Defund the Police

[henrygandorf 29194]

19 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Ah ha! But I think we are talking about two different problems, both named "Defund the Police"

One is a political problem, the one Captain and I have been talking about, which is where Dems are boxed in by the GQP with their talk tracks and billboards and commercials during elections. It's a problem of nuance-- witless voters who make up the mass of the voters on any said voting day (the mostly uninformed, soundbyte, vote once an election season, not locally voting or in tune) who can't be expected to spend time and energy unfurling subtext. The Dems get a win here. This should be celebrated, if you are a Dem, right?

The other problem is one where I sense Captain's frustration lie. The Dems/Politicians get a pointless "win" and an excuse to sweep this away and not be bothered by it, or any real effort and energy into what is inherently a very complex problem. They get to keep trodding down the path of least resistance, which is good for them, because most politicians in legacy D or R camps are not very good at solving complex problems.

The point I think you are making is that it is not the Senators place to say what "Defund the Police" means because it was something the streets came up with, but I think voters do see it this way and are confused.

i'll break down the bullets for you:

-tuberville started this, so yes, you can assume whatever it is, is "dumb" and "pointless".

-booker's sarcasm is mildly amusing, but also pointless.  the gop will still claim dems everywhere are trying to defund the police because of course they will.  and nobody will care or remember, and people will vote the same way they would've anyway because this is 100% a team sport now.  nobody cares about dunking or how stupid the gop looks - that's their default appearance.

-the senate passes a bunch of nonsense, but i can't remember one this bad.  this will change neither perception of an issue or the actual issue, which is still and forever left unaddressed.

the sad thing, is that if anything, this actually hurts the idea of police reform, because somebody somewhere will say, "see, everyone is on the same page, right and left, the system works!"  and they won't say it in a cory-booker-sarcasm type of voice.

[Bama Chick 28596]

I mean, it’s an amendment to a non-binding resolution.

It literally means less than nothing.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

So what I think I am hearing is a lot of angst from everyone that this was worse than pointless-- it was actually detrimental.

Which, brings up another question-- what did you expect the Dems to do then? Just drop the sure-fire interception instead of catching it and trying to run it back for 6 whenever Tommy T threw the errant pass, because it's better field position, politically speaking?

Beyond that, @StassneyHorn, was your post then meant to be in frustration as well? Once I made heads or tails of the post, I thought you were posting it as a good thing.

[Satchel 6938]

Defunding the police is what is says and what it means. It is problematic because people who beat this to death really don’t care about explaining what it means.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Whether or not voters see it that way is immaterial to whether or not "Defund the Police" survives as a slogan.

If the Dems want to kill "Defund", they need to solve the problems a different way so that there is no reason for activists to say "Defund".

It's only a political slogan in as much as it can be tied to a political agenda or initiative. Which means it's only effective if it can be synthesized by voters. 

It's all good and well to take the higher ground and be right, as I'm sure you are, about activists and protestors owning the rights and meanings of "Defund", but if activists and protesters can't translate "Defund" to make it politically feasible and digestible by both politicians and voters, then either your (the activists and protestors in the street whose groundswell gave birth to "Defund" as we know it in 2021) strategy to affect change is broken, the government of record meant as the vehicle to implement the change is broken, or both.

Occam's razor says it's probably the Indian, not the arrow.

[Willfully Horn 8038]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Things will make a lot more sense once you understand him better. It can be confusing at first because we're used to the duller people on the internet having trouble writing complete sentences. His prose is readable and communicates what he's trying to convey very well. So at first you don't recognize his deductive and logical limitations.

Odds are decent that he's the unemployable child of at least one English teacher.

I formed a different opinion, though I agree he is not what he describes himself to be. Which is why I think him a troll, and that what you describe is his shtick.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Accuracy

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I formed a different opinion, though I agree he is not what he describes himself to be. Which makes him a troll. You’re describing his shtick.

Please stop or at least take it to a different forum focused on discussing such matters.

Edited August 11, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[hobbes2702 13049]

34 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Defunding the police is what is says and what it means. It is problematic because people who beat this to death really don’t care about explaining what it means.

