Defund the Police?

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, Margarita said:

correction: I acknowledged it was an insult nowhere did I type I was offended big difference  twin sons from different mothers  another kreskin in the house. 

Point taken and I stand corrected.  But being referred to as Orwellian is an insult?  Oooookay. 

[snafu]

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Localism.  
 

Sheriffs and deputies.

 

Private security.

 

Abolition of all gun laws.

 

Neighborhood defense.

 

Not the thread for this though.

 

I think one neighborhood should defend their adjacent neighborhood, and on and on.

It would prevent communities from becoming too insular. 

Since there’s no other thread, I figure I’d just put this here.

 

 

[reddogblitz]

17 hours ago, GregPersons said:

"Defund" is still too nice. This is just focused on budget. Cops don't realize we're letting them off easy right now, and they're pushing their luck. "Abolish" is also too nice. 

 

First of all, Defund just makes plain sense. Look at ANY POLICE BUDGET. They are ridiculous. This is taxpayer money for morons who don't have soldier training to pretend they're in Call of Duty on whoever they can get away with, specifically Black people. Often explicitly coded into the marching orders, and always implicitly. The conversation needs to start from 0 and work up from there to what is actually necessary.

 

We don't need to negotiate down from 300 gazillion. Basic negotiation tactic. And look at what they're offering. LA's mayor took out a 300 million or something but the budget is still near the trillions; whatever the numbers, look it up, it's preposterously inflated, everywhere. 

 

The other thing, is that -- again -- this conversation is only about budget. When we talk about removing police immunity, then it's time to start talking about "Imprison the police."

 

Because if held to the same laws, if held accountable as much as they've done to others — hooo boy.  Imagine suing a cop for assault and winning. That's half of reparations right there in those settlements.

 

So you are a fiscal conservative?

[reddogblitz]

13 hours ago, GregPersons said:

"The War on Drugs" is exhibit A, and the fact that marijuana is now legal, but there are still hundreds or thousands, a horrifying amount of Black/POC Americans still imprisoned, even in states where it's legal, and the group profiting from the legalization is White people.

 

marijuana is far from legal in all states.

 

in fact the D nominee for president wants to keep it that way. 

[B-Man]

 

‘POUNCE ALERT’: Newsweek writer reports that Republicans pounced on ‘Defund the Police’ movement in hearing

 

 

 

 

[Beast]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Localism.  
 

Sheriffs and deputies.

 

Private security.

 

Abolition of all gun laws.

 

Neighborhood defense.

 

Not the thread for this though.

So, ummmm, do you think private security and neighborhood defense won’t result in any corruption or brutality or that will be a thing of the past?
 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Beast said:

So, ummmm, do you think private security and neighborhood defense won’t result in any corruption or brutality or that will be a thing of the past?
 

If you’re rich it will be like late 1700s, early 1800s Bow Street Runners.  If you are poor, it is gonna either be like the Mafia or the Mexican drug cartels. ?‍♀️

 

 

[Beast]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

If you’re rich it will be like late 1700s, early 1800s Bow Street Runners.  If you are poor, it is gonna either be like the Mafia or the Mexican drug cartels. ?‍♀️

 

 

The takeover in Seattle? They are already demanding money from business owners to “protect” their businesses.

 

It is going to be chaos and the Leftist, Progressive agenda will be exposed.

[B-Man]

 

 

INCONVENIENT NUMBERS: 

 

Repudiate the Anti-Police Narrative. 

 

In testimony to Congress, Heather Mac Donald presents the facts on police and race — including the statistics that the Washington Post has retroactively altered to fit the current narrative.

 

 

 

 

[Sig1Hunter]

54 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

INCONVENIENT NUMBERS: 

 

Repudiate the Anti-Police Narrative. 

 

In testimony to Congress, Heather Mac Donald presents the facts on police and race — including the statistics that the Washington Post has retroactively altered to fit the current narrative.

 

 

 

 

Excellent article. I have Heather’s book “The War on Cops” , and enjoyed the tremendous amount of research she put into what she coined as The Ferguson Effect. Her viewpoint is even, fair, and fact based. I appreciate you sharing that. 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, Beast said:

So, ummmm, do you think private security and neighborhood defense won’t result in any corruption or brutality or that will be a thing of the past?
 

Only if he can abolish human nature at the same time. 

[JetsFan20]

It’s a very odd situation on the surface. It seems “defunding” the police coincides with putting political pressure on departments to withdraw from their union (see Camden and Minneapolis).

 

Traditional Democrats are going to be pro-union and police unions have a long history of funding democratic campaigns. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

9 hours ago, Margarita said:

no Kreskin wasn't an insult it was an observation..he was a "mentalist" something you pretend to be.

 

He may have been a dick too then  you'd have that in  common with him but I cant speak to that .. he may or may not have been one....Now that is both an observation AND an insult TWOFER

 

How''s that sand pounding going MENSA? Now that's not an insult or an observation,.... that's a sneer,  insult AND a joke. TRIFECTA

 

Glad we cleared that up. Back on ignore you go. 

 

 

I’m at the point that I’m actually embarrassed for you.

 

You’re the reason that the “women are like children” stereotype exists.

[Westside]

14 hours ago, Margarita said:

to reiterate, this whole "define defund" with its dictionary definitions being quoted as gospel needed to be debunked and I hope by now it has. saying the majority  want police "defunded"  supposedly to leave anarchy in its wake is baloney. Removing all forms of protection from lawlessness in my view makes zero sense practically as well as philosophically. The fact that the word "defund" was jumped on as meaning remove all police functions is ans was ludicrous. Argue if you must that is what most want and I will disagree strongly.

