Store raid

kahos said:
Because you haven't personally made those arguments doesn't mean they're not a part of the current narrative. They're a part of the conversation.

https://nationalpost.com/news/calum-marsh-defunding-the-police-isnt-radical

Truly, it makes more sense to discuss areas that were brought up in that / other article than your premise that police budgets are arbitrary.

They're a publicly funded service. Making that argument is akin to saying that none of the elected representatives at any level or government that passed these budgets gave them any thought. If there was such a consensus, why do we have these outcomes?

Public safety is usually one of the largest single item on municipal budgets and "not a single fuck was given that day?" for years on end? There were no committees or debate for appropriations? Budget? Everybody was asleep at the wheel while police tried to turn their job into a call of duty re-enactment with armored vehicles and rifles?

The courts have held government accountable for not having these weapons. As inconvenient as it may be, that's factual. You don't have to like it, but failure to plan in these areas is a liability in our courts of law, not the courts of public opinion.

There aren't enough resources to have cops stroll around the neighborhoods "walking a beat" and trying to re-enact Robert Peel's principles (From a time where cars hadn't been invented yet). You can't have much in the way of proactive "community policing" and de-fund a police service's budget that's mostly centered on being reactive to calls for service. Less so when the media goes along with the narrative that they're an occupying force to oppress the people.
Click to expand...

If your interest is in commenting on the topic du jour while ignoring the conversation that's in front of you that's called writing an Op-Ed and you can start a Kahos Op-ed thread if you want.

Again you're arguing a bunch of points I didn't make nor do I necessarily disagree with, to what ends I don't know.

I said that police funding is arbitrary, what part of that is in disagreement with things you've said? You've pointed out how people are waiting an eternity for a police response and that they don't have the resources to patrol the street by foot, so they aren't fully funded? Why aren't they? because police budgets are arbitrary. I commented on cuts because that's what was asked. LIke all publicly funded service, they could do more if they have more money and they could survive if they had less. So why the current budget?

Maybe there's a better word than arbitrary but I'm using the Marriam-Webster 2nd definition of the word:
arbitrary adjective
ar·​bi·​trary | \ ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē , -ˌtre-rē \

: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
Click to expand...

Do you think it's a good idea to militarize the police? I spoke about it as a process, I even qualified my comment about rifles by specifically stating that my position wasn't that they are useless or that cops shouldn't have them only that it's a legitimate question to ask whether some of that money would be better spent on community resources and which one is more likely to reduce violence in the long-term.
 
Spiter_01 said:
If your interest is in commenting on the topic du jour while ignoring the conversation that's in front of you that's called writing an Op-Ed and you can start a Kahos Op-ed thread if you want.

Again you're arguing a bunch of points I didn't make nor do I necessarily disagree with, to what ends I don't know.

I said that police funding is arbitrary, what part of that is in disagreement with things you've said? You've pointed out how people are waiting an eternity for a police response and that they don't have the resources to patrol the street by foot, so they aren't fully funded? Why aren't they? because police budgets are arbitrary. I commented on cuts because that's what was asked.

Do you think it's a good idea to militarize the police? I spoke about it as a process, I even qualified my comment about rifles by specifically stating that my position wasn't that they are useless or that cops shouldn't have them only that it's a legitimate question to ask one's self whether some of that money would be better spent on community resources and if which one is more likely to reduce violence in the long-term.
Click to expand...

This thread started about store raids and now you're concerned I'm too far past the initial topic? Ok.

You were asked about de-funding and you chose to go down the path of militarization as if those were one and the same. Sounds to me like this was more a product of familiarity with that trope than an actual thought about the allocation of resources. That article was from 2018 after all...

I thought I established that budget allocation and oversight into police expenses was a function of elected officials and police discussing their needs and priorities; not through the use of a random number generator...
Arbitrary? Way to throw every elected official under the bus as lacking in vision or courage of conviction.

Just what do you think the biggest component of a policing budget is? Shiny guns and toys? That's a classic misdirection. The big ticket item is actually human resources.

