Minneapolis Officer arrested.

dusty7 wrote:Don't worry, in due time the people how have passed the policies will realize the issue that they created.

They haven't yet when it comes to education, why should they with this?

Head Idiot wrote:

dusty7 wrote:Don't worry, in due time the people how have passed the policies will realize the issue that they created.

They haven't yet when it comes to education, why should they with this?

Well, when there are no police left to defend the government buildings, what are they going to do?

Just heard on the radio, they had 40 minutes to read a 756 page document before voting. This is \"f\"ing disgusting. No cash bail for kidnapping and burglary which means you cannot detain people who have committed these crimes.

I have been reading about the key elements in the police reform bill for a week and a half.

It’s not likely that the Illinois house and senate members knew less about this bill than I did.

dusty7 wrote:  No cash bail for kidnapping and burglary which means you cannot detain people who have committed these crimes.  

If a judge determines that the accused is a threat to an individual or society he or she can remand the defendant without bail.

Prior to the bill’s  passage if a judge set bail, the accused who had some money could post bond and be free pending trial. If the accused was poor, very little chance that they could post bond.

The system was rigged against the poor. Kidnappers and burglars with dough have always walked free up until the trial.

Teetime wrote:I have been reading about the key elements in the police reform bill for a week and a half.

It’s not likely that the Illinois house and senate members knew less about this bill than I did.

True, but all it takes is one sentence thrown in last minute to drastically change a bill, or waste a few million dollars.

That's how wend up sending a few million to Pakistan to help with transgenders. Which in reality, will never make its way out of this country.

dusty7 wrote:

tps wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:

tps wrote:http://www.chicagofop.org/news/urgent-and-important-police-reform-update-hb-163

defund the police ('reform') is on the docket in illinois. this should make us safer when cops quit/retire in droves. and dem controlled federal gov starts rolling out gun control measures...

This bill was passed by the Senate at 5 am this morning. It's headed to the house-

 The latest version of the criminal law overhaul bill, 764 pages, was introduced after 3:00 a.m., giving lawmakers less than two hours to debate and read over it before a vote.

This must be another Democrat "We've got to pass it to see what's in it" maneuver.

I just don't understand what the current trend toward letting everyone out of prison and legalizing crime is aimed at other than creating societal destabilization and buying votes.

This bill also passed the House and is going to the governor's desk.

764 pages. A total of three hours from being made available to representatives to being passed in both houses. Incredible.

cops are quitting and retiring in pretty large numbers around the nation. i'm not sure changes like this will encourage others to join the force.

I've had several students who had aspirations for being in law enforcement but have not changed their minds.  Don't worry, in due time the people how have passed the policies will realize the issue that they created.

dusty, just wanted clarification. "but have not changed their mind"? or "but have now changed their minds"

tps wrote:

dusty7 wrote:

tps wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:

tps wrote:http://www.chicagofop.org/news/urgent-and-important-police-reform-update-hb-163

defund the police ('reform') is on the docket in illinois. this should make us safer when cops quit/retire in droves. and dem controlled federal gov starts rolling out gun control measures...

This bill was passed by the Senate at 5 am this morning. It's headed to the house-

 The latest version of the criminal law overhaul bill, 764 pages, was introduced after 3:00 a.m., giving lawmakers less than two hours to debate and read over it before a vote.

This must be another Democrat "We've got to pass it to see what's in it" maneuver.

I just don't understand what the current trend toward letting everyone out of prison and legalizing crime is aimed at other than creating societal destabilization and buying votes.

This bill also passed the House and is going to the governor's desk.

764 pages. A total of three hours from being made available to representatives to being passed in both houses. Incredible.

cops are quitting and retiring in pretty large numbers around the nation. i'm not sure changes like this will encourage others to join the force.

I've had several students who had aspirations for being in law enforcement but have not changed their minds.  Don't worry, in due time the people how have passed the policies will realize the issue that they created.

dusty, just wanted clarification. "but have not changed their mind"? or "but have now changed their minds"

Have now

Teetime wrote:

dusty7 wrote:  No cash bail for kidnapping and burglary which means you cannot detain people who have committed these crimes.  

If a judge determines that the accused is a threat to an individual or society can remand the defendant without bail.

Prior to the bill’s passage if a judge set bail, the accused who had some money could post bond and be free pending trial. If the accused was poor, very little chance that they could post bond.

The system was rigged against the poor. Kidnappers and burglars with dough have always walked free up until the trial.

Here's a novel idea, don't commit a crime, then there is no system for or against you.

It's also important to note that this started as a prescription drug bill and the police were not allowed a seat at the table to discuss the areas that need change. The whole idea that the police don't want changes is ridiculous, they want more adequate training that goes beyond internet modules. Want better police, fund better training. But obviously better police is not the goal.

dusty7 wrote:Herre's a novel idea, don't commit a crime, then there is no system for or against you.

