Captured on video: Cops shoot and kill white man with hands up in Texas

Stop spit balling.

There doesn't need to be a discussion about whether we have outgrown the need for a police force. Save that nonsense for your equally radical and absurd friends.

 

The people whose ideas form the foundation of the country you and I are living in were once considered just as radical and absurd as you currently consider me.

So, if you don't wish to debate and discuss the reasons why you think the suggestion I made does not have merits, then save your nonsense for your equally narrow-minded and apologist friends.

 

Oh my god, that was a real suggestion?

 

Oh my god, you people really think you can do without a King. Har Har Har.

Edit:

Or without slavery, or without segregation, or with women voting, or without colonial masters, etc. etc. In other words, there are a lot of ideas that were once considered preposterous and radical, which are now the norm. So, unless you have reasons for why something is a bad idea, the mere fact that it is considered a radical idea is not a strong argument against the idea.

 

I honestly don't know how to respond to something that foolish. How do you explain to someone that sticking their hand in a fire is a bad idea? I mean, how would you even attempt to communicate with someone that is likely an adult that would need you to explain that to them in the first place?

 

I don't know, let's see, how about talking to them instead of belittling and trolling them.

Of course, that's your MO around here for a reason, isn't it. My guess is because, in an actual exchange of ideas, you know you don't have much to offer.

 

You just actually suggested that people have "outgrown" the concept of policing. Because I'm such a nice guy, I immediately assumed you were joking because clearly no one would actually think that.....I was wrong.

There's simply no way of sugar coating it, that's one of the least intelligent things I've ever heard, and I've hung around here the last few years.

I think if you go back and think about what you said for a little longer, you'll (hopefully) start to see the holes in it.

As to belittling your opinion, that's not my intention but you just came with an idea on the level of....well

Spoiler

 

Again, you aren't saying why it is such a terrible idea, just that it is. At least the old essays on why slavery, monarchy, segregation and the like were all necessary components of a functional society offered reasons and arguments why those who wished to abolish such practices were too radical or crazy. All you have to offer is gifs and memes.

A lot of people are tired of the negative repercussions of the way we are policed -- I am one of those people. I don't think I've come up with a fool proof plan for replacing police in my middle of the night short clutchfans post, but I thought it would be an interesting idea to suggest and see what sort of discussion and debate it might create.

If you have actual reasons for why what I suggested is an inherently bad idea and the current style of policing is a necessary part of society, by all means engage me in friendly debate and discussion. If all you have is belittling, dismissiveness and memes -- then just ignore me and move on.

 

Stop - you are trying to help him with an argument he is not even trying to make. So just stop trying for your own sake.

The objective evidence is that they are being mistreated - or at the very least treated by a different standard. The science is that blacks get treated differently by the criminal justice system. They get longer sentences, they are more likely to be arrested or searched than a white person, they are more likely to be pulled over or held in suspicion.

You can call it ok from your perspective, but to say that's objective is categorically false because it is your perspective which makes it subjective. You can't argue around it, by definition it is subjective because you present no empirical data. And what empirical data there is points towards a difference in treatment supporting the idea of mistreatment.

 

I'd put him second in my delusional power rankings, just behind GlenRice and ahead of Commodore. Basso and bigtexxx rounding out that top five.

 

Fair enough, I'll go point by point as to why your suggestion was so bad it caught be off guard last night.

First and foremost, you suggest here that we as a society have "outgrown the concept of policing", yet I'm pretty sure everyone knows that's simply not true. Society absolutely needs policing....if you remove the concept of policing all manner of horrible things would happen. Of course, you later talk about incorporating a type of policing in this very post, so it seems you don't even believe that so maybe we should move on

There are other methods of policing society, but unless you are about to talk about an honor system, it's still going to be a police system.

What do you consider victimless crime? Some would say prostitution is a victimless crime....until it leads to sex slavery. Some would say using drugs is a victimless crome....until it leads to all manner of awful things. DUI is a victimless crime right? I mean, no one gets hurt if someone is driving drunk....unless they hit someone.

To get to your number, I'd imagine a lot of not really victimless crimes would have to be legalized.....however, IMO this is the best part of your entire post. I'd actually support some reform making less things illegal.

The problem is, how much money does anyone want? The answer is always "more". Also, while speed trap cities are annoying....if you follow the law, you never have a problem. If you really want to decrease the amount of interactions between law enforcement and citizens, have people follow the law more often.

And this is where your post goes completely off the rails. You started out talking about society progressing past the concept of policing and now you are talking about creating little Bush League police forces.....basically the same exact system, only a more primitive form that would be much more susceptible to corruption and would be far more incompetent. This would be a defense attorney's wet dream, you'd very likely never convict anyone of any crime ever again.

