Author Topic: Defund the police  (Read 3036 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2020, 01:26:04 PM »
No dodging.  What did you mean?

Defunding the DOE is not defunding Education.  Education is primarily funded at the local and state level.  The Federal Government shouldn't even be involved.

I thought you were making a point, but apparently you're just using memes to restate the left belief that the Federal government should be expanded to pay for everything all the time.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2020, 01:31:08 PM »
I thought you were making a point, but apparently you're just using memes to restate the left belief that the Federal government should be expanded to pay for everything all the time.

Of course it should, then they can standardize everywhere which is technically a good thing. But it also means they only have to take over one organization to impose their doctrines on everyone else, instead of 50+ separate ones.

"(individual) community standards" don't exist in their world, for them there is only one community standard that matters- theirs.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 01:33:42 PM by TheDeamon »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2020, 01:50:35 PM »
I would agree with the above. Police services with regards to how their rules and SOP should be consistent as well their must be a consistent way to hold them accountable. Most other professions have such measures in place. 

If we want to do better we have to think of better ways of doing things.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2020, 02:25:20 PM »
No dodging.  What did you mean?

Defunding the DOE is not defunding Education.  Education is primarily funded at the local and state level.  The Federal Government shouldn't even be involved.

I thought you were making a point, but apparently you're just using memes to restate the left belief that the Federal government should be expanded to pay for everything all the time.

Tomato, tomato. If there are $X in education, and you remove $Y, then X-Y < X. Reducing government is not the same as not expanding it. Unless perhaps you are suggesting that the states would subsequently add $Y back in to the budget, which seems highly unlikely.

You could equally say that you are not actually defunding the police by the removal of some of the $4.7 billion doled out to state and local law enforcement. I expect that supporters of the police would call it defunding the police. (reworded by edit)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2020, 02:54:05 PM »
I would agree with the above. Police services with regards to how their rules and SOP should be consistent as well their must be a consistent way to hold them accountable. Most other professions have such measures in place.

Except I think you're not listening if you believe the above.  Police serving a poor community need to follow very different standards to serve that community in the way it wants and needs.  Those police officers need to move past an idea that they are there to "protect" the rest of the city from that community and understand they are they to protect that community.

National standards are even worse that the top level local "standards" we impose today.  Less responsive.

The entire message of this protest is about being heard at the most local level, and you think even more top down management will do that?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2020, 03:01:58 PM »
Tomato, tomato. If there are $X in education, and you remove $Y, then X-Y < X. Reducing government is not the same as not expanding it.

It's fundamentally different.  It's as different as keeping what you grow in your field versus surrendering it all to the "bossman" who gives you back the portion they think you need.  The Feds should not be taxing you to take money they then give back to you on education.

Quote
Unless perhaps you are suggesting that the states would subsequently add $Y back in to the budget, which seems highly unlikely.

State budgets are a mess.  They will stay a mess until we fundamentally reform the ability to make future commitments.  A politician should only be able to agree to what they are funding from their budget for pensions, not promise that the state will lock up 40 years of its budgets to pay generous pensions while that politician themselves doesn't have to put anything in.

We've allowed politicians to build their power bases for decades by selling the future and now that "future" has come and our budgets no longer have "discretion" in them.  Everything is a mandate.

Quote
You could equally say that you are not actually defunding the police by the removal of some of the $4.7 billion doled out to state and local law enforcement. I expect that supporters of the police would call it defunding the police. (reworded by edit)

Again, not clear to me that police should be "defunded," rather they should be right sized and we should carefully consider if reallocating money, personnel and time to other functions would be a better benefit.  We are asking the police to be generalists prepared for anything.  Why not have specialists for domestic situations?  Or specialists for dealing with drug and alcohol addicts?  People that come to the situation already knowing a good bit about what's going on?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2020, 03:10:00 PM »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2020, 03:49:16 PM »
My point is that Trump and Trumpians constantly want to take money away from the organizations that they believe are not doing a good job. As if having less money will help them do better.

Here's defunding education, it is not the school choice you advocate.

link

Defunding public education is long overdue. There was a court case in St. Louis where a judge ruled the government had to pay whatever it took to bring a poorly performing school up to standards. After millions of dollars were spent on swimming pools, computer equipment, auditoriums, and assistance of all kinds, the school stayed under standard and it was proved that money is not everything. Betsy DeVos spent decades working on school choice programs and seeing the results of many different studies. Now, when she brings up any positive ideas, she is bullied and insulted as an anti-public schools person. It's not the students with some people, it is the power and money they control that matters to them.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2020, 06:00:49 PM »
Quote
To that effect, the old man has to move forward, he should have returned home, but in any event he is not entitled to maintain his space in that circumstance.  Now the police should have arrested him instead of pushing him.  The way they've used this tactic historically has been to be a violent moving wall triggering a mob to panic, flee and disperse.  That's heavy handed.  The alternative would be what?  To zip tie, arrest and leave a pile of hogtied protestors behind themselves.  Is that what should occur?

Resolve for me how the police enforce the law, without causing the harm.  I agree beating the crowd and old men into submission is unacceptable, but I think you have to agree that non-compliance and preventing the police from clearing the street is also unacceptable.  So what's the solution?

