# Minneapolis to Abolish the Police



## SG854 (Jun 8, 2020)

Nine Minneapolis City Council members announced plans Sunday to disband the city’s police department

*Minneapolis City Council members say they plan to vote to disband city's police department

Minneapolis lawmakers vow to disband police department in historic move
*


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 8, 2020)

The title is totally misleading. They are not getting rid of the Police. They are getting rid of the department that runs the police and replacing it with a new one.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 8, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> The title is totally misleading. They are not getting rid of the Police. They are getting rid of the department that runs the police and replacing it with a new one.


Disband, Abolish, Dismantle means the same thing. If they disband the police department they disband the police.


What is the alternative model? It says searching for non police solutions. Having everday people police their own neighborhoods? Says medical health experts to jump in.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 8, 2020)

The same people who want to abolish the police are the same people who want the police to take our guns and keep us locked in our own homes.


----------



## Teslas Fate (Jun 8, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Disband, Abolish means the same thing. If they disband the police department they disband the police.
> 
> 
> What is the alternative model? It says searching for non police solutions. Having people police their own neighborhoods?


No what she meant is there’s a department that runs the police department thus not making it the same thing.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 8, 2020)

Teslas Fate said:


> No what she meant is there’s a department that runs the police department thus not making it the same thing.


Isn't that reforming the department? There's no need to abolish it if all you are doing is to tweak it and change how the police is run. That would be a unnecessary step to abolish it.

But these articles are taking about abolishing. They wouldn't use abolish if they don't intend it unless they are being misleading. And what is the alternative they are replacing it with?


----------



## Fugelmir (Jun 8, 2020)

Who's gonna issue summons for the court?  Or make sure anyone goes to court?  Abolish the courts!


----------



## Teslas Fate (Jun 8, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Isn't that reforming the department? There's no need to abolish it if all you are doing is to tweak it and change how the police is run. That would be a unnecessary step to abolish it.
> 
> But these articles are taking about abolishing. They wouldn't use abolish if they don't intend it unless they are being misleading. And what is the alternative they are replacing it with?


Idk I was just explaining what she meant


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 8, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Isn't that reforming the department? There's no need to abolish it if all you are doing is to tweak it and change how the police is run. That would be a unnecessary step to abolish it.
> 
> But these articles are taking about abolishing. They wouldn't use abolish if they don't intend it unless they are being misleading. And what is the alternative they are replacing it with?


They are being misleading 


Lisa Bender, the Minneapolis city council president has said the following.

Most 911 calls are related to medical emergencies and mental health problems, which will be prioritized in funding.

We will be diverting some police funding to treatment services such as mental health counselors and drug addiction experts. While a smaller police force will remain, it won’t be the default body interacting with the community at the time of crisis.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 8, 2020)

@Teslas Fate 

It seems according to this article they really are going to abolish the police and replace it with community driven policing/programs. 

https://theappeal.org/minneapolis-c...invest-in-proven-community-led-public-safety/


----------



## MFDC12 (Jun 8, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Disband, Abolish, Dismantle means the same thing.



This is incorrect. Abolishing police is very specific part of any part of (actual) leftism (like left of socdem) and it means exactly that : abolish the police. No police at whatsoever. For example, in anarcho-[insert whatever variation of anarchy here]/true communism police would be replaced by members of communities looking out for each other. In this case, they are dismantling, as AmandaRose said - which is similar to what Camden, NJ did and reworked the department from the ground up + retraining/demilitarizing them.


----------



## Teslas Fate (Jun 8, 2020)

SG854 said:


> @Teslas Fate
> 
> It seems according to this article they really are going to abolish the police and replace it with community driven policing/programs.
> 
> https://theappeal.org/minneapolis-c...invest-in-proven-community-led-public-safety/


Idk I’m not really worried about it as it’s not my state I just wanted to explain the post by @AmandaRose


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 8, 2020)

I found a meme.


----------



## Teslas Fate (Jun 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I found a meme.


And that sadly might be how it plays out


----------



## SG854 (Jun 8, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> They are being misleading
> 
> 
> Lisa Bender, the Minneapolis city council president has said the following.
> ...


The article says having a medical expert rather then a cop to come in, but I dont understand the dismantle part. Why not just say reform? Like we've always done before. Reform has worked in reducing killings in urban areas, and in rural areas where no reform happend cop killings increased.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



MFDC12 said:


> This is incorrect. Abolishing police is very specific part of any part of (actual) leftism (like left of socdem) and it means exactly that : abolish the police. No police at whatsoever. For example, in anarcho-[insert whatever variation of anarchy here]/true communism police would be replaced by members of communities looking out for each other. In this case, they are dismantling, as AmandaRose said - which is similar to what Camden, NJ did and reworked the department from the ground up + retraining/demilitarizing them.


The thing is though even though their dictionary definitions might not be the same, everyday people use those terms interchangeably. And its based on how everyday people use terms and not what the dictionary says. An everyday person won't know the difference between the two. And I don't know what their intent is on what they mean, and that matters most is their intent on what they mean.

And the way the article is written it seems that the people of minneapolis want to get rid of the police and want a community driven policing instead. Family and neighbors instead to do the policing. And it seems they are giving what the angry rioting mob wants based on their comments.

"We're not going to tomorrow all the sudden have nobody for you to call for help. There will be thoughtful and intentional work that's done, research engagement, learning that happens in a transition that will happen over time," Cunningham said.

Many people have asked, in this visionary future with no police, "Who do you call when there's no 911?" One of the speakers on Sunday said it would be family and neighbors."


----------



## MFDC12 (Jun 8, 2020)

SG854 said:


> The thing is though even though their dictionary definitions might not be the same, everyday people use those terms interchangeably. And its based on how everyday people use terms and not what the dictionary says. An everyday person won't know the difference between the two. And I don't know what their intent is on what they mean, and that matters most is their intent on what they mean.
> 
> And the way the article is written it seems that the people of minneapolis want to get rid of the police and want a community driven policing instead. Family and neighbors instead to do the policing. And it seems they are giving what the angry rioting mob wants based on their comments.
> 
> ...



I don't know, I've never heard them used interchangeably ever personally outside these articles, which I don't put a lot of weight into because so many places get leftism wrong (I mean, misinformation about antifa is rampant). Not saying people don't - just explaining there is a difference not even going by dictionary definitions.

All I am saying, coming as a leftist, the actual differences between dismantling and abolishing are incredibly different and what is going to happen in Minneapolis is, as far as I am aware, is the same thing as what happened in Camden and getting input from the community. I'd be happy if that were the case if truly goes to a community-based system though, and I have been wrong before (as everyone has).


----------



## SG854 (Jun 8, 2020)

MFDC12 said:


> I don't know, I've never heard them used interchangeably ever personally outside these articles, which I don't put a lot of weight into because so many places get leftism wrong (I mean, misinformation about antifa is rampant). Not saying people don't - just explaining there is a difference not even going by dictionary definitions.
> 
> All I am saying, coming as a leftist, the actual differences between dismantling and abolishing are incredibly different and what is going to happen in Minneapolis is, as far as I am aware, is the same thing as what happened in Camden and getting input from the community. I'd be happy if that were the case if truly goes to a community-based system though, and I have been wrong before (as everyone has).


Let's ignore what's the actual intent is and focus on if abolishing the police is a good idea.

What do you mean by community based system? As in get rid of the police completely and people police their own communities? Or still have a police, reduced/and or reformed, but have medical experts and psychologists and the like have much more presence like what @AmandaRose is saying. And why do you think its a better idea for whatever you mean?


----------



## Viri (Jun 8, 2020)

Erm, Camden disbanded their police force because the city was fucking broke. They re-hired most of the police officers they fired, and paid them a lot less, some of them had to share their cars, lol. Since they killed the police force, they killed their union, so they were able to reduce how much the police were making. The formed a new union, and now they have even MORE cops, lol.


