Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Mtl Racing said:
Un kid de 17 ans capable de se procurer un AR-15 ça n'a pas de sens. Un adulte ici a de la misêre a se procurer un pistolet et doit passer à travers un paquet de paperasse et de restrictions. Labas ça se promène avec des guns à des manifestions.
Click to expand...

euhh... NON, va l'autre bord du pont Mercier et t'as tout ce que tu veux ! :D


mecbain said:
Evidemment j’enlève rien au fait que s'il serai rester a la maison jouer a call of duty a place rien de tout ca aurai arriver...
Click to expand...

Amen ^^ , y'a pu rien a ajouter a cette conversation.
 
Rejjy said:
euhh... NON, va l'autre bord du pont Mercier et t'as tout ce que tu veux ! :D




Amen ^^ , y'a pu rien a ajouter a cette conversation.
Click to expand...

euh.... a moins que ca soit moi qui aille pas catcher dequoi, mais t'es au courant j'etais sarcastique?

et que mon point était que la ou les choses étaient rendues, on ne peut pas vraiment assumer que rien faire et fermer ses yeux quand ça ne te touche pas directement, était toujours un choix évidant.

C'est assez clair que ce n’était pas un contexte habituel de x groupe qui manifeste pour y raison et monsieur z décide de se mettre entre le groupe et la police qui protège la population, pour chercher la marde en prétendant qu'il est la pour aider, pour avoir une "raison légitime" de se battre/ou dans ce cas d'en tirer une coup....

Tk... j'ai hâte a la décision avec toute la controverse et tout c'est.... oh shit on devrai tu faire un bet la dessus?
 
vladjet2000 said:
defund the police = more people that will police the streets themselves.
faut faire un choix.
Click to expand...

Yeah and that is exactly why the USA are too far gone to do anything about this without a drastic change to their gun laws, which is not happening without a bona fide civil war.

You can't just go ahead and "defund teh polisss" when there are more guns than citizens. There are like 110 guns per 100 citizens wtf are you gonna do. Point of no return has been passed a LONG time ago.
 
ThePapi said:
Yeah and that is exactly why the USA are too far gone to do anything about this without a drastic change to their gun laws, which is not happening without a bona fide civil war.

You can't just go ahead and "defund teh polisss" when there are more guns than citizens. There are like 110 guns per 100 citizens wtf are you gonna do. Point of no return has been passed a LONG time ago.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that i'm to waste my time explaining that "defund the police" doesn't literally mean getting rid of the police and letting the citizens fend for themselves. Policemen are asked to deal with problems (homelessness, people with mental issues) that they're ill equipped or trained to do. The idea is to assign those tasks and budgets to people that are actually trained and capable of dealing with those problems.

The main problem with that concept is that they chose a very stupid name. Politics in the US are so polarized that it kills any possibility of an intelligent discussion. What started as a common sense suggestion (use prevention instead of repression) gets twisted by a fear campaign that insists that the goal is to get rid of the police and let the rioters roam free.

What does it mean to defund the police?

Defunding the police does not mean getting rid of the police altogether. Rather, it would mean reducing police budgets and reallocating those funds to crucial and oft-neglected areas like education, public health, housing, and youth services. (Some activists want to abolish the police altogether; defunding is a separate but connected cause.) It’s predicated on the belief that investing in communities would act as a better deterrent to crime by directly addressing societal problems like poverty, mental illness, and homelessness — issues that advocates say police are poorly equipped to handle, and yet are often tasked with. According to some estimates, law enforcement spends 21 percent of its time responding to and transporting people with mental illnesses. Police are also frequently dispatched to deal with people experiencing homelessness, causing them to be incarcerated at a disproportionate rate.

Even some cops resent society’s overreliance on them. “We’re just asking us to do too much,” said former Dallas police chief David Brown in a 2016 interview. “Every societal failure, we put it off for the cops to solve. That’s too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems.” And the outcome can be deadly: In 2015, the Washington Post found that one in four people killed by a police officer suffered from a serious mental illness at the time of their death.

Advocates argue this could be avoided by replacing some police officers with trained social workers or specialized response teams. “Municipalities can begin by changing policies or statutes so police officers never respond to certain kinds of emergencies, including ones that involve substance abuse, domestic violence, homelessness or mental health,” Philip V. McHarris and Thenjiwe McHarris argue in an op-ed for the New York Times. “So if someone calls 911 to report a drug overdose, health care teams rush to the scene; the police wouldn’t get involved. If a person calls 911 to complain about people who are homeless, rapid response social workers would provide them with housing support and other resources. Conflict interrupters and restorative justice teams could mediate situations where no one’s safety is being threatened.”

