Why would anyone think defund the police was a good idea?

[Blues Man]

How are the police militarized? What does that even mean?

Police Militarization | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

 

[Billo_Really]

So where is that written? I've been a holder for over 10 years now and never heard of anything like that. If I'm accosted by a group of younger guys I feel are a threat to me, I'm legally allowed to shoot them dead.

Wrong! You can only use deadly force against deadly force. You merely "thinking" your life is threatened, is a crock of shit!

 

[Billo_Really]

What are you saying, 6 guys come at you with baseball bats yelling obscenities and you got a gun but you can't shoot 'em cuz they don't have guns?

What if they're wearing MAGA hats, can you shoot 'em then?

No, baseball bats change the equation. All I'm saying is you have no right using deadly force against unarmed civilians.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong! You can only use deadly force against deadly force. You merely "thinking" your life is threatened, is a crock of shit!

Nope, it's the law. That's why police officers are seldom convicted for killing an unarmed suspect.

The problem is not our police, the problem is uninformed citizens.

Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
Second, the defendant must have had a reasonable and genuine
belief that he or she was in immediate danger of death or great bodily
harm and that the use of deadly force was the only way to escape that
danger. Bear in mind that deadly force may be used only to protect
against serious bodily harm or death. The key word is “serious.”
In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury
can consider how the victim attacked the defendant, any weapon
the victim had, and how the victim used it against the defendant.

Minor bruises or bumps from a scuffle probably do not meet the legal
definition of “serious.” In court cases, rape has been determined to
be serious bodily harm, as has being attacked with scissors. Serious
bodily harm also may result from being struck with an object that can
cause damage, such as a baseball bat or a wooden club.

The defendant’s belief that he or she was in immediate serious danger
is important. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable, not purely
speculative. In deciding whether the belief was reasonable and honest,
the judge or jurors will envision themselves standing in the defendant’s
shoes and consider the defendant’s physical characteristics, emotional
state, mental status, and knowledge; the victim’s actions and words;
and all other facts regarding the encounter. The victim must have
acted in a threatening manner. Words alone, regardless of how abusive
or provoking, or threats of future harm (“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”)
do not justify the use of deadly force

https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Law-Enforcement/Concealed-Carry-Publications/Concealed-Carry-Laws-Manual-(PDF).aspx

 

[Billo_Really]

Nope, it's the law. That's why police officers are seldom convicted for killing an unarmed suspect.

The problem is not our police, the problem is uninformed citizens.

Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
Second, the defendant must have had a reasonable and genuine
belief that he or she was in immediate danger of death or great bodily
harm and that the use of deadly force was the only way to escape that
danger. Bear in mind that deadly force may be used only to protect
against serious bodily harm or death. The key word is “serious.”
In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury
can consider how the victim attacked the defendant, any weapon
the victim had, and how the victim used it against the defendant.

Minor bruises or bumps from a scuffle probably do not meet the legal
definition of “serious.” In court cases, rape has been determined to
be serious bodily harm, as has being attacked with scissors. Serious
bodily harm also may result from being struck with an object that can
cause damage, such as a baseball bat or a wooden club.

The defendant’s belief that he or she was in immediate serious danger
is important. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable, not purely
speculative. In deciding whether the belief was reasonable and honest,
the judge or jurors will envision themselves standing in the defendant’s
shoes and consider the defendant’s physical characteristics, emotional
state, mental status, and knowledge; the victim’s actions and words;
and all other facts regarding the encounter. The victim must have
acted in a threatening manner. Words alone, regardless of how abusive
or provoking, or threats of future harm (“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”)
do not justify the use of deadly force

https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Law-Enforcement/Concealed-Carry-Publications/Concealed-Carry-Laws-Manual-(PDF).aspx

Okay, you proved your point. I was wrong. But let me ask you this, are there those who use this law to protect property?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, you proved your point. I was wrong. But let me ask you this, are there those who use this law to protect property?

I don't believe so in any state except Texas. From my understanding, use of deadly force is legal to protect property there.

