Minneapolis Cop Murders A Black Man

[hobbes2702 13478]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But what if.....and here's our radical idea.....that's what we started having the police do?  And do so in a focused, well-regulated way?  Imagine such a wacky world.

No no no brisket. Don’t you know we are fighting for anarchy. No laws, no police. Every man for themselves. That seems like a practical idea right?

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean.....should we keep a list of the bullshit the MN PD did AFTER they knew the whole world was watching them because of their shittiness?

Pepper spraying at random out of moving cars, shooting people on their own porch, knifing car tires........shit, I might as well be describing "rioters" here, right?

But if they were just allowed to police themselves, they'd fix everything. Really this is our fault for not giving the police enough power to self-regulate. Otherwise they'd be totally cool and not corrupt or violent.

Edited June 8, 2020 by BradInATX

[workswithseed 2204]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But what if.....and here's our radical idea.....that's what we started having the police do?  And do so in a focused, well-regulated way?  Imagine such a wacky world.

Ifs and buts were candy and nuts. 

Why don't we help cops work if homeowners have easier access to guns so they can call after the intruder was dealt with?

[hobbes2702 13478]

19 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I mean if one were legitimately concerned with the interim between current and future police forces in Minneapolis, they'd research how other cities have handled it; we have multiple examples of American cities doing this. The only reason someone would refuse to do that and continue arguing easily-discredited low-information stances is if they have no actual interest in learning or having a real conversation, and are basically just concern trolling.

"But what about the interim??"

Well, why don't you do a quick google search and see how other police departments have handled the interim in almost identical scenarios?

"BUT WHAT ABOUT THE INTERIM?!?!?!"

 

Come on, dude.

 

Stop being a sanctimonious little cunt.

[BabaYaga 15625]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Ifs and buts were candy and nuts. 

Why don't we help cops work if homeowners have easier access to guns so they can call after the intruder was dealt with?

NY says hold my beer.....

Breaking: @BilldeBlasio announces that he is defunding the NYPD.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

Stop being a sanctimonious little cunt.

I believe he called you a sanctimonious ass, although I like your remix better.

[Brisketexan 106900]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Ifs and buts were candy and nuts. 

Why don't we help cops work if homeowners have easier access to guns so they can call after the intruder was dealt with?

I've said repeatedly I have no problem with armed homeowners.  I think that it shouldn't be EASIER access (for fuck's sake, it's pretty damned easy in most of the country).  But again, that's really worrying about a problem that just isn't that much of a problem.  For people who aren't already involved in criminal activity, there really isn't a rash of home invasions and whatnot.  

I have quite a few firearms.  I also have teenage kids, living through anxious times.  It is safer for me to have every one of those guns locked up to prevent a tragedy in our home than it is to have one loaded and out so I can deal with the MUCH LESS LIKELY threat of a home invasion and whatnot.

If we're looking to reduce crime, better-arming homeowners is literally one of the least effective measures we can take.  Again, I'm not opposed to it -- just understand that in many, many cases (as in, almost all of them), the risks of being armed and ready to shoot an intruder vastly outweighs the risk of actually falling victim to an intruder.

[Pato del Muerto 53506]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Jesus you are a sanctimonious little ass.  I didn't say they were razing the department.  I didn't say they were changing today, tomorrow, or the next day - but they are going to enact sweeping changes across the entire department, which again, for the third time, calls into question the efficacy of the plan on the areas most impacted by crime.  

They are giving notice NOW that this is happening.  In the aftermath of mass destruction.  So until all this changes.....what do people do?  You've now engendered a lame-duck police force.  And the disparate part of the community suffers the most because of it.  City council members stating social workers responding to 911 calls at all hours of the night in some of the worst areas in the city is your solution?  Good luck with that happening.  

60+ officers have now given notice.

When they announced they were shutting down the cops, that was a clear message to anyone on the force, to start looking for a new job.

A company NEVER announces layoffs, until AFTER they've laid people off.

My last company announced a lay-off of 35% of the workforce a month before they laid people off. So maybe don’t deal in absolutes, sergeant sith. 

[Huckleberry 34657]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

My last company announced a lay-off of 35% of the workforce a month before they laid people off. So maybe don’t deal in absolutes, sergeant sith. 