Yea no one has taken the time to explain it. That’s the problem. Lulz

[bad_teammate 13218]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Defunding the police is what is says and what it means. It is problematic because people who beat this to death really don’t care about explaining what it means.

wrong

false

untrue

And on and on and on and on.

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

So what I think I am hearing is a lot of angst from everyone that this was worse than pointless-- it was actually detrimental.

Yes.

Democrats love to say that huge portions of their voting base are idiots who should be ignored in order to either (1) own Republicans with logic or (2) attempt to win Republicans.

What the Democrats have done here is validate Republican talking points against Defund the Police.

And the Red->Blue crowd here loves it.

Quote

It's all good and well to take the higher ground and be right, as I'm sure you are, about activists and protestors owning the rights and meanings of "Defund", but if activists and protesters can't translate "Defund" to make it politically feasible and digestible by both politicians and voters, then either your (the activists and protestors in the street whose groundswell gave birth to "Defund" as we know it in 2021) strategy to affect change is broken, the government of record meant as the vehicle to implement the change is broken, or both.

That is literally not the job of activists. It is the job of politicians to create politically successful messages. It is the job of activists to amplify the demands of voters.

Look at the Republicans. Their base makes demands and their politicians respond TO that base to try and get it what it wants. The POLITICIANS do the politics for the voters. They are an actual, functional party, which is why they can hold so much power with such a (relatively) small base.

And even if the Republican politician doesn't get what the activists want, he will NEVER shit on his own base for the approval of Democrats. Democrats, on the other hand, would set 3 poor blacks on fire for every 1 white suburbanite they can win over.

What you're saying here is that the voters themselves should do the politicians' jobs for them, which is exactly how Democrats think.

Edited August 11, 2021 by bad_teammate

[TwiceHorn 31510]

On 7/9/2021 at 1:01 AM, Satchel said:

Slowly but surely, working class white people are waking to the reality that out of control peace officers will shoot to death their unarmed children too.

 

Honestly, 20 years ago, I doubt that would have happened, at least as pertains to Rev. Al.  Won't speak for/about Benjamin Crump.  As an attorney for 30 years, I continue to find it hilarious when people use "Attorney" as if it's some kind of title.

[Zepol87 9188]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Defunding the police is what is says and what it means. It is problematic because people who beat this to death really don’t care about explaining what it means.

Are you fucking serious? 

[Hornius Emeritus 12474]

100 thousand MORE cops? So Biden wants a police state? 😉

[bad_teammate 13218]

9 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

100 thousand MORE cops? So Biden wants a police state? 😉

It's what he has always wanted.

[StassneyHorn 6618]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

So what I think I am hearing is a lot of angst from everyone that this was worse than pointless-- it was actually detrimental.

Which, brings up another question-- what did you expect the Dems to do then? Just drop the sure-fire interception instead of catching it and trying to run it back for 6 whenever Tommy T threw the errant pass, because it's better field position, politically speaking?

Beyond that, @StassneyHorn, was your post then meant to be in frustration as well? Once I made heads or tails of the post, I thought you were posting it as a good thing.

My post was not out frustration. Tubberville is eliminating any argument by a 2022 Senate Republican challenger against a Democratic incumbent that they are for defunding. Centrist Dems crowed nonstop post-election in battleground states about this issue for why they didn’t win toss ups. It’s gone now for any voter who legitimately was concerned, instead of concern trolling “independents.” There is a tangible record.

IMO, anyone seriously mad at Cory Booker’s sarcasm or enthusiasm isnt paying attention to the biggest pushes he is making in the Senate, and probably prefers a microwave to an oven for baking food.

[bad_teammate 13218]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

It’s gone now for any voter who legitimately was concerned, instead of concern trolling “independents.”

Cool so like 4 people.

------

Democrats, "BOY THE REPUBLICANS REALLY PUT THEIR FOOT IN IT THIS TIME!"

*Republicans win 60+% control of national and state governments despite having a much smaller voting base*

"Ah well, nevertheless."

[DonkeyCigars 143]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

That is literally not the job of activists. It is the job of politicians to create politically successful messages. It is the job of activists to amplify the demands of voters.