Our state is one of the most liberal when it comes to a victim using deadly force, but you still can't do it to protect property. If I come home and some intruder is carrying out my valuable guitars (Les Paul Customs) there is nothing I can do unless he drops the guitars and attacks me.

One of my heroes is Joe Horn of Texas. He was watching his neighbors house when he seen people breaking in. He called the police, but when they left the house, he shot them dead in their tracks:

The Joe Horn shooting controversy occurred on November 14, 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, United States, when local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two burglars outside his neighbor's home. Recordings of Horn's exchange with emergency dispatch indicated that he was asked 14 times not to interfere with the burglary, because police would soon be on scene.[1] The shootings resulted in debates regarding self-defense, Castle Doctrine laws, and Texas laws relating to use of deadly force to prevent or stop property crimes. The undocumented status of both burglars was highlighted because of the U.S. border controversy.[2] On June 30, 2008, Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in the Pasadena shootings.

Joe Horn shooting controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I wish we could do that in my state.

 

[task0778]

The problem is not our police, the problem is uninformed citizens.

I would add that there are a few other problems, like the city, county, and state gov'ts that do not hold police officers accountable for misbehavior, mostly due to the political donations they get from the police unions. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, right? Well, except when political expediency demands calls for defunding the cops or abolishing the police depts. And when it's time to run for re-election, you reverse your stance to be strong on law and order.

IMHO, the police unions around this country have far too much influence over disciplinary or administrative actions against police officers' misconduct. If there are no repercussions for misconduct, then it should come as no surprise that said misconduct is basically condoned, as over the years the state and local politicians have made it so difficult to get rid of the bad apples. And frankly a lot of the blame for that rests with the voters who do not hold their civic leaders accountable, primarily democrats for whom re-elections are just a formality.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would add that there are a few other problems, like the city, county, and state gov'ts that do not hold police officers accountable for misbehavior, mostly due to the political donations they get from the police unions. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, right? Well, except when political expediency demands calls for defunding the cops or abolishing the police depts. And when it's time to run for re-election, you reverse your stance to be strong on law and order.

IMHO, the police unions around this country have far too much influence over disciplinary or administrative actions against police officers' misconduct. If there are no repercussions for misconduct, then it should come as no surprise that said misconduct is basically condoned, as over the years the state and local politicians have made it so difficult to get rid of the bad apples. And frankly a lot of the blame for that rests with the voters who do not hold their civic leaders accountable, primarily democrats for whom re-elections are just a formality.

Just because the MSM and others label something as police brutality or unjustified homicide doesn't make it so. Every police shooting is investigated by the department and in most cases several outside agencies. If civil rights violations are suspected, the federal government gets involved with the shooting as well.

After all investigations are complete, I have yet to know of a case where an unjustified shooting didn't lead to disciplinary actions against the officer. It's what Billo and I were discussing. Most people do not know that its perfectly legal to shoot an unarmed attacker. So when it happens to a black suspect, protests and riots break out. The officer(s) did nothing illegal, but the MSM leads you to believe the officer committed a crime when they really didn't.

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't believe so in any state except Texas. From my understanding, use of deadly force is legal to protect property there.

Our state is one of the most liberal when it comes to a victim using deadly force, but you still can't do it to protect property. If I come home and some intruder is carrying out my valuable guitars (Les Paul Customs) there is nothing I can do unless he drops the guitars and attacks me.

One of my heroes is Joe Horn of Texas. He was watching his neighbors house when he seen people breaking in. He called the police, but when they left the house, he shot them dead in their tracks:

The Joe Horn shooting controversy occurred on November 14, 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, United States, when local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two burglars outside his neighbor's home. Recordings of Horn's exchange with emergency dispatch indicated that he was asked 14 times not to interfere with the burglary, because police would soon be on scene.[1] The shootings resulted in debates regarding self-defense, Castle Doctrine laws, and Texas laws relating to use of deadly force to prevent or stop property crimes. The undocumented status of both burglars was highlighted because of the U.S. border controversy.[2] On June 30, 2008, Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in the Pasadena shootings.

Joe Horn shooting controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I wish we could do that in my state.

Well, I don't. I'm sorry, I'm not a gun guy. But I do like Les Paul's. Or a Gibson SG. Or a Stratocaster.

