Defunding The Police

[RamblingMad]

Agree 100%. Most protesters are serious people and know very well what they are protesting for or against.

When you see stupid acts like that attack, or tearing down a statue of U.S. Grant (who defeated the Confederacy, hello!) -- you know those people are just there for the selfies, or to loot, or to beat people up. Nothing legitimate going on.

But these ongoing protests create an opportunity for unrestrained anarchy that isn’t good for anyone.

 

[shelemm]

But the Camden example is not an example of defunding at all.

Camden didn't go in and gut the police budget or eliminate police services altogether as has been proposed in Minneapolis. They just brought in a new team with predictably good results.

One of the silly things about this whole debate is that there are numerous models (hundreds) all over the US of police departments who serve their communities very well. They have accountability, transparency, mutual respect with the community and all the actually important things that make a good police department.

But nobody is willing to do the difficult work to convert a bad department to a good department at the local level. Instead, they parrot slogans they don't even understand like "Defund the police!"

Slogans and selfies are easy. Real change is very difficult, and Camden is an excellent example of that. Camden didn't happen easily, but it was worth the effort.

Camden is an example of defunding the police, this is precisely what happened, just not the example you want to use "as has been proposed in Minneapolis." They did not "just' do anything, they rewrote the rules of engagement and created a different culture, at first without the union.

I am sure there will be many different proposals by people who are trying to change their world. Those folks are 'immune to my consultation.' Some of them will never get off the ground, some will get off the ground and not be successful, and some will have varying degrees of success. I wish them well. We will learn from all of the above. Personally, I am going to 'get out of the way if I can't lend a hand.'

 

[JimMIA]

But these ongoing protests create an opportunity for unrestrained anarchy that isn’t good for anyone.

Anarchists (and racists, and communists, and vegans, and environmentalists, and animal rights advocates, and everyone else) have a First Amendment right to express their opinions freely and openly.

That doesn't mean anyone is going to take them seriously, but we ALL have a right to free speech.

 

[RamblingMad]

Anarchists (and racists, and communists, and vegans, and environmentalists, and animal rights advocates, and everyone else) have a First Amendment right to express their opinions freely and openly.

That doesn't mean anyone is going to take them seriously, but we ALL have a right to free speech.

Free speech should not cover the destruction of property. And I thought the commie scare ended with McCarthy.

 

[BrianL]

It's unfortunate because the bad actors will dilute the message of the legitimate protestors - this is why public sentiment always turns to apathy then against those advocating for real change. It's sad to see this kind of nonsense going on.

 

[JimMIA]

Free speech should not cover the destruction of property.

It does not; destruction of property is a crime.

And I thought the commie scare ended with McCarthy.

Just using a bunch of random examples to illustrate that everybody has a right to free speech whether we agree with them or not.

 

[shelemm]

In 1967, at least 14 cities had violent rioting across the US, stretched over a long period. It became a feature of the nightly news. It was our 'Vietnam of the home front. ' In response, LBJ appointed the Kerner Commission to answer three questions:

What happened?

Why did it happen?

What can be done about it?

The most significant result of the Kerner Commission Report was passage of the Fair Housing Act. I believe we will need another major piece of civil rights legislation. In my opinion, it should address school funding. It's about time.

 

[JimMIA]

It's unfortunate because the bad actors will dilute the message of the legitimate protestors - this is why public sentiment always turns to apathy then against those advocating for real change.

Agree. Stupid violence dilutes the message, but so does adding in a myriad of incidents and issues that are not directly relevant to whatever you're trying to accomplish.

And the sheer volume of protests just makes people numb after a while. Protesters think more is better, but quite often "more" simply becomes boring -- "been there, done that, bought the teeshirt."

But more important, I think folks also have to recognize the limitations of protests as a vehicle for change. If change were that easy, we'd just have a few parades and things would be better. There is a LOT of hard work to be done, and just waving cute signs only goes so far.

 

[BrianL]

Agree. Stupid violence dilutes the message, but so does adding in a myriad of incidents and issues that are not directly relevant to whatever you're trying to accomplish.

And the sheer volume of protests just makes people numb after a while. Protesters think more is better, but quite often "more" simply becomes boring -- "been there, done that, bought the teeshirt."

But more important, I think folks also have to recognize the limitations of protests as a vehicle for change. If change were that easy, we'd just have a few parades and things would be better. There is a LOT of hard work to be done, and just waving cute signs only goes so far.

The lack of a strong leader for the movement is also an issue. They need someone who can articulate a clear and consistent message regarding what they want and how it can be accomplished. I really do agree with the protestors in spirit, but things are sort of devolving, which is very unfortunate.

 

[shelemm]

Agree. Stupid violence dilutes the message, but so does adding in a myriad of incidents and issues that are not directly relevant to whatever you're trying to accomplish.

I wish that were true. But the lesson of 1967 gives me pause for thought. America was never going to support Fair Housing. Nobody wanted to be told they had to live next to a Black man if they didn't want to. Though that wasn't what the riots were about.

