The George Floyd effect. Monuments down. MS flag gone. Worldwide protests. Police more violent than protestors.
An article on reducing police funding, and shifting that funding to more impactful services such as mental health care, affordable housing, job programs and education:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/police-budgets-defund-the-police_n_5ed943a8c5b6dddfca600f27
I think I'm starting to see Flimbro's point: Change would probably be most effective and lasting if the driver of the change is financial.
Not sure how I previously missed this approach for addressing policing. The forces of capitalism, and it's financial incentives/disincentives, had been more obvious to me within other dysfunctional systems.
sprout said:
An article on reducing police funding, and shifting that funding to more impactful services such as mental health care, affordable housing, job programs and education:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/police-budgets-defund-the-police_n_5ed943a8c5b6dddfca600f27
I think I'm starting to see Flimbro's point: Change would probably be most effective and lasting if the driver of the change is financial.
Not sure how I previously missed this approach for addressing policing. The forces of capitalism, and it's financial incentives/disincentives, had been more obvious to me within other dysfunctional systems.
I agree with that. All change is local. So how do we cut SOMPD budgets and shift the money to other programs?
PVW said:
PVW said:
I'm disturbed by the fact that when Barr gave the unlawful order to attack the protestors, the police followed it. Surely those who were in Lafayette square have standing to sue? I also wonder who gave the order for the helicopters to fly so low, breaking windows and tree. I hope store owners and the DC government sue for the damage.
Civil liberties groups sue Trump, Barr for forcefully removing Lafayette Square protesters (WaPo)
In a federal lawsuit, the groups asserted that U.S. and military police officers’ use of horses, batons, shields and riot control agents — including pepper spray, smoke canisters and rubber or plastic projectiles — violated largely peaceful protesters’ constitutional rights of free speech and assembly 30 minutes before a citywide curfew took effect Monday.
The suit — which also names Attorney General William P. Barr as a defendant — was brought by the ACLU of the District of Columbia, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. All plaintiffs said they were gathered peacefully to protest the death in police custody of George Floyd in Minneapolis and other similar deaths.
Someone still believes in the rule of law. I don't. As amazing as it sounds, I think Donald J Trump, being the loser that he is, nevertheless single-handedly ended and failed the American Experiment.
basil said:
I agree with that. All change is local. So how do we cut SOMPD budgets and shift the money to other programs?
Well, Step One would be to decide what functions now performed by the police department in your town should be cut back. So you could talk about that.
nohero said:
basil said:
I agree with that. All change is local. So how do we cut SOMPD budgets and shift the money to other programs?
Well, Step One would be to decide what functions now performed by the police department in your town should be cut back. So you could talk about that.
In 2016, after years of negotiations with the unions, South Orange and the police unions reached an agreement moving police from 10 hour 40 minute shifts to 12 hour shifts, resulting in cutting down overtime and saving South Orange $500,000 a year. The impetus of this was a 2011 police best practices study commissioned in 2011 by the Board of Trustees.
https://villagegreennj.com/towns/collum-new-south-orange-police-schedule-reduce-crime-save-money/
eta - This doesn't respond to the question of what police functions can be cut back.
nohero said:
Well, Step One would be to decide what functions now performed by the police department in your town should be cut back. So you could talk about that.
I think the concept is that you take money away from the PD budget (both from hardware as well as headcount) and you invest it in other services such as healthcare, social workers, etc. And then you let these services deal with non-violent crime issues that the police currently handles (substance abuse, mental health, maybe domestic violence). So you simply don't send the police to any of these calls anymore, but have them focus on violent crime only. Also you look at your ordinance and see if you can prune them from non-violent offenses that police currently may be spending time on (for example, I don't want my PD spending ay time on recreational use of pot by anyone). A lot has been written about this lately. See for example: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/defund-the-police-1007254/
basil said:
nohero said:
Well, Step One would be to decide what functions now performed by the police department in your town should be cut back. So you could talk about that.
