|
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 23:04 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
One I would start with is transparency and they are failing miserably. If they want to argue I'm not convincing that's fine, that's different than not being right. I'm well aware that it's probably not hard to provide a number of criteria on which the present police force of the United States performs very poorly. However, without a reasonably *complete* set of criteria there is no way to have a sensible discussion on the subject, as opposed to agitating over it. If nothing else, those criteria are necessary to decide which alternative solution to the current state is best. Being right without demonstrating it is not especially useful.
If people want to say they aren't sure which would be better that's a fine position (although I may disagree), what's not okay is how they uniformly patronized me insisting that they know their system is better without even something as rudimentary as some basic ways to measure it's efficacy or that of whatever reforms they claim they want.
Demonstrating the system we have does terrible things is pretty easy, it's total inability to effectively reform has been demonstrated countless times, that's all it takes to make an argument for replacing it legitimate. If they find it insufficient and they want to make the situation better, the solution they seek isn't begging for more reforms that will never come, it's to get off their ass and work to fix those inefficiencies.
|
On March 16 2018 23:04 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
One I would start with is transparency and they are failing miserably. If they want to argue I'm not convincing that's fine, that's different than not being right. I'm well aware that it's probably not hard to provide a number of criteria on which the present police force of the United States performs very poorly. However, without a reasonably *complete* set of criteria there is no way to have a sensible discussion on the subject, as opposed to agitating over it. If nothing else, those criteria are necessary to decide which alternative solution to the current state is best. Being right without demonstrating it is not especially useful.
It can be useful in the sense that if we start from the same premise we can work together on the solution.
In the same vein we have a much better chance of convincing people with an anti-capitalist discourse than with a pro-something else discourse, and that's the way it should be.
|
On March 16 2018 23:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 23:04 Aquanim wrote:On March 16 2018 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
One I would start with is transparency and they are failing miserably. If they want to argue I'm not convincing that's fine, that's different than not being right. I'm well aware that it's probably not hard to provide a number of criteria on which the present police force of the United States performs very poorly. However, without a reasonably *complete* set of criteria there is no way to have a sensible discussion on the subject, as opposed to agitating over it. If nothing else, those criteria are necessary to decide which alternative solution to the current state is best. Being right without demonstrating it is not especially useful. If people want to say they aren't sure which would be better that's a fine position (although I may disagree), what's not okay is how they uniformly patronized me insisting that they know their system is better without even something as rudimentary as some basic ways to measure it's efficacy or that of whatever reforms they claim they want. Demonstrating the system we have does terrible things is pretty easy, it's total inability to effectively reform has been demonstrated countless times, that's all it takes to make an argument for replacing it legitimate. If they find it insufficient and they want to make the situation better, the solution they seek isn't begging for more reforms that will never come, it's to get off their ass and work to fix those inefficiencies.
To chip in on this one; while I have sympathy with your position I do disagree with your conclusion.
The problem is political cowardice, equal to police corruption. Two things would solve the problem: accountability and transparency. The police should never walk when they are clearly seen to kill a citizen when in no danger. They are public servants first, last and always. They are not gods of law and order at whose feet mere mortals must worship and there'll be hell to pay if they don't. That is what leads to thugs with badges, not good policing.
But only politicians can fix that, and they don't have the will and/or guts to do it.
Without that, any system will fall into the same problems, because people are fundamentally corrupt and selfish.
|
Recent water tests at elementary schools in Flint have found an increase in samples showing lead levels above the federal action limit.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality determined that 28 samples tested in February were above 15 parts per billion of lead, the Flint Journal reported. That compares to 20 such samples in January.
The increase may be due to changes in testing conditions, such as the decision to collect samples before flushing lines, said George Krisztian, a department spokesman. Samples collected before flushing tend to have higher lead levels because the water has been in contact with the pipes longer.
The overall results are encouraging because they meet federal guidelines for lead if treated like samples collected by municipal water systems, Krisztian said. Flint’s water was contaminated with lead in 2014 and 2015, when officials began tapping river water that wasn’t properly treated.
The city’s chief public health adviser and director of public works are working with department representatives, public health officials and researchers to review the data, Flint Mayor Karen Weaver said.
