Will Biden reinstate law & order?

[AURex 2,016]

 

There was a lot of misinformation being thrown out there during the election run-up about how Biden and the Democrats are going to defund the police and just let Antifa rule our cities. Well, of course, Biden has always been a supporter of the police, funding them well, and providing them all the resources they need to do their job, even sponsoring bills as a Senator to that end. So that was all just BS.

The question is, can he and will he re-assert order in our cities? There are three aspects of this.

First, people have a right to protest -- they do not have a right to riot, destroy property, physically harm other people, etc. Will he establish a support system for police to ensure that, without eliminationg Americans' constitutional right to protest?

Second, will his administration endeavor to create systems and rules that can give police officers credible support for functioning in their jobs, but also holding them accountable for misuse and excess of their power? This is a sensitive issue that is at the heart of all the protests nationally. If the federal government can encourage methods for local governments to "police the police," the protests might simply die down. There are three issues at play in this. One is the power of police unions to re-instate officers who have been fired even for the most heinous misuse of authority. Another is the corruption and racism within police departments that protect police who diverge from policy and harm the public. And the third (and most difficult perhaps) is the legal system that provides police officers the benefit of the doubt and allows them to walk away from criminal behavior.

Finally, the third big issue -- It is illegal under federal law and the constitutions and laws of every state for armed militias to even exist in the U.S. This is different from the right of individuals to bear arms. And the Supreme Court has explicitly made that distinction. Armed militarized and para-military groups are forbidden in the U.S. Even Trump's DOJ specifically identified these groups as the #1 terrorist threat in the U.S. Yet localities and police forces have looked the other way or even invited these groups into the streets of our cities. Perhaps they do not know the law, or maybe they've been told by the Trump administration to be nice to them. But they are illegal in the U.S. and Biden is going to have to figure out how to deal with them. You do not accomplish this by defunding the police, and nobody in the Biden camp has actually threatening to do that. But dealing with these illegal militias is a problem that will only get worse in the years to come unless the new administration figures out a way to dissolve them. And this is not a race/racism issue. There are Black militias as well (though fewer in number). This concerns ALL militarized groups. And this is not a race/racism issue. There are Black militias as well (though fewer in number). This concerns ALL militarized groups.

These are just questions. I don't raise them to ARGUE about left vs right politics, but rather to have some thoughtful discussion about the issues involved.

Because these questions pertain to de-escalating the current very contentious situation in which we find ourselves. Since Biden has pledged an effort for healing and unity, here are some issues that he will have to grapple with at a step towards that.

Please don't turn this into a hate fest. This is about -- how woukd we deal with these issues in a meaningful way?

 

 

[DKW 86 7,431]

In another thread I posted some of the new insights from the Democrats about the term "Defund the police." Turns out it is very unpopular with even Democrats, especially Black Democrats. It may be part of why they DNC lost seats in the HOR and failed to take the Senate. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

38 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

In another thread I posted some of the new insights from the Democrats about the term "Defund the police." Turns out it is very unpopular with even Democrats, especially Black Democrats. It may be part of why they DNC lost seats in the HOR and failed to take the Senate. 

It was the single dumbest thing and worst part is, it didn't really come from candidates.  It was a freaking hashtag that went viral.  But that branding, without a doubt, killed some Dems in races at the House level.  The fact that Democratic candidates didn't immediately jump on correcting that messaging was complete stupidity.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Yes to law and order. Expect indictments. 😉

[DKW 86 7,431]

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/06/gallup-81-percent-of-black-americans-want-police-protection-some-want-more/

Gallup: 81 Percent Of Black Americans Want Police Protection, Some Want More

 

AUGUST 6, 2020 By Tristan Justice

A new Gallup poll released Wednesday shows an overwhelming majority of black Americans, 81 percent, support either the same amount or an increased police presence in their communities.

The survey, conducted June 23 – July 6, showed 61 percent of black Americans supported police spending the same about of time in their neighborhoods while 20 percent wanted law enforcement to spend more time in their streets. Nineteen percent said police should spend less time in their community.

In contrast, 24 percent of Hispanic Americans wanted more policing compared to 17 percent of white Americans and 9 percent of Asian Americans, who were also most likely to report supporting a decrease in police presence in their neighborhoods at 28 percent.

Black Americans reported the highest levels of seeing officers in their neighborhoods: 32 percent said they saw police either often or very often. Twenty-eight percent of Hispanic Americans said the same compared to 22 percent of white Americans and 21 percent of Asian Americans.

The survey was conducted in English online, taking answers from 36,463 adults aged 18 and older with a +/-1.4 percent margin of error. The poll comes from Gallup’s new Center on Black Voices. Gallup reported that the findings remain consistent with a previous poll showing only 22 percent of black Americans supporting calls to abolish police departments.

Despite contradicting the views of the vast majority of black Americans, demands for defunding police have become a signature of the contemporary Black Lives Matter movement. Fifty-eight percent of Americans said do agree that policing needs “major changes.”

