|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 16 2018 07:29 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 07:23 Falling wrote:
And abolish means get rid of the whole thing. It doesn't mean "basically reform".
Maybe what you want is radical reform. But if you say abolition that means something. And then when you have no idea for replacement, that's not us misinterpreting you. That's you not fully expressing your solution, or else you not fully thinking the ramifications of abolition. yup, no idea, didn't present a single one says the most honest representation of my argument. This has gotten pathetic... Then say something. I have supposed that all the other restorative justice ideas from the Rolling Stones article are successfully implemented. In this hypothetical situation, what replaces the police that is materially different from modern police force found in the western world, isn't a private police force, and isn't community based enforcement (because you weren't sure on that one, walking back on it when asked about it)? What's left?
You can barely compare the US police system to other western nations. Remember we have more people in prison per capita than any other country, our prisons are notoriously dysfunctional at anything other than caging people (and they're only mediocre at that). Our police kill an inordinate number of people every year. Racism plays a somewhat unique roll as well, particularly compared to more homogeneous populations. We could go on if you still think our current police are basically the same as a place like The Netherlands.
It would be one thing if you guys were pointing at a long history of police/justice system getting significantly better over time in the US as a result of the type of 'reforms' you guys are advocating. But you're not. Hell, you can't even measure it (or identify how you do) because they are so corrupt they won't let you collect statistics that might give you some hints.
You guys are trying to reform the mob into upstanding community members without taking any of their power first and I don't know how you guys are coming away from that thinking I'm the unreasonable person, because I opened with a one-liner that said 'abolish the police' followed almost immediately with a pretty good summary (but was noted not to be comprehensive) to give people an idea of what I meant (which they ignored until I brow beat them into engaging with it).
To reiterate, you replace a fear, harassment, extortion, violence, cruelness, and punishment based patrol, enforcement,justice system. With a positive engagement, deescalation, accountability, community responsibility, restorative justice, etc... system.
You guys are hung up on how we're possibly going to function in a society without state sanctioned criminals patrolling the streets like that's what would tear society apart.
|
|
|
Canada11369 Posts
You express many words reiterating the problem with the US police force. Granted. Now what has that to do with abolishing the police? (As opposed to bringing it in line with other modern police forces.) I'm not contesting you on the problem. I'm contesting you on your proposed solution, but whenever I ask about your solution, you go back to explaining the problem. That wasn't what I was asking. Granted. The problem exists. Now how does the solution proposed actually solve the problem?
To reiterate, you replace a fear, harassment, extortion, violence, cruelness, and punishment based patrol, enforcement,justice system. With a positive engagement, deescalation, accountability, community responsibility, restorative justice, etc... system.
These are all nice words. Very aspirational. But what happens when humans fail? What happens when people don't act justly and love mercy or walk humbly. What happens when they still break the law? Who steps in and how is it different from before? I'm asking the same question because I'm still not receiving an answer. So let's try a different approach: presuppositions.
What is the nature of humans? Do you believe that given the right set of restorative justice practices and given enough years that we can end crime? And I don't mean we just decriminalize everything so there is no law to break, but that given the right societal conditions, do humans to a man (woman and child) have the potential to always do no harm to each other and each others' property?
|
That looks like she needs a "I know shit, make me testify." sign.
|
On March 16 2018 08:57 Gahlo wrote:That looks like she needs a "I know shit, make me testify." sign.
It isn't even the Friday afternoon news dump. I don't even try to work Friday afternoons anymore. I get more done Sunday nights.
|
On March 16 2018 08:57 Gahlo wrote:That looks like she needs a "I know shit, make me testify." sign.
I don't know if you can testify on things that happened while you were married.
|
On March 16 2018 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 06:08 Falling wrote:On March 16 2018 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 05:09 Falling wrote:On March 16 2018 04:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 04:12 Falling wrote:On March 16 2018 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 03:44 Falling wrote:On March 16 2018 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 03:20 Falling wrote:
[quote]
Well does actually matter what you are replacing it with. If you just pull down a corrupt system, with no good plan to replace, there's no guarantee that what you replace it will be anything other than chaos. And there's actually every reason to believe that the results will be catastrophically worse. If you pull down a creaky system, for everything that isn't working, there is still checks and balances that somewhat mitigate the power of corrupt people. If you pull down and replace it with a half-baked idea, there are no brakes stopping the worst of the corrupt people.
We can see this in the Russian Revolution- the tyranny of the czars was one thing, but even they bothered to tour their prison system to see what it was like- nothing of the sort occurred. Even the Gestapo was trying determine the truth of whether or not a person was a spy- Stalinist Russia just needed a high quota of captured traitors- guiltiness was irrelevant. But how they got there was upsetting the entire apple cart without replacing it with anything that would preclude a madman like Stalin from gaining power and staying in power indefinitely while amassing even more.