“I am convinced that these test results prove additional work and investigation is needed to determine the source (or sources) of the lead, and what actions must be taken to address and resolve the problem, once and for all,” Weaver said.
Flint Community Schools haven’t been using tap water since September 2015. State-funded bottled water will likely continue to be supplied until all lead and galvanized service lines have been replaced, Weaver said.
State officials are expected to conduct another round of testing this month. The department will then make recommendations for how the state can help Flint moving forward.
Source
|
On March 16 2018 23:30 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 23:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 23:04 Aquanim wrote:On March 16 2018 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
One I would start with is transparency and they are failing miserably. If they want to argue I'm not convincing that's fine, that's different than not being right. I'm well aware that it's probably not hard to provide a number of criteria on which the present police force of the United States performs very poorly. However, without a reasonably *complete* set of criteria there is no way to have a sensible discussion on the subject, as opposed to agitating over it. If nothing else, those criteria are necessary to decide which alternative solution to the current state is best. Being right without demonstrating it is not especially useful. If people want to say they aren't sure which would be better that's a fine position (although I may disagree), what's not okay is how they uniformly patronized me insisting that they know their system is better without even something as rudimentary as some basic ways to measure it's efficacy or that of whatever reforms they claim they want. Demonstrating the system we have does terrible things is pretty easy, it's total inability to effectively reform has been demonstrated countless times, that's all it takes to make an argument for replacing it legitimate. If they find it insufficient and they want to make the situation better, the solution they seek isn't begging for more reforms that will never come, it's to get off their ass and work to fix those inefficiencies. To chip in on this one; while I have sympathy with your position I do disagree with your conclusion. The problem is political cowardice, equal to police corruption. Two things would solve the problem: accountability and transparency. The police should never walk when they are clearly seen to kill a citizen when in no danger. They are public servants first, last and always. They are not gods of law and order at whose feet mere mortals must worship and there'll be hell to pay if they don't. That is what leads to thugs with badges, not good policing. But only politicians can fix that, and they don't have the will and/or guts to do it. Without that, any system will fall into the same problems, because people are fundamentally corrupt and selfish.
A better argument than any of them provided, no doubt about that.
Perhaps you haven't heard my ideas about the current political parties 
I'm also skeptical of the whole "people are fundamentally selfish and corrupt" (We've seen societies that had limited or no contact with the 'modern' world until relatively recently (last couple hundred years) that demonstrated plenty of quirks and issues, but finding greed and corruption are not as universally found (nor in the same degree) in humans as I think capitalism would like you to think. But that's a bit of a separate discussion.
|
And how many of these societies had millions of non related people living close together?
These small social societies do exist even inside our countries, but their ways tend to fall apart as soon as people stop knowing each other.
|
On March 16 2018 23:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 23:30 iamthedave wrote:On March 16 2018 23:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2018 23:04 Aquanim wrote:On March 16 2018 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:...
One I would start with is transparency and they are failing miserably. If they want to argue I'm not convincing that's fine, that's different than not being right. I'm well aware that it's probably not hard to provide a number of criteria on which the present police force of the United States performs very poorly. However, without a reasonably *complete* set of criteria there is no way to have a sensible discussion on the subject, as opposed to agitating over it. If nothing else, those criteria are necessary to decide which alternative solution to the current state is best. Being right without demonstrating it is not especially useful. If people want to say they aren't sure which would be better that's a fine position (although I may disagree), what's not okay is how they uniformly patronized me insisting that they know their system is better without even something as rudimentary as some basic ways to measure it's efficacy or that of whatever reforms they claim they want. Demonstrating the system we have does terrible things is pretty easy, it's total inability to effectively reform has been demonstrated countless times, that's all it takes to make an argument for replacing it legitimate. If they find it insufficient and they want to make the situation better, the solution they seek isn't begging for more reforms that will never come, it's to get off their ass and work to fix those inefficiencies. To chip in on this one; while I have sympathy with your position I do disagree with your conclusion. The problem is political cowardice, equal to police corruption. Two things would solve the problem: accountability and transparency. The police should never walk when they are clearly seen to kill a citizen when in no danger. They are public servants first, last and always. They are not gods of law and order at whose feet mere mortals must worship and there'll be hell to pay if they don't. That is what leads to thugs with badges, not good policing. But only politicians can fix that, and they don't have the will and/or guts to do it. Without that, any system will fall into the same problems, because people are fundamentally corrupt and selfish. A better argument than any of them provided, no doubt about that. Perhaps you haven't heard my ideas about the current political parties I'm also skeptical of the whole "people are fundamentally selfish and corrupt" (We've seen societies that had limited or no contact with the 'modern' world until relatively recently (last couple hundred years) that demonstrated plenty of quirks and issues, but finding greed and corruption are not as universally found (nor in the same degree) in humans as I think capitalism would like you to think. But that's a bit of a separate discussion.
