Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 321 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

That's true.  And in such cases all we can do is try and understand what happened to this person so that they needed to cope via drugs. While it may be too late to help that individual, by knowing the cause and changing society we can make the situation less likely to occur in others.

The way we bring up children as well as societal forces causes some to turn to addiction as a way to cope.  It's an illness.

I still believe that rehab reaches some people.. In my eyes sometimes they need to be shown where to look and don't even think they have a problem until they meet others that are on the other side of it all..

I've known people that were sentenced to alcohol classes because of their driving and drinking.. one guy had to do so many hours and it took him like forever and a day with these classes because they could only do like two hours a week..plus he had to do like 20 hours of community service..

He said those classes opened up his eyes.. He stopped drinking like three classes in..

He said the turning point was not just what he learned, but combining that and finding out what he learned then them showing  the movie leaving Las Vegas and the teacher or social worker or whoever it was, explaining the phases as the guy was drinking himself to death.. He said they could have called me cured right then and there..

He actually got into those classes and missed going to them..

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This graphic, which I saw over the road at VVO, distinguishes between the political and the non-political quite well, I think  

Why it can feel hard to talk about racial inequality, and why you should do it anyway.... So, anyway, as i mentioned in a couple of other threads, the company I work for gave us a paid day off in

Racism is defined as: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. You can't change the definition to

Posted Images

19 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

I understand what you are saying, and whilst I do agree that crime rates have dropped, I guess I am failing to see the over funding issue.  Where is this money going?  How is the police force overfunded?  What is going to happen if this funding is cut?  Because all I have been seeing is yahooing (by some) over the police losing funding and responsibilities and that being handed over to people not trained or equipped to deal with these situations and a sharp increase in crimes and violence since this whole situation began.

They pay a detail officer, IE a cop who is directing traffic at a construction zone, double time for an 8 hour shift. They are never rookies doing these shifts, but 15 year veteran cops that get paid well above what a rookie would get. There is no need to pay a crazy amount for this job, they could hire a regular citizen to direct traffic. 

In order to comply with federal guidelines and receive federal funds, local police must have certain weapons and gear. The quiet little city i live in has a freaking armored transport.. AND a freaking tank.. an honest to god tank sits in the garage. They only drag it out for parades but its a real tank and they have ammo for it. I can only guess what situation they would need it for.. 

Beverly Memorial Day activities planned - News - Beverly Citizen ...

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

They pay a detail officer, IE a cop who is directing traffic at a construction zone, double time for an 8 hour shift. They are never rookies doing these shifts, but 15 year veteran cops that get paid well above what a rookie would get. There is no need to pay a crazy amount for this job, they could hire a regular citizen to direct traffic. 

In order to comply with federal guidelines and receive federal funds, local police must have certain weapons and gear. The quiet little city i live in has a freaking armored transport.. AND a freaking tank.. an honest to god tank sits in the garage. They only drag it out for parades but its a real tank and they have ammo for it. I can only guess what situation they would need it for.. 

Beverly Memorial Day activities planned - News - Beverly Citizen ...

 

hehehe we have stuff like that in our town also.. Ours is tan though.

There is a few armored vehicles in ours, because we have state, county and local police stations..

I guess they call it a county seat.  But yea, we're more than ready for an invasion..hehehehehe

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

They pay a detail officer, IE a cop who is directing traffic at a construction zone, double time for an 8 hour shift. They are never rookies doing these shifts, but 15 year veteran cops that get paid well above what a rookie would get. There is no need to pay a crazy amount for this job, they could hire a regular citizen to direct traffic. 

In order to comply with federal guidelines and receive federal funds, local police must have certain weapons and gear. The quiet little city i live in has a freaking armored transport.. AND a freaking tank.. an honest to god tank sits in the garage. They only drag it out for parades but its a real tank and they have ammo for it. I can only guess what situation they would need it for.. 

Beverly Memorial Day activities planned - News - Beverly Citizen ...

 

Okay that is insane, and made me laugh.  A tank?  Seriously?  We don't even have them in our military anymore.  At least not that I could find when I googled.

Thank you for your example of funding wastage, and that's insane too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:
46 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Can we bring it back to what this debate was really about, which is, if we take away the guns from police who respond to traffic stops and a few more police lose their lives because of it, is this in any way okay?  (even if this would be true, as it is a hypothesis that more police would die without guns in many policing activities).  Is the loss of a few police officers okay if it reduces the far greater number of citizens murdered by cops?   I think this would be good thing, especially since more traffic stops don't involve criminals at all, unless you label someone driving with a burned out tail light a criminal. Or if you consider someone 'walking while Black' a criminal. Or if you consider someone a bit sloshed a criminal.  Or, or, or....