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

Anarchists (and racists, and communists, and vegans, and environmentalists, and animal rights advocates, and everyone else) have a First Amendment right to express their opinions freely and openly.

That doesn't mean anyone is going to take them seriously, but we ALL have a right to free speech.

actually hate speech is not allowed. You can think what you want but you aren't allowed to spew it everywhere technically.

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

But these ongoing protests create an opportunity for unrestrained anarchy that isn’t good for anyone.

But when Kapernick kneeled people were in an uproar so again. WHICH IS IT! If BIPoc quietly protests, they are ridiculed and go unheard, they violently protest, still ridiculed and unheard. MAYBE if people had listened the first time in 1619... we wouldn't be here. At this point, my mantra is " I don't have time to waste on people John Brown would have shot." Just wish people would be honest and own that they are too afraid of change because it destroys what they believe this country is and they don't want to lose the privilege being white gives them.

 

[RamblingMad]

The lack of a strong leader for the movement is also an issue. They need someone who can articulate a clear and consistent message regarding what they want and how it can be accomplished. I really do agree with the protestors in spirit, but things are sort of devolving, which is very unfortunate.

I think without one, you can spin the protests to mean something else. I’m seeing news stories about the protesters destroying anti slavery statues, which really messes up any message.

At the end of the day, I expect most cities are trying to wait them out.

 

[shelemm]

actually hate speech is not allowed. You can think what you want but you aren't allowed to spew it everywhere technically.

Sorry, Q2P, I agree with you on most things, but hate speech is protected. Though some places try to place limitations on it, as much as they think they can get away with. Those limitations, if challenged, are unlikely to survive no matter who is on the Supreme Court.

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

I think without one, you can spin the protests to mean something else. I’m seeing news stories about the protesters destroying anti slavery statues, which really messes up any message.

At the end of the day, I expect most cities are trying to wait them out.

Destroy what message? they are pulling confederate statues down. Please tell me what message is destroyed by removing them?

 

[jaybirdsmommy]

Sorry, Q2P, I agree with you on most things, but hate speech is protected. Though some places try to place limitations on it, as much as they think they can get away with. Those limitations, if challenged, are unlikely to survive no matter who is on the Supreme Court.

I was just going to post the same thing. As long as it isn't directly threatening someone, hate speech is protected under the first ammendment.

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

Sorry, Q2P, I agree with you on most things, but hate speech is protected. Though some places try to place limitations on it, as much as they think they can get away with. Those limitations, if challenged, are unlikely to survive no matter who is on the Supreme Court.

Hate speech is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed., 2014) as: “Speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, esp. in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.” It is state to state but where I live, falls under disturbing the peace. Similar to you can't yell fire in a non-emergency. We are likely both right.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

I think without one, you can spin the protests to mean something else. I’m seeing news stories about the protesters destroying anti slavery statues, which really messes up any message.

At the end of the day, I expect most cities are trying to wait them out.

Has it occurred that there is a chance you are tainting protesters by constantly using the term to include criminals? I have not noticed this problem on your posts involving police and individual officer who commit crimes.

Is it possible protesters don't have to be criminals just as all police don't have to be murders?

 

[RamblingMad]

Destroy what message? they are pulling confederate statues down. Please tell me what message is destroyed by removing them?

They’re also destroying statues of those against slavery. So what is the take away? All statues are bad?

 

[JimMIA]

The lack of a strong leader for the movement is also an issue. They need someone who can articulate a clear and consistent message regarding what they want and how it can be accomplished. I really do agree with the protestors in spirit, but things are sort of devolving, which is very unfortunate.

Or a coherent central purpose.

One of the biggest problems has been that the "cause" is different depending on who you talk to, and often, depending on what time of the day you talk to them!

• To some, racism is THE issue, probably best exemplified by the killing of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia.
• To some, police misconduct is THE issue (even though it was not the first issue), and that is best exemplified (IMHO) by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
  • In response, some want to eliminate police services entirely
  • Others want to redirect funds from police departments to alternative approaches
  • Both use "Defund the Police" for VERY different approaches
• To others, anarchy is the goal, as exemplified by the Seattle CHAZ/CHOP spectacle.

Because of the different core issues, you have different groups involved and they are actually in competition with each other for attention, funding, public support, etc.

For example, the protests of Ahmaud Arbery's death was carried almost exclusively by his family...for MONTHS, and with little effect until the video was released. BLM and other groups were nowhere to be found -- because the issue was not police misconduct.

BLM got involved immediately in the George Floyd case because it was a clear case of police misconduct.

And finally, the anarchists in Seattle used the situation to their interests by pressuring the city to remove police from CHAZ/CHOP...with predictable results.

The legitimate efforts of a lot of people are diluted by the fact that there is no central theme to any of it. It's each group against the other groups, in addition to being against whatever they are protesting.