What you're saying here is that the voters themselves should do the politicians' jobs for them, which is exactly how Democrats think.

The problem is that the activists and the demands of *some* voters (activists and protestors and other grassroot, bottoms up political voices who are engaged) is not a monolithic, unified, workshopped message from a consultancy or advertising agency that has a clear and concise meaning. It needs to be understood.

It needs to be understood by either politicians, who are then taking the baton to make laws or policy that voters like and want and will vote for, based on the forecasted demand consumption of their desires (in this case, their cries in the street and social media)

or

It needs to be understood by voters, the 80% of the aforementioned uninformed, non-engaged, once-an-election-season-on-a-national-level voter, who will demand of their politicians that they be given policies and laws to vote for that which they desire. 

One or the other needs to happen in the process for communication and the process to work, I think.

Either way, it's the job of those amplifying voices to have some responsibility in a clear hand-off.

Just creating a first pass of something, organically and spontaneously created with a lot of legitimate fervency and emotion but messy and unclear in the real vision, leads to a situation where your anchor slogan means 5 different things to 5 different protestors you grab off the street. To then throw up your hands and saying at Dems, "well, it's their fault! It's not my job to create a clean vision for you" when even here there are varied opinions of what "Defund" actually means when unpacked (e.g. Literal defunding of police vs. just taking some money away and siphoning it to mental services vs. getting rid of police all together vs. just stop shooting unarmed people, etc.) feels like it's not the most responsible place to throw rocks.

Just my opinion, I appreciate your take and respect your consistency. Educate me.

Edited August 12, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[bad_teammate 13218]

17 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Just creating a first pass of something, organically and spontaneously created with a lot of legitimate fervency and emotion but messy and unclear in the real vision, leads to a situation where your anchor slogan means 5 different things to 5 different protestors you grab off the street. To then throw up your hands and saying at Dems, "well, it's their fault! It's not my job to create a clean vision for you" when even here there are varied opinions of what "Defund" actually means when unpacked (e.g. Literal defunding of police vs. just taking some money away and siphoning it to mental services vs. getting rid of police all together vs. just stop shooting unarmed people, etc.) feels like it's not the most responsible place to throw rocks.

Perfect unity of messaging doesn't exist in voting bases. It is the job of political parties to unite those bases into a comprehensible platform: What else are politicians and political parties for? That's a serious question that you should try to answer.

Do the Republicans get together in DC and say "Fuck you, anti-abortion morons, I need you all to be on the exact same page before we move forward with your agenda! We're voting with the Democrats as a middle finger to you!"? No. 

No one expects the Democrats in DC to start saying "Defund the Police", but what they're doing here is rejecting the movement and embracing the right-wing framing of that movement. Are you seriously confused as to why that's a big problem?

Can you even imagine Republicans working in lockstep to confirm the Democrats' messaging on any issue important to the Republican base?

[bad_teammate 13218]

love to increase the power and scope of our police state to own the Republicans

[Satchel 6938]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

wrong

false

untrue

And on and on and on and on.

Yes.

Democrats love to say that huge portions of their voting base are idiots who should be ignored in order to either (1) own Republicans with logic or (2) attempt to win Republicans.

What the Democrats have done here is validate Republican talking points against Defund the Police.

And the Red->Blue crowd here loves it.

That is literally not the job of activists. It is the job of politicians to create politically successful messages. It is the job of activists to amplify the demands of voters.

Look at the Republicans. Their base makes demands and their politicians respond TO that base to try and get it what it wants. The POLITICIANS do the politics for the voters. They are an actual, functional party, which is why they can hold so much power with such a (relatively) small base.

And even if the Republican politician doesn't get what the activists want, he will NEVER shit on his own base for the approval of Democrats. Democrats, on the other hand, would set 3 poor blacks on fire for every 1 white suburbanite they can win over.

What you're saying here is that the voters themselves should do the politicians' jobs for them, which is exactly how Democrats think.

