Defund the Police?

[keepthefaith]

20 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Why is that wrong? Can you not have a job that is dangerous while also being expected to not assault and murder people?

 

 

This isn't hard to understand.  The rules of engagement for police are established very deliberately giving police permission to stop an adversary in a physical confrontation or upon the presentation of a physical threat to themselves or others.  I don't know how anyone can advocate to change that if you think it through.     I don't know about you but I've been aware since my teens that if I'm in the presence of a police officer for any reason and were to physically resist or threaten or attack the officer or grab a weapon, I could rightfully end up dead. 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

You read my statement trying to agree on the definition of a word 

Doesn’t change my response

These cheap slogans are horrible 

 

No Justice No Peace! 🙄

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Doesn’t change my response

These cheap slogans are horrible 

 

No Justice No Peace! 🙄

It should change the entire response. You're making a false claim with the implication that I've tried to change the definition of a word by using its literal definition.

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

It should change the entire response. You're making a false claim with the implication that I've tried to change the definition of a word by using its literal definition.

I’ve not said a word about your fixation on this ‘word’ or any other. The problem is with the left’s rush to create rallying cries around SLOGANS before they’ve been vetted. 

[BullBuchanan]

18 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ve not said a word about your fixation on this ‘word’ or any other. The problem is with the left’s rush to create rallying cries around SLOGANS before they’ve been vetted. 

Are slogans exclusively the creation of "the left"?

Did they create:

Lock her Up
Build The Wall
MAGA
MAGAA - lol?

Come on man. Stop trying to make everything political - especially biased in some sort of weird pro-republican way.

[Chef Jim]

49 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

That's not what the definition says. Defunding can be partial or full. Do we need to define withdraw?

 

I am not going to argue this with you.  Let's go with your definition of partial funding.  What will this accomplish?  Are you looking a punitive action here?  

[BullBuchanan]

4 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I am not going to argue this with you.  Let's go with your definition of partial funding.  What will this accomplish?  Are you looking a punitive action here?  

I did NOT define it as "partial funding". Why can't you agree with a definition in the dictionary without putting your spin on it. We can't even get to what I'm asking for if you think a dictionary is not a reliable source.

Edited September 21, 2020 by BullBuchanan

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

I did NOT define it as "partial defunding". Why can't you agree with a definition in the dictionary without putting your spin on it. We can't even get to what I'm asking for if you think a dictionary is not a reliable source.

 

Where did I say partial defunding?  Why don't we stop beating around the bush.  Why don't you tell me what DEFUNDING THE POLICE means to you and what exactly you attempt to accomplish by this. Once you've done that we shall debate the pros and cons of defunding the police.  Fair enough? 

[BullBuchanan]

 

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Where did I say partial defunding?  Why don't we stop beating around the bush.  Why don't you tell me what DEFUNDING THE POLICE means to you and what exactly you attempt to accomplish by this. Once you've done that we shall debate the pros and cons of defunding the police.  Fair enough? 

 

I mean to say  partial funding - typo that I fixed.
What I believe is already out there, and I've been called every name in the book for it. What I'm interested in is what you believe. You made a point earlier :

 

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

So you want to abolish the police?

 

It seems you draw a pretty strong correlation between wanting to remove police funding and abolishing the police. Why?

 

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

 

I mean to say  partial funding - typo that I fixed.
What I believe is already out there, and I've been called every name in the book for it. What I'm interested in is what you believe. You made a point earlier :

 

 

It seems you draw a pretty strong correlation between wanting to remove police funding and abolishing the police. Why?

 

 

No worries on the typo.  I believe in better training of the police on how to best de-escalate situations along with PSA's on what do to when you're pulled over or stopped by the police and the consequences of not doing so.  This is a two sided problem here and to put all the blame on the police is irrational and myopic.  

 

And to your second point.  If we remove police funding we abolish the police no?  That is not a strong correlation that is the ONLY correlation.  We are speaking English here correct? 

[BullBuchanan]

4 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

No worries on the typo.  I believe in better training of the police on how to best de-escalate situations along with PSA's on what do to when you're pulled over or stopped by the police and the consequences of not doing so.  This is a two sided problem here and to put all the blame on the police is irrational and myopic.  