I think the concept is that you take money away from the PD budget (both from hardware as well as headcount) and you invest it in other services such as healthcare, social workers, etc. And then you let these services deal with non-violent crime issues that the police currently handles (substance abuse, mental health, maybe domestic violence). So you simply don't send the police to any of these calls anymore, but have them focus on violent crime only. Also you look at your ordinance and see if you can prune them from non-violent offenses that police currently may be spending time on (for example, I don't want my PD spending ay time on recreational use of pot by anyone). A lot has been written about this lately. See for example: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/defund-the-police-1007254/
You referred to specific police departments, so I asked if you had identified specific functions to cut. I think that starts with knowing how the situations you mention (ex., domestic violence, substance abuse) are handled now.
nohero said:
You referred to specific police departments, so I asked if you had identified specific functions to cut. I think that starts with knowing how the situations you mention (ex., domestic violence, substance abuse) are handled now.
Eh, armed cops show up for everything now. Street crossing before church service on sunday, branches falling off of a tree, escaped cats, medical emergencies, control homeless folks, soft drug use, you name it.
For those who want to curtail police power(as I do), the rioters and looters are your enemies. They are also enemies to peaceful marchers.
Those actions will make many people want to restore "law & order".
terp said:
Those actions will make many people want to restore "law & order".
The original, definitely. I don't miss "Criminal Intent".
nohero said:
terp said:
Those actions will make many people want to restore "law & order".
The original, definitely. I don't miss "Criminal Intent".
What's great about that show is if you also simultaneously keep in your mind the fact that Jerry Orbach was the voice of Lumière.
terp said:
For those who want to curtail police power(as I do), the rioters and looters are your enemies. They are also enemies to peaceful marchers.
Those actions will make many people want to restore "law & order".
While players taking a knee before football games to protest police brutality got a lot of attention and criticism, it didn't actually result in any change. If it had, perhaps protests wouldn't have gotten to this point.
PVW said:
What's great about that show is if you also simultaneously keep in your mind the fact that Jerry Orbach was the voice of Lumière.
And Patrick Swayze had to remind him about the babies in corners rule.
PVW said:
What's great about that show is if you also simultaneously keep in your mind the fact that Jerry Orbach was the voice of Lumière.
and the guy who sang "Try To Remember"
sprout said:
terp said:
For those who want to curtail police power(as I do), the rioters and looters are your enemies. They are also enemies to peaceful marchers.
Those actions will make many people want to restore "law & order".
While players taking a knee before football games to protest police brutality got a lot of attention and criticism, it didn't actually result in any change. If it had, protests wouldn't have gotten to this point.
The protests themselves aren't the problem. It's the riot/looting/property damage that will be the issue. Remember how well the Republicans did in the wake of the Ferguson unrest.
terp said:
The protests themselves aren't the problem. It's the riot/looting/property damage that will be the issue. Remember how well the Republicans did in the wake of the Ferguson unrest.
what is your suggestion that people do to make their voices heard? Because it's almost certain that any organized protest gatherings are going to be used opportunistically by people looking to commit vandalism and robbery.
and with regard to the 2014 elections, there isn't any real evidence that Ferguson was a substantial factor. The results could have been predicted by history without even knowing anything else occurring in the country in 2014. Did Ferguson have an effect? Maybe. And maybe not.
The 'Six-Year Itch':
This is the idea that the election in the sixth year of a president's two terms tends to be very bad for the party in power.
PBS NewsHour says all seven presidents elected since the Great Depression have seen their parties lose seats in both the House and Senate during their second terms. This will probably hold true for President Obama, as well. According to Gallup Obama's job approval rating has been under 50 percent for well over a year.
the coverage of the protests seems to have a different tone this time around. Police abuses are being reported in mainstream news organizations. This was in the NYT this morning (one could quibble that the headline soft pedals what's in the story, but at least the story tells it bluntly):
After Curfew, Protesters Are Again Met With Strong Police Response in New York City
The intensity of the police crackdown appeared somewhat lesser than the night before, with fewer violent confrontations, but officers continued to surround protesters and box them in before charging aggressively at crowds to break them up.
In the Bronx, just after the curfew began, rows of officers confined protesters from both sides, pinning them in using a tactic known as kettling, before running at the group with batons and striking several demonstrators. At least one person was taken away on a stretcher.
This is what I wrote earlier in this or another thread -- the police are using curfews as a pretext to violently attack otherwise peaceful protesters. Without the arbitrarily imposed curfews, what these protesters are doing isn't a crime, and police would have no reason to corral them, gas them and beat them.
