Good riddance ... Police officers across the US have quit their jobs in recent days. Here is where there have been resignations

chris155au

Active member
Again! Please demonstrate what the direct link is between police funding, and the rate of crime?
I assume that you mean, the direct link between police funding and police resignations - the 'crime' element is in the section below.
This particular part of our discussion began when you asked, "why do you think these cops all want to resign?" I was making a suggestion of one possible reason. What do YOU think?

When most of the SFPD went out on an illegal strike, the city experienced no relevant increase in crime.
Interesting. When was that?

Are cops putting their lives on the line, just because of the money?
I said, "defunding means that they CANNOT function properly meaning that it's LESS SAFE to do policing." "LESS SAFE" puts lives on the line. I did NOT say, defunding means that cops are paid less, and they're not going to put their lives on the line for less money.

Yes! Why? Did you just pick just ONE crime(shooting), ONE time(one week), ONE city(New York), and then compare its frequency to the same period last year? And, then conclude that defunding was the only variable that was responsible for the "insane" increase in crime? Please cite the independent evidence that supports this? This is the textbook argument from ignorance fallacy. Here's an example. I look at the first week in January last year, and notice that zero murders were committed. I then look at the first week in January this year, and noticed that 3 murders were committed. I tell the city council that the 300% increase in homicides was due to the defunding of new police vehicles. So the mayor says, show me the direct connection, and you can have your funds back. So what is the direct connection, that excludes all other reasons?
I'm just theorising here. I'm really linking the defunding of the police with a reduction in police resources, namely HUMAN resources. You yourself have referred to the resignations, which you are clearly connecting to post-Floyd events. I have also heard of certain police units being dispanded inside a police department such as they did in New York. If you remove police resources - things more significant perhaps than your example of police vehicles - then the outcome is fairly predictable, especially during nationwide protests. Haven't you heard of the murders which have happened at BLM protests? So there certainly seems to be a connection between the protests and the uptick in crime. Also, why isn't the uptick in crime happening in Republican cities where the police were NOT defunded?

I mentioned Justine Damond, because as far as I am aware, she was the only unarmed Australian murdered by an American cowardly pig.
Why is it relevant that she was the only unarmed Australian murdered by a cop?
She's white, so she falls under the category of unarmed white people killed by police.

Wow. I see that not only was there a local rally for her, but that a contingent of BLM joined it! Fair enough - that's great! Of course, it goes without saying that there weren't nation wide protests. However, my point still stands - outside of the locals of where she died, nobody knows her name, not even in Australia. Why? Everyone in Australia knows the name 'George Floyd' and many protested his death, but not the death of one of their fellow citizens! Why?

Her family was also awarded a $28M settlement payout, from the city of Minneapolis. I doubt if any of the Black victims murdered by cops, received a payouts anywhere near that amount.
Including black victims who were justifiably shot by police? I note that Justine's killing was deemed unjustified, so it makes sense that there was a settlement payout. If there are black victims who were justifiably shot by police, where the families were NOT awarded a payout, then that's obviously a complete disgrace.

That in itself might explain a lot about the silence. This is NOT a competition Chris. ALL lives matter. Blacks have a 400 year history of slavery and abuses by Whites. And, the southern general view, is that Black lives don't matter.
Where do you get that this is the "southern general view?" That sounds like a WILD claim! If true, then the message of "black lives matter" is certainly a MOST important message for the south.

Whites lives have always mattered.
Yes, and there was absolutely a very dark time when black lives did NOT matter - most significantly they didn't matter to the government. That's not the case now, even to the point that there are government policies which discriminate in black people's favour, against non-blacks.

I know from personal experience, that there ARE racist and bigoted cops, in the police departments. But I have NEVER said that ALL police are racists and bigots, or that systemic racism exists throughout law enforcement. I'm sorry that you got the wrong impression.
No, I never had the impression that you thought that all cops are racists, but I was under the impression that you think that systemic racism exists throughout law enforcement - the two are not the same of course. I got this impression just from the way that you were talking, but clearly I was wrong.

Also, my two suggestions were not a summary of my list of police reforms. My only concern is the transparency and accountability of cop's actions.
That makes two of us.

What about the deaths in custody, that don't usually make the headlines?
They're obviously important too. I note that these cases include suicide, and there are certain people on the left who that would be inconvenient for, because it's very hard to make the case that a cop killed a person who committed suicide.