This is why reformation generally works better than revolution because you don't have to throw out what was working. Good rules that were twisted are better off untwisted than a situation where we throw out all the rules and don't have a good set of new rules to replace. No rules is substantially worse that twisted rules because there is not even a chance of stopping the worst people. So then if we are to utterly replace the old rules with the new, we ought to know what the new is and whether they are any good. It's a shame you wrote all that without reading the later responses that addressed it. The part where you said you didn't know what it would look like? Casting vision for the Hoover Dam? Thing is, they already knew dams worked, and yes engineering it on a larger scale would make all the difference on whether they could do it or not. But even then, if the Hoover Dam failed, you might take out a town or two... abolishing the police is a far more fundamental change to the entire country. So yes, I would like to see a proof of concept first. But hey, that's why you guys have states, isn't it? Oregon or another heavily liberal state can abolish their police force and the rest of the country can see what happens as an experimental model. I'm not thinking you're quite understanding what I'm talking about by your objections. You presumably want to reform the police, I want to abolish the police. Yes. I got that. Your camp (on this argument) has been 'working on this' for ~200 years and they suck. Compared to what? King's soldiers with the divine right of kings? It's only been 200 years, compared to however many thousands of years you want to go back in recorded human history. The amount of limitations we've placed upon the state for the protection of the citizens is no joke. It's take a long time and we will never reach perfection because we are dealing with imperfect humans, but we can strive for better. The choice isn't suck, or anarchy. The choice is keep trying to reform police, Right. That's what I am for. or work towards abolishing them instead. And it's the part that comes after the abolition that I'm having trouble envisioning. It's not as if I'm suggesting we just disband the police tomorrow with no idea what to do the day after. Acting as if it is makes it a lot easier to argue against, but it doesn't really provide any value or insight. So is it that you change the conditions sufficiently that police are unnecessary? Will we have changed human nature sufficiently that people will just follow criminal and civil law always? Is it that boots on the ground will become entirely unnecessary (the one part you were skeptical was the boots on the ground enforcement, but what's the alternative if not community boots on the ground nor a police force?) Did you read the outline I provided earlier? It seems like you didn't. Improving the material conditions of impoverished people will certainly lead to a reduction in a variety of crimes. Restorative justice will reduce recidivism and habitual incarceration. Engaging and empowering disadvantaged members in communities in the decisions being made in their communities regarding justice will help make building quality citizens a community responsibility as the consequences of failure are shared by the community. And so on and son. I have? That's why I'm asking such questions as: Will we have changed human nature sufficiently that people will just follow criminal and civil law always? In other words, let's grant all those programs that were suggested by the Rolling Stones. Suppose all those restorative programs are up and running. Will humans stop breaking criminal and civil law to the extent that no enforcing body will be necessary? Not sure what you mean by 'enforcement body' but as I'm presuming you mean it, yes in some fashion. I mean exactly that. A body of people that will enforce the law when people inevitably break it. Or investigate when people do break it. Or be a deterrent simply by existing or act as first responders, particularly in hostile situations? Or deal with trespassing and noise ordinances? Or do you believe that all those other programs detailed in the Rolling Stones article will stop people from breaking the law entirely? And if there is to a body of enforcers, and it isn't community enforcers, how will it be materially different from the modern police force (found in any western country)? Or for that matter different from private police forces as you weren't jumping at the anarcho-capitalist solution. What's left? This is what I was talking about at first with people having grossly distorted perceptions of how consistent, effective, and/or legal the current system is. You guys are so sure it's the best we can do without even really having a firm grasp on how well or absolutely appallingly horrible it is currently working. It's not entirely your fault, most of you have very different relationships with police. As middle-class white/Asian people (or not in this country) you all have far more faith and find far more comfort in the police than those wanting to abolish them. Black people rarely call the police because they rarely help. I for one have never called the police in my life or even seriously contemplated it. Not because I've never been in threatening situations, I've been shot at, guns pointed, robbed, jumped, etc... Not once did calling the police cross my mind. Not once did I think they would make the situation better or more safe. Not once. I'm not alone. There are millions of us across the country. But there's plenty who do, and far too often when they do, they end up having to attend a funeral for a loved one who needed medical help and got shot instead, not terribly dissimilar to Trump's alleged new plan to pass a law to give drug dealers the death penalty. You guys don't think the system is unacceptably messed up, because it doesn't impact your lives. In fact it kind of helps make your lives possible. You need a public police as it currently exists, otherwise you're the only thing in between the struggling masses and the exploitative wealth addicts and that's not very appealing.
