In this WaPo op-ed —
"Defund the police? Here’s what that really means." — by Christy E. Lopez, who is a a Distinguished Visitor from Practice at Georgetown Law School where she co-directs the Innovative Policing Program. She tells us not to be "afraid" because it's "not as scary (or even as radical) as it sounds."
We turn to the police in situations where years of experience and common sense tell us that their involvement is unnecessary, and can make things worse. We ask police to take accident reports, respond to people who have overdosed and arrest, rather than cite, people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill. We call police to 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.
Police themselves often complain about having to “do too much,” including handling social problems for which they are ill-equipped. Some have been vocal about the need to decriminalize social problems and take police out of the equation. It is clear that we must reimagine the role they play in public safety.
Defunding and abolition probably mean something different from what you are thinking. For most proponents, “defunding the police” does not mean zeroing out budgets for public safety, and police abolition does not mean that police will disappear overnight — or perhaps ever. Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need. It means investing more in mental-health care and housing, and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs....
Why not use words that people can understand and that convey the meaning you want to put in our head? If your idea is so reasonable, why not use words that are effective in making people who care about peace and harmony agree with you?
Police abolition means reducing, with the vision of eventually eliminating, our reliance on policing to secure our public safety....
Now, that's just confusing! You said "reducing" but then you said "eliminating."
The “abolition” language is important because it reminds us that policing has been the primary vehicle for using violence to perpetuate the unjustified white control over the bodies and lives of black people that has been with us since slavery.
But the slavery abolition movement was not about reducing our reliance on slavery! Why take such an important word and undermine what it means? If you successfully "remind us" of the evils of slavery, you are making us think you are saying the police are an evil, like slavery, that must be entirely eradicated.
Posts
169 comments:
This won't hurt a bit... Trust Me.
Here's a crazy idea. Defund Planned Parenthood. Quit killing black babies by the thousands.
Try that.
Then come for the police.
The words in the essay you cite are thrown around like a three-card monte game, and for the same reason.
Anybody subject to being cancelled isn't going to write anything coherent about it, even if they figure it out. But the ones who figure it out aren't going to say anything.
So that leaves the ones who haven't figured it out to explain it.
Defund the police is feelings. That it won't work out is structural.
Prof. A: your exasperation is refreshing but does it rest on faux naïveté? Are you really surprised that these activists would use language to confuse and mislead? This is just a routine rhetorical move, straight out of Orwell’s Newspeak.
What about "defund the Left and abolish the Left?"
I noticed George Takei tweeted that they should be calling it demilitarize.
"Many agree that money should be reallocated from police budgets to community safety and support.
But let’s be smart. Let’s not call this “defunding” the police. That won’t fly with the public.
I say, let’s “demilitarize” the cops. Take that money and fund minority communities.Many agree that money should be reallocated from police budgets to community safety and support.
But let’s be smart. Let’s not call this “defunding” the police. That won’t fly with the public.
I say, let’s “demilitarize” the cops. Take that money and fund minority communities."
The key trick used by the left throughout their history, is the abuse of language. When words cease to have any meaning, concepts can cease to have any meaning. Things that were once black and white, become gray. And gray is exactly where the left likes things to be. That way, the meaning of words and concepts can change- SNAP!- on a dime. Nothing is what you thought it was.
Defund the Police? Don't be afraid. It doesn't meant what you thought it meant. Until it does.
Use correct pronouns or get tossed out of college? Don't worry, that won't happen. Until it does.
Death panels? Don't worry, that won't happen. Until it does.
Killing babies as a means of contraception becomes, 'choice'.
Rioting becomes 'peaceful protests'.
Cutting taxes to allow people to keep their own money becomes, 'how are we going to pay for tax cuts?' Huh?
The rule of thumb: Words do have meaning. Hold the left to the correct meaning of a word.
No one projects like the left projects. Whatever they accuse you of doing or thinking, you can be most assured that they are doing or thinking that very thing. And accusing you of it, so as to ease their own guilt.
So when those " entities that are better equipped to meet that need" face off against a gun-waving loonie shouting "Go Fuck Yourselves you mental health experts" who you gonna call? Another entity better equipped to meet that need? How many other entities will there be? And when have mental health experts ever performed with expertise and distinction?
Christy Lopez is lying. She's not behind the phrase, she doesn't control what people mean when they use it. She simply recognizes how deeply disturbing her own side is to sane rational people and is trying to grab the reins before the horses run over the cliff. She's explaining nothing but her own sense of what will lull you into a false sense of security about the dangerous radicals she supports.
If you don't want to be arrested for driving while Black, don't travel at 50 mph in a 30 mph zone, with expired tags, no license, and no insurance. Similarly don't rob, maim, kill, or break any of the 50,000 assorted other laws. Not one. Ever. No passes, no freebees.
And when the mediators arrive, and the parties tell them to 'F off', then what?
So what they're demanding is the police to leave you alone if you want to do drugs, pass bad bills, assault other people, sleep in the street? Sounds like the soft bigotry of low expectations. I guess that's not a thing anymore...
Further affirmation that credentialed does not have to equal intelligent. This was such tortured logic. Although it is true, progressives rarely actually mean what they say. They just posture and hope someone else will hear the dogwhistle and give some meaning to the inanities.
So very much of this phenomenon is just intentionally corrupting language.
Apparently it’s harder to defend the meanings of “defund” and “abolish” once we’ve sacrificed the meaning of “woman” on the altar of political correctness. Who would have thought?
AA worded headline : We're told not to take "defund the police" and "abolish the police" literally.
----------===========
but AA took it seriously. Trumpista yet?!
I live in a city with a large investment in community policing, something the Obama Administration praised. Now it's a bad idea? My kids like having the police officer assigned to the school, to check in as a part of his/her shift. The police are already akin to being "community helpers".
How did this woman get a job teaching law at Georgetown?
"We're told not to take "defund the police" and "abolish the police" literally."
