Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by SCGator52, Jun 13, 2020.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me......
That's nice, but you aren't addressing the problem. None of these were drug arrests and the victims were teenagers desperate to get out of poverty. The issue is what policies do you change to reduce people getting shot over small crimes and where they are not threatening the life of the officer. Floyd passed a counterfeit bill and Brooks was facing a DUI. Neither was gunned down by a military weapon. Some utopian dream of solving poverty isn't realistic or addressing the problem. As far as Baltimore, shouldn't depolicing reduce the tensions? Instead they kill each other at higher rates, which in my mind calls for more policing.
I wouldn't be out in front of my house confronting the crowd like that, but yeah it's inevitable that when people's homes and businesses are continually threatened that someone is going to eventually get shot. "Peaceful protester" doesn't mean you have a license to go wherever and do whatever you want. Not only that but when your mob is acting like a bunch of assholes you aren't exactly bringing support to your cause.
New York City also giving in to "mob rule" and going to try and go the way of Baltimore.
The sad part of this is, I can see this ending up segregating the United States further. One article said that 60% of New Yorkers were opposed to any defunding of police and reduction in crime fighting. Not shockingly, that was split almost right along racial lines with almost all black/hispanics polled in favor and virtually all whites opposed. This is certainly not helping race relations.
New York may cut $1B from the NYPD. The defund movement calls it a ‘betrayal.’
POST MORE OFTEN.
He didn't see the video I linked in post 572...hubby was pointing his AR-15 at people as well.
This is funny, but sad too. How many of us would not be prone to defend our homes under those circumstances? It's a sad commentary on the time we are experiencing . . . but yeah, kinda funny, too.
Yeah, it's not the first time people have defended their stuff in the face of riots. These two aren't quite as badass or funny as the roof Koreans.
I would've joined the protesters!
Because I wouldn't have panicked at the sight of protesters so there'd be no reason to grab my non-existent gun.
Dude had the temerity or delusion to call himself an "urban pioneer" That kind of panick suggests the opposite.
Sounds good from afar. I have doubts about how comfortable many of us would feel if a group of protesters broke into our private neighborhood. These may have been peaceful protesters - I don't really know, but they were not law abiding protesters. Maybe we could jump in with them and be a happy part of the protest or maybe things could turn for the worse and ours or our neighbors' property could be destroyed.
Absolutely normal to be nervous. I would have been at first. Not knocking it. Just saying I find it funny that he called himself an urban pioneer while living behind big ole walls but then losing his **** in full blown panic the instant urban got by those walls and into his hood.
Has a bit of Bonfires of the Vanities feel to it.
Au contraire pika, I directly answered your question about a fix. If we want to reduce aggression and police violence there are two ways:
1) Reform policing by legislatively compelling a different style of policing
2) Eliminate poverty
c) Do both
Aggressive crime fighting and associated police violence are not an inevitability.
Re: Baltimore. Not necessarily. De-policing is not no policing. How police treat people still matters. Also, frustrations over poverty and the longer history of negative police interactions and anger over a Freddie Gray or a Michael Brown etc. can linger, the damage already being done.
You can defend your home without carelessly pointing a firearm with your finger on the trigger at people. I don't know what happened before the videos started, and that might change things, but the woman in particular violated the statute I quoted earlier. My firearm would have pointed directly at the ground with my finger OUTSIDE of the trigger guard.
I think one would have to be stupid not to be worried if that happened. So you are having dinner and hear people breaking down your gate and pouring into your neighborhood. The naive person might say "they won't hurt me because I believe in what they do", but you really have no idea what they are thinking at that point. Maybe for that group it's an eff the white people march at that point or look at all the nice stuff the white people have march. They just broke through your wall to get in, so that would seem like they are targeting your neighborhood. Also if it's just you that's fine, but if you have a wife and kids around then that's a different matter.
I am not sure that we are enforcing laws anymore are we? Pretty sure there is some statute somewhere that says that mobs of people cannot destroy private property and then subsequently trespass too. I mean, if we are going to go after people, we should go after them equally, right? Wasn't that what this whole mass rioting supposedly started over?
I’m working on my tone so I’m attempting to be gentle when I question part your post.
Poverty? Seems like a big deal to say we’ll just work on improving poverty.
I would like to hear you point out what Denzel seems to agree with me on...improve your home life, work on keeping the family together and you greatly improve your chances in life. People who are poor just find ways to screw around with the law and eventually lose.
I said you weren't addressing the problem, not not answering the question.
Let's just dispense with eliminate poverty bit because that's not going to happen anytime soon and you don't want the success of a program to hinge on waiting decades or generations. On the policy changes, you are missing the fact that all of these police departments already have policies addressing what police should be doing, but their culture and political pressure tells them to do other things. The constitution, law, court decisions and police policy all tell them when and how to conduct a proper 4th amendment search, but that doesn't stop many of them from pushing the lines when they want to make an arrest. Maybe they want to do it for career purposes, because the perp pissed them off or because politicians want more arrests so they can tout the numbers during their reelection campaign. You aren't addressing the us vs. them mentality that has developed in police forces around the country. Fundamentally they want to do things they way they want despite changes to the rules. It's not just bad cops here and there, but a tradition that supports this kind of crap. You can't do targeted personnel changes because you are hindered by union contracts. Even cops with a personnel history suggesting they should be on the bench at a minimum if not fired are still walking the streets because of the stipulations in their contract. Or maybe you invalidate the contract, clean house and start over...which potentially leaves you with an inexperienced force who are going to make their own mistakes.
Stuff like community policing is an improvement and can work in some areas, but not everywhere. This is also an issue that every district needs to take on and some are going to take to it better than others. Some will pay lip service and keep doing what they have always done. That's why I say it isn't really an legislative issue, though legislation is part of it, but a problem that has to be dealt with in ever police district by engaging with the police, building accountability to the community, compromising on certain issues where the police might feel they are being wronged and will take years of work to get through. It may take federal oversight to push the areas that just don't care into action as well. It's not as simple as do X, Y and Z and ...BOOM...utopia!