BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Danzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Malnutrition can lead to weight gain as well as weight loss. If you are from a lower societal class, you are more likely to be obese.

Yes but that is not relevant to Ashleigh.

Another rich kid getting meaning and a wage out of pushing insane views.

Carfacemandog

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Incorrect. I did not state that
I know that police forces in the US are run on a shoestring.

And these are your own words.



You said it right there. "Defund the police". So if and where police lose any funding those who are the victins of crime suffer. Its really not that hard to understand.

What is also true is that some blm groups are not just looking for defunding the police but to abolish them. And the same have made public demands that they wish to police themselves. What a ****ing joke.

Some are, but I am not them so you need to stop equating what I have said with what they have said.

Once again - if a public service provides a service, it receives funding for it from the taxpayer. If that service is then moved to another public body, the funding is likely to go to that newer service provider too. As Rochester social services are taking over the service of responding to these types of calls, it is very obvious that they will require further funding in which to do so. If police are to respond to less or none of these calls, it is very obvious that they will not need the same amount of funding for these types of calls. Hence, some funding will very likely move from the police force to the social services as a result of this.

I have repeatedly re-iterated this and could not be any clearer on the matter.

Now, again, how would you give social services the funding to respond to these calls, if you wish to still provide police the funding for these services which they would no longer be providing?

gozunda

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Some are, but I am not them so you need to stop equating what I have said with what they have said.

Once again - if a public service provides a service, it receives funding for it from the taxpayer. If that service is then moved to another public body, the funding is likely to go to that newer service provider too. As Rochester social services are taking over the service of responding to these types of calls, it is very obvious that they will require further funding in which to do so. If police are to respond to less or none of these calls, it is very obvious that they will not need the same amount of funding for these types of calls. Hence, some funding will very likely move from the police force to the social services as a result of this.

I have repeatedly re-iterated this and could not be any clearer on the matter.

Now, again, how would you give social services the funding to respond to these calls, if you wish to still provide police the funding for these services which they would no longer be providing?

So stop with the claiming to know what people "think" One poster has already been called out on repeatedly doing that.

Yes they were your words. Re "defund the police"

Tbh that's a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" ...

The fact is such extreme cases appear to make up a very small number of overall incidents. And the funding of specialised social / psychological teams is going to need a large amount of funds imo. Plus I reckon at least a proportion of cases involving dangerous or mentally ill individuals will likley involve some type of police backup.

The issue of providing a properly funded police force AND other services are up to the state / federal funds made available. I'm sure there are very capable people there.

It remains there is no need to cut off your nose to spite your face. Or in the case cut police funding so a small number of criminals can get to do what they want.

nullzero

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Alright, in which case it would seem we agree that removing some funds from Rochester police to the relative social services who will now be taking some calls they are more qualified for, will not result in the removal of police from the streets of Rochester.

I'm not sure where you are getting the notion that we agree on anything based on two separate situations on two different sides of the United States.

Mr. Karate

Deleted User wrote: »

Malnutrition can lead to weight gain as well as weight loss. If you are from a lower societal class, you are more likely to be obese.

You can bet the last euro in your pocket that she ain't malnourished and she's lecturing in a university that she ain't in the lower societal class.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

An unsurprisingly clueless take. 'Democrats are leftists' 'leftists' introduce draconian laws ergo laws not 'right wing'.

I recommend not getting your clueless takes from pseudo-intellectual American reactionaries waffling on on YouTube.

Thanks for taking the time to talk complete and utter nonsense.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 1994 was introduced by a Democrat President. All it shows is that stupid laws that hurt vulnerable people aren't the sole preserve of some reductionist Republican caricatures.

The issues that plague America are painted as black v white, when in fact they are and always have been rich v poor issues.

All you've done above is make assumptions about what I said, what I believe and where I get my information from.
Your nonsensical world view is your business, I won't accept being dragged into it. Next time play the ball and not the man and bring some actual facts to the table, I've had enough of your opinions.

Carfacemandog

nullzero wrote: »

I'm not sure where you are getting the notion that we agree on anything based on two separate situations on two different sides of the United States.

