The Effect of Black Lives Matters Protests (1 Viewer)

[PinkydaPimp]

My understanding was the defunding the police idea (yes, terrible branding) was an effort to have less police - in that instead of JUST police responding to things, you could have social workers, negotiators, etc..  basically more specialized positions.  And yes, there is still police.   Maybe this idea wasn't what some had in mind, and it might not be what some cities have tried, but this is a reason I was on board a bit about the idea.   In this scenario, it's possible to defund the police while still having higher paid and trained police.  

Also I thought part of the "defunding" was an attempt to get some stations looking less like military units with their gear and vehicles.  

Thats exactly it.

 

[djmich]

I'm signing off but I saw some really interesting data a while back about policing and impacts on crime rates and black incarceration.  Thought it was more police presence = less crime = less incarceration.  Pretty thought provoking, will look to see if I can find it over next few days.

Pretty sure that when you get off twitter black people in general tend to poll favorably as wanting policing.  So how to improve it and achieve results people can feel while simultaneously combating MSM and Social Media that makes every incident into the equivalent of an international conflict.    

 

[PinkydaPimp]

I'm signing off but I saw some really interesting data a while back about policing and impacts on crime rates and black incarceration.  Thought it was more police presence = less crime = less incarceration.  Pretty thought provoking, will look to see if I can find it over next few days.

Pretty sure that when you get off twitter black people in general tend to poll favorably as wanting policing.  So how to improve it and achieve results people can feel while simultaneously combating MSM and Social Media that makes every incident into the equivalent of an international conflict.    

Correct.  

 

[tonydead]

Your link says the salary savings were from police leaving.  that doesnt sound like a cut to me.  Do you have more data?  How can you be sure it cant be done they way ive said?  Give it a little time. 

Also isnt this thread for discussing these ideas?  I cant agree with the concept and suggest it be implemented better? 

Police leaving isnt a cut? WTF?  Plus an additional 3 million in cuts (after being talked down fron 5.4 million) . Try reading again, the whole thing instead of what you want to see. 

I'm beginning to think @STEADYMOBBIN 22 is right. You dont care about facts. You never provide back up of your own, just grandiose ideas that dont match what BLM is pushing. 

 

[tonydead]

Thats exactly it.

Now there is two of you!

 

[PinkydaPimp]

Police leaving isnt a cut? WTF?  Plus an additional 3 million in cuts (after being talked down fron 5.4 million) . Try reading again, the whole thing instead of what you want to see. 

I'm beginning to think @STEADYMOBBIN 22 is right. You dont care about facts. You never provide back up of your own, just grandiose ideas that dont match what BLM is pushing. 

Were they fired?  If the officers leave by their own choice how is that cutting their salary?    Also what is that additional $3M?  Where is it coming from?  Look, if you are just straight cutting their salary, as i have said multiple times i dont agree with that.  And maybe some places are.  If they are, i dont agree with it.  My hope is to find a way ti implement the idea that i posted above in a way that pays cops more.  Now, we probably disagree here, but i am ok with less officers. 

 

[tonydead]

Were they fired?  If the officers leave by their own choice how is that cutting their salary?    Also what is that additional $3M?  Where is it coming from?  Look, if you are just straight cutting their salary, as i have said multiple times i dont agree with that.  And maybe some places are.  If they are, i dont agree with it.  My hope is to find a way ti implement the idea that i posted above in a way that pays cops more.  Now, we probably disagree here, but i am ok with less officers. 

They arent cutting salary, they are cutting cops and cops are leaving. Good luck, you're getting exactly what BLM asked for. Things only get worse from here. 

 

[PinkydaPimp]

They arent cutting salary, they are cutting cops and cops are leaving. Good luck, you're getting exactly what BLM asked for. Things only get worse from here. 

We started this discussion talking about salary though.   So you agree they arent cutting salary?  Cool.  Glad we got that settled. Now you have not shown me where they are cutting cops.  I saw per your link that cops are leaving.  Thats very different then cutting cops. 

Also i have admitted i dont have any examples where they have raised salary(granted i havent looked but how many cities have actually defunded police?).  I hope that can change. 

