Only feasible if both sides comply.
Actually most rescues, while they do focus on the dog named in the rescue, also do a substantial amount for other breeds.
And they certainly wouldn’t just let a dog suffer or die simply because it wasn’t the breed of honor.
But, they do typically see a particular breed that is being neglected as far as fostering and adoption, and work to fill that hole in the dog safety net.
So, you do have a good example there. Just like BLM, dog rescues are not limited by the name to what dogs they care about, just the ones that the see as being the most underserved.
Would that be a form of abolishment?
No, you fire them all, then let them apply for their jobs as peace officers. You have new standards for screening. I’m sure that many cops would qualify for their new roles, probably most.
The ones that don’t can think on their sins or whatever they want to do. What they won’t be doing is abusing their authority to harm the communities they are supposed to protect and serve.
OTOH, she is saying that the guy who owns the Target is
But we still should listen. I don’t agree that she called or justified the destruction, any more than the weatherman that draws the short straw called for or justified the hurricane that they are standing in.
She’s standing in the wind and rain, telling us what’s up, and we watch from the comfort of our warm and dry living rooms, and feel the need to blame her for the weather.
You asked earlier if my reaction was emotional or rational, and I responded that my reaction is a rational response to the emotions that are on display.
The social contract goes both ways. There are responsibilities that we members of the community need to follow, and there are responsibilities that the community has towards its members.
I have said that I judge a society by how many steps it needs to take before it resorts to violence to get its way, and that goes both ways.
Everyone will agree that at some point, the cops do need to offer violence in order to achieve public safety, we only disagree on how far out of their way they have to go before they should turn to violence.
I say it goes the other way as well. At some point, the community needs to offer violence in order to achieve public safety, and we are having a disagreement as to how far out of the way they need to go before they should have to turn to violence.
We didn’t listen when they asked nicely, we didn’t listen when the protested politely, we didn’t listen when they knelt for an anthem, we didn’t listen when they blocked a road.
During all of this, they have continued to endure the torture and dehumanization by militarized and racist police forces oppressing their communities.
People laugh at protesters, and ask what they think that they are accomplishing. Well, the entire point of a protest is to show that the community is not happy with the governance that it is receiving. If those in charge refuse to listen to any form of peaceful redress of grievances, what do you suggest that they do?
I’m certainly not the first to say it, “If you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.”
I think that people are too happy with the status quo to bother to change anything unless there is some threat that things will be changed without them.
Have you seen Red Dawn? Are Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen the bad guys in that movie?
In a 70 MPH zone?
No, our responsibility is to make such rhetoric unnecessary, and respond to it when it is offered, not with contempt and dismissal, but empathy and understanding.
I’m not sure what is keeping you from acknowledging & endorsing something that every black community leader, congressional leader, religious leader and even historic leader like Dr. King advocated for.
I’m not conditioning the need for dramatic social justice change based on strictly non-violent protests. I have stated and state again that I am not contemptuous or dismissive of the anger that they justifiably feel. All I’m saying is that it is not unreasonable to also acknowledge that advocating for destruction is contrary to achieving the desired goals. People with real authority and credibility on the subject have said the same.
Excellent and compelling arguments.
#5. Acknowledge that your coming home alive is not the most important thing if it means other people die by your hand.
I had never heard that phrase before, “your coming home alive is the most important thing” when I heard it here in a discussion about how US police officers should behave while on duty. They should never be re-active, always be pro-active. That means always be the first to shoot.
Always be the first to shoot. Never face any consequences for shooting because your coming home alive is the most important thing.
That’s what has lead you here. Any questions?
The difference is our understanding of these things. By my reading of Dr King, he would not have criticized this woman’s rhetoric.
Well, that is still speeding, and sure, that complaint may have some validity, but it isnt racist remarks or use of force. Most complaints are for minor crap.
My “bright line” on the use of force would be that you may not shoot unless shot at first or if someone is presenting a clear and immediate threat to the safety of others. Leaving it to the judgement of the police and their standard of “fear” results in everything from tragedies born of poor judgement to outright abuse of power.
I spent years as a cable tech. I was yelled at and threatened. I’ve had guns pulled on me for disconnects. I never killed a single customer. Or their dogs.
Not having a gun and cover to use it taught me how to de-escalate a situation. If I had been allowed to just kill anyone that made me concerned for my safety, I would have relied on that, rather than listening to their concerns and validating them, even if I’m still going to cut off their cable at the end of the day.
One thing I certainly learned on that job is that almost no one can keep up a rant for more than 90 seconds. You stand there, hand on chin with a concerned look, and when they start to slow down and calm down, you address the points that they made directly. They still may not like the answers, but they are in a better state of mind to accept them.
If you don’t let them get it out of their system, or if you give them a “Are you done now?” reply, then they will become more agitated and angry.
