• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

To a significant extent, the left ARE correct about the need for criminal justice reform

ModerationNow!

I identify as "non-Bidenary".
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,652
Reaction score
1,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
NOTE: Criminal justice reform = CJR
First of all, I completely disagree with the main CJR agenda items being pushed by BLM, Progressives, and some dems such as de-funding police depts, releasing arrested suspects with little or no bail(often including violent offenders), racially motivated sentencing guidelines, slap on the wrist penalties for violent felons, decriminalizing actual crime, etc.

But there are reforms that they point to that are sorely needed. IMO, they include:

πŸ‘‰ legalizing(or at least fully decriminalize)marijuana nationwide
πŸ‘‰ vastly decrease the penalties for drug users possessing small, personal use quantities of drugs
πŸ‘‰ END mandatory minimum("trafficking") prison sentences of 3-5+ years for possessing a few hundred dollars worth of cocaine(5-7+ grams). It's mind-blowingly idiotic to dole out a 3-5 year prison sentence to someone who picks up 5.1 to 7.1 grams of coke for a party, while many armed robbers, rapists, and child molesters get shorter sentences!
πŸ‘‰ Impose mandatory detox & rehab instead of prison for drug addicts
πŸ‘‰ Impose harsh penalties for law enforcement officers who blatantly abuse their power, needlessly assault suspects, and ensure they aren't able to just get rehired as a cop 1 town over!
πŸ‘‰ Make it mandatory for officers to wear bodycams while making arrests, which protects everyone from malfeasance, including the suspects and the officers themselves.
πŸ‘‰ Make it impossible or illegal for cops to intentionally switch off their bodycams OR audio while questioning or arresting someone.
πŸ‘‰ If an officer intentionally switches off the bodycam while questioning or arresting someone, the charges he brought against a suspect must be reduced or dropped altogether, and an investigation begun. Because turning off your audio and video just before you engage in arrest or questioning, is a pretty damn good sign of malfeasance!
 
Last edited:

Dans La Lune

New Killer Star
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
7,792
Reaction score
4,766
Location
One Night in Bangkok
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
America's police are out of control, and the system is full of racists. If you can't defund the police (which I fully support), you can get rid of qualified immunity. Any police reform short of ending qualified immunity is not serious. It's just window dressing.
 

ModerationNow!

I identify as "non-Bidenary".
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,652
Reaction score
1,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
America's police are out of control, and the system is full of racists. If you can't defund the police (which I fully support), you can get rid of qualified immunity. Any police reform short of ending qualified immunity is not serious. It's just window dressing.
Although I'm not 100% knowledgeable on all the details of how qualified immunity works, obviously it can be abused. I certainly think there are instances where it's necessary. But there are also specific instances where it should be challenged and denied. Police officers obviously shouldn't automatically get away with shooting a suspect. There should always be a fair and impartial investigation anytime a cop shoots someone, otherwise it could be abused.

However, qualified immunity seems logical in cases where the suspect was armed and legitimately threatening the lives of others. In cases like that, removing qualified immunity is only going to embolden violent criminals, because police officers are going to be FAR less likely to take down an armed suspect with his firearm, out of worry that HE may be charged with murder for shooting and killing the bad guy! That means the suspect WILL have more time to shoot law abiding citizens and police officers!

The problem with ALL of this, is partisan politics. The media routinely lie about cases where black suspects are shot and/or killed by police. They almost always promote 1 side of the story(the side of the suspect), while intentionally omitting the 'other side' of the story(until much later, after the activists have had ample time to distort the truth and use it for political gain). Then the truth comes out, and it usually turns out that the one-sided story told by the media for months, was almost entirely fictitious.....
 

PeacefulWarrior

I am not a robot.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
12,087
Reaction score
6,089
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
NOTE: Criminal justice reform = CJR
First of all, I completely disagree with the main CJR agenda items being pushed by BLM, Progressives, and some dems such as de-funding police depts, releasing arrested suspects with little or no bail(often including violent offenders), racially motivated sentencing guidelines, slap on the wrist penalties for violent felons, decriminalizing actual crime, etc.

