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.

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

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

Dude that is easy. Cops never ever EVER kill on the defense.  They only kill on offense. 

[LeviF]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

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.

Most every (say his) name propped up by your astroturfed buddies at the “protests” were feloniously assaulting a police officer at the time of their death. Going all the way back to the original hands up don’t shoot lie. I know more about this than you could ever hope to. Don’t ***** in my hand and call it chocolate soft serve, brother. 

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

Dude that is easy. Cops never ever EVER kill on the defense.  They only kill on offense. 

My squad has a terrible QB and every receiver has awful hands. Nobody’s killing anyone on offense here. 

[BullBuchanan]

25 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

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 

Why does the manner in which they get killed excuse them from violence, and if that's your argument why don't Taxi drivers who are the victims of homicide at a rate 66% higher than police not excessively violent?

So no you're saying no one gives them a pass for violence? Have you looked at my police brutality thread? It's nothing but excuses up and down. You personally have commented on the dangerous nature of their jobs as an excuse for their violence. 

And then you want to make the "few bad apples" argument. How? How on earth do you know that the "vast majority are great at what they do"? What gives you that confidence in the face of extraordinary evidence to the contrary?

We rank higher than every other industrialized nation in citizens killed by police per 10M. There are hundreds if not thousands of recent videos where groups of cops acted irresponsibly or violently or watched it happen and did nothing.

Seriously, at what point do you say the problem isn't a few bad people but a problem with the organization?

22 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

Most every (say his) name propped up by your astroturfed buddies at the “protests” were feloniously assaulting a police officer at the time of their death. Going all the way back to the original hands up don’t shoot lie. I know more about this than you could ever hope to. Don’t ***** in my hand and call it chocolate soft serve, brother. 

Donny, you're out of your element. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by BullBuchanan

[BullBuchanan]

4 more of that "vast majority" of good cops I bet

https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-louisiana-police-officers-indicted-122635067.html

[LeviF]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

Donny, you're out of your element. 

Why’d you change your post? If what I said is so easily disproven then surely in a few simple sentences you could just blast away instead of quoting overrated Gen X aesthetic cinema. 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

4 more of that "vast majority" of good cops I bet

https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-louisiana-police-officers-indicted-122635067.html

What percentage of the Shreveport PD so these 4 represent?   

[Rob's House]

15 hours 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.
-------

 

I actually agree with this to a point, but it lacks the context required to draw any meaningful conclusions. It's a question of scale.

 

How often does this happen? How is it handled? Is this the norm or is it an anomaly? Plucking random anecdotes tells us almost nothing.

 

Are these incidents "systemic," or are we talking about a small handful of bad apples? 

 

If it is a "systemic" problem, is it uniform throughout the thousands of independently managed law enforcement departments across the country? How do we know?

 

To have any meaningful discussion on the topic you have to be able to answer these questions. However, they are seldom, if ever, answered with anything other than conjecture supported only with bias.

 

Just because you have a conception of something doesn't make it accurate. More often it's a case of having an image in your head that was formed by incomplete information you acquired while in a state of abject ignorance, which is weighted in descending chronological order to which it was received, and has since been uncritically supported by confirmation bias.

[Hedge]

 

Quote

Seattle now has on its payroll a convicted pimp who once vowed to “go to war” with the city — a $150,000 “street czar” whose mission is to come up with “alternatives to policing,” reports said.

Andre Taylor — who appeared in the documentary “American Pimp” about his life as “Gorgeous Dre” — is getting $12,500 per month for a year, along with an office in Seattle’s Municipal Tower, according to the contract published by PubliCola.

...

He was later accused of trying to get millions from the city for militants who set up the controversial police-free Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP) zone, the Seattle Times said.

“Don’t just leave. Leave with something,” he told activists in a meeting caught in a recording, telling them to demand $2 million to exit the site of much of the city’s worst violence this year, the report said. They ignored his advice, the paper said, with one saying the money grab felt “off.”

Some of those militants then accused him of betraying them, too, when he appeared at a press conference with the mayor to tell them to shut down CHOP — the same day he was given his six-figure contract, the paper said.

...

Some of the girls he pimped for were underage, according to court reports in the Las Vegas Sun.

“I was born from the streets; I come out of the deep darkness,” he said in a YouTube video earlier this year, bragging how he “had children with some of the women who were with me” when he was a pimp.

 

[Uncle Joe]

Also in Seattle:
Columbia Sportswear will leave downtown Seattle, the latest in a string of closures

https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2020/09/columbia-sportswear-will-leave-downtown-seattle-the-latest-in-a-string-of-closures.html
"In yet another sign of COVID-19′s mounting economic costs, the Columbia Sportswear store has joined the list of businesses that won’t reopen in downtown Seattle after the pandemic.

Columbia Sportswear, one of Oregon’s largest companies, hasn’t publicly commented on the fate of the store at Third Avenue and Pine Street. It was looted during the May 30 protests and is currently boarded up."

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

5 hours ago, Hedge said:

 

 

 

..probably should run for Mayor....shoo-in landslide...................

[Unforgiven]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8756911/Defund-police-activist-Alyssa-Milano-sparks-massive-police-presence-calling-911.html

 

"Defund the police" activist Alyssa Milano thought she was in danger on Sunday and called ... the police

Hilarity.

[Just Joshin']

30 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8756911/Defund-police-activist-Alyssa-Milano-sparks-massive-police-presence-calling-911.html

 

"Defund the police" activist Alyssa Milano thought she was in danger on Sunday and called ... the police

Hilarity.

She meant defund the police for poor people, not the liberal privileged.

[Dragoon]

Cops need higher standards...you can’t just demand it, you gotta pay for it. Policing standards must go up, up, up.

