|
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 |
We're not even close to the solutions part of abolishing the police. We're still in the identifying the problem stage.
While many people finally realize it isn't a case of "a few bad apples" most people are still far away from understanding what function police currently serve, how they spend their resources, and peeling away their power to resist the solutions/improvements that have already been around for decades and implemented in most industrialized countries.
It's important to remember we're here in the US in part because the police still don't even keep a reliable count of how many people they kill.
|
Yes and no. No one is going to abolish the police without a replacement. As Inge mentioned that would just create more problems. But there are many councils willing to spend part of the police budget, or at least cap the current police budget on something new and different. And then if that project can preform better than the police in crime reduction/measurable social outcomes. They will expand there program.
No place will ever just "abolish the police" and defunding is also a different movement which has more chance of happening at this point. Way to many people see all the gun violence and other crime and are rightfully scared of life without any law enforcement. Now it is up for progressive people to prove that with better social programs they can curb a bunch of that violence.
It is not going to be easy, in my community we have a safe consumption site and they are continually pulled infrount of council and the provincial assembly to justify their existence. Change is hard and incremental.
|
On July 11 2020 23:17 JimmiC wrote:Yes and no. No one is going to abolish the police without a replacement. + Show Spoiler +As Inge mentioned that would just create more problems. But there are many councils willing to spend part of the police budget, or at least cap the current police budget on something new and different. And then if that project can preform better than the police in crime reduction/measurable social outcomes. They will expand there program.
No place will ever just "abolish the police" and defunding is also a different movement which has more chance of happening at this point. Way to many people see all the gun violence and other crime and are rightfully scared of life without any law enforcement. Now it is up for progressive people to prove that with better social programs they can curb a bunch of that violence.
It is not going to be easy, in my community we have a safe consumption site and they are continually pulled infrount of council and the provincial assembly to justify their existence. Change is hard and incremental.
Just want to be clear literally no one is suggesting this. Also that "replacements" can't be discussed rationally unless people are cognizant of the problems. Otherwise, you end up trying to replace things you should be getting rid of (along with many other issues).
People think they need police because of crime and have some horribly outdated and wrong ideas about what "crime" is and how to prevent it. Can't just skip over that and start demanding solutions (as if there aren't a long list of things they've been told need to change for years).
If calls for solutions were real (it's just political posturing) then they would be preceded by implementation of existing demands, one of the most basic ones I pointed out was keeping a reliable count of the people police kill. That they fail to clear such a low bar should make it abundantly clear the US is no where near the solutions stage.
|
The calls for replacements are real at least in some places. Portland for example is putting money into the programs. Now those programs need to have the ability to show that they are working or they won't continue to get funding. And I'm sure other cities and states are willing to do things.
This is how it works, people present there plans for the programs including how it will work, how much it will cost, and how they will measure its outcomes. And then they will present back to council on either quarterly semi annually or annually.
I think you are confused and think I think it is done, I don't. But this is the first stage, the "prove it" stage. And if you can show results it will put more pressure on council and the police to change what they are doing.
You also can't talk about the US as a whole, it is too big. You need to get down to the city level where the police budgets actually are and talk about what various cities are doing. The protests should continue in cities that are not making meaningful steps and they should slow down in cities that are. That way the protester's can say "see if you do this we will stop" and be ready to start up again if they don't.
If you expecting some wholesale change right away it is never going to happen. It does not even have that much public support right now. If you can prove that the other options work you will get a lot more public support for more measures.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/06/18/most-americans-do-not-want-to-defund-the-police
edit: And BTW Inge asked you about what programs would take the place of the police and you said you have no idea. So there are people calling for the abolishing of police without a plan of what will take its place. The defund movement though has a lot of various programs that I have read about that are ready to partially take over.
|
I think a problem with starting new programs and feeling them out based on their success misses the problem of how were qualifying success. I mean, plenty of police departments likely meet whatever metrics they have and would qualify as successful, but it seems worthwhile to reevaluate what these organizations are supposed to specifically achieve, else we risk just having cops with a different name or something.
|
One problem with your framing that I'm highlighting is that "prove it" is not the first stage or one we're at.
The problems are generational poverty, systemic racism, abandoned infrastructure, etc as well as the punitive and carceral response, and the intransigence of those agents and their political influence. What you're talking about is damage mitigation reforms, of which there are a ton we know work and simply aren't being implemented.
On July 12 2020 00:40 Zambrah wrote: I think a problem with starting new programs and feeling them out based on their success misses the problem of how were qualifying success. I mean, plenty of police departments likely meet whatever metrics they have and would qualify as successful, but it seems worthwhile to reevaluate what these organizations are supposed to specifically achieve, else we risk just having cops with a different name or something.
