|
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 |
On April 06 2018 01:45 Plansix wrote:
To abolish the police you would need to go state by state to have them disbanded and create a new law enforcement agency. The Federal goverment couldn't do it. Any attempt would face endless court challenges for federal over reach. Even if the political will existed to abolish police departments a state, I doubt the process would be more effective or efficient than trying put in place better oversight and reforms to the use of deadly force.
If people recognize the situation, especially people nominally on the left, then you get an overwhelming majority pretty quickly. Fighting the larger power structures at play then becomes the inevitable next step.
Arguing to preserve what we know to be criminal organizations with extensive political influence through hollow reform and toothless oversight is certainly not more effective or efficient than doing what's right. Not that anyone but the police, and both parties are stopping people from doing what you argue.
I'm not going to try to stop whatever reforms one thinks should be pressed, I'm just telling those that think that's the path that they aren't going to work and it would be more effective and efficient to drop the charade and get on board with abolishing the police and not waiting another couple generations to pound the police into submitting/adhering to reforms/oversight that you'll never get passed and implemented in the first place.
If by some miracle they do get passed and implemented, you'll be replacing most of the force and needing to design entirely new structures/goals/metrics anyway. So you might as well not keep pretending we're going to reform them against their will and just replace them with people who want to do things in the reformed matter from the jump.
I think I even mentioned what kind of reform one needs to push if they want that to be remotely effective, disarm the police. That's the reform that should be on the top of their list.
|
On April 06 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 01:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 06 2018 01:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Abolish the police, disarm them and most of them will leave on their own. New York City police officers shot and killed a black man who was known to be mentally ill on a Brooklyn street corner on Wednesday afternoon after he pointed what the officers claim they thought was a gun at them, the authorities said. The object, however, turned out to be a metal pipe with a knob on it.
[Angie described Mr. Vassell as a quiet man who often sat outside near a barbershop and sometimes worked odd jobs at her beauty salon for a few dollars.
“He would just walk and bob his head,” she said. “If we ask him to do our chores, he’d come and do it.”
Rocky Brown, 45, who knew him for years, said he was a friendly man who was mentally ill.
“He’s harmless,” Mr. Brown said. “A very willing guy, a very nice guy, a good guy.”
Betty Weaver, 71, said Mr. Vassell would often greet her when she was on her way to church.
Another woman, Nicole Williams, said she had given him $2 earlier on Wednesday afternoon. His last words to her, she said, were “Thank you, God.”] moved this section to the top
The shooting drew a tense, charged crowd of dozens to the streets of Crown Heights. The Police Department had encountered the man before and classified him as emotionally disturbed, and the shooting raised questions about what the officers at the scene knew about him.
four of the officers — the three in street clothes and one uniformed officer — fired 10 bullets in all. The man, identified by his father as Saheed Vassell, 34, was pronounced dead after being taken to Kings County Medical Center.
In an interview at his home late Wednesday night, Mr. Vassell’s father, Eric Vassell, said his son had bipolar disorder and had been admitted to the hospital multiple times in recent years, sometimes after encounters with the police. The younger Mr. Vassell, who was born in Jamaica and came to the United States when he was 6, lived with his family in a Crown Heights apartment and had worked as a welder. He also had a 15-year-old son.
Mr. Vassell’s father said he had never seen his son act as if he had a gun.
He would “just walk around the neighborhood and help people,” the father said.
Area residents said Mr. Vassell was a familiar figure on the corner and a caring father who begged for money in a nearby subway station and did odd jobs for shopkeepers. He loved to dance and was widely known to be mentally ill. People said he had a penchant for picking things up off the street — cigarette lighters, empty bottles and other curbside flotsam — and playing with them like toys.
John Fuller, 59, said that he had known Mr. Vassell for years and that local police officers had, too. He echoed a common refrain: The officers should have known him well enough to not simply shoot him to death. “Every cop in this neighborhood knows him,” Mr. Fuller said.
Witnesses said the police officers appeared to fire almost immediately after they got to the corner around 4:45 p.m. Some of the witnesses said they did not hear the officers say anything to the man before firing, while another witness said she heard the officers and the man exchange some words.
The killing held echoes of the shooting less than three weeks ago in Sacramento in which the police shot and killed a black man who they believed was pointing a gun at them, but who, it turned out, was actually holding a cellphone.
On Wednesday in Brooklyn, Jaccpot Hinds, 40, was walking south on Utica Avenue near Montgomery Street when he saw an unmarked police car pass him and pull across two lanes of traffic near where a man was standing on a street corner. Mr. Hinds said a plainclothes officer got out of the passenger seat of the car and fired at the man several times. The officer appeared to shoot him in the neck, chest and right arm, Mr. Hinds said, and then walked over to the man and prodded his chest with the service weapon.
www.nytimes.comShooting unarmed people is a failure of policing point blank, period, no excuses. Or at least recognize that police aren't heroic. If you are armed and given authority to kill as soon as you are slightly uncomfortable, you aren't brave or a hero. The odds are always in your favor. We're still really far from it being treated like the murder/manslaughter it is, but jfc it would be nice for this to at least be viewed as a fuck up from the police and officers involved and that they are dangerous to the community in such a position. There's practically 0 chance at least 1 of the officers involved doesn't have a previous case on them for doing something similar. On April 06 2018 01:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 06 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Abolish the police, disarm them and most of them will leave on their own. New York City police officers shot and killed a black man who was known to be mentally ill on a Brooklyn street corner on Wednesday afternoon after he pointed what the officers claim they thought was a gun at them, the authorities said. The object, however, turned out to be a metal pipe with a knob on it.
[Angie described Mr. Vassell as a quiet man who often sat outside near a barbershop and sometimes worked odd jobs at her beauty salon for a few dollars.
“He would just walk and bob his head,” she said. “If we ask him to do our chores, he’d come and do it.”
Rocky Brown, 45, who knew him for years, said he was a friendly man who was mentally ill.
“He’s harmless,” Mr. Brown said. “A very willing guy, a very nice guy, a good guy.”
Betty Weaver, 71, said Mr. Vassell would often greet her when she was on her way to church.
