Defund the Police?
- Thread starter labnoti
- Start date
- Status
Onward Allusion
New member
If it weren't for all the surveillance cameras and smartphones all of these violations by the police would be filed under justified shooting. To the folks who don't believe that there is a problem, all I gotta say is that you are dead wrong and are living in the past. A lot of old guys do not get it. Defunding isn't elimination. Only a moron would believe this.
This thread will not go anywhere and will only cause additional division among gun owners. I now agree with most of the moderators who simply close non-firearms related posts. There are many other venues to get one's blood pressure up.
This thread will not go anywhere and will only cause additional division among gun owners. I now agree with most of the moderators who simply close non-firearms related posts. There are many other venues to get one's blood pressure up.
I'll play.
Disclaimer: I don't actually KNOW this is what the defunders have in mind this is just my best guess and it's just an opinion.
If a guy is being robbed or a store is being broken into or a car is being stolen right at the time of the call to 911 then the "regular" police get sent.
If a guy has been robbed or a store has been broken into or a car has been stolen then you send in the report writers to write up a report and the grief counselors to aid the traumatized victim. The regular police don't show up.
If there is a "disturbance" (this gets tricky) the "hug patrol" and the "designated disturbance de-escalators" are immediately dispatched armed with an MP3 player loaded with Kumbaya to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all involved. As one radio commentator snidely opined after a couple of these peace patrollers get blown away maybe the regular cops will be dispatched right behind them to cover their efforts.
Just to be fair...you know armed cops might just not be needed at some things they routinely get dispatched for, that part just might work. And the armed cops might actually be relieved not to have to be the front line guys dealing with "disturbances". It's possible they would be quite happy to hang back and let the "mental health" professionals take the lead on these.
Snarky comment to follow: As for traffic stops, drug deals, civil disobedience, well, I think there are some in my neck of the woods (Twin Cities MN) that would just let these "minor" things slide.
Just my opinions on the current situation and I hope everyone gives them the attention they deserve.
Disclaimer: I don't actually KNOW this is what the defunders have in mind this is just my best guess and it's just an opinion.
If a guy is being robbed or a store is being broken into or a car is being stolen right at the time of the call to 911 then the "regular" police get sent.
If a guy has been robbed or a store has been broken into or a car has been stolen then you send in the report writers to write up a report and the grief counselors to aid the traumatized victim. The regular police don't show up.
If there is a "disturbance" (this gets tricky) the "hug patrol" and the "designated disturbance de-escalators" are immediately dispatched armed with an MP3 player loaded with Kumbaya to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all involved. As one radio commentator snidely opined after a couple of these peace patrollers get blown away maybe the regular cops will be dispatched right behind them to cover their efforts.
Just to be fair...you know armed cops might just not be needed at some things they routinely get dispatched for, that part just might work. And the armed cops might actually be relieved not to have to be the front line guys dealing with "disturbances". It's possible they would be quite happy to hang back and let the "mental health" professionals take the lead on these.
Snarky comment to follow: As for traffic stops, drug deals, civil disobedience, well, I think there are some in my neck of the woods (Twin Cities MN) that would just let these "minor" things slide.
Just my opinions on the current situation and I hope everyone gives them the attention they deserve.
On the other hand, you have justified shootings that continue to be characterized as murders (i.e. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown) by the other side.
Obviously, there is an issue with some cops not being held accountable in some instances. Suggesting that all cops, at all times, everywhere are a problem is wrong.
There have been elected officials and organizational leaders around the country that have, in fact, suggested eliminating police departments (I would agree that they are morons). Even if it only refers to reducing budgets, how exactly is this going to prevent rogue cops from doing what they do?
Thinking that diverting money to social workers is going to be an effective means of dealing with crime is very naive. Most drug addicts don't want to give up their habit. Thugs who care about nothing but themselves and enthusiastically prey upon others are not going to be swayed by some counselor.
What is needed is a FAIR process of evaluating use of force incidents and citizen complaints that takes into account the totality of the circumstances (much as we as armed citizens hope that our use of force will be viewed), and drops the hammer on those who step outside the lines of what is acceptable.
