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

[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?

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.

It's pretty simple...the Antifa leaders of the mob were being rounded up and charged with Federal crimes! No more getting bailed out in a matter of hours by local liberal politicians who support the riots! Oh, no...now they were facing prison time for their actions! Funny how that takes the starch out of cowards like Antifa!

 

[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?

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 you have no idea if Federal agents are still in the building...then why are you here claiming that Trump turned tail and ran? Oh, that's right...you do that because you're a partisan hack who doesn't care about the truth!

 

[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.

It's pretty simple...the Antifa leaders of the mob were being rounded up and charged with Federal crimes! No more getting bailed out in a matter of hours by local liberal politicians who support the riots! Oh, no...now they were facing prison time for their actions! Funny how that takes the starch out of cowards like Antifa!

that does seem to be what happened.

pknobb is interpreting the decline in violence as evidence that the feds have run away.


based on, primarily optimism for his revolution.

 

[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?

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!

And people would have believed it would all blow over. It's not going to be.

Is Oregon working on police reform now?

 

[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?

If you have no idea if Federal agents are still in the building...then why are you here claiming that Trump turned tail and ran? Oh, that's right...you do that because you're a partisan hack who doesn't care about the truth!

If they are hiding in some back room well.............you say they are there. The reports are they are nowhere to be seen. Can I prove there are none in some back room playing cards or watching TV? No, I suppose I can't. I can't really prove Elvis isn't there either.

 

[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?

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 you have no idea if Federal agents are still in the building...then why are you here claiming that Trump turned tail and ran? Oh, that's right...you do that because you're a partisan hack who doesn't care about the truth!

If they are hiding in some back room well.............you say they are there. The reports are they are nowhere to be seen. Can I prove there are none in some back room playing cards or watching TV? No, I suppose I can't. I can't really prove Elvis isn't there either.

Use your head for a change. If they really HAD left? Don't you think the main stream media would have made sure to have footage of that happening? Yet they didn't? That tells me the Federal Agents are still there.

 

[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!

And people would have believed it would all blow over. It's not going to be.

Is Oregon working on police reform now?

Putting Antifa members behind bars seems to have done the trick. Amazing how when you put the violent rioters in jail how the protests stay peaceful? Maybe a few liberal Democrat Mayors should take heed?

 

[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?

If you have no idea if Federal agents are still in the building...then why are you here claiming that Trump turned tail and ran? Oh, that's right...you do that because you're a partisan hack who doesn't care about the truth!

If they are hiding in some back room well.............you say they are there. The reports are they are nowhere to be seen. Can I prove there are none in some back room playing cards or watching TV? No, I suppose I can't. I can't really prove Elvis isn't there either.

Use your head for a change. If they really HAD left? Don't you think the main stream media would have made sure to have footage of that happening? Yet they didn't? That tells me the Federal Agents are still there.

I already noted that if you want to argue that they are hiding in some back room, argue that.

 

[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?

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 you have no idea if Federal agents are still in the building...then why are you here claiming that Trump turned tail and ran? Oh, that's right...you do that because you're a partisan hack who doesn't care about the truth!

If they are hiding in some back room well.............you say they are there. The reports are they are nowhere to be seen. Can I prove there are none in some back room playing cards or watching TV? No, I suppose I can't. I can't really prove Elvis isn't there either.

Use your head for a change. If they really HAD left? Don't you think the main stream media would have made sure to have footage of that happening? Yet they didn't? That tells me the Federal Agents are still there.

I already noted that if you want to argue that they are hiding in some back room, argue that.

I've pointed out that they're still in the Federal building...if you want to argue that they've left then kindly show some proof that happened!

 

[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?

If you have no idea if Federal agents are still in the building...then why are you here claiming that Trump turned tail and ran? Oh, that's right...you do that because you're a partisan hack who doesn't care about the truth!

If they are hiding in some back room well.............you say they are there. The reports are they are nowhere to be seen. Can I prove there are none in some back room playing cards or watching TV? No, I suppose I can't. I can't really prove Elvis isn't there either.

Use your head for a change. If they really HAD left? Don't you think the main stream media would have made sure to have footage of that happening? Yet they didn't? That tells me the Federal Agents are still there.

I already noted that if you want to argue that they are hiding in some back room, argue that.

I've pointed out that they're still in the Federal building...if you want to argue that they've left then kindly show some proof that happened!

You ask me for proof but provide none yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Federal authorities in Portland have arrested 74 demonstrators and charged 60 with federal crimes, Department of Justice (DOJ) spokeswoman Kerri Kupec announced on Monday. The DOJ spokeswoman made the announcement on Monday, providing the number of federal arrests and charged cases “related to violent opportunists & civil unrest.” Nationwide, federal authorities have made 236 arrests, with 238 defendants charged" DOJ: 72 Portland Rioters Arrested, Dozens Charged with Federal Crimes​

Tools the rioters were carrying included Molotov cocktails, Sledgehammers, Pipe bombs, Mortar fireworks, Metal spikes. Some "peaceful protesters," no? You'd be correct if you guessed these items were planned to kill and maim police and federal peacekeepers.