Why are you so fixated on BLM? Even the spokespeople for BLM, all agree that not all cops are racists and bigots. But many are.
Yes, but BLM would say that systemic racism exists throughout law enforcement. I can only assume that you acknowledge that. This then, is presumably where you would disagree with BLM.

They know that racists and bigots are all cowards, and will never admit it, So the BLM can only oversee the legal aspects, and to provide support and aid to Black families, in all cases involving unarmed Black victims killed by pigs. They make sure that there IS transparency and accountability. No in-house cover-ups. No evidence manipulation or media spin-doctoring.
Are cops only "pigs" if they kill an unarmed person unjustly? I assume that you wouldn't say that ALL unarmed cases are unjustified.
Also, if there was an organisation called, White Lives Matter, which provided support and aid to WHITE families, in all cases involving unarmed WHITE victims killed by cops, it would NOT go down too well, don't you think? Hell, according to the Anti Defamation League, "White Lives Matter" is a "HATE SLOGAN!" www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/white-lives-matter

What exactly threatens you about their oversight, and targeted racial group?
Did I say that I was threatened by it? I'm not!

I wouldn't be threatened by a White Lives Matter. Would you prefer a group called, BLACK LIVES DON'T MATTER MORE THAN WHITE LIVES?
No, I don't think that's necessary. I, unlike many of my fellow conservative 'bigots', acknowledge that the phrase "black lives matter" doesn't mean that white lives DON'T matter. If it did, then nobody would support the movement other than black supremacists and some seriously self-hating white people. I agree that black lives matter, but the point of the the phrase "black lives matter" is to make it so that nobody could possibly disagree with it, even though it represents a movement which is about FAR more than what the phrase suggests. "Black lives matter" is an example of what linguists call, 'semantic overload.' I agree that black lives matter, but I disagree with 'Black Lives Matter.' You've seen their website haven't you? I wonder if you agree with everything on this page: https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

Many Whites and corporations support the BLM movement, because it is right. Not because it supports only Blacks.
Whites: Many probably haven't seen the website. Same goes for blacks, many of whom I'm sure would stop supporting them if they saw the website.

Corporations: Well, OF COURSE they support BLM! They want to remain in business! This would be the case even if they DID see the website! The SECOND that they say that they do NOT support BLM, they are DONE!
 

chris155au

Active member
Yet you mentioned it twice in one sentence
Well it was relevant to MY point, not to YOUR point! MY point was, there wasn't ONE SINGLE protest in Australia for this AUSTRALIAN woman. Your point was about unarmed people killed by police. You said that an Australian getting killed by police is a "one off." Her being Australian is irrelevant. Well, it was relevant to your insane, ridiculous red herring argument. Again, how convenient that you would use her nationality to argue that it's a "one off!" You'll have to try better. GEE that was a poor reply from you! EASILY dealt with!
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
Well it was relevant to MY point, not to YOUR point! MY point was, there wasn't ONE SINGLE protest in Australia for this AUSTRALIAN woman. Your point was about unarmed people killed by police. You said that an Australian getting killed by police is a "one off." Her being Australian is irrelevant. Well, it was relevant to your insane, ridiculous red herring argument. Again, how convenient that you would use her nationality to argue that it's a "one off!" You'll have to try better. GEE that was a poor reply from you! EASILY dealt with!
I seem to recall a lot of protests.. perhaps NOT CROWDS of thousands ,,but there were protests.
You didn't see it..?? doesn't mean it didn't happen.!!
Ignoramus.
 
Interesting. When was that?
August 19, 1975 https://www.nytimes.com/1975/08/20/...aces-fire-and-transit-strikes-new-tieups.html

I assume that you mean, the direct link between police funding and police resignations - the 'crime' element is in the section below.
This particular part of our discussion began when you asked, "why do you think these cops all want to resign?" I was making a suggestion of one possible reason. What do YOU think?
All of your assumptions are subjective and self-serving. That is your entire problem. There is nothing objective in how you frame and support your narrative. It is always consistent with your own confirmation bias.

