Have democrats become the anti police and anti law party ? (1 Viewer)

[the annoying thing]

Have Democrats turned into the anti-police party?

You need not look further than Democrat candidates for president to see that their party is one in which law and order place second fiddle to scoring votes.

www.lawenforcementtoday.com

When you look at how Biden's allowing in terrorist and felons from around the world and how democrat support illegal drug use and are soft on crime its makes you wonder what is wrong with them.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Basically what coldseat said:

"7 myths about “defunding the police” debunked
Howard Henderson Wednesday, May 19, 2021

Policing in the U.S. is a highly politicized issue with a history intertwined with racial and class-based struggle. During the summer of 2020, no issue was debated more than the subject of defunding the police. The phrase “defund the police” (DTP) became a rallying cry for the progressive left. Yet, while the movement gained considerable news coverage, the two major political parties, media, and major presidential candidates labeled defunding the police as an unrealistic demand.

This mischaracterization of the movement is not based on fact but rather fear. In this article, we address seven common myths associated with the campaign with the goal to demonstrate that while some have labeled it a radical movement, the DTP philosophy is based on well-researched, evidence-based positions.

Myth #1: Defund Means Abolish

One of the most misleading critiques of the movement is instigating defund means abolish. Opposers claim the movement undermines public safety through its efforts to end policing. The truth: the movement seeks to demilitarize police departments and reallocate funding to trained mental health workers and social workers to reduce unnecessary violent encounters between police and citizens. At least 13 cities in the United States have currently engaged in policy programs to defund the police.

Myth #2: Defunding Will Lead to Disorder

Another misconception is that police forces are what maintains order. However, studies have found that the best tools to establish peaceful societies are equity in education and infrastructure. Indeed, research shows that lack of education and illiteracy are some of the most significant predictors of future prison populations.

Myth #3: Police Protect the Public From Violence

Critics of the police movement assert that we need heavily funded and armed police forces to protect the public from violent criminal elements. However, there isn’t sufficient data to support that position. In fact, research has found that the police don’t have a notoriously efficient track record of solving violent crime. Further, what the research does show is that 70% of robberies, 66% of rapes, 47% of aggravated assaults, and 38% of murders go unsolved each year. "

All of this might be true. However, it's an effective political ad for the Republicans.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

All of this might be true. However, it's an effective political ad for the Republicans.

Well, if that's what the Republicans want as opposed to making our police departments more effective, sure.

 

[SystemShock]

Myth #1: Defund Means Abolish

One of the most misleading critiques of the movement is instigating defund means abolish. Opposers claim the movement undermines public safety through its efforts to end policing. The truth: the movement seeks to demilitarize police departments and reallocate funding to trained mental health workers and social workers to reduce unnecessary violent encounters between police and citizens. At least 13 cities in the United States have currently engaged in policy programs to defund the police.

Militarization of the police had nothing to do with George Floyd getting choked to death.
Militarization of the police had nothing to do with Tamir Rice being shot to death.
Militarization of the police had nothing to do with Eric Garner being choked to death.
Militarization of the police has nothing to do with the high level of minority incarceration.

I can go on and on...

And what exactly is the "militarization of the police"? What does that even mean? That they get used mini tanks from the armed forces? The cool military style uniforms? The police don't need mini tanks or cool swat uniforms to stop someone for driving while minority, or putting their knees on someone's neck until that someone stop breathing.

And defund means remove funds from. Taking funds from the police is not going to make them treat minorities any better.

Myth #2: Defunding Will Lead to Disorder

Another misconception is that police forces are what maintains order. However, studies have found that the best tools to establish peaceful societies are equity in education and infrastructure. Indeed, research shows that lack of education and illiteracy are some of the most significant predictors of future prison populations.

Sure, but taking money from the police is not going to cover such costs, nor change the attitude of police forces towards minorities.