"President Trump doubled-down on his calls for tough action against thousands of protesters damaging statues across the United States Friday; calling for “10 year prison sentences” when damaging federal property." TRUMP on DC PROTESTS: ‘Many People in Custody, Many Sought for Vandalization, 10 Year Prison Sentences! | Sean Hannity​

Why are the Democrats using their minions to do this? Could be because George Soros is giving them $52 million dollars to "win" the election in November. George Soros Spends $52 Million on 2020 Election Cycle

Almost none will go to jail. The DOJ and the courts will stop it.

Oh, will they? And why would they do that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

I keep saying that those who are protesting peacefully are protesting peacefully........and those who aren't, aren't.

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I have never said I didn't support those who have escalated things. Especially after Trump outright dismissed those protesting peacefully. I have NEVER argued that I only support peaceful protest.

You never really say anything, but you tend to say a lot of it.

and why should he call out those protesting peacefully when they are not who he is after? dismiss their legal activity and go after illegal.

common sense seems to befuddled you

“A riot is the language of the unheard.

MLK

but you people are heard all the time. so, what is your reason for rioting?

Why waste everyone's time? This has been addressed so many times.

because your stated reasons keep being obviously not true.


i mean, you've been making the argument, mostly not explicitly, that the riots are about being "heard".


but, your side dominated the media and pop culture. we hear your side of the debate constantly.


so that was a lie.

Where is this reform Trump said he was going to pass?

don't know, don't care. not my issue. are you implying that he not doing what he said he was going to do, is justification for open insurrection?


i personally, other than some of the prison reform, hope he does not do it. that is not why i supported him for the presidency, and i want him focused more on my issues, than the issues of an unwashed, commie mob.

I'm saying that like you, he isn't listening.

if you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

No idea what you are talking about.

i heard you. now the question is, are you going to hear me?

my question stands.


f you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

Power was handed over to Donald Trump peacefully on his Inauguration Day. All of the opposition to Donald Trump has been conducted both legally and constitutionally.

So just cut this whole line of bullshit or Donald Trump will be removed from office for sedition, by his own party.

power was handed over peacefully. but it was not respected by your side.

you were clear that "he was not your president" and that you would "resist".

and not all the resistance was legal or constitutional. the "investigations" launched on trump were both illegal and unconstitutional.

the protests, often broke laws, blocking traffic and the"protests" often were actually riots, and more and more the riots are looking like open insurrection.

my question stands.

if you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,

why should we?

Respect has to be EARNED and Trump has done NOTHING to earn anyone's respect. Just because enough people believed Trump's lies throughout the campaign and didn't look at his history, and incompetence that he got elected, doesn't mean he was worthy of respect.

....

i was clearly referring to respect for the Rule of Law and the Peaceful Transfer of Power, not trump personally.

you changed the subject, because you cannot defend your side's refusal to respect the peaceful transfer of power.


my question stands.

if you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,

why should we?

You''ve been caught out lying about the peaceful transfer of power, and now you're trying to move the goal posts.

If Democrats have always peacefully transferred power in the past, why would they refuse to do so now if they win power? If Democrats don't win power, there is nothing to transfer. The only way there will be no peaceful transfer of power after this election is if Trump loses and refuses to give up the White House.

This is the scenario that Repubicans, Democrats and the military are meeting and making contingency plans for: The possibility that if Trump loses, he will refuses to transfer power. If Trump loses and tries to question the results of the election through the courts, his Presidency still ends on January 21st, 2021, whether the court cases are decided or not.

There is no scenario under which Trump loses and stays in power. Absolutely none.

"Caught lying." I can only assume that, in LizardBitch-speak, that means "I accused you of lying because I didn't like what you said."

 

[Cecilie1200]

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

I keep saying that those who are protesting peacefully are protesting peacefully........and those who aren't, aren't.

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I have never said I didn't support those who have escalated things. Especially after Trump outright dismissed those protesting peacefully. I have NEVER argued that I only support peaceful protest.

You never really say anything, but you tend to say a lot of it.

and why should he call out those protesting peacefully when they are not who he is after? dismiss their legal activity and go after illegal.

common sense seems to befuddled you

“A riot is the language of the unheard.

MLK

but you people are heard all the time. so, what is your reason for rioting?

Why waste everyone's time? This has been addressed so many times.

because your stated reasons keep being obviously not true.


i mean, you've been making the argument, mostly not explicitly, that the riots are about being "heard".


but, your side dominated the media and pop culture. we hear your side of the debate constantly.


so that was a lie.