 

[rockaction]

@tonydead really pisses me off with many of his posts but here he is absolutely right. Defunding the police is a terrible idea. It’s not just terrible branding it’s terrible period. Police ought to be highly paid, with more expectations. 

Once you get past the phrase "defunding," which might have been the most intentional phrase ever chosen (because they're saying what they mean), I don't agree with the academic liberal interpretation about what "defunding" is. I don't think you send social workers and other government employees out on missions like that without police presence and that of deterrent authority. Too many things can go wrong in those situations. So I disagree with academic liberals like KP and Pinky about what BLM really means when they say "defund," nor do I think that "defunding," even if we're to accept KP and Pinky's definition, is appropriate.

It's a bad slogan that revealed hard truths about BLM, truths that are trying to be whitewashed in the media. The media's definition of "defunding" wouldn't work, anyway, and is a bad idea. So I'm really saying KP and Pinky are wrong twice here.

 

[timschochet]

I'm beginning to think @STEADYMOBBIN 22 is right. You dont care about facts. You never provide back up of your own, just grandiose ideas that dont match what BLM is pushing. 

Even though I agree with your position here I don’t understand why you always have to be rude and make personal attacks against people you disagree with. It really hurts good conversation here and makes you look far worse than anyone you’re responding to. 

 

[tonydead]

We started this discussion talking about salary though.   So you agree they arent cutting salary?  Cool.  Glad we got that settled. Now you have not shown me where they are cutting cops.  I saw per your link that cops are leaving.  Thats very different then cutting cops. 

Also i have admitted i dont have any examples where they have raised salary(granted i havent looked but how many cities have actually defunded police?).  I hope that can change. 

I showed you several times. You dont care about facts.  .  Meanwhile you got nada. 

BLM, just like the protests is wrong with the defund movement. Cut bait with this cult, imo. 

 

[PinkydaPimp]

I showed you several times. You dont care about facts.  .  Meanwhile you got nada. 

BLM, just like the protests is wrong with the defund movement. Cut bait with this cult, imo. 

We will have to agree to disagree. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Once you get past the phrase "defunding," which might have been the most intentional phrase ever chosen (because they're saying what they mean), I don't agree with the academic liberal interpretation about what "defunding" is. I don't think you send social workers and other government employees out on missions like that without police presence and that of deterrent authority. Too many things can go wrong in those situations. So I disagree with academic liberals like KP and Pinky about what BLM really means when they say "defund," nor do I think that "defunding," even if we're to accept KP and Pinky's definition, is appropriate.

It's a bad slogan that revealed hard truths about BLM, truths that are trying to be whitewashed in the media. The media's definition of "defunding" wouldn't work, anyway, and is a bad idea. So I'm really saying KP and Pinky are wrong twice here.

I will be honest - I don't know 100% what this would look like or how it could be implemented.  Just voicing what my understanding of what people were throwing around about what scenarios could look like or be tried.   Probably semantics, but I also didn't say go out alone.  Is it possible to have a cop and a counselor instead of 2 cops?  That would lead to less cops and possible deescalate some situations.       Things like that.   More accurately that is police reform, and I can't speak intelligently enough on if that would actually decrease a station's budget, but IMO things like that could be looked at.  

 

[rockaction]

I will be honest - I don't know 100% what this would look like or how it could be implemented.  Just voicing what my understanding of what people were throwing around about what scenarios could look like or be tried.   Probably semantics, but I also didn't say go out alone.  Is it possible to have a cop and a counselor instead of 2 cops?  That would lead to less cops and possible deescalate some situations.       Things like that.   More accurately that is police reform, and I can't speak intelligently enough on if that would actually decrease a station's budget, but IMO things like that could be looked at.  

If we're talking about the academic definition you guys are proffering, then I'm more on board with the latter statement of yours that I put in boldface than I am having no presence in those situations. I don't know, I suppose I worry about both the community and the social workers/experts in those situations. The mentally ill and other people that need to be talked down seemingly often need the threat of potential incarceration and disruption to just calm down and act sociably. But I agree at heart that there should be an intermediary between the police and any counselor sent out. Right now, we've got too many cops drawing their guns on non-violent criminals. So there is room for you and Pinky and I to compromise.

