By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SpokenTruth said:
The irony of your last statement is why this will be my last response to you.

I have seen it from a different perspective...it didnt make much sense. Thanks for the conversation though.



Around the Network
CaptainExplosion said:

A fitting monument to a fascist.

Add some graffiti and being pelted by lots of produce and then it will be a fitting monument for him



KLXVER said:
sundin13 said:

Defunding the police is doing something. Our current policing and criminal justice systems are not the best ways to fight crime. We should invest in our communities to fight crime in healthy ways, instead of waging a war against them.

Pretty sure we already had this conversation, but that could have been someone else...

Also, I'm not sure if you noticed, but there is currently a global pandemic going on, which also has an effect on crime rates. Doesn't really make sense to compare this year to last when you are unable to account for the effect of the pandemic.

Its doing nothing but keeping the police morale down. Two officers were just killed answering a domestic disturbance call and you want psychologists and social workers to answer stuff like that instead. A simple speeding ticket can turn into shootout. We need the police. 

Ugh, yeah after this comment I'm pretty sure we have had this conversation before.

First of all, I'll start taking your whining about police morale seriously when they stop abusing their power. What about the morale of the people who are wrongfully beaten by police? Do they not matter? These issues are on them. Using their "morale" as a shield is complete bullshit.

Second, a large part of the reason why situations involving the police tend to escalate is because the police so readily turn to using force. You simply can't assume that encounters with a non-police force would go the same as encounters with a police force, when that is the entire point behind utilizing individuals properly trained to handle these kinds of incidents. That isn't to say that the job wouldn't be dangerous, but so is being a police officer. When your example of why we need police to respond to these incidents is dead cops, I find it hard to really see the difference sending out the police makes. Is your implication that dead cops are somehow a better outcome than dead social workers?



sundin13 said:
KLXVER said:

Its doing nothing but keeping the police morale down. Two officers were just killed answering a domestic disturbance call and you want psychologists and social workers to answer stuff like that instead. A simple speeding ticket can turn into shootout. We need the police. 

Ugh, yeah after this comment I'm pretty sure we have had this conversation before.

First of all, I'll start taking your whining about police morale seriously when they stop abusing their power. What about the morale of the people who are wrongfully beaten by police? Do they not matter? These issues are on them. Using their "morale" as a shield is complete bullshit.

Second, a large part of the reason why situations involving the police tend to escalate is because the police so readily turn to using force. You simply can't assume that encounters with a non-police force would go the same as encounters with a police force, when that is the entire point behind utilizing individuals properly trained to handle these kinds of incidents. That isn't to say that the job wouldn't be dangerous, but so is being a police officer. When your example of why we need police to respond to these incidents is dead cops, I find it hard to really see the difference sending out the police makes. Is your implication that dead cops are somehow a better outcome than dead social workers?

Most police officers are good people. Less than 50 unarmed people are killed by police every year. Thats with millions of interactions. Now that is still 50 people dead, so they could always try and better themselves. Which Im sure they do often. I would suggest mandatory bodycams 100% of the time they are working. That could make lesser cops know they are being watched and also evidence for officers when they need to take someone down. Not that its seems to be proof enough for some these days, but at least they would have proof they did the right thing.

Also its not about wanting to see police officers dead over social workers obviously. Its about sending the most qualified people to deal with a situation that can turn violent. Then when things are ok, you send in people to help.



KLXVER said:
sundin13 said:

Ugh, yeah after this comment I'm pretty sure we have had this conversation before.

First of all, I'll start taking your whining about police morale seriously when they stop abusing their power. What about the morale of the people who are wrongfully beaten by police? Do they not matter? These issues are on them. Using their "morale" as a shield is complete bullshit.

Second, a large part of the reason why situations involving the police tend to escalate is because the police so readily turn to using force. You simply can't assume that encounters with a non-police force would go the same as encounters with a police force, when that is the entire point behind utilizing individuals properly trained to handle these kinds of incidents. That isn't to say that the job wouldn't be dangerous, but so is being a police officer. When your example of why we need police to respond to these incidents is dead cops, I find it hard to really see the difference sending out the police makes. Is your implication that dead cops are somehow a better outcome than dead social workers?

