George Floyd/Black Lives Matter Protests

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, madwullie said:

The police. But is there any need to call the police if there's an argument in the family for eg - could social Work or a community team of some description not be first port of call. Ditto with a mental health issue. 

Part of the problem is that there are a lot of incidents that don't necessarily need a couple of guys with guns to show up, but the police are the default people to call.

I agree with most of what you've just said. But that's not the suggestion.

From the article I posted earlier from the NYT.

"When people, especially white people, consider a world without the police, they envision a society as violent as our current one, merely without law enforcement — and they shudder. As a society, we have been so indoctrinated with the idea that we solve problems by policing and caging people that many cannot imagine anything other than prisons and the police as solutions to violence and harm.

People like me who want to abolish prisons and police, however, have a vision of a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation. What would the country look like if it had billions of extra dollars to spend on housing, food and education for all? This change in society wouldn’t happen immediately, but the protests show that many people are ready to embrace a different vision of safety and justice."

This is insanity. Of course funding community projects is a great idea. But removing the state's right to control violence is such a bad idea it hardly needs to be spelled out. The writer's grip on reality and logic is frighteningly weak. Surely no sane person is behind this?

[welshbairn]

7 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Read what they say they'll do. They want to replace these police departments with community funding. Again, who do you call if someone is breaking into your house?

Who gets to decide who can use violence?

On whose authority do they wield violence?

It's an idea with logical and philosophical holes you could drive a bus through.

Apart from a few oddballs nobody seriously wants to get rid of the police altogether, it's about not relying on them almost exclusively by letting them swallow up budgets that would be better spent mitigating the causes of crime.

Quote

The links between a better funded police force and a safer public are, at best, unproven. In 2014 and 2015, for instance, New York officers staged a “slowdown” to protest the mayor, arguing that if they did less police work, the city would be less safe. Instead, crime dropped. “There’s not a single study [that proves this relationship],” says Elliott-Cooper. “Think about it this way – in the industrialised world, America has by far the biggest prison population, it has by far the most heavily resourced police forces, and has by far the largest crime rates and the lowest levels of public safety.”

Reform hasn’t worked, either. In Minneapolis, for instance, millions of dollars were spent in the last five years retraining the police to target institutional racism and police brutality. This fruitless investment has a long history. “In the mid-1900s community policing emerges, and in the later-1900s there’s the emergence of all these different strategies to try to reform police,” says McHarris. “If you could reform your way out of police issues, we wouldn’t be having this conversation today.”

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/defund-the-police

[Guest JTS98]

8 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Apart from a few oddballs nobody seriously wants to get rid of the police altogether, it's about not relying on them almost exclusively by letting them swallow up budgets that would be better spent mitigating the causes of crime.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/defund-the-police

The part of the article that you quoted is essentially what I was arguing for last night, but with what I view as a bit of misdirection.

Of course community development is the key here. As long as black Americans are poor, discrimination will continue against them. That cycle is only broken through economics.

It's actually interesting that the Wired article and the NYT article and the BLM videos all walk up to the right solution, look at the right solution, but then decide to choose a bad solution. Anti-racism education programmes etc are not going to solve this. Police reform is not going to solve this. They are right about that.

I have no problem with lessening the military nature of the American police. I have no problem with small-time issues being referred to another body. But the idea that society should even consider the prospect of removing the state's violence monopoly has such obvious and far-reaching implications that it speaks to the political insanity of our time that those proposing it get to write articles in the New York fucking Times instead of being treated, as you say, as oddballs. That's crazy.

Edited June 24, 2020 by JTS98

[madwullie]

Considering this twat was published in the nyt recently, I don't think writing articles for the New York Times can be taken as a sensible measure of anything 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.amp.html

[bennett]

Defunding the police does sound rather hip and trendy but in reality I think we all know what the outcome would be.

 

 

[marty_j]

So the Burnley fan behind banner also supports...

[welshbairn]

An example where something similar happened before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_County_Police_Department

[Guest JTS98]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

An example where something similar happened before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_County_Police_Department

I enjoyed reading that. But a few things stand out.

Firstly, the savings were helped by deunionising and cutting benefits. Is that the way forward for society?

But it does not look to me like an exercise in cutting back the police, merely cutting benefits packages. A Huffpost article about it says this;

"They say the closure of the 141-year-old department and the creation of a new agency is necessary because the existing union-negotiated police contract is no longer sustainable in a time of deep budget deficits.

The plan was sold to Camden residents as a security fix: by firing the existing police force, they were told, millions of savings would be redirected into hiring about 130 new uniformed officers — a 50 percent increase over current staffing."

