National Protest and 'disband the cops' discussion (please review page 1)

[amlove21]

-10 this is a terrible take.

Do not care about your ideological capture for mid burger joints. I will kill on this hill.

OK, cool.

Hilarious +1

+10

This puts me at a +2 total, the people have spoken.

You're losing a lot of points here. Baconator take is solid. But if you like Five Guys you're dead to me.

I also do not like 5 Guys- paying $30 for a single burger combo meal is insane.

So it has been written, so it shall be- In n Out is McDonald's with better branding.

 

[amlove21]

Cops are not social workers. Having people that respond to non-violent crimes frees cops up to do their real jobs.
I.E. out here we have a community service patrol that deals with traffic incidents, non-emergency calls, etc.

This part broke my brain. Can you clarify the disposition/composition of the community service patrol and what non-violent crimes they would respond to vs police?

 

[Marauder06]

Crimes should be dealt with by people who are trained and equipped to fight crimes. So many "non-violent" crimes quickly turn violent when someone intercedes to stop the criminality. Domestics, shoplifting, and burglary are examples that immediately come to mind.

 

[amlove21]

Crimes should be dealt with by people who are trained and equipped to fight crimes. So many "non-violent" crimes quickly turn violent when someone intercedes to stop the criminality. Domestics, shoplifting, and burglary are examples that immediately come to mind.

There is no way to prove a counterfactual, but I will go ahead anyway since all those rules don't matter and the points are made up.

Police showing up to a "non-violent" call deters someone from getting more violent. Agitated, mentally ill or nefarious folks that are presented with some social workers talking about their feelings are going to include violent solutions in their calculus more often than they would if presented with armed LEOs. Change my mind.

 

[Marauder06]

There is no way to prove a counterfactual, but I will go ahead anyway since all those rules don't matter and the points are made up.

Police showing up to a "non-violent" call deters someone from getting more violent. Agitated, mentally ill or nefarious folks that are presented with some social workers talking about their feelings are going to include violent solutions in their calculus more often than they would if presented with armed LEOs. Change my mind.

Yep, One of the things I remember our instructors teaching us at the police academy is the deterrent value of "presence." If you're there and you look ready (and, frankly, armed) you can deter a whole lot of badness. In my Academy class there was a super-nice guy who was something like 6'9" and looked like a Serbian war criminal. No one wanted to screw around when that guy was nearby.

I also saw something similar when I was in the Army. I think I mentioned this on the site before, but when I was a company commander in Korea, my first sergeant and I got regularly tagged for "presence patrol," which involved us going into all the "juicy bars" (i.e. bar/brothels) and other places frequented by US soldiers in the Uijongbu area. I deeply disliked this tasker, because 1) my soldiers were Korean linguists and didn't frequent those sorts of establishments because they could speak the language and would go to places that US soldiers didn't typically go., and 2) we had to be unarmed.

My first sergeant and I came out of one juicy joint near the train station and walked right into a standoff between a group of drunk GIs and some Filipino pimps armed with switchblades. Us being there gave the GIs a reason to back off and save face, and the Filipinos didn't want to fight because they were now badly outnumbered and outflanked. Good times.

 

[Kraut783]

We have uniformed Public Safety officers (non-armed or sworn) who will respond to accidents, road issues, and can take reports from victims. It works pretty well and does free up regular patrol officers.

But, they would never respond to an ongoing disturbance...be it a verbal altercation or more.

 

[Box]

Crimes should be dealt with by people who are trained and equipped to fight crimes. So many "non-violent" crimes quickly turn violent when someone intercedes to stop the criminality. Domestics, shoplifting, and burglary are examples that immediately come to mind.

This is an easy one to answer...

Domestic call - social worker responds, get murdered by a wife beater thats raging on meth - neighbors dial 911 - "real cops" arrive and shoot the mostly nonviolent wife beater - case closed

Shoplifting - fuck stores - big business makes tooooo much money already. Citizens need to take ownership of the means of production so that shoplifting will o longer be a problem.

Burglary?
C'mon man - don't resist, let the burglar take have you 42 inch TV then call the social worker cops to report the theft of your 60 inch TV and to schedule some post incident counseling...
...then file a claim with your insurance company to replace the 72 inch TV that was just stolen from your house

EASY.PEASY. LEMON.SQUEEZY.
We don't need no stinking badges !!!


NO MORE COPS
NO MORE COPS
NO MORE COPS

COME ON FOLKS - SAY IT WITH ME...

NO MORE COPS
NO MORE COPS
NO MORE COPS

 

[Gunz]

Less cops just means I can drive faster with less risk

No cop, no stop.

 

[amlove21]

We have uniformed Public Safety officers (non-armed or sworn) who will respond to accidents, road issues, and can take reports from victims. It works pretty well and does free up regular patrol officers.

But, they would never respond to an ongoing disturbance...be it a verbal altercation or more.

A traffic accident is an ongoing disturbance. A road issue is an ongoing disturbance.

 

[Cookie_]

You're trying to argue the point you wished I made, instead of the one I did make. This was my post:

View attachment 48005

"We all knew this would be the outcome." And yes, we all knew that Defund the Police would be absolutely rejected, because it was absolutely insane. You choosing to cherry-pick an outlier from a list that shows a clear trend in the opposite direction of the argument you chose to make doesn't change that.

Fair critique; I was arguing more about the topic of the article than your posted statement. I dont have an arguement against it.

As for this:

Nope, it was a stupid idea since day one, because from day one it ALWAYS meant "defund the police." If they wanted to "reform" the police, the movement would be "reform the police" or "make City Hall make better funding decisions," not "defund the police."

It did start with stop giving the cops more money to do things they arent trained for, and give those funds to social/community services. That said, when have libs/leftist ever been good at slogans?
It was an intentionally charged statement to get attention that proved to have backfired for them.

This part broke my brain. Can you clarify the disposition/composition of the community service patrol and what non-violent crimes they would respond to vs police?

@Kraut783 hit on some ways I've seen it. Again, I'm not privy to what their dispatch SOP is for if it's community service alone or with LEO.

A few situations in which I've interacted with them:

-showed up at an accident with an LEO, then the LEO bounced once they determine the situation is calm.

-when shit was stolen out of my car.

-to take information about an abandoned vehicle on my street.

-to do a wellness check (on an older neighbor)

-with an LEO, to respond to a noise complaint/dispute amongst my other neighbors.

It seems like they show up alone if its something that might be seen as routine/low priority and with an LEO for instances that might have some more "tempers" attached.

‐-------------

The best fast food burgers are at Cook-Out. I've never had them sober so maybe that colors my ranking, but nothing beats a burger+fries+chicken wrap+shake for ~$7.00