But there are reforms that they point to that are sorely needed. IMO, they include:

πŸ‘‰ legalizing(or at least fully decriminalize)marijuana nationwide
πŸ‘‰ vastly decrease the penalties for drug users possessing small, personal use quantities of drugs
πŸ‘‰ END mandatory minimum("trafficking") prison sentences of 3-5+ years for possessing a few hundred dollars worth of cocaine(5-7+ grams). It's mind-blowingly idiotic to dole out a 3-5 year prison sentence to someone who picks up 5.1 to 7.1 grams of coke for a party, while many armed robbers, rapists, and child molesters get shorter sentences!
πŸ‘‰ Impose mandatory detox & rehab instead of prison for drug addicts
πŸ‘‰ Impose harsh penalties for law enforcement officers who blatantly abuse their power, needlessly assault suspects, and ensure they aren't able to just get rehired as a cop 1 town over!
πŸ‘‰ Make it mandatory for officers to wear bodycams while making arrests, which protects everyone from malfeasance, including the suspects and the officers themselves.
πŸ‘‰ Make it impossible or illegal for cops to intentionally switch off their bodycams OR audio while questioning or arresting someone.
πŸ‘‰ If an officer intentionally switches off the bodycam while questioning or arresting someone, the charges he brought against a suspect must be reduced or dropped altogether, and an investigation begun. Because turning off your audio and video just before you engage in arrest or questioning, is a pretty damn good sign of malfeasance!


OK.

I can wholeheartedly agree with just about every bit of that, from beginning to end.

I'd support it. (y)
 

TheParser

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
12,858
Reaction score
6,156
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The cops in Los Angeles are being sued by a woman who was thrown into jail for three weeks even though she was the wrong woman.

She had the same name as a bad woman.

That was enough for the cops.

They apparently did not want to use their time (for which they are well paid in Los Angeles, not to mention their generous pensions) to see whether they had picked up the right woman. It would have been easy peasy to discover whether they had the right woman.

Yes, robbers and sucker punchers and looters and rapists and murderers are bad human beings, but so are some cops.

Yes, it would nice if there were stricter controls over the cops. (And a disgraced cop should be banned from all police work in every jurisdiction).
 

ModerationNow!

I identify as "non-Bidenary".
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,652
Reaction score
1,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The cops in Los Angeles are being sued by a woman who was thrown into jail for three weeks even though she was the wrong woman.

She had the same name as a bad woman.

That was enough for the cops.

They apparently did not want to use their time (for which they are well paid in Los Angeles, not to mention their generous pensions) to see whether they had picked up the right woman. It would have been easy peasy to discover whether they had the right woman.

Yes, robbers and sucker punchers and looters and rapists and murderers are bad human beings, but so are some cops.

Yes, it would nice if there were stricter controls over the cops. (And a disgraced cop should be banned from all police work in every jurisdiction).
Yeah, I just read about that lady being arrested in the airport and jailed for weeks, because she had the same name as an actual criminal they were looking for. All they had to do was LOOK AT HER PHOTO ID and compare it with the actual suspect's ID, because they looked nothing alike! But for some reason, they didn't bother doing that!

The problem there is systemic, because of the widespread corruption in cities like LA, where they often get away with this stuff!
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
7,291
Reaction score
3,532
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
NOTE: Criminal justice reform = CJR
First of all, I completely disagree with the main CJR agenda items being pushed by BLM, Progressives, and some dems such as de-funding police depts, releasing arrested suspects with little or no bail(often including violent offenders), racially motivated sentencing guidelines, slap on the wrist penalties for violent felons, decriminalizing actual crime, etc.
Does it become okay to release a suspected violent offender if they happen to be wealthy enough to afford bail? Seems to me there's either justifiable grounds to hold someone or there isn't, and there should be a pretty high threshold for a judge to overturn the presumption that a person is free until proven guilty. When that high threshold is met, paying money to overturn it seems rather absurd.

