LA Riot thread (middle-class, crime rates, tenant)

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I’m not a bit naive, Mike. No modern city / society can exist without law enforcement. And none will try.

Really bad things are resulting from the mega-business of law enforcement as we experience it now.

While so many are demanding “clarification” - so few are bothering to clarify for themselves rather than knee-jerking.

Defunding policing as it has evolved doesn’t mean eliminating laws and law enforcement.

If your store was burglarized last night, why take armed, uniformed enforcement off the street to investigate and write reports? That effort takes law enforcement OFF the streets - which requires more hiring (and pensioning) and equal expensive equipping when a better trained investigation specialist could drive up in an ordinary sedan to do the job without wearing 50 lbs of very expensive combat and communication gear, driving a military level vehicle.

Police are intimidating and alienating and expensive as hell in many many situations where just the opposite is called for / needed to be most effective.

All that sounds well and good.

Let’s say I’m a manager at a company and I call someone in and tell him he’s terminated. I would think something is wrong with the guy if he looked at me and said “ok, so you’re modifying my position?” I meant what I said. Terminated means fired. Gone.

When someone says “defund the police”, it doesn’t mean reform. If it did, why not say that? It means no more money and no more police. There’s no explaining that away. If they say they meant reform, either their command of the English language sucks or they’re lying. It looks like spin. What do you expect people to think when someone says they’re defunding police?

Minneapolis just said they are dismantling the police (their words) in favor of a community based safety program. What does that mean? First, it means no more police department. The rest is vague. Garcetti just said he’s taking $150 million and putting it towards black communities. What does that mean?

You can’t get away from the word defunding. Looking at the BLM website and the other things they want (inmates released), it quite obvious they want no police. Period.

[Veritas Vincit]

Why would you believe people who think the police are racist villains...on what it means to 'defund' the police. "I'm anti-police, but when we'll cut money from them, it won't affect their ability to do the job." Makes no sense. Just more obfuscation.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Mike930

All that sounds well and good.

Let’s say I’m a manager at a company and I call someone in and tell him he’s terminated. I would think something is wrong with the guy if he looked at me and said “ok, so you’re modifying my position?” I meant what I said. Terminated means fired. Gone.

When someone says “defund the police”, it doesn’t mean reform. If it did, why not say that? It means no more money and no more police. There’s no explaining that away. If they say they meant reform, either their command of the English language sucks or they’re lying. It looks like spin. What do you expect people to think when someone says they’re defunding police?

Minneapolis just said they are dismantling the police (their words) in favor of a community based safety program. What does that mean? First, it means no more police department. The rest is vague. Garcetti just said he’s taking $150 million and putting it towards black communities. What does that mean?

You can’t get away from the word defunding. Looking at the BLM website and the other things they want (inmates released), it quite obvious they want no police. Period.

You’ve been saying that parties who say they support police defunding have a responsibility to explain themselves. I ask you:

1. Who says they don’t (explain themselves)?

2. Do people reading those statement headlines with alarm also have a responsibility to learn what the concept means?

There’s a lot of in-depth reporting and interviews emerging on the topic.

I don’t agree that anyone serious wants: “no law / enforcement”.

You used the word “obvious”. Isn’t it equally “obvious” that society requires laws / enforcement?

Doesn’t that seeming contradiction motivate you to investigate in depth what is being argued?

You, Mike, have shown a lot of willingness and interest to consider many issues from various angles in the past. Why short your curious nature on this one?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

Why would you believe people who think the police are racist villains...on what it means to 'defund' the police. "I'm anti-police, but when we'll cut money from them, it won't affect their ability to do the job." Makes no sense. Just more obfuscation.

Perhaps if you don’t bother to educate yourself in any depth on the issue, yeah: you’ll remain confused.

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You’ve been saying that parties who say they support police defunding have a responsibility to explain themselves. I ask you:

1. Who says they don’t (explain themselves)?

2. Do people reading those statement headlines with alarm also have a responsibility to learn what the concept means?

There’s a lot of in-depth reporting and interviews emerging on the topic.

I don’t agree that anyone serious wants: “no law / enforcement”.

You used the word “obvious”. Isn’t it equally “obvious” that society requires laws / enforcement?