This coming from the libtards who take every utterance of President Trump literally and then go full TDS as a result. Gotta laugh.
"Why take such an important word and undermine what it means?" It's simple really; they are lying. Those advocating for defunding and abolishing the police mean exactly what they say they mean. They just know that their position is unpopular, so they need to dissemble until they are placed in positions of power under false pretense. Then, they can implement their radical agenda.
Lewis Carroll had it right- “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Don't take them literally.
Sorry Alinsky rules all around. After 5 years of watching the dnc scribes lie about President Trump, the standard is to take all people literally. (unless it messes with my narrative)
There is a problem with the Minneapolis Police department. This is the organization that hired both Mohamed Noor and Derek Chauvin. One way to break out of a bad corporate culture is bankruptcy. It allows the owners to break contracts, supplier relationships, union relationships and so on. Maybe this is part of what is happening here (along with shoveling money to left wing "neighborhood groups". So one possibility is to eliminate the Minneapolis Police Department and replace it with the Minneapolis Dolice Pepartment which takes over the responsibilities of the MPD. Everyone in the MPD is fired and then then MDP hires back the good ones, hopefully without a union.
The pompously credentialed "Distinguished Visitor" is living up to her nonsensical title. If it's not about "defunding" but "redefining" then in what sane world would the role of the police be redefined to exclude keeping control of the streets and stopping rioting? Unless of course you just want to hand the job over to the military, which is what would happen in places that our Distinguished Visitor probbaly likes to visit, like Cuba.
Are they really that ignorant, or are they just lying to the sheep again???
How do US BLM theorists account for race riots in the UK, which avoided the slavery/1619 problem AND invented via Robert Peel and the Bobbies the very idea of community policing?
Seems to me maybe there are other elements in play.
They are lying. It's the slippery slope. They use a word whose meaning is clear, tell you TODAY that that word means something else. Then later, after you do what they ask, they will tell you, that's not enough and remind you that you always knew what that word really meant.
For example.....Eric Garner was selling "loosies" loose cigarettes, that the police had to waste their time with, because some politician wrote that law. Stupid laws for stupid crimes....
They have to appease the mob and, at the same time, keep the political narrative (a word I'm starting to hate) alive.
The police in these localities where they are being abolished should all immediately resign and call the bluff of these political morons. If some government authority makes them report for duty, have the on-duty police spend all day at the precinct station.
"white control over the bodies and lives of black people"
This is pure Ta-Nahesi Coates speak. It is standard boilerplate now on the left. I wonder what this constant reference to black "bodies" is supposed to signify. I mean independent of all the ideological blather that usually accompanies it. What is it with this obsession with bodies? No one ever controls only a body. Not even with cows or dogs, it's always the mind one controls. What does this say about the way the left sees the pure victims before whom they now pretend to bow?
Anybody checked with social workers about this plan? A lot of people have social work degrees but a lot less are working in the field. The burnout rate is incredible. Plus outsourcing the work to 3rd party agencies - as opposed to state or city employees- happens. What oversight would exist?
RoseAnne
Will Democrats lose the union vote over this?
This message brought to you from the “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” people.
Perhaps. That's the word that did it for me.
Perhaps I will love you and stay with you forever. Perhaps.
1. Get everyone riled up.
2. Demand radical reforms.
3. Tell people (wink, wink), radical doesn’t really mean radical.
4. Hold election to see if you’re given power.
5. Repeat until successful.
6. Profit.
Can I suggest that maybe expecting or looking for clear, easily understood written word from a law professor is a fool's errand?
The city failed to properly instruct and oversee its police force.
The city failed to act promptly and vigorously when it became apparent that police were responsible for death of George Floyd.
The city failed to quell the destructive riots that followed.
So let's just toss together a jumbled word salad of doublespeak to rationalize the blame shifting by the city!
Yeah, it really worked out well when they sent me and another refugee worker to go stop a literal swordfight between two giant Somali women instead of calling 911. Family squabbles, you know.
Right. And if I like my doctor, I can keep my doctor.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Defunding is funding.
"Defunding and abolition probably mean something different from what you are thinking."
"For most proponents, “defunding the police” does not mean zeroing out budgets"
"police abolition does not mean that police will disappear overnight — or perhaps ever. "
"with the vision of eventually eliminating"
Does this help to break through the fog? It's called a progressive lullaby. Now go back to sleep and keep voting for the good intentions of the liberals.
Does Althouse mean "frog" in the original German?
I'm going to need help with the leftist "new" federalism and local control.
If I'm reading this the way the leftist are implementing their vision, sanctuary cities and local sharia law are exactly the same. Self/local policing is Jim Crow, is sharia law, is social justice. I'll hang up and listen to the answer.
Sorry Christy. You are an idiot. No one believes your fake justification for the unjustifiable. Okay, maybe Inga...
Your mention of passing $20 counterfeit bills is enlightening. It was obviously used as your example because it was for that precise crime that George Floyd was arrested for. Convenient for you. But if the police merely give miscreants citations for their crimes, and never arrest them, then what is their incentive to ever pay the citations, and, indeed, what is their incentive fo desist from committing those crimes? It’s like drivers Who end up with a stack of parking tickets on their windshield, except that most municipalities will either boot the car or have it towed, if the stack of tickets get too deep. With driving citations, they can, and do, take your license away If you don’t pay them. But for crimes like passing counterfeit bills, smoking pot, selling single cigarettes, arrest is really the only incentive to get the cited individuals to pay up. You can’t boot them, tow them, or suspend their licenses.
Eric Garner was the black man who died after being arrested by the NYPD for selling single cigarettes. Pretty minor thing to die for. But this wasn’t his first run in with the law. Rather, there was a stack of citations against him that he had effectively ignored for a long time. George Floyd was different mainly because he was a hardened criminal, instead of an invalided former city worker like Garner was. Still, Floyd, too, apparently made a practIce of ignoring citations, assuming that the police wouldn’t bother with them.