They pretty much union busted them, so they can pay them a lot less, and thus hire more officers. And yeah, I've been to Camden a few times, I would not recommended going there, unless you like Aquariums.

Also, if I recall, the citizens had no say in this. Imagine living in the most dangerous city in the country, and waking up to find out the city just voted to axe the police force, lol.


----------



## Jayinem81 (Jun 8, 2020)

Hippy 1 Yeah, we'll have one guy who like, who like, makes bread. A-and one guy who like, l-looks out for other people's safety.
Stan You mean like a baker and a cop?
HIppy 2 No no, can't you imagine a place where people live together and like, provide services for each other in exchange for their services?
Kyle Yeah, it's called a town.


----------



## MFDC12 (Jun 8, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Let's ignore what's the actual intent is and focus on if abolishing the police is a good idea.
> 
> What do you mean by community based system? As in get rid of the police completely and people police their own communities? Or still have a police, reduced/and or reformed, but have medical experts and psychologists and the like have much more presence like what @AmandaRose is saying. And why do you think its a better idea for whatever you mean?



Oh sorry, I guess I misunderstood the intention of your reply.

So, short answer: yes but, long answer:
In a capitalist society, it gets a bit iffier. In a leftist society, people would be armed (Marx famously said that the proletariat must be armed with guns and stuff) and a community will be there for everyones protection + help, there would be no police force. Like I mentioned, TOTAL abolition. The cops first job is first and foremost to protect private property, but also follow the laws (just or unjust) - let's say in a totally post-capitalist world, true communism, a moneyless/stateless society - there would be less crime. For instance, nothing to rob/burgle/steal/extort/launder/whatever, all peoples needs will be met - food/water/healthcare, there won't be drug charges (keep in mind, almost 50% of the US prison system are in for drug offenses) based on laws that heavily affect minority populations, no borders means no "illegal" immigration. What you are essentially left with are rape/sexual assault and the like/murder. A lot of leftists theorized these things can be prevented by having everyones needs met and more access to safety nets/systems to catch these problems before they happen. And if it does, the general consensus is no prisons. The general consensus is that all communities will differ in punishment, be it true rehabilitation (our prison system is absolutely not made for rehabilitation as it stands), expulsion, etc. There would be still detectives since their role can be separated from the police force itself, to help track down who did things.

But that isn't the world we live in. In a totally non utopian point of view in our current capitalist society, I just don't know what it would look like. I think a good chunk of laws are unjust and I think all drug laws, for instance, should be abolished - but with these laws in place, it's not like a community run police force wouldn't run into these issues that heavily target POC (as an example). I think there needs to be *nationwide *reform on policing, policies and completely do away with the systematic racism that is inherent in our current system and demilitarizing the police *nationwide *would be an excellent start. Make it harder from bad cops to get their jobs back or job hop if they get terminated. Make it impossible for good cops reporting the bad cops to get silenced or in trouble. It absolutely has to be nationwide for literally anything to change though, either abolishing or dismantling and reforming. I think it's worthy to note that police as we know it is an incredibly recent invention, and before that things were typically held up to communities/individuals.

Some reading:
https://www.versobooks.com/books/2426-the-end-of-policing (free ebook for now btw)
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/213837/are-prisons-obsolete-by-angela-y-davis/
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/who-do-you-serve-who-do-you-protect-alicia-garza/1122750162

edit: 
Just to point out, I do think more medical experts (especially psychiatrists) would absolutely be a good thing too and if I didn't present a clear enough picture - yes I think abolishing police would be good.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 8, 2020)

Too bad for Sting, royalties will go down.


----------



## notimp (Jun 9, 2020)

sarkwalvein said:


> Too bad for Sting, royalties will go down.


Someone call P. Diddy, to pick up all the songs.

edit: Needs a video:


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 11, 2020)

They've already replaced the police in the Autonomous (not really) Free (not really) Zone in Seattle.

Let's see how that's going ....




 


Oh.


----------



## Fugelmir (Jun 11, 2020)

#CancelSTEM
#CancelAcademia

Getting harder to support that movement.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jun 11, 2020)

I don't get why no one is willing to have the conversation about totally ending the drug war on a nationwide scale. The right is caught up with moralism and religion, while the left is satisfied with weed becoming a grey market product in half the states, while vilifying just about everything else. Both have drawn arbitrary lines in the sand, yet neither realize it's the biggest way for both of their ideologies about law enforcement to coexist. 

Why do people get killed by police usually? Because they run or resist arrest. Why do they run or resist arrest? Usually to try to avoid a drug charge or to evade a warrant related to drug charges. The solution is so much simpler than people are making it, but one group is calling for the complete abolition of law enforcement, and the other cheers on military occupation of the United States. It's like the left and right have become totally unable to see any nuance or grey area, and that the entirety of their beliefs are indisputable fact. Statism, no matter what team you pick, is the single most dangerous religion in the world.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 11, 2020)

Compton CA dissolved their police force in 2000.  Camden NJ did the same in 2013.  Both have shown far better results than decades worth of attempted reforms in Minneapolis.  The reason being that the entire nationwide police union is corrupt and extremely resistant to any small change or additional oversight.  That's why it's best to start fresh and circumvent the police union entirely, even if that means re-hiring the few cops with actual integrity to the new organization.

I highly suggest everyone watch Last Week Tonight's episode on policing.  The long and short of it being that very little actually changed where the cops were concerned post-Jim Crow era, so systemic racism is still very much alive and kicking.  Thus the sooner we tear down the current system and start building a new one from the ground up, the sooner we can rightly remove the weight of past atrocities from our shoulders.


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 11, 2020)

When getting placed on the 10th & 33rd spots of a 100 most dangerous cities in the US list is called a positive.
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100dangerous

Granted they used to be higher up but after years and years they havn't exactly made much progress. Crime in general has been decreasing across the US https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/17/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jun 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I found a meme.


it's hard to be more intellectually bankrupt than this

people are protesting the current system's strong tendency to generate police who are racist tough guys with guns
they're saying the current system is irrevocably broken, and needs to be replaced
and from that you get... we hate the concept of someone that upholds the law? do you need medical attention?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 11, 2020)

Darth Meteos said:


> it's hard to be more intellectually bankrupt than this
> 
> people are protesting the current system's strong tendency to generate police who are racist tough guys with guns
> they're saying the current system is irrevocably broken, and needs to be replaced
> and from that you get... we hate the concept of someone that upholds the law? do you need medical attention?


Could somebody please pull up the statistics?


----------



## notimp (Jun 12, 2020)

Has everyone in here an uncle thats in the force, or why has this become such a heated debate? Why are so many people into local politics all of a sudden? For maybe two weeks, that is the exact time until the outrage dies down, and everyone realizes, that it might be easier to redesign the police (in that one town), just to get non reformable parts out, while redesigning. Those officers had complaints against them stacked, even prior to the incidence. At which point you are looking at the management and checks (of checks and balances) again. And its far easier to (f.e. (dont know if this will be the case)) fire the entire force, and then make them reapply, than to change the internal culture, from an organizational level.

So many people die, because they are running from the cops, also is a fallacy. Running away from something is not a danger to the cops life. And 'use excessive force' not the signing off part of getting a new case call.

I see about ten people in here that all of a sudden have become experts in 'institutional sociology' while some of them seem to be in fear of a Mad Max scenario...  Those were your first riots on TV, then? 

edit: Oh, I just saw, that in my local (european) newspaper, "Trump is standing behind the police force" is todays headline. Might that be why?  (Stop treating politics like a football game, or console war - its not even election season yet. (Or has it already begone..?))

(edit: For 'what are non reformable parts' in a police force, as was said above, watch the latest John Oliver video.)


----------



## Lumstar (Jun 12, 2020)

Resisting police is natural behavior. I'd be concerned for someone who didn't care their immediate personal liberty is in jeopardy.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 12, 2020)

Joe88 said:


> When getting placed on the 10th & 33rd spots of a 100 most dangerous cities in the US list is called a positive.
> https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100dangerous
> 
> Granted they used to be higher up


Which just further proves the point that a heavy police presence was making those areas more dangerous, not less so.  Investing in mental healthcare and community welfare programs is infinitely more likely to make neighborhoods safer than spending that money on flamethrowers and tanks for the police is.  And we still continue to invest entirely too little in those things, even in those areas where the police have been dissolved.