There are multiple examples this year of companies announcing that they will be laying off thousands of employees. Facts and data don't matter to the "but muh feelings" crowd.

BP announced that they will be laying off 10,000 people literally yesterday.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Huckleberry

[BradInATX 9208]

Yeah, I mean there's definitely tremendous benefit to having officers who are mad that they are going to have to be responsible for their actions self-select out of the organization as it is being restructured. They sure showed us!

[BabaYaga 15625]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It is safer for me to have every one of those guns locked up to prevent a tragedy in our home than it is to have one loaded and out so I can deal with the MUCH LESS LIKELY threat of a home invasion and whatnot.

Why on God's green earth would anyone had a gun out with anyone else in the house?  Jesus, get a bio metric pistol safe for the nightstand and call it a day.  What's the NCVS stats?  2003-2007 almost 4 million home invasions?  The common factor was a familiarity between parties.  DU (defensive handgun) deterrents @ roughly 12% of those?  Not an insignificant number.  

[gmr548 16701]

So you don't see legalizing all drugs as making that problem worse?  We already know that drug addiction in many cases leads to more crime.
I'm just spitballing here.  I recognize that law enforcement is a problem in our country as is drug addiction and the crime related to drug addiction.  Making it legal doesn't put money in the addicts pocket to purchase drugs.

TwiceHorn spelled out most of what I was going to say, but also understand that legalization and decriminalization are two different things. Legalization is weed in Colorado. No one's proposing that for heroine or meth.

You would still have the same violence due to the cartel/dealer conflicts

What's your point?

[Brisketexan 106900]

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Why on God's green earth would anyone had a gun out with anyone else in the house?  Jesus, get a bio metric pistol safe for the nightstand and call it a day.  What's the NCVS stats?  2003-2007 almost 4 million home invasions?  The common factor was a familiarity between parties.  DU (defensive handgun) deterrents @ roughly 12% of those?  Not an insignificant number.  

So....a really low number, based on population.  And no shit "familiarity" between the parties.  A metric shitton are related to the drug trade (man, we keep going to back to the collateral damage of the drug war).  I'm not against firearm protection in the home -- I just think it's a red herring with respect to the current discussion.  Which of course, is what y'all want.

American citizens are under constant assault and threat, and we need the warrior cops to guard the door, and if we get rid of them, then by God, WE need to all be warriors!

[immortal13 4059]

5 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

TwiceHorn spelled out most of what I was going to say, but also understand that legalization and decriminalization are two different things. Legalization is weed in Colorado. No one's proposing that for heroine or meth. What's your point?

That you're a cloak room cunt?

[gmr548 16701]

That you're a cloak room cunt?

Lol. Okay. No real answer then?

[BabaYaga 15625]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So....a really low number, based on population.

Cool, now do police brutality......am I doing this right?

Edited June 8, 2020 by BabaYaga

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

That you're a cloak room cunt?

You have over 400 posts in the Cloak Room.

[gmr548 16701]

You have over 400 posts in the Cloak Room.

And 3x that on texags.

[BabaYaga 15625]

1 minute ago, gmr548 said:

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

You have over 400 posts in the Cloak Room.

And 3x that on texags.

Is today sick burn bro' day?  It feels like it's sick burn bro' day?

[ChickenSandwich 9959]

Chicago has a better weekend in regards to gun violence vs June 1st

5 dead and 38 wounded vs 27 dead and 92 wounded. 

[workswithseed 2204]

45 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I've said repeatedly I have no problem with armed homeowners.  I think that it shouldn't be EASIER access (for fuck's sake, it's pretty damned easy in most of the country).  

Some parts of the country have a lot of deaths, there seems to be a parallel with stricter gun laws, and more deaths.

[immortal13 4059]

17 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

You have over 400 posts in the Cloak Room.

Over many years, bruh. 

[immortal13 4059]

17 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Is today sick burn bro' day?  It feels like it's sick burn bro' day?

Those cloak roomers are super hilarious 

[gmr548 16701]

Is today sick burn bro' day?  It feels like it's sick burn bro' day?

Seems more like "avoid answering a simple question and throw out an ad hominem instead" day, but hey, that's my fault for engaging. I should know better.