Think about the economics of what she is proposing. Floyd was apparently passing counterfeit $20 bills. If he got a $100 citation for the crime, then he would only need to pass five of them before being caught to break even, and the sixth one would be a profit. With that sort of economic reality, no one should be surprised if passing counterfeit bills skyrocketed. It is the possibility of jail time that keeps the problem under control. And without the police arresting people like Floyd and Garner, they are unlikely to ever quit committing their minor crimes.
Likewise, when they say "fuck the police", they don't mean literally to fuck the police.
They said what the meant and meant what they said. Minneapolis city councilors also use phrases like "police free" city. The anarchist moment has arrived and they are seizing it. A few partisans recognize how devastating their position will be at the ballot box and are trying to mislead that "defund" does not mean "defund."
We’re 48 hours from “defund the police” bring a REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT.
Here's what we want you to think that it means, until it means what we want it to mean.
Like that.
I am Laslo.
blogger very buggy this morning. This might be a double up.
The "new federalism" is confusing me. President Trump is the reason for thugs rioting, and not doing enough, but state and local govts cannot usurp local control. Bill Barr must prosecute at the federal level that never involved federal actions.
Local control is sanctuary cities, local control is defunding police protection, and going with local control. Local control is sharia law, but then local control is Jim Crow law.
I'll hang up and listen to your answer.
Where were all these ACAB agitators when we wanted to arm every school with a retired police officer?
https://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Newtown-s-armed-school-guards-a-model-for-13705813.php?fbclid=IwAR3ZFg9q5LAaC0Sx68WQD_O9dK2O2S9sOoPo_mlKBlLzG27wo5oG5CKhuKs
"Newtown’s armed school guards — all retired police officers who carry concealed sidearms — are part of a 19-member civilian school security force that has become a model in Connecticut for districts that want more protection than video cameras and locked entrances can provide.
If a group of state legislators have their way, Hartford would help fund armed school security officers in every district that wants them."
And Obama wanted more SRO officers in the school and actively promoted that public policy, now officers are a bad idea?
https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/school-resource-officers-and-violence-prevention-best-practices-part-one?fbclid=IwAR3qsb8q1e-FMF7hqCuttEnKsc2d3K1QPtvxOkxdByVBwNZjpOLo8Vg36P0
Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need.
Yeah, right. And the Jews went Ost! Ost!
Never let a fascist explain herself. She just another opportunity to lie.
They not-quite-as-stupid-as-the-really-far-left-left is now trying to back away, but it's too late. The horse has the bit in its teeth. Just like the medical "experts" and the pols are using the riots to back away from their wildly exaggerated shutting-down processes.
Anyone who believes that the police could ever be abolished believes in the perfectabilty of the human species.
What is the new Washington Post definition of "dismantle"?
BUMBLE BEE said...
This won't hurt a bit... Trust Me.
Just the tip, let me just put in the tip
Darrell - Given that most universities are completely screwed by the consequences of the coronavirus and the resulting overreaction and lockdown, some of that may actually happen. Since those are the Left’s center of gravity.
They're lying.
Though I have seen in Camden, Maine, I think, they did and and they're happy.
Just sayin'.
OH! I know! I know!
Let's take a national poll, of people that agree we should "de-fund and dismantle the police"
Let's ask THEM what they mean by it! Give THEM a range of responses, and see which they pick
Anyone (ANYONE?) think that for most proponents, “defunding the police” does not mean zeroing out budgets for public safety, and police abolition does not mean that police will disappear overnight — or perhaps ever
Re: school discipline: the cops end up enforcing school discipline because teachers are not allowed to.
It's a jobs program for social workers and "studies" majors.
Words are meaningless. They mean only what we want them to mean in a certain context. Oceana has never demanded social distancing.
Blacks don’t like the police? Perfect. Use their “communities” as the testing ground for this marvelous idea. Have a “conversation” with them in six months about the new improved neighborhoods.
Lopez is a "Distingushed Fellow blah blah blah". Jeez those universities around the Imperial City like Georgetown, GW, etc have gone to the dogs by hiring the most radical, and dumb profs they could find.
Why not use words that people can understand
Yeah, like, "picture the Evergreen College students with badges."
Because the majority of complaints about bad behavior by the police center around resolving family disputes, cautioning people about barking dogs or loud parties, and parking violations. /s
Why not say “demilitarize” the police?
Why not say “end the war on drugs?”
Why not say “end qualified immunity?”
Oh, because these are things the Libertarian Party has been saying for years. Of course, ending these things also ends the graft.
The Democrats have to get ahead of this in Minneapolis. Whatever stupid thing they implement can spread quickly. The one-ups-man-ship and me-too-ism for liberals spreads faster than COVID. From the video of Mayor Jacob being booed in shame, it seems like they may be losing control of the base they do everything they can to control. What if Minneapolis African-Americans remain angry? No one should tell them they’re too angry.
Forget it. She's rolling.
Defunding and/or abolishing police (rather than re-structure police training or reducing impact of the police unions) will have the effect of forcing people to leave the region altogether This is the strongest and fastest way to defund that there is... not sure that that is the expectation, though.
Oh that poor misguided soul. She is an academic so she really does not realize that those shouting "defund the Police" mean just that - no more police.
What is Ms. Lopez’s basis for her interpretation, as self-contradictory as it is, of “defund the police”? How does a three-word slogan mechanically shouted by protesters lend itself to her glib construction of what those protesters mean or don’t mean by it? Considering that it succeeded “All Cops are Bastards” as a protest slogan, Ms. Lopez's claim that it is a response to the concerns of police that they are called upon to “do too much” is laughably dishonest.
Sheesh, after 5 years of being lectured by you and many commenters here that we should take Donald Trump's statements "seriously but not literally", now you are complaining that we should interpret something seriously but not literally.
I think a lot of the activists that have been championing the Defund The Police and Abolish The Police slogans aren't really sure what they mean in practice. They're like the dog that has unexpectedly caught the car he was chasing. Their moment is upon them, what do they do now?