It seems to me that those who want to defund the police lack a broad perspective.
Humans are an incredibly loving, empathetic, and charitable species, but due to their intense emotions they are also laced with streaks of anger, hatred, jealously, greed, and senseless violence that are not shared by most other species. A certain percentage of humans have problems controlling these emotions, and so for humans to live together in some acceptable level of harmony there must be rules that restrict negative behavior. Such rules are meaningless without enforcement, thus necessitating a system that captures the rule breakers, judges their degree of guilt, punishes bad behavior, and attempts reform.
Our police are the ones responsible for the capture, and they turn the offenders over to the judicial system for processing. They are a critical link in the chain, and weakening that link weakens the entire chain and with it any chance at peace and harmony.
To keep the law enforcement link strong, the emphasis should be on better training and more non-lethal tools, and that requires more funding, not less. While I can understand a police officer’s hand being fast to his weapon when working in neighborhoods with high levels of violent crime and hatred for police, lethal force must be avoided and reserved as a last resort. That takes a lot of training. While difficult to judge, officers who clearly ignore that concept, although a small minority, need to be identified and weeded out, by either retraining or removal.
Of course the root cause of lawlessness lies beneath, in what causes people to break the rules in the first place such as poverty, broken families, a sense of hopelessness, drug and alcohol addictions, and mental illness. Those are complex issues, and weakening the law enforcement link is not the solution, but rather a knee jerk reaction resulting from flared emotions.
Humans are an incredibly loving, empathetic, and charitable species, but due to their intense emotions they are also laced with streaks of anger, hatred, jealously, greed, and senseless violence that are not shared by most other species. A certain percentage of humans have problems controlling these emotions, and so for humans to live together in some acceptable level of harmony there must be rules that restrict negative behavior. Such rules are meaningless without enforcement, thus necessitating a system that captures the rule breakers, judges their degree of guilt, punishes bad behavior, and attempts reform.
Our police are the ones responsible for the capture, and they turn the offenders over to the judicial system for processing. They are a critical link in the chain, and weakening that link weakens the entire chain and with it any chance at peace and harmony.
To keep the law enforcement link strong, the emphasis should be on better training and more non-lethal tools, and that requires more funding, not less. While I can understand a police officer’s hand being fast to his weapon when working in neighborhoods with high levels of violent crime and hatred for police, lethal force must be avoided and reserved as a last resort. That takes a lot of training. While difficult to judge, officers who clearly ignore that concept, although a small minority, need to be identified and weeded out, by either retraining or removal.
Of course the root cause of lawlessness lies beneath, in what causes people to break the rules in the first place such as poverty, broken families, a sense of hopelessness, drug and alcohol addictions, and mental illness. Those are complex issues, and weakening the law enforcement link is not the solution, but rather a knee jerk reaction resulting from flared emotions.
Yes but I probably shouldn't be commenting on it because I don't know exactly what they voted on . It was however reported as such kind of like the defund police reporting , we're not quite sure what that means .
Even disband in this context , I'm not sure what they could mean .
Google said:
You can't do that with out something in it's place which what ever that may be , it will take many months or even a couple years to do .
I also believe the police chief said he/they were immediately stopping negotiations with the police union . I'd think this would have to be one of the first things you do , break the union . Like it or not the majority of employees in the "new system" are likely going to be the cops from the "old" system . You either need to break the union or get them to agree to the new system of law enforcement . I'd think this would be true everywhere there is a union , and will not be easy .
I'd be interested in seeing the actual text of what they voted on and what there time line is expected to be .
EDIT it appears the resolution starts the process of figuring out how to make the change and what that change might be . I wonder when the current union deal is up ?
Well said
Last edited:
Onward Allusion
New member
Law enforcement is the weakest link in scenarios of dead black men by the hands of cops. If this isn't true, then please explain why we keep seeing this over and over again every week to every few days? Atlanta being the latest example. There are some seriously trigger happy cops out there who are looking to beat down or kill anyone that steps out of line... You know what they say about bad apples and the barrel . . .