[mdmost 44049]

3 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Those cloak roomers are super hilarious 

Yes, you sure are. 

[BabaYaga 15625]

1 minute ago, gmr548 said:

21 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Is today sick burn bro' day?  It feels like it's sick burn bro' day?

Seems more like "avoid answering a simple question and throw out an ad hominem instead" day, but hey, that's my fault for engaging. I should know better.

OH SHIT!  The elusive look at me, I'm acting like I'm being sensible but really I'm just a twat double-BURN!

[dcar00 14973]

35 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

TwiceHorn spelled out most of what I was going to say, but also understand that legalization and decriminalization are two different things. Legalization is weed in Colorado. No one's proposing that for heroine or meth. What's your point?

what are the numbers for police related deaths for weed vs non weed?

what are the arrest numbers for weed vs non weed?

how many weed offenses only involved weed?

 

[gmr548 16701]

what are the numbers for police related deaths for weed vs non weed?
what are the arrest numbers for weed vs non weed?
how many weed offenses only involved weed?
 

No idea x 3. I just want to make it clear that it's not an all or nothing proposal between the current approach and meth at Target (outside of Oklahoma, where the latter is the current approach).

[dcar00 14973]

2 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

what are the numbers for police related deaths for weed vs non weed?
what are the arrest numbers for weed vs non weed?
how many weed offenses only involved weed?
 

No idea x 3. I just want to make it clear that it's not an all or nothing proposal between the current approach and meth at Target (outside of Oklahoma, where the latter is the current approach).

fair enough but if we want to stop the war on drugs, then why don't we stop the war on drugs?

[clapclapclap 9000]

 

[Guest Lobo]

For a host of reasons...the biggest one is not financial or feeding the prison or police machine.  It's quite simple...convicted drug felons can't vote.  

We had mandatory, federal sentencing guidelines for marijuana possession for decades?  But we never got around to coming up with sentencing rules for mass, homicidal, interstate murder?  Hmmmm, let's see which one impacts the most dark people.  

[Brisketexan 106900]

41 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Cool, now do police brutality......am I doing this right?

Depends.  Do we the public actively cover up and protect the bad home invaders?

You seem to have a problem catching that THAT is where the whole fucking thing breaks down.  Keep being obtuse, though.

1 bad actor = problem.

All of the actors around that bad actor, sworn to serve and protect the people, COVERING for and PROTECTING that bad actor = huge, systemic problem.

So, your analogy is shit until we the people 1) have a uniform duty to serve and protect and 2) consistently cover for and protect the bad guys.  But you don't get that, either unintentionally or on purpose, I don't much give a shit which it is.

Oh, and remember how we were counting the shockingly coincidental "bad apples" who saw cops do wrong, and instead of intervening, backed the bad cops?  I added the 57 Buffalo NY cops who quit their special squad to support the two cops who participated in pointless violence against a 75 year old man. I mean, what ARE the odds?  How do we keep finding all of these cops, in huge groups, who just coincidentally fail the simple test of "when you see a cop doing bad shit, stop him and stand up for the people?"  It's a mystery, I guess.

[BabaYaga 15625]

11 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

fair enough but if we want to stop the war on drugs, then why don't we stop the war on drugs?

Sunk cost fallacy

[hobbes2702 13478]

5 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

 

This has been addressed thoroughly.

[Brisketexan 106900]

34 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Some parts of the country have a lot of deaths, there seems to be a parallel with stricter gun laws, and more deaths.

Not very good at the "correlation doesn't equal causation" thing, are you?  Is your position that the "more deaths" in, say, Chicago, is because strict gun laws have prevented people from having guns?  That is, the solution in Chicago is....MORE armed people?

Or, could it be that 1) the laws are in reaction to high levels of firearm violence, and 2) a large reason they fail is because of the easy availability of firearms in neighboring jurisdictions?

But that's all I'm going to engage on this point -- it is a red herring meant to distract, and to protect your and Baba's sacred cow: the GodMen among us, the police, who protect us, and if we do ANYTHING to limit their ability to protect us, then we are committing suicide as a people.  Bullshit.  I can live without a PD that slashes tires, sprays pepper spray out car windows at hundreds of people, shoots people on their own porch and -- let's not forget this one -- murders people in plain view with a "fuck you, what are you gonna do about it?" look, while protected from any interference by an armed guard of more cops.  Yeah.  I think we're better off walking out on that abusive relationship.  Especially when the PD was clearly on notice that shit was wrong, and they doubled and tripled down.