Another woman, Nicole Williams, said she had given him $2 earlier on Wednesday afternoon. His last words to her, she said, were “Thank you, God.”] moved this section to the top
The shooting drew a tense, charged crowd of dozens to the streets of Crown Heights. The Police Department had encountered the man before and classified him as emotionally disturbed, and the shooting raised questions about what the officers at the scene knew about him.
four of the officers — the three in street clothes and one uniformed officer — fired 10 bullets in all. The man, identified by his father as Saheed Vassell, 34, was pronounced dead after being taken to Kings County Medical Center.
In an interview at his home late Wednesday night, Mr. Vassell’s father, Eric Vassell, said his son had bipolar disorder and had been admitted to the hospital multiple times in recent years, sometimes after encounters with the police. The younger Mr. Vassell, who was born in Jamaica and came to the United States when he was 6, lived with his family in a Crown Heights apartment and had worked as a welder. He also had a 15-year-old son.
Mr. Vassell’s father said he had never seen his son act as if he had a gun.
He would “just walk around the neighborhood and help people,” the father said.
Area residents said Mr. Vassell was a familiar figure on the corner and a caring father who begged for money in a nearby subway station and did odd jobs for shopkeepers. He loved to dance and was widely known to be mentally ill. People said he had a penchant for picking things up off the street — cigarette lighters, empty bottles and other curbside flotsam — and playing with them like toys.
John Fuller, 59, said that he had known Mr. Vassell for years and that local police officers had, too. He echoed a common refrain: The officers should have known him well enough to not simply shoot him to death. “Every cop in this neighborhood knows him,” Mr. Fuller said.
Witnesses said the police officers appeared to fire almost immediately after they got to the corner around 4:45 p.m. Some of the witnesses said they did not hear the officers say anything to the man before firing, while another witness said she heard the officers and the man exchange some words.
The killing held echoes of the shooting less than three weeks ago in Sacramento in which the police shot and killed a black man who they believed was pointing a gun at them, but who, it turned out, was actually holding a cellphone.
On Wednesday in Brooklyn, Jaccpot Hinds, 40, was walking south on Utica Avenue near Montgomery Street when he saw an unmarked police car pass him and pull across two lanes of traffic near where a man was standing on a street corner. Mr. Hinds said a plainclothes officer got out of the passenger seat of the car and fired at the man several times. The officer appeared to shoot him in the neck, chest and right arm, Mr. Hinds said, and then walked over to the man and prodded his chest with the service weapon.
www.nytimes.comShooting unarmed people is a failure of policing point blank, period, no excuses. You keep telling us to abolish the police, but no-one's going to abolish the police. The problem with this no compromises, all or nothing kind of demand is that it guarantees perpetual inaction. A few people, IgnE comes to mind, as well as a couple others who's tag slips my mind at the moment understand what I'm talking about. One doesn't have to be for abolishing the police, but they have to accept that they are enabling these atrocities if they aren't. They aren't just enabling the atrocities, the structure, training and culture of the police is responsible for the atrocities. These are problems that can be attacked one by one systematically if the government wants to though. No need to abolish anything imo. They certainly get plenty of help enabling these atrocities from the structure, training, culture of policing, and government officials on both sides of the aisle. They are all doing their part to enable these rampant violations of people's rights and their all too frequent killings. That these could be fixed if people wanted them fixed without abolishing the police seems to be proven untrue by reality. Police won't even be honest and forthcoming about how many people they kill every year and you think you can attack this one by one with them fighting you every step of the way. Not going to happen. They have to be abolished and replaced from the ground up, it's the only viable solution.
Not that I disagree with your feelings on the police GH, but the problem I see with your argument is this...
Premise: Police are currently shitty.
Solution: Reform police.
You: That's an invalid solution because it's not possible, which is proved by "if it could happen it would have already ("proven untrue by reality")".
Your solution: Dismantle police and rebuild with alternative group that fulfills the same function.
Others: That's an invalid solution because it's not possible.
You: If you're not part of this solution you're part of the problem.
I can get behind police reform being an invalid solution due to not being realistic, but you should probably make sure that your proposed alternative solution is not weaker than the original to the argument that invalidated it. Perhaps you could try arguing that abolishing the police is more realistic than reforming it?
|
On April 06 2018 02:01 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 01:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 06 2018 01:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Abolish the police, disarm them and most of them will leave on their own. New York City police officers shot and killed a black man who was known to be mentally ill on a Brooklyn street corner on Wednesday afternoon after he pointed what the officers claim they thought was a gun at them, the authorities said. The object, however, turned out to be a metal pipe with a knob on it.
[Angie described Mr. Vassell as a quiet man who often sat outside near a barbershop and sometimes worked odd jobs at her beauty salon for a few dollars.
“He would just walk and bob his head,” she said. “If we ask him to do our chores, he’d come and do it.”
Rocky Brown, 45, who knew him for years, said he was a friendly man who was mentally ill.
“He’s harmless,” Mr. Brown said. “A very willing guy, a very nice guy, a good guy.”
Betty Weaver, 71, said Mr. Vassell would often greet her when she was on her way to church.
Another woman, Nicole Williams, said she had given him $2 earlier on Wednesday afternoon. His last words to her, she said, were “Thank you, God.”] moved this section to the top
The shooting drew a tense, charged crowd of dozens to the streets of Crown Heights. The Police Department had encountered the man before and classified him as emotionally disturbed, and the shooting raised questions about what the officers at the scene knew about him.
four of the officers — the three in street clothes and one uniformed officer — fired 10 bullets in all. The man, identified by his father as Saheed Vassell, 34, was pronounced dead after being taken to Kings County Medical Center.
In an interview at his home late Wednesday night, Mr. Vassell’s father, Eric Vassell, said his son had bipolar disorder and had been admitted to the hospital multiple times in recent years, sometimes after encounters with the police. The younger Mr. Vassell, who was born in Jamaica and came to the United States when he was 6, lived with his family in a Crown Heights apartment and had worked as a welder. He also had a 15-year-old son.
Mr. Vassell’s father said he had never seen his son act as if he had a gun.
He would “just walk around the neighborhood and help people,” the father said.
Area residents said Mr. Vassell was a familiar figure on the corner and a caring father who begged for money in a nearby subway station and did odd jobs for shopkeepers. He loved to dance and was widely known to be mentally ill. People said he had a penchant for picking things up off the street — cigarette lighters, empty bottles and other curbside flotsam — and playing with them like toys.
