-->
@Dr.Franklin
it aint the police fault
police clubbing and pepper spraying protesters isn't their fault? Whose fault is it? Their parents for abusing them causing them to lash out at people?
Man who died from motorcycle counted as covid death
Posts
Total:
83
-->
@HistoryBuff
the protestors
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the protestors
so people using their constitutionally protected right to protest are responsible for the police attacking them? That is some dictatorship level of logic.
-->
@HistoryBuff
right, "protest"
nothing more guys, it was just a protest, it wasnt like in the middle of a global pandemic even though we told you you couldnt go back to work and that "our voices need to be heard" when every single corporation in the US got behind you, and that celebrtieis raised 150 million dollars for rioter bailout but zero for affected businnesses that was looted from LA to boston...
sure what a good "protest"
-->
@Dr.Franklin
nothing more guys, it was just a protest, it wasnt like in the middle of a global pandemic even though we told you you couldnt go back to work and that "our voices need to be heard" when every single corporation in the US got behind you, and that celebrtieis raised 150 million dollars for rioter bailout but zero for affected businnesses that was looted from LA to boston...
lol so because celebrities and corporations realized that the protesters are right and are being wrongfully arrested, that must mean it is really the people clubbing and pepper spraying indiscriminately that are right. fantastic reasoning.
-->
@HistoryBuff
nope wrong again, ANOTHER strawman, celebreties raised money for rioters bailout, not for the protest
-->
@Dr.Franklin
nope wrong again, ANOTHER strawman, celebreties raised money for rioters bailout, not for the protest
in the eyes of fox news and most idiots on the right, there is no difference between the two. How would you know who was getting bailed out? I'm guessing you just believe whatever nonsense fox told you.
-->
@HistoryBuff
it must have just been the fooooox neeeeeeeeeeeews!
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it must have just been the fooooox neeeeeeeeeeeews!
where you got the idea that anyone who protests is somehow a criminal or a terrorist? Yeah it was probably fox news. Or god forbid, OAN.
-->
@HistoryBuff
It's ok.
We can reinstate CHop and let innocent Democrats kill each other instead of ebil po po.
-->
@Greyparrot
It's ok.We can reinstate CHop and let innocent Democrats kill each other instead of ebil po po.
so our options are police that are completely above the law and can attack anyone they want at will or a society with no police at all? Forgive me, but i'm pretty sure we can have a society where we have police, but they also follow the law.
-->
@HistoryBuff
but i'm pretty sure we can have a society where we have police, but they also follow the law.
In your dreams buddy. Now pass me that ice bottle. I feel like protesting peacefully.
-->
@Greyparrot
In your dreams buddy.
I agree. It is hard to enforce the law on people who believe they are above the law. But we must try. The police cannot be allowed to attack peaceful protesters and get away with it.
-->
@HistoryBuff
But we must try.
No we don't. Chop is easy. Police are evil.
-->
@Greyparrot
But we must try.No we don't. Chop is easy. Police are evil.
you do love trying to paint issues as black and white don't you? Either we need authoritarian repression of dessent, or we need chaos. Either police are blameless innocents, or they are evil, souless monsters.
Reality is rarely so simple.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Reality is rarely so simple.
Kinda like peaceful protesters throwing bottles.
-->
@Greyparrot
Kinda like peaceful protesters throwing bottles.
I have never denied that there are some protesters who are violent. I acknowledge that happens. But you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that the police attack peaceful protesters even when presented with videos of them doing it.
You keep pretending like the problem is all the protesters fault. Even you can't believe that.
-->
@HistoryBuff
There's a problem with both sides of course, but I'd rather be safe with corrupt cops than live for any extended period of time in a police free no-go neighborhood.
Seattle can have Chop. They deserve it. Corrupt cops are by far the lesser of the 2 evils. And I say this from experience having once been physically violated by cops due to a mistaken identity. It was far more tolerable than the multitude of times being assaulted by criminals. It isnt the gated elites that need cops. It's the poor that need them.
-->
@Greyparrot
There's a problem with both sides of course, but I'd rather be safe with corrupt cops than live for any extended period of time in a police free no-go neighborhood.
this is a false choice though. Almost no one is suggesting abolishing the police. Most protesters are calling for reducing what police do and therfore reducing their funding. for example dealing with the homeless, addiction issues etc. Most of what police do has nothing to do with crime. Police should be used to deal with issues that require force. But they also need to be accountable and held to the law.
Seattle can have Chop. They deserve it. Corrupt cops are by far the lesser of the 2 evils. And I say this from experience having once been physically violated by cops due to a mistaken identity. It was far more tolerable than the multitude of times being assaulted by criminals. It isnt the gated elites that need cops. It's the poor that need them.
you are doing the same thing again. You are making it a black and white issue. Either we have corrupt, abusive cops or we have chaos. That is a false choice. We can have police who are held accountable.
and therefore reducing their funding.
