It's difficult to describe the depths of stupidity from which this proposal is drawn. Was this from a black voice? Regardless, is this a voice worth giving attention? Clearly not. It's to be mocked and then roundly dismissed. Disbanding a police force is NOT a valid part of a reform strategy.
And they bristle when folks agree with Michael Savage when he says, "liberalism is a mental disease"!
There is a movement here to replace the police with "trained" community activists of some such. One argument I've heard that I don't disagree with is that the police should have more education and training to deal with the situations they face now as opposed to 20 years ago. Yet, there are serious "proposals" to replace the police with people with even less training. I do think that the entire MPLS government bears the responsibility for allowing the police department to rot as it apparently has, as well as for allowing the police union so much power in protecting it's officers. Virtually everything about Chauvin's 18 complaints is sealed, and the city agreed to this when they negotiated the police contract. If they clean out the MPD, the shouldn't let the rest of the city leaders get a free pass.
Stan,
I'd agree. But from what we've seen here, the protesters don't seem too concerned with the innocents that are part of their collateral damage. Of course, if they get rid of the police, the people with means will be able to protect their homes, or move out. The lower income families will be victimized, and the WL's who've gentrified people out of affordable housing will run to the suburbs in fear.
I would imagine there are legitimate reasons why officer complaints would be protected from public scrutiny. Constant relitigation of those complaints to defend criminals is the first that leaps to mind. Cops are generally given much leeway as regards their response to combative suspects with whom they must contend. Just these two factors lend themselves to shielding bad cops, which in turn breeds mistrust of all cops by the public, as well as feeds the overwrought fictions of the race hustlers and those who follow them.
The question is how to find and put into place good, morally straight personnel in each level of service. This question parallels the challenge for the public of politics.
The challenges of police work are unique. Just as civilians can't truly know the experience of combat soldiers, so too are civilians lacking with regard to the cop on the street. We seek the perfect cop....brave, upstanding, compassionate and more than anything else, the ability to handle flawlessly every situation confronted despite no two being exactly alike. But like doctors, in whom we have equally irrationally high expectations, we'll never find such perfection.
But the public can do a lot to insure that cops never lose their trust in us by abiding the law and aiding cops by not making their jobs tougher than it already is.
I don't disagree with any of that. I'm simply pointing out that the people who are now complaining about this system are the ones who voted for the leadership who negotiated the contracts and maintain the system.
I do think that we need to look at how those sorts of protections actually work and see if there is a way to legitimately protect that cops who do something in good faith that turns out bad, and those who accumulate a lot of bogus complaints. It seems like there should be a way to weed out problem cops, without harming the good ones. The problem is that the job of the union is first and foremost to protect it's members no matter what. Unfortunately protecting members of the police union is inevitably going to result in things that fail to protect the members of the community that the police serve.
Unfortunately this is a problem with public sector unions. They almost inevitably have to back their members, even when those members harm the community that they serve and that pays them.
I don't know if they're required to back bad members. This is the same of any union. But it happens all too often. Why anyone would want the stain of bad members on their record is beyond me. There's been many references to the flaws of the "code of silence", including the Chuck Norris movie "Code of Silence" (a pretty good movie until the laughable ending). To a great extent, the main policing of police needs to come from the police themselves. It's a great irony that those who seek employment upholding the law won't always hold their fellow officers to the same standards.
I fear there will always be a too large segment of the population that will never trust the police, but no one who abides the law should have reason to fear even the worst of them. Bad cops exploit situations that they feel won't blow back in their faces. Don't give them an excuse and they can't do that. It's a wet dream, but I believe if they were never given those opportunities, most bad cops might actually do their jobs the way they're supposed to. Too many of them began as good cops and for one reason or another lost their way.
I’m not saying that they’re required to back bad members as much as saying that they exist to protect the members regardless. It’s the situation in schools where you can’t fire bad teachers. They don’t set out to protect the bad, they just don’t do anything to weed out the bad.
Because nothing says slow down an increase in violent crime like abolishing the police. Thanks Strib.
“The nearly 13% jump in violent crime mirrors a similar trend across the river in St. Paul, where law enforcement officials are scrambling to quell a recent spate of violence.
In Minneapolis, police data show that the city’s 37 homicides climbed 32% from 28 this time last year, while aggravated assaults, rapes and robberies also rose during the first 10 months of the year, contributing to the increase in reports of violent crime, according to newly released Police Department statistics. The data show that property crime reports were up nearly 15% during the same period.
This comes on the heels of a sharp decline the year before, when the city logged 30-year lows in many crime categories, according to deputy police chief Erick Fors.
Interestingly enough, just a few months ago, Mayor Jacob Frey was calling for more police officers, not disbanding the police department.
The increase has emerged as a significant issue in the debate over police resources, which reached a boiling point this fall with the release of viral videos showing people being violently assaulted and robbed after leaving downtown bars. Advocates of adding more officers worry about a reversal of a steady decline that began in the 1990s, as the city continues its rapid growth.
Mayor Jacob Frey, who has asked for 14 new officers, said the rising violence underscored the need for a different approach to addressing crime and its causes, pointing to recent bail reform efforts, increased “resources for economic inclusion” and further investment in affordable housing, seen as a major hurdle for former offenders trying to reintegrate into society.
At the same time, he said the shortage of officers was likely a contributing factor, calling it “unacceptable” that thousands of high-priority 911 calls couldn’t be immediately assigned because of a lack of available police squads. “There’s no quicker way to erode trust in a police department [than] to call 911 and not have somebody show up,” he said.”
Of course the biggest potential problem is that if MPLS defunds, abolishes, or shrinks policing, the effects of that will be shunted off to the surrounding cities with fewer resources.
Again, with the absurd assumptions, ungrounded in reality.
Unfortunately for you, and this conversation, your video doesn't address the topic at hand. Specifically, is it a good idea for the city of MPLS to abolish the MPD. Especially in the absence of any sort of clear, detailed, plan.
There's an old expression that seems to fit. Something about babies and bathwater.
Of course, by what logic does one conclude that the MPD must be abolished (disbanded, defunded, or whatever the current undefined buzzword is) while leaving those who coddled, nurtured, and failed to do anything about the MPD unscathed?
Lisa Bender defending the ill conceived "plan" to disband the MPD.
"Minneapolis' City Council president is defending the move to disband the city’s police department following the brutal killing of George Floyd, saying that police can do more harm than good in some cases and expecting their help 'comes from a place of privilege'.
On Monday, City Council president Lisa Bender defended the revolutionary move to disband the police force, saying Floyd’s death was a 'wake-up call' that the police 'is not keeping every member of our community safe.'
'What if, in the middle of the night, my home is broken into. Who do I call?' CNN’s Alisyn Camerota asked.
'Yes, I mean I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors, and myself, too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege,' Bender replied."
" Minneapolis city council president says fears of having someone break into a house 'comes from a place of privilege' as she defends disbanding the police force
Minneapolis' City Council president Lisa Bender defended the move to disband the city's police department on Monday She explained George Floyd's death was a 'wake-up call' that the police 'is not keeping every member of our community safe' When asked what will happen if a home is broken into, Bender explained that her worry and expectation police will help comes from a place of privilege She said council is already working on community-based safety strategies and analyzing how to shift some 911 calls to crisis and mental health workers
By Marlene Lenthang For Dailymail.com
Published: 11:41 EDT, 8 June 2020 | Updated: 12:43 EDT, 8 June 2020
e-mail
45 shares
1
View comments
Minneapolis' City Council president is defending the move to disband the city’s police department following the brutal killing of George Floyd, saying that police can do more harm than good in some cases and expecting their help 'comes from a place of privilege'.
On Monday, City Council president Lisa Bender defended the revolutionary move to disband the police force, saying Floyd’s death was a 'wake-up call' that the police 'is not keeping every member of our community safe.'
'What if, in the middle of the night, my home is broken into. Who do I call?' CNN’s Alisyn Camerota asked.
'Yes, I mean I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors, and myself, too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege,' Bender replied.
'Because for those of us for whom the system is working, I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done,' she added."
I'll start by saying that the MPD has been a problem for years, and that it is in need of something new and different in order to move forward. I am certainly open to new and innovative attempts to solve the problems in the MPD. However, telling people that it's privilege" to expect the police to respond to 911 calls, is a really shitty message.
What Bender doesn't seem to understand is that for everyone except the lowest income earners, they have the privilege to move out of MPLS. Further, the hip, woke, millennials (who are part of the housing problem) will decide that they're children's safety is more important than progressive cred, and that they can put their BLM yard signs and rainbow flags out just as easily in first ring suburbs as in the trendy parts of MPLS.
But, hey it's no problem if 50% of your tax base leaves town, is it? I'm sure they can get trump to pay for all the unintended consequences, can't they?
Maybe you should ask what the MPD is doing that is good.
“An internal review of sexual assault cases in Minneapolis turned up an estimated 1,700 untested rape kits from as far back as the 1990s — a backlog that officials say could take at least two years to clear. The startling revelation was announced at a City Hall news conference Friday, during which department officials announced plans to hire three additional analysts to help process the forensic evidence kits.
The latest count far surpasses the 194 untested kits reported during an 2015 audit, part of what Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey called an “unjustified mistake” that left years of potential evidence sitting in police storage.”
Of course, it does. That you don't understand how is part of the problem.
You see, white people by and large view policing as something beneficial to the community. Black people live with the reality that it is decimating their community.
There is inherent racism in the policies and procedures we have for policing. These inherent racist systems damage black communities.
This is the reasoning behind WHY some are saying abolish police systems as they exist.
Are you understanding that this is what people are saying? And this is the reason why they are saying it?
Because, if you don't understand the reasoning why people are considering shutting down police systems is exist, then of course, it would make no sense to you. You begin, as always, by listening to black people. By listening to those in poor communities.
If you want to understand, listen. If you just want to blindly mock and attack, get the hell out of the way. Adults have important work to do.
Craig... "that they can put their BLM yard signs and rainbow flags out just as easily in first ring suburbs as in the trendy parts of MPLS."
I am absolutely sure that that happens sometimes. But for me and those in my community in my age cohort, we have moved to communities of color, taking care of not to be part of gentrification as much as we can, to be in solidarity and to listen to communities of color.
That is also true of most of the progressive young adults that I know. They're moving to communities of color, striving to avoid gentrification problems, to be part of, in solidarity with, and to listen to communities of color.
So yes, it is true that for a lot of white people, progressive and conservative, they have used their privilege to move to white enclaves. But for a lot of progressives, and for some segments of conservatives, that is not the case. I moved into poorer communities of color as a young conservative, myself.
At this point, it seems like a primer on MPLS demographics might help. Clearly this is broad, but it's accurate.
Tier one, the low income demographics. N MPLS is where most of the current stock of "affordable" housing is. This is NOT the area where the riots took place. Primarily poorly maintained houses more than 50 years old.
Tier two, medium income demographics. These folks are populating S MPLS as well as NE MPLS. These are the hip, trendy neighborhoods. Unfortunately, these neighborhoods are also the neighborhoods where a lot of East African immigrants live. The obvious problem is that these families (who are mostly incredibly progressive) and gentrifying "black folks" out of significant parts of the city. Also, unfortunately, these families mostly have children who they want to protect, so being told that their police protection is going away will probably not go over well. The other thing these families do is preempt (due to open enrollment) spots in the better schools and charter schools from the folks with lower incomes.
Tier 3, high income. These people live in a sliver of the west side of the city, and around the prestigious lakes. The short answer is that they have the ability and means to move out of MPLS, or to arrange for some sort of security.
The thing to remember is that the majority of all of these tiers are progressive. That they support the DFL status quo, and they support (to varying degrees) the protesters. Specifically, the folks in tier two who are the most vocal and active supporters of the protesters, are also the ones who are contributing the most towards the economic (specifically housing) conditions that are putting financial pressure on tier one.
The final piece of the housing puzzle (I'd argue that because affordable housing shouldn't consume more that 30% of monthly income, that lack of stable, decent, affordable housing is THE key issue for tier one), is the city of MPLS. Due to land costs, zoning, permit fees and the like, it is virtually impossible to build affordable housing in the city. Thus we're left with requiring multi unit developers to designate a percentage of their buildings as affordable, and subsidizing that by increasing the cost of the "market rate" units and tax breaks.
One other factor. The city passed a couple of laws recently (minimum wage and tobacco related) that were already causing some businesses to leave the city. When you combine that with the potential of losing some level of policing, it's possible that this exodus will increase.
The unintended consequence of all of this might (to some degree will) be that the tax based on MPLS declines. It seems like it'll be a challenge to be creative and innovate with policing strategies, if there is less money available to innovate with.
To be clear, I'm NOT suggesting that nothing be done about MPD. I am suggesting that ALL of the consequences be addressed before making a rash, emotional decision, and that the scrutiny NOT stop with the police.
Don't think that this is a license to continue, or that any follow up comments will be posted. But, you are the proverbial blind pig who found an acorn.
This is an excellent question, as a matter of fact it's been covered by our local news for months. The problem that you have is that the roots of the failures don't lie solely with the MPD. This is a statewide problem, which points to failures with both the legislature as well as the BCA.
Thank you for agreeing with me that it's not just the MPD who should be scrutinized and "improved", that the systemic problems go into the entire state government to some degree.
"You see, white people by and large view policing as something beneficial to the community. Black people live with the reality that it is decimating their community."
Because "black people" don't get bothered when the crack house down the street endangers their kids, or when someone breaks into their home at 1:00 AM.
"Are you understanding that this is what people are saying? And this is the reason why they are saying it?"
Why yes, I am. I'm also not going to simply accept things at face value and ignore the data.
"If you want to understand, listen. If you just want to blindly mock and attack, get the hell out of the way. Adults have important work to do."
At least in MPLS, the "adults" you refer to are the very people who have allowed these problems to exist unmolested for 40+ years. I guess they get a pass, because "better late than never".
"I am absolutely sure that that happens sometimes."
Since we're talking specifically about MPLS, I'll clue you in. It's much more than "sometimes". It's the majority of the time.
"But for me and those in my community in my age cohort, we have moved to communities of color, taking care of not to be part of gentrification as much as we can, to be in solidarity and to listen to communities of color."
Well, one more thing for you to get all proud about. Of course, we aren't talking about you and your phantom army (what pert of stop speaking for some undefined, anonymous, unproven, mass of people, do you not understand? Do I have to lace my request with expletives, condescension, and aspersions for you to clue in?)
FYI according to data, (which is notoriously inaccurate) the average sold price of a house in Louisville is around $178,000. In the areas, I'm talking about, there are precisely 41 properties currently on the market for less than that amount. Most of those are not SFH. While the average price in the area I'm talking about is &285,000. Unfortunately for you and your tribe of amazing (and proud) folks, it's too damn late. Low income families are already priced out and it's just going up. But that's just data, not anecdote.
"That is also true of most of the progressive young adults that I know. They're moving to communities of color, striving to avoid gentrification problems, to be part of, in solidarity with, and to listen to communities of color."
That's quite a fascinating hunch, I'm sure you've got data to back it up. I'm also sure that you speak for "progressive young adults" very well. Unfortunately, up here, the "progressive young adults" want to "live with minorities", but they also want all the HGTV crap, that want the low energy bills that well insulated houses bring, they want the best schools, and are willing to pick neighborhoods to get them. Of course enrollment is limited, and if their kids take the place of some other kid, well....
"So yes, it is true that for a lot of white people, progressive and conservative, they have used their privilege to move to white enclaves."
This sort of statement is what happens when you let your limited, small city, experience convince you that you can speak authoritatively on conditions elsewhere. A few facts. The neighborhoods we're talking about aren't "white enclaves" yet, but the "young progressives" are turning them into "white enclaves" (I'll grant that it's probably not intentional, but low income POC can't afford what houses in these neighborhoods sell for now, let alone in the future. In the neighborhoods I'm talking about, you won't find many conservatives. I know you want your imaginary situation to be true, but the data suggests that you are talking MINIMUM of 60% progressive in those neighborhoods and that number is rising as older people move out.
"But for a lot of progressives, and for some segments of conservatives, that is not the case. I moved into poorer communities of color as a young conservative, myself."
Again, I'm sure all of these people appreciate you speaking for them and for presuming to impose your southern, smaller city, anecdotes on other places. It's very helpful, and I know it feeds your pride.
When my kids were in school, we chose to live in the most ethnically, nationality, and economically diverse suburban school district we could find. Because we DIDN"T want to contribute to the rampant gentrification in MPLS. I'm only going to speak for my family, I'm not presumptuous enough to try to speak for anyone else.
It's not fear that keeps you moderated, it's you and your behavior.
I'll point out that I'm currently focusing on the situation here, which has been the focal point of the larger national conversation. I understand that that sort of focus might be confusing to you, but I can't help that.
RE: Your original question: You DO realize that they're talking about finding new and better ways to provide community care and public safety? So the point is NOT, "Let's stop ALL policing so that when a crazed white supremacist shooter is on the loose, no one is there to stop him..." but rather, "What are the best ways to accomplish community care and public safety? Is it fair to expect untrained police officers to deal with mental health solutions? And 90+% of tasks that police do are not 'military-style' tasks, so maybe providing a bunch of people with warrior/military style training is not the best way to accomplish the tasks done typically by police..."?
"In Minnesota - the state where Mr Floyd was killed - US Rep Ilhan Omar called for the Minneapolis Police Department to be disbanded outright, claiming the law enforcement agency was "beyond reform."
"We committed to dismantling policing as we know it in the city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new model of public safety that actually keeps our community safe,"
"Yes. We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department"
"Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey was booed by protesters Saturday night when he refused to commit to defunding and abolishing the city's police force."
Dan,
Actually, I think that the original question is the problem.
I also think your comment raises and interesting issue. This "defund" the police is another one of those terms that means anything the user wants, whenever it's used. It means everything and nothing.
Yet, as you can see from the quotes above that people are using terms like "disband", "abolish", "dismantle", and "beyond reform" which clearly indicate something more radical than your hunches about what it might mean.
"So the point is NOT, "Let's stop ALL policing so that when a crazed white supremacist shooter is on the loose, no one is there to stop him...""
Yet Lisa Bender is saying that the notion you just expressed is literally an attitude that comes from a "place of privilege", so it's demonstrably true that you are NOT speaking for the people who are actually trying to implement this.
"You DO recognize and acknowledge this, don't you?"
I do recognize and acknowledge that SOME people are saying this, while others are saying things that are much more radial.
Of course, had you read my comments, you would have known the answer to your question. I do appreciate your continued efforts to speak for those who are already speaking for themselves quite loudly.
I'd ask you to acknowledge the reality that your attempt to characterize what people are saying is incomplete and faulty, but it would be pointless. I suspect that you've decided that you know what Lisa Bender means, better than she does.
Again, that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND what these people are advocating for does not mean that YOU ARE UNDERSTANDING THEIR INTENT correctly.
If you're not understanding, why not ask? Why would you go the Trump route of using this as a partisan bludgeon to attack people seeking reasonable, common sense answers that work for everyone?
Trust me: YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING so why not shut the fuck up and LISTEN rather than whine, bitch and attack the adults in the nation who are trying to get something accomplished?
You and the Trumps of the world have had your day. Your time is over. Get on the right side of history.
"Again, that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND what these people are advocating for does not mean that YOU ARE UNDERSTANDING THEIR INTENT correctly."
Again, that you can't prove the above assertion, doesn't mean that it should go unchallenged. The fact that you use ALL CAPS doesn't make your claim factual. But, please prove your claim.
"If you're not understanding, why not ask?"
Let's ignore the fact that my original post was "ask" ing a question. Let's ignore the fact that words like "abolish", "disband", "demolish" and "beyond reform" actually have meanings in the English language, and none of them mean "reform" or "improve". Let's ignore the fact that I'm "listening to black voices" and applying standard English language rules of grammar and definitions of words to what they are saying.
"Why would you go the Trump route of using this as a partisan bludgeon to attack people seeking reasonable, common sense answers that work for everyone?"
I wouldn't and I haven't. But your continued creativity in making shit up is impressive. I wasn't aware that asking questions about the actual words used by the actual people involved in making policy for the city of MPLS was a "partisan bludgeon".
"Trust me: YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING so why not shut the fuck up and LISTEN rather than whine, bitch and attack the adults in the nation who are trying to get something accomplished?"
AHHHH reverting the the demeaning, hubristic, expletive laden, attack based in assumptions and prejudice. Always effective.
The facts are that the people who are actually moving forward with "dismantling" the MPD, haven't said anything that gives any details regarding what their "plan" is. (as of the 10pm local news last night) The facts are that the people involved in this are the very people who have tolerated the situation with the MPD for years. They're the very people who ran on reforming the police and did nothing. The only reasons these people have credibility with people like you is the DFL behind their names on the ballot. If you are actually claiming that it's "adult" to dismiss the concerns of people who expect the police to respond to a home invasion, as "privileged", then you have a strange definition of adult.
The problem with you biased, prejudiced, partisan, screed in this thread is that it ignores what I've actually said about the situation, in favor of crap that you just made up out of thin air. You're more concerned with trying to hide what the people actually involved in this "dismantling" of the MPD are saying by attacking me with lies, than with things like the truth are what the data shows.
If this is how you think "adults" act then I want absolutely nothing to do with people you consider "adult".
Just one more white person drowning out or obscuring the people you claim we should be listening to.
What's interesting, is that I can't see any indication that you actually, directly, specifically answered the question asked in the post. I might have missed it, but "Listen to black people and learn about systemic racism inherent in our policing policies.." isn't an answer. Somehow you turn asking a question into "bully"ing.
If you can't answer the question simply and directly, then maybe the problem lies elsewhere.
Just a small point of order. There is a misunderstanding on the part of some that the role of the police department is to "keep everybody safe".
Clearly this is completely unrealistic and not how the police are currently established.
Our criminal justice system isn't designed to prevent crime, as much as to investigate crime and catch criminals". Obviously, if a policeman walks into a situation where a crime is actively being committed, he will intervene and "prevent" the crime. But, the reality is that it rarely happens that way.
Case in point. The MPD stood idly by for several days and didn't prevent multiple crimes committed on live TV.
So, reforming the police to keep "every member of our community safe" is a fools errand and destined to fail. If that's what Binder thinks she's going to do, then she's destined for failure, and will waste lives, time, and money along the way.
Your question is loaded and conservatives like Trump are using it as a battering ram to attack people of good faith looking for reasonable answers that work for everyone.
Implied in the question is that people are advocating getting rid of any way of protecting people from harm.
No one is advocating anarchy when it comes to crimes.
Read that again.
No one is advocating anarchy when it comes to crime.
Do you understand the point? Read it again. Let it sink in.
No one is advocating anarchy when it comes to crime.
Are you beginning to understand it? Read it again. Listen to black people.
No one is advocating anarchy when it comes to Crime.
Do you understand now?
If you don't know or understand what people are talking about when they're talking about this, look it up. It's true that the thinking on this isn't its rudimentary stages. But you need to begin with the understanding that no one is talking about Anarchy when it comes to crime. We're talking about looking at different ways besides the current police model of doing things. The current police model has failed communities of color.
Do you recognize that this is what black people are telling you? If not, listen.
Not currently. Unfortunately my job sometimes interferes with things that are unrelated to it.
I guess listening to significant parts of all the other services, memorials, and protests doesn't meet your litmus test of one white guy determining for another white guy, what is important.
"You might do well to listen to it. Listening is good."
This isn't. But it's a really nice attempt to hide your biases by pretending it's a question.
Unfortunately, the fact that you misunderstood both my original post and the condescending editorializing on your comment, really doesn't bode well for you.
“begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department.”
The above is a quote from members of the MPLS city council. I'm not seeing how we get "reform" from "end".
I realize that these folks aren't completely stupid and that there needs to be some minimal sort of law enforcement in place.
As my comments have made clear, I fully support significant investigation and housecleaning in the MPD. Further, I fully support housecleaning of the people who have allowed the MPD to become what it is.
My biggest problem is that the language being used is imprecise, misleading, and vague. It's not the language of "adults" ready to have a serious and all encompassing policy discussion based on facts and data, but of demagogues playing to a crowd driven more by perception, feelings, and emotion, than facts. (Before you blow a gasket, I'm simply pointing out what the supporters of the protests/riots are saying. If that's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. Given the history of this group of politicians promising reform of the police and not following through, it seems reasonable to wonder how much of this is aimed at saving their political careers and how much is serious. Further, when something goes wrong with their plans (and it will), will they have the courage to stand there and accept the responsibility.
This is a difficult enough conversation and change to make as it is. Starting out by selling vague, imprecise, inflammatory, slogans instead of fact based (even slightly detailed) plans, seems like it will inevitably lead to misunderstanding.