 

And to your second point.  If we remove police funding we abolish the police no?  That is not a strong correlation that is the ONLY correlation.  We are speaking English here correct? 

I also agree on better training for de-escalation.

Based on a lot of the body cams that have come out over the years though it seems a lot of these controversial interactions with police aren't as much police with good intentions who just don't know how to de-escalate as much as it is police officers who take violent approaches because that's what they set out to do. Maybe that's more in the realm of conditioning or maybe it's part of the hiring process, but I do think there are plenty of examples we can look at where police took a very violent approach when many options were available.
-------

So you say that if we remove funding from police that the "ONLY correlation" is that they are going to be abolished. Ok. I think it's a little more nuanced than that, but let's go with that.

The point then is that funding is essential to the operation of a service then, and to remove the funding necessary to provide it, you're essentially removing the ability to provide the service?

 

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I also agree on better training for de-escalation.

Based on a lot of the body cams that have come out over the years though it seems a lot of these controversial interactions with police aren't as much police with good intentions who just don't know how to de-escalate as much as it is police officers who take violent approaches because that's what they set out to do. Maybe that's more in the realm of conditioning or maybe it's part of the hiring process, but I do think there are plenty of examples we can look at where police took a very violent approach when many options were available.
-------

So you say that if we remove funding from police that the "ONLY correlation" is that they are going to be abolished. Ok. I think it's a little more nuanced than that, but let's go with that.

The point then is that funding is essential to the operation of a service then, and to remove the funding necessary to provide it, you're essentially removing the ability to provide the service?

 

 

I'm not sure if you're approaching this with pie in the sky intentions.  I sure hope you want be satisfied until all police brutality is eliminated.  That, of course, will never happen.  Police work is EXTREMELY high pressure.  They are dealing in situations that are very volatile with dangerous individuals who often have nothing to live for or worse would relish in the opportunity to "take out" a cop.  So having said that the fact that police sometime react in the way they do is understood and will never be eliminated.  Whereas you see situations where police overreacted violently I think of the thousands of other situations where they acted with extreme care and professionalism.  Those situations, in my opinion. VASTLY outnumber the cased of police brutality.  

 

Again enough of the semantics of the English language.  What will reducing/reallocating/repurposing of the funds that go into law enforcement now accomplish? Where will it go and what will the enforcement of our laws after said funding changes look like?

[BullBuchanan]

11 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I'm not sure if you're approaching this with pie in the sky intentions.  I sure hope you want be satisfied until all police brutality is eliminated.  That, of course, will never happen.  Police work is EXTREMELY high pressure.  They are dealing in situations that are very volatile with dangerous individuals who often have nothing to live for or worse would relish in the opportunity to "take out" a cop.  So having said that the fact that police sometime react in the way they do is understood and will never be eliminated.  Whereas you see situations where police overreacted violently I think of the thousands of other situations where they acted with extreme care and professionalism.  Those situations, in my opinion. VASTLY outnumber the cased of police brutality.  

 

Again enough of the semantics of the English language.  What will reducing/reallocating/repurposing of the funds that go into law enforcement now accomplish? Where will it go and what will the enforcement of our laws after said funding changes look like?

I'll be satisfied when an act of police brutality is a genuine shock. I've said it before police work may be high pressure and it may be dangerous, but it ranks no higher than 15th in serious injury or deaths per 100,000 and yet they're the only profession that has an endemic amount of extreme violence closely associated with it, but also excused as a result of stressors from the job.

Why do  we expect people who work similar or even more dangerous jobs to stay calm and collected under pressure like farmers, loggers, fisherman, electricians, cab drivers, pilots, roofers and why don't we excuse their incidents of extreme violence as a byproduct of their dangerous jobs?
Why do police get a pass for excessive violence?

From reports I've read and conversations I've had with military members who have served in combat, their rules of engagement and the deployment of extreme or lethal force seems to be stricter than that of US police. Is that your perception and do you think that's the way it should be in a civilized country?