The people who beat defund the police to death wouldn’t know how to find those obscure sites with both hands. Defund the police is a nuanced polemic against trenchant misbehavior on the part of law enforcement. People living at the intersection of Malcom X and MLK in South Dallas, who have borne the brunt and burden of police brutality, understand it better than most of us posting here. They are more likely to easily understand and embrace a refunding argument but most of them have never heard such an argument being made. 
Ask the garden variety church going citizen living in South Oak Cliff if they want to defund the police, they’ll tell you hell naw, because to them, defund the police is what those words say.

[bad_teammate 13218]

9 minutes ago, Satchel said:

They are more likely to easily understand and embrace a refunding argument but most of them have never heard such an argument being made. 

Cool... who is pushing "Refund"?

[Satchel 6938]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Cool... who is pushing "Refund"?

Isn’t reinvesting in community another way of ultimately refunding police? The slogan itself is problematic and is fraught with as many definitions as CRT.

[bad_teammate 13218]

8 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Isn’t reinvesting in community another way of ultimately refunding police? The slogan itself is problematic and is fraught with as many definitions as CRT.

You're not answering my question.

You don't like Defund, a slogan promoted by a ton of different potential Democratic voters.

Who is pushing "Refund"? You believe it's the job of activists to bake the cake and hand it ready-to-go to the politicians, right? So who is doing that? Because apparently your choices for people with a message are police unions or Defund and you seem very eager to pile as much shit as possible on Defund.

So whose play are you actually backing? Who is actually putting together this "Refund" thing you like?

Edited August 12, 2021 by bad_teammate

[Satchel 6938]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You're not answering my question.

You don't like Defund, a slogan promoted by a ton of different potential Democratic voters.

Who is pushing "Refund"? You believe it's the job of activists to bake the cake and hand it ready-to-go to the politicians, right? So who is doing that? Because apparently your choices for people with a message are police unions or Defund and you seem very eager to pile as much shit as possible on Defund.

So whose play are you actually backing? Who is actually putting together this "Refund" thing you like?

 

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You're not answering my question.

You don't like Defund, a slogan promoted by a ton of different potential Democratic voters.

Who is pushing "Refund"? You believe it's the job of activists to bake the cake and hand it ready-to-go to the politicians, right? So who is doing that? Because apparently your choices for people with a message are police unions or Defund and you seem very eager to pile as much shit as possible on Defund.

So whose play are you actually backing? Who is actually putting together this "Refund" thing you like?

I believe it’s the job of people promoting the slogan to make it mean something  to the people toward whom it is directed. Had these same people been as intentional about explaining the need to reinvest portions of police budgets into the communities they “serve”, Democrats would not have lost 17-18 House seats in the last election. Just because you and I have an idea of what the framers meant when coining the term last summer, does not mean voters share our understanding. 
Democrats of all stripes are doing what we always do; giving short shrift to messaging. That’s a problem, imo.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

 

I believe it’s the job of people promoting the slogan to make it mean something  to the people toward whom it is directed. Had these same people been as intentional about explaining the need to reinvest portions of police budgets into the communities they “serve”, Democrats would not have lost 17-18 House seats in the last election. Just because you and I have an idea of what the framers meant when coining the term last summer, does not mean voters share our understanding. 
Democrats of all stripes are doing what we always do; giving short shrift to messaging. That’s a problem, imo.

This is a point I was trying to make, but I believe one that @bad_teammate rejects. 

And to compare with what the Republicans do as a party I think is not a fair or apples-to-apples comparison (and I think a tricky stance personally for Mr. Teammate to take after literally poking fun and clowning on half this board in another thread for always reflexively comparing to what the GQP does), because their existence as political parties are the same in name only. They might as well be playing a whole different game in a whole different ballpark with respect to the rules for which they charter, identify, enact, and self-govern by are so very different that the fundamental make up is like comparing lobster DNA to chimpanzee DNA.