Does anyone really think that a "grief stricken" person caught up in their "feelings" about "institutional racism" is parsing the difference between "reform" and "disbanded outright"? Do you really not think that people aren't going to be pissed when the MPD is not "disbanded outright: i the next few years? Are we really in a place politically where we just assume that every word out of a politician's mouth is not true?
"The above is a quote from members of the MPLS city council. I'm not seeing how we get "reform" from "end"."
Good Lord! How obtuse are you?
Read my words again. Listen to Black voices again. Keep listening and keep reading until you understand.
No one is advocating anarchy when it comes to crimes. The point would be replacing the police with something better, something that is not systematically flawed and just does not work for people of color. This is what they're saying.
FYI, he home cost information is not just relevant to the apples/mushrooms comparison. It also becomes an issue if part of the plan is to require cops to live in MPLS. It seems unreasonable to force people to live in a place they can't afford.
That is an excellent question, Dan. Exactly how obtuse are you?
"Read my words again. Listen to Black voices again. Keep listening and keep reading until you understand."
Perhaps you are confused about how things work in large cities. But, in MPLS the people who have the ability to do things are on this body called the City Council. In a representative form of government, the people (of all ethnicities) vote for people to represent them. Usually the ethnicity of those elected isn't an issue.
So, while in this case I've listened to all sorts of random "black people", the people who really matter (and bear paying close attention to) are those people on the city council. They are the people who (although they've chosen to do nothing about the police for decades) have now decided to "end" the MPD. So, I'm more likely to pay attention to the folks who have power to do things, than those who don't.
I've got to give you credit though. Your reflexive repetition of your nonsense mantra, regardless of what you are "responding" to is a special brand of obtuse.
"No one is advocating anarchy when it comes to crimes."
Yet, no one is advocating anything specific, so how the hell can you make that claim. I'll give you a hint. After adopting the motto "defund the police", I've been bombarded with people of all ethnicities, all trying to explain what the phrase doesn't mean. Now, I'm no expert but if you're going to pick a catchphrase for an entire movement, then it might be worthwhile to figure out what the hell you mean by the damn catchphrase.
Of course, I never said anyone was advocating "anarchy". Yet, the chair of the MPLS city council is saying, and repeating, that responding to a home invasion in the middle of the night might not be on the agenda. while that might not be anarchy, it's definitely not "protect and serve". As long as you obtusely ignore the people shaping this new normal in MPLS, in favor of people you choose because of skin color, the less intelligently you can contribute to this conversation.
"The point would be replacing the police with something better, something that is not systematically flawed and just does not work for people of color. This is what they're saying."
No, if you look at the words they are using and use the standard English language definition, they are NOT saying that. Perhaps you've chosen to ignore the actual quotes I've provided.
Now to be fair, they're also saying a whole lot of other stuff most of which is trying to walk back the stupid language used early on. Unfortunately, while they've given bland, vague reassurances about what it DOESN'T"T mean, there's been a dearth of details about what it DOES mean. Unfortunately, there haven't been any details regarding why they waited so long to finally do something.
"Listen."
I don't now if this is obtuse, persistent in foolishness, or just rank stupidity. But if you think that repeating meaningless platitudes is going to accomplish anything, you're just an idiot.
Hint, when I'm providing actual quotes from people involved in the discussion it's safe to suspect that I found those quotes by listening (or reading, I'm more of a reader than a listener. I can go at my own pace as well as circle back to confirm what was said.) of course why let things like facts or poof get in the way of banal platitudes, repeated over and over.
Lisa Bender, I'm not sure of her ethnicity, is the President of the MPLS City Council. She is clearly in a position of some degree of power when it comes to the government of the city of MPLS. I listened to her say the following. (I suspect that the term community includes some "black voices" so I guess this counts.)
"“We recognize that we don’t have all the answers about what a police-free future looks like, but our community does,”
Please explain to me how the term "police free community" means anything other than a "community free of police"? Please explain how "police free" is not essentially saying "Let's stop ALL policing"? Please explain how "police free can be reasonably construed to mean "a society with police"?
The problem isn't that I'm not listening, nor is it that I'm excluding voices based entirely on their ethnicity, it's that I'm listening to a wide variety of voices and getting contradictory messages.
Maybe that's the problem, when you base you choice of who to listen to entirely on the color of their skin, you aren't getting a broad enough view of what's happening.
It's almost as if you're arguing that "black voices" are inherently superior to 'brown voices" or to "Asian voices, or to "white voices, based entirely on ethnicity and skin color. Maybe it's better to listen to people based on the content of their speech and character.
How do you think Chicago will do if they defund/cut back on the police? Shooting deaths going down or up?
I hope you appreciate the stupidity of this conversation, which started with a reasonable question, but degenerated to Dan chanting his mantra to Mystery his God.
I don't think that any sane person is arguing against major changes in police departments with proven track records of corruption (not sure that's the most accurate term, but it seems to encompass a lot of wrong behavior). I, speaking for myself, am suggesting that merely overhauling the police department is insufficient. It's part of the solution, but not all.
So, if we accept that the MPD needs some type of overhaul, the unanswered questions are as follows.
1. What does that look like? 2 Will the police (or whoever is appropriate) come when I call 911? 3. Will crimes be investigated, criminals prosecuted, and appropriately punished? 4. How will this be accomplished?
I'd add
5. Why have you ignored and enabled the problem for 40+ years and why should you get a pass?
The premise is reasonable, the questions are reasonable, but the responses from the MPLS city council and Dan are unreasonable.
I'd argue that part of the problem is that it's premature to announce this wonderful "police free" future without having the first freaking clue what the hell that means and how it's going to happen, before you start running your mouth is irresponsible and driven by pure politics. Hell the "police free" faction has already started the political attacks on the ones who disagree with them, and little Jacob.
It's kind of amusing to watch liberals tear each other apart trying to out liberal each other, while ignoring their responsibility for the problem.
Craig... "Please explain to me how the term "police free community" means anything other than a "community free of police"?
Again, are you truly this obtuse? It means a Community where militaristic stop police are gone. Missing. Absent. No longer there.
In its place..
With me so far?
Again, the police system. as. We. Know. It. Is. Gone.
In. Its. Place...
Following? Go back and re-read if you're having trouble.
In its place, we have something different. Something that achieves the goal of protecting people, without terrorizing or endangering or threatening the black community. Something better. Probably a combination of roles.
In the place of the Militaristic police who might stop cars for a tail light that was busted, you might have road crews you are there to help people in the case of a broken tail light or in the case that they ran a stop sign. The point would be to help, not terrorize or penalize.
Traffic patrollers could be maybe 75% of police work. I don't really know what percentage, but I'm guessing it's a large percent. One doesn't need pistols or rifles to be a traffic patroller.
In the case of mentally ill people acting out, we could have specially trained mental health patrols to deescalate and help those who are struggling with mental illness. Again, that's probably another large percentage of police work. Being done by someone trained specifically in that area.
Like that. Train people to do the specific work that needs to be done that is currently being done by police officers and often times, not well because they are not trained for it or they do not have the right aptitude for it.
This information is already out there. Go look for it. Listen to what's being said. Don't assume that people are calling for criminal anarchy.
It's clear, that great truth, people get the government they deserve. More specifically, they did in your town and mine. No bitching should be occurring except in front of the mirror. If the police force is corrupt, it is the fault of those who run it, of those who have the ultimate power in overseeing it. In some cities it's a police commissioner or chief of police. In others, it's the mayor. When problems arise, increase and produce constant complaint, it's time to recall whoever is that "top cop" and replace that person with a better one. For hiring cops, there's sense in hiring people from the community to police it (except that in the black community, that too often results in that person from among them being regarded as a traitor, a sell out or worse---too many black cops in that situation have testified to this sad reality---LOOKIE THERE! A BLACK VOICE to which I listened!)
But for the top dog, the opposite is more likely true, as an administrator would be looking at stats and results and acting as an impartial arbiter of which direction the department should go in improving the operation. Hire from outside the city, hopefully someone with a proven and verifiable track record.
If the "top cop" is the mayor, replace that mayor at the next election if there is no recall option available.
These are first steps, not the be all/end all. All current suggestions are coming from complete fools who should not simply be ignored, but run out of town.
Re: " it's premature to announce this wonderful police free future..."
Yes, I know that's what many if not most white people think. But ask the black community, listen to the black community. They will tell you that it's not premature at all to create a new system that is free of the military style police that we have in our cities. They will tell you that the time is long overdue for a new system.
Do you know that this is what black people are telling you? Listen to black people.
Also, do you recognize the reality that the world has not always lived with police, especially police in the format that we have now in the US?
What's wrong with the idea of creating a new system to improve public safety so that it's working for all people - for ALL people, not just white communities?
Did you know that the vast majority of black people don't trust the police to treat them fairly? Two-thirds of black people, give or take depending on the survey, don't trust the police. Did you know that?
Did you know that anytime a crime happens to black people a good number of them have to consider whether or not it's worth calling the police, knowing that calling the police to help them may result in them getting in trouble or killed?
"Again, are you truly this obtuse? It means a Community where militaristic stop police are gone. Missing. Absent. No longer there."
Really? Did you just make this up? Nothing in the statement or the context that I've seen demands your additional made up explanation.
Now, I'll grant that there is a sense in which the police have become more militarized. One reason why the police have become more militarized is because of the famous shoot out in Miami where the police were seriously under equipped relative to the criminals. While I agree that the militarization of the police is a concern, I'm not sure the removing protective equipment and giving criminals an advantage is the answer either.
"This information is already out there. Go look for it. Listen to what's being said. Don't assume that people are calling for criminal anarchy."
that's quite a made up, utopian scenario you've spun out there.
But, let's take your "broken taillight" example. Why do police stop cars for broken taillights?
I have to note that you've chosen "broken taillight" as your example. I'll note you didn't choose impaired driver going 120 mph through a residential neighborhood or MS13 engaging in a turf war.
I guess the fact that I've never said that anyone is advocating anarchy is enough to get you to drop this idiotic trope.
"es, I know that's what many if not most white people think."
Impressive that you feel qualified to speak for "many if not most" white people.
"But ask the black community, listen to the black community."
I am, and I'm hearing the same sorts of concerns as I'm raising. That this vague and unspecific rhetoric isn't really helpful. But please feel free to try to speak for "black people" and treat them as a monolithic group as opposed to individuals.
"They will tell you that it's not premature at all to create a new system that is free of the military style police that we have in our cities. They will tell you that the time is long overdue for a new system."
Again, the one's I'm hearing aren't saying what you claim. But, I'm sure they appreciate some random white guy speaking for them.
"Do you know that this is what black people are telling you? Listen to black people."
Answered twice. But you can stop speaking for "black people" and trying to ague from a logical fallacy.
"Also, do you recognize the reality that the world has not always lived with police, especially police in the format that we have now in the US?"
Yes. Do you realize that conditions are different in 21st century America than in 15th century Africa and that it's simplistic to make the vague, broad, undetailed kinds of platitudes that we're hearing?
"What's wrong with the idea of creating a new system to improve public safety so that it's working for all people - for ALL people, not just white communities?"
!. I've literally said something very similar, in this thread. So, obviously my answer would remain consistent.
2. What an idiotic statement. While I have no doubt that there are differences in terms of how police respond in different communities, I think it's absurd to make the sweeping generalized assumptions that imply that 100% of police interactions in "black communities" are negative.
"Did you know that the vast majority of black people don't trust the police to treat them fairly?"
Did you know that paople's opinions and feelings don't always agree with reality? Do you understand that because people don't trust the police to treat them fairly, doesn't mean that they aren't treated fairly?
"Two-thirds of black people, give or take depending on the survey, don't trust the police. Did you know that?"
Again, unless you are claiming that surveys are always 100% accurate, that feelings and opinions, always represent reality, this information isn't the whole story.
"Did you know that anytime a crime happens to black people a good number of them have to consider whether or not it's worth calling the police, knowing that calling the police to help them may result in them getting in trouble or killed?"
Do you know that when you speak for "black people" and treat them as a monolithic group, you come off as paternalistic, and patronizing. Also, you keep acting as if people's feelings and opinions equate to reality in this instance, while denying this phenomenon in other contexts.
"Listen to black people."
At this point, this condescending, patronizing, idiotic, platitude just makes you look like you don't pay attention to reality.
It's interesting that when I do listen to black people, you marginalize those people because they don't agree with your narrative. Interesting.
Craig... "Impressive that you feel qualified to speak for "many if not most" white people."
It's what the data says. White people tend to trust the police system we have in place. Black people by and large do not. This has been shown in poll after poll.
This foolish, childish notion that the police exist in a vacuum and that the solution lies ONLY with reforming the police. To expect the same city/county/state governments who have allowed, ignored, fostered, protected, or otherwise enabled police corruption to pretend that they are the ones to preside over reform is laughable. The expectation that those who've failed to keep their promises for decades, should avoid responsibility for what they've enabled is simply an attempt to gain political advantage and hide history.
Elections have consequences, people get the government they vote for, and the police are a part of that government.
Finally, this sort of police reform will have to include either the abolition of police unions, or the subjugation of police unions to the extent that they serve no purpose. Hopefully, removing police unions will be the first step in removing all public sector unions.
What's interesting, is that when black voices express this opinion, they get ignored and marginalized.
Good question, it's difficult to understand why you keep repeating yourself, when the demonstrable reality is that I do what you keep demanding I do.
Speaking of data.
How many unarmed blacks were killed by police in 2019? How many unarmed whites were killed by police in 2019? What is the leading cause of death of children in the black community?
Craig... "you can stop speaking for "black people" and trying to ague from a logical fallacy."
"unless you are claiming that surveys are always 100% accurate, that feelings and opinions, always represent reality, this information isn't the whole story."
1. Polls, especially when you have multiple polls pointing to the same consistent conclusions, are scientific data and relatively reliable. That you appear to want to discount them when it's a majority of black people speaking about ideas that hurt your white feelings is part of the problem.
2. When black family after black family can tell you stories where they were harassed or marginalized or harmed by police actions, this is data, not feelings. That you want to denigrate and deny black experience of the majority of black people is part of the problem.
Listen to data. Listen to black people. They are the experts on what is happening to them, after all.
You and all white people need to get over the sense of entitlement and hurt feelings when people call us out.
Listen to black people. All black people.
Now, without denigrating black opinion can you just answer the questions directly and honestly?
Do you recognize the vast majority of black people say that the police system is not working for them, that they don't trust police?
First, listen to black people. Then, answer the question.
Speaking of the data, what does the data say about outcomes of children raised by:
Intact nuclear families (Both father/step and mother/step present in the home)? Parents both employed? Parents both not abusing substances? Graduate from high school?
1. Not at all, the race of those polled shouldn't be an issue. 2. Ahh, the move the goal posts. You were clear that the polling you were referring to were about feelings of "trust", not about actual instances.
My point remains, that polls about intangible, unmeasurable, subjective things don't 100% represent reality.
But, you've chosen to ignore what I actually said and argue against something you made up. You used to call making up shit about people slander, now it's your go to.Listen to data. Listen to black people. They are the experts on what is happening to them, after all.
"Listen to data. Listen to black people. They are the experts on what is happening to them, after all."
Really, you're going to claim that "black people" are perfect? That Oprah is an expert on Jean Pierre in Port Au Prince or Jamar in AL simply because they share the same skin color? What a shallow, simplistic, dehumanizing way to submerge the value of the individual in the amorphous mass of the group.
Of course, I have to repeat because you're either obtuse, blind, or stupid, that I have/do.
"You and all white people need to get over the sense of entitlement and hurt feelings when people call us out."
Please continue to pass judgement on me based 100% on the color of my skin.
"Listen to black people. All black people."
Stop repeating this pointless bullshit.
"Now, without denigrating black opinion can you just answer the questions directly and honestly?"
Wow, disagreement is now denigration.
"Do you recognize the vast majority of black people say that the police system is not working for them, that they don't trust police?"
I realize that "they" are saying that. Just because people are "saying" something doesn't mean that they are accurately representing reality. Even if they are accurately representing their personal reality, it doesn't automatically mean that their reality in normative.
"First, listen to black people. Then, answer the question."
Again, with the stupid mantra, and the double standard.
We see stats that 90%+ of black people are victimized by other black people. Are your suggesting that the police arresting black A for shooting black B, justifies the mistrust of the police by the family members of black B?
It's interesting that all the "data" you've based your arguments on is "subjective". It's subjective in that things like trust, are not always based on objective things.
Is it possible that a person's trust in the police might be influenced by the people they talk to, the media they consume, and by inaccurate information?
If someone's trust in the police is based 100% on a narrative that has been demonstrated to be false, do those feelings of distrust accurately reflect reality?
We have data that shows that the MPLS city government has tolerated and enabled the 3rd precinct to systematically engage in corrupt behavior for years. Is it reasonable for a resident of the 1st precinct to base their feelings of trust based 100% on the data for the 3rd precinct?
What data is more important, objective or subjective?
We heard a while back that Chauvin and Floyd both worked at the same nightclub, but that no one could definitively put them together or documented any interaction.
As of this morning we are seeing reports that they two had some sort of beef at this club.
So, since we have absolutely zero hard data that proves that Chauvin killed Floyd due to his race, what happens to this narrative if we find out that the killing was motivated solely because of a disagreement at work, and not because of race in any way?
What happens if the objective evidence demonstrates that the narrative about the Floyd killing was wrong?
Obviously this isn't to deny or minimize the history of corruption and abuse in the MPLS police department, simply to point out that it's possible that feelings (and trust is a feeling) and narratives might be based on a false premise, which might call into question the validity of those feelings as a barometer of reality.
I have no problem with looking at how policing is done and in being creative, out of the box, and a little radical when assessing options.
What I have a problem with is people who throw out these crazy terms, "police free", dismantle", disband" to try to get political points, when they really don't mean what they've said.
I have a problem with people that have to spend their time trying to walk back or explain why "police free" doesn't really mean "police free", but might mean X,Y, or Z.
If someone wants to actually start throwing out ideas for what things will look like, then I'll take that seriously.
For example, It's been suggested that we not send cops out for mental health calls, which seems to make sense. I see some concerns about this vague idea that should be addressed before implementation, but this is a reasonable proposal.
Dan, this is not the place to get down in the weeds about this one specific idea. It's an example, not a discussion starter. If you try to divert this into a discussion of the details of this specific example, I will not be responding.
Interesting that you won't answer simple direct questions and yet you think I'm not answering yours.
Do you acknowledge the poll after poll shows that some two-thirds, maybe more, of black people do not trust the police do not feel well served by the police?
Don't tell me, "well maybe the poll is flawed." Don't tell me, "Well, maybe black people are foolish to think that they can't trust the police or are not well served by the police."
Just answer the question.
That's the most of your questions, they are self-evident in the answers are clear. Is it better to graduate from high school? Yes. Of course. Who's going to say no? Are intact Healthy Families better then single parents raising children without support? Yes. Of course. It's a stupid question. On the other hand, is a divorce preferable to living in an abusive home? Yes, of course. Marriage relations are complex.
Is it better for both parents in the family to be employed? It really depends on the family, doesn't it? Of course.
Are the answers to these questions somehow hard for you to predict? They're simple little questions with obvious answers.
I could go on, but I'll wait for you to answer the question put to you.
Do you recognize that two-thirds or more of black people do not trust the police for reasons that they think are valid?
Listen to black people. Have the decency to respond to their very real concerns and not just ignore them as if they were children that you could put off or send to their room.
As to why some people would use the term, police free communities, you would know why people are doing THAT IF YOU LISTENED TO BLACK PEOPLE. That this is a puzzle or mystery to you indicates that you are not listening to black people. That is why I keep suggesting you do just that.
"As to why some people would use the term, police free communities, you would know why people are doing THAT IF YOU LISTENED TO BLACK PEOPLE. That this is a puzzle or mystery to you indicates that you are not listening to black people. That is why I keep suggesting you do just that."
Bullshit. The specific use of the term that most concerns me is from a person who is actually in a position to enforce her will on others. So, pardon me if I'm more concerned with how people in actual power are using the term and what they mean (regardless of their skin color or ethnicity), than with some random black person that you've "heard".
Of course this dodge still doesn't address the foolishness of using the term "police free" when you clearly don't actually mean "police free".
Good lord, are you so obtuse that you can't recognize the difference between an elected official using the term, and some random person?
"Interesting that you won't answer simple direct questions and yet you think I'm not answering yours."
No, what's interesting is that I demonstrably DID answer your question, while you demonstrably DID NOT answer any of mine. Life must be nice in your little fantasy utopia.
"Do you acknowledge the poll after poll shows that some two-thirds, maybe more, of black people do not trust the police do not feel well served by the police?"
I acknowledge that such polls exist. Which is not the same as acknowledging that they actually represent the reality of police interactions of "black people"?
"Don't tell me, "well maybe the poll is flawed." Don't tell me, "Well, maybe black people are foolish to think that they can't trust the police or are not well served by the police.""
Why? Are you really suggesting that significant changes to public policy be based on flawed polls that measure subjective opinion? Of course, I actually said neither of these things to you. Any excuse to distort and twist.
"Just answer the question."
Done twice now. I'd suggest that you stop making demands of me, and apply them to yourself, but your double standard won't let you.
"That's the most of your questions, they are self-evident in the answers are clear. Is it better to graduate from high school? Yes. Of course. Who's going to say no? Are intact Healthy Families better then single parents raising children without support? Yes. Of course. It's a stupid question. On the other hand, is a divorce preferable to living in an abusive home? Yes, of course. Marriage relations are complex."
Perhaps if you'd care to actually answer the questions as asked, instead of answering the questions you WANT to answer. It's this flexible approach to data that gets you in trouble.
"Is it better for both parents in the family to be employed? It really depends on the family, doesn't it? Of course."
I didn't ask for your hunch, I asked what the data says.
"Are the answers to these questions somehow hard for you to predict? They're simple little questions with obvious answers."
I'd point out the demonstrable fact that you're not answering the questions asked, you're making up your own. But it clearly makes no difference.
"I could go on, but I'll wait for you to answer the question put to you."
Since I've now answered them twice, what are you waiting for?
"Do you recognize that two-thirds or more of black people do not trust the police for reasons that they think are valid?"
I recognize that you've made the claim, yet not provided the evidence to back it up. I believe that you've linked to one bit of data. However, I'll grant you the claim, and agree that it's correct. If these polls of people's subjective feelings contradict reality, I fail to see why we should be making policy based on something that contradicts reality. Now, this doesn't mean that those feelings should be ignored or marginalized, it means that the changes need to be approached differently.
"Listen to black people. Have the decency to respond to their very real concerns and not just ignore them as if they were children that you could put off or send to their room."
You keep restating this bullshit as if repetition makes it true, and as if adding more bullshit somehow helps you look less idiotic and obtuse.
The very fact that I've been quoting "black people" should be evidence enough to stop your idiotic mantra. The fact that you continue to chant your mantra to Mystery leads me to believe that you share Joe Biden's view of "black people".
Look, let me explain for you the quite obvious point that you have NOT answered it by providing instances of what real, actual answers look like...
Do you recognize that the vast majority of black people don't trust the police system?
1. Yes, I have seen that it's like 2/3 or maybe more, depending on the poll. Also, it's quite obvious just anecdotally. Anyone who talks to enough black people know that there is a real problem there. NONETHELESS, I think the majority of black people are wrong to not trust the cops and here is why...
or
2. No, I don't recognize the majority of black people oppose the police. I think ALL those polls over the years have been wrong and HERE is the data to support why I think that...
or
3. Yes, I know that most black people have trust issues with police and I even understand how we got there, given the very real history of the oppression of black people at the hands of the police. Further, I don't know as a fact that those concerns are not founded in reality, but here's why I think black people SHOULD trust police...
Like that.
Now, I see that you FINALLY answered the question in a milquetoast manner by saying... "However, I'll grant you the claim and agree that it's correct..."
You GRANT me reality? You'll AGREE that reality is correct? Geez, thanks, pal.
Do you see how such a half-hearted and grudging answer only dragged out of you after many requests (and stated in a way as if to suggest that you're doing me a favor by agreeing to reality) is a very disrespectful way to deal with the very real concerns of the majority of black people, especially given the centuries long real history of oppression by police and other authority figures and in light of multiple instances of abuses by cops?
THIS is why I'm saying Listen to black people. IF you were listening to all black people, you'd know that this is a very real and great concern that they have. You wouldn't fail to understand why people - including legislators who are, WAY too late - are finally stepping up to address the concern in a very serious manner by saying hyperbolic things like "Defund the police!" It's an olive branch to a people who have been oppressed by the authorities for centuries and whose concerns have continued to go ignored year after year after year.
By God, people NEED to speak out. A man was publicly lynched while on film while "training" a bunch of other cops who just sat there! And this is just ONE instance that got publicity because it was caught on tape.
Your milquetoast non-answers are a nod to protecting the system as it exists by downplaying the real concerns of a vast majority of our black citizens. Get angry about public lynching and those who defend such cops, not at those who use terms like "defund the police."
