Defund the Police

These two things are heavily related. The "War on Drugs." Has been one of the biggest assaults on American's liberties since the days of the proto-fascist Wilson Administration during the First World War. Decriminalization should be the path forward. You fail to mention two other issues related to the WoD.

No knock warrants. The kind that led most recently to the death of Beronna Taylor. These are directly related to the WoD in most circumstances.

Asset forfeiture. Which have turned law enforcement into organized criminals in some instances. And has to be the single most unconstitutional practice in existence today.

Limiting the application to violent felonies would be sufficient in my mind. No one should go to prison for a first offense nonviolent felony conviction. And an individual's record should be expunged twenty years after they've completed probation for one.

Many municipalities have become heavily reliant the fines generated by law enforcement and code enforcement as a revenue stream. A practice which impacts those least able to afford it the most. This'll be hard one to reform.

Anh. It doesn't require anything quite so dramatic or exciting. Mandatory bodycameras which cannot be turned off by the officer combined with reducing or eliminating qualified immunity would be a good start. Then follow that up by eliminating police unions from the equation. All public employee unions are a conspiracy against the taxpayer.

you know who else was there where they (apparently) had no business being? The U.N. contingencies. Yes, the United Nations forces - the blue helmets - perhaps you have heard of them?

I had plenty of technical training and civilian college courses here and there. What's your point? The amount of education you have doesn't make you more intelligent or a better person.
I know plenty of college grads who can't spell "cat" without spotting them the first two letters. Or they make poor life decisions and barely eke out a living as a result.

not everyone can live off of the taxpayers' dime?

the word is "contingents"... maybe you should've taken some mid level high school english?

but no, the UN was supposed to be there.

although that does parallel the policing conversation. Peace keeping (and the associated risks) vs overwhelming force and submission.

Very possibly true.

Why, exactly, were they there?

Assuming we aren't talking about the weapons inspectors of course.

Or even the legitimate policing which you expect during a home invasion?

Yet what exactly does "all men are created equal" mean in practise? You've spent the time since debating exactly that in courts, the literature, public discourse and still look how far you are from agreement, much less attainment. Such oft stated disclaimers as "we still have work to do" don't do justice to the shortfall. You're nowhere near to either, quite a bit further then many. If the slogan has arguably made no difference after this time does that invalidate it's worth?

I think not.

Hell, I suspect we couldn't get a true consensus in here when it comes down to it, we certainly can't get one on "no taxation..." as we've already seen in this thread, not to mention that it is much, much older than 122 years. It was already enshrined in our law before the colonies existed and arguably it was just such a debate about semantics which led to notions of virtual representation and ultimately war.

you work with the options available to you... were it not for stabbing a guy rushing me with a brick when I was 17, I was pretty much on track to follow a path not unlike yours.

You stabbed him with a brick?

Can't agree with this. Someone who scams a bunch of people out of millions of dollars should go to prison for it, and I don't care whether or not it's a first conviction and non-violent. And I'm sure if I cared to think about it for a while I could come up with other non-violent felonies that should also be punished by prison sentences, even as a first conviction.

Agreed. First time offenders, three strikes, etc. rules are arbitrary and do nothing to protect the population. Which, is the purpose of laws and prisons. Someone selling "loose cigarettes" doesn't deserve prison for a first offense. But scamming the public out of millions of dollars - especially old people? Yea, that's a trip to prison first time.

Punishment should fit the crime.

No, the guy had a brick, Turkey stabbed him with his leather jacket.

Hold the phone! Keep your shirt on! I never meant you made bad decisions - I meant a lot of the college grads who have a constantly ongoing train wreck of a life because of their constant ongoing irresponsible behavior. The 40 year old frat boys would be good way to describe them I guess.

if true, that would be the ultimate Fonzie move right there!

I got that..but thanks anyway.

You see, completely cosmetic smile.

More like airbrushed

Let's fire up the randomizer then, no prison time for first time non-violent felony convictions involving less than $10,000 and no more than three counts.

