|
I don't know what it's like these days but growing up in the foothills of Los Angeles the answer was the cops/firefighters/other descended on the area and used police helicopters to track down where it was coming from due to fire risk. They didn't go after "safe and sane" fireworks but if you had the good stuff from TJ (which for whatever reason seemed a lot less common then) then they came down like a hammer. Where I live now also has massive fire risk but I haven't seen choppers, although since some recent super-fires I think the airborne fireworks have seen a decrease (including from official shows).
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
Zachack posted:I don't know what it's like these days but growing up in the foothills of Los Angeles the answer was the cops/firefighters/other descended on the area and used police helicopters to track down where it was coming from due to fire risk. They didn't go after "safe and sane" fireworks but if you had the good stuff from TJ (which for whatever reason seemed a lot less common then) then they came down like a hammer. Both the fireworks and the copters are still there you probably just live in a whiter part of town. I'd bet I have more helicopters in my neighborhood on a given day than any of the high fire risk areas. That fleet is mostly there to harass people of color.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Both the fireworks and the copters are still there you probably just live in a whiter part of town. No, I moved hundreds of miles away so it's completely unrelated to LAPD/LASheriff, and much more about not having the choppers (we have a lot of REACH choppers, though). When I've visited down south around this time of year I will still hear plenty of choppers in the area, and I'm honestly unsure what the solution is to activities that are very popular but can have huge negative externalities, other than strict 3rd party enforcement at every point in the process from production (which is usually not part of the community) to sale/distribution (which may not be part of the community) to use (which is probably part of the community, but may not due to environmental factors).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:The way cops usually enforce said ordinances is to ask the person in question to stop; the same thing the caller should be doing. Well yes, except when the police ask it carries an implicit threat behind non compliance (and still would regardless of their being armed etc.). If it was as easy as that don't you think thy the people in these cities being bombarded nightly with the noise and nuisance for the past week plus would have tried?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
One thing that sometimes I think some people forget in this thread and around this topic is that despite ACAB; and despite us needing to defund the police, and despite cops having no accountability, and despite cops not being able to stop all poo poo, the absolute loving majority of a work shift in the life of an average medium sized american police officer is so terrifyingly boring and mundane, and includes very little of the deeper problems that we discuss here, and I'd imagine most goon cops could attest to that. The last shift of a friend was 12 hours, and consisted of checking up on two different houses and if they had secured trash pickup for their furniture they left outside. After that, it was walking back and forth a crash scene from a week ago, trying to see if some new evidence or missing parts could be found, done on a "if time"-basis. Rest of the shift was spent driving homeless people to a local shelter. There was 0 percent of shooting of minorities, and very little engagement with the public, outside of being a taxi to the shelter. What I'm trying to get at is that please don't get lost in the sauce of thinking that THREAT OF GUNS AND VIOLENCE is what terminates noise complaints every day all around America. In reality, it's just driving past a house and saying from the window "neighbors are complaining, end the party/fireworks, please", and then it ends. Or ending a house party by asking. Problem is that when it gets into state violence, or lovely enforcement, or you know, the whole beating and shooting, there's no accountability, and the blue line protects the poo poo. But let's just keep some ratios of Hours spent filling paperwork vs beating black dudes on an average day in mind. Near my old house the police collected random ducks around the city and would drive them to the duck pond next to my house, and do other animal welfare related tasks on the side. There's a poo poo ton of small-to-medium sized american police departments where ancillary duties that range from "processing permits" to "animal welfare" to "city janitor" take majority of the day. As to why they have loving sworn officers with guns doing all that is the discussion we have here. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jun 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:One thing that sometimes I think some people forget in this thread and around this topic is that despite ACAB; and despite us needing to defund the police, and despite cops having no accountability, and despite cops not being able to stop all poo poo, the absolute loving majority of a work shift in the life of an average medium sized american police officer is so terrifyingly boring and mundane, and includes very little of the deeper problems that we discuss here, and I'd imagine most goon cops could attest to that. The last shift of a friend was 12 hours, and consisted of checking up on two different houses and if they had secured trash pickup for their furniture they left outside. After that, it was walking back and forth a crash scene from a week ago, trying to see if some new evidence or missing parts could be found, done on a "if time"-basis. Rest of the shift was spent driving homeless people to a local shelter. There was 0 percent of shooting of minorities, and very little engagement with the public, outside of being a taxi to the shelter. Exactly, why are people focusing on the edge cases when the vast majority of the job does not require threats of violence with deadly weapons. We can still do parking enforcement even without someone with a gun writing the ticket, why do people act like these same people need to respond to real threats to public safety?