171–180 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the majority of those are traffic accidents. If you limit it to homicides it drops many more places.
Untrue at least for USA, only 28% are road related deaths. https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our language is full of ambiguities, and this is one. Both interpretations are listed in the Cambridge dictionary. The truth is: clarity require lots of words, and that makes a terrible slogan. Most people react stronger to a slogan than a nuanced discussion, so the messy slogans will remain.
That doesn’t mean a bad slogan like Defund the police isn’t just divisive, ill-advised, and harmful.
Maybe it's finally the time for private sector to step in? Privately funded regional and/or local (HOA-funded) police departments that are immune to political games with funding that's independent from political trends. Private security startups must be working in this area, right? Just take a look what amazon is doing to shipping industry, how well researched and optimized their deliveries are. Policing is no differ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the majority of those are traffic accidents. If you limit it to homicides it drops many more places.
Untrue at least for USA, only 28% are road related deaths. https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf
It shouldn't ultimately matter that many officers are racist, latently or overtly. It shouldn't matter that an officer is having a bad day, or feels disrespected. It shouldn't matter that an officer is frustrated that a suspect is running away, or scared that a citizen might be armed. Just as it doesn't matter when any other citizen is such things - because the consequences of committing second degree murder are similar regardless of your backstory.
If cops truly want to be the good guys, then they need to support criminal punishment for their colleagues that commit crimes and then hide behind the uniform - even crimes that they perceive as helping punish the bad guys. Not with their current standard of "did this violate internal policy?", but rather with the usual criminal justice standard of "was this use of force necessary to prevent imminent harm to self or others?". Because when criminals are allowed to take cover behind the uniform, it makes the uniform a symbol of criminality.
This certainly wouldn't solve every issue, especially the injustices that don't rise to the level of murder. But visible justice for the most severe victims of criminal police would go a long way to restoring public trust.
> Finally, officers said they were asked to handle too much; they were constantly thrown at tangled societal problems like mental health breakdowns or drug overdoses, they said, for which they were ill-equipped — then blamed when things went wrong. Sounds like they've got some common ground with the "defund the police" folks, if they'd listen a bit.
What makes you think they aren't listening? The problem is they're just further down into the nuts and bolts of the problem than the "defund the police" folks ever get, so it only looks like they aren't listening when they ignore infeasible or impractical ideas.
* gestures in the general direction of... everything *
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue should be accountability. Police unions are a root cause of the problem. Instead, ordinary officers are being treated like the first five paragraphs of this story. The most popular slogan is "defund the police". There's people non-ironically advocating for 'abolishing prisons'. This is why they're quitting, and this is why the drive to meaningfully reform police will be wasted this time around, too. It will…
> Instead, ordinary officers are being treated like the first five paragraphs of this story. This should be an unsurprising reaction to there generally being minimal consequences for individual bad cops, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The meaning of "diverting funding to other resources" has been a consensus in the community for a very long time. It's only recently that "defund" has been conflated with "abolish," which has always been a very very small niche of the police reform community.
Sitting member of Congress: "No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can't be reformed." https://mobile.twitter.com/RashidaTlaib/status/1381745303997... Sitting member of Congress: "We can’t reform this." https://mobile.twitter.com/AyannaPressley/status/13817027443... Activist with 475k followers whose name is currently: "DEFUND & ABOLISH POLICE" https://mobile.twitter.com/BreeNewsome Ben & Jerrys: "T…
For people against the concept of police, what do you see replacing it? Privatized security forces? Community members/ local militia? A more limited public police force? National guard?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The police. It's funny how you question my use of "they" but not the person I responded to. His "they" isn't broad?
He's talking about a known slogan. You're speculating as to what that group "wants".
Your objections are rooted in a bias you aren't willing to admit.