72 Portland Rioters Arrested; Federal Crimes, 10-year Jail Sentences; George Soros Funds

[Correll]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

 

[Correll]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

oh, i see what is happening. you have been forced to confront the contradictions in your position, and so you are doubling down and becoming more radical.



so, if you are opening supporting now, open insurrection, and you don't care about the people your side is hurting,

don't whine when we fight back and your side takes losses.


do you realize that we have already reached the point, where the police are protection you people, from us?

I have always supported what I support now. You aren't going to do squat.

i saw several of your kind, blocking a bridge just the other day, causing a traffic jam. that only thing that stopped me from confronting them, were the police there, protecting your people.


what kind of person, starts a fight, while smearing the very people that he depends on to protect him from his enemies?

 

[pknopp]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

Trump ran from Portland. It will be no different anywhere else. You'll get small push backs here and there and the reform movement will move forward.

 

[pknopp]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

oh, i see what is happening. you have been forced to confront the contradictions in your position, and so you are doubling down and becoming more radical.



so, if you are opening supporting now, open insurrection, and you don't care about the people your side is hurting,

don't whine when we fight back and your side takes losses.


do you realize that we have already reached the point, where the police are protection you people, from us?

I have always supported what I support now. You aren't going to do squat.

i saw several of your kind, blocking a bridge just the other day, causing a traffic jam. that only thing that stopped me from confronting them, were the police there, protecting your people.

No you didn't and you wouldn't have done a thing. Internet cowboys are not impressive.

Others are protesting. Others are blocking traffic. You are on the internet stating "better watch out or I might do something".

You aren't going to do anything.

 

[Correll]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

Trump ran from Portland. It will be no different anywhere else. You'll get small push backs here and there and the reform movement will move forward.

the federal agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? has the mob taken them? burned them out?

 

[pknopp]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

Trump ran from Portland. It will be no different anywhere else. You'll get small push backs here and there and the reform movement will move forward.

the federal agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? has the mob taken them? burned them out?

No, things are more peaceful again now that they aren't out violating people's rights. See how easy that is?

 

[Correll]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

oh, i see what is happening. you have been forced to confront the contradictions in your position, and so you are doubling down and becoming more radical.



so, if you are opening supporting now, open insurrection, and you don't care about the people your side is hurting,

don't whine when we fight back and your side takes losses.


do you realize that we have already reached the point, where the police are protection you people, from us?

I have always supported what I support now. You aren't going to do squat.

i saw several of your kind, blocking a bridge just the other day, causing a traffic jam. that only thing that stopped me from confronting them, were the police there, protecting your people.

No you didn't and you wouldn't have done a thing. Internet cowboys are not impressive.

Others are protesting. Others are blocking traffic. You are on the internet stating "better watch out or I might do something".

You aren't going to do anything.

yes i did, and the only thing that stopped me, was the presence of the police protection your people.


and, dude. the people in the cars, vastly outnumbered the protesters.


when you people play this game, you are betting your lives on the fact that you know that your enemies are good, law abiding people.


blocking a road, with your body, agaisnt cars? that is you stating that you know that your enemies, are not bad people, and will obey the law and wait for the police to come and remove you.


but, the police have been ordered by your dem allies to stand down. the system of law and order that your process is built on, is falling apart.

but, thanks for dropping the pretense of this being just a peaceful protest movement.

 

[Correll]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

Trump ran from Portland. It will be no different anywhere else. You'll get small push backs here and there and the reform movement will move forward.

the federal agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? has the mob taken them? burned them out?

No, things are more peaceful again now that they aren't out violating people's rights. See how easy that is?

so, the agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? did the mob take the buildings? did they drive the federal government out of the city as was their goal?

 

[iceberg]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

and what are you going to do - scream more at a walmart and burn down another auto zone in defiance?

I haven't done either but I expect you knew that.

antifa and the rioters are being dismantled as we speak. violently if need be. i mean you yourself said violence is an acceptable way to achieve a desire.

No they aren't. Remember Trump turned his tail and ran in Portland .

we will see. just don't bitch about violence when they get bitch slapped.

 

[Correll]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

and what are you going to do - scream more at a walmart and burn down another auto zone in defiance?

