Who wants to move to CHAZ?

Post Reply New Topic

So should white people instead receive the same harassment, violence and murder by police that non-white people have received?

You are making stuff up, either twisting someone's words or someone purposefully saying it to obfuscate from what the actual problem is and need to do anything. It also makes no sense, how could non-white people be both more at threat from crime that white people are being protected from, but also overpoliced to the point that they are brutalized by the police?

Progressives want to ban all guns, socialism, complete government control, police state,
To most people that’s far left.

I put it right there in the quotes, from right at the start of the article. They were looking for drugs, which they found nothing. Just scared the hell out of innocent people in the middle of the night, the boyfriend not knowing who they were shot at the home armed invaders, and they shot and killed an unarmed woman.

Oh s**t, the conservative government in my country are far left, barring that they want to hand all the power to rich corporations to screw over the people without consequence.

How dare the Far Left progressives care about helping people from getting shot and having healthcare. And if there is one thing I know about recent things like support of the BLM movement, progressives totally want a police state. I believe it was their president who called for the domination of protestors.

Oh okay, well the article says no drugs were found but I thought the article was perhaps guessing, and that maybe the police could have been looking for other things as well. I just wanted to know more specifics.

But I feel that this error was made on the judges part first for making it a no-knock warrant. Is defunding the police really going to change if a warrant is a knock or no knock during a search though?

Transcript from CNN's New Day

"CAMEROTA: Okay, John. Joining us now is Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender. Ms. Bender, we're so happy to have you this morning, because the move by the city council certainly got a lot of people's attention last night and we're so happy to have you clarify this. So what are you trying to do? Are you hoping by dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department that you will be getting rid of the police department?

LISA BENDER, PRESIDENT MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL: I think in Minneapolis, watching George Floyd's death, and the four -- the actions of the four police officers that were involved has been a huge wake-up call for so many in Minneapolis to see what many already knew, which is that our police department is not keeping every member of our community safe.

And so I think step one for us is to tell the truth. Nine council members from communities all across the city of all different backgrounds, standing together to tell the truth and say, this system isn't working for too many of our neighbors for too long, our reform efforts have failed and we have done many, many attempts at reform and new leadership in the department and many things and we still see this tragic death.

And so I think the wake-up of our community is what's driving the city council's announcement yesterday. And now the hard work begins for us to rebuild systems that really work to keep all of our communities safe.

CAMEROTA: But to be clear, you're not talking about reform. The word, dismantle, is intentionally different than reform. This is more than reform. This is dismantling. I mean, activists who support this are calling this a police-free future.

BENDER: Yes. And, you know, a lot of us were asked if we could imagine a future without police back in 2017, when we were running for office. And I answered yes to that question. To me, that future is a long way away and it would take an enormous amount of investment in things that we know work to keep people safe.

I mean, for a lot of folks in our community, stable housing is a safety issue. Having access to healthcare is a safety issue. And so, having -- you know, I think one thing folks are asking is to stop investing so much money in this militarized police force and instead invest in the things that our community really needs.

So, you know, I know the statement was bold and I stand by that bold statement, but the work ahead of us will be long, it will include every member of our community. It has to. And, you know, I think we have very immediate things, we have a state action against our police department, which gives us legal mechanisms in the very short-term.

You know, there are lessons from all over the country, all over the world that we're looking to take immediate steps while we work toward building the systems that we would need to imagine that future.

CAMEROTA: Do you understand that the word, dismantle, or police-free also makes some people nervous, for instance? What if in the middle of night, my home is broken into? Who do I call?

BENDER: Yes, I mean, hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors. And I know -- and myself, too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege. Because for those of us for whom the system is working, I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done."

^ Firstly, Bender doesn't answer the host's question about what to do, what will happen or who she'd call if the police were "dismantled" or "police-free" and her home is broken into in the middle of the night. But in Bender's last answer above she's saying that non-whites already live in a reality where crime happens but they don't call the police because it may mean "more harm is done". If a crime is being perpetrated on them but they don't call the police, what is the result? They accept the "harm" of the crime rather than call the police. If there are no police to call and a crime is being committed, there is no alternative (other than trying to stop the crime from occurring which most any human being would be understood in trying to do) but to let the crime happen.

I'm not making up anything. Castle doctrine is reality in many parts of the U.S. and conversely there are laws in place (U.K. if I'm not mistaken) where it's illegal to use force against an intruder if they won't leave and you don't know their intent.

The progressives aren’t into socialism, like Communist China is into socialism. They have slight socialistic ideas within their overall capitalist framework.

