Man, this is so fucked up. The camera footage of how these people behave after abusing an old woman is so much more important than the incident itself, imo. Not one inkling or remorse, the female at least seemed to have some idea that what they did was maybe wrong. Just the worst people. Over $13 work of crap from WalMart. Fucking Walmart.
5 Likes
I would love it if this discussion reached the length of, at minimum, a dissertation level tone after excising all the repetitive and content-free posting.
Murder the citizens. Easy fix.
1 Like
My view of a new order would mean nobody currently working as a peace officer could be employed in that field. Simply way too much work and way too much failure trying to educate and change thought processes of people who are not good fits to begin.
I agree with you and PC and others. It is a long time process that requires a huge number of steps, but it is absolutely worth going there.
Nothing about the current system is working or okay.
1 Like
That didn’t really work for them. I am cool with abolish. Then we just need people to slowly cure their ignorance as it progresses.
Nothing else covers the magnitude or seriousness of the problem.
That police officer you know? My goal is for him never to work in that sort of capacity ever again.
1 Like
Yeah they want toned down rhetoric so they can fly mission accomplished banners without enacting any real change.
No thanks. Abolish is fine.
2 Likes
The question Is, 50-60 years ago almost ALL murders were solved.
Either the police got much worse at solving murders, or they were convicting a ton of innocent people back then. It’s probably a combination of both. Either way it leads to us needing to Abolish them.
1 Like
I think the current system actually induces quite a lot of crime on its own.
22 has a thread devoted to stanning these police like it is unchain reincarnated.
This bring me back to my original point. Hopefully everyone can agree to this definition of police: armed agents of the state who are tasked with the enforcement of laws and authorized to use force in certain circumstances. Everyone can see that the quoted section from the pamphlet you linked to fits that definition of police. And the rest of the context of that section seems to be saying, until we eliminate nearly all violent crime through social programs and other interventions, that sort of police force would probably be necessary.
Which brings me to my criticism of the rest of that pamphlet. Many of the ideas presented there are reasonable and probably good ideas. If you devote social resources to improving schools, increasing job opportunities, strengthening social bonds and cohesiveness, sure, you’ll get less crime. Sounds good. But most of that can be accomplished without abolishing police, and indeed, has little to do with police or incarceration. And other stuff, like targeting minorities disproportionally for drug offenses have an even more blindingly obvious solution: ending the drug war, decriminalizing all drugs, and treating drug addiction like a medical problem. Same thing with increasing funding for and the role of social workers: not at all mutually exclusive with abolishing police.
So it all comes back to the framing problem that started all this. You’re saying we need to take power away from police, improve our communities, improve economic prospects for Americans, abolish the police, and at the end we’ll have at worst a group of specialized civil servants who are tasked with responding to violent crime. OK, that’s one way to go about it.
I’m saying we need to invest in our communities, improve the economic prospects of all Americans, improve funding to social workers and mental health, and decriminalize drugs and treat drug addiction like the serious medical problem it is. Improving funding for social workers and mental health will lessen the burden on our police, and instead of armed police being the first response to drug, mental health, and other similar crises, social workers and addiction specialists can be the first responders in some cases, and accompany police when an armed response to that sort of crisis is necessary. That way police won’t have to focus so much on drug crime and can be empowered to focus on their core mission of policing: responding to and preventing crimes.
1 Like
https://twitter.com/jasonmarkswavy/status/1386764023220297729?s=21
https://twitter.com/jasonmarkswavy/status/1386764594362949639?s=21
https://twitter.com/jasonmarkswavy/status/1386764717285326852?s=21
1 Like
In some ways, it can.
Keeping a neighborhood safe requires an implicit social contract between the police and the policed. Since the police has not kept up their end, the policed cannot trust them enough to report crimes. This forces an increased police presence and more aggressive tactics which leads to less trust which leads to greater presence and so on and so forth.
I’m sure there’s plenty of unreported crimes due to the lack of trust in the police or ignored crimes due to the police’s incompetence.
I am happy that I haven’t visited that place since I left. But now I’ll probably go and take a look.
We can’t retrain or reimagine current police officers as part of a new community service and protection dynamic. They are all going to have to be excised.
They are all tainted and would likely reinfect any new programs put into place.
Unfortunately I think guns are currently a massive draw for who becomes police officers in the United States. But none of these guys care about protecting or serving the community had often contribute to the exact opposite.
1 Like
As has been pointed out many times then, the “abolish” movement has a really fucking bad branding problem. Like, naming your environmental movement “kill all meat-eaters” is probably a bad idea too. It’s no help if you’re like “bro, bro, we don’t really want to kill all the meat-eaters see, we just want to convince them of their evil ways”
1 Like
Do you feel that you agree with the objectives of abolitionists, but you just don’t like their use of the word abolition?
or
Do you dislike the use of the word abolition, and you disagree with their objectives?
I mean, it’s great that blue checkmarks on twitter and super-smart internet posters can explain why, actually, “abolish” is the correct terminology, but when it is polling at 15 percent at the height of the George Floyd protests, the abolish movement has a problem:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/abolish-police-gallup-poll/
Couldn’t garner majority support amongst any ethnic or age group.
Well, the “abolitionist” movement seems to be a pretty big umbrella. As described in this thread (but not elsewhere), the abolition movement is not actually different from what I believe with regards to police reform, no. But abolish the police is even worse branding then “defund” the police, which itself was pretty fucking bad branding.
Alough this is correct, would you agree that it’s caused by a messaging problem which is broadcast mostly by bad actors in the MSM & most all movements succumb to the MSM/Establishment’s grift.
Therefore any decent messaging or activism is dwarfed by these forces and its where the most work is needed rather than finding new slogans?
2 Likes
No, I don’t think it’s “dwarfed.” I think it is catastrophically bad messaging.