Well put, but incomplete.
The missing factor is, I think, the most important one, and curiously is also the most often left out factor when the issue is discussed.
FREE WILL
People do bad things, because THEY WANT TO!!!
Not admitting this, or having it in the discussion is a form of burying your head in the sand. You can point to all the other societal factors, and say they are the cause, but, they aren't.
They are there, sure, and they do have an influence, but they aren't the root cause, the root cause is free will.
Take a look at any group of people who fit in your criteria as disadvantaged, poor, minority, drugs, abusive family, any and all of it, take a look at the people in those situations, and one thing ought to be blindingly obvious, only some of them break the law. Those who do, do it by CHOICE, NOT because "society forced them too...."
And, don't forget this applies to the police, as well.
I keep hearing this, or something like it, that in order to have change we have to "break the union". It's an overly simplistic, and inaccurate point.
We often hear the excuse, "we can't do anything the union won't let us" from management. It's a lame excuse, and not true, as stated.
Its not "the union" stopping them from "doing something about the problem", its the CONTRACT they signed with the union that does that (IF it does) and the union's holding management TO THAT CONTRACT.
Our police are under contract with the governments, city, town, county etc. Contracts which spell out what the management (govt) can, and cannot do. Contracts that were agreed to by BOTH sides.
If some (govt) management official can't do what he or she WANTS to do, because it is prohibited by the contract in force, today, that's NOT the fault of the union's "power". Its a legally binding contract.
IF they can't fire Officer Bad Guy without a complicated due process required by the contract, the blame should go to the people who signed the contract to begin with. IF abiding by their contract doesn't allow them the solutions they desire, its not time to cut off discussions with the union, its time to negotiate a new contract.
Am not saying it will be simple or easy, only that it is the proper way to get the changes desired.
That’s why you have to break the union . So there is no contract to hide behind . In those contracts are the rules on how cops are disciplined , investigated etc . You can’t make a fundamental change on how the police work and what you demand of them with the contract still in place , it really is that simple . You must break the union first or somehow get them to agree to your gentler kinder you have to die before the suspect idea .
In full disclosure I’m coming from a place where I’ve never liked unions as a whole . It’s always appeared to me at least that they represent their members equally regardless of how bad they are or how poorly they do their job . They often have rules that allow poor performance to go on for years before you can do anything to the individual . Sure that’s great if you’re the lazy union worker but not good for the whole . No I don’t know this for sure but it’s probably the reason why it’s hard to get rid of those bad apples .
I’m going to stop there not because I’m finished with my point but rather I have lots to say but my farts are incomplete at this moment. I may be back to edit the some to continue or write a new post .
In full disclosure I’m coming from a place where I’ve never liked unions as a whole . It’s always appeared to me at least that they represent their members equally regardless of how bad they are or how poorly they do their job . They often have rules that allow poor performance to go on for years before you can do anything to the individual . Sure that’s great if you’re the lazy union worker but not good for the whole . No I don’t know this for sure but it’s probably the reason why it’s hard to get rid of those bad apples .
I’m going to stop there not because I’m finished with my point but rather I have lots to say but my farts are incomplete at this moment. I may be back to edit the some to continue or write a new post .
"breaking the union" and breaking the contract are quite different things.
When you confuse one with the other, you only muddy and confuse the issue.
One man's "hiding behind the contract" is another's "shield preventing abuse".
And if the non-union administrators (including elected and appointed ones) can't figure out how to fix things WITHIN THE AGREED UPON RULES (the contract), the problem is with them, not the union or its rank and file members.
Although I was a union member for over 3 decades, I'm not particularly pro union. I know how it's supposed to work, and I know how it often does work, and how they're not always the same thing.
I think blaming the unions (and saying we need to break them) is simply an attempt to shift the blame from administrators (at various levels) who are not doing their jobs properly to a "bad guy" in this case the unions, when they BOTH signed binding contracts to do things the way they have been done.