I haven't done either but I expect you knew that.

antifa and the rioters are being dismantled as we speak. violently if need be. i mean you yourself said violence is an acceptable way to achieve a desire.

No they aren't. Remember Trump turned his tail and ran in Portland .

we will see. just don't bitch about violence when they get bitch slapped.

it is nice he is giving up the pretense that this is not open insurrection.

 

[pknopp]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

oh, i see what is happening. you have been forced to confront the contradictions in your position, and so you are doubling down and becoming more radical.



so, if you are opening supporting now, open insurrection, and you don't care about the people your side is hurting,

don't whine when we fight back and your side takes losses.


do you realize that we have already reached the point, where the police are protection you people, from us?

I have always supported what I support now. You aren't going to do squat.

i saw several of your kind, blocking a bridge just the other day, causing a traffic jam. that only thing that stopped me from confronting them, were the police there, protecting your people.

No you didn't and you wouldn't have done a thing. Internet cowboys are not impressive.

Others are protesting. Others are blocking traffic. You are on the internet stating "better watch out or I might do something".

You aren't going to do anything.

yes i did, and the only thing that stopped me, was the presence of the police protection your people.


and, dude. the people in the cars, vastly outnumbered the protesters.


when you people play this game, you are betting your lives on the fact that you know that your enemies are good, law abiding people.


blocking a road, with your body, agaisnt cars? that is you stating that you know that your enemies, are not bad people, and will obey the law and wait for the police to come and remove you.


but, the police have been ordered by your dem allies to stand down. the system of law and order that your process is built on, is falling apart.

but, thanks for dropping the pretense of this being just a peaceful protest movement.

I have never said it was just that.

 

[Correll]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

oh, i see what is happening. you have been forced to confront the contradictions in your position, and so you are doubling down and becoming more radical.



so, if you are opening supporting now, open insurrection, and you don't care about the people your side is hurting,

don't whine when we fight back and your side takes losses.


do you realize that we have already reached the point, where the police are protection you people, from us?

I have always supported what I support now. You aren't going to do squat.

i saw several of your kind, blocking a bridge just the other day, causing a traffic jam. that only thing that stopped me from confronting them, were the police there, protecting your people.

No you didn't and you wouldn't have done a thing. Internet cowboys are not impressive.

Others are protesting. Others are blocking traffic. You are on the internet stating "better watch out or I might do something".

You aren't going to do anything.

yes i did, and the only thing that stopped me, was the presence of the police protection your people.


and, dude. the people in the cars, vastly outnumbered the protesters.


when you people play this game, you are betting your lives on the fact that you know that your enemies are good, law abiding people.


blocking a road, with your body, agaisnt cars? that is you stating that you know that your enemies, are not bad people, and will obey the law and wait for the police to come and remove you.


but, the police have been ordered by your dem allies to stand down. the system of law and order that your process is built on, is falling apart.

but, thanks for dropping the pretense of this being just a peaceful protest movement.

I have never said it was just that.

if it is an open insurrection, and it obviously is, a military response is appropriate.



like when lincoln used the army against the confederates.


you ready for that? cause, i am.


i think it would be great for trump to use the military to clear the fucking streets.


or, failing that, to call on the regular people to gather and clear them.


you sure this is what you want?

 

[pknopp]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

Trump ran from Portland. It will be no different anywhere else. You'll get small push backs here and there and the reform movement will move forward.

the federal agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? has the mob taken them? burned them out?

No, things are more peaceful again now that they aren't out violating people's rights. See how easy that is?

so, the agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? did the mob take the buildings? did they drive the federal government out of the city as was their goal?

There are no signs of Troops or even the police and things are peaceful.

 

[pknopp]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

oh, i see what is happening. you have been forced to confront the contradictions in your position, and so you are doubling down and becoming more radical.



so, if you are opening supporting now, open insurrection, and you don't care about the people your side is hurting,

don't whine when we fight back and your side takes losses.


do you realize that we have already reached the point, where the police are protection you people, from us?

I have always supported what I support now. You aren't going to do squat.

i saw several of your kind, blocking a bridge just the other day, causing a traffic jam. that only thing that stopped me from confronting them, were the police there, protecting your people.