It sounds like this lady lawprof thinks Abolish the Police just means "don't sweat the small stuff". Things like taking a pack of Swisher Sweets from Kwik E Mart without paying or selling loosies or passing fake $20 bills will be decriminalized. In this way, precious Black Bodies are protected. Cops can still respond to serious crimes, like murder and people sitting too close to each other at church.
But just because she sees it that way doesn't mean the Minneapolis City Council sees it that way. Thus all the hedging and equivocation in her piece. And how they interpret Abolish the Police is what really matters right now.
Why was in late 2018, we had bipartisan support to fund and train School Resource Officers? Now they're bad???
https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2018/12/house-republicans-school-police-officers-legislation.html
Even a distinguished professor has to develop a convoluted argument using newspeak definitions to wokesplain the incoherent babble of Democrat elected officials.
BLM/Antifa/OccupyWhatever/BernieBro, aka the radical (and anarchic) wing of the democrat party, are being empowered. With rare exceptions, 'moderate' democrats -and their media confederates- have been overtly complicit the last two weeks, esp in their refusal to condemn the looting, burning, and violence associated with the demonstrations, or to do anything to stop it.
Democrat officials in Minnesota/New York/Los Angeles are now officially enabling anarchy. And the criminals are licking their chops.
Republicans need to pounce. If the Democrats want to defund a basic function of government, then doesn't that mean a tax reduction too? But I digress...
Has anyone noticed a coherent message in all these protests?
First, it was protesting for "justice now", as Keith Ellison waited over a week to press murder charges. I don't know anyone who saw the video that didn't immediately think the officer needed to be arrested and brought up on charges. Isn't the AG the problem here?
Then things got violent, but we were told it was white supremacist trying to make things look violent. Really, then why just prior to the violence did so many Hollywood Celebs offer to donate money to bail out protestors? Do the Celebs support white supremacy?
More recently, there has been the extortion efforts either flyers or graffiti saying either we fund these protest organizations or else. Again, we were told false flag, yet we are still told that we should go ahead and fund these protesting organizations just in case.
Now it is "Defund the Police". But not really defund, no one is really saying that. We just mean eliminate the police. After all, the police want to be defunded too.
This is all after; you should stay home, shutter your business, and avoid church because of COVID-19. You can't protest this "advice" enforced by legal decree because of COVID. But you can protest in larger numbers if you don't want the cops to enforce laws regarding "securing our public safety".
Why take such an important word and undermine what it means? If you successfully "remind us" of the evils of slavery, you are making us think you are saying the police are an evil, like slavery, that must be entirely eradicated.
Unclear writing is very often a sign of unclear thinking or the intent to purposefully deceive.
The writer may have gone to an elite college where baffling professors with the correct bullshit resulted in straight As.
Woke children: don’t ever let Distinguished Visitors from Practice at Georgetown Law School tell you what “abolish the police” or what ACAB means. Trust your feelings. You know what it means. You know that silence is violence and that if they are not with you they are against you. If they refuse the truth then you must lead them to it. You cannot let them be silent anymore. You speak the truth and the guillotine speaks the truth too. If they are silent or refuse your truth then they must accept the guillotine’s truth. But take their shit first.
Logic had no place is this discussion.
I think these experiments will accelerate the trend of those with the means abandoning the cities. Which will mean more segregation and less revenue to fund these programs as well as existing ones.
“Defund the Police” means the Left has figured out the public employee unions that fund the Left give bad cops tenure.
I’ve been seeing a Latina woman lately. She works at as a guard at a correctional facility in Kenosha. She was over yesterday and told me some interesting things about Police training, and Biden’s suggestion of “shoot them in the knee”. She told me they are trained to aim for the largest area of the body when the situation escalates to shooting. The purpose is to make sure you hit the target and bullets aren’t flying around shooting bystanders. It becomes even more urgent if the suspect is armed. It’s hard enough to hit a torso in those moments.
Quick draw McGraw is fiction. So were all the Russel Crowe / Gene Hackman gunslingers in “The Quick and the Dead”.
Sad, but it seemed to make sense. That’s why White People are killed by Police too. Whatever beta-male scenario defund the police really is, it will get a lot of vigilante social justice warriors hurt or killed.
I will take defund the police literally thank you, because that is what they mean. Your attempt to provide democrat party cover for it notwithstanding.
This morning on CNBC there was a conversation about the cancellation of schools classes and how online learning is working. It makes sense to move to more a more permanent online environment since it works for students. Some him and haw, then the deal breaker occurs to them- we'd have to fire many of those unionized teachers...
End of debate.
"I don't want to fix it...I just want to talk about it".
Social Justice Warriors reserve the right to make their speech mean whatever is most politically expedient at the time.
"Sure we want to abolish the police so we can impose Marxist mob rule, but didn't realize how insane that would go over with the American public, so we order you to pretend we never said what we just clearly said."
"Also, always remember that our violence is free speech, and your free speech is violence."
It's a sick religion.
An observation from someone as old as Mrs Althouse. So many major decisions are made by groups outside of public view, then whatever language needed is used to sell/justify it to the public.
Please think about that a bit, then re-read the statements with that in mind.
If nothing else, it explains why so often the predictable results are so different from the stated purpose when a major social change is enacted.
How about 'Defund disfavored group' and 'Abolish disfavored group'.
Now pick any group and see how it sounds.
Let me start this thought experiment off with an example from the past.
Jews in Germany ... 1930s
Understand that when emotions are high the truth tends to be exposed.
She's actually very right about police being involved in too much.
WaPo = Democratic propaganda.
Why not use words that people can understand and that convey the meaning you want to put in our head? If your idea is so reasonable, why not use words that are effective in making people who care about peace and harmony agree with you?
It's different people. Call them "agitation" and "propaganda." Agitation makes extreme statements designed to rile and rouse people. Propaganda tries to excuse and justify and make acceptable what agitation says.
But the slavery abolition movement was not about reducing our reliance on slavery!
