Someone call P. Diddy, to pick up all the songs.Too bad for Sting, royalties will go down.
it's hard to be more intellectually bankrupt than thisI found a meme.
Could somebody please pull up the statistics?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?
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.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.
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.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.