Defund the police in part or in whole?  I say why the fuck not, America has defunded just about everything else, from education to healthcare to election security.  At this point if we _don't_ defund the police in equal measure, then they'll become the last remaining public institution with a constant presence in our lives, and a police state is inevitable, sooner rather than later.  I wish I was being hyperbolic, I really do, but the numbers don't lie.  In 2019 there were 1,003 unarmed people (of all races) shot and killed by police.  The same year there were 517 people killed in mass shootings.


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 12, 2020)

It wasn't a heavy police force that was the problem, it was the opposite. Their budget was stretched so thin that police presence was minimal and crime was running out of control. The effect of disbanding the police force allowed them to quadruple the effective fighting force of the old the police department when they reformed it.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 12, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> It wasn't a heavy police force that was the problem, it was the opposite. Their budget was stretched so thin that police presence was minimal and crime was running out of control. The effect of disbanding the police force allowed them to quadruple the effective fighting force of the old the police department when they reformed it.


That might've been the case in the few years leading up to their disbandment, but the 90s crime bill had police out in force in communities of color across the entire nation.  The whole "tough on crime" craze was driven just as much by racism as Jim Crow laws were.

And if disbanding then re-forming the police increases their efficiency/effectiveness while still freeing up funds for other things, that's just yet another merit to the idea.


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 12, 2020)

Absolutely. Just so we're clear, the solution is better policing, not less policing. There's too much utopian dreaming about a world without force to control crime.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 12, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Absolutely. Just so we're clear, the solution is better policing, not less policing. There's too much utopian dreaming about a world without force to control crime.


I don't think anybody is advocating for that, it's just that "defund the police" is scary to a country that largely idolizes military and the police when taken at face value and without further explanation.  The entirety of the idea doesn't fit neatly on a bumper sticker, and so unfortunately too much of our ADD-riddled nation is opposed to it instinctually.


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 12, 2020)

Xzi said:


> I don't think anybody is advocating for that, it's just that "defund the police" is scary to a country that largely idolizes military and the police when taken at face value and without further explanation.  The entirety of the idea doesn't fit neatly on a bumper sticker, and so unfortunately too much of our ADD-riddled nation is opposed to it instinctually.


There are plenty of people advocating for it. Idiots and utopian dreamers. The slimy ones tend to turn on a dime when called out for it though, since it's an inherently weak position that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.


----------



## lexarvn (Jun 12, 2020)

SG854 said:


> The article says having a medical expert rather then a cop to come in, but I dont understand the dismantle part. Why not just say reform? Like we've always done before. Reform has worked in reducing killings in urban areas, and in rural areas where no reform happend cop killings increased.


It might just be me, but when I think of reform, I think of keeping the existing police/department and updating policies/require new training, which may be difficult if the police union there pushes back. But my understanding of what they want to do is create a new smaller police department, with less responsibilities, from the ground up where the police union has little to no say in any new policies they make, and any cops that want to keep their jobs have to reapply for them at the new department. Not saying whether that is good or bad, just what I understand their plan is and so why I think they aren't calling it reform.


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 12, 2020)

Fuck 'em. Bust those unions. They keep bad police in jobs and that is only in the union's interest.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 12, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> There are plenty of people advocating for it. Idiots and utopian dreamers. The slimy ones tend to turn on a dime when called out for it though, since it's an inherently weak position that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.


I mean I suppose some hardline anarchists might be advocating for it, and you'd have some crossover there from libertarians who want to experience the wild West for themselves, but by no means do either of these groups represent the majority on either side of the political divide.


----------



## Lumstar (Jun 12, 2020)

In practical terms, the country has been a police state ever since they were granted the authority to enforce public school attendance. The majority of kids can't leave campus or drop out by their own will without the police getting involved.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 12, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Fuck 'em. Bust those unions. They keep bad police in jobs and that is only in the union's interest.



All unions are like that. Bust all unions.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jun 12, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Could somebody please pull up the statistics?


Be the change you want to see.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 12, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> All unions are like that. Bust all unions.


Only one union has a monopoly on state-sanctioned violence, it's just unfortunate that it's pretty much the largest union still operating in the United States.  Nobody is having issues with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers executing no-knock warrants and killing people in their sleep.  Unions are the only reason we don't still work seven days a week and put our children on assembly lines.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 12, 2020)

lexarvn said:


> It might just be me, but when I think of reform, I think of keeping the existing police/department and updating policies/require new training, which may be difficult if the police union there pushes back. But my understanding of what they want to do is create a new smaller police department, with less responsibilities, from the ground up where the police union has little to no say in any new policies they make, and any cops that want to keep their jobs have to reapply for them at the new department. Not saying whether that is good or bad, just what I understand their plan is and so why I think they aren't calling it reform.


Talking about Unions in general the protections Unions give is why Conservatives are against unions. They offer protections and makes it harder to fire people.

Unions were created to protect disenfranchised people so that they won't get unessecarily fired for reasons like color of their skin or others reasons similar to this. But Unions have been hijacked to offer protection for criminal behavior. Like protecting police abuse. Its the same reason conservatives want to dismantle the teachers union because it offers protections against pedophiles. The process to get a pedophile teacher fired is extremely hard and very expensive, that it'll take years and millions of dollars before they get fired.

Look at any other union besides Teachers Union and Police Union and they'll have their negatives conservatives don't like.

Democrats see unions as good for the reasons I stated above, it protects disenfranchised people, it gives the working class bargaining power to not be screwed over for less pay. While they see conservatives that are trying to dismantle unions as a sneaky way to let big businesses screw over they little guy, strip them of their protection.

Really we need a middle ground between the Conservative and the Democrat view. But nowadays choosing the middle ground is seen as too afraid to choose aside for some reason, and gets alot of criticism. Not being a mindless drone that goes far to one side is seen as bad. There's alot of people that don't like middle ground people. 

A middle ground would be have unions so that Black Cops won't get unnecessarily fired for being black. But don't offer protection to people that abuse the system. The problem with writing these laws is loopholes which alot of people take advantage of. Making a sealed tight law that people can't abuse is extremely hard and its why people abuse the system all the time.


----------



## notimp (Jun 12, 2020)

Whats the argument brought forward against unions here? I'm asking, because, I've seen 'high potentials' getting their kicks from building 'Uber based' business models (in their dreams and aspirations, because they can be hooked by the worst byline of economic trendscouting from five years ago), derived from indian (as in the country) food delivery models, while praising, that they could outsource their scientific studies (when it came to getting people to fill them out) to Amazon mechanical turk, while dancing in a circle high fiveing each other how wonder full this new world, would be - for them - because, as far as I could tell, everything they brought to the table was, to promote some database...

Same people talking hours on end about how wonderfully 'freeing' this entire experience would be for the worker, who now didnt have to hold a job on 'general' job in their lives anymore, while of course not getting pension pay.

They then invited spokespeople from one of the bigger unions in germany, and all they could talk about was, how they see it as a great chance for them, because they now could convince a bunch of gigworkers to unionize - praise the new future.

If anyone has difficulties, imagining why unions are so entirely against progress sometimes (especially when they have formed in state sectors), ask again.

In short, because said high potentials come from environments, where they read, and dont experience, and have been driven to be highly competitive, for any chance of the leftovers on the economic table, they are currently creating monsters, selling you out from underneath every safetynet that ever existed. And believing in each others pitches, that they are doing the people around them a solid.

They live in worlds of metrics, only connected to their employees via a smartphone layer, and are talking about freeing humanity. While making sure, no unions can ever be established, by making you sign, that you are an independent entrepreneur in the food delivery, or taking surveys businesses.

And Amazon an google profit.

