Actually at least where I live the police will arrive last to file the paperwork - maybe - if they show up at all. Fire will come in and defuse the fight medical will come in and treat everyone and police well they might show up to arrest. I’m not saying we don’t need a police force, we definitely do just not one that’s unaccountable to anyone and that has a legal obligation to actually protect.
No arguments there. It's a shame you can't rely on your guys and I hope things get shaken up real quick for that precinct; I wonder how far your vote goes in your district re: the police chief or commissioner, your mayor, and so on. Again, The necessity itself is something you’re all too fond to debate until you call 911 and no one picks up.
This is a salient point. My county's sheriff of 23 years lost election last year because he had enacted a policy of keeping low-level drug offenders out of jail for the crime of being high. he had fired two officers whose policy was cracking skulls. In the election, the 'law and order' candidate stoked fears that if he didn't win, the current sheriff would launch a pogrom against all cops who wanted to "carry out the law". So the skull cracker won by 56% and rehired his skull-cracking friends. Lotta white people up here.I wonder how far your vote goes in your district re: the police chief or commissioner, your mayor, and so on.
Whities be whitin', indubitably. The follow-on question to how far your vote goes, is what the criteria ought to be for placing backstops and speedbumps in a pure democracy for the greater social good. When and how do we say, "despite your fair and equal election, we're gonna do it this way." Is there a way to do that, without civil unrest and lives endangered and lost, when a majority of people in a locality clearly support the status quo.
I enjoy beating up Milton Friedman and his acolytes for his belief that if people truly cared about the environment, they'd pass better laws protecting it. The fundamental issue is that "tyranny of the majority" is something explicitly warned against and protected against in the constitution, yet whenever a 50.009% majority votes for something, it's just the way it is and that's the law, suck it. Because fundamentally, we don't have a 'pure' democracy. We have a representational democracy and the allocation of districts and representation is undemocratic. If anything, I would say the past 150 years of politics have been an exploration in achieving undemocratic ends within an ostensibly democratic system. If a county is 51% catholic and 49% protestant and a vote is held as to whether protestants deserve to own property, there's a very real chance that the catholics are about to strike it rich. That's a "democratic" result but obviously not a humanitarian one. Things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights exist because tools beyond pure democracy are necessary in order to provide a fair and humane quality of life for the minority but without teeth they're just aspirational. The issues we're seeing here are that (1) the public can agree that cracking skulls is bad (2) The police can pass legislation that cracking skulls is bad (3) the mayor can issue specific decrees that cracking skulls is bad but (4) the cops can still crack skulls and go "what are you going to fucking do about it?" And the lack-of-answer is driving a lot of the protests right now.
I think you nailed it, well said.
Let's get you back to that other thread where you couldn't think of a single reason we'd need law enforcement.
I'm only commenting because I don't have the discipline to give you the last word two threads in a row, when your words are so poorly chosen. For the record, I'm the fool for letting you get to me. I wish I believed in muting. Here is the mission statement of your own state's police department. Here I've googled "Why do we need police." Here is a website that teaches you how to vote if you have a specific problem within the borders in which you are a constituent. I would advise you not to indulge in voting for the sake of all that is good in this country, but it would be uncivil of me to do so. That said, I truly hope that if you ever do vote, that it ignite your seemingly disparate awareness about the people who serve you. Edit: lest you continue to go in circles, I'll do it for you this time and re-write what I wrote:The necessity of law enforcement lends itself to possibilities outside of the status quo, sure. But the necessity itself is something you’re all too fond to debate until you call 911 and no one picks up.
You’re right that voting is not the only democratic mechanic. Without mass, its not a quickly-satisfying one either for any disgruntled citizen. That was a bit of a cop-out on my part for the sake of the rule of threes. I know you know that the Stonewall riots are not what gave you the rights you enjoy, so I’m going to let that slide because I get what you’re trying to say. I think the way you’re speaking about public safety and the men and women who ensure them, in general terms, is horrific and sparks an emotional response that I’m embarrassed to stoop to your level to engage in, but here we are. That said, I understand that the reason you’re writing this way is because you’re outraged, but I expect that you understand that words matter regardless of how much steam is blowing out of your ears; your inability to speak responsibly doesnt forfeit your right to “complain on the internet” but it certainly forfeits the expectation of respect, and reduces it to pity. I promise you we’re on the same side. But this is no way to go about solving a problem. I hope you don’t delete your comments and can reckon with yourself in some time from now, when you’re emotionally deescalated and maybe even in need of help from public service, in whatever capacity or similarity to the status quo it shapes itself to be after all this.
The riots did not give us protection under law, or constitution. They gave America an un-ignorable reminder that the LGBT community has been oppressed (including legally) and abused (including legally) in NYC and across the country. It’s not an accident that the protests today accomplish the same regarding the oppression of people of color. Rioting is an expensive but effective tool for awareness. But I’m not so sure it helps cops beat civilians less, or defend gay nightclubs from predatory mob bosses and denial of healthcare. My point is that action within the municipal and higher govt systems, and the force of unified constituents, pushed the system into a safer place despite itself after the fact, and there is no guarantee that rioting is causal to change, or beneficial in any way. If a group of people feel entitled to catharsis, so be it, but they ought to be accountable and admit their intention outright. I haven’t fleshed this reasoning out yet to be frank, but I hope you see my point. Regardless this is really beside the point here and I don’t want to fight you on semantics either because I prefer not enter “youre not wrong, youre just an asshole” territory. For the record, I’m not in the military because I believe “violence solves problems.” Violence causes pain, and death, as intended. Nothing more. To attribute progress to violence is to forfeit any semblance of reason to coexist as humans in any meaningful way; there’s a reason governments depend on a monopoly of violence to legitimize their sovereignty. Not that it matters, but I joined because I’d rather be the one accountable and held responsible for the management of violence than anyone else. This is my way of bearing the full burden of our social contract in a manner that leaves no room for false justification or pageantry. My oath includes the responsibility to disobey an order that is unlawful, unethical, or otherwise patently ill intended.