 

[sartre play]

To me it staggers the mind that ANYONE thought "defunding" the police was a good idea that had any chance of improving the behavior of local police forces in this country.

Why would anyone think this?

Maybe? well meaning? The correct answer, improve the training & resources for better results.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, I don't. I'm sorry, I'm not a gun guy. But I do like Les Paul's. Or a Gibson SG. Or a Stratocaster.

I have three Les Paul's and one of them is a 1963 reissue. Last I had it appraised (15 years ago) it was worth 8 grand. It's probably worth twice that today. I carry special insurance on my guitars because the standard home owners policy wouldn't cover total loss for fire or burglary. The reissue has a neck almost like a fender and that Les Paul body. It's a guitar any guitarist would want, especially us lead guitarists.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe? well meaning? The correct answer, improve the training & resources for better results.

Sounds to me like you don't know any police officers personally. Before the Brown shooting in Ferguson and the riots that followed, getting a job as a police officer was nearly impossible. They'd have hundreds of applicants for a few jobs so they got to choose the best of the best.

The son of a friend of mine that's a college graduate in law enforcement spent years trying to get a police officers job. He applied to be a state trooper, and the troopers came to his house (he was living with his mother and father) and drilled them with questions about their son. When they left, they went to nearby neighbors homes and were banging on their doors to get answers to their questions. Then he later found out they called his high school and was questioning his former teachers.

In desperation, he went to the police academy and paid for it himself to get a job, which finally happened.

Today we don't get the best of the best. We take whoever is willing to do the job. Our force has been looking for five new officers for a year now. Can't find people to take the job. Who can blame them? I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a cop today, especially in a liberal city.

 

[task0778]

Maybe? well meaning? The correct answer, improve the training & resources for better results.

But how does defunding the police lead to improving the training & resources? Nobody wants to see police misconduct, and I can see better training and resources as helping in that regard but defunding the police isn't going to help the situation.

 

[ninja007]

But how does defunding the police lead to improving the training & resources? Nobody wants to see police misconduct, and I can see better training and resources as helping in that regard but defunding the police isn't going to help the situation.

because liberals are emotional.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But how does defunding the police lead to improving the training & resources? Nobody wants to see police misconduct, and I can see better training and resources as helping in that regard but defunding the police isn't going to help the situation.

Their ultimate goal was to eventually federalize the police. Of course they knew getting rid of the cops and supporting criminals would give us what we have today. It's what they wanted even at the cost of thousands of American lives. Unfortunately for them, their constituents strongly opposed defunding the police so they had to back peddle very quickly. But next questionable police shooting, they'll be right back at it trying to figure out a way to get people on their side.

 

[Billo_Really]

I have three Les Paul's and one of them is a 1963 reissue. Last I had it appraised (15 years ago) it was worth 8 grand. It's probably worth twice that today. I carry special insurance on my guitars because the standard home owners policy wouldn't cover total loss for fire or burglary. The reissue has a neck almost like a fender and that Les Paul body. It's a guitar any guitarist would want, especially us lead guitarists.

Man, you take care of those guitars!

 

[dudmuck]

Because like far to many today those who pushed it did so because it was trending on social media and they wanted to be on the bandwagon and never considered the long term consequences of it.

Jim Jordan vows to defund the police over Donald Trump indictment

Calls to defund the DOJ and the FBI are growing among Republicans as Trump faces criminal charges.

www.newsweek.com

 

[BS Filter]

Jim Jordan vows to defund the police over Donald Trump indictment

Calls to defund the DOJ and the FBI are growing among Republicans as Trump faces criminal charges.

www.newsweek.com

Good. Anything that reduces the power of the Feds over citizens is a good thing. Too bad for you it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

 

[White 6]

Jim Jordan vows to defund the police over Donald Trump indictment

Calls to defund the DOJ and the FBI are growing among Republicans as Trump faces criminal charges.

www.newsweek.com

That's funny. What did the police do, or is he just confused?

 

[dudmuck]

That's funny. What did the police do, or is he just confused?

the police indicted dear leader.