A vast majority of people calling for the defunding of the police force want a new police force with a better culture and that are trained differently. They are not calling for there to be no police available. The majority of ideas call for an increased investment in crime preventative measures and a new and less toxic police force. Again......... Again........ Again...........
and what is there in the interim? Nothing, apparently. And how are they going to rebuild the new force with no funding for it? Recall step 1 in these proposals: defunding. Rebuilding would actually take MORE funding, not less. You still have the same ongoing costs, plus all the costs creating the change. So, they're working against what they say they want (not helpful). I'm not disagreeing with what YOU are saying...I'm saying if that's what they mean, talking about 'defunding' or 'disbanding' is not helping. The opposite in fact...its creating opposition to what they actually want to have happen. So, either they're just grandstanding (not helpful), they aren't good at saying what they mean or want (not helpful), or they actually do want to just defund or disband the police (not good), or they just haven't really thought any of it through at all (not good). What they want might be good...what they're doing about it isn't. I for one would be in favor of police reform. Now, I'm against their proposals because clearly they haven't thought about it much at all...and something like this requires some thought to be given to it. Ie its a knee jerk reaction to a problem, and knee jerk reactions almost always create issues bigger than the one they were reacting to...thus making the problems worse, not better. I'm against worse. Is anyone really in favor of worse?
They disbanded the police department in Camden, NJ and crime dropped significantly. It just seems like you are making up what it looks like as this scary thing where criminals can run amok. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/police-reform-ideas-united-states-george-floyd-1.5601990
Which Republicans are those? Because I talk to lots of Republicans, and not one of them falls into that category, at all. Not one I've heard or talked with supports 'these scumbags'. They do feel they need to defend themselves from the very attitude you convey here, though, talking the discussion away from what was supposed to be the real issue. So, you know what's stupid? Adding additional false stereotypes into an issue all about false stereotypes, thus derailing any meaningful conversation or resolution. Yep, that's stupid.
So in their steps, they ask for representatives to be present to make recommendations to the MPD. Sounds good.
It's not a stereotype that Republicans back law enforcement, wtf are you talking about? Conveniently you didn't address the proposed reform ideas either. But these are the scumbags I speak of again, per the article: "The proposal is expected to ban police chokeholds and racial profiling, require nationwide use of body cameras, subject police to civilian review boards and abolish the legal doctrine known as qualified immunity, which protects police from civil litigation, according to congressional sources." "Democrats hope to bring the legislation to the floor of the House of Representatives before the end of June. But its reception in the Republican-controlled Senate is unclear, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell noncommittal on the need for legislation." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...form-proposal-after-floyd-death-idUSKBN23F161 When you have millions of people worldwide protesting for change and your answer is "noncommittal on the need for legislation" you're the ****ing scum of the earth.
Yet you are posting "knee jerk" responses criticizing "knee jerk" proposals, without even beginning to understand what is involved in the "defund police" discussion. This is the opposite of promoting constructive conversation. So the purpose of my post is to castigate you. Because you are full of ****.
Did you read what the councilman said? They will not defund until they have a viable plan in place. They would fund a new revamped police force and no one has said that long term funding for limiting crime would be decreased. The issue is the term "defund" or "disband". What the vast majority of reformers are proposing are substantive changes, with a police force existing but with a different culture, different training and different objectives for some of the funding such as crime prevention. There are some radicals that want the complete removal of a police force but they are in the vast minority. I have to see what they come up with before I have a strong opinion. What I do know is that this isn't a knee jerk reaction to the extent that police misconduct has been a concern for many decades and there has been a need for substantive and philosophical change.
And here is more reading material for you, if you really want to learn more about Minneapolis.. https://bringmethenews.com/minnesot...wont-be-quick-will-likely-require-public-vote
https://www.city-journal.org/abolish-police-call-to-action Abolish the Police? A dangerous new idea is inspiring some criminal-justice activists. Christopher F. Rufo December 26, 2019 The latest call to action from some criminal-justice activists: “Abolish the police.” From the streets of Chicago to the city council of Seattle, and in the pages of academic journals ranging from the Cardozo Law Review to the Harvard Law Review and of mainstream publications from the Boston Review to Rolling Stone, advocates and activists are building a case not just to reform policing—viewed as an oppressive, violent, and racist institution—but to do away with it altogether. When I first heard this slogan, I assumed that it was a figure of speech, used to legitimize more expansive criminal-justice reform. But after reading the academic and activist literature, I realized that “abolish the police” is a concrete policy goal. The abolitionists want to dismantle municipal police departments and see “police officers disappearing from the streets.” One might dismiss such proclamations as part of a fringe movement, but advocates of these radical views are gaining political momentum in numerous cities. In Seattle, socialist city council candidate Shaun Scott, who ran on a “police abolition” platform, came within 1,386 votes of winning elected office. During his campaign, he argued that the city must “[disinvest] from the police state” and “build towards a world where nobody is criminalized for being poor.” At a debate hosted by the Seattle Police Officers Guild, Scott blasted “so-called officers” for their “deep and entrenched institutional ties to racism” that produced an “apparatus of overaggressive and racist policing that has emerged to steer many black and brown bodies back into, in essence, a form of slavery.” Another Seattle police