Another day, another police beating in America

[GreyICE]

Kudos to the protesters who get that they also need to take a stance against violence of any kind against stuff and people, that have nothing to do with police brutality, but you just, GreyICE, can not just sit there and pretend that all things are peachy and rosy.

No, I do a great deal more than "sit there". I go and see for myself.

I'm sorry that you from the comfort of your home are blind.

Protestors: Some of us allegedly looted and burned down Target
Police: we have committed multiple war crimes on camera https://docs.google.com/document/d/104sfYjLBNSjFYbl6qo80IWzoLpz_rg6xxZCX4yVtSUE/edit

Crimson: sad to see people perpetuating the cycle of violence. I see no difference. Both sides are bad. Don't fight hate with hate uwu

This.

Also how is Captain Crimson still asking on what the alternatives to our militarized police are? He's been linked to them and had it explained to him multiple times. If he has a problem with anything explained to him, then he can ask, but at this point just asking "what are the alternatives to militarized police" is transparent as hell.

Minneapolis is not the first city to disband it's police department. It has gone well. And I really doubt it'll be the last.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

That's what MLK did. Not many have the courage to go against their instincts for self-preservation and take a stand for something TRULY important. Back then, you had the hoses turned on you. Flesh ripped off. Dogs set on you to gnaw your bones. Lynchings, burnings, chaos. And yet MLK, for all his very real human flaws nevertheless, still urged peaceful demonstration. We have less cause to do so now, after all the social reform since then. Look back then. Interracial marriage was illegal in certain states. I might literally not be able to get married to a black girl if I was dating her. That's no longer an issue. So there has been some improvement. But it's not enough, and again, our generation are spoiled brats.

This is like asking why we don't use more atomic bombs because it helped us win the war.

[CmdrKing]

Invoking MLK is incomplete in this context anyway. King's movement did not exist in isolation, and in other parts of the country both the community action of the Black Panthers and the liberatory/revolutionary movement of Malcom X held much stronger sway. The actions of all of these groups were instrumental to the eventual passage of the Civil Rights Act, showing the breadth and determination of the populous to achieve these vital goals.

Black Lives Matter is simultaneously much more decentralized, without any clear figurehead like King, but also far more organized in terms of messaging and presentation across all chapters. Most people not on the ground refer to the movement as BLM, and most existing movements working towards similar goals have associated with BLM. We understand as a culture basically all facets of the modern movement against police violence as all being under the mantra Black Lives Matter.

In other words, the modern movement has intentionally fashioned itself in a way such that it cannot be easily whitewashed and coopted by whites to downplay the struggle they will undergo to achieve their goals. WE must grapple with the whole of the movement and the whole of the struggles and tactics required to abolish police violence in this country, and there will not be space for symbolic victories or half-measures.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

Minneapolis is not the first city to disband it's police department. It has gone well. And I really doubt it'll be the last.

I'm gonna avoid a twitter style dunking, but that thing that totally went really well hasn't, at this point in time, actually happened.

No surprise it went exactly the way you expected though.

[CmdrKing]

Minneapolis has not disbanded its police, no. But other places have, in the past. To this point they are often just replaced wholesale, although there's a point where that's a better outcome: http://www.rai-see.org/ukraine-replaces-entire-police-force-to-beat-corruption/

But of course, we can also look to other forms of police stepping back that... actually lead to less crime: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/nyc-cops-did-a-work-stop-yet-crime-dropped/

You can argue neither of these instances track well to the emerging demand for police abolition, which is true... but the principles that lead to those outcomes still apply. The demand isn't to remove the police and replace them with *nothing*, but to remove the poisoned, rotten departments in place now and replace them with something that *works*: less violent, less armed, and more specialized for the tasks each branch is meant to solve, and equipped to address societal problems in a real way.

As an example, the police as they exist now cannot solve homelessness, yet it's considered their duty. This is nonsense. Arresting, beating, or denying places to sleep to a homeless person does absolutely nothing to make them not homeless, but that's the only options available to a police officer as we have them! Send in social workers and mental health professionals, empowered to temporarily house and monitor people while they rebuild their lives.

[Captain Crimson]

Protestors: Some of us allegedly looted and burned down Target
Police: we have committed multiple war crimes on camera https://docs.google.com/document/d/104sfYjLBNSjFYbl6qo80IWzoLpz_rg6xxZCX4yVtSUE/edit

Crimson: sad to see people perpetuating the cycle of violence. I see no difference. Both sides are bad. Don't fight hate with hate uwu

I mean, I could be off-kilter, since I don't follow the main news media outlets, though from the brief clips I have seen, there were absolutely burning buildings in Minnesota... possibly. Maybe it was from some other state. But property damage here is not what will win you sympathy points with the larger numbers of independents and centrists in this country, nor will calling them bigots, as I have said over and over. And it's as unacceptable even if it's to some big mega corporation than it is to have people's faces bashed in. This cannot go on, yet it seems it will persist into the near future, sadly.