True, but most of what slaveowners considered "anti-slavery" wasn't about ending slavery but about containing the spread of slavery with a view towards eventually reducing our reliance on it and (in the long run) ending it.
I'm not arguing against your basic point, though. Abolish the police, abolish ICE: that's either disastrous or meaningless or not meant to be taken literally, but then, this is the age of "seriously, but not literally," isn't it?
It's quaint that you are trying to find logic and reason in a cause that simply wants totalitarian power.
It makes perfect sense to me because I know that protesting the flag and national anthem has nothing to do with the flag and national anthem.
Nothing at all. How dare anyone say otherwise!
We ask police to ... arrest, rather than cite, people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill.
What are the cops supposed to do when the guy says "fuck you" and throws the ticket on the ground? Or takes the ticket then doesn't show up for court? "Failure to appear" is a major component of our local police reports, right after drunks driving or fighting.
In Floyd's case, if he hadn't tried to fight, like an idiot, they wouldn't have done anything to him except stick him in the police car...though he probably would've ODed anyway.
By what authority does she speak for those who are saying, "defund the police"? Why is she whitesplaining their message?
The frustrating thing for the Marxist blackshirts is meeting an organized armed force opposing riots That is so brutal.
Watching the submissive European Jews obey the Nazi rioters destroying their businesses on Krystallnacht is the ideal that the Marxists want to see. Ergo: no strong men armed will be allowed except for the Antifa Army.
I am not a fan of the extent to which the cops have become so militarized but I understand the desire to gear up since so much of what they contend with involves a degree of personal risk. Going to work as a cop shouldn't be a suicide mission. That risk is not going to change because we take funding away from the police and give it to some other government office.
What I think is really meant here is that we ordinary citizens are going to have to accept greater levels of danger as we go about our lives, that public safety is going to be redefined to mean a greater level of tolerance for crimes that hurt people and property. It's already happening in some places where so-called 'quality of life" crimes are not prosecuted.
Why not use words that people can understand and that convey the meaning you want to put in our head? If your idea is so reasonable, why not use words that are effective in making people who care about peace and harmony agree with you?
Precise language leads to finite limits. People like Christy Lopez don't want finite limits, they want ambiguity so they can keep the idea going forever and keep their rice bowls full.
Now do "Defund Georgetown Law School".
trying to find logic and reason
In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy
Because they can't say "I don't want Police to be present except when myself, my family, or my friends actually need them."
I could be wrong but I believe the thinking goes something like this:
- The police are corrupt therefore we must completely dismantle them
- In place we'll create a local community safety and crime prevention group
- The people belonging to such a group will report to a group of elected community officials
- ....Oh shit
So obviously you can read my sarcasm there because the people espousing it can't come up with a logical set of statements of what they actually want the outcome to be.
But putting sarcasm aside, there is enormous police/police union/political corruption and abuse of power. I don't have to look back a year to see executions by police abusing their power (including George Floyd and Breonna Taylor) and the immediate reaction isn't to arrest and investigate the police with the intent to pursue murder charges. It's instead to investigate "how it happened" and to "suspend" the police involved. I'm sorry but that's insufficient - when you give someone such power and their direct actions lead to US citizen unintentional death, you arrest and investigate them. Arrest is the FIRST STEP.
The way in which we empower our police nationwide needs to be completely re-examined. When you are given such power, and you put decades of your blood/sweat/tears into policing, you still need to be fearful of mistakes that ruin someones life. You can't have "qualified immunity" to make such mistakes. Look at the abuses going on during the protests - the casual shoving over of a 75 year old man, the casual tear gassing to disperse crowds who are denying local government orders.
Those situations need to have immediate, sharp, and public consequences: Arrest, Investigation, Judgement, and if guilty loss of job, pension, jail time, etc.
The problem is the two sets of standards and the resulting loss of trust that has come from it.
They don’t want police, they want zookeepers.
I finally decided to investigate some of the details of the George and found it iconic that his mother’s name was Larcenia.
Defunding the police scares voters in most of the country, so the meaning must be obscured. That’s what this woman is doing: obscuring.
Remember, in the 80's I think, the private community security group that popped up around the country. They wore a uniform that included a red beret. Can't recall their name. They surged to prominence in some cities, Boston being one, and then disappeared.
I agree the police are involved in, and asked to do, too much. And they have certainly amped up the tactics and gear. Reform that focuses them exclusively on enforcing the law makes sense.
When Adolf was going around mouthing off about getting rid of the Jews, who was around just saying, "Com'n, he doesn't really mean that."
I remember the interview of an old Jewish woman, post-WWII, who said, "When people say they want to kill you, believe them."
Believe them and act accordingly.
Here's a good word - "Racket".
Stop giving tax money to the people who are getting it now. Let us set up about a dozen new agencies and a thousand new community groups. That will employ 10's or 100's of thousand credentialed cronies and then they will have the money and power.
"Demolition Man" was a prophecy. Looking forward to trying the three shells.
1. Her take is not representative of what I hear people in power actually saying.
2. She’s not convincing.
3. Gaslight in progress. Reader beware.
Blogger Dave Begley said...
How did this woman get a job teaching law at Georgetown?
Same way Obama got a job as a "lecturer" at Chicago U.
Crack thinks Camden NJ is Camden Maine. What actually happened is similar to the situation in Orange County CA. The small cities contract with the County Sheriff for policing. Camden NJ, a small town, did away with its own police department and contracted with the County. Ferguson MO should have done the same but was using its city PD as a fund raising tool.
It works for small cities in big counties. It would have worked in Ferguson but won't work for Minneapolis. One of the things that has resulted from the obsession with "Diversity" is the loss of merit in bureaucracies, including the NY Times. People are hired for skin color not ability. Coming to a medical school near you.
So tired of "word salad" writing.
-Police departments, even rural, were dramatically militarized by the neo-cons under George Bush.
-The high courts have dramatically expanded police power over the last 20 years.
