|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Looks like they're moving ahead with it. (Minneapolis city council president).
They're disbanding it ("dismantle" is the term they use), not abolishing it. No one besides GH is advocating abolishment of all police.
The police in america have a really troubling history (many departments were initially created to serve as slave catchers, and institutional memory is long).
The US didn't have any police until 1838, and it wasn't until the 1920s that they became recognized as useful at all by the average person. I don't think GH wants posse comitatus to come back, though...
On June 06 2020 01:15 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 23:54 ChristianS wrote:On June 05 2020 23:42 travis wrote:
lol abolish the police, right
that way we can really accelerate the crash of society
maybe we can build some extra highways across the mexican border, too. then the country can be openly ran by criminals instead of secretly ran by criminals. Oh geez, where to start anywhere? lol I'd be curious to hear what you have to say what you are currently saying looks like aimless condescension
Who do you think is secretly running the government?
|
Prohibition was a huge part of how US police evolved into what they are today, I highly recommend looking into that period of history for those inclined to figure out how we got here.
|
On June 06 2020 00:59 Uldridge wrote:
Okay, then let's carve it up a bit more. Which part of the sentence you quoted should be cut out so you'd agree with it?
Edit: I don't think I'm arguiing in bad faith? I think I'm trying to get to what a mutual agreement on what we could start with to replace police in general.
So we need people helping other people at the very least, no?
I've given examples on what I think needs significant intervention, but somehow you don't want to see it or reply to it. I can't really generalize "people ignoring laws" or "organized crime" any more though.
I think it would be best to wait for GH to offer his own opinions on what is needed and what isn't than try to fill the blanks in for him.
|
On June 06 2020 01:32 farvacola wrote:
Prohibition was a huge part of how US police evolved into what they are today, I highly recommend looking into that period of history for those inclined to figure out how we got here.
Which I think we would agree would include a insightful look into the FBI. People would be surprised what they say about their activities on their own website, because like local police forces we see potentially killing elderly people for standing in their way, they don't even think a lot of what they are doing/have done is/was problematic.
|
On June 06 2020 01:15 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 23:54 ChristianS wrote:On June 05 2020 23:42 travis wrote:
lol abolish the police, right
that way we can really accelerate the crash of society
maybe we can build some extra highways across the mexican border, too. then the country can be openly ran by criminals instead of secretly ran by criminals. Oh geez, where to start anywhere? lol I'd be curious to hear what you have to say what you are currently saying looks like aimless condescension
A bunch of European outcasts, genocide and mass slavery? Really, that's how your country started and it's still bearing its stigma. To be honest, it's getting better but everyone can understand why those who got the short end of the stick are feeling changes are happening a bit too slow.
|
Fingers crossed that we won't be here in 2030 discussing brutality by the Minneapolis Community Wellness Carebears
|
On June 05 2020 20:36 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 20:27 Mohdoo wrote:On June 05 2020 19:24 Simberto wrote:
I still have a problem with the concept of a society completely without a police force. (Which is where "abolish" leads me to)
I can't think of an example of one beyond maybe very small groups of people.
That is not to say that the police force in the US isn't very shitty, and the whole US incarceration system is also disgusting. But i think some group of people is necessary to keep the peace, prosecute crimes and so forth.
I have a hard time imagining a society without one. How does that society deal with people stealing stuff from other people? What happens when someone muders another person? Does this society also not have any laws, or are the laws just not enforced? Do we assume that every single person would obey the laws of that society?
Or do we set up another organisation to do all the necessary things the police does, and just not call them police? At that point we are really just talking sematics. I consider most cops to be truly awful people. If this is not hyperbole, that truly saddens me.
I have a wealth of experience with cops being awful people. My only positive experience with a cop has been in elementary school when they gave us stickers and told us drugs are bad. That is not representative of cops in the US. Probably totally different in the Netherlands. But here, they are truly bad people. We don't have bad apples, we have diamonds in the rough. It is hard to ignore the enormous amount of experience, video, statistics...it paints a terrible picture. Cops subscribe to truly toxic beliefs regarding their place in society. They see themselves as above humans, not among citizens.
|
On June 06 2020 01:15 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 23:54 ChristianS wrote:On June 05 2020 23:42 travis wrote:
lol abolish the police, right
that way we can really accelerate the crash of society
maybe we can build some extra highways across the mexican border, too. then the country can be openly ran by criminals instead of secretly ran by criminals. Oh geez, where to start anywhere? lol I'd be curious to hear what you have to say what you are currently saying looks like aimless condescension
I think the whole "we're gonna be run by Mexican criminals because all Mexicans are criminals, so really I only have to say Mexican" thing is what has people not taking it seriously.
|
On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me. First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist. Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist. Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd.
This is my interpretation of GH's argument as well.
|
On June 06 2020 02:03 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me. First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist. Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist. Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd. This is my interpretation of GH's argument as well.
