Reversing DEFUND THE POLICE: Only 2 of 81 retired police officers express interest to return to Portland Police Bureau

[Synthaholic]

They're retired, dumbass.

 

[Indeependent]

We have a system in place that does not include allowing the police to be judge, jury and executioner. Where is Chauvin today?

We have a system where paid off bleeding heart lawyers make sure that thugs remain active so these lawyers can keep getting paid to defend them on the flimsiest of logic.

You're a Limousine Liberal, aren't you?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Acceptable judge, jury, executioner for libs ie police beating black people version.

 

[FA_Q2]

Whose rights did Elijah McClain violate? Whose rights did Breonna Taylor violate?

None.

How does eliminating large numbers of police on the force address any of that?

More importantly, why would you think that it was the bad apples that left the force? The force was the ONLY thing protecting those bad apples. None of them are going to give up the power the police force confers on them. Good police, however, are going to leave when they realize that they are being branded with the same iron as the bad ones and attacked for it.


Real reform has been needed for a long time. Police unions protecting bad cops needs to be eliminated. Qualified immunity needs to go. No knock warrants need to go. Civil asset forfeiture needs to go. Drug laws need reform. Militarized equipment does not belong in police precincts. De-escalation needs to be emphasized over the current power play that is emphasized. The entire concept of fines needs to be reworked. Police need REGULAR and CONSISTANT contact with the community outside of law enforcement activities.

There is a lot of work. ALL of which is undermined with 'defund' the police. All of it. We need MORE cops, not less. Getting rid of police at a large scale increases every single thing that is making the police force ineffective. Fewer cops are going to be more abusive as the demands of the job increase, crime increases with decreased enforcement and the overall ability to come into contact with the community outside a negative encounter drops to zero.

 

[pknopp]

None.

How does eliminating large numbers of police on the force address any of that?

In this instance they retired. Their choice. They would rather retire than risk being held accountable for their actions.

Now for the bigger argument, the argument is less police with guns pulling people over for a broken tail light and more people on the force who are trained to deal with people going through issues.

More importantly, why would you think that it was the bad apples that left the force? The force was the ONLY thing protecting those bad apples. None of them are going to give up the power the police force confers on them. Good police, however, are going to leave when they realize that they are being branded with the same iron as the bad ones and attacked for it.

I disagree. If you don't violate people's rights, you have no issue.

Real reform has been needed for a long time. Police unions protecting bad cops needs to be eliminated. Qualified immunity needs to go. No knock warrants need to go. Civil asset forfeiture needs to go. Drug laws need reform. Militarized equipment does not belong in police precincts. De-escalation needs to be emphasized over the current power play that is emphasized. The entire concept of fines needs to be reworked. Police need REGULAR and CONSISTANT contact with the community outside of law enforcement activities.

There is a lot of work. ALL of which is undermined with 'defund' the police. All of it. We need MORE cops, not less. Getting rid of police at a large scale increases every single thing that is making the police force ineffective. Fewer cops are going to be more abusive as the demands of the job increase, crime increases with decreased enforcement and the overall ability to come into contact with the community outside a negative encounter drops to zero.

If you get rid of all the things you say needed gone, that does not equate to more police.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

I guess that answers my question.

Your idealism is a bane to us all. You don't think, vote, or act in reality. Your delusion is dysgenic, and a weight on the society around you....including your minority pets.

 

[pknopp]

Your idealism is a bane to us all. You don't think, vote, or act in reality. Your delusion is dysgenic, and a weight on the society around you....including your minority pets.

Protecting people's civil rights ensconced in the Constitution is idealism to you. Not much I can say.

 

[FA_Q2]

In this instance they retired. Their choice. They would rather retire than risk being held accountable for their actions.

Now for the bigger argument, the argument is less police with guns pulling people over for a broken tail light and more people on the force who are trained to deal with people going through issues.




I disagree. If you don't violate people's rights, you have no issue.



If you get rid of all the things you say needed gone, that does not equate to more police.

Boy. What a useless response.

 

[pknopp]

Boy. What a useless response.

And yet you are unable to respond to it.

 

[FA_Q2]

And yet you are unable to respond to it.

LOL. Respond to what?

You did not say anything worth responding to.

Whatever, discussion is not what you are looking for and I am not providing vindication.

 

[pknopp]

LOL. Respond to what?

You did not say anything worth responding to.

Whatever, discussion is not what you are looking for and I am not providing vindication.

I specifically addressed each of your points. You are just stomping your feet.

 

[FA_Q2]

I specifically addressed each of your points. You are just stomping your feet.

lol.

Stomping my feet. How funny. I laughed at you as your one line garbage addresses nothing, makes no points and overall is lazy.

 

[pknopp]

lol.

Stomping my feet. How funny. I laughed at you as your one line garbage addresses nothing, makes no points and overall is lazy.

I should have wrote paragraphs that you wouldn't have responded to either? Sometimes a quick answer is all that is needed.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

Good. Getting rid of those who were taught to ignore the civil rights of people is what the goal was to start with.

Why do you Leftists have to be such lying sacks of shit. No cop was taught to ignore rights you liar.

 

[pknopp]

Why do you Leftists have to be such lying sacks of shit. No cop was taught to ignore rights you liar.

Not only were they taught that, they are actively encouraged. In example after example we have threads where the cops have violated the rights of people and the responce by many is how you should just allow them to do so and hope the courts protect you. We have those who support no actions against those who violate people's rights. We even have laws in place (qualified immunity) that supports that.

 

[ColonelAngus]

ColonelAngus
Who can blame them. The idiots who run that city voted to defund the police and threw them under the bus every chance they got. I'm surprise two of them would return.

Absolutely.

Further proving how STUPID the whole DEFEND THE POLICE movement is.

 

[Papageorgio]

Good. Getting rid of those who were taught to ignore the civil rights of people is what the goal was to start with.

Many said have retired because they believed the city of Portland did not have their back. Another reason was they were overworked. That is what we know for sure, your speculation is just that, speculation, nothing more.

 

[pknopp]

Many said have retired because they believed the city of Portland did not have their back. Another reason was they were overworked. That is what we know for sure, your speculation is just that, speculation, nothing more.

I noted that the system is starting to say "we do not have your back when you violate people's rights".

As another addressed above, if they were not going after people smoking some weed or spending time defending their theft of people's money they would have more time freed up.

 

[Papageorgio]

I noted that the system is starting to say "we do not have your back when you violate people's rights".

As another addressed above, if they were not going after people smoking some weed or spending time defending their theft of people's money they would have more time freed up.

Only your first sentence tackles my post, the rest seems like nonsense since police don't get to pick and choose what the legal system wants legal or illegal.

Most are good police officers and do their duty and expect to have the city behind them when the follow the laws and interact with the citizens. In Portland the feeling from the retired officers is that the mayor and city council are not backing up the officers, when officers try to enforce the laws. Are there bad officers? Of course but the vast majority are just doing their job the best they can.

 

[pknopp]

Only your first sentence tackles my post, the rest seems like nonsense since police don't get to pick and choose what the legal system wants legal or illegal.

Most are good police officers and do their duty and expect to have the city behind them when the follow the laws and interact with the citizens. In Portland the feeling from the retired officers is that the mayor and city council are not backing up the officers, when officers try to enforce the laws. Are there bad officers? Of course but the vast majority are just doing their job the best they can.

Maybe you can show just one instance where an officer followed the law and wasn't defended.