And I think the biggest reason for that is the constituents and human beings (and populations of human beings or groups of personas) that make up the bases are why that is. The GQP of recent memory have a much more monolithic, unified and similar base of people so that the appeal (or red meat, as I've heard it termed) is easy to identify in order to satiate and control the people of the party to impact their behavior (e.g. repeat the party lines and act as a 10x...nay, 100x multiplier effect online and in communities, circle the wagons to protect their own, get out the torches to crucify an enemy, cut something down before it gets traction, and get out to vote). It's both a luxury and also a detriment, it's the age old story of specialization vs. generalization (by the way, you should read Range by David Epstein to see why this is potentially a losing strategy as we saw in 2020: https://davidepstein.com/the-range/)

Democrats have a much broader, much larger, much more dynamic and varied base which is unwieldy to manage in the same way. You can't just expect to publish the party talking point like you would with GQP, in this case "Defund the Police" and get a huge, varied population of people on a wide spectrum to come together under one banner. The only time that works is with something so universally and elementally heinous (read: DJT) and even that wasn't an overwhelming slam dunk depending on how you interpret the numbers (electoral votes vs. popular vote vs. what margin is a meaningful referendum vs. what is considered a slim win, etc.)

All this talk about parties leads me to this thought-provoking bonus essay question:

What else are politicians and political parties for?

The answer, as far as I can tell and drawing from my own lived experiences and perspectives, is to collate and obtain power.

Politicians exist to gather political power and turn that into whatever resource will further entrench their positions as dictated by their ultimate visions or missions (and history is littered with both good and bad examples of what happens when a great politician wields their great amassed power). Whether it be to retain and keep it as political power, convert it to military power and force, economic power and influence, or whatever, the answer as I see it is power. And political parties exist to make that process of obtaining power more efficient, which is to say easier to organize, manage and control events and people to give them (or wrest from them) that power.

Just like why certain personalities and disorders are drawn to the bulge brackets of Wall St., I think the same about politicians-- it's a rare good and honest and noble soul who chooses to reign in hell (public office) than serve in heaven (private sector).

Edited August 12, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[bad_teammate 13218]

9 hours ago, Satchel said:

I believe it’s the job of people promoting the slogan to make it mean something  to the people toward whom it is directed. Had these same people been as intentional about explaining the need to reinvest portions of police budgets into the communities they “serve”, Democrats would not have lost 17-18 House seats in the last election. Just because you and I have an idea of what the framers meant when coining the term last summer, does not mean voters share our understanding. 
Democrats of all stripes are doing what we always do; giving short shrift to messaging. That’s a problem, imo.

Do you have any evidence at all that the lost seats were due to "Defund"?

Is there a reason you assign blame for those lost seats more to black street activists than the majority-white Democratic Party power structure?

7 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Democrats have a much broader, much larger, much more dynamic and varied base which is unwieldy to manage in the same way. You can't just expect to publish the party talking point like you would with GQP, in this case "Defund the Police" and get a huge, varied population of people on a wide spectrum to come together under one banner.

At no point has anyone here said the Dems at large should run "Defund" as their national campaign slogan. I have repeatedly said THE EXACT OPPOSITE, but I'm surrounded by right-wing trolls of a dozen different variety who uniformly want a blood-soaked police state, their main difference being marginal differences in welfare payments to the poor and whether or not bakers should have to bake cakes for trans weddings.

b_t: "No one expects the Democrats in DC to start saying "Defund the Police"..."

CR: "I can't believe you think they should run on "Defund the Police!""

Always fun to have conversations with people being purposefully obtuse.

You don't have to directly parrot the fringe of your base, you just don't openly scorn them and you actually try to work with them. This isn't complicated.

Quote

Politicians exist to gather political power and turn that into whatever resource will further entrench their positions as dictated by their ultimate visions or missions (and history is littered with both good and bad examples of what happens when a great politician wields their great amassed power).

Even if we accept this cynical vision as reality... the Democrats are awful at it.

I get why an actual right-winger like you defends it, because it's your opponent shitting his own pants eternally, but these Red->Blue converts in this forum flummox me.

[bad_teammate 13218]

It's seriously like talking to anti-vaxxers who refuse to acknowledge that probabilities between 0-100 exist.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

It's seriously like talking to anti-vaxxers who refuse to acknowledge that probabilities between 0-100 exist.

I'm not trying to be dense (I guess in reality nobody tries to be dense) but when you say:

Quote

I get why an actual right-winger like you defends it, because it's your opponent shitting his own pants eternally, but these Red->Blue converts in this forum flummox me.