No one is saying our current system is the best, we're saying your proposal makes things worse, not better (except for decriminalization, but I suspect the author is pretty tepid with that one...let me know when there is agitation outside of libertarian circles for abolishing 99% of the statutory code), without answering a lot of basic things. It's like the difference between collectivization and market agriculture. The process remains the same (food production and all the necessities which accompany its production) - it's how you go about it that is the difference. You're still going to have to offer mostly the same services as police currently offer (they're not terrible because of the services they provide, they're terrible because they're a monopoly with immunity qualifications and arms of the State). You can't just wave your hand and say well, this stuff, it just won't need to be done anymore. That's utopianism. It's why I said your solutions are even more naive than the promises of Communism.
Historically at least, private market forces were quite good at providing for Lockean rights and security (see: University of Montana Economics work related to the not-so "wild wild west" that had a much lower crime rate than contemporary society). While the "it's never been done before" mantra is extremely over-used and specious, this time, I feel like it's quite relevant given how important this matter is to society's functioning. I'm just not keen on handing this important industry over to previously violent community patrols as the article suggested.
|
On March 16 2018 09:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 08:57 Gahlo wrote:That looks like she needs a "I know shit, make me testify." sign. I don't know if you can testify on things that happened while you were married.
What? Being married is not some form of legal protection. If she knows something (which is not entirely unlikely since spouses tend to talk to each other about what they are doing) she can most definitely testify about it.
Its use however is suspect because without anything to back up her testimony it would just be a 'he said, she said' situation.
|
On March 16 2018 10:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 09:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 16 2018 08:57 Gahlo wrote:That looks like she needs a "I know shit, make me testify." sign. I don't know if you can testify on things that happened while you were married. What? Being married is not some form of legal protection. If she knows something (which is not entirely unlikely since spouses tend to talk to each other about what they are doing) she can most definitely testify about it. Its use however is suspect because without anything to back up her testimony it would just be a 'he said, she said' situation.
You can’t be compelled to testify against your spouse. It’s a pretty broad protection too.
|
On March 16 2018 10:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 10:11 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2018 09:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 16 2018 08:57 Gahlo wrote:That looks like she needs a "I know shit, make me testify." sign. I don't know if you can testify on things that happened while you were married. What? Being married is not some form of legal protection. If she knows something (which is not entirely unlikely since spouses tend to talk to each other about what they are doing) she can most definitely testify about it. Its use however is suspect because without anything to back up her testimony it would just be a 'he said, she said' situation. You can’t be compelled to testify against your spouse.
I wouldn't put it past DJT to have a Prima Nocta clause in there. Some kind of spouse sharing to protect the real breadwinner.
|
You don't say.
On March 16 2018 10:16 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 10:14 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2018 10:11 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2018 09:38 Sermokala wrote:On March 16 2018 08:57 Gahlo wrote:That looks like she needs a "I know shit, make me testify." sign. I don't know if you can testify on things that happened while you were married. What? Being married is not some form of legal protection. If she knows something (which is not entirely unlikely since spouses tend to talk to each other about what they are doing) she can most definitely testify about it. Its use however is suspect because without anything to back up her testimony it would just be a 'he said, she said' situation. You can’t be compelled to testify against your spouse. I wouldn't put it past DJT to have a Prima Nocta clause in there. Some kind of spouse sharing to protect the real breadwinner.
The Trump obsession appeals to sexual fantasy deviants. It's like candy.
|
She still ran a CIA black site that was responsible for torture, even if she didn’t directly oversee that specific act of torture. Not really seeing anything that makes Trumps selection less shit.
|
|
|
John Bolton incoming. All the losers of the Bush administration are making a come back. Trumps gunna being back the worst DC had to offer.
|
|
|
IDK about that McMaster firing that's being reported. Apparently Sanders just said that McMaster isn't going anywhere. I don't trust very much what she says about personnel issues because I don't think anyone, no matter how senior, really knows what's going on staffing-wise in the WH. The reason for that seems to be Trump's impulsive behavior.
|
The thing about Washington insiders is they don’t make rookie mistakes like taking military jets to travel. You don’t even need to be a Washington insider, you just need to watch some political comedy. Or the west wing.
|
On March 16 2018 11:41 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/974355857654910976The thing about Washington insiders is they don’t make rookie mistakes like taking military jets to travel. You don’t even need to be a Washington insider, you just need to watch some political comedy. Or the west wing.
I feel like this happened before. Didn't Mnuchin get criticized some time ago for usage of a military jet for travel purposes?
|
On March 16 2018 11:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:I feel like this happened before. Didn't Mnuchin get criticized some time ago for usage of a military jet for travel purposes?
I think so? Or maybe it was his shitty wife that yelled at some tax payer on instagram? It’s like a banquet of shitheels up in the White House and no human has the bandwidth to keep track of which of them is back on their bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
