Why can't communities decide on law enforcement or not?

Post Reply New Topic

What do you mean by "relevant"?

I can mostly agree with you on the last paragraph. While I'd say prostitution must be regulated, I think it should be legal. Regulated to stop the spread of STDs and get rid of pimps. It would be an offence not to meet the standards. Do it clean and safe, and I have no problem. I'd criminalise dealing hard drugs but not criminalise taking them, providing you weren't committing some other crime. Might want to keep criminalising the taking of the trippy kinds of drugs though, because with those you're a danger to everyone around you. Otherwise, if it's something dangerous like heroin or ecstacy, at least it's a personal choice that won't directly harm others. There's still grey areas though. Like bringing them into a house with children. If the children take them, or if you die and leave the children in your care alone. That's the kind of thing you don't want to wait for the worst case scenario to happen, better for the law to be able to step in before it does. Other drugs, get them regulated. That way you get rid of dealers dealing bad drugs.

With your reaction here, I wonder if even if I could find the damn thing I've been looking for, it wouldn't persuade you anyway.

I don't think you are understanding it right. The point is not saying that the nuclear family is a negative, it is saying that the pressures to act like the nuclear family is the be all and end all as if someone unable to provide that is a moral failing on their part. That a community can take part in looking after everyone rather than leaving a single mother a total disadvantage in raising her children. Or god forbid not acting like a same sex family would be the devil incarnate.




?
Where are you getting it from that BLM does not call for peaceful protest, that is exactly what they call for and what they do right up before the police make up an excuse to beat them up. BLM are not telling people to go out and start fires and break windows, the ones organizing them are calling for peaceful protest. They are following in MLK's footsteps.

But even in the face of that, this is a literal quote from MLK during those times:


Just like BLM he did not support the violent protests, but also said the way to stop them from happening is to actually listen to those people and figure out why they are doing it.

You would have to be watching conservative media to pick up the narrative that BLM is not arguing for peaceful protest over the riots.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Autism Speaks does not speak for me"?  There seems to be a similar attitude among people for whom the BLM movement is supposed to benefit.  I just heard a fine, upstanding young gentleman of African ancestry say, "Black Lives Matter does not matter to me".  This may explain that while BLM advocates peaceful demonstrations, many POCs are engaging in violent protests, arson, and looting.  Maybe BLM should step up its game.

Okay here is the thing I do not understand about defunding the police. People say they will get by fine because they have guns ammo, and they don't the police. But what if say for example, your wife murdered or your child was kidnapped, and you want to find the person responsible? Do you rely on private investigators to build a case instead?

I don't know. I decided to have a look to see if I could find anything else about it. I found a lot of instances where it's just a copy paste from the website put somewhere else. I saw an excerpt from a book where someone says it's also to disrupt Western individualism. Boo. And then I found this:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... al-agenda/

That's another take that's different to both of us. I haven't found anything from BLM though about it ever being put into practice or expanded on.

I never see it, even with a mainstream media that's very sympathetic to BLM and will downplay the destruction and spotlight the "positive" side of the movement.

Okay here is the thing I do not understand about defunding the police. People say they will get by fine because they have guns ammo, and they don't the police. But what if say for example, your wife murdered or your child was kidnapped, and you want to find the person responsible? Do you rely on private investigators to build a case instead?

Everything I've seen so far says that the police department will still exist but only for violent crimes and I would assume would include investigations into violent crimes which would include the example you gave.

There does seem to be some vague Utopian magical wishful thinking at play in this idea stage though about the communities/"villages" looking out for each other and solving their problems collectively.

An example would be crimes like theft. I would hope that no one here thinks that theft should be an accepted behavior in the "villages" or that property owners (private and business) should tolerate theft as a "harm" that should be tolerated. Security cameras are ubiquitous now. What if a homeowner or business owner can ID the criminal who steals? Theft is a non-violent crime (unless weapons are used). How does the "village" handle the crime of theft?

How is it handled if someone walks into a store and just takes things in plain view, walks out of the store and brazenly stands on the street corner? How does the "village" handle this?

How will a "village" handle a situation where residents of a home or apartment deal drugs 24/7 in plain view and the neighbors don't want a drug house on their block?

How will a "village" handle a situation where a resident of a home or apartment decide to have parties most nights from dusk until dawn blasting music to the point that the walls in neighboring houses shake, disrespecting the peace of others and refusing to stop the behavior?

The magical wishful thinking is that without the police villagers will put their arms around each other and everyone will respect everyone else. That's delusional.

The reality is that there are human beings everywhere that will exploit others even to the extreme of using terror (e.g. extortion by gangs in trade for "protection"). The idea that with the help of social workers and EMTs, the "villagers" will effectively deal with those who victimize others is very idealistic.

See I’ve seen video of BLM protests and protest leaders talk about killing cops.
Their chanting “only good cop is a dead cop” too.
That’s not peaceful, peaceful people don’t plot to kill others or chant about killing others.
It seems they’ve deemed cops as subhumans.
Saying f**k the police isn’t peaceful. Spray painting buildings with BLM, or ACAB, OR f**k THE POLICE. Isn’t peaceful.
Getting up into the face of police and spitting on them isn’t peaceful
Throwing bricks, rocks, candles, water bottlers or anything at police isn’t peaceful.

Gathering legally on court house or state house and chanting his name and demanding justice while keeping distance from police and others is peacefully. When they do thst nothin happens, it’s only when they do all the above that police respond in kind.

Mean what would you do if peiple got in your face , threw stuff at you and chanted “ f**k fnord, only good fnords a dead fnord” I bet you would defend yourself .
But that’s what they want. They want violence. Violence gets on the news.
And if it gets really bad and people die then they get more news coverage.

Then they need to get their collective selves together and act as one, peacefully.

As I pointed out in another thread, I used to get involved in causes -- mainly, other people's causes -- but I don't any more.  Some recruited me for my money.  Some recruited me for my Caucasian ancestry ("Oh look! They have a white guy! They must be legit!").  And some recruited me to be their "whipping boy" when things didn't go their way.

Never again.

Well I'm not American so I am coming at this from a more foreign viewpoint, but one thing I read was that some people have said that the reason why people have had this extreme of a reaction is because it's an election year. Is that true though?

If it was last year or even 2018 that this happened, that the reaction would not have been so extreme?

I don't think any BLM leaders have said things like only good cop is a dead one, otherwise I imagine much of the media would keep showing it to paint the whole thing more strongly as violent. They probably would have been told by others of the movement to step down from a place of leadership if they did say it. The members who have, you have to imagine that they have been treated as subhuman in general by police all their lives, which a cop could just decide at any moment to mess up their day, or kill them.

While I hardly think that F the Police is a polite and civil way to act, and does not represent my own experience in my life. It is not exactly violent either, and it is not exactly hard to see the sort of thing police in America have been doing over the past week in brutalizing protestors.

Start at 46:45 to have your faith in them erode from a compilation of truly disgusting things.