I'd agree with that; but 'fixing the police' is a tad more limited in scope than 'change the entire world economic ethos' which might require a bit more drastic action even than your most extreme policing suggestions.
I should probably have said: "As a group, humans are fundamentally corrupt and selfish."
You tend to find people become more and more humane the smaller the group they're in, and less and less so as that group increases in number and, necessarily, their personal investment in each member of the group diminishes. In small scale tribal environments, there's literally nobody you don't know, and even Brian down the road who has a really punchable face is still the guy cutting down trees so your family doesn't freeze to death, and BOY does he like to remind you... but he's still cutting your wood.
There's even evidence that the police can't fix themselves from within. I seem to recall a recent story - I don't remember where it was in the US - where a policeman who was going to testify in a corruption case as a key witness was 'coincidentally' murdered horribly just before doing so and they were unable to find the killers or indeed any decent suspects.
I don't know the entire history of how the US police force got twisted up so badly, but it seems - as an outsider - to have taken a massive turn for the worse around prohibition and later the war on drugs, mixed with a switch towards quotas (itself the result of politicians wanting MOAR statistics).
|
On March 17 2018 00:45 Velr wrote:
And how many of these societies had millions of non related people living close together?
These small social societies do exist even inside our countries, but their ways tend to fall apart as soon as people stop knowing each other.
It's not about 'their ways' in the sense of how they organize their society. I mentioned them in reference to the idea of all humans being greedy and corrupt.
But it's a pretty tangential question toward the one I'd like to focus on if anyone is interested in continuing the discussion, which is how could they assert US police are better than any other system, let alone the one I'm advocating without even being able to get them to release the bare minimum statistics with which they can assess their efficacy?
If folks can't address that I suggest they drop it (like it appears all of them have realized they can't do and done finally).
|
Your politicians surely could force them if they wanted to?
|
On March 17 2018 00:59 Velr wrote:
Your politicians surely could force them if they wanted to?
Remember, I'm not supposed to force them, I'm supposed to accept that they are the best I can get, otherwise I'm the reason we can't improve.
Hence the "abolish the police" rhetoric. They aren't going to change, and the only way politicians can force them is to dismantle and rebuild them.
Politicians don't want to, so the only way we can force them is dismantle their power and rebuild a new better system.
Capitalists don't want that, so the only way we can force them is to dismantle their power and rebuild a new, better system.
and now, you're an anti-capitalist revolutionary ready to make it happen or you're protecting them (and probably your own self-interests).
|
|
|
On March 17 2018 00:59 Velr wrote:
Your politicians surely could force them if they wanted to?
Actually, it's strongly arguable that they can't.
Take NY, where the police are so powerful that no senator can realistically go against them without almost guaranteeing they'll lose the next election.
They could do it, but they'd have to force through legislation with the police lobby fighting every inch of the way, they'd be murdered by the right wing press - which is very pro cop - and probably do so on the shaky proposition that african americans would be on their side enough to compensate (I believe someone taking this stance would win a lot of African-American support, but lose most white support in the process save for certain segments of the left wing populace). There's an argument to be made that the necessary reforms would weaken the police significantly in the short term and might even do so long term in matters of violent crime, and there's no guarantee you'd even succeed based on the lobbying. Oh, and you'd probably get cut off from the main party as well unless you succeeded.
You'd need someone with a full on 'morals before reason, justice before law' mentality. The political process tends to weed out such do-gooders quite early on in their careers, before they can do any damage to the system with their hoity-toity 'ideals' and 'visions of a better tomorrow'.
|
I just listened to a podcast about the NY police department. It is interesting because NY police is that they have made efforts to decentralize the accountability of the police force. By doing that, they make each police precinct accountable for itself and have its own “score card”, and call in the leadership if crime goes up on that police precinct in the monthly report.