You're getting angry at/worrying about the wrong things.
"Given the historical moment, we’ll begin with our demands pertaining to the Justice System. The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition. We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus. This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police. At an equal level of priority we also demand that the city disallow the operations of ICE in the city of Seattle. In the transitionary period between now and the dismantlement of the Seattle Police Department, we demand that the use of armed force be banned entirely. No guns, no batons, no riot shields, no chemical weapons, especially against those exercising their First Amendment right as Americans to protest. We demand an end to the school-to-prison pipeline and the abolition of youth jails. Get kids out of prison, get cops out of schools. We also demand that the new youth prison being built in Seattle currently be repurposed. We demand that not the City government, nor the State government, but that the Federal government launch a full-scale investigation into past and current cases of police brutality in Seattle and Washington, as well as the re-opening of all closed cases reported to the Office of Police Accountability. In particular, we demand that cases particular to Seattle and Washington be reopened where no justice has been served, namely the cases of Iosia Faletogo, Damarius Butts, Isaiah Obet, Tommy Le, Shaun Fuhr, and Charleena Lyles."
We demand reparations for victims of police brutality, in a form to be determined. We demand that the City of Seattle make the names of officers involved in police brutality a matter of public record. Anonymity should not even be a privilege in public service. We demand a retrial of all People in Color currently serving a prison sentence for violent crime, by a jury of their peers in their community. We demand decriminalization of the acts of protest, and amnesty for protestors generally, but specifically those involved in what has been termed “The George Floyd Rebellion” against the terrorist cell that previously occupied this area known as the Seattle Police Department. This includes the immediate release of all protestors currently being held in prison after the arrests made at 11th and Pine on Sunday night and early Saturday morning June 7th and 8th, and any other protesters arrested in the past two weeks of the uprising, the name Evan Hreha in particular comes to mind who filmed Seattle police macing a young girl and is now in jail. We demand that the City of Seattle and the State Government release any prisoner currently serving time for a marijuana-related offense and expunge the related conviction. We demand the City of Seattle and State Government release any prisoner currently serving time just for resisting arrest if there are no other related charges, and that those convictions should also be expunged.
We demand that prisoners currently serving time be given the full and unrestricted right to vote, and for Washington State to pass legislation specifically breaking from Federal law that prevents felons from being able to vote. We demand an end to prosecutorial immunity for police officers in the time between now and the dissolution of the SPD and extant justice system. We demand the abolition of imprisonment, generally speaking, but especially the abolition of both youth prisons and privately-owned, for-profit prisons. We demand in replacement of the current criminal justice system the creation of restorative/transformative accountability programs as a replacement for imprisonment. We demand autonomy be given to the people to create localized anti-crime systems. We demand that the Seattle Police Department, between now and the time of its abolition in the near future, empty its “lost and found” and return property owned by denizens of the city. We demand justice for those who have been sexually harassed or abused by the Seattle Police Department or prison guards in the state of Washington. We demand that between now and the abolition of the SPD that each and every SPD officer turn on their body cameras, and that the body camera video of all Seattle police should be a matter of easily accessible public record.
We demand that the funding previously used for Seattle Police be redirected into: A) Socialized Health and Medicine for the City of Seattle. B) Free public housing, because housing is a right, not a privilege. C) Public education, to decrease the average class size in city schools and increase teacher salary. D) Naturalization services for immigrants to the United States living here undocumented. (We demand they be called “undocumented” because no person is illegal.) E) General community development. Parks, etc.
"The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition. We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus. This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police. At an equal level of priority we also demand that the city disallow the operations of ICE in the city of Seattle."
I'm going to revisit this one. I'm trying to find any possible way to interpret "beyond reform", "demand abolition", "abolish the Seattle police department...", "this means 100% of funding", can direct a reasonable person to conclude that they mean anything less than what they say.
I'm sure Dan'll figure out a way to sugar coat this and explain it away and tell me to listen to black people. Yet, these are black people who are on the same side of things as he is. I'm confident he'll figure out how to dodge this, just like he's been dodging the question asked in the original post.
The question has been answered and answered. The problem is not that the question hasn't been answered, the problem is you don't understand. You listen but fail to understand.
Good luck with that.
Let me try one more time:
1. FIRST of all, there isn't anything planned out just yet what this might look like. The point is getting rid of the old system in its entirety and replacing it with better systems (systems, plural, probably).
2. The reason why it's not planned out is because this is a relatively new call. In the past, black people were content to listen to promises about rehabilitating the existing system, tweaks and improvements. But time after time, those tweaks have failed the black community, which you'd know if you'd listen to black people.
Do you know now that black people are telling you that the system (and its various reforms) have failed?
3. But as people have begun making this new call for a radical change - a NEW system, not a tweak on a failed system - some ideas are beginning to rise up. Which you'd know if you'd listen to black people.
4. They ARE calling for abolishing the police system as it exists. Which is not the same as saying, "We don't want anyone to be there to help communities with crime..." Do you understand that vital point? You would if you listened to - and understood = what black people are saying.
5. Some of the ideas were ideas that I've already listed. But listen...
"The police abolition movement is a political movement in the United States which advocates replacing existing police forces with OTHER systems of public safety. Police abolitionists believe that policing as a system is inherently flawed and cannot be reformed— a view which distinguishes the ideology from police reformists...
Activist and advocacy groups like Movement 4 Black Lives call for "divest/invest" programs to divert police budgets into programs that have been proven to reduce crime...
~wikipedia
and...
"Defunding law enforcement "means that we are reducing the ability for law enforcement to have resources that harm our communities," Cullors said in an interview with WBUR, Boston's public radio station.
"It's about reinvesting those dollars into black communities, communities that have been deeply divested from."
Those dollars can be put back into social services for mental health, domestic violence and homelessness, among others. Police are often the first responders to all three, she said.
Those dollars can be used to fund schools, hospitals, housing and food in those communities, too --
"all of the things we know increase safety," McHarris said.
What are you not understanding? Are you saying you're afraid that if we don't have a police system like we do now, there'd be no one to come to your house if a violent incident was happening?
They're not saying that.
Read, listen, understand.
And for the record, I haven't taken a position on the Defund Police movement, beyond, I'm listening and supportive of what I hear so far.
"Do you recognize that the vast majority of black people don't trust the police system?"
"1. Yes, I have seen that it's like 2/3 or maybe more, depending on the poll. Also, it's quite obvious just anecdotally. Anyone who talks to enough black people know that there is a real problem there. NONETHELESS, I think the majority of black people are wrong to not trust the cops and here is why..."
or
"2. No, I don't recognize the majority of black people oppose the police. I think ALL those polls over the years have been wrong and HERE is the data to support why I think that..."
or
"3. Yes, I know that most black people have trust issues with police and I even understand how we got there, given the very real history of the oppression of black people at the hands of the police. Further, I don't know as a fact that those concerns are not founded in reality, but here's why I think black people SHOULD trust police..."
The problem that you have here is that you say keep asserting the existence of data that you haven't provided. Further, you choose to ignore my concerns, instead just repeating that you have "reality"
Here's the problem, you moron.
There are 2 issues here.
1. The feelings of trust for the police and how they treat black people.
2. The reality of how police treat black people, and if those feelings are justified.
I've acknowledged 3 times that there are polls that show that black people don't trust police. You can tell this because I wrote it.
But the existence of those polls, based on feelings, do not necessarily prove that those feelings are justified by reality. I can only conclude that you've chosen this route of stupid, obtuseness, as a way to justify your inability to answer numerous questions.
"You GRANT me reality? You'll AGREE that reality is correct? Geez, thanks, pal."
Do you not understand how English works, pal? I'm simply saying that, I'll agree that your premise is true for the sake of this conversation, and save you from providing proof. So, I'd think you'd appreciate being able to avoid proving your claims, I guess I'd be wrong.
The problem that you have here is that you say keep asserting the existence of data that you haven't provided.
Are you truly UNAWARE of the HUGE unpopularity of the police (and Trump and the GOP) with black people?
Again, if you LISTENED to black people, you would know this is reality. If you looked at the data, you'd know this is reality.
Do you TRULY not know this information?
If not, do you not see how that is precisely the problem?
I'll agree that your premise is true for the sake of this conversation, and save you from providing proof.
This is the problem. It is condescending and reflecting an acute ignorance of the greater black community. You're "granting me" the premise "for the sake of the conversation..."??? WHY NOT grant it because it's just the reality of it all.
It's like if I said, "The earth is flat, do you agree?" and you kept hemming and hawing and not answering it directly but eventually saying, "I'll grant you the point for the sake of the conversation..." It's as if you doubt the reality of something that is smack-you-in-the-face obvious and clear, IF you would only listen to black people.
So again, are you suggesting that you are truly unaware of this on the ground reality, as supported by poll after poll after poll, black church after black church after black church, black person after black person after black person (with a few outliers)?
I can provide you links to polls that show the obvious, just as I can provide you a picture of the earth so that you can see it's not flat. I just tend to think that there are some points that are so obvious as to not need support. So, truly, I would like to know: Are you genuinely unaware of this reality, that ~2/3 of black people don't trust the police or otherwise devalue their relevance in their communities?
"Do you see how such a half-hearted and grudging answer only dragged out of you after many requests (and stated in a way as if to suggest that you're doing me a favor by agreeing to reality) is a very disrespectful way to deal with the very real concerns of the majority of black people, especially given the centuries long real history of oppression by police and other authority figures and in light of multiple instances of abuses by cops?"
No, I don't see how answering the same question a third time, and of absolving you of the need to prove your claims is "half hearted and grudging", quite the opposite. The question you seem most afraid of is, "Given the history of multiple instances of abuse by some percentage of cops (ignoring the number of cops shot by black men), is it reasonable for every single black person in the world to distrust the police in every circumstance? You're simply assuming that the data you claim to have, is an accurate representation of police interactions in the real world.
"THIS is why I'm saying Listen to black people. IF you were listening to all black people, you'd know that this is a very real and great concern that they have. You wouldn't fail to understand why people - including legislators who are, WAY too late - are finally stepping up to address the concern in a very serious manner by saying hyperbolic things like "Defund the police!" It's an olive branch to a people who have been oppressed by the authorities for centuries and whose concerns have continued to go ignored year after year after year."
1. YOU DON"T LISTEN TO ALL BLACK PEOPLE! It's a completely stupid thing to demand that someone do, given that it's impossible. 2. I do listen to all sorts of black people, you just need to believe in the falsehood to protect your biased, prejudiced, sacred narrative and to preserve your imagined "moral" superiority. 3. Stop making excuses for people saying stupid things then trying to walk it back for them. 4. I'll note that you cling to the "vague" and " malleable" "defund the police", and ignore the much more specific and harder to explain away comments.
"By God, people NEED to speak out. A man was publicly lynched while on film while "training" a bunch of other cops who just sat there! And this is just ONE instance that got publicity because it was caught on tape."
Yes, you blind fool, they have. They've spoken out by burning, looting, robbing and destroying. they've spoken out by leaving thousands of innocent victims in their wake. But, sure NO ONE is suggesting that ANYONE be prevented from "speaking out". I love how you use the racially loaded term "lynched" to make it seem worse than it was.
Please, show me the incontrovertible proof that Chauvin's actions were racially motivated? I'll wait.
"Your milquetoast non-answers are a nod to protecting the system as it exists by downplaying the real concerns of a vast majority of our black citizens. Get angry about public lynching and those who defend such cops, not at those who use terms like "defund the police.""
How about you stop the hysterical, panties in a wad, making shit up from thin air, slanderous, bullshit? It's literally impossible to have a conversation with someone who has to constantly make up things to argue against, and misstate my points in order to avoid answering questions. I'm currently annoyed with you and your bullshit false claims, load of crap. I've been angry about Floyd's killing since it happened. Asking questions, seeking clarification, and pointing out contradiction and hypocrisy aren't signs of anger, they're signs of trying to understand and engage. That you're unable to accept anything but agreement as "anger" says more about you than about me.
"You're getting angry at/worrying about the wrong things."
You are speaking from a position of either massive ignorance, intentional blindness, or biased prejudice. Embrace grace.
"Listen to black people."
Been doing it for years. People of all sorts of different backgrounds, national origins, and political views. I've learned that they aren't a monolithic, one dimensional, bloc. Maybe you should focus less on trying to cram "black people" into your little box, and more time getting to know individuals. But those types of nuance don't help when you're the inheritor of LBJ's attitude about "black people".
I'd ask you to live up the the standards you demand of others, but it'd be a waste of time.
"Are you truly UNAWARE of the HUGE unpopularity of the police (and Trump and the GOP) with black people?"
I'm aware that you are claiming this. Yet I see evidence to the contrary. It's on you to provide proof of your claims.
"Again, if you LISTENED to black people, you would know this is reality. If you looked at the data, you'd know this is reality."
It's because I listen to "black people" that I question your claims and ask for proof. You do understand the notion of you being responsible for proving the claims you make.
"Do you TRULY not know this information?"
I TRULY haven't seen you prove your claims or answer questions. What I know, or suspect, isn't the issue. It's your inability to prove your claims. I tried to give you a pass on proving your claims, but you were too stupid and lost in your faux superiority to take the offer. I guess that's your mistake.
"If not, do you not see how that is precisely the problem?"
Yes, you asserting unproven claims as reality, and treating "black people" as a one dimensional, monolithic, bloc like LBJ is a problem. It's not the only one, but it's one.
"This is the problem. It is condescending and reflecting an acute ignorance of the greater black community. You're "granting me" the premise "for the sake of the conversation..."??? WHY NOT grant it because it's just the reality of it all."
No,, it's graciously acknowledging that I'm willing to allow you to continue in the absence of proof of your claims. It's a fairly common rhetorical convention, I'm surprised that you are so clueless and choose to gin up faux offense.
"It's like if I said, "The earth is flat, do you agree?" and you kept hemming and hawing and not answering it directly but eventually saying, "I'll grant you the point for the sake of the conversation..." It's as if you doubt the reality of something that is smack-you-in-the-face obvious and clear, IF you would only listen to black people."
No, it's like of you said "A lot of people feel like the earth is flat." and I responded "Well let's compare their feelings to reality." Or it's like you saying "The earth is flat." and me responding "Prove you claim.".
It's as if I don't accept feelings as if they perfectly represented reality. It's as if you think it's unfair to compare feelings to reality.
"So again, are you suggesting that you are truly unaware of this on the ground reality, as supported by poll after poll after poll, black church after black church after black church, black person after black person after black person (with a few outliers)?"
I'm done trying to answer this reworded attempt to ask something I've already answered. If you don't have the ability to prove your claims, then why should I accept them?
"I can provide you links to polls that show the obvious, just as I can provide you a picture of the earth so that you can see it's not flat. I just tend to think that there are some points that are so obvious as to not need support. So, truly, I would like to know: Are you genuinely unaware of this reality, that ~2/3 of black people don't trust the police or otherwise devalue their relevance in their communities?"
I'm going to point out a little demonstrable, undeniable, reality here.
When you comment, I copy/paste your actual words surrounded by quotation marks into my responses. I then go through section by section, responding as answering as appropriate.
When I comment, you misrepresent my comments, ignore my questions, make all sorts of unfounded assumptions, and rarely respond in anywhere near the level of detail as I do.
I won't stop you from intellectually lazy, misrepresentation or false characterization of my comments. I won't stop your from ignoring, hiding from, or making up your own version of my questions. Because, I don't need to. I did want to point it out though.
I TRULY haven't seen you prove your claims or answer questions.
Answer the question that was asked of you, directly and clearly or I'm giving up. It's impossible to have a conversation with someone who doesn't answer questions directly and who makes up false claims constantly and/or just doesn't understand the words that are being said to him constantly.
These conversations could be practical and helpful and lead to some common ground, but we go on for 86... 150... 230 posts where you keep ignoring questions and data and making stupidly false claims or reading stupidly wrong ideas into what I've said. You can do better than this.
How about this:
Covenant that, "in the future, I will answer questions directly and clearly, with as close to a Yes or No as I can and will do so without reading INTO what the other person says, because I constantly get it wrong when I do that..."?
How many LEO have been killed, and by who? How many LEO have been wounded, and by who? How many black people have been killed in Chicago, how many by LEO? How many black people have been shot in Chicago, who shot them. Is it ever appropriate to condemn an entire group of people based on the actions of a few people in that group? What country introduced slavery to North America? What holy person, the leader of a religion, owned slaves?
“These conversations could be practical and helpful and lead to some common ground, but we go on for 86... 150... 230 posts where you keep ignoring questions and data and making stupidly false claims or reading stupidly wrong ideas into what I've said. You can do better than this.
How about this:
Covenant that, "in the future, I will answer questions directly and clearly, with as close to a Yes or No as I can and will do so without reading INTO what the other person says, because I constantly get it wrong when I do that..."?”
Oh, I’m so very sorry. When I posted the last response I hadn’t read this huge pile of self righteous excrement yet.
Literally started your involvement in this thread by NOT answering the question in the original post, and still haven’t.
The hypocrisy and faux, holier than thou, outrage would be funny if you weren’t serious.
My first comment WAS my answer to your question. Should we get rid of police forces? My answer is I think we should listen to Black communities and what they have to say on this issue.
That is my answer. That you don't understand it or don't like it doesn't mean it's not an answer.
My answer is not yes or no. My answer is I think we should listen to, follow the lead of black communities.
They are telling us, when we listen to them, they have systemic problems with the police force as it exists. This is an historic and ongoing problem with our policing. Therefore, my answer, my literal and direct answer to your question is we should listen to Black voices.
I've had ONE primary message through all this and it has been abundantly clear. You've complained about my answer over and over. But that is my answer. So you can't say I have not answered your question. You can't have it both ways. Complain about my answer and say I didn't answer.
I took the time to respond to this, knowing you still probably won't get the point, but just to point out the problem is not that I'm not answering. The problem is that you're not understanding.
You do not understand because you don't listen to me and, more importantly, because you don't listen to black voices. You find a few black voices that tickle your ears and ease your conscience but that's not the same as listening to all black voices.
When you do listen to all black voices, you dismiss their concerns as irrelevant and untrue. You condescend and patronize. And that is why you don't understand. You have to be willing to listen to understand.
And so, my answer remains the same as it has from the very beginning...
Just because I think it will be helpful to others reading here (if there are any others) or Craig, if he ever opens his eyes.
How many LEO killed in 2019? 48.
How many black people killed by police in 2019? ~263
Percentage of killings of black people by police in 2019? 24%
The black percentage of the population? 13%
Black people are 3x more likely to be killed by police than white people (2019), and
black people were 1.3x more likely to be unarmed when killed (2019).
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
What "holy person/leader of a religion" owned slaves? Depending on how you define "leader of a religion," plenty of them. That is, there were plenty of Christians and preachers (leaders of their churches) who owned slaves. Jesus (the true "leader" of christianity) didn't, of course.
"Many southern Christians felt that slavery, in one Baptist minister’s words, “stands as an institution of God.”
And, of course, the Southern Baptist denomination came to be because of their defense of slavery. If you're just wanting one name, how about Baptist preacher, Richard Fuller?
"Fuller argued [as perhaps you and other modern Christians do? I don't know, you won't answer directly ~DT] that slavery, in principle, is not sinful. Undergirding his argument was his abiding conviction that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. The Bible alone has the right to define sin."
And just because I like answering questions, even if my questions go unanswered...
Is it ever appropriate to condemn an entire group of people based on the actions of a few people in that group?
No. HOWEVER, if a few people in a group (white conservatives, for instance) engage in awful, oppressive behavior (a racist attack, for instance or sexual assaulting women and boasting and laughing about it) and the larger group they're a part of ignore or downplay the harmful atrocities... or even elect that person to high office KNOWING that they boasted and laughed about sexual assault, it is appropriate to hold the larger group accountable for THEIR failure to call out the harmful behavior of the one or few from their group that did the bad deeds.
It's why conservatives have lost all moral high ground (if they ever had any) when they knowingly elected a perverted liar and cheater to the presidency.
Do you disagree?
What country introduced slavery to North America?
I don't know. I think I've read it was the Spanish and/or Portuguese who first brought slaves to the Americas.Or maybe the British.
Thank you for admitting, proudly admitting, that you didn’t answer the first question that you were asked, That you answered a question with a question.
It’s a really idiotically, childish look to bitch and while when you’ve done exactly the same thing you bitch about?
Of course your non answer makes no sense. Your hunch that “black people” should have unilateral say on things that affect everyone, is absurd.
Again, thanks for so openly acknowledging your hypocrisy. That’s the difference between us, you demand that I answer questions exactly the way you want them answered. I’ll let you make yourself look stupid for non sequiter responses if that makes you happy.
Craig... "that you didn't answer the first question... that you answered a question with a question..."
Dan's FIRST comment and answer to Craig's question:
Craig: Can we agree that completely eliminating all police is not a good idea?
Dan: Listen to black people and learn about systemic racism inherent in our policing policies...
That's not a question. It's a direct answer. Can we agree that eliminating all police is not a good idea? MY DIRECT ANSWER is "Listen to black people." If they land on "let's 'eliminate all police...,'" then I don't think we can say it's not a good idea. It's an idea worth considering because they are the experts about what is happening in their communities.
That's NOT answering a question with a question. it's directly answering a question with a reasonable answer that isn't yes or no, but is still a direct answer.
Here's a reasoned response to your questions from Marc Morial, former mayor of New Orleans and Urban League president. He explains what you appear to find a complete impossible-to-solve mystery... beginning with explaining the very obvious point that "Defund the Police" is a bumper sticker slogan, not the complete plan. It means cutting back on militarized policing model and investing in other alternative models that make good sense and save money to boot.
As Dan whines about you not answering his questions, while not answering Craig's, it can't be overlooked that Dan insists on his "facts" being recognized. And what "fact" would that be? That "poll after poll after poll" shows that two-thirds of blacks don't trust the police. (BTW, two-thirds is not a "vast majority". It's TWO-THIRDS.)
But that's not a fact worth putting forth when seeking to resolve issues and problems within the black community. It's not worth it because, as Craig rightly observes, it's subjective opinion. But OK. Dan is enamored with this "fact" that most blacks don't trust the police. Full stop. No need to go further. Let's just set policy based on this mistrust of the police force by most blacks, because THAT'S going to lead to intelligent improvements.
Nonsense. It will lead to equally fallacious alterations that won't address the real problems. The reason is because while it may be a fact that most black distrust the cops (I have no reason to dispute it, nor do I think it's any more helpful to do so than it is for Dan to state it in the first place), there's no attempt to address why that is or if there's a real reason to justify the opinion.
Here's the problem. ALL people are motivated by emotion. But some people use that only to compel them to look more deeply. Dan and his ilk don't. BLM and their sheep don't. They satisfy themselves with the emotional response and never do squat to determine if the emotional response is a valid one given the facts. In this case, that's most certainly not the case. The emotional response is NOT valid because there are no facts that support that response. Blacks mistrust police. Why? Their answers are not facts, but more subjective perceptions based on the anecdotal.
And how they rejoice at having the Laquan McDonald's and George Floyd's that appear to actually involve what seems clear are truly bad cops! Oh, how they celebrate these abuses for giving the narrative validity, when it still fails to truly do that. No one, and I mean NO ONE, insists cops are perfect, that no bad cops, even racist cops, exist. But to pretend there is some "systemic" racism within law enforcement is a blatant lie and people like Dan don't have testicle one to question the assertion made by race-hustlers and others who are more concerned with perpetuating that narrative, then they are looking at each case on its own merits to honestly say, "OK, this one is the brother's fault, totally, while this one...this Office Van Dyke and Officer Chauvin are total assholes". No. To the race-hustlers and to the sheep like the pseudo-sanctimonious Dan Trabue, white people are evil racist people.
Listen to black people? Not the black people to whom Dan wants me to listen. Hell, no. It's too serious to listen to those who aren't serious enough to be honest with themselves about why their lives suck. It's too serious to listen to those who don't care about facts and data and how their perceptions don't stack up against them. And it's far too serious to listen the likes of a Dan Trabue, the specific type of white liberal asshat about whom Malcolm X warned against.
You know what black voices might bring a unique and interesting perspective to this conversation?
The East African immigrants who fled countries were lack of civil authority and lawlessness were the norm. I wonder what they think of the possibility of eliminating the police?
Wow! While typing out my last, Craig published more that just astounds in its hypocrisy, arrogance and condescension...always charming when a complete moron like Dan feels he's justified in doing so.
"My first comment WAS my answer to your question. Should we get rid of police forces? My answer is I think we should listen to Black communities and what they have to say on this issue."