abolitionist, Kirsten Harris-Talley, served briefly as an appointed city councilwoman. Both Scott and Harris-Talley enjoy broad support from the city’s progressive establishment. What would abolishing police mean as a practical policy matter? Nothing very practical. In The Nation, Mychal Denzel Smith argues that police should be replaced by “full social, economic, and political equality.” Harris-Talley, meantime, has traced policing’s origins back to slavery. “How do you reform an institution that from its inception was made to control, maim, condemn, and kill people?” she asks. “Reform it back to what?” If cities can eliminate poverty through affordable housing and “investing in community,” she believes, the police will become unnecessary. Others argue that cities must simply “help people resolve conflicts through peace circles and restorative justice programs.” Police abolitionists believe that they stand at the vanguard of a new idea, but this strain of thought dates to the eighteenth-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that stripping away the corruptions of civilization would liberate the goodness of man. What police abolitionists fail to acknowledge is the problem of evil. No matter how many “restorative” programs it administers, even a benevolent centralized state cannot extinguish the risks of illness, violence, and disorder. Contrary to the utopian vision of Rousseau and his intellectual descendants, chaos is not freedom; order is not slavery. In the modern world, civilization cannot be rolled back without dire consequences. If anything like police abolition ever occurred, it’s easy to predict what would happen next. In the subsequent vacuum of physical power, wealthy neighborhoods would deploy private police forces, and poor neighborhoods would organize around criminal gangs—deepening structural inequalities and harming the very people that the police abolitionists say they want to help. Even Scott, when pressed by a local journalist about how he would respond to a shooting in his district, conceded that “we live in a world where it’s not possible to turn anywhere for help on big questions like this but to the police force.” Reform the police? Sure. Abolish them? Never. Christopher F. Rufo is a contributing editor of City Journal, documentary filmmaker, and research fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Wealth & Poverty. He’s directed four films for PBS, including his new film, America Lost, which tells the story of three “forgotten American cities.” Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
That was a great vid. Oliver did a great job presenting the argument. I get the point about police unions being a problem, and I would like for the restructuring of the police departments to happen. But there does need to be a union for police officers. They deserve to have someone looking after their interests as well.
Sounds like you and Rufo are misrepresenting or at best misunderstanding the idea. Perhaps you both can watch the John Oliver clip.
Who is the Triggered group now? You guys on the right are so easy to troll. The "defunding" of police forces is a play to create leverage and send shock waves up to the leadership of police forces that WE taxpayers pay your salaries, and our city counsels are your bosses. Not the police so-called "unions" and the politicians in Washington who could give two sh$ts about your pension. Nobody honestly thinks that someone wants to have a city where if you're husband is beating you, you cannot call a public safety official to come to your aid. You guys are suckers, and obviously easy to troll with this campaign. The city counsels have the power of the purse, and they damn well should put their power to use to make sure that the police forces in their community are actually protecting and SERVING their local community rather than being a politically motivated military insurgency. The "Defund the Police" tactic has worked like a charm. You guys want your money and your pensions, you better realize how that money gets in your bank account in the first place.
So do the fine folks working Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and every other private sector company. I also wouldn't mind them getting a good old fashioned pension plan instead of the shitty 401k's a lot of companies offer.
That's a strawman argument and a problem when people latch onto a phrase versus the actual policy. I've stated this in a post right above this - Camden had a high crime rate and disbanded their police, replacing it with a different kind of force. The result has been a dramatic reduction in crime. PS please don't misquote me - especially out of context. My point being is that a professor isn't setting the definition or the policy around police reform. John Oliver is providing political commentary - and while he uses satire he is still considered a legitimate journalist.
Only if the TV comedian has a better understanding than those posting in a basketball bbs and those writing the commentary posted on that bbs.
I fully support renegotiating charters with labor unions with the reforms that this movement proposes but I think the slogan is stupid and misleading. Or maybe it's misleading on purpose for some dumb cities pull an "oospie". In any case, the messaging sucks and no I don't want to always watch youtubes to "get it". Nor do I expect busy people to always be on top of it. It's usually the opposite, and one of the biggest reasons Democrats face voting "upsets" when organized marketing swings electorate sentiment to the other direction at the right time. They're just biding their time and waiting for emotions to die down.
I am having difficulty identifying the strawman argument that "that's" is referring to--particularly when the author provides links to a large number of sources that he is referring to, including: http://cardozolawreview.com/are-police-obsolete-police-abolition/ http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/1613-1649_Online.pdf http://bostonreview.net/podcast-law-justice/tracey-l-meares-vesla-m-weaver-abolish-police https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/police-brutality-cop-free-world-protest-199465/ https://www.thenation.com/article/a...-full-social-economic-and-political-equality/ https://socialistworker.org/2017/10/04/what-we-need-instead-of-police So if you could provide a bit more assistance with identifying the strawman, I'd appreciate it. good points about Camden NJ. But of course Camden replaced one police force with another police force. The did not abolish police--they successfully reformed their policing. Which of course was the very argument Rufo is making ("Reform the police? Sure. Abolish them? Never.") that you said is a strawman argument. fine. please don't be dismissive and disrespectful. You could have explained your "point" originally and avoided my confusion about what you were suggesting.