So if - especially currently, you want to take away the right for people to unionize -- there are worthier causes.

And under those lights, working people look like starch conservatives, so - lesson - everything is relative.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 12, 2020)

@lexarvn

Heres some more information. Its called Passing The Trash. Teachers unions protects and allows sexual predators to teach kids. Teacher Predators are really hard to fire. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/201...he-trash-policies-the-dept-of-ed-isn-t-tracki

https://lacomadre.org/2018/10/passi...rs-are-still-allowed-to-teach-in-our-schools/


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 12, 2020)

Darth Meteos said:


> Be the change you want to see.


Huh?


----------



## notimp (Jun 12, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Heres some more information. Its called Passing The Trash. Teachers unions protects and allows sexual predators to teach kids. Teacher Predators are really hard to fire.


There are some wires you must have crossed. Teachers are hard to fire, because they have to play the role of a 'respectability person' in their community of small kids, and every angered parent, and child acting out in youth are hellbent to undercut their authority. If they were easy to fire, no one would be left on the job. One exception, abusive behavior. So if they are soliciting their position of respect for anything other than teaching - they are, and should be, out within two seconds. Disciplinary hearings and everything.

The state comes down on them like a mofo.

Issue - guilt trips on childrens minds, can still be very effective - so it often takes years... Issue also, anything that even formerly had the touch of 'private education' - like every business, and like the church, btw - looks at public image first.

Thats before watching your video, which I'll do now.

But the moment you have to cull voices with 'the state isnt able to protect you from child predators' - and list unions as a cause, I more or less think that you are cray, cray.

edit: @SG854 Just watched the clips, and as imagined, none of it is even remotely the issue you are painting.
What the clip says is, that school administrators have been caught often, drafting up confidentiality agreements, and helping the person that was caught exhibiting such a behavior, to transfer to another school district, even 'greasing the wheel', so they'd have the problem off their hands in the most easy way imaginable.

Those are individual administrative decisions, designed not to fall back onto the school administrator, that are not intended by the law, or how the next step (disciplinary commission) is supposed to look like, and they are legal, because a formal complaint is never made. Its not how this is supposed to work like - it is a loophole. And what people in the clip are morally arguing for, is to hold school administrators responsible, even if they sign clauses - that prevent them from speaking.  Again, so their behavior, doesnt fall back on them later on, and they get rid of that predator easier.

How on effing earth, you can construct out of that a case, for why unions are bad, I dont know. If your mind jumps from unions straight to child predators, I'd say, that you are mainly emotionally driven, to a point, where you cant even understand news reporting anymore, because you are in such a personal perceived feeling of grief, directed at the person or the thing you have designated to be responsible for 'the evil' - that its hard to ever arguue with you over anything, where you'd not feel the need to win, because your feelings were so deep.

At one point, ideally, you'd put some of the feelings aside, and actually look at a story, or the reporting as well, and dont just get perceptually stuck at mood bgm cues, and girls drawing stickfigures of where the teacher touched them - then bringing this emotional package into any discussion at random.

Your emotions on this are right. But thats about the only thing thats right here.


edit: One correction, the report then even details one case, where the school administration did file a report, but the national schools board - because of lack of proof - banned them from teaching in state, and gave out a neutral recommendation, not stating the alleged incident.

The proper thing to do would have been to actually clear this up in a criminal investigation. And if that took place, and 'grooming' behavior couldnt be sufficiently proven - that is rotten, but what followed, still the law.

There were even attempts made on the federal level to prevent that from happening (simply allowing those teachers to work in another state), but most states havent integrated that legislation into their laws yet.

Still no unions anywhere to be seen.


----------



## Viri (Jun 12, 2020)

Unions aren't so bad in some cases. My dad got into contact with someone on his work force who tested positive for Cov19. He had to stay home for 2 weeks, and he got paid 3 weeks pay. Then his hours got reduced by 2 hours for a month or so, and he still got paid the full 8 hours, because of his union. His union also fought to keep their medical in tact last year, and raised their pay by 2 dollars an hour.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 12, 2020)

notimp said:


> There are some wires you must have crossed. Teachers are hard to fire, because they have to play the role of a 'respectability person' in their community of small kids, and every angered parent, and child acting out in youth are hellbent to undercut their authority. If they were easy to fire, no one would be left on the job. One exception, abusive behavior. So if they are soliciting their position of respect for anything other than teaching - they are, and should be, out within two seconds. Disciplinary hearings and everything.
> 
> The state comes down on them like a mofo.
> 
> ...


There's alot of information you can find on this if you dive deep into it.

It was parodied on the Simpsons.
It makes the Unions happy.



Another name for it is Dance of the Lemons. After two years teachers get tenure, Union Contracts makes it very difficult to fire bad teachers.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 12, 2020)

@notimp

There was a teacher that threw a kid in a trash can, started kicking it and threatened to cut the private parts off the kid. It cost the school 100 thouasnd dollars to get rid of her, and she still was able to get teaching job somewhere else.

It doesn't matter if the teacher is abusive or is a pedophile the teachers union will back them.

It costs thousands of dollars and many years of fighting the Union to get rid of a teacher, so most school districts don't even bother. That's why Dance of the Lemons is a thing. Its easier just to throw a teacher to another school then to fight the union and fire them.

https://www.hoover.org/research/dance-lemons



Sometimes problem teachers get thrown into rubber rooms.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/where-do-problem-teachers-go-the-rubber-room/1946484/?amp



Passing the trash 2018.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/201...he-trash-policies-the-dept-of-ed-isn-t-tracki

Its been going on since the 90's, and before the 90's, and is still a problem today.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 13, 2020)

So I found the statistics.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 13, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Only one union has a monopoly on state-sanctioned violence, .




You're right, I guess. All the other union violence is sanctioned by the DNC. Technically, not government.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 13, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> You're right, I guess. All the other union violence is sanctioned by the DNC. Technically, not government.


I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.  The DNC are a bunch of spineless centrists, they back down from most verbal fights, let alone anything physical.


----------



## notimp (Jun 13, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Another name for it is Dance of the Lemons. After two years teachers get tenure, Union Contracts makes it very difficult to fire bad teachers.


Yes, and why I've tried to sketch out.You are in a job, where at least in 3x5 (estimation  ) parents every year hate you, and you have to bring children to do something they dont particularly like either and that is to study and show some sort of responsibility for their behavior.

Usually what happens, if there are complaints is, that teachers get reevaluated by outside commissions, and then moved out of their job for a while, if need be.

The example you saw 'on the Simpsons' (selfharming behavior), would probably mean, that that person has to undergo psychological treatment - but yes, isnt fired on the spot. (Also, because there is a hightened risk of a breakdown on that job, and the correct thing to do is, not to just kick them out of their jobs and tell them to get a new one, in that situation.)

Thats contrary to how the system deals with anyone who abused their 'position of power' to solicit anything from minors. They are positively gone (barred from teaching in a state - sadly, in the US, because its so easy to move from state to state and get accredited there, new problems arise from that, that state legislator hasnt fixed yet (in the majority of states) even though the federal level (legislature) tried to fix it already. (See the video you posted.)

And even in the Simpsons clip, nothing there (if I'm not entirely mistaken) has to do anything with unions. You don't get a tenure, because of unions.

edit: The second video you posted is just propaganda, as far as I know it. (They are bad teachers, everybody knows it, their peers know it, and so they get exchanged, because they cant be fired....)

Also, the first article that surfaces, when you search for tenure union, is an article that tries to debunk the myth that you are spreading: http://lrcft.org/confronting-the-myths-about-tenure-and-teachers-unions/

Maybe the truth for why the american school system has problems isnt as simple as 'the bad teachers, where everyone knows they are bad, can't be fired'.

edit:


> Second, what about teachers unions and those union contracts? Do tenure and union contracts shield bad teachers and undermine education?
> 
> It is a myth that tenure means lifetime employment and makes it impossible to fire bad workers. What tenure does is require an employer to have cause to fire an employee. Union contracts require the use of a fair process to determine whether there is cause to fire an employee. In other words, schools can already fire teachers if they have good cause – so all getting rid of tenure would do is let schools fire teachers when they do not have good cause to fire them. It’s hard to see how firing good teachers would improve our schools.


