Tough Day To Be In Law Enforcement

[Archie Moses]

Imagine your family member being publically executed and then having the president, who your family more than likely dislikes and is disgusted by, uses your dead family member's name in a speech and implies they're looking down from heaven thinking it's a great day for him and a great day for everybody.

Imagine it because it's one family's reality right now.


It's not a great day for George Floyd or anyone else, Mr. President.

 

[MVP]

What country is everyone moving to after this happens?

Stay south, we do not need your gun nutheads here in Canada.

 

[One Brow]

I mean, the video he shared was pretty head scratching. You might roll your eyes at it but I'll just roll mine at you.

*anxiously awaiting Thriller to call me a Shapiro fan boy and alt right because I shared the tweet which was probably the first thing I've seen from the guy in 2020.*

Did you mean that the question the interviewer offered was head-scratchingly bad, or that the interviewee brushed past the stupidity in a head-scratchingly effective retort?

Feel free to roll your eyes. If you think that interviewer asked an important and legitimate question, you're only showing that you really don't understand the proposals.

 

[babe]

They should pay for everything. They take the biggest cut of the pie.

They aren't going to survive the Google Age without transitioning into 100% tyranny. And many of those cops that you want to keep armed won't survive, either.

When the information was slower, the myth was easier to sustain. No longer the case.

So I get the "logic" you buy, I just wish I could help you see the problem with it.

"Corporations" are people. I mean someone owns them, and for most of our large corporations, a lot of people have their retirement invested in them. Sure there are the few individual investors with relatively large share holdings.

And, at least since the 70's, the trending mode of thought in corporate management has been heavily weighted towards "Shareholder Value", meaning they do stuff to pump the value of the shares, try to keep the stock price high..... as opposed to use sound long-term management strategies. Short term vision is one of our national weaknesses, compared.... say...., to Chinese management strategies which often show a longer-term emphasis. We fail to invest much in R&D, and instead focus on political influence to secure cartel scale dominance in business. We run competitors.... little upstart endeavors, outta town using government regulations they just can "buy" out, like the larger corporates do regularly.

Unless you actually have nothing, and no job..... or even if you have a government job.... you can't just take down our corporations without being self-destructive.

The logic that makes "Corporations" a kind of "other" you could really consider an enemy, doesn't even hold for welfare recipients. Why? Because it's the WalMarts and Targets and other big box stores where you get your cheap slave-labor imported goods.... you know.... the stuff Americans used to make and sell at more expensive prices. The WalMarts ran out all the local producers and retailers, and now they are the folks who lobby for the Dems, for the politicians on every side of our political dog & pony show, to keep the unwashed masses flush with spending cash to drop off at their stores.

The equation boils down to this. The Bigs want you to have just enough to spend to keep their business profitable. They are willing to milk the American public and squeeze out a survival rate "guaranteed income", sucked outta mostly the small business/middle class/government employee class, while they know how to avoid being taxed so much themselves.

The whole system is gonna fail eventually, maybe fairly soon. Smartass hotshot politicians cluck "The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run outta other peoples' money."

The clear solution to it all is not to just damn the corporates and business impossible, not to have the state just operate all the business, but to get the government out of business.

People set up businesses or corporations to enable operations they don't want to have in their own name legally because it exposes them to personal risk. And business/corporations enable a number of methods for investment or borrowing which gives people a possibility of participating somehow in the profit. Those are good things. They enable us to function in better ways, more efficient ways.

It would be better if we could eliminate the "special" channels of disproportionate influence the truly wealthy folks use to buy out our government officials and feather their own nests, so to speak. That would require stuff like laws, and ethics, against influence peddling that could just give ordinary people a fair say in their government.

I think to do that, we have to have an open economic playing field..... with justice, liberty, equality..... **** like that. Idealistic **** maybe, but if we can't manage to create and enforce laws that make it real, we just can't expect anyone to really have any rights. It all goes to "Arrogance of Power". I guess it's the same thing as the "Golden Rule" perversion which maintains "Them's that's got the gold make the rules". I call that corruption.

Funny thing about all that..... damnable thing about all that..... is just that if we don't believe in, and maintain higher ethics in our own conduct.... if people don't themselves hold principles like that in their own affairs.... we can hardly hope our government will.

Taxing the Corporations, and buying into the guaranteed income idea, won't change any of that.

In fact, it is simply turning ourselves in to the government camps, or reservations, like the Plains Indians did, for a future of starvation on the government dole, with no rights to access opportunity or resources..

If we want opportunity, and access to the resources of this world, little folks need cops to enforce the laws that give them the rights.