Doesn’t that seeming contradiction motivate you to investigate in depth what is being argued?

You, Mike, have shown a lot of willingness and interest to consider many issues from various angles in the past. Why short your curious nature on this one?

Yes, it’s obvious that society needs law enforcement. And yes, I’ve read up on places that want to defund. That’s what baffles me. There are no specifics, just vague ideas. It also makes me suspicious when people start saying that defund doesn’t really mean defund. It’s doublespeak.

When I look at what BLM wants, I can draw conclusions based on the data I have.

Kops and kapitalism = bad (their spelling). Defund police. Release all inmates. No rational person, if they’re being honest, is going to look at those things and say “gee, they just want police reform and support law and order”. If it walks like a duck...

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Mike930

Yes, it’s obvious that society needs law enforcement. And yes, I’ve read up on places that want to defund. That’s what baffles me. There are no specifics, just vague ideas. It also makes me suspicious when people start saying that defund doesn’t really mean defund. It’s doublespeak.

When I look at what BLM wants, I can draw conclusions based on the data I have.

Kops and kapitalism = bad (their spelling). Defund police. Release all inmates. No rational person, if they’re being honest, is going to look at those things and say “gee, they just want police reform and support law and order”. If it walks like a duck...

Heh. Mike, seems to me you’ve zeroed in on half-assed and worse statements by people who are mostly just making noise ... and for some reason that I don’t understand you are wallowing there instead of moving on into the real meat of the concept and movement. Why waste time being outraged at fringe people? There’s lots more information, and from serious and academic sources that do make sense.

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Heh. Mike, seems to me you’ve zeroed in on half-assed and worse statements by people who are mostly just making noise ... and for some reason that I don’t understand you are wallowing there instead of moving on into the real meat of the concept and movement. Why waste time being outraged at fringe people? There’s lots more information, and from serious and academic sources that do make sense.

I’m not listening to fringe people. The vague comments about what replaces police is from the policy makers.

If you’re referring to BLM as a fringe group, many politicians and lawmakers support them. If they support them, they support their agenda. If they don’t know what that agenda is, they’re lazy and stupid.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Mike930

I’m not listening to fringe people. The vague comments about what replaces police is from the policy makers.

If you’re referring to BLM as a fringe group, many politicians and lawmakers support them. If they support them, they support their agenda. If they don’t know what that agenda is, they’re lazy and stupid.

Seems you’re going off the rails a bit, Mike.

Here’s a suggestion since this issue seems to have a stronghold on you:
Google: “ history of police npr “ ... multiple investigative articles

Lots to read to gain broad perspective. The history of policing is illuminating.

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Seems you’re going off the rails a bit, Mike.

Here’s a suggestion since this issue seems to have a stronghold on you:
Google: “ history of police npr “ ... multiple investigative articles

Lots to read to gain broad perspective. The history of policing is illuminating.

How is listening to the people who make the policy decisions going off the rails? It seems like your putting your head in the sand on this one.

Conclusions are formed by available data. They can change as the data changes. So far the data isn’t looking good.

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Perhaps if you don’t bother to educate yourself in any depth on the issue, yeah: you’ll remain confused.

I read the interview you linked with Mr. Vitale. This is what he says:

Policing is a tool of violence that has historically been used to facilitate gross inequalities and systems of exploitation like slavery, colonialism, the breaking of unions, and the suppression of workers’ rights movements. And so then to say that that tool is best suited to solve a broad range of community problems is misguided.


That is a Marxist interpretation of police in a capitalist state. That is not how Americans as a rule see the police. Police enforce the law. The laws put in place by democratically elected governments.


Nobody expects the police to 'solve' the community's problems other than crime. This is Mr. Vitale setting the stage for his belief that the money just needs to be spent on 'community programs' instead. In other words, because police can't fix poverty, let's spend a ton of money on those programs to fix it. But of course that is a straw man that only makes sense if you believe police primarily exist to keep 'the poor under control'. A belief widespread in America's sociology departments, but hardly in the voting public.


If the Democrats make 'defund the police' a central campaign theme, there's a certain "orange guy" who'll gratefully accept the assist.