Back to "defunding the police"...again, here there are contractual issues involved. Any LEGAL defunding must be done within the boundaries of the existing contracts. Which means that officer salaries and benefits can't be touched until/unless you negotiate a new contract.
SO, what does that leave? Equipment (and maint) budgets, and training and general operating expenses.
Few would argue that reducing any of those is a good thing. So what do the "defund me" people REALLY want?
I have yet to hear how their plan(s) would work or even what their plans are, in detail. All I see right now is their apparent desire to punish all police (and in doing so punish the rest of us as well) for the actions of a few, and how taking away SOME of the money they get will do that.
When you confuse one with the other, you only muddy and confuse the issue.
One man's "hiding behind the contract" is another's "shield preventing abuse".
And if the non-union administrators (including elected and appointed ones) can't figure out how to fix things WITHIN THE AGREED UPON RULES (the contract), the problem is with them, not the union or its rank and file members.
Although I was a union member for over 3 decades, I'm not particularly pro union. I know how it's supposed to work, and I know how it often does work, and how they're not always the same thing.
I think blaming the unions (and saying we need to break them) is simply an attempt to shift the blame from administrators (at various levels) who are not doing their jobs properly to a "bad guy" in this case the unions, when they BOTH signed binding contracts to do things the way they have been done.
Back to "defunding the police"...again, here there are contractual issues involved. Any LEGAL defunding must be done within the boundaries of the existing contracts. Which means that officer salaries and benefits can't be touched until/unless you negotiate a new contract.
SO, what does that leave? Equipment (and maint) budgets, and training and general operating expenses.
Few would argue that reducing any of those is a good thing. So what do the "defund me" people REALLY want?
I have yet to hear how their plan(s) would work or even what their plans are, in detail. All I see right now is their apparent desire to punish all police (and in doing so punish the rest of us as well) for the actions of a few, and how taking away SOME of the money they get will do that.
Well that's simple to explain . CANCEL CULTURE ! They don't want to hear facts about unions and contracts or how LOE's are actually needed .They will shout you down like they did to the Mayor and made him leave the protest . The rule of law ????? They're past that , fix it now and they'll worry about the law later forgetting if you don't follow the law while you fix the problem , the fix has no legitimacy .
Like in Seattle where they are having that big "block party" hmm I've never been to a party where you give a set of demands before you will give back control of the area ??
I haven't seen many (any) people defending the cop with his knee on George Floyd's neck so yeah I agree there are bad cops out there
But
A study reported in the August 6 edition of the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” (not exactly a right-wing propaganda rag) stated in one of their research papers:
Although they did say also that more research on this issue is needed.
Link:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877
Another study done by Harvard Professor of Economics, Roland Fryer, in June of 2019 said:
It should be noted that Professor Roland Fry is an African-American male.
Link:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/p...-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force
Both of the above items were mentioned at about the 3 minute 30 second mark by Ben Shapiro in a nine minute video:
“MINNEAPOLIS BURNS - But Does It Need To?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhrvJfjqUiM
Another person that doesn't think young Black men are under systematic attack by the police is Candace Owens. You can listen to the whole video or jump to the 9 minute mark if you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiiBWki-C6A
Onward Allusion
New member
^^^^
Two things...
I wasn't referring to George Floyd. I was referring to Rayshard Brooks which happened on Friday night in Atlanta.
Second, you are cherry picking. I'm pretty sure I can locate a study that says CBD oil is a cure for Covid-19.
BTW, anything following the "but" conjunction negates everything it preceded.
Two things...
I wasn't referring to George Floyd. I was referring to Rayshard Brooks which happened on Friday night in Atlanta.
Second, you are cherry picking. I'm pretty sure I can locate a study that says CBD oil is a cure for Covid-19.
BTW, anything following the "but" conjunction negates everything it preceded.
Last edited:
Quoting a couple of studies that support a point of view could turn out to be cherry picking if it turns out that there are other, equally (or more) credible studies that support the opposite point of view.
But simply quoting a study that supports one's point of view is not Cherry Picking, in and of itself. To support an allegation that something is actually Cherry Picking, requires demonstrating that there is other equally credible, or more credible data that contradicts the evidence being quoted.