So you're telling us, Seriati, that you can't think of a single way the police could have moved a 75-year-old man off the streets without shoving him to the ground and possibly killing him?

If you had to move a old man off your driveway, you couldn't have done better?  You couldn't have asked him, one last time, to move?  You couldn't have put your shield lightly against him and pushed gently?  You couldn't have moved around him and have some cop behind you take care of him?  Poked him gently with your baton?  Take him by the arm and lead him forward?

No, the only thing you could have thought of was shoving him with you shield and hope he was spry enough not to fall on the concrete and crack his head open, or break a hip, or any of the other things that make people panic when they see a septuagenarian fall.

But, of course, it would be his fault, wouldn't it, because he didn't obey a lawful order of a policeman.  And, as we all know, the penalty for not obeying the lawful order of the police is death.  Because regardless of the infraction, if you don't obey a police officer, he has the right to injure or kill you.

And you wonder why people are protesting on the streets.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #59 on: June 09, 2020, 07:07:08 PM »
Blanket curfews are questionably constitutional: I can't help but wonder why so many simply acquiesce to an overly broad restriction on first amendment rights, and excuse police violence on those grounds.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

We've seen, time and again, evidence that the police have used curfew laws to violate all of these clauses of the first amendment.  Yet somehow, a solitary old man, clearly exercising his freedom of speech and his right to peaceably assemble, is in the wrong for not 'returning home' and for not kowtowing to the police threatening him with violence.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #60 on: June 09, 2020, 07:29:44 PM »
Blanket curfews are questionably constitutional: I can't help but wonder why so many simply acquiesce to an overly broad restriction on first amendment rights, and excuse police violence on those grounds.

I think you might find there are SCotUS rulings which will back them "in the event of civil unrest."

For which rioting would certainly qualify, and from there the temporary suspension of certain civil rights becomes justifiable according to SCotUS.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #61 on: June 09, 2020, 07:34:15 PM »
https://law.jrank.org/pages/5925/Curfew-Adult-Curfews-Strict-Scrutiny.htm

Quote
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this right may be legitimately curtailed when a community has been ravaged by flood, fire, or disease, or when its safety and WELFARE are otherwise threatened. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 1271, 14 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1965). The California Court of Appeals cited this ruling in a case that reviewed an order issued by the city of Long Beach, California, which declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews on all adults (and minors) within the city's confines after widespread civil disorder broke out following the Rodney G. King beating trial, in which four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of using excessive force in subduing an African-American motorist following a high-speed traffic chase. In re Juan C., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 919 (Cal. App. 1994).

"Rioting, looting and burning," the California court wrote, "pose a similar threat to the safety and welfare of a community, and provide a compelling reason to impose a curfew." "The right to travel is a hollow promise when members of the community face the possibility of being beaten or shot by an unruly mob if they attempt to exercise this right," the court continued, and "[t]emporary restrictions on the right… are a reasonable means of reclaiming order from ANARCHY so that all might exercise their constitutional rights freely and safely."

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #62 on: June 09, 2020, 07:50:49 PM »
Of course there are exceptions, but the laws must be narrowly tailored. 

What happened in Long Beach in 1994 was not at all equivalent to what is happening nationwide, or even specifically in Buffalo, where the vast majority of demonstrators are not posing a threat of violence.


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #63 on: June 09, 2020, 10:18:57 PM »
So you're telling us, Seriati, that you can't think of a single way the police could have moved a 75-year-old man off the streets without shoving him to the ground and possibly killing him?

If you had to move a old man off your driveway, you couldn't have done better?  You couldn't have asked him, one last time, to move?  You couldn't have put your shield lightly against him and pushed gently?  You couldn't have moved around him and have some cop behind you take care of him?  Poked him gently with your baton?  Take him by the arm and lead him forward?

This has nothing to do with what Seriati wrote. What he wrote is that in the final calculation the police have the need to apply force on people who will not move. Now I would agree with you that in this case that was not a good example of judgement on what kind of force to use (assuming it was needed at all). So this is not a poster case for what the police 'needed to do'. But I think Seriati was arguing that in and of itself being 75 years old does not give you special permissions to ignore a police line and the consequences of that. But I agree, that doesn't mean it's carte blanche.

Quote
But, of course, it would be his fault, wouldn't it, because he didn't obey a lawful order of a policeman.  And, as we all know, the penalty for not obeying the lawful order of the police is death.  Because regardless of the infraction, if you don't obey a police officer, he has the right to injure or kill you.

I think it's reasonable to ask how much contribution a person had to a situation, without having to answer the charge that you're saying it's "his fault".

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #64 on: June 09, 2020, 10:44:57 PM »
Interesting read from an ex cop

https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop-bb14d17bc759

Reading this now, and I have some reactions to it which are pertinent to our previous exchange, msquared. I'll offer some quotes and then say a thing or two:

Quote
One night during briefing, our watch commander told us that the city council had requested a new zero tolerance policy. Against murderers, drug dealers, or child predators?

No, against homeless people collecting cans from recycling bins.

See, the city had some kickback deal with the waste management company where waste management got paid by the government for our expected tonnage of recycling. When homeless people “stole” that recycling from the waste management company, they were putting that cheaper contract in peril. So, we were to arrest as many recyclers as we could find.