Most police officers are good people. Less than 50 unarmed people are killed by police every year. Thats with millions of interactions. Now that is still 50 people dead, so they could always try and better themselves. Which Im sure they do often. I would suggest mandatory bodycams 100% of the time they are working. That could make lesser cops know they are being watched and also evidence for officers when they need to take someone down. Not that its seems to be proof enough for some these days, but at least they would have proof they did the right thing.

Also its not about wanting to see police officers dead over social workers obviously. Its about sending the most qualified people to deal with a situation that can turn violent. Then when things are ok, you send in people to help.

Just because "50 unarmed people are killed" each year, doesn't mean there are only 50 injustices comitted by the police force each year. People are beaten, unlawfully arrested and yes, even armed people can be the victims of injustice. But that in and of itself is only a fraction of the problem. I've spoken about this before (probably with you, but I don't remember), but a lot of the incidents we see where an officer takes a life or otherwise uses force in a manner which is deemed "justifiable", are also examples of poor policing. They are a result of a broken system. That is not necessarily on the individual officer who pulled the trigger, but they are a result of an entire system which is built upon force and militarism.

This point continues to your next statement. It is a reflection of a system which jumps to 10 too readily, and then (sometimes) tries to then wind it down, but that doesn't reflect the reality of many of these encounters. Many start at a 2 or a 3, but the presence of police inherently jacks that number up. Many of these situations start "ok", that is why I am advocating sending people who can keep them okay, instead of a force which regularly turns "ok" into "not ok". But to clarify again, these individuals would not be sent in when situations were high risk (or at least not sent in alone). This is not about replacement of officers, it is about doing exactly what you said: Sending the most qualified individual to deal with a situation. That individual isn't always an armed officer.

Here is a good article about how this works in practice in some areas where you see these changes being made. None of them have experienced the disastrous consequences you seem to be predicting:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/y3zpqm/these-cities-replaced-cops-with-social-workers-medics-and-people-without-guns

And again, social workers aren't the only alternate use of funds. I would say they aren't even the most important. The most important thing is to tackle crime at its root. Fight it at the level of poverty and education and housing, to help people avoid crime in the first place. We need to stop treating crime retroactively and start treating it proactively. This improves the well being of everyone and fights crime in a way which helps the community instead of waging a war on it.



Around the Network
coolbeans said:
vivster said:

That's not really getting to my point, though.

Do you think the department of agriculture would just ignore smaller states because they have less voting power? The federal government is supposed to consider every state when making decisions and distributing funding. So why would a bit more or less voting power change anything? Especially in a country that is so incredibly partisan that it doesn't matter where you come from but just which party you worship.

You make that claim but your phrasing between your previous comment & this question chain just read like you're branching off or clarifying.  Confusing claim aside...

-Considering the concomitant effects whenever one's power diminishes, yes.  Smaller states having their voting power dampened implicitly communicates that any federal department does & will have the capacity to 'ignore' them even further.

-By the very fact of having less sway in who said people ought to be in making top-down decisions.  In a country where federal power continuously increases, that's going to be a big deal (which is a key focus on your '95%' claim from before).  

So I was absolutely right  in thinking whatever the US does isn't politics.

Maybe it's just where I'm coming from but that "continuously increasing federal power" is an absolute joke. If it actually exists, as you claim, then it's apparently worthless because it's never used where it matters. All of the important decisions are pushed to the states.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

sundin13 said:
KLXVER said:

Most police officers are good people. Less than 50 unarmed people are killed by police every year. Thats with millions of interactions. Now that is still 50 people dead, so they could always try and better themselves. Which Im sure they do often. I would suggest mandatory bodycams 100% of the time they are working. That could make lesser cops know they are being watched and also evidence for officers when they need to take someone down. Not that its seems to be proof enough for some these days, but at least they would have proof they did the right thing.