Very much this. As well as risk having unreasonable expectations of such organizations.
|
|
On July 12 2020 00:40 Zambrah wrote: I think a problem with starting new programs and feeling them out based on their success misses the problem of how were qualifying success. I mean, plenty of police departments likely meet whatever metrics they have and would qualify as successful, but it seems worthwhile to reevaluate what these organizations are supposed to specifically achieve, else we risk just having cops with a different name or something. Yeah the measurement part is always one of the hardest to figure out, but the people giving the money want justification for why they are spending it. You want to measure outcomes instead of outputs, but often out puts get measured because it is easier (for example we talked to 1000 kids about recycling, instead of 100 families recycled 50% more material).
Having council attention is great but it is super hard to come up with programs to replace what the police do. If you have ever watched "the wire" they get into this somewhat with people manipulating stats instead of solving problems and because of this things get worse. The measure outputs (we had 10 % increased arrests) instead of out comes (there was 50% less murders).
Often just measuring success by the right thing can put the motivation in the right place. It sounds easy but it is not. If anyone who is far more involved with the defuns movement has ideas on it we could all brainstorm how to move it forward. I could help with some of the things council will ask and what they will want to see and others could help with other parts, might be quite interesting.
|
On July 12 2020 00:44 farvacola wrote:The first step for doing my version of defund the police is to totally overhaul and enliven the social safety net while creating a Works Progress Administration 2.0. That sounds like a good start, employment and raising the floor would lower crime. So you could measure the drive drop while also showing physical projects that were built. There is also a lot really aging infrastructure that needs to be repaired or rebuilt. And then after the public projects were built the people would have trades and experience to continue to work after.
|
On July 12 2020 00:44 farvacola wrote:The first step for doing my version of defund the police is to totally overhaul and enliven the social safety net while creating a Works Progress Administration 2.0.
Now that's the kind of proposal that recognizes the scale of the problem. There's no point discussing 'solutions' or looking for metrics that lack adequate framing of at least the scale and/or scope of the problem imo. I see it as placative bait waiting to be criticized when they obviously can't solve the kinds of things you need something like a WPA 2.0 for.
The main problem being that we've just got past the "few bad apples" stage, and are nowhere near recognizing something like WPA 2.0 is what is needed at the national level (where it would need to be supported and implemented).
|
On July 12 2020 01:04 JimmiC wrote:That sounds like a good start, employment and raising the floor would lower crime. So you could measure the drive drop while also showing physical projects that were built. There is also a lot really aging infrastructure that needs to be repaired or rebuilt. And then after the public projects were built the people would have trades and experience to continue to work after. I think this is something a lot of us have been clamoring for, for a long time. That there needs to be something for people to do/work towards. As much as we don't want to admit or accept, people need a purpose and this would be a good way for those who feel the need to work to fulfill those needs. There are still those who won't find that in this kind of program, but it is something to start.
|
Trump finally wore a mask today. What are the chances that he wears a mask a second time, during the pandemic?
|
Gee, I would have never guessed that the answer to the police enforcement issues are, wait for it, new Government programs. Look, crime statistics indicate low trends with historically low rates of crime committed (esp. of the violent nature). There's not this gigantic issue of crime that needs addressing - the police and the laws they enforce are the heart of the problem. The less interactions the citizen has with the police the better, and you do that by eradicating the pretense for interaction (e.g. enforcement of laws / penal codes / civil codes). By not putting an axe to the penal codes and framing this as welfare issue is par for the course for those whose answer to all woes is more Government money and programs. (I know I'll hear the reverse that all my solutions are destroy the Government, but that's only 90% right)
So, step 1: - Destroy 95% of the functions associated with police today: SWAT, Non-violent "crimes", civil code enforcement, civil asset forfeitures, etc.
Step 2: - Eradicate barriers to promote non-violent interactions with citizens: QI, Union/Thin Blue Line ethos, Military Regalia, DA/Police interaction, improve "good cop" protections for those who report unethical actions and behaviors (umbrella of Thin Blue Line), etc.
Step 3: - Elect politicians who will roll back encroachments on our liberties by abolishing 90%+ penal and civil codes thereby decreasing cop/citizen interaction. You want cops out of black neighborhoods, end the drug war. Not some stupid WPA 2.0.
Illuminate the cockroaches. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2016/
Were I to credit official claims regarding the abilities of law enforcement officers, I would express disappointed surprise at your inability to recognize the elements of that offense. Since I've studied law enforcement for more than a quarter-century, your performance is precisely what I expected.