 

[babe]

Stay south, we do not need your gun nutheads here in Canada.

Might be the time is about right to liberate Canada. I understand Canada has a sort of Wild West that is more Texas than Texas. Subjects of 'Er Majesty, The Queen my eye. Haven't you got the guts to become citizens with actual rights.

Subjects is another word for Slave.

 

[babe]

Can't say I like this but this is outrageously reckless. Looting is one thing but these looters were acting like animals. Was this part of some organized group. Where were the police when this happened? Instead they pick on peaceful protesters and unarmed persons they can bully with impunity because they know they have qualified immunity.

There is a difference between police who actually are good, and those who go over to the go-along side. Nobody can deny the sort of "brotherhood" that compels a kind of cohesion within a police force, which causes them to shift towards the view that they are themselves a kind of "us" against others whom they see as "them". I don't think we can ever have better police force unless we have a society that highly values conscience, and respects individual rights. That requires management that does not grant the kind of immunity you refer to. That requires something like the teachings of Jesus, which really puts the individual in charge of himself. Personal conscience, personal values.

The organized violence is a determined, managed sort that is intended by the financiers to take down actual Constitutional, people-based governance, and to replace it with Fascism. This is the Mt. Suribachi of the idea of human rights.

The louder a mob shouts "Justice", the less you can hope for it.

 

[Archie Moses]

Did you mean that the question the interviewer offered was head-scratchingly bad, or that the interviewee brushed past the stupidity in a head-scratchingly effective retort?

Feel free to roll your eyes. If you think that interviewer asked an important and legitimate question, you're only showing that you really don't understand the proposals.

How many games will the Patriots win this year?

 

[babe]

Did you mean that the question the interviewer offered was head-scratchingly bad, or that the interviewee brushed past the stupidity in a head-scratchingly effective retort?

Feel free to roll your eyes. If you think that interviewer asked an important and legitimate question, you're only showing that you really don't understand the proposals.

I measure ideological blinders by the resistance given to information.

If you can't manage to understand a Ben Shapiro and cogitate enough to respond, you have perhaps just given up on doing your own thinking.

So I followed your conversation back to the Trump retweet of Ben Shapiro. I know a lot of conservatives don't really like Big Ben, but he gets time on some local stations, and he talks "smart".

But how can you or anyone really deny the lunacy of the dismissive comment about how a person being looted needs police action to defend her property or her life. It's not "white privilege". It's human rights.

If you can't see that, Brow, you've turned in your mind. I mean.... you have checked your mind in at some agency desk, and turned it over for the duration, and you are now just a canary repeating what you are told, or mesmerized perhaps, to say.

OK.

So the idea of "Arrogance of Power" applies practically to anyone who can disregard law or human rights of others with impunity. That's the definition of it.

If you think that's OK, you are yourself that sort. The rub is, if you win your political campaign here, you will not actually be the one who has power when the dust settles. Useful idiots, tools.... like yourself..... are the ones who will be rounded up when the deed is done, outta "just" consideration.... I mean pathological reflexive fear in the mind of those whom you are following, that you could exercise the same political skills to take them down.

That is the way it always turns out with socialism/communism/whateverism that uses lawlessness like this to take power.

Power always rests on the sufferance/tolerance/acceptance of the compliant populace who for whatever reason accepts the rule. If you take common cause with violent proceedings to change things, you will still have to accept actual suppression of your rights/privileges/hopes/wishes.... by lawless violence.

The idea of Arrogance of Power is exemplified by a Hillary who can on National News admit to a felony and laugh at it, because she owns the stooge Comey somehow, or has indisputable power through her usefulness to her important managers. The fact that her "base", I mean her donor class "base"/management, would not object to her display, is a clear claim to Power, beyond the law.

The very way Power in its raw form is demonstrated requires the exhibition of force above the law. It is a way to message the populace that they have no course of action that can be effective..

And this is exactly what "The Resistance" has been since Hillary lost the election.

 

[Beer]

Well if cities can come up with a better solution to crime control than a police force, then go ahead and dismantle the police force at that point. But don't dismantle the police force and replace it with nothing. Right now the 4th most common cause of death for black males (of all ages) is homicide, and a very high percentage of those perpetrators (have to look up the exact figure) are other black males. Minority communities will suffer as much or more than others if cops are taken off the street.

Yes, police need to behave professionally--and clearly they haven't been, but one reason that black people are disproportionately the victims of police abuse is because a disproportionately high percentage of violent crime takes place in predominantly black neighborhoods. That's where a high percentage of police have been getting sent to investigate violent crime. It's a reality that needs to be factored into the conversation.