Because you were responding to a post about moving funds from one department to another in Rochester, yet when asked if you thought that would result in the removal of all police in Rochester over this you claimed to be discussing another issue. The assumption to take there is that if you did think this was the case, you would answer directly in the affirmative.

Feel free to let me know though if you do actually think that moving funding for these specific calls from police (who will no longer be taking these specific calls), to social services (who will now be doing so) is going to result in the removal of all of the police in Rochester.

Biafranlivemat

Tell me how wrote: »

Link please.

Happy Labor Day

link has already been posted.
-

Carfacemandog

gozunda wrote: »

So stop with the claiming to know what people "think" One poster has already been called out on repeatedly doing that.

Yes they were your words. Re "defund the police"

Tbh that's a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" ...

The fact is such extreme cases appear to make up a very small number of overall incidents. And the funding of specialised social / psychological teams is going to need a large amount of funds imo. Plus I reckon cases involving dangerous or mentally ill individuals will likley involve some type of police backup.

The issue of providing a properly funded police force AND other services are up to the state / federal funds made available. I'm sure there are very capable people there.

It remains there is no need to cut off your nose to spite your face. Or in the case cut police funding so a small number of criminals can get to do what they want.

There are no "ifs and maybes" about it, nor was it my call - all of this has already been been confirmed and agreed on by the Mayor and the Police Chief, in the very story we are discussing. They have already defunded this part of the police and diverted those funds to social services: "The city of Rochester, New York, is moving crisis intervention out of the police department [...] Mayor Lovely Warren announced that the crisis intervention department and its budget would be moved to the city's Department of Youth and Recreation Services during a news conference Sunday."

This is why I am asking where you where you would have the money come from if you disagree with the decision already agreed upon by the city of Rochester and its police force to defund this part of their operations and divert the funds elsewhere.

Tell me how

Biafranlivemat wrote: »

Happy Labor Day

link has already been posted.
-

That's a no then.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

All you've done above is make assumptions about what I said, what I believe and where I get my information from.
Your nonsensical world view is your business, I won't accept being dragged into it. Next time play the ball and not the man and bring some actual facts to the table, I've had enough of your opinions.

Aren't you the guy who didn't want the figures of people arrested versus those who protested discussed here?

Let me guess by 'facts' you mean those that you agree with.

At least you've finally acknowledged there is a problem, looking forward to hearing some ideas on how to fix the rich vs poor issue now, at least that would be an improvement from just wanting everything to stay the same.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

So stop with the claiming to know what people "think" One poster has already been called out on repeatedly doing that.

Yes they were your words. Re "defund the police"

Tbh that's a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" ...

The fact is such extreme cases appear to make up a very small number of overall incidents. And the funding of specialised social / psychological teams is going to need a large amount of funds imo. Plus I reckon cases involving dangerous or mentally ill individuals will likley involve some type of police backup.

The issue of providing a properly funded police force AND other services are up to the state / federal funds made available. I'm sure there are very capable people there.

It remains there is no need to cut off your nose to spite your face. Or in the case cut police funding so a small number of criminals can get to do what they want.

No one is suggesting that there will be no more police to deal with violent events.
But that it would be better for society to have funds used in the best way for society.

What level of crime do you think police are involved in that is of a violent nature?

Bold added by me.

What share of policing is devoted to handling violent crime? Perhaps not as much as you might think. A handful of cities post data online showing how their police departments spend their time. The share devoted to handling violent crime is very small, about 4 percent.

The system is not working, it needs to be changed. In some manner.

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 1994 was introduced by a Democrat President.

"While the longer-term impact of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was questionable, the political impact was clear — crime control or 'tough on crime' became a bipartisan issue."

So-called "tough on crime" policies have not only failed to effectively reduce crime, recidivism, and victimization but also created an incredibly inefficient system that routinely fails the public, taxpayers, crime victims, criminal offenders, their families, and their communities.

Kelly, William R. (2015). Criminal Justice at the Crossroads: Transforming Crime and Punishment. Columbia University Press. p. 29.

