https://www.governing.com/next/Does-Every-Emergency-Call-Require-Police-Response.html

They have all the sourcing.

80 million in one state just to arrest homeless.

So much for big government being bad.

Better idea, fund social programs, build housing, legalize drugs.,

That's how you defund po po. You righties should not be against.

Where is your post OF4S?

Not a fan of Sharpton, but I'm going to use this term 'latte liberals' more lol

https://www.msn.com/en-us...d=msedgntp


Al Sharpton: Defund the Police Is Just Something 'Latte Liberals' Support

Justin Baragona 1 hr ago
.

Scarborough then turned to Sharpton, asking the National Action Network founder if he feels the city is starting to "fray at the edges."

Pointing out that this is a "tale of two cities" and that he comes from the side that is "blacker and poorer," Sharpton brought up a mass shooting in Brooklyn over the Labor Day weekend.
.

"So I would say statistically we're not much higher than we were," he added. "But on the ground it is certainly feeling more violent, feeling more unsafe, in unsafe communities, if you know what I mean. I'm talking about communities where we were somewhat having to deal with more crime, it feels more, in many ways, dangerous."
.

At the same time, Sharpton claimed that he doesn't think hyperbolic headlines over the violence "are exactly right," saying media outlets "embellish it." He also stated that the pandemic has contributed to this "worse feeling" in the city.
.

Scarborough then brought up the calls for defunding the police by progressives and activists, wondering aloud if the slashing of the New Y...ice budget by one billion dollars has disproportionately impacted people of color.
.

"I've said, and you and I have discussed this, we need to reimagine how we do policing," Sharpton replied. "We are in the areas where—that is inundated with guns, that has this serious problems of our—of people being given guns that can't even get a summer program."
.

"To take all policing off is something I think a latte liberal may go for as they sit around the Hamptons discussing this as some academic problem," he concluded. "But people living on the ground need proper policing. Yes, we need more resources in different areas like mental health. But we do not need our grandmothers [to be] prey to those that are being the users of products of the big gun manufacturers in this country."

Sharpie is an racial ambulance chaser. Always hated him. You go after Cornel you go after me and you go after Jesus.

Latte liberals true. They are the problem that ushered in Trump. When Biden wins we need to go after them next.

2freaky4church1 said:

Sharpie is an racial ambulance chaser. Always hated him. You go after Cornel you go after me and you go after Jesus.

Latte liberals true. They are the problem that ushered in Trump. When Biden wins we need to go after them next.

I thought he and Kamala were latte liberals...

OldFriends4Sale said:

Not a fan of Sharpton, but I'm going to use this term 'latte liberals' more lol

https://www.msn.com/en-us...d=msedgntp


Al Sharpton: Defund the Police Is Just Something 'Latte Liberals' Support

Justin Baragona 1 hr ago
.

Scarborough then turned to Sharpton, asking the National Action Network founder if he feels the city is starting to "fray at the edges."

Pointing out that this is a "tale of two cities" and that he comes from the side that is "blacker and poorer," Sharpton brought up a mass shooting in Brooklyn over the Labor Day weekend.
.

"So I would say statistically we're not much higher than we were," he added. "But on the ground it is certainly feeling more violent, feeling more unsafe, in unsafe communities, if you know what I mean. I'm talking about communities where we were somewhat having to deal with more crime, it feels more, in many ways, dangerous."
.

At the same time, Sharpton claimed that he doesn't think hyperbolic headlines over the violence "are exactly right," saying media outlets "embellish it." He also stated that the pandemic has contributed to this "worse feeling" in the city.
.

Scarborough then brought up the calls for defunding the police by progressives and activists, wondering aloud if the slashing of the New Y...ice budget by one billion dollars has disproportionately impacted people of color.
.

"I've said, and you and I have discussed this, we need to reimagine how we do policing," Sharpton replied. "We are in the areas where—that is inundated with guns, that has this serious problems of our—of people being given guns that can't even get a summer program."
.

