Should we defund the police?

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 247
Topic's author
#91
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Bringerofrain
Incorrect, blacks are not the most likely to resist arrest, that's actually women of all ethnicities. Furthermore, even if it were, it would be responsible. Because police are more likely to shoot black people without justification, more likely to imprison or charge them without valid incrimination, they are more likely to receive longer punishment for the same crime, you are objectively incorrect here. 

Furthermore, the number of women being arrested and shot violently has quadrupled. The biggest justification for shooting somebody? "I thought they were on drugs." Therefore the actual truth of the matter is very important regarding drugs. Another thing I should mention, whenever a system focuses on a certain demographic, that demographic's numbers of crime starts to inflate, because the police put more attention on it than others, so they find more crimes. 

Even with that though, the number of white violent crimes surpasses the amount of black violent crimes adjusted to population.
#92
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
Incorrect, blacks are not the most likely to resist arrest, that's actually women of all ethnicities.
Well women are considerably weak than men and lack knockout power. Women are also more likely to hit their significant other, but they aren't as much of a threat as a man. 

police are more likely to shoot black people without justification, more likely to imprison or charge them without valid incrimination, they are more likely to receive longer punishment for the same crime, you are objectively incorrect here. 
Police aren't responsible for sentencing., And citation needed for the police shooting blacks without justification more often than whites.

The biggest justification for shooting somebody? "I thought they were on drugs.

Untrue. Any cop claiming that they shot somebody for being on drugs would go to prison. 

Even with that though, the number of white violent crimes surpasses the amount of black violent crimes adjusted to population.


Irrelevant. Whites can be significantly more violent, and still show less resistance when being arrested. 

Topic's author
#93
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Bringerofrain
I already combined two of those things, and you left out that women are 4 times as likely to be shot than men of any ethnicity, don't want to admit it? As for the racial charging and no substantial justification for shooting them? [LINK}
#94
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Please inform yourself in this regard, as in, please read my first response to you.
I read your #5. Did you read and comprehend my #7. You bring up the examples of individuals who disobey policy, even in brutality, not just racism. Individuals are not the system. They violate the system. Do those who act badly act according to their policies. Most, yes. Some, no. Do not blame the system for the 'some.' If all acted badly, or if one acted badly, and their actions are contrary to the system policy, then the system is not at fault, those who act badly are.
Topic's author
#95
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I would actually ask you to read my forum "Systemic Issues" I think it might address the issue in your way of thinking. Oh look a teenager who thinks he knows what he's talking about, I know I know, not original whatsoever, I'd ask you just humor me this time. Furthermore, it is a broken system for which individuals can take advantage of - question - if a system is able to continuously and consistently be taken advantage of, in the same way, what is the problem - individuals or the system?
#96
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
People who violate the system [by that I mean legal statutes and government policies], individually or in groups, are at fault for disobeying the system, and not the system itself. Obviously, people as individuals or groups who choose to violate the rules are faulty, not the system. If the system defines behavior that is harmful to individuals or groups, then the system is at fault. The system is documented. Individual action is just aberrant behavior, undocumented and purposeless for a social perspective.

There is no legal statute or official policy that can guarantee behavior will follow it; that is up to each individual. Therefore, the individual is not systemic unless that individual is compliant.
Topic's author
#97
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Um... did you consider a word of my previous post? This seems to be a running theme here. Let me try again: If a system is able to continuously and consistently be taken advantage of, in the same way, what is the problem - individuals or the system? Except  this time I'll answer the rhetorical question (because the answer is obvious), the system. If a conveyor line continuously dispensed items in a manner that wasn't in the order to put them together? Or better yet, taught the workers to put the items together incorrectly, then that conveyor is at fault. Furthermore, its also the fact that this system does not keep its individuals accountable, which needs to be fixed at the very least. If you think that the only way for something to be at fault is for it to explicitly state a thing that's wrong.... well, I find myself doubting your creative thinking.
#98
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
The police are held accountable by their supervisors and internal corruption is dealt with by internal affairs and sometimes the FBI even gets involved. They also are under constant surveillance by the general public due to the invention of cellphones and bodycams. 

#99
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
what is the problem - individuals or the system? 
And I have answered your question. The system cannot and does not have evidence of 100% compliance. Human behavior contrary to a system's documented law/policy is an individual decision, and the system is not responsible for individual decisions, is it? 
Topic's author
#100
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Bringerofrain
No.. no they are not, considering a wide spread amount of cases in which cameras are easily moved or hindered in order to hide footage, and the court cases to follow these are infamous for being horrible, furthermore, the police system is one of the most corruptable systems in the history of any system really. But I would like you to actually respond to my last post please, about the large amount of women being shot, you did say that they were less likely to put up a fight right? Then why are they being shot at 4 times the rate of men?
Topic's author
#101
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Individual decisions are framed by what is and isn't allowed by a system, so yes, yes it is the fault of a system.
#102
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
I stated that a person is more likely to be shot by police if they are resisting arrest. You stated women attack police more often and are also shot More often. This seems to confirm what I said earlier about people who resist the police more are more likely to be shot by police. This is if I am understanding what you are saying correctly.

