Defund the police

[GMDino]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Willful ignorance.

If someone attacks the phrase "Defund the police" and they get information on what it means and it is explained to them and they continue to only focus on that phrase they are willfully ignorant and do not care about the reform measures only about keeping the status quo.

Same for those who quote one line out of context and then refuse to acknowledge the entirely of what was said.

Folks spent days defending Trump for whatever he "meant to say" about a variety of subjects even when his entire speech was shared, now they "know" what Biden meant despite his words being posted.

It's a shame, but it also a waste of time trying to explain further.

[*bfine32*]

(07-19-2020, 10:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Willful ignorance.

If someone attacks the phrase "Defund the police" and they get information on what it means and it is explained to them and they continue to only focus on that phrase they are willfully ignorant and do not care about the reform measures only about keeping the status quo.

Same for those who quote one line out of context and then refuse to acknowledge the entirely of what was said.

Folks spent days defending Trump for whatever he "meant to say" about a variety of subjects even when his entire speech was shared, now they "know" what Biden meant despite his words being posted.

It's a shame, but it also a waste of time trying to explain further.

Nah, the true ignorance comes from continuing to use a term that you have to always explain it doesn't mean what it really means. It means what you want it to mean. As I said: that's ignorance, I'm just not sure if it's willful or not. 

Do you think Joe Biden stated he's not for defunding the police because he's willfully ignorant or he's not for all those cool things?

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2020, 10:25 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you think Joe Biden stated he's not for defunding the police because he's willfully ignorant or he's not for all those cool things?

So do you agree with Biden or not?  Why are so many people obsessed with playing word gamnes instead of actually addressing the issues.

Biden has been clear about his position, but Trump has been so blatently lying about it that Fox News host Chris Wallace called Trump on the lie in a face to face interview.

How big of a liar does a Republican President have to be to be called out on a lie by Fox News in a face to face interview?  It has gotten to the point that we can't discuss policy because so many people just want to play word games. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-19-2020, 10:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Willful ignorance.

If someone attacks the phrase "Defund the police" and they get information on what it means and it is explained to them and they continue to only focus on that phrase they are willfully ignorant and do not care about the reform measures only about keeping the status quo.

Same for those who quote one line out of context and then refuse to acknowledge the entirely of what was said.

Folks spent days defending Trump for whatever he "meant to say" about a variety of subjects even when his entire speech was shared, now they "know" what Biden meant despite his words being posted.

It's a shame, but it also a waste of time trying to explain further.

This is where nuance matters.

Biden supports a number of the elements of “defund” in terms of pushing responsibilities to social agencies or programs to reduce the issues the police need to deal with.

However, he also supports increased funding for the police, just not in the form of military equipment or vehicles.

Some “defund” people support the first part but not the last. Some “defund” people support the first and also want to see the police entirely gone.

The cartoon I posted is obviously of the first group, though I also support the increased funding that Biden proposes.

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2020, 10:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What a shame Joe Biden's not in favor of that. 

What do you think Biden's position is?

Not word games, but actual policy?

[*bfine32*]

(07-19-2020, 11:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What do you think Biden's position is?

Not word games, but actual policy?

His actual position is exactly as he said. Of course he's not currently tasked with dealing with cities that have placed many of their citizen's lives and property at risk, by not allowing the Police to maintain law and order. Let's see where he stands when he has to do more than speak to garner votes. But he is currently not in favor of defunding police.

[CJD]

One of two things needs to happen.

1. They can either leave the policies, standards, expectations and behaviors of the police the same and significantly defund the police such that they can no longer splurge on military gear and protester suppression gear that is not required to do the job 99% of the time.
or
2. They can significantly increase the funding for the police to allow for significantly higher wages for police but, in exchange, they need to significantly increase the amount of training, education, standards, expectations and punishments for misconduct that the police undertake.


And here's my reasoning:

If you look at policing on the whole, it's not a very desirable job, especially in the current political climate. The pay is mediocre at best (and in a lot of cases, below average), it's relatively dangerous, you have to deal with a lot of really shitty people (drunks, addicts, criminals etc) and, more recently, you're treated like you're corrupt even if you aren't (at least actively corrupt. They are all to blame for the blue wall of silence.)