John Fuller, 59, said that he had known Mr. Vassell for years and that local police officers had, too. He echoed a common refrain: The officers should have known him well enough to not simply shoot him to death. “Every cop in this neighborhood knows him,” Mr. Fuller said.
Witnesses said the police officers appeared to fire almost immediately after they got to the corner around 4:45 p.m. Some of the witnesses said they did not hear the officers say anything to the man before firing, while another witness said she heard the officers and the man exchange some words.
The killing held echoes of the shooting less than three weeks ago in Sacramento in which the police shot and killed a black man who they believed was pointing a gun at them, but who, it turned out, was actually holding a cellphone.
On Wednesday in Brooklyn, Jaccpot Hinds, 40, was walking south on Utica Avenue near Montgomery Street when he saw an unmarked police car pass him and pull across two lanes of traffic near where a man was standing on a street corner. Mr. Hinds said a plainclothes officer got out of the passenger seat of the car and fired at the man several times. The officer appeared to shoot him in the neck, chest and right arm, Mr. Hinds said, and then walked over to the man and prodded his chest with the service weapon.
www.nytimes.comShooting unarmed people is a failure of policing point blank, period, no excuses. Or at least recognize that police aren't heroic. If you are armed and given authority to kill as soon as you are slightly uncomfortable, you aren't brave or a hero. The odds are always in your favor. We're still really far from it being treated like the murder/manslaughter it is, but jfc it would be nice for this to at least be viewed as a fuck up from the police and officers involved and that they are dangerous to the community in such a position. There's practically 0 chance at least 1 of the officers involved doesn't have a previous case on them for doing something similar. On April 06 2018 01:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 06 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Abolish the police, disarm them and most of them will leave on their own. New York City police officers shot and killed a black man who was known to be mentally ill on a Brooklyn street corner on Wednesday afternoon after he pointed what the officers claim they thought was a gun at them, the authorities said. The object, however, turned out to be a metal pipe with a knob on it.
[Angie described Mr. Vassell as a quiet man who often sat outside near a barbershop and sometimes worked odd jobs at her beauty salon for a few dollars.
“He would just walk and bob his head,” she said. “If we ask him to do our chores, he’d come and do it.”
Rocky Brown, 45, who knew him for years, said he was a friendly man who was mentally ill.
“He’s harmless,” Mr. Brown said. “A very willing guy, a very nice guy, a good guy.”
Betty Weaver, 71, said Mr. Vassell would often greet her when she was on her way to church.
Another woman, Nicole Williams, said she had given him $2 earlier on Wednesday afternoon. His last words to her, she said, were “Thank you, God.”] moved this section to the top
The shooting drew a tense, charged crowd of dozens to the streets of Crown Heights. The Police Department had encountered the man before and classified him as emotionally disturbed, and the shooting raised questions about what the officers at the scene knew about him.
four of the officers — the three in street clothes and one uniformed officer — fired 10 bullets in all. The man, identified by his father as Saheed Vassell, 34, was pronounced dead after being taken to Kings County Medical Center.
In an interview at his home late Wednesday night, Mr. Vassell’s father, Eric Vassell, said his son had bipolar disorder and had been admitted to the hospital multiple times in recent years, sometimes after encounters with the police. The younger Mr. Vassell, who was born in Jamaica and came to the United States when he was 6, lived with his family in a Crown Heights apartment and had worked as a welder. He also had a 15-year-old son.
Mr. Vassell’s father said he had never seen his son act as if he had a gun.
He would “just walk around the neighborhood and help people,” the father said.
Area residents said Mr. Vassell was a familiar figure on the corner and a caring father who begged for money in a nearby subway station and did odd jobs for shopkeepers. He loved to dance and was widely known to be mentally ill. People said he had a penchant for picking things up off the street — cigarette lighters, empty bottles and other curbside flotsam — and playing with them like toys.
John Fuller, 59, said that he had known Mr. Vassell for years and that local police officers had, too. He echoed a common refrain: The officers should have known him well enough to not simply shoot him to death. “Every cop in this neighborhood knows him,” Mr. Fuller said.
Witnesses said the police officers appeared to fire almost immediately after they got to the corner around 4:45 p.m. Some of the witnesses said they did not hear the officers say anything to the man before firing, while another witness said she heard the officers and the man exchange some words.
The killing held echoes of the shooting less than three weeks ago in Sacramento in which the police shot and killed a black man who they believed was pointing a gun at them, but who, it turned out, was actually holding a cellphone.
On Wednesday in Brooklyn, Jaccpot Hinds, 40, was walking south on Utica Avenue near Montgomery Street when he saw an unmarked police car pass him and pull across two lanes of traffic near where a man was standing on a street corner. Mr. Hinds said a plainclothes officer got out of the passenger seat of the car and fired at the man several times. The officer appeared to shoot him in the neck, chest and right arm, Mr. Hinds said, and then walked over to the man and prodded his chest with the service weapon.
www.nytimes.comShooting unarmed people is a failure of policing point blank, period, no excuses. You keep telling us to abolish the police, but no-one's going to abolish the police. The problem with this no compromises, all or nothing kind of demand is that it guarantees perpetual inaction. A few people, IgnE comes to mind, as well as a couple others who's tag slips my mind at the moment understand what I'm talking about. One doesn't have to be for abolishing the police, but they have to accept that they are enabling these atrocities if they aren't. They aren't just enabling the atrocities, the structure, training and culture of the police is responsible for the atrocities. These are problems that can be attacked one by one systematically if the government wants to though. No need to abolish anything imo. They certainly get plenty of help enabling these atrocities from the structure, training, culture of policing, and government officials on both sides of the aisle. They are all doing their part to enable these rampant violations of people's rights and their all too frequent killings. That these could be fixed if people wanted them fixed without abolishing the police seems to be proven untrue by reality. Police won't even be honest and forthcoming about how many people they kill every year and you think you can attack this one by one with them fighting you every step of the way. Not going to happen. They have to be abolished and replaced from the ground up, it's the only viable solution. Not that I disagree with your feelings on the police GH, but the problem I see with your argument is this... Premise: Police are currently shitty. Solution: Reform police. You: That's an invalid solution because it's not possible, which is proved by "if it could happen it would have already ("proven untrue by reality")". Your solution: Dismantle police and rebuild with alternative group that fulfills the same function. Others: That's an invalid solution because it's not possible. You: If you're not part of this solution you're part of the problem. I can get behind police reform being an invalid solution due to not being realistic, but you should probably make sure that your proposed alternative solution is not weaker than the original to the argument that invalidated it. Perhaps you could try arguing that abolishing the police is more realistic than reforming it?
