Let's Start A Riot?!?!

Can someone explain to me, the far lefts ideal version of fixing things by defunding police? How exactly does that help when it means less training, less available assistance to the people that need it. I mean, makes no sense to me.

Yep those hurt like hell, but Rayshard Brooks would still be alive if ex-Officer Rolfe had rubber bullets on hand.

Or if he had just continued to use his taser, since he wasn't in danger.

Would've choked him to death for resisting after he was down either way.

Video shows he did use his taser first (first meaning, prior to using his gun), not sure if he missed or was out of shots at that point, think they only come with two loaded shots, didn't seem to have time to reload.

I mean, they could have just...let him go and called backup.

seriously dude, if you think im lying about that being the taser still pointed at the cop- watch the video. it literally has a flashlight on it. Its easy enough to validate that theres no magical floating light there one second earlier by looking at the previous stills. if you watch the entire video you can see him go down with the taser still in his hand.

There are plenty of different possible outcomes that don't involve killing him and getting fired for it, and most likely charged for it. Letting him get away outright is probably not the best option, but it's viable. You have his car, all of his info, I mean they could have simply followed him and continued to communicate. He is drunk, he has a taser that he fired off wildly, he is more likely to hurt himself than anyone else.

"Defund" does not mean abolish (though there are people out there calling for that, it's not something to take seriously).

Defund mostly means to stop giving them tanks, and take some of their budget and use it to flesh out other departments to handle things that cops get called in to handle now. Social workers, mental health professionals, and the like. The idea is to treat the problems rather than throw cops at it and criminalize the behavior.


To address this point specifically, the idea is that right now police get called in when there's any kind of situation, even if said officers have no training or aptitude for it. "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", essentially. The idea would be to take that money you strip away from the police and bulk up departments better suited to handle those specific types of crises. So help would be there, and ideally better suited help.

I'm dubious on how well that aspect of it would work in practice, but it'd be hard for it to work less than what we do now.

It's actually sort of a perfect example.

You don't send a cop with a gun to detain a drunk driver. It's not something that should ever result in gunfire.

There should be alternate units that come to that kind of call, who's first instinct isn't "holy ***i'mma die, shoot the ***"

Yeah I said something similar on previous page of posts. I'd highly doubt he was going to stop along the way from running and take out his frustration on some random person. Most likely, he was scared as ***at that point and would have just hid behind a house in the bushes or something a few blocks away.

Honestly if you watch the full video, that fella was not very fast. His full speed sprint looked kind of like me jogging. All they had to do is call in some backup, hop in their squad car and keep tabs on him til help arrived. I'm just wondering why he suddenly bolted in the first place. From the vid, he didn't really seem drunk, was complying, both parties talking nicely, until they tried to put those cuffs on, then a switch flipped. Just curious if he had some existing warrant or something going on.

Yea were going to have to disagree there. If this was the case, the rioting and protesting wouldnt be continuing. Andrew cuomo literally had to say on live television "What more do you want. you've won. Were defunding the police. the cops in question are being charged: What more do you want. What is the goal"?


i gotta be real. This sounds like the concept of communism: sounds lovely on paper, but its one of those things that will never work in practice. the vast majority of mentally ill shootings occur because the mentally ill person has a gun and is actively trying to kill someone, or presents a danger to someone.

So lets say they go this route: Are they going to give social workers guns so that they can end the crazy persons life the second there is the slightest inkling that person might kill someone else? the social worker included?

no? not going to give them a gun

so now you have social workers without guns, unable to protect others from harm. now the mentally ill person goes and just keeps blasting away because we tried to apply logic to an illogical occurrence.
Now you have a dead social worker. Now you have a dead family of the deranged person. Now you have dead innocent bystanders.

I hope you can see why an armed cop is absolutely necessary here. it has nothing to do with criminalizing mental illness, and everything to do with keeping the greatest number of people safe while minimizing harm.

The problem with your logic, from my viewpoint, is that you are trying to solve the problem once its too late, and then blaming the police for having to use force to solve it.

Heres a fun fact: mentally ill people count for quite literally HALF of the police shootings of armed persons per year. HALF. this number used to be around 10%, but then we ended insane asylums, and government run mental health facilities because the states/fed didnt want to fund them, or deal with the rampant lawsuits. we also made it WAY harder to have a family member committed. Bring back these institutions, and the problem fixes itself. trying to fix it on the back end will never work, and will just get innocent bystanders killed.

honestly he probably was either on probation, was carrying drugs on or in his car, or was wanted. there's no logical explanation for how he flipped ***when the cops arrested him other than him already being in deeper ***. we likely just havent heard it because the media doesnt want any light being shined on it.