Dan would NOT...EVER...accept this answer if he was the one asking the question. NOT EVER!!! That lying sack would whine about how the question wasn't answered, and he's right in doing so for any situation where a direct question of his is answered in such a way. So let's review: Craig's question was to pry out Dan's answer to a specific question, which was, should we get rid of police forces? Dan ABSOLUTELY chose to ignore the question. The question was NOT, "should we listen to black communities and what they have to say on the issue of ridding ourselves of police forces?" If Craig wanted to know if you think we should do that, he would have asked you, you pathetic cowardly liar! But he was interested in YOUR opinion on closing police forces. JEEZ, you're a freakin lying hypocrite.
"My answer is not yes or no."
But it was a yes/no question. You don't get to ignore the question in favor to repeat your idiotic falsehood-based mantra, and then whine that Craig isn't answering questions, you putz!
"I've had ONE primary message through all this and it has been abundantly..." BULLSHIT! It has been based on perceptions for which no hard data has been provided to so much as hint that it might be true...because none exists.
"Listen. To. Black. Voices."
We. Have. Been. for years and years and the black voices you insist should get such rapt attention are false, whether intentionally (as some are) or not (as too many are). We prefer black voices that deal in fact and reality. You don't.
While researching death tolls in 2019, I came upon these stats:
9/11 related cancer 24
Accidental 1
Assault 3
Automobile crash 22
Drowned 1
Duty related illness 2
Explosion 1
Gunfire 48
Gunfire (Inadvertent) 2
Heart attack 19
Motorcycle crash 1
Struck by vehicle 14
Training accident 1
Vehicle pursuit 1
Vehicular assault 7
Notice that Dan only has those who died by gunfire (48) and compares that to the number of blacks killed by police (263). What about the 7 killed by vehicular assault? We can't count that because the weapon was a car? What about the 1 killed during a vehicle pursuit? Are we to write it off as probably not the result of chasing a law-breaker? Let's just count the first of the two, and now the toll is 55 cops killed by criminals.
Now let's move on. 19 heart attacks. How many of these were the result of chasing down or in other ways confronting a criminal? We're ready to accuse cops of causing a man's death because of a choke hold when his heart was likely the reason (Eric Garner) he died. So we have to give the same benefit of the doubt to cops who have heart attacks while on duty. Let's cut it in half...call it 9, and now we're up to 64 dead cops. There's 3 who died by assault...67 dead. 24 by cancer related to 9/11...a criminal act if ever there was one. That makes 88 killed by criminals or people acting in a criminal manner.
And who are these 263 dead black people? The vast majority were those killed in the commission of a crime, or during an apprehension for suspicion of having committed a crime, with a small percentage of those wrongly having been suspected of having committed a crime. 263 black people most of whom would still be alive if they were law-abiding, versus 88 cops who would still be alive if they were not doing their jobs confronting law-breakers. I would suspect that there will always be fewer cops killed by blacks than the other way around. The following has more details about the 48:
And of course, as Dan lists his stats, he tries to assert there is some evidence of bias without acknowledging one important fact, which that blacks are disproportionately responsible for half the violent crime in this country. Despite that, they are about equal in number to whites with regard being killed by cops while unarmed (1.3 x as many is statistically insignificant). Being 3 times as likely to be shot by cops while being responsible for more crime won't draw any tears from honest people. And here's where Dan's hypocrisy shines again:
"No. HOWEVER, if a few people in a group (white conservatives, for instance) engage in awful, oppressive behavior (a racist attack, for instance or sexual assaulting women and boasting and laughing about it) and the larger group they're a part of ignore or downplay the harmful atrocities... or even elect that person to high office KNOWING that they boasted and laughed about sexual assault, it is appropriate to hold the larger group accountable for THEIR failure to call out the harmful behavior of the one or few from their group that did the bad deeds."
If there's any group ignoring or downplaying ACTUAL atrocities, it's the black community, as they continue to suffer FAR, FAR more at the hands of their own people than they do by cops of any color or white people in general. The stats bear this out as well, yet they choose to focus on the myth of "systemic racism", racist cops and other nonsense, none of which either happens at all or happens with far, far less frequency than suits the narrative.
So when will we see Dan or the race-hustling BLMers into whose butts his nose is firmly planted hold the black community accountable for their failures in calling out the deadly behaviors of those among? As stats show, it's far more prevalent and ongoing than what the narrative wants us to believe, and what Dan is so willing to believe without evidence. The greatest threat to the black community is the black community itself. Thank God some of them are finally waking up to that truth. Dan would have them go back to sleep. He would have the rest of us ignore the facts and concentrate on the false perceptions of two-thirds of the black population.
"I've had ONE primary message through all this and it has been abundantly clear. You've complained about my answer over and over. But that is my answer. So you can't say I have not answered your question. You can't have it both ways. Complain about my answer and say I didn't answer."
!. It wasn't and isn't an answer to the question as asked. 2. In the context of the question as asked, it's an absurd answer. 3. If you are going to "answer" my question with an answer that isn't related to the question as asked, and you're going to bitch and whine about my response, then you have no basis to bitch and whine about my much more direct and relevant answers that you don't like. "You can't have it both ways." Even though you try very hard to have it both ways.
"I took the time to respond to this, knowing you still probably won't get the point, but just to point out the problem is not that I'm not answering. The problem is that you're not understanding."
OHHHHHH, thank you so much. You"took the time" to respond to one thing I've asked. You have no idea how honored I am.
"You do not understand because you don't listen to me and, more importantly, because you don't listen to black voices. You find a few black voices that tickle your ears and ease your conscience but that's not the same as listening to all black voices."
If I didn't understand, it's because your "answer" was totally unrelated to the question as asked, and because you chose to be vague.". You keep making this bullshit claim about the "black voices" that you've imagined I listen to. I've repeatedly pointed out that this is a false claim, and that you have absolutely zero proof. So, put up or shut up. Prove you claim, or stop making it.
"When you do listen to all black voices, you dismiss their concerns as irrelevant and untrue. You condescend and patronize. And that is why you don't understand. You have to be willing to listen to understand."
Again, more falsehoods, lies, and slander. All unproven bullshit. Thank you for revealing your true character as someone who revels in telling lies, constructing straw men, and hiding from questions and dialogue.
Craig... "!. It wasn't and isn't an answer to the question as asked. 2. In the context of the question as asked, it's an absurd answer."
1. It literally IS a direct answer to the question you asked. It is literally my answer to that question. My answer is not yes we should agree that eliminating police is a good idea am I answer is not know we do not agree that eliminating police is a good idea.
My answer to that question is let's listen to what black people have to say and follow their lead. You can't just say that's not an answer to the question when it is very literally my answer to the question. That's just the stupidly false claim.
2. You're saying it's absurd to consider listening to black people on this question? Because if that's what you're saying, do you know how racist that makes you sound?
How about this, why don't you give a rational, calm, reasonable explanation of why listening to what black people are saying and following their lead is an absurd idea to consider when considering police force?
Your problem, I think you will find, is that you trying to answer that question will only expose some racism on your part. But maybe I'm mistaken. Give it a shot. Why is listening to black people on the question of policing an absurd idea?
Again, I see that you picked, chose, and reworded my questions in order to answer your own questions, not the questions I asked. (for the most part)
"Why do you ask?"
Because I wanted to see you dodge and obfuscate.
"And just because I like answering questions, even if my questions go unanswered..."
Apparently you also like lying. It's possible that I missed one or two, but that's nothing compared to your wholesale avoidance, and rewording questions to suit your agenda.
"No. HOWEVER,..."
Which translates to, "Yes, as long as we (Dan and my multitudes on hidden minions), can devise a scenario where it helps up politically or to advance a narrative.
Hey, you actually answered the question as asked, a first. It was a convoluted, bullshit, and ultimately contradictory answer, but an answer nonetheless.
"Do you disagree?"
I agree with the first word of your answer, No. I think it's absolutely idiotic to try to blame, condemn, or punish and entire group of people for the actions of a small percentage of people who "belong" to that group. The primary reason it's wrong is that it shits all over the concept that people are only responsible for their actions, and that you can assign responsibility for one person's action to another totally innocent person. I hope that you remember both your answer "No" and your self serving exception in the future. I'll be certain to remind you when you the next time you engage in this behavior. PS, I think it's exactly as your LBJ bullshit of treating "black people" as a monolithic, one dimensional voting bloc who "aren't black" if they don't mindlessly vote DFL.
"I don't know. I think I've read it was the Spanish and/or Portuguese who first brought slaves to the Americas.Or maybe the British."
"Why do you ask?"
I ask because...
1. I wanted to see if you actually knew history. 2. Had I asked "What European country", your guesses would have been correct. Unfortunately, slavery existed in North, Central, and South America long before the Europeans showed up. 3. If it's correct that Great Britain (more accurate answer), Spain, and France introduced slavery and all it's attendant evils to North America, why aren't y'all protesting and rioting against them? They had it established over 200 years before the US was a thing.
Given the fact that it's obviously a waste of time to parse Dan's responses as thoroughly as I have been, I'll just hit a few "high points" from now on.
"Understand now?"
Of course, I asked a question specifically about if it was a "good idea to eliminate all police".
Your "answer" didn't bear any connection to the question. I understand that your very self image is tied up in convincing yourself that your meandering, convoluted, "answer" was the best answer ever. I understand that it's hard on the self image and a dent to the old pride, but just admitting that you could have done a better job justifying eliminating all police, might be the place to start.
""Defund the Police" is a bumper sticker slogan, not the complete plan. It means cutting back on militarized policing model and investing in other alternative models that make good sense and save money to boot."
1. You still cling to the most benign of the cries, and ignore the rest. It's almost like you're scared to acknowledge what folks on your side are actually saying.
2. That's been my problem all along. That not only is it not a "complete plan", that it's not even a preliminary plan. He's right, it's a damn bumper sticker slogan" or a bullshit hashtag so a bunch of white liberal millenials can tweet about it and think they're big SJW's. had you read and paid attention, you'd have know this already.
3. I'll give you this. You're tenaciously clinging to "defund", with your eyes closed, and your fingers in your ears hiding from what else is being said.
4. "The point is getting rid of the old system in its entirety", whoops you got a little too honest there, pal. "It means cutting back on militarized policing model and investing in other alternative models that make good sense and save money to boot.". Both of those direct quotes of Dan, booth contradict each other.
"Per the norm, I never said this, didn't hint at it and don't believe it."
Let's review.
Craig's question "Can we agree that completely eliminating all police is not a good idea?"
Dan's response "Listen to black people and learn about systemic racism inherent in our policing policies..."
The logical conclusion is if we "listen to black people" say get rid of the police entirely, then it's allowing "black people" to have unilateral or disproportionate control over an issue that affects everyone. Why ignore "brown people" or "red and yellow people"?
Because "Listen to black people" is just one more slogan that means anything, everything, and nothing.
"But don't let that stop you. Make up false claims like a Trump fanboy. It's in keeping with the modern evangelical model."
This is an impressive example of telling a bald faced lie, to try to accuse me of "false claims". I've pointed out that criticizing people for behavior you frequently engage in just makes you look stupid, hypocritical, and unchristian.
"Facts and truths don't matter. it's okay to make false claims, even stupidly false ones.""
Given the frequency of you doing so, I can only assume that these are your words to live by.
"How about this, why don't you give a rational, calm, reasonable explanation of why listening to what black people are saying and following their lead is an absurd idea to consider when considering police force?"
This is the kind of thing you get when you base everything you believe about a particular topic on a foundation of lies.
I don't believe it's absurd to listen to "black people" as we discuss what is necessary to improve our LE system. I believe it's absurd to simply repeat "listen to black people" as if it's a coherent answer for everything. I actually said, in a comment you ignored, that our local East African immigrant community might have a unique voice to add to this conversation. Especially given my conversations with members of that community who fled to the US because the places they lived had no LE.
Your problem is that you've ignored 90% of what I've actually said about the topic, and twisted the rest into a straw man stuffed with lies and misrepresentations. You've spent so much time attacking your straw men that you've dug yourself into a position that you can't reverse without losing face and damaging your pride.
You've based virtually everything you've created in this thread on the fiction that you've created, that I don't listen to "black people". It's interesting that you have this contradictory meme going that I "don't listen to black people" while acknowledging that I do "listen to black people". You just don't like what some of the black people I listen to say, so you simply chant your mantra (as you worship Mystery), and ignore what I actually say.
So, I'll try to be so clear that either you will understand, or that your imaginary twisting of my words will be painfully obvious.
I do listen to black people, frequently. I don't treat black people as a one dimensional, monolithic, voting bloc. like Biden and LBJ. I listen to African American black people, and I hear varying opinions and convictions I listen to African Immigrants, and I hear different things that from African Americans I listen to Haitians, and hear something different (Like the fact that American black people don't have it so bad) I also listen to brown people (I'm following your lead by referring to people by their skin color, I'm not trying to be inappropriate) and I hear some similar things and some different things. We have a pretty vocal native American community (I'll only follow your skin color example so far), again they have something different to say I listen to our Asian (again not following you) community and their concerns. Especially those who've come from countries where they experienced lack of LE protection.
I could go on, but the point is partially made. "Listen to black people" is simply an absurd mantra that adds nothing to the conversation. Except perhaps an adherence to the LBJ/Biden view of "black people" as nothing more than a one dimensional, monolithic voting bloc who owe some sort of allegiance to the DFL. The only thing stupider is the impossible "listen to ALL black people".
So, yes I listen to all sorts of black people, and others as well.
One hard part right now is the fact that there are so many progressive, white liberals, who are in such a rush to be more "woke" and "down with the struggle", who are shouting so loudly about "listening to black voices" that they drown out the actual black voices. I'm much more likely to ignore Dan and his ilk demanding that I do things they don't and trying to tell me what the "right" answers are, than I am to ignore the relatively quiet voice of John Perkins sitting at my dining room table. But somehow the WL's don't get that, and keep shouting. Is it crazy to think that I might want to hear what actual black people say, than to Dan telling me what they really mean?
This got longer than I thought, so I'll try to summarize.
George Floyd (and all the others that have died in the riots) should be alive today.
The four cops who killed Floyd should be tried and punished.
The killers of the LEO who died in the riots shoudl also be tried and punished.
The looters, rioters, bank robbers, and arsonists, should be arrested, tried and punished.
The thousands of people (of all ethnicities) who donated time, supplies, food, clothing, millions of dollars, and anything else to care for the innocent victims should be celebrated.
The MPD should be completely revamped. . The police union should be dissolved.
The 40+ years of mayors, city councilmen and women, county commissioners, state legislators, governors, and LEO who stood by and watched, protected, enabled, and furthered the corruption in the MPD bear more responsibility than the corrupt cops.
As MPLS moves forward, every voice with something relevant to say regarding the direction of LE in the future should be listened to.
This conversation shouldn't exclude anyone simply because someone decides that they don't have the right skin color.
There is a lot of this that applies to the larger conversation, but I'm trying to focus on the local piece because that's where I have the most knowledge and connection. This means that If I didn't mention something outside the local conversation, it's not an indication that I think that whatever is evil.
Dan,
There you go, twist away and turn my words into straw men for you to attack. You're welcome to reword or otherwise turn my questions into whatever you'd like in order to advance your narrative and save your pride.
Art.
I'll get to your comments later. Cleaning up Dan's huge pile of bovine excretia has been plenty for today.
Take your time. In the meantime, you did a good job with the poop.
One small caveat that likely needn't be said (but there are those who need clarification whether they want it or not) regards those who should be tried. They should be punished only if found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law.
I agree that they should only punished after being found guilty. I assumed that I was all about the legal process, but given the situation I probably should have spelled it out with small words.
If listening to black voices is a good thing, and if listening to black voices that might be on a different section of the political spectrum is good, would that make a gay black voice darn near the voice of God, wouldn’t it?
one of the major problems of listening to the black voices Dan finds so enchanting, is that the problems they believe are uniaue to them are actually experienced by others who are in similar situations yet aren't black. Thomas Sowell, I believe it was, pointed to low income whites in Britain with identical complaints about their living conditions and prospects while making all the same bad choices while eligible for the same types of government handouts. I imagine it would be harder to attribute their situation to racism.
Rather than defund the cops...whatever the hell that's supposed to mean from one day to the next...,they should be elevating the standards under which one is to be sworn in. That's what departments should be doing...always looking for the best, and not worrying about quotas and diversity, none of which has any real value in law enforcement.
From the publics side of the equation, ALWAYS OBEY THE LAW!!! There's far less possibility of finding one's neck under a cop's knee if one abides the law. Pretty freakin simple stuff even a progressive should understand.
Impressive Dan, you found a 15 minute video of a white guy lecturing everyone on racism with a 45-60 second clip of a black woman.
The fact that you think this helps indicates that you haven’t paid attention to what I’ve actually said.
I’ll point out that virtually everything she mentioned are things that are virtually never funded, or even primarily funded by city government. What you’ve done is to cherry pick “defund the police”, to the exclusion of all of the other slogans being thrown out, and cherry picked one black voice that agrees with your hunch. Well done.
Of course you’ve always been great at arguing against straw men, and sticking to a false narrative no matter what.
Just for grins, it’s be interesting to take a look at Meyers show staff. Look at how many blacks/whites work there. What kind of jobs/salaries each group has and are paid.
But, in general, rich white guys lecturing people on racism, might not be the best way to listen to black voices. Of course, looking to comedy shows for hard news is usually not a great strategy either.
But thank for ignoring multiple comments to post that. I can see how committed you are to paying attention and understanding.
Anyone who thinks Seth Meyers is a viable source of info has to be...well...Dan Trabue. When I look at MY city government (actually Chicago, where I wouldn't actually live if you paid me) or even my state government, we find so much money spent on public pensions and very little on much of anything else. That's only a bit of an exaggeration. But there is one town (if not more, but a local radio host was doing a series on Illinois taxes and allocation) that was spending 80% of its tax revenues on things like pensions, and all other city services came out of the remaining 20% (fixing streets and the like). And while idiots tax the crap out of their citizens to pay for the next new program that will be worthless and poorly managed, more people leave for better states that won't take, take, take without using that money to pay down debt. Federally, there is no Constitutional authority to be a welfare organization. On the state level, I'd be surprised to see a state constitution that authorizes such misappropriation of the citizens' money for that, either. Far better, as always, is for every level of government to do as little as possible beyond their enumerated duties. When the private sector isn't overburdened by "do-gooders", everybody thrives.
And when people obey the law, fewer cops are necessary.
I know that many of you have been trying to find ways to have a positive impact in shifting the racial dynamics within our city and helping to end police violence and oppression. Although far too many white women are still sitting on the sidelines twiddling their thumbs, some of you are showing up and using your power and privilege to effect change.
First, let me say thank you to those who are rolling up your sleeves, putting some skin in the game, and demanding justice. Second, it is not enough for white women to read books about racism, host book club meetings, hold discussions about racism ad nauseum, etc. Third, it is important to use your privilege and power to challenge power, although it may be uncomfortable for you to do so.
I am calling on you to step up because I am sick and tired of the “political gaslighting” as Desralynn Cole called it, that we have been facing at the hands of many Minneapolis city council members. In particular, I hold Lisa Bender accountable for the additional stress and anxiety that many of us have endured these last few days. As city council President, Lisa Bender has gone from one extreme to the next in focusing on bike lanes, etc. geared towards white people in this city, to now claiming that she would disband Minneapolis Police, to backtracking on national television. It is particularly frustrating to see that Lisa has been on city council for over six years and has not made police reform or overhauling the system a serious priority, despite having gone out to the 4th Precinct protests after Jamar Clark was killed and even doing media interviews about it. The plight of Black people in this city has never been a priority for Lisa Bender, and now our pain is being used as a political tool to deflect attention from her own inaction on these issues, along with the rest of city council. When I saw Lisa at George Floyd’s Memorial service, it made me sick to my stomach, given that she has done nothing significant to address these issues.
I have posted a link to Lisa’s city council page so you all can see for yourselves that not a single thing that she lists as her priorities or accomplishments is connected to police reform. (She lists her support for repealing spitting and lurking ordinances in 2015, but we drove that change as a community.) Under her leadership, the city council has shown their disregard for Black lives in part, by awarding Justine Damond’s family a whopping $20 million, while awarding the families of Jamar Clark and Terrance Franklin less than $1 million combined! SMDH
White women, I am calling on you to hold your fellow white woman, Lisa Bender, accountable for her lack of leadership on policing issues and for the political gaslighting that she is helping to lead in a time of crisis. Beyond that, Lisa has not reached out to the multi-generational Black leadership to hear our voices, our concerns, and what our community needs to heal and move forward.
If you want to use your power and privilege to challenge power, please call and/or email Lisa Bender and hold her accountable. Here is the phone number to her office: 612-673-2210 and her email: lisa.bender@minneapolismn.gov. Thank you for listening and for your support. #TheTimeIsNow #EnoughIsEnough #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs #NoMoreWhiteWomenViolence
See also Bike Lanes or Black Lives by Toussaint Morrison: https://youtu.be/_NXHZDwSM2c
Nakima Levy Armstrong
BVMLTT
Finally someone in the local black community willing to spread the accountability beyond the MPD. Unfortunately I suspect that whoever she backs will not be real change, just more of the last 40+ years.
“Systemic racism assumes racism even if individual racists are not involved. If you’re using examples of individual racism to prove systemic racism, then you’ve failed to understand what systemic racism is.”
“If we're going to do this; Asian Americans should march on every building, road, school, and bridge named after FDR. (And Jews should probably be marching with them.) Also we should rename everything with Wilson's name on it to "Harding" -- also a bunch of other buildings, because he was our greatest president not named Washington or Lincoln.“
The Greeks, whose civilisation has long been admired in the West, believed that in the Ancient World, a cultured society was only possible if it was based on slavery
So should we be getting rid of statues of Socrates and Aristotle ?”
Rich white leftist comedian, but interesting point.
“When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear. People with careers as ethnic leaders usually tell their followers what they want to hear.”
Of course, despite the wisdom of the black voices you present here, the truth is that only certain black voices are worthy of attention in the twisted minds of our opponents, regardless of their insistence that such isn't true.
132 comments:
It's difficult to describe the depths of stupidity from which this proposal is drawn. Was this from a black voice? Regardless, is this a voice worth giving attention? Clearly not. It's to be mocked and then roundly dismissed. Disbanding a police force is NOT a valid part of a reform strategy.
And they bristle when folks agree with Michael Savage when he says, "liberalism is a mental disease"!
I'm not sure we can. One of the primary calls from Black Lives Matter.org is to defund the police.
Art,
There is a movement here to replace the police with "trained" community activists of some such. One argument I've heard that I don't disagree with is that the police should have more education and training to deal with the situations they face now as opposed to 20 years ago. Yet, there are serious "proposals" to replace the police with people with even less training. I do think that the entire MPLS government bears the responsibility for allowing the police department to rot as it apparently has, as well as for allowing the police union so much power in protecting it's officers. Virtually everything about Chauvin's 18 complaints is sealed, and the city agreed to this when they negotiated the police contract. If they clean out the MPD, the shouldn't let the rest of the city leaders get a free pass.
Stan,
I'd agree. But from what we've seen here, the protesters don't seem too concerned with the innocents that are part of their collateral damage. Of course, if they get rid of the police, the people with means will be able to protect their homes, or move out. The lower income families will be victimized, and the WL's who've gentrified people out of affordable housing will run to the suburbs in fear.
I would imagine there are legitimate reasons why officer complaints would be protected from public scrutiny. Constant relitigation of those complaints to defend criminals is the first that leaps to mind. Cops are generally given much leeway as regards their response to combative suspects with whom they must contend. Just these two factors lend themselves to shielding bad cops, which in turn breeds mistrust of all cops by the public, as well as feeds the overwrought fictions of the race hustlers and those who follow them.
The question is how to find and put into place good, morally straight personnel in each level of service. This question parallels the challenge for the public of politics.
The challenges of police work are unique. Just as civilians can't truly know the experience of combat soldiers, so too are civilians lacking with regard to the cop on the street. We seek the perfect cop....brave, upstanding, compassionate and more than anything else, the ability to handle flawlessly every situation confronted despite no two being exactly alike. But like doctors, in whom we have equally irrationally high expectations, we'll never find such perfection.
But the public can do a lot to insure that cops never lose their trust in us by abiding the law and aiding cops by not making their jobs tougher than it already is.
I don't disagree with any of that. I'm simply pointing out that the people who are now complaining about this system are the ones who voted for the leadership who negotiated the contracts and maintain the system.
I do think that we need to look at how those sorts of protections actually work and see if there is a way to legitimately protect that cops who do something in good faith that turns out bad, and those who accumulate a lot of bogus complaints. It seems like there should be a way to weed out problem cops, without harming the good ones. The problem is that the job of the union is first and foremost to protect it's members no matter what. Unfortunately protecting members of the police union is inevitably going to result in things that fail to protect the members of the community that the police serve.
Unfortunately this is a problem with public sector unions. They almost inevitably have to back their members, even when those members harm the community that they serve and that pays them.