Basically, the only perk of being a police officer is that you get to have authority over people. Which, to be honest, isn't supposed to be a perk, it's supposed to be a responsibility. And "with great power, comes great responsibility" definitely should apply here. But what ends up happening is that the low benefits outside of this added authority makes the job more attractive to people who should not be given authority.

This has led to a pretty tricky situation nationwide. Essentially, the low desirability of the job has made it hard to hold a standard for police. Over the last decade, recruitment is WAY down and the attrition rate for police officers is higher than both nursing and teaching, two groups that constantly get attention for how few of them there are. And that's not to mention the fact that, in addition to the mental requirements for being a police officer (training, stress, responsibility in the form of authority), there are physical requirements as well, as you must be fit to be a police officer (at least in theory).

All of this leads to one of the main causes of what's going on today: Shitty cops are not being fired.
Look no further than Derek Chauvin. That guy had at least 18 separate complaints filed against him, according to internal affairs. This guy was, as a co-worker described “the guy not everybody liked or wanted to work with.” but yet was tasked with training two rookies...

Quote:Even on the police force, Mr. Chauvin was an outsider. He often partnered with a rookie he was training, exacting in his expectations. That was fine with veteran colleagues, who did not necessarily want to ride alongside him.

“Occasionally, he would seem a little cocky,” said Lucy Gerold, a retired police commander who knew Mr. Chauvin. He was, she said, “the guy not everybody liked or wanted to work with.”

The lack of staffing and applications to the police force allows people like Chauvin to remain a police officer even with all these blights on their records.

Logic would stand that, if you aren't replaced or fired for misconduct, then you would not be concerned with whether or not you are performing your job properly.

So, in order to increase the attractiveness of the position, I would recommend increasing salaries, increasing required training (a degree in some form of law or law enforcement should be absolutely required) and, as a result, increase the ability to actually remove police officers who are not fit for the job, as there would be people standing in line for the opportunity to be a police officer.

It should be a prestigious role in our society, but misconduct and lack of accountability has turned it into a place where too many of the people least equipped to do the job stick with it over the long term.



However, if they're not willing to do any of that, then just defund them so they're less deadly to civilians.

[Dill]

(07-19-2020, 01:59 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: If you look at policing on the whole, it's not a very desirable job, especially in the current political climate. The pay is mediocre at best (and in a lot of cases, below average), it's relatively dangerous, you have to deal with a lot of really shitty people (drunks, addicts, criminals etc) and, more recently, you're treated like you're corrupt even if you aren't (at least actively corrupt. They are all to blame for the blue wall of silence.)

Basically, the only perk of being a police officer is that you get to have authority over people. Which, to be honest, isn't supposed to be a perk, it's supposed to be a responsibility. And "with great power, comes great responsibility" definitely should apply here. But what ends up happening is that the low benefits outside of this added authority makes the job more attractive to people who should not be given authority.

This has led to a pretty tricky situation nationwide. Essentially, the low desirability of the job has made it hard to hold a standard for police. Over the last decade, recruitment is WAY down and the attrition rate for police officers is higher than both nursing and teaching, two groups that constantly get attention for how few of them there are. And that's not to mention the fact that, in addition to the mental requirements for being a police officer (training, stress, responsibility in the form of authority), there are physical requirements as well, as you must be fit to be a police officer (at least in theory).

All of this leads to one of the main causes of what's going on today: Shitty cops are not being fired.
Look no further than Derek Chauvin. That guy had at least 18 separate complaints filed against him, according to internal affairs. This guy was, as a co-worker described “the guy not everybody liked or wanted to work with.” but yet was tasked with training two rookies...

The lack of staffing and applications to the police force allows people like Chauvin to remain a police officer even with all these blights on their records.

A very thoughtful and insightful post. I just want to emphasize my agreement with this section.