Cases against police are not famous for being horrible. What happens is people get pissed that courts do not bow to mob mentality and then protest that not bending to mob mentality and premature assumptions of guilt, somehow means the courts are racist. 

We had the same sort of outrage when Oh Simpson and Caycee Anthony got off. People went out in huge droves protesting, because they get mad that courts do not obey the what of public opinion or bow to mob mentality.


Topic's author
#103
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Bringerofrain
You said that women are the least likely to be harmful or ultimately cause harm to the police officer, are you saying the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for resisting arrest? That doesn't hold up whatsoever.
#104
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
No resisting arrest shouldn't result in the death penalty. However when a cop is incapacitated, his gun can be removed from them and used on him, that means losing a fight is unacceptable and the must use deadly force to prevent losing if it comes to that.

Even if the resisting is non violent, they are authorized to use violence to get compliance, instead of just allowing people to do what they feel like. 

The argument is that resistance to police is probably a good i dictator of when a police officer's life is in danger. When a police officer's life is perceived to be in danger, they have the right to defend it.

For example. If an officer is making a felony stop and asking a suspect to keep his hands up and the suspect reaches for an ID after that, then the cop will shoot and kill him. The cop doesn't have x ray vision and can't know if the suspect is reaching for a side arm and using his wallet as a ploy or if he is legitimately reaching for his wallet. 

In the above scenario of a suspect reaching as if reaching for a side arm while being ordered to keep his hands on a steering wheel, would get shot whether he was armed or not. This would be regardless of his skin color. Cops really can't help the fact that if the guy did it and was white the media would ignore it, and that if the guy was black he would be labeled a racist, despite the fact the same actions would have been taken if it was his own grandma. 

You are focusing too much on whether the person deserves to die. They don't deserve to die. Any loss of life is a tragedy. 

You know why these same shootings don't happen in Australia? It isn't because of lack of racism. It is because police pretty much assume you are unarmed there and will die if they make that assumption here. 

If you want to stop police shootings, police reform is not the solution. Gun control is. 



Topic's author
#105
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Bringerofrain
Let's look at the assumptions being made here:

That a person will take a criminal's gun if they "lose a fight"
That a fight will ensue
That a person is likely to use that gun

That being black is enough to justify killing them
That being female is enough to justify killing them
That having a "weapon" is enough to justify killing them

Let's go over some things; as a result of several policies in the 1960s which essentially segregated black and white people by neighborhood and into lower value real estate, black people were forced to a lower income and have on average, less wealth than the white citizen. Not to long ago, black and white people were segregated by schools, into lesser funded schools; funny thing is, a lack of education drives up crime rates, and poverty does the same - so they are more likely to feel a need to protect themselves. Especially whenever they know that police will kill them without justification. 

Furthermore, there is no substantial evidence that these people will be armed, BLACK PEOPLE ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE ARMED THAN WHITE PEOPLE, Police Officers are literally safer with black people on average than they are with white people, this entire thing is assuming that killing somebody is justified by the assumption that somebody is a criminal. The problem with that is that police officer are TERRIBLE AT DECIDING WHEN THAT IS, even more, are more likely to assume that black people will harm them. That is a problem considering that they AREN'T
#106
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is too much straw manning in a single post. Black poverty and segregation is not the fault of the police so I won't talk about that. 

I already went over how officer's do not determine if somebody is a criminal, only if there is enough evidence to suspect them of a crime. Being a suspect and being guilty are two different things. I also already explained that police do not have X ray vision. That they don't know who is armed more often that decisions on whether to shoot it r not is based on things like whether somebody motions like they are going to draw a weapon or if they get in a vehicle that can be used as a weapon, when commanded to remain in place or if a black suspect is more likely to physically attack am officer and put him at risk of losing a weapon that can be used on him.

Where do you get that blacks are disproportionatelu shot by police anyway? Do you just look at your Twitter feed and think that serves as a viable source of news? When you look at how many contacts are made with police by blacks vs contacts with whites, blacks are actually less likely to be shot by police than whites.  

Why are you ignoring my points? Like the ones that proved you wrong in my last post?

Why are you conflating race issues, such as judges disproportionately sentencing blacks and blacks being segregated socially with police issues? 