πŸ‘‰ legalizing(or at least fully decriminalize)marijuana nationwide
πŸ‘‰ vastly decrease the penalties for drug users possessing small, personal use quantities of drugs
πŸ‘‰ END mandatory minimum("trafficking") prison sentences of 3-5+ years for possessing a few hundred dollars worth of cocaine(5-7+ grams). It's mind-blowingly idiotic to dole out a 3-5 year prison sentence to someone who picks up 5.1 to 7.1 grams of coke for a party, while many armed robbers, rapists, and child molesters get shorter sentences!
πŸ‘‰ Impose mandatory detox & rehab instead of prison for drug addicts
πŸ‘‰ Impose harsh penalties for law enforcement officers who blatantly abuse their power, needlessly assault suspects, and ensure they aren't able to just get rehired as a cop 1 town over!
πŸ‘‰ Make it mandatory for officers to wear bodycams while making arrests, which protects everyone from malfeasance, including the suspects and the officers themselves.
πŸ‘‰ Make it impossible or illegal for cops to intentionally switch off their bodycams OR audio while questioning or arresting someone.
πŸ‘‰ If an officer intentionally switches off the bodycam while questioning or arresting someone, the charges he brought against a suspect must be reduced or dropped altogether, and an investigation begun. Because turning off your audio and video just before you engage in arrest or questioning, is a pretty damn good sign of malfeasance!
All reasonable points. Better recruitment and more extensive training/probationary periods should go alongside stricter oversight & disciplinary practices.

I'd argue for legalization (but not commercialization) of most if not all drugs. Addicts of heroin etc. should be able to buy and use their drugs - with appropriate information and supervision - at public clinics, partly or wholly funded by the cost of purchase. Odds are that could be done cheaply enough to drive the cartels out of business, potentially wiping out a vast swathe of organized crime from supply/violence/corruption overseas to smuggling to turf wars to dealers to their victims suffering dodgy products, risking overdose and endangering others. It seems rather perverse that something should be considered a 'crime' when the primary and sometimes only real victim is the user and that, in labeling it such, a market incentive is actively created for vast networks of organized, genuine crime and dealers actively preying on the weak-willed and desperate.
 

ModerationNow!

I identify as "non-Bidenary".
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,652
Reaction score
1,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Does it become okay to release a suspected violent offender if they happen to be wealthy enough to afford bail? Seems to me there's either justifiable grounds to hold someone or there isn't, and there should be a pretty high threshold for a judge to overturn the presumption that a person is free until proven guilty. When that high threshold is met, paying money to overturn it seems rather absurd.


All reasonable points. Better recruitment and more extensive training/probationary periods should go alongside stricter oversight & disciplinary practices.

I'd argue for legalization (but not commercialization) of most if not all drugs. Addicts of heroin etc. should be able to buy and use their drugs - with appropriate information and supervision - at public clinics, partly or wholly funded by the cost of purchase. Odds are that could be done cheaply enough to drive the cartels out of business, potentially wiping out a vast swathe of organized crime from supply/violence/corruption overseas to smuggling to turf wars to dealers to their victims suffering dodgy products, risking overdose and endangering others. It seems rather perverse that something should be considered a 'crime' when the primary and sometimes only real victim is the user and that, in labeling it such, a market incentive is actively created for vast networks of organized, genuine crime and dealers actively preying on the weak-willed and desperate.
πŸ’₯πŸ’₯ First, I STILL don't know how to carve out individual paragraphs of someone else's post, then copy/paste them into my own post and respond to them individually. So I'll just say that my response here is to your 1st paragraph:

πŸ‘‰We shouldn't bail out ANY potentially violent criminal suspects, regardless of their ability to afford bail, especially when proof of their guilt is obvious. That's supposed to be the whole purpose of detaining suspects before trial, to protect the local population from them.

Of course we should allow non-violent suspects to await their due process without being imprisoned(punished) for something they may not be guilty of. The purpose of bail, is to 'help' ensure that they don't just skip their trial, by providing a financial penalty/motivation for suspects NOT to skip.

But what progressive prosecutors are doing, is arguing either for low bail or NO bail for suspects, often including dangerous, violent, repeat offenders, and even felons caught with illegal guns! Obviously, putting violent felons back on the street immediately while awaiting trial, is putting innocent citizens at risk! So let's be consistent.... NO potentially dangerous, violent felons should be bailed out when charged with more violent crimes, regardless of their wealth or lack thereof!

Law enforcement should be motivated mostly with protecting citizens from violent criminals, NOT protecting violent criminals from being inconvenienced by being separated from their potential victims!
 
Last edited:

ModerationNow!