This is exactly what I was saying before: there are systems that go up the ladder but also laterally, and money definitely comes into it. This quote is a great example not of cops thinking they're above the law, but of the cops 'being fed' by various influences in the system, including corrupt politics. All of this trickles down and informs how cops will behave in the end. It's hard to put the main focus on dirty cops when at the same time they're literally being instructed to be SOB's to serve some agenda.

Quote
We used to have informal contests for who could cite or arrest someone for the weirdest law. DUI on a bicycle, non-regulation number of brooms on your tow truck (27700(a)(1) of the California Vehicle Code)… *censored* like that. For me, police work was a logic puzzle for arresting people, regardless of their actual threat to the community. As ashamed as I am to admit it, it needs to be said: stripping people of their freedom felt like a game to me for many years.

Now here is when we get into the toxic behavior at street level. But interesting word choice here: contest. Contests, you see, usually have prizes. In the case of the police there are also conversely penalties for *not* engaging in the contest, which we've seen with quotas and things like that. The NYPD have been known in various neighborhoods to fudge what an actual incident is on their report because they need to fill a quota in another category. So bad behavior: yes. But motivated by what? It can't simply be that they aspire to be gods; there is feedback forming this mentality that turns them into this. And yes, part of it is cops who were bad seeds from the start. More on that in a moment.

Quote
I know what you’re going to ask: did I ever plant drugs? Did I ever plant a gun on someone? Did I ever make a false arrest or file a false report? Believe it or not, the answer is no. Cheating was no fun, I liked to get my stats the “legitimate” way. But I knew officers who kept a little baggie of whatever or maybe a pocket knife that was a little too big in their war bags (yeah, we called our dufflebags “war bags”…).

This is a thing 'everyone knew' but no one would admit into evidence in a normal conversation. It's like, we know it happens, but treat it anyhow like an urban myth. But if the cops all know about it, so do the chiefs, and no doubt so do the prosecutors. And if they go along with it, then who else knows and goes along with it? Again, systemic, not individual bad behavior alone.

Quote
I wrote scathing accounts of their behavior, thinking I was helping keep bad apples out of law enforcement and believing I would be protected. Instead, the academy staff read my complaints to them out loud and outed me to them and never punished them, causing me to get harassed for the rest of my academy class. That’s how I learned that even police leadership hates rats. That’s why no one is “changing things from the inside.” They can’t, the structure won’t allow it.

So who do these 'academy staff' answer to? Do they have to report to the city captain? And does he report to the mayor? Or how do the actual instructors get the idea that this is what they should be teaching? It couldn't happen if they didn't have the distinct idea that they would not only get away with it, but that this was going to be good for their careers.

Quote
The majority of my time in the academy was spent doing aggressive physical training and watching video after video after video of police officers being murdered on duty.
I want to highlight this: nearly everyone coming into law enforcement is bombarded with dash cam footage of police officers being ambushed and killed. Over and over and over.

This is part of militarization, which is necessarily a systemic thing (it's not a clique of cops on the street level requisitioning tanks).

There is some other stuff later about "sheep vs sheepdogs" and other mechanisms for establishing an us vs them mentality; more in the 'militarization' category IMO. He goes on also to say a lot about DON'T SPEAK TO OR TRUST COPS. I've read many articles over the years to that effect, although personally I disagree with it. For all my grievances, I typically assume an officer most of the time just wants to establish that the situation is under control; often it's not true, but often it is. If I talk to them like a person and am friendly, that really makes them happy most of the time, so "refusing to talk" is usually a bad strategy IMO, as it automatically makes the situation confrontational. If they want to, at that point, they can and will concoct a reason to give you trouble. You do not want that.

Quote
Police officers do not protect and serve people, they protect and serve the status quo, “polite society”, and private property. Using the incremental mechanisms of the status quo will never reform the police because the status quo relies on police violence to exist. Capitalism requires a permanent underclass to exploit for cheap labor and it requires the cops to bring that underclass to heel.

This is a highly editorial comment of his, rather than a statement of factual observation. But to whatever extent you believe him, this points, again, towards a systemic control system of which the cops are merely a lower-tier cog. They may have some pull of their own, union and captains, and whatnot. But at the end of the day this power structure is WAY bigger than they are, and if they didn't suit it they would be quickly swept up in its wake. If they are the way they are, it means they are working as intended in some manner. As the system is complex, there could be various feedback mechanisms in play; some power players may be at odds with them regularly, while others are much more pleased with their performance. But the aggregate result is that if they were a significant impediment to the system's goals the relevant parties would curb them immediately. So that lends credence to his POV here.

Quote
No more civil asset forfeiture. Did you know that every year, citizens like you lose more cash and property to unaccountable civil asset forfeiture than to all burglaries combined? The police can steal your stuff without charging you with a crime and it makes some police departments very rich.

