Leftists: Still Down for De-funding and Dismantling the Police?

[Oldestyle]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Police use armored vehicles to protect officers against criminals with high powered weapons. It's also why Police cars now contain assault rifles instead of just shotguns. Do you think we should get rid of those as well?

 

[pknopp]

I'll help you:

Atlanta police said in a statement eight officers have resigned from the department this month. "Our personnel data indicates that we have had anywhere from two to six officers resign per month in 2020," Atlanta police said in a statement.

^ per month! What about that seems like a good idea for you?

So eight officers resigned in Atlanta and that means the borders are open and there is going to be mass crime.

WTF? Did you read the whole post?

It does nothing to back up your fantasies.

You're the one who didnt read the whole post.

It matters none. Your argument boils down to that if you support police reform you support open borders and people coming across the border raping your daughter.

THis is simply something made up in your racist mind.

I'm curious PK...you support "Police reform"? What exactly does that encompass and how do you think defunding the Police will help that in any way?

I've answered this 500 times. It's been discussed more times than that. I just discussed "defunding" and how it should be done in one manner but here you are asking again. Why not read the thread?

So once again I ask you...is Police "reform" just a big general term that you trot out when you have no specifics or do you have an actual plan to make the Police better?

It's been discussed endlessly for a long time.

Court rules for inmate in qualified immunity case - SCOTUSblog

Reform. Ending qualified immunity.

What do prison conditions have to do with the discussion at hand? Get serious...

It's an example of reform. It's not just the police. It's the entire justice system. We need to end qualified immunity and we are on the way of doing that.

So I ask you what you want to reform with the Police...and the best thing you can give me is an example of prison reform? Seriously? I'm giving you a chance to convince me of the merits of your argument, PK and you're floundering badly.

I stated over and over that it shows one thing I want reformed. The end of qualified immunity. If you do not understand the subject, research it.

So explain to me how defunding Police Departments results in the end of qualified immunity?

Two separate things. We need to defund things like militarizing the police and institute police reforms.

Is that too much to take in?

That didn't answer my question. The Police don't make the laws. They're tasked with enforcing them. If you don't like qualified immunity then you should be defunding the Judicial Branch...not the Police.

The police have fought reform. I am encouraged because Barrett has ruled in the past against qualified immunity.

Once again...why do you think defunding the Police will make the Courts change "qualified immunity"? Does that make any sense at all to you? It doesn't to me. You aren't making your case to the Police...you're making it to the Courts.

You can ask the same question already addressed over and over if you wish.

 

[pknopp]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Police use armored vehicles to protect officers against criminals with high powered weapons. It's also why Police cars now contain assault rifles instead of just shotguns. Do you think we should get rid of those as well?

I'm against militarizing the police. Take from that whatever you want. No matter how I answer someone will ask the same question 20 times.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Who is demanding there should be more police? The argument was concerning how those responsible for protecting the Capital could have been so clueless.

Few cities have vilified their law enforcement agencies more than D.C. has. After “peaceful protesters” burnt the city down and assaulted officers the Mayor rewarded BLM with their own plaza, had “BLM” painted all over the streets and cut police funding by $15M.
Like in all disgusting blue shitholes, the tail wags the dog in D.C....Are you, a seemingly intelligent person really surprised that D.C. police hate their job and their bosses?

DC Council Passes Budget Slashing $15M for Police

After days of heated debate, the D.C. Council passed a budget slashing $15 million from the Metropolitan Police Department despite Mayor Muriel Bowser’s objections. The budget adds millions of dollars for social service programs. The budget does not add funds Bowser requested for the popular MPD...

www.nbcwashington.com

The thread is asking whether not people are changing their minds. I hate when people start things just to rant. No one is changing their minds.

Actually the OP pokes fun of the ignorant fools begging for defunding while also begging for better policing but you already knew that.

Wanting police reform does not mean you don't support people to protect the Capital.

Hahaha...awww, I see.
So you’ve morphed “defunding” into “reforming” because you realized how terrible the optics were?
Are the rest of your people fully aware of your personal repackaging?

