I disagree that the temporary number is relevant to the overall picture of the evolution of the Camden police department, and I think that the only reason to fixate on it is so that you can try to show a completely wrong picture of what happened, but we can agree to disagree on whether it is more important to see what happened over a 2 year period, vs what happened during that transition.
I can understand the term because I had a desire to understand it, and found it pretty easy to grok. If my desire was to not understand it, then I’d probably have as much difficulty as you seem to be having.
You obviously do not know what “consensus” means, if you think that it means that everyone agrees. There is consensus on global warming, but not everyone agrees. There is consensus on the fact that the planet Earth approximates a sphere in shape, but not everyone agrees.
You are correct that Camden is not an example that defunding the police is the only thing that you have to do, and if anyone had made that claim, then you would have won the internets with your observation. However, Camden is an example of a police department that has turned around significantly in how it relates to the community it serves, and can be used as an example for what they did right. It also can be used as an example of some pitfalls to avoid, as there certainly were some things that they got wrong towards the beginning.
We’ve been over this a few times. And I am not a spokesperson for the group any more than I am a spokesperson for water when I tell you that it is wet.
People have been brutalized over minor and petty things like brake lights, and that’s exactly the sort of thing that we need to stop, and that’s exactly the sort of thing that you are arguing to continue.
In an idea world, if you have a brake light out, then you get pulled over, and a person in a service uniform (no gun) comes up and says, “Hey, I saw you have a broken tail light. If you have 10 minutes, I’ll go ahead and take care of that for you. If you are in a hurry, you can go ahead and schedule an appointment. You can come in, or we can come to you. We want to get this taken care of soon, though, it is a safety issue.”
Now, ask yourself this, is the point of pulling people over for broken brake lights to improve public safety, or is it to punish people for being poor?
If the former, then my idea would work great, and would cost far less than the cop who would just issue a citation at best. If the latter, then we should just keep doing what we are doing.
Once again, we have to back up the whole thing. First, we need to determine the reason for a law against drinking on the sidewalk, and how to best accommodate the actual purpose of the law. If the reason for it is to prevent public intoxication and harassment/violence from the drunks, then a social worker to help them with their alcoholism would be better than Bob pouring out their drinks. If the reason is to keep people from loitering on the street drinking, then you could have community events where they are welcome. If the reason is to punish homeless people for being homeless and having a drink in the only place they can be, then keep doing what we are doing.
It has been addressed in this thread, other threads, and in other places by others, I can’t help you if you refuse to see. I have not dismissed any of your questions, I have done quite a bit of dilligence in responding to them in full and to the best of my ability.
It is not strawmanning to point out that violence is used to enforce minor violations, and it’s not strawmaninng to say that supporting the status quo is also supporting using violence to enforce minor violations.
And sure, we are still in a bit of a brainstorming session right now as to the best way forward. I have some ideas, other people have some ideas, maybe some will work, maybe some will not. So if you are looking for a precise proposal that will cover all contingencies and all police, then you will not find it, as it does not exist, and you should know that it cannot exist. I have given my proposals, here and elsewhere, and I’ve seen many others out there as well. If you would like to actually look at them and critique them with the idea of making them more workable, then great, feedback is always useful. You may see something that others do not. If you see a flaw in a plan, how about coming up with a way to address that flaw, rather than tossing the whole plan because you don’t think it’s addressable, and you think that that is a critical flaw.
But, at present, all you are doing is fighting against even creating proposals, and complaining that they are too complex and nuanced for you to understand, and that everyone everywhere doesn’t agree on the exact same thing. If all you do is point out what you see as a flaw, without explaining how it is a flaw, or listening to others who have ways of addressing that flaw, that’s not helpful, that’s just supporting the status quo.
My point was an example of community services that help people with their problems, rather than punish them for having them. If it’s not something that can be fixed right then and there, then helping them to get it fixed would be preferable to just giving them a fine for not being able to get it fixed.
But, assuming that it is a poorer person in this situation, it’s probably not all that modern of a car anyway.
Sure, and it is not a bad idea for like in SoCal with it’s “Freeway angels” - maybe carry a few of the most common bulbs & fuzes along with some red cellophane and duct tape .
In fact, that is what I’d do- have Freeway angels to help out stranded motorists and also issue warnings and even citations for poor safety issues. . Guys in trucks to help people- and yes, issue a occ ticket, but mostly help.
Sure. My point is only that it makes far more sense to help people in the community comply with the things that are important to keep the community safe, rather than force people to comply with arbitrary rules that they often do not have the resources to meet.
That’s why I am saying we need to pull way back and analyse the laws, as to why we need them, and the best way to ensure compliance with them. We need to determine what a community needs, rather than tell a community what it needs to do. And analyse the enforcement of those laws, to make sure that they are being enforced in a way that protects and preferably enhances the community, rather than in ways that causes it harm.
And yes, I know cops love traffic stops as they find all sorts of shit.
But here is my point- your are driving along in a bad area- you see a cop car behind you- your immediate reaction is fear (of a ticket) not relief there is a PO there to protect you.