Regarding the first statement I put in boldface, I haven't seen any studies that deal with that issue, even, so you're not alone not knowing what it would like. That's why I dissent from actual policy implementation of that sentiment. All we've been getting is the insistence that community intervention would work, and I haven't even seen anecdotal evidence or citations of studies that edify the sentiment. I'm not disposed to accept BLM proclamations on faith. They're often reflective of pie-in-the-sky mentalities regarding the need for that sort of intervention.

So, yeah, I agree that in theory you might reduce officers on the scene of non-violent situations that need intervention, how to go about it in practice is another thing.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I think we agree here. But i do think you are making assumptions as to what most people want when they say defund police. 

Does it really sound reasonable that people yelling defund the police and many more colorful things, actually mean something more nuanced and well thought out? 

But for reasons nobody can ever explain they chose the phrase "defund the police" sometimes accompanied with "abolish the police" to put forward this nuanced argument.

 

[rockaction]

Does it really sound reasonable that people yelling defund the police and many more colorful things, actually mean something more nuanced and well thought out? 

But for reasons nobody can ever explain they chose the phrase "defund the police" sometimes accompanied with "abolish the police" to put forward this nuanced argument.

This guy gets it. Ding ####in' ding ####in' ding.

It's all media and academic whitewash. They mean exactly what they say. How it winds up in actual policy when representatives are asked to bring this to a vote in a majoritarian democracy will look completely different, but "defund the police" meant exactly that. Less police in their communities, because the police are enforcing a racist system of laws, up to and including private property.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I don’t think this is going to happen at all. You know why? Because police are mostly good people, they’re not jerks, and only jerks would respond to calls for an end to racism and reasonable reform with “well then we’re just not going to police black neighborhoods any longer!” 
 

I suspect that what will happen instead is that the racists will get weeded out, certain practices will change, and policing will improve over time. 

You don't have to be a jerk to stop proactive policing. In fact you are just being polite and giving them what they want. 

 

[rockaction]

You don't have to be a jerk to stop proactive policing. In fact you are just being polite and giving them what they want. 

And you're saving yourself the aggravation and hassle that police go through in inner cities. Even if you're trying to do good and aren't racist, the new restrictions might deter otherwise fine people from searching out the profession. It's hard enough to get good, qualified cops, never mind the threat of retribution by communities for wrongful deaths, where "wrongful" means "any." Especially like in the case of the remarkable marksman from Columbus, who saved a life that day and was rewarded by swimming completely upstream, name made public on Twitter and retweeted by idiots with "YOU'RE NEXT" written next to his picture, the threat of public pressure on public officials to incarcerate him and take away his freedom running high in some idiot circles.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

If we're talking about the academic definition you guys are proffering, then I'm more on board with the latter statement of yours that I put in boldface than I am having no presence in those situations. I don't know, I suppose I worry about both the community and the social workers/experts in those situations. The mentally ill and other people that need to be talked down seemingly often need the threat of potential incarceration and disruption to just calm down and act sociably. But I agree at heart that there should be an intermediary between the police and any counselor sent out. Right now, we've got too many cops drawing their guns on non-violent criminals. So there is room for you and Pinky and I to compromise.

Regarding the first statement I put in boldface, I haven't seen any studies that deal with that issue, even, so you're not alone not knowing what it would like. That's why I dissent from actual policy implementation of that sentiment. All we've been getting is the insistence that community intervention would work, and I haven't even seen anecdotal evidence or citations of studies that edify the sentiment. I'm not disposed to accept BLM proclamations on faith. They're often reflective of pie-in-the-sky mentalities regarding the need for that sort of intervention.

So, yeah, I agree that in theory you might reduce officers on the scene of non-violent situations that need intervention, how to go about it in practice is another thing.

Honestly, i think thats all most people want.  And you are right that there are flaws and its not proven.  There is only one way to prove it though.  Hell im open to any options really as trying to change things is better than continuing down this road we are on.  I posted in another thread an article where they said Newark NJ police didnt fire a gun a single time in 2020.  Granted covid lockdowns but still, if you know Newark that is quite amazing.  These are the result of a federal consent decree.

