A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
If you don’t think that many of the protestors calling for defunding the police think they’re supporting exactly that: defunding the police, then I believe you’re mistaken.
My experience with mysterious camo clad “police”
- Thread starter DrHoops
- Start date
The term of “defund the police” will be used against every Democrat. Those that adamantly and convincingly deny the slogan and the literal intent will be hurt less by it. Hopefully, Biden can be adamant and convincing.
It’s a fact that some are. I listen to POTUS on SeriusXM a lot and I’ve heard guests and callers make it clear that is exactly what they mean. Democratic politicians have to make it clear they don’t support the slogan or its literal meaning.
I forgot, women aren’t allowed to do what they want. They need their man to tell them what they can and can’t “investigate”.
I think this is more difficult than it seems. While most people don't support a literal reading of "defund the police," quite a few seem to support something that is sort of "defund"-adjacent, which is the idea being thrown around that we put too much responsibility on the police, and a lot of their duties could be diverted to other agencies. Obviously, that would necessarily include diverting some resources from the police proper to these other agencies, as well, and it's very difficult to make that case without someone hearing it as "defund."
I agree that’s what most reasonable people mean, but they’ve been saddled with an unreasonable slogan which Democrats will have to work hard to overcome. Smart Republicans should (will?) make the actual reallocation case. They aren’t saddled with the literal slogan. Of course the true Trumper politicians won’t make that case. They’re saddled with Trump and will ride it to the bitter end.
The truth is that defund the police has a lot of merit to it, but in practice will be difficult to implement. In many of the communities cops are the only people equipped and capable of going in. They are simply too dangerous. I guess in theory it could be not defund the police but augment the police where social workers etc accompany the police or have a police escort, but that’s more money, not less or equal. No easy answers.
Agreed.
However, it IS scary when any type of police force doesn’t identify itself. If they have the right to use coercive force & end a life, they damn well better identify themselves.
I don’t think that’s asking for too much. Anything less means that we now have secret police patrols. That’s a bridge too far for me, and it SHOULD be for every American citizen. It’s a breakdown of the rule of law.
Side note- if these unidentified officers were coming into your neighborhood, unidentified, how would that make you feel? Especially if they tended to “stop and frisk” you often, and often followed you around for no clear reason? Don’t forget that they’re almost always super aggressive with you and your neighbors, and often question you like you’ve done something wrong.
Its very ironic that the “law and order” crowd seems to think this type of stuff is OK. I’m not saying it’s many on this board, but it’s obvious that there are a few. Law and order means nothing if it doesn’t include the rule of law.
You’re my hero too. Can you be my wingman next time I need to go out in public?
I agree that it's hard to see implementation happening, but I also am not sure that it would really accomplish much. I guess having fewer police interactions will necessarily reduce the opportunities for things to go bad, but I have two problems with the idea:
1. I'm skeptical that most bad police interactions start from the type of situation that would, under some new regime, be handled by non-police, and that the lack of police would prevent any sort of escalation that would necessitate the police to get involved, anyway.
2. I doubt that removing from the police some of their responsibilities is going to magically make the police better at the parts of the job they retain. However many "bad apples" we have, we will still have, and we still have to do something about that.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I would say that eliminating the police unions may start in the right direction but that’s probably a non-starter. I distrust politicians so much that I can see politically-driven firings of cops based on controversial incidents before any evidence comes into play.
Your explanation is what many politicians say and many others think can be done to make “defund” more acceptable. While some “emergency” calls might only require a response from animal control or social services, that determination often isn’t possible until after the response happens.
It costs a lot of money to train and support a certified police officer these days. I’m fully on board with using more efficient alternatives to some duties—like speed and red light cameras. But even that is objectionable to many people.
Like cries of “abolish ICE” demands to defund the police means exactly that. The politicians who don’t want to lose the votes of the defund advocates speak in terms of shifting spending priorities. But that really means taking uniforms off the streets no matter how you talk about it.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Do you think that a mailed speeding ticket is likely to be paid by the same kind of person that would go batshit crazy at a traffic stop or will the unpaid tickets result in warrants and door knocks on said citizen’s doors?
Unpaid tickets, whether penalty assessments issued in person or through the mail can result in a warrant being issued. I have no idea how often that happens. My guess is that if the offender is stopped again, and the officer finds an outstanding warrant on his computer, an arrest would happen.
What’s the problem with unmarked vehicles? If anything, this summer of riots has shown that marked vehicles are a magnet for bombs and bats wielded by dumbasses. Seems like unmarked vehicles are a legit deescalation effort.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Exactly. And we’re right back where we started. The resistance to police starts and stops with the cop and the subject. Both have work to do. No system will fix this.
That's exactly right. Usually the first moments of a cop/subject contact sets the stage for all that follows.
As a society we are now demanding more accountability and more deescalation from the officers while while asking for less accountability and enabling more resistance from the subjects. We have got to stop blaming the police first and stop telling ourselves that more training or less militarization is an answer. More guns, more drugs, more alcohol, and more disrespect of authority than ever before is at the root of most of the contacts gone bad.
Last edited:
No, the more I think about it, the fact that one (or more) actually spoke, plus the fact they let you observe their vehicle for a time (traceable license numbers etc.) makes me think they were NOT feds.
It may be difficult to tell if they were wearing helmets and Covid masks, but did they look closer to 35 years old than 25 years old? Feds always seem older.
Pussed out, you say? Wow.
Had he gone over there instead of the girlfriend, sexism would have dictated they knock the shit out of him on sight or they would have used the good cop/bad cop technique of giving him diametrically-opposed instructions while taking turns yelling at him for not complying with both impossible instructions.
Why wouldn't they do this to the girlfriend? Here's the answer:
You wrote: "I listen to POTUS on SeriusXM a lot...."
I just want you to know that Mike Pence, his family's pet rabbit and I are praying for you.
He is the one who says he “pussed out”. Read his story and comprehend.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You’ve seen too many movies. 9 times out of 10 a Florida license plate outside of the southeast of a rental vehicle. If they were feds they’d rent a vehicle or have a fleet of them.
What? POTUS is the channel on SiriusXM - POTUS is Politics Of The United States . . .
