Defunding the Police? It's a test.

So you simply could not accept someone ending a conversation with dignity while graciously giving you the last word?...Yeesh. What a d-bag.

 

How could he? You didn't name the big problems.

 

Spare me - you did not acquiesce in your position - rather you took ball and went home - just left the board.

That is called resigning. Do you play chess ?

 

At no point did I claim to acquiesce my position. I think that is one of them thar strawmen arguments.

Nor did I proverbially "take my ball and go home". I pointed out the reality that both you and I had more than our fair say to defend our positions and that it is time to let the reader decide for themselves whom they felt made the best argument. I was gracious enough to even allow you the last word in the debate wholly unchallenged. I left that discussion fully confident that I had already made my point, and that I have nothing left to prove. Going back and forth endlessly bickering serves no purpose whatsoever.

D-bag indeed.

 

That is what I said mate - I said at no point did you acquiesce your position.

At no point did you make arguments that defended your position - you simply repeated your premise over and over like a parrot on a broken record and made a few unsupported claims. Repetition of premise is not an argument for anything.

 

A strawman argument is when you argue against a point that had not been raised. At no point did I claim to have acquiesced my position, so when you respond by saying "Spare me - you did not acquiesce your position", you are arguing against a point that was not raised. That is a textbook strawman argument. Similarly, if I were to exclaim that you never claimed the stock market would crash, while that may be a true statement, it too would be a strawman argument because I too would be arguing against a point that was not raised.

It looks like you have learned something, or at minimum, you have been given the tools to do so. I can lead a horse to water, but indeed cannot make it drink. Based on everything else, on second thought, I suspect you probably will not.

The only question left is how long will you continue to draw out what had long ago become a pointless conversation. Lets be honest, if you ( or I) did not raise a point on this same subject in your first 7 posts on the subject, how important could that point really be? Surely 3 or 4 posts should suffice on what is a very narrowly defined topic.

It is strange how so many people (with you being a shining example), simply cannot let a conversation go despite the fact that the original predicate has long since been argued fully on both sides. It makes this place almost unbearable. It is stalkerish.[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

You are talking gibberish - I said "Spare me" because you were complaining because I called you out for walking away from the board -saying "I accept your resignation"

Your position is lost -and you have nothing to say to defend your position - yet - you made no attempt to acquiesce - rather you just walked away from the board.

 

Once again, I am going to attempt to graciously exit this conversation. Once again, I am more than happy to allow you the last word unchallenged because I feel more than satisfied that my point ( in this case about the strawman argument) has been made.

The only question left is whether you will persist regardless. Is the last word good enough for you or will you persist in bickering endlessly over nothing?

 

Yes. Exactly..."decreasing Gov't spending" used to be a major part of GOP doctrine....until they joined the Trumpism cult.

 

"The Philadelphia arm of the Black Lives Matter movement has called for the "complete abolition" of the police department in five years as well as the scrapping of military bases abroad.

For more than a month, in the aftermath of George Floyd's death, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has called for sweeping changes across the country in the bid to end racial injustices. At the heart of the debate is the campaign to defund – or dismantle – police departments."
And according to BLM Philadelphia representative and activist YahNé Ndgo, the chapter has developed a five-year plan to do just that.

No more police-on-black violence. Lots more violence, but then we can blame our bad behavior on ALL white people. How nice.... Got it now, don'tcha?

 

Red is the party of big spending - big deficits. Reagan is still the worst IMO - all things considered. The Bush's were big spenders .. and now Donald.

Red is against spending only when it is something they don't like. The same is true of Blue of course.. but at least Blue is not running around with "Fiscal Conservative" banners on their foreheads.

 

From your own link "BLM Philadelphia chapter leader says community is safer without police, needs five years to build alternatives … ""One of the things that we are demanding over five years is the complete abolition. We don't want to see any police in our community," Ndgo told Fox News in an interview Tuesday. "Over the course of those five years, it gives time for the community to begin to build what is needed. We aren't looking to leave any kind of vacancy around the issue of safety."