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Exactly, why are people focusing on the edge cases when the vast majority of the job does not require threats of violence with deadly weapons. We can still do parking enforcement even without someone with a gun writing the ticket, why do people act like these same people need to respond to real threats to public safety? I agree, but the ones who are saddled with all that "asking them to stop being loud" and "checking on the horse permits of the carriages" currently are the Police. If not the Dudes With Guns, it should still be some other government enforcement arm that does that. I don't see a society where some inherent social duty will fill that void on its own, and to me it sounds bit too much like the Invisible Hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I agree, but the ones who are saddled with all that "asking them to stop being loud" and "checking on the horse permits of the carriages" currently are the Police. If not the Dudes With Guns, it should still be some other government enforcement arm that does that. I don't see a society where some inherent social duty will fill that void on its own, and to me it sounds bit too much like the Invisible Hand. People truly arguing for like fully stateless community policing would still not be relying on the invisble hand, they'd be relying on a community network of folks that had already decided how to handle stuff like that and also would likely already have clear community agreements around 'when is the time for explosions' in a way people would be, in my opinion and experience, a lot more likely to comply with than arbitrary laws set by state actors and enforced by cops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:As to why they have loving sworn officers with guns doing all that is the discussion we have here. It's because we keep giving them more money to do all the things you said but with a gun, tell them to fear for their lives at all times, and that minorities are out to kill them. Nobody can afford to do any of those things because the police spent the money on tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It's because we keep giving them more money to do all the things you said but with a gun, tell them to fear for their lives at all times, and that minorities are out to kill them. Exactly this; NYC's police budget is three times more than we spend on homelessness (which is a thing you can outright solve if you throw enough money at it) for the ENTIRE COUNTRY. For some insidious reason(s) Police OT and buying military hardware is vastly more important than every other social service/education/public health. It's pure insanity. White people have been indoctrinated to shape their lives around building physical and metaphorical walls around their wealth and possessions, and that they need an armed force roving to streets to protect their enclaves, lest "savages" rape and pillage their women and things. I can even make it more fair by stating that at a certain level of wealth, all races behave in this way, but that it's certainly culturally prevalent in White people in the US more than others. It's part of the push back and feedback loop of why doing anything anti-police or removing any of their influence is terrifying and untenable for those who have power, they lose their advantages, and resources shift and opportunities are gained to those persons who they intentionally denied them to in the first place. Yuzenn fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jun 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:Exactly this; NYC's police budget is three times more than we spend on homelessness (which is a thing you can outright solve if you throw enough money at it) for the ENTIRE COUNTRY. This is an insane statistic from a broken country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
People treat cops like a security blanket, they transparently do not do anything to help you unless you're absolutely loaded, but if someone suggests we take the blanket away they throw a fit. Except the blanket keeps killing poor people and minorities. And if someone suggests how come you aren't murdered or robbed, they point at the blanket, rather than thinking maybe it's because almost everyone doesn't want to murder or rob you and if they did the cop blanket wouldn't stop them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 07:44
|
|
|
People tend to argue that a police force of the kind most countries have at the moment wouldn't be necessary in an ideal society, but my issue with this is that such a society isn't coming any time soon if it ever will. So what's the point of even noting that. We live with the societies we have right now, and have to adjust things based on that instead of some future utopia. You can't remove the state enforcement if the state is still poo poo and not expect crime to explode like is never has before. I'm not crazy, right? e: Since that was kind of hard to follow maybe the tl;dr is that you should create the framework for a communist or whatever society first and then the police won't be necessary. Doing it the other way around would just cause total chaos. You can't put the cart before the horse. Nurge fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Jun 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 12:09
|
|
|
The argument that I and others have made repeatedly is that expanding the role of police instead of tackling the causes of crime 1. doesn't prevent crime, and 2. just makes people's lives worse. And society does not appear to be capable of voluntarily doing anything other than more cops more prison harsher sentencing. You want to reduce theft? Make people less loving poor. You want to reduce drug crime? Legalize it and sell it at the corner store in clean, reliable doses same as any other product. You want to reduce violent crime? Figure out why people want to loving kill each other so much and fix that, also remove the opportunity for them to do so as much as possible. And people aren't going to start doing that until you make them, therefore, attacking the cops as an institution is necessary to make people consider alternatives. It would be very nice if we could just do all that and then ever so gently and peacefully phase the cops out, but the last hundred some years have not suggested that's ever going to happen. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Jun 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 12:14
|
|
|
I think very few people have "eliminate 100% of the police today" as an immediate tactic that they are fighting for. Look at even the most extreme proposals of what should be passed by councils today, and most of them are eliminating specific programs or making budget cuts that are significant but well short of 100%. It's probably better to look at this as an idealized goal that abolitionists are moving towards. Eventually there should be no police, but how quickly that can happen depends on building up alternatives that can take the place of what the police are doing right now. One exception I think some people have argued for is disbanding the police and rebuilding something that looks an awful lot like the police immediately, sort of like the example from Camden NJ, but I don't think anyone is saying "disband the police 100%, don't replace them, and figure everything else out later".
