Thought for the Day

[fred41]

...But I still I want to live in a society where there are laws, there are people to enforce them, and those who are found guilty in a court of law are made to be punished for their crimes.

Yeah, public safety is a fundamental tenet of civilized society. Without it, it’s very difficult to accomplish...anything. It’s probably up there on what people think tax dollars should provide. So I just want to hear what other folks think would be a better alternative.

[broncofan]

I've seen these views on twitter and I don't understand it. I don't want to live in a society without police or where it's okay to vandalize random businesses because police officers engage in misconduct, including murder. There needs to be serious reform in some of these police departments and frankly I've never understood how obvious abuses of power even short of assault are tolerated. As soon as police officers start ordering people around in ways that have nothing to do with their job and everything to do with their ego you know you have a problem.

I also really don't understand a culture where you're given a set of laws to enforce, but then feel more loyalty towards those you serve with than the laws they've broken. I understand police have tough jobs and camaraderie is important but loyalty to individuals must always be trumped by loyalty to principles or you don't have a functioning institution.

Abusive behavior towards minorities and assault needs to be prosecuted and police cannot be allowed to act with impunity. But yes, I do feel very alienated by some extreme factions on the left who cannot think in terms of reform and propose options that are maybe well-meaning but every bit as extreme as what we see from the white house.

[broncofan]

And just in case anyone thinks my first argument is a strawman it really isn't. I've seen people called white supremacists because they didn't want to see buildings destroyed. Perhaps some of these people weren't outraged by George Floyd's murder enough (I definitely was disturbed and saddened by it) but it's obviously possible to be outraged by murder and think vandalizing stuff calls for a response.

Edit: I'm not mentioning Trump's role in stoking violence and dispersing peaceful protesters but there's a lot to be said about that too. The videos of police officers abusing people is so senseless and such an obvious power trip in most cases. All of it cries out for reform.

[Stavros]

Defund the police...hmm... can anyone on this site that agrees with that sentiment, please explain how it would work in the real world, and what would effectively take its place.

As you probably know by now, it goes beyond de-funding, as Minneapolis City Council member Lisa Bender has argued:

Yes. We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department and replace it with a transformative new model of public safety.
https://twitter.com/lisabendermpls/s...44819628224513
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/...tments-future/

And this from the Telegraph, for once not hidden behind a paywall:
"Pledge to 'dismantle' Minneapolis police force

The president of the Minneapolis City Council has pledged to "dismantle" the city's police force and "replace it with a transformative new model of public safety" in the wake of George Floyd's death.
During a meeting on Thursday night, Lisa Bender said she would support shifting from a traditional police force into a broader public safety department. Under such a system, some of the incidents the police currently respond to would be handled instead by staff such as social workers or medics.
Ms Bender stressed that she was voicing her own views, rather than the council as a whole, but said the idea was likely to be given more consideration later this year.

“To do this kind of big work, we need a deeper, broader conversation than we’ve ever had before,” Ms Bender said. “We need white people like me and my neighbours to show up in a different way.”

The idea has already been touted by grassroots social justice organisations in the area, such as Black Visions Collective and United Against Police Brutality.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-matter-us-uk/


This seems to me to be loaded with questions and problems, and is something I would expect from Libertarians explaining how public order would be maintained in the absence of government, assuming that in a country with zero to minimal government, pubic safety would be locally organized. The most obvious problem is that in the absence of a formal police force, a 'Neighbourhood Watch' would emerge -after all, some of them (in the UK for example) emerged because local people felt neglected by the police. In the US with so many guns and automatic weapons, Neighborhood Watch only works when the people involved are responsible, but you only need one George Zimmerman to decide who is in control in a given situation, to undermine the argument.

The broader argument is also flawed, because the nature of a Liberal Democracy is one in which the State has a legitimate monopoly of the use of force, and setting aside how and when it uses it, this right takes away the right of indivduals to bear arms, because they are protected by that police service- indeed, the right to bear arms and use them is one that indivduals surrender to the State in order to receive its protection.

The last point is this: there were riots and looting in Boston, but the City has acquired a reputation for Community Policing that has seen a decline in crme, and one assumes, a better relationship between police and their community- so I am not sure if the riots and looting undermine this trend, or have been a one-off. But it does show that a different style of policing, and a closer working relationship with local people does mean change can happen without dismanting the force. In many urban areas of the UK we suffer from the opposit of community policing, namely confrontational policing and numerically Black Britons are more likely to be in confrontation with the police than any other group. I think we need a Boston model here.
This is I think a fair review of the model in Boston-
https://pioneerinstitute.org/better_...success-story/

[Stavros]

After writing the above post I read this article in The Guardian which argues that Minneapolis has tried to introduce a form of Community Policing but that reformers in the department have been opposed by the head of the Police Union, Bob Kroll, who loves his President, has described George Floyd as a 'violent criminal' and Black Lives Matter as 'terrorists'. I assume a lot of the artice is based on facts, though it does not tell us what the average police officer in the city thinks. There is an intriguing remark at the end on the impact 9/11 had on Police funding and the purchase of army weapons, though this does not seem relevant to George Floyd's death. Article is here-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-bob-kroll-us

[blackchubby38]

And just in case anyone thinks my first argument is a strawman it really isn't. I've seen people called white supremacists because they didn't want to see buildings destroyed. Perhaps some of these people weren't outraged by George Floyd's murder enough (I definitely was disturbed and saddened by it) but it's obviously possible to be outraged by murder and think vandalizing stuff calls for a response.