Why aren't you incandescent with rage over crimes committed by police, against police -- and the public at large -- when they steal from funds supposedly dedicated to providing for wounded officers, and the families of officers who have died on-duty? I am mortally disgusted by such behavior, and that reaction ripens into rage when I see how "blue privilege" continues to protect such offenders, who are routinely given lenient sentences and sometimes allowed to keep their subsidized pensions. It's odd that this is apparent to a purported miscreant like myself, while being ignored by an upstanding paragon of civic righteousness such as yourself.
You are doubtless aware....
No, strike that; going on the evidence [above] I would be unwise to entertain a generous estimate of your awareness.
A long line of judicial precedents documents that police officers have no enforceable duty to protect any individual citizen from criminal violence. This is even true when one is literally being hacked to death just a few feet away while apprehending an armed psychopath who had eluded the police. Take a second and Google "Joe Lozito" for the details of that case. Lozito subdued a knife-wielding serial killer while a member of your bold fraternity of badge-wearing badasses cowered behind a subway door just a few feet away. While Lozito was recuperating in the hospital, the cowardly officer was being feted as a "hero" -- and the city dismissed Lozito's legal claim by invoking the well-settled doctrine that the police have no particularized duty to protect the public.
Slogans about the selfless service of law enforcement don't find traction among people who have studied the issue to any depth.
|
On July 12 2020 09:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump finally wore a mask today. What are the chances that he wears a mask a second time, during the pandemic? This quote shocked me.
"I think when you're in a hospital, especially in that particular setting where you're talking to a lot of soldiers and people that in some cases just got off the operating tables, I think it's a great thing to wear a mask," Trump told reporters. "I've never been against masks, but I do believe they have a time and a place."
Perhaps he will more in certain situations. Which is not as good as at all times that doctors suggest it, but it is better than never.
|
On July 12 2020 09:55 Wegandi wrote:Gee, I would have never guessed that the answer to the police enforcement issues are, wait for it, new Government programs. Look, crime statistics indicate low trends with historically low rates of crime committed (esp. of the violent nature). There's not this gigantic issue of crime that needs addressing - the police and the laws they enforce are the heart of the problem. The less interactions the citizen has with the police the better, and you do that by eradicating the pretense for interaction (e.g. enforcement of laws / penal codes / civil codes). By not putting an axe to the penal codes and framing this as welfare issue is par for the course for those whose answer to all woes is more Government money and programs. (I know I'll hear the reverse that all my solutions are destroy the Government, but that's only 90% right) So, step 1: - Destroy 95% of the functions associated with police today: SWAT, Non-violent "crimes", civil code enforcement, civil asset forfeitures, etc. Step 2: - Eradicate barriers to promote non-violent interactions with citizens: QI, Union/Thin Blue Line ethos, Military Regalia, DA/Police interaction, improve "good cop" protections for those who report unethical actions and behaviors (umbrella of Thin Blue Line), etc. Step 3: - Elect politicians who will roll back encroachments on our liberties by abolishing 90%+ penal and civil codes thereby decreasing cop/citizen interaction. You want cops out of black neighborhoods, end the drug war. Not some stupid WPA 2.0. Illuminate the cockroaches. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2016/Show nested quote +Were I to credit official claims regarding the abilities of law enforcement officers, I would express disappointed surprise at your inability to recognize the elements of that offense. Since I've studied law enforcement for more than a quarter-century, your performance is precisely what I expected.
Why aren't you incandescent with rage over crimes committed by police, against police -- and the public at large -- when they steal from funds supposedly dedicated to providing for wounded officers, and the families of officers who have died on-duty? I am mortally disgusted by such behavior, and that reaction ripens into rage when I see how "blue privilege" continues to protect such offenders, who are routinely given lenient sentences and sometimes allowed to keep their subsidized pensions. It's odd that this is apparent to a purported miscreant like myself, while being ignored by an upstanding paragon of civic righteousness such as yourself.
You are doubtless aware....
No, strike that; going on the evidence [above] I would be unwise to entertain a generous estimate of your awareness.
A long line of judicial precedents documents that police officers have no enforceable duty to protect any individual citizen from criminal violence. This is even true when one is literally being hacked to death just a few feet away while apprehending an armed psychopath who had eluded the police. Take a second and Google "Joe Lozito" for the details of that case. Lozito subdued a knife-wielding serial killer while a member of your bold fraternity of badge-wearing badasses cowered behind a subway door just a few feet away. While Lozito was recuperating in the hospital, the cowardly officer was being feted as a "hero" -- and the city dismissed Lozito's legal claim by invoking the well-settled doctrine that the police have no particularized duty to protect the public.
