5 ms·

"To what degree should we defund the police? And how else might we limit their power?" are perfectly germane ways forward with a discussion. I'll start: qualif

"To what degree should we defund the police? And how else might we limit their power?" are perfectly germane ways forward with a discussion. I'll start: qualified immunity. Make police carry malpractice insurance. No more civil forfeiture. No military surplus. It's a negotiation. I start at one extreme (defund), you start at another (status quo). We meet in the middle.

meepmorp 4y ago
> "To what degree should we defund the police? And how else might we limit their power?" are perfectly germane ways forward with a discussion. You're completely correct, and it's a topic that the US urgently needs to have a serious, non-inflammatory discussion about. And that's why when you start off with shouting slogans: > ACAB. Defund the police. you get a response which is not one of the "perfectly germane ways forward with a discussion." Because the way you began things doesn't sound like you want a discussion. Maybe lead off with something that still gets at your point in a more productive way, e.g.: > "To what degree should we defund the police? And how else might we limit their power?"
- p0pcult 4y ago
  Sir/Madam, the discussion has started. You are still discussing procedural details. Do you have anything of substance to add?
  - meepmorp 4y ago
    > Do you have anything of substance to add? Do you?
    - p0pcult 4y ago
      Yes, I outlined several specific proposals for ways to curb police overreach and power. Perhaps you missed them among all of your caterwauling?
      - meepmorp 4y ago
        o
everforward 4y ago
> Make police carry malpractice insurance. This part is a bad idea, imo. If malpractice insurance is required and (presumably) privatized then we've handed a great deal of control over the monopoly on violence to private enterprise. Imagine the power $yourLeastFavoriteBillionaire would have if they decided to start buying up insurance firms that offer malpractice. VP got a DUI? The officer will forget all about it unless they want to lose coverage and be fired. I'm not against levying financial penalties, but I think privatized insurance is the wrong way to go at it.

meepmorp 4y ago

> "To what degree should we defund the police? And how else might we limit their power?" are perfectly germane ways forward with a discussion. You're completely correct, and it's a topic that the US urgently needs to have a serious, non-inflammatory discussion about. And that's why when you start off with shouting slogans: > ACAB. Defund the police. you get a response which is not one of the "perfectly germane ways forward with a discussion." Because the way you began things doesn't sound like you want a discussion. Maybe lead off with something that still gets at your point in a more productive way, e.g.: > "To what degree should we defund the police? And how else might we limit their power?"

p0pcult 4y ago
Sir/Madam, the discussion has started. You are still discussing procedural details. Do you have anything of substance to add?
- meepmorp 4y ago
  > Do you have anything of substance to add? Do you?
  - p0pcult 4y ago
    Yes, I outlined several specific proposals for ways to curb police overreach and power. Perhaps you missed them among all of your caterwauling?
    - meepmorp 4y ago
      o

everforward 4y ago

> Make police carry malpractice insurance. This part is a bad idea, imo. If malpractice insurance is required and (presumably) privatized then we've handed a great deal of control over the monopoly on violence to private enterprise. Imagine the power $yourLeastFavoriteBillionaire would have if they decided to start buying up insurance firms that offer malpractice. VP got a DUI? The officer will forget all about it unless they want to lose coverage and be fired. I'm not against levying financial penalties, but I think privatized insurance is the wrong way to go at it.