Myth #3: Police Protect the Public From Violence

Critics of the police movement assert that we need heavily funded and armed police forces to protect the public from violent criminal elements. However, there isn’t sufficient data to support that position. In fact, research has found that the police don’t have a notoriously efficient track record of solving violent crime. Further, what the research does show is that 70% of robberies, 66% of rapes, 47% of aggravated assaults, and 38% of murders go unsolved each year. "

Sure, most of the time, police don't protect people from violence. Most of the time, violence has occurred before the police gets involved. But, if we were to remove funds from the police, will they even be able to resolve 30% of robberies, 34% of rapes, 53% of aggravated assaults, or 62% of murders?

Also, it needs to be noted, uniforms don't solve crimes, and detectives are not "militarized".

In an active shooter situation, would you like a "militarized" police force to answer the call, or Buford T. Justice?

No matter how you slice it, "defund the police" is a stupid hashtag that should've never been.



.

 

[SamAndreas]

Well, if that's what the Republicans want as opposed to making our police departments more effective, sure.

I think that might be all they want out of it.

Phone fake charity scammers are making something of it too. I've gotten several of those calls. They want me to give them money to defend the police and oppose the rhetoric.

I tell those callers that I don't have a stake in the fight because we don't have any police here anyway. And then I hang up.

All we have is a Sheriff and his deputies.

 

[MT15]

Militarization of the police is more than just the equipment they use. The equipment is actually far less important (IMO) than the attitude and indoctrination that has been occurring. And I am not talking about all departments, to be very clear. It seems to vary quite a bit from one location to another.

Some police, and some departments, have adopted the “us vs them” and “fight the enemy” attitude of the military. When you think of every interaction with the public as an interaction with “the enemy” you will not have good policing because the attitudes and tactics should be completely different from the military.

My relative in law enforcement never talks about bad cops and I don’t ask him. But he will talk about who he has helped during his shift. He also shared with me that they are trained to de-escalate, to aid and comfort people in trouble, to view themselves as there to help the community. It seems to be a pretty good department from the outside. Their only quota is interactions with the public. Doesn’t have to be a ticket, or an arrest. Any type of encounter counts.

When he first started he pulled over a young mom who was driving on an expired license. He said by rights he could have had her car impounded and towed, which may have led to her losing the vehicle. He said when he told her he was willing to wait with her to have a licensed driver come to drive her home and he wouldn’t tow the car, she was so relieved she burst into tears. But as he said, what good to the community is it to take her car? This is what people who use the extremely unfortunate slogan “defund the police” want, to my way of thinking. Just an acknowledgment that poor people who interact with the police aren’t the enemy. They are citizens just like the rest of us.

 

[H B Lowrey]

Have Democrats turned into the anti-police party?

You need not look further than Democrat candidates for president to see that their party is one in which law and order place second fiddle to scoring votes.

www.lawenforcementtoday.com

When you look at how Biden's allowing in terrorist and felons from around the world and how democrat support illegal drug use and are soft on crime its makes you wonder what is wrong with them.

No, but [mod edit - profanity] will argue such. None of what america is just started, it's all-american. Why don't you take some time and explain and document who's coming in that upsets you so? We can go from there.

 

[H B Lowrey]

Yes of course I know the differance between a riot and a protest I not a idiot or moron. I also know that blm and antifa did billions inndamages dozens killed arson stores looted and burned assults by the thousands

No, not really. Are you going to argue conservative activists all run people over in cars? Just stop.

 

[H B Lowrey]

Do you know the difference between protests and riots? Millions peacefully protested. After the peaceful protests, there were a few criminals who used that pretext to riot. Some of those were actually Neo-Nazis and Boogaloo Boys inciting criminal activity. Some were Antifa, some were just plain criminal elements in society. There were not millions of them. They were not supported by BLM, which doesn’t support violence.

The economic figures are estimates. Your article isn’t even the source for those numbers. It’s actually an opinion piece from a libertarian-conservative think tank.

Any time throughout american history that we the people have gathered, as is legal, to protest conditions and beseech entrenched power for a redress of grievances, it has always been painted as violent by the power structure. And agent provocateurs have been planted in amongst the protesters.

 

[H B Lowrey]

Yes of course I know the differance between a riot and a protest I not a idiot or moron. I also know that blm and antifa did billions inndamages dozens killed arson stores looted and burned assults by the thousands

You don't seem to know how to construct a sentence.