This isn't related to the broader point I'm making, msquared, about the police fitting neatly into a bad power structure, but I threw it in anyhow since I've been railing against this for years and thought I'd just scowl again on principle.  >:(

Quote
A WORLD WITH FEWER BASTARDS IS POSSIBLE

This is the title for a section that does not actually address the philosophy of "fewest bastards possible", but I'm quoting it because it does imply a baseline principle that in his opinion seems to be a fundamental idea. It's easy to talk about 'stats on this' and maybe 'police effectiveness of that', but when looking at a society we often need to choose a top priority. Reducing bastardism would be a very different fundamental principle from, say, maximum GDP. Now, a 'maximum GDP' principle might well be served by having an effective police force, but it also carries all sorts of other baggage, and might well result in various structures that do not serve a "reducing bastardism" principle. In fact, for all we know the reality might be that more money is made (for some reason) when people are bastards to each other, in the marketplace and on the street. I don't know, but I'm 100% certain neither does anyone else either. There might even be more money made for the poor and disenfranchised classes. But reducing bastardism, again just as an example of an overriding principle, would have different effects. Maybe it means GDP goes down; maybe it means less control from the top-down on policy; who knows. But maybe it's more important to make the world a better place to inhabit than to make it have more fancy restaurants. Either way this goes to the top, because it's surely not the bad dudes on the police force who can create policy or establish law.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #65 on: June 09, 2020, 11:01:25 PM »
Now here is when we get into the toxic behavior at street level. But interesting word choice here: contest. Contests, you see, usually have prizes. In the case of the police there are also conversely penalties for *not* engaging in the contest, which we've seen with quotas and things like that. The NYPD have been known in various neighborhoods to fudge what an actual incident is on their report because they need to fill a quota in another category. So bad behavior: yes.

From what I'm aware of through a sibling who dispatches for the police, at least as it relates to where I am. Most of the reporting metrics that are being tracked at the city/state/federal level are being "coded" by her dispatch center(and they can, sometimes do, mis-code things, if they get them entered into the system in the first place--like a community near where I am saw "a sudden uptick in incidents" that made some local headlines. But what really happened was they changed who was responsible for doing the reporting). Obviously the officer reports from on site factor into it as well, but so do the actual calls to dispatch where applicable.

But generally speaking, your take on the guys write-up hits a lot marks even for the "good" police operations. Up to and including a prior mayor who thought the city PD were his own personal enforcers to do as he directs. She had the occasion to field some of those phone calls, luckily the Chief fought back, and the City Council backed the police department in that case, but those things do happen.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 11:04:15 PM by TheDeamon »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #66 on: June 11, 2020, 11:24:04 AM »
A slice of history.  Kenneth Clark added comments in the Kerner Report, commissioned by Congress after the 1968 riots:

Quote
The Kerner Commission ended its final report with a note of exasperation. Kenneth Clark, whose research had informed the Brown decision, provided the commission’s coda. “I read that report … of the 1919 riot in Chicago, and it is as if I were reading the report of the investigating committee on the Harlem riot of ’35, the report of the investigating committee on the Harlem riot of ’43, the report of the McCone Commission on the Watts riot,” he had testified to the committee.

“I must again in candor say to you members of this Commission—it is a kind of Alice in Wonderland—with the same moving picture re-shown over and over again, the same analysis, the same recommendations, and the same inaction.”


I heard Republican Senator James Lankford on NPR this morning talking about Senate Republicans and Democrats coming together to propose legislation for police reforms and national standards.  It sounded pretty reasonable, as far as it went.  The question is whether it will really be any different this time.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #67 on: June 12, 2020, 12:40:43 PM »
Seattle Times: More businesses fearing property damage hire private security guards in wake of protests

You want to defund the police, prepare for the era of the mercenary security team. Coming to your neighborhood soon.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #68 on: June 12, 2020, 01:50:01 PM »
Not just stores. Gun shops and sales are through the roof here, waiting lines everywhere. Logical or not, people are unsettled by watching law enforcement stand by while groups of people take over and/or burn private property.

I'm awaiting my background check to go through before going to get the handgun I purchased earlier in the month, hopefully today.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #69 on: June 12, 2020, 02:25:23 PM »
Hard pass.  My home owner's association can barely manage timely snow removal on the roads.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #70 on: June 12, 2020, 02:27:16 PM »
I'm curious how many of those new purchases are, "I'm afraid the police won't protect me and my property!" vs "Holy *censored*, those 2nd amendment types may have been onto something!"  :P

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #71 on: June 12, 2020, 02:57:27 PM »
I'm curious how many of those new purchases are, "I'm afraid the police won't protect me and my property!" vs "Holy *censored*, those 2nd amendment types may have been onto something!"  :P

The first basically is the second, even if they don't want to admit it. The 2nd Amendment types have always said you should be able to have a gun in the event you're unable to receive a "timely response" from law enforcement when it come to defending yourself, your property.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #72 on: June 12, 2020, 03:06:25 PM »
I'll rest easy knowing that all of those new gun owners are highly trained in the maintenance and operation of their shiny new toys.  If they don't want to get training, they probably should use at least a 9mm weapon and aim for the head, like John Wick does, else it can take up to 6 direct hits to stop someone.  This ignores that they might kill you or they or you might kill other members of your family or bystanders.  So make sure you're close enough not to miss and aim carefully while concealing yourself behind a suitably solid defensive shield.