The above signifies a shift to 'the right' by Democrats. There is no political left in the US to speak of. Regardless, I'll cite experts and you keep on pretending you're in a Ben Shapiro YouTube rant's comments section.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

BLM on the surface appears to be a noble cause, but when you have BLM leaders calling for war on the police and spouting racist nonsense the legitimacy of the movement evaporates.

African American people need a new MLK, all they have is a bunch of louts encouraging civil unrest and the destruction of property, and when you encourage that type of behaviour, the result is a net loss for everyone in society.

BLM has no legitimacy due to the content of its character, not the colour of its skin.

MLK was viewed and reported on in pretty much exactly the same way that you are denouncing the BLM movement here.

Indeed, it was after King’s speech at the March on Washington that the FBI—with President Kennedy’s approval—decided to increase their monitoring of the civil rights leader. With the FBI describing King as “demagogic” and “the most dangerous . . . to the Nation . . . from the standpoint . . . of national security,”

Manic Moran

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Alright, in which case it would seem we agree that removing some funds from Rochester police to the relative social services who will now be taking some calls they are more qualified for, will not result in the removal of police from the streets of Rochester.

I don't understand why people think a response must be an either/or scenario. Either send the police or send the social services. The reality is that the social services often will not go to incidents where their expertise is best suited unless the police go along anyway, just in case. I posted a recent example of why this is a good idea in post 4920. The expense and man-hour requirements for the police remain, though hopefully the costs of after-shooting investigations will be reduced.

A related matter is the recent brilliant idea by the City of Berkeley that traffic stops be conducted by unarmed city employees instead of by police. https://www.kqed.org/news/11828889/city-of-berkeley-considers-removing-police-from-traffic-stops

Leaving aside the legal issues of if a motorist is required to stop for a city employee, and the amount of criminal cases closed as a result of a traffic stop leading to further progress (eg Tim McVeigh pulled over for a license plate and then tried for killing 168 people), it will not take long after the death of one of these unarmed personnel for people to advocate for a reversal of the situation. It is worth remembering that the California Highway Patrol was not always routinely armed (though certainly images of the first officers do sometimes show a sidearm). After all, pulling over speeders and the likes doesn't require a gun, right? Unfortunately, that apparently was not a universally-held viewpoint by those getting pulled over. There's a reason CHP are now as well armed as any other police force.

TomTomTim

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

"While the longer-term impact of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was questionable, the political impact was clear — crime control or 'tough on crime' became a bipartisan issue."

So-called "tough on crime" policies have not only failed to effectively reduce crime, recidivism, and victimization but also created an incredibly inefficient system that routinely fails the public, taxpayers, crime victims, criminal offenders, their families, and their communities.

Kelly, William R. (2015). Criminal Justice at the Crossroads: Transforming Crime and Punishment. Columbia University Press. p. 29.

The above signifies a shift to 'the right' by Democrats. There is no political left in the US to speak of. Regardless, I'll cite experts and you keep on pretending you're in a Ben Shapiro YouTube rant's comments section.

You can't choose to focus on one thing and pretend it represents the whole. That was nearly 25 years ago too. The Democrats are not just left on social issues, they are far left. Their recent stances on immigration, abortion, LGBT, BLM, and general ID politics is certainly not one bit right wing, and is far further to the left than they were in the 90s

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

That analogy makes no sense whatsoever. Who are these "many people" beating their children in Ireland?. And more importantly wtf has it got to do with anything? . :

Wrong.
Again.
As always.

Slapping children is illegal here so why do so many parents still do it?

If you cannot understand how that analogy showcases how official bodies misbehaving will lead to a greater public discussion and calls for action than when it happens on an individual level then that's not something I can help you with. It's very straightforward.

Tell me how

Manic Moran wrote: »

Leaving aside the legal issues of if a motorist is required to stop for a city employee, and the amount of criminal cases closed as a result of a traffic stop leading to further progress (eg Tim McVeigh pulled over for a license plate and then tried for killing 168 people), it will not take long after the death of one of these unarmed personnel for people to advocate for a reversal of the situation. It is worth remembering that the California Highway Patrol was not always routinely armed (though certainly images of the first officers do sometimes show a sidearm). After all, pulling over speeders and the likes doesn't require a gun, right? Unfortunately, that apparently was not a universally-held viewpoint by those getting pulled over. There's a reason CHP are now as well armed as any other police force.