I could if that was the focus of the challenge.
If the argument is "I agree, abolishing police is the best possible option (or at least better than the amorphous reforms being argued for), save for the perceived political infeasibility" I'd be happy to address it, but so far as I can tell that's not the argument presented by anyone yet.
If that's what this post is intended to convey, I'd be willing to engage with that, but we should get more people here (meaning thinking abolishing the police is the right plan, but don't know how to make it happen) first.
|
A majority buy in is not the problem. It is not a process of winning people over. What you are talking about is upending an entire section of civil service and replacing it with something else. The justice system, whatever its flaws, will not stop while this is happening and they rely on the police for a part of that system. Active criminal cases, with real victims, would be disrupted. Other aspects of civil life that rely on the police will need to change. None of this can be done quickly or without cost. And as there is no alterative proposed fill the hole created by the abolished police, there will be no solution to many of these problems.
There would be similar problems if you were suggesting to abolish a state’s public education system and replace it with a better system without first designing that improved system. The common response from most people is to fix the current system, rather than upped everything. In Rhode Island they solved that problem by laying off all the teachers state wide and having them re-apply for their jobs. It was an effective way of weeding out the bad actors in the system. But, if you are going to talk about abolishing something, you need to be honest about the how challenging that process will be and what will be disrupted.
|
On April 06 2018 02:11 Plansix wrote:
A majority buy in is not the problem. It is not a process of winning people over. What you are talking about is upending an entire section of civil service and replacing it with something else. The justice system, whatever its flaws, will not stop while this is happening and they rely on the police for a part of that system. Active criminal cases, with real victims, would be disrupted. Other aspects of civil life that rely on the police will need to change. None of this can be done quickly or without cost. And as there is no alterative proposed fill the hole created by the abolished police, there will be no solution to many of these problems.
There would be similar problems if you were suggesting to abolish a state’s public education system and replace it with a better system without first designing that improved system. The common response from most people is to fix the current system, rather than upped everything. In Rhode Island they solved that problem by laying off all the teachers state wide and having them re-apply for their jobs. It was an effective way of weeding out the bad actors in the system. But, if you are going to talk about abolishing something, you need to be honest about the how challenging that process will be and what will be disrupted.
So is your argument that we should abolish the police, we just need to be more thoughtful about how that's executed, or are you still arguing that we should fight with them tooth and nail to get basic reforms like keeping and reporting body counts?
|
On April 06 2018 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 02:01 Ryzel wrote:On April 06 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 01:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 06 2018 01:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Abolish the police, disarm them and most of them will leave on their own. New York City police officers shot and killed a black man who was known to be mentally ill on a Brooklyn street corner on Wednesday afternoon after he pointed what the officers claim they thought was a gun at them, the authorities said. The object, however, turned out to be a metal pipe with a knob on it.
[Angie described Mr. Vassell as a quiet man who often sat outside near a barbershop and sometimes worked odd jobs at her beauty salon for a few dollars.
“He would just walk and bob his head,” she said. “If we ask him to do our chores, he’d come and do it.”
Rocky Brown, 45, who knew him for years, said he was a friendly man who was mentally ill.
“He’s harmless,” Mr. Brown said. “A very willing guy, a very nice guy, a good guy.”
Betty Weaver, 71, said Mr. Vassell would often greet her when she was on her way to church.
Another woman, Nicole Williams, said she had given him $2 earlier on Wednesday afternoon. His last words to her, she said, were “Thank you, God.”] moved this section to the top
The shooting drew a tense, charged crowd of dozens to the streets of Crown Heights. The Police Department had encountered the man before and classified him as emotionally disturbed, and the shooting raised questions about what the officers at the scene knew about him.
four of the officers — the three in street clothes and one uniformed officer — fired 10 bullets in all. The man, identified by his father as Saheed Vassell, 34, was pronounced dead after being taken to Kings County Medical Center.
In an interview at his home late Wednesday night, Mr. Vassell’s father, Eric Vassell, said his son had bipolar disorder and had been admitted to the hospital multiple times in recent years, sometimes after encounters with the police. The younger Mr. Vassell, who was born in Jamaica and came to the United States when he was 6, lived with his family in a Crown Heights apartment and had worked as a welder. He also had a 15-year-old son.
Mr. Vassell’s father said he had never seen his son act as if he had a gun.
He would “just walk around the neighborhood and help people,” the father said.
Area residents said Mr. Vassell was a familiar figure on the corner and a caring father who begged for money in a nearby subway station and did odd jobs for shopkeepers. He loved to dance and was widely known to be mentally ill. People said he had a penchant for picking things up off the street — cigarette lighters, empty bottles and other curbside flotsam — and playing with them like toys.
John Fuller, 59, said that he had known Mr. Vassell for years and that local police officers had, too. He echoed a common refrain: The officers should have known him well enough to not simply shoot him to death. “Every cop in this neighborhood knows him,” Mr. Fuller said.
Witnesses said the police officers appeared to fire almost immediately after they got to the corner around 4:45 p.m. Some of the witnesses said they did not hear the officers say anything to the man before firing, while another witness said she heard the officers and the man exchange some words.
The killing held echoes of the shooting less than three weeks ago in Sacramento in which the police shot and killed a black man who they believed was pointing a gun at them, but who, it turned out, was actually holding a cellphone.