Of course the NYC police are far from perfect, but the effort to divide up the accountability of the police departments goes a lot way to reducing their political power. Departments and the commissioner are less likely to try to cover up for a bad precinct if they publicly track the conduct of each precinct and don't treat them as a collective.
I am only half way through on lunch, but they also have officers who sole purpose is to collect information about the community from the people that they arrest. Those officers don't try to collect evidence on that specific suspect, but attempt to solicit help on other cases or criminal activity. It is a discussion between two people who worked in law enforcement and express an earnest desire to improve police work in the US.
|
This is insane. Police-less states were tried in the past and having tax payer funded state police forces is by far the best of many options. Let us consider the alternatives. In the wild west, you had the Pinkertons and local law men empowered by the richest locals. In the medieval days, you had knights who kept the peace for the benefit of their lords. In places where police are under paid (all of South America), you have local crime lords supplementing police income to skirt nominal laws. Where the police are insufficient for local patrols, you get private security forces. In Japan, you had a leeching samurai class that kept the peace at the expense of the populace. In post Civil War America, you got the rise of the KKK to provide private domination and terrorism against undesirable local populations. In failing states (Somalia, western Iraq, eastern Syria, Afghanistan), you get warlords who take the place of police forces. Eliminating taxpayer funded police forces only results in other forms of security arising that are far worse. The USA style of police forces that are linked to a due process backed justice system may have some troubles, but damn are they the best of all possible options. Police officers are accountable to the voters who vote on their budget. This vastly superior to having cops that answer to warlords, kings, shoguns, corporations, drug dealers, and local business tycoons.
|
On March 17 2018 02:01 Wulfey_LA wrote:
This is insane. Police-less states were tried in the past and having tax payer funded state police forces is by far the best of many options. Let us consider the alternatives. In the wild west, you had the Pinkertons and local law men empowered by the richest locals. In the medieval days, you had knights who kept the peace for the benefit of their lords. In places where police are under paid (all of South America), you have local crime lords supplementing police income to skirt nominal laws. Where the police are insufficient for local patrols, you get private security forces. In Japan, you had a leeching samurai class that kept the peace at the expense of the populace. In post Civil War America, you got the rise of the KKK to provide private domination and terrorism against undesirable local populations. In failing states (Somalia, western Iraq, eastern Syria, Afghanistan), you get warlords who take the place of police forces. Eliminating taxpayer funded police forces only results in other forms of security arising that are far worse. The USA style of police forces that are linked to a due process backed justice system may have some troubles, but damn are they the best of all possible options. Police officers are accountable to the voters who vote on their budget. This vastly superior to having cops that answer to warlords, kings, shoguns, corporations, drug dealers, and local business tycoons.
You have police regularly murdering the citizenry and walking it off without even a legal slap on the wrist.
That is not a sign of a great police force.
|
On March 17 2018 02:01 Wulfey_LA wrote:
This is insane. Police-less states were tried in the past and having tax payer funded state police forces is by far the best of many options. Let us consider the alternatives. In the wild west, you had the Pinkertons and local law men empowered by the richest locals. In the medieval days, you had knights who kept the peace for the benefit of their lords. In places where police are under paid (all of South America), you have local crime lords supplementing police income to skirt nominal laws. Where the police are insufficient for local patrols, you get private security forces. In Japan, you had a leeching samurai class that kept the peace at the expense of the populace. In post Civil War America, you got the rise of the KKK to provide private domination and terrorism against undesirable local populations. In failing states (Somalia, western Iraq, eastern Syria, Afghanistan), you get warlords who take the place of police forces. Eliminating taxpayer funded police forces only results in other forms of security arising that are far worse. The USA style of police forces that are linked to a due process backed justice system may have some troubles, but damn are they the best of all possible options. Police officers are accountable to the voters who vote on their budget. This vastly superior to having cops that answer to warlords, kings, shoguns, corporations, drug dealers, and local business tycoons.
This is insane. Somehow people think comments like this have any value whatsoever.
