Rare Thread: Some Progressive posts that actually make good points on how NOT to defund Police

[emilynghiem]

Just curious, when you say,

"
... health and safety" and quit criminalizing issues of
drug and relationship abuse that require counseling and healing therapy, not punishment to fix. "

Are you trying to say that a battered spouse isn't a crime?

The assault is already a crime. That's the part that does
become a violation of the civil and criminal laws.

The problem being missed is addressing the CAUSES of ABUSIVE DISORDERS
and RELATIONS BEFORE this RESULTS in a crime. Police and laws cannot do that!

The community setting up a process to identify, address, and resolve "complaints of abuse"
BEFORE any crime occurs would reduce the burdens on police.

IT WOULD ALSO REDUCE THE COSTS OF DAMAGES, PROSECUTION AND LAWSUITS,
AND INCARCERATION, SO INSTEAD OF DEFUNDING POLICE LESS AND LESS TAX MONEY
WOULD BE WASTED ON PUNISHMENT IN PRISONS AND CAN BE INVESTED IN PREVENTATION
EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, COUNSELING AND JOBS SOLVING PROBLEMS INSTEAD.

Same with abortion, drug laws, drunk driving, immigration and trafficking.
All of that can be PREVENTED by addressing Relationship abuse and addictive disorders
to REDUCE the demand for drugs, trafficking etc.

We could eliminate 80-90% of these cases that otherwise escalate into crimes
if we start taking ABUSE seriously.

But ABUSE starts with INTERNAL and RELATIONSHIP issues that are
NOT crimes. So that's where the majority of the work needs to be focused.

Govt CANNOT intervene on this level.

It is TOO EXPENSIVE for taxpayers to ignore the problem "until it becomes a crime for police."
Incarceration can cost 25-50K a year per person, where those people cannot work
and become dependent on tax paid welfare, housing and other subsidies as well as their families
left without support when a parent goes to jail.
We wouldn't need to raise more taxes to pay for health care, education, etc.
if we redirect money wasted "after the fact" and invest it in jobs and internships in preventative care,
not just health care, but daycare and elderly care to create paid jobs instead of more welfare.

I'll have to get back to you on this one, but as far as I know, no crystal ball has ever worked and we don't live in a minority report world.

People do have rights and one of those rights is the right of innocent until proven guilty. You cannot just say, "So and so is likely to abuse his wife, or such and such is going to shoot her husband."

It doesn't work that way.

Dear Darkwind
That's the same problem we are having with the mask mandates.
We haven't proven WHICH people actually have the infection, especially with asymptomatic spread,
when testing takes 3-5 days anyway to even find out.

Technically by Constitutional standards, nobody can legally be deprived of liberty
until proven to be a threat. If people are tested as positive, then traditional quarantines allowed those people to be isolated.
But there is no precedent for isolating or restricting people who haven't been proven to be infected yet.
So this is new ground, and people DO NOT AGREE.

That is why I am saying to allow Districts to Democratize
and decide their own policies. And keep others away if they disagree.

As for abuse, which isn't proven who is causing what part of the problem and often it is mutual conflicts causing it,
again, that is where I would advise Districts to set up Conflict Resolution assistance
so ANY report of conflict or abuse can be addressed WITHOUT criminalizing or penalizing anyone's record.
If the RESIDENTS agree to an intervention process, by which anyone can get help to resolve a complaint,
then this doesn't have to escalate to a civil action or a criminal case but can be avoided altogether.

So instead of fighting over drug laws, if neighbors agree they don't want
drug addiction or sales going to drug addicted people to go unchecked,
but want to ensure people are screened and not being abused because
they have an addictive or medical disorder; the neighbors in a district
can form a process and policy where they ALL consent to report any
abuse or conflict, and mediate that until an agreed solution is reach by
all the parties. If they don't all agree to conflict resolution, then the
residents have to work that out, resolve the reasons for objection,
and not wait until a confrontation happens to call police and risk an incident.