That seems to indicate, that tenure came into existence, because of union action.

But it is very understandable, that they dont want let that protection go easily.

Their aim still is not to protect child predators. (Thats for sure.) And not even bad teachers, although I'm sure a few more could cling to their jobs because of it. There is still ample reason not to take that protection away, though.

Again, the same thing exists in my country (europe, different legal tradition), probably for a reason.

edit:


> Many accuse teachers’ unions of protecting bad teachers. But all teachers unions do is provide fair representation to ensure that an accurate decision is made before taking away a worker’s job. In fact, the law says that providing fair representation is a duty a union owes to its members.
> 
> It is the employer’s job to prove that an employee deserves to be fired – not the union’s. If bad teachers are kept on, the real story is management’s failure to make its case.


So, as thought, even the part that "this is all because of a 'union work contract'" is a lie. (Its because of law.)


edit: Also, if you, or your loved ones are in a situation where you are molested, please try to go through inside and outside (NGOs) channels. As SG854 has shown, inside feedback loops can break because of managerial neglect. The law and the process is still on your side. That teacher usually is positively gone. Union or not.

If not, its a huge mess up, and not a normal or 'systemic' issue. (If an administrator does the 'lemon dance' with child molesters, without reporting the incident, they have morally and executively failed in their job.)


----------



## SG854 (Jun 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> Yes, and why I've tried to sketch out.You are in a job, where at least in 3x5 (estimation  ) parents every year hate you, and you have to bring children to do something they dont particularly like either and that is to study and show some sort of responsibility for their behavior.
> 
> Usually what happens, if there are complaints is, that teachers get reevaluated by outside commissions, and then moved out of their job for a while, if need be.
> 
> ...


The article you linked doesn't really tackle the issue.

It states the poverty is a problem, but the article from the Hoover Institute says that they had to spend $70,000 dollars to get rid of a Math teacher that didn't know basic algebra. The poverty thing the article brought up, and saying its not bad teachers but poverty that is the issue, doesn't tackle the issue that there is bad teachers and its very hard to get rid of those bad teachers. It's shifting the attention away from the actual problem.

And when it does bring up that good teachers want to give bad teachers a second chance, if they are spending $70,000 dollars they are obviously not wanting to give that bad teacher a second chance and want to get rid of them. So it still doesn't get to the core that Unions make it hard to get rid of those teachers.

And the other point, the article seems to be an opinion piece written by an anonymous person. While the hoover Institute article has quotes from lawyers that handle these cases and knows exactly how the legal system works, and are the ones that know how hard it is to fight the Unions, because they are the ones fighting the Unions when these lawyers take on these cases. I trust a lawyer more then I trust an anonymous person who probably doesn't take on these legal cases fighting the teachers union like a lawyer does.


----------



## notimp (Jun 13, 2020)

SG854 said:


> It states the poverty is a problem, but the article from the Hoover Institute says that they had to spend $70,000 dollars to get rid of a Math teacher that didn't know basic algebra. The poverty thing the article brought up, and saying its not bad teachers but poverty that is the issue, doesn't tackle the issue that there is bad teachers and its very hard to get rid of those bad teachers.


I know, thats fair.

They try to open up the wider field, for why people are so into the 'the issue is, that bad teachers can't get fired' talking point, and why that isnt the case from their point of view. Has nothing to do directly with our extended 'is child molester lemon dance systemic?' discussion.

But then it has paragraphs in there, that lay out the specific thinking behind tenure, and union action on behalf of teachers (representation). ('You cant fire them' is wrong, 'union contract' is wrong, ...)

If your point is, that you have to get rid of tenure, and union representation, because of 'child molestors being guarded by the system' I still think that you are absolutely wrong and out of line.

One additional point - the 'the issue is that teachers cant be fired' meme is just as active (mostly on the conservative side, that isnt conservative teachers unions..  ) in my country in europe as well. Its just every parents gut reaction. 

I also have to say, why I'm actually somewhat interested in that stuff, and that is, that one of my parents had been a teacher, and I know their stories, and teacher conferences, the parent/teacher conferences and even those evaluation committes, at least second hand. So if anyone tells me, you have to be able to fire teachers more easily in general, "to stop child molesting", I'm poised to have a different opinion. 

Thats just an easy excuse. Nothing in the current system is set up to let child molesters go free. If any administrator uses their leeway to just move such a person to another school, without reporting them, and while setting up confidentiality agreements, so they can't be held accountable for not speaking out about it, its personal fault, and personal fault all the way. If their reasoning is, that 'they didn't want to have to deal with unions', thats a lame excuse, and nothing more.

Lemon dance for less problematic cases, is probably a beneficial thing for both sides (schools and the teachers), as they get 'try again' opportunities at another school. That explicitly excludes child molestors or anyone that has abused their position of power towards minors.

And also - yes, in the end if a teacher is truly bad, and can cling on, because they play 'it will be so much work for you principal' cards right, thats an unintended outcome. But making teachers more easy to fire in general isnt the solution ('bad apples' theory on my part). And in cases like child molesting they absolutely arent protected by tenure, or unions.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 14, 2020)

I guess we're all in agreement that the police alone isn't good enough to handle all criminals? We all support the second amendment now, right?


----------



## Seliph (Jun 14, 2020)

I hope we get rid of all police and also rich people ty this is my hot take and no one is allowed to respond


----------



## Captain_N (Jun 14, 2020)

I hope the citizens in that city are armed. Thats the only protection they are gonna have. Shit is gonna turn into the wild west.
Anyone that thinks abolishing the police is a good idea consider this: *Next time you need to call the cops because of a car accident,robbery, domestic violence, what ever it is, dont call them and handle it yourself. See if you can protect your family without law and order. *Thats how its gonna be. 

Do you really think these politicians that are responsible for these failed policies, are really gonna make something better? dont be so silly. so like i said people in that city better have some big guns and 9000 or more rounds of ammo. and they better form a militia for protection.


----------



## Zonark (Jun 14, 2020)

Hell yeah! Thank you rockstar for preparing me for this day welcome to the new wild north!


----------



## Iamapirate (Jun 19, 2020)

"please abolish the police!"

Signed,
Robbers, murderers, rapists, drug dealers, prostitutes and sex traffickers.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 19, 2020)

So
Teach people not to commit crimes.
Message sponsored in part by the "teach men not to rape" foundation.


----------



## leon315 (Jun 19, 2020)

but if they succeed to disband the police force, who would save the citizens if criminal anarchy rises?


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jun 19, 2020)

leon315 said:


> but if they succeed to disband the police force, who would save the citizens if criminal anarchy rises?


I think they are planning to funnel off all the cash for the police back to themselves via shady back channel deals (yes Sarah, you can have 500 million from the old policing budget for your community "policing" centre as long as 300 million of it finds its way to notabribe inc. to do the building work) then flip town once its in crumbles and expect the federal government to come in and fix it all while they retire in Barbados with their new 4 million dollar a year consulting job for notabribe inc. keeping them in a nice comfortable life with not a thought in the world to the thousands of people who had their entire retirement plans scrapped due to their shady bs

just remember guys, these people are the people who got you where you are today, do you really trust them to actually be looking out for you this time? or would they see this as a massive opportunity to pull of the scam of their life and be able to pin all the blame on yo.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 20, 2020)

leon315 said:


> but if they succeed to disband the police force, who would save the citizens if criminal anarchy rises?


Themselves and their weapons.


----------



## leon315 (Jun 20, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Themselves and their weapons.


nice, so citizens have to bring weapon themselves and shot thugs whenever they need or ever feel frustrated, and every kids should carry one, so they could defend from bully.
What a great idea indeed.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 20, 2020)

leon315 said:


> nice, so citizens have to bring weapon themselves and shot thugs whenever they need or ever feel frustrated, and every kids should carry one, so they could defend from bully.
> What a great idea indeed.


