US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2498

On July 11 2020 23:17 JimmiC wrote:
Yes and no. No one is going to abolish the police without a replacement. + Show Spoiler +

On July 12 2020 00:40 Zambrah wrote:
I think a problem with starting new programs and feeling them out based on their success misses the problem of how were qualifying success. I mean, plenty of police departments likely meet whatever metrics they have and would qualify as successful, but it seems worthwhile to reevaluate what these organizations are supposed to specifically achieve, else we risk just having cops with a different name or something.

On July 12 2020 00:44 farvacola wrote:
The first step for doing my version of defund the police is to totally overhaul and enliven the social safety net while creating a Works Progress Administration 2.0.

Were I to credit official claims regarding the abilities of law enforcement officers, I would express disappointed surprise at your inability to recognize the elements of that offense. Since I've studied law enforcement for more than a quarter-century, your performance is precisely what I expected.

Why aren't you incandescent with rage over crimes committed by police, against police -- and the public at large -- when they steal from funds supposedly dedicated to providing for wounded officers, and the families of officers who have died on-duty? I am mortally disgusted by such behavior, and that reaction ripens into rage when I see how "blue privilege" continues to protect such offenders, who are routinely given lenient sentences and sometimes allowed to keep their subsidized pensions. It's odd that this is apparent to a purported miscreant like myself, while being ignored by an upstanding paragon of civic righteousness such as yourself.

You are doubtless aware....

No, strike that; going on the evidence [above] I would be unwise to entertain a generous estimate of your awareness.

A long line of judicial precedents documents that police officers have no enforceable duty to protect any individual citizen from criminal violence. This is even true when one is literally being hacked to death just a few feet away while apprehending an armed psychopath who had eluded the police. Take a second and Google "Joe Lozito" for the details of that case. Lozito subdued a knife-wielding serial killer while a member of your bold fraternity of badge-wearing badasses cowered behind a subway door just a few feet away. While Lozito was recuperating in the hospital, the cowardly officer was being feted as a "hero" -- and the city dismissed Lozito's legal claim by invoking the well-settled doctrine that the police have no particularized duty to protect the public.

Slogans about the selfless service of law enforcement don't find traction among people who have studied the issue to any depth.

On July 12 2020 09:55 Wegandi wrote:
Gee, I would have never guessed that the answer to the police enforcement issues are, wait for it, new Government programs. Look, crime statistics indicate low trends with historically low rates of crime committed (esp. of the violent nature). There's not this gigantic issue of crime that needs addressing - the police and the laws they enforce are the heart of the problem. The less interactions the citizen has with the police the better, and you do that by eradicating the pretense for interaction (e.g. enforcement of laws / penal codes / civil codes). By not putting an axe to the penal codes and framing this as welfare issue is par for the course for those whose answer to all woes is more Government money and programs. (I know I'll hear the reverse that all my solutions are destroy the Government, but that's only 90% right)

So, step 1:
- Destroy 95% of the functions associated with police today: SWAT, Non-violent "crimes", civil code enforcement, civil asset forfeitures, etc.

Step 2:
- Eradicate barriers to promote non-violent interactions with citizens: QI, Union/Thin Blue Line ethos, Military Regalia, DA/Police interaction, improve "good cop" protections for those who report unethical actions and behaviors (umbrella of Thin Blue Line), etc.

Step 3:
- Elect politicians who will roll back encroachments on our liberties by abolishing 90%+ penal and civil codes thereby decreasing cop/citizen interaction. You want cops out of black neighborhoods, end the drug war. Not some stupid WPA 2.0.

Illuminate the cockroaches. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2016/

On July 12 2020 11:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


True, although he and Pence have literally visited other hospitals and high-risk areas without masks, during this pandemic lol. I'm sure by August he'll be *and will have always been* a champion for wearing masks, as he tries to rewrite the failing narrative that is his presidency.

On July 12 2020 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:


The ideas aren't really the sticking point, because while your solution is woefully incomplete in my opinion, they aren't in opposition of abolitionist movements (other than your opposition to addressing poverty with a social safety net).

The problem is step 3 has to come before the other two and the two party-fptp system (and the corruption entrenched within) makes that a practical impossibility. As well as you just ignoring the role poverty plays in policing. They were slave catchers in the South but started as security forces for wealthy traders and union busters in the North.

The mistake you're making imo is not seeing the role of police beyond "crime", to their role as protectors of capital. It's the same misfit thinking that rationalizes maiming, beating, and potentially killing people in order to protect inanimate objects like glass windows.