"We must disband the police!"

[Ink Stained Wretch]

Shared without comment except

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/we_m...cops_who_kill/

[Ink Stained Wretch]

I will offer a comment after some thought ... there's an ongoing use of force controversy close to my neck of the woods. I'm not going to be specific about the situation because I'd rather not give any hints as to where I am, so that I can retain my anonymity and comment freely and openly on issues that other folks in the media might not appreciate me commenting on, because as I hope has been seen since I started posting, I'm absolutely unafraid to take my trade to task when it's merited.

There of course has been a lot of discussion on message boards on newspapers, with a lot of crap like this.

Someone who identified himself as a LEO responded to some of those comments. He said, "Police do not have one bit of 'power' that has not been granted to them by the citizens they serve, through the laws made by representatives those citizens have elected. The citizens can take back any of those 'powers' any time they see fit, again through laws made by the representatives they've elected. The thing is, if they're going to do that, they need to seriously consider the ramifications of their actions, and be very careful what they wish for."

I'm not sure that's the direct quote, but it's close enough, and it's stuck with me since I saw it, have been looking for an opening to share it here.

[RGDS]

I am curious, does this guy want to disband the police or all law enforcement?

I love the slave catcher myth. What about State Police and Sheriff's Offices? They don't have origins in slave patrols. Nor do the vast majority of the States who were created as free states before the Civil War. And the idea of policing originated in England where slavery was illegal.

It's sad to see a "professor" propose such an ill-informed ideology. He almost sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

[hemicop]

I didn't pull up the article as I've gotten into these kinds of debates with a Freeman buddy of mine several times. While LE authority does come from publicly elected officials & can be revoked the same way the void left as a result doesn't provide any more security than the "police state" they're trying to abolish. I say that because common sense would lead one to conclude that what one area, whatever you call it, accepts as correct behavior may not be acceptable in another so how do you know what's "right" wherever you go & just who will enforce this "correct" behavior? The result would be anarchy (which some have no problem with) but the honest (?) Freeman want an orderly Country that they can thrive in so their "paradise" it seems to me would be unobtainable without structured LE.
So until these theorists can figure out how we can live on our own little planets their theories are all just that---theories---and BS, IMO............

[CCCSD]

As I like to say to the anarchists...

You want anarchy?

"hell yeah!"

SMACK! There you go sunshine...Anarchy.

[tj05]

The writer is just another sheep making another sheep comment.....

[PtownVAMike]

It's funny how some of the very same people who advocate for the disbandment of police forces are the ones who in the same breath will say "there oughta be a law" with regard to trying to solve social problems they ostensibly care about. All too often, they don't realize that by enacting more and more laws, they run the high risk of having LE powers come down on their own heads anyway.

Then it cycles back to "let's disband the police".

See how that works?

[Ink Stained Wretch]

From the comments to this article ... and I wish there was a "loco" smiley ... :

"I support the concept of eliminating local police departments, and it's easier than you may think. All it takes is for the people to DEFUND the police budget. All of them would be out on their behinds so fast that they would then be forced to find work with Blackwater or some other such mercenary group for them to take out their fantasies of killing dark people."

"i think disarming police has merit. demilitarizing their philosophy would also be very useful ... there is no reason for police on their regular rounds to have firearms or tasers at their side. their communications system is their best personal defense, as well as the best means of dealing with a fleeing suspect. lethal force weapons should be locked up under the control of upper level police, and should be released very sparingly, and under tight supervision. this policy would result in very little hazard to officers, but would greatly reduce killings by police, particularly of nonwhites."

"Street gangs are part of the system. They exist because the police don't provide genuine security and can't so long as they operate as armies of occupation."

"The primary argument against radical police reforms like disarming police is always a variation on "... but there is crime." That argument is based on the idea that there will always be crime and therefor we need police because they exist to thwart crime or to apprehend suspected criminals. But if the argument is predicated on the notion that there will always be crime, then there is nothing that police (or anyone else) can do about it. After all, we have police now and we still have crime. We have armed our police to the teeth and we still have crime. So why put up with police killing civilians? If there will always be crime then it would exist in the absence of civilians killed by police. Police do not need lethal weapons to perform the vast majority of their duties. Arming police with lethal weapons is an invitation to use them. Let's stop that and then talk about the crime."

"Yes, I do actually believe that most, if not all police should be disarmed. I believe that our major urban centers would continue on just as they have. People would go to work pick up their dry cleaning and eat dinner and do pretty much exactly as they do now. Only they would fear being killed by police much less. I believe that the 'gangs' you're referring to would do exactly what they do now. The existence of heavily armed police doesn't prevent crime."

"Civilization does not in any way depend on the existence of armed police. What a ridiculous idea."

[Pogue Mahone]

"I support the concept of eliminating local police departments, and it's easier than you may think. All it takes is for the people to DEFUND the police budget. All of them would be out on their behinds so fast that they would then be forced to find work with Blackwater or some other such mercenary group for them to take out their fantasies of killing dark people."