Many police have resigned, because of a very public outcry over the frequency of death of unarmed citizens. Both Black and White. They feel that they can no longer do their job, under this level of public scrutiny and accountability. I say, good riddance to these pigs. You clearly inferred that it is the defunding by the government, that is to blame. Not only for the "insane" rise in shooting deaths, in one city, in one week, but that it is the money that is the reason cops are risking their lives. I simply disagree with you, and have asked for evidence to support your claim. Not simply sampling one crime, from one city, in one week(out of 52), and then making a blanket truth claim. You have deposited no evidence, that directly links police defunding to any significant rise in crime, or in the reason why cops are resigning. But you are certainly entitled to your own opinion.

Where do you get that this is the "southern general view?" That sounds like a WILD claim! If true, then the message of "black lives matter" is certainly a MOST important message for the south.
You should read about what the the Confederate soldiers did to the Yankee Black soldiers, during the civil war. Let's just say, that if you were a Black Yankee soldier, you would rather be lynched and burned than be a prisoner of the South.

Again misrepresenting my words out of context again. The 3 sentence are all related, "ALL lives matter. Blacks have a 400 year history of slavery and abuses by Whites. And, the southern general view, is that Black lives don't matter.". I was speaking about the 400 years of slavery, where hundreds of Black Lives were not only lost, but were also televised as well. But for many Whites even today, Black Lives still don't matter. Just ask members of the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, the Christian Identity churches, Neo-Confederates, Racial Skinheads, and White Nationalists groups. Or, the hundreds of other hate groups across the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...he_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups

I'm just theorising here. I'm really linking the defunding of the police with a reduction in police resources, namely HUMAN resources. You yourself have referred to the resignations, which you are clearly connecting to post-Floyd events. I have also heard of certain police units being dispanded inside a police department such as they did in New York. If you remove police resources - things more significant perhaps than your example of police vehicles - then the outcome is fairly predictable, especially during nationwide protests. Haven't you heard of the murders which have happened at BLM protests? So there certainly seems to be a connection between the protests and the uptick in crime. Also, why isn't the uptick in crime happening in Republican cities where the police were NOT defunded?
There is a lot to unpack here, but I won't bore you. Anyone can cherry-pick any stats, to support any narrative they want. But, it doesn't mean that their conclusion is correct. I asked you for evidence. You can't simply sample parts of the whole, exclude all other variables, and call it proof. Even if you are only theorizing/extrapolating. Your conclusions/outcome must be repeatable, verifiable, and falsifiable. Your rationale is based only on your cognitive bias and top-down logic. NOT on any objective evidence. Again you are entitled to your own opinion. The only relevant crime stats that matter, is the overall crime stats.

What is it that you specifically disagree with BLM? I have already stated that racism is NOT systemic in Law Enforcement. Nor, that ALL cops are racists and bigots, so lets move on!

Why is it relevant that she was the only unarmed Australian murdered by a cop?
She's white, so she falls under the category of unarmed white people killed by police.
No she falls under the category of, Unarmed People Murdered by Cowardly Police Pigs. It just so happens that this category is overwhelmingly filled with Black people, and other minorities. I mentioned her not because of her race, but because of her nationality. But I suppose a one-dimensional thinker like you, can never see anything past race, or a person's politically preference.
 

chris155au

Active member
I seem to recall a lot of protests.. perhaps NOT CROWDS of thousands ,,but there were protests.
You didn't see it..?? doesn't mean it didn't happen.!!
Ignoramus.
Are you talking about protests actually in Australia? A quick Google reveals nothing, other than local protests in Minneapolis.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Well it was relevant to MY point, not to YOUR point! MY point was, there wasn't ONE SINGLE protest in Australia for this AUSTRALIAN woman. Your point was about unarmed people killed by police. You said that an Australian getting killed by police is a "one off." Her being Australian is irrelevant. Well, it was relevant to your insane, ridiculous red herring argument. Again, how convenient that you would use her nationality to argue that it's a "one off!" You'll have to try better. GEE that was a poor reply from you! EASILY dealt with!

relevant to your point but not my point? What sort of convoluted reasoning is that? It's either relevant to the topic or it's not. That you have to twist yourself into a knot the way you do to try and justify your stupidity shows just how crappy your argument is in the first place. And no, my point was not about unarmed people being killed by police. My point was to explain to you WHY no one protested when she was shot. That you missed the point completely comes as no surprise whatsoever.
 

chris155au

Active member
relevant to your point but not my point? What sort of convoluted reasoning is that? It's either relevant to the topic or it's not.
This could be the stupidest thing that I've ever heard! Yes, it's the ONE topic, but you seem to be saying that all of the points being made have to be the same! WTF? And speaking of relevance to the topic, your point about her being a "one off" because she is Australian is TOTALLY irrelevant!