I don't really even see it as my opponent crapping their pants and making a fool of themselves, so maybe I'm a bad right-winger. Or else the right-winger mentality that celebrates these things has absorbed and fused into me that I don't even know where it starts or ends anymore and we are one.

At the end of the day @bad_teammate, I'm glad you awoke from you slumber to converse-- I've noticed you've been busy and I had to call you back from the ether. I appreciate your conviction so much even if half the time I don't understand it and frustrate you with basic imperatives. You bring out the best in us.

[elfenix 34328]

16 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

Centrist Dems crowed nonstop post-election in battleground states about this issue for why they didn’t win toss ups.

and here i thought it was that cal cunningham couldn't keep it in his fucking pants during election season

[bad_teammate 13218]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I don't really even see it as my opponent crapping their pants and making a fool of themselves, so maybe I'm a bad right-winger. Or else the right-winger mentality that celebrates these things has absorbed and fused into me that I don't even know where it starts or ends anymore and we are one.

That's true of all of us. We're immersed in our shit and our reactions are instinctual, all we can really control is how hard we work to figure out why we believe what we believe.

What Democrats are celebrating right now is the same type of "lol we showed the GOP's hypocrisy!" moral victory they have celebrated for decades as they either lose outright or underperform. So that's one aspect of failure here.

Another simply boils down to how an individual feels about the street activism at large behind BLM and Defund. I am extremely supportive of it. I don't operate with the expectation that a movement comprised of oppressed and underserved people should do the political/messaging work. They aren't the ones with K-street lobbyists and advisors and lifetime political functionaries and allies in the media: That's what the Democrats are supposed to bring.

So what you and the rest of the posters here expect is a reality that will necessarily mean that the poor always lose because they are always going to be the worst at popular messaging.

I see that and feel bad FOR the poor people. Most of you here see that and think, "Sucks for them!" (at kindest).

[DonkeyCigars 143]

23 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's true of all of us. We're immersed in our shit and our reactions are instinctual, all we can really control is how hard we work to figure out why we believe what we believe.

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?” - DFW

[HenryJames 66133]

 

[hobbes2702 13049]

We totally though shouldn’t do anything. We should pretend that we can reform the police instead of doing what’s necessary 

[David Dennison 18937]

And white people have the gall to complain about critical race theory.

[Post Oak 20253]

 

[Brisketexan 105161]

1 hour ago, Post Oak said:

 

That.....is f'n amazing, and f'n so on brand that we couldn't make it up if we tried.

[wildcat09 29355]

1 hour ago, Post Oak said:

 

I'm pro death penalty for these cops. 

[Gap03 3308]

2 hours ago, Post Oak said:

 

From the comments on that tweet ...

Edited September 16, 2021 by Gap03

[brakeman 28387]

The hooks are so tiny, hardly hurts at all.

 

 

 

 

 

https://wrap.com/bolawrap/

Edited September 21, 2021 by brakeman
white targets passively standing still.

[Gap03 3308]

1 hour ago, brakeman said:

The hooks are so tiny, hardly hurts at all.

 

 

 

https://wrap.com/bolawrap/

And when our good-natured "peace" officers "accidentally" aim a bit high (say neck or face level)?  Love all these slightly less lethal products continuing to be developed ...

[DigglerontheHoof 21205]

JFC cops are the worst. 

[Foosters 17858]

 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-30/newsom-approves-sweeping-changes-to-californias-criminal-justice-system

 

Quote

More than a year after George Floyd’s death, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a stack of bills on Thursday aimed at holding California law enforcement officers accountable for misconduct and restricting uses of force that have resulted in death and injury.

The eight measures signed into law by Newsom include raising the minimum age for police officers from 18 to 21, and allowing their badges to be permanently taken away for excessive force, dishonesty and racial bias.

In addition, the new laws set statewide standards on law enforcement’s use of rubber bullets and tear gas for crowd control, and further restrict the use of techniques for restraining suspects in ways that can interfere with breathing.