 

Defunding the police is stupid...unless you hate civilization. Typically when I have a problem I find that by working on it, and investing more into it, I get better results. 

[Nanker]

Cops kill two. 

[BullBuchanan]

8 hours ago, Rob's House said:

 

I actually agree with this to a point, but it lacks the context required to draw any meaningful conclusions. It's a question of scale.

 

How often does this happen? How is it handled? Is this the norm or is it an anomaly? Plucking random anecdotes tells us almost nothing.

 

Are these incidents "systemic," or are we talking about a small handful of bad apples? 

 

If it is a "systemic" problem, is it uniform throughout the thousands of independently managed law enforcement departments across the country? How do we know?

 

To have any meaningful discussion on the topic you have to be able to answer these questions. However, they are seldom, if ever, answered with anything other than conjecture supported only with bias.

 

Just because you have a conception of something doesn't make it accurate. More often it's a case of having an image in your head that was formed by incomplete information you acquired while in a state of abject ignorance, which is weighted in descending chronological order to which it was received, and has since been uncritically supported by confirmation bias.

My argument that it is systemic - that excessive violence is in fact inherent to being a police officer. I also further claim that leniency in bias of officers is also systemic within the court system. I've also posted the supporting evidence numerous times, but I'll do it once more. As for the sources, I'm not going to waste my time just to get trolled.

American police kill more people per 10M citizens than any other developed nation
Our police kill the 6th most overall and we aren't in good company
Beyond just death, incidents of police brutality and excessive force is a major concern, but empirical data here is tough to capture the extent.

There are many documented incidents of police covering badge numbers at protests
We rank at the bottom of all developed countries in the World Press Freedom Index
Hundreds of journalists have been documented being attacked and arrested by the police while covering the protests.
There are dozens and dozens of videos of police instigating violence in the presence of large groups of fellow officers, several of which I've posted and those officers do nothing to address the conduct of their fellow officers. They either do nothing, or they join in.
The extremely similar documented video evidence of police violently escalating situations in groups would seem to imply that in these cases the escalating violence is part of the training, part of the hiring, or both.
The extremely similar tone and messaging exposed by police when they aren't aware that they're being recorded shows a pattern of beliefs and thought process 
The FBI has found gangs and white supremacist organizations imbedded within police departments

Not every single cop is a skinhead, maces children, peppersrays an entire group peaceful college students in the face, kills an innocent man's dog, violently attacks journalists, utilizes kettling techniques to instigate violence, commits murder, beats their wives and kids, and on on. For the cops that aren't though, it doesn't seem to be a deal breaker to work with these people and back their play. That's why it's systemic. 

There are a lot of police in this country, a lot. It should be expected that are certain amount of them are indeed just bad hires that slipped through the cracks. That's not what I'm on about here. I'm talking about a culture that attracts and promotes violent behavior and does every single thing it can to prevent owning their mistakes and punishing those responsible.

Despite what some have suggested, I'm not trying to promote anarchy - quite the opposite really. I don't want murderers, rapists, and abusers on the streets I want law enforcement, but I want just enforcement. Just because you are a suspected criminal doesn't mean the police should be able to beat the ***** out of you or end your life. They are not judge, jury, or executioner, and they get things wrong - a lot. The amount of misconduct cases settled per year are in the thousands and the cost to taxpayers is staggering.

I seem to be in the minority here but I don't think fleeing from police or even resisting arrest should be signing your own death warrant. Force should be commensurate with the danger a person currently poses in order to protect others first and yourself second.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Seattle City Council votes to override Mayor Durkan's budget veto
 

The Seattle City Council voted 7-2 Tuesday evening to override a veto by Mayor Jenny Durkan of three budget bills that would have halted sharp cuts to the budget of the Seattle Police Department.
 

</snip>
 

As part of the amended budget proposed by the council, which has now been officially adopted, the spending plan calls for:

* Cutting the police department staff by roughly 100 officers;
* Eliminating the department's Navigation Team, which serves as an outreach effort to the homeless. The council voted 7-2 to override this budget bill, while voting 9-0 to override the other budget bills.
* Trimming the salaries of SPD’s command staff.

The Council’s 2020 amended budget will strip the department of roughly $3 million, which equates to less than a 1 percent defunding of the department’s 2020 budget.
 

</snip>
 

“Votes do have consequences," Nyland said in the statement. "Because of Council’s actions today, the Navigation team will be eliminated, severely restricting the City’s ability to move people out of homelessness and deal with encampments for the rest of this year. The City will move forward with layoffs for the City staff who are coordinating and helping individuals experiencing homelessness at encampments across the City.”
 

</snip>
 

The council on Aug. 10 voted 7-1 to approve the spending plan that will reduce funding to the police department by 14 percent for the remainder of this year. The budget approved by the council, however, was far below the 50 percent reduction that some members had lobbied for and community groups had demanded. But the vote led to a formal and informal efforts to recall some council members.
 

</snip>

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

By paying no taxes aren’t you defunding the police?

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 9/22/2020 at 5:56 PM, Unforgiven said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8756911/Defund-police-activist-Alyssa-Milano-sparks-massive-police-presence-calling-911.html

 

"Defund the police" activist Alyssa Milano thought she was in danger on Sunday and called ... the police

Hilarity.

Pure comedy.  I can't wait to hear her "rationalization" between her desire to defund the cops and her need for their assistance.  Recognizing her as an advocate of defuding the 911 operator should have told her to call Ghostbusters.  

Edited September 28, 2020 by All_Pro_Bills

[Alaska Darin]

5 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Pure comedy.  I can't wait to hear her "rationalization" between her desire to defund the cops and her need for their assistance.  Recognizing her as an advocate of defuding the 911 operator should have told her to call Ghostbusters.  

Well, she doesn't have a gun...so...