And no, my point was not about unarmed people being killed by police.
Sure it was. Not only did you mention Justine Damond, you also mentioned "the killing of unarmed blacks" when you said, "the killing of unarmed blacks however is not a one off." So then, put both of those together, and we have "unarmed people being killed by police." Then you proceeded to LUDICROUSLY juxtapose the killing of unarmed Aussies with the killing of unarmed blacks. That's just INSANE my friend! So I guess if George Floyd was actually a citizen of another country, where people from that country being unjustifiably killed by the police are a "ONE OFF", then we wouldn't have had the protests that we've seen! šŸ¤£

My point was to explain to you WHY no one protested when she was shot. That you missed the point completely comes as no surprise whatsoever.
And MY point was to explain to you that her nationality had NOTHING to do with why no one protested when she was shot. That you completely missed the point comes as no surprise whatsoever! šŸ¤£
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
your point about her being a "one off" because she is Australian is TOTALLY irrelevant!
no it's not. You asked why no one in Australia protested. I told you why. You can't pretend the fact that she's Australian is not relevant to my reply but relevant to your question. What sort of stupidity is that?
 

chris155au

Active member
no it's not. You asked why no one in Australia protested. I told you why. You can't pretend the fact that she's Australian is not relevant to my reply but relevant to your question. What sort of stupidity is that?
It most certainly IS relevant, ONLY IF you can bring yourself to say that if only she had been AMERICAN, we would have seen Floyd like protests, or anything even CLOSE to that! However, I very much doubt that you can bring yourself to say such UTTER GARBAGE! Or will you surprise me?
 

chris155au

Active member
This article is from the first day of the strike. How do you know that there was no spike in crime during the entire strike?

Many police have resigned, because of a very public outcry over the frequency of death of unarmed citizens. Both Black and White. They feel that they can no longer do their job, under this level of public scrutiny and accountability.
Alright, so this is YOUR suggestion. Yet you state it as if it's FACT. So we have BOTH made suggestions.

You clearly inferred that it is the defunding by the government, that is to blame. Not only for the "insane" rise in shooting deaths, in one city, in one week, but that it is the money that is the reason cops are risking their lives.
Just in case you are STILL referring to police SALARIES - which would be ridiculous, as I couldn't have made it any clearer - to confirm, I said, "defunding means that they CANNOT function properly meaning that it's LESS SAFE to do policing." "LESS SAFE" puts lives on the line. I did NOT say, defunding means that cops are paid less, and they're not going to put their lives on the line for less money. I said this in my last post, but I'm not sure if you even saw it because you cut it out from your reply.

I simply disagree with you, and have asked for evidence to support your claim. Not simply sampling one crime, from one city, in one week(out of 52), and then making a blanket truth claim. You have deposited no evidence, that directly links police defunding to any significant rise in crime, or in the reason why cops are resigning. But you are certainly entitled to your own opinion.
You have no evidence for your suggestion either. But you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. We BOTH have no evidence for our suggestions. Thankfully, we are BOTH certainly entitled to our own opinion!

You should read about what the the Confederate soldiers did to the Yankee Black soldiers, during the civil war. Let's just say, that if you were a Black Yankee soldier, you would rather be lynched and burned than be a prisoner of the South.

Again misrepresenting my words out of context again. The 3 sentence are all related, "ALL lives matter. Blacks have a 400 year history of slavery and abuses by Whites. And, the southern general view, is that Black lives don't matter.". I was speaking about the 400 years of slavery, where hundreds of Black Lives were not only lost, but were also televised as well.
And what does this have to do with the "southern general view" TODAY?

But for many Whites even today, Black Lives still don't matter. Just ask members of the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, the Christian Identity churches, Neo-Confederates, Racial Skinheads, and White Nationalists groups. Or, the hundreds of other hate groups across the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...he_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups
Yes, this human waste DOES unfortunately exist. However, I can only assume that you acknowledge that they are FAR from the majority, in which case, it's quite odd that you would use it to suggest that "the southern general view, is that Black lives don't matter." I'm not even sure that all of this human waste is strictly limited to the south - are you? Perhaps you just mean LARGELY the south.

