This is why we don't defund police

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Many many officers are trained in Crisis Intervention these days. In our state Officers go through CIT training in order to learn how to work with people in crisis. It should be required in every state imo.

But there are plenty of situations where the training doesn't do anything due to the person being on drugs etc. And the only option police have is force options because the person is so far gone that no matter who talks to them, they sont respond.
Good. And that is exactly the kind of thing which should happen in more jurisdictions. Some police departments, you have to threaten to take their money away entirely to get them to think about it.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,494
13,119
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
How did this bill make it to and through the House without any mention in any media?

House passes police reform bill
Guy.....
Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

police reform bill - Google Search

Them dems did a terrible job of hiding this from everyone!

The question is: Why didn't you guys post an article from "Newsmax" or "OANN" if this legislation is so terrible?

[GASP!] They're in on it too!! They are part of the baby eating globalist cabal!
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,274
5,987
64
✟333,399.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Good. And that is exactly the kind of thing which should happen in more jurisdictions. Some police departments, you have to threaten to take their money away entirely to get them to think about it.

Yeah, I believe EVERY Officer should be trained. It only makes sense.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,274
5,987
64
✟333,399.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Guy.....
Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

police reform bill - Google Search

Them dems did a terrible job of hiding this from everyone!

The question is: Why didn't you guys post an article from "Newsmax" or "OANN" if this legislation is so terrible?

[GASP!] They're in on it too!! They are part of the baby eating globalist cabal!

The worst thing in this legislation is removing officers immunity. Thats just plain stupid.

One thing to note is this bill doesn't really solve much. Most if it's aimed at the feds and not at the states. If your excited about this bill you may be missing that fact. It won't effect local law enforcement. Each state needs to pass it's own bill. This bill just kind of snacks as a feel good bill that doesn't really solve the issues. Those have to be done at state level.

I don't think the feds can remove officer immunity from local or state officers.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,076
7,405
✟343,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
The worst thing in this legislation is removing officers immunity. Thats just plain stupid.

One thing to note is this bill doesn't really solve much. Most if it's aimed at the feds and not at the states. If your excited about this bill you may be missing that fact. It won't effect local law enforcement. Each state needs to pass it's own bill. This bill just kind of snacks as a feel good bill that doesn't really solve the issues. Those have to be done at state level.

I don't think the feds can remove officer immunity from local or state officers.
Actually they can when it comes to federal court, which is where most civil rights cases are brought. Honestly, qualified immunity is one of those things that should be a no brainer, because it grants police protections nobody else gets, and it exist entirely due to judicial fiat. There is no basis in Section 1983 to allow for exceptions to it's application.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rambot
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,648
14,530
Here
✟1,196,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I would say that political factions need to do a better job, semantically, with naming their movements...but part of me thinks it's something they do on purpose.

They pick emotionally-charged naming conventions for their movements, that definitely imply something more sweeping in order to pander to the more radical element of their own base, but claim it "technically" means something different in order to grant themselves plausible deniability when critiqued for it by the other side.

For instance, the naming convention of "Defund the police"...to anyone hearing that name for the first time, it clearly sounds like "get rid of the institution of law enforcement". And clearly some on both the far-left and far-right are taking it that way. (with some on the far-left supporting the notion of getting rid of the police, and some on the far-right interpreting it that way and expressing backlash against that notion)

So they can stand up at a rally and say that it means "Law Enforcement is a racist institution, and needs to be abolished" (to an applause)

However, when called out for it by the opposing side, flip the script on what "Defund the police" actually means, and switch to the defense of "Well, it doesn't really mean defund the police, it just means redirect some of the public funding away from the police, and toward other social programs"

Despite the fact that in the dictionary, the word defund means: "prevent from continuing to receive funds."

That's come back to bite a few people in the rear...Democratic Mayors like Jacob Frey found out first hand when he was booed for saying he wasn't going to abolish the police.

The "One slogan that means two different things based on who you're talking to" is a bad strategy.

Mean what you say and say what you mean...


"Defund the police" is the far-left's semantically overloaded equivalent to the far-right's semantically overloaded "Religious Freedom".

When members of the far-right are amongst themselves, their "religious freedom" talk sounds a lot like a defense of discrimination against LGBT people...however, when called out for it by the opposition, it suddenly becomes redefined as "no, it's not about discriminating against anyone, it's just about making sure the government can't make you do anything that violates your religious convictions"

The left is pulling the same thing with the "Defund the police" slogan.

Allows them to pander to the more extreme elements of their own base, but then takes on a more mild definition when describing it to moderates and people on the other side.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Deputies responded to a simple welfare check. Something the refund the police crowd would like to be handled by social workers. The male had a history of emotional issues. Something that seems prime for social workers not for police.

The guy then opens the door and shoots. If that would have been a social worker. He\she would have been killed. As it was a scary moment for police.

And some would like to say that police work really isn't dangerous.