They certainly don’t want a “police state.” Where does one get that notion?

From their only police should have guns, the police should be able to watch every American 24/7, the government should be able to tell what aemericans can and can’t not eat, can and can’t own, can and can’t do, where they can go and can’t. Supporting free speech zones and banning free speech outside those zones, etc etc etc.
I don’t want the government and police have complete control over my life and throwing me in prison for disagreeing

I’m not an advocate of any of what you just said.

I don’t believe many Democrats are, either.

I am not a registered Democrat, by the way.

I think that you are reading her answer incorrectly. She is saying that the way things are that certain people are at more risk in calling the police than the police being a help, and while that should call for a reform the police have refused to allow themselves to reform. You know that in Minneapolis they had court ordered banning of something called warrior training that would make them unnecessarily aggressive and the police union went against that order and provided it themselves, right?

They are not allowing themselves to be reformed, they are broken and rotten all the way through, something needs to be done, and it can't be the same thing that was already tried. At the very least this moves the Overton Window from just throwing more money at the police to fix themselves while making innocent people more in danger. The way things usually work is that conservative side that wants things to say does not want anything to happen, the Left or side that wants change will offer something reasonable before they keep compromising with that side wanting nothing to change so barely anything chances of any value.

Those on the side of police already want nothing done other than the specific officers punished (after people yelled at them). Nothing being done is already drastic and ridiculous, why should it be up to those opposed to offer the more reasonable response that would get weakened by calls that nothing changes.

It is the conservatives that want more guns to "protect their freedom", which means the police want more firepower to over power that, and thus the conservative wants even more. Conservative wants gun, police want bullet proof vest, conservative wants armor piercing bullets, police scared of armor piercing bullets so they shoot faster. How does that not make everything more dangerous?

You realize that it is under conservatives that privacy laws are repealed more, right? It is under them that the police are watching everyone more.

It is religious conservatives that want to control what people want to do or who they love. You think that it is the progressives telling gay people they can't marry? It conservatives that want to control what religions people can have, what ones can and must be in schools. To push abstinence only instead of safe sex.

Donald Trump has wanted to control what the media can say about him, kicking out what news could have access to questions, and calling things fake news that don't match his narrative. And controlling what a business may or might not support.

You have such a victim mindset that you don't even realize that many people already exist in that reality you are afraid of, and it is your side that is pushing for those things. When a conservative calls for their freedoms, what they want is for their freedom to trump anyone else's. That a conservative government is just watching bad guys and their back, while a more progressive government is apparently looking for excuses to arrest them. That a progressive government wants to turn everyone into a homosexual vegetarian communist, while the conservative government wants everyone to be a good Christian wage slave that will stop those dirty queers from worshiping Satan. And the bad progressives won't let them able to say their hate speech wherever and whatever platform they want without being challenged, while the good conservatives just want show for children like Arthur from saying that gay people exist.

Last edited by Bradleigh on 16 Jun 2020, 2:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well when it comes to this liberal vs. conservative thing, I think that neither side is the best, and therefore it's good to have a middle ground.

the lions' share of police forces won't listen to reason, have repeatedly [via their fascist unions] beat back any meaningful reforms, so in light of that systemic intransigence/truculence, they need to be deconstructed, then reconstructed minus the rot. make each cop submit to thorough vetting before rehire. and for lord's sake, STOP HIRING ex-GIs fresh from battle! [with the exception of certain ex-SP and MP]. and stop with the hiring of only the first standard deviation [IQ test]. hire more bright people.

^ The focus right now and rightly so given the recent situations is on police departments. But it does seem that by laser focusing attention on police departments being the problem, police departments are the "shiny object". By this I mean that police departments in cities aren't autonomous. Citizens of those cities don't elect police chiefs, they're appointed by city government. City governments in highly populated cities have been controlled by Democrats for decades. Who is to blame? Police departments are solely to blame? People have known about and have been blowing the whistle on police brutality for decades. Little if anything was done. Looking at who was appointing these police chiefs all these many years and it's "Nothing to see here. Move along."

Systemic police brutality is part of a larger issue in urban cities that includes perpetually disadvantaged people living in perpetual poverty. I really don't see how anyone can completely overlook and deny that there's been a common systemic leadership problem in urban cities spanning these many decades.

i am convinced that if it were nothing but GOP leadership, it would only be worse yet.

^ One does have to wonder, would it be worse? Or, given the perpetual urban problems one has to wonder would it be better?