ADVERTISEMENT

Defund the police!!

W

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,281
214
63
Just to rev things up. Like BLM and antifa, defund the police seems to have devolved into a cartoonish set of extremes. For me its more of a case of reallocating than defunding. We now we ask the police to handle too many cases that don't fit their training, so the results can be sad. This year's news has offered examples of people have called 911 for help with someone with mental issues, the police are sent,
they acted within their training rules, and sometimes people die. The outcome might have been different if someone with more appropriate training had been sent.

It's unfair to make police into all purpose supermen who can deal with any situation. Why not try to better match the training with the situation? But that means moving resources out of one group to another. Another challenge is having the 911 dispatchers pick the correct group.

We need police, but we don't need them to do everything.
 
the media etal, binges on police shootings and make sound like every policeman is a racist and wants to kill blacks.. they embrace a group like blm, whose chant is "what do we want? dead cops. when do we want it? Now."

They fail to report that the police fall victim many more times and are often targeted.
 
At least part of the issue is using the police in areas that they are not well trained or adversely trained to handle. "Defund the police" was a stupid way to message the issue. The issue is developing alternatives for 911 to call on depending on the problem, particularly those involving mental issues or perhaps domestic disputes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weatherdemon
aTUfan said:
the media etal, binges on police shootings and make sound like every policeman is a racist and wants to kill blacks.. they embrace a group like blm, whose chant is "what do we want? dead cops. when do we want it? Now."

They fail to report that the police fall victim many more times and are often targeted.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately there are an increasing number of examples to work with. The new normal has become daily examples of someone dying either by the police...or worse....
mass shootings by deranged people often equipped with military grade weapons. Australia clamped down after a horrible school shooting several years ago, and it worked. In the US it's a daily event. Blaming the 'media' for reporting what is actually happening is just an excuse for not addressing the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weatherdemon
watu05 said:
Unfortunately there are an increasing number of examples to work with. The new normal has become daily examples of someone dying either by the police...or worse....
mass shootings by deranged people often equipped with military grade weapons. Australia clamped down after a horrible school shooting several years ago, and it worked. In the US it's a daily event. Blaming the 'media' for reporting what is actually happening is just an excuse for not addressing the problem.
Click to expand...
Funny how mass shootings exploded when the new Administration took office, right on cue when their gun reform agenda was rolled out 😂 what a coincidence 🤷🏽‍♂️ If the border were secure and the drugs being smuggled in was not at such a booming level, I could see proposing alternatives to police responses to calls. Because that’s not the reality, sending state workers to handle domestic issues with no way to protect themselves would be a travesty.
 
Last edited:
Obviously what this country needs right now is more social workers and partially trained psychologists on the government payroll.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: shon46
The messaging of defund the police is stupid. What needs to be said is divert some funds from certain types of police budgets towards other services (mental health responses and increased police training)

I’m starting to think that cops shouldn’t be allowed to fire their weapon unless they are being fired upon, or they are saving a 3rd party who is in clear and imminent danger. Same rules that apply to soldiers. Luckily for cops they should be much safer than soldiers since they’re not working in active war zones.

Police shouldn’t be getting new toys until they can, as a groups, learn how to properly use the ones they have.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cmullinsTU, watu05 and shon46
astonmartin708 said:
Maybe we should let cops experience a 200+ lb man kneeling on their neck for 10 minutes... if I were the prosecuting attorney I would welcome the defendant, his attorney, the judge, or any of the jury to step on up and volunteer for a demonstration if they don’t think it will kill you.
Click to expand...
Whats funny is when I was watching the daily wrapups of the case, the Defense showed a Video from another angle filmed across the street I believe that shows the knee on the back, not the neck. The knee resting on the shoulder/back is the method taught in the academy. It could probably still kill someone sitting on their back but it isn’t as malicious as the knee. It’s going to be crazy how this all plays out
 
astonmartin708 said:
Maybe we should let cops experience a 200+ lb man kneeling on their neck for 10 minutes... if I were the prosecuting attorney I would welcome the defendant, his attorney, the judge, or any of the jury to step on up and volunteer for a demonstration if they don’t think it will kill you.
Click to expand...
Cops experience being subdued using the technics they are taught in the academy, including prone restraint. Those of us with that training understand the problems here. Chauvin is likely guilty of criminal conduct based on the information I’ve reviewed. Not moving him on to his side is a glaring error. But let’s stick to facts: he weighs 145 lbs — almost 80 lbs lighter than Floyd and there was no bruising or trauma to the neck area.
 
HuffyCane said:
Cops experience being subdued using the technics they are taught in the academy, including prone restraint. Those of us with that training understand the problems here. Chauvin is likely guilty of criminal conduct based on the information I’ve reviewed. Not moving him on to his side is a glaring error. But let’s stick to facts: he weighs 145 lbs — almost 80 lbs lighter than Floyd and there was no bruising or trauma to the neck area.
Click to expand...
Oh. I’m sorry... I’ll let your wife kneel on your neck instead (PS... you’ll still die) Maybe we can see if she can tell the difference between a gun and a taser blindfolded while we’re at it.