No you didn't and you wouldn't have done a thing. Internet cowboys are not impressive.

Others are protesting. Others are blocking traffic. You are on the internet stating "better watch out or I might do something".

You aren't going to do anything.

yes i did, and the only thing that stopped me, was the presence of the police protection your people.


and, dude. the people in the cars, vastly outnumbered the protesters.


when you people play this game, you are betting your lives on the fact that you know that your enemies are good, law abiding people.


blocking a road, with your body, agaisnt cars? that is you stating that you know that your enemies, are not bad people, and will obey the law and wait for the police to come and remove you.


but, the police have been ordered by your dem allies to stand down. the system of law and order that your process is built on, is falling apart.

but, thanks for dropping the pretense of this being just a peaceful protest movement.

I have never said it was just that.

if it is an open insurrection, and it obviously is, a military response is appropriate.



like when lincoln used the army against the confederates.


you ready for that? cause, i am.


i think it would be great for trump to use the military to clear the fucking streets.


or, failing that, to call on the regular people to gather and clear them.


you sure this is what you want?

You can think whatever you want. Its not going to happen.

 

[Correll]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

Trump ran from Portland. It will be no different anywhere else. You'll get small push backs here and there and the reform movement will move forward.

the federal agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? has the mob taken them? burned them out?

No, things are more peaceful again now that they aren't out violating people's rights. See how easy that is?

so, the agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? did the mob take the buildings? did they drive the federal government out of the city as was their goal?

There are no signs of Troops or even the police and things are peaceful.u

1. why are you avoiding my questions?

2. so, those fellow revolutionaries, still looking at federal time? you should be happy. great way to radicalize a movement, is have some leaders do some hard time.

 

[pknopp]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

Trump ran from Portland. It will be no different anywhere else. You'll get small push backs here and there and the reform movement will move forward.

the federal agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? has the mob taken them? burned them out?

No, things are more peaceful again now that they aren't out violating people's rights. See how easy that is?

so, the agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? did the mob take the buildings? did they drive the federal government out of the city as was their goal?

There are no signs of Troops or even the police and things are peaceful.u

1. why are you avoiding my questions?

You claim they are still there. I noted that they are nowhere to be seen.

If you want to claim they are holed up in some back room.playing poker where no one can see them, claim that. I can't comment on it.

2. so, those fellow revolutionaries, still looking at federal time? you should be happy. great way to radicalize a movement, is have some leaders do some hard time.

Few will spend any amount of time.

 

[Correll]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

Trump ran from Portland. It will be no different anywhere else. You'll get small push backs here and there and the reform movement will move forward.

the federal agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? has the mob taken them? burned them out?

No, things are more peaceful again now that they aren't out violating people's rights. See how easy that is?

so, the agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? did the mob take the buildings? did they drive the federal government out of the city as was their goal?

There are no signs of Troops or even the police and things are peaceful.u

1. why are you avoiding my questions?

You claim they are still there. I noted that they are nowhere to be seen.

If you want to claim they are holed up in some back room.playing poker where no one can see them, claim that. I can't comment on it.

2. so, those fellow revolutionaries, still looking at federal time? you should be happy. great way to radicalize a movement, is have some leaders do some hard time.

Few will spend any amount of time.

you claimed trump ran. i asked if the fed agents were still there protecting the buildings.

i think that if the federal buildings had been taken, that it would have been quite a story.

your assumption that few well get hard time. what if you are wrong?

 

[pknopp]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

Trump ran from Portland. It will be no different anywhere else. You'll get small push backs here and there and the reform movement will move forward.

the federal agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? has the mob taken them? burned them out?

No, things are more peaceful again now that they aren't out violating people's rights. See how easy that is?

so, the agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? did the mob take the buildings? did they drive the federal government out of the city as was their goal?

There are no signs of Troops or even the police and things are peaceful.u

1. why are you avoiding my questions?

You claim they are still there. I noted that they are nowhere to be seen.

If you want to claim they are holed up in some back room.playing poker where no one can see them, claim that. I can't comment on it.

2. so, those fellow revolutionaries, still looking at federal time? you should be happy. great way to radicalize a movement, is have some leaders do some hard time.