"i think disarming police has merit. demilitarizing their philosophy would also be very useful ... there is no reason for police on their regular rounds to have firearms or tasers at their side. their communications system is their best personal defense, as well as the best means of dealing with a fleeing suspect. lethal force weapons should be locked up under the control of upper level police, and should be released very sparingly, and under tight supervision. this policy would result in very little hazard to officers, but would greatly reduce killings by police, particularly of nonwhites."

"Street gangs are part of the system. They exist because the police don't provide genuine security and can't so long as they operate as armies of occupation."

"The primary argument against radical police reforms like disarming police is always a variation on "... but there is crime." That argument is based on the idea that there will always be crime and therefor we need police because they exist to thwart crime or to apprehend suspected criminals. But if the argument is predicated on the notion that there will always be crime, then there is nothing that police (or anyone else) can do about it. After all, we have police now and we still have crime. We have armed our police to the teeth and we still have crime. So why put up with police killing civilians? If there will always be crime then it would exist in the absence of civilians killed by police. Police do not need lethal weapons to perform the vast majority of their duties. Arming police with lethal weapons is an invitation to use them. Let's stop that and then talk about the crime."

"Yes, I do actually believe that most, if not all police should be disarmed. I believe that our major urban centers would continue on just as they have. People would go to work pick up their dry cleaning and eat dinner and do pretty much exactly as they do now. Only they would fear being killed by police much less. I believe that the 'gangs' you're referring to would do exactly what they do now. The existence of heavily armed police doesn't prevent crime."

"Civilization does not in any way depend on the existence of armed police. What a ridiculous idea."

[PhilipCal]

Never ceases to amaze me: The amount of total ignorance which can be professed by so many "Professors". We haven't even gotten to the equally ignorant "media".

[Laurendale]

From the comments to this article ... and I wish there was a "loco" smiley ... :

"I support the concept of eliminating local police departments, and it's easier than you may think. All it takes is for the people to DEFUND the police budget. All of them would be out on their behinds so fast that they would then be forced to find work with Blackwater or some other such mercenary group for them to take out their fantasies of killing dark people."

"i think disarming police has merit. demilitarizing their philosophy would also be very useful ... there is no reason for police on their regular rounds to have firearms or tasers at their side. their communications system is their best personal defense, as well as the best means of dealing with a fleeing suspect. lethal force weapons should be locked up under the control of upper level police, and should be released very sparingly, and under tight supervision. this policy would result in very little hazard to officers, but would greatly reduce killings by police, particularly of nonwhites."

"Street gangs are part of the system. They exist because the police don't provide genuine security and can't so long as they operate as armies of occupation."

"The primary argument against radical police reforms like disarming police is always a variation on "... but there is crime." That argument is based on the idea that there will always be crime and therefor we need police because they exist to thwart crime or to apprehend suspected criminals. But if the argument is predicated on the notion that there will always be crime, then there is nothing that police (or anyone else) can do about it. After all, we have police now and we still have crime. We have armed our police to the teeth and we still have crime. So why put up with police killing civilians? If there will always be crime then it would exist in the absence of civilians killed by police. Police do not need lethal weapons to perform the vast majority of their duties. Arming police with lethal weapons is an invitation to use them. Let's stop that and then talk about the crime."

"Yes, I do actually believe that most, if not all police should be disarmed. I believe that our major urban centers would continue on just as they have. People would go to work pick up their dry cleaning and eat dinner and do pretty much exactly as they do now. Only they would fear being killed by police much less. I believe that the 'gangs' you're referring to would do exactly what they do now. The existence of heavily armed police doesn't prevent crime."

"Civilization does not in any way depend on the existence of armed police. What a ridiculous idea."

After a while, you'll notice that the people in these comments excessively use "dem big wurds" to mask the fact that they really have nothing important to say...

[Rudy8116]

Exactly! It's the Marie Harf logic. Appear smarter by researching big fancy words to use the next time you debate someone.

[Rudy8116]

Dear "professor", repeat after me really fast. "I am sofa king. We Todd Ed."

[Redacted]

It's funny how some of the very same people who advocate for the disbandment of police forces are the ones who in the same breath will say "there oughta be a law" with regard to trying to solve social problems they ostensibly care about. All too often, they don't realize that by enacting more and more laws, they run the high risk of having LE powers come down on their own heads anyway.

Then it cycles back to "let's disband the police".

See how that works?

This x1000. The solution to stop being "hassled" by police is to reduce the amount of laws we have.

[GangGreen712]

Well, they can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first. If they want a system where there are no armed police, they're going to have to arm themselves and violently overthrow our current system to do that, ironically.

The one thing the far left has going for it is that they are all spineless cowards. They couldn't implement these policies even if they wanted to because they are too selfish and cowardly to fight for it.