This post probably more relevant on a conversation on the progressive militarisation of American society and just where will this end and the associated relevance of more meaningful gun control practices.

Carfacemandog

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't understand why people think a response must be an either/or scenario. Either send the police or send the social services. The reality is that the social services often will not go to incidents where their expertise is best suited unless the police go along anyway, just in case. I posted a recent example of why this is a good idea in post 4920. The expense and man-hour requirements for the police remain, though hopefully the costs of after-shooting investigations will be reduced.

If there are incidents where a police presence is also deemed a necessity, then the likely answer in my ooinoij would be for them to request police accompaniment, for which the department responsible for responding will likely be budgeted accordingly depending on how often they are needed.

suicide_circus

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The Australian cricket team ,currently playing in England has refused to take the knee

Fair play to them

BattleCorp

Carfacemandog wrote: »

In what appears to be a sensible move, the city of Rochester, NY has diverted crisis intervention calls from the police to the Department of Youth and Recreation Services following the death of Daniel Prude and protests that have seen "outside agitators" also getting involved.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1239444
The city of Rochester, New York, is moving crisis intervention out of the police department amid outrage and protests over the death of Daniel Prude, a Black man with mental health issues who died after officers placed a spit hood over his head and restrained him.

Mayor Lovely Warren announced that the crisis intervention department and its budget would be moved to the city's Department of Youth and Recreation Services during a news conference Sunday. Protests following the release of video of the incident involving Prude in March have continued for days.

Social workers on their own wouldn't be able to handle someone in Daniel Prude's condition. They will need police back-up.

But if you divert funding from the police, they might not always be there as back-up. Or if they are there as back-up, they are missing from somewhere else.

Defunding the police will lead to something going amiss somewhere.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

No one is suggesting that there will be no more police to deal with violent events.
But that it would be better for society to have funds used in the best way for society.
What level of crime do you think police are involved in that is of a violent nature?
Bold added by me.
The system is not working, it needs to be changed. In some manner.

Are you really trying to suggest that all violent crime will require a social worker/ psychologist crack squad???

I can see how that will work all right.

#scenario 1.

Violent armed robbery at a bank.

Bank manager- "quick call the social worker"

:rolleyes:

And yes some of your friends in the blm movement are calling for the police to be disbanded.

And before you demand yet another 'link". Scroll back - its already been highlighted today.

Your article appears to be behind a firewall.

As for your daft question - the level of violent crime varies over time and location. Notably homicide rates in the US are up this year. Go figure ...

Not all violent crime will require thev intervention of a social worker etc

The current issue of those incidents involving questionable outcomes where people have died - does not equate that the entire "system not working" and certainly does not mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater to allow the criminal fraternity a free reign.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Are you really trying to suggest that all violent crime will require a social worker/ psychologist crack squad???

I can see how that will work all right.

#scenario 1.

Violent armed robbery at a bank.

Bank manager- "quick call the social worker"

:rolleyes:

And yes some of your friends in the blm movement are calling for the police to be disbanded.

And before you demand yet another 'link". Scroll back - its already been highlighted today.

As for your daft question - the level of violent crime varies over time and location. Notably homicide rates in the US are up this year. Go figure ...

Not all violent crime will requires thev intervention of a social worker etc btw.

The current issue of those incidents involving questionable outcomes where people have died - does not equate that the entire "system not working" and certainly does not mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater to allow the criminal fraternity a free reign.

Surely they'd just call 911 like they always do and the dispatcher would allocate the call appropriately or in this doomsday scenario you are envisaging has everyone role been replaced.

Maybe that explains why you are so fearful of it, you don't understand it.

gozunda

Carfacemandog wrote: »

There are no "ifs and maybes" about it, nor was it my call - all of this has already been been confirmed and agreed on by the Mayor and the Police Chief, in the very story we are discussing. They have already defunded this part of the police and diverted those funds to social services: "The city of Rochester, New York, is moving crisis intervention out of the police department [...] Mayor Lovely Warren announced that the crisis intervention department and its budget would be moved to the city's Department of Youth and Recreation Services during a news conference Sunday."