I identify as "non-Bidenary".
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,652
Reaction score
1,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Does it become okay to release a suspected violent offender if they happen to be wealthy enough to afford bail? Seems to me there's either justifiable grounds to hold someone or there isn't, and there should be a pretty high threshold for a judge to overturn the presumption that a person is free until proven guilty. When that high threshold is met, paying money to overturn it seems rather absurd.


All reasonable points. Better recruitment and more extensive training/probationary periods should go alongside stricter oversight & disciplinary practices.

I'd argue for legalization (but not commercialization) of most if not all drugs. Addicts of heroin etc. should be able to buy and use their drugs - with appropriate information and supervision - at public clinics, partly or wholly funded by the cost of purchase. Odds are that could be done cheaply enough to drive the cartels out of business, potentially wiping out a vast swathe of organized crime from supply/violence/corruption overseas to smuggling to turf wars to dealers to their victims suffering dodgy products, risking overdose and endangering others. It seems rather perverse that something should be considered a 'crime' when the primary and sometimes only real victim is the user and that, in labeling it such, a market incentive is actively created for vast networks of organized, genuine crime and dealers actively preying on the weak-willed and desperate.
I agree, but it must be dealt with in a safe, responsible, and mostly non-corrupt way! I recently read about how California govt and politicians are destroying their own legal marijuana industry, by rigging the system with excessive regulations, licensing requirements and fees, that ensure that only the wealthy, well connected businesses and entrepreneurs are able to produce or sell marijuana in the legal marijuana industry there(and in other legalized states)!

This greedy, rigged, corrupt system has caused the cost of legal marijuana to be so unjustifiably expensive that the illegal marijuana industry gangsters, cartels and dealers are not only STILL in business, they are prospering more than ever! That means more violence, more corruption, more misery, etc! But this is just another symptom of California democrats enjoying a complete lack of accountability, thanks to the equally corrupt and complicit "news" media almost always covering their a$$es!
 
Last edited:

ModerationNow!

I identify as "non-Bidenary".
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,652
Reaction score
1,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Does it become okay to release a suspected violent offender if they happen to be wealthy enough to afford bail? Seems to me there's either justifiable grounds to hold someone or there isn't, and there should be a pretty high threshold for a judge to overturn the presumption that a person is free until proven guilty. When that high threshold is met, paying money to overturn it seems rather absurd.


All reasonable points. Better recruitment and more extensive training/probationary periods should go alongside stricter oversight & disciplinary practices.

I'd argue for legalization (but not commercialization) of most if not all drugs. Addicts of heroin etc. should be able to buy and use their drugs - with appropriate information and supervision - at public clinics, partly or wholly funded by the cost of purchase. Odds are that could be done cheaply enough to drive the cartels out of business, potentially wiping out a vast swathe of organized crime from supply/violence/corruption overseas to smuggling to turf wars to dealers to their victims suffering dodgy products, risking overdose and endangering others. It seems rather perverse that something should be considered a 'crime' when the primary and sometimes only real victim is the user and that, in labeling it such, a market incentive is actively created for vast networks of organized, genuine crime and dealers actively preying on the weak-willed and desperate.
I agree, but it must be dealt with in a safe, responsible, and mostly non-corrupt way! I recently read about how California politicians are destroying their own legal marijuana business with all sorts of ridiculous, unfair regulations and licensing requirements and fees, that ensure that only the wealthy, well connected businesses and entrepreneurs are able to produce or sell marijuana in the legal marijuana industry there(and in other legalized states)!

Through these excessive regulations and greed on the part of govt and powerful legal marijuana industry companies, they've caused the cost of legal marijuana to be so unjustifiably expensive that the illegal marijuana industry gangsters, cartels and dealers are not only STILL in business, they are prospering more than ever! That means more violence, more corruption, more misery, etc!
 

Fishking

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
39,982
Reaction score
14,994
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
America's police are out of control, and the system is full of racists. If you can't defund the police (which I fully support), you can get rid of qualified immunity. Any police reform short of ending qualified immunity is not serious. It's just window dressing.
Errr...no. We already are witnessing what less policing results in, and that's more people killed, more crimes, and more of about everything that is terrible.
 