Few will spend any amount of time.

you claimed trump ran. i asked if the fed agents were still there protecting the buildings.

i think that if the federal buildings had been taken, that it would have been quite a story.

your assumption that few well get hard time. what if you are wrong?

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

Trump ran from Portland. It will be no different anywhere else. You'll get small push backs here and there and the reform movement will move forward.

the federal agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? has the mob taken them? burned them out?

No, things are more peaceful again now that they aren't out violating people's rights. See how easy that is?

so, the agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? did the mob take the buildings? did they drive the federal government out of the city as was their goal?

There are no signs of Troops or even the police and things are peaceful.u

1. why are you avoiding my questions?

You claim they are still there. I noted that they are nowhere to be seen.

If you want to claim they are holed up in some back room.playing poker where no one can see them, claim that. I can't comment on it.

2. so, those fellow revolutionaries, still looking at federal time? you should be happy. great way to radicalize a movement, is have some leaders do some hard time.

Few will spend any amount of time.

you claimed trump ran. i asked if the fed agents were still there protecting the buildings.

i think that if the federal buildings had been taken, that it would have been quite a story.

your assumption that few well get hard time. what if you are wrong?

Are there troops hiding out in some office? I have no idea.

You are left dealing with what might be. Trump might invite all the protesters to the White House for Big Macs.

What then? Are arguments like this really worth pursuing?

 

[Correll]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

Trump ran from Portland. It will be no different anywhere else. You'll get small push backs here and there and the reform movement will move forward.

the federal agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? has the mob taken them? burned them out?

No, things are more peaceful again now that they aren't out violating people's rights. See how easy that is?

so, the agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? did the mob take the buildings? did they drive the federal government out of the city as was their goal?

There are no signs of Troops or even the police and things are peaceful.u

1. why are you avoiding my questions?

You claim they are still there. I noted that they are nowhere to be seen.

If you want to claim they are holed up in some back room.playing poker where no one can see them, claim that. I can't comment on it.

2. so, those fellow revolutionaries, still looking at federal time? you should be happy. great way to radicalize a movement, is have some leaders do some hard time.

Few will spend any amount of time.

you claimed trump ran. i asked if the fed agents were still there protecting the buildings.

i think that if the federal buildings had been taken, that it would have been quite a story.

your assumption that few well get hard time. what if you are wrong?

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

Trump ran from Portland. It will be no different anywhere else. You'll get small push backs here and there and the reform movement will move forward.

the federal agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? has the mob taken them? burned them out?

No, things are more peaceful again now that they aren't out violating people's rights. See how easy that is?

so, the agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? did the mob take the buildings? did they drive the federal government out of the city as was their goal?

There are no signs of Troops or even the police and things are peaceful.u

1. why are you avoiding my questions?

You claim they are still there. I noted that they are nowhere to be seen.

If you want to claim they are holed up in some back room.playing poker where no one can see them, claim that. I can't comment on it.

2. so, those fellow revolutionaries, still looking at federal time? you should be happy. great way to radicalize a movement, is have some leaders do some hard time.

Few will spend any amount of time.

you claimed trump ran. i asked if the fed agents were still there protecting the buildings.

i think that if the federal buildings had been taken, that it would have been quite a story.

your assumption that few well get hard time. what if you are wrong?

Are there troops hiding out in some office? I have no idea.

You are left dealing with what might be. Trump might invite all the protesters to the White House for Big Macs.

What then? Are arguments like this really worth pursuing?

if the mobs have stopped attacking the buildings, it would indicate that the targeted arrests broke the leadership of the mob, either by taking them away or by making them realize that there trump was escalating.

 

[Oldestyle]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

God, you people on the left are almost criminally clueless! Do you really not grasp the concept that businesses are not going to stay in crime ridden neighborhoods? When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try! Then the whining will start from the left about how AWFUL it is that there aren't grocery stores and drug stores in black neighborhoods! It's like you're all blundering through the world we live in without SEEING how things really work! You have "slogans" instead of policies that make sense!

Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?