On Wednesday in Brooklyn, Jaccpot Hinds, 40, was walking south on Utica Avenue near Montgomery Street when he saw an unmarked police car pass him and pull across two lanes of traffic near where a man was standing on a street corner. Mr. Hinds said a plainclothes officer got out of the passenger seat of the car and fired at the man several times. The officer appeared to shoot him in the neck, chest and right arm, Mr. Hinds said, and then walked over to the man and prodded his chest with the service weapon.
www.nytimes.comShooting unarmed people is a failure of policing point blank, period, no excuses. Or at least recognize that police aren't heroic. If you are armed and given authority to kill as soon as you are slightly uncomfortable, you aren't brave or a hero. The odds are always in your favor. We're still really far from it being treated like the murder/manslaughter it is, but jfc it would be nice for this to at least be viewed as a fuck up from the police and officers involved and that they are dangerous to the community in such a position. There's practically 0 chance at least 1 of the officers involved doesn't have a previous case on them for doing something similar. On April 06 2018 01:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 06 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Abolish the police, disarm them and most of them will leave on their own. New York City police officers shot and killed a black man who was known to be mentally ill on a Brooklyn street corner on Wednesday afternoon after he pointed what the officers claim they thought was a gun at them, the authorities said. The object, however, turned out to be a metal pipe with a knob on it.
[Angie described Mr. Vassell as a quiet man who often sat outside near a barbershop and sometimes worked odd jobs at her beauty salon for a few dollars.
“He would just walk and bob his head,” she said. “If we ask him to do our chores, he’d come and do it.”
Rocky Brown, 45, who knew him for years, said he was a friendly man who was mentally ill.
“He’s harmless,” Mr. Brown said. “A very willing guy, a very nice guy, a good guy.”
Betty Weaver, 71, said Mr. Vassell would often greet her when she was on her way to church.
Another woman, Nicole Williams, said she had given him $2 earlier on Wednesday afternoon. His last words to her, she said, were “Thank you, God.”] moved this section to the top
The shooting drew a tense, charged crowd of dozens to the streets of Crown Heights. The Police Department had encountered the man before and classified him as emotionally disturbed, and the shooting raised questions about what the officers at the scene knew about him.
four of the officers — the three in street clothes and one uniformed officer — fired 10 bullets in all. The man, identified by his father as Saheed Vassell, 34, was pronounced dead after being taken to Kings County Medical Center.
In an interview at his home late Wednesday night, Mr. Vassell’s father, Eric Vassell, said his son had bipolar disorder and had been admitted to the hospital multiple times in recent years, sometimes after encounters with the police. The younger Mr. Vassell, who was born in Jamaica and came to the United States when he was 6, lived with his family in a Crown Heights apartment and had worked as a welder. He also had a 15-year-old son.
Mr. Vassell’s father said he had never seen his son act as if he had a gun.
He would “just walk around the neighborhood and help people,” the father said.
Area residents said Mr. Vassell was a familiar figure on the corner and a caring father who begged for money in a nearby subway station and did odd jobs for shopkeepers. He loved to dance and was widely known to be mentally ill. People said he had a penchant for picking things up off the street — cigarette lighters, empty bottles and other curbside flotsam — and playing with them like toys.
John Fuller, 59, said that he had known Mr. Vassell for years and that local police officers had, too. He echoed a common refrain: The officers should have known him well enough to not simply shoot him to death. “Every cop in this neighborhood knows him,” Mr. Fuller said.
Witnesses said the police officers appeared to fire almost immediately after they got to the corner around 4:45 p.m. Some of the witnesses said they did not hear the officers say anything to the man before firing, while another witness said she heard the officers and the man exchange some words.
The killing held echoes of the shooting less than three weeks ago in Sacramento in which the police shot and killed a black man who they believed was pointing a gun at them, but who, it turned out, was actually holding a cellphone.
On Wednesday in Brooklyn, Jaccpot Hinds, 40, was walking south on Utica Avenue near Montgomery Street when he saw an unmarked police car pass him and pull across two lanes of traffic near where a man was standing on a street corner. Mr. Hinds said a plainclothes officer got out of the passenger seat of the car and fired at the man several times. The officer appeared to shoot him in the neck, chest and right arm, Mr. Hinds said, and then walked over to the man and prodded his chest with the service weapon.
www.nytimes.comShooting unarmed people is a failure of policing point blank, period, no excuses. You keep telling us to abolish the police, but no-one's going to abolish the police. The problem with this no compromises, all or nothing kind of demand is that it guarantees perpetual inaction. A few people, IgnE comes to mind, as well as a couple others who's tag slips my mind at the moment understand what I'm talking about. One doesn't have to be for abolishing the police, but they have to accept that they are enabling these atrocities if they aren't. They aren't just enabling the atrocities, the structure, training and culture of the police is responsible for the atrocities. These are problems that can be attacked one by one systematically if the government wants to though. No need to abolish anything imo. They certainly get plenty of help enabling these atrocities from the structure, training, culture of policing, and government officials on both sides of the aisle. They are all doing their part to enable these rampant violations of people's rights and their all too frequent killings. That these could be fixed if people wanted them fixed without abolishing the police seems to be proven untrue by reality. Police won't even be honest and forthcoming about how many people they kill every year and you think you can attack this one by one with them fighting you every step of the way. Not going to happen. They have to be abolished and replaced from the ground up, it's the only viable solution. Not that I disagree with your feelings on the police GH, but the problem I see with your argument is this... Premise: Police are currently shitty. Solution: Reform police. You: That's an invalid solution because it's not possible, which is proved by "if it could happen it would have already ("proven untrue by reality")". Your solution: Dismantle police and rebuild with alternative group that fulfills the same function. Others: That's an invalid solution because it's not possible. You: If you're not part of this solution you're part of the problem. I can get behind police reform being an invalid solution due to not being realistic, but you should probably make sure that your proposed alternative solution is not weaker than the original to the argument that invalidated it. Perhaps you could try arguing that abolishing the police is more realistic than reforming it? I could if that was the focus of the challenge. If the argument is "I agree, abolishing police is the best possible option (or at least better than the amorphous reforms being argued for), save for the perceived political infeasibility" I'd be happy to address it, but so far as I can tell that's not the argument presented by anyone yet. If that's what this post is intended to convey, I'd be willing to engage with that, but we should get more people here (meaning thinking abolishing the police is the right plan, but don't know how to make it happen) first.