I think about how difficult the job must be every time I see a video of someone refusing to get out of a car when asked politely, and the frustrating scenes which typically follow. (Don't people understand that police officers just cannot say "Oh, you have decided not to obey lawful police requests/orders? No problem. Drive on.")  I also recall a few encounters with police in which they seemed to revel in that "added authority." In our own community (Indiana, PA) I have seen an interesting change, though, as the young officers I have encountered in the last year have been exceedingly cordial and polite, almost like social workers.

I wonder if it is only lack of staffing and applications though. In some cases it seems like police unions promote bad behavior by protecting it. The Minneapolis Union would be a case in point, with the  union head openly embracing Trump for "removing the cuffs" from police, placed there by Obama.

[CJD]

(07-19-2020, 02:13 PM)Dill Wrote: A very thoughtful and insightful post. I just want to emphasize my agreement with this section.

I think about how difficult the job must be every time I see a video of someone refusing to get out of a car when asked politely, and the frustrating scenes which typically follow. (Don't people understand that police officers just cannot say "Oh, you have decided not to obey lawful police requests/orders? No problem. Drive on.")  I also recall a few encounters with police in which they seemed to revel in that "added authority." In our own community (Indiana, PA) I have seen an interesting change, though, as the young officers I have encountered in the last year have been exceedingly cordial and polite, almost like social workers.

I wonder if it is only lack of staffing and applications though. In some cases it seems like police unions promote bad behavior by protecting it. The Minneapolis Union would be a case in point, with the  union head openly embracing Trump for "removing the cuffs" from police, placed there by Obama.

Those videos are frustrating to me. I understand what the person's point is, especially when the cops want to search your call illegally ("I smell weed, time to search your entire car just to see if we can find anything!"), but there is no real resolution possible when you just refuse to comply with a police officer. There was one that recently came out where the guy is recording the cop opening his door and telling him to get out of the car and then, when the guy didn't, the cop counted to three and then said into the camera something like "watch the show folks!" and then ripped the guy out of his car. You can hear the cop saying "How you like that mother *****?! How you like that!" after the video cuts but the audio is still on. I don't really know what the correct solution is for when you're in the position of a cop abusing their power to search you. 

Here's the video: https://www.facebook.com/1001880689/videos/10220976824262619/

I think the union is definitely a problem, as I cited in reference to the blue wall of silence. Most unions protect the workers from the employer's abuse, but the police union mostly protects the workers from accountability. I don't know what steps need to be taken to reform that union, but something must be done.

Also, as an aside, I found this comic to be very interesting and I think it explains what "Defund the Police" generally means:

[BmorePat87]

(07-19-2020, 12:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

(07-19-2020, 02:46 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Also, as an aside, I found this comic to be very interesting and I think it explains what "Defund the Police" generally means:

[CJD]

(07-19-2020, 03:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

 
What, you expect me to read a thread that I'm commenting on? 

[fredtoast]

Who needs police when we have "a well regulated militia".

Just say that everyone who wants to own a gun has to join a militia.

It's the only reason we have a Second Amendment.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-19-2020, 08:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who needs police when we have "a well regulated militia".

Just say that everyone who wants to own a gun has to join a militia.

It's the only reason we have a Second Amendment.

A militia is utterly different from an LEO.  A sheriff could absolutely deputize militia members, but a militia, by the design of the framers, has no ability to enforce the law, but exist to protect the citizenry from threats without.  But you certainly knew that, right? 

EDIT: As an aside, we saw what happened when that little experiment was tried in CHOP. It's almost like being an LEO is a bit more difficult than having a gun and patrolling the community.

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-19-2020, 08:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A militia is utterly different from an LEO.  A sheriff could absolutely deputize militia members, but a militia, by the design of the framers, has no ability to enforce the law, but exist to protect the citizenry from threats without.  But you certainly knew that, right? 

EDIT:  As an aside, we saw what happened when that little experiment was tried in CHOP.  It's almost like being an LEO is a bit more difficult than having a gun and patrolling the community.