And whatever else you do, please don't come anywhere near me while carrying your weapon.  I wouldn't want to provoke you unintentionally and have anyone suffer the consequences.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #73 on: June 12, 2020, 03:14:13 PM »
Well there's a big plank in the 2A platform that has to do with overthrowing the government when it becomes tyrannical.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #74 on: June 12, 2020, 03:48:16 PM »
Exactly.  If the two sides got together they could get better volume discounts on bullets and insignia.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #75 on: June 12, 2020, 09:05:26 PM »
I'll rest easy knowing that all of those new gun owners are highly trained in the maintenance and operation of their shiny new toys.  If they don't want to get training, they probably should use at least a 9mm weapon and aim for the head, like John Wick does, else it can take up to 6 direct hits to stop someone.  This ignores that they might kill you or they or you might kill other members of your family or bystanders.  So make sure you're close enough not to miss and aim carefully while concealing yourself behind a suitably solid defensive shield.

And whatever else you do, please don't come anywhere near me while carrying your weapon.  I wouldn't want to provoke you unintentionally and have anyone suffer the consequences.

You should teach firearm safety course, your guidance sounds a lot more interesting than the one I’m signed up for. Don't know about you, but I’m really not the provoking nor easily provoked type, accidental or otherwise. Kind of the opposite, actually. And seeing as I know you'd maintain at least 6 feet away for distancing purposes, I suspect we'd have an entirely pleasant interaction.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #76 on: June 12, 2020, 10:17:07 PM »
Quote
Don't know about you, but I’m really not the provoking nor easily provoked type, accidental or otherwise.

90% of car drivers think they're above average.  That includes many who have been in accidents they were responsible for.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #77 on: June 12, 2020, 11:37:21 PM »
I'm going to take Scott's word for his competence, I don't see any need to undermine him with that statistic. It also ignores the fact that people below average can still be competent and safe. Nurses might rate themselves above average in sanitary procedures, but a number of them who are below average will still be very skilled.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #78 on: June 13, 2020, 07:33:39 AM »
I'll say that 90% of my posts are on target, but this one counts as a miss that hit an innocent bystander.  I have no reason to doubt ScottF's comment about himself, so I apologize for making it seem that I was aiming at him. 

The comment was more directed at the wider group of white Americans who once again are rushing out to buy guns to protect themselves in response to the protests.  That echoes the explosion in gun purchases in response to Obama's election, who coincidentally was also a black man.  There are already far more guns in the hands of US citizens than there are citizens.  Since training in the use of a gun isn't required in order to buy one, I'll claim that many, if not most, of them believe that the mere possession of a gun makes them competent to use them in a highly charged emotional situation.  For them, my comment on how to use it stands.

Also, I'm a bit jealous of ScottF's intention to move to Canada.  I filled out the Canadian immigration survey a few weeks ago and learned that I'm not eligible to move there permanently.  So, no matter Biden's qualifications, I'm all in on him for the long haul.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #79 on: June 13, 2020, 08:52:03 AM »
Quote
The Minneapolis City Council on Friday, 18 days after the death of George Floyd, unanimously passed a resolution to replace the police department with a community-led public safety system.

The police union contract expired last January. Two days ago, the police chief withdrew from all negotiations.

It very much looks like we’ll watch a major American city go through an ending of law enforcement.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #80 on: June 13, 2020, 08:58:22 AM »
That's a misreading of the situation.  None of the cities or states reviewing police funding are saying that law enforcement should be abolished.  I'll leave it to you to try to figure out what they actually are trying to do.  I'll engage with you on this if you make a good faith effort to explain what you think is going on.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #81 on: June 13, 2020, 09:57:44 AM »
Quote
San Francisco police will no longer be called to settle disputes between neighbors, or to handle homeless people, or any non-criminal cases, according to a new plan announced by Mayor London Breed.

Given their homeless problem, it’ll be interesting to watch this play out. Of course, being on your own with neighbors that are less than neighborly means you’re likely to find yourself in a “might makes right” situation. Good luck with that.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #82 on: June 13, 2020, 10:17:21 AM »
The New York Times, “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police”.

Maybe we should believe them.


Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #83 on: June 13, 2020, 10:42:13 AM »
The New York Times, “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police”.

Maybe we should believe them.

The old spot theory smear.  One person speaks, she therefore speaks for all Democrats.  Except she's not a Democrat and she speaks only for herself.  But she is black, so maybe she speaks for all blacks and because she is black all blacks want to abolish the prison system.

How about we flip the playbook?  All Republicans are white and armed with "assault-style rifles, handguns, ammunition and body armor" and running down protesters in their pickup trucks.. White Republicans just want to kill blacks.  The old spot theory works every time.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #84 on: June 13, 2020, 10:43:27 AM »
I'm not surprised you're too lazy to read beyond a headline. Even the fox News article explains what the author advocates, including a 50% reduction in budget. Not 100%.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #85 on: June 13, 2020, 03:23:45 PM »
I did resd the article. The “trust me, I'm lying” defense is not very effective.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #86 on: June 13, 2020, 08:44:39 PM »
I unsubscribed to Sam Harris' podcast some time ago but his recording from yesterday "Can we pull back from the brink?" is compelling. He rails on Trump, who he absolutely despises but also proceeds to touch basically every third rail topic around the current protests, riots, etc.