Like I said earlier, our police don't carry guns and we had a one shot dead doing a traffic stop...and it wasn't someone with a burned out tail light.   Put untrained civilians out there doing traffic stops and you think that's going to solve the issue?  

And yes, someone a "bit sloshed" behind the wheel of the car I do consider a criminal.  And so would you if that person then went on to hit and kill other people on the road.

Nine black men died at the hands of the police in 2019.  Forty eight police officers died "felonious deaths".  So do the math!

You are sticking to your script no matter what..and as a result are so far left you are going in circles.  People like you make me sad.  There's no debating with you. 

Not untrained civilians -- rather,  police without guns -- more like the community policing in some European countries. Perhaps other agencies could be developed, with training, other than police as well.  Police should be reserved for major criminal activity.

And my description of  'a bit sloshed' said NOTHING about being behind the wheel of a car.  In cities here we see many people walking around on drugs. In fact, George Floyd was on drugs and  was simply sitting against a building when police decided to shove him into a car, and then it escalated from there. Police should be instructed not to use force on people who are high, as they are often paranoid and the end result will never be good.

Again, you make assertions without stats to back it up (regarding comparisons of Black men dying at the hands of police vs officers killed)

Well I could say the same about you -- people like you make me sad. You don't provide stats and facts and use hyperbole as fact when debating.  Indeed, there's no debating with you.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

I understand what you are saying, 

Not trying to insult you, but do you though? The concept is simple: If the crime rate is going down, why spend MORE money on police? and that's accounting for inflation.

16 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

 I guess I am failing to see the over funding issue.  Where is this money going?  How is the police force overfunded?  What is going to happen if this funding is cut?  Because all I have been seeing is yahooing (by some) over the police losing funding and responsibilities and that being handed over to people not trained or equipped to deal with these situations and a sharp increase in crimes and violence since this whole situation began.

The thing about funding is, if you don't spend it. You lose it, so police departments have been spending it on things like APCs (armoured personnel carriers), SWAT teams, etc etc. So again, if the crime rate going down, police aren't solving more crimes...why throw money at something that is not a problem? 

Militarizing the police has long been a problem in the US, people don't respond well to it and its ineffective and this has been known for a long time. So why keep doing it?

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/08/21/militarization-police-fails-enhance-safety-may-harm-police-reputation

Maybe it's time for another approach?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

And my description of  'a bit sloshed' said NOTHING about being behind the wheel of a car.  In cities here we see many people walking around on drugs. In fact, George Floyd was on drugs and  was simply sitting against a building when police decided to shove him 

Yes, this.

I was not referring to drunk drivers either.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I know it's believed one can only be helped if they want help.  I believe it as well.  The drug addict or alcoholic has to want to get off those substances for themselves and no one else.  Just themselves.  I think you said you went through 12-step?  I am not a believer in 12-step.  I believe the only person I can not do drugs nor drink for is myself, not a higher power nor anyone else, just me because I'm worth it.  So, I am a bit different.  

However, I haven't out-right said exactly what my thinking is in regards to rehab but I'm thinking more along the lines of enforced rehab.  The rehab facility may be gated and one cannot get out but it would be a far more humane place than jail and offer programs such as occupational therapy and other therapies while in rehab and on Methadone if needed for a while.  

 

Couple points. Whether one uses God, the universe, Bhudda or even the Higher Self, it has been proven work as it is the 12 actions or steps that is the process leading to someone losing the obsession to drink or drug. The "Higher Power" is in effect a pathway to the unconscious mind which makes recovery a lot easier then the white knuckled sort of sobriety that results for some of those doing it on their own. YMMV. In any case, if you found something that works for you, great! Personally I love the ability to attend what is in effect a long term after care with people who understand me because they are on the same path.

Court ordered rehabilitation programs I would say actually make the typical alcoholic/addict worse because it is just another grudge to hold onto. Besides, some of the jails and penitentiaries have even better drugs then what is out on the street. Some institutionalized prisoners actually commit crimes to be able to go back in for that exact reason.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Couple points. Whether one uses God, the universe, Bhudda or even the Higher Self, it has been proven work as it is the 12 actions or steps that is the process leading to someone losing the obsession to drink or drug. The "Higher Power" is in effect a pathway to the unconscious mind which makes recovery a lot easier then the white knuckled sort of sobriety that results for some of those doing it on their own. YMMV. In any case, if you found something that works for you, great! Personally I love the ability to attend what is in effect a long term after care with people who understand me because they are on the same path.