Hence the concept to reallocate funds from  LEO's who have too much on their plate. Arming them to the teeth with military equipment doesn't solve our problems. A squad of young LEOs in an armored vehicle with loaded lethal weapons and body armor sent in to deescalate a situation. Lolz yea...  "deescalate" 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-20-2020, 12:01 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Hence the concept to reallocate funds from  LEO's who have too much on their plate. Arming them to the teeth with military equipment doesn't solve our problems. A squad of young LEOs in an armored vehicle with loaded lethal weapons and body armor sent in to deescalate a situation. Lolz yea...  "deescalate" 

The "militarization" of law enforcement is entirely overblown.  The equipment described is almost never used.As for taking things off our plate, I'm quite sure every LEO in the US would happily never respond to a DV or 5150 call again in their lives.

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-20-2020, 12:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The "militarization" of law enforcement is entirely overblown.  The equipment described is almost never used.As for taking things off our plate, I'm quite sure every LEO in the US would happily never respond to a DV or 5150 call again in their lives.

"almost never used" is somewhat an issue. I want a well equipped police force. But maybe teaching the peace keepers how to kill and giving them the tools to kill isn't the best approach. Or maybe our training methods are incorrect.

I also pay attention to the local news and have seen shit like this before. 

https://www.fox19.com/2020/03/03/addyston-police-chiefs-purchase-machine-guns-drew-feds-attention/

I don't know how wasteful the spending actually is. I constantly hear crazy OT abuse accusations about local police, and I know military spending is just wasteful so I assume a lot of police departments have their share of waste. Apparently a lot of the heavy duty gear is hand me down from the military, but I assume there is a decent part of the budget for lethal weapons?

[fredtoast]

(07-19-2020, 08:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A militia is utterly different from an LEO.  A sheriff could absolutely deputize militia members, but a militia, by the design of the framers, has no ability to enforce the law, but exist to protect the citizenry from threats without.  But you certainly knew that, right? 

I thought the militia was supposed to be there to protect us from OUR OWN government?

That's what some guy I saw in Kroger with an AR-15 and a NRA shirt told me.

[fredtoast]

(07-20-2020, 02:56 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: "almost never used" is somewhat an issue. I want a well equipped police force. But maybe teaching the peace keepers how to kill and giving them the tools to kill isn't the best approach. Or maybe our training methods are incorrect.

I also pay attention to the local news and have seen shit like this before. 

https://www.fox19.com/2020/03/03/addyston-police-chiefs-purchase-machine-guns-drew-feds-attention/

I don't know how wasteful the spending actually is. I constantly hear crazy OT abuse accusations about local police, and I know military spending is just wasteful so I assume a lot of police departments have their share of waste. Apparently a lot of the heavy duty gear is hand me down from the military, but I assume there is a decent part of the budget for lethal weapons?

The start of local police getting body armour and high powered weapons was a bank robbery in Oakland where the robbers had greater firpower than the police.

that is slightly different than Riot Gear, but it is hard to argue against riot gear now that we have had violent riots non-stop across the country for the last 6 weeks.

Using riot gear against peaceful protestors is like Birmingham Police Chief Bull Conner using dogs and fire hoses against children and peaceful marchers.  It garners sympathy from the general public for the protestors.  That is what happened when Trump used federal muscle to clear a path for him to get a photo op at a church.  But citizens will have no problem with police having riot gear when they see mass destruction and burning in the streets.

I think this is a perfect example of "defunding the police".  The national guard should be used for riot control instead of local police.

[*Nately120*]

(07-19-2020, 08:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who needs police when we have "a well regulated militia".

Just say that everyone who wants to own a gun has to join a militia.

It's the only reason we have a Second Amendment.

In a cynical sense, I will say the whole "no one there to answer when you call 911" ad campaign is a hoot since it's coming from the politician of the "We don't call 911!" voter.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-20-2020, 08:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought the militia was supposed to be there to protect us from OUR OWN government?

That's what some guy I saw in Kroger with an AR-15 and a NRA shirt told me.

Potentially.  The Framers certainly saw an armed populace as a means of guarding against tyranny.  This is abundantly clear by their own words.  God help us if we ever get to that point, though.