No, I'm pretty sure the most terrible idea on the table is the one you just placed on the table.

 

Hey look, it is the king of the false equivalency.

It is so absurd it does not even need a response. Hey let's just cut off everyone's toes so they don't commit crime. Seem like a reasonable idea?

 

You named a few people off a huge list and weren't sure on half of them, nay most of your repudiations.
Well answer this:
Do they not essentially control the media, politics, and the money? You can not say no without lying. The implications are foul and innumerable. They own the sheep gentiles and are proud of it. That's really, really racist.

 

No there is not a unified ownership of media or financial services by some Jewish conspiracy. There is no Jewish pride meeting that talks about how they own the gentiles.

Some people who are jewish have been successful, but it isn't because they are Jewish, and they don't run things according to some non-existent Jewish agenda.

There is no control of politics either.

There are others on your list as well, I just stopped after naming enough to show that your list is full of holes.

 

You call me the "king of false equivalency" and then you equate what I was saying to chopping off people's toes to end crime.

If you have nothing to offer the conversation besides dismissals without any reasoning, then just ignore me and go on your way.

 

Look, I suggested cutting off toes to end crime. You know it may seem absurd to you, but people said the same thing about the people that founded this country. If you are going to dismiss my suggestion without any reasoning, then just ignore me and be on your way.

 

I'm not willing to waste my time on ignorance of facts.

 

Good job Bobby Magnus, you used your words, you made a couple good points that I can respond to -- why not just do that from the first next time and avoid wasting time and valuable hot air.

Yes, you are right, I misspoke. Considering the rest of my post, I clearly did not mean that we had outgrown policing, but only that we had outgrown the structure and style of modern policing. I think we need advanced community policing to replace the current top down style of policing.

I just re-looked it up and have to correct myself on this. I had thought 52% of people in prisons are in there for Drug offenses -- but that is only Federal prisons. Overall it is only 22% of the total pop that are in there for drug offenses. So, with that in mind, without legalizing a lot of non-vicimless crimes, as you say, the number won't get to 50% like I was saying, probably much closer to 30%.

Yeah, towns being rapacious for money is definitely a problem. But them funding themselves through fines causes them to give police officers quotas, and this leads to over policing of communities, increased touch points between officers and citizens, and thus increased opportunities for abuse of police power and police brutality.

Funny, with all the six figure and seven figure police brutality lawsuits that municipalities have paid out to citizens in the last several years, I thought we were already living in a defense attorney's wet dream.

What I am suggesting is very different than what we have today. You say my suggestion would lead to more corruption -- I think it would lead to a lot less. Police currently use asset forfeiture and no tolerance laws to enrich their departments and often themselves -- but, if your role as police is only temporary, you would have much less incentive to do this, since, the department you are enriching is not one you would be a part of for very long. Police also currently form relationships over years that causes them to cover up for each other's misdeeds -- which leads to corruption as well. Having temporary police officers would also counteract this.

Plus, right now a large percentage of officers come from outside the community. This leads to an increase in the Stanford Prison Experiment effect. Having temporary officers from inside communities would help counteract this.

The criticism of the idea that you levy that has the most merit is the accusation that the rotating officers would be "bush league". I did say people volunteering for rotation would need to be trained though. I mean, we trust reservists in the U.S. military, why not as police officers?

 

Ha, that was good.

Ok then, I am opposed to your suggestion of cutting off toes to end crime for the following reasons:

1) it is cruel and unnecessary (kind of like modern policing come to think of it).
2) it is counter productive, as it would cause massive dissent and insurrections as hundreds of millions of people in the country resisted the initiative.
3) it causes more harm than good -- people who can't commit crime can't do productive things either.

So, with your silliness out of the way, what are your reasons for why you oppose my suggestion?

 

A variety of reasons.

1. The massive size of the USA and the fact that we have such wide open availability to information. There are enough people associated with splinter groups that have a desire to hurt people. Be they left wing or right wing in nature. That doesn't even include terrorists.
2. Guns, they are everywhere. It would be very easy to steal, rob and kill people without a police force. Yes, people would do it.
3. We have not evolved. We still as a country kill people, have been at war for years. We are indifferent on a number of violent issues.
4. Having a pool of people that are randomly selected to be local officers for a short period of time has flaws. Who will want to do it? You are even risking less experiences officers and corruption can certainly still exist.


There needs to be a change in what is expected of the police force and there needs to be a change in what the role of police officers are within their own community. The point isn't to unnecessarily flex their muscle, but to diffuse the situation and be in touch with their community.

Your idea would be more likely to work in a small country, not the USA.

Without officers the violent crime rate would go up. Theft would increase, organized crime would more easily have control. Individuals would more easily be able to commit horrendous crimes that impact many people.