I assume that you mean, the direct link between police funding and police resignations - the 'crime' element is in the section below.Again! Please demonstrate what the direct link is between police funding, and the rate of crime?
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?
Interesting. When was that?When most of the SFPD went out on an illegal strike, the city experienced no relevant increase in crime.
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.Are cops putting their lives on the line, just because of the money?
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?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?
Why is it relevant that she was the only unarmed Australian murdered by a cop?I mentioned Justine Damond, because as far as I am aware, she was the only unarmed Australian murdered by an American cowardly pig.
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?As far as rallies for her, here's one,
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.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.
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.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.
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.Whites lives have always mattered.
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.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.
That makes two of us.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.
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.What about the deaths in custody, that don't usually make the headlines?
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.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.
Are cops only "pigs" if they kill an unarmed person unjustly? I assume that you wouldn't say that ALL unarmed cases are unjustified.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.
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
Did I say that I was threatened by it? I'm not!What exactly threatens you about their oversight, and targeted racial group?
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/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?
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.Many Whites and corporations support the BLM movement, because it is right. Not because it supports only Blacks.
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!