So with the tenor of the coverage of cops changing, does this mean that the protesters will be held solely accountable for the violence that occurs? Certainly in right wing media the looting and vandalism will be front and center. But elsewhere it is starting to appear that police forces are also going to be held responsible.
Bringing up looting and violence feels, yet again, like an attempt to change the topic. The demonstrations began as a protest against the fact that people of color, and especially black men, are disproportionately targeted, injured, and killed by the police. The demonstrations have continued with this as their focus. Some looting and some violence has occurred, but that's been a sideshow, and when violence has broken out, it seems odd to specifically call out civilians who are doing this but remain silent on the police police doing it. To make "riot/looting/property" the focus feels like a choice to turn away from the larger story.
PVW said:
Bringing up looting and violence feels, yet again, like an attempt to change the topic. The demonstrations began as a protest against the fact that people of color, and especially black men, are disproportionately targeted, injured, and killed by the police. The demonstrations have continued with this as their focus. Some looting and some violence has occurred, but that's been a sideshow, and when violence has broken out, it seems odd to specifically call out civilians who are doing this but remain silent on the police police doing it. To make "riot/looting/property" the focus feels like a choice to turn away from the larger story.
it's absolutely this.
What the police are doing in many places around the country is nothing short of terrorism. People who are peaceful and non-violent (and some of them trying to leave the area at curfew) are being cornered, trapped, and then besieged with tear gas, flash grenades, and set upon with batons. And in DC, military helicopters hovered so low they broke limbs off trees, and smashed the windows at ground level. All of that is meant to terrorize people who are demonstrating with the goal of smashing dissent.
So in the big picture what's more important to focus on? That a small minority of the people protesting grabbed stuff out of a Target and set police cars on fire, or that the police forces in many cities are trying to terrorize peaceful citizens in submission and silence?
ml1 said:
terp said:
The protests themselves aren't the problem. It's the riot/looting/property damage that will be the issue. Remember how well the Republicans did in the wake of the Ferguson unrest.
what is your suggestion that people do to make their voices heard? Because it's almost certain that any organized protest gatherings are going to be used opportunistically by people looking to commit vandalism and robbery.
I do think the voices are being heard. And I think there's a good chance there will be change. I don't necessarily think the change will necessarily be what people expect or want.
I know there has been an effort by the protesters to distance themselves from the disconcerting behavior. I even saw a video with a black clad person with an anarchy(not the good kind) symbol who was breaking up the curb with a hammer presumably to create projectiles that could be hurled at the police. The protesters grabbed him and dragged him over to the police. This imo is hopeful.
if people want to be heard I think they should be clear on their agenda/demands. I also think its important to be as inclusive as possible. One thing I realized was that everyone seemed to agree that the police behavior was abhorrent and that they should be punished.
While it is true that race is an issue here. Black people are clearly disproportionately affected. The statistics show that white people are shot in larger numbers if you look at the raw data. I only say this because police violence and the lack of accountability is a problem all of it's own. But it is a problem affects the black community more acutely.
I would argue that if you want change you get as many people on your side as this is a problem for everyone. Right or not, too much focus on race loses some people. People feel like they are thought of as racist if they don't agree with every point even some minor ones. This often divides us. If you read more widely there are people on the right and libertarians who ask "what about Duncan Lemp?"
And everyone wins if we reduce the shootings. How about this platform? No more war on drugs. No more "no knock warrants". No more extra protection for law enforcement officers. If you or I did some of these things we would be put away for a very long time. Law Enforcement has a monopoly on violence. They need to be more accountable than the civilian, not less.
PVW said:
Bringing up looting and violence feels, yet again, like an attempt to change the topic. The demonstrations began as a protest against the fact that people of color, and especially black men, are disproportionately targeted, injured, and killed by the police. The demonstrations have continued with this as their focus. Some looting and some violence has occurred, but that's been a sideshow, and when violence has broken out, it seems odd to specifically call out civilians who are doing this but remain silent on the police police doing it. To make "riot/looting/property" the focus feels like a choice to turn away from the larger story.