This is why I am asking where you where you would have the money come from if you disagree with the decision already agreed upon by the city of Rochester and its police force to defund this part of their operations and divert the funds elsewhere.

Take a look at your previous comment. The ifs and maybes are there for all to read!!!!

As detailed any decision on funding for any changes in policing are a state/ federal function. Plenty of clever people there.

Carfacemandog

BattleCorp wrote: »

Social workers on their own wouldn't be able to handle someone in Daniel Prude's condition. They will need police back-up.

But if you divert funding from the police, they might not always be there as back-up. Or if they are there as back-up, they are missing from somewhere else.

Defunding the police will lead to something going amiss somewhere.

Your post highlights why another reason why this is a good move - if police being there as backup means they are missing from somewhere else, then police being there at all means they are missing from somewhere else. There will likely still be situations where police are required as backup, but for all of those situations where they are not required as a result of this move, they will instead be somewhere else which is a positive thing.

Carfacemandog

gozunda wrote: »

Take a look at your previous comment. The ifs and maybes are there for all to read!!!!

As detailed any decision on funding for any changes in policing are a state/ federal function. Plenty of clever people there.

Yeah, it was spelling out the reason why this is happening to you, which has already been confirmed by the Mayor and the Police Chief. And those very clever people have already come up with their plan as to how to fund this - by defunding that part of the police and diverting those funds to social services.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Wrong.
Again.
As always.

Slapping children is illegal here so why do so many parents still do it?

If you cannot understand how that analogy showcases how official bodies misbehaving will lead to a greater public discussion and calls for action than when it happens on an individual level then that's not something I can help you with. It's very straightforward.

defuq?

An opinion piece from RSVP? Theres no stats.and looks like your projecting there again my friend.

It remains - your analogy is still utter bull and makes zero sense.

There is no public bodies misbehaving and beating the crap out of kids.

So.

Wrong.
Again.
As always.
For sure

BattleCorp

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Your post highlights why another reason why this is a good move - if police being there as backup means they are missing from somewhere else, then police being there at all means they are missing from somewhere else. There will likely still be situations where police are required as backup, but for all of those situations where they are not required as a result of this move, they will instead be somewhere else which is a positive thing.

Defunding can't be a good move. As it is, the police can't be everywhere they are needed. Defund them and they will be in even less places where they are needed.

There will be very few instances like Daniel Prude's case where police back-up won't be needed. In actual fact, I think there are very few instances where police action that results in the death of someone could be better served through the intervention of social services alone.

gozunda

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Yeah, it was spelling out the reason why this is happening to you, which has already been confirmed by the Mayor and the Police Chief. And those very clever people have already come up with their plan as to how to fund this - by defunding that part of the police and diverting those funds to social services.

So why claim - "There are no "ifs and maybes" ????

Doesn't mean it will work. "Defund the police" was the war cry of the protestors. Looks like its being shoehorned onto current services to appease the mob.

Time will tell how that works. No reason why both cannot be worked together without taking money away from fighting crime

Cut the legs off a chair and you'll end up with your arse on the floor ...

Carfacemandog

gozunda wrote: »

So why claim - "There are no "ifs and maybes" ????

Doesn't mean it will work. "Defund the police" was the war cry of the protestors. Looks like its being shoehorned onto current services to appease the mob.

Time will tell how that works. No reason why both cannot be worked together without taking money away from fighting crime

Cut the legs off a chair and you'll end up with your arse on the floor ...

I said there are no ifs and maybes about them defunding the police service and diverting the funds because there literally isn't - it has already happened. That you are desperately clinging in to my ultra simplified explanation as to why this has happened - given because you seemed to be struggling mightily with the idea, intentionally or not - says all it needs to here.

As does your sudden change if heart about the abilities of the "very smart people" you were referring to in your last few posts, now they're apparently making foolish decisions to appease 'the mob' that will ultimately be their undoing, says you as you refuse to even try to come up with any alternatives as to how to cover this.

The funds have to come from somewhere, as there unfortunately is no such thing as a magic money tree.