"To take all policing off is something I think a latte liberal may go for as they sit around the Hamptons discussing this as some academic problem," he concluded. "But people living on the ground need proper policing. Yes, we need more resources in different areas like mental health. But we do not need our grandmothers [to be] prey to those that are being the users of products of the big gun manufacturers in this country."

This has been explained repeatedly. No one is taking "all policing off". What people are talking about when they state, "defunding the police", is allocating some of the funds used in law enforcement for other resources for communities. It means reimagining how we do policing. It means demilitarizing our police force. It means having officers that live in the community work in those same communities. If you know your neighbors, and they are fighting, you are more apt to handle those neighbors differently, than someone who comes in from the outside that doesn't know either one of them. That's it. That's all it is. But Rose' Republicans want to claim that it means getting rid of the police. It does not.

benni said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Not a fan of Sharpton, but I'm going to use this term 'latte liberals' more lol

https://www.msn.com/en-us...d=msedgntp


Al Sharpton: Defund the Police Is Just Something 'Latte Liberals' Support

Justin Baragona 1 hr ago
.

Scarborough then turned to Sharpton, asking the National Action Network founder if he feels the city is starting to "fray at the edges."

Pointing out that this is a "tale of two cities" and that he comes from the side that is "blacker and poorer," Sharpton brought up a mass shooting in Brooklyn over the Labor Day weekend.
.

"So I would say statistically we're not much higher than we were," he added. "But on the ground it is certainly feeling more violent, feeling more unsafe, in unsafe communities, if you know what I mean. I'm talking about communities where we were somewhat having to deal with more crime, it feels more, in many ways, dangerous."
.

At the same time, Sharpton claimed that he doesn't think hyperbolic headlines over the violence "are exactly right," saying media outlets "embellish it." He also stated that the pandemic has contributed to this "worse feeling" in the city.
.

Scarborough then brought up the calls for defunding the police by progressives and activists, wondering aloud if the slashing of the New Y...ice budget by one billion dollars has disproportionately impacted people of color.
.

"I've said, and you and I have discussed this, we need to reimagine how we do policing," Sharpton replied. "We are in the areas where—that is inundated with guns, that has this serious problems of our—of people being given guns that can't even get a summer program."
.

"To take all policing off is something I think a latte liberal may go for as they sit around the Hamptons discussing this as some academic problem," he concluded. "But people living on the ground need proper policing. Yes, we need more resources in different areas like mental health. But we do not need our grandmothers [to be] prey to those that are being the users of products of the big gun manufacturers in this country."

This has been explained repeatedly. No one is taking "all policing off". What people are talking about when they state, "defunding the police", is allocating some of the funds used in law enforcement for other resources for communities. It means reimagining how we do policing. It means demilitarizing our police force. It means having officers that live in the community work in those same communities. If you know your neighbors, and they are fighting, you are more apt to handle those neighbors differently, than someone who comes in from the outside that doesn't know either one of them. That's it. That's all it is. But Rose' Republicans want to claim that it means getting rid of the police. It does not.

I'll post Al's email so you can share that with him lol

OldFriends4Sale said:

benni said:

This has been explained repeatedly. No one is taking "all policing off". What people are talking about when they state, "defunding the police", is allocating some of the funds used in law enforcement for other resources for communities. It means reimagining how we do policing. It means demilitarizing our police force. It means having officers that live in the community work in those same communities. If you know your neighbors, and they are fighting, you are more apt to handle those neighbors differently, than someone who comes in from the outside that doesn't know either one of them. That's it. That's all it is. But Rose' Republicans want to claim that it means getting rid of the police. It does not.

I'll post Al's email so you can share that with him lol

I don't need to.

This is what he said in June:

On Monday, Reverend Sharpton discussed on Morning Joe the uptick in protestors and activists calling for the “defunding” or “abolishing” of the police. Rev. Sharpton speaks to the need to interpret phrase: “They are really talking about adjusting and recommitting the funding towards things like community policing.”

Rev. Sharpton explains how we need to rethink how we maintain public safety, and how this can only be done through large-scale, structural policing reforms.