The amount of money the United States spends on policing is staggering: According to a recent analysis, the sum is $115 billion, which is bigger than nearly every other country’s military budget. In most cities, the police budget dwarves those for education, housing, and other crucial services. For example, Los Angeles’s proposed police budget for 2021 is $1.8 billion — more than half of the city’s total spending for the year. New York City’s annual police budget is a whopping $6 billion, which is more than the city spends on health, homeless services, youth development, and workforce development combined. Defunding proposals would reallocate a fraction of that — for instance, activists and City Council candidates in New York City have proposed cutting the NYPD budget by $1 billion over the next four years.
Click to expand...
 
Spaceman Spiff said:
I have a feeling that i'm to waste my time explaining that "defund the police" doesn't literally mean getting rid of the police and letting the citizens fend for themselves. Policemen are asked to deal with problems (homelessness, people with mental issues) that they're ill equipped or trained to do. The idea is to assign those tasks and budgets to people that are actually trained and capable of dealing with those problems.

The main problem with that concept is that they chose a very stupid name. Politics in the US are so polarized that it kills any possibility of an intelligent discussion. What started as a common sense suggestion (use prevention instead of repression) gets twisted by a fear campaign that insists that the goal is to get rid of the police and let the rioters roam free.
Click to expand...

ok so what's the logic here, you got more riots, so let's get rid of the ones that are trained to handle that for those that would have had a chance to maybe prevent those manifestations in the first hand? tooooo late... or better yet, not the right timing.... and yes some places did limit the police budget, look at Chicago...

to add to that, for the moment their strategy failed... not saying there weren't going to be more crimes in any case no matter their policies, but they certently weren't able to stop that from happening... so best case scenario they just didn't make the situation worse than it was already going to be.

Are you freaking kidding me?

"What does it mean to defund the police?

Defunding the police does not mean getting rid of the police altogether. Rather, it would mean reducing police budgets and reallocating those funds to crucial and oft-neglected areas like education, public health, housing, and youth services." [...]

I honestly thought it was more getting more you know like social workers as part of the police or available for calls that would be more appropriate, which would of had an impact on the police budget and obviously the number of cops.

But this is even worse, it actually getting rid part of the police by cutting their budget, and use it for other stuff like education/heatlcare/etc.... wtf "reallocating" hahaha, nice way to say it, next bank robberty the guy should ask the teller if she could re-allocate the money from the safe to his bag.... lol...
 
Last edited:
mecbain said:
ok so what's the logic here, you got more riots, so let's get rid of the ones that are trained to handle that for those that would have had a chance to maybe prevent those manifestations in the first hand? tooooo late... or better yet, not the right timing.... and yes some places did limit the police budget, look at Chicago...

to add to that, for the moment their strategy failed... not saying there weren't going to be more crimes in any case no matter their policies, but they certently weren't able to stop that from happening... so best case scenario they just didn't make the situation worse than it was already going to be.
Click to expand...

Murders are up also in cities that increased their police budgets.

Los Angeles and Chicago have also seen double-digit increases in their homicide rates this year, and they did reduce spending on police. Chicago cut its police budget by 3%, largely by eliminating vacant positions. Los Angeles reduced spending on police by about 5% overall.

Yet homicide rates are also increasing in cities that didn’t cut spending.

In Houston, a city led by a Democratic mayor, killings have increased, but so, too, has funding for police.

Nashville, Tennessee, also led by a Democratic mayor, increased the police budget but has seen homicides spike 50% so far this year over last.

Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Fresno, California, have also seen more killings so far in 2021. Both cities have Republican mayors.

Meanwhile, other types of crime are down, according to preliminary statistics and researchers who say crime initially dropped around the world after the pandemic began. While cities are reporting jumps in their homicide rate, there’s been no similar increase in other crimes, like burglaries, robberies or drug offenses.

That’s not what you’d expect if calls to defund the police were leading to a rash of crime, Abrams said.


So why are killings up?

Economic losses and personal stress brought on by the pandemic are one suggestion. COVID-19 also disrupted in-person education and many community programs designed to quell violence. It put a strain on police departments, hospitals, courts and other institutions tasked with dealing with the impact of crime.