The reforms are the results of a federal consent decree, the billy club used by the Department of Justice after a long investigation concluded in 2014 revealed the rot that had infested the department for decades. It found a rogue department that tolerated widespread brutality and racism, with no accountability, and zero training on how to de-escalate confrontations with civilians.

“You had a law enforcement agency with no training about how to enforce the law,” says Peter Harvey, the former state attorney general who is overseeing the implementation of the consent decree.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

Does it really sound reasonable that people yelling defund the police and many more colorful things, actually mean something more nuanced and well thought out? 

But for reasons nobody can ever explain they chose the phrase "defund the police" sometimes accompanied with "abolish the police" to put forward this nuanced argument.

No, it doesnt.  And for reasons i cant explain they chose that phrase.  Im simply stating how i and most people i know understand the actual meaning of it to be. 

"Altogether, it is clear that municipalities across the U.S. are making changes in line with the defund police movement. So, while the word “reallocate” may be a more palatable, digestible word on the House floor or at a city council meeting, “defund” surely gets more attention on a protest sign. And more importantly, it seems to be having an impact."

 

[PinkydaPimp]

https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-07-06/eugene-oregons-30-year-experiment-with-reimagining-public-safety

Amid the national reckoning over systemic racism and policing inspired by the May 25 killing of George Floyd, advocates are calling for a reimagining of American public safety through reforms such as reduced department funding and alternative policing models.

In Eugene, Oregon, a college town of some 170,000 residents, and neighboring Springfield, with some 63,000 residents, one such model has been in place for more than 30 years: A nonprofit mobile crisis intervention program, called CAHOOTS, operates in collaboration with the police department, dispatching social workers instead of officers. The program has an annual budget of roughly $2 million and saves the city of Eugene an estimated $8.5 million annually in public safety costs, in addition to $14 million in ambulance trips and emergency room costs.

Obviously this may not work as its implemented there in every city.  But it is an interesting template(I think Camden and Newark are as well).  They also note the relationship the city has with its police department which is key imo.  That has to be repaired and in many places it is being more and more fractured every day.

 

[jon_mx]

No, it doesnt.  And for reasons i cant explain they chose that phrase.  Im simply stating how i and most people i know understand the actual meaning of it to be. 

"Altogether, it is clear that municipalities across the U.S. are making changes in line with the defund police movement. So, while the word “reallocate” may be a more palatable, digestible word on the House floor or at a city council meeting, “defund” surely gets more attention on a protest sign. And more importantly, it seems to be having an impact."

The leaders of the movement meant defund.  There was a clip I believe was in Minneapolis where the mayor was addressing the crowd who was basically agreeing with all the demands and he said he supported police reforms but when pressed if he supported defuding them, he said no and was booed off stage.  There are a lot if people who took the phrase literally.  Of course the majority of supporters who are more rationale don't.  

 

[FairWarning]

I’m confused about this police, negotiator, social worker nonsense.  If someone calls the cops in Chicago on a weekend, what are we negotiating?  , 

 

[KarmaPolice]

I’m confused about this police, negotiator, social worker nonsense.  If someone calls the cops in Chicago on a weekend, what are we negotiating?  , 

at least you are open to it.  

1.  I think there are situations - addicts, homeless, etc.. where less police presence could be used.  Let them focus on other things.  Yes, it would be dumb to suggest that a social worker is called for a robbery or gang shooting, and that is not what people are suggesting (Ok, not what I am).  Relieves some of the burden and stress of the police officers.

2.  I think the problem is, this isn't a one size fits all situation.   A town of 20,000 could probably do some of these things, but NY might not be able to do the same things.  

 

[FairWarning]

at least you are open to it.  

1.  I think there are situations - addicts, homeless, etc.. where less police presence could be used.  Let them focus on other things.  Yes, it would be dumb to suggest that a social worker is called for a robbery or gang shooting, and that is not what people are suggesting (Ok, not what I am).  Relieves some of the burden and stress of the police officers.

2.  I think the problem is, this isn't a one size fits all situation.   A town of 20,000 could probably do some of these things, but NY might not be able to do the same things.  

But the police have to be the first ones called every time.  What they determine is needed comes later.  If the people don’t fear cops, how are they negotiating with someone else? 

 

[KarmaPolice]

But the police have to be the first ones called every time.  What they determine is needed comes later.  If the people don’t fear cops, how are they negotiating with someone else? 

I don't think this has to be be the case 100% of the time - and like I suggested above - it could be tandem teams too, so instead of 2 police it's officer + something.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

The leaders of the movement meant defund.  There was a clip I believe was in Minneapolis where the mayor was addressing the crowd who was basically agreeing with all the demands and he said he supported police reforms but when pressed if he supported defuding them, he said no and was booed off stage.  There are a lot if people who took the phrase literally.  Of course the majority of supporters who are more rationale don't.  

I guess to me what the leaders want is less compelling in this case.   The good and bad of BLM is that it's meant to be grassroots.   The bad part about that is that people could be using BLM at the local level, not want defunding, not believe 100% of the platform on their page, etc..  

IMO you could ask 10 people with a BLM sticker, mask, etc.. what it means to them and you'd get probably 3-4 different answers minimum.  I'd guess you'd get similar if you go around the country and ask people what they think defund the police means or what they're pushing for.  

 

[FairWarning]

I don't think this has to be be the case 100% of the time - and like I suggested above - it could be tandem teams too, so instead of 2 police it's officer + something.  

In Chicago it does.

 

[KarmaPolice]

In Chicago it does.

so police can be along with something else in certain situations.  I also said I didn't believe these are one size fits all ideas for every city.  doesn't mean rules could change so dispatch assesses and sends out specific teams.   just brainstorming.. 

 

[djmich]

so police can be along with something else in certain situations.  I also said I didn't believe these are one size fits all ideas for every city.  doesn't mean rules could change so dispatch assesses and sends out specific teams.   just brainstorming.. 

Need to think about this some more.  I like the idea, have to think there is some application that can work.  But, when I go through the different situations in my head I generally get to a place that the situations that cause the problems we see today in video's etc...that I'm not sure sending someone other than police can work.

And by not work I mean primarily putting the worker at undue risk.

The hard part is that we get to see a lot of things after the situations have played out.  Dispatch is sending someone into a situation where even when described to them...there is uncertainty.

 

[tonydead]

The leaders of the movement meant defund.  There was a clip I believe was in Minneapolis where the mayor was addressing the crowd who was basically agreeing with all the demands and he said he supported police reforms but when pressed if he supported defuding them, he said no and was booed off stage.  There are a lot if people who took the phrase literally.  Of course the majority of supporters who are more rationale don't.  

He should start a new therad if he wants to talk about some imaginary reallocating of funds. This is a BLM thread and they hate cops. They want to get rid of all cops and their protests have been an embarrassing disaster. 

 

[djmich]

He should start a new therad if he wants to talk about some imaginary reallocating of funds. This is a BLM thread and they hate cops. They want to get rid of all cops and their protests have been an embarrassing disaster. 

This thread has taken a few turns for sure...as they all do.

The purpose of this thread was to highlight that:

• Reforms are tricky things.  Reform means change.  Change might get you some things you want but as I've been trying to stress the past few weeks the math here is hard.  We are reforming to make changes to #'s that are relatively small (bad police killings) that will impact good things (police preventing crime).  That trade-off does not exist in all places but it exists in some.
  
• The data specifically highlights the impact of BLM protests.  Some of these protests result in reforms, some don't.  They all put police in a defensive (withdrawn) position though.  What the data says is that, so far it is logical to believe this has cost innocent lives.  Far more than the partly-innocent lives saved.  So BLM's approach at face value is bad if you value life, particularly the lives of people that don't get into confrontations with police.
  

I have to look at some of the stuff Pinky has posted about reforms elsewhere (Newark) that were not necessarily under the guise of a BLM protest.  I'm sure there are positive reforms that we can do.  I'm also pretty sure that some of the things people want as reforms will have a net negative loss of life.  I'd want to find the former and at minimum everyone should make sure they know they are making that trade off with the latter (and I think for many in the rush to "end racism" or whatever they either don't know or don't care).

 

[timschochet]

This is a BLM thread and they hate cops. They want to get rid of all cops and their protests have been an embarrassing disaster. 