I don't know if they're required to back bad members. This is the same of any union. But it happens all too often. Why anyone would want the stain of bad members on their record is beyond me. There's been many references to the flaws of the "code of silence", including the Chuck Norris movie "Code of Silence" (a pretty good movie until the laughable ending). To a great extent, the main policing of police needs to come from the police themselves. It's a great irony that those who seek employment upholding the law won't always hold their fellow officers to the same standards.
I fear there will always be a too large segment of the population that will never trust the police, but no one who abides the law should have reason to fear even the worst of them. Bad cops exploit situations that they feel won't blow back in their faces. Don't give them an excuse and they can't do that. It's a wet dream, but I believe if they were never given those opportunities, most bad cops might actually do their jobs the way they're supposed to. Too many of them began as good cops and for one reason or another lost their way.
I’m not saying that they’re required to back bad members as much as saying that they exist to protect the members regardless. It’s the situation in schools where you can’t fire bad teachers. They don’t set out to protect the bad, they just don’t do anything to weed out the bad.
“Minneapolis city council is seriously considering replacing police with groups of mental health counselors, life coaches, and community advocates.
911: What's your emergency
Victim: I'M BEING RAPED HELP!
911: Sending a life coach to your location”
Because nothing says slow down an increase in violent crime like abolishing the police. Thanks Strib.
“The nearly 13% jump in violent crime mirrors a similar trend across the river in St. Paul, where law enforcement officials are scrambling to quell a recent spate of violence.
In Minneapolis, police data show that the city’s 37 homicides climbed 32% from 28 this time last year, while aggravated assaults, rapes and robberies also rose during the first 10 months of the year, contributing to the increase in reports of violent crime, according to newly released Police Department statistics. The data show that property crime reports were up nearly 15% during the same period.
This comes on the heels of a sharp decline the year before, when the city logged 30-year lows in many crime categories, according to deputy police chief Erick Fors.
Interestingly enough, just a few months ago, Mayor Jacob Frey was calling for more police officers, not disbanding the police department.
The increase has emerged as a significant issue in the debate over police resources, which reached a boiling point this fall with the release of viral videos showing people being violently assaulted and robbed after leaving downtown bars. Advocates of adding more officers worry about a reversal of a steady decline that began in the 1990s, as the city continues its rapid growth.
Mayor Jacob Frey, who has asked for 14 new officers, said the rising violence underscored the need for a different approach to addressing crime and its causes, pointing to recent bail reform efforts, increased “resources for economic inclusion” and further investment in affordable housing, seen as a major hurdle for former offenders trying to reintegrate into society.
At the same time, he said the shortage of officers was likely a contributing factor, calling it “unacceptable” that thousands of high-priority 911 calls couldn’t be immediately assigned because of a lack of available police squads. “There’s no quicker way to erode trust in a police department [than] to call 911 and not have somebody show up,” he said.”
Frey got run off from a BLM rally. That’s the funniest thing I’ve seen all weekend.
Apparently, he wasn't groveling well enough for them.
He actually stood up to the ban the police BS. The walk of shame was impressive.
Liberals start to eat their own.
Of course the biggest potential problem is that if MPLS defunds, abolishes, or shrinks policing, the effects of that will be shunted off to the surrounding cities with fewer resources.
Good plan. Dump DFL failures on others.
The left has never been good with thinking about possible consequences...unintended or otherwise.
That’s kind of what the last 40 years in MPLS shows.
Listen to black people and learn about systemic racism inherent in our policing policies...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSozqaVcOU8
https://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war
Again, with the absurd assumptions, ungrounded in reality.
Unfortunately for you, and this conversation, your video doesn't address the topic at hand. Specifically, is it a good idea for the city of MPLS to abolish the MPD. Especially in the absence of any sort of clear, detailed, plan.
There's an old expression that seems to fit. Something about babies and bathwater.
Of course, by what logic does one conclude that the MPD must be abolished (disbanded, defunded, or whatever the current undefined buzzword is) while leaving those who coddled, nurtured, and failed to do anything about the MPD unscathed?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8399101/Minneapolis-city-council-president-defends-disbanding-police.html
Lisa Bender defending the ill conceived "plan" to disband the MPD.
"Minneapolis' City Council president is defending the move to disband the city’s police department following the brutal killing of George Floyd, saying that police can do more harm than good in some cases and expecting their help 'comes from a place of privilege'.
On Monday, City Council president Lisa Bender defended the revolutionary move to disband the police force, saying Floyd’s death was a 'wake-up call' that the police 'is not keeping every member of our community safe.'
'What if, in the middle of the night, my home is broken into. Who do I call?' CNN’s Alisyn Camerota asked.
'Yes, I mean I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors, and myself, too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege,' Bender replied."
"
Minneapolis city council president says fears of having someone break into a house 'comes from a place of privilege' as she defends disbanding the police force
Minneapolis' City Council president Lisa Bender defended the move to disband the city's police department on Monday
She explained George Floyd's death was a 'wake-up call' that the police 'is not keeping every member of our community safe'
When asked what will happen if a home is broken into, Bender explained that her worry and expectation police will help comes from a place of privilege
She said council is already working on community-based safety strategies and analyzing how to shift some 911 calls to crisis and mental health workers
By Marlene Lenthang For Dailymail.com
Published: 11:41 EDT, 8 June 2020 | Updated: 12:43 EDT, 8 June 2020
e-mail
45
shares
1
View comments
Minneapolis' City Council president is defending the move to disband the city’s police department following the brutal killing of George Floyd, saying that police can do more harm than good in some cases and expecting their help 'comes from a place of privilege'.
On Monday, City Council president Lisa Bender defended the revolutionary move to disband the police force, saying Floyd’s death was a 'wake-up call' that the police 'is not keeping every member of our community safe.'
'What if, in the middle of the night, my home is broken into. Who do I call?' CNN’s Alisyn Camerota asked.
'Yes, I mean I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors, and myself, too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege,' Bender replied.
'Because for those of us for whom the system is working, I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done,' she added."
I'll start by saying that the MPD has been a problem for years, and that it is in need of something new and different in order to move forward. I am certainly open to new and innovative attempts to solve the problems in the MPD. However, telling people that it's privilege" to expect the police to respond to 911 calls, is a really shitty message.
What Bender doesn't seem to understand is that for everyone except the lowest income earners, they have the privilege to move out of MPLS. Further, the hip, woke, millennials (who are part of the housing problem) will decide that they're children's safety is more important than progressive cred, and that they can put their BLM yard signs and rainbow flags out just as easily in first ring suburbs as in the trendy parts of MPLS.
But, hey it's no problem if 50% of your tax base leaves town, is it? I'm sure they can get trump to pay for all the unintended consequences, can't they?
Maybe you should ask what the MPD is doing that is good.
“An internal review of sexual assault cases in Minneapolis turned up an estimated 1,700 untested rape kits from as far back as the 1990s — a backlog that officials say could take at least two years to clear.
The startling revelation was announced at a City Hall news conference Friday, during which department officials announced plans to hire three additional analysts to help process the forensic evidence kits.
The latest count far surpasses the 194 untested kits reported during an 2015 audit, part of what Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey called an “unjustified mistake” that left years of potential evidence sitting in police storage.”
Re: my link doesn't address the topic at hand.
Of course, it does. That you don't understand how is part of the problem.
You see, white people by and large view policing as something beneficial to the community. Black people live with the reality that it is decimating their community.
There is inherent racism in the policies and procedures we have for policing. These inherent racist systems damage black communities.
This is the reasoning behind WHY some are saying abolish police systems as they exist.
Are you understanding that this is what people are saying? And this is the reason why they are saying it?
Because, if you don't understand the reasoning why people are considering shutting down police systems is exist, then of course, it would make no sense to you. You begin, as always, by listening to black people. By listening to those in poor communities.
If you want to understand, listen. If you just want to blindly mock and attack, get the hell out of the way. Adults have important work to do.
Craig... "that they can put their BLM yard signs and rainbow flags out just as easily in first ring suburbs as in the trendy parts of MPLS."
I am absolutely sure that that happens sometimes. But for me and those in my community in my age cohort, we have moved to communities of color, taking care of not to be part of gentrification as much as we can, to be in solidarity and to listen to communities of color.
That is also true of most of the progressive young adults that I know. They're moving to communities of color, striving to avoid gentrification problems, to be part of, in solidarity with, and to listen to communities of color.
So yes, it is true that for a lot of white people, progressive and conservative, they have used their privilege to move to white enclaves. But for a lot of progressives, and for some segments of conservatives, that is not the case. I moved into poorer communities of color as a young conservative, myself.
At this point, it seems like a primer on MPLS demographics might help. Clearly this is broad, but it's accurate.
Tier one, the low income demographics. N MPLS is where most of the current stock of "affordable" housing is. This is NOT the area where the riots took place. Primarily poorly maintained houses more than 50 years old.
Tier two, medium income demographics. These folks are populating S MPLS as well as NE MPLS. These are the hip, trendy neighborhoods. Unfortunately, these neighborhoods are also the neighborhoods where a lot of East African immigrants live. The obvious problem is that these families (who are mostly incredibly progressive) and gentrifying "black folks" out of significant parts of the city. Also, unfortunately, these families mostly have children who they want to protect, so being told that their police protection is going away will probably not go over well. The other thing these families do is preempt (due to open enrollment) spots in the better schools and charter schools from the folks with lower incomes.
Tier 3, high income. These people live in a sliver of the west side of the city, and around the prestigious lakes. The short answer is that they have the ability and means to move out of MPLS, or to arrange for some sort of security.
The thing to remember is that the majority of all of these tiers are progressive. That they support the DFL status quo, and they support (to varying degrees) the protesters. Specifically, the folks in tier two who are the most vocal and active supporters of the protesters, are also the ones who are contributing the most towards the economic (specifically housing) conditions that are putting financial pressure on tier one.
The final piece of the housing puzzle (I'd argue that because affordable housing shouldn't consume more that 30% of monthly income, that lack of stable, decent, affordable housing is THE key issue for tier one), is the city of MPLS. Due to land costs, zoning, permit fees and the like, it is virtually impossible to build affordable housing in the city. Thus we're left with requiring multi unit developers to designate a percentage of their buildings as affordable, and subsidizing that by increasing the cost of the "market rate" units and tax breaks.
One other factor. The city passed a couple of laws recently (minimum wage and tobacco related) that were already causing some businesses to leave the city. When you combine that with the potential of losing some level of policing, it's possible that this exodus will increase.
The unintended consequence of all of this might (to some degree will) be that the tax based on MPLS declines. It seems like it'll be a challenge to be creative and innovate with policing strategies, if there is less money available to innovate with.
To be clear, I'm NOT suggesting that nothing be done about MPD. I am suggesting that ALL of the consequences be addressed before making a rash, emotional decision, and that the scrutiny NOT stop with the police.
Feo,
Don't think that this is a license to continue, or that any follow up comments will be posted. But, you are the proverbial blind pig who found an acorn.
This is an excellent question, as a matter of fact it's been covered by our local news for months. The problem that you have is that the roots of the failures don't lie solely with the MPD. This is a statewide problem, which points to failures with both the legislature as well as the BCA.
Thank you for agreeing with me that it's not just the MPD who should be scrutinized and "improved", that the systemic problems go into the entire state government to some degree.
"You see, white people by and large view policing as something beneficial to the community. Black people live with the reality that it is decimating their community."
Because "black people" don't get bothered when the crack house down the street endangers their kids, or when someone breaks into their home at 1:00 AM.
"Are you understanding that this is what people are saying? And this is the reason why they are saying it?"
Why yes, I am. I'm also not going to simply accept things at face value and ignore the data.
"If you want to understand, listen. If you just want to blindly mock and attack, get the hell out of the way. Adults have important work to do."
At least in MPLS, the "adults" you refer to are the very people who have allowed these problems to exist unmolested for 40+ years. I guess they get a pass, because "better late than never".
"I am absolutely sure that that happens sometimes."
Since we're talking specifically about MPLS, I'll clue you in. It's much more than "sometimes". It's the majority of the time.
"But for me and those in my community in my age cohort, we have moved to communities of color, taking care of not to be part of gentrification as much as we can, to be in solidarity and to listen to communities of color."
Well, one more thing for you to get all proud about. Of course, we aren't talking about you and your phantom army (what pert of stop speaking for some undefined, anonymous, unproven, mass of people, do you not understand? Do I have to lace my request with expletives, condescension, and aspersions for you to clue in?)
FYI according to data, (which is notoriously inaccurate) the average sold price of a house in Louisville is around $178,000. In the areas, I'm talking about, there are precisely 41 properties currently on the market for less than that amount. Most of those are not SFH. While the average price in the area I'm talking about is &285,000. Unfortunately for you and your tribe of amazing (and proud) folks, it's too damn late. Low income families are already priced out and it's just going up. But that's just data, not anecdote.
"That is also true of most of the progressive young adults that I know. They're moving to communities of color, striving to avoid gentrification problems, to be part of, in solidarity with, and to listen to communities of color."
That's quite a fascinating hunch, I'm sure you've got data to back it up. I'm also sure that you speak for "progressive young adults" very well. Unfortunately, up here, the "progressive young adults" want to "live with minorities", but they also want all the HGTV crap, that want the low energy bills that well insulated houses bring, they want the best schools, and are willing to pick neighborhoods to get them. Of course enrollment is limited, and if their kids take the place of some other kid, well....
"So yes, it is true that for a lot of white people, progressive and conservative, they have used their privilege to move to white enclaves."
This sort of statement is what happens when you let your limited, small city, experience convince you that you can speak authoritatively on conditions elsewhere. A few facts. The neighborhoods we're talking about aren't "white enclaves" yet, but the "young progressives" are turning them into "white enclaves" (I'll grant that it's probably not intentional, but low income POC can't afford what houses in these neighborhoods sell for now, let alone in the future. In the neighborhoods I'm talking about, you won't find many conservatives. I know you want your imaginary situation to be true, but the data suggests that you are talking MINIMUM of 60% progressive in those neighborhoods and that number is rising as older people move out.
"But for a lot of progressives, and for some segments of conservatives, that is not the case. I moved into poorer communities of color as a young conservative, myself."
Again, I'm sure all of these people appreciate you speaking for them and for presuming to impose your southern, smaller city, anecdotes on other places. It's very helpful, and I know it feeds your pride.
When my kids were in school, we chose to live in the most ethnically, nationality, and economically diverse suburban school district we could find. Because we DIDN"T want to contribute to the rampant gentrification in MPLS. I'm only going to speak for my family, I'm not presumptuous enough to try to speak for anyone else.
Feo,
It's not fear that keeps you moderated, it's you and your behavior.
I'll point out that I'm currently focusing on the situation here, which has been the focal point of the larger national conversation. I understand that that sort of focus might be confusing to you, but I can't help that.
RE: Your original question: You DO realize that they're talking about finding new and better ways to provide community care and public safety? So the point is NOT, "Let's stop ALL policing so that when a crazed white supremacist shooter is on the loose, no one is there to stop him..." but rather, "What are the best ways to accomplish community care and public safety? Is it fair to expect untrained police officers to deal with mental health solutions? And 90+% of tasks that police do are not 'military-style' tasks, so maybe providing a bunch of people with warrior/military style training is not the best way to accomplish the tasks done typically by police..."?
You DO recognize and acknowledge this, don't you?
"In Minnesota - the state where Mr Floyd was killed - US Rep Ilhan Omar called for the Minneapolis Police Department to be disbanded outright, claiming the law enforcement agency was "beyond reform."
"We committed to dismantling policing as we know it in the city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new model of public safety that actually keeps our community safe,"
"Yes. We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department"
"Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey was booed by protesters Saturday night when he refused to commit to defunding and abolishing the city's police force."
Dan,
Actually, I think that the original question is the problem.
I also think your comment raises and interesting issue. This "defund" the police is another one of those terms that means anything the user wants, whenever it's used. It means everything and nothing.
Yet, as you can see from the quotes above that people are using terms like "disband", "abolish", "dismantle", and "beyond reform" which clearly indicate something more radical than your hunches about what it might mean.
"So the point is NOT, "Let's stop ALL policing so that when a crazed white supremacist shooter is on the loose, no one is there to stop him...""
Yet Lisa Bender is saying that the notion you just expressed is literally an attitude that comes from a "place of privilege", so it's demonstrably true that you are NOT speaking for the people who are actually trying to implement this.
"You DO recognize and acknowledge this, don't you?"
I do recognize and acknowledge that SOME people are saying this, while others are saying things that are much more radial.
Of course, had you read my comments, you would have known the answer to your question. I do appreciate your continued efforts to speak for those who are already speaking for themselves quite loudly.
I'd ask you to acknowledge the reality that your attempt to characterize what people are saying is incomplete and faulty, but it would be pointless. I suspect that you've decided that you know what Lisa Bender means, better than she does.
Again, that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND what these people are advocating for does not mean that YOU ARE UNDERSTANDING THEIR INTENT correctly.
If you're not understanding, why not ask? Why would you go the Trump route of using this as a partisan bludgeon to attack people seeking reasonable, common sense answers that work for everyone?
Trust me: YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING so why not shut the fuck up and LISTEN rather than whine, bitch and attack the adults in the nation who are trying to get something accomplished?
You and the Trumps of the world have had your day. Your time is over. Get on the right side of history.
Quit kicking against the goads.
https://www.goodnewsfl.org/kicking_against_the_goadsthe_meaning_and_message/
"Again, that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND what these people are advocating for does not mean that YOU ARE UNDERSTANDING THEIR INTENT correctly."
Again, that you can't prove the above assertion, doesn't mean that it should go unchallenged. The fact that you use ALL CAPS doesn't make your claim factual. But, please prove your claim.
"If you're not understanding, why not ask?"
Let's ignore the fact that my original post was "ask" ing a question. Let's ignore the fact that words like "abolish", "disband", "demolish" and "beyond reform" actually have meanings in the English language, and none of them mean "reform" or "improve". Let's ignore the fact that I'm "listening to black voices" and applying standard English language rules of grammar and definitions of words to what they are saying.
"Why would you go the Trump route of using this as a partisan bludgeon to attack people seeking reasonable, common sense answers that work for everyone?"
I wouldn't and I haven't. But your continued creativity in making shit up is impressive. I wasn't aware that asking questions about the actual words used by the actual people involved in making policy for the city of MPLS was a "partisan bludgeon".
"Trust me: YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING so why not shut the fuck up and LISTEN rather than whine, bitch and attack the adults in the nation who are trying to get something accomplished?"
AHHHH reverting the the demeaning, hubristic, expletive laden, attack based in assumptions and prejudice. Always effective.
The facts are that the people who are actually moving forward with "dismantling" the MPD, haven't said anything that gives any details regarding what their "plan" is. (as of the 10pm local news last night)
The facts are that the people involved in this are the very people who have tolerated the situation with the MPD for years. They're the very people who ran on reforming the police and did nothing. The only reasons these people have credibility with people like you is the DFL behind their names on the ballot. If you are actually claiming that it's "adult" to dismiss the concerns of people who expect the police to respond to a home invasion, as "privileged", then you have a strange definition of adult.
The problem with you biased, prejudiced, partisan, screed in this thread is that it ignores what I've actually said about the situation, in favor of crap that you just made up out of thin air. You're more concerned with trying to hide what the people actually involved in this "dismantling" of the MPD are saying by attacking me with lies, than with things like the truth are what the data shows.
If this is how you think "adults" act then I want absolutely nothing to do with people you consider "adult".
Just one more white person drowning out or obscuring the people you claim we should be listening to.
What's interesting, is that I can't see any indication that you actually, directly, specifically answered the question asked in the post. I might have missed it, but "Listen to black people and learn about systemic racism inherent in our policing policies.." isn't an answer. Somehow you turn asking a question into "bully"ing.
If you can't answer the question simply and directly, then maybe the problem lies elsewhere.
Just a small point of order. There is a misunderstanding on the part of some that the role of the police department is to "keep everybody safe".
Clearly this is completely unrealistic and not how the police are currently established.
Our criminal justice system isn't designed to prevent crime, as much as to investigate crime and catch criminals". Obviously, if a policeman walks into a situation where a crime is actively being committed, he will intervene and "prevent" the crime. But, the reality is that it rarely happens that way.
Case in point. The MPD stood idly by for several days and didn't prevent multiple crimes committed on live TV.
So, reforming the police to keep "every member of our community safe" is a fools errand and destined to fail. If that's what Binder thinks she's going to do, then she's destined for failure, and will waste lives, time, and money along the way.
Your question is loaded and conservatives like Trump are using it as a battering ram to attack people of good faith looking for reasonable answers that work for everyone.
Implied in the question is that people are advocating getting rid of any way of protecting people from harm.
No one is advocating anarchy when it comes to crimes.
Read that again.
No one is advocating anarchy when it comes to crime.
Do you understand the point? Read it again. Let it sink in.
No one is advocating anarchy when it comes to crime.
Are you beginning to understand it? Read it again. Listen to black people.
No one is advocating anarchy when it comes to Crime.
Do you understand now?
If you don't know or understand what people are talking about when they're talking about this, look it up. It's true that the thinking on this isn't its rudimentary stages. But you need to begin with the understanding that no one is talking about Anarchy when it comes to crime. We're talking about looking at different ways besides the current police model of doing things. The current police model has failed communities of color.
Do you recognize that this is what black people are telling you? If not, listen.
Are you listening to the George Floyd funeral? You might do well to listen to it. Listening is good.
Not currently. Unfortunately my job sometimes interferes with things that are unrelated to it.
I guess listening to significant parts of all the other services, memorials, and protests doesn't meet your litmus test of one white guy determining for another white guy, what is important.
It was a question. It was not a criticism.
Just like my original post.
"Are you listening to the George Floyd funeral?"
Is a question.
"You might do well to listen to it. Listening is good."
This isn't. But it's a really nice attempt to hide your biases by pretending it's a question.
Unfortunately, the fact that you misunderstood both my original post and the condescending editorializing on your comment, really doesn't bode well for you.
“begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department.”
The above is a quote from members of the MPLS city council. I'm not seeing how we get "reform" from "end".
I realize that these folks aren't completely stupid and that there needs to be some minimal sort of law enforcement in place.
As my comments have made clear, I fully support significant investigation and housecleaning in the MPD. Further, I fully support housecleaning of the people who have allowed the MPD to become what it is.
My biggest problem is that the language being used is imprecise, misleading, and vague. It's not the language of "adults" ready to have a serious and all encompassing policy discussion based on facts and data, but of demagogues playing to a crowd driven more by perception, feelings, and emotion, than facts. (Before you blow a gasket, I'm simply pointing out what the supporters of the protests/riots are saying. If that's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. Given the history of this group of politicians promising reform of the police and not following through, it seems reasonable to wonder how much of this is aimed at saving their political careers and how much is serious. Further, when something goes wrong with their plans (and it will), will they have the courage to stand there and accept the responsibility.
This is a difficult enough conversation and change to make as it is. Starting out by selling vague, imprecise, inflammatory, slogans instead of fact based (even slightly detailed) plans, seems like it will inevitably lead to misunderstanding.
Does anyone really think that a "grief stricken" person caught up in their "feelings" about "institutional racism" is parsing the difference between "reform" and "disbanded outright"? Do you really not think that people aren't going to be pissed when the MPD is not "disbanded outright: i the next few years? Are we really in a place politically where we just assume that every word out of a politician's mouth is not true?
"The above is a quote from members of the MPLS city council. I'm not seeing how we get "reform" from "end"."
Good Lord! How obtuse are you?
Read my words again. Listen to Black voices again. Keep listening and keep reading until you understand.
No one is advocating anarchy when it comes to crimes. The point would be replacing the police with something better, something that is not systematically flawed and just does not work for people of color. This is what they're saying.
Listen.
FYI, he home cost information is not just relevant to the apples/mushrooms comparison. It also becomes an issue if part of the plan is to require cops to live in MPLS. It seems unreasonable to force people to live in a place they can't afford.
"Good Lord! How obtuse are you?"
That is an excellent question, Dan. Exactly how obtuse are you?
"Read my words again. Listen to Black voices again. Keep listening and keep reading until you understand."
Perhaps you are confused about how things work in large cities. But, in MPLS the people who have the ability to do things are on this body called the City Council. In a representative form of government, the people (of all ethnicities) vote for people to represent them. Usually the ethnicity of those elected isn't an issue.
So, while in this case I've listened to all sorts of random "black people", the people who really matter (and bear paying close attention to) are those people on the city council. They are the people who (although they've chosen to do nothing about the police for decades) have now decided to "end" the MPD. So, I'm more likely to pay attention to the folks who have power to do things, than those who don't.
I've got to give you credit though. Your reflexive repetition of your nonsense mantra, regardless of what you are "responding" to is a special brand of obtuse.