Also its not about wanting to see police officers dead over social workers obviously. Its about sending the most qualified people to deal with a situation that can turn violent. Then when things are ok, you send in people to help.

Just because "50 unarmed people are killed" each year, doesn't mean there are only 50 injustices comitted by the police force each year. People are beaten, unlawfully arrested and yes, even armed people can be the victims of injustice. But that in and of itself is only a fraction of the problem. I've spoken about this before (probably with you, but I don't remember), but a lot of the incidents we see where an officer takes a life or otherwise uses force in a manner which is deemed "justifiable", are also examples of poor policing. They are a result of a broken system. That is not necessarily on the individual officer who pulled the trigger, but they are a result of an entire system which is built upon force and militarism.

This point continues to your next statement. It is a reflection of a system which jumps to 10 too readily, and then (sometimes) tries to then wind it down, but that doesn't reflect the reality of many of these encounters. Many start at a 2 or a 3, but the presence of police inherently jacks that number up. Many of these situations start "ok", that is why I am advocating sending people who can keep them okay, instead of a force which regularly turns "ok" into "not ok". But to clarify again, these individuals would not be sent in when situations were high risk (or at least not sent in alone). This is not about replacement of officers, it is about doing exactly what you said: Sending the most qualified individual to deal with a situation. That individual isn't always an armed officer.

Here is a good article about how this works in practice in some areas where you see these changes being made. None of them have experienced the disastrous consequences you seem to be predicting:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/y3zpqm/these-cities-replaced-cops-with-social-workers-medics-and-people-without-guns

And again, social workers aren't the only alternate use of funds. I would say they aren't even the most important. The most important thing is to tackle crime at its root. Fight it at the level of poverty and education and housing, to help people avoid crime in the first place. We need to stop treating crime retroactively and start treating it proactively. This improves the well being of everyone and fights crime in a way which helps the community instead of waging a war on it.

Well if it actually has been proven to be working, then I wont argue it. I have never even heard about these initiatives. I still have doubts about them, but if it means less dead people, then fair enough.

I agree with tackling crime at its root. First thing is to not reward single parent homes. The government needs to back off on that one. Lots of people growing up without a father figure in the home. That can easily make the kids not respect authority figures, like the police. 



KLXVER said:

I agree with tackling crime at its root. First thing is to not reward single parent homes. The government needs to back off on that one. Lots of people growing up without a father figure in the home. That can easily make the kids not respect authority figures, like the police. 

First thing? I'd put that more around #60 on the priority list personally. But even still, I have the feeling that our ideas for how to tackle this issue are vastly different. Before I jump to any conclusions, how exactly would you like the government to do this?

PS: You know what else can make kids not respect authority figures like the police? Police misconduct...



sundin13 said:
KLXVER said:

I agree with tackling crime at its root. First thing is to not reward single parent homes. The government needs to back off on that one. Lots of people growing up without a father figure in the home. That can easily make the kids not respect authority figures, like the police. 

First thing? I'd put that more around #60 on the priority list personally. But even still, I have the feeling that our ideas for how to tackle this issue are vastly different. Before I jump to any conclusions, how exactly would you like the government to do this?

PS: You know what else can make kids not respect authority figures like the police? Police misconduct...

Absolutely first thing. Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FszQelEQ2KY

99.999% of the time there is a killing involving a police officer, its someone resisting arrest. Why would you ever do that? There is zero in it for you. I dont understand that kind of thinking. No matter how bad the police officer is, they dont just kill you if you act respectful towards them. 

Last edited by KLXVER - on 19 July 2020

Bofferbrauer2 said:
CaptainExplosion said:

A fitting monument to a fascist.

Add some graffiti and being pelted by lots of produce and then it will be a fitting monument for him

Without the real people from this picture involved. :p (i assume they are posing, right?)

But yeah it might be fitting but also a showing why everyone is so divided today,instead of a mockery they could have spent a lot of time in trying to have decent conversations.