According to the SPVM's 2017 budget of 652 million, 606 of that was spent on wages/payroll deductions. That's 93% of the budget.
https://spvm.qc.ca/upload/Decouvrir_spvm/SPVM_Previsionsbudgetaires2017.pdf I couldn't find a more recent budget on their site

You really think that buying rifles is what is breaking the camel's back here? Police officers per capita has been declining for years already. You're asking less people to do more, do it more proficiently and the solution is to defund them some more? As payback for what's happened in Minneapolis and Louisville?

Militarization of the police is just a label and a misdirection in Canada. No one rolls around in surplus MRAPS here just because it was a hands me down.

You're associating changes in equipment and tactics into a change in mission or direction. Yes, some of these are admittedly inspired by some of the changes in technology, equipment and lessons that admittedly were learned on the battlefield. But that's also lessons that were learned in schools, movie theaters, concert halls and other public venues where it is not the military's job to intervene.

If we sent the G.Is to storm the beaches and trenches without body armor, no one needs it? Body armor is de-humanizing and scary, right?

The world changed and there are employer's responsabilities and liabilities under labour laws to contend with. You can't send them in with "thought and prayers". PPE has to be appropriate. Firearms are plentiful in Canada, they will remain a part of both sides of the equation for the foreseeable future.

If you can't fund SWAT to be around at a moment's notice, it makes sense that you need to train and equip resources to act as an intermediate. That's the lesson learned from school shooters. You can't sit around and wait for Swat.

I'm not for the militarization of police. They're not meant to be an occupying force. Doesn't mean I'm for mischaracterizing everything I don't like as "military-like" as a knee jerk reaction.

That's the problem. People read half a dozen articles and now they feel they can roll right into calls to actions and reform.
 
Spiter_01 said:
Le financement de la police c'est arbitraire, couper juste pour couper non. Mais à la base l'idée de militarisé la police comme les américains c'est con, le SPVM avec leur camion blindé a $365k, j'imagine il on déja payer ça sinon plus en entretien.

Pi lets go des carabines pour tous le monde, je dis pas que c'est pas nécessaire mais la question ce pose, des centaines de milliers de dollars pour des armes ou prendre cette argent et l'investir dans des terrains de sports sécuritaire et des programmes de sport pour les communautés ou il y a des problèmes de gangs. Qu'est qui est sucéptibles de réduire la violence à long termes?

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvell...atrouille-spvm-sq-laval-longueuil-grc-toronto
Click to expand...

Ça répond toujours pas à ma question initiale.. pourquoi refusé la présence du Directeur du SPVM ? Est-ce que la ligue des noirs nouvelle génération mets sur pied un système de "neighbourhood watch" dans les quartiers défavorisé comme Montréal Nord pour aider a réduire le taux de criminalité, tout en diminuant la présence policière ?
 
almostock said:
Ça répond toujours pas à ma question initiale.. pourquoi refusé la présence du Directeur du SPVM ? Est-ce que la ligue des noirs nouvelle génération mets sur pied un système de "neighbourhood watch" dans les quartiers défavorisé comme Montréal Nord pour aider a réduire le taux de criminalité, tout en diminuant la présence policière ?
Click to expand...

Tu quote un post parlant d'enlever de l'argent à la police quand tu me demande mon opinion, je présume tu veux mon opinion sur ce sujet. Pour clarifier le directeur de la SPVM à dis qu'il y irais si les organisateurs l'invitais à venir. Il on donné l'invitation pour ensuite la retirer. Les motifs j'en ai aucune idée, qu'est qui laisse croire que je suis a l'intérieur du groupe organisateur?
 
Spiter_01 said:
Tu quote un post parlant d'enlever de l'argent à la police quand tu me demande mon opinion, je présume tu veux mon opinion sur ce sujet. Pour clarifier le directeur de la SPVM à dis qu'il y irais si les organisateurs l'invitais à venir. Il on donné l'invitation pour ensuite la retirer. Les motifs j'en ai aucune idée, qu'est qui laisse croire que je suis a l'intérieur du groupe organisateur?
Click to expand...