So, just a few bad apples then?
ml1 said:
the coverage of the protests seems to have a different tone this time around. Police abuses are being reported in mainstream news organizations. This was in the NYT this morning (one could quibble that the headline soft pedals what's in the story, but at least the story tells it bluntly):
After Curfew, Protesters Are Again Met With Strong Police Response in New York City
The intensity of the police crackdown appeared somewhat lesser than the night before, with fewer violent confrontations, but officers continued to surround protesters and box them in before charging aggressively at crowds to break them up.
In the Bronx, just after the curfew began, rows of officers confined protesters from both sides, pinning them in using a tactic known as kettling, before running at the group with batons and striking several demonstrators. At least one person was taken away on a stretcher.This is what I wrote earlier in this or another thread -- the police are using curfews as a pretext to violently attack otherwise peaceful protesters. Without the arbitrarily imposed curfews, what these protesters are doing isn't a crime, and police would have no reason to corral them, gas them and beat them.
So with the tenor of the coverage of cops changing, does this mean that the protesters will be held solely accountable for the violence that occurs? Certainly in right wing media the looting and vandalism will be front and center. But elsewhere it is starting to appear that police forces are also going to be held responsible.
I don't really watch the corporate media much, so I'll take your word for it.
The curfews are in place because of the rioting, looting, attacks on store owners and police. That isn't to say the police behavior has been perfect, but that's why there are curfews.
terp said:
I don't really watch the corporate media much, so I'll take your word for it.
The curfews are in place because of the rioting, looting, attacks on store owners and police. That isn't to say the police behavior has been perfect, but that's why there are curfews.
What source of information do you use and recommend?
nohero said:
terp said:
I don't really watch the corporate media much, so I'll take your word for it.
The curfews are in place because of the rioting, looting, attacks on store owners and police. That isn't to say the police behavior has been perfect, but that's why there are curfews.
What source of information do you use and recommend?
I read a myriad of news sources through my google news reader. There is a button that will take you to wide coverage on a topic. Most of this is left leaning, but you can get a pretty good chunk of the spectrum.
I wasn't looking for this in particular, but I just stumbled upon this article in New York magazine. New Study Shows Riots Make America Conservative.
nohero said:
You referred to specific police departments, so I asked if you had identified specific functions to cut. I think that starts with knowing how the situations you mention (ex., domestic violence, substance abuse) are handled now.
If it can be done in LA, why couldn't it be done in SOM
terp said:
PVW said:
Bringing up looting and violence feels, yet again, like an attempt to change the topic. The demonstrations began as a protest against the fact that people of color, and especially black men, are disproportionately targeted, injured, and killed by the police. The demonstrations have continued with this as their focus. Some looting and some violence has occurred, but that's been a sideshow, and when violence has broken out, it seems odd to specifically call out civilians who are doing this but remain silent on the police police doing it. To make "riot/looting/property" the focus feels like a choice to turn away from the larger story.
So, just a few bad apples then?
Not sure how you got that from what I wrote.
I get that you really don't want this to be about race. You want it to be about centralized government, or the war on drugs, or looting, or whatever. And any one of those is fine as a topic of discussion, but those are a different topic than this one.
I'll just repeat what I wrote upthread, to which I don't feel you've actually given a reply to:
"If we did not have the war on drugs, did not have a trend of increased militarization of the police, did not have as many guns both in state and civilian hands, fewer white people would be dead -- but I'm pretty certain that George Floyd still would be."
As much as you don't want this to be about race, the fact remains that we could focus on any of these other topics you want to focus on, even solve them, and the problem of people of color being killed by their fellow Americans -- the problem that these demonstrations are about -- would remain.
basil said:
nohero said:
You referred to specific police departments, so I asked if you had identified specific functions to cut. I think that starts with knowing how the situations you mention (ex., domestic violence, substance abuse) are handled now.
If it can be done in LA, why couldn't it be done in SOM
The police budget was supposed to be increased from $1.189 billion last year to $1.86 billion, an increase of $671 million. Mayor Garcetti cut $100-150 million. That's not a gigantic cut. Most of the increases were for new police bonuses.
"Some politicians are listening: the Los Angeles Police Department was set to receive a large increase in its annual budget from $1.189 billion last year to $1.86 billion (most of the budget increases were for new police bonuses) for 2020-2021 before Garcetti axed that move Wednesday, cutting $100-$150 million — only after activists rallied outside of his home."
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Civil liberties groups sue Trump, Barr for forcefully removing Lafayette Square protesters (WaPo)