Other possibilities include rising gun ownership and the protests over police killings that could have emboldened criminals. Then there are the host of factors that contribute to localized violence, including gangs, drugs and poverty.

James Alan Fox, a criminologist and professor at Boston’s Northeastern University, said small changes to a police budget, or the party affiliation of a particular mayor, aren’t likely to play a big role. Some violence fluctuations are part of long-standing problems.

“It’s not related to which party is ruling,” Fox said. “But you can win a lot of votes by pushing fear.”

Nixon used a similar argument in his successful 1968 presidential campaign, arguing that protests over civil rights “have torn 300 cities apart.” The strategy helped galvanize support among white voters concerned about racial integration, according to Elizabeth Hinton, a Yale Law School professor who studies the history of criminalization in America.

Now, just as then, misleading claims about crime seem designed to exploit racism among white voters while ignoring the real reasons behind the increase in homicides, she said.

“Instead of linking this to COVID and mass unemployment and general anxiety, they’re saying that somehow calls to defund the police are behind this, as a way to justify more policing as a response,” Hinton said.
Click to expand...
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-crime-spike-police-funding-20210610-graeysr24zapbkvpsbhvlfiakm-story.html
 
Spaceman Spiff said:
Murders are up also in cities that increased their police budgets.


https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-crime-spike-police-funding-20210610-graeysr24zapbkvpsbhvlfiakm-story.html
Click to expand...

In an ideal world, that would work. On this planet, it never will, just like communism will never be the utopia it is meant to be. Let me know how Chaz worked out, that was a police free zone. The wikipedia definition of defund the police is very very different from what you had here, but that's besides the point. Some goals are good, and some do not make sense, just like everything else.

The point is that the whole defud the police thing, whether it happened or not, has made gun tooting rednecks antsy today. They are much more likely to pick up a gun and go out in what they believe to be righteousness. Police departments are under staffed in most areas even if they have astronomical budgets, and some gun owners are trying to help out in whatever way they see fit. Is that what defund the police set out to do? No. That's the end result though.
 
"Defund the police" defined perfectly:

FDOhrOxX0AIFPku


FDOhrOwWYAMUS3K
 
Spaceman Spiff said:
I have a feeling that i'm to waste my time explaining that "defund the police" doesn't literally mean getting rid of the police and letting the citizens fend for themselves. Policemen are asked to deal with problems (homelessness, people with mental issues) that they're ill equipped or trained to do. The idea is to assign those tasks and budgets to people that are actually trained and capable of dealing with those problems.

The main problem with that concept is that they chose a very stupid name. Politics in the US are so polarized that it kills any possibility of an intelligent discussion. What started as a common sense suggestion (use prevention instead of repression) gets twisted by a fear campaign that insists that the goal is to get rid of the police and let the rioters roam free.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm aware of that. Obviously I know they didn't just mean "end the police", but Police in the USA are mostly right about one thing : they do need borderline military ordinance and insane budgets specifically because of the fact that they lack people, and are utterly outgunned by everyone at any moment. They brought this on themselves with their gun laws and now they have no idea what to do and are scared shitless.

The USA would need dictatorship levels of decision making on many layers to bring gun violence down. That's not happening. They are too far gone and not even close to being in a political position where they can take long term decisions regarding gun laws and police training and stick with them. The hicks are gonna raise hell and it will go back to the way it was within one presidential mandate. Hairdressers train for twice as long as police officers on average. If you hate school and aren't very smart, you can totally spend less than a year in training and go on patrol, strapped to the tits. They will stay on the current path until they implode in some way and chill out for a few hundred years until they reach the same point again.

Rittenhouse will probably walk. He's a dumbass bootlicking drop out, his entire family are dumbasses, he beats little girls, likes police, authority, guns and hot shit. He's 100% american like giant bags of cheetos, mobility scooters and pictures of t-rex with rocket launchers and got plopped into a courtroom with a senile Trump loving judge and incompetent prosecutors. That's the american way baby.
 
ThePapi said:
Rittenhouse will probably walk. He's a dumbass bootlicking drop out, his entire family are dumbasses, he beats little girls, likes police, authority, guns and hot shit. He's 100% american like giant bags of cheetos, mobility scooters and pictures of t-rex with rocket launchers and got plopped into a courtroom with a senile Trump loving judge and incompetent prosecutors. That's the american way baby.
Click to expand...

Meh, he shot a child raping pedophile, he's still +EV on the karmic scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top