Sure, cops can do License plate checks for warrants and stolen cars- that’s just good policing. And traffic crimes like DUI and unsafe speed. But no more tail light pull overs.
I disagree with the idea that a proper state function is to provide free automotive maintenance to people on the fly. I see the point you are trying to make, but your implication is than an officer pulls someone over with a brake light out and just starts beating on the person. That just doesn’t happen (I want to say “at all” but I’m sure that there is probably a single example that you might cite).
Usually the person gets a “fix it” ticket, shows the bill for the brake light, and the charge is dismissed. If not, then the person, just like me or you, pays a fine for operating an unsafe vehicle on the roadway which was dangerous and could cause an accident. If you drive a vehicle, you have to maintain it properly. I don’t see any huge injustice in that. We could debate whether or not there should be a social welfare program to provide brake lights for the poor, but we want them to be functioning, no? And if we do, we have to have a system to enforce that.
And why the person/officer/meter maid/social worker must be unarmed is a head scratcher, especially in a state that allows every other non-criminal adult to carry a gun. This person, uniquely, must be unarmed? I don’t see the point.
If there is an issue with these individuals summarily executing people for having a brake light out, or responding to petty insults with lethal force, then we need to hire different people.
Why is it so complicated that we have to treat people like children? I’m somewhat sympathetic to the idea that it is a poor law to say that someone cannot discretely drink on the sidewalk. But I don’t get to pick the good laws and only abide by those. If I get caught drinking in public, then why shouldn’t I get a simple citation or an instruction to pour it out? If the officer uses force for simple public drinking, and not because I throw a punch at him, then we need to fire that dude and get better officers. That seems far superior than having a complex system of counselors and public drinking festivals.
No, my implication is not that they just start beating on people over a broken brake light. However, it is in fact the case that people have been beaten over broken tail lights. You keep trying to exclude the middle here. If you think that this is something that has only happened once, you really need to pay attention to what is going on.
Yes, it is the case that thousands of police interactions happen everyday, and most turn out amicably. That’s why we are talking about the ones that do not turn out amicably. There is an intersection near here that the vast majority of the time, there are no accidents, but, there are accidents there at a higher rate than most intersections. Are you saying that we should just accept that most cars get through it without trouble, or should we look into why and how to prevent the higher number of accidents?
The debate on whether we should have a social welfare program to assist the poor in complying with things the community deems necessary to achieve public safety, or whether we should punish them for not complying with arbitrary laws that are not within their resources to meet is exactly the debate we are having here. That is what “defund the police” means. Stop using the police to punish people, and start using community services to help people.
I don’t see the point in bringing a gun to a mechanic fight. A gun is just going to raise tensions. If a mechanic doesn’t think that he can fix a light bulb without a gun, then he’s the wrong guy for the job. I worked for the cable company for a few years. I took away people’s cable for a living (well I also gave it to them, but they were generally not as annoyed.) I’ve had threats of violence, I’ve even had guns pointed at me while I was up on the ladder pulling their wires off the tap. I never needed a gun. Why is someone who is there to help need one?
There is an issue with people being brutalized and killed over non-violent minor offenses and petty insults, and so what we need to do is hire different people.
You are not treating people like children. You are treating them like adults. Pouring out their beer is treating them like children. Giving them a place that they could congregate that doesn’t bother the community is treating them like adults.
I didn’t really get into King of the Hill, but I do know that one repeating iconic scene was with the 4(?) of them standing out in the alley drinking beer. Do you think that Officer Bob should have cited them? Should he have poured out their beers?
If the guys refuse to pour out their beers, should the officer resort to force at this point to ensure compliance?
It all comes down to what the reason for your law is. If it is to improve public safety, then you do the things that will improve public safety. If it is to punish people for being poor, then you do the things that we are doing.
The idea is to keep traffic flowing and safely, not free maintenance. It works very well here on the LA Freeways. Water for radiators , enuf gas to get to a gas station, a jump start, etc. I wouldnt say no to a few of the more common bulbs.
Police all the time use the 'broken brake light" as a reason to pull someone over, just in case they see drugs, smell drugs, see a gun, etc. Unfortunately they pull over blacks and browns much more often than whites. This is perceived by the minority communities as being racist- and too often it is. This is a major source of friction between Police and Black/Brown communities. So, let’s get rid of it. Instead- helpful Freeway angels- who, yes, can issue a “fix it” ticket if they cant get it fixed and they dont think the driver will fix it real soon. They can also maybe issue tickets for simple traffic violations- but not drunk driving, etc- and there, they’d call the police. They’d all have a direct line in for that.
Gun? Why? Do meter maids carry guns? Our Freeway angels dont carry guns. Many park rangers- even those who are sworn law enforcement- dont carry guns (I know, I wuz one). The purpose of a gun - as opposed to tasers and pepper spray- is to stop a “clear and present danger” to the public safety and to the cop- who generally isnt allowed to run like hell. The Freeway patrol would be ordered to run like hell if a gun in brandished. They’d have a panic button, also.