Reforming will be defunding certain aspects. Such as the military equipment.

The military equipment is usually donated.
It's military surplus and I have no problem with cities having an armored vehicle.
Why should the police put themselves in danger when an armored vehicle can breach doors with no risk of loss of life?

Providing police with military gear does not reduce crime or protect officers: Studies

I already posted this. Did you read it?

Without digging in too deep on the "studies" conducted doesn't something seem awfully fishy on the surface?
How wouldn't the use of military gear/equipment/vehicles make law enforcement safer at very minimum?
Connect the dots on your own here....I doubt you'd need an editor for this one.

Having gear like his causes those using it to escalate things as opposed to trying to de-escalate. People on both sides get hurt when that happens.

Think about how silly that theory sounds to sane adults not on UC Berkeley's campus.
I get it, you Libs want cops to show up to a hostile scene with roses and a bottle of wine for the perp but we like our cops safe and out of harms way 100% if possible.

I understand escalating sounds better to you. You've made your positions clear. The more dead minorities the better. There is no such thing as a sane conversation with someone like you.

Hmmmm.....maybe if the criminals didnt escalate we wouldnt need more firepower and protection for our officers.
Apparently you're too young to remember the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout.
That's what changed policing in this country and for good reason.

We are going to change it again. It's happening.

Heres the deal Phucknob.
I live in a well to do area and we hire officers to patrol our neighborhoods which are gated.
Think me as a sane rightwing Pelosi. We have nothing to fear from your dredges of society.
And of course as Texans we are all well armed. Defunding the police wont affect me but it will affect those low income people who have to live in your dem shitholes where crime is already rampant.
Why do you hate the poor and defenseless?

By default Libs must champion all things bad and detest all things good...standard shit from them.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Who is demanding there should be more police? The argument was concerning how those responsible for protecting the Capital could have been so clueless.

Few cities have vilified their law enforcement agencies more than D.C. has. After “peaceful protesters” burnt the city down and assaulted officers the Mayor rewarded BLM with their own plaza, had “BLM” painted all over the streets and cut police funding by $15M.
Like in all disgusting blue shitholes, the tail wags the dog in D.C....Are you, a seemingly intelligent person really surprised that D.C. police hate their job and their bosses?

DC Council Passes Budget Slashing $15M for Police

After days of heated debate, the D.C. Council passed a budget slashing $15 million from the Metropolitan Police Department despite Mayor Muriel Bowser’s objections. The budget adds millions of dollars for social service programs. The budget does not add funds Bowser requested for the popular MPD...

www.nbcwashington.com

The thread is asking whether not people are changing their minds. I hate when people start things just to rant. No one is changing their minds.

Actually the OP pokes fun of the ignorant fools begging for defunding while also begging for better policing but you already knew that.

Wanting police reform does not mean you don't support people to protect the Capital.

Hahaha...awww, I see.
So you’ve morphed “defunding” into “reforming” because you realized how terrible the optics were?
Are the rest of your people fully aware of your personal repackaging?

Reforming will be defunding certain aspects. Such as the military equipment.

The military equipment is usually donated.
It's military surplus and I have no problem with cities having an armored vehicle.
Why should the police put themselves in danger when an armored vehicle can breach doors with no risk of loss of life?

Providing police with military gear does not reduce crime or protect officers: Studies

I already posted this. Did you read it?

Without digging in too deep on the "studies" conducted doesn't something seem awfully fishy on the surface?
How wouldn't the use of military gear/equipment/vehicles make law enforcement safer at very minimum?
Connect the dots on your own here....I doubt you'd need an editor for this one.

Having gear like his causes those using it to escalate things as opposed to trying to de-escalate. People on both sides get hurt when that happens.

Think about how silly that theory sounds to sane adults not on UC Berkeley's campus.
I get it, you Libs want cops to show up to a hostile scene with roses and a bottle of wine for the perp but we like our cops safe and out of harms way 100% if possible.