From what I understand its not really disbanding police, not cutting all funding, its having police do police work, then spreading out the leftover budget to go towards mental health workers, job services, etc ....to combat the real issues. Let the cops arrest dangerous criminals, not have them do that, and therapy, and welfare checks, and so on and so forth.

 

[NAOS]

From what I understand its not really disbanding police, not cutting all funding, its having police do police work, then spreading out the leftover budget to go towards mental health workers, job services, etc ....to combat the real issues. Let the cops arrest dangerous criminals, not have them do that, and therapy, and welfare checks, and so on and so forth.

That, plus wholesale replacement of police departments which have undesirable (or even criminal) track records.

 

[babe]

From what I understand its not really disbanding police, not cutting all funding, its having police do police work, then spreading out the leftover budget to go towards mental health workers, job services, etc ....to combat the real issues. Let the cops arrest dangerous criminals, not have them do that, and therapy, and welfare checks, and so on and so forth.

I think the organized deployment of this talking point comes from an intent to fundamentally transform law enforcement into something that can be politically managed in a way that cuts out all the constitutional sorts of law/legal proceedings. It looks easier to manage, but the purpose is not for people to have input or better protection or better actual rights. The purpose is effective enforcement of compliance to political requirements.

People in UN meetups have been talking about this for decades. I think Henry Kissinger said that the UN objectives could never be enforced so long as law enforcement personnel viewed themselves as part of the community. So the idea went around to how can it be ever arranged for law enforcement people to feel "different". Some said they could be isolated by mere cohesive internal culture that displaced community identities. Some said people have to be divided so there is no "cohesive community", but just a lot of minorities that can be manipulated. Then some said they could just hire mercenary outsiders to do the work.

Yes, kiddies, this is your UN at its finest. And Sir Henry Kissinger was so loved by the Queen, she made him "special", and today he is one of them..... one of the elite Brit establishment.

What the well-informed mayor said about ordinary citizens speaking from "a position of privilege" was actually true, but she meant it to inform the person expecting law officers to protect her rights that she was delusional to imagine she still had any, and that is why no police would be sent.

The new order of the day is the open exhibition of Power, the perfect "Arrogance of Power".

 

[Archie Moses]

I totally get and understand why cops aren't the best solution to call on mental issues.

That said, I have some questions maybe someone can answer. To me, every cop call or stop is unpredictable. Let's say, someone calls 911 (or whatever it would be) because someone is having a mental or psychological problem and so we sent mental health care workers. When the mental health care workers show up, the person who called for help is dead and the person with the problems kills the workers. What then? Is this unrealistic to think or maybe I'm missing something.

To me, the police need more training on how to de-escalate situations and the biggest criminal is our "justice system."

The time people serve for non violent **** is ludicrous. We sentence people who aren't murderers, rapists, molesters to a sickening amount of time. Taking years of someone's life isn't the answer, rehabilitation is.

If our justice system was more forgiving and realistic, those being arrested probably wouldn't escalate the situation because they feel like they have nothing to lose.

 

[One Brow]

If you can't manage to understand a Ben Shapiro and cogitate enough to respond, you have perhaps just given up on doing your own thinking.

I agree that Shapiro is pretty easy to understand, and I don't see why anyone falls for his schtick.

But how can you or anyone really deny the lunacy of the dismissive comment about how a person being looted needs police action to defend her property or her life. It's not "white privilege". It's human rights.

I deny the accuracy of this depiction of the conversation. The interviewee is not dismissing the need for police, but the legitimacy of that question, because no one is saying people don't need protection, least of all the interviewee. Too bad you can't see that.

 

[One Brow]

From what I understand its not really disbanding police, not cutting all funding, its having police do police work, then spreading out the leftover budget to go towards mental health workers, job services, etc ....to combat the real issues. Let the cops arrest dangerous criminals, not have them do that, and therapy, and welfare checks, and so on and so forth.

That's definitely one approach.

 

[One Brow]

That said, I have some questions maybe someone can answer. To me, every cop call or stop is unpredictable. Let's say, someone calls 911 (or whatever it would be) because someone is having a mental or psychological problem and so we sent mental health care workers. When the mental health care workers show up, the person who called for help is dead and the person with the problems kills the workers. What then? Is this unrealistic to think or maybe I'm missing something.

You're missing how often the presence of an armed individual actually escalates the situation.

 

[babe]

So, anyway....