+++++++++

So he already knows what it means. However, in his response he was talking about how people in the Hamptons (rich area) are approaching the "Defund the Police" movement (academic) vs. how individuals in the area he came from views it. I think that what Al Sharpton is wanting is more funding to restructuring policing reforms, but admitted that we do need more resources in different areas, like mental health, individuals trained to deal with certain issues that police are not equipped to deal with.

Yeah we had a thread on explaining what 'defunding' means 'to some people'

blm leader Patrice stresses she want the police 'Abolished' and Colin Kapernick echoed her sentiment

OldFriends4Sale said:

Yeah we had a thread on explaining what 'defunding' means 'to some people'

blm leader Patrice stresses she want the police 'Abolished' and Colin Kapernick echoed her sentiment

There are ALWAYS outliers in any situation. You know this.

I mean I could say that because Trump was willing to gas American citizens who were peacefully protesting at the time (witnessed by church preachers/members who were there providing water and any first aide needed in the summer heat) for a photo op, that ALL Republicans must be just like that. Trump is an outlier in how he rules as president and it does not mean that ALL Republican presidents are as insane as Trump.

Because there are some that want to "abolish the police" does not mean that ALL those calling for police reform and defunding the police want to "abolish the police". What an idiotic idea, and I'm talking about the idea of thinking that just because a few call for something means everyone wants the same thing.

[Edited 10/15/20 16:14pm]

benni said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Yeah we had a thread on explaining what 'defunding' means 'to some people'

blm leader Patrice stresses she want the police 'Abolished' and Colin Kapernick echoed her sentiment

There are ALWAYS outliers in any situation. You know this.

I mean I could say that because Trump was willing to gas American citizens who were peacefully protesting at the time (witnessed by church preachers/members who were there providing water and any first aide needed in the summer heat) for a photo op, that ALL Republicans must be just like that. Trump is an outlier in how he rules as president and it does not mean that ALL Republican presidents are as insane as Trump.

Because there are some that want to "abolish the police" does not mean that ALL those calling for police reform and defunding the police want to "abolish the police". What an idiotic idea, and I'm talking about the idea of thinking that just because a few call for something means everyone wants the same thing.

[Edited 10/15/20 16:14pm]

Well, the issue with this, they are not really 'outliers' Patrice of blm is the one that got this all started.
The talks of this did not originate with anyone else, outside of Patrice and the blm movement.
So that has to taken seriously, because they are making political moves and connections with a particular party.

We should never 'not' take seriously who people are listening to and who is talking.

So, yes again, we have discussed this in the Defund the Police thread and posted and talked about all avenues of thought concerning this, overall.

OldFriends4Sale said:

benni said:

There are ALWAYS outliers in any situation. You know this.

I mean I could say that because Trump was willing to gas American citizens who were peacefully protesting at the time (witnessed by church preachers/members who were there providing water and any first aide needed in the summer heat) for a photo op, that ALL Republicans must be just like that. Trump is an outlier in how he rules as president and it does not mean that ALL Republican presidents are as insane as Trump.

Because there are some that want to "abolish the police" does not mean that ALL those calling for police reform and defunding the police want to "abolish the police". What an idiotic idea, and I'm talking about the idea of thinking that just because a few call for something means everyone wants the same thing.

[Edited 10/15/20 16:14pm]

Well, the issue with this, they are not really 'outliers' Patrice of blm is the one that got this all started.
The talks of this did not originate with anyone else, outside of Patrice and the blm movement.
So that has to taken seriously, because they are making political moves and connections with a particular party.

We should never 'not' take seriously who people are listening to and who is talking.

So, yes again, we have discussed this in the Defund the Police thread and posted and talked about all avenues of thought concerning this, overall.

The abolition she is speaking of is the militarization of the police force that we currently have. Heck yes, I agree with her on that. At one time our law enforcement were called "peace officers" or "officers of peace". Then the rhetoric began to change in America, "war on drugs", "war on poverty", etc., and we began to militarize our "peace officers" so that they have become a form of militarized action against US citizens. They began to be provided with military grade equipment (uniforms, vehicles, weapons) and have gone to war against Americans. AND she was speaking to U.S. society by challenging white supremacy in U.S. laws, institutions, and relationships. It has been proven time and again that white supremacy has infiltrated our police forces. Even the FBI has reported on this. So yes, abolish and rebuild. A step toward doing that is by getting back to community policing, building better community resources, engaging social workers and therapists to handle calls that officers aren't trained to deal with.

