The way I understand ACAB is not to remove all cops, but reform the system fundamentally. It's a flawed system encouraging bad behavior and silence.

It's perfectly possible to create a law enforcement arm of government that's actually concerned with protecting vulnerable citizens, but that's not what the institution of policing actually focuses on.

To suggest that we can't have law enforcement without propping up a toxic system of professional predators is exactly the presumption they want you to make in order to preserve their jobs. We don't need to capitulate to a lawless fraternity to enforce our laws, we can replace it with something that isn't built on principles of oppression.

That said, their main job at the moment is to protect hoarders of wealth from the social consequences of wealth hoarding. Personally, I don't see that as necessary.

Nobody is advocating for zero police. It'd be better to move the police budget to more social programs to try and help people so they're not pushed into a life of crime. An ounce of prevention is worth of a pound of the cure.

The cops are not inherently bad, it's just the system currently encourages and supports bad ones while driving away good ones. Change the system, cops get less bad.

Defunding or otherwise reducing the number of police is just a temporary harm reduction measure, since in a lot of places things are actively worse WITH police (as they stand now) than they would be WITHOUT police. That's not to say things would be great if we permanently abolish police. It's just a choice between two evils and, crazy as it is, actual criminals are the lesser evil in many cases.

Ideally, we would have police, but an entirely different set of police with an entirely different structure supporting them.

For example, make "protect and serve" a job requirement instead of a slogan, end qualified immunity, get rid of grand juries for police, etc

You know, I hadn't thought about it, but I guess being against police brutality must mean I think there shouldn't be any law enforcement at all. Cause I certainly can't imagine a world where there are police who uphold the law but don't beat the shit out of people and kill them indiscriminately.

Your question is absurd. Pointing out that cops beat the shit out of people and kill them indiscriminately in no way presupposes that there should be no cops.

For starters you don't actually need to enforce law a lot of the time, it's sufficient to simply verbally reprimand or do a number of other non-law-enforcement things to correct bad behaviour.

This is why german/nordic police are famous for how not terrible they are, they're more likely to help you out rather than punish you.

Do cops even enforce shit? By the time you have to call em it's too damn late. Not to mention so many stories of cops not doing shit when needed. Go ahead and report something stolen and see how useful they are. Ask the parents of that one Texas elementary school how useful their cops were and if they still have little Timmy around.

Honestly cops can replaced with self driving cars that roll around with dummies inside that pretend to be enforcing shit but do nothing but burn gas. Most people are civil if they think they might get arrested/pulled over. A criminal is gonna criminal. A cop has never saved anyone in realtime unless some dumbass decided to start shit right in front of one and well we can 2nd amendment for the rest.

I would suggest a citizens militia made up of local residents, mostly tasked with keeping their community orderly. Not armed with guns but with Batons and Tasers for diffusing situations and self defence.

Serious deescalation and psychological training and only special units being allowed to bear arms which would only be used reactively.

ofc this would only work in a society which has alleviated social inequalities

In Germany we have something called "Ordnungsamt" (lit. meaning: Orderdepartment) imo smth like that should take over most tasks of current police and current police (in the way they are equipped) being reduced by a lot and used more rarely

Nothing in this posts says "remove all the cops" but by using the logic of this meme we could remove all the cops by training them to a point of professionalism in which they get terminated from it.

It would take a lot of training.

I don't believe this post is saying that we should fire all cops, and a good cop is a cop that is fired.

What it is saying is that good cops are often fired for speaking out against bad cops. There are many examples of whistleblower police officers being terminated.

What this meme is saying that to identify a cop, the good cops were fired, and the bad cops are beating people up.

It's advocating for a shift in policing where the good cops and retained and model good behavior, where currently, the bad cops are the ones that are retained and model behavior

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate", and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".

If you have $40 to your name, the cops are just much more likely to beat you and take it, than they are to protect you from someone else taking it.

Cops don't actually spend much time on solving crimes, they mostly spend their time ticketing and harassing the poor in favor of the rich.

Go away, capitalist bootlicker.

point: completely missed. Impressively so

There's a difference between saving money so you can live and hoarding it. It's fine to want to have a secure future for yourself and to be able to help the people you care about. If you have so much money that you could trivially buy people out of poverty, but you don't because you'd rather have seven yachts and a bigger bank account, we have a problem.

The social consequences of wealth hoarding have traditionally been decapitation once they actually catch up. I imagine it's probably a little less extreme in this day and age, but we won't really know that until the hoarders push things beyond the tolerance of the average person.