Actually, most of the asylums were ended during the Reagan administration, because of the people screaming about the conditions of the asylums/how the patients were being treated, etc. Since at the time there was no way our society was ready to fund these institutions to the level required to make them actually take care of the patients in a manner that would have shut up the cause heads, they chose to just end them and let the families take care of their own. Which, as usual, they did not.

Which also contributed to more homeless and the majority of them being insane.

Oh you guys learned something collectively.

Now bonus round. When you take away funding from the police, guess where it would go.

Spoiler you already answered the question.

Right and since we live in a, "You can't tell me what to do...I'm an adult!' society, you can't even help every homeless person or mentally ill person, unless they want it. I've seen many stories/documentaries about specific homeless people where their families were interviewed and they've stated they attempted to help them on numerous occasions, even giving them free lodging in their own homes, but they want to be on the streets, "living free."

Specifically if you recall, there was some feel-good story like, Christmas before last, of some man sitting on the sidewalk in NYC (IIRC), wearing only pants, a loose fitting T shirt and had no shoes on. Some cop came along, saw the guy, went to a local store and bought him a pair of boots and gave them to him. Was all over the news. All these stories were questioning the man's family, where were they? Why did he have no help? Well, the brother contacted the local TV station and gave an interview, describing how he and his family had tried to move his brother (the homeless man) in with them several times, with the caveat of he couldn't bring in strangers and couldn't drink/do drugs. He said every time, he'd stay for a night or two then just, disappear again, didn't want to be told what to do.

riiiiiiiiiight. just keep telling yourself that. you're delusional if you actually believe that.

These are things I already knew, none of it changes the fact most of your input is not only useless, but the majority of your ideas to fix anything are nonexistent and just attempts to troll.

What we are doing is something called, a discussion. You should try it sometime without the snarky comments and ignorant insults. Then again, take those things away and you'd have literally nothing to say.

All of our input is useless. None of you get to make any decisions. and none of your opinions matter at all.

Correct, but at bare minimum we can type two sentences without trying to be a smart@$$ for absolutely no reason other than to show how much of a jerk you can be.

Going to San Fran for the first time last year was a real eye opener for me on that situation. The homeless there are brazen and mentally ill and aggressive. I recall reading up on the situation where they got rid of the asylums and really not much has helped in that regard to fix the situation. It's gotten so much worse and especially in leftist cities. NYC has its fair share with that problem but nothing like I saw with San Fran.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/16/man-shot-as-new-mexico-protesters-try-to-remove-spanish-conquistador-statue-juan-de-onate


starting to look like that Orwellian future we wanted

Hope that shooter enjoys prison.

aside from the shooting of the protester. I find it very sad that the protesters are tearing down the conquistador statue. If it was in a public park I may have a different opinion, but the thing is outside a museum. Its there for educational purposes

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/502796-thomas-jefferson-statue-toppled-in-oregon




Another Tim Pool video
keep taking down the statues ~ bunch of morons

good lord you really suck at laws dont you? i can only think that you just instantly only side with your bias and do absolutely zero research or analysis on things.

1. The man was attacked by this mob
2. the man was CLUBBED OVER THE HEAD with a skateboard. bludgeoning someone in the skull with a large object is considered attempted murder.
3. The man then frees himself from the mob, and runs away.
4. The mob then CHASES HIM
5. the mob can audibly be heard yelling "WERE GOING TO KILL YOU" in the course of that pursuit
6. The man then Shoots a pursuer.

He is ABSOLUTELY within his legal rights to have shot them. He was fleeing, and not instigating, and was already assaulted with deadly force by these people. They then VOCALIZED their intent to kill him. He has an absolutely rock solid defense and will NEVER lose this case in court.

LMAO trump *** called it. 'it starts with confederate statues, but where does it end? Jefferson? lincoln?' the answer, is that it stops after the constitution is burned to the ground, or we go full civil war and end this insanity.

Lol did you read that on Twitter? Because I didn't see it anywhere in volkoms article and I notice you didn't provide a source.

no i just watched the video you *** moron.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1272735796949213184

the skateboard dude comes back to beat him with it again, while the mob is screaming "WERE GOING TO KILL YOU, WERE GOING TO *** KILL YOU", and the dude puts three rounds into skateboard idiots gut.