A retarded position, otherwise you would support defunding public education when they abuse your kids and fail to give them what you paid for.
Exactly how are you going to replace bad cops with good cops without money? Good luck with that throw the baby out with the bathwater logic.
-->
@Greyparrot
A retarded position, otherwise you would support defunding public education when they abuse your kids and fail to give them what you paid for.
this statement shows you didn't listen to me at all. I said removing tasks from police they are not suited for. Once they have less tasks, they obviously don't need as much funding. If teachers were also harassing homeless people and breaking up domestic disturbances I would argue for reassigning those tasks too.
Exactly how are you going to replace bad cops with good cops without money? Good luck with that throw the baby out with the bathwater logic.
the reducing funding is in relation reducing their tasks. Since the majority of the tasks police are doing have nothing to do with violent crime, once you remove those tasks and you refocus the police on actually dealing with crime, then they will need far less resources to do the job.
For replacing bad cops, it is more about fixing the review and firing process. Police have a very high chance of getting off with a warning (assuming there is any punishment at all) for committing crimes. In any other line of work, people who did that would be in prison. If you are a cop, you get a slap on the wrist.
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
For replacing bad cops, it is more about fixing the review and firing process.
You foolishly assume there is a long list of qualified cops lining up for reduced pay. The opposite is true. If anything, it's going to be EXTREMELY expensive to recruit the kinds of cops you want to hire. Otherwise, you will have a reduced police force, which is already a problem as shown with the sick-outs. People don't understand WHY the police are needed when dealing with the homeless and mentally ill. Somebody has to protect the social workers. The homeless are absolutely irrational and sometimes very dangerous.
Defunding and reducing the police with the assumption "LOTS OF PEOPLE WANNA BE GOOD COPS BUT THE BAD COPS JUST WON'T LET THEM," Is a page right out of the Marxist manifesto. Just replace good cops and bad cops with proles and bourgies. When you throw the baby out with the bathwater, you don't magically get more babies. You just get a corpse. Expecting to recruit well-trained cops willing to take risks with their lives so that a handful of criminals might have theirs spared without monetary incentives is purely a Marxist ideal.
-->
@Greyparrot
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
ok, how is this quote relevant? You are arguing that protesters want to get rid of police because they don't see the use for them. But that is 100% innacurate. They are arguing for reforming (not getting rid of police) because of systematic abuse by the police. If the wall was crushing people to death, then the reformers would be very much justified in calling for the wall to be fixed or replaced.
You foolishly assume there is a long list of qualified cops lining up for reduced pay. The opposite is true. If anything, it's going to be EXTREMELY expensive to recruit the kinds of cops you want to hire. Otherwise, you will have a reduced police force
but that is exactly the point. The police are so large and numerous because they are preforming so many tasks which have nothing to do with violent crime. You don't need to send cops to harass homeless people. You shouldn't send cops to deal with addiction issues. Those are not tasks they are equipped to deal with. once you re-distribute those tasks to other people who are better able to hand these tasks, then you don't need nearly as many cops.
which is already a problem as shown with the sick-outs.
those sick outs are a symptom of the problem. They don't want to be held accountable. They like being above the law. So they are basically threatening public safety in order to ensure they keep their privileged status.
People don't understand WHY the police are needed when dealing with the homeless and mentally ill. Somebody has to protect the social workers. The homeless are absolutely irrational and sometimes very dangerous.
Ok, but the police have no training on how to actually help with these issues. They just force the homeless to move. That didn't help anything, it just moved the problem. they aren't trained to handle the mentally ill. So issues will naturally escalate because police will behave how they were trained to (ie use commands, if they aren't obeyed then use force).
Defunding and reducing the police with the assumption "LOTS OF PEOPLE WANNA BE GOOD COPS BUT THE BAD COPS JUST WON'T LET THEM," Is a page right out of the Marxist manifesto.
that is an extremely dumbed down version of it, but sort of.
Just replace good cops and bad cops with proles and bourgies. When you throw the baby out with the bathwater, you don't magically get more babies.
are you attempting to argue that police are somehow magical creatures that cannot be replaced? There are millions of people coming of age every year. Many of them would love to be a cop.
Expecting to recruit well-trained cops willing to take risks with their lives so that a handful of criminals might have theirs spared without monetary incentives is purely a Marxist ideal.
you clearly have not been paying attention at all. No one is saying cops should work for free. No one is even arguing they should work for less money. So this whole point is complete nonsense. The point is to remove the non-crime related tasks they are doing so that less police are needed.