The Brooks incident is completely on video. It shows him fighting with two cops after they try to cuff him for a DUI. It shows him grabbing one cop's taser. It shows him breaking free and running away with one cop chasing him. It shows him reaching back over his shoulder and firing the taser at the cop chasing him at close range. It then shows him being shot by the cop.
The 'but' conjunction does not totally negate everything in front of it.
Here's an example:
It was really hot today--over 100 degrees, but not as hot as molten lead.
In that case, nothing following the 'but' negates the fact that it was hot today. It does point out that there are things hotter than the temperature today.
Another example:
Two plus two equals four, but Jimmy wrote down the answer as '5' on his homework.
In that case, the 'but' just demonstrates that the child didn't know that 2 plus 2 was four--it has no effect at all on the truth of the fact that two plus two equals four.
Another example:
Most murderers are male, but there are some female murderers.
It is certainly true that most murderers are male. It is also true that some murderers are female. The 'but' in the sentence doesn't call into question the veracity of the first part of the sentence, it only points out a second truth.
But simply quoting a study that supports one's point of view is not Cherry Picking, in and of itself. To support an allegation that something is actually Cherry Picking, requires demonstrating that there is other equally credible, or more credible data that contradicts the evidence being quoted.
The Brooks incident is completely on video. It shows him fighting with two cops after they try to cuff him for a DUI. It shows him grabbing one cop's taser. It shows him breaking free and running away with one cop chasing him. It shows him reaching back over his shoulder and firing the taser at the cop chasing him at close range. It then shows him being shot by the cop.
The 'but' conjunction does not totally negate everything in front of it.
Here's an example:
It was really hot today--over 100 degrees, but not as hot as molten lead.
In that case, nothing following the 'but' negates the fact that it was hot today. It does point out that there are things hotter than the temperature today.
Another example:
Two plus two equals four, but Jimmy wrote down the answer as '5' on his homework.
In that case, the 'but' just demonstrates that the child didn't know that 2 plus 2 was four--it has no effect at all on the truth of the fact that two plus two equals four.
Another example:
Most murderers are male, but there are some female murderers.
It is certainly true that most murderers are male. It is also true that some murderers are female. The 'but' in the sentence doesn't call into question the veracity of the first part of the sentence, it only points out a second truth.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
More than that. To support an allegation that something is actually Cherry Picking requires demonstrating that there are other equally credible, or more credible, studies that contradict the evidence being quoted and that the person making the statement was aware of the conflicting studies and deliberately overlooked them.
Alright, let's say, for the sake of discussion that we have studies that accurately depict reality, and they say there is no racial component in the people the police shoot.
Why then, do we have so many people believing that black males are being intentionally killed by the police over and above everyone else??
Might it be that it is because someone(s) is telling us that, over and over??
And, just who would that be, that is reporting this??
Consider for a moment the possibility that what gets reported, and how might be used to shape a point of view that is at odds with a study that looks at every case, and is subject to scrutiny and review which the "free" press is not.
"Yellow Journalism" isn't dead, it's just not printed on yellow paper these days...
Consider, would we even have "defund the police" as a national issue, without the press making it one? IF the press treated the idea as the lunatic ravings of a few out of touch individuals, instead of an idea with some merit, would it even be a topic of discussion? I rather doubt it.
Why then, do we have so many people believing that black males are being intentionally killed by the police over and above everyone else??
Might it be that it is because someone(s) is telling us that, over and over??
And, just who would that be, that is reporting this??
Consider for a moment the possibility that what gets reported, and how might be used to shape a point of view that is at odds with a study that looks at every case, and is subject to scrutiny and review which the "free" press is not.
"Yellow Journalism" isn't dead, it's just not printed on yellow paper these days...
Consider, would we even have "defund the police" as a national issue, without the press making it one? IF the press treated the idea as the lunatic ravings of a few out of touch individuals, instead of an idea with some merit, would it even be a topic of discussion? I rather doubt it.
- Status