That is what I would suggest so people CAN address differences in beliefs
about pandemic precautions, about guns and drugs, about prochoice and
prolife standards on health care and prevention of sexual abuse or relationship abuse etc.

Even within the same district, if people don't agree on policies but have two different
schools and policies, they can agree to follow different ones and stay away from each other.
Similar to people agreeing only to date prolife Catholics if they don't want to mix relations with
anyone who is proabortion. Or people who marry Muslim if they want their household to
be free of pork.

If people have conflicts over policy, these either need to be mediated or separated
where they don't impose on each other. So if this takes setting up SEPARATE
schools or separate civic associations to have their own local policies, that
would still allow other groups to decide their own policies as well, and leave each other alone!

 

[pknopp]

Looks like questioning good Samaritans is something we are going to have to refrain the police from doing also.

Loveland man sues police, claiming unlawful excessive force, false arrest

 

[emilynghiem]

Looks like questioning good Samaritans is something we are going to have to refrain the police from doing also.

Loveland man sues police, claiming unlawful excessive force, false arrest

Gee whiz pknopp Reminds me of my favorite activist Ray Hill
who had won his precedent making lawsuit against police, where
his intervention to consult a citizen being apprehended by police
didn't count as obstruction but was within his free speech rights.

Raymond Wayne Hill, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the City of Houston, Texas, Defendant-appellee, 789 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1986)

Raymond Wayne Hill, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the City of Houston, Texas, Defendant-appellee, 789 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1986) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

law.justia.com

He won that lawsuit, as well as others, where the police no longer
wanted to arrest him because they couldn't afford getting sued if
they made a single procedural error. He knew his rights and had
legal help to back him up on every wrong turn. So they quit arresting him.

He couldn't do any "civil disobedience" to make political statements that way.
They knew his game, and didn't want to rack up $50 an hour in charges if they
falsely arrested or detained him without cause that could be proven in their favor.

The last I heard him talk before City Council, he came out and asked "What do I have
to do to get arrested in this town?" Knowing exactly why they didn't want to mess with him.
At that point, I think he was protesting a smoking ordinance, but nobody wanted to
be set up for him to challenge the validity of the law in court Constitutionally.

If EVERY CITIZEN knew their rights AND HAD LEGAL DEFENSE TO BACK THEM UP
They nobody could bully citizens by taking advantage legally! KNOWING the
people in govt can use TAX MONEY for legal defense and processes to "cover up"
and STALL OUT in court where nobody can afford the legal costs. My friend Ray Hill
had the civil rights resources backing him up, so he could hold govt to the laws.

Until we ALL have that leverage to hold Govt accountable, NOBODY HAS EQUAL
RIGHTS OR PROTECTIONS OF THE LAWS. It's all based on either having Corporate, Legal
and Political connections and resources to leverage favor; or based on people choosing to
behave and follow laws so we avoid violations, abuses and anything else that would invoke legal action or costs.

 

[georgephillip]

But all citizens cannot be deprived of police because of the grievances of some.
If people want to reorganize districts to pay for police and law enforcement policies
SEPARATE from social work and health care intervention, I have long rallied to set
up a SEPARATE police for "health and safety" and quit criminalizing issues of
drug and relationship abuse that require counseling and healing therapy, not punishment to fix.

Much of the current militarization of police agencies stems directly from drug laws, imho. Many of those laws were originally aimed at "inferior" races. Perhaps we should seriously defund the War on Drugs?

Defund the war on drugs

"Specifically, I want to say this: The slogan “defund the police” is counter-productive. Why? Because we need someone to put violent criminals and sex offenders in jail, and that someone is the police.

"So, instead of 'defunding the police' writ large, let’s defund the war on drugs, or at the very least, let’s return to our nation’s founding principles (#federalism) and leave it to each State to enact or repeal its own drug laws without federal interference."

I suppose we could even factor in poppy production increases in Afghanistan since the US invasion in 2001 if we want to get serious about reducing violence levels in the homeland?