This is cost-cutting presented as reform. And the highlighted section at the end (my emphasis) shows that this is not what the BLM movement is proposing. I'd direct you to their own literature and interviews on the issue.

So, they hired more police officers than they had previously, and they combined it with sensible ideas like tearing down derelict buildings that had attracted drug users etc. I don't see how this is comparable with what is being suggested by the writers of articles like 'Yes, we mean literally abolish the police'. Or people who go on tv and say they want to stop investing in organisations that are 'inherently racist'. This is a different thing.

I'm not against it, but I'd be interested to see how the next election cycle went if one of our main political parties suggested a mass cut in police benefits. Especially since this seems to be coming in response to events taking place in another country.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

I enjoyed reading that. But a few things stand out.

Firstly, the savings were helped by deunionising and cutting benefits. Is that the way forward for society?

Here's another wee Wiki read, and showing why Unions when applied to American Police may not always be a net positive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kroll_(police_officer)

 

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Here's another wee Wiki read, and showing why Unions when applied to American Police may not always be a net positive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kroll_(police_officer)

 

Looks like he should have been fired decades ago. But I think that if we accept that unions are there to defend workers, we accept that sometimes they'll defend erseholes. Same as defence lawyers. Doesn't mean they are a net negative.

If we're looking for funding for community projects, it seems a better idea to me to reform the tax system and ensure that the wealthiest individuals and wealthy businesses actually give back to the society that has made them wealthy.

Taking the money from the police budget is just reactionary nonsense designed to appease an angry crowd.

BLM is obviously a worthwhile movement, but society does not have to accept all of its ideas without criticism. Their ideas about reform of the criminal justice system are very bad ideas indeed.

[welshbairn]

Just now, JTS98 said:

Looks like he should have been fired decades ago. But I think that if we accept that unions are there to defend workers, we accept that sometimes they'll defend erseholes. Same as defence lawyers. Doesn't mean they are a net negative.

If we're looking for funding for community projects, it seems a better idea to me to reform the tax system and ensure that the wealthiest individuals and wealthy businesses actually give back to the society that has made them wealthy.

Taking the money from the police budget is just reactionary nonsense designed to appease an angry crowd.

BLM is obviously a worthwhile movement, but society does not have to accept all of its ideas without criticism. Their ideas about reform of the criminal justice system are very bad ideas indeed.

In this case the Union was being run by an arsehole, corrupt from top to bottom, no civilian control over officer behaviour, and holding the City to ransom so reform is impossible. Getting shot of the department and rebuilding is something the City has the power to do, they can't get Trump to reverse his tax giveaway to the wealthy and reallocate the funds, they can however spend some of the money wasted on corrupt and counterproductive policing on more effective measures.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

In this case the Union was being run by an arsehole, corrupt from top to bottom, no civilian control over officer behaviour, and holding the City to ransom so reform is impossible. Getting shot of the department and rebuilding is something the City has the power to do, they can't get Trump to reverse his tax giveaway to the wealthy and reallocate the funds, they can however spend some of the money wasted on corrupt and counterproductive policing on more effective measures.

True. But then you've not tackled the fundamental problem of wealth inequality, which is basically where this all comes from.

Half of black households in the US bring in less than $30,000 a year. The median for white families is more than double that. By failing to tackle the real problem underpinning all this, you're just transferring the problem to another time and place.

Directing all of this political energy and noise towards a real issue that would help solve this problem as well as many others would be hugely beneficial. People are happier when they are relatively well-off compared to others in their country. Wealth inequality gives you an unhappy, resentful population. Failing to collect tax income harms literally every government-funded part of life. This hurts the poor the most as they end up with shite schools, no healthcare, gangs etc.

Abolishing the police or defunding the police or whatever is a classic political example of everybody looking at the distracting shiny thing OVER HERE OVER HERE OVER HERE and missing the bigger issue staring us all in the face.

I'd imagine Trump and his pals are quite chuffed. Locks up the law and order vote for him in November and keeps the issue of wealth distribution and tax policy off the table. Pass me a cigar, butler!

[carpetmonster]

15 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Looks like he should have been fired decades ago. But I think that if we accept that unions are there to defend workers, we accept that sometimes they'll defend erseholes. Same as defence lawyers. Doesn't mean they are a net negative.

If we're looking for funding for community projects, it seems a better idea to me to reform the tax system and ensure that the wealthiest individuals and wealthy businesses actually give back to the society that has made them wealthy.

Taking the money from the police budget is just reactionary nonsense designed to appease an angry crowd.

BLM is obviously a worthwhile movement, but society does not have to accept all of its ideas without criticism. Their ideas about reform of the criminal justice system are very bad ideas indeed.