I understand escalating sounds better to you. You've made your positions clear. The more dead minorities the better. There is no such thing as a sane conversation with someone like you.

Hmmmm.....maybe if the criminals didnt escalate we wouldnt need more firepower and protection for our officers.
Apparently you're too young to remember the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout.
That's what changed policing in this country and for good reason.

We are going to change it again. It's happening.

Heres the deal Phucknob.

I didn't read past this.

Yeah....you hate the truth and poor people.

 

[pknopp]

Who is demanding there should be more police? The argument was concerning how those responsible for protecting the Capital could have been so clueless.

Few cities have vilified their law enforcement agencies more than D.C. has. After “peaceful protesters” burnt the city down and assaulted officers the Mayor rewarded BLM with their own plaza, had “BLM” painted all over the streets and cut police funding by $15M.
Like in all disgusting blue shitholes, the tail wags the dog in D.C....Are you, a seemingly intelligent person really surprised that D.C. police hate their job and their bosses?

DC Council Passes Budget Slashing $15M for Police

After days of heated debate, the D.C. Council passed a budget slashing $15 million from the Metropolitan Police Department despite Mayor Muriel Bowser’s objections. The budget adds millions of dollars for social service programs. The budget does not add funds Bowser requested for the popular MPD...

www.nbcwashington.com

The thread is asking whether not people are changing their minds. I hate when people start things just to rant. No one is changing their minds.

Actually the OP pokes fun of the ignorant fools begging for defunding while also begging for better policing but you already knew that.

Wanting police reform does not mean you don't support people to protect the Capital.

Hahaha...awww, I see.
So you’ve morphed “defunding” into “reforming” because you realized how terrible the optics were?
Are the rest of your people fully aware of your personal repackaging?

Reforming will be defunding certain aspects. Such as the military equipment.

The military equipment is usually donated.
It's military surplus and I have no problem with cities having an armored vehicle.
Why should the police put themselves in danger when an armored vehicle can breach doors with no risk of loss of life?

Providing police with military gear does not reduce crime or protect officers: Studies

I already posted this. Did you read it?

Without digging in too deep on the "studies" conducted doesn't something seem awfully fishy on the surface?
How wouldn't the use of military gear/equipment/vehicles make law enforcement safer at very minimum?
Connect the dots on your own here....I doubt you'd need an editor for this one.

Having gear like his causes those using it to escalate things as opposed to trying to de-escalate. People on both sides get hurt when that happens.

Think about how silly that theory sounds to sane adults not on UC Berkeley's campus.
I get it, you Libs want cops to show up to a hostile scene with roses and a bottle of wine for the perp but we like our cops safe and out of harms way 100% if possible.

I understand escalating sounds better to you. You've made your positions clear. The more dead minorities the better. There is no such thing as a sane conversation with someone like you.

Hmmmm.....maybe if the criminals didnt escalate we wouldnt need more firepower and protection for our officers.
Apparently you're too young to remember the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout.
That's what changed policing in this country and for good reason.

We are going to change it again. It's happening.

Heres the deal Phucknob.

I didn't read past this.

Yeah....you hate the truth and poor people.

reply like an adult......unless of course you are not.

 

[Oldestyle]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Police use armored vehicles to protect officers against criminals with high powered weapons. It's also why Police cars now contain assault rifles instead of just shotguns. Do you think we should get rid of those as well?

I'm against militarizing the police. Take from that whatever you want. No matter how I answer someone will ask the same question 20 times.

With all due respect, PK? You seem to be comfortable dealing in generalized statements but want nothing to do with specifics. You say that you're against "militarizing" the Police...but then struggle to define what "militarizing" means!
It's a pretty simple question that you failed to address. What level of firepower do you think that the Police should have? Should they have armored vehicles?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Why would the cops try and gain entry into a home and risk getting gunned down where there's a hostage situation when if they had an armored vehicle they could use the ram to bust down the door and use the vehicle for protection while they stacked up before entry?

 

[pknopp]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Police use armored vehicles to protect officers against criminals with high powered weapons. It's also why Police cars now contain assault rifles instead of just shotguns. Do you think we should get rid of those as well?

