this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2026
533 points (100.0% liked)
People Mastodon
328 readers
619 users here now
People tooting stuff. We allow toots from anyone and are platform agnostic (Mastodon, BlueSky, Twitter, Tumblr, FaceBook, Whatever)
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is addressed several other places in the thread. It's replacing police with a different social structure - police are not just "when people protect things".
Which do you believe? It's replaced with something worse that will devolve into having to pay money, or replaced with the same thing, except for now they're less murderous?
I think the police should be de-militarized. They shouldn’t be dressed up like they’re fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan. They don’t need body armor and helmets 99% of the time. They should have revolvers instead of automatics. The reason why cops used to carry revolvers in the 20th Century is exactly because of the panicky mag dumping we see all the time today. Better yet, they may need to just carry batons like UK police and have a small force of UK-style Authorized Firearms Officers for truly high risk situations.
Those are great security policies, but what about structural changes? What's going to stop us from arriving here again?
Policing culture will change if they aren't constantly training to shoot people. I watch a lot of police cam videos and the US and UK cops handle the same situations very, very differently. If ICE didn't have guns when dealing with Good and Pretti, they would have been forced not to shoot them. It wouldn't be part of their tool set and training.
Wouldn't ICE and Border Patrol be Authorized Firearms Officers?
They really shouldn't be. They could have a small force of AFOs for very special operations. But I would imagine that 99% of situations they deal with don't require guns.
So how would we get this policy change, if not by changing the underlying structure like OP suggests?
I don't understand. You mean by replacing the current police force with a vigilante force? All the image says is that regular people have come out to protect people from ICE and suggests that this type of force can replace the police.
Instead of Defund the Police or Abolish the Police, we should probably say Disarm the Police. We have the UK and several other countries that prove this is feasible. And it's more rational than just getting rid of police all together. Or if you don't believe that, it's going to sound way more rational to the general public.
Public opinion is certainly not a good indicator of rationality! More good examples will convince them a lot better than words - once you say socialism, most Americans will stop considering it at all. It's irrational to support something harmful once one sees that better alternatives exist already.
I'm asking about your proposal - say we disarm the police. What's stopping us from getting fascism again from whoever does have guns? Does the UK strike you as immune to fascism?
FYI when people say "defund the police" they don't universally mean abolish them like OP and I are suggesting. It often means redistributing most of their budget to other social services that aren't armed, like what you're saying.
The same question applies to vigilante forces. I've seen a lot of vigilante videos from around the world and they are horrifying. My concern is when I hear "regular people self-organized to patrol a city" I see that turning into a mob that beats a suspected thief to death with baseball bats, or restraining them and setting them on fire, or dragging them through the streets by a rope tied around their neck as the neighborhood stones them to death. Any time people are given power, there is a danger of fascist behavior.
So if we replace the police with a neighborhood watch, what's to stop fascism there?
This is addressed several other places in the thread. Have you seen comfy and Deceptichum's comments here?