Forgive my pedantry here. But with the exception of the four cops who were charged with the crime, it sounds like all the other cops, from senior to rank and file, are going to continue to perform their job in the same capacity. So this seems much more like “Reform” than “Abolish” or “Dismantle”. In fact, until we see some actual change, it sounds like a lot of lip service being paid.
“To put an end to” is too vague to mean anything. “Put an end to a system” can mean an infinite number of scenarios.
Again, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THERE BE NO LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AT ALL. Anyone who says that’;s the idea is either not paying attention or is a Fox News liar. Your list of scary, scary ideas is based entirely on a straw man.
So what exactly is being abolished here? Not the actual cops. Not their general attitude about policing. Not the structural chain of command, except perhaps a few police chiefs.
I sure hope this isn’t more of the same happy talk about “Abolishing Abusive Police Practices” by establishing a new review committee.
Okay, but it makes no difference. Abolish the police in even one city and that’ll be enough. Trump and the Republicans will point to that and say “See? This is just the beginning. Vote Democrat and they’ll do the same to your town.” They’ll scaremonger, and it’ll work, because scaremongering nearly always does. Again, remember Willie Horton. It’ll be that, times a thousand.
Politically speaking, I do see your point, but it is not such an absolute when one realizes that the explanations make more sense coming from the ones demanding reform while the ones getting the “gift” of keeping the status quo sound unhinged and they do seem to think that telling minorities or poor Americans that it is raining and that that is not pee will fly. The “business as usual” guys are really making less sense when Trump has gone hard authoritarian and 100% tone deaf.
Did you really read what was done in the places where reform took place? A lot of what the police was doing was taken away from them as harm reduction and other items come in.
Velocity you got it wrong, as far as the cause. Majority of murders of black people in the US are from other black people. The source of this is primarily the high rate of black people below the poverty level. With no law enforcement and no increase in the standard of living for black people, their murder rate would increase.
It sounds that you are reaching for perfect solutions so as to dismiss the good ones. But that is fair, just do not forget that as they say it: “check out the readings recommended” in the article from MPD 150.
No whooshing, just gentle ribbing, and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that the blame may lie in my interpretation.
You said “Of course it’s not resolved.” To me, that implies use of the word “resolved” preceding a debate title implies something has already been resolved. That’s not what “resolved” means in that context.
I really don’t think Trump or Congress have anything to say about it, other than maybe some grant funding. The federal government has no say in how local (state and smaller) agencies work. They can neither create nor dissolve nor mandate local police departments. States’ Rights and all that.
I do think its pretty clear that the right wing benefits from all this. Its fear mongering at its finest. “The Dems want to abolish the police! Choas! Death! Your women and children are in danger! Vote Republican” I approve of this message - DJT, Your Law & Order President and Savior. Its not a reach, at all.
Oh, see, whenever I read threads that start with “Resolved:____”, I immediately assume the opposite. That the OP is submitting a hypothesis that may seem compelling, and is looking for challenge/falsification.
Yes, what I meant to say was “You said ‘Of course it’s not resolved.’ To me, that implies that you think use of the word ‘resolved’ preceding a debate title implies something has already been resolved. That’s not what ‘resolved’ means in that context.”