Elmo

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2020
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
806
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
NOTE: Criminal justice reform = CJR
First of all, I completely disagree with the main CJR agenda items being pushed by BLM, Progressives, and some dems such as de-funding police depts, releasing arrested suspects with little or no bail(often including violent offenders), racially motivated sentencing guidelines, slap on the wrist penalties for violent felons, decriminalizing actual crime, etc.

But there are reforms that they point to that are sorely needed. IMO, they include:

πŸ‘‰ legalizing(or at least fully decriminalize)marijuana nationwide
πŸ‘‰ vastly decrease the penalties for drug users possessing small, personal use quantities of drugs
πŸ‘‰ END mandatory minimum("trafficking") prison sentences of 3-5+ years for possessing a few hundred dollars worth of cocaine(5-7+ grams). It's mind-blowingly idiotic to dole out a 3-5 year prison sentence to someone who picks up 5.1 to 7.1 grams of coke for a party, while many armed robbers, rapists, and child molesters get shorter sentences!
πŸ‘‰ Impose mandatory detox & rehab instead of prison for drug addicts
πŸ‘‰ Impose harsh penalties for law enforcement officers who blatantly abuse their power, needlessly assault suspects, and ensure they aren't able to just get rehired as a cop 1 town over!
πŸ‘‰ Make it mandatory for officers to wear bodycams while making arrests, which protects everyone from malfeasance, including the suspects and the officers themselves.
πŸ‘‰ Make it impossible or illegal for cops to intentionally switch off their bodycams OR audio while questioning or arresting someone.
πŸ‘‰ If an officer intentionally switches off the bodycam while questioning or arresting someone, the charges he brought against a suspect must be reduced or dropped altogether, and an investigation begun. Because turning off your audio and video just before you engage in arrest or questioning, is a pretty damn good sign of malfeasance!
All very reasonable points. If even half those things were accomplished, I'd consider it the biggest step forward on this issue in my lifetime.
 

Cope

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
7,559
Reaction score
1,588
Location
Dripping Springs, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
America's police are out of control, and the system is full of racists. If you can't defund the police (which I fully support), you can get rid of qualified immunity. Any police reform short of ending qualified immunity is not serious. It's just window dressing.
How do you go from a solid rational post to this one as the first response.

Irrational from the jump and never got any better.
 

ModerationNow!

I identify as "non-Bidenary".
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,652
Reaction score
1,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Errr...no. We already are witnessing what less policing results in, and that's more people killed, more crimes, and more of about everything that is terrible.
You'd think it would be obvious and self evident that removing police from high crime areas will lead to more crime. As recently as 10-15 years ago it would've been obvious for the vast majority of people. But now, the left, the democrats and the media have gone full bore on the identity and intersectional politics. That means they now promote the B.S. notion that the vast majority of "POC's" have been falsely accused and imprisoned, and that they didn't actually commit the violent crimes they were arrested and convicted of.

It's now common for progressives to believe that most or all cops are racist, white supremacists, and that most or all POC's they arrest are innocent. BLM literally claims that ALL black people should be released from prison, because they are either innocent, or their crimes are justifiable! They even call for prisons to be abolished(but as Marxists, they'd fully support summary political imprisonment of their ideological enemies)!

This whole radical concept of putting violent criminals of putting POC's(or criminals of any other race) back on the streets, has caused the major increase in crime and violence in blue cities! It's especially the TRULY innocent, law abiding black people who suffer at the hands of these criminals.... But that's omitted by BLM, the "news" media, and democrats! It's just more proof that neither of those 3 elite groups truly care about the black community. To them, POC's are merely pawns used to gain more political power!
 

Elmo

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2020
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
806
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
πŸ’₯πŸ’₯ First, I STILL don't know how to carve out individual paragraphs of someone else's post, then copy/paste them into my own post and respond to them individually. So I'll just say that my response here is to your 1st paragraph:
If you quote the post, then click into the quote section and press enter, it should split the quote in two so you can isolate paragraphs. I do miss the old open/close

EDIT: and actually just after writing this I've discovered you can toggle bbcode... so that's nice

πŸ‘‰We shouldn't bail out ANY potentially violent criminal suspects, regardless of their ability to afford bail, especially when proof of their guilt is obvious. That's supposed to be the whole purpose of detaining suspects before trial, to protect the local population from them.