Slogans about the selfless service of law enforcement don't find traction among people who have studied the issue to any depth.
The ideas aren't really the sticking point, because while your solution is woefully incomplete in my opinion, they aren't in opposition of abolitionist movements (other than your opposition to addressing poverty with a social safety net).
The problem is step 3 has to come before the other two and the two party-fptp system (and the corruption entrenched within) makes that a practical impossibility. As well as you just ignoring the role poverty plays in policing. They were slave catchers in the South but started as security forces for wealthy traders and union busters in the North.
The mistake you're making imo is not seeing the role of police beyond "crime", to their role as protectors of capital. It's the same misfit thinking that rationalizes maiming, beating, and potentially killing people in order to protect inanimate objects like glass windows.
|
On July 12 2020 10:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2020 09:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump finally wore a mask today. What are the chances that he wears a mask a second time, during the pandemic? This quote shocked me. Show nested quote + "I think when you're in a hospital, especially in that particular setting where you're talking to a lot of soldiers and people that in some cases just got off the operating tables, I think it's a great thing to wear a mask," Trump told reporters. "I've never been against masks, but I do believe they have a time and a place."
Perhaps he will more in certain situations. Which is not as good as at all times that doctors suggest it, but it is better than never.
True, although he and Pence have literally visited other hospitals and high-risk areas without masks, during this pandemic lol. I'm sure by August he'll be *and will have always been* a champion for wearing masks, as he tries to rewrite the failing narrative that is his presidency.
|
On July 12 2020 11:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2020 10:03 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2020 09:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump finally wore a mask today. What are the chances that he wears a mask a second time, during the pandemic? This quote shocked me. "I think when you're in a hospital, especially in that particular setting where you're talking to a lot of soldiers and people that in some cases just got off the operating tables, I think it's a great thing to wear a mask," Trump told reporters. "I've never been against masks, but I do believe they have a time and a place."
Perhaps he will more in certain situations. Which is not as good as at all times that doctors suggest it, but it is better than never. True, although he and Pence have literally visited other hospitals and high-risk areas without masks, during this pandemic lol. I'm sure by August he'll be *and will have always been* a champion for wearing masks, as he tries to rewrite the failing narrative that is his presidency.
It will work unfortunately.
Also, technically it was his second known time of wearing a mask (first intentionally in public) so 100% more times then you gave him credit for, typical lib fake news /s
|
On July 12 2020 11:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2020 10:03 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2020 09:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump finally wore a mask today. What are the chances that he wears a mask a second time, during the pandemic? This quote shocked me. "I think when you're in a hospital, especially in that particular setting where you're talking to a lot of soldiers and people that in some cases just got off the operating tables, I think it's a great thing to wear a mask," Trump told reporters. "I've never been against masks, but I do believe they have a time and a place."
Perhaps he will more in certain situations. Which is not as good as at all times that doctors suggest it, but it is better than never. True, although he and Pence have literally visited other hospitals and high-risk areas without masks, during this pandemic lol. I'm sure by August he'll be *and will have always been* a champion for wearing masks, as he tries to rewrite the failing narrative that is his presidency. Yeah, what a ridiculous statement it was only 2 weeks ago he was mocking them at a rally. I guess when you make a dumb political bet by going against the doctors, this is his only way to try to save face.
|
On July 12 2020 11:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2020 11:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 12 2020 10:03 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2020 09:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump finally wore a mask today. What are the chances that he wears a mask a second time, during the pandemic? This quote shocked me. "I think when you're in a hospital, especially in that particular setting where you're talking to a lot of soldiers and people that in some cases just got off the operating tables, I think it's a great thing to wear a mask," Trump told reporters. "I've never been against masks, but I do believe they have a time and a place."
Perhaps he will more in certain situations. Which is not as good as at all times that doctors suggest it, but it is better than never. True, although he and Pence have literally visited other hospitals and high-risk areas without masks, during this pandemic lol. I'm sure by August he'll be *and will have always been* a champion for wearing masks, as he tries to rewrite the failing narrative that is his presidency. It will work unfortunately. Also, technically it was his second known time of wearing a mask (first intentionally in public) so 100% more times then you gave him credit for, typical lib fake news /s
O.O But... But... This notoriously reputable, top-notch real news source says that today is the first time: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-wears-face-mask-in-public-first-time-coronavirus.amp
On July 12 2020 11:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2020 11:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 12 2020 10:03 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2020 09:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump finally wore a mask today. What are the chances that he wears a mask a second time, during the pandemic? This quote shocked me. "I think when you're in a hospital, especially in that particular setting where you're talking to a lot of soldiers and people that in some cases just got off the operating tables, I think it's a great thing to wear a mask," Trump told reporters. "I've never been against masks, but I do believe they have a time and a place."