In June, the Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to disband its police department tasked with protecting more than 400,000 residents.

The latest Gallup poll comes amid a crime wave sweeping the nation’s cities as animosity towards police reaches new heights from a vocal minority, demoralizing law enforcement and stripping resources dedicated to ensuring public safety. The cities of Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia, Nashville, Chicago, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and New Orleans have reach seen homicides jump more than 20 percent just this year. Research links lockdowns and anti-police sentiment to higher rates of civil unrest.

[jared52 4,354]

How will the BLM movement respond if they don’t defund the police?

https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/

[AUDub 11,158]

9 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

It was the single dumbest thing and worst part is, it didn't really come from candidates.  It was a freaking hashtag that went viral.  But that branding, without a doubt, killed some Dems in races at the House level.  The fact that Democratic candidates didn't immediately jump on correcting that messaging was complete stupidity.

Liberals are bad at messaging. I've harped on this one lot.

When you look into what most people mean when they use the term, it generally doesn't sound too bad. It's about reallocation of resources to shift things we've burdened the police with to more appropriate areas, like mental health and social workers, and to counter the increasing militarization of police departments across the country.

But the fact that "defund the police" requires an in depth explanation makes it a bad slogan. 

[AUDub 11,158]

7 hours ago, jared52 said:

How will the BLM movement respond if they don’t defund the police?

https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/

The organization and the movement are two different things. The organization are a bunch of frigate birds. 

[DKW 86 7,431]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Liberals are bad at messaging. I've harped on this one lot.

When you look into what most people mean when they use the term, it generally doesn't sound too bad. It's about reallocation of resources to shift things we've burdened the police with to more appropriate areas, like mental health and social workers, and to counter the increasing militarization of police departments across the country.

But the fact that "defund the police" requires an in depth explanation makes it a bad slogan. 

If you have to explain it, you have already lost the debate. People get very bored having things explained to them. 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

9 hours ago, jared52 said:

How will the BLM movement respond if they don’t defund the police?

https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/

Who's they? Which police?

It's not a one size fits all proposition. It's a highly local and diverse conversation. 

The fat orange dumbass only got himself targeted because he chose to very explicitly and definitively choose the other side. Thing is, there wasn't even an "other side" until he tried to tell white suburbia that they were somehow the victims in all of this. (Queue up the terrible St. Louis takes...)

[Grumps 3,704]

I expect with Trump out of the White House there won't be nearly and much rioting and looting. Biden can then take credit for establishing law and order. Maybe this will lead to more unity.

[AURex 2,016]

None of the Democrats were campaigning on defunding the police. But it's really hard to deny when the entire huge conservative media and political messaging is fearmongering that (1) Democrats are going to defund the police, and (2) they are all commie socialists.

One thing I would really like to see is a federal law that either bans or cuts the teeth out of police unions.

The second is that the current tiny, poorly built and rarely consulted database of police firings needs to be made comprehensive and every department required to check it before hiring a new officer. Being fired for corruption, malfeasance, abuse of power, and criminal activity should result in a list exactly like the sex offender list, with restrictions on their future job prospects. No police job, no security jobs, no job that involves carrying a weapon. Further, officers who receive multiple complaints of verified abuse of power should be fired -- kind of a 3-strikes rule. Finally, police management personnel who cover up police abuse of power should be fired immediately, no matter their seniority. Things like this would totally discourage officers from anything that could result in them getting fired. This would re-establish public confidence in police.

Police who are fired for grievous abuse of power should never be able to serve as police officers anywhere again. Because fact is, a very large percentage of Americans (of all races) distrust their police. It's time to re-establish trust in our police departments as servants of the people with a solemn duty to protect and assist their public, not function as a threat to their constituents.

 

[Grumps 3,704]

3 minutes ago, AURex said:

None of the Democrats were campaigning on defunding the police. But it's really hard to deny when the entire huge conservative media and political messaging is fearmongering that (1) Democrats are going to defund the police, and (2) they are all commie socialists.

One thing I would really like to see is a federal law that either bans or cuts the teeth out of police unions.

The second is that the current tiny, poorly built and rarely consulted database of police firings needs to be made comprehensive and every department required to check it before hiring a new officer. Being fired for corruption, malfeasance, abuse of power, and criminal activity should result in a list exactly like the sex offender list, with restrictions on their future job prospects. No police job, no security jobs, no job that involves carrying a weapon. Further, officers who receive multiple complaints of verified abuse of power should be fired -- kind of a 3-strikes rule. Finally, police management personnel who cover up police abuse of power should be fired immediately, no matter their seniority. Things like this would totally discourage officers from anything that could result in them getting fired. This would re-establish public confidence in police.

Police who are fired for grievous abuse of power should never be able to serve as police officers anywhere again. Because fact is, a very large percentage of Americans (of all races) distrust their police. It's time to re-establish trust in our police departments as servants of the people with a solemn duty to protect and assist their public, not function as a threat to their constituents.

 

Should our lawmakers be held to the same standard?