My point of view developed in studying Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. I was there when he declared Martial Law. I knew some of his people pretty well, too damn well. But Marcos forgot one thing.... who he was to obey.....

Marcos was installed by operatives of the US, by the Rockefellers band. As was Nixon in the US. But both got the wrong-headed notion they had the Power, and forgot who installed them, and did some stuff not wanted by Management. Trump has been "Not Wanted by Management" his whole damn campaign and term in office. He's just been somehow a bit hard to take out.

Presidents today aren't supposed to be their own damn selves, and that's why Biden is the preferred useful idiot.

Pretty silly.... peons fighting for "revolution"..... a puppet show, really..... useful mainly for diverting the public from the real operations of power. Been that way a long time. The American Revolution is the only one that didn't come from that art..... well, the Philippine Revolution against Spain, which we aided, and then diverted, and cleanly made the Philippines a US colony. Some Filipinos kept fighting for freedom for a few years. They have never had their independence even today. They are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US Establishment, but now with a sort of web of interests coming from China as well. Over 1/3 ethnic Chinese now.

It only took the Brits a few decades to peacefully subvert "American Exceptionalism" into a sort of liege compliant servitude consistent with British global interests. Knocking out the last few sticks of constitutional law and human rights, and we'll be perfectly consistent with the worst of Medieval Royal rule extended under the false flag of the UN.

 

[Zombie]

I totally get and understand why cops aren't the best solution to call on mental issues.

That said, I have some questions maybe someone can answer. To me, every cop call or stop is unpredictable. Let's say, someone calls 911 (or whatever it would be) because someone is having a mental or psychological problem and so we sent mental health care workers. When the mental health care workers show up, the person who called for help is dead and the person with the problems kills the workers. What then? Is this unrealistic to think or maybe I'm missing something.

Every encounter with a stranger is inherently unpredictable. What you've described is an outlier event, but we've build a system around those kinds of events for some reason. As I pointed out earlier in the thread pizza deliverers are about as likely to be killed via assault as police officers, does this mean we should be handing pizzas out with drivers strapped up and given a license to kill if they "feel threatened?"

I think that would cause more problems than it would solve.

 

[babe]

You're missing how often the presence of an armed individual actually escalates the situation.

A gun is a kind of sword that cuts both ways, good or bad. What it does is entirely dependent on how it is used, and why. It can be used badly, without good sense or good skill, and cause damage even in the hands of a well-intentioned person. It will not be used at all nor cause any harm unless a person has harm in mind in the first place. And the chances of that are greatly reduced by a fundamental reality that a wrong-doer can likely be stopped by an armed citizen whereever and whenever the wrongt-doer tries to act.....

If there are few guns, the same evil can be done with a knife, a baseball bat, or a rock. We need our guns because guns eliminate a lot of bad intentions before they are attempted. And they are a considerable fact for people who would use knives or rocks or bats.

There are some ways that guns contribute to safety and good manners in any society, and to law enforcement before the police can arrive. They reduce the numbers of law enforcement officers we really need, because in the hands of good citizens, not gangs or criminals, they are just as good as law enforcement.

The mere presence of an armed individual is just as good as the mere presence of a police officer, if the armed individual is intent upon using it for lawful purposes.

The mere presence of a rioter..... with a bomb, a rock, whatever..... the mere presence of a criminal with any effective tool, even bare hands, is the relevant fact that can be addressed by an armed person intent on enforcing human rights or good laws, most effectively.

I presume you object to the "escalation" of the situation generally. Pay more attention to the initial creation of the situation, and the practical means to end it with a good outcome..

 

[Archie Moses]

You're missing how often the presence of an armed individual actually escalates the situation.

No, I'm asking.

 

[babe]

I agree that Shapiro is pretty easy to understand, and I don't see why anyone falls for his schtick.



I deny the accuracy of this depiction of the conversation. The interviewee is not dismissing the need for police, but the legitimacy of that question, because no one is saying people don't need protection, least of all the interviewee. Too bad you can't see that.

My view of the clip previously was what was aired on a conservative talk show. It was clipped and taken out of context, and put in the context of general references to police standing down and letting looters run amok.

That is the real context of this discussion, not the Sonnie Johnson sort of context generally of black folks who can't call the cops and really expect not to be asking for trouble from the cops.

The CNN interview was an abstract discussion, unlike the idea I could get from the conservative talk show clip. I totally get the meaning in the interview on CNN.

You could impress me by acknowledging the reality of the actual current context. The people being looted, robbed, pillaged by the rioters have been almost all black, for Gawd's sake. Why won't you stick up for them, and demand police protection of their property.