-Chief justice Roberts says it may be time for the court to re-examine qualified immunity for the police.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/378656/
Chart of crime rates (massively dropping) over time of "increased policing".
Yes, what they want to do is cut the police. Just like in NYC
Why?
Because the "elites" at the top of the Democrat party don't need the police to protect them, and the want us normies to be living in fear.
Because free, employed, happy people don't give the government the power to run their lives
So, after 50 years or so, are people finally going to admit that those with mental problems actually should be housed in places where their medications, therapy and safety will be supervised rather than continuing to throw them out in the street, hope for the best and call the cops when that doesn't work?
The normal move for the Left is they make up a slogan ("sensible gun control") and push it to hide what they really want ("we want to disarm all you peasants").
They screwed up, and started out telling us what they really want. Everythign else is a lie
Don't be lied to
Of course they don't really intend to abolish the police. Of course they're not going to take our guns. Of course they're not going to set up gulags on the North Slope.
Not right away, anyway. You won't need municipal police when you've got a national NKVD.
This FB post of a WaPo chart is interesting (link to Instapundit). Note that it shows an overall decline in violent crime from 1990 to 2018. But also note that there is initially an increase in the early 90's and a bubble prior to 2016. What could have caused those humps?
Sally327 said...
What I think is really meant here is that we ordinary citizens are going to have to accept greater levels of danger as we go about our lives
Nope. What it means here is that the governing class is going to have to accept more dead criminals. Because when someone tries to rob us, we're simply going to shoot them, make sure they're dead (dead men file no lawsuits), and then walk away.
You want to accept having your things destroyed? By all means, enjoy. But Charles Bronson did 5 "Death Wish" movies because the rest of us are not willing to be so treated
These public/community safety officers - or whatever name they give them - will become as bigoted, racist and hateful of the people they encounter, as the police officers they replace, may or may not be, who deal with them on a daily basis. And, it won't take that long, either.
Crack: "They're lying.
Though I have seen in Camden, Maine, I think, they did and and they're happy.
Just sayin'."
You need to take another look at the Camden action.
In Camden there was a strong desire for ADDITIONAL policing, but police officers there were already pulling in an average of $186,000 per year in pay and benefits and the city couldn't afford more officers.
So Camden essentially "fired" its entire force, restructured the contracts, rehired all the fired officers at about half the original package of benefits, then used the money left over to hire MORE cops. Double in fact.
Then Camden assigned these additional cops to particularly crime heavy areas and saw a much needed reduction in crime.
Of course, in time, the police re-unionized anyway.'
So that's the real story of Camden. It was not an example of a community "defunding the police". It is an example of a city for a short period of time breaking a public sector union and then hiring MORE security.
So, in the end, Camden is pretty much the exact opposite of the Minneapolis/Defund the Police scenario.
From the Movement For Black Lives (BLM leadership group. Funded by $100 million by the Ford Foundation) website:
WHO WE ARE
We are Abolitionist:
We believe that prisons, police and all other institutions that inflict violence on Black people must be abolished and replaced by institutions that value and affirm the flourishing of Black lives.
So I think I'll take the word of the actual group over the weasel words of a white female law professor.
I like how Ann is doing deep undercover trolling to get the racists to feel comfortable enough to let their guard down and Pop their heads up. John Barleycorn Time!!
How the hell does she know what people mean by it? She's a liar. You know it. I know it. She knows it. But lets pretend nobody does.
‘The “abolition” language is important because it reminds us that policing has been the primary vehicle for using violence to perpetuate the unjustified white control over the bodies and lives of black people that has been with us since slavery.‘
And yet the “unjustified white control” has failed to prevent blacks from committing a hugely disproportionate number of violent crimes, particularly homicides, including killing 6000+ of their own (2015).
On the other hand, we can be grateful to this “scholar” for pointing out that the demands of the mobs are nuanced. /Sarc a
The left wing offers up an endless supply of liars in many guises.
We want to defund the police!
If you agree with us - great. If not, well, we're not to *literally* defund the police. We're just going to vastly reduce the number of policemen AND their ability to protect your property and person, or enforce any law.
Hope that makes you feel better!
The Crack Emcee said..."They're lying. Though I have seen in Camden, Maine, I think"
Camden, New Jersey
"Why not use words that people can understand and that convey the meaning you want to put in our head? If your idea is so reasonable, why not use words that are effective in making people who care about peace and harmony agree with you?"
Because progs think they don't have to. And their meaning is perfectly clear: they mean to destroy society as we know it, and seize control to the maximum extent possible.
"If you successfully "remind us" of the evils of slavery, you are making us think you are saying the police are an evil, like slavery, that must be entirely eradicated."
So? So what? Police are an evil. A little bourgeois rhetoric about alternatives makes the medicine go down more easily, but no prog will abide any demand for foolish consistency.
So, Althouse, can you see what you are observing?
This is typical liberal bullshit. Of course it is spread by a college professor.
Don’t defund the police. Redeploy them to defend the white suburbs. The cities are dead. You are seeing their death rattle
Remove the police from all contact with the blacks. Let the savages police themselves.
I predict in short time they will revert to cannibalism. Problem solved.
Shorter Howard: "I support killing as many white people and Christians as possible!"
I mean, that's essentially what his posts over the last few weeks have all boiled down to.
As for this professor: it's just another set of lies like the ones Lenin and Stalin pushed about how Communism was going to be so wonderful for the peasants as they destroyed the bourgeoisie--but it wasn't.
That is how you write an essay when you are trying to hide your goal. I am guessing Alhouse fully understands this.
I have written it several times in the last 3 months- Orwell was the greatest prophet of the 20th century.
Indeed, a thousand years from now, Orwell will be regarded as a biblical figure.
Liberals long ago taught be to take them at their word. I believe that the leaders of BLM mean exactly what their words say, I believe that the politicians of Minneapolis mean exactly what they say, and therefore I believe that Christy Lopez is lying.