Nationwide debate sparks calls to remove police officers from schools

As the school year approaches, the debate to keep or remove school resources is a major discussion across the country.

www.foxnews.com

Nextdoor Removes ‘Forward to Police’ Feature - Nextdoor Blog

Public agencies, including mayors, governors, fire departments, police departments, and health departments, turn to Nextdoor every day to directly share critical, real-time information with people in the neighborhood. Law enforcement agencies have had an additional feature that they can enable calle

blog.nextdoor.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The city of Berkeley, California, is moving ahead with a proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians to conduct traffic stops

abcnews.go.com

Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.?

NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Alex Vitale, the author of The End of Policing, and Derecka Purnell, a lawyer who advocates for defunding the police, about what abolishing the police would look like.

www.npr.org

"Today, two people who've spent years studying what it would mean to defund the police - first, St. Louis activist and lawyer Derecka Purnell. She would like to abolish the police entirely. And she told me the first step is changing how we think about stopping crime."

Lego Clarifies Reports About Removing Police-Themed Toy Sets

The company also promised to donate $4M to Black causes.

www.insidehook.com

What we know about the effort to remove police stationed in Seattle schools

The suspension would be just one part of a broader proposal to improve school climate for Black students, who last year made up nearly half of students referred to police across the district but just 14% of SPS enrollment.

www.seattletimes.com

Protesters stop Madison crews from removing “Police free schools” mural

The City of Madison says that due to protests on Friday, crews have halted the process of removing a giant mural in the city’s downtown.

www.nbc15.com

Minneapolis Will Dismantle Its Police Force, Council Members Pledge (Published 2020)

Saying the existing Police Department cannot be reformed, a majority of the City Council has promised to rethink public safety from the ground up in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley moves toward removing police from traffic stops

The progressive California city of Berkeley is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

www.pbs.org

and the list goes on and and on and on.
remove from our toys
remove from our cartoons
remove from schools
remove from cities

so go fuck yourself when you call others "dishonest" while you flat out lie and then come up with some bitch-ass snark reply why being wrong is fine cause you feelz it n shit.

I've lied about nothing.

you said:

"Nobody is "taking away the police". Why do you feel this need to be dishonest?"

and i showed you many are.

now admit it you lied. your intentional circular bullshit ran you into your own buzzsaw.

Context. You can't take a reply without what was replied to.

When you take away the Police you take away the ONLY reason stores were willing to TRY and make a go of it in bad areas. Without the Police it's going to be so dangerous to run a store in shitty neighborhoods that NOBODY will even try!

That is what I replied to. No one is going to do that.

see - now you wanna "paraphrase" cause that's what you do. you refuse to be pinned down to ANYTHING actionable - and the only reason i can see to do this is because you simply MUST disagree with everyone out there.

most of all, yourself.

fuck off.

Quoting exactly what I replied to is not "paraphrasing". Seems to be a common thing this morning where people do not understand the words they use.

problem is, i understand all too well the manner in which you choose to use them.

you want protesters to be unpunished because the other side didn't listen and take them seriously.

I have never argued that. Obviously that matters none to you.

ie - you validate the use of force, violence and up to killing others if you don't get your way.

not sure what else about you needs to be defined beyond that.

Violating people's rights are something I would think everyone would want addressed. Obviously that matters none to you.

you just did it again. when confronted by your support of their rioters, you cite your agreement with their cause.

Confronted? I don't deny supporting them. Do I validate the use of force? Yes, it's the American way.

then you are good with the force coming back at you when people have had enough of your "tantrums".

cause it's coming. and remember, it's the american way.

The government can't win. It never has. Those with something to lose can not win over those with nothing to lose. It's why Afghanistan was able to hold off both the Soviet Union and the United States.

your are confident in your rebellion, i get that.

but, you won't whine when your enemies fight back and you take losses will you? cause that would be pathetic to start a fight and to whine when your enemies don't roll over and play dead.

Trump ran from Portland. It will be no different anywhere else. You'll get small push backs here and there and the reform movement will move forward.

the federal agents are no longer protecting the federal buildings? has the mob taken them? burned them out?

No, things are more peaceful again now that they aren't out violating people's rights. See how easy that is?

Then they COULD have been peaceful five weeks ago when there were no Federal agents protecting buildings in Portland! See how easy THAT would have been!