"No one is advocating anarchy when it comes to crimes."
Yet, no one is advocating anything specific, so how the hell can you make that claim. I'll give you a hint. After adopting the motto "defund the police", I've been bombarded with people of all ethnicities, all trying to explain what the phrase doesn't mean. Now, I'm no expert but if you're going to pick a catchphrase for an entire movement, then it might be worthwhile to figure out what the hell you mean by the damn catchphrase.
Of course, I never said anyone was advocating "anarchy". Yet, the chair of the MPLS city council is saying, and repeating, that responding to a home invasion in the middle of the night might not be on the agenda. while that might not be anarchy, it's definitely not "protect and serve". As long as you obtusely ignore the people shaping this new normal in MPLS, in favor of people you choose because of skin color, the less intelligently you can contribute to this conversation.
"The point would be replacing the police with something better, something that is not systematically flawed and just does not work for people of color. This is what they're saying."
No, if you look at the words they are using and use the standard English language definition, they are NOT saying that. Perhaps you've chosen to ignore the actual quotes I've provided.
Now to be fair, they're also saying a whole lot of other stuff most of which is trying to walk back the stupid language used early on. Unfortunately, while they've given bland, vague reassurances about what it DOESN'T"T mean, there's been a dearth of details about what it DOES mean. Unfortunately, there haven't been any details regarding why they waited so long to finally do something.
"Listen."
I don't now if this is obtuse, persistent in foolishness, or just rank stupidity. But if you think that repeating meaningless platitudes is going to accomplish anything, you're just an idiot.
Hint, when I'm providing actual quotes from people involved in the discussion it's safe to suspect that I found those quotes by listening (or reading, I'm more of a reader than a listener. I can go at my own pace as well as circle back to confirm what was said.) of course why let things like facts or poof get in the way of banal platitudes, repeated over and over.
"Banal". Is that Dan, or what!
OK, educate me.
Lisa Bender, I'm not sure of her ethnicity, is the President of the MPLS City Council. She is clearly in a position of some degree of power when it comes to the government of the city of MPLS. I listened to her say the following. (I suspect that the term community includes some "black voices" so I guess this counts.)
"“We recognize that we don’t have all the answers about what a police-free future looks like, but our community does,”
Please explain to me how the term "police free community" means anything other than a "community free of police"? Please explain how "police free" is not essentially saying "Let's stop ALL policing"? Please explain how "police free can be reasonably construed to mean "a society with police"?
The problem isn't that I'm not listening, nor is it that I'm excluding voices based entirely on their ethnicity, it's that I'm listening to a wide variety of voices and getting contradictory messages.
Maybe that's the problem, when you base you choice of who to listen to entirely on the color of their skin, you aren't getting a broad enough view of what's happening.
It's almost as if you're arguing that "black voices" are inherently superior to 'brown voices" or to "Asian voices, or to "white voices, based entirely on ethnicity and skin color. Maybe it's better to listen to people based on the content of their speech and character.
Banal describes Dan pretty well. But, there's another option...
Art,
How do you think Chicago will do if they defund/cut back on the police? Shooting deaths going down or up?
I hope you appreciate the stupidity of this conversation, which started with a reasonable question, but degenerated to Dan chanting his mantra to Mystery his God.
I don't think that any sane person is arguing against major changes in police departments with proven track records of corruption (not sure that's the most accurate term, but it seems to encompass a lot of wrong behavior). I, speaking for myself, am suggesting that merely overhauling the police department is insufficient. It's part of the solution, but not all.
So, if we accept that the MPD needs some type of overhaul, the unanswered questions are as follows.
1. What does that look like?
2 Will the police (or whoever is appropriate) come when I call 911?
3. Will crimes be investigated, criminals prosecuted, and appropriately punished?
4. How will this be accomplished?
I'd add
5. Why have you ignored and enabled the problem for 40+ years and why should you get a pass?
The premise is reasonable, the questions are reasonable, but the responses from the MPLS city council and Dan are unreasonable.
I'd argue that part of the problem is that it's premature to announce this wonderful "police free" future without having the first freaking clue what the hell that means and how it's going to happen, before you start running your mouth is irresponsible and driven by pure politics. Hell the "police free" faction has already started the political attacks on the ones who disagree with them, and little Jacob.
It's kind of amusing to watch liberals tear each other apart trying to out liberal each other, while ignoring their responsibility for the problem.
Craig... "Please explain to me how the term "police free community" means anything other than a "community free of police"?
Again, are you truly this obtuse? It means a Community where militaristic stop police are gone. Missing. Absent. No longer there.
In its place..
With me so far?
Again, the police system. as. We. Know. It. Is. Gone.
In. Its. Place...
Following? Go back and re-read if you're having trouble.
In its place, we have something different. Something that achieves the goal of protecting people, without terrorizing or endangering or threatening the black community. Something better. Probably a combination of roles.
In the place of the Militaristic police who might stop cars for a tail light that was busted, you might have road crews you are there to help people in the case of a broken tail light or in the case that they ran a stop sign. The point would be to help, not terrorize or penalize.
Traffic patrollers could be maybe 75% of police work. I don't really know what percentage, but I'm guessing it's a large percent. One doesn't need pistols or rifles to be a traffic patroller.
In the case of mentally ill people acting out, we could have specially trained mental health patrols to deescalate and help those who are struggling with mental illness. Again, that's probably another large percentage of police work. Being done by someone trained specifically in that area.
Like that. Train people to do the specific work that needs to be done that is currently being done by police officers and often times, not well because they are not trained for it or they do not have the right aptitude for it.
This information is already out there. Go look for it. Listen to what's being said. Don't assume that people are calling for criminal anarchy.
It's clear, that great truth, people get the government they deserve. More specifically, they did in your town and mine. No bitching should be occurring except in front of the mirror. If the police force is corrupt, it is the fault of those who run it, of those who have the ultimate power in overseeing it. In some cities it's a police commissioner or chief of police. In others, it's the mayor. When problems arise, increase and produce constant complaint, it's time to recall whoever is that "top cop" and replace that person with a better one. For hiring cops, there's sense in hiring people from the community to police it (except that in the black community, that too often results in that person from among them being regarded as a traitor, a sell out or worse---too many black cops in that situation have testified to this sad reality---LOOKIE THERE! A BLACK VOICE to which I listened!)
But for the top dog, the opposite is more likely true, as an administrator would be looking at stats and results and acting as an impartial arbiter of which direction the department should go in improving the operation. Hire from outside the city, hopefully someone with a proven and verifiable track record.
If the "top cop" is the mayor, replace that mayor at the next election if there is no recall option available.
These are first steps, not the be all/end all. All current suggestions are coming from complete fools who should not simply be ignored, but run out of town.
Re: " it's premature to announce this wonderful police free future..."
Yes, I know that's what many if not most white people think. But ask the black community, listen to the black community. They will tell you that it's not premature at all to create a new system that is free of the military style police that we have in our cities. They will tell you that the time is long overdue for a new system.
Do you know that this is what black people are telling you? Listen to black people.
Also, do you recognize the reality that the world has not always lived with police, especially police in the format that we have now in the US?
What's wrong with the idea of creating a new system to improve public safety so that it's working for all people - for ALL people, not just white communities?
Six ideas for a new cop free/cop lite system...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/police-brutality-cop-free-world-protest-199465/amp/
Did you know that the vast majority of black people don't trust the police to treat them fairly? Two-thirds of black people, give or take depending on the survey, don't trust the police. Did you know that?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/two-thirds-of-black-americans-dont-trust-the-police-to-treat-them-equally-most-white-americans-do
Did you know that anytime a crime happens to black people a good number of them have to consider whether or not it's worth calling the police, knowing that calling the police to help them may result in them getting in trouble or killed?
Listen to black people.
"Again, are you truly this obtuse? It means a Community where militaristic stop police are gone. Missing. Absent. No longer there."
Really? Did you just make this up? Nothing in the statement or the context that I've seen demands your additional made up explanation.
Now, I'll grant that there is a sense in which the police have become more militarized. One reason why the police have become more militarized is because of the famous shoot out in Miami where the police were seriously under equipped relative to the criminals. While I agree that the militarization of the police is a concern, I'm not sure the removing protective equipment and giving criminals an advantage is the answer either.
"This information is already out there. Go look for it. Listen to what's being said. Don't assume that people are calling for criminal anarchy."
that's quite a made up, utopian scenario you've spun out there.
But, let's take your "broken taillight" example. Why do police stop cars for broken taillights?
I have to note that you've chosen "broken taillight" as your example. I'll note you didn't choose impaired driver going 120 mph through a residential neighborhood or MS13 engaging in a turf war.
I guess the fact that I've never said that anyone is advocating anarchy is enough to get you to drop this idiotic trope.
"es, I know that's what many if not most white people think."
Impressive that you feel qualified to speak for "many if not most" white people.
"But ask the black community, listen to the black community."
I am, and I'm hearing the same sorts of concerns as I'm raising. That this vague and unspecific rhetoric isn't really helpful. But please feel free to try to speak for "black people" and treat them as a monolithic group as opposed to individuals.
"They will tell you that it's not premature at all to create a new system that is free of the military style police that we have in our cities. They will tell you that the time is long overdue for a new system."
Again, the one's I'm hearing aren't saying what you claim. But, I'm sure they appreciate some random white guy speaking for them.
"Do you know that this is what black people are telling you? Listen to black people."
Answered twice. But you can stop speaking for "black people" and trying to ague from a logical fallacy.
"Also, do you recognize the reality that the world has not always lived with police, especially police in the format that we have now in the US?"
Yes. Do you realize that conditions are different in 21st century America than in 15th century Africa and that it's simplistic to make the vague, broad, undetailed kinds of platitudes that we're hearing?
"What's wrong with the idea of creating a new system to improve public safety so that it's working for all people - for ALL people, not just white communities?"
!. I've literally said something very similar, in this thread. So, obviously my answer would remain consistent.
2. What an idiotic statement. While I have no doubt that there are differences in terms of how police respond in different communities, I think it's absurd to make the sweeping generalized assumptions that imply that 100% of police interactions in "black communities" are negative.
"Six ideas for a new cop free/cop lite system.."
I guess that, contrary to your earlier claims, people are advocating "cop free" systems.
This is what happens when you respond to your biased, prejudiced, assumptions about what you thought I said, rather then what I actually said.
"Did you know that the vast majority of black people don't trust the police to treat them fairly?"
Did you know that paople's opinions and feelings don't always agree with reality? Do you understand that because people don't trust the police to treat them fairly, doesn't mean that they aren't treated fairly?
"Two-thirds of black people, give or take depending on the survey, don't trust the police. Did you know that?"
Again, unless you are claiming that surveys are always 100% accurate, that feelings and opinions, always represent reality, this information isn't the whole story.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/two-thirds-of-black-americans-dont-trust-the-police-to-treat-them-equally-most-white-americans-do
"Did you know that anytime a crime happens to black people a good number of them have to consider whether or not it's worth calling the police, knowing that calling the police to help them may result in them getting in trouble or killed?"
Do you know that when you speak for "black people" and treat them as a monolithic group, you come off as paternalistic, and patronizing. Also, you keep acting as if people's feelings and opinions equate to reality in this instance, while denying this phenomenon in other contexts.
"Listen to black people."
At this point, this condescending, patronizing, idiotic, platitude just makes you look like you don't pay attention to reality.
It's interesting that when I do listen to black people, you marginalize those people because they don't agree with your narrative. Interesting.
Craig... "Impressive that you feel qualified to speak for "many if not most" white people."
It's what the data says. White people tend to trust the police system we have in place. Black people by and large do not. This has been shown in poll after poll.
Look at the data. Listen to black people.
What is difficult for you to understand in this?
Art,
This foolish, childish notion that the police exist in a vacuum and that the solution lies ONLY with reforming the police. To expect the same city/county/state governments who have allowed, ignored, fostered, protected, or otherwise enabled police corruption to pretend that they are the ones to preside over reform is laughable. The expectation that those who've failed to keep their promises for decades, should avoid responsibility for what they've enabled is simply an attempt to gain political advantage and hide history.
Elections have consequences, people get the government they vote for, and the police are a part of that government.
Finally, this sort of police reform will have to include either the abolition of police unions, or the subjugation of police unions to the extent that they serve no purpose. Hopefully, removing police unions will be the first step in removing all public sector unions.
What's interesting, is that when black voices express this opinion, they get ignored and marginalized.
"Look at the data. Listen to black people."
I have and I do.
What is difficult for you to understand in this?
Good question, it's difficult to understand why you keep repeating yourself, when the demonstrable reality is that I do what you keep demanding I do.
Speaking of data.
How many unarmed blacks were killed by police in 2019?
How many unarmed whites were killed by police in 2019?
What is the leading cause of death of children in the black community?
Craig... "you can stop speaking for "black people" and trying to ague from a logical fallacy."
"unless you are claiming that surveys are always 100% accurate, that feelings and opinions, always represent reality, this information isn't the whole story."
1. Polls, especially when you have multiple polls pointing to the same consistent conclusions, are scientific data and relatively reliable. That you appear to want to discount them when it's a majority of black people speaking about ideas that hurt your white feelings is part of the problem.
2. When black family after black family can tell you stories where they were harassed or marginalized or harmed by police actions, this is data, not feelings. That you want to denigrate and deny black experience of the majority of black people is part of the problem.
Listen to data. Listen to black people. They are the experts on what is happening to them, after all.
You and all white people need to get over the sense of entitlement and hurt feelings when people call us out.
Listen to black people. All black people.
Now, without denigrating black opinion can you just answer the questions directly and honestly?
Do you recognize the vast majority of black people say that the police system is not working for them, that they don't trust police?
First, listen to black people. Then, answer the question.
Speaking of the data, what does the data say about outcomes of children raised by:
Intact nuclear families (Both father/step and mother/step present in the home)?
Parents both employed?
Parents both not abusing substances?
Graduate from high school?
1. Not at all, the race of those polled shouldn't be an issue.
2. Ahh, the move the goal posts. You were clear that the polling you were referring to were about feelings of "trust", not about actual instances.
My point remains, that polls about intangible, unmeasurable, subjective things don't 100% represent reality.
But, you've chosen to ignore what I actually said and argue against something you made up. You used to call making up shit about people slander, now it's your go to.Listen to data. Listen to black people. They are the experts on what is happening to them, after all.
"Listen to data. Listen to black people. They are the experts on what is happening to them, after all."
Really, you're going to claim that "black people" are perfect? That Oprah is an expert on Jean Pierre in Port Au Prince or Jamar in AL simply because they share the same skin color? What a shallow, simplistic, dehumanizing way to submerge the value of the individual in the amorphous mass of the group.
Of course, I have to repeat because you're either obtuse, blind, or stupid, that I have/do.
"You and all white people need to get over the sense of entitlement and hurt feelings when people call us out."
Please continue to pass judgement on me based 100% on the color of my skin.
"Listen to black people. All black people."
Stop repeating this pointless bullshit.
"Now, without denigrating black opinion can you just answer the questions directly and honestly?"
Wow, disagreement is now denigration.
"Do you recognize the vast majority of black people say that the police system is not working for them, that they don't trust police?"
I realize that "they" are saying that. Just because people are "saying" something doesn't mean that they are accurately representing reality. Even if they are accurately representing their personal reality, it doesn't automatically mean that their reality in normative.
"First, listen to black people. Then, answer the question."
Again, with the stupid mantra, and the double standard.
Re: the data about blacks being killed by police vs whites being killed by police...
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2020-06-03/data-show-deaths-from-police-violence-disproportionately-affect-people-of-color
Speaking of stats.
We see stats that 90%+ of black people are victimized by other black people. Are your suggesting that the police arresting black A for shooting black B, justifies the mistrust of the police by the family members of black B?
It's interesting that all the "data" you've based your arguments on is "subjective". It's subjective in that things like trust, are not always based on objective things.
Is it possible that a person's trust in the police might be influenced by the people they talk to, the media they consume, and by inaccurate information?
If someone's trust in the police is based 100% on a narrative that has been demonstrated to be false, do those feelings of distrust accurately reflect reality?
We have data that shows that the MPLS city government has tolerated and enabled the 3rd precinct to systematically engage in corrupt behavior for years. Is it reasonable for a resident of the 1st precinct to base their feelings of trust based 100% on the data for the 3rd precinct?
What data is more important, objective or subjective?
We heard a while back that Chauvin and Floyd both worked at the same nightclub, but that no one could definitively put them together or documented any interaction.
As of this morning we are seeing reports that they two had some sort of beef at this club.
https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/06/10/george-floyd-derek-chauvin-nightclub-former-coworker-bumped-heads.html
So, since we have absolutely zero hard data that proves that Chauvin killed Floyd due to his race, what happens to this narrative if we find out that the killing was motivated solely because of a disagreement at work, and not because of race in any way?
What happens if the objective evidence demonstrates that the narrative about the Floyd killing was wrong?
Obviously this isn't to deny or minimize the history of corruption and abuse in the MPLS police department, simply to point out that it's possible that feelings (and trust is a feeling) and narratives might be based on a false premise, which might call into question the validity of those feelings as a barometer of reality.
You're obviously not answering most of the questions you've been asked. But are you afraid to answer the question as asked?
If I've said this earlier, I apologize.
I have no problem with looking at how policing is done and in being creative, out of the box, and a little radical when assessing options.
What I have a problem with is people who throw out these crazy terms, "police free", dismantle", disband" to try to get political points, when they really don't mean what they've said.
I have a problem with people that have to spend their time trying to walk back or explain why "police free" doesn't really mean "police free", but might mean X,Y, or Z.
If someone wants to actually start throwing out ideas for what things will look like, then I'll take that seriously.
For example, It's been suggested that we not send cops out for mental health calls, which seems to make sense. I see some concerns about this vague idea that should be addressed before implementation, but this is a reasonable proposal.
Dan, this is not the place to get down in the weeds about this one specific idea. It's an example, not a discussion starter. If you try to divert this into a discussion of the details of this specific example, I will not be responding.
Interesting that you won't answer simple direct questions and yet you think I'm not answering yours.
Do you acknowledge the poll after poll shows that some two-thirds, maybe more, of black people do not trust the police do not feel well served by the police?
Don't tell me, "well maybe the poll is flawed." Don't tell me, "Well, maybe black people are foolish to think that they can't trust the police or are not well served by the police."
Just answer the question.
That's the most of your questions, they are self-evident in the answers are clear. Is it better to graduate from high school? Yes. Of course. Who's going to say no? Are intact Healthy Families better then single parents raising children without support? Yes. Of course. It's a stupid question. On the other hand, is a divorce preferable to living in an abusive home? Yes, of course. Marriage relations are complex.
Is it better for both parents in the family to be employed? It really depends on the family, doesn't it? Of course.
Are the answers to these questions somehow hard for you to predict? They're simple little questions with obvious answers.
I could go on, but I'll wait for you to answer the question put to you.
Do you recognize that two-thirds or more of black people do not trust the police for reasons that they think are valid?
Listen to black people. Have the decency to respond to their very real concerns and not just ignore them as if they were children that you could put off or send to their room.
Answer the question.
As to why some people would use the term, police free communities, you would know why people are doing THAT IF YOU LISTENED TO BLACK PEOPLE. That this is a puzzle or mystery to you indicates that you are not listening to black people. That is why I keep suggesting you do just that.
"As to why some people would use the term, police free communities, you would know why people are doing THAT IF YOU LISTENED TO BLACK PEOPLE. That this is a puzzle or mystery to you indicates that you are not listening to black people. That is why I keep suggesting you do just that."
Bullshit. The specific use of the term that most concerns me is from a person who is actually in a position to enforce her will on others. So, pardon me if I'm more concerned with how people in actual power are using the term and what they mean (regardless of their skin color or ethnicity), than with some random black person that you've "heard".
Of course this dodge still doesn't address the foolishness of using the term "police free" when you clearly don't actually mean "police free".
Good lord, are you so obtuse that you can't recognize the difference between an elected official using the term, and some random person?
"Interesting that you won't answer simple direct questions and yet you think I'm not answering yours."
No, what's interesting is that I demonstrably DID answer your question, while you demonstrably DID NOT answer any of mine. Life must be nice in your little fantasy utopia.
"Do you acknowledge the poll after poll shows that some two-thirds, maybe more, of black people do not trust the police do not feel well served by the police?"
I acknowledge that such polls exist. Which is not the same as acknowledging that they actually represent the reality of police interactions of "black people"?
"Don't tell me, "well maybe the poll is flawed." Don't tell me, "Well, maybe black people are foolish to think that they can't trust the police or are not well served by the police.""
Why? Are you really suggesting that significant changes to public policy be based on flawed polls that measure subjective opinion? Of course, I actually said neither of these things to you. Any excuse to distort and twist.
"Just answer the question."
Done twice now. I'd suggest that you stop making demands of me, and apply them to yourself, but your double standard won't let you.
"That's the most of your questions, they are self-evident in the answers are clear. Is it better to graduate from high school? Yes. Of course. Who's going to say no? Are intact Healthy Families better then single parents raising children without support? Yes. Of course. It's a stupid question. On the other hand, is a divorce preferable to living in an abusive home? Yes, of course. Marriage relations are complex."
Perhaps if you'd care to actually answer the questions as asked, instead of answering the questions you WANT to answer. It's this flexible approach to data that gets you in trouble.
"Is it better for both parents in the family to be employed? It really depends on the family, doesn't it? Of course."
I didn't ask for your hunch, I asked what the data says.
"Are the answers to these questions somehow hard for you to predict? They're simple little questions with obvious answers."
I'd point out the demonstrable fact that you're not answering the questions asked, you're making up your own. But it clearly makes no difference.
"I could go on, but I'll wait for you to answer the question put to you."
Since I've now answered them twice, what are you waiting for?
"Do you recognize that two-thirds or more of black people do not trust the police for reasons that they think are valid?"
I recognize that you've made the claim, yet not provided the evidence to back it up. I believe that you've linked to one bit of data. However, I'll grant you the claim, and agree that it's correct. If these polls of people's subjective feelings contradict reality, I fail to see why we should be making policy based on something that contradicts reality. Now, this doesn't mean that those feelings should be ignored or marginalized, it means that the changes need to be approached differently.
"Listen to black people. Have the decency to respond to their very real concerns and not just ignore them as if they were children that you could put off or send to their room."
You keep restating this bullshit as if repetition makes it true, and as if adding more bullshit somehow helps you look less idiotic and obtuse.
"Answer the question."
3x.
Now what's your excuse?
The very fact that I've been quoting "black people" should be evidence enough to stop your idiotic mantra. The fact that you continue to chant your mantra to Mystery leads me to believe that you share Joe Biden's view of "black people".
https://winteryknight.com/2020/06/10/guest-post-christians-should-oppose-black-lives-matter/
OH! Look, another black voice.
Look, let me explain for you the quite obvious point that you have NOT answered it by providing instances of what real, actual answers look like...
Do you recognize that the vast majority of black people don't trust the police system?
1. Yes, I have seen that it's like 2/3 or maybe more, depending on the poll. Also, it's quite obvious just anecdotally. Anyone who talks to enough black people know that there is a real problem there. NONETHELESS, I think the majority of black people are wrong to not trust the cops and here is why...
or
2. No, I don't recognize the majority of black people oppose the police. I think ALL those polls over the years have been wrong and HERE is the data to support why I think that...
or
3. Yes, I know that most black people have trust issues with police and I even understand how we got there, given the very real history of the oppression of black people at the hands of the police. Further, I don't know as a fact that those concerns are not founded in reality, but here's why I think black people SHOULD trust police...
Like that.
Now, I see that you FINALLY answered the question in a milquetoast manner by saying... "However, I'll grant you the claim and agree that it's correct..."
You GRANT me reality? You'll AGREE that reality is correct? Geez, thanks, pal.
Do you see how such a half-hearted and grudging answer only dragged out of you after many requests (and stated in a way as if to suggest that you're doing me a favor by agreeing to reality) is a very disrespectful way to deal with the very real concerns of the majority of black people, especially given the centuries long real history of oppression by police and other authority figures and in light of multiple instances of abuses by cops?
THIS is why I'm saying Listen to black people. IF you were listening to all black people, you'd know that this is a very real and great concern that they have. You wouldn't fail to understand why people - including legislators who are, WAY too late - are finally stepping up to address the concern in a very serious manner by saying hyperbolic things like "Defund the police!" It's an olive branch to a people who have been oppressed by the authorities for centuries and whose concerns have continued to go ignored year after year after year.
By God, people NEED to speak out. A man was publicly lynched while on film while "training" a bunch of other cops who just sat there! And this is just ONE instance that got publicity because it was caught on tape.
Your milquetoast non-answers are a nod to protecting the system as it exists by downplaying the real concerns of a vast majority of our black citizens. Get angry about public lynching and those who defend such cops, not at those who use terms like "defund the police."