"Defunding the police" is a phrase used to describe a process whereby politically connected Lefty constituencies get to carve themselves off a "piece of the action", fiefs where they have political & economic control unbridled by the police & the rule of law.
I have read a great deal of history on the Left, both Marxist & post-Marxist. One theme comes through loud & clear -- they're always broke & looking for money. They can't manage things worth a shit, & so they can neither make money nor keep what they've already gotten. Much of the mania that the Left has for splitting off organizations & committees can best be seen as money-laundering operations, as they have to develop but yet hide their income streams from illicit sources.
That's what this is all about. It's money, money coming from our taxes to prop up people & organizations who could exist in no other way.
@Dave Begley,
How did this woman get a job teaching law at Georgetown?
Is that a rhetorical question or have you not been paying attention to the Jesuits for the past 50 years?
San Fran just dropped $150,000,000 of their Police budget on "activists."
Now that we all know all these people are whoring for cash, can we negotiation a lower price?
oward said...
I like how Ann is doing deep undercover trolling to get the racists to feel comfortable enough to let their guard down and Pop their heads up. John Barleycorn Time!!
They (we) are under your bed, Howard. Better think about the Berkshires before the cops are disbanded. I was in Boston in the 1965 blackout. It took about 2 hours before the looting began.
Howard said...I like how Ann is doing deep undercover trolling to get the racists to feel comfortable enough to let their guard down and Pop their heads up. John Barleycorn Time!!
Apparently any time is John Barleycorn time for Howie the fake ex-Marine.
I wonder if your posts would seem more meaningful if you were sober.
If you're in favor of abolishing the police, you're in favor of vigilantes and organized crime, since they'll both inevitably move in to fill the void.
The good news is that the abolish-the-police movement indicates the Left is already cannibalizing itself in French Revolution fashion, a necessary predicate for a return to sanity.
The BLM movement can't say increase mental health services because that's what Trump suggested months ago. No way they can give him any credit.
He suggested increasing mental health facilities as an alternative to the left's attempt to ban all gun ownership. It wasn't a racial thing at all but now it seems that BLM is making this a racial thing! Also I'm thinking that if we abolish the police won't people demand to have guns to provide their own protection? In fact BLM wants black neighborhoods to provide their own private neighborhood security forces. They aren't anti-gun ownership.
I'm not sure this has been fully thought through by the Democrats.
So, the lefties proposing to defund the police want to be taken seriously but not literally? Sounds familiar. But whether that's what they really want is another matter. I'd be slow to trust some lefty academic trying to explain why the crazies are, you know, crazy.
So, the lefties proposing to defund the police want to be taken seriously but not literally? Sounds familiar. But whether that's what they really want is another matter. I'd be slow to trust some lefty academic trying to explain why the crazies are, you know, crazy.
People that vote for democrats are stupid.
I think what Camden did makes sense, but they added cops on the street. They got rid of cops doing desk work and they had that done by civilians. The most important thing they did was get rid of the union contract, that if like most, guarantees bad cops stay on the force.
The police unions are getting eaten first by the people who they put in office over and over again. Republicans would never treat cops so badly as the Dems have and are. Will cops vote for the Dems again? Probably. Cops and Blacks should listen to Trump and ask themselves "what do we have to lose?" They have both been used and abused by the Democratic party they reliably vote for. What we need if for voters to embrace reality over narrative, facts over narrative, and open their mind to the possibility they have been lied to and played for a long time, and it's being attempted in the extreme right now.
What does any of this years outrage have to do with Republicans? From Corona to cops, it's overwhelmingly the result of Democrat governance, graft and incompetence. How could Republicans do any worse? They aren't where they govern.
“You are saying police are an evil, like slavery, that must be entirely eradicated.”
Yes, @althouse, that is exactly what they are saying. That “reminder” is precisely why they chose the word “abolish” and cast themselves as abolitionists. Make no mistake.
In your state, Freedom, Inc., says “policing is an iteration of lynching.” And your own state is paying them millions of dollars to say it.
https://twitter.com/breeadail/status/1269826040257548288 (Freedom, Inc. video re “lynching”)
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/daniel-bice/2020/06/02/group-leading-madison-protests-paid-millions-state-tax-dollars/5316822002/ (Wisconsin taxpayers give millions to Freedom, Inc.)
I think what Camden did makes sense, but they added cops on the street. They got rid of cops doing desk work and they had that done by civilians. The most important thing they did was get rid of the union contract, that if like most, guarantees bad cops stay on the force.
The police unions are getting eaten first by the people who they put in office over and over again. Republicans would never treat cops so badly as the Dems have and are. Will cops vote for the Dems again? Probably. Cops and Blacks should listen to Trump and ask themselves "what do we have to lose?" They have both been used and abused by the Democratic party they reliably vote for. What we need if for voters to embrace reality over narrative, facts over narrative, and open their mind to the possibility they have been lied to and played for a long time, and it's being attempted in the extreme right now.
What does any of this years outrage have to do with Republicans? From Corona to cops, it's overwhelmingly the result of Democrat governance, graft and incompetence. How could Republicans do any worse? They aren't where they govern.
Bill, Republic of Texas,
I suspect there's a lot more support for the slogan than awareness of the agenda of the org.
As more attempt to appease at governmental levels, more people will arrive at a baby with bathwater moment.
I wonder what the exodus numbers from MiniApples will be.
YoungHegelian said...
"Defunding the police" is a phrase used to describe a process whereby politically connected Lefty constituencies get to carve themselves off a "piece of the action",
--
Freedom, Inc gal with the megaphone is making over $100k for running an org that excludes Latinos.
Yeah sure another 'Elite' pushing 'meme of today' propoganda. How about you call 911 and get, "sorry this line has been disconnected".
Quick, call a counselor!
Hmmm..sounds like Boogaloo Babes in action:
"CENTRAL: Road Rage – 5:54 p.m. The victim reported he was driving outbound on E Washington Ave when two females in another vehicle began yelling at him using racial slurs. The victim reported at one point one of the suspects pointed a handgun at him. Officers developed probable cause to arrest the suspects for disorderly conduct while armed. The suspects have not been identified. Investigation continuing."