Defund is not a synonym for dismantle. they are different concepts as we already showed by the very definitions of the words. They may coincide as two separate goals for the same institution or agency, but even then, that does not mean the responsibilities won't go elsewhere and the funding. Some people want to defund ( decrease budgets). Some people want to defund, dismantle and REPLACE.

Try not to treat all branches of the BLM like they are clones. They have their own separate visions on how to accomplish their goal of protecting the lives of young black men at the hands of police, and they modify the tactics and strategies so they have the support of local BLM members.

 

Couldn't agree more..

 

That's a load of manure and you know it. Getting tired of seeing people behave like they had been high on heavy drugs half their life.
Perhaps if they defund funding for your job for five years, you would have a better understanding of what's happening here.

 

Maybe if your loved one was assaulted and choked to death you might see the status quo as unacceptable, might be sick of decades of excuses for similar conduct, and might even look to other models than the current one, for less aggressive approach to policing functions in your locale. You might even 'defund' the current one, and redirect those funds to other agencies and another smaller model that looks like it might be viable. Cops do not deserve employment just because they have employment. They have to be willing to improve performance, and reform the department, or they will lose their funding to a potential competitor yet to be created.

 

These leftist cities have down the wind and now are reaping the whirlwind. Homicide rates in these leftists pits if despair are up on average 30 percent sense they started this crap.

 

The death rate from medical errors in the USA is the third largest after heart disease and cancer. So- lets defund the health industry, and maybe in five years, have it replaced with something "else".

YOU aren't perfect. Cops aren't perfect. There are going to be some unjust deaths when confrontation between criminal suspects and police take place.
BECAUSE the proportion of criminals in the black race is dramatically higher than their proportion in population, they actually come in contact with police far more often.
The ratio of such deaths is not unequal for blacks when you consider that, which IS the relevant parameter.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports, table 43A below, 2018 statistics.

Note that the black population is 13% of the total population of America.

What share of our crime are they responsible for?

Blacks commit 27.4% of all crimes.
53.3% of all murders.

Blacks commit more than half the total murders, more than white and all non-blacks combined.
13% of the population is committing more murders than the other 87%.

They commit more than half the total robbery, more than white and all non-blacks combined.

A grossly disproportionate share of crime in America, especially violent crime, is committed by blacks.

IF we removed that 13% of our population- our national overall crime rate would fall by 27.4%

IF we removed that 13% of our population- our national murder rate would fall by 53.3%.

IF you think cops are unfairly focused on blacks- you are wrong.
It is the disproportionate level of criminals among blacks that brings them a higher level of scrutiny, and that fact also creates an increased need for caution and control when an arrest is necessary- because statistics prove a cop is dealing with a situation at least twice as likely to become violent.

This IS NOT a condition created by police- it is a condition created in the black culture. America has been extremely tolerant Society has been trying to improve that for over 60 years, with a vast amount of concessions and protections from the outside. That has helped some- but has enabled many to think they are specially entitled to be irresponsible and criminal. Thug culture continues to be cultivated in many black families and communities.

For how the nature of this condition has existed in the long term- go the the bottom image and charts. It's not a new thing, it's just more of the same.






Below is: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Note that on these charts, #17 shows the race of the victims, #18 shows the race of offenders, as a rate per 100,000 population.
Blacks have been murdering at a much higher rate, and mostly murdering other blacks- for decades.



NOW- Tell us again about "status quo" numbers that are unacceptable.
Tell us why we should ignore these facts, this consistent disproportionate black violence, and burn down cities and destroy our police forces because a career criminal winds up being killed unjustly in the process of arrest.

Balance that out for us. Tell us how many more people should die for that, because these facts don't matter to you.

 

The fact of the matter is that Blacks are targeted more than whites - and this affects the numbers.

Take Pot for example - despite the fact that the number of "Criminals - those who use pot" is relatively equally dispersed between whites and blacks - a vastly higher percentage of Blacks are arrested for this crime.