There is a lot to unpack here, but I won't bore you. Anyone can cherry-pick any stats, to support any narrative they want. But, it doesn't mean that their conclusion is correct. I asked you for evidence. You can't simply sample parts of the whole, exclude all other variables, and call it proof.
All correct. And I did NOT "call it proof."

Even if you are only theorizing/extrapolating. Your conclusions/outcome must be repeatable, verifiable, and falsifiable.
Why do theories need to be verifiable and falsifiable? Statements which are stated as FACT need to be verifiable - but obviously not falsifiable. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Your rationale is based only on your cognitive bias and top-down logic. NOT on any objective evidence.
Yeah, same goes for YOUR rationale. We all have our own biases.

Again you are entitled to your own opinion. The only relevant crime stats that matter, is the overall crime stats.
Absolute and total GARBAGE! You think that cities don't focus on their OWN crime? Meanwhile, this question remains unanswered: why isn't the uptick in crime happening in Republican cities where the police were NOT defunded?

What is it that you specifically disagree with BLM?
Did you completely miss what I said in my last post? I mentioned their website didn't I?

I have already stated that racism is NOT systemic in Law Enforcement. Nor, that ALL cops are racists and bigots, so lets move on!
Yes, I already acknowledged this in my last post. I also said, "this then, is presumably where you would disagree with BLM." Again, BLM would say that systemic racism exists throughout law enforcement. I have to believe that this is not news to you.

I mentioned her not because of her race, but because of her nationality.
Yes, but why is her nationality relevant exactly?
 
Yes, but why is her nationality relevant exactly?

RELEVANT TO WHAT, EXACTLY? You keep throwing out "relevance", without demonstrating why it is NOT relevant, or what it IS relevant to. Her nationality and race is ONLY relevant to the fact that she is NOT Black, and occupies the only spot in the list of nationalities, of all unarmed people killed by cowardly cops. Her family was paid tens of millions because of her unlawful death. How much did any Black victim of unlawful death get in payouts? But that's another story. Her nationality has personal relevance to me, and many other Australians. Clearly, her death has no relevance to you. But, her nationality has no relevance in simply being another unarmed victim of cowardly police killings.

This article is from the first day of the strike. How do you know that there was no spike in crime during the entire strike?
You asked me, "Interesting. When was that?". I answered the question you asked me. As well as provide the proof to back it up. If you wanted me to explain how I know that there was no "relevant" increase in crime(not, "no spike in crime") during the strike, then you should have asked me that. Is this your method of discourse? Just keep asking questions, until eventually, only God can provide you with the answers? And, then claim victory? In the mean time, you provide nothing but offence. You have answered none of my questions, provided zero verifiable objective evidence, or could provide any direct causal relationships to support your opinions. Other than committing more logical fallacies.

You have no evidence for your suggestion either. But you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. We BOTH have no evidence for our suggestions. Thankfully, we are BOTH certainly entitled to our own opinion!
I was going to add in my comments, please don't say, "and you too" in your response. But I didn't think anyone would be this intellectually desperate. I was wrong. You are responsible for what YOU say. And, to provide your own evidence to support your own remarks. Proving your own assertions is not dependent on you disproving mine. Even if I am 100% wrong, still doesn't mean that you are 50% right.

Why do theories need to be verifiable and falsifiable? Statements which are stated as FACT need to be verifiable - but obviously not falsifiable. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Clearly, you don't understand the importance of facts being falsifiable. All theories are an explanation of some aspect of nature. If there is no factual aspect of a theory, then it is just a belief. So, if you are now claiming that everything out of your mouth is just your beliefs, then I agree with you. Therefore, if we increase police funding, then the overall crime rate should go down. And, if we decrease police funding, then the overall crime rate should increase. Since none of these things happen, there is no direct relationship between funding, crime, or policing. Money is certainly a factor, but NOT a direct factor.

And what does this have to do with the "southern general view" TODAY?
I realize that I can't line-up every person in the South, and ask if Black Lives Matter to them TODAY. But the evidence of the past 400 years of slavery, segregation, social inequalities, discrimination, and the messages from the hundreds of hate and segregationist groups TODAY, suggests to me, that bigotry and racism still exist TODAY. I wonder how much the views of Outback and Northern Territory cops have changed about Aboriginals in general, TODAY? I couldn't even begin to imagine what would have happen, if New York had decided to send people in to police the Blacks in the Bronx. And, try to restrict their movements, their right to buy and drink alcohol, and their freedom of privacy in their own homes? It would be a justifiable race war. Regardless of the sensationalized political motives. Especially, considering that White Australians have the highest percentage of alcohol abuse, and child and family abuses. NOT Aboriginals. But again, you are welcome to your own opinion.

