251
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Newsweek.com

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yup, that's why I wanted to make it very clear that I was not defending the practice. Seems inherently ripe for abuse. It often seems like it allows rich people to pretend like crime isn't an issue in their isolated bubbles rather than be forced to address it on a societal scale.

Though at the same time, if people are going to throw a massive event, you often do need to have extra police at least on standby, and I can see the logic of saying "well then that event organizer should be the one paying for it, rather than the general taxpayer"... that's still pretty radically different from a random Gucci store hiring a cop to patrol their bags with a gun though, and I don't even know if those two types of things would even fall under the same programs.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

@masterspace yeah I can see that. It's basically taking people who were trained at public expense (and who are supposed to uphold public interests) and then having them selectively police in the private sector (and private interests) in exchange for that sector subsidising their salaries.

Has it been associated with police homicides at all, do you know?

this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
251 points (96.3% liked)

politics

18906 readers
3645 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS