Red Mosquito

Rob wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

B wrote:How about just making civil forfeiture illegal? It's probably unconstitutional, and it would royally fuck the budgets of the worst police departments.

And is that the goal? To make police departments inoperable from a budgetary standpoint?

Can't speak for B but my understanding is that "defunding" is meant as removing a lot of the excess. They shouldn't be allowed to take your stuff (Civil forfeiture), shouldn't have these quotas that give incentive to "find crime" so they can stay on budget, and certainly don't need military equipment. If they can't operate without these things, that's an obvious, giant red flag and needs to be corrected.

elliseamos wrote:

wease wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Bammer wrote:

spike wrote:Team Dime. We’re addressing a systemic problem with policing here, not only the events of the past two weeks.

I don't disagree overall, but Dime's first message made it seem like it just happened. And given the circumstances of the story, I think a case could be made that it was suicide by cop... it's a horrible scene, but hugely different than the stories of countless others that were unarmed. And yes, even that could become debatable in this man's case.

In dime’s defense, he actually wasn’t the first one that posted about that. I don’t remember who it was, maybe B?, but it was up for days before dime ever posted it.

May be the case, it was the first I'd seen it and I was just suggesting Dime slow his roll a bit since he's posted twice now this week with inaccurate stuff (a photoshopped picture and this video which was presented as new rather than 5 years old*).

According to Brown, “traditional” policing—where officers respond to 911 calls and patrol in cars—is both inadequate to the challenge of crime and a mismanagement of police resources.

Instead, Brown advocates a new approach—“community policing.” The concept is simple in some respects, a throwback to the days of the cop on the beat. But in practice, Brown’s shift to community policing represents as ambitious—and risky—an undertaking as any major corporate turnaround or restructuring effort. The move to community policing requires a change in operations—cops walking beats, getting to know people in the community, and solving problems rather than riding in patrol cars and responding to 911 calls. But more fundamentally, it entails the creation of a new culture for the police department, new human resource practices, including hiring, promotion, recognition, and extensive training and retraining of officers and managers. It will mean a change in the command-and-control, paramilitary model of police management and the forging of a new partnership between the police and the people in the neighborhoods they protect, the private sector, and other departments in the city government.

[...]

The fact is, crime is higher now than ever before, and the police know that things aren’t working. If you ask police officers around America, “Are you happy with what you’re doing?” anyone who’s honest will answer, “no.” The marketplace knows it too. If we were a business, you’d have to say that our market share is declining. People who can afford it are hiring private security; there are more private security personnel today than there are public-sector police. The reason is simple. People are not satisfied with the police service they’re receiving.

Any logical, thinking person would tell you that traditional approaches are not solving the problem. Our legacy should not be more prisons. We must look at the underlying factors that produce crime. And if we’re serious, we must make a commitment to deal with them. That means meaningful employment for all Americans. That means an educational system that produces people who can read and write, so they can get a job. Education is critical, and yet a large number of our young people are estranged and alienated from the school system. We’re still educating people with a mass-production mentality. But the United States is not a mass-production society anymore.

Spoiler: show

https://hbr.org/1991/05/crime-and-manag ... ee-p-brown

Lee Brown comes to the challenge with a master’s degree in sociology, a doctorate in criminology, and a record of accomplishment in police administration and teaching. Prior to his appointment in January 1990 by New York City Mayor David Dinkins, Brown had served as public safety commissioner in Atlanta, Georgia, chief of police in Houston, Texas, and director of the department of justice services in Multnomah County, Oregon. He is currently president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

B wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

wease wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Bammer wrote:

spike wrote:Team Dime. We’re addressing a systemic problem with policing here, not only the events of the past two weeks.

I don't disagree overall, but Dime's first message made it seem like it just happened. And given the circumstances of the story, I think a case could be made that it was suicide by cop... it's a horrible scene, but hugely different than the stories of countless others that were unarmed. And yes, even that could become debatable in this man's case.

In dime’s defense, he actually wasn’t the first one that posted about that. I don’t remember who it was, maybe B?, but it was up for days before dime ever posted it.

May be the case, it was the first I'd seen it and I was just suggesting Dime slow his roll a bit since he's posted twice now this week with inaccurate stuff (a photoshopped picture and this video which was presented as new rather than 5 years old*).

I don't think I had anything to do with this, but that dude in the wheelchair is Jeremy McDole, and his name is in this mural.



#SayHisName

96583UP wrote:

elliseamos wrote:"This is where we are now, and it’s the reason we can experiment with reducing funding for cops and reallocating it elsewhere to see what makes a difference. These reallocations should be rigorously studied to see what works and what doesn’t, because data is power. It’s data that told us lead was responsible for the big crime drop of the past 30 years, and it’s data that has a chance of telling what more we can do going forward."

FROM HERE

oh my gosh

someone got paid to write that

and there are people sipping on acai smoothies somewhere that might believe it's that simple

dimejinky99 wrote:This is everywhere but Australia currently tops the poll for deaths in custody and no charges

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Can someon smart please explain how disbanding a major city's police department will work? I know it isn't as simple as no police, but who then enforces the law? If you come back with "it's up to the residents to make sure everyone obeys the laws" please spare me. I'm trying to understand how disbanding and forming another enforcement group isn't just a facade to make it look like something was done but in reality you have the same people back on the job.

B wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Can someon smart please explain how disbanding a major city's police department will work? I know it isn't as simple as no police, but who then enforces the law? If you come back with "it's up to the residents to make sure everyone obeys the laws" please spare me. I'm trying to understand how disbanding and forming another enforcement group isn't just a facade to make it look like something was done but in reality you have the same people back on the job.

I suppose it means making everyone reinterview for their jobs under a new framework of policies and protections.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

B wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Can someon smart please explain how disbanding a major city's police department will work? I know it isn't as simple as no police, but who then enforces the law? If you come back with "it's up to the residents to make sure everyone obeys the laws" please spare me. I'm trying to understand how disbanding and forming another enforcement group isn't just a facade to make it look like something was done but in reality you have the same people back on the job.

I suppose it means making everyone reinterview for their jobs under a new framework of policies and protections.

I think Higgs said it somewhere, but this is just going to be fuel for Trump. If nothing is explained in detail to the general population, he can spin it as "no police force will exist and you won't be safe because of the libtards".

B wrote:

Rob wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

B wrote:How about just making civil forfeiture illegal? It's probably unconstitutional, and it would royally fuck the budgets of the worst police departments.

And is that the goal? To make police departments inoperable from a budgetary standpoint?

Can't speak for B but my understanding is that "defunding" is meant as removing a lot of the excess. They shouldn't be allowed to take your stuff (Civil forfeiture), shouldn't have these quotas that give incentive to "find crime" so they can stay on budget, and certainly don't need military equipment. If they can't operate without these things, that's an obvious, giant red flag and needs to be corrected.

Yeah, that'll work.

B wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

B wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Can someon smart please explain how disbanding a major city's police department will work? I know it isn't as simple as no police, but who then enforces the law? If you come back with "it's up to the residents to make sure everyone obeys the laws" please spare me. I'm trying to understand how disbanding and forming another enforcement group isn't just a facade to make it look like something was done but in reality you have the same people back on the job.

I suppose it means making everyone reinterview for their jobs under a new framework of policies and protections.

I think Higgs said it somewhere, but this is just going to be fuel for Trump. If nothing is explained in detail to the general population, he can spin it as "no police force will exist and you won't be safe because of the libtards".

I probably agree, but I'm not going to tell black people what to demand.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

B wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

B wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Can someon smart please explain how disbanding a major city's police department will work? I know it isn't as simple as no police, but who then enforces the law? If you come back with "it's up to the residents to make sure everyone obeys the laws" please spare me. I'm trying to understand how disbanding and forming another enforcement group isn't just a facade to make it look like something was done but in reality you have the same people back on the job.

I suppose it means making everyone reinterview for their jobs under a new framework of policies and protections.

I think Higgs said it somewhere, but this is just going to be fuel for Trump. If nothing is explained in detail to the general population, he can spin it as "no police force will exist and you won't be safe because of the libtards".

I probably agree, but I'm not going to tell black people what to demand.

I agree fully. I just was pointing out how the always-Trumpers will spin this.

Bammer wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

B wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

B wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Can someon smart please explain how disbanding a major city's police department will work? I know it isn't as simple as no police, but who then enforces the law? If you come back with "it's up to the residents to make sure everyone obeys the laws" please spare me. I'm trying to understand how disbanding and forming another enforcement group isn't just a facade to make it look like something was done but in reality you have the same people back on the job.

I suppose it means making everyone reinterview for their jobs under a new framework of policies and protections.

I think Higgs said it somewhere, but this is just going to be fuel for Trump. If nothing is explained in detail to the general population, he can spin it as "no police force will exist and you won't be safe because of the libtards".

I probably agree, but I'm not going to tell black people what to demand.

I agree fully. I just was pointing out how the always-Trumpers will spin this.

Ruddo I’d have thought you understood by now that if you point out the opposing side’s view on the internet, that automatically means you side with them.