Seriously, the cops in the movie police academy would be better than many of these imbeciles. Heck, I wouldn’t trust most of these people to watch my dog on a long weekend much less have a badge and a gun.
 
More important in Chauvin’s case is that it wasn’t just bad training. People were sitting there recording him and telling him to get off the guy’s neck and he wouldn’t do it. It shows that he didn’t care.

I also think that if you see a cop endangering the safety a person who is clearly already subdued (even a criminal) that you should be allowed to physically (if need be) deter the cop from doing so. In fact I think you have a moral obligation to make sure an officer isn’t acting as judge jury and executioner. Similar to how a subordinate in our military isn’t supposed to blindly follow an officer’s orders to commit war crimes.
 
Our root problem is there are way too many guns out there with nearly zero constraints on what type, how they are managed, and who can own them. That results in a huge ramp up in fear and animosity that just 'more training' cannot counter balance. Cops shouldn't need a belt full of tasers, guns, cuffs, black jacks, etc. to defend themselves because they are worried it's likely the other guy is armed. With more guns than people in the US now, it's hard to see how this gets any better.
 
watu05 said:
Our root problem is there are way too many guns out there with nearly zero constraints on what type, how they are managed, and who can own them. That results in a huge ramp up in fear and animosity that just 'more training' cannot counter balance. Cops shouldn't need a belt full of tasers, guns, cuffs, black jacks, etc. to defend themselves because they are worried it's likely the other guy is armed. With more guns than people in the US now, it's hard to see how this gets any better.
Click to expand...
Our problem is not guns! It’s the destruction of the family and the degradation of judeo Christian morals. If you focus on strengthening the family, crime will decrease exponentially.
 
Perhaps that plays a part, but countries that have responded to mass shootings by controlling guns, such as Australia, no longer have mass shootings. Removing unlimited access to guns works.
 
watu05 said:
Perhaps that plays a part, but countries that have responded to mass shootings by controlling guns, such as Australia, no longer have mass shootings. Removing unlimited access to guns works in countries that lost a war over the right to own guns.
Click to expand...
FIFY
 
watu05 said:
Perhaps that plays a part, but countries that have responded to mass shootings by controlling guns, such as Australia, no longer have mass shootings. Removing unlimited access to guns works.
Click to expand...
maybe we just have more crazy people.
 
astonmartin708 said:
Which war did Australia lose?
Click to expand...
It was settled as an extension of the UK, then was a colony and later a dominion of the British. Since full independence after World War II currently retains heavy influences of the UK in its government structure and public policy.
 
HuffyCane said:
It was settled as an extension of the UK, then was a colony and later a dominion of the British. Since full independence after World War II currently retains heavy influences of the UK in its government structure and public policy.
Click to expand...
I well know the history Australia. It doesn’t have anything to do with having lost a war over the right to own guns. Australia historically had quite a few firearms due to the rugged nature of the outback.
 
Australia had a mass shooting in a school several years ago and immediately responded by tightening their gun laws. No mass shootings since. Aussies are no less macho than Americans, but they did something about it. This thread has lots of excuses--family breakdowns and dissing Aussies-- but no will to address the problem--so new mass shooting or two is reported everyday.

Admittedly the US is challenged by ingrained attitudes and more guns than people, but continued inaction will only mean more shootings.
 
The Bill of Rights is an ingrained attitude? Feel free to change it but as Breyer repeatedly cautions, when the political winds change you may find rights you believe much more important to you personally will vanish.
 
Creating a law that turns me into a criminal is kind of non-negotiable. So there’s no debate to be had here. Good luck with your confiscation.
 
URedskin54 said:
Creating a law that turns me into a criminal is kind of non-negotiable. So there’s no debate to be had here. Good luck with your confiscation.
Click to expand...
URedskin54 said:
Creating a law that turns me into a criminal is kind of non-negotiable. So there’s no debate to be had here. Good luck with your confiscation.
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t inherently be a criminal. It’s not like a fugitive slave act or something.

The restriction of the right to bear arms has been accomplished before by our ancestral counterparts. The British Bill of Rights, signed after the glorious revolution allowed for “Protestant Citizens ... to have Arms for their defense suitable to their condition and as allowed by law”.
Sure, it’s different verbiage but the intent was largely the same. They wanted to insure the ability to prevent overreaches by the crown (though it was more motivated by religion in that time) The difference being that the “as allowed by law” gave parliament the right to get pass laws regulating the sale and permitting of guns. They were ahead of us in the 1920’s when they saw the plethora of guns that were set to return home after WWI and they took action. As a result, the UK has had comparatively few mass shootings. They list just 4 in their entire history. We have about 4 a month.
 