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 12:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You want to reduce violent crime? Figure out why people want to loving kill each other so much and fix that, also remove the opportunity for them to do so as much as possible. I don't have much else to add but this is kind of hilarious you know, in view of the history of the entire world. You seem way too optimistic about the motivations of the average person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 12:17
|
|
|
Nurge posted:I don't have much else to add but this is kind of hilarious you know, in view of the history of the entire world. You seem way too optimistic about the motivations of the average person. This is the exact same kind of thinking that says school shootings are just an unavoidable thing rather than a problem everyone else has managed to avoid. You have lived your entire life up to this point without people really wanting to kill you, as evidenced by the fact that you are still alive, because if they really wanted to kill you they could, and the cops wouldn't stop that. They might, might, catch the person who did it afterwards, but they wouldn't stop it. Suggesting that this desire not to engage in random violence is the primary glue that holds society together as well as the primary thing that keeps crime levels down, rather than some eternal vigil by the cops is not some wild idea, or at least it shouldn't be if you engage your brain for five minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 12:21
|
|
|
Nurge posted:I don't have much else to add but this is kind of hilarious you know, in view of the history of the entire world. You seem way too optimistic about the motivations of the average person. So long as they aren't putting the cart before the horse and actually work to fix those problems first, who cares? If the end result of trying to eliminate violence is that you can only eliminate 80% of it, that's still a win. I agree insofar as I think it's naive to think you can completely get rid of violence (I'm not accusing anyone of specifically claiming that), and something that looks an awful lot like the police is going to need to exist to deal with that irreducible amount of violence, but I do think it can be reduced, and in turn the number of police needed to deal with it can be reduced. But the thing is, so long as someone isn't going to demand immediate abolition right away, and can make small steps towards it, whether they're right and we can get violence to 0, or I'm right and violence can only be reduced by 80% or whatever is sort of irrelevant. We'd take the same actions both ways, we're just disagreeing on our guesses on how effective we think it will be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 12:22
|
|
|
No you're both definitely correct that it's something to strive towards and any kind of societal progress is a good thing. I just think there's a worrying tendency for people to be pieces of poo poo and I'm not sure a better society can entirely fix that. But like enki42 said it would eliminate some of it, and that's worth pursuing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 12:27
|
|
|
Nurge posted:I'm not crazy, right? You're not crazy. The literal 'abolish the police' position--this is to be contrasted with the non-literal 'abolish the police' position where 'abolish' doesn't mean 'abolish' but really means 'reform'--is so heavily dependent on many other radical changes happening to society (which might even be impossible because they ignore the nature of man and maybe fundamental challenges when creating/operating/running human organizations) that getting rid of law enforcement is like the least interesting and least substantive part of the position. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Jun 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 12:37
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I think very few people have "eliminate 100% of the police today" as an immediate tactic that they are fighting for. Look at even the most extreme proposals of what should be passed by councils today, and most of them are eliminating specific programs or making budget cuts that are significant but well short of 100%. I mean, it kinda is eliminate the police 100% today, but it's using police as a pejorative - not as whatever agent will enforce the State's power over laws. I want every piece of the police dismantled or removed because the entire thing is corrupted. I'm not sure you can slow walk reforms in any sort of real way - it's become a multi headed hydra which mirrors a whole lot of other institutions in its function. However, I know that I am not ignorant to the fact that something has to take it's place immediately and we have to be active in shaping what it becomes in the future. I'm all for that. What I am not for is incremental centrist status quo change - we will get no where. What will probably manifest itself in practice is some sort of falling short of the ultimate abolition goal in a bunch of places because of the politics - but if we aim for the proper goal and fall short it's far better than aiming for "reform" and getting the nothing-burger we always get. These reforms have almost always turned into a retaliatory hyper-aggression about crime as we've seen in the last ~50-60 years, it's the "look, people NEED more police, not LESS", bs that gets peddled when incrementalism doesn't work. There are a lot of other things that have to happen around our "justice" system and socioeconomically but in this instance