Slow down. I never said people need to shoot everybody down. I was saying that if everyone kept a gun with them, criminals would fear the public. The world would be a safer place.
Keep them at all times, but don't use them unless absolutely necessary.


----------



## leon315 (Jun 20, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Slow down. I never said people need to shoot everybody down. I was saying that if everyone kept a gun with them, criminals would fear the public. The world would be a safer place.
> Keep them at all times, but don't use them unless absolutely necessary.


Thing I said is exactly what will happens next, if everyone carries a weapon, just like Old good West 

Use weapon only at " necessary ", yeah sure I'm pretty sure everyone will use it when they are in real danger or at church.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jun 20, 2020)

leon315 said:


> Thing I said is exactly what will happens next, if everyone carries a weapon, just like Old good West
> 
> Use weapon only at " necessary ", yeah sure I'm pretty sure everyone will use it when they are in real danger or at church.



If you're in serious danger, you call the police. In the case of a shooting, the police show up with the intention of shooting the shooter. Guns protect people and there is no issue with responsible people carrying guns.


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 20, 2020)

Iamapirate said:


> If you're in serious danger, you call the police. In the case of a shooting, the police show up with the intention of shooting the shooter. Guns protect people and there is no issue with responsible people carrying guns.


In the hypothetical situation where the police are abolished permanently, there will be no police to call. Leon's point is that people will be given the power to enact vengeance upon each other without accountability to authority. Ultimately there must be an authority to determine what is just and what is permissible if we are to live in a civil society. I couldn't imagine anything more destructive than rule by the mob in a big city. It would end with people forming authorities of their own and then you'll just end up with new police forces enforcing who knows what crazy rules.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 20, 2020)

leon315 said:


> but if they succeed to disband the police force, who would save the citizens if criminal anarchy rises?




If?


----------



## leon315 (Jun 20, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> If?



GLORIOUS BABY!



FGFlann said:


> In the hypothetical situation where the police are abolished permanently, there will be no police to call. Leon's point is that people will be given the power to enact vengeance upon each other without accountability to authority. Ultimately there must be an authority to determine what is just and what is permissible if we are to live in a civil society. I couldn't imagine anything more destructive than rule by the mob in a big city. It would end with people forming authorities of their own and then you'll just end up with new police forces enforcing who knows what crazy rules.


YET finally i met someone who ever went to the college!


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 20, 2020)

I've gone my entire adult life without really feeling the need to own firearms, but now I'm strongly considering it.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jun 20, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> In the hypothetical situation where the police are abolished permanently, there will be no police to call. Leon's point is that people will be given the power to enact vengeance upon each other without accountability to authority. Ultimately there must be an authority to determine what is just and what is permissible if we are to live in a civil society. I couldn't imagine anything more destructive than rule by the mob in a big city. It would end with people forming authorities of their own and then you'll just end up with new police forces enforcing who knows what crazy rules.


Yes, and this is why I don't support abolishing the police, but ultimately you can't rely on them to defend your life.


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 20, 2020)

Iamapirate said:


> Yes, and this is why I don't support abolishing the police, but ultimately you can't rely on them to defend your life.


I agree. It's important to be able to protect yourself. However the best deterrent to escalating violence is the threat of punishment. Once that threat is removed expect a lot more chaos.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jun 21, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> I agree. It's important to be able to protect yourself. However the best deterrent to escalating violence is the threat of punishment. Once that threat is removed expect a lot more chaos.


So we don't really disagree.


----------



## Viri (Jun 21, 2020)

The Police are pretty much the only thing preventing complete and total Anarchy. Without Cops, crime will sky rocket like crazy. Your city will pretty much become Syria. I hope you own a fire arm, because without Cops, NOBODY is going to defend you or deter people from attacking you. It's not a matter of if you'll become a victim, it's when.


----------



## MrCokeacola (Jun 21, 2020)

Viri said:


> The Police are pretty much the only thing preventing complete and total Anarchy. Without Cops, crime will sky rocket like crazy. Your city will pretty much become Syria. I hope you own a fire arm, because without Cops, NOBODY is going to defend you or deter people from attacking you. It's not a matter of if you'll become a victim, it's when.


lol is America really that much of a third world?


----------



## Viri (Jun 21, 2020)

MrCokeacola said:


> lol is America really that much of a third world?


Yes. A few days without the Police is enough to make a city look like Syria. Even with the Cops, they were rioting, looting, destroying, and burning down random buildings, to the point where they needed the military to step in. I seen this all first hand, lol. This convinced me that if the Cops weren't around to deter them, it would turn into complete Anarchy within a few hours.


----------



## gameboy (Jun 21, 2020)

the crime rate of minneapolis hasnt gone down much in the past 30 years, but people want to get rid of the police LOL. Anybodys thats ever seen Minneapolis knows that there isnt much going on there, its GHETTO. There are nice areas but very few and far between. It looks like most of the protesters were college students who live in that area but they never took their eyes off their phones to actually see how bad it is there. Its gonna get even worse, in 3-4 years another "propaganda story" will arise again and stir the next generation of Zoomers to destroy the city even more. Its all an effort to try and Re-Gentrify the area again. Most people from Minneapolis moved to Coon Rapids or Lakeville or Minnetonka and there isnt much left besides the husk of 1990s "Murderapolis"


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2020)

Viri said:


> Yes. A few days without the Police is enough to make a city look like Syria. Even with the Cops, they were rioting, looting, destroying, and burning down random buildings, to the point where they needed the military to step in. I seen this all first hand, lol. This convinced me that if the Cops weren't around to deter them, it would turn into complete Anarchy within a few hours.


People were rioting in response to police brutality and abuses of power...how tone deaf can you get?

If the only choices are anarchy or an authoritarian police state, I'll take the former every time.  But those aren't the only choices, and as I've already explained in this thread, defunding the police is not the same thing as taking no public safety measures whatsoever.  As it stands now the police are a massive waste of taxpayer dollars, and they're easily replaceable.  We don't need to spend another five decades trying to argue/negotiate with the corrupt police union when we could have an entirely new safety force up and running efficiently within one.


----------



## Viri (Jun 21, 2020)

Xzi said:


> People were rioting in response to police brutality and abuses of power...how tone deaf can you get?


My city's Police had nothing to do with it. Yet we still had people destroying my city, and burning down shit for no reason. It took the Military + Cops to get things under control.


Xzi said:


> f the only choices are anarchy or an authoritarian police state, I'll take the former every time.


Lol, you'd be dead within the first few weeks if all the Cops went away. You'd be begging for them to come back. Your city would become Syria quite fast.


Xzi said:


> defunding the police is not the same thing as taking no public safety measures whatsoever


Wow, Minneapolis sure is a shit hole, with lots of crime, let's defund the Cops!


----------



## gameboy (Jun 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> Has everyone in here an uncle thats in the force, or why has this become such a heated debate? Why are so many people into local politics all of a sudden? For maybe two weeks, that is the exact time until the outrage dies down, and everyone realizes, that it might be easier to redesign the police (in that one town), just to get non reformable parts out, while redesigning. Those officers had complaints against them stacked, even prior to the incidence. At which point you are looking at the management and checks (of checks and balances) again. And its far easier to (f.e. (dont know if this will be the case)) fire the entire force, and then make them reapply, than to change the internal culture, from an organizational level.
> 
> So many people die, because they are running from the cops, also is a fallacy. Running away from something is not a danger to the cops life. And 'use excessive force' not the signing off part of getting a new case call.
> 
> ...



so many things you said didnt make sense, and also you should rethink some of those things. Running away from the cops can be a danger to others, especially an armed perp. Re-hiring and all the defunding stuff will only make the police even more laughable. Paying Police mcdonalds wages to put their life on the line everyday will only attract the worst of the worst to get hired.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2020)

Viri said:


> My city's Police had nothing to do with it. Yet we still had people destroying my city, and burning down shit for no reason. It took the Military + Cops to get things under control.