[Rougarou 594]

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

This has been addressed thoroughly.

Where? Serious question because I'd like to read whatever you can link me to because this is baffling to me still and I want to believe that there is higher order thinking that is managing the results and the outcomes that the brute force demonstrating from the top of the funnel is creating, and it's not just going to devolve into mass mob hysteria. But when I see the Mayor of MSP, who is the exact persona I would expect for a progressive, millennial, forward-thinking and diversity and inclusion kind of guy get chewed up and spat out because he's not radical enough, it's confusing without having read about it addressed thoroughly.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Rougarou

[dcar00 14973]

3 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Where? Serious question because I'd like to read whatever you can link me to because this is baffling to me still and I want to believe that there is higher order thinking that is managing the results and the outcomes that the brute force demonstrating from the top of the funnel is creating, and it's not just going to devolve into mass mob hysteria. But when I see the Mayor of MSP, who is the exact persona I would expect for a progressive, millennial, forward-thinking and diversity and inclusion kind of guy get chewed up and spat out because he's not radical enough, it's confusing without having read about it addressed thoroughly.

this is contract negotiation 101...

[BabaYaga 15625]

3 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Where? Serious question because I'd like to read whatever you can link me to because this is baffling to me still and I want to believe that there is higher order thinking that is managing the results and the outcomes that the brute force demonstrating from the top of the funnel is creating, and it's not just going to devolve into mass mob hysteria. But when I see the Mayor of MSP, who is the exact persona I would expect for a progressive, millennial, forward-thinking and diversity and inclusion kind of guy get chewed up and spat out because he's not radical enough, it's confusing without having read about it addressed thoroughly.

Basically this

[Rougarou 594]

The way he responded made me believe there was another thread with adult conversation and maybe some sound reporting and pieces that thoroughly discussed. If it's just photos and gifs. 

[elfenix 34752]

7 hours ago, mdmost said:

like the anarchists in Seattle going at it with police.

which they've been doing for 21+ years.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, Rougarou said:

The way he responded made me believe there was another thread with adult conversation and maybe some sound reporting and pieces that thoroughly discussed. If it's just photos and gifs. 

We've tried to pin him down and make him address topics seriously and so far he's disappeared, pivoted to discussion about NYC libtards, and posted comic book strips. So that's about how it's been going.

[BabaYaga 15625]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

and to protect your and Baba's sacred cow: the GodMen among us, the police, who protect us, and if we do ANYTHING to limit their ability to protect us, then we are committing suicide as a people.

Jesus christ you are the king of fucking straw man bullshit.  Literally nobody said anything remotely close to that.  Nobody is saying it.  It NEVER fucking happened.  Repeatedly scenarios were given for a myriad of option that significantly limit and restructure the very core of how we view the public sector.  From legislation.  To regulations.  To oversight.  To training.  To budget considerations.  But no, if you are not 100% on board with tearing the whole fucking thing down......

[hobbes2702 13478]

8 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

We've tried to pin him down and make him address topics seriously and so far he's disappeared, pivoted to discussion about NYC libtards, and posted comic book strips. So that's about how it's been going.

I think he’s talking about me.
And it’s been addressed about 50 times in the last 5 pages of this thread alone.

[workswithseed 2204]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Not very good at the "correlation doesn't equal causation" thing, are you?  Is your position that the "more deaths" in, say, Chicago, is because strict gun laws have prevented people from having guns?  That is, the solution in Chicago is....MORE armed people?

Or, could it be that 1) the laws are in reaction to high levels of firearm violence, and 2) a large reason they fail is because of the easy availability of firearms in neighboring jurisdictions?

Yes, I think it would be great for people to own guns easily. Why make it harder to protect yourself? 

