this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
1556 points (99.1% liked)

People Twitter

5189 readers
2098 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
1556
Unbelievable (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by ModerateImprovement@sh.itjust.works to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
136 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://social.ridetrans.it/users/daihard/statuses/112941278386750975

Link in the post: https://publicola.com/2024/08/09/kevin-dave-officer-who-struck-and-killed-23-year-old-student-is-challenging-his-traffic-ticket/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How do you expect any system to "uphold the law" without violence? Or are you just condoning police violence and not defense from police.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I was talking about what a mob of people might do to an asshole who ran someone over. I bought The End of Policing for multiple people because it advocates replacing police with socialist policies. I don't know how you misinterpreted my intent, but I'm also not accusing you of anything. It's early and I have to go to work soon.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do those socialist policies not rely on defensive violence as well?

I misinterpreted your intent because when someone says they "don't condone violence" in the context of police brutality, it's typically because they either

  • don't consider the police to be violence, or

  • are literally pacifists.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do those socialist policies not rely on defensive violence as well?

Well, the idea to provide free housing rather than policing the unhoused certainly didn't.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm referring to how you were saying they could replace police.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The book stipulates that providing free housing would reduce crime committed by people who are unhoused. It also advocates for free health care for people and social workers for people who suffer from mental illness. Some will refuse treatment, as we already know. But not all. The book does not say that crime will end. It does make ten (I think) excellent points as a chapter each about failures of policing to address social problems. And it has damning statistics to back up the claims.

It's ridiculous that the richest nation in human history refuses to spend money on people in need other than for the purposes of enforcement. Doing so is counterproductive and wastes more money than just helping people. That's my take.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

I understand what you're saying about building better systems. But how do you expect any system to uphold the law without violence? What do you do about the crime that persists?