My goodness, if people would just research things they would find this out for themselves.


Abolition calls on us not only to destabilize, deconstruct, and demolish oppressive systems, institutions, and practices, but also to repair histories of harm across the board. ~ Patrice Cullors


https://harvardlawreview....ntability/

[Edited 10/15/20 17:50pm]

They're all mad dogs, they're part of the broken system.

benni said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Well, the issue with this, they are not really 'outliers' Patrice of blm is the one that got this all started.
The talks of this did not originate with anyone else, outside of Patrice and the blm movement.
So that has to taken seriously, because they are making political moves and connections with a particular party.

We should never 'not' take seriously who people are listening to and who is talking.

So, yes again, we have discussed this in the Defund the Police thread and posted and talked about all avenues of thought concerning this, overall.

The abolition she is speaking of is the militarization of the police force that we currently have. Heck yes, I agree with her on that. At one time our law enforcement were called "peace officers" or "officers of peace". Then the rhetoric began to change in America, "war on drugs", "war on poverty", etc., and we began to militarize our "peace officers" so that they have become a form of militarized action against US citizens. They began to be provided with military grade equipment (uniforms, vehicles, weapons) and have gone to war against Americans. AND she was speaking to U.S. society by challenging white supremacy in U.S. laws, institutions, and relationships. It has been proven time and again that white supremacy has infiltrated our police forces. Even the FBI has reported on this. So yes, abolish and rebuild. A step toward doing that is by getting back to community policing, building better community resources, engaging social workers and therapists to handle calls that officers aren't trained to deal with.

My goodness, if people would just research things they would find this out for themselves.


Abolition calls on us not only to destabilize, deconstruct, and demolish oppressive systems, institutions, and practices, but also to repair histories of harm across the board. ~ Patrice Cullors


https://harvardlawreview....ntability/

[Edited 10/15/20 17:50pm]

.

There's a reason you separate the military and the police. One fights the enemies of the State, the other serves and protects the people. When either the military or police become both then the enemies of the State tend to become the people.

.

If a movement that is against systemic and criminal violence by the police and criminal justice systems seeks to point out to people the different positions by political parties on ending systemic and criminal violence by police and the criminal justice system, especially by the more militarised police, then this is not the movement aligning with a political party. It is a reflection of each of the partys' positions in regard to that movement's cause. Other parties can seek to better end systemic and criminal violence by police and the criminal justice system and expect to have this reflected in the information provided by the movement. If one of those parties did support BLM and demilitarising the police to better focus on crime prevention and causes but was presented as not supporting BLM then you would have an issue. But all those attacking BLM here have never been able to argue this, nor have they ever been interested in trying to.

IanRG said:

benni said:

The abolition she is speaking of is the militarization of the police force that we currently have. Heck yes, I agree with her on that. At one time our law enforcement were called "peace officers" or "officers of peace". Then the rhetoric began to change in America, "war on drugs", "war on poverty", etc., and we began to militarize our "peace officers" so that they have become a form of militarized action against US citizens. They began to be provided with military grade equipment (uniforms, vehicles, weapons) and have gone to war against Americans. AND she was speaking to U.S. society by challenging white supremacy in U.S. laws, institutions, and relationships. It has been proven time and again that white supremacy has infiltrated our police forces. Even the FBI has reported on this. So yes, abolish and rebuild. A step toward doing that is by getting back to community policing, building better community resources, engaging social workers and therapists to handle calls that officers aren't trained to deal with.

My goodness, if people would just research things they would find this out for themselves.


Abolition calls on us not only to destabilize, deconstruct, and demolish oppressive systems, institutions, and practices, but also to repair histories of harm across the board. ~ Patrice Cullors


https://harvardlawreview....ntability/

[Edited 10/15/20 17:50pm]

.