It's the closest I've seen. Which is why I suggested people that want to better understand my position (and police/prison abolition generally, including myself) start with this and this so that fruitful discussion can be had. Otherwise I'm not seeing a point.
|
On June 06 2020 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 02:03 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me. First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist. Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist. Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd. This is my interpretation of GH's argument as well. It's the closest I've seen. Which is why I suggested people that want to better understand my position (and police/prison abolition generally) start with this and this so that fruitful discussion can be had. Otherwise I'm not seeing a point.
Honestly, I've provided a very simple and concrete example of one of the vital roles that the police perform and have asked you how this role will be performed in the absence of a police force. Your questions regarding the definition of police are not relevant to answering my question, because it is clear that the police play a role in enforcing civil verdicts. So again, in your desired future, where the police has been abolished, who performs this function?
And note that this is just an example of one of the many vital functions of a police force. We can go over the other ones next if you'd like, but I'm starting to wonder if you even have an answer to the question.
|
On June 06 2020 02:23 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2020 02:03 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me. First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist. Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist. Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd. This is my interpretation of GH's argument as well. It's the closest I've seen. Which is why I suggested people that want to better understand my position (and police/prison abolition generally) start with this and this so that fruitful discussion can be had. Otherwise I'm not seeing a point. Honestly, I've provided a very simple and concrete example of one of the vital roles that the police perform and have asked you how this role will be performed in the absence of a police force. Your questions regarding the definition of police are not relevant to answering my question, because it is clear that the police play a role in enforcing civil verdicts. So again, in your desired future, where the police has been abolished, who performs this function? And note that this is just an example of one of the many vital functions of a police force. We can go over the other ones next if you'd like, but I'm starting to wonder if you even have an answer to the question.
Have you tried googling it? I'm just curious if you've put more effort into badgering me for that answer than actually looking for it.
|
Salem (capital of Oregon) police have been caught on camera explaining their plans to Proud Boys so that they can avoid being tear gased: https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gx3dur
This is probably gonna end up huge because it is extremely damning video evidence.
|
Ok so rather than do one example per post as that seems to be as far as we can get i'll bite and hopefully get things rolling.
Things I think police do:
1. Investigate crimes that have already taken place
2. Intervene in crimes currently in progress
3. Apprehend individuals currently wanted in suspicion of a crime
4. Apprehend individuals who have violated the terms of their early release from prison.
honestly when you boil it down that is everything that police are supposed to do.
|
On June 06 2020 01:56 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 01:15 travis wrote:On June 05 2020 23:54 ChristianS wrote:On June 05 2020 23:42 travis wrote:
lol abolish the police, right
that way we can really accelerate the crash of society
maybe we can build some extra highways across the mexican border, too. then the country can be openly ran by criminals instead of secretly ran by criminals. Oh geez, where to start anywhere? lol I'd be curious to hear what you have to say what you are currently saying looks like aimless condescension I think the whole "we're gonna be run by Mexican criminals because all Mexicans are criminals, so really I only have to say Mexican" thing is what has people not taking it seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War
Federal law enforcement has been reorganized at least five times since 1982 in various attempts to control corruption and reduce cartel violence. During that same period, there have been at least four elite special forces created as new, corruption-free soldiers who could do battle with Mexico's endemic bribery system.[40] Analysts estimate that wholesale earnings from illicit drug sales range from $13.6 to $49.4 billion annually.[35][41][42] The U.S. Congress passed legislation in late June 2008 to provide Mexico with US$1.6 billion for the Mérida Initiative as well as technical advice to strengthen the national justice systems. By the end of President Felipe Calderón's administration (December 1, 2006 – November 30, 2012), the official death toll of the Mexican Drug War was at least 60,000.[43] Estimates set the death toll above 120,000 killed by 2013, not including 27,000 missing.[44][45] Since taking office in 2018, Andrés Manuel López Obrador declared that the war was over; however, his comment was met with criticism as the homicide rate remains high.
has nothing to do with ethnicity. has to do with the fact that mexico is a nation and this is something that is happening in their nation. mexico is a country, not just a categorization someone can make of a person.
|
On June 06 2020 01:15 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 23:54 ChristianS wrote:On June 05 2020 23:42 travis wrote:
lol abolish the police, right
that way we can really accelerate the crash of society
maybe we can build some extra highways across the mexican border, too. then the country can be openly ran by criminals instead of secretly ran by criminals. Oh geez, where to start anywhere? lol I'd be curious to hear what you have to say what you are currently saying looks like aimless condescension
Yeah, I’m just a little bewildered. You have to understand that just dropping bits and pieces of your ideology is like randomly choosing five 30 second clips of a Bourne movie, playing them for me out of order, and then asking me to describe the plot of the movie. I think I’d be hard-pressed to do it watching the thing start to finish, here I’ve got no chance.