These are false statements. 

 

[rockaction]

These are false statements. 

Not according to their founders. Sorry about that, um, inconvenient truth.

 

[timschochet]

Not according to their founders. Sorry about that, um, inconvenient truth.

Really? I don’t want to defend the founders of BLM; they’re far too radical for my tastes. But have they said they hate all cops and want to get rid of all of them? That would surprise me. 

 

[rockaction]

Really? I don’t want to defend the founders of BLM; they’re far too radical for my tastes. But have they said they hate all cops and want to get rid of all of them? That would surprise me. 

The academics in question who started BLM called for an overthrow of the system of private property and a re-organization of society based on queer theory and the abolition of the nuclear family. 

I think it's safe to make that leap in logic, yes.

 

[timschochet]

The academics in question who started BLM called for an overthrow of the system of private property and a re-organization of society based on queer theory and the abolition of the nuclear family. 

I think it's safe to make that leap in logic, yes.

I wouldn’t. Most communist types favor greater police, not less. 

 

[rockaction]

I wouldn’t. Most communist types favor greater police, not less. 

I agree. But first comes the dismantling of the old, for which they generally use new squads or old converts with means. But BLM are, at heart, Marxian anarchists, however much sense that makes. I haven't really called them commies yet, if you notice. The communist fronts are commies. The rest of these groups fall under a different philosophical rubric.

 

[timschochet]

I agree. But first comes the dismantling of the old, for which they generally use new squads or old converts with means. But BLM are, at heart, Marxian anarchists, however much sense that makes. I haven't really called them commies yet, if you notice. The communist fronts are commies. The rest of these groups fall under a different philosophical rubric.

Well in any case, as interesting as this rather esoteric discussion is, you know my position: Black Lives Matter, like so many previous protest movements, is an amorphous grouping  in which the vast majority of participants have almost nothing in common with the so-called leaders. Which is why @tonydead’s assertions that they “hate all police and want to get rid of them” is such a false and absurd statement. 

 

[Stealthycat]

I've said this before - remove all officers from engaging in any interactions where the suspects are different color

white officers don't respond to black incidents, black officers don't go to white incidents, etc etc

that stops most chances of anyone saying race is involved when police have to shoot and kill the suspects who want to fight, pull weapons, etc

the downside is, police will have to walk away from protecting citizens in a lot of areas .......... but this is what people get 

 

[djmich]

Well in any case, as interesting as this rather esoteric discussion is, you know my position: Black Lives Matter, like so many previous protest movements, is an amorphous grouping  in which the vast majority of participants have almost nothing in common with the so-called leaders. Which is why @tonydead’s assertions that they “hate all police and want to get rid of them” is such a false and absurd statement. 

While I'd agree with Tony in terms of the BLM folks that mash the keyboard on twitter...to be honest, nobody knows unless you polled people that affiliate with BLM.  So saying its true or false/absurd is well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

 

[Zow]

Less protesting = more lives saved 

Okay. Using that logic then less guns = more lives saved. 

However, both the freedom of speech and to assemble and the freedom to possess a weapon are constitutional rights so any law restricting these rights - even if narrowly tailored should be heavily scrutizined and not given a thumbs up. 

 

[Shula-holic]

I wouldn’t. Most communist types favor greater police, not less. 

You are correct.  But when the police are abolished, and anarchy or something similar to it comes, the people will turn to the state for the answer.  That's when you end up with federalized law enforcement or essentially a paramilitary group to enforce the governments laws and will.  That's what Marxists always want, if they get that they have power.  They are all for police, just not the kind that protects individual rights, property rights, those type things.

 

[djmich]

Okay. Using that logic then less guns = more lives saved. 

However, both the freedom of speech and to assemble and the freedom to possess a weapon are constitutional rights so any law restricting these rights - even if narrowly tailored should be heavily scrutizined and not given a thumbs up. 

If you weren't able to pick up on it my response was intended to poke fun at the thoughtfulness of the initial post (it wasn't very thoughtful or the point of the thread).

I agree changes to rights should be scrutinized.  Would you say that restricting citizens rights to use AR-15's or any other restrictions on guns would in no case warrant a thumbs up?

