[Pants-of-dog]

The more recent studies show that the estimate of people killed by cops is too conservative by half. I.e.the real number is close to two thousand.

It is not surprising that a pituco would think a free market dictatorship is a successful society.

[wat0n]

It is not surprising that a pituco would think a free market dictatorship is a successful society.

For those who don't know, "pituco" is a Chilean term used to refer to rich people. Ironically, pituco is only used by other rich nowadays. The commonly used term is "cuico".

I did not say Pinochet was good for society, only that society did not "break down" when he took over: Chilean society had already been broken down by the time the military took over, indeed, it is precisely because society had already been broken down that Chilean democracy had become impossible to sustain. One could even make the case Chilean society had already broken down by the time Allende was elected, too.

I will note the Chilean left has a lot of cuicos and so did in Allende's administration. Allende himself as cuico as it could possibly be, as anyone who's read his biography or seen his old house in the high income part of Santiago can attest. Our current Allende wannabee, Boric, is also a cuico.

This is not odd at all, all the Marxist revolutionaries came from the haves of society, including people like Fidel Castro.

Only a "cuico abajista" (a rich person ashamed of his privilege) and some deluded middle and low class people, thinking they'll get a larger cut of the pie in exchange for their most elemental freedoms, would believe a communist dictatorship is good for society.

[Saeko]

For once, I agree with @Puffer Fish.

[Pants-of-dog]

The case for police abolition is simple: cops cause more problems than they solve.

We have already discussed the many killings, the violence, and the sexual assaults.

We see that police departments are typically imbued with systemic racism.

We see that the prison system is slavery, in many ways.

At what point do we decide that the cost is worth whatever gain we are supposedly earning?

[MistyTiger]

Resisting arrest is not a freedom. Have you ever heard of the term "authorities"? Who are the authorities? Answer: the police. The authorities have the right and the authority to arrest you. If you resist, that is insubordination and you look guilty. If they want to arrest you, they will. You can try to run, but they have ways of tracking you down. If you are innocent, then you can easily find a way to prove it.

[Politics_Observer]

@Pants-of-dog

What about Burlington, Vermont, that called for "Abolish the Police" and now have people simply taking laws into their hands and setting up vigilante groups (according to my stepson and now also a friend of mine who lives in Vermont)? My stepson said this who lives in Vermont, and a friend of mine who lives in Vermont also mentioned the same thing. Maybe there is something to this that you should consider. You need some authority to enforce laws and upholding the rule of law, otherwise, you just have more chaos and more problems than what you had before. Is that what you want?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog

What about Burlington, Vermont, that called for "Abolish the Police" and now have people simply taking laws into their hands and setting up vigilante groups (according to my stepson and now also a friend of mine who lives in Vermont)? My stepson said this who lives in Vermont, and a friend of mine who lives in Vermont also mentioned the same thing. Maybe there is something to this that you should consider. You need some authority to enforce laws and upholding the rule of law, otherwise, you just have more chaos and more problems than what you had before. Is that what you want?

Maybe your family misunderstood some rumours.

And yes, it would also require us to look at the root causes of crime and actually address them.

Instead of just hiring cops to find criminals and warehouse them while not protecting us and causing the aforementioned problems.

[wat0n]

When you don't like reality, you can always just deny, deny, deny.

[Pants-of-dog]

Systematically reduce police budgets.

Use the money to address root causes of crime

Repeat.

[Godstud]

Bad people don't exist. Everyone is just a victim of something.

You cannot, in reality, solve the root cause of all crime and at some point you need to have someone to take these people and handle them, and to enforce laws. When that happens, you need police... or whatever you choose to call them.

It is sheer fantasy to think that you can create a utopian society without a need to enforce any laws or rules.

[Pants-of-dog]

Trying to address the root causes of crime seems a better deal than paying some guys to beat up homeless people, be racist, and not protect anyone.

[Rancid]

The case for police abolition is simple: cops cause more problems than they solve.

I don't think you can conclude that. There isn't a way to know what new issues would get created when they are abolished. This has to be factored in. You'd have to abolish the police to find out (which comes with risk). To really know if the case is simple you'd have to know

Know how many issues we have because the police exist
Know how many issues are solved because the police exist
Know how many issues are not solved because the police don't exist
Know how many issues are solved because the police don't exist

In short, we'd have to abolish the police to find out if it's really simple. At the same time, it could result in complete disaster. A form of human/society destructive testing. lol I guess you are a betting man.

Next time I go to Vegas, you're coming with me.

[Godstud]

No police =

People doing what they want.
People hurting who they want.
People taking what they want.
Who will stop them from doing these things?

Who will stop the people who do these things, some imaginary sense of well-being in a communist utopia?

Police, in general, are a benefit to society. The exceptions do not make the rule, so when you talk about police brutality and such, you are talking about exceptions. Someone has to enforce societal rules or you won't have a society.

[Pants-of-dog]

People already do what they want, hurting who they want, and taking what they want.

And the cops do not stop them. Other things stop them.

Cops are not obligated to protect people or maybe even stop crimes in progress.

The only studies I have seen showing that an increase in cops leads to a decrease in crime is for crimes with high visibility on the street like car stealing. Violent crimes do not seem affected by police numbers at all.

If the sole benefit is a slight decrease in car and purse theft, and the cost is more than half of municipal budgets and thousands dead a year, it seems illogical to claim it is worth it.

—————-

@Rancid

I like visiting Vegas. It is so triumphantly artificial. But I do not gamble.

[MistyTiger]

The root cause of crime comes down to unschooled and bad human nature. Humans by nature are selfish. By nature, humans want and want and are greedy. Why do people like to collect things? We do not need to collect cars or antique furniture, but it is a tendency to want to collect and hoard things away in our homes. By nature, people just want to do as they please and not think about consequences or right from wrong.

Society and religion are needed to teach people right and wrong, to teach people morality and respect. Education can teach people to be more considerate, less selfish and to work hard to afford things, rather than steal. Society provides us with cues about boundaries and about personal property and public property. If people are not taught or they don't understand, they just take what they want without asking which is what my sister does. She has no concept of personal property. I have tried to tell her but she is unable to grasp it.

A lot of people who turn out to be bad just did not have the right guidance when they were young. Their parents were not around or maybe they were shuffled around between foster families or from relative to relative, and did not get a proper education. It's sad but I think that's where the problem starts, during childhood.

[Puffer Fish]

@Puffer Fish Your argument is idiotic and makes no sense.

Why should someone be punished for that?
The only two reasons I could see for someone to be punished is if they are pointlessly wasting the effort of police and should have known there was no chance for them to get away, or if they committed an obviously wrong crime and knew full well they committed it, and we absolutely know they committed it (no doubts), and they know they should go to prison. But those two conditions only include a portion of arrests.

I mean do you think criminals should start receiving additional punishment for not turning themselves in and admitting to the crime before being caught? That makes about as much sense as punishing them for trying to get away.

[Pants-of-dog]

I agree with @Puffer Fish that Mr. Floyd was within his rights and that his killer used this “resisting arrest” meme as a pretext to murder him.