I found I could only do it for myself.  I have addiction in my family history.   No, 12-step program worked me.  I just decided I alone was worth it and began to love my life in sobriety more.   I still love my life in sobriety more.  So, that is why I said to you "I am different".  If 12-step works for some, that's great too.

 

4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Court ordered rehabilitation programs I would say actually make the typical alcoholic/addict worse because it is just another grudge to hold onto. Besides, some of the jails and penitentiaries have even better drugs then what is out on the street. Some institutionalized prisoners actually commit crimes to be able to go back in for that exact reason.

I'm not saying it would be "perfect" but enforced living in a rehab facility sounds more humane to me than jail.

Plus, yes, I've heard rumors, prisoners can get anything they want in jail.  Once out though, it's difficult to establish a job.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Janet Voxel said:

Not trying to insult you, but do you though? The concept is simple: If the crime rate is going down, why spend MORE money on police? and that's accounting for inflation.

The thing about funding is, if you don't spend it. You lose it, so police departments have been spending it on things like APCs (armoured personnel carriers), SWAT teams, etc etc. So again, if the crime rate going down, police aren't solving more crimes...why throw money at something that is not a problem? 

Militarizing the police has long been a problem in the US, people don't respond well to it and its ineffective and this has been known for a long time. So why keep doing it?

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/08/21/militarization-police-fails-enhance-safety-may-harm-police-reputation

Maybe it's time for another approach?

Yes I do understand what you were saying, and nowhere did I say spend more on the police.  I disagree with defunding them as I see it as taking away roles and services and police on the streets.  I am open to seeing where I am wrong in my perceptions, if I am - that's how dialogues work! 

*edit*  I misread your post.  If crime goes down, maybe so should funding.  But again, it depends on what the money is being spent on.  

Edited by Jordan Whitt
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jordan Whitt said:

Yes I do understand what you were saying, and nowhere did I say spend more on the police.  I disagree with defunding them as I see it as taking away roles and services and police on the streets.  I am open to seeing where I am wrong in my perceptions, if I am - that's how dialogues work!  

 

I'm not talking about what you said, I'm talking about what is actually being done. I'm trying to understand why you keep saying, in your country police don't carry firearms, yet you don't understand how another country where the police are receiving military surplus, shouldn't be defunded. 

I provided you with actual data on why they should be defunded and you still believe that? What part of that is an actual dialogue? To me it looks like you dug your heels in and you're sticking to your guns. Which....isn't an actual dialogue.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I still believe that rehab reaches some people.

Indeed, I've seen those who gave up addictions become totally different people. There's always hope.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

AND a freaking tank.. an honest to god tank sits in the garage. They only drag it out for parades but its a real tank and they have ammo for it. I can only guess what situation they would need it for.. 

Probably something that involves serious civil asset forfeiture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Janet Voxel said:

I'm not talking about what you said, I'm talking about what is actually being done. I'm trying to understand why you keep saying, in your country police don't carry firearms, yet you don't understand how another country where the police are receiving military surplus, shouldn't be defunded. 

I provided you with actual data on why they should be defunded and you still believe that? What part of that is an actual dialogue? To me it looks like you dug your heels in and you're sticking to your guns. Which....isn't an actual dialogue.

I'm not understanding it because you are talking about militarising the police and the equipment they are being given.  I am thinking about services (outreach, police in schools) being lost in a defunding.  Maybe I'm not understanding because we seem to be having two different discussions, which is why I have asked questions, because to me defunding = less police, more crime.  If I am wrong, please enlighten me.  If my heels were dug in, would I be willing to listen?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

I'm not understanding it because you are talking about militarising the police and the equipment they are being given.  I am thinking about services (outreach, police in schools) being lost in a defunding.  Maybe I'm not understanding because we seem to be having two different discussions, which is why I have asked questions, because to me defunding = less police, more crime.  If I am wrong, please enlighten me.  If my heels were dug in, would I be willing to listen?

The county of Los Angeles as of about a month ago is going allocate 150 million dollars towards programs for people in lieu of more police.  Plus, to have a way for more impartial hearings in the event of brutality, etc.  

It's actually reform that is going on in many states, not defunding, although some states may defund altogether.  I am not up to date on all 50 states.  But, each state will have it's own reform as to how and where it sees it needed or not, etc.  Defunding nor reform are happening at the federal level of the United States, not yet anyhow.  But, states can enact and/or adjust their own laws.  