This.

Also how is Captain Crimson still asking on what the alternatives to our militarized police are? He's been linked to them and had it explained to him multiple times. If he has a problem with anything explained to him, then he can ask, but at this point just asking "what are the alternatives to militarized police" is transparent as hell.

Minneapolis is not the first city to disband it's police department. It has gone well. And I really doubt it'll be the last.

So fire a ton of people during a pandemic? If this is really just a mass firing to hire new workers when the old ones have failed their jobs, fine than. Sometimes that is a necessary evil. And that sounds like what you guys want, so I can respect you on that. But I can't help but wondering if the leftists pushing for this at the top want this so it will reflect even worse on Mr. 45 and strengthen the argument he is bad for the economy. I don't have an opinion on his handling of the economy one way or another past the admission he is a buffoon, and I think that's all that needs to be said.

Maybe it's just radicalization, but the way it feels to me more and more is that the hard leftists just wanna burn down the system, and even here, you're as much of a tribe that hates the other side and wants to destroy them before they hurt us as they are. Because I've openly gone on record as sneering that the idea of white genocide is a myth, a joke, and that you can never take the KKK seriously, you know, no matter what reforms some people claim they've been through, and I see oh so many claim that... and I get called a right-winger. Mr. Obama is too centrist for the hard leftists now. It's WAR. And that's a mindset I just can't get behind.

It just feels more and more like all the top dogs now want us at each other's throats. They want us to be fighting. And that's a huge turn-off to me.

I wonder if Mr. Biden will bring up disbanding police in the debates? It will be interesting to see how that goes.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

You can argue neither of these instances track well to the emerging demand for police abolition, which is true... but the principles that lead to those outcomes still apply. The demand isn't to remove the police and replace them with *nothing*, but to remove the poisoned, rotten departments in place now and replace them with something that *works*: less violent, less armed, and more specialized for the tasks each branch is meant to solve, and equipped to address societal problems in a real way.

Not to be too circular, but it's pretty anarchaic to get rid of the police force.

[Captain Crimson]

You can argue neither of these instances track well to the emerging demand for police abolition, which is true... but the principles that lead to those outcomes still apply. The demand isn't to remove the police and replace them with *nothing*, but to remove the poisoned, rotten departments in place now and replace them with something that *works*: less violent, less armed, and more specialized for the tasks each branch is meant to solve, and equipped to address societal problems in a real way.

Not to be too circular, but it's pretty anarchaic to get rid of the police force.

Yes, and when the average voter hears this, it's going to lock them up. It will drive them over to Mr. 45 in droves, because he is at least promising law and order. And we are smart enough to know the state is always going to be here, and without a strong police force, even if you want to argue they have crossed the line and most will admit there are myriad ways they've failed in their duties... well, it's just chaos. Again, I think that's what the top dogs want. Chaos. Vigilante justice. No thanks.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

You can argue neither of these instances track well to the emerging demand for police abolition, which is true... but the principles that lead to those outcomes still apply. The demand isn't to remove the police and replace them with *nothing*, but to remove the poisoned, rotten departments in place now and replace them with something that *works*: less violent, less armed, and more specialized for the tasks each branch is meant to solve, and equipped to address societal problems in a real way.

Not to be too circular, but it's pretty anarchaic to get rid of the police force.

Yes, and when the average voter hears this, it's going to lock them up. It will drive them over to Mr. 45 in droves, because he is at least promising law and order. And we are smart enough to know the state is always going to be here, and without a strong police force, even if you want to argue they have crossed the line and most will admit there are myriad ways they've failed in their duties... well, it's just chaos. Again, I think that's what the top dogs want. Chaos. Vigilante justice. No thanks.

In droves? nnnnnnnnna.

[CmdrKing]

Not to be too circular, but it's pretty anarchaic to get rid of the police force.

Only if you believe that a majority people hold to the social contract only on threat of violence. This is false on its face I think.

And again, the idea is to replace the police with something more functional. We can agree that there are times that armed state response is necessary, but this doesn't mean that all state actors involved in community safety and law enforcement need to be armed and ready to enact violence.
Think of it this way: we might need a SWAT team in case of heavily armed criminal behavior, but the average ticket writer, traffic officer, security at public events, or responder to domestic dispute or public misbehavior doesn't need to be armed and read to react in the same way as SWAT.