Quote

Other new laws approved by Newsom expand the types of police officer personnel records subject to public disclosure to include those involving sustained charges of excessive force and improper arrests, and seek more transparency for law enforcement agencies that acquire military equipment, including a mandate to adopt a public policy.

The governor also signed into law a requirement that police agencies adopt policies that prohibit officers from participating in law enforcement “gangs,” that critics have said use violent and intimidating tactics similar to those employed by criminal street gangs.

 

[elfenix 34328]

some of those that work forces

Quote

A data leak of membership records from the Oath Keepers has revealed that several active New York City police officers are members of the extremist, far-right militia group.

https://www.newsweek.com/oath-keepers-data-leak-reveals-active-nyc-police-officers-members-far-right-militia-1634356

[Prepuce of Doom 21091]

Saw this despicable shirt on a 5'4", 180 lbs. homely Karen type today. 

Fucking shitheads made a shirt commemorating last summer's riots. 

"HOLD THE LINE" 

"2020 RIOTS" 

Piece of shit. 

Edited October 2, 2021 by Prepuce of Doom

[HenryJames 66133]

 

[bolverk 29694]

F.B.I. Raids Headquarters of the N.Y.P.D. Sergeants’ Union
Investigators also executed a search warrant at the home of the union’s president, a person familiar with the matter said.

Federal investigators on Tuesday morning raided the Manhattan office of one of New York City’s main police unions in connection with an ongoing investigation, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

The union, the Sergeants Benevolent Association, represents about 13,000 active and retired police sergeants in New York. Its headquarters were searched as part of an investigation by the F.B.I. and the public corruption unit in the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, the people said.

Investigators also executed a search warrant at the Long Island home of the union’s president, Edward D. Mullins, a person with knowledge of the operation said.

Although the precise focus and scope of the investigation could not immediately be determined, the search of Mr. Mullins’s home suggests that the inquiry is at least in some measure focused on him.

An F.B.I. spokesman said only that agents “were conducting a law enforcement operation pursuant to an ongoing investigation” at the union’s offices in Lower Manhattan.

Federal agent spent hours inside the union’s headquarters, where they lowered dark wooden blinds and placed pieces of cardboard inside windows to prevent the public from gazing in. Just after 1 p.m., a group of agents left the building, with two of them carrying large cardboard boxes filled with unknown contents. The group walked about five blocks from the union headquarters to the nearby Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, where the F.B.I.’s field office is located.

Mr. Mullins, an outspoken and provocative figure who has run the union since 2002, could not immediately be reached for comment. The sergeants’ union, which says it is the fifth-largest police union in the country, did not immediately respond to questions about the raid, which was reported earlier by The New York Daily News.

Though the focus of the investigation into the Sergeants Benevolent Association is unclear, it comes as Mr. Mullins faces departmental discipline over his conduct on social media. Known in recent years for making brash and incendiary remarks on Twitter, particularly about Mayor Bill de Blasio, Mr. Mullins declared war on the mayor last year after two officers were shot, accusing Mr. de Blasio of promoting anti-police attitudes.

Mr. Mullins is being brought up for department discipline over his posts on Twitter, including for sharing a police report documenting the arrest of Mr. de Blasio’s daughter, Chiara, during protests over police brutality and racial justice in New York last year. The Police Department does not typically release internal reports, and the one that Mr. Mullins shared contained personal information about Ms. de Blasio.

A disciplinary hearing on the charges started last month and is scheduled to resume on Oct. 27. Mr. Mullins’s lawyer, Andrew C. Quinn, has defended his conduct as free speech and as part of his obligation to advocate on behalf of the union’s members.

Mr. de Blasio declined to comment on the raid at a news conference on Tuesday, saying he did not know any details, but he said that Mr. Mullins had long been a “divisive voice” whose behavior had been “destructive.”

Mr. Mullins also faces internal discipline over tweets in which he used profane language against Dr. Oxiris Barbot, the former city health commissioner, and Representative Ritchie Torres, a Democratic congressman who represents the Bronx.

Mr. Torres, who has called for Mr. Mullins’s resignation over what he has described as racist, misogynistic and homophobic remarks, tweeted on Tuesday that Mr. Mullins had received a “first-class raid” from the F.B.I.