His concern is that productive dialogue is the only thing standing between violence and civilized society but dialogue has become dangerous by anyone not advocating accepted conclusions. He then very methodically breaks down a mass of numbers around overall violent crimes, police arrests, etc. and lays out data that even I found surprising.

He goes out of his way to acknowledge and condemn all the worst things (inequality, present day racism, its historical impact, police brutality, etc.) but states that much of the current narrative simply isn't supported by the data. At one point he says something to the effect of "what I'm about to say will make many of you indignant and ask why the f&ck are you doing this Sam?". His point that indignation is a horrible excuse not to examine facts and its a trap that people and the media are falling into.

Worth a listen if you can stand to have some of your preconceptions challenged.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmgxtcbc4iU

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #87 on: June 15, 2020, 04:18:05 AM »
ScottF, I tried, but I don't have 1:52:59 to spend listening.  How about you summarize the highlights...?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #88 on: June 15, 2020, 07:46:32 AM »
Quote
A majority of truckers are vowing to halt deliveries to cities that defund or disband their police departments, according to a recent poll.

Seventy-nine percent of truck drivers said they felt their safety would be at risk if they had to deliver to a city with a disbanded police department, according to CDL News, a website for the commercial trucking industry.

Would we force the to do the deliveries?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #89 on: June 15, 2020, 08:11:56 AM »
"seventy-nine percent of truck drivers" :D.  You have a talent for finding the most authoritative "news" sources :).  What about 84% of dentists who won't clean protesters teeth?  That's even more than "seventy-nine"!

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #90 on: June 15, 2020, 10:05:16 AM »
Quote
A majority of truckers are vowing to halt deliveries to cities that defund or disband their police departments, according to a recent poll.

Seventy-nine percent of truck drivers said they felt their safety would be at risk if they had to deliver to a city with a disbanded police department, according to CDL News, a website for the commercial trucking industry.

Would we force the to do the deliveries?

Good thing very few people are seriously proposing disbanding police departments. Generally what is meant by defunded is taking funds from the police and giving it to social workers to deal with homeless people and some people with mental health issues. But not all of their funds, but reduce the workload on cops to deal with things their ill equipped to deal with and hire people who specialize in that. Let cops focus on criminals, not just the homeless and mentally ill.

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #91 on: June 15, 2020, 10:19:06 AM »
ScottF, I tried, but I don't have 1:52:59 to spend listening.  How about you summarize the highlights...?

I did listen to the whole 1:52.

He does have some valid points, I've to say. Also some things I think he quite missed, but Ill try to summarize his points as far as I groked them before saying my take.

Basically, it's point is quite similar to the point made by Pinker and other humanists/rationalists that when the left does not recognize the strides forward we made over the course of history (thanks largely to those enlightenment values of rationality and humanism) with careful peaceful step-by-step reforms and gradual demographic replacement of old attitudes with new point of views and insists in tribalist "us vs them" emotionally satisfying simplistic measures, the left is really shooting itself in the foot and reinforcing, if not the actual right-wing sides of society, at least their entrenched beliefs.

In the specific case, he says that currently (he specify, in the last 15 years... not talking of the previous situation) more than an attitude problem of the police, there are structural problems at the root, like the ongoing war on drugs, the strong economic dis equality and entrenched poverty of the black share of the population and the related crime problem.
He makes the point that really, the kind of violence we've seen is constantly going down, and correlating that to the other statistics about crime, most of the current perception of an epidemic(!) of violence, is mostly an artifact of larger access to more direct information.
Also that the tribal identity culture exacerbate mistrust of authority that create a vicious circle of violence by instigating it with non-compliance.

There are also other points (the risk that a militarized disaffected police plus a large share of scared conservative citizens plus the current disregard for anything that does not benefit him of the current POTUS could mean a strong authoritarian turn for the US a la Weimar Germany), the observation that purity tests stifle the debate on any topic related to certain topics instead of finding the most practical solution to problems, and other that I surely forgot over the almost two hours of monologue, but i think i got the main ones.

Oh, and of course the weakening of everything we are doing to contain the virus just to not appear to criticize the protests.

Well, I think that on one hand he have valid points: yeah, the tendency to fall in purity tests about the dogma du jour is one of humanity failure modes that the left is definitely not immune to (also one of the defining traits of the right, of course... stupidity and authoritarianism are powerful universal forces).
Also the media do tend to focus a bit too much on the dramatic while forgetting the good news, and its a well known widespread cognitive bias that make it so that people will pay much much more attention to bad news than good news.
And people are bad at math and statistics and science (it's the reason we had to invent the scientific method before really getting anything done).
And probably, if we are not very lucky, a lot of people among the most vulnerable shares of population are going to suffer and maybe die in the coming future, due to covid-19, due to worsened economic troubles, lost livelihoods, ruined neighborhoods, increased conflict with the police and so on.
And we also know how a certain person will try to play all of this, maybe unsuccessfully, but maybe successfully.

The things I thinks he misses, is how all his rational discourse depends on being an educated well-off white male.
It does not means that he's not right, but expecting the level of dispassionate rationality that he can maintain while sitting comfortably in his privileged home from people that are actually suffering right now in the streets, is quite unrealistic.
When you deal with the forces of change in a society, you work with the forces that are right there, not the forces you wish were there.