Last edited:
astonmartin708 said:
You wouldn’t inherently be a criminal. It’s not like a fugitive slave act or something.

The restriction of the right to bear arms has been accomplished before by our ancestral counterparts. The British Bill of Rights, signed after the glorious revolution allowed for “Protestant Citizens ... to have Arms for their defense suitable to their condition and as allowed by law”.
Sure, it’s different verbiage but the intent was largely the same. They wanted to insure the ability to prevent overreaches by the crown (though it was more motivated by religion in that time) The difference being that the “as allowed by law” gave parliament the right to get pass laws regulating the sale and permitting of guns. They were ahead of us in the 1920’s when they saw the plethora of guns that were set to return home after WWI and they took action. As a result, the UK has had comparatively few mass shootings. They list just 4 in their entire history. We have about 4 a month.
Click to expand...


Like I said, not something I feel is worth debating between the sides anymore. No offense to you is intended at all. We're just at a point where it's no longer about quibbles on regulations here and there, it's about banning the most commonly owned guns in America and turning those gun owners into criminals. There is just no common ground to be had there. Good luck trying. I'm not sure how creating more hostile interactions between cops and african american gun owners will play out in this era though. Should be interesting.
 
Last edited:
astonmartin708 said:
You wouldn’t inherently be a criminal. It’s not like a fugitive slave act or something.

The restriction of the right to bear arms has been accomplished before by our ancestral counterparts. The British Bill of Rights, signed after the glorious revolution allowed for “Protestant Citizens ... to have Arms for their defense suitable to their condition and as allowed by law”.
Sure, it’s different verbiage but the intent was largely the same. They wanted to insure the ability to prevent overreaches by the crown (though it was more motivated by religion in that time) The difference being that the “as allowed by law” gave parliament the right to get pass laws regulating the sale and permitting of guns. They were ahead of us in the 1920’s when they saw the plethora of guns that were set to return home after WWI and they took action. As a result, the UK has had comparatively few mass shootings. They list just 4 in their entire history. We have about 4 a month.
Click to expand...
So they restricted gun ownership on the basis of religion. I guess that makes sense after the Catholic gun powder plot. And you are OK with that value system driving your public policy? You ok with a Muslim gun ban here?
 
As you point out, the UK has had 4 mass shootings in their history, the US has “4 a month” which is out of date. Mass shootings are now daily. That’s ok?
 
HuffyCane said:
So they restricted gun ownership on the basis of religion. I guess that makes sense after the Catholic gun powder plot. And you are OK with that value system driving your public policy? You ok with a Muslim gun ban here?
Click to expand...
They insured the right of Protestants in response to James II (a Catholic) banning the carry of weapons by Protestants during or prior to (I’d have to go look it up again) the “Glorious” Revolution. You know... Oliver Cromwell and the lot, who probably shouldn’t have had arms anyway... just ask the Irish. They (the Protestants) did eventually seize arms from the highland clans after the clans nearly overthrew the monarchy in the counter revolution no long afterwards.

The problem wasn’t that one group was being restricted, it was that one group would restrict one side and then vice versa. It was an unequal balance of power. When they finally figured out that their conflicts were better figured out with political and financial conflicts rather than military ones, many fewer citizens ended up perishing.
 
Last edited:
URedskin54 said:
Like I said, not something I feel is worth debating between the sides anymore. No offense to you is intended at all. We're just at a point where it's no longer about quibbles on regulations here and there, it's about banning the most commonly owned guns in America and turning those gun owners into criminals. There is just no common ground to be had there. Good luck trying. I'm not sure how creating more hostile interactions between cops and african american gun owners will play out in this era though. Should be interesting.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the weapons are so commonly owned that they are being used daily to cause more harm than good. They aren’t being used in resistance to oppression (which still occurs). Imagine if the African American communities armed themselves and violently marched on the capitol if Chauvin was acquitted. That’s actually the outcome most Republicans are arguing that the right to bear arms is supposed to guarantee. But, if it actually transpired, those same people’s rights would likely be limited through alternate means anyway.

The commonality of an item should not guarantee its availability. Uranium isn’t that uncommon in our country but we restrict its sale and use for good reason. Same goes for asbestos. Very common, also very dangerous so we essentially banned its continued manufacture and put restrictions on how and where it could be used.
 
Last edited:
26 people were shot this past weekend in Chicago alone. Unfortunately, just a typical summer weekend there. Among those shot was a 7 year old girl who was murdered while sitting in her fathers car. There’s no media coverage. There’s no outrage. Our UN Ambassador isn’t telling the word about the loss of this innocent left. BLM doesn’t give a damn (she was black). Why...because it doesn’t fit the narrative being pushed. Yet, these shootings are the norm rather than the exception which is covered and protested. I would love to see people take the street this week to protest the killing of the 7 year old girl and the gun violence which terrorizes places like Chicago. Let me know when it happens.