WARNING THE VIDEO LINK IN THE STORY HAS GRAPHIC VIOLENCE. YOU DONT HAVE TO WATCH THE VIDEO.

Dramatic video released of man shooting at Warren County deputy

If only it wasn't so damn easy to get a gun in the US...
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,274
5,987
64
✟333,399.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Actually they can when it comes to federal court, which is where most civil rights cases are brought. Honestly, qualified immunity is one of those things that should be a no brainer, because it grants police protections nobody else gets, and it exist entirely due to judicial fiat. There is no basis in Section 1983 to allow for exceptions to it's application.

No it's not a no brainier. It's a no brainier to have it. There's a large misnomer out there that qualified immunity means that cops can't be held personally responsible. That's not true in the least. Cops can be held personally responsible. They can lose their qualified immunity. Removing their immunity makes it nearly impossible for them to do their job. You'll see more cops killed or injured because they will be afraid to act.

Qualified immunity is there to protect them when they act within the law and policies and training. They don't have to go out and spend their way I to oblivion to defend themselves just cause someone files a civil suit against them. If the officer acted outside of law, training and/or policy they can lose their immunity. And many have. Having it become a blanket no immunity just makes it nearly impossible for someone to be a cop because they are in danger every day of a suit which they would have to personally defend. Just stupid.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,076
7,405
✟343,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
No it's not a no brainier. It's a no brainier to have it. There's a large misnomer out there that qualified immunity means that cops can't be held personally responsible. That's not true in the least. Cops can be held personally responsible. They can lose their qualified immunity. Removing their immunity makes it nearly impossible for them to do their job. You'll see more cops killed or injured because they will be afraid to act.

Qualified immunity is there to protect them when they act within the law and policies and training. They don't have to go out and spend their way I to oblivion to defend themselves just cause someone files a civil suit against them. If the officer acted outside of law, training and/or policy they can lose their immunity. And many have. Having it become a blanket no immunity just makes it nearly impossible for someone to be a cop because they are in danger every day of a suit which they would have to personally defend. Just stupid.

The test to overcome QI is very hard to meet. So they can be held responsible, but it almost never happens, because even if somebody clearly violates the law, that's not always enough to get around QI. This case is a good example of that. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/04/17-16756.pdf.

Even if QI didn't exist, remember that cops are generally speaking indemnified by their agency or city/county, often with lawyers also payed by the government. So they aren't on the hook anyway. Even if that wasn't true, I can't think of a single reason that Cops should not be held to the same level of responsibility as anybody else. Honestly, I think an argument can be made that since they have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, they should be held to even higher standards, but that's not a hill I'm willing to die on.

But government service is the only job in this country where you can harm somebody in the performance of your duties and neither you or your employer are responsible as long as you meet a very low standard. Police, and other government agents, should be treated the same when it comes to liability. Use the negligence standard even. If they acted in a way that a reasonable person would know violated a person's rights, then they are liable. Nice and simple, and it's already a well established legal standard.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,494
13,119
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
The worst thing in this legislation is removing officers immunity. Thats just plain stupid.
they did??? Awesome news!!!
There has been a lot of bull perpetrated by cops that should they should not be immune from punishment for.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,884
6,556
71
✟318,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The test to overcome QI is very hard to meet. So they can be held responsible, but it almost never happens, because even if somebody clearly violates the law, that's not always enough to get around QI. This case is a good example of that. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/04/17-16756.pdf.

Even if QI didn't exist, remember that cops are generally speaking indemnified by their agency or city/county, often with lawyers also payed by the government. So they aren't on the hook anyway. Even if that wasn't true, I can't think of a single reason that Cops should not be held to the same level of responsibility as anybody else. Honestly, I think an argument can be made that since they have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, they should be held to even higher standards, but that's not a hill I'm willing to die on.

But government service is the only job in this country where you can harm somebody in the performance of your duties and neither you or your employer are responsible as long as you meet a very low standard. Police, and other government agents, should be treated the same when it comes to liability. Use the negligence standard even. If they acted in a way that a reasonable person would know violated a person's rights, then they are liable. Nice and simple, and it's already a well established legal standard.

Am I reading the court case correctly? The cops flat out stole property covered by a warrent and tehy walked on qualified immunity?

Theft is theft and if anything worse when it is done under color of authority. This should be a no brainer in the opposite direction of what the court decided.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,274
5,987
64
✟333,399.00
Faith
Pentecostal
The test to overcome QI is very hard to meet. So they can be held responsible, but it almost never happens, because even if somebody clearly violates the law, that's not always enough to get around QI. This case is a good example of that. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/04/17-16756.pdf.

Even if QI didn't exist, remember that cops are generally speaking indemnified by their agency or city/county, often with lawyers also payed by the government. So they aren't on the hook anyway. Even if that wasn't true, I can't think of a single reason that Cops should not be held to the same level of responsibility as anybody else. Honestly, I think an argument can be made that since they have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, they should be held to even higher standards, but that's not a hill I'm willing to die on.

