Abolish the Police

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlNg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
i think the whole police defunding is to lure in minority voters who didnt vote for anyone last election. I think its going to make them vote against who is luring them in because they know they need police protection. All in Gods hands.
 
I would be very afraid. The gangs would step up and become even more brutal than they are now.
 
We could start with better filters to keep bullies and sociopaths off of the force.

After that the training should be less of military boot camp where cops are taught that we the public are the adversary. Techniques in conflict de escalation should be emphasized.

My uncle who used to be a cop quit the police force when he disagreed with how future officers were being trained. Future cops are being trained like soldiers and the result was the view of the public as the enemy. The very public that they should serve and whose tax dollars pay their salary.

He very much was of the idea that a police officer must learn how to control and handle himself or herself first in high stress situations before he/she learns how to handle and deal with others.
 
Last edited:
Sarcelle said:
We could start with better filters to keep bullies and sociopaths off of the force.
Click to expand...
I’d guess cities like Minneapolis were already trying filtering. So were the U S seminaries in the 60s and 70s. (eek!)

Filtering helps somewhat, but far less effective than people think. If someone wants to get through the process, they likely will get through. The pool of candidates will reflect the general values, character, and logical thinking abilities of the population.

If the educational system and Media help fashion a certain type of person - the Me generation, Might Makes Right, narcissist, then lots of those kinds of people will become Police or leading protests.

Thus you have mayors negotiating with arsonists, people who never would have gotten “promoted” years ago within protest movements, let alone getting half their demands met.
Years ago criminals didn’t get air time in news channels. They were filtered out.
 
Last edited:
Well, the exact problem may be how much of the population believe that grace is off-topic.

I have run into this “we would all be getting along great if not for the unnatural state of being governed by someone else” that is behind things like the idea to abolish the police.

No, if any community could ever do without police, it would be a community of people who are individually submitting to grace, not those who think that peace comes from everyone looking out for themselves and doing whatever they want.

As it is, though, there will always be sociopaths and psychopaths. Honestly, in hunter-gather societies, those who were serious liars and cheaters and violators of trust were put out or, well, a “hunting accident” was arranged (say anthropologists). In a religious community, they’d be made to leave. In a larger society, though, they’ll always be there until they merit prison. (We put them into confinement, not put them out of society.)

The idea that these violators will evaporate if we stop policing is nonsense. Decriminalizing certain behaviors makes sense. Essentially decriminalizing all behaviors is nuts.
 
Here’s the likely effect of all the reform proposals and police budget cuts:
  • More individuals will buy guns
  • Some bad people and some good people will be dissuaded from seeking that career
  • Some bad cops and some good cops will leave or take early retirement.
  • More and more the force will be made up of individuals who are only in it for the money, or just can’t find another job
  • Police will avoid any kind of arrest if they can help it especially in the inner city. This means they will patrol more on safe streets than unsafe streets. If they see a person acting suspiciously, signs of a possible crime in progress, or something that just doesn’t look or sound right, they will not record having seen anything, drive by.
  • If they must make a home visit, they can tap lightly, or tap at 252 (“no one there!”) when they can see the 911 caller probably referred to 252A.
  • If they need to make a few arrests now and then for credibility they can make sure it is someone older, sober, unlikely give any resistance, who they formerly would have issued an appearance ticket, or even a warning.
  • Small businesses, and families in the hood will suffer.
 
commenter said:
Filtering helps somewhat, but far less effective than people think. If someone wants to get through the process, they likely will get through.
Click to expand...
The vetting process is not perfect. No system is, to be honest.

However if a police officer gets tons of complaints and they’re ignored, we end up with riots.

So if bad candidates get in and lots of complaints get lodged against them, the police department should act on it.
 
Last edited:
Sarcelle said:
40.png
commenter:
Filtering helps somewhat, but far less effective than people think. If someone wants to get through the process, they likely will get through.
Click to expand...
The vetting process is not perfect. No system is, to be honest.

However if a police officer gets tons of complaints and they’re ignored, we end up with riots.

So if bad candidates get in and lots of complaints get lodged against them, the police department should act on it.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that police departments are ignoring them in recent past? How do you know?