Fwiw...the Chicago PD already lacks sufficient funding to investigate all the violence. Yet, there are those calling for reduced funding. It’s absurd yet here we are...
 
lawpoke87 said:
26 people were shot this past weekend in Chicago alone. Unfortunately, just a typical summer weekend there. Among those shot was a 7 year old girl who was murdered while sitting in her fathers car. There’s no media coverage. There’s no outrage. Our UN Ambassador isn’t telling the word about the loss of this innocent left. BLM doesn’t give a damn (she was black). Why...because it doesn’t fit the narrative being pushed. Yet, these shootings are the norm rather than the exception which is covered and protested. I would love to see people take the street this week to protest the killing of the 7 year old girl and the gun violence which terrorizes places like Chicago. Let me know when it happens.

Fwiw...the Chicago PD already lacks sufficient funding to investigate all the violence. Yet, there are those calling for reduced funding. It’s absurd yet here we are...
Click to expand...
I support gun control for all citizens not just Protestants or Catholics, blacks or whites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
astonmartin708 said:
I support gun control for all citizens not just Protestants or Catholics, blacks or whites.
Click to expand...

You know I’m not a pro gun guy. My problem is we ignore the vast majority of gun violence and choose to focus on the minority because the latter fits an agenda. We will never make significant progress until we have an honest and possibly difficult conversation about the problem. One that isn’t focused on votes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane
I have a few guns. They are very well behaved. They are semi-retired. They have never pointed themselves at a human being. They are Hell on targets or they were when last fired. In the distant past there have been cruel acts on empty beer cans. If a person or persons kicked in my door I would take a few of those people with me.

Despite Aston's history lesson, we have an amendment that says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It was agreed upon right after the very First Amendment and is called the Second Amendment. It must have been thought pretty important. Amendments are ment to be hard to pass and hard to remove. Everyone in the Congress and in the Senate and the President are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. It can be change but it isn't easy nor should it be.
 
lawpoke87 said:
You know I’m not a pro gun guy. My problem is we ignore the vast majority of gun violence and choose to focus on the minority because the latter fits an agenda. We will never make significant progress until we have an honest and possibly difficult conversation about the problem. One that isn’t focused on votes.
Click to expand...
The problem is one that revolves around poverty. We’ve had that discussion about a million times here. Bring people out of poverty and and restrict the access to weapons to the people who are still in poverty and you will reduce violent crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
a person must pass a background checks at the time of purchase. 5 years later the person goes crazy and shoots a group of people. how did the background check help?
 
TUMe said:
I have a few guns. They are very well behaved. They are semi-retired. They have never pointed themselves at a human being. They are Hell on targets or they were when last fired. In the distant past there have been cruel acts on empty beer cans. If a person or persons kicked in my door I would take a few of those people with me.

Despite Aston's history lesson, we have an amendment that says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It was agreed upon right after the very First Amendment and is called the Second Amendment. It must have been thought pretty important. Amendments are ment to be hard to pass and hard to remove. Everyone in the Congress and in the Senate and the President are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. It can be change but it isn't easy nor should it be.
Click to expand...
I have firearms as well, i actually got a couple little .22’s at Christmas for my wife and I to go target shooting. That being said, I am not above them being more heavily regulated. I would like to keep one for protection while camping / hiking (a man just died near me after being mauled by a grizz this April) but being restricted on how easily I can carry it in public or being restricted in which models I can buy is not something I’m worried about. I think I should have had to pass a psych evaluation to buy one honestly.

At times Wild West was stricter about who could carry arms and where than we are today. We’ve actually regressed past a society that was known for its lawlessness and inherent danger in terms of how we treat weapons despite living in environments that are much safer in terms of threats from natural disasters, roving bands of hostile natives, banditry, and encounters with carnivorous animals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe
aTUfan said:
a person must pass a background checks at the time of purchase. 5 years later the person goes crazy and shoots a group of people. how did the background check help?
Click to expand...
Make them update the background check... just like they make you update your eye exam when you get a new drivers license.

Also, make them re-up the check when a known altering event is made or a complaint is made to the authorities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W

No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people

Replies
8
Views
837
Crossfire
watu05
W
loca2874

FIFTH ANNUAL BRACKET CHALLENGE

Replies
119
Views
5K
TU Basketball
Gmoney4WW
G
C

G5 realignment, playoffs

Replies
51
Views
2K
TU Football
Tu Geo
T
T

TU’s new AD must be a dynamic fundraiser

Replies
69
Views
4K
TU Basketball
Gmoney4WW
G
T

Possible Social Security Fix

Replies
47
Views
1K
Crossfire
lawpoke87
L
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back