Law Enforcement Reform Thread (formerly Defund the Police) (2 Viewers)

Tony1Sainstfan said:

So I was told that I didn’t understand the defund the police movement. This is in Seattle and there have been similar signs in Chicago and New York.

Click to expand...

You've had it explained in this very thread. It's almost as though you deleted your thread when people started to educate you on it, then decided to jump back into it on this thread without showing that you understand any of what's been said thus far.

From what I've read ending qualified immunity sounds good to me.

cuddlemonkey said:

You've had it explained in this very thread. It's almost as though you deleted your thread when people started to educate you on it, then decided to jump back into it on this thread without showing that you understand any of what's been said thus far.

Click to expand...

I had my reason for deleting that thread. Defund the police is nothing more than what the picture I posted said and that’s abolish the police. What that movement wants is nothing short of chaos in this country and they have almost achieved that. What is going on in Seattle is a disgrace. You have armed guys guarding the entrances in and out while shaking down business owners so they don’t loot their stores. The media loves what’s going on there because they hope Trump sends in troops to shut them down and it turns into a bloody mess.

Tony1Sainstfan said:

I had my reason for deleting that thread. Defund the police is nothing more than what the picture I posted said and that’s abolish the police. What that movement wants is nothing short of chaos in this country and they have almost achieved that. What is going on in Seattle is a disgrace. You have armed guys guarding the entrances in and out while shaking down business owners so they don’t loot their stores. The media loves what’s going on there because they hope Trump sends in troops to shut them down and it turns into a bloody mess.

Click to expand...

FTP explicitly proved this wrong both here and in the thread you deleted, yet you still hold on to it. Why are you so unwilling to be educated on a topic?

So, I'm not sure we're at that critical mass you've spoken of yet FTP. I think we're close, but I'm not sure we're at the point where it's going to be self-sustaining. I hope I'm wrong, but I ran across this statement the other day and it just made me sad.

In 1968 after the 1967 race riots we had the Kerner Commission study it and make recommendations. During testimony Dr. Kenneth Clark said the following:

I read that report … of the 1919 riot in Chicago, and it is as if I were reading the report of the investigating committee on the Harlem riot of ’35, the report of the investigating committee on the Harlem riot of ’43, the report of the McCone Commission on the Watts riot, ....
I must again in candor say to you members of this Commission—it is a kind of Alice in Wonderland—with the same moving picture re-shown over and over again, the same analysis, the same recommendations, and the same inaction.

Click to expand...

That was over 50 years ago, and we've had more race riots, and more commissions, that continue to make similar recommendations that are never implemented. Is this time different? I really hope so.

There really needs to be a whole re imagining of our public sector - so while the slogan "Defund the police" is very problematic and likely to fill a lot of Americans with fear, I think it's a useful term to throw out there to start the discussion of our priorities as a community and a nation. I would think a national goal would be to have a prison population of 0 - because there is no crime. I'm not sure we're set up that way with our incentive structure, from private prisons with guaranteed "occupancy rates", to "pre-emptive" policing by stopping people for minor crimes that no one has reported (stop and frisk, broken windows policing, etc).

I think an unfair amount of blame is being placed on cops, and then there is the reflexive attitude to blame mishaps on a few bad cops. I don't think this is the cops' fault, good or bad. It's our fault - ie, it's the city, county/parish, state, federal governments that are setting up the rules and priorities for the cops to adhere to. It's inevitable that if you tell the cops to target certain areas, or to search for crimes, to prevent crime from happening, and so on - they are going to have an antagonistic relationship with the population that they are policing.

I think we have to get rid of this notion that the police are there to protect us. That's wrong. They are not here to protect us. They exist to investigate and arrest people, not protect the community from future crimes. The Supreme Court has ruled on this. In order to have an agency that actually pre-emptively stops crime, you'd need a police state to be effective. No right to privacy, or anything else. It's an impossible ask.

I think it would go along way to easing stress on cops and lowering tensions, if we took that implicit expectation away from them. They are not there to protect us. So, no more stopping people on hunches. Strengthen our commitment to the 4th Amendment. For non-violent crimes that are reported, if the suspect refuses to comply, cops can back down, and we can get them in other ways, find out where they live and try a number of other methods to bring them in. Cops should have methods to protect themselves, including being armed, but the use of force protocol should be very strict. Arresting a suspect is not worth the cop's life, and it isn't worth killing someone over except in the most extreme circumstances.

We probably need more community liaison officials. Public officers who are tied into the various communities to find out their needs and help them get resources to improve their lives themselves. More mental health officials to deal with those issues.

Obviously, this is not a simple solution, but I do think we try to criminalize a lot of behaviors, and then arrest people at a very high rate, which does not seem to correlate to an increase public safety.

Tony1Sainstfan said:

So I was told that I didn’t understand the defund the police movement. This is in Seattle and there have been similar signs in Chicago and New York.

Click to expand...

I'm a Second Amendment guy. I was taught that the police are only good to investigate my murder or robbery, not to prevent it. So, I'm armed to the teeth. I don't need the police - why do you? Man up and protect yourself.

Tony1Sainstfan said:

So I was told that I didn’t understand the defund the police movement. This is in Seattle and there have been similar signs in Chicago and New York.