But government service is the only job in this country where you can harm somebody in the performance of your duties and neither you or your employer are responsible as long as you meet a very low standard. Police, and other government agents, should be treated the same when it comes to liability. Use the negligence standard even. If they acted in a way that a reasonable person would know violated a person's rights, then they are liable. Nice and simple, and it's already a well established legal standard.

The law was not the issue in that case. It was the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. The officers executed the warrant and siesed the property legally. The fact that they kept some if it was not a violation of fourth amendment.

That's what the court ruled on. The officers could still be prosecuted for theft. And the court could order restitution.

You may disagree with the case, but it doesn't mean qualified immunity is a bad thing. It's a good thing.

No cops are not indemnified personally. Once they lose qualified immunity their entire financial life is at stake. They could personally lose everything. Sometimes that's okay. But in most cases the cops were acting according to established laws and procedures which gives them the cover. It would be totally wrong to remove their immunity in those cases. It's just patently stupid.

And your standard you want IS in place right now. If a cop acts in knowing violation of a person's rights they could lose their immunity. Cops don't get to go out and do whatever they want. No matter what you think. If they have been found to have violated someone's right and they knew it, then they lose their immunity.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,274
5,987
64
✟333,399.00
Faith
Pentecostal
they did??? Awesome news!!!
There has been a lot of bull perpetrated by cops that should they should not be immune from punishment for.

Cops are not immune from punishment. Removing qualified immunity is so patantly stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,390
11,318
✟433,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The worst thing in this legislation is removing officers immunity. Thats just plain stupid.

Is it?

I think police will just wait until the danger has passed before confronting anyone.

Why risk your life or money over an incident that you might possibly not handle perfectly?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I would say that political factions need to do a better job, semantically, with naming their movements...but part of me thinks it's something they do on purpose.

They pick emotionally-charged naming conventions for their movements, that definitely imply something more sweeping in order to pander to the more radical element of their own base, but claim it "technically" means something different in order to grant themselves plausible deniability when critiqued for it by the other side.

For instance, the naming convention of "Defund the police"...to anyone hearing that name for the first time, it clearly sounds like "get rid of the institution of law enforcement". And clearly some on both the far-left and far-right are taking it that way. (with some on the far-left supporting the notion of getting rid of the police, and some on the far-right interpreting it that way and expressing backlash against that notion)

So they can stand up at a rally and say that it means "Law Enforcement is a racist institution, and needs to be abolished" (to an applause)

However, when called out for it by the opposing side, flip the script on what "Defund the police" actually means, and switch to the defense of "Well, it doesn't really mean defund the police, it just means redirect some of the public funding away from the police, and toward other social programs"

Despite the fact that in the dictionary, the word defund means: "prevent from continuing to receive funds."

That's come back to bite a few people in the rear...Democratic Mayors like Jacob Frey found out first hand when he was booed for saying he wasn't going to abolish the police.

The "One slogan that means two different things based on who you're talking to" is a bad strategy.

Mean what you say and say what you mean...


"Defund the police" is the far-left's semantically overloaded equivalent to the far-right's semantically overloaded "Religious Freedom".

When members of the far-right are amongst themselves, their "religious freedom" talk sounds a lot like a defense of discrimination against LGBT people...however, when called out for it by the opposition, it suddenly becomes redefined as "no, it's not about discriminating against anyone, it's just about making sure the government can't make you do anything that violates your religious convictions"

The left is pulling the same thing with the "Defund the police" slogan.

Allows them to pander to the more extreme elements of their own base, but then takes on a more mild definition when describing it to moderates and people on the other side.
I think you're giving the left way too much credit for strategic thinking about crafting an equivocal slogan.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Even if its absolutely correct to transfer certain social service responsibilities away from police to social workers, there's always going to be some instances where it would have been better for police to be there.

The question is: whats the best policy on balance? And I dont think one case answers that.
I've found many conservative analyses use whatever they can find to object to doing anything about problems. Whether that's appealing to hypothetical unnamed unintended consequences or in this case, cherry-picking individual examples as if they were data, or any other number of approaches, the goal seems the same : do nothing.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,030
23,942
Baltimore
✟551,912.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Another indication of that homeowner's paranoia, that camera had high-end infra-red tech. You can see through their clothes.* (Basic IR cannot.)

*The officer who was shot at was wearing a bandeau-type bra...

You don’t see her bra. You might see her vest with some breast pockets on top.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,494
13,119
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Is it?

I think police will just wait until the danger has passed before confronting anyone.

Why risk your life or money over an incident that you might possibly not handle perfectly?
1. Sweet . Get them fired for negligence then.
2. Because in competently executing proper and reasonable policies and enforcing the control contiuum, less people would unjustly die.
This ridiculous hyperbole of "not handling things perfectly" is useless.


upload_2021-3-6_6-53-38.png
 
Upvote 0