Did you have any idea by what metrics you assess the efficacy of the US police/justice system or do you think you can assert it's effectiveness without them?
|
On March 17 2018 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 02:01 Wulfey_LA wrote:
This is insane. Police-less states were tried in the past and having tax payer funded state police forces is by far the best of many options. Let us consider the alternatives. In the wild west, you had the Pinkertons and local law men empowered by the richest locals. In the medieval days, you had knights who kept the peace for the benefit of their lords. In places where police are under paid (all of South America), you have local crime lords supplementing police income to skirt nominal laws. Where the police are insufficient for local patrols, you get private security forces. In Japan, you had a leeching samurai class that kept the peace at the expense of the populace. In post Civil War America, you got the rise of the KKK to provide private domination and terrorism against undesirable local populations. In failing states (Somalia, western Iraq, eastern Syria, Afghanistan), you get warlords who take the place of police forces. Eliminating taxpayer funded police forces only results in other forms of security arising that are far worse. The USA style of police forces that are linked to a due process backed justice system may have some troubles, but damn are they the best of all possible options. Police officers are accountable to the voters who vote on their budget. This vastly superior to having cops that answer to warlords, kings, shoguns, corporations, drug dealers, and local business tycoons. This is insane. Somehow people think comments like this have any value whatsoever. Did you have any idea by what metrics you assess the efficacy of the US police/justice system or do you think you can assert it's effectiveness without them?
Pick one of the alternatives I listed that you would prefer. Also, you are the one proposing blowing up a status quo that has overwhelming voter and historical support. You bear the burden of proving out your alternative.
|
On March 17 2018 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 02:01 Wulfey_LA wrote:
This is insane. Police-less states were tried in the past and having tax payer funded state police forces is by far the best of many options. Let us consider the alternatives. In the wild west, you had the Pinkertons and local law men empowered by the richest locals. In the medieval days, you had knights who kept the peace for the benefit of their lords. In places where police are under paid (all of South America), you have local crime lords supplementing police income to skirt nominal laws. Where the police are insufficient for local patrols, you get private security forces. In Japan, you had a leeching samurai class that kept the peace at the expense of the populace. In post Civil War America, you got the rise of the KKK to provide private domination and terrorism against undesirable local populations. In failing states (Somalia, western Iraq, eastern Syria, Afghanistan), you get warlords who take the place of police forces. Eliminating taxpayer funded police forces only results in other forms of security arising that are far worse. The USA style of police forces that are linked to a due process backed justice system may have some troubles, but damn are they the best of all possible options. Police officers are accountable to the voters who vote on their budget. This vastly superior to having cops that answer to warlords, kings, shoguns, corporations, drug dealers, and local business tycoons. This is insane. Somehow people think comments like this have any value whatsoever. Did you have any idea by what metrics you assess the efficacy of the US police/justice system or do you think you can assert it's effectiveness without them?
What's insane is saying "We should abolish the police."
|
It’s in the best interests of the vets and trumps agenda.
|
On March 17 2018 02:28 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 02:01 Wulfey_LA wrote:
This is insane. Police-less states were tried in the past and having tax payer funded state police forces is by far the best of many options. Let us consider the alternatives. In the wild west, you had the Pinkertons and local law men empowered by the richest locals. In the medieval days, you had knights who kept the peace for the benefit of their lords. In places where police are under paid (all of South America), you have local crime lords supplementing police income to skirt nominal laws. Where the police are insufficient for local patrols, you get private security forces. In Japan, you had a leeching samurai class that kept the peace at the expense of the populace. In post Civil War America, you got the rise of the KKK to provide private domination and terrorism against undesirable local populations. In failing states (Somalia, western Iraq, eastern Syria, Afghanistan), you get warlords who take the place of police forces. Eliminating taxpayer funded police forces only results in other forms of security arising that are far worse. The USA style of police forces that are linked to a due process backed justice system may have some troubles, but damn are they the best of all possible options. Police officers are accountable to the voters who vote on their budget. This vastly superior to having cops that answer to warlords, kings, shoguns, corporations, drug dealers, and local business tycoons. You have police regularly murdering the citizenry and walking it off without even a legal slap on the wrist. That is not a sign of a great police force.
Since no "important" people are losing money / being affected directly by this, it's not going to change on its own. Some sort of widespread revolt will need to happen (and I think that'd be a good thing actually).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