And the forces that we have right now are the pent-up rage of the dispossessed, exacerbated by the scare for the pandemic, for the perception of inequality, for the fear for the future, for the witnessing of constant injustices, and the guilt of the empathetic well-off, that do know they got it light, but still see the situation and search for ways to help.

Because he may be not wrong, but neither the protester are.

Racism *is* still a very real problem, and while a post-racist no-color future is our common target, we are far from there.

The statistics he cites comes from the same sources that are under accuse right now: things may be not as bad as the protests depict it, but they are still quite bad, and increased transparency and reforms are sorely due.

And while violence is definitely not the true-final answer (I don't know how many revolutions actually did attain what they set out to do, but very very few), a credible *menace* of revolution have done wonders for driving the most stingy 0,01%-ers in accepting social reform.

Especially, his talking out it's not useful: he's not credible, he does not talk the right language, so his message will not arrive to those that do need it, and will instead be used, selectively stripped of the nuances and weaponized, by those that see it as only a rhetoric tool to hit the protesters.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #92 on: June 15, 2020, 11:15:45 AM »
The things I thinks he misses, is how all his rational discourse depends on being an educated well-off white male/

Fizz, I think you're missing something major here: you're stooping to the level of judging a message only by who's saying it. You can make that same argument on literally any topic: you can only argue what you're arguing because it took being who you are in your own situation to be in the situation to say it. Yeah, that's called *reality*. I know you didn't quite mean it this way, you're talking about 'privilege', but making that objection in particular is basically ignoring Harris' entire philosophical outlook, which is that there is an scientifically objective set of realities involved in situations that are not just up to opinion. Disagree with that and there's no point commenting on the rest. But accept that, as least as a working premise when understanding his statements, and then it doesn't matter who's speaking, only whether they're correct.

Quote
It does not means that he's not right, but expecting the level of dispassionate rationality that he can maintain while sitting comfortably in his privileged home from people that are actually suffering right now in the streets, is quite unrealistic.

This isn't really a helpful critique unless your idea is that no one currently at home should be talking about this at all.

Quote
And the forces that we have right now are the pent-up rage of the dispossessed, exacerbated by the scare for the pandemic, for the perception of inequality, for the fear for the future, for the witnessing of constant injustices, and the guilt of the empathetic well-off, that do know they got it light, but still see the situation and search for ways to help.

Because he may be not wrong, but neither the protester are.

Your two above statements contradict each other; if he is not wrong, then what he is critiquing in the protests is wrong. He's questioning the factual basis for their complaints about violence, so if he's right they're at least not entirely right.

Quote
Especially, his talking out it's not useful: he's not credible, he does not talk the right language, so his message will not arrive to those that do need it, and will instead be used, selectively stripped of the nuances and weaponized, by those that see it as only a rhetoric tool to hit the protesters.

Well now this is a different point: Harris isn't 'hip' in the sense of not being part of this particular movement. But that should be taken as a given since he's under attack from them much of the time, if I understand the situation correctly. You may as well critique Dawkins for not talking the right language of the Church, so that his message will not arrive to religious people. Well, yeah, but he's not really talking to them.

Look, I'm not a Sam Harris fan, and I only had a chance to watch part of the video so far (I think I'll try to finish it tonight), but if we're going to object to his ideas then it should be the ideas we object to, which I often do. "He's a white privileged dude" is not a critique that I can take seriously in the marketplace of ideas.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #93 on: June 15, 2020, 11:21:30 AM »
Thanks for the summary fizz. When you say he's not credible, are you saying he doesn't have credibility because of his identity, or for some other reason?

If it's the former, that's actually one of his main points. Any time a conversation can only be one-way because one of the voices isn't the correct identity, it's a bad thing and we're screwed.

He's saying one can acknowledge gaps in their own personal experience and yet still have valid and data-driven points of view on how to properly define the problem. The issue is there are many on the left who disagree with that on its face. Unless you're a member of group X, any ensuing opinions and conversation are null and void. Your role in that scenario is to simply listen and/or possibly kneel.

Acknowledging that racism and inequities are real, while also stating simple facts and data that are counter to the current narrative (e.g. blacks are not over-represented in police killings, quite the opposite) is not allowed. Until the media, which drives the narrative, takes ownership and responsibility, there is no solution in sight.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #94 on: June 15, 2020, 12:14:05 PM »
Quote
A majority of truckers are vowing to halt deliveries to cities that defund or disband their police departments, according to a recent poll.

Seventy-nine percent of truck drivers said they felt their safety would be at risk if they had to deliver to a city with a disbanded police department, according to CDL News, a website for the commercial trucking industry.

Would we force the to do the deliveries?

Good thing very few people are seriously proposing disbanding police departments. Generally what is meant by defunded is taking funds from the police and giving it to social workers to deal with homeless people and some people with mental health issues. But not all of their funds, but reduce the workload on cops to deal with things their ill equipped to deal with and hire people who specialize in that. Let cops focus on criminals, not just the homeless and mentally ill.