Edit: I'm not mentioning Trump's role in stoking violence and dispersing peaceful protesters but there's a lot to be said about that too. The videos of police officers abusing people is so senseless and such an obvious power trip in most cases. All of it cries out for reform.

Its because if you don't toe the party line and say exactly what they want you say, you're part of the problem and not part of the solution. But human beings can walk and chew gum at the same time.

You can be angry about what happened to George Floyd and want to fight police brutality. But at the same time, you can say that looting and rioting is wrong. Especially when they're leading to attacks on the public, like the couple who owned the pharmacy in Rochester, NY. Or on attacks on the police which have led to deaths of a federal officer in Oakland and a retired chief police in St. Louis by name of David Dorn. Both of whom were black by the way.

Rioting and looting is also wrong when its leading to the destruction of small businesses. Some of which are owned by minorities. I live in a predominantly black and Latino neighborhood and there was looting and destruction happening on Monday night. When I saw the results of it the next day on the news, I was disgusted. Now I'm walking around seeing windows being boarded up for fear of happening again.

Finally, I want really know what society the people who are saying the police should be defunded and/or abolished want to live in.

[Stavros]

I don't think there is anything wrong with having a debate on policing, but rather than de-funding what exists on the assumption something better can and will take its place, surely the challenge is to confront those aspects of policing that exist in the here and now that cause most concern, especially when as a consequence, people die.

The most obvious is the immediate ban on chokeholds as a form of restraint, whether it is the arm around the neck, or a knee pressed against it. It is the kind of reform that does not prevent the police from restraining a suspect, but does take away a tactic that can have devastating results. From what little I have seen I don't understand why it is used anyway, though it is said Minneapolis Police are trained to do it, and have used it over 40 times.

The fundamental problems, because they are structural, relate to crime in general, and related issues such as poverty, bad education, the lack of jobs, racial prejudice and so on. These cannot be tackled by defunding, the best that can be achieved through Community Policing or a new form of policing, is a reduction in petty crime, safer streets and a better relationship between the citizen and law enforcement.

But it can't tackle- and put an end to poverty; it cannot change inequalities of income and opportunity; and it won't stop Americans or anyone else from consuming illegal drugs needing by definition, criminals to supply them, in some cases supported by 'corrupt cops'.

The rules of engagement can change, but does it mean replacing every existing policeman with someone else? At a practical level it is a bright idea with diimly lit details. And it avoids the challenges in front of us be it the US or the UK -the fact that inequaities of income have increased in the last 40 years, not decreased. That in 2020 in the richest 5 countries in the world, people are living on the street without a home, while too many people who have one cannot feed its families properly, and many have jobs that pay, but don't pay enough.

The most stunning possibility in the US is that there are more people with access to guns rather than to health care. And it is the resentment that inequality can breed that is dangerous, that when it cannot be controlled or diminished leads to looting and violence.

I don't think a more equal society will eliminate crime, but the time has come for the US to focus more on the re-distribution of wealth given that its concentration into 1% of the population has not improved the country. But as long as it is called 'socialism' rather than being presented as, say, 'health care for all', too many Americans will run away from it, and its powerful opponents will demonize it as 'radical left' without ever asking how it works in Sweden or Norway or Germany or the UK. And it leads to the absurd, indeed, immoral situation where the US will spend $30 trillion supporting idle business and the unemployed, but not commit $10 trilion to education, health care, and housing.

It leads me to think that the actual impact of Covid 19 will not be positive, that inequalities may actually get worse, and I see that happening in the UK as well as the US, because on top of Covid 19 we have Brexit to deal with, and a capitalist economy that needs fewer and fewer people to make its goods, while needing everyone to buy.

[holzz]

"oh why are British/French/German/Canadian people marching about George Floyd??"

becuase, motherfuckers, they can and do experience similar stuff.
because people marched about the iraq invasion - did this people live in Iraq or were even Arab??
because people can have empathy.
and because there are cases in many countries of police brutality/racism.

some people need to grow a fucking brain.
the same people who "racism doesn't exist" or "racism is non-existent".
Fuck that - they don't deserve a brain if they're that retarded.

[holzz]

and i said the r-word. ok, i'm sorry for that.
but then people who genuinely think there is no racism in Western society - check yourself.

[blackchubby38]

I saw this on Twitter and I don't even know what to say:

ACLU of Minnesota
@ACLUMN
BREAKING: Minneapolis City Council members have announced their intent to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and invest in community-led public safety.