Are we coming up with a new meaning for the word defund? 

I always believed say what you mean and mean what you say. Anything else is just a play on words. 

[billsfan1959]

12 hours ago, Sig1Hunter said:

I’m well versed on LTC Grossman and have read both On Combat and On Killing. They are very interesting, and provide a TON of evidence to back up his point of view. 
 

The sheepdog metaphor doesn’t say, to me, “only I can protect you”. I actually quoted an excerpt from it in a different thread. I believe it is important, and it is accurate. Have you actually read it? Or better yet, read any of Grossmans books? If not, I suggest you do so you can make up your own mind about what he is saying, instead of taking someone else’s word for it.

 

11 hours ago, Sig1Hunter said:

To further elaborate on the specific portion of the essay (which wasn’t his, actually. He quoted it as told by someone else to him) that you referred to, and actually was the same portion I quoted in a different thread.

 

He isn’t saying that only cops are sheepdogs. There are plenty of sheepdog civilians, and unfortunately there are some sheep cops. The metaphor is basically saying that evil exists (the wolf). There are sheep (people that don’t believe the evil exists, are far removed from it, or just don’t believe it will ever effect them), and there are people that choose to believe evil exists and are willing to stand between the sheep and the wolf - with their life, if necessary (the sheepdog). Grossman expresses that it’s ok to be a sheep. A lot of people are sheep, and they live without a lot of stress because they are oblivious to the dangers around them. Being a sheep isn’t a bad thing...until the wolf shows up. When the wolf shows up, the sheep better find a sheepdog. Again, that doesn’t just mean the cops..or, the military. Your neighbor might be a sheepdog. You might be one. Would you give your life for your family? If yes, then you are their sheepdog. Grossman defines a sheepdog as someone with a capacity for violence and a concern for his fellow man. One willing to put themselves in peril for someone else. A wolf is someone with a capacity for violence, and no concern for their fellow man. A sheep is someone who just mosies along nibbling at the grass without a care in the world, except for themselves. The sheepdog looks like the wolf because they both have a capacity for violence (big fangs). One uses it to destroy the wolf, the other uses it to destroy the sheep. Grossman explicity states that any sheepdog that harms a sheep must be punished and removed - that’s the only way for our system to work. Sheep are people who would freeze or run when they would be forced to act to help someone else.

We need more sheepdogs. In uniform, and out of it.

 

That’s just my view on the essay.

 

 

Good summary and spot on. A couple of additional points.

 

First, and you touched upon this, Grossman never talks about a dynamic like "everybody out there hates you and we (police community) are the only ones who love you," in which police are pitted against citizens - and to turn what Grossman writes into that message is a complete distortion. The idea that being in law enforcement is the equivalent of being in an abusive relationship tells me the author of that article doesn't know much about the various and complex dynamics of abusive relationships.

 

Second, what the author of that article failed to mention about Grossman's sheep metaphor is that the sheepdog never harms the sheep. That is what separates him/her from the wolves. Once you cross that line, you are the very thing you took an oath to protect people against. EDIT: I see you did mention this as well.

 

@Capco thanks for the discussion. I have read that article several more times and I have serious questions about the validity of a number of claims and the overarching agenda of his article. If, in fact, he was an officer and behaved how he described, then that was the kind of person he was when he took the job. Law enforcement did not create it, it just gave him an arena and the authority to express what was already inside of him. And that is exactly the kind of people that need to be weeded out. 

 

As I said before, I am not denying their existence. I am not even denying pockets of the kind of culture he described. As long as there are human beings, a small percentage of them will always find ways to prey on the rest. No other segment of society has found a way to completely rid themselves of those kinds of people and law enforcement is no different. There was a time in LE when that kind of behavior and culture was even more prevalent. However, like the rest of society, LE has continued to evolve for the better. They are better trained, better educated, and more diversified than they have ever been. All they can do is continue to find ways to continue to improve and reduce the number of officers like Chauvin, and and their ability to harm the people they are supposed to protect.

 

Just remember, there are 50+ million contacts between LE Officers and citizens (over the age of 16) and 10+ million arrests each year in this country. 99.99% are interactions without any issues at all. It doesn't excuse or minimize when there are issues or, God forbid, injuries or deaths because of police misconduct. It just means there are a lot of good men and women out there doing their best to uphold the oath they took.

 

Again, this is all just my opinion based on my own experiences.

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by billsfan1959

[The Guy In Pants]

7 hours ago, Beast said:

The takeover in Seattle? They are already demanding money from business owners to “protect” their businesses.

 

It is going to be chaos and the Leftist, Progressive agenda will be exposed.

You always let the problem get to a point at which your solving it is proven as justified.

[4merper4mer]

7 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

Only if he can abolish human nature at the same time. 

Why abolish it when we can just ignore it?  Look at how well that has worked out for everyone living under the glory of Marxism.

[B-Man]

 

 

WAIT, THAT’S NOT THE NARRATIVE:

 

 Eight in 10 want police funding increased or maintained. 

 

“The American public overwhelmingly wants funding for police to be increased or maintained, according to a new poll that shows people having strong support for first responders.”

 

 

 

This is consistent with the YouGov poll I linked the other day.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

If you’re rich it will be like late 1700s, early 1800s Bow Street Runners.  If you are poor, it is gonna either be like the Mafia or the Mexican drug cartels. ?‍♀️

 

 

No it wouldn’t.  For lots of reasons.  First of which is that the police are far from the only thing I’d see abolished.

[B-Man]

 

UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION, ANYWAY: 

 

Joe Biden and the NAACP Kick ‘Defund the Police’ to the Curb.