I also think it should be less strict on what gun you can have. People rioted over a man dying in the back of a van. The reason was a switchblade, or how about a man selling cigarettes in New York on the cheap, cause he went to Jersey to buy them since they tax them less than New York. That's 2 people who wouldn't have died cause of government action.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Drug addiction is a demand-side problem, not a supply-side problem.  You more than likely are not going to see an increase in addiction if drugs are legalized and thus, ostensibly, easier and cheaper to obtain.  That has certainly been the case in legalizing jurisdictions such as Portugal.

Do you honestly think the war on drugs curtails the supply of drugs sufficiently to limit the number of addicts?

Because it is a demand-side problem it is a health problem.

As drugs go, alcohol is among the most dangerous there is and it is not only universally available but its use is actively encouraged. You can OD on it. It causes people to fight, stab, shoot and bludgeon each other, and crash into trees and other people in their cars. Heavy users can die from withdrawals, and long-term users from organ failure. The only other class of drugs I can think that is as dangerous across all levels is benzos; all the others fall short on at least one of those counts. People on amphetamines tend to drive well. The long-term health effects on heroin users is minimal -- dirty needles are the cause of most of their health woes, and while withdrawal from opiates sucks, it won't kill you. Weed is not worthy of mention, but fake weed is evil shit. And users of all these illegal drugs can get them already -- why do we condone only one of the worst, if not the worst of them all? Cultural inertia. That's all it is; that and criminalization serves as a tool to disenfranchise and further impoverish the least among us. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by MaybeACoordinator

[Rougarou 594]

16 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I think he’s talking about me.
And it’s been addressed about 50 times in the last 5 pages of this thread alone.

Link me something, big dog, because I can't find it (and have not been engaged in but maybe 1% of this thread)

Edited June 8, 2020 by Rougarou

[NeverMarryAStripper 22302]

I would say Meth is worse, but I'm still in favor of at least decriminalization, if not out right legalization 

[Brisketexan 106900]

34 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Jesus christ you are the king of fucking straw man bullshit.  Literally nobody said anything remotely close to that.  Nobody is saying it.  It NEVER fucking happened.  Repeatedly scenarios were given for a myriad of option that significantly limit and restructure the very core of how we view the public sector.  From legislation.  To regulations.  To oversight.  To training.  To budget considerations.  But no, if you are not 100% on board with tearing the whole fucking thing down......

Your only response to the idea of defunding police so that they are a more narrowly-focused entity is variations on "the world is so dangerous, and you'll regret not having police in every nook and cranny to protect us!"  You've 100% bought into the police as the shepherds, and without them on every street corner, we are going to all fall victim to the horrors of violent crime that lurks behind every bush and fire hydrant.

You don't want reform.  You want window dressing.  We've given the police decades to clean up their shit.  Not only have they not done it, but when they are confronted with their malfeasance, they consistently raise their middle finger and defy the public interest.  Discipline one of our fellow officers?   Fine, we quit.  Complain about police brutality?  Fuck you, we're going to take down the American flag and replace it with a blue lives matter flag.  Point out huge and obvious failings in a major PD?  Let's rough up as many people as we can and destroy their property for having the gall to question our authority and omniscience.  The police fucking had their chance for pussy-ass half measures.  They've rejected it almost completely across the board.

We need to completely rethink what policing is, and what it should do.  I propose the wacko, radical idea of "maybe the police should just be in charge of threats to life and property -- actively preventing them, investigating the crimes, etc.".....and I'm dismissed because anyone other than a cop will surely be slaughtered in the street the minute they show up to render mental health assistance, or write a ticket for a busted tail light.  There is only one model of police that is acceptable: they do it all, all the time, and everywhere.  And they take a few token "reform" measures that will end up with no teeth.

No.  They are an abusive fucking spouse who barely even apologizes after each beating -- actually, the more typical response is "if you don't like it now, defy me again and see it get worse."  It's way past time to end the dysfunctional, abusive relationship.

[Brisketexan 106900]

35 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Yes, I think it would be great for people to own guns easily. Why make it harder to protect yourself? 

Yes.  I think it's clear, the thing that would most stop violence in Chicago is.....open gun shops on every street corner and sell them like hot dogs.  JFC.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.  I think it's clear, the thing that would most stop violence in Chicago is.....open gun shops on every street corner and sell them like hot dogs.  JFC.

I don’t think it would make a difference either way.