Where is this reform Trump said he was going to pass?

don't know, don't care. not my issue. are you implying that he not doing what he said he was going to do, is justification for open insurrection?


i personally, other than some of the prison reform, hope he does not do it. that is not why i supported him for the presidency, and i want him focused more on my issues, than the issues of an unwashed, commie mob.

I'm saying that like you, he isn't listening.

if you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

No idea what you are talking about.

i heard you. now the question is, are you going to hear me?

my question stands.


f you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

Power was handed over to Donald Trump peacefully on his Inauguration Day. All of the opposition to Donald Trump has been conducted both legally and constitutionally.

So just cut this whole line of bullshit or Donald Trump will be removed from office for sedition, by his own party.

power was handed over peacefully. but it was not respected by your side.

you were clear that "he was not your president" and that you would "resist".

and not all the resistance was legal or constitutional. the "investigations" launched on trump were both illegal and unconstitutional.

the protests, often broke laws, blocking traffic and the"protests" often were actually riots, and more and more the riots are looking like open insurrection.

my question stands.

if you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,

why should we?

Respect has to be EARNED and Trump has done NOTHING to earn anyone's respect. Just because enough people believed Trump's lies throughout the campaign and didn't look at his history, and incompetence that he got elected, doesn't mean he was worthy of respect.

....

i was clearly referring to respect for the Rule of Law and the Peaceful Transfer of Power, not trump personally.

you changed the subject, because you cannot defend your side's refusal to respect the peaceful transfer of power.


my question stands.

if you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,

why should we?

You''ve been caught out lying about the peaceful transfer of power, and now you're trying to move the goal posts.

If Democrats have always peacefully transferred power in the past, why would they refuse to do so now if they win power? If Democrats don't win power, there is nothing to transfer. The only way there will be no peaceful transfer of power after this election is if Trump loses and refuses to give up the White House.

This is the scenario that Repubicans, Democrats and the military are meeting and making contingency plans for: The possibility that if Trump loses, he will refuses to transfer power. If Trump loses and tries to question the results of the election through the courts, his Presidency still ends on January 21st, 2021, whether the court cases are decided or not.

There is no scenario under which Trump loses and stays in power. Absolutely none.

your pretense of confusion is noted and dismissed.


my question stands. if you people don't respect the peaceful transfer of power when you lose, why should we?

She's not pretending. She has Joe Biden Syndrome.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

I keep saying that those who are protesting peacefully are protesting peacefully........and those who aren't, aren't.

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I have never said I didn't support those who have escalated things. Especially after Trump outright dismissed those protesting peacefully. I have NEVER argued that I only support peaceful protest.

You never really say anything, but you tend to say a lot of it.

and why should he call out those protesting peacefully when they are not who he is after? dismiss their legal activity and go after illegal.

common sense seems to befuddled you

“A riot is the language of the unheard.

MLK

but you people are heard all the time. so, what is your reason for rioting?

Why waste everyone's time? This has been addressed so many times.

because your stated reasons keep being obviously not true.


i mean, you've been making the argument, mostly not explicitly, that the riots are about being "heard".


but, your side dominated the media and pop culture. we hear your side of the debate constantly.


so that was a lie.

Where is this reform Trump said he was going to pass?

don't know, don't care. not my issue. are you implying that he not doing what he said he was going to do, is justification for open insurrection?


i personally, other than some of the prison reform, hope he does not do it. that is not why i supported him for the presidency, and i want him focused more on my issues, than the issues of an unwashed, commie mob.

I'm saying that like you, he isn't listening.

if you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

No idea what you are talking about.

i heard you. now the question is, are you going to hear me?

my question stands.


f you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. None.

i can see that. it is almost like you are not listening to me. ie i am not being heard.


this is something i had mentioned before.


i, and increasingly more and more of america are done being lectured like we are dim witted children.


you complain about not being heard, and use it as a justification for open insurrection.

but, what you really want is not just to be heard, but for your opponents to just stand there like stupid bitches and take your abuse, without any pushback.


well, we are done with that.


we disagree with you. this is a democratic republic. you will not always be getting your way.


can you hear me now?

You like me are irrelevant. Nothing you say matters.

we are a microcosm of what is occurring in the nation at large.

you people,

You can discuss things with me or you can go off and discuss them with "you people".

yet are you or are you NOT going "you people" when you say "us people" should have listened to "those peoples" grievances?

No, as I said, you, me and others are irrelevant. It matters very little if you listen or not. I gave specific instances. Trump calling people SOB's and Pence turning his back on those peacefully protesting and walking out on them.

getting sick and tired of "you fucks" on the left getting pissed at others for following YOUR LEAD on how to try and address things. you ONLY want things to go ONE way.

fuck that shit.

I'm pro-life. I fully support the 2nd Amendment. I believe in a balanced budget. What makes me "left"? That I understand a need for police reform? I said the same about the couple who were arrested for arming themselves outside of their home.