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

They pay a detail officer, IE a cop who is directing traffic at a construction zone, double time for an 8 hour shift. They are never rookies doing these shifts, but 15 year veteran cops that get paid well above what a rookie would get. There is no need to pay a crazy amount for this job, they could hire a regular citizen to direct traffic. 

In order to comply with federal guidelines and receive federal funds, local police must have certain weapons and gear. The quiet little city i live in has a freaking armored transport.. AND a freaking tank.. an honest to god tank sits in the garage. They only drag it out for parades but its a real tank and they have ammo for it. I can only guess what situation they would need it for.. 

Beverly Memorial Day activities planned - News - Beverly Citizen ...

 

Ahahaha didn't even know M18's still existed.. Cute WW2 relic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Not untrained civilians -- rather,  police without guns -- more like the community policing in some European countries. Perhaps other agencies could be developed, with training, other than police as well.  Police should be reserved for major criminal activity.

And my description of  'a bit sloshed' said NOTHING about being behind the wheel of a car.  In cities here we see many people walking around on drugs. In fact, George Floyd was on drugs and  was simply sitting against a building when police decided to shove him into a car, and then it escalated from there. Police should be instructed not to use force on people who are high, as they are often paranoid and the end result will never be good.

 

In countries where the right to bear arms is not a constitutional right, I would agree with you but the more I hear and read of the prevalence of guns in the hands of regular US citizens, I simply cannot in good conciounce agree with that. You don't bring a billy club to a gun fight!

Quote

And my description of  'a bit sloshed' said NOTHING about being behind the wheel of a car.  In cities here we see many people walking around on drugs. In fact, George Floyd was on drugs and  was simply sitting against a building when police decided to shove him into a car, and then it escalated from there. Police should be instructed not to use force on people who are high, as they are often paranoid and the end result will never be good.

OK, you didn't watch the full video then. They pulled George out of the front seat of his vehicle which is where he parked to go and pass out counterfeit money. It would therefore be likely that he drove there while under the influence as the store clerk reported he was acting strange. It may also be that his medical conditions were a part of the issue as the autopsy mentioned his arteries were 90% clogged and he had an enlarged heart to boot. At 90% one is well within the heart attack range, especially considering he was in the process of committing a felony while under the influence of specific drugs which are known to potentially cause a racing heart condition. In fact if you watch the video carefully, you will note that he actually collapsed at the point he went to the ground. He wasn't pushed. The cop may not have realized that as after all, they aren't trained to be medical personnel. It doesn't excuse the cop but it is worthwhile to understand the background in the right light. Another thing you might not realize if you haven't had the experience is that some the drugs that were in his system can make one explosively powerful if the adrenaline gets triggered. I understand the cops wariness of George as George was a big man who as a former inmate and bouncer must have been a dangerous opponent under the right circumstances. Just because George appeared meek and surrendered doesn't mean he couldn't have turned the tables very quickly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I'm not saying it would be "perfect" but enforced living in a rehab facility sounds more humane to me than jail.

Perhaps it is different in the USA but in Canada they have made court ordered rehabs illegal. They can be offered as part of the sentence but I believe the prisoner has the right to refuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

I'm not understanding it because you are talking about militarising the police and the equipment they are being given.  

Whoa, back up, we are talking about defunding the police. To which the police being militarized is a part of.

7 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

 I am thinking about services (outreach, police in schools) being lost in a defunding.  

Why are police doing outreach? Are they trained to do outreach? Shouldn't someone else be doing outreach? Police should be...policing crime. If crime is going down....why is their funding going up? You still haven't addressed that.

10 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

  If my heels were dug in, would I be willing to listen?

...

12 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

 Maybe I'm not understanding because we seem to be having two different discussions, which is why I have asked questions, because to me defunding = less police, more crime.  

Because that's not what that means. I've explained what it means, I've explained that people's perception of crime does not match the data. So you feeling like defunding the police means less police, doesn't go with what it actually means, which is the problem. The police are receiving funding for jobs they shouldn't be doing, they're receiving military surplus and funding for a job that doesn't require it and they are not doing outreach...that looks completely different than what is happening and this wouldn't be a problem.

So let me ask you, how would the people of your country feel if your police had armoured personnel carriers and military equipment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

In countries where the right to bear arms is not a constitutional right, I would agree with you but the more I hear and read of the prevalence of guns in the hands of regular US citizens, I simply cannot in good conciounce agree with that. You don't bring a billy club to a gun fight!