You're getting angry at/worrying about the wrong things.
Listen to black people.
OK, let's listen
"Given the historical moment, we’ll begin with our demands pertaining to the Justice System.
The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition. We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus. This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police. At an equal level of priority we also demand that the city disallow the operations of ICE in the city of Seattle.
In the transitionary period between now and the dismantlement of the Seattle Police Department, we demand that the use of armed force be banned entirely. No guns, no batons, no riot shields, no chemical weapons, especially against those exercising their First Amendment right as Americans to protest.
We demand an end to the school-to-prison pipeline and the abolition of youth jails. Get kids out of prison, get cops out of schools. We also demand that the new youth prison being built in Seattle currently be repurposed.
We demand that not the City government, nor the State government, but that the Federal government launch a full-scale investigation into past and current cases of police brutality in Seattle and Washington, as well as the re-opening of all closed cases reported to the Office of Police Accountability. In particular, we demand that cases particular to Seattle and Washington be reopened where no justice has been served, namely the cases of Iosia Faletogo, Damarius Butts, Isaiah Obet, Tommy Le, Shaun Fuhr, and Charleena Lyles."
We demand reparations for victims of police brutality, in a form to be determined.
We demand that the City of Seattle make the names of officers involved in police brutality a matter of public record. Anonymity should not even be a privilege in public service.
We demand a retrial of all People in Color currently serving a prison sentence for violent crime, by a jury of their peers in their community.
We demand decriminalization of the acts of protest, and amnesty for protestors generally, but specifically those involved in what has been termed “The George Floyd Rebellion” against the terrorist cell that previously occupied this area known as the Seattle Police Department. This includes the immediate release of all protestors currently being held in prison after the arrests made at 11th and Pine on Sunday night and early Saturday morning June 7th and 8th, and any other protesters arrested in the past two weeks of the uprising, the name Evan Hreha in particular comes to mind who filmed Seattle police macing a young girl and is now in jail.
We demand that the City of Seattle and the State Government release any prisoner currently serving time for a marijuana-related offense and expunge the related conviction.
We demand the City of Seattle and State Government release any prisoner currently serving time just for resisting arrest if there are no other related charges, and that those convictions should also be expunged.
We demand that prisoners currently serving time be given the full and unrestricted right to vote, and for Washington State to pass legislation specifically breaking from Federal law that prevents felons from being able to vote.
We demand an end to prosecutorial immunity for police officers in the time between now and the dissolution of the SPD and extant justice system.
We demand the abolition of imprisonment, generally speaking, but especially the abolition of both youth prisons and privately-owned, for-profit prisons.
We demand in replacement of the current criminal justice system the creation of restorative/transformative accountability programs as a replacement for imprisonment.
We demand autonomy be given to the people to create localized anti-crime systems.
We demand that the Seattle Police Department, between now and the time of its abolition in the near future, empty its “lost and found” and return property owned by denizens of the city.
We demand justice for those who have been sexually harassed or abused by the Seattle Police Department or prison guards in the state of Washington.
We demand that between now and the abolition of the SPD that each and every SPD officer turn on their body cameras, and that the body camera video of all Seattle police should be a matter of easily accessible public record.
We demand that the funding previously used for Seattle Police be redirected into: A) Socialized Health and Medicine for the City of Seattle. B) Free public housing, because housing is a right, not a privilege. C) Public education, to decrease the average class size in city schools and increase teacher salary. D) Naturalization services for immigrants to the United States living here undocumented. (We demand they be called “undocumented” because no person is illegal.) E) General community development. Parks, etc.
"The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition. We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus. This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police. At an equal level of priority we also demand that the city disallow the operations of ICE in the city of Seattle."
I'm going to revisit this one. I'm trying to find any possible way to interpret "beyond reform", "demand abolition", "abolish the Seattle police department...", "this means 100% of funding", can direct a reasonable person to conclude that they mean anything less than what they say.
I'm sure Dan'll figure out a way to sugar coat this and explain it away and tell me to listen to black people. Yet, these are black people who are on the same side of things as he is. I'm confident he'll figure out how to dodge this, just like he's been dodging the question asked in the original post.
"Look, let me explain for you the quite obvious point that you have NOT answered it by providing instances of what real, actual answers look like..."
Do you realize that I've answered your question 3 times? Three times? Yet you have the hubris to dictate the "right answer" to me.
Do you understand that a simple direct answer, which I've given 3 times, followed by clarification and detail, is still an answer?
Are you so damn scared to answer questions that you'll descend to this? You haven't even answered the first question in the initial post.
The question has been answered and answered. The problem is not that the question hasn't been answered, the problem is you don't understand. You listen but fail to understand.
Good luck with that.
Let me try one more time:
1. FIRST of all, there isn't anything planned out just yet what this might look like. The point is getting rid of the old system in its entirety and replacing it with better systems (systems, plural, probably).
2. The reason why it's not planned out is because this is a relatively new call. In the past, black people were content to listen to promises about rehabilitating the existing system, tweaks and improvements. But time after time, those tweaks have failed the black community, which you'd know if you'd listen to black people.
Do you know now that black people are telling you that the system (and its various reforms) have failed?
3. But as people have begun making this new call for a radical change - a NEW system, not a tweak on a failed system - some ideas are beginning to rise up. Which you'd know if you'd listen to black people.
4. They ARE calling for abolishing the police system as it exists. Which is not the same as saying, "We don't want anyone to be there to help communities with crime..." Do you understand that vital point? You would if you listened to - and understood = what black people are saying.
5. Some of the ideas were ideas that I've already listed. But listen...
"The police abolition movement is a political movement in the United States which advocates
replacing existing police forces with
OTHER systems of public safety.
Police abolitionists believe that policing as a system is inherently flawed and cannot be reformed—
a view which distinguishes the ideology from police reformists...
Activist and advocacy groups like Movement 4 Black Lives call for "divest/invest" programs to
divert police budgets into programs
that have been proven to reduce crime...
~wikipedia
and...
"Defunding law enforcement "means that we are reducing the ability for law enforcement to have resources that harm our communities," Cullors said in an interview with WBUR, Boston's public radio station.
"It's about reinvesting those dollars into black communities, communities that have been deeply divested from."
Those dollars can be put back into
social services for mental health,
domestic violence and
homelessness, among others.
Police are often the first responders to all three, she said.
Those dollars can be used to fund schools, hospitals, housing and food in those communities, too --
"all of the things we know increase safety," McHarris said.
Read up on it, there's a lot of info out there.
https://www.mpd150.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/MPD150-FAQ-Text.pdf
What are you not understanding? Are you saying you're afraid that if we don't have a police system like we do now, there'd be no one to come to your house if a violent incident was happening?
They're not saying that.
Read, listen, understand.
And for the record, I haven't taken a position on the Defund Police movement, beyond, I'm listening and supportive of what I hear so far.
"Do you recognize that the vast majority of black people don't trust the police system?"
"1. Yes, I have seen that it's like 2/3 or maybe more, depending on the poll. Also, it's quite obvious just anecdotally. Anyone who talks to enough black people know that there is a real problem there. NONETHELESS, I think the majority of black people are wrong to not trust the cops and here is why..."
or
"2. No, I don't recognize the majority of black people oppose the police. I think ALL those polls over the years have been wrong and HERE is the data to support why I think that..."
or
"3. Yes, I know that most black people have trust issues with police and I even understand how we got there, given the very real history of the oppression of black people at the hands of the police. Further, I don't know as a fact that those concerns are not founded in reality, but here's why I think black people SHOULD trust police..."
The problem that you have here is that you say keep asserting the existence of data that you haven't provided. Further, you choose to ignore my concerns, instead just repeating that you have "reality"
Here's the problem, you moron.
There are 2 issues here.
1. The feelings of trust for the police and how they treat black people.
2. The reality of how police treat black people, and if those feelings are justified.
I've acknowledged 3 times that there are polls that show that black people don't trust police. You can tell this because I wrote it.
But the existence of those polls, based on feelings, do not necessarily prove that those feelings are justified by reality. I can only conclude that you've chosen this route of stupid, obtuseness, as a way to justify your inability to answer numerous questions.
"You GRANT me reality? You'll AGREE that reality is correct? Geez, thanks, pal."
Do you not understand how English works, pal? I'm simply saying that, I'll agree that your premise is true for the sake of this conversation, and save you from providing proof. So, I'd think you'd appreciate being able to avoid proving your claims, I guess I'd be wrong.
The problem that you have here is that you say keep asserting the existence of data that you haven't provided.
Are you truly UNAWARE of the HUGE unpopularity of the police (and Trump and the GOP) with black people?
Again, if you LISTENED to black people, you would know this is reality. If you looked at the data, you'd know this is reality.
Do you TRULY not know this information?
If not, do you not see how that is precisely the problem?
I'll agree that your premise is true for the sake of this conversation, and save you from providing proof.
This is the problem. It is condescending and reflecting an acute ignorance of the greater black community. You're "granting me" the premise "for the sake of the conversation..."??? WHY NOT grant it because it's just the reality of it all.
It's like if I said, "The earth is flat, do you agree?" and you kept hemming and hawing and not answering it directly but eventually saying, "I'll grant you the point for the sake of the conversation..." It's as if you doubt the reality of something that is smack-you-in-the-face obvious and clear, IF you would only listen to black people.
So again, are you suggesting that you are truly unaware of this on the ground reality, as supported by poll after poll after poll, black church after black church after black church, black person after black person after black person (with a few outliers)?
I can provide you links to polls that show the obvious, just as I can provide you a picture of the earth so that you can see it's not flat. I just tend to think that there are some points that are so obvious as to not need support. So, truly, I would like to know: Are you genuinely unaware of this reality, that ~2/3 of black people don't trust the police or otherwise devalue their relevance in their communities?
"Do you see how such a half-hearted and grudging answer only dragged out of you after many requests (and stated in a way as if to suggest that you're doing me a favor by agreeing to reality) is a very disrespectful way to deal with the very real concerns of the majority of black people, especially given the centuries long real history of oppression by police and other authority figures and in light of multiple instances of abuses by cops?"
No, I don't see how answering the same question a third time, and of absolving you of the need to prove your claims is "half hearted and grudging", quite the opposite. The question you seem most afraid of is, "Given the history of multiple instances of abuse by some percentage of cops (ignoring the number of cops shot by black men), is it reasonable for every single black person in the world to distrust the police in every circumstance? You're simply assuming that the data you claim to have, is an accurate representation of police interactions in the real world.
"THIS is why I'm saying Listen to black people. IF you were listening to all black people, you'd know that this is a very real and great concern that they have. You wouldn't fail to understand why people - including legislators who are, WAY too late - are finally stepping up to address the concern in a very serious manner by saying hyperbolic things like "Defund the police!" It's an olive branch to a people who have been oppressed by the authorities for centuries and whose concerns have continued to go ignored year after year after year."
1. YOU DON"T LISTEN TO ALL BLACK PEOPLE! It's a completely stupid thing to demand that someone do, given that it's impossible.
2. I do listen to all sorts of black people, you just need to believe in the falsehood to protect your biased, prejudiced, sacred narrative and to preserve your imagined "moral" superiority.
3. Stop making excuses for people saying stupid things then trying to walk it back for them.
4. I'll note that you cling to the "vague" and " malleable" "defund the police", and ignore the much more specific and harder to explain away comments.
"By God, people NEED to speak out. A man was publicly lynched while on film while "training" a bunch of other cops who just sat there! And this is just ONE instance that got publicity because it was caught on tape."
Yes, you blind fool, they have. They've spoken out by burning, looting, robbing and destroying. they've spoken out by leaving thousands of innocent victims in their wake. But, sure NO ONE is suggesting that ANYONE be prevented from "speaking out". I love how you use the racially loaded term "lynched" to make it seem worse than it was.
Please, show me the incontrovertible proof that Chauvin's actions were racially motivated? I'll wait.
"Your milquetoast non-answers are a nod to protecting the system as it exists by downplaying the real concerns of a vast majority of our black citizens. Get angry about public lynching and those who defend such cops, not at those who use terms like "defund the police.""
How about you stop the hysterical, panties in a wad, making shit up from thin air, slanderous, bullshit? It's literally impossible to have a conversation with someone who has to constantly make up things to argue against, and misstate my points in order to avoid answering questions. I'm currently annoyed with you and your bullshit false claims, load of crap. I've been angry about Floyd's killing since it happened. Asking questions, seeking clarification, and pointing out contradiction and hypocrisy aren't signs of anger, they're signs of trying to understand and engage. That you're unable to accept anything but agreement as "anger" says more about you than about me.
"You're getting angry at/worrying about the wrong things."
You are speaking from a position of either massive ignorance, intentional blindness, or biased prejudice. Embrace grace.
"Listen to black people."
Been doing it for years. People of all sorts of different backgrounds, national origins, and political views. I've learned that they aren't a monolithic, one dimensional, bloc. Maybe you should focus less on trying to cram "black people" into your little box, and more time getting to know individuals. But those types of nuance don't help when you're the inheritor of LBJ's attitude about "black people".
I'd ask you to live up the the standards you demand of others, but it'd be a waste of time.
"Are you truly UNAWARE of the HUGE unpopularity of the police (and Trump and the GOP) with black people?"
I'm aware that you are claiming this. Yet I see evidence to the contrary. It's on you to provide proof of your claims.
"Again, if you LISTENED to black people, you would know this is reality. If you looked at the data, you'd know this is reality."
It's because I listen to "black people" that I question your claims and ask for proof. You do understand the notion of you being responsible for proving the claims you make.
"Do you TRULY not know this information?"
I TRULY haven't seen you prove your claims or answer questions. What I know, or suspect, isn't the issue. It's your inability to prove your claims. I tried to give you a pass on proving your claims, but you were too stupid and lost in your faux superiority to take the offer. I guess that's your mistake.
"If not, do you not see how that is precisely the problem?"
Yes, you asserting unproven claims as reality, and treating "black people" as a one dimensional, monolithic, bloc like LBJ is a problem. It's not the only one, but it's one.
"This is the problem. It is condescending and reflecting an acute ignorance of the greater black community. You're "granting me" the premise "for the sake of the conversation..."??? WHY NOT grant it because it's just the reality of it all."
No,, it's graciously acknowledging that I'm willing to allow you to continue in the absence of proof of your claims. It's a fairly common rhetorical convention, I'm surprised that you are so clueless and choose to gin up faux offense.
"It's like if I said, "The earth is flat, do you agree?" and you kept hemming and hawing and not answering it directly but eventually saying, "I'll grant you the point for the sake of the conversation..." It's as if you doubt the reality of something that is smack-you-in-the-face obvious and clear, IF you would only listen to black people."
No, it's like of you said "A lot of people feel like the earth is flat." and I responded "Well let's compare their feelings to reality." Or it's like you saying "The earth is flat." and me responding "Prove you claim.".
It's as if I don't accept feelings as if they perfectly represented reality. It's as if you think it's unfair to compare feelings to reality.
"So again, are you suggesting that you are truly unaware of this on the ground reality, as supported by poll after poll after poll, black church after black church after black church, black person after black person after black person (with a few outliers)?"
I'm done trying to answer this reworded attempt to ask something I've already answered. If you don't have the ability to prove your claims, then why should I accept them?
"I can provide you links to polls that show the obvious, just as I can provide you a picture of the earth so that you can see it's not flat. I just tend to think that there are some points that are so obvious as to not need support. So, truly, I would like to know: Are you genuinely unaware of this reality, that ~2/3 of black people don't trust the police or otherwise devalue their relevance in their communities?"
Yet you don't.
I'm going to point out a little demonstrable, undeniable, reality here.
When you comment, I copy/paste your actual words surrounded by quotation marks into my responses. I then go through section by section, responding as answering as appropriate.
When I comment, you misrepresent my comments, ignore my questions, make all sorts of unfounded assumptions, and rarely respond in anywhere near the level of detail as I do.
I won't stop you from intellectually lazy, misrepresentation or false characterization of my comments. I won't stop your from ignoring, hiding from, or making up your own version of my questions. Because, I don't need to. I did want to point it out though.
"Do you TRULY not know this information?"
I TRULY haven't seen you prove your claims or answer questions.
Answer the question that was asked of you, directly and clearly or I'm giving up. It's impossible to have a conversation with someone who doesn't answer questions directly and who makes up false claims constantly and/or just doesn't understand the words that are being said to him constantly.
These conversations could be practical and helpful and lead to some common ground, but we go on for 86... 150... 230 posts where you keep ignoring questions and data and making stupidly false claims or reading stupidly wrong ideas into what I've said. You can do better than this.
How about this:
Covenant that, "in the future, I will answer questions directly and clearly, with as close to a Yes or No as I can and will do so without reading INTO what the other person says, because I constantly get it wrong when I do that..."?
Since Floyd’s death...
How many LEO have been killed, and by who?
How many LEO have been wounded, and by who?
How many black people have been killed in Chicago, how many by LEO?
How many black people have been shot in Chicago, who shot them.
Is it ever appropriate to condemn an entire group of people based on the actions of a few people in that group?
What country introduced slavery to North America?
What holy person, the leader of a religion, owned slaves?
“Answer the question that was asked of you, directly and clearly or I'm giving up.”
This could seriously be the most clueless, tone deaf, un self aware comment you’ve ever made.
Do you realize how stupid it looks when you get your panties in a wad for bitching about a behavior you’ve been engaging in (it’s been pointed out)?
“These conversations could be practical and helpful and lead to some common ground, but we go on for 86... 150... 230 posts where you keep ignoring questions and data and making stupidly false claims or reading stupidly wrong ideas into what I've said. You can do better than this.
How about this:
Covenant that, "in the future, I will answer questions directly and clearly, with as close to a Yes or No as I can and will do so without reading INTO what the other person says, because I constantly get it wrong when I do that..."?”
Oh, I’m so very sorry. When I posted the last response I hadn’t read this huge pile of self righteous excrement yet.
Literally started your involvement in this thread by NOT answering the question in the original post, and still haven’t.
The hypocrisy and faux, holier than thou, outrage would be funny if you weren’t serious.
Look to the words of Jesus about logs and eyes.
Re: never answered the question of your post.
My first comment WAS my answer to your question. Should we get rid of police forces? My answer is I think we should listen to Black communities and what they have to say on this issue.
That is my answer. That you don't understand it or don't like it doesn't mean it's not an answer.
My answer is not yes or no. My answer is I think we should listen to, follow the lead of black communities.
They are telling us, when we listen to them, they have systemic problems with the police force as it exists. This is an historic and ongoing problem with our policing. Therefore, my answer, my literal and direct answer to your question is we should listen to Black voices.
I've had ONE primary message through all this and it has been abundantly clear. You've complained about my answer over and over. But that is my answer. So you can't say I have not answered your question. You can't have it both ways. Complain about my answer and say I didn't answer.
I took the time to respond to this, knowing you still probably won't get the point, but just to point out the problem is not that I'm not answering. The problem is that you're not understanding.
You do not understand because you don't listen to me and, more importantly, because you don't listen to black voices. You find a few black voices that tickle your ears and ease your conscience but that's not the same as listening to all black voices.
When you do listen to all black voices, you dismiss their concerns as irrelevant and untrue. You condescend and patronize. And that is why you don't understand. You have to be willing to listen to understand.
And so, my answer remains the same as it has from the very beginning...
Listen. To. Black. Voices.
Just because I think it will be helpful to others reading here (if there are any others) or Craig, if he ever opens his eyes.
How many LEO killed in 2019? 48.
How many black people killed by police in 2019? ~263
Percentage of killings of black people by police in 2019? 24%
The black percentage of the population? 13%
Black people are 3x more likely to be killed by police than white people (2019), and
black people were 1.3x more likely to be unarmed when killed (2019).
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
What "holy person/leader of a religion" owned slaves? Depending on how you define "leader of a religion," plenty of them. That is, there were plenty of Christians and preachers (leaders of their churches) who owned slaves. Jesus (the true "leader" of christianity) didn't, of course.
"Many southern Christians felt that slavery, in one Baptist minister’s words, “stands as an institution of God.”
https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-33/why-christians-supported-slavery.html
And, of course, the Southern Baptist denomination came to be because of their defense of slavery. If you're just wanting one name, how about Baptist preacher, Richard Fuller?
"Fuller argued [as perhaps you and other modern Christians do? I don't know, you won't answer directly ~DT] that slavery, in principle, is not sinful. Undergirding his argument was his abiding conviction that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. The Bible alone has the right to define sin."
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-and-why-did-some-christians-defend-slavery/
Why do you ask?
There's more of your questions answered. Maybe you could get around to answering some of mine. But I don't expect it.
And just because I like answering questions, even if my questions go unanswered...
Is it ever appropriate to condemn an entire group of people based on the actions of a few people in that group?
No. HOWEVER, if a few people in a group (white conservatives, for instance) engage in awful, oppressive behavior (a racist attack, for instance or sexual assaulting women and boasting and laughing about it) and the larger group they're a part of ignore or downplay the harmful atrocities... or even elect that person to high office KNOWING that they boasted and laughed about sexual assault, it is appropriate to hold the larger group accountable for THEIR failure to call out the harmful behavior of the one or few from their group that did the bad deeds.
It's why conservatives have lost all moral high ground (if they ever had any) when they knowingly elected a perverted liar and
cheater to the presidency.
Do you disagree?
What country introduced slavery to North America?
I don't know. I think I've read it was the Spanish and/or Portuguese who first brought slaves to the Americas.Or maybe the British.
Why do you ask?
Thank you for admitting, proudly admitting, that you didn’t answer the first question that you were asked, That you answered a question with a question.
It’s a really idiotically, childish look to bitch and while when you’ve done exactly the same thing you bitch about?
Of course your non answer makes no sense. Your hunch that “black people” should have unilateral say on things that affect everyone, is absurd.
Again, thanks for so openly acknowledging your hypocrisy. That’s the difference between us, you demand that I answer questions exactly the way you want them answered. I’ll let you make yourself look stupid for non sequiter responses if that makes you happy.
Craig... "that you didn't answer the first question... that you answered a question with a question..."
Dan's FIRST comment and answer to Craig's question:
Craig: Can we agree that completely eliminating all police is not a good idea?
Dan: Listen to black people and learn about systemic racism inherent in our policing policies...
That's not a question. It's a direct answer. Can we agree that eliminating all police is not a good idea? MY DIRECT ANSWER is "Listen to black people." If they land on "let's 'eliminate all police...,'" then I don't think we can say it's not a good idea. It's an idea worth considering because they are the experts about what is happening in their communities.
That's NOT answering a question with a question. it's directly answering a question with a reasonable answer that isn't yes or no, but is still a direct answer.
Understand now?
(No, of course not.)
Here's a reasoned response to your questions from Marc Morial, former mayor of New Orleans and Urban League president. He explains what you appear to find a complete impossible-to-solve mystery... beginning with explaining the very obvious point that "Defund the Police" is a bumper sticker slogan, not the complete plan. It means cutting back on militarized policing model and investing in other alternative models that make good sense and save money to boot.
Listen to black people.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/10/874450286/former-new-orleans-mayor-on-police-reforms
And I'm done.
As Dan whines about you not answering his questions, while not answering Craig's, it can't be overlooked that Dan insists on his "facts" being recognized. And what "fact" would that be? That "poll after poll after poll" shows that two-thirds of blacks don't trust the police. (BTW, two-thirds is not a "vast majority". It's TWO-THIRDS.)
But that's not a fact worth putting forth when seeking to resolve issues and problems within the black community. It's not worth it because, as Craig rightly observes, it's subjective opinion. But OK. Dan is enamored with this "fact" that most blacks don't trust the police. Full stop. No need to go further. Let's just set policy based on this mistrust of the police force by most blacks, because THAT'S going to lead to intelligent improvements.
Nonsense. It will lead to equally fallacious alterations that won't address the real problems. The reason is because while it may be a fact that most black distrust the cops (I have no reason to dispute it, nor do I think it's any more helpful to do so than it is for Dan to state it in the first place), there's no attempt to address why that is or if there's a real reason to justify the opinion.
Here's the problem. ALL people are motivated by emotion. But some people use that only to compel them to look more deeply. Dan and his ilk don't. BLM and their sheep don't. They satisfy themselves with the emotional response and never do squat to determine if the emotional response is a valid one given the facts. In this case, that's most certainly not the case. The emotional response is NOT valid because there are no facts that support that response. Blacks mistrust police. Why? Their answers are not facts, but more subjective perceptions based on the anecdotal.
And how they rejoice at having the Laquan McDonald's and George Floyd's that appear to actually involve what seems clear are truly bad cops! Oh, how they celebrate these abuses for giving the narrative validity, when it still fails to truly do that. No one, and I mean NO ONE, insists cops are perfect, that no bad cops, even racist cops, exist. But to pretend there is some "systemic" racism within law enforcement is a blatant lie and people like Dan don't have testicle one to question the assertion made by race-hustlers and others who are more concerned with perpetuating that narrative, then they are looking at each case on its own merits to honestly say, "OK, this one is the brother's fault, totally, while this one...this Office Van Dyke and Officer Chauvin are total assholes". No. To the race-hustlers and to the sheep like the pseudo-sanctimonious Dan Trabue, white people are evil racist people.