Of course we should allow non-violent suspects to await their due process without being imprisoned(punished) for something they may not be guilty of. The purpose of bail, is to 'help' ensure that they don't just skip their trial, by providing a financial penalty/motivation for suspects NOT to skip.
I understand the purpose of bail, but as it is currently it creates a very real and ugly class-divide in the criminal justice system. The poor can't afford even small bail, so they rot in jail awaiting trial. Then they lost what little support they did have (jobs, etc). If it was ACTUALLY reserved for violent offenders, that wouldn't be a problem. But that does not seem to be the case.
But what progressive prosecutors are doing, is arguing either for low bail or NO bail for suspects, often including dangerous, violent, repeat offenders, and even felons caught with illegal guns! Obviously, putting violent felons back on the street immediately while awaiting trial, is putting innocent citizens at risk! So let's be consistent.... NO potentially dangerous, violent felons should be bailed out when charged with more violent crimes, regardless of their wealth or lack thereof!
I don't have a problem with the principles you're describing, but I do doubt the assertion that prosecutors are actually doing that at any significant scale. Have you considered the possibility that your media is vastly exaggerating the problem due to partisan bias or just plain sensationalist greed? Whenever I've looked into examples before, it seems to go like this:
1. News media finds a few suspicious cases. Exaggerates either the number of cases, or implies that every case was as bad as the most VIOLENT offenders.
2. Media suggests prosecutor does it solely because they're a CORRUPT liberal partisan. Neglects to actually interview prosecutor.
3. Prosecutor comes out with statement, giving legitimate reasons for the decisions that were made. Statement is ignored by media and their already angry viewers.
4. Repeat.

I realize mistakes are made and people do sometimes get released when they shouldn't be. The justice system is run by fallible humans. But I find claims of systemic political corruption to be unconvincing.
 

Cope

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
7,559
Reaction score
1,588
Location
Dripping Springs, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There is nothing irrational in my post.
"America's police are out of control, and the system is full of racists. If you can't defund the police (which I fully support), you can get rid of qualified immunity. Any police reform short of ending qualified immunity is not serious. It's just window dressing. "

Every single bit of that is irrational, hyperbolic, divisive, and not well thought out.
 

Dans La Lune

New Killer Star
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
7,792
Reaction score
4,766
Location
One Night in Bangkok
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
"America's police are out of control, and the system is full of racists. If you can't defund the police (which I fully support), you can get rid of qualified immunity. Any police reform short of ending qualified immunity is not serious. It's just window dressing. "

Every single bit of that is irrational, hyperbolic, divisive, and not well thought out.

Are America's police out of control? Demonstrably YES.

Is the policing system full of racists? Demonstrably YES.

Is the police BUDGTET out of control? Demonstrably YES.

Is qualified immunity preventing actual police reform? Demonstrably YES.

Go ahead and challenge me on any of these points. I dare you.
 

Cope

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
7,559
Reaction score
1,588
Location
Dripping Springs, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Are America's police out of control? Demonstrably YES.
Irrationally wrong. You are painting with an awfully big brush. Which is why this is also hyperbolic.
Is the policing system full of racists? Demonstrably YES.
Same issue.
Is the police BUDGTET out of control? Demonstrably YES.
Possibly, but would require more input than your "thoughts"
Is qualified immunity preventing actual police reform? Demonstrably YES.
Not exactly, again with the hyperbole.
Go ahead and challenge me on any of these points. I dare you.
Challenge accepted.
 

Dans La Lune

New Killer Star
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
7,792
Reaction score
4,766
Location
One Night in Bangkok
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Irrationally wrong. You are painting with an awfully big brush. Which is why this is also hyperbolic.

How man examples do you need before you accept the premise? A hundred? A thousand?

Same issue.

I didn't say every police officer is racist, I said it's full of racists. Which it is. So much so that there are investigations ongoing into how white nationalists have infiltrated law enforcement.




Possibly, but would require more input than your "thoughts"

How much research did you do before calling my comment hyperbolic and divisive? I'm betting its ZERO.


Not exactly, again with the hyperbole.

How do you hold police accountable without reforming qualified immunity?

Challenge accepted.

Okay, so how are you going to challenge me? By responding weakly then running away? Put some meat on the bone.
 
Top Bottom