Movement to defund police gains 'unprecedented' support across US

[Bigdog]

What anarchy? Y’all keep avoiding my question. Why do we need so fucking many cops?

Is the crime rate zero, now?

Over 7,000 Black Americans are murdered by other Black Americans every year. Do you even give a fuck?

BTW, 21 cops per 10k? ... at 7 days per week, 24 hours a day, ... with vacation time factored in, ... that's probably about 4 cops on duty at any one time to serve 10k people. Factor in that many have admin jobs, you're probably down to 3 per 10k.

 

[anatta]

Kinda like the cop hate you so stubbornly clung to back in 2011 when the OPD was arresting those Food Not Bombs wackos in Lake Eola Park for their little PR stunt and refusing to obey orders to move their homeless feeding operation to a different site because local business owners were complaining about the bums harassing their customers etc.

As I recall, you and I went around and around and around and around about that for days, with you calling the cops things like "fascists", "pigs" and "storm troopers".

My how your attitudes have changed since your "Cosmic Rocker" days, haven't they?

such tripe.
conflating a peaceful assembly of people serving food to homeless being rousted to any police violence against rioters is laughable even for you

 

[Nomad]

such tripe.
conflating a peaceful assembly of people serving food to homeless being rousted to any police violence against rioters is laughable even for you

In each case, they were/are doing their jobs.

You hated them then and support them now.

In Eola Park, FNB was creating a public nuisance. They were offered perfectly good alternative sites by the city, but they refused to cooperate, so the police played the hand that FNB forced them too.

And you excoriated them for it.

Now suddenly, you're all in with them.

Just pointing out your trademark flip-flopping inconsistency.

 

[anatta]

In each case, they were/are doing their jobs.

You hated them then and support them now.

In Eola Park, FNB was creating a public nuisance. They were offered perfectly good alternative sites by the city, but they refused to cooperate, so the police played the hand that FNB forced them too.

And you excoriated them for it.

Now suddenly, you're all in with them.

Just pointing out your trademark flip-flopping inconsistency.

there was the question of access for the homeless as well you fail to mention.. but i'm not about to re-litigate that.
Public nuicence? were talking RIOTS. get a clue

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Maybe we don’t need so many. Who the fuck wants to live in a police state? We have 35,000 cops in Columbus. That’s one cop for every 24 persons. That’s far too many.

That's reasonable. But, we have to be careful to manage the reductions without increasing harm to the public at large. One way to do that is while decreasing police, increase the Rights to self-defense so people can protect themselves. Many states--particularly more Progressive Democrat ones--have done everything they can to take such Rights away.

 

[Nomad]

A police department that answers to the people. The police work behind a blue cloud that hides what they do. They protect the miscreants and brutal police. That has to stop. The courts and prosecutors are part of that equation. It results in the police getting guilty decisions that are orchestrated by the system. The coroner's office should not be working with the cops.

The cops already answer to the people.

There are citizen review boards and internal affairs depts.

Your generalizations about blue clouds, protecting miscreants and coroners doing the PD's bidding are just that... generalizations.

Cops are humans and they are subject to the same faults and imperfections that we all are. They just play in a higher stakes arena than we do. Certainly we all want honest, law-abiding cops, but expecting the level of perfection some seem to is Pollyanna.

Plus, giving too much authority to citizen groups often results in hindering the cops from doing their jobs effectively. Criminals don't play by any rules. If we want more citizen control, citizen group members should be required to ride along with cops on a regular basis to see first hand what they deal with.

Again, if a cop does an action that results in the city making a payoff, he should pay part of it. If he has skin in the game, he will be more careful. Some commit multiple infractions against the people. It should be known to the public.

Nonsense. If you have cops too scared to use necessary force to apprehend violent criminals because they're afraid of losing everything they own and having their wages garnished for the rest of their lives, they'll start slacking off or even quitting the force altogether. Then the violent criminals will have the upper hand and we all suffer.

And as soon as they started getting away scot free and committing more violent crimes, people like yourself will be the first ones screaming about police inaction.

Cops turn off cameras or remove badges. That should result in dismissal. Like these cops do who are beating protesters. They do that because breaking the law is the plan of action. It is a small percentage of cops who ever use their weapon. TV cops are not reality.

Dismissing cops in a world where some cities are already short handed is not always an easy proposition.

You should try to see things from both sides before you offer up unrealistic solutions.

That having been said, technology ought to be able to solve those technical issues.

They could make the body cameras so they can't be turned off or blocked. Or turned on remotely at a control center. Make the badges electronic, so they transmit the badge number to any cellphone even if hidden.

Given how prevalent cell phone video is nowadays, turning off body cams isn't as much of an issue in most cases.

 

[Stretch]

it's going mainstream -LA mayor just did it

No surprise there. Cali is its own planet.

 

[Nomad]

there was the question of access for the homeless as well you fail to mention.. but i'm not about to re-litigate that.
Public nuicence? were talking RIOTS. get a clue

You hated the cops for removing people from a public park after they defied an order to disperse.

Now you love them for doing the same thing, albeit with a bit more (necessary) force.

Inconsistency.

 

[Truth Detector]

The movement to defund the police is gaining significant support across America, including from elected leaders, as protests over the killing of George Floyd sweep the nation.

For years, activists have pushed US cities and states to cut law enforcement budgets amid a dramatic rise in spending on police and prisons while funding for vital social services has shrunk or disappeared altogether.