 

[H B Lowrey]

Republicans are not soft on crime ,seems liberals don't like the truth much on this forum .
liberal call for no bail a da in nyc wants to make armed robbery a misdeminor unless some one is hurt . And we all saw how libweals supported the 2 billion in damages by blm and antifa .
Liberals protect illegals at every turn and encourage drug use and legalization . They even protect child molester and perverts.

[mod edit - profanity] all sound alike. Have you noticed how on one's ever going to go after Epstein and Maxwell's aristocratic johns who your law-n-order legal system aided and abetted for decades? We can't, it would wipe out america's economic and political class.

 

[SamAndreas]

Militarization of the police is more than just the equipment they use. The equipment is actually far less important (IMO) than the attitude and indoctrination that has been occurring. And I am not talking about all departments, to be very clear. It seems to vary quite a bit from one location to another.

Some police, and some departments, have adopted the “us vs them” and “fight the enemy” attitude of the military. When you think of every interaction with the public as an interaction with “the enemy” you will not have good policing because the attitudes and tactics should be completely different from the military.

My relative in law enforcement never talks about bad cops and I don’t ask him. But he will talk about who he has helped during his shift. He also shared with me that they are trained to de-escalate, to aid and comfort people in trouble, to view themselves as there to help the community. It seems to be a pretty good department from the outside. Their only quota is interactions with the public. Doesn’t have to be a ticket, or an arrest. Any type of encounter counts.

When he first started he pulled over a young mom who was driving on an expired license. He said by rights he could have had her car impounded and towed, which may have led to her losing the vehicle. He said when he told her he was willing to wait with her to have a licensed driver come to drive her home and he wouldn’t tow the car, she was so relieved she burst into tears. But as he said, what good to the community is it to take her car? This is what people who use the extremely unfortunate slogan “defund the police” want, to my way of thinking. Just an acknowledgment that poor people who interact with the police aren’t the enemy. They are citizens just like the rest of us.

What you described about them not wanting to take the mom's car away, or induce the cost of having it towed, is how my sheriffs department does things around here. And I've not seen that that it matters who a person is either.

The deputies he's hired are proportionally mixed, and the gender distribution is while a little more that representative of transgender persons on the force than make up the population, that is fine.

He's earned my vote by his actions. He's the one Republican I'm going to vote for next election. I always ignore party when it comes to voting for sheriff's.

The new sheriff was appointed by his predecessor who'm started all this fairness. He was a Republican too, but none the less earned my vote by cleaning up the mess that the one before him created. It was bad 15 years ago, but then got much better.

So I support my local Sheriff:

 

[SystemShock]

Militarization of the police is more than just the equipment they use. The equipment is actually far less important (IMO) than the attitude and indoctrination that has been occurring. And I am not talking about all departments, to be very clear. It seems to vary quite a bit from one location to another.
Some police, and some departments, have adopted the “us vs them” and “fight the enemy” attitude of the military. When you think of every interaction with the public as an interaction with “the enemy” you will not have good policing because the attitudes and tactics should be completely different from the military.

I said I wasn't going to engage you unless you engaged me first. Many times, you don't quote the posts you reply to, but your post very much looks a reply to my post.

"Us vs them" is not an attitude exclusive to the military, nor does it necessarily lead to violence. And it is not like police wouldn't have an "us vs them" mentality of their very own, given that police officers get gunned down too.

Frankly, saying the police has a militarized version of the "us vs them" mentality is a silly comment to make.

But never mind that... for the sake of argument, let's assume that "militarization of the police" includes a militarized "us vs them" mentality (whatever that is). Please explain, how do you eradicate the mentality by removing funds from the police?

 

[SystemShock]

The drug explosion is due to no security on the boarders aka Biden , and Meth comes mainly from Mexico and Fentanyl is coming in from China another nation that Democrats are soft on , its also being smuggled in on the southern boarder.

Demand creates supply, and that supply has been coming in since people in the U.S. have been taking drugs for non-medical purposes. If people in the U.S. wouldn't be so fond of getting high/low/unconscious there wouldn't be a supply. And the more legal ways the people have to get high/low/unconscious, the less organized crime we have to deal with.