I wasn’t a cop but in a similar field people can complain for a multitude of reasons. If you pull off everyone with complaints you have noone working.
The administration has to filter out genuine complaints from frivolous ones.
Why do you think police administrators would cover up known abusers, when they are high risk of causing misery to the administrator?
Keep in mind the administrators in the cities that had riots were often brought in from outside, on Reform bandwagon.
Yeah the union is a factor, but not that much. They can’t complain if a patrol officer gets moved to a different job same pay. It’s hard to fire them but not impossible with documentation
 
Last edited:
catholiclala said:
I am for reform, not abolishment. This idea is getting a bit out of hand. I’ve even heard suggestions of getting rid of security in public spaces. I do think retraining and defunding could help in some cases. not to dismantle the police but many services they do really shouldn’t be in police jurisdiction, could be addressed by other agencies, and some funding can be better spent aiding social services and institutions that can help uplift the vulnerable.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

driving around yesterday heard an interesting discussion on the radio


when I came back home did some googling and found out about an ex-police chief who wrote a book (a few years ago) about what he thought was needed to address the broken system


turns out there is a decades old community police program in Oregon that seems to be a good model


TRUMPs political theater (i.e. the whitehouse rose garden “photo-op” signing a presidential order for police reform), does nothing to address the long term trend of police departments becoming more militarized

 
Last edited:
mary77 said:
i think the whole police defunding is to lure in minority voters who didnt vote for anyone last election. I think its going to make them vote against who is luring them in because they know they need police protection. All in Gods hands.
Click to expand...
In so doing influences this coming November Election… This is the common denominator. It’s comical to see people acting with such indignation and absolute shock to see/hear racism and police brutality are alive and well.
 
Last edited:
Most so called “militarization” on a day to day basis is really expanded defensive gear. Today’s protesters/rioters are far more aggressive, violent specifically towards the police.

Politicians are granting permits, or negotiating with groups that at the least are condoning arson and violence. Often there’s only a faint, porous line between the protesters and rioters - if any line.

Why not demilitarize the protesters and rioters first - then we can talk about reducing police shields, helmets, bullet proof vests.
 
Last edited:
If we lived in a perfect world we wouldn’t need policing. But as it is now, I want to call the police absolutely if someone takes my car at gunpoint or assaults me. I’m not going to call some social worker who will tell me the criminal had a bad upbringing and I should feel sorry for him or her or that the person probably needs my car more than I do.
 
It’s selling something for x and asking x+++ to get x. It’s ludicrous otherwise. A set up even.

Archbishop Vigano thinks it’s part of a diabolical attempt at SOLVE ET COAGULA.
 
NightOwl said:
40.png
Thom18:
It’s hard for me to imagine that we don’t need police when people call for their help on a secondly basis. It’s hard for me to sympathize with the idea that we don’t need police when there is a reason for those calls.
Click to expand...
Defunding the police does not mean eliminating the police.
Click to expand...
The quoted article says abolish.
 
NightOwl said:
Defunding the police does not mean eliminating the police.
Click to expand...
In fact the police won’t even be defunded. What will happen is they will shift some positions out of the ostensible police budget, fund them out of some other program, with the same people doing the same work they do now. On a daily basis city council members get more complaints about police response time than about civil rights violations. Most citizens want more police in their neighborhood.

If anything the riots will increase the overall budget for police service. But you’ll see some new budget items appear under the city or county “Emergency Services”, “Administrative support”, Parks Department, Fire Department, etc. But the Police official budget will show a fake shrinkage.

All the “defund the police” propaganda really means is “Disrespect the individual Police Officers”.

In that, they will succeed.
 
Last edited:
“Defund” - the definition I see is to withdraw funding, to stop supporting a government function, etc.
Maybe the protestors should use a better word: “reform”, “reorganize”, “fix”, etc.
When I hear the phrase “defund the police” it literally sounds nonsensical.
Maybe the protestors should protest in the bad part of town with signs that say “stop committing crimes” or “stop shooting each other” or “quit murdering your rival gang members”. Therein lies at least some of the problem.
Why don’t they do that? Then at least they might have some credibility left.
 
Last edited:
It would not be wise to either abolish or defund the police. Those who want to abolish it aren’t even making a rational argument due to fallen human nature being what it is. Those who want to defund usually support throwing the money into more “social programs.” Sorry. Those don’t work either. They are a poor substitute for the real problem which is the breakdown of the family-high divorce rates & a large percentage of single-parent homes, which continue the poverty cycle. I don’t think these things can be fixed with more heavily funded social programs. They are a band-aid over a gushing wound. We need more education about how lifestyle choices and low moral standards result in the chaos we have today. Nothing will ever eliminate divorce and single parent households but unless they are the exception rather than the rule, we will continue to need the police and need to fund them. Of course, we aren’t allowed to speak about how poor moral choices often lead to bad outcomes for families and society at large because that is racist or judgemental or insensitive or homophobic or sexist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top