 

[Zow]

If you weren't able to pick up on it my response was intended to poke fun at the thoughtfulness of the initial post (it wasn't very thoughtful or the point of the thread).

I agree changes to rights should be scrutinized.  Would you say that restricting citizens rights to use AR-15's or any other restrictions on guns would in no case warrant a thumbs up?

I'm generally not in favor (or would give a thumbs up to) any governmental action which curtails an expressed constitutional right. I would be willing to seriously consider such an issue, and I could see a compelling interest in curtailing some access to certain weapons provided the restriction was narrowly tailored, but even in that instance I'm not all excited about it. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Even though I agree with your position here I don’t understand why you always have to be rude and make personal attacks against people you disagree with. It really hurts good conversation here and makes you look far worse than anyone you’re responding to. 

Says the guy that started his agreement with Tony with letting everyone know Tony pisses him off.   That did what to the conversation?

 

[parasaurolophus]

The leaders of the movement meant defund.  There was a clip I believe was in Minneapolis where the mayor was addressing the crowd who was basically agreeing with all the demands and he said he supported police reforms but when pressed if he supported defuding them, he said no and was booed off stage.  There are a lot if people who took the phrase literally.  Of course the majority of supporters who are more rationale don't.  

The chuckleheads at the protests holding signs meant defund in the literally sense. And that clip with the mayor made it so obvious. "We dont want no more police"

And I am sure the people in this clip, just actually meant a more nuanced view...

"we need to completely dismantle the minneapolis police department" oh wait, that was a congresswoman...

ETA: Video that autoplayed next is just as ridiculous. 

 

[Ghost Rider]

I guess to me what the leaders want is less compelling in this case.   The good and bad of BLM is that it's meant to be grassroots.   The bad part about that is that people could be using BLM at the local level, not want defunding, not believe 100% of the platform on their page, etc..  

IMO you could ask 10 people with a BLM sticker, mask, etc.. what it means to them and you'd get probably 3-4 different answers minimum.  I'd guess you'd get similar if you go around the country and ask people what they think defund the police means or what they're pushing for.  

Your last statement there is probably correct, but by latching on to the "Defund the Police" mantra from the start, they've already lost the battle.  For as much of a disaster as the BLM organization is, the movement itself is admirable in spirit and the expression "Black Lives Matter" itself is a good one. The expression "Defund the Police" is a disaster and has no chance of succeeding.  The people beating that drum would be better off pulling a Wile E. Coyote and going back to the drawing board to find a new expression for the movement, but the extremists have their heel dugs in too deep already and are going to beat that "Defund the Police" mantra into submission, get little accomplished with it, and then piss and moan about how no one listened to them. 

 

[FairWarning]

The chuckleheads at the protests holding signs meant defund in the literally sense. And that clip with the mayor made it so obvious. "We dont want no more police"

And I am sure the people in this clip, just actually meant a more nuanced view...

"we need to completely dismantle the minneapolis police department" oh wait, that was a congresswoman...

ETA: Video that autoplayed next is just as ridiculous. 

As long as Omar keeps speaking, their Defunding the Police has zero chance.  

 

[PinkydaPimp]

As long as Omar keeps speaking, their Defunding the Police has zero chance.  

One thing i have learned from this and other threads on this board.  While i am ok with Omars message, it is unclear to many people and as a result very divisive.  We need a clear voice(not BLM org leadership) to be making the demands, explaining this stuff and being the face of this movement.  Respect for the Mayor and how he handled this. Now, if instead of that, Omar had sat down and discussed what "Defunding" might look like in policy, maybe it would have been constructive and they would have agreed.  But it was in the middle of a protest so thats a little difficult to do.

Ultimately, protest isn't perfect.  I will take this over doing nothing however.  Ultimately people recognize there is a problem.  So now we just need to find a solution that works for all.  It wont be easy and will not happen overnight but half the battle is recognizing there is an issue. 

I am curious for example to see how this goes: Social workers, EMS — not NYPD — to respond to non-violent mental health calls citywide

Looks like they started the pilot in July though i cant find any results from it.  Maybe it works, maybe it doesnt.  Either way we learn from it.