Désolé de la confusion, il répondait à ma question ("J'ai tu manqué un événement majeur pour que la ligue des noirs décident d'exclure le chef du SPVM ?") et j'étais curieux de connaitre ton input a ce sujet. Rien me laisse croire que tu es lié aux organisateurs, mais tu as une opinion très différente de la majorité ici et la diversité aide à faire avancer les débats/sociétés.
 
kahos said:
This thread started about store raids and now you're concerned I'm too far past the initial topic? Ok.

You were asked about de-funding and you chose to go down the path of militarization as if those were one and the same. Sounds to me like this was more a product of familiarity with that trope than an actual thought about the allocation of resources. That article was from 2018 after all...

I thought I established that budget allocation and oversight into police expenses was a function of elected officials and police discussing their needs and priorities; not through the use of a random number generator...
Arbitrary? Way to throw every elected official under the bus as lacking in vision or courage of conviction.

Just what do you think the biggest component of a policing budget is? Shiny guns and toys? That's a classic misdirection. The big ticket item is actually human resources.

According to the SPVM's 2017 budget of 652 million, 606 of that was spent on wages/payroll deductions. That's 93% of the budget.
https://spvm.qc.ca/upload/Decouvrir_spvm/SPVM_Previsionsbudgetaires2017.pdf I couldn't find a more recent budget on their site

You really think that buying rifles is what is breaking the camel's back here? Police officers per capita has been declining for years already. You're asking less people to do more, do it more proficiently and the solution is to defund them some more? As payback for what's happened in Minneapolis and Louisville?

Militarization of the police is just a label and a misdirection in Canada. No one rolls around in surplus MRAPS here just because it was a hands me down.

You're associating changes in equipment and tactics into a change in mission or direction. Yes, some of these are admittedly inspired by some of the changes in technology, equipment and lessons that admittedly were learned on the battlefield. But that's also lessons that were learned in schools, movie theaters, concert halls and other public venues where it is not the military's job to intervene.

If we sent the G.Is to storm the beaches and trenches without body armor, no one needs it? Body armor is de-humanizing and scary, right?

The world changed and there are employer's responsabilities and liabilities under labour laws to contend with. You can't send them in with "thought and prayers". PPE has to be appropriate. Firearms are plentiful in Canada, they will remain a part of both sides of the equation for the foreseeable future.

If you can't fund SWAT to be around at a moment's notice, it makes sense that you need to train and equip resources to act as an intermediate. That's the lesson learned from school shooters. You can't sit around and wait for Swat.

I'm not for the militarization of police. They're not meant to be an occupying force. Doesn't mean I'm for mischaracterizing everything I don't like as "military-like" as a knee jerk reaction.

That's the problem. People read half a dozen articles and now they feel they can roll right into calls to actions and reform.
Click to expand...

You can go wherever you want with your comments, what I object to is you mispresenting and then arguing points as though I said them and trying to paint me into whatever colour punching bag suits your needs.

Yes I spoke about militarization because it is tightly related to the protester demands and frankly the most obvious example that came to mind.

I'd refer you to my edited post where I clarify my definition of arbitrary.

Again you're making up talking points that aren't mine. I clearly stated without ambiguity, cutting for the sake of cutting no and I go on to say that it was reasonable to consider the effectiveness of how that money is used in regards to reducing future violence. How you read that as me advocating for cuts, I don't know.

Stop making up talking points and pretending they are things I've said or my position, you keep widening the circle of discord, asking loaded questions to try and make look like an idiot but the only person you're arguing with is yourself.