There's a reason you separate the military and the police. One fights the enemies of the State, the other serves and protects the people. When either the military or police become both then the enemies of the State tend to become the people.

.

If a movement that is against systemic and criminal violence by the police and criminal justice systems seeks to point out to people the different positions by political parties on ending systemic and criminal violence by police and the criminal justice system, especially by the more militarised police, then this is not the movement aligning with a political party. It is a reflection of each of the partys' positions in regard to that movement's cause. Other parties can seek to better end systemic and criminal violence by police and the criminal justice system and expect to have this reflected in the information provided by the movement. If one of those parties did support BLM and demilitarising the police to better focus on crime prevention and causes but was presented as not supporting BLM then you would have an issue. But all those attacking BLM here have never been able to argue this, nor have they ever been interested in trying to.

Unfortunately, Ian, everything has become politicized in America. Basic human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are no longer considered "human rights" because my right to life can be infringed upon by an ideology that says "Masks are bad", "Fake virus", etc. The human right to liberty is infringed upon by our militaristic police force and we have a president yelling, "Get rough with them!" And our basic human right of the pursuit of happiness is infringed upon from all sides. It is as though America has lost the narrative. We've lost the idea of what America was about, which is growth, compassion, dignity of our fellow man, self responsibility (now we blame everyone else instead of accepting responsibility for what we may have done to cause whatever issue we are facing).

Our militarized police force grew out of the civil rights movement and a desire to "make war" on our people under the guise of war on drugs, war on poverty, war on...whatever else we've declared to be a battle in the United States.

Our kids are no longer free to be kids because one side values the 2nd Amendment more than they value the safety of our kids in schools. My daughter has nightmares because of "active shooter drills" in which kids are taught to grab a hand full of sharpened pencils, a chair, or anything else they can use as a weapon to fight back against someone with a gun, armed with automatic and semi-automatic weapons that are designed to shoot rapidly and kill as many of them as they possibly can in a short period of time. They keep their class room doors closed and locked during the day while they are in a class room, and one child is assigned to turn off the lights if an active shooter alarm goes off or if they hear gunshots. Where is she free to pursue happiness when she has been traumatized by the idea, since she was a young girl, that she has to fight for her life?

And we've only been having to face this for a handful of years, but black and brown Americans have been dealing with militarized police and unjust legal system for decades (and for centuries they've been fighting for just the basic human rights), and people wonder why movements like the BLM movement has come about, or why people are protesting, and yes, even rioting. You kick a person enough times, you keep a person down long enough, and eventually they start to fight back when they feel their back is to the wall and it's the only escape they have.

benni said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Well, the issue with this, they are not really 'outliers' Patrice of blm is the one that got this all started.
The talks of this did not originate with anyone else, outside of Patrice and the blm movement.
So that has to taken seriously, because they are making political moves and connections with a particular party.

We should never 'not' take seriously who people are listening to and who is talking.

So, yes again, we have discussed this in the Defund the Police thread and posted and talked about all avenues of thought concerning this, overall.

The abolition she is speaking of is the militarization of the police force that we currently have. Heck yes, I agree with her on that. At one time our law enforcement were called "peace officers" or "officers of peace". Then the rhetoric began to change in America, "war on drugs", "war on poverty", etc., and we began to militarize our "peace officers" so that they have become a form of militarized action against US citizens. They began to be provided with military grade equipment (uniforms, vehicles, weapons) and have gone to war against Americans. AND she was speaking to U.S. society by challenging white supremacy in U.S. laws, institutions, and relationships. It has been proven time and again that white supremacy has infiltrated our police forces. Even the FBI has reported on this. So yes, abolish and rebuild. A step toward doing that is by getting back to community policing, building better community resources, engaging social workers and therapists to handle calls that officers aren't trained to deal with.

My goodness, if people would just research things they would find this out for themselves.