Yes, this human waste DOES unfortunately exist. However, I can only assume that you acknowledge that they are FAR from the majority, in which case, it's quite odd that you would use it to suggest that "the southern general view, is that Black lives don't matter." I'm not even sure that all of this human waste is strictly limited to the south - are you? Perhaps you just mean LARGELY the south.
Since you don't have a clue what the term "South", or my reference to it means, let me explain. The South is represented by 16 Southeastern States, east of the Mason-Dixon line. These are the States that supported segregation, discrimination, the Jim Crow laws, public lynchings and separate but equal education, housing and employment. Of the 4,000 lynchings, only a few were in the Northern States, because lynching was illegal. These are the States that Blacks were trying to escape to(underground railroad). https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/underground-railroad . I think that the death of over 250,000 Confederate soldiers, is a good indicator that the South saw blacks as only slaves to be exploited. And, were willing to die for that belief. Do you think that generations of institutionalized racism and bigotry just simply disappeared? Then you are just naive, or just trying to keep your head buried in the sand.

These other contemporary nuance hate groups, were large enough to put an unstable narcissistic sociopath in charge of a country. Again, because you are a one dimensional thinker, you fail to see that these groups are also expanding. And, more and more people are being influenced by their insidious message. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3514&context=gc_etds . You are correct, that there is racism and bigotry all over the US. So, what is your point? That because racism and bigotry may exist in the North as well, or that hate groups are not in the majority, that it is incorrect to say that the general Southern view OF THE PAST(and many today), was that Black Lives don't matter? There was a Civil War over the value of Blacks for Christ sake. Again, I politely disagree.

Absolute and total GARBAGE! You think that cities don't focus on their OWN crime? Meanwhile, this question remains unanswered: why isn't the uptick in crime happening in Republican cities where the police were NOT defunded?
Absolute and total garbage? Firstly, demonstrate that a Republican city even exists in the US? Could you even name a Christian city in the US? Cities are composed of a whole range of political and religious ideologies. NOT JUST ONE!!! Secondly, demonstrate the direct relationship between funding and the "uptick"(or "downtick") of crimes happening. If you are correct, then how much does it cost to eradicate all crimes? And, when I say "overall crime rate", I mean on the city, state and federal levels. This includes cities focusing on their OWN crimes, right?
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
t most certainly IS relevant, ONLY IF you can bring yourself to say that if only she had been AMERICAN, we would have seen Floyd like protests,
why would I say that? It has nothing to do with the question you asked and I answered. Fucken hell you're a moron
 

chris155au

Active member
why would I say that? It has nothing to do with the question you asked and I answered. Fucken hell you're a moron
Look, police shooting ANYONE in the US has NOTHING to do with Australia. I assume that you acknowledge that. So why did AUSTRALIANS protests Floyd's death, but not the death of one of their own?
 

chris155au

Active member
Her nationality and race is ONLY relevant to the fact that she is NOT Black, and occupies the only spot in the list of nationalities, of all unarmed people killed by cowardly cops. Her family was paid tens of millions because of her unlawful death. How much did any Black victim of unlawful death get in payouts?
I already gave my thoughts on this, but I'm not sure if you even saw it considering you cut it off from your reply which followed:

Including black victims who were justifiably shot by police? I note that Justine's killing was deemed unjustified, so it makes sense that there was a settlement payout. If there are black victims who were unjustifiably shot by police, where the families were NOT awarded a payout, then that's obviously a complete disgrace. I assume that you're not suggesting that families of people who are justifiably killed by police should receive a payout.

You asked me, "Interesting. When was that?". I answered the question you asked me. As well as provide the proof to back it up. If you wanted me to explain how I know that there was no "relevant" increase in crime(not, "no spike in crime") during the strike, then you should have asked me that.
Well I probably should have, but I wanted to first read about it myself. I was going back to your original claim, which was, "when most of the SFPD went out on an illegal strike, the city experienced no relevant increase in crime." So to confirm, over what period of time was there no increase in crime?