The outrage was national for good reason, George Floyd's murder was by no stretch of the imagination an isolated incident.



Viri said:


> Lol, you'd be dead within the first few weeks if all the Cops went away.


The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone has been established for more than a few weeks already.  Not one death/murder has occurred inside of it.  Kinda undercuts your argument here.



Viri said:


> Wow, Minneapolis sure is a shit hole, with lots of crime, let's defund the Cops!


Yes, let's.  As it stands currently, cops are expected to go way above and beyond their job description in a lot of scenarios, so having no mental healthcare infrastructure, for example, is just as unfair to them in that sense.  Rather than continuing to waste money on the militarization of the police, we need community and welfare services in place which reduce the need for a heavy police presence.

Defunding can mean in part or in whole.  If in whole, like I already said, cities are able to establish new public safety organizations which circumvent the need to deal with a corrupt police union which labels every murder as justified.


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 21, 2020)

MrCokeacola said:


> lol is America really that much of a third world?


https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/1969-montreals-night-of-terror


----------



## DarknessPlay3r (Jun 21, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/1969-montreals-night-of-terror


51 years ago and in fucking "Montreal" of all goddamn places. Hardly comparable to what could/is going on right now...


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 21, 2020)

DarknessPlay3r said:


> 51 years ago and in fucking "Montreal" of all goddamn places. Hardly comparable to what could/is going on right now...


Do you think human nature has changed in 50 years? It serves a few purposes as evidence. Demonstrating that this is not unique to America and as a general principle the threat of force is necessary for civil society. This was a single day and the decay set in immediately in a city that has grown significantly since then. What do you imagine would happen if this were to go on for days or weeks at a time? Let alone any hypothetical scenario where the police are abolished permanently.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jun 21, 2020)

Xzi said:


> The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone has been established for more than a few weeks already.  Not one death/murder has occurred inside of it.  Kinda undercuts your argument here.



https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...orning-shooting-at-capitol-hill-protest-zone/


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 21, 2020)

Yes, even doughy larpers will kill each other, lol.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2020)

barronwaffles said:


> https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...orning-shooting-at-capitol-hill-protest-zone/


Yeah I saw that last night, just my luck on the timing.  The shooter was probably a conservative nutjob like usual, but I'll reserve judgment on that until we have more information.  Regardless, these types of shootings happen every day in America, even in the most heavily-policed of areas.  Let's not pretend that their presence in the general vicinity would've prevented this.



FGFlann said:


> Yes, even doughy larpers will kill each other, lol.


"Doughy LARPers?"  And here I thought you were pro-police.


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 21, 2020)

If you take policing as seriously as I do CHAZ that explains why your world view is so fucked.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> If you take policing as seriously as I do CHAZ that explains why your world view is so fucked.


I read this sentence three times over and it still makes no sense.  So here's a long-winded meme:


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 21, 2020)

I accept your concession, lol.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> I accept your concession, lol.


Edit: you know what, it was actually my bad this time around, my mind was replacing a couple words while reading it for some reason.  Let me try my response again.



FGFlann said:


> If you take policing as seriously as I do CHAZ that explains why your world view is so fucked.


It doesn't matter how seriously I take policing as long as they don't take their own physical or mental fitness seriously.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 21, 2020)

Re "have a gun"
If you are in more than a simple incident, and even then things generally favour those with what is to follow, then you will need to know how to use it (takes practice, quite a lot of it in fact), be reasonably supplied with ammo (how many shots needed varies, personally I like covering/harassing fire), be capable of ending a life (most can't naturally and the training to do so is rather harsh and usually has lasting consequences), be aware of cover (and use it), possibly be trained to do things one handed, have some medical training and gear (though the nice hospitals to properly fix you back up tend to struggle in such scenarios as well).



Xzi said:


> The outrage was national for good reason, George Floyd's murder was by no stretch of the imagination an isolated incident.
> 
> Yes, let's.  As it stands currently, cops are expected to go way above and beyond their job description in a lot of scenarios, so having no mental healthcare infrastructure, for example, is just as unfair to them in that sense.  Rather than continuing to waste money on the militarization of the police, we need community and welfare services in place which reduce the need for a heavy police presence.
> 
> Defunding can mean in part or in whole.  If in whole, like I already said, cities are able to establish new public safety organizations which circumvent the need to deal with a corrupt police union which labels every murder as justified.



Do we have a list? I try to follow such things and they are pretty few and far between. What is an acceptable level of screw ups we should be aiming for? Because you are going to get them.

Was the guy not slapped with a murder charge (though some legal types reckon the one he got might have been too high a one if a conviction is sought) and those that should have known better also charged with things?

Do you need to defund the police to in turn fund some headcase bins? I am dubious about the police needing tanks/armoured personnel carries and the like as much as most but a) most of that is not actually that expensive being military surplus and b) why not earmark it/designate it for other funds?

On police unions then are they really so hopelessly corrupt and make weeding out the bad ones that slip through/find themselves created that much harder?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Do we have a list? I try to follow such things and they are pretty few and far between.


Closest I can find off-hand is this, though it doesn't seem to account for those who were killed by police through any means other than shooting, and it doesn't account for any instances of police brutality that didn't end in death.


			
				WaPo said:
			
		

> After Michael Brown, an unarmed black man, was killed in 2014 by police in Ferguson, Mo., a Post investigation found that the FBI undercounted fatal police shootings by more than half. This is because reporting by police departments is voluntary and many departments fail to do so.
> 
> Although half of the people shot and killed by police are white, black Americans are shot at a disproportionate rate. They account for less than 13 percent of the U.S. population, but are killed by police at more than twice the rate of white Americans. Hispanic Americans are also killed by police at a disproportionate rate.





FAST6191 said:


> Was the guy not slapped with a murder charge (though some legal types reckon the one he got might have been too high a one if a conviction is sought) and those that should have known better also charged with things?


In George Floyd's case, yes, but seemingly only because the entire thing was recorded and there was too much public pressure to ignore.  Breonna Taylor was murdered in her sleep just days prior to George Floyd's murder, and it appears as though there are no plans to charge any of the officers involved (though the department says they will be fired).



FAST6191 said:


> Do you need to defund the police to in turn fund some headcase bins?


Police and military are just about the only things left that the US hasn't already de-funded, so we're left with few other good options.  Aside from healthcare (both physical and mental), plenty of other sectors stand to benefit, including education, housing, youth services, and parks/wildlife.



FAST6191 said:


> On police unions then are they really so hopelessly corrupt and make weeding out the bad ones that slip through/find themselves created that much harder?


Unfortunately, yes.  The bad ones are not the exception within the current system, they're the rule.  There are few better examples of this I can point to than Cariol Horne, a black female police officer who was fired after she stepped in to stop a white officer's potentially lethal chokehold on a suspect.  She lost her pension eligibility after having worked 19 of the 20 years required to receive it.  Meanwhile, Derek Chauvin (George Floyd's killer) remains eligible for his pension to this day.


----------



## emigre (Jun 21, 2020)

Am British so not been following this in any kind of detail. But isn't the while 'abolish the police' actually meant to be focusing on community policing with a greater emphasis moving money from the police budget into other areas like education basically adopt a public health approach to crime especially in preventing crimes and reoffending?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 21, 2020)

You might be expecting a bit more nuance and forethought there than many of the shoutiest elements (which actually do seem to have some clout in discussions and are not being dismissed as much as they probably should) seem to in possession of, and possibly have a different definition if you are thinking like police community support officers and town rangers in some places around here, and all of those and the police being reasonably tightly integrated with charities, social services and the like.

Most of the proposals I have seen seem to be more figure it out on the night, pay a pittance and have the locals (as if the police would not welcome all the suitable candidates locally that they could already, and probably pay a lot better than these schemes) take care of it than a properly thought out proposal and transition.

