Kansas Crimson

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:40 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:15 pm For what it’s worth, I think they should have arrested him for assault on the spot. My point is that you can’t advocate defunding the police on one hand and then demand that they arrest someone for punching you in the next breath. With no police, you either get your ass kicked or get out of there. There is no Option C under anarchy.

What makes you think that "defunding" = "eliminating"? No one (that I know of) is advocating eliminating the police. So, yes, their job remains preventing bad people from harming good people. That does not mean holding ostensibly bad people down by kneeling on their necks to the point of death.

Arresting someone assaulting another citizen right in front of their eyes is their job. It is as much a part of their job as not killing fellow citizens.

Defunding means taking away military hardware currently in their possession and eliminating their ability to acquire more. Defunding means instead of throwing money at the problem spending such funds wisely so that the police develop a rapport with the community intead of an adversarial relationship. Defunding means police walking the streets as opposed to cruising in a battle tank.

But then I think I am wasting my time explaining nuances to you much the same way I did trying to convince you that hydroxychloroquine treatment of SARS-CoV-2 is a waste of time and resources.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:17 pm so now police doing their jobs is contingent upon how one exercises their freedom of speech.

Wow.

I’m just glad he wasn’t eating skittles.

Sparko wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:29 pm Defunding means cutting budgets and holding them responsible for their actions. Taking away the Navy SEAL gear. We have created a Fahrenheit 451 police force that justifies itself by committing crimes. Preemptive law enforcement. Slashing tires. Pepper spraying children. Shooting unarmed people in the back.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:32 pm

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:14 pm OK, I wasn't aware of this fringe. But I still maintain that this is still a fringe opinion, with what I stated being the prevailing thought.

No. You own that opinion.


(Did I do that right?)

zsn wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 12:58 am

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:32 pm

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:14 pm OK, I wasn't aware of this fringe. But I still maintain that this is still a fringe opinion, with what I stated being the prevailing thought.

No. You own that opinion.


(Did I do that right?)

If you’re subbing in for twocoach yes, you got that right

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:43 pm I think it's very important to have active body cams on all officers.

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:40 am

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:43 pm I think it's very important to have active body cams on all officers.

Unfortunately the wearer also has the ability to turn off the camera. Better to remove the ability to turn off the camera and then have safeguards around what gets out and how. Of course nothing is going to stop an a-hole cop from putting duct tape on the camera. Need to have consequences: automatic charge of "interfering with an investigation" or "obstruction of justice"?

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:53 am That's a tool that does not address the root problem.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:53 am That's a tool that does not address the root problem.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:50 pmEither way, when so many police interactions end up in court, might as well gather as much evidence as possible about each case.