I for one would be interested to see that discussion take place. Although I think with others, it's "if we knew how to make it happen and it ended up being more feasible than reformation, then abolishing police would be the right plan".
|
On April 06 2018 02:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 02:11 Plansix wrote:
A majority buy in is not the problem. It is not a process of winning people over. What you are talking about is upending an entire section of civil service and replacing it with something else. The justice system, whatever its flaws, will not stop while this is happening and they rely on the police for a part of that system. Active criminal cases, with real victims, would be disrupted. Other aspects of civil life that rely on the police will need to change. None of this can be done quickly or without cost. And as there is no alterative proposed fill the hole created by the abolished police, there will be no solution to many of these problems.
There would be similar problems if you were suggesting to abolish a state’s public education system and replace it with a better system without first designing that improved system. The common response from most people is to fix the current system, rather than upped everything. In Rhode Island they solved that problem by laying off all the teachers state wide and having them re-apply for their jobs. It was an effective way of weeding out the bad actors in the system. But, if you are going to talk about abolishing something, you need to be honest about the how challenging that process will be and what will be disrupted. So is your argument that we should abolish the police, we just need to be more thoughtful about how that's executed, or are you still arguing that we should fight with them tooth and nail to get basic reforms like keeping and reporting body counts?
The system is broken and we have a problem with our entire justice system across the country. If abolishing the police would solve that problem, I'm for it. I'm not completely convinced it would solve more problem than it would create. But more importantly, I completely convinced that it is politically impossible to accomplish when it get to the state level.
|
On April 06 2018 02:13 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 02:01 Ryzel wrote:On April 06 2018 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 01:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 06 2018 01:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Abolish the police, disarm them and most of them will leave on their own. New York City police officers shot and killed a black man who was known to be mentally ill on a Brooklyn street corner on Wednesday afternoon after he pointed what the officers claim they thought was a gun at them, the authorities said. The object, however, turned out to be a metal pipe with a knob on it.
[Angie described Mr. Vassell as a quiet man who often sat outside near a barbershop and sometimes worked odd jobs at her beauty salon for a few dollars.
“He would just walk and bob his head,” she said. “If we ask him to do our chores, he’d come and do it.”
Rocky Brown, 45, who knew him for years, said he was a friendly man who was mentally ill.
“He’s harmless,” Mr. Brown said. “A very willing guy, a very nice guy, a good guy.”
Betty Weaver, 71, said Mr. Vassell would often greet her when she was on her way to church.
Another woman, Nicole Williams, said she had given him $2 earlier on Wednesday afternoon. His last words to her, she said, were “Thank you, God.”] moved this section to the top
The shooting drew a tense, charged crowd of dozens to the streets of Crown Heights. The Police Department had encountered the man before and classified him as emotionally disturbed, and the shooting raised questions about what the officers at the scene knew about him.
four of the officers — the three in street clothes and one uniformed officer — fired 10 bullets in all. The man, identified by his father as Saheed Vassell, 34, was pronounced dead after being taken to Kings County Medical Center.
In an interview at his home late Wednesday night, Mr. Vassell’s father, Eric Vassell, said his son had bipolar disorder and had been admitted to the hospital multiple times in recent years, sometimes after encounters with the police. The younger Mr. Vassell, who was born in Jamaica and came to the United States when he was 6, lived with his family in a Crown Heights apartment and had worked as a welder. He also had a 15-year-old son.
Mr. Vassell’s father said he had never seen his son act as if he had a gun.
He would “just walk around the neighborhood and help people,” the father said.
Area residents said Mr. Vassell was a familiar figure on the corner and a caring father who begged for money in a nearby subway station and did odd jobs for shopkeepers. He loved to dance and was widely known to be mentally ill. People said he had a penchant for picking things up off the street — cigarette lighters, empty bottles and other curbside flotsam — and playing with them like toys.
John Fuller, 59, said that he had known Mr. Vassell for years and that local police officers had, too. He echoed a common refrain: The officers should have known him well enough to not simply shoot him to death. “Every cop in this neighborhood knows him,” Mr. Fuller said.
Witnesses said the police officers appeared to fire almost immediately after they got to the corner around 4:45 p.m. Some of the witnesses said they did not hear the officers say anything to the man before firing, while another witness said she heard the officers and the man exchange some words.
The killing held echoes of the shooting less than three weeks ago in Sacramento in which the police shot and killed a black man who they believed was pointing a gun at them, but who, it turned out, was actually holding a cellphone.
On Wednesday in Brooklyn, Jaccpot Hinds, 40, was walking south on Utica Avenue near Montgomery Street when he saw an unmarked police car pass him and pull across two lanes of traffic near where a man was standing on a street corner. Mr. Hinds said a plainclothes officer got out of the passenger seat of the car and fired at the man several times. The officer appeared to shoot him in the neck, chest and right arm, Mr. Hinds said, and then walked over to the man and prodded his chest with the service weapon.
www.nytimes.comShooting unarmed people is a failure of policing point blank, period, no excuses. Or at least recognize that police aren't heroic. If you are armed and given authority to kill as soon as you are slightly uncomfortable, you aren't brave or a hero. The odds are always in your favor. We're still really far from it being treated like the murder/manslaughter it is, but jfc it would be nice for this to at least be viewed as a fuck up from the police and officers involved and that they are dangerous to the community in such a position. There's practically 0 chance at least 1 of the officers involved doesn't have a previous case on them for doing something similar. On April 06 2018 01:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 06 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Abolish the police, disarm them and most of them will leave on their own. New York City police officers shot and killed a black man who was known to be mentally ill on a Brooklyn street corner on Wednesday afternoon after he pointed what the officers claim they thought was a gun at them, the authorities said. The object, however, turned out to be a metal pipe with a knob on it.
[Angie described Mr. Vassell as a quiet man who often sat outside near a barbershop and sometimes worked odd jobs at her beauty salon for a few dollars.
“He would just walk and bob his head,” she said. “If we ask him to do our chores, he’d come and do it.”
Rocky Brown, 45, who knew him for years, said he was a friendly man who was mentally ill.
“He’s harmless,” Mr. Brown said. “A very willing guy, a very nice guy, a good guy.”
Betty Weaver, 71, said Mr. Vassell would often greet her when she was on her way to church.