There would be more of a danger here due to the prevalence of guns, but rarely when doing homelessness outreach, or mental health crisis calls. With traffic stops gun presence would be more likely. Still, I have stated, the police are using too much force and with too many arms overall, and the reduction of these factors will save more lives, despite the possibility of a few more officers being shot.  On balance, this seems a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:
Quote

And my description of  'a bit sloshed' said NOTHING about being behind the wheel of a car.  In cities here we see many people walking around on drugs. In fact, George Floyd was on drugs and  was simply sitting against a building when police decided to shove him into a car, and then it escalated from there. Police should be instructed not to use force on people who are high, as they are often paranoid and the end result will never be good.

OK, you didn't watch the full video then. They pulled George out of the front seat of his vehicle which is where he parked to go and pass out counterfeit money. It would therefore be likely that he drove there while under the influence as the store clerk reported he was acting strange. It may also be that his medical conditions were a part of the issue as the autopsy mentioned his arteries were 90% clogged and he had an enlarged heart to boot. At 90% one is well within the heart attack range, especially considering he was in the process of committing a felony while under the influence of specific drugs which are known to potentially cause a racing heart condition. In fact if you watch the video carefully, you will note that he actually collapsed at the point he went to the ground. He wasn't pushed. The cop may not have realized that as after all, they aren't trained to be medical personnel. It doesn't excuse the cop but it is worthwhile to understand the background in the right light. Another thing you might not realize if you haven't had the experience is that some the drugs that were in his system can make one explosively powerful if the adrenaline gets triggered. I understand the cops wariness of George as George was a big man who as a former inmate and bouncer must have been a dangerous opponent under the right circumstances. Just because George appeared meek and surrendered doesn't mean he couldn't have turned the tables very quickly.

I did watch it fully. And the mistake was taking a fully docile man, obviously high, and attempting to force him into a car, missing the mark via sliding him across the seat and onto the ground on the other side, and then murdering him with a knee on his neck.

True, people who are high can become agitated, but rarely so when approached in the correct manner.

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

In fact, George Floyd was on drugs and  was simply sitting against a building when police decided to shove him into a car, and then it escalated from there. Police should be instructed not to use force on people who are high, as they are often paranoid and the end result will never be good.

Again, you make assertions without stats to back it up (regarding comparisons of Black men dying at the hands of police vs officers killed)

Well I could say the same about you -- people like you make me sad. You don't provide stats and facts and use hyperbole as fact when debating.  Indeed, there's no debating with you.

A store employee called the police because George Floyd had passed a counterfeit $20 and refused to give back the cigarettes he bought with it, he was also acting not in control of himself.  He had committed a criminal act and the police were called.  He was not innocently sitting on a wall, high on drugs waiting to be shoved into a car because the cops decided it would be a fun thing to do...which is how you are making it sound.  

As for your other demands...

According to statistics reported to the FBI, 89 law enforcement officers were killed in line-of-duty incidents in 2019. Of these, 48 officers died as a result of felonious acts, and 41 officers died in accidents.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2019-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty

The paper argued, drawing from its own database, that there were 55 incidents in which police shot and killed unarmed individuals last year, not the 9 that Giuliani notes. The newspaper said that 25 of those incidents involved whites, while 14 were black.

https://www.marke*****ch.com/story/more-police-officers-are-shot-and-killed-by-blacks-than-police-officers-kill-african-americans-claims-former-new-york-city-mayor-giuliani-2020-06-17
 

As the Washington Post has been held up as a more reliable source, i will accept I was wrong when I said 9 unarmed black men, and accept their figure of 14, which is still way less than the 48 police who lost their lives due to "felonious acts".

Its now hitting 5:45am and I will accept that I will never understand militarising police forces or what defunding really means because I live somewhere where I'm lucky enough not to have this issue affecting me..and hopefully it never will.  I guess I shall just watch and see what happens, hoping for the best, but expecting the worst.

Nini.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Perhaps it is different in the USA but in Canada they have made court ordered rehabs illegal. They can be offered as part of the sentence but I believe the prisoner has the right to refuse.

That may be true in America as well but I am not sure.  I am sure there are certain "plea bargins" and those plea bargins may differ in each of the 50 states.

However, if you read the stats or the ones I have, it says 90% of those in American prisons are in prison because of drug-related charges.  It's even said though it may say a sex offense for example, it's still believed that sex offense crime was committed while under the influence of a drug or alcohol or both, and even grand theft auto may be related to drugs along with other offenses such as illegal weapons.  

So, what to do here if 90% of the crimes are drug-related in some way?

I think for the next decade at least, social workers need to go into the prisons and talk to the prisoners and find out what is going on here and how to improve this horrible situation.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 321 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...