I'm against militarizing the police. Take from that whatever you want. No matter how I answer someone will ask the same question 20 times.

With all due respect, PK? You seem to be comfortable dealing in generalized statements but want nothing to do with specifics. You say that you're against "militarizing" the Police...but then struggle to define what "militarizing" means!
It's a pretty simple question that you failed to address. What level of firepower do you think that the Police should have? Should they have armored vehicles?

Specifics have been discussed over and over. When I state something specific you (and others) pretend it's not.

They should NOT have armored vehicles. I'm not an expert on their weapons they carry.

 

[pknopp]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Why would the cops try and gain entry into a home and risk getting gunned down where there's a hostage situation when if they had an armored vehicle they could use the ram to bust down the door and use the vehicle for protection while they stacked up before entry?

De-escalate.

UPDATE: Suspect who was at the center of a swat standoff in Vienna appears in court.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Police use armored vehicles to protect officers against criminals with high powered weapons. It's also why Police cars now contain assault rifles instead of just shotguns. Do you think we should get rid of those as well?

I'm against militarizing the police. Take from that whatever you want. No matter how I answer someone will ask the same question 20 times.

And yet you never answer with anything but platitudes.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Why would the cops try and gain entry into a home and risk getting gunned down where there's a hostage situation when if they had an armored vehicle they could use the ram to bust down the door and use the vehicle for protection while they stacked up before entry?

De-escalate.

UPDATE: Suspect who was at the center of a swat standoff in Vienna appears in court.

So what happens when the criminal refuses to do so?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Police use armored vehicles to protect officers against criminals with high powered weapons. It's also why Police cars now contain assault rifles instead of just shotguns. Do you think we should get rid of those as well?

I'm against militarizing the police. Take from that whatever you want. No matter how I answer someone will ask the same question 20 times.

With all due respect, PK? You seem to be comfortable dealing in generalized statements but want nothing to do with specifics. You say that you're against "militarizing" the Police...but then struggle to define what "militarizing" means!
It's a pretty simple question that you failed to address. What level of firepower do you think that the Police should have? Should they have armored vehicles?

Specifics have been discussed over and over. When I state something specific you (and others) pretend it's not.

They should NOT have armored vehicles. I'm not an expert on their weapons they carry.

I'll help PK out here....
He/she doesn't like the idea of cops being too safe because such a thing might cause criminal perps to get more violent or confrontational.
I know what you're thinking Oldestyle and no, I'm not kidding.

 

[pknopp]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Why would the cops try and gain entry into a home and risk getting gunned down where there's a hostage situation when if they had an armored vehicle they could use the ram to bust down the door and use the vehicle for protection while they stacked up before entry?

De-escalate.

UPDATE: Suspect who was at the center of a swat standoff in Vienna appears in court.

So what happens when the criminal refuses to do so?

Has there ever been a criminal that has been able to wait things out in eternity?

 

[Oldestyle]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Police use armored vehicles to protect officers against criminals with high powered weapons. It's also why Police cars now contain assault rifles instead of just shotguns. Do you think we should get rid of those as well?

I'm against militarizing the police. Take from that whatever you want. No matter how I answer someone will ask the same question 20 times.

With all due respect, PK? You seem to be comfortable dealing in generalized statements but want nothing to do with specifics. You say that you're against "militarizing" the Police...but then struggle to define what "militarizing" means!
It's a pretty simple question that you failed to address. What level of firepower do you think that the Police should have? Should they have armored vehicles?

Specifics have been discussed over and over. When I state something specific you (and others) pretend it's not.

They should NOT have armored vehicles. I'm not an expert on their weapons they carry.

Where have I pretended anything? I simply asked you a question. I'm curious why you think the Police shouldn't have armored vehicles that keep officers safe from attack. The Police aren't roaming the streets in M1 tanks shooting high explosive rounds into suspected crack houses! They generally use armored vehicles in circumstances where shots have been fired or it looks like they might be to get personnel safely to closer vantage points.

