RonRC
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 205
Holy Bulldoobers! My head is about to explode!
This is bulldoobers
I read two articles recently, “Defund the police? Here’s what that really means,” By Christy E. Lopez; and “This city disbanded its police department 7 years ago. Here's what happened next,” by Scottie Andrew. I must give both authors credit for creative and inventive misrepresentation, twisting of logic, distorted rationalization.
According to Georgetown University law school professor Lopez, “Defunding the police does not mean defunding the police.” WHAT?! Defunding doesn’t mean defunding?! So, that means police abolition would not mean abolishing the police. My head is spinning.
That statement is at the beginning of her opinion piece. However, there is a change at the end of the article. Suddenly, defunding means defunding and abolishing means abolishing: She says, “Police abolition means reducing. with the vision of eventually eliminating, our reliance on policing to secure our public safety,” Interesting change in the approach spaced only a few paragraphs apart!
She says: Take responsibilities away from police, the ones that police don’t like doing anyway (take police off responding to accidents, responding to people who have overdosed, arresting people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill.) Police would no longer” roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps, resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike, and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue.” Yes! How insightful. Send a social worker to de-escalate and take the gun out of the hands of the irate husband who is threatening his significant other and child. Or send an arbitrator to talk to the man who has just beaten a woman senseless. These are the situations that get police killed! I think that this Georgetown University attorney needs an infusion of brain matter.
The other article says that Camden, New Jersey, a city that has, at times, had the highest rate of homicides, rapes and robberies in the Nation, disbanded their police department and violent crime went down dramatically. Disband your police department and violent crime decreases! This article had the intent to show that you could control violent crime even if you did away with the police department. All you need are some community relations people and a few cops to play basketball with the local kids. Yup! That’s what it says.
But, wait! Some facts are missing, here. The city disbanded the department to break the contract with the police union because salaries and benefits were too high and there were signs of systemic corruption. The department was short-staffed but couldn’t afford to hire more police. They then reconstituted the police department under a new name and rehired about 100 of the officers from the previous department, including the previous Chief. Then, they hired more recruits and doubled the size of the police department! I see, when you disband the police department, that means you double the size of the department. Also not noted in the article: They placed surveillance cameras throughout the city and bought a 35 ft high, mobile tower with surveillance cameras and IR cameras that lets one officer see all around for 1.5 miles. Additionally, violent crime went down all over the nation at the same time it went down in Camden. Am I shocked that crime went down?
So, double-speak prevails. “It isn’t what it is”. Words don’t mean what they mean. I think I just followed Alice in Wonderland into the rabbit hole.
This is bulldoobers
I read two articles recently, “Defund the police? Here’s what that really means,” By Christy E. Lopez; and “This city disbanded its police department 7 years ago. Here's what happened next,” by Scottie Andrew. I must give both authors credit for creative and inventive misrepresentation, twisting of logic, distorted rationalization.
According to Georgetown University law school professor Lopez, “Defunding the police does not mean defunding the police.” WHAT?! Defunding doesn’t mean defunding?! So, that means police abolition would not mean abolishing the police. My head is spinning.
That statement is at the beginning of her opinion piece. However, there is a change at the end of the article. Suddenly, defunding means defunding and abolishing means abolishing: She says, “Police abolition means reducing. with the vision of eventually eliminating, our reliance on policing to secure our public safety,” Interesting change in the approach spaced only a few paragraphs apart!
She says: Take responsibilities away from police, the ones that police don’t like doing anyway (take police off responding to accidents, responding to people who have overdosed, arresting people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill.) Police would no longer” roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps, resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike, and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue.” Yes! How insightful. Send a social worker to de-escalate and take the gun out of the hands of the irate husband who is threatening his significant other and child. Or send an arbitrator to talk to the man who has just beaten a woman senseless. These are the situations that get police killed! I think that this Georgetown University attorney needs an infusion of brain matter.
The other article says that Camden, New Jersey, a city that has, at times, had the highest rate of homicides, rapes and robberies in the Nation, disbanded their police department and violent crime went down dramatically. Disband your police department and violent crime decreases! This article had the intent to show that you could control violent crime even if you did away with the police department. All you need are some community relations people and a few cops to play basketball with the local kids. Yup! That’s what it says.
But, wait! Some facts are missing, here. The city disbanded the department to break the contract with the police union because salaries and benefits were too high and there were signs of systemic corruption. The department was short-staffed but couldn’t afford to hire more police. They then reconstituted the police department under a new name and rehired about 100 of the officers from the previous department, including the previous Chief. Then, they hired more recruits and doubled the size of the police department! I see, when you disband the police department, that means you double the size of the department. Also not noted in the article: They placed surveillance cameras throughout the city and bought a 35 ft high, mobile tower with surveillance cameras and IR cameras that lets one officer see all around for 1.5 miles. Additionally, violent crime went down all over the nation at the same time it went down in Camden. Am I shocked that crime went down?
So, double-speak prevails. “It isn’t what it is”. Words don’t mean what they mean. I think I just followed Alice in Wonderland into the rabbit hole.