 

[H B Lowrey]

What you described about them not wanting to take the mom's car away, or induce the cost of having it towed, is how my sheriffs department does things around here. And I've not seen that that it matters who a person is either.

The deputies he's hired are proportionally mixed, and the gender distribution is while a little more that representative of transgender persons on the force than make up the population, that is fine.

He's earned my vote by his actions. He's the one Republican I'm going to vote for next election. I always ignore party when it comes to voting for sheriff's.

The new sheriff was appointed by his predecessor who'm started all this fairness. He was a Republican too, but none the less earned my vote by cleaning up the mess that the one before him created. It was bad 15 years ago, but then got much better.

So I support my local Sheriff:

Having a mixed force never meant it wasn't white supremacist in its nature and operations. Same for the legal system and our mass incarceration apparatus.

 

[MT15]

I said I wasn't going to engage you unless you engaged me first. Many times, you don't quote the posts you reply to, but your post very much looks a reply to my post.

"Us vs them" is not an attitude exclusive to the military, nor does it necessarily lead to violence. And it is not like police wouldn't have an "us vs them" mentality of their very own, given that police officers get gunned down too.

Frankly, saying the police has a militarized version of the "us vs them" mentality is a silly comment to make.

But never mind that... for the sake of argument, let's assume that "militarization of the police" includes a militarized "us vs them" mentality (whatever that is). Please explain, how do you eradicate the mentality by removing funds from the police?

I don’t. I don’t support “defund”. I do think there are departments that need to be cleaned up. Where bad practices have taken root and become the norm. For example, Derek Chauvin was a field training officer on the day he killed George Floyd. He was responsible for training the newer officers who were with him that day, IIRC. Yet he had no problem using prohibited means to restrain Floyd which resulted in his death. We know this because the chief testified to that. When you use rogue officers to train new recruits, you are setting up this department for bad outcomes.

A police officer shouldn’t view every encounter with a citizen as an ”enemy” encounter. You can think that’s silly, lol, doesn’t matter to me.

 

[H B Lowrey]

I don’t. I don’t support “defund”. I do think there are departments that need to be cleaned up. Where bad practices have taken root and become the norm. For example, Derek Chauvin was a field training officer on the day he killed George Floyd. He was responsible for training the newer officers who were with him that day, IIRC. Yet he had no problem using prohibited means to restrain Floyd which resulted in his death. We know this because the chief testified to that. When you use rogue officers to train new recruits, you are setting up this department for bad outcomes.

A police officer shouldn’t view every encounter with a citizen as an ”enemy” encounter. You can think that’s silly, lol, doesn’t matter to me.

We should certainly be defunding the militarization of the police, especially given all the FBI and DHS reports of white supremacist/nationalist infiltration of law enforcement.

 

[SystemShock]

I don’t. I don’t support “defund”. I do think there are departments that need to be cleaned up. Where bad practices have taken root and become the norm. For example, Derek Chauvin was a field training officer on the day he killed George Floyd. He was responsible for training the newer officers who were with him that day, IIRC. Yet he had no problem using prohibited means to restrain Floyd which resulted in his death. We know this because the chief testified to that. When you use rogue officers to train new recruits, you are setting up this department for bad outcomes.

None of which has anything to do with the militarization of police.

The police do not need to be militarized to foster an "us vs them" mentality. That "us vs them" mentality within police departments has been around long before the militarization of the police, as in police departments getting military grade equipment and tactical training after high profile shootouts.

A police officer shouldn’t view every encounter with a citizen as an ”enemy” encounter. You can think that’s silly, lol, doesn’t matter to me.

Why would I think that to be silly, lol?

 

[MT15]

You called my writing silly, silly.

My only point was that it doesn’t have to be the equipment that causes a military outlook. It’s a state of mind, a “war footing” POV. And you’re right in the sense that it doesn’t have anything to do with the equipment, necessarily. And it started long before they started getting the equipment. Maybe it started with the “war on drugs” sloganeering. It’s been a gradual process and it’s possible to look at the acquiring of military equipment as a natural progression over the years of that outlook.

Just kind of thinking out loud here.