I'd suggest you re-read everything from the beginning, hopefully, you'll see you're getting carried away over nothing.
 
almostock said:
Désolé de la confusion, il répondait à ma question ("J'ai tu manqué un événement majeur pour que la ligue des noirs décident d'exclure le chef du SPVM ?") et j'étais curieux de connaitre ton input a ce sujet. Rien me laisse croire que tu es lié aux organisateurs, mais tu as une opinion très différente de la majorité ici et la diversité aide à faire avancer les débats/sociétés.
Click to expand...

Faut commencer par reconnaitre que il y a pas nécessairement une abondance de diversité sur MR. Le groupe d'utilisateur actif c'est un sous-groupe très spécifique de la population total est aussi quand même assez homogène.
 
Spiter_01 said:
You can go wherever you want with your comments, what I object to is you mispresenting and then arguing points as though I said them and trying to paint me into whatever colour punching bag suits your needs.

Yes I spoke about militarization because it is tightly related to the protester demands and frankly the most obvious example that came to mind.

I'd refer you to my edited post where I clarify my definition of arbitrary.

Again you're making up talking points that aren't mine. I clearly stated without ambiguity, cutting for the sake of cutting no and I go on to say that it was reasonable to consider the effectiveness of how that money is used in regards to reducing future violence. How you read that as me advocating for cuts, I don't know.

Stop making up talking points and pretending they are things I've said or my position, you keep widening the circle of discord, asking loaded questions to try and make look like an idiot but the only person you're arguing with is yourself.

I'd suggest you re-read everything from the beginning, hopefully, you'll see you're getting carried away over nothing.
Click to expand...

It's not meant to be personal. You're admittedly not getting a fair shake, and that's too bad. But in this day and age, very few people are.

You strike me as someone that has an understanding of public spending and the role of government. I may have misconstrued your argument, but there is nothing arbitrary about past and current police budgets and spending. Yes, they've been creeping up, but not without any attention or debates. The fiscal constraints are and have been challenging for a long time now in just about every area of government. All are subject to oversight and few departments or agencies get whatever they want. The perception that they're flush with money and spending it willy nilly because they're high on American/Military cool-aid is disingenuous.

You were critical of trucks and rifles, which is in the grand scheme of things is a drop in the bucket. You're talking business cases, different review levels and recommendations within the agency and then on to review outside by committees outside of the agency.

Accountability for these expenses does not rest solely with the police. Every level of government had their part to play. To just turn around and say, yeah fuck em, let's defund them is not something I expected to crop up in 2020.

The narrative is turning police into the sacrificial lamb of a situation that is a lot more complex.

You'd have to be some sort of wicked moral crusader or have mysterious intentions to consider a career in law enforcement in this day and age. How this will do the public any good is pretty questionable.
 
kahos said:
It's not meant to be personal. You're admittedly not getting a fair shake, and that's too bad. But in this day and age, very few people are.

You strike me as someone that has an understanding of public spending and the role of government. I may have misconstrued your argument, but there is nothing arbitrary about past and current police budgets and spending. Yes, they've been creeping up, but not without any attention or debates. The fiscal constraints are and have been challenging for a long time now in just about every area of government. All are subject to oversight and few departments or agencies get whatever they want. The perception that they're flush with money and spending it willy nilly because they're high on American/Military cool-aid is disingenuous.

You were critical of trucks and rifles, which is in the grand scheme of things is a drop in the bucket. You're talking business cases, different review levels and recommendations within the agency and then on to review outside by committees outside of the agency.

Accountability for these expenses does not rest solely with the police. Every level of government had their part to play. To just turn around and say, yeah fuck em, let's defund them is not something I expected to crop up in 2020.

The narrative is turning police into the sacrificial lamb of a situation that is a lot more complex.

You'd have to be some sort of wicked moral crusader or have mysterious intentions to consider a career in law enforcement in this day and age. How this will do the public any good is pretty questionable.
Click to expand...

Admittedly arbitrary might not have been the most precise word to use, my background may preclude me to see the political process and the nature of up/down/sideways budgets on changing parties/priorities/circumstances as being less than rigorous.