So you're not an expert on weapons...which means you choose to defer on what weapons the Police should have but you do seem to be an expert on armored vehicles because you've declared that they should NOT have them! What is that based on?

 

[pknopp]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Police use armored vehicles to protect officers against criminals with high powered weapons. It's also why Police cars now contain assault rifles instead of just shotguns. Do you think we should get rid of those as well?

I'm against militarizing the police. Take from that whatever you want. No matter how I answer someone will ask the same question 20 times.

With all due respect, PK? You seem to be comfortable dealing in generalized statements but want nothing to do with specifics. You say that you're against "militarizing" the Police...but then struggle to define what "militarizing" means!
It's a pretty simple question that you failed to address. What level of firepower do you think that the Police should have? Should they have armored vehicles?

Specifics have been discussed over and over. When I state something specific you (and others) pretend it's not.

They should NOT have armored vehicles. I'm not an expert on their weapons they carry.

Where have I pretended anything? I simply asked you a question. I'm curious why you think the Police shouldn't have armored vehicles that keep officers safe from attack.

I explained why. If you aren't going to read what I say why bother?

 

[Oldestyle]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Why would the cops try and gain entry into a home and risk getting gunned down where there's a hostage situation when if they had an armored vehicle they could use the ram to bust down the door and use the vehicle for protection while they stacked up before entry?

De-escalate.

UPDATE: Suspect who was at the center of a swat standoff in Vienna appears in court.

I have no idea what this cite is supposed to illustrate? Do you? A man with mental issues goes into a Fire Station with a BB gun and you think that's indicative of what the Police face these days?

 

[Oldestyle]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Police use armored vehicles to protect officers against criminals with high powered weapons. It's also why Police cars now contain assault rifles instead of just shotguns. Do you think we should get rid of those as well?

I'm against militarizing the police. Take from that whatever you want. No matter how I answer someone will ask the same question 20 times.

With all due respect, PK? You seem to be comfortable dealing in generalized statements but want nothing to do with specifics. You say that you're against "militarizing" the Police...but then struggle to define what "militarizing" means!
It's a pretty simple question that you failed to address. What level of firepower do you think that the Police should have? Should they have armored vehicles?

Specifics have been discussed over and over. When I state something specific you (and others) pretend it's not.

They should NOT have armored vehicles. I'm not an expert on their weapons they carry.

Where have I pretended anything? I simply asked you a question. I'm curious why you think the Police shouldn't have armored vehicles that keep officers safe from attack.

I explained why. If you aren't going to read what I say why bother?

No, PK...you haven't explained much of anything. You made sweeping statements that you totally failed to back up and then you complain that people aren't reading what you've posted! Why bother indeed?

 

[pknopp]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Why would the cops try and gain entry into a home and risk getting gunned down where there's a hostage situation when if they had an armored vehicle they could use the ram to bust down the door and use the vehicle for protection while they stacked up before entry?

De-escalate.

UPDATE: Suspect who was at the center of a swat standoff in Vienna appears in court.

I have no idea what this cite is supposed to illustrate? Do you? A man with mental issues goes into a Fire Station with a BB gun and you think that's indicative of what the Police face these days?

A professional was sent in as opposed to an armored military vehicle.

 

[Oldestyle]

Once again...how do you expect the Police to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world if they don't have the same level of firepower as terrorists or organized crime?

Terrorists here nor does organized crime have military vehicles.

Why would the cops try and gain entry into a home and risk getting gunned down where there's a hostage situation when if they had an armored vehicle they could use the ram to bust down the door and use the vehicle for protection while they stacked up before entry?

De-escalate.

UPDATE: Suspect who was at the center of a swat standoff in Vienna appears in court.

I have no idea what this cite is supposed to illustrate? Do you? A man with mental issues goes into a Fire Station with a BB gun and you think that's indicative of what the Police face these days?

A professional was sent in as opposed to an armored military vehicle.

THE GUY HAD A BB GUN! HE WAS 70 YEAR OLD! What's your point?