Here’s as good a place to start as any: the “highways across the Mexican border so we can be openly ran [sic] by criminals” bit sounds a lot like common right-wing rhetoric about illegal immigrants being criminals who are overrunning the country. But I’m guessing you’re trying to reference drug cartels or something? You’re at least hinting at something like “criminals are flooding our country and must be stopped” but if I’m generous I can assume you mean criminals would be overrunning us absent a police force?
Then we kind of back into “the country... [is] secretly ran [sic] by criminals,” which is a fucking wild thing to throw out like it’s common knowledge we don’t need to stop and address. What are you getting at exactly? Is this a QAnon thing? General deep state stuff? Or is this related to your WEF/One World Government stuff?
Like, it’s impossible to carry on a conversation with you about somwthjng like measures to prevent police brutality without first popping the hood on your worldview and digging through how you’ve come to believe that Antifa is actually George Soros’ secret army of provocateurs or that the world’s elites get together in Davos every year to run through PowerPoints about plans to invade the entire planet and bring them all under one rule, then post them on the internet.
|
On June 06 2020 02:40 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 01:15 travis wrote:On June 05 2020 23:54 ChristianS wrote:On June 05 2020 23:42 travis wrote:
lol abolish the police, right
that way we can really accelerate the crash of society
maybe we can build some extra highways across the mexican border, too. then the country can be openly ran by criminals instead of secretly ran by criminals. Oh geez, where to start anywhere? lol I'd be curious to hear what you have to say what you are currently saying looks like aimless condescension Yeah, I’m just a little bewildered. You have to understand that just dropping bits and pieces of your ideology is like randomly choosing five 30 second clips of a Bourne movie, playing them for me out of order, and then asking me to describe the plot of the movie. I think I’d be hard-pressed to do it watching the thing start to finish, here I’ve got no chance. Here’s as good a place to start as any: the “highways across the Mexican border so we can be openly ran [sic] by criminals” bit sounds a lot like common right-wing rhetoric about illegal immigrants being criminals who are overrunning the country. But I’m guessing you’re trying to reference drug cartels or something? You’re at least hinting at something like “criminals are flooding our country and must be stopped” but if I’m generous I can assume you mean criminals would be overrunning us absent a police force? Then we kind of back into “the country... [is] secretly ran [sic] by criminals,” which is a fucking wild thing to throw out like it’s common knowledge we don’t need to stop and address. What are you getting at exactly? Is this a QAnon thing? General deep state stuff? Or is this related to your WEF/One World Government stuff? Like, it’s impossible to carry on a conversation with you about somwthjng like measures to prevent police brutality without first popping the hood on your worldview and digging through how you’ve come to believe that Antifa is actually George Soros’ secret army of provocateurs or that the world’s elites get together in Davos every year to run through PowerPoints about plans to invade the entire planet and bring them all under one rule, then post them on the internet.
Well you see the problem is, the more I say, the more people ask for, while simultaneously ignoring anything of value I have already said. I've probably literally wasted months of my life debating things with people who never had any sort of interest in developing their world view in the first place.
What I should be doing is no longer participating in these types of discussions at all, but I haven't been able to help myself, which is totally my own problem of course.
I get what you are saying though, and it largely makes sense, so thank you.
|
On June 06 2020 02:36 Trainrunnef wrote:
Ok so rather than do one example per post as that seems to be as far as we can get i'll bite and hopefully get things rolling.
Things I think police do:
1. Investigate crimes that have already taken place
2. Intervene in crimes currently in progress
3. Apprehend individuals currently wanted in suspicion of a crime
4. Apprehend individuals who have violated the terms of their early release from prison.
honestly when you boil it down that is everything that police are supposed to do.
Thats only the criminal law side of things. Police have other duties as well. A few posts back I posted a link to a wiki page that summed it up.
My personal rough definition would be: the executive part of government tasked with law enforcement. An important aspect of the police is what we here call the "monopoly on violence".
|
On June 06 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:Salem (capital of Oregon) police have been caught on camera explaining their plans to Proud Boys so that they can avoid being tear gased: https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gx3durThis is probably gonna end up huge because it is extremely damning video evidence.
That look is pretty priceless at the end. I fully expected to just see a Hanna Montana - Miley Cyrus tiktok style video with one guy switching outfits though
|
On June 06 2020 03:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:Salem (capital of Oregon) police have been caught on camera explaining their plans to Proud Boys so that they can avoid being tear gased: https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gx3durThis is probably gonna end up huge because it is extremely damning video evidence. That look is pretty priceless at the end. I fully expected to just see a Hanna Montana - Miley Cyrus tiktok style video with one guy switching outfits though
They didn't want the protesters to see them playing favorites, lol. My guy. The jig is up. They know your asses are white supremacist fucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