Abolition calls on us not only to destabilize, deconstruct, and demolish oppressive systems, institutions, and practices, but also to repair histories of harm across the board. ~ Patrice Cullors


https://harvardlawreview....ntability/

[Edited 10/15/20 17:50pm]

Where did you hear her say that?
.
.
the energy of the move... is violent, that's why the rioters target police stations, cars, policemen/women(dispite race) they want them destroyed

Black coffee Anarchist

OldFriends4Sale said:

benni said:

The abolition she is speaking of is the militarization of the police force that we currently have. Heck yes, I agree with her on that. At one time our law enforcement were called "peace officers" or "officers of peace". Then the rhetoric began to change in America, "war on drugs", "war on poverty", etc., and we began to militarize our "peace officers" so that they have become a form of militarized action against US citizens. They began to be provided with military grade equipment (uniforms, vehicles, weapons) and have gone to war against Americans. AND she was speaking to U.S. society by challenging white supremacy in U.S. laws, institutions, and relationships. It has been proven time and again that white supremacy has infiltrated our police forces. Even the FBI has reported on this. So yes, abolish and rebuild. A step toward doing that is by getting back to community policing, building better community resources, engaging social workers and therapists to handle calls that officers aren't trained to deal with.

My goodness, if people would just research things they would find this out for themselves.


Abolition calls on us not only to destabilize, deconstruct, and demolish oppressive systems, institutions, and practices, but also to repair histories of harm across the board. ~ Patrice Cullors


https://harvardlawreview....ntability/

[Edited 10/15/20 17:50pm]

Where did you hear her say that?
.
.
the energy of the move... is violent, that's why the rioters target police stations, cars, policemen/women(dispite race) they want them destroyed

I provided the link.

No, the reason why rioters were targeting police stations, cars, policemen/women is because they see them as the enemy who keeps killing unarmed men, women, and children, and getting off scot-free when they do so.

benni said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Where did you hear her say that?
.
.
the energy of the move... is violent, that's why the rioters target police stations, cars, policemen/women(dispite race) they want them destroyed

I provided the link.

No, the reason why rioters were targeting police stations, cars, policemen/women is because they see them as the enemy who keeps killing unarmed men, women, and children, and getting off scot-free when they do so.

thanks

It's not going to happen though.
But they should congregate in Seattle, Los Angeles and Portland and make it happen there.
Start small

.

No the reason is they don't understand and the blind rage even at places and police and areas that did nothing and had nothing to do with GF is the destroy(abolish) in their eyes what they feel the problem is. Cops do go to jail. Peoples reactions to a cop shooting-killing someone is irrational too often. Like the cop who shot the PR man in PA who was trying to stab he girlfriend/wife, made her run out the house. People protest the cop shooting this man. So what should have happened... the woman sacrifices her life for the cause, and possibly the cop too, just don't shoot the butcher knife welding man, send in a health specialist... There are wrongful deaths, but this is rediculous.

.

I do think more trained health specialist should be employed though. They would have to be trained to protect themselves as well other things.

Amazon just suppressed a documentary, "What Killed Michael Brown", written by Shelby Steele and directed by his son, Eli.

For those who do not know, Mr. Steele is a very respected, though more consevative black man.

He is a Sr. Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute and has written extensively about race relations.

My main concern with some of the comments on this forum, is that there is sometimes, a disinterest in reading more widely to ascertain for yourselves what may be the "truth".

Please realize that much of the current media, including newspaper publications have been purchased or been given large infusions of money by wealthy individuals with an agenda, either right or left.

There is very little non-partisan coverage.

Americans, IMO, have not been taught to read widely and critically think. There is a large reliance

on what their favorite news-outlet is feeding them.

I think Europeans do a little better with reading more widely and critically.

Yes, I was just reading about that yesterday Mr Steele is a fellow biracial that I've followed for a bit. He is pro excellence and achievement and speaks heavily against narratives of victimhood. Certain groups don't like that.

But yes Amazon did suppress his documentary. That narrative 'hands up don't shoot' that cause areas to burn and riot based on a false narrative. I am going to send a note to Amazon about this.

Yes.

I would also posit that Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon Prime, is a much greater threat to our society

than Shelby Steele could ever be.

Why is there little discussion about men like him? Men who control with a capital C