOP was a nightmare that was not shut down soon enough. There were armed
gangs patrolling the entire thing who would try and make you delete cellphone
footage. There was also rape/Iv drug usage/trash all over. I was literally
there back in June.

That is NOT what I want to deal with on a daily basis.

We need to hire more police and private security to stop the crazies, make cal
Anderson a gun free Zone and stop the chaos.

------
Kednicma
The NYT is bootlicking with this article; they entirely left out that Seattle
_did_ defund their police, cutting their budget by about half. So did
Portland. But NYT would rather focus on how scared business owners feel,
because that's their target audience.

~~~
pseudalopex
Portland cut 3%.[1] Seattle is going to vote on 2%.[2]

[1]
[https://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2020/06/17/28550006...](https://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2020/06/17/28550006/portland-
city-council-approves-3-reduction-in-police-budget)

[2] [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-
news/politics/seattle-c...](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-
news/politics/seattle-city-council-takes-a-swing-at-the-police-and-mostly-
misses/)

------
dragonwriter
“Abolish the police” isn't “abolish law enforcement”. It's “abolish the
centralized, generalist paramilitary model of local law enforcement.”

The ability of a blanket law enforcement withdrawal from selected
neighborhoods, is largely a product of, and historically has been applied as a
negotiating tactic by, exactly the model of law enforcement targeted for
abolition by people who Say “Abolish the police”.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
All right, but then comes the question: Replace it with what?

~~~
dragonwriter
Among the alternatives: dividing law enforcement among domain-specific
agencies that that have law enforcement within their domain as part, but not
usually all, of their remit. You might have relatively pure enforcement in a
central criminal investigation service, traffic enforcement enforcement within
the agency responsible for roads and transit; truancy and school resources
officers organizationally within the education office rather than assigned to
them by a separate law enforcement agency, etc.

------
elil17
“Business owners describe a harrowing experience of calling for help and being
left all alone.”

No one advocating defunding the police was saying it would be good for
business owners. The point of the whole movement is that police protect the
rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.

~~~
thatsfine
Then the businesses will leave and the local economy will suffer. Those with
little will have less. Those with enough to start over elsewhere will leave.
This phenomenon is called "blight".

Good luck Seattle.

~~~
donkey-hotei
That this article is written by someone who isn't from Seattle, and posted by
someone on hacker news who isn't from Seattle, really amuses some of us who
live on the hill.

~~~
iron0013
Here in Minneapolis the feeling is similar. Suburban and rural folks seem
awfully concerned about crime in the city, while those of us who actually live
in the city just want the cops’ boots off our damn necks.