Depends on whether there is a racial disparity in who gets a pulled over for 5 over and who doesn’t.
Also depends on how things escalate from there. If I give the cop an attitude for giving me a ticket for 5 over, does he drag me out of my car and/or tase me?
Agreed. That’s good advice for anyone working with the public. The fact is that people get angry. Their points might be valid or might be complete bullshit, but if you let them get it off their chest, let them call you a motherfucker without exploding back, and just listen to what they say and respond directly to their points, then in probably about five minutes that person will be shaking your hand and thanking you for listening, even if that person didn’t get what he or she wanted.
If you cut them off, tell them to tone their voice down, tell them that you won’t stand there and be called a motherfucker, that nobody raises their voice to you, etc. then either you will have a fist fight or the police will have to show up.
Then the person ends up ten times angrier and may resort to violence because words aren’t working. Yes, the police should abide by this. So when a guy goes off on a rant about how what he is doing is perfectly legal and why don’t you fucking pigs go eat a donut or find real criminals, let him rant, then politely but firmly explain to him why he is wrong. Don’t pepper spray him in the face “for officer safety” because he seemed “agitated.”
You are adding in excessive force and racist profiling to what is simply a guy complaining he got caught speeding.
If it was excessive force and/or racist profiling, those are different level complaints.
On deeper reflection, I think I was unfair in my earlier judgements and conclusions.
Fair enough, thanks.
Not sure where you got your numbers for India.
Per Wikipedia , India stands at 1 per 10 million people while the US is at 46.6 per 10 million people.
Thread is only six pages long, it is not unreasonable to expect someone to read all the paged. Go back to page 104:
India has a excessive number of what they call “police encounters”-433 in one six month period in one State:
*The government of the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has been accused of carrying out hundreds of extra-judicial killings. Journalist Sharat Pradhan explores this extraordinary claim.
The regional government said it has conducted 433 “police encounters” in a bid to improve law and order in the state.
An encounter is a popular Indian term for fatal police shootings, most of which appear to be staged.
Rising crime rates in Uttar Pradesh convinced Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to launch the crackdown, according to officials who spoke to the BBC on the condition of anonymity.
Official statistics say 433 such “killings” had occurred over six months, starting in March 2017 when Mr Adityananth was elected on the back of a massive mandate for India’s right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).*
There are more:
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/extrajudicial-killings-long-history-fake-encounters
A high-profile case filed in 2012 before the Supreme Court of India related to allegations of 1,528 extrajudicial killings in the state of Manipur,
So, because these are not “legal” police shooting, India doesnt count them, we have no idea of how many there really are- but clearly many.
Clearly you don’t know what is actually being proposed by your fellow travelers. Check them out and make better arguments than the condescending dismissals you’ve posted so far.
I just couldn’t let this incomprehensible fucking idiocy pass without comment. If she concedes that the police are doing a poor job of pursuing rapists now, just what does she expect to happen after she’s cut their budget and numbers in half?
I am absolutely on board with the idea that the culture of policing in the US needs major reform. But the people who are literally, seriously arguing for abolishing the police just totally suck the air out of the room.
It’s as if we’re talking about a trade dispute with Australia, and there is a loud and prominent faction arguing “We should just nuke Sydney!” My reaction is fuck no, you’re obviously insane, there’s no point in even dignifying this with a response.
I still wonder just how “loud and prominent” that faction is, frankly. I certainly don’t think it’s to the numbers of Trump’s base, for example.
And the reason they feel that way is that they’ve been promised “reform” over and over and over again, only to see nothing change, or everything slide back to the way it was, perhaps because the entire system is rotten to the core. Why should they believe in reform this time?
I would love to see you go toe to toe with Mariame Kaba (the author of that article) on police and prison abolition. She literally wrote the book on transformative justice for sexual assault cases, along with Shira Hassan whose entire career is centered around getting justice for sexual assault victims outside our broken-ass police and judicial system. Fumbling Towards Repair literally has hundreds of pages of practical advice from people who have in practice, handled sexual assault mediation between victims and assailants, and gotten both the victims and assailants the help they need to heal.
The issue with cops isn’t that they don’t have the bandwidth and funding to pursue sexual assault cases. Look up how many untested rape kits there are lying around, or how many times cops refuse to even reasonably log rape complaints because there’s “no physical evidence.”
The justice system does not handle sexual assault well. There are organizations doing way better than the police literally ever had, in a purely voluntary matter, with little to no public funding, in a fashion that is fundamentally incompatible with the very structure of our current public safety system.
I believe the research literature generally shows that more police reduces crime but one wrinkle that I hadn’t known is that apparentlymore police reduces violent crime more than property crime. So yeah these proposals to cut police are foolish and will probably result in many more dead black people. I suspect they won’t be passed in most places but a few cities may be foolish enough to try and that will be damaging enough.