So when they tell me I need to decolonize my bookshelf, does it mean I can keep most of the white authors?
Who the EFF is this privileged White woman to tell Black Men and Black Women what they mean when they say anything??
Black folks speak for themselves.
You want examples of racism?
Here it is on display.
Huh, my local website had an article on "what defund the police really means". I guess the memo went out.
Michael Ryan said...
And when the mediators arrive, and the parties tell them to 'F off', then what?
6/8/20, 6:39 AM
My understanding is that the single most dangerous police intervention is to respond to a domestic dispute. The cops will love to be let off responding to those, but I'm keen to know who will go instead, with what mission and what powers, and how that will all work out.
Will these non-cops have defensive capabilities, or will they just be human sacrifices to any evildoers bright enough to stop them using their backup phones or panic buttons?
Honestly this could be great-all the woke people will go first, right?
Why not use words that people can understand and that convey the meaning you want to put in our head? If your idea is so reasonable, why not use words that are effective in making people who care about peace and harmony agree with you?
Hahahahahaha.
Sure, give the Rubes the inside story. What are you, nuts.
We want them to THINK we are doing BIG things. But the power players need to know we are just spreading a bit of green around.
Someone needs buy the Democrats a dictionary. This is beyond parody.
Mark said...
Who the EFF is this privileged White woman to tell Black Men and Black Women what they mean when they say anything??
Lamar addresses
Stevew wrote: "Remember, in the 80's I think, the private community security group that popped up around the country. They wore a uniform that included a red beret. Can't recall their name. They surged to prominence in some cities, Boston being one, and then disappeared."
They were called Guardian Angels. Their leader was Curtis Sliwa. He just got his jaw broken by hammer wielding rioters in Manhattan last week. So I doubt they will be saving anyone this time around.
“San Fran just dropped $150,000,000 of their Police budget on "activists."”
What could possibly go wrong there?
One hint there is that $150 million buys a lot of bricks. It also buys body armor, gas masks, Molotov cocktails, and rented busss.
It's not unusual for radical movements to have an inner dialog - where their true goals are discussed and next moves are plotted - and an outer dialog for consumption by the general public. That's what's going on here.
There is a problem with the Minneapolis Police department. This is the organization that hired both Mohamed Noor and Derek Chauvin.
There is a massive shortage of cops in big cities. Either budget cuts won't allow them to hire more, or there are too many openings to begin with. I mean, who would do that job? Especially now. In addition, you have a LOT of hirings based strictly on skin color and ethnic origin. Which means you're lowering standards for cops.
It's the same reason that most honest people don't go into politics. Who wants some "journalist" to dig through your past to find some embarrassing thing you did in your youth? So the only people who take the job are people that either expect to coast through it, or have a limited amount of scruples and don't really care what others thingk. In today's age, no one who the intelligentsia wants to hire, would take the job. So you take what you can get. Which explains where we are today.
Tucker Carlson explained it best: They don't want to abolish the police; they just want to take them over. They will be the Party Police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7aQ02YX7qo&feature=youtu.be
/L. E. Joiner
Young Hegelian is correct. In the end this entire kerfuffle will boil down to money -- the only thing the Left cares about as much as power.
BLM --> defund the police --> give the money to 'community groups'
It's just 'reparations' under a different name, except white lefties are sure to glom onto a large fraction of the cash as it pours down the pipe.
Incidentally, everything in the WashPost and NY Times consists of some combination of:
1. disinformation
2. Democrat party propaganda
3. lies
4. inane babbling by incompetent young punk 'journalists'
This particular pieces ticks the first three boxes.
"Will cops vote for the Dems again? Probably. Cops and Blacks should listen to Trump and ask themselves "what do we have to lose?"
Bagoh20, don't confuse the police union leaders with the rank and file cops. The union heads endorse Dems because of course they do. The most passionately pro-Trump person I know is a retired cop who still keeps in touch with officers still on the force and she tells me they are mostly Trump voters.
The Left would like to replace those deplorable cops with ones who will enforce their diktats.
This reminds me so much of a Portlandia episode "Cops Redesign" where the police are tired of getting community "notes" they quit so the feckless community organizers take over policing and deck themselves out in new "non threatening" uniforms. The fun comes when they try to stop an impromptu skateboard party in the street and are not only ignored but get spray painted by vandals. Classic. https://www.ifc.com/shows/portlandia/season-02/episode-05/cops-redesign
TreeJoe,
"Arrest is the FIRST STEP."
No it's not, nor should it be. Rather, it's a big huge It Depends On The Specifics Of The Case.
Perhaps the shooting of the Aussie woman by the ethnic-Somali cop was clear cut enough to warrant immediate arrest; I'm not sure about that and not sure how I could become sure.
But at least here in the still-for-now-barely-civilized Washington State, non-police citizens frequently get similar treatment, in not being arrested after a fatal shooting, if at first glance the circumstances clearly indicate lawful self-defense.
Herpes is a serious and recurring disease which can't be cured through drugs or injections by the doctors but the best way to deal with Herpes is by taking natural herbs medicine for it, I have read about DR NOGADU the great herbalist doctor who cure me from herpes with his powerful herbal medicine. i contacted him to know how he can help me and he told me never to worry that he will help me with the natural herbs from God! After 2 days of contacting him, he told me that the cure has been ready and he sent it to me via UPS SPEED POST and it got to me after 3 days! i used the medicine as he instructed me (MORNING and EVENING) and i was cured! It was really like a dream but i was so happy! you should contact him for his herbal medicine because i am a living testimony and i was cured of herpes and his medicine is legit. I sent him what he requested and he sent me his medicine which I took for 2 good weeks and today I am out here with a negative result. When I went for the test I was so happy after going through his medication. you can reach him through his email: drnogaduherbalist@gmail.com or call/whatsapp number:+2347010627760 he will help you out.
Post a Comment