[Chef Jim]

24 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I'll be satisfied when an act of police brutality is a genuine shock. I've said it before police work may be high pressure and it may be dangerous, but it ranks no higher than 15th in serious injury or deaths per 100,000 and yet they're the only profession that has an endemic amount of extreme violence closely associated with it, but also excused as a result of stressors from the job.

Why do  we expect people who work similar or even more dangerous jobs to stay calm and collected under pressure like farmers, loggers, fisherman, electricians, cab drivers, pilots, roofers and why don't we excuse their incidents of extreme violence as a byproduct of their dangerous jobs?
Why do police get a pass for excessive violence?

From reports I've read and conversations I've had with military members who have served in combat, their rules of engagement and the deployment of extreme or lethal force seems to be stricter than that of US police. Is that your perception and do you think that's the way it should be in a civilized country?

 

There is danger and there is danger.  Name me one other profession where during the course of your day you are mostly dealing with people who have broken the law?  Name me one other profession that deals with people that are sometimes carrying weapons.  Name me one other profession where sitting in your office (cruiser) you have to be concerned with someone coming up to your "office" and attempting to assassinate you.  Name me one other profession where people you are dealing with try to run you over with their vehicle.  Name me one other profession where the people they often are dealing with hate them. And yes you will come back and say they are hated because of their brutality.  

 

Farmers?  Ha.  How many farmers have been murdered by a stalk of corn?

Loggers?  Ha.  How many loggers have been run over by a tree?

Fisherman?  Ha.  How many fish have attempted to assassinate a fisherman while on his boat

Electricians?  Ha.  How many electrician have been beaten by a wire?

Roofers?  Ha.  How many shingles have broken the law? 

Yada....yada...yada

 

So quite comparing apples to monkey wrenches.

 

And I'll ask again. What will reducing/reallocating/repurposing of funds that are now used for law enforcement accomplish.  You seem to be dodging this one.  I think they need MORE money to be better trained.   

 

Sorry I didn't address your last point.  Is it my perception that the deployment of lethal force in the military is stricter than the US police?  I have no idea.  I am not familiar with the rules of engagement of either.   

Edited September 21, 2020 by Chef Jim

[IDBillzFan]

12 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I don't have definitions of words. The dictionary does. I'm starting to see that's hard for folks to grasp.

 

It's only hard to grasp when people like yourself feel the need to define what YOU think the word means. Otherwise, why would you ask him to agree with you on what the word means?

 

Because you know your argument to defund the police is too stupid to defend without the option to redefine a word to keep you from sounding as consistently stupid as you do on this topic.

 

Here's the circular stupidity of your discussions:

 

You: That's not the 'defund' that I'm talking about!

Us: What defund are you talking about.

You: The one in the dictionary!

Us: The one that means you withdraw funding so there are not more police departments?

You: That's how YOU define it, not how I define it.

Us: How would you define it?

You: The one in the dictionary!

 

 

 

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

 

There is danger and there is danger.  Name me one other profession where during the course of your day you are mostly dealing with people who have broken the law?  Name me one other profession that deals with people that are sometimes carrying weapons.  Name me one other profession where sitting in your office (cruiser) you have to be concerned with someone coming up to your "office" and attempting to assassinate you.  Name me one other profession where people you are dealing with try to run you over with their vehicle.  Name me one other profession where the people they often are dealing with hate them. And yes you will come back and say they are hated because of their brutality.  

 

Farmers?  Ha.  How many farmers have been murdered by a stalk of corn?

Loggers?  Ha.  How many loggers have been run over by a tree?

Fisherman?  Ha.  How many fish have attempted to assassinate a fisherman while on his boat

Electricians?  Ha.  How many electrician have been beaten by a wire?

Roofers?  Ha.  How many shingles have broken the law? 

Yada....yada...yada

 

So quite comparing apples to monkey wrenches.

 

And I'll ask again. What will reducing/reallocating/repurposing of funds that are now used for law enforcement accomplish.  You seem to be dodging this one.  I think they need MORE money to be better trained.  