But if we don't focus on the extreme voices we might actually stop and attempt to address problems.

Its been fascinating when a side in a argument chooses to associate 'one voice' as being the voice of the whole and when they reject the idea that one voice (bad apple) represents the whole. A starting place to dialog might be to recognize this cognitive dissidence

 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #95 on: June 15, 2020, 12:16:12 PM »
Quote
blacks are not over-represented in police killings, quite the opposite

This continues to be wrong, unless you know something I haven't seen. People of color are more likely to have an interaction with the police, aka fitting the description and stop and frisk. Once they have an interaction, they are more likely to be killed. I can dig up references if you like.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #96 on: June 15, 2020, 12:29:58 PM »
Quote
blacks are not over-represented in police killings, quite the opposite

This continues to be wrong, unless you know something I haven't seen. People of color are more likely to have an interaction with the police, aka fitting the description and stop and frisk. Once they have an interaction, they are more likely to be killed. I can dig up references if you like.

Agree. I'm guessing he was going with the super simplistic that more white people are killed by police than black people. But as a percentage of the population, if my memory is correct, blacks are 2 to 3 times more likely to be killed by police.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #97 on: June 15, 2020, 12:31:48 PM »
Quote
blacks are not over-represented in police killings, quite the opposite

This continues to be wrong, unless you know something I haven't seen. People of color are more likely to have an interaction with the police, aka fitting the description and stop and frisk. Once they have an interaction, they are more likely to be killed. I can dig up references if you like.

Agree. I'm guessing he was going with the super simplistic that more white people are killed by police than black people. But as a percentage of the population, if my memory is correct, blacks are 2 to 3 times more likely to be killed by police.

It doesn't stop there, of course.  Once arrested, blacks are subjected to far more harsh treatment and sentencing.  Their lives are less valued at every stage in the judicial process.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #98 on: June 15, 2020, 12:35:58 PM »
Quote
blacks are not over-represented in police killings, quite the opposite

This continues to be wrong, unless you know something I haven't seen. People of color are more likely to have an interaction with the police, aka fitting the description and stop and frisk. Once they have an interaction, they are more likely to be killed. I can dig up references if you like.

If you leave out context of data points such as percentage of population then the idea of being  'over-represented' can be easily miss-represented. 

That said key question here is why are people of color more likely to have a interactions with the police and how much of that interaction is due to bias and or racism within the system?

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Defund the police
« Reply #99 on: June 15, 2020, 12:51:51 PM »
Now I've not the time to dig further on the topic, so I'll try not to pursue it further (I used up most of my "not working" share of time for the week on the video and on my comment to it! :-p)

In my point on the credibility, I mean credibility toward those that he says he's talking to, so, in this case, the protesters.

His discourse, by advocating moderation to not poke the authoritarian bear, make sense only if those that would listen to him are the very same protesters, otherwise he would be doing some other kind of rhetoric trick.

And at this moment in history, considering the actual situation and not an ideal theoretical situation, to those protesters he would come out as non-credible.

After all, Aristotle himself considered establishing a bond with the intended public a fundamental part of rhetoric, and "being right" was only a part of it.

This is a point that intelligent people often forget: if your target is persuading someone and not simply validating yourself and being able to say later "I told you so", "being right" is only a part of what you must take into account (with the occasional relapse(!) I mostly have given up on trying to persuade people of anything, I've not the knack to it, and after a certain quota of "I told you so" you start to annoy people :-p).

(I also read with some quick google digging that he have an history of making deliberately provocative arguments to get attention, but I don't know this for direct experience, so I'll limit myself to report is an additional information).

Anyway, asides apart, as I've said, I recognize he have a lot of good points.
He also have some dubious points that would benefit from some cross-examining, especially the part regarding the data.
And while doing some quick nods to them, he does not pay sufficient attention to the good points of those he's criticizing, and to the current events and status of things.

Thus, the way he choose to express his worries, imho, do go contrary to the stated intention of improving the state of the debate.

Quote
Agree. I'm guessing he was going with the super simplistic that more white people are killed by police than black people. But as a percentage of the population, if my memory is correct, blacks are 2 to 3 times more likely to be killed by police.

He actually uses the argument that while they are killed more compared to the percentage of the population, the are killed much less compared to the percentage of crimes committed by black people.
This *could* be a valid link to his argument that most of the form that racism takes now came mostly from the economic inequality and thus the crime rates etc. etc., but it's not so obvious that he can takes it as a given, especially considering the stats he's using comes directly form the police themselves, and the current laws as are designed.
Also, he does recognize that most of the things that are being requested by the protesters are quite right: demilitarizing the police, be done with the war on drugs, reform the prison system, reinforce social services, fight inequality in general... but as it's not his focus, he's a bit quick on these points, so opening himself to being used as an argument by the usuals.

Oh, he also have a problem with identity politics: his argument is that, as police according to their job expect quick and instant compliance, always, if a share of the population make an identity point of showing non-compliance and distrust, they are going to get targeted with more violence purely as a direct consequence of their behavior. It sounds vaguely plausible, but before presenting it as a fact, it would require a lot more stats and studies, that he does not present properly. And without a specific study, it sounds only as one of those "just-so" stories that are often used to defend the status quo.