Listen to black people? Not the black people to whom Dan wants me to listen. Hell, no. It's too serious to listen to those who aren't serious enough to be honest with themselves about why their lives suck. It's too serious to listen to those who don't care about facts and data and how their perceptions don't stack up against them. And it's far too serious to listen the likes of a Dan Trabue, the specific type of white liberal asshat about whom Malcolm X warned against.
Your hunch that “black people” should have unilateral say on things that affect everyone, is absurd.
Per the norm, I never said this, didn't hint at it and don't believe it.
But don't let that stop you. Make up false claims like a Trump fanboy. It's in keeping with the modern evangelical model.
Facts and truths don't matter. it's okay to make false claims, even stupidly false ones.
pfft.
You know what black voices might bring a unique and interesting perspective to this conversation?
The East African immigrants who fled countries were lack of civil authority and lawlessness were the norm. I wonder what they think of the possibility of eliminating the police?
You STILL don't get it because
you're STILL not listening so
you're STILL slandering and bearing false witness.
Wow! While typing out my last, Craig published more that just astounds in its hypocrisy, arrogance and condescension...always charming when a complete moron like Dan feels he's justified in doing so.
"My first comment WAS my answer to your question. Should we get rid of police forces? My answer is I think we should listen to Black communities and what they have to say on this issue."
Dan would NOT...EVER...accept this answer if he was the one asking the question. NOT EVER!!! That lying sack would whine about how the question wasn't answered, and he's right in doing so for any situation where a direct question of his is answered in such a way. So let's review: Craig's question was to pry out Dan's answer to a specific question, which was, should we get rid of police forces? Dan ABSOLUTELY chose to ignore the question. The question was NOT, "should we listen to black communities and what they have to say on the issue of ridding ourselves of police forces?" If Craig wanted to know if you think we should do that, he would have asked you, you pathetic cowardly liar! But he was interested in YOUR opinion on closing police forces. JEEZ, you're a freakin lying hypocrite.
"My answer is not yes or no."
But it was a yes/no question. You don't get to ignore the question in favor to repeat your idiotic falsehood-based mantra, and then whine that Craig isn't answering questions, you putz!
"I've had ONE primary message through all this and it has been abundantly..." BULLSHIT! It has been based on perceptions for which no hard data has been provided to so much as hint that it might be true...because none exists.
"Listen. To. Black. Voices."
We. Have. Been. for years and years and the black voices you insist should get such rapt attention are false, whether intentionally (as some are) or not (as too many are). We prefer black voices that deal in fact and reality. You don't.
While researching death tolls in 2019, I came upon these stats:
9/11 related cancer 24
Accidental 1
Assault 3
Automobile crash 22
Drowned 1
Duty related illness 2
Explosion 1
Gunfire 48
Gunfire (Inadvertent) 2
Heart attack 19
Motorcycle crash 1
Struck by vehicle 14
Training accident 1
Vehicle pursuit 1
Vehicular assault 7
Notice that Dan only has those who died by gunfire (48) and compares that to the number of blacks killed by police (263). What about the 7 killed by vehicular assault? We can't count that because the weapon was a car? What about the 1 killed during a vehicle pursuit? Are we to write it off as probably not the result of chasing a law-breaker? Let's just count the first of the two, and now the toll is 55 cops killed by criminals.
Now let's move on. 19 heart attacks. How many of these were the result of chasing down or in other ways confronting a criminal? We're ready to accuse cops of causing a man's death because of a choke hold when his heart was likely the reason (Eric Garner) he died. So we have to give the same benefit of the doubt to cops who have heart attacks while on duty. Let's cut it in half...call it 9, and now we're up to 64 dead cops. There's 3 who died by assault...67 dead. 24 by cancer related to 9/11...a criminal act if ever there was one. That makes 88 killed by criminals or people acting in a criminal manner.
And who are these 263 dead black people? The vast majority were those killed in the commission of a crime, or during an apprehension for suspicion of having committed a crime, with a small percentage of those wrongly having been suspected of having committed a crime. 263 black people most of whom would still be alive if they were law-abiding, versus 88 cops who would still be alive if they were not doing their jobs confronting law-breakers. I would suspect that there will always be fewer cops killed by blacks than the other way around. The following has more details about the 48:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2019/topic-pages/officers-feloniously-killed
And of course, as Dan lists his stats, he tries to assert there is some evidence of bias without acknowledging one important fact, which that blacks are disproportionately responsible for half the violent crime in this country. Despite that, they are about equal in number to whites with regard being killed by cops while unarmed (1.3 x as many is statistically insignificant). Being 3 times as likely to be shot by cops while being responsible for more crime won't draw any tears from honest people. And here's where Dan's hypocrisy shines again:
"No. HOWEVER, if a few people in a group (white conservatives, for instance) engage in awful, oppressive behavior (a racist attack, for instance or sexual assaulting women and boasting and laughing about it) and the larger group they're a part of ignore or downplay the harmful atrocities... or even elect that person to high office KNOWING that they boasted and laughed about sexual assault, it is appropriate to hold the larger group accountable for THEIR failure to call out the harmful behavior of the one or few from their group that did the bad deeds."
If there's any group ignoring or downplaying ACTUAL atrocities, it's the black community, as they continue to suffer FAR, FAR more at the hands of their own people than they do by cops of any color or white people in general. The stats bear this out as well, yet they choose to focus on the myth of "systemic racism", racist cops and other nonsense, none of which either happens at all or happens with far, far less frequency than suits the narrative.
So when will we see Dan or the race-hustling BLMers into whose butts his nose is firmly planted hold the black community accountable for their failures in calling out the deadly behaviors of those among? As stats show, it's far more prevalent and ongoing than what the narrative wants us to believe, and what Dan is so willing to believe without evidence. The greatest threat to the black community is the black community itself. Thank God some of them are finally waking up to that truth. Dan would have them go back to sleep. He would have the rest of us ignore the facts and concentrate on the false perceptions of two-thirds of the black population.
"I've had ONE primary message through all this and it has been abundantly clear. You've complained about my answer over and over. But that is my answer. So you can't say I have not answered your question. You can't have it both ways. Complain about my answer and say I didn't answer."
!. It wasn't and isn't an answer to the question as asked.
2. In the context of the question as asked, it's an absurd answer.
3. If you are going to "answer" my question with an answer that isn't related to the question as asked, and you're going to bitch and whine about my response, then you have no basis to bitch and whine about my much more direct and relevant answers that you don't like. "You can't have it both ways." Even though you try very hard to have it both ways.
"I took the time to respond to this, knowing you still probably won't get the point, but just to point out the problem is not that I'm not answering. The problem is that you're not understanding."
OHHHHHH, thank you so much. You"took the time" to respond to one thing I've asked. You have no idea how honored I am.
"You do not understand because you don't listen to me and, more importantly, because you don't listen to black voices. You find a few black voices that tickle your ears and ease your conscience but that's not the same as listening to all black voices."
If I didn't understand, it's because your "answer" was totally unrelated to the question as asked, and because you chose to be vague.". You keep making this bullshit claim about the "black voices" that you've imagined I listen to. I've repeatedly pointed out that this is a false claim, and that you have absolutely zero proof. So, put up or shut up. Prove you claim, or stop making it.
"When you do listen to all black voices, you dismiss their concerns as irrelevant and untrue. You condescend and patronize. And that is why you don't understand. You have to be willing to listen to understand."
Again, more falsehoods, lies, and slander. All unproven bullshit. Thank you for revealing your true character as someone who revels in telling lies, constructing straw men, and hiding from questions and dialogue.
Craig... "!. It wasn't and isn't an answer to the question as asked.
2. In the context of the question as asked, it's an absurd answer."
1. It literally IS a direct answer to the question you asked. It is literally my answer to that question. My answer is not yes we should agree that eliminating police is a good idea am I answer is not know we do not agree that eliminating police is a good idea.
My answer to that question is let's listen to what black people have to say and follow their lead. You can't just say that's not an answer to the question when it is very literally my answer to the question. That's just the stupidly false claim.
2. You're saying it's absurd to consider listening to black people on this question? Because if that's what you're saying, do you know how racist that makes you sound?
How about this, why don't you give a rational, calm, reasonable explanation of why listening to what black people are saying and following their lead is an absurd idea to consider when considering police force?
Your problem, I think you will find, is that you trying to answer that question will only expose some racism on your part. But maybe I'm mistaken. Give it a shot. Why is listening to black people on the question of policing an absurd idea?
Again, I see that you picked, chose, and reworded my questions in order to answer your own questions, not the questions I asked. (for the most part)
"Why do you ask?"
Because I wanted to see you dodge and obfuscate.
"And just because I like answering questions, even if my questions go unanswered..."
Apparently you also like lying. It's possible that I missed one or two, but that's nothing compared to your wholesale avoidance, and rewording questions to suit your agenda.
"No. HOWEVER,..."
Which translates to, "Yes, as long as we (Dan and my multitudes on hidden minions), can devise a scenario where it helps up politically or to advance a narrative.
Hey, you actually answered the question as asked, a first. It was a convoluted, bullshit, and ultimately contradictory answer, but an answer nonetheless.
"Do you disagree?"
I agree with the first word of your answer, No. I think it's absolutely idiotic to try to blame, condemn, or punish and entire group of people for the actions of a small percentage of people who "belong" to that group. The primary reason it's wrong is that it shits all over the concept that people are only responsible for their actions, and that you can assign responsibility for one person's action to another totally innocent person. I hope that you remember both your answer "No" and your self serving exception in the future. I'll be certain to remind you when you the next time you engage in this behavior. PS, I think it's exactly as your LBJ bullshit of treating "black people" as a monolithic, one dimensional voting bloc who "aren't black" if they don't mindlessly vote DFL.
"I don't know. I think I've read it was the Spanish and/or Portuguese who first brought slaves to the Americas.Or maybe the British."
"Why do you ask?"
I ask because...
1. I wanted to see if you actually knew history.
2. Had I asked "What European country", your guesses would have been correct. Unfortunately, slavery existed in North, Central, and South America long before the Europeans showed up.
3. If it's correct that Great Britain (more accurate answer), Spain, and France introduced slavery and all it's attendant evils to North America, why aren't y'all protesting and rioting against them? They had it established over 200 years before the US was a thing.
Given the fact that it's obviously a waste of time to parse Dan's responses as thoroughly as I have been, I'll just hit a few "high points" from now on.
"Understand now?"
Of course, I asked a question specifically about if it was a "good idea to eliminate all police".
Your "answer" didn't bear any connection to the question. I understand that your very self image is tied up in convincing yourself that your meandering, convoluted, "answer" was the best answer ever. I understand that it's hard on the self image and a dent to the old pride, but just admitting that you could have done a better job justifying eliminating all police, might be the place to start.
""Defund the Police" is a bumper sticker slogan, not the complete plan. It means cutting back on militarized policing model and investing in other alternative models that make good sense and save money to boot."
1. You still cling to the most benign of the cries, and ignore the rest. It's almost like you're scared to acknowledge what folks on your side are actually saying.
2. That's been my problem all along. That not only is it not a "complete plan", that it's not even a preliminary plan. He's right, it's a damn bumper sticker slogan" or a bullshit hashtag so a bunch of white liberal millenials can tweet about it and think they're big SJW's. had you read and paid attention, you'd have know this already.
3. I'll give you this. You're tenaciously clinging to "defund", with your eyes closed, and your fingers in your ears hiding from what else is being said.
4. "The point is getting rid of the old system in its entirety", whoops you got a little too honest there, pal. "It means cutting back on militarized policing model and investing in other alternative models that make good sense and save money to boot.". Both of those direct quotes of Dan, booth contradict each other.
"Per the norm, I never said this, didn't hint at it and don't believe it."
Let's review.
Craig's question "Can we agree that completely eliminating all police is not a good idea?"
Dan's response "Listen to black people and learn about systemic racism inherent in our policing policies..."
The logical conclusion is if we "listen to black people" say get rid of the police entirely, then it's allowing "black people" to have unilateral or disproportionate control over an issue that affects everyone. Why ignore "brown people" or "red and yellow people"?
Because "Listen to black people" is just one more slogan that means anything, everything, and nothing.
"But don't let that stop you. Make up false claims like a Trump fanboy. It's in keeping with the modern evangelical model."
This is an impressive example of telling a bald faced lie, to try to accuse me of "false claims". I've pointed out that criticizing people for behavior you frequently engage in just makes you look stupid, hypocritical, and unchristian.
"Facts and truths don't matter. it's okay to make false claims, even stupidly false ones.""
Given the frequency of you doing so, I can only assume that these are your words to live by.
"How about this, why don't you give a rational, calm, reasonable explanation of why listening to what black people are saying and following their lead is an absurd idea to consider when considering police force?"
This is the kind of thing you get when you base everything you believe about a particular topic on a foundation of lies.
I don't believe it's absurd to listen to "black people" as we discuss what is necessary to improve our LE system. I believe it's absurd to simply repeat "listen to black people" as if it's a coherent answer for everything. I actually said, in a comment you ignored, that our local East African immigrant community might have a unique voice to add to this conversation. Especially given my conversations with members of that community who fled to the US because the places they lived had no LE.
Your problem is that you've ignored 90% of what I've actually said about the topic, and twisted the rest into a straw man stuffed with lies and misrepresentations. You've spent so much time attacking your straw men that you've dug yourself into a position that you can't reverse without losing face and damaging your pride.
You've based virtually everything you've created in this thread on the fiction that you've created, that I don't listen to "black people". It's interesting that you have this contradictory meme going that I "don't listen to black people" while acknowledging that I do "listen to black people". You just don't like what some of the black people I listen to say, so you simply chant your mantra (as you worship Mystery), and ignore what I actually say.
So, I'll try to be so clear that either you will understand, or that your imaginary twisting of my words will be painfully obvious.
I do listen to black people, frequently.
I don't treat black people as a one dimensional, monolithic, voting bloc. like Biden and LBJ.
I listen to African American black people, and I hear varying opinions and convictions
I listen to African Immigrants, and I hear different things that from African Americans
I listen to Haitians, and hear something different (Like the fact that American black people don't have it so bad)
I also listen to brown people (I'm following your lead by referring to people by their skin color, I'm not trying to be inappropriate) and I hear some similar things and some different things.
We have a pretty vocal native American community (I'll only follow your skin color example so far), again they have something different to say
I listen to our Asian (again not following you) community and their concerns. Especially those who've come from countries where they experienced lack of LE protection.
I could go on, but the point is partially made. "Listen to black people" is simply an absurd mantra that adds nothing to the conversation. Except perhaps an adherence to the LBJ/Biden view of "black people" as nothing more than a one dimensional, monolithic voting bloc who owe some sort of allegiance to the DFL. The only thing stupider is the impossible "listen to ALL black people".
So, yes I listen to all sorts of black people, and others as well.
One hard part right now is the fact that there are so many progressive, white liberals, who are in such a rush to be more "woke" and "down with the struggle", who are shouting so loudly about "listening to black voices" that they drown out the actual black voices. I'm much more likely to ignore Dan and his ilk demanding that I do things they don't and trying to tell me what the "right" answers are, than I am to ignore the relatively quiet voice of John Perkins sitting at my dining room table. But somehow the WL's don't get that, and keep shouting. Is it crazy to think that I might want to hear what actual black people say, than to Dan telling me what they really mean?
This got longer than I thought, so I'll try to summarize.
George Floyd (and all the others that have died in the riots) should be alive today.
The four cops who killed Floyd should be tried and punished.
The killers of the LEO who died in the riots shoudl also be tried and punished.
The looters, rioters, bank robbers, and arsonists, should be arrested, tried and punished.
The thousands of people (of all ethnicities) who donated time, supplies, food, clothing, millions of dollars, and anything else to care for the innocent victims should be celebrated.
The MPD should be completely revamped.
.
The police union should be dissolved.
The 40+ years of mayors, city councilmen and women, county commissioners, state legislators, governors, and LEO who stood by and watched, protected, enabled, and furthered the corruption in the MPD bear more responsibility than the corrupt cops.
As MPLS moves forward, every voice with something relevant to say regarding the direction of LE in the future should be listened to.
This conversation shouldn't exclude anyone simply because someone decides that they don't have the right skin color.
There is a lot of this that applies to the larger conversation, but I'm trying to focus on the local piece because that's where I have the most knowledge and connection. This means that If I didn't mention something outside the local conversation, it's not an indication that I think that whatever is evil.
Dan,
There you go, twist away and turn my words into straw men for you to attack. You're welcome to reword or otherwise turn my questions into whatever you'd like in order to advance your narrative and save your pride.
Art.
I'll get to your comments later. Cleaning up Dan's huge pile of bovine excretia has been plenty for today.
Take your time. In the meantime, you did a good job with the poop.
One small caveat that likely needn't be said (but there are those who need clarification whether they want it or not) regards those who should be tried. They should be punished only if found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law.
I agree that they should only punished after being found guilty. I assumed that I was all about the legal process, but given the situation I probably should have spelled it out with small words.
The problem with dealing with the poop like I do, small chunks with responses, is that I get immersed in the poop and it drags me down.
“Instead of "defund the police" why not this:
Pay more, train more, and expect more.
If you expect more and resource less, you won't get the results you're looking for.”
Not a black voice, but an interesting perspective.
If listening to black voices is a good thing, and if listening to black voices that might be on a different section of the political spectrum is good, would that make a gay black voice darn near the voice of God, wouldn’t it?
Stay tuned.
one of the major problems of listening to the black voices Dan finds so enchanting, is that the problems they believe are uniaue to them are actually experienced by others who are in similar situations yet aren't black. Thomas Sowell, I believe it was, pointed to low income whites in Britain with identical complaints about their living conditions and prospects while making all the same bad choices while eligible for the same types of government handouts. I imagine it would be harder to attribute their situation to racism.
Rather than defund the cops...whatever the hell that's supposed to mean from one day to the next...,they should be elevating the standards under which one is to be sworn in. That's what departments should be doing...always looking for the best, and not worrying about quotas and diversity, none of which has any real value in law enforcement.
From the publics side of the equation, ALWAYS OBEY THE LAW!!! There's far less possibility of finding one's neck under a cop's knee if one abides the law. Pretty freakin simple stuff even a progressive should understand.
Listen to black voices and understand what they're saying. Start listening at 10:20...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV5srZTCX9k
Impressive Dan, you found a 15 minute video of a white guy lecturing everyone on racism with a 45-60 second clip of a black woman.
The fact that you think this helps indicates that you haven’t paid attention to what I’ve actually said.
I’ll point out that virtually everything she mentioned are things that are virtually never funded, or even primarily funded by city government. What you’ve done is to cherry pick “defund the police”, to the exclusion of all of the other slogans being thrown out, and cherry picked one black voice that agrees with your hunch. Well done.
Of course you’ve always been great at arguing against straw men, and sticking to a false narrative no matter what.
Just for grins, it’s be interesting to take a look at Meyers show staff. Look at how many blacks/whites work there. What kind of jobs/salaries each group has and are paid.
But, in general, rich white guys lecturing people on racism, might not be the best way to listen to black voices. Of course, looking to comedy shows for hard news is usually not a great strategy either.
But thank for ignoring multiple comments to post that. I can see how committed you are to paying attention and understanding.
Anyone who thinks Seth Meyers is a viable source of info has to be...well...Dan Trabue. When I look at MY city government (actually Chicago, where I wouldn't actually live if you paid me) or even my state government, we find so much money spent on public pensions and very little on much of anything else. That's only a bit of an exaggeration. But there is one town (if not more, but a local radio host was doing a series on Illinois taxes and allocation) that was spending 80% of its tax revenues on things like pensions, and all other city services came out of the remaining 20% (fixing streets and the like). And while idiots tax the crap out of their citizens to pay for the next new program that will be worthless and poorly managed, more people leave for better states that won't take, take, take without using that money to pay down debt. Federally, there is no Constitutional authority to be a welfare organization. On the state level, I'd be surprised to see a state constitution that authorizes such misappropriation of the citizens' money for that, either. Far better, as always, is for every level of government to do as little as possible beyond their enumerated duties. When the private sector isn't overburdened by "do-gooders", everybody thrives.
And when people obey the law, fewer cops are necessary.
“A Message from a Fed Up Black Woman
Dear White Women Allies,
I know that many of you have been trying to find ways to have a positive impact in shifting the racial dynamics within our city and helping to end police violence and oppression. Although far too many white women are still sitting on the sidelines twiddling their thumbs, some of you are showing up and using your power and privilege to effect change.
First, let me say thank you to those who are rolling up your sleeves, putting some skin in the game, and demanding justice. Second, it is not enough for white women to read books about racism, host book club meetings, hold discussions about racism ad nauseum, etc. Third, it is important to use your privilege and power to challenge power, although it may be uncomfortable for you to do so.
I am calling on you to step up because I am sick and tired of the “political gaslighting” as Desralynn Cole called it, that we have been facing at the hands of many Minneapolis city council members. In particular, I hold Lisa Bender accountable for the additional stress and anxiety that many of us have endured these last few days. As city council President, Lisa Bender has gone from one extreme to the next in focusing on bike lanes, etc. geared towards white people in this city, to now claiming that she would disband Minneapolis Police, to backtracking on national television. It is particularly frustrating to see that Lisa has been on city council for over six years and has not made police reform or overhauling the system a serious priority, despite having gone out to the 4th Precinct protests after Jamar Clark was killed and even doing media interviews about it. The plight of Black people in this city has never been a priority for Lisa Bender, and now our pain is being used as a political tool to deflect attention from her own inaction on these issues, along with the rest of city council. When I saw Lisa at George Floyd’s Memorial service, it made me sick to my stomach, given that she has done nothing significant to address these issues.
I have posted a link to Lisa’s city council page so you all can see for yourselves that not a single thing that she lists as her priorities or accomplishments is connected to police reform. (She lists her support for repealing spitting and lurking ordinances in 2015, but we drove that change as a community.) Under her leadership, the city council has shown their disregard for Black lives in part, by awarding Justine Damond’s family a whopping $20 million, while awarding the families of Jamar Clark and Terrance Franklin less than $1 million combined! SMDH
White women, I am calling on you to hold your fellow white woman, Lisa Bender, accountable for her lack of leadership on policing issues and for the political gaslighting that she is helping to lead in a time of crisis. Beyond that, Lisa has not reached out to the multi-generational Black leadership to hear our voices, our concerns, and what our community needs to heal and move forward.
If you want to use your power and privilege to challenge power, please call and/or email Lisa Bender and hold her accountable. Here is the phone number to her office: 612-673-2210 and her email: lisa.bender@minneapolismn.gov. Thank you for listening and for your support.
#TheTimeIsNow #EnoughIsEnough #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs #NoMoreWhiteWomenViolence
See also Bike Lanes or Black Lives by Toussaint Morrison: https://youtu.be/_NXHZDwSM2c
Nakima Levy Armstrong
BVMLTT
Finally someone in the local black community willing to spread the accountability beyond the MPD. Unfortunately I suspect that whoever she backs will not be real change, just more of the last 40+ years.
Art,
That just validates my argument that public employees unions should be gone.
“Systemic racism assumes racism even if individual racists are not involved. If you’re using examples of individual racism to prove systemic racism, then you’ve failed to understand what systemic racism is.”
Ekkie Tepsupornchsi
AVM
“If we're going to do this; Asian Americans should march on every building, road, school, and bridge named after FDR. (And Jews should probably be marching with them.) Also we should rename everything with Wilson's name on it to "Harding" -- also a bunch of other buildings, because he was our greatest president not named Washington or Lincoln.“
David Harsanyi
VOUEM
https://winteryknight.com/2020/06/12/two-black-economists-explain-how-to-end-poverty-in-america-2/
3 black voices.
Breann Leath.
Say her name.
“I'm very confused about toppling statues...
The Greeks, whose civilisation has long been admired in the West, believed that in the Ancient World, a cultured society was only possible if it was based on slavery
So should we be getting rid of statues of Socrates and Aristotle ?”
Rich white leftist comedian, but interesting point.
https://winteryknight.com/2020/06/15/black-uc-berkeley-professor-writes-the-best-essay-on-black-lives-matter
Again, at least two black voices to ignore.
BVMLTT
“When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear. People with careers as ethnic leaders usually tell their followers what they want to hear.”
Sowell
BVMLTT
Of course, despite the wisdom of the black voices you present here, the truth is that only certain black voices are worthy of attention in the twisted minds of our opponents, regardless of their insistence that such isn't true.
Post a Comment