approach of the police.

It doesn't always feel like it, but the vast majority of people commit crimes because they need something. If a guy is wielding a knife, what does he need? He's trying to rob me or someone for money, which probably means he's an addict, which means I want him to get help. He's having a mental breakdown and, because people with mental illness are disproportionately victims of violence themselves, I want him to get help. He's a serial killer, which means I definitely want him to get help.

And what do I need? If a man wields a knife at me now, the police can't really help me, can they? I have to rely on myself for help and protection. Later I might need a medical first responder, mental and emotional support depending on what he and I did to each other, an insurance adjuster if I'm at home, an investigator to figure out who he was. With the current model of police leaving the majority of violent and property crimes unsolved, I'm not convinced the police are the ones who can help me.

In an abolitionist model, the resources that go to police departments now are instead applied to prevention efforts -- people get addicted for all sorts of reasons, many of which are preventable, for example -- and victim support efforts, with the idea that as people's needs are increasingly met, armed agents of the state whose primary duties are to subdue, hurt and punish won't be needed at all.

Police abolition is not an on-off switch. This is a huge cultural change that would require some on- and off-ramping of services. But I believe it's achievable and we should try.