Topic's author
#107
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Bringerofrain
That's the ENTIRE POINT, that police officers do not have the proper evidence to justify shooting somebody because they THINK they might be armed. You are correct in one instance, Police should be disarmed, without any guns they wouldn't be able to kill as they do.
#108
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,264
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Bringerofrain
According to a Washington Post analysis, black Americans are disproportionately affected by police violence across the United States. The data refers specifically to police shootings and it relies primarily on news accounts, social media postings and police reports. Since January 01, 2015, 4,728 people have died in police shootings and around half, 2,385, were white. 1,252 were black, 877 were Hispanic and 214 were from other racial groups. As a share of the population, however, things are very different. Black Americans account for less than 13% of the U.S. population but the rate at which they are shot and killed by police is more than twice as high as the rate for white Americans.
Topic's author
#109
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
He's going to say that black people are more likely to commit crimes, I would know, he's already done it. 
#110
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@FLRW
I think it makes sense to track percentage shot by police interactions. If they are dealing with black americans more often than whites than it makes sense for the disproportionate shootings. 

I don't dispute that the black community is disproportionately affected. What I dispute is the fact police are blamed, when the police are less likely to act on prejudice than the general public. 


The problems facing the black community are a result of a lot of sociological and systematic problems, and by focusing on police we miss the real solutions to those problems.

Weakeredge already looked at disproportionate sentencing for example, but ignores that focusing on the police does not solve that problem. Not do focusing on the police solve how  much violent crime affects the black community. Or how much poverty which is a contributor to criminality affects the black community.
Attacking the policing community doesn't solve those problems, in fact it distracts from those problems and allows inequality to persist by allowing it to be ignored. Particularly since the police actually do an incredible job in this country, even if they are assholes.






#111
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Individual decisions are framed by what is and isn't allowed by a system, so yes, yes it is the fault of a system.
If the individuals framed their actions according to the system, they would act within systemic rules. That they do not act that way demonstrates that they act contrary to the system. If you're supposed to build a house, but your building ends up being a mailbox, you have failed to act according to the system. Why is that so hard to understand?
Topic's author
#112
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm saying that the people who acted racist acted within the police system.
#113
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
In the system, but not of the system. That they oppose the system does not imply that they hold themselves to act within the system; they act by their own agency. If the law says they are to wear blue, but they choose to dress in red underwear, hidden in the system, so to speak, is action of their own volition, not the system's.
Topic's author
#114
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
But the system allows them to wear red underwear and such, the same thing applies. Whenever something like a law enforcement agency with all of its powers allows things like prejudicial policing? That's dangerous.
#115
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
But the system allows them to wear red underwear
Where the system defines by what means an officer can detain a suspect that obviously precludes an officer applying his body weight focused on one knee on the neck of the suspect lying on the ground, pray tell how does that allow and officer to, so to speak, wear red underwear? That the officer, in that case, was physically able to perform that act, and even though his policy manual did not specifically prohibit a knee to the neck [it doesn't - I looked] it does prohibit his using physical force that would endanger the suspect's life, when all that is needed is to apply cuffs to hands behind the back and deposit the suspect in the backseat of the police cruiser, the officer has obviously violated that policy by his actions. He, therefore, acted outside the policy, and outside the system, although performing that action while on duty and in uniform. Is that so hard to understand? The system defined his appropriate action, but he acted, by choice [he was not coerced by policy] of his own volition. HE is at fault, not the SYSTEM.

So, no, the system did not allow his wearing of red underwear. He chose to do so on his own. The other officers also violated policy by not restraining the offending officer; guilt by ignoring proper restraint. They, also, violated policy acting outside the system.
#116
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
My understanding of the proposal is to split the funding for the police into at least two groups.

One group would handle traditional CRIME.

Police dispatches are typically about 14% directly related to an actual CRIME, and so, it is proposed that 14% of the current police budget should be allocated to this function.

The remaining 86% of police dispatches are for NON-CRIMINAL calls, and so, it is proposed that 86% of the current police budget should be allocated to peace officers with strong negotiation skills training.
Topic's author
#117
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Actually:

The 9-0 decision found the “reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.”

The fact of the matter is that police officers are bad at deciding when this is and isn't the case. The court and police system allows this to be the case anyways.

#118
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
The system cannot be blamed for individuals' actions, period.
THE PERFECT SCAPE-GOAT.

What you're describing is like a blind intersection.

Automobiles predictably collide in this blind intersection with orchestral regularity.

But the intersection is never redesigned or modified.

Because THE INDIVIDUAL DRIVERS ARE OBVIOUSLY TO BLAME.
#119
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
The fact of the matter is that police officers are bad at deciding when this is and isn't the case. The court and police system allows this to be the case anyways.
This is a perfect example of the utter and unmitigated failure of CONSEQUENTIALISM.
Topic's author
#120
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Um no. its a case of a system being unreasonable and training people systemically incorrectly. It could be a failure of consequentialism, sure, is it necessarily? No.