Another woman, Nicole Williams, said she had given him $2 earlier on Wednesday afternoon. His last words to her, she said, were “Thank you, God.”] moved this section to the top
The shooting drew a tense, charged crowd of dozens to the streets of Crown Heights. The Police Department had encountered the man before and classified him as emotionally disturbed, and the shooting raised questions about what the officers at the scene knew about him.
four of the officers — the three in street clothes and one uniformed officer — fired 10 bullets in all. The man, identified by his father as Saheed Vassell, 34, was pronounced dead after being taken to Kings County Medical Center.
In an interview at his home late Wednesday night, Mr. Vassell’s father, Eric Vassell, said his son had bipolar disorder and had been admitted to the hospital multiple times in recent years, sometimes after encounters with the police. The younger Mr. Vassell, who was born in Jamaica and came to the United States when he was 6, lived with his family in a Crown Heights apartment and had worked as a welder. He also had a 15-year-old son.
Mr. Vassell’s father said he had never seen his son act as if he had a gun.
He would “just walk around the neighborhood and help people,” the father said.
Area residents said Mr. Vassell was a familiar figure on the corner and a caring father who begged for money in a nearby subway station and did odd jobs for shopkeepers. He loved to dance and was widely known to be mentally ill. People said he had a penchant for picking things up off the street — cigarette lighters, empty bottles and other curbside flotsam — and playing with them like toys.
John Fuller, 59, said that he had known Mr. Vassell for years and that local police officers had, too. He echoed a common refrain: The officers should have known him well enough to not simply shoot him to death. “Every cop in this neighborhood knows him,” Mr. Fuller said.
Witnesses said the police officers appeared to fire almost immediately after they got to the corner around 4:45 p.m. Some of the witnesses said they did not hear the officers say anything to the man before firing, while another witness said she heard the officers and the man exchange some words.
The killing held echoes of the shooting less than three weeks ago in Sacramento in which the police shot and killed a black man who they believed was pointing a gun at them, but who, it turned out, was actually holding a cellphone.
On Wednesday in Brooklyn, Jaccpot Hinds, 40, was walking south on Utica Avenue near Montgomery Street when he saw an unmarked police car pass him and pull across two lanes of traffic near where a man was standing on a street corner. Mr. Hinds said a plainclothes officer got out of the passenger seat of the car and fired at the man several times. The officer appeared to shoot him in the neck, chest and right arm, Mr. Hinds said, and then walked over to the man and prodded his chest with the service weapon.
www.nytimes.comShooting unarmed people is a failure of policing point blank, period, no excuses. You keep telling us to abolish the police, but no-one's going to abolish the police. The problem with this no compromises, all or nothing kind of demand is that it guarantees perpetual inaction. A few people, IgnE comes to mind, as well as a couple others who's tag slips my mind at the moment understand what I'm talking about. One doesn't have to be for abolishing the police, but they have to accept that they are enabling these atrocities if they aren't. They aren't just enabling the atrocities, the structure, training and culture of the police is responsible for the atrocities. These are problems that can be attacked one by one systematically if the government wants to though. No need to abolish anything imo. They certainly get plenty of help enabling these atrocities from the structure, training, culture of policing, and government officials on both sides of the aisle. They are all doing their part to enable these rampant violations of people's rights and their all too frequent killings. That these could be fixed if people wanted them fixed without abolishing the police seems to be proven untrue by reality. Police won't even be honest and forthcoming about how many people they kill every year and you think you can attack this one by one with them fighting you every step of the way. Not going to happen. They have to be abolished and replaced from the ground up, it's the only viable solution. Not that I disagree with your feelings on the police GH, but the problem I see with your argument is this... Premise: Police are currently shitty. Solution: Reform police. You: That's an invalid solution because it's not possible, which is proved by "if it could happen it would have already ("proven untrue by reality")". Your solution: Dismantle police and rebuild with alternative group that fulfills the same function. Others: That's an invalid solution because it's not possible. You: If you're not part of this solution you're part of the problem. I can get behind police reform being an invalid solution due to not being realistic, but you should probably make sure that your proposed alternative solution is not weaker than the original to the argument that invalidated it. Perhaps you could try arguing that abolishing the police is more realistic than reforming it? I could if that was the focus of the challenge. If the argument is "I agree, abolishing police is the best possible option (or at least better than the amorphous reforms being argued for), save for the perceived political infeasibility" I'd be happy to address it, but so far as I can tell that's not the argument presented by anyone yet. If that's what this post is intended to convey, I'd be willing to engage with that, but we should get more people here (meaning thinking abolishing the police is the right plan, but don't know how to make it happen) first. I for one would be interested to see that discussion take place. Although I think with others, it's "if we knew how to make it happen and it ended up being more feasible than reformation, then abolishing police would be the right plan".
Me too.
If that was their position then the needed correction would be that they need to be out working on it, demanding it, and supporting it, not waiting for it to fall in their lap while crapping on it as a concept.
On April 06 2018 02:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 02:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2018 02:11 Plansix wrote:
A majority buy in is not the problem. It is not a process of winning people over. What you are talking about is upending an entire section of civil service and replacing it with something else. The justice system, whatever its flaws, will not stop while this is happening and they rely on the police for a part of that system. Active criminal cases, with real victims, would be disrupted. Other aspects of civil life that rely on the police will need to change. None of this can be done quickly or without cost. And as there is no alterative proposed fill the hole created by the abolished police, there will be no solution to many of these problems.
There would be similar problems if you were suggesting to abolish a state’s public education system and replace it with a better system without first designing that improved system. The common response from most people is to fix the current system, rather than upped everything. In Rhode Island they solved that problem by laying off all the teachers state wide and having them re-apply for their jobs. It was an effective way of weeding out the bad actors in the system. But, if you are going to talk about abolishing something, you need to be honest about the how challenging that process will be and what will be disrupted. So is your argument that we should abolish the police, we just need to be more thoughtful about how that's executed, or are you still arguing that we should fight with them tooth and nail to get basic reforms like keeping and reporting body counts? The system is broken and we have a problem with our entire justice system across the country. If abolishing the police would solve that problem, I'm for it. I'm not completely convinced it would solve more problem than it would create. But more importantly, I completely convinced that it is politically impossible to accomplish.
I don't think anyone in the world thinks or has ever even suggested that abolishing the police would solve our national issues with the justice system. So I find the presentation of that argument preposterous.
