n/m…
And for yet others, rhetoric like this might convince them that they need a strong police force to protect them from violent malcontents who want to burn things down.
Got what wrong? There are people in this very thread saying things like “we are better off without cops. Communities can in fact police their own…”
Are you going to argue that “without cops” doesn’t actually mean “without cops”, just like you’re saying “abolish the police” doesn’t actually mean “abolish the police”?
This is great! Language is meaningless. All the benefits of a catchy slogan without having to actually defend the policy you’re advocating.
Abolish coal! But we’ll still have coal mines and power plants.
Abolish prisons! But we’ll still punish criminals by confining them in a place called a “prison”.
Abolish the electoral college! But we’ll still technically vote for electors in a way determined by each state, who will participate in a group called the electoral college and choose the president…
Abolish capital punishment! But we’ll still execute criminals.
So, what do you propose? Who is going to show up? What authority will they have? I’m serious. In a DV case where the husband is drunk and threatening and the wife calls 911 saying she is afraid, who gets dispatched? You want someone other than armed people with power of arrest and the legal authority to use force to handle the call? Details please. What other violent crimes should not be handled by the police?
I’d expect such folks would already feel this way and don’t have the understanding of history to put it in its proper context.
In other news, grassroots efforts sometimes have slogans that aren’t created by the collaboration of the Marketing and Legal departments and tested against multiple focus groups. Maybe you should fire off a stern letter to the Board of Directors of BLM.
But, this slogan has done one real concrete thing, it’s gotten people talking about police reform. Sure, a lot of the talking is “this is nonsense”, but a lot is “well, maybe we don’t go THAT far but we might…”
Please elaborate on #5. Write a sentence or two (or as many as you’d like) on what a policy that you could agree with would look like. Under what circumstances should a police officer be allowed to use deadly force? Should there be a different standard when the officer is defending a third person as opposed to himself? If you are going to use terms like “last resort” or “absolutely necessary” or “least amount required”, please define those terms.
Cops have to have qualified immunity, just like all other govt officials have. Otherwise, their life would be nothing but endless lawsuits. Crooks would sue cops out of existence.
-
Yep
-
Depends upon reasons.
That is part of the hiring process, but yes, after any confirmed complaint a new psych eval should be done. In some Dept it is, but it should be everywhere.
Step 1 is actually to stop dreaming if you think the police union would allow ANY of these.
So step 1 is to disband the police union.
Some complaints, like unnecessary force, sure.
But “This cop wrote me a ticket for 90, but I was only going 75” type complaints? Many complaints are minor and bogus.
Clearly you don’t know what a straw man and reduction to absurdity are, check them out and make better arguments.
Agreed. I didn’t research the terminology, but I was talking about serious issues involving loss of life, bodily harm or egregious civil rights violations. That said, a cop who’s the subject of 30 minor complaints where the average is under 10 might also merit oversight from a body outside his or her own department.
Here’s Time on the abolish-police movement: Why Activists Want to Defund Police Departments | Time
It seems to me that one thing you hear about repeatedly is police answering calls to a home and the family dog getting shot dead. Police shoot a lot of dogs. I’m reminded of the idea that children who torture animals are considered at risk of becoming serial killers. I think you could track how abusive a police department is by how many dogs it kills.
Absolutely, agreed.
Let the police handle the minor crap.
My position is supported by the plain text of your cite. Full time police departments were enacted because increasing populations made them necessary. Full stop. Do you have anything else besides a dismissive tone?
Yes, of course, from today’s perspective (and it should have been back then) slavery is absolutely wrong. But in a society where slavery exists, and runaway slaves are a problem for that society, that society responds with enforcing laws.
Even if we assume without evidence that police started to enforce runaway slave laws, the important takeaway from that is that they started to enforce laws of that day just like they enforce the non-racist laws today. The specific purpose is not important, but the general one.
If cars were originally invented to chase down blacks to lynch them, then it would be silly to argue for banning cars today that are not used for that purpose simply because of the roots of the invention.
The articles are not only untrue, but irrelevant.
Yes. I will listen to anger and I will not argue with this lady. However, if she wants me to sign on to a revolution and destruction of property, then I’m right out. She lost me and many others. Better rhetoric will convert people.
Her divisive rhetoric, especially about Rosewood and how “we” don’t own Target is exactly what we don’t need. We don’t need an us v. them, and she didn’t experience Rosewood.
If a couple of black guys mugged me a few years ago, would you have the same sympathy for me if I started spouting racist crap and wanting to burn down black businesses? Why, because history? We weren’t around for that history. I am no more responsible for her ancestors being slaves than she is emotional because hers were.
And iiandyiiii, I understand history, thank you. That’s no excuse for anyone of any race talking about “we” and using that as a racial divider.
I think if you understood history, you’d understand how this could just sound like pablum. “Us vs them” was the only way for many black people to survive, for much of our history. But “us vs them” was only used by white people to oppress and divide. That’s why I say it’s easy for you to avoid it - it was never a matter of life and death for you and yours.
You have the same responsibility we all do - to recognize history and to make the present and future better. Black people aren’t the problem and never have been the problem. Angry rhetoric from black people is not the problem and never has been. The problem is the racist institutions and systems in American society. Shifting focus anywhere else is just smoke and mirrors.
@iiandyiiii: You have the same responsibility we all do. To reject rhetoric of violence/destruction as a viable means to achieve the change we all agree is needed in our society.
The rhetoric in question was not violent or destructive when the entire context is taken into account.