What does breaking the law have to do with violence?
Tons of professions deal with people that are "sometimes carrying weapons" - Teachers for instance and Taxi drivers

Farmers may not get murdered by a stalk of corn, but they get killed and maimed at a pace that DRASTICALLY exceeds that of police getting killed by a suspect. Around 24 per 100k workers
How many loggers get run over by trees? about 400 per year or 87 per 100k workers
How many fisherman die on the job? around 75 per 100k workers
How many electricians get shocked to death by a wire? 8.4 per 100k, but power line installers  are at 18.6 per 100k
Roofers? They die at a clip of around 45 per 100k on the job

Now let's talk about police.
How many died in the line of duty in 2019? 89 or around 11 per 100k
So, more than an electrician, but less than every other job on the list. Now of course we've got the whole fighting violent criminal aspect, though. Right?

Not really. 

Of the 89 police officers killed in the line of duty in 2019, only 48 of them were killed feloniously. The rest? Mostly car accidents.

So the rate at which police are killed in the line of duty by a criminal? 6 per 100k workers.
Six.

COVID on the other hand has killed 12.6 police officers per 100k workers.
You know who actually gets killed by homicide more than the police?
Taxi drivers at a clip of 10 per 100k, and around 14 per 100k when you factor in accidents

So, police are less likely to die or be seriously injured on the job than about 15-20 other professions, and they're 66% less likely to be killed by way of homicide than a taxi driver, so help me understand why we give them a pass for unbridled violence?

[US Egg]

[LeviF]

4 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

Why is that wrong? Can you not have a job that is dangerous while also being expected to not assault and murder people?

There are a lot of jobs more dangerous than being a cop, like being a farmer. Yet, my grandfather didn't shoot the tractor and beat my grandmother whenever he got scared.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defund

😂 the idea that criminals have a right to self defense but cops don’t. I want whatever you’re smoking 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

What does breaking the law have to do with violence?
Tons of professions deal with people that are "sometimes carrying weapons" - Teachers for instance and Taxi drivers

Farmers may not get murdered by a stalk of corn, but they get killed and maimed at a pace that DRASTICALLY exceeds that of police getting killed by a suspect. Around 24 per 100k workers
How many loggers get run over by trees? about 400 per year or 87 per 100k workers
How many fisherman die on the job? around 75 per 100k workers
How many electricians get shocked to death by a wire? 8.4 per 100k, but power line installers  are at 18.6 per 100k
Roofers? They die at a clip of around 45 per 100k on the job

Now let's talk about police.
How many died in the line of duty in 2019? 89 or around 11 per 100k
So, more than an electrician, but less than every other job on the list. Now of course we've got the whole fighting violent criminal aspect, though. Right?

Not really. 

Of the 89 police officers killed in the line of duty in 2019, only 48 of them were killed feloniously. The rest? Mostly car accidents.

So the rate at which police are killed in the line of duty by a criminal? 6 per 100k workers.
Six.

COVID on the other hand has killed 12.6 police officers per 100k workers.
You know who actually gets killed by homicide more than the police?
Taxi drivers at a clip of 10 per 100k, and around 14 per 100k when you factor in accidents

So, police are less likely to die or be seriously injured on the job than about 15-20 other professions, and they're 66% less likely to be killed by way of homicide than a taxi driver, so help me understand why we give them a pass for unbridled violence?

Again you are making a VERY failed argument comparing the dangers of different professions. How much time do farmers, loggers, fishermen spend in public during their line of work?  I grew up with farmers and that number is virtually zero.  The chance of getting killed/injured in a profession is not part of the conversation.  It’s the manner in which they are killed/injured.  Again you’re comparing apples to monkey wrenches.   The only profession you are close to a comparison is taxi drivers. 
 

Who is giving them a pass for unbridled violence?  No one!  So there is nothing there to help you understand.  
 

What pretty much everyone here has an issue with is you seem to paint with a broad brush.  A vast majority of cops are great at what they do.  It’s kind of like planes vs autos. Autos kill a hell of a lot more people than planes every year but when a plane goes down it makes headline news 

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, LeviF91 said:

😂 the idea that criminals have a right to self defense but cops don’t. I want whatever you’re smoking 

It seems you're confused about what's being talked about here or you're looking to prop up a strawman. Police using commensurate force in self-defense is not the target of anyone's ire here, or in protests.