The rest is fine, so long as one recognizes that position is enabling the atrocities they also claim to want to stop through reform that is clearly at minimum just as ineffective. If for no other reason than those making the argument you are not even being able to measure the effectiveness of the amorphous reforms they are claiming to advocate for.
|
Apparently this is now something we need to debate.
Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee."
Source
The framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission.
|
Netherlands21350 Posts
On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Show nested quote +Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission.
Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time.
|
On April 06 2018 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission. Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time.
it's not that necessary; but it'd be nicer if there weren't people protecting them so much. mostly it's just positioning for optics.
dumb time-wastin glegislation is pretty common.
|
On April 06 2018 03:06 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission. Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time. it's not that necessary; but it'd be nicer if there weren't people protecting them so much. mostly it's just positioning for optics. dumb time-wastin glegislation is pretty common.
It's almost like it acts like a good distraction from more serious issues like systemic abuse by police while making it appear to be hitting those racists hard for anyone willing to play along.
Topical and timely quote:
+ Show Spoiler +First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
|
On April 06 2018 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission. Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time.
It is a public statement by the state government. They vote on those and then put them out. They are often added on the bills for efficiency reasons and just voted on with the bill. They take very little time and or effort. However, in this case the GOP state legislature has actively pushed to have the statement removed twice. But not voting on it, they have not officially condemned the hate groups.
|
This is unreal. An actual wall and the rhetoric used with a 'caravan of Mexicans' from central Mexico and now gangs in New York. Then tying it with democrats. Dividing everybody
|
On April 06 2018 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission. Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time.
They probably don't need it... but what does it say about the state of the country that they struggle to even say THAT?
And I'd have thought you - as a fellow European - of all people would know the value in fighting fascism. We got fucked over by that once. Let's not do it twice, eh? The Italians are already skirting dangerously close to the border.
|
On April 06 2018 03:47 ragnasaur wrote:
This is unreal. An actual wall and the rhetoric used with a 'caravan of Mexicans' from central Mexico and now gangs in New York. Then tying it with democrats. Dividing everybody
It is 100% pure grievance based politics. This is purely to make his base happy and gin up fear about a fake threat. The caravan is a group of people from Honduras, which is one of the most violent countries in South America. There was no sign they were headed to America or could ever cross the border.
|
Netherlands21350 Posts
On April 06 2018 03:48 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission. Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time. They probably don't need it... but what does it say about the state of the country that they struggle to even say THAT? And I'd have thought you - as a fellow European - of all people would know the value in fighting fascism. We got fucked over by that once. Let's not do it twice, eh? The Italians are already skirting dangerously close to the border.
Sure, fight fascism but you don't do that by the government putting out a statement that neo-nazi's are bad.
|
On April 06 2018 04:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 03:48 iamthedave wrote:On April 06 2018 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission. Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time. They probably don't need it... but what does it say about the state of the country that they struggle to even say THAT? And I'd have thought you - as a fellow European - of all people would know the value in fighting fascism. We got fucked over by that once. Let's not do it twice, eh? The Italians are already skirting dangerously close to the border. Sure, fight fascism but you don't do that by the government putting out a statement that neo-nazi's are bad.
Especially considering that the lawmakers are people who could actually do something if they wanted to. Saying "Nazis are bad mkayy" is already pointless when it is just a random dude talking to people. It seems utterly ridiculous for a government legislative to have nothing better to do than state "nazis are bad" in really big letters.
Regarding the "abolish the police" discussion. I think a lot of the problem stems from GH not meaning the same thing as everyone else when using these words. If you say "abolish the police", people here "and don't replace it with anything else", which is such an obviously bad idea that they don't take you seriously afterwards. Despite how broken the US police is, the core function of "a police" is still something that needs to be filled in a civilized society. A society of law can only work if the government has a monopoly on force.
As far as i can tell, that isn't what GH means when he says "abolish the police". (If it is, that is actually the position of a madman). From what i can tell, GH thinks more along the lines of "completely rebuild the police from the ground up". Which i think is a position that would result in a lot less flak if that were how it is formulated. I don't know if GH uses "abolish" for shock value, but i don't think it strengthens his position a lot.
|
On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Show nested quote +Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission.
On the bright side, Bredesen, a popular former governor and Nashville mayor, is leading Blackburn by 20 pts in the race for Corker's senate seat.
|
On April 06 2018 04:14 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 04:05 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2018 03:48 iamthedave wrote:On April 06 2018 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission. Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time. They probably don't need it... but what does it say about the state of the country that they struggle to even say THAT? And I'd have thought you - as a fellow European - of all people would know the value in fighting fascism. We got fucked over by that once. Let's not do it twice, eh? The Italians are already skirting dangerously close to the border. Sure, fight fascism but you don't do that by the government putting out a statement that neo-nazi's are bad. Especially considering that the lawmakers are people who could actually do something if they wanted to. Saying "Nazis are bad mkayy" is already pointless when it is just a random dude talking to people. It seems utterly ridiculous for a government legislative to have nothing better to do than state "nazis are bad" in really big letters. Regarding the "abolish the police" discussion. I think a lot of the problem stems from GH not meaning the same thing as everyone else when using these words. If you say "abolish the police", people here "and don't replace it with anything else", which is such an obviously bad idea that they don't take you seriously afterwards. Despite how broken the US police is, the core function of "a police" is still something that needs to be filled in a civilized society. A society of law can only work if the government has a monopoly on force. As far as i can tell, that isn't what GH means when he says "abolish the police". (If it is, that is actually the position of a madman). From what i can tell, GH thinks more along the lines of "completely rebuild the police from the ground up". Which i think is a position that would result in a lot less flak if that were how it is formulated. I don't know if GH uses "abolish" for shock value, but i don't think it strengthens his position a lot.
I use 'abolish' for several reasons, but one is that I mean 'abolish'. I mean formally put an end to that system and replace it with a new system.
That doesn't mean that there won't be overlap in the social functions they are expected to address. People need to not blame others rhetoric for why they don't agree with better ideas than they are proposing.
It doesn't fly for racists blaming the people calling them racists for hurting their feelings and it doesn't fly for liberals saying they want to end the injustice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