Perhaps he will more in certain situations. Which is not as good as at all times that doctors suggest it, but it is better than never. True, although he and Pence have literally visited other hospitals and high-risk areas without masks, during this pandemic lol. I'm sure by August he'll be *and will have always been* a champion for wearing masks, as he tries to rewrite the failing narrative that is his presidency. Yeah, what a ridiculous statement it was only 2 weeks ago he was mocking them at a rally. I guess when you make a dumb political bet by going against the doctors, this is his only way to try to save face.
I honestly wonder how many Trump supporters he loses per week with his nonsense. I can only assume that whichever voters are left can't possibly be persuaded to change their minds, so Trump probably has no consequences left to deal with.
|
On July 12 2020 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2020 09:55 Wegandi wrote:Gee, I would have never guessed that the answer to the police enforcement issues are, wait for it, new Government programs. Look, crime statistics indicate low trends with historically low rates of crime committed (esp. of the violent nature). There's not this gigantic issue of crime that needs addressing - the police and the laws they enforce are the heart of the problem. The less interactions the citizen has with the police the better, and you do that by eradicating the pretense for interaction (e.g. enforcement of laws / penal codes / civil codes). By not putting an axe to the penal codes and framing this as welfare issue is par for the course for those whose answer to all woes is more Government money and programs. (I know I'll hear the reverse that all my solutions are destroy the Government, but that's only 90% right) So, step 1: - Destroy 95% of the functions associated with police today: SWAT, Non-violent "crimes", civil code enforcement, civil asset forfeitures, etc. Step 2: - Eradicate barriers to promote non-violent interactions with citizens: QI, Union/Thin Blue Line ethos, Military Regalia, DA/Police interaction, improve "good cop" protections for those who report unethical actions and behaviors (umbrella of Thin Blue Line), etc. Step 3: - Elect politicians who will roll back encroachments on our liberties by abolishing 90%+ penal and civil codes thereby decreasing cop/citizen interaction. You want cops out of black neighborhoods, end the drug war. Not some stupid WPA 2.0. Illuminate the cockroaches. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2016/Were I to credit official claims regarding the abilities of law enforcement officers, I would express disappointed surprise at your inability to recognize the elements of that offense. Since I've studied law enforcement for more than a quarter-century, your performance is precisely what I expected.
Why aren't you incandescent with rage over crimes committed by police, against police -- and the public at large -- when they steal from funds supposedly dedicated to providing for wounded officers, and the families of officers who have died on-duty? I am mortally disgusted by such behavior, and that reaction ripens into rage when I see how "blue privilege" continues to protect such offenders, who are routinely given lenient sentences and sometimes allowed to keep their subsidized pensions. It's odd that this is apparent to a purported miscreant like myself, while being ignored by an upstanding paragon of civic righteousness such as yourself.
You are doubtless aware....
No, strike that; going on the evidence [above] I would be unwise to entertain a generous estimate of your awareness.
A long line of judicial precedents documents that police officers have no enforceable duty to protect any individual citizen from criminal violence. This is even true when one is literally being hacked to death just a few feet away while apprehending an armed psychopath who had eluded the police. Take a second and Google "Joe Lozito" for the details of that case. Lozito subdued a knife-wielding serial killer while a member of your bold fraternity of badge-wearing badasses cowered behind a subway door just a few feet away. While Lozito was recuperating in the hospital, the cowardly officer was being feted as a "hero" -- and the city dismissed Lozito's legal claim by invoking the well-settled doctrine that the police have no particularized duty to protect the public.
Slogans about the selfless service of law enforcement don't find traction among people who have studied the issue to any depth. The ideas aren't really the sticking point, because while your solution is woefully incomplete in my opinion, they aren't in opposition of abolitionist movements (other than your opposition to addressing poverty with a social safety net). The problem is step 3 has to come before the other two and the two party-fptp system (and the corruption entrenched within) makes that a practical impossibility. As well as you just ignoring the role poverty plays in policing. They were slave catchers in the South but started as security forces for wealthy traders and union busters in the North. The mistake you're making imo is not seeing the role of police beyond "crime", to their role as protectors of capital. It's the same misfit thinking that rationalizes maiming, beating, and potentially killing people in order to protect inanimate objects like glass windows.
I don't understand the distinction you are drawing between "crime" and breaking windows.
|
|
|
|