You have answered none of my questions
Not true, I've answered many. You have a very short memory. Which questions have I not answered?

You are responsible for what YOU say.
Uh, yeah - I am. Did I give you the impression that I think that I'm NOT responsible for what I say?

Proving your own assertions is not dependent on you disproving mine. Even if I am 100% wrong, still doesn't mean that you are 50% right.
Yeah, absolutely! I was just making the point that we BOTH have no evidence for our suggestions.

Clearly, you don't understand the importance of facts being falsifiable.
How can FACTS be proven wrong? Are you sure that you don't mean, the importance of THEORIES being falsifiable? I'm just checking, because you immediately follow with talking about "theories" in the next sentence.

All theories are an explanation of some aspect of nature. If there is no factual aspect of a theory, then it is just a belief.
Yeah, absolutely!

So, if you are now claiming that everything out of your mouth is just your beliefs, then I agree with you.
Yeah, everything out of MY mouth is just my beliefs, and everything out of YOUR mouth is just your beliefs, in terms of the opinions/suggestions we are presenting.

Therefore, if we increase police funding, then the overall crime rate should go down. And, if we decrease police funding, then the overall crime rate should increase. Since none of these things happen, there is no direct relationship between funding, crime, or policing. Money is certainly a factor, but NOT a direct factor.
Don't forget, there's a difference between CAREFUL, and CONSIDERED cutting of police budgets, and what these utterly pathetic, WEAK minded city governments and Mayors have done, which is RUSHED to cut police budgets after pathetically caving to the mob. I can only assume that they had their budgets locked in MUCH earlier in the year, but yet they're willing to fuck up their budgets for the mob. Pathetic pieces of crap! Also, it's not just defunding the police, but also dispanding certain units inside departments.

I realize that I can't line-up every person in the South, and ask if Black Lives Matter to them TODAY. But the evidence of the past 400 years of slavery, segregation, social inequalities, discrimination, and the messages from the hundreds of hate and segregationist groups TODAY, suggests to me, that bigotry and racism still exist TODAY.
It only SUGGESTS to you that bigotry and racism still exist today? It's a FACT isn't it?

I couldn't even begin to imagine what would have happen, if New York had decided to send people in to police the Blacks in the Bronx. And, try to restrict their movements, their right to buy and drink alcohol, and their freedom of privacy in their own homes? It would be a justifiable race war.
You seem to be assuming that it would be an all white police force which would be going into the Bronx to police the Blacks. The NYPD is 47% white. Although, we shouldn't forget about those BLACK white supremacists which you think exist!

I think that the death of over 250,000 Confederate soldiers, is a good indicator that the South saw blacks as only slaves to be exploited. And, were willing to die for that belief. Do you think that generations of institutionalized racism and bigotry just simply disappeared? Then you are just naive, or just trying to keep your head buried in the sand.
Well this racist movement was politically led by the Democratic Party wasn't it? Does that mean that there is still institutionalised racism in that party today? And where can institutionalised racism be seen if not in the police? In government?

These other contemporary nuance hate groups, were large enough to put an unstable narcissistic sociopath in charge of a country.
How do you know that these groups were anything CLOSE to the majority of the people who voted for Trump? I think that it can be said that the SOUTH essentially put Trump in charge, but not the hate groups.

You are correct, that there is racism and bigotry all over the US. So, what is your point? That because racism and bigotry may exist in the North as well, or that hate groups are not in the majority, that it is incorrect to say that the general Southern view OF THE PAST(and many today), was that Black Lives don't matter?
When something is the GENERAL view, isn't it the MAJORITY view? And yes, of course it would have been the "general Southern view OF THE PAST."

Absolute and total garbage? Firstly, demonstrate that a Republican city even exists in the US?
San Diego, Jacksonville, Fort Worth? These are all Republican governed cities. More relevant, is the CONTRAST that we see when a Republican governed city switches to become a Democrat led city. A great example is New York City, where Rudy Gulliani - as RUTHLESS as he may have been - got crime to a very low level. And NOW look at the state of New York City under the USELESS Bill DeBlassio!

Could you even name a Christian city in the US? Cities are composed of a whole range of political and religious ideologies. NOT JUST ONE!!!
Correct, but 'm talking about the government.
 
Top