 

Here is my post that you quoted. "Maybe if your loved one was assaulted and choked to death you might see the status quo as unacceptable, might be sick of decades of excuses for similar conduct, and might even look to other models than the current one, for less aggressive approach to policing functions in your locale. You might even 'defund' the current one, and redirect those funds to other agencies and another smaller model that looks like it might be viable. Cops do not deserve employment just because they have employment. They have to be willing to improve performance, and reform '

My post was about local governments wanting to reform how police departments function to deal with concerns about overly aggressive interactions and police brutality concerns and how police departments need to be receptive and cooperative to reform efforts, if they want to have stable funding because the mayor and city council can decide to fund an entirely different model if they choose. Yours is a bunch of statistics designed to show how blacks commit more crime and 'thug culture'.

Next time when you quote my post you might want to make your material and my material connect somehow.

 

Let's see if we can simplify this.
It seems you fail to understand how the national statistics of the FBI demonstrate that your point is a fart in the wind compared to the big picture.
IF the level of crime among the poor black victims of the police ended, we could indeed reduce the size and costs of our police departments, because murders would drop 53%.

We only NEED police because we have CRIMINALS. The number of criminals who are black outnumber those who are white in violent crimes- even though there are 7 times as many whites.
The size of a department and the force they need to use is directly related to the quantity and nature of the criminals and levels of crime.
Police over the last two months have been held back. Cities are talking about eliminating or greatly restricting them. The criminals know this. They are responding with- more crime.
The number of active criminals and crime in the last two months has dramatically increased. Little kids (black kids) are being shot by black criminals almost daily.

Somehow, you fail to see the relationship??
OF COURSE you do.

Try this.
Less law enforcement = more crime. If you favor more crime, then you favor less law. It is that simple.

 

Wow. You STILL miss the point. This has to be intentional by now. 'Police = law enforcement' exists as an equation, because society has not created and funded other ways to get there. Defunding police departments need not mean defunding a myriad of other options so your premise is faulty. Your premise presupposes nothing else gets created and funded that reduces crime and enforces laws.

Just because you lack imagination does not mean everyone else does.

The fundamental difference between you and I, is I am willing to listen to other ideas even if some BLM activist happens to be the one with those ideas.

Before I support a 'defunding' proposal in my city , I want to know why its being proposed, whether this is a short term or long term proposal, what it is supposed to accomplish, and how the city intends to get specific duties performed that the reduction of funding makes difficult. If they have good answers, I'll go for it!

 

Over 6,000 years of human history and behavior says you are wrong as hell, and the enforcement of laws requires police. Without armed force backing up laws, criminal minds will seek to exploit society to the fullest. I don't know if you've known many humans, but a large percentage of them are *******s, and they LIKE being *******s. The left's little social experiment is doomed from the start, and will lead to more burning cities.

 

The bad people who break laws will exist and we need the capacity to contain their conduct, including an option that requires the use of force. No question, But your traditional 'police department ', as its currently structured. does not have to be the way you get there. Lets see the nuts and bolts of what is being suggested in a specific locale or city and see what we think about that proposed new model.

 

Oh, I can tell the left has imagination. Trouble is it's the kind that comes from magic mushrooms and/or a total lack of practical experience.

A police department is not a piece of equipment, you discard when it's not working. It's 400,000 trained and dedicated men, being controlled by a small number of elected politicians that have no experience whatsoever in police or justice work, but feel important because they are "in charge'. That is the real key to the degree of police malfunction- and one hell of a lot easier and safer to fix.
That doesn't appeal to the people who want no police, because any police would interfere with their agenda. Should I suspect your motives, or your immaturity? I think it has to be one or the other.

I doubt you have thought this out very well yet. Try again. Get real bold, and consider steeping out side that shoe-box and looking at the larger picture.

 

You haven't thought this through very well. the Police Department is an agency of government under the direct supervision of a mayor and a city council, not a rogue para military organization that gets to decide what it will or will not do. That means its supposed to obey civil authority. If it is not sufficiently compliant and cooperative with that civil authority, then it does not deserve a single solitary penny and its members need to be FIRED.

The larger picture here, is that nobody else in city government has weapons and guns and bullet proof vests, and armed vehicles. Those are the very civil servants that need the most discipline, and the shortest leash, not the least discipline and no leash. .