I can see how my point about riffles in trunks could be seen as critical, I actually don't have a problem it, it was meant as an explainer as to why they wouldn't be seen patrolling with them.

I only brought up the SPVM because it is more relatable/closer to home example. I am aware of their efforts towards fiscal rigor including closing/consolidating police stations.
 
This is too good. The mayor of Minneapolis, where George Floyd was killed, is this little soy boy that makes Justin Trudeau look like Winston Churchill. He's THAT bad, he is pretty much the poster child of what you can expect out your average beta who marinates for three four years in the liberal arts in your average university.

So here he is at a rally today.



You can't placate a leftist mob, they'll turn their backs on their own in a flash.
 
Spiter_01 said:
Faut commencer par reconnaitre que il y a pas nécessairement une abondance de diversité sur MR. Le groupe d'utilisateur actif c'est un sous-groupe très spécifique de la population total est aussi quand même assez homogène.
Click to expand...

dequoi du parles dude?!?! t'as de la diversitee en masse, du monde de toutes sortes de classes sociales/situations financieres/familliales/background/age/race/etc... c'est la force de ce forum et en general de la communeautee de gars de chars, on s'en fou t'es qui et ce que tu fais dans vie, tant que tu trippes chars...

anyway...
 
Spiter_01 said:
Faut commencer par reconnaitre que il y a pas nécessairement une abondance de diversité sur MR. Le groupe d'utilisateur actif c'est un sous-groupe très spécifique de la population total est aussi quand même assez homogène.
Click to expand...


le nombre de personne racisé sur MR doit être similaire à celui qu'on retrouve dans la province du Québec

Aille on a même 2 membres autochtones avec des cartes d'indiens ok ! :p

une française ! très problable qu'on aille des gens roux aussi !
 
mecbain said:
dequoi du parles dude?!?! t'as de la diversitee en masse, du monde de toutes sortes de classes sociales/situations financieres/familliales/background/age/race/etc... c'est la force de ce forum et en general de la communeautee de gars de chars, on s'en fou t'es qui et ce que tu fais dans vie, tant que tu trippes chars...

anyway...
Click to expand...

En partant on parle forcément de dude. MR c'est 99% des gars, faque t'as déjà la moitié de la population pas representé.
Il y a pu de jeunes qui s'inscrive sur le forum mais en même t'as jamais eu des petits vieux. L'âge représentatif des membres c'est probablement 30-50 ans? Avec quelle que membre exception de chaque coté de cette braquette d'age.
Il y a quelque baller mais à ma connaissance il y personne ici qui est vraiment cassé à vivre dans la misère. Je dirais que c'est probablement classe moyenne minimalement.
À ma connaissance il y a pas une personne ouvertement gai sur le forum.
C'est un forum à la base régional fortement axé sur montréal.
Politiquement ça penche quand même solidement conservateur.

Je parle même pas de race et on est déjà rendu à un sous-groupe très spécifique de la population.


AsunaMAXXX said:
le nombre de personne racisé sur MR doit être similaire à celui qu'on retrouve dans la province du Québec

Aille on a même 2 membres autochtones avec des cartes d'indiens ok ! :p

une française ! très problable qu'on aille des gens roux aussi !
Click to expand...

Je dis pas que il y aucun membre de couleur, mais certainement pas représentatif de la population. Sur l'ile de montréal c'est une personne sur trois qui est d'une minorité, dans la région métropolitaines c'est un sur quatre. T'as été au meet ça ressemblais tu a ça?
 
Omokocha said:
This is too good. The mayor of Minneapolis, where George Floyd was killed, is this little soy boy that makes Justin Trudeau look like Winston Churchill. He's THAT bad, he is pretty much the poster child of what you can expect out your average beta who marinates for three four years in the liberal arts in your average university.

So here he is at a rally today.

http://youtu.be/HSRPxwPADDQ

http://youtu.be/A9HLK5z4RLg

You can't placate a leftist mob, they'll turn their backs on their own in a flash.
Click to expand...
Lolll wtffff

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top