there is a specific thing that can be controlled and changed that will solve a HUGE problem. Nurge posted:I don't have much else to add but this is kind of hilarious you know, in view of the history of the entire world. You seem way too optimistic about the motivations of the average person. I asked this in the other thread, do you think people are inherently violent? In the western world? enki42 posted:So long as they aren't putting the cart before the horse and actually work to fix those problems first, who cares? If the end result of trying to eliminate violence is that you can only eliminate 80% of it, that's still a win. I think this is fair, but I disagree in one point - small steps just won't work. The police are far too big of an institution and too ingrained in over a hundred year racial paradigm in which they have been the enforcement end. They are backed by law and given much more firepower and leverage than maybe any other institution sans the military and at least the military has strict rules about how they deal with their own populace. We have a lot of centrist or worse lawmakers, and progressives aren't in power in enough places for a systematic change to happen by slow walking it. *Sorry if I rambled a bit in this post my child is going nuts this morning Yuzenn fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Jun 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 14:22
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:I asked this in the other thread, do you think people are inherently violent? In the western world? I think what people are inherently doesn't change by geographic location or genetic makeup. I also don't think people are inherently violent as such, but some are willing to do violent things to gain benefit, even when not forced to by societal problems. It's sad but looking at our history makes that fairly evident. Some of that can probably be tackled by a good equal education system for everyone, but certainly not all of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 14:41
|
|
|
First it's a good idea to eliminate the most demonstrably violent class of people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:First it's a good idea to eliminate the most demonstrably violent class of people. The poor and poorly-educated?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
Young men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:Young men. It's fun to stay at the YMCA!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
Hm I think that arguments for the inherent peacefulness of western man are operating under a flawed premise, as the state has an overwhelming monopoly on force, strictly utilizing violence to achieve personal gain is an inferior strategy. In lieu of this people pursue power through accumulation of capital. I'd be reluctant to say that if violence did become a more effective means to achieve power (ie the elimination of the state monopoly) that "westerners" would be any more loathe to utilize it than warlords in other failed states. Power abhors a vacuum after all, and I'm not about to make an argument for the superiority of western man's nature compared to the global south.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:I mean, it kinda is eliminate the police 100% today, but it's using police as a pejorative - not as whatever agent will enforce the State's power over laws. Sure, I guess this feels to me sort of like the Camden example but perhaps more extreme in how different the thing you rebuild after the fact is. It's eliminating police organizations, not the concept of policing, and ensuring that the thing that replaces it has fewer of the structural and cultural issues that current police organizations have. I asked this in the other thread, do you think people are inherently violent? In the western world? quote:I think this is fair, but I disagree in one point - small steps just won't work. The police are far too big of an institution and too ingrained in over a hundred year racial paradigm in which they have been the enforcement end. They are backed by law and given much more firepower and leverage than maybe any other institution sans the military and at least the military has strict rules about how they deal with their own populace. We have a lot of centrist or worse lawmakers, and progressives aren't in power in enough places for a systematic change to happen by slow walking it. I know this thread has been over it, but I feel that if there's the political will and ability to abolish the police entirely, it shouldn't be an impossibility to slash programs, defund the police significantly, and disarm them. Yes, it will be a political clusterfuck and probably all out war between the city and the police department, but so will abolishment. I do think disbanding and reforming departments is a valid strategy for forcing those changes if the police won't accept them willingly, so our opinions probably aren't that far apart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Sure, I guess this feels to me sort of like the Camden example but perhaps more extreme in how different the thing you rebuild after the fact is. It's eliminating police organizations, not the concept of policing, and ensuring that the thing that replaces it has fewer of the structural and cultural issues that current police organizations have. Agreed, I think we aren't far apart at all, and my only worry is with those who would enact change - sweeping changes are really hard to get done. It's part of why this movement has to be part and parcel with getting progressives in