[AURex 2,016]

Just now, Grumps said:

Should our lawmakers be held to the same standard?

 

Personally, I'd be in favor of laws that immediately remove from office any lawmaker convicted of a felony or serious criminal activity like taking payoffs, and blocking the person from ever running for elected office or holding appointed government office again at any level of government. That includes tax evasion, money laundering, fraud that results in financial or personal harm to others, etc.

 

[Tiger Refuge 6,670]

21 minutes ago, AURex said:

None of the Democrats were campaigning on defunding the police. But it's really hard to deny when the entire huge conservative media and political messaging is fearmongering that (1) Democrats are going to defund the police, and (2) they are all commie socialists.

One thing I would really like to see is a federal law that either bans or cuts the teeth out of police unions.

The second is that the current tiny, poorly built and rarely consulted database of police firings needs to be made comprehensive and every department required to check it before hiring a new officer. Being fired for corruption, malfeasance, abuse of power, and criminal activity should result in a list exactly like the sex offender list, with restrictions on their future job prospects. No police job, no security jobs, no job that involves carrying a weapon. Further, officers who receive multiple complaints of verified abuse of power should be fired -- kind of a 3-strikes rule. Finally, police management personnel who cover up police abuse of power should be fired immediately, no matter their seniority. Things like this would totally discourage officers from anything that could result in them getting fired. This would re-establish public confidence in police.

Police who are fired for grievous abuse of power should never be able to serve as police officers anywhere again. Because fact is, a very large percentage of Americans (of all races) distrust their police. It's time to re-establish trust in our police departments as servants of the people with a solemn duty to protect and assist their public, not function as a threat to their constituents.

 

And train.

All.

The.

Time. 

I work for a federal agency that also has a law enforcement component. After the initial on board training that last essentially 4-5 months, they have one day of required training per year to remain “qualified”. In an ideal world, any law enforcement office that is sworn to serve and protect the public should be training all the time.

[AURex 2,016]

Yes, training, but a lot of people (in every field) sit through mandatory trainings, and it's like it just bounces off with no effect. Train all you want about taking kickbacks or shooting people or planting drugs in cars or stealing goods from people, but if there is no *enforcement* component, the training does no good. There needs to be an enforcement component that explains -- You do this, you are majorly f**ked buddy!

 

[Tiger Refuge 6,670]

5 minutes ago, AURex said:

Yes, training, but a lot of people (in every field) sit through mandatory trainings, and it's like it just bounces off with no effect. Train all you want about taking kickbacks or shooting people or planting drugs in cars or stealing goods from people, but if there is no *enforcement* component, the training does no good. There needs to be an enforcement component that explains -- You do this, you are majorly f**ked buddy!

 

Yeah, I agree.

 

And I should have clarified that training should be simulated live, situational training. Not death by PowerPoint.

[AURex 2,016]

Just now, Tiger Refuge said:

And I should have clarified that training should be simulated live, situational training. Not death by PowerPoint.

hahaha! Death by PowerPoint! Been there 500 times! hahaha

 

[Tiger Refuge 6,670]

1 minute ago, AURex said:

hahaha! Death by PowerPoint! Been there 500 times! hahaha

 

 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

On 11/9/2020 at 2:12 PM, Grumps said:

I expect with Trump out of the White House there won't be nearly and much rioting and looting. Biden can then take credit for establishing law and order. Maybe this will lead to more unity.

Who would fund rioting with Trump out of office? Just curious of your thoughts, or others.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

On 11/9/2020 at 5:12 AM, AUDub said:

The organization and the movement are two different things. The organization are a bunch of frigate birds. 

Or worse.

[Grumps 3,704]

8 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Who would fund rioting with Trump out of office? Just curious of your thoughts, or others.

I would say no one. That's why I said that there won't be as much rioting or looting.

[AURex 2,016]

There is a big difference between peaceful protesting and rioting. But personally, I think both will decline under Biden -- IF he implements some changes regarding policing that the populace can actually think are positive steps.

 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

On 11/9/2020 at 5:10 AM, AUDub said:

Liberals are bad at messaging. I've harped on this one lot.

When you look into what most people mean when they use the term, it generally doesn't sound too bad. It's about reallocation of resources to shift things we've burdened the police with to more appropriate areas, like mental health and social workers, and to counter the increasing militarization of police departments across the country.

But the fact that "defund the police" requires an in depth explanation makes it a bad slogan. 

It does sound bad unless you're into excuses. Like when one's daughter is having her a$$ beat by a male friend you should call a mental health or social worker. Ugh no. Go back and look at some of these proposals and tell me you agree with them all. I know in advance you don't, but we should not downplay reality. We have to tread lightly with this legislation. 

I could comment, but don't find it necessary. Widely known. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

1 minute ago, AURex said:

There is a big difference between peaceful protesting and rioting. But personally, I think both will decline under Biden -- IF he implements some changes regarding policing that the populace can actually think are positive steps.

 

No one questions peaceful protest.