The FOP in the US is a fucking menace, with Chicago’s being particularly egregious - look up John Catanzara, our head of FOP, who’s actually had his ability to perform police duties withdrawn - https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago.suntimes.com/platform/amp/metro-state/2020/5/11/21254115/stripped-police-powers-new-cpd-union-president-wants-to-chart-a-new-course

Meanwhile, last weekend, 102 people were shot in Chicago, 14 fatally. And last year the city’s taxpayer was on the hook for $113m in settlement payouts to victims of police brutality. You think we’re getting value for the 1.7bn (or 36% of the budget) we spend on em?

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

Abolishing the police or defunding the police or whatever is a classic political example of everybody looking at the distracting shiny thing OVER HERE OVER HERE OVER HERE and missing the bigger issue staring us all in the face.

No, it's about doing something practical that could make a real difference quickly. Waiting for Washington to go Socialist could take generations, if ever.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

The FOP in the US is a fucking menace, with Chicago’s being particularly egregious - look up John Catanzara, our head of FOP, who’s actually had his ability to perform police duties withdrawn - https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago.suntimes.com/platform/amp/metro-state/2020/5/11/21254115/stripped-police-powers-new-cpd-union-president-wants-to-chart-a-new-course

Meanwhile, last weekend, 102 people were shot in Chicago, 14 fatally. And last year the city’s taxpayer was on the hook for $113m in settlement payouts to victims of police brutality. You think we’re getting value for the 1.7bn (or 36% of the budget) we spend on em?

Doesn't sound like it, no. But it doesn't follow from that that you stop funding the police. It follows from that that you sack the people running ot badly. That's a political failing that voters should be using elections to do something about.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

No, it's about doing something practical that could make a real difference quickly. Waiting for Washington to go Socialist could take generations, if ever.

I'm not sure it would make a positive difference quickly.

There's no evidence of that. If I'm a burglar, I'm very excited about this as an idea.

[carpetmonster]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

Doesn't sound like it, no. But it doesn't follow from that that you stop funding the police. It follows from that that you sack the people running ot badly. That's a political failing that voters should be using elections to do something about.

The police by definition, are a reactive agency - they turn up after the event’s happened. Given in the neighborhoods where the shooting’s going on, nobody’s gonna talk to em, they’re essentially turning up to take a couple of photos and fill out some forms, and the homicide clearup rates of 15% (citywide; it’s gonna be lower in places like Englewood and West Garfield Park) bears that out. I’d be all for diverting some of the vast sums thrown at something that isn’t working to proactive agencies that might have a chance of stopping the shooting before it starts. 

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, carpetmonster said:

The police by definition, are a reactive agency - they turn up after the event’s happened. Given in the neighborhoods where the shooting’s going on, nobody’s gonna talk to em, they’re essentially turning up to take a couple of photos and fill out some forms, and the homicide clearup rates of 15% (citywide; it’s gonna be lower in places like Englewood and West Garfield Park) bears that out. I’d be all for diverting some of the vast sums thrown at something that isn’t working to proactive agencies that might have a chance of stopping the shooting before it starts. 

It's extremely wishful thinking to imagine that shootings just won't happen because there are no police around. Power vacuums simply never operate like that anywhere in human history.

And the police are not purely reactionary. They fill the violence vacuum. Who says gang violence doesn't get worse with a decreased police presence? Certainly the opportunity for gangs rises. The motivation for violence rises since there's more to gain.

I'm not against increased spending in the community. I spent pages arguing for it last night.

[carpetmonster]

Just now, JTS98 said:

It's extremely wishful thinking to imagine that shootings just won't happen because there are no police around. Power vacuums simply never operate like that anywhere in human history.

And the police are not purely reactionary. They fill the violence vacuum. Who says gang violence doesn't get worse with a decreased police presence? Certainly the opportunity for gangs rises. The motivation for violence rises since there's more to gain.

I'm not against increased spending in the community. I spent pages arguing for it last night.

I agree, there’s plenty shootings happening and the police ain’t doing shit. Therefore why continue to fund them if they ain’t doing shit?

When you’re talking about motivation and gain, the vast majority of the killings are motivated by very very small rationales; a gang beef on FB, control of a corner. Spend the money on education and job creating and mental health services and community building and let’s see if that reduces the number of people stupid, hopeless or desperate enough to whom violence seems a good idea. 

[welshbairn]

I think the lesson is we shouldn't whine about police murdering people until..

1. Full racial and economic equality is achieved.

2. China becomes a liberal democracy instead of a brutal dictatorship.

3. Libya becomes a functioning state again instead of random warlords using sub Saharan refugees as slaves.