Government officials have long dismissed the idea as a leftist fantasy, but the recent unrest and massive budget shortfalls from the Covid-19 crisis appear to have inspired more mainstream recognition of the central arguments behind defunding.

“To see legislators who aren’t even necessarily on the left supporting at least a significant decrease in New York police department [NYPD] funding is really very encouraging,” Julia Salazar, a New York state senator and Democratic socialist, told the Guardian on Tuesday. “It feels a little bit surreal.”

Floyd’s death on camera in Minneapolis, advocates say, was a powerful demonstration that police reform efforts of the last half-decade have failed to stop racist policing and killings. Meanwhile, the striking visuals of enormous, militarized and at times violent police forces responding to peaceful protests have led some politicians to question whether police really need this much money and firepower.
.....
Community groups advocating for defunding have put forward differing strategies, some merely opposing police budget increases, others advocating mass reductions, and some fighting for full defunding as a step toward abolishing police forces. Some initiatives are tied to the fight to close prisons. All are pushing for a reinvestment of those dollars in services.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/04/defund-the-police-us-george-floyd-budgets

Just when you think that the left and their Democratic Party of the Jackass cannot get any dumber, they go FULL retard.

No wonder the face of the party is a geriatric, WHITE, PRIVILEGED guy with dementia.

 

[Truth Detector]

Question:

What would replace them? Are you willing to do without any legal authorities to intervene in criminal matters? Are you willing to have to defend yourself and property at all times?

After all, that's what defunding the police would result in.

Answer: Leftists do not think. They emote stupidity.

You're welcome.

 

[Truth Detector]

wtf?......defund police...…are they nuts?.....

You have to ask?

 

[Truth Detector]

The irony of this painfully stupid effort is that it will hit the Democratic Party of the Jackass constituency the hardest.

Yes, leftists really are this fucking dumb.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

It seems like this is what you do on the board. Do I have that correct?

not in the last 1052 posts......but keep trying....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I apologize if you've already addressed this but what's the basis of support for your first two sentences? Without seeing the data I'm not going to say you're wrong but we've seen in places like Baltimore where the police pulled back after the Freddie Gray killing and riots that crime and murder increased.

I agree people don't want to live in a police state. But you also have high crime areas where people are basically prisoners in their house for the fear of what's outside. That's not acceptable either. You can't have neighborhoods where parents are afraid to let their kids play in front because of the crime and lawlessness occurring.

Because it doesn’t address the root cause of crime. Also when you build a criminal industrial complex there’s a built in incentive to find more ways to charge people with more crimes. That’s not to say that we don’t need police but that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Particularly when that pound of cure is a boot on your neck.

It’s just exasperating that every time the data shows there are better ways to address and prevent crime then the politics are that you’re weak on crime. When we spend more on enforcement and prisons then we do on education then it’s a wake up call that something is seriously wrong.

 

[Cinnabar]

Because it doesn’t address the root cause of crime. Also when you build a criminal industrial complex there’s a built in incentive to find more ways to charge people with more crimes. That’s not to say that we don’t need police but that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Particularly when that pound of cure is a boot on your neck.

It’s just exasperating that every time the data shows there are better ways to address and prevent crime then the politics are that you’re weak on crime. When we spend more on enforcement and prisons then we do on education then it’s a wake up call that something is seriously wrong.

And thankfully, collectivized decency is the people rising up to kill this fascism and brutality.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Because it doesn’t address the root cause of crime. Also when you build a criminal industrial complex there’s a built in incentive to find more ways to charge people with more crimes. That’s not to say that we don’t need police but that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Particularly when that pound of cure is a boot on your neck.

It’s just exasperating that every time the data shows there are better ways to address and prevent crime then the politics are that you’re weak on crime. When we spend more on enforcement and prisons then we do on education then it’s a wake up call that something is seriously wrong.

Which by the way just to be clear we don’t spend nearly as much on law enforcement as we do education. My point is that in recent times we’ve dramatically increased spending on law enforcement but haven’t seen a lot of return on that investment.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That's reasonable. But, we have to be careful to manage the reductions without increasing harm to the public at large. One way to do that is while decreasing police, increase the Rights to self-defense so people can protect themselves. Many states--particularly more Progressive Democrat ones--have done everything they can to take such Rights away.

The problem with that argument is we’ve seen the greatest increase in gun rights in our history in recent times and it has had little to no impact on crime rates.

 

[anatta]

The problem with that argument is we’ve seen the greatest increase in gun rights in our history in recent times and it has had little to no impact on crime rates.

gun control doesn't impact crimes rates either..criminals don't care either way. we are awash with guns in our violent society.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The problem with that argument is we’ve seen the greatest increase in gun rights in our history in recent times and it has had little to no impact on crime rates.

Correlation doesn't mean causation. In this case, most crime is not against individuals who are not part of various criminal activities. Sure there is crime against such individuals, but most is between criminals be it gangs, drug dealers, etc. Where gun rights are stronger, there is a disincentive for criminals to involve themselves in certain types of crime like say, breaking and entering, where gun laws allow more ownership and self-defense, as one example.

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

The main problem with your silly bang-bang obsession is that armed police execute people without trial, often for their skin colour, because they are mostly racists, trained to shoot first and think five-hundred-and-ninth, if they can. It is not an obvious recipe for social harmony.