Don't you know that it's your racism and oppression that causes them to commit those crimes?

This is the latest and most brazen effort in the city’s campaign to establish what might be called a “reverse hierarchy of oppression.” The underlying theory is that society has condemned the lower class to a life of poverty and stigma, which leads to addiction, madness, and indigence. The poor, in the logic of Seattle’s progressive elites, are thus forced to commit crimes—including violent crimes—to secure their very existence. Therefore, as society is the perpetrator of this inequality, the crimes of the poor must be forgiven. The crimes are transformed into an expression of social justice

https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-policymakers-untouchables-misdemeanor-crime

dusty7 wrote:Here's a novel idea, don't commit a crime, then there is no system for or against you.

Sure. Good idea.

That was the same before and after this bill passed.

The disparate treatment of the wealthy and destitute was not.

Head Idiot wrote:

dusty7 wrote:Herre's a novel idea, don't commit a crime, then there is no system for or against you.

Don't you know that it's your racism and oppression that causes them to commit those crimes?
e

This isn’t about what causes them to commit a crime. It’s about the different treatment of those who have done so.

tps wrote:i'm confused by your first part. i didn't call them rioters.
don't people vote for people they agree with? maybe not every single issue but most issues. otherwise why do you vote for them?

Yeah, my bad. You didn't. But there is no evidence to support that most Biden voters want to defund the police or get rid of the 2nd Amendment. You admit as much, but have no problem continuing to say it as though it were true.

And, people vote for who they agree with, but in the 2 party system there are going to be a LOT of people who don't vote for someone as much as they vote against someone else. Isn't that How Hilary lost? I know plenty of Democrats who were disappointed about Biden being their candidate. But what are they going to do? Vote for Trump? I think you are beginning with a flawed assumption about all voters if you think a vote for a candidate means you support most of their positions.

It seems like the majority of people I vote for is a case of preferring one over the other, not so much really being crazy about the preferred candidate.

Huck wrote:

tps wrote:i'm confused by your first part. i didn't call them rioters.
don't people vote for people they agree with? maybe not every single issue but most issues. otherwise why do you vote for them?

Yeah, my bad.  You didn't.  But there is no evidence to support that most Biden voters want to defund the police or get rid of the 2nd Amendment.  You admit as much, but have no problem continuing to say it as though it were true.

And, people vote for who they agree with, but in the 2 party system there are going to be a LOT of people who don't vote for someone as much as they vote against someone else.  Isn't that How Hilary lost?  I know plenty of Democrats who were disappointed about Biden being their candidate.  But what are they going to do?  Vote for Trump?  I think you are beginning with a flawed assumption about all voters if you think a vote for a candidate means you support most of their positions.

call it a hunch.

and your evidence?
i could rephrase my statement. many/most trump supporters voted for him in order to prevent defunding the police.

tps wrote:call it a hunch.

and your evidence?

I need no evidence.  I am not making a claim.  I am disagreeing with your claim.  I mean, hunch.

But I can see why you support Trump.
"The election was rigged!"
"You think so?  What's your evidence?"
"I don't have any. What's your evidence that it isn't rigged?"


How many times do you get to rephrase your statement to make it correct, before your statements shouldn't be believed?

Huck wrote:

tps wrote:call it a hunch.

and your evidence?

I need no evidence.  I am not making a claim.  I am disagreeing with your claim.  I mean, hunch.

But I can see why you support Trump and believe the election was rigged.
"The election was rigged!"
"You think so?  What's your evidence?"
"I don't have any. What's your evidence that it isn't rigged?"


How many times do you get to rephrase your statement to make it correct, before your statements shouldn't be believed?

i assume you are being hypothetical.
i didn't say the election was rigged. i also did not say get rid of the 2nd amendment. you are confusing me again.

tps wrote:this is what biden voters want. defund the police and defeat the nra leading to 2nd amendment 'changes'...sounds like a nice combination. what could go wrong?

Now you are being pedantic.  Your 'changes' could mean many different things.  Abolishing the 2nd is not a stretch for what you could have meant based on how these threads go.

Apologies about making an assumption that you feel the election was rigged, based on other comments you have made on the board such as the "fine people hoax".
Will edit to fix.

Head Idiot wrote:Wasn't it suggested in a conversation here that the notion of "canceling" Abraham Lincoln was ludicrous right wing fear mongering? Well, here you go-

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9055391/San-Francisco-rename-Lincoln-High-School-didnt-black-lives-mattered-him.html

The San Francisco school board approved the removal of all those names off schools last night 6-1. Included are Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/san-francisco-strip-washington-lincoln-school-names-75519114?cid=clicksource_4380645_5_heads_hero_live_headlines_hed

Well they deserved a fair settlement and they got that. If the cop that killed Floyd gets anything less than 3rd degree murder I think there will be violent rioting.