Click to expand...

Are you judging an idea based solely on the fringes? Because it seems like you’re judging an idea based solely on the fringes.

First Time Poster said:

All of y'all are a part of the solution now. And I'm extremely grateful for that. Black people, man, contrary to popular belief, we are some loving, forgiving and patient people bro. We really are. Like Dave hugging that chick, letting her know it's okay, I wish I could do the same for all of y'all. Just really convey how much I appreciate people caring enough to even talk about this shirt. So, I get it. But when we log off, man, unfortunately, we don't get to log off and live in the same world. And, at times, as necessary as it is, it can get infuriating watching people who have the power to affect real change, argue over how that change gets labeled. I'm at white America's mercy on this and I can only hope that it now means enough to enough of you to make a difference. If y'all say framing is how we get there, ima ride with you. But, understand the sense of urgency for me. But, now you know, right? Know better, do better. Whatever it takes. Avengers, assemble.

Click to expand...

Great post, as usual.

I get you are frustrated, and for good reason. But messaging DOES matter. White privilege also means the privilege to be lazy in absorbing media. The truth is that a lot of white people will just accept the FNC (or other right wing media) version of "Defund the Police" as the agenda. And the "left" gives them ammunition as evidenced by the links Farb and Tony posted. Why make their job of mischaracterization easier? Like it or not, fair or not, the message has to convince the average white person, and TBH the average white person cares more about his or her perceived safety than police reforms that don't have an appreciable effect on his or her life. A message that allows the opposition to characterize it as "OMG they want to abolish police!" is not productive IMO.

And look, the opposition is going to paint us as radicals and distort the message no matter what, I get that. But let's not make it easier for them. The "Defund the Police" slogan takes a complex idea and tries to simplify it. The problem is that it also simplifies the opposition's attempts to demonize and attack it.

Again, you're trying to win over white America. Most of us aren't going to get past simplistic slogans to understand the complexities. It's not right, but it's reality.

Tony1Sainstfan said:

So I was told that I didn’t understand the defund the police movement. This is in Seattle and there have been similar signs in Chicago and New York.

Click to expand...

Some probably do want that, because they're angry at the system.

However, one mural doesn't speaking for a movement.

cuddlemonkey said:

FTP explicitly proved this wrong both here and in the thread you deleted, yet you still hold on to it. Why are you so unwilling to be educated on a topic?

Click to expand...

There are a ton of news items out there to prove my point but don’t ask me to do your homework. Try seeking the truth on your own.

Sledge Hammer said:

Some probably do want that, because they're angry at the system.

However, one mural doesn't speaking for a movement.

Click to expand...

It’s not one mural it‘s been very prevalent at riots all over the country.

JRad said:

Are you judging an idea based solely on the fringes? Because it seems like you’re judging an idea based solely on the fringes.

Click to expand...

Nope. It’s not the fringes is is all over the country at the riots. These aren’t protests anymore. When you loot and burn down buildings and shops it’s a riot.

not2rich said:

I'm a Second Amendment guy. I was taught that the police are only good to investigate my murder or robbery, not to prevent it. So, I'm armed to the teeth. I don't need the police - why do you? Man up and protect yourself.

Click to expand...

I do and I may have more guns and ammo than you. This isn’t about protecting me or mine. The police are needed to maintain order in our society and without them we would be going back to the Wild West pretty quickly.

You have alleged some things that are just not true, Tony. There are not riots happening “all over the country“. There isn’t any “shakedown” of local businesses in Seattle. Whichever official said that had to walk that back and admitted it was based on rumors in social media and there have been no reports of that happening.

There‘s an awful lot of fear mongering going on in right wing ”news” sources right now, and I put the word news in quotation marks deliberately. Fox News just got busted for running pictures from the initial disturbances in Minneapolis during their story on Seattle to make it seem like Seattle was burning and looting was currently going on. Then they did another photoshop of the situation in Seattle to make the scene seem more menacing than it actually is. And Fox News is the most mainstream of the right wing ”news” sources. The fear mongering gets worse from there.

There‘s a pretty good discussion going on here. But everyone needs to start with reality, rather than sensational lies fed to people to stoke division and fear.

Tony1Sainstfan said:

There are a ton of news items out there to prove my point but don’t ask me to do your homework. Try seeking the truth on your own.

Click to expand...

Your homework is literally the first post in this thread but you are ignoring it. Don't come into a thread and lay your willful ignorance out for all to see, then lecture me about what I am doing wrong. You are being intellectually dishonest, Tony, despite various posters making attempts to engage you on this topic.

To MT15’s point:

This is one of those issues that seem to show that one's stated ideology is at odds with something more fundamental. Traditionally conservatives tend to be against the government, very strong on the second Amendment because they need to be able to defend themselves against criminals and a tyrannical government. However, when people talk about taking power away from the government in terms of having a less heavily armed government in terms of the police and military, they start to object. Those positions seem to be at odds -- if you don't trust the government, why wouldn't you want to have the government less armed?

Modern day conservatism to me seems to be a weird mix of loving and hating authority.

You can flip this with liberals who advocate for more government programs, but not trusting authority.