Do you really believe that "Police Reform!!!" is going to solve the problems of blacks in urban areas, PK? Is it going to stop blacks from shooting other blacks in Chicago and New York? Or is it simply a diversion by the left because they don't want to admit that 60 years of progressive policy has hurt not helped the average black person living in places like Chicago?

It's going to address one problem. You don't accept one issue because it doesn't solve every issue. I don't support the politics of Chicago. Recall, there were protests out in front of Rahm Imanuel's house.

I don't think there's that large of a problem to begin with, PK! The statistics simply don't support a narrative that Police are assassinating black men in this country. On the other hand...black on black gun violence is through the roof in cities like Chicago and New York and ZERO is being done about it! How does defunding the Police going to make that issue go away? The answer to that is that it's not! It's going to make it much worse.

Don't believe there is an issue. I don't care.

I didn't say there wasn't an issue...I simply pointed out that compared to OTHER problems that plague the black community...Police officers killing blacks is WAY down on the list of biggest issues or at least should be!
And the "cure" for what the left sees as a problem...defunding the Police...is going to make those other more pressing problems FAR worse! Do you "care" about that?

That's like saying one type of cancer is not as prevalent as other kinds so no one should be concentrating on the less prevalent type.

If you aren't trying to spin "defund" you would understand it isn't going to make the other problems worse. Pulling some black guy over because of some made up offense to try and find a little pot in the car is not going to make things worse.

Your own analogy proves my point, PK! If you've got two kinds of cancer...one that's going to kill you in a month unless you deal with it right away...and another that's going to kill you in ten years...which would you address first?

Having fewer Police patrolling in neighborhoods that are now being hit with a tidal wave of shootings isn't going to make things worse? How do you figure that? Of course it will make it worse.

Except there isn't a "tidal wave of shootings" anywhere in the USA. Chicago is same shit, different day, and New York is calming down. It's puppyshit compared to the tidal wave of police violence sweeping the country. 1500 people died in police custody last year. Hundred of millions of dollars being paid out annually in "excessive force claims", and the highest incarcation rates in the world. In France, the first world country with the next highest levels of police violence, police killed 26 people.

You now have a virus sweeping the nation that kills blacks and Hispanics at much higher rates than white people. Donald Trump's reaction to that news, was to immediately demand that the nation re-open. Black and brown people disproportionately have jobs which will not allow them to work from home. Trump wants these people to go to work with no health insurance, and no sick time, and no ability to sue employers for unsafe working conditions.

The cancer, is racism and it has matasticized. Racism is killing black and brown people NOW. In massive numbers. Black Lives Matter protests are about the racism that thinks nothing of sending black and brown people back to work, to get sick and die, and that isn't something that is happening in the future, that is HAPPENING RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!

"Just because you're actually there doesn't mean you know what's happening. Let me tell you what's REALLY happening in YOUR country from thousands of miles away in my not-a-black-person-in-sight country!"

Hey, while you're pompously lecturing us on "what's really happening" in situations that your Canadian ass has never been anywhere near, why don't you tell me the "reality" of politics on Mars? Because it'll be at least as knowledgeable as your unwelcome, interfering "instruction" on race relations you've never dealt with in a country you've never been in, and how we're all fucking imagining the gunfire around us.

 

[BigDave]

Pro President Trump grandma turns in Antifa grandson to the FBI

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pro President Trump grandma turns in Antifa grandson to the FBI

Man, is THAT going to be an awkward Thanksgiving dinner.

 

[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 you have no idea if Federal agents are still in the building...then why are you here claiming that Trump turned tail and ran? Oh, that's right...you do that because you're a partisan hack who doesn't care about the truth!

If they are hiding in some back room well.............you say they are there. The reports are they are nowhere to be seen. Can I prove there are none in some back room playing cards or watching TV? No, I suppose I can't. I can't really prove Elvis isn't there either.

Use your head for a change. If they really HAD left? Don't you think the main stream media would have made sure to have footage of that happening? Yet they didn't? That tells me the Federal Agents are still there.

the issue were the attacks on the federal facilities. if the federal facilities are not being attacked that is trump winning.


hell, as it is an insurrection, that is America winning.


if the attacks have stopped, the feds have no protecting to do.


this lib is pretending to think that the feds were really just randomlying grabbing people off the streets.

 

[BigDave]

Cops revolt against Communist Democrat city leaders

 

[basquebromance]

the Portland crowds are entirely peaceful, my friends, let me tell ya!

No, they’re not trying to burn down the federal courthouse. Do not trust the dozens of videos showing protesters trying to burn down the federal courthouse.

the most violent behavior overwhelmingly comes from the federal agents.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cops revolt against Communist Democrat city leaders

Well, Democrat city leaders ARE pretty revolting.