How To Win Every Debate About Police

New column by Lee Camp

Column and voice over by Lee Camp

The parameters of a debate often determine the winner before the debate even begins.

That’s the case with the furious discourse over US policing or “law enforcement”. Here’s how to shift those parameters and actually win.

You’ll notice that all debate over policing in the US centers on the smaller, less consequential aspects of it. “Police shouldn’t have the right to come into your house without a warrant.” Or “police shouldn’t be able to kneel on your head for 5 minutes at a time. Instead we should limit all cranium kneeling to 3 minutes and 45 seconds.” Or “police should have to wear body cams, but they can turn them off just before beating the dentures out of a lady who looks older than time.”

If you agree to these debate boundaries, you’ve lost before you ever spoke a word.

These debates (by design) never get to the heart of the matter: What are police? And more importantly, why are police?

To begin with, they’re almost entirely men (86%) who were not the brightest bulbs in school but they still wanted to have power and authority because their dads didn’t love them. And they wanted to make sure they were the ones fuckin’ up other people’s lives instead of having their lives fucked up.

So they went through about 17 minutes of training and took a written exam that a chimpanzee could pass — scoring the new “officer of the law” a gun, a badge, and a license to be rather unhinged with a gun and a badge. And look, I know that sounds harsh. But let me be clear. I don’t think any chimpanzee could pass that test. I think it would have to be a hard-working, focused, driven chimpanzee.

Did you know that a lot of states require more training to become a barber than a police officer? The state is more worried about someone getting their hands on a blow dryer without the proper instruction than they are an actual gun with a license to kill.

But why are police necessary in our society? Average Americans seem to think it’s to stop violent crimes of various types. But if you look at a chart of what average police officers actually do — it’s almost 100% not chasing an axe murderer pederast through the labyrinthine hallways of a 14th century castle with blood dripping off said axe. I’m sorry. That’s not it. Here’s a chart that shows what police actually do with their time:

A whopping four percent of their time is spent on violent crime arrests. Four percent.

So here’s a police debate I’d be willing to have: I say we should get rid of police entirely and replace them with other types of organizations and public servants, but you say we should keep four percent of them in order to handle the axe-swingin’ pederast dudes. That is a rational debate about police. I will have that debate.

In order to have that debate, let’s set the stage. The US has one of the largest police forces in the world. We have the largest prison state in the world per capita (when looking at large countries). Our cops kill more people per day than most other countries – one every three hours. It’s completely out of control.

Now let’s look at what police truly use their time for.

Responding to non-criminal calls accounts for almost 40% of their time. And what are non-criminal calls? It’s Martha down the street calling the cops because her cat Moopers, Duke of Whiskerton thinks he smelled a ghost. Whatever these “non-criminal” calls are, I can tell you one thing — They don’t need to be done by fucking cops. You could have a whole other police force that didn’t have guns or mace or daddy issues or roid rage and just showed up to try to talk to the Duke of Whiskerton or talk grandpa out of trying to beat his neighbor with a pastrami sandwich.

All those things can be done by unarmed, caring men and women who don’t get a hard-on when they beat someone’s head flat.

People who want to argue that our policing system is near-perfect never actually want to engage in the real argument. They want to pretend that those of us on the other side are saying, “No laws should ever be enforced! Theft and fraud and murder should be legal, fun and encouraged!”

No. All important policing jobs would still get done. They just wouldn’t get done by lunatics with firearms.

Next on the list, most police spend around 15 to 20% of their time on traffic bullshit. Yet again — could be done by an old man wearing a reflective vest. But no, let’s fill the streets with ex-marines trying to relive their glory days in Fallujah by hunting down Cleveland soccer moms who didn’t signal when they changed lanes.

Sometimes you’ll see cops directing traffic. What the fuck does that have to do with catching murderers?

People who support our police system respond, “Well, they do both jobs. They catch the murderers and enforce the traffic laws and stop the mentally ill man from pissing in the fountain.” Okay, I get that. But why?! Why do they do all of those things? It’s like saying, “Yeah, the librarians also do the Brazilian bikini waxing down at the hair removal center. …Why? Well, because if you didn’t have them waxing the bikini lines, then we wouldn’t have any books.”

Police also spend 10 to 15% of their time on property crimes — someone takin’ something or damaging something that isn’t theirs. Again, could be done by a non-cop who doesn’t have a gun. And if the guy who stole the bicycle “gets away” because the man chasing him didn’t have a gun to possibly murder said bike thief, then good! I don’t wanna live in a city where people are shot for taking a bike. Because then you might get shot if someone thinks you took a bike. Plus I know consumerism has corrupted all of our brains but human life is supposed to be worth a lot more than a fuckin’ bike. Even the human life of a guy who takes bikes.

Should there be punishment for stealing a bike? Sure. But let’s get creative with the punishment instead of murder or prison. “You stole a bike so you’re sentenced to ride on a bike for 48 straight hours.” The pain that guy will feel in his grundle will stop him from ever getting near a bike again.

Next, police spend somewhere between 10 and 20% of their time on proactive policing — which means policing people who have not yet committed a crime. So basically, harassing folks you think might later commit a crime.

…Uh, most people would define that as simply being a dick. …They spend between 10 and 20% of their time just being a dick. That’s only the time they’re being a dick without a crime associated. That’s only their pre-crime dickishness. A) I don’t believe citizens of the freest country ever ever should be preemptively harassed by men with guns. B) Non-cops could easily supply any preemptive dickishness our country requires.

And then down at the bottom of that chart is the itty-bitty portion of their time that is spent on violent crime. So even if you wanted to argue “We need our police because of violent crime.” Fine, for the sake of argument, we’ll keep our police exactly how they are — But only for the four percent of their time that is spent dealing with violent crime.

Great. That means 96% fewer police hours on the streets being unhinged assholes with a gun, a can of mace, an ass in the front, and usually a dollop of little man syndrome. That sounds wonderful. Sign me up for that.