Break ALL public sector employee unions while we're at it. They are all fundamental conflicts of public interest. Private sector unions: A-OK.

I could get on board with something like this, though I would make it a guideline for judges rather than a strict rule. There needs to be some room both ways for taking into account the specific facts of the case.

In general, I think modern society has recourse to prison much too easily, especially in America. It is just one aspect of the fundamentally violent society that has grown up over the centuries. People think force is the answer to everything.

And yet, at the same time, discipline is no longer really allowed in schools, and not practiced all that much in homes. So people grow up believing they can do what they want, even if it's against the rules, because there will never be any real consequences. Then adult life hits them, and the only thing people can think to do is scream "Law and order!!!" (like a certain PINO...) and use violent force to repress them.

This is a fundamental shortcoming of society, but no one seems to want really to deal with it.

more than you'd believe... the whole thing started over his catching his girl cheating with me so he managed to swipe my leather jacket while I was, umm distracted.. Next time we crossed paths, he escalated what should've been a simple punch up and got punctured. nobody died... so whatever... /shrug
for the record, I was wearing a lumber jacket when the fight happened.

I maybe wouldn't go as far as "breaking" them, but I certainly would be in favour of limiting their scope of action very much. Here in France, public-sector workers are by far the most likely to strike for any little thing. In my philosophy, the only justification for something being in the public sector is that it is genuinely an important aspect of a well-functioning society, but the private sector is not capable of providing it in a way that makes it available to everyone.

Under that view, strikes should not be allowed in the public sector. Yet here in France, 90% of strikes are in the public sector.

and it shouldn't be. It's not the teacher's job to raise someone else's children. But, it's also not their job to tell me how to raise my child. James was still in day care when I picked him up one day. The teacher told me, as they often do, what James did right and what he did wrong. One day, the teacher tells me James is showing violent tendencies and those need to be addressed. She went on to describe the event in which he showed violent behavior. He made an airplane out of legos, then "shot down" all the other kids legos they were building. When I laughed at the picture she painted, I could very easily see James doing this - then and now, she told me that the day care didn't approve of "toy guns" or anything like that. I rolled my eyes at that, but I'd much rather they speak to me about it and not have paddled him for such an absurd thing.

I don't believe this is any more true than when Plato said it some ... 3000 years ago.

The problem isn't that people don't know right from wrong. The problem has to do with economics. Always has. The larger the gap in income, the more violent poor people get.

The problem is, however, that without worker protections even the best employers will fuck up and screw over their employees. Obviously, the police unions in the US are too strong, but at the same time, a cop should be able to arrest a government official for drunk driving without fear of reprisals. (Additionally, there should be protections for government officials from unjust prosecutions by law enforcement.)

I think that we're really beginning to see the unanticipated flaws in the American legal system come to light. The Founding Fathers never envisioned a day, for example, when people's loyalty to their political party would be greater than their loyalty to their country. Yet here we are. Part of the problem, I think, is the mythologizing of the Founding Fathers and the documents that they created. Instead of seeing them as products of their time who were able to catch a glimpse of something greater than themselves, we tend to see them as demi-gods who shouldn't be questioned. Yet even they questioned what they were doing when they were in the act of creating this nation.

Is that so? Hmm. I invite you to read The Federalist Papers, if you've never done so. Look in particular at Federalist #10 as a starting point.

How you don't manage to fly underwater with that kind of intellect I'll never know.

This bit of Number 10 is particularly interesting

Regardless of one’s political leanings, I think that we can all agree this is demonstrably wrong.

You do realize that Madison is speaking against the very thing of which you are now arguing in favor. He's actually saying the same thing I said in another thread - when you get two or more humans together, they will try to enforce their will on on others. He didn't realize that one day political parties would become the one thing he thought they would deter.

that's what a strong union can do for you I guess. In any other job would you get a reprimand or a one day suspension? No, you'd get fired most likely because you represent your employer especially in the public eye. Hell you represent your city! Why would you want a cop that does this on your force?