Mr. Mullins has also drawn scrutiny for his outspoken right-wing politics in a city where Democrats significantly outnumber Republicans. Both the sergeants’ union and its larger sister union, the Police Benevolent Association, have been run mostly by conservatives whose views are not widely shared by many in the metropolis they police.

Mr. Mullins has praised former President Donald J. Trump, a Republican who was deeply unpopular among city residents. He also came under fire from liberal lawmakers after giving an interview to Fox News surrounded by paraphernalia linked to QAnon, a fringe conspiracy theory popular among Trump supporters.

Tuesday did not mark the first time that a police union in the city has been the subject of an investigation. In the 1990s, federal investigators indicted several leaders of a now-defunct union that represented transit police officers, accusing them of taking kickbacks and engaging in racketeering schemes.

In 2000, a veteran detective who served as treasurer of the Detectives Endowment Association was arrested and later convicted of steering union pension money into mob-related investments.

[Neonmoon 38129]

 

[Captainant 27682]

I was tempted to post this in the DT thread on the Floyd murder, but didn't want to melt any snowflakes

Bodycam shows Minneapolis officers ‘hunting’ civilians during Floyd protests

Quote

“We’re unarmed!” a woman yelled at the officers in one video. “What are y’all tryin’ to do?”

“Go home!” an officer yelled back.

When a citizen yelled about the police being civil servants, an officer replied “F*** you!”

A woman hollered at the police: “What the f*** are we gonna do to you? We’re out here peacefully protesting; this is f***ing America! We can say what we want!” 

That prompted a barrage of shots from officers.

As people chanted “No justice, no peace” and “I’m unarmed,” the officers fired less-lethal rubber bullets along Lake Street in the hours leading up to their arrival at Lake Street and 14th Avenue. That’s where Jaleel Stallings — after being hit with a rubber bullet — fired back with a real gun because, he said, he didn’t know they were cops and thought he’d been hit with a real bullet. The Army veteran would later testify during his trial that he thought they were white supremacists and purposely missed them to try to scare them off.

Earlier, the SWAT team had been joking and laughing as they punctured vehicle tires and fired 40mm rubber bullet launchers at people violating curfew — marveling at their weaponry’s effectiveness. 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33876]

FUCK.

AND LET ME BE VERY CLEAR.

THE.POLICE.

[Captainant 27682]

4 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

FUCK.

AND LET ME BE VERY CLEAR.

THE.POLICE.

How about instead: Minnesota Police were trained and paid by pipeline companies to arrest protesters? Everything from gear and surveillance equipment, to cheeseburgers for their fat jackbooted asses.

 

God bless America. For the people corporations, by the people corporations.

[Bullneck 19184]

On 6/5/2020 at 9:52 AM, 406W30th said:

Our police state needs a complete overhaul – not just incremental reforms here and there. There's been lots of traction on social media about the idea of defunding the police and while it sounds a bit crazy at first ("WhAt AbOuT mUrDeReRs??!"), it's actually a very practical solution to a horrific problem.

Obviously this isn't something you do overnight, but the idea is that you divest the resources that are currently militarizing our police and you invest in solutions that actually work – mental health care, social services, etc. Our police budgets are extremely bloated, and even if people weren't getting murdered and/or brutalized by overzealous cops, it would make a lot more sense to spend money on preventative measures like safe housing, help for the homeless, child care for working families, etc. 

Why should an armed police officer show up when a homeless man takes a piss on the sidewalk? Why shouldn't that man get some actual help instead of getting tossed in the clink? Why should I get pulled over by two cops with guns when I have a taillight that burns out?

Some police should be trained to respond to violent offenders, but we should absolutely have more community-based solutions and employ people who are capable of providing empathetic, practical solutions to non-violent problems. 

I have had very few issues where I have had to call the cops, thank goodness, but in those rare cases where I actually felt like I needed help from the police, not once has that call resulted in anything but disrespect and fear from the responding officers. I'm a white dude and I'm extremely loathe to call the police; I can't imagine what women or people of color think of asking the police for help.