The US could really do with something (it is noted that soldiers don't make good police without a transition period into it as there is a rather large difference between kicking a door in and seconds count, and calming things down. With the US police being both front line mental health work and vs armed gunman* later in the evening that makes things rather harder), and probably a bunch of reform in other ways (if they are not doing that then (often informal) quotas of tickets represent a sizeable amount of area income, which really sucks if you are just scraping by), but that does not seem to be stuff under discussion which is a pity.

*quite how that is going to work when the first 10 or so of the nice and happy community police types get ambushed I don't know.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jun 27, 2020)

I am all for establishing diplomatic ties between CHAZ/CHOP and the People´s Republic of China. Freedom from oppression to the people of CHAZ/CHOP!


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 27, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I am all for establishing diplomatic ties between CHAZ/CHOP and the People´s Republic of China. Freedom from oppression to the people of CHAZ/CHOP!


Too late. CHAZ got the chop because they couldn't stop thieving, shooting and raping each other. Very tragic. Some Chinese discipline might have done them some good.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jun 27, 2020)

They have not given up yet. The mayor of Seattle has betrayed their friendly relationship and threatens their annihilation. If they survive the aggression, China could send over some farmers to show the young nation that a garden actually needs more than 1cm of earth sprinkled on a cardboard.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Too late. CHAZ got the chop because they couldn't stop thieving, shooting and raping each other. Very tragic.


You're thinking of the Republican national convention, that's a couple months away still.

Seriously though, protesters have continued to occupy the police precinct this entire time.  Not sure how much of the autonomous zone remains otherwise.


----------



## Rail Fighter (Jun 27, 2020)

Just play the John Lennon music and everything will be ok.


----------



## GBAer (Jun 27, 2020)




----------



## CactusMan (Jun 27, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> Just play the John Lennon music and everything will be ok.


The People Republic of CHOP should blast this Lennon Song trough the neighbour hood.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2020)

Hey, 'member when conservatives were telling people to be self-reliant and buy a gun because the police will always take too long to show up to a crime scene?  I 'member.  Guess it's only when cops are beating and killing black people that the right-wing likes to pretend they're suddenly useful and worth defending as an institution.


----------



## supershadow64ds (Jun 27, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The same people who want to abolish the police are the same people who want the police to take our guns and keep us locked in our own homes.



What if I want to arm citizens and have them exercise their 2nd ammendment rights yet also repurpose the massively overbloated police funds into public health and education


----------



## FGFlann (Jun 27, 2020)

It's time to establish the GBAtemp autonomous zone and show them how it's done. Gamers rise up.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jun 27, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> Just play the John Lennon music and everything will be ok.



John Lennon was a narcissistic, woman beating, child abandoning, hypocritical, loser.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jun 27, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> It's time to establish the GBAtemp autonomous zone and show them how it's done. Gamers rise up.


there is already one, its called the EoF.....its a bit shit


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jun 27, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Guess it's only when cops are beating and killing black people that the right-wing likes to pretend they're suddenly useful and worth defending as an institution.


To their credit, I have never heard right-wingers call for the defunding or abolishment of police. When shit gets real, people who just cursed at the police scream "call 911" (as seen in New Mexico).

Have you seen the video of the New Mexico incident? A (former?/undercover?) police officer is attacked by a mob. He is attacked by someone hitting him with a skateboard, walks backwards (even with his back towards them), but they scream "he is a cop", "get him" "I am going to kill you" as he walks away from them and is being chased by them. The mob attacks him and he shoots in self-defence.
How do you interpret it (if you have seen it)?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> To their credit, I have never heard right-wingers call for the defunding or abolishment of police.


Like I said, I've heard plenty of people on the right describe the police as useless, "won't get there until you're already dead," etc.  I don't see any reason why those same individuals wouldn't support their tax dollars going to more useful institutions/programs.  Well, unless they're libertarian anarchists or shameless hypocrites, anyway.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Have you seen the video of the New Mexico incident? A (former?/undercover?) police officer is attacked by a mob. He is attacked by someone hitting him with a skateboard, walks backwards (even with his back towards them), but they scream "he is a cop", "get him" "I am going to kill you" as he walks away from them and is being chased by them. The mob attacks him and he shoots in self-defence.


I hadn't seen nor heard of this incident, no.  At least the guy got to walk away with his life, though, whereas the heavily armed, far-right "boogaloo boys" have been straight executing a number of police officers in the streets lately.  Obviously their reasons for hating the cops are very different from the left's, but a murder is a murder regardless.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jun 27, 2020)

You should watch the video. If I can find it in China, you can surely find it as well. I´m interested in your interpretation since we differed in terms of the interpretation of another shooting.


----------



## Rail Fighter (Jun 27, 2020)




----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 27, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> To their credit, I have never heard right-wingers call for the defunding or abolishment of police.



Then you have not been looking hard enough or paying very selective attention. Few will use the word defund or abolish but the end results in their fantasy world where they could say what goes end up going somewhat similar places, or heading in that direction even if with somewhat different underlying logic.

While there are plenty on the right wing (though not exclusive to them either) that will generally tolerate the police as is, or go much further still, there are also plenty that fall under the broad umbrella of right wing politics (left-right wing is a massive oversimplification for most purposes) that will seek massive scaling back of police activities (this will usually be more on the libertarian side of things, though contemplating even just the US take on libertarian notions of government for than 30 seconds will show why left-right is an oversimplification), and reform of them in general (various powers they have, the ticket writing quota stuff, the various powers they want to give them instead, the training they would want them to have and on and on).

For my money the latter likely have some better ideas if the alternative is to assume the police are violent, racist thugs that are better all fired and to instead start over -- I still maintain the US police don't have a racism problem as much as one of the major factors in the poverty problem. Spend 100 billion finding racist police officers and you will get a few dozen people close to retirement and a few people in the deep dark south, spend 100 billion funding some better education, attracting employers (or creating them if as a government you can "compete with private enterprise"*, maybe consider compelling people to have better firearms training (barring legal records it is generally harder to pass a driving test than get a gun, and such things come with no expectation you know how to properly use it. If I look around the world that would seem to be one of the major differences in places that have sizeable amounts of weapons in the hands of civilians), funding some mental health treatment (and possibly health in general -- plenty of people go broke thanks to that one, I have never heard of it here**), better training for police and the results will be far better.

*the US has a weird hangup there. Or if you prefer it is why their tax filing is a hideous mess where most of the rest of the world logs onto an online system the government provides, spends 20 minutes (I am self employed with dozens of clients in various contracts and states of remuneration , I spend 20 minutes each year though that is also aided by keeping books at the time) and calls it a day. Now imagine what happens when that is scaled all the way up to nation level.

**I suppose technically I have. Mainly someone that could not finish a contract or we the family's main breadwinner before getting taken in for seriously needed treatment and not coming out at full capacity. Nobody ever really got buried by bills unless it was for optional stuff.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 27, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> John Lennon was a narcissistic, woman beating, child abandoning, hypocritical, loser.




He used that word, too. Are there any John Lennon statues??


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Jun 28, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Hey, 'member when conservatives were telling people to be self-reliant and buy a gun because the police will always take too long to show up to a crime scene?  I 'member.  Guess it's only when cops are beating and killing black people that the right-wing likes to pretend they're suddenly useful and worth defending as an institution.


You threaten the criminal with a loaded gun, then call the police if they run away. If the criminal pulls out a gun of their own, shoot. Simple, yet effective.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jun 28, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> He used that word, too. Are there any John Lennon statues?



There are two that I know of. One in Cuba and one in Florida.

Edit: If you'd like you can contact the owners of the one in Florida and let them know it should be taken down. I did, because I can and because I cannot stand Lennon or The Beatles. Haha.

https://barrymorehotel.com/contact-us/
https://www.facebook.com/BarrymoreHotel/
https://twitter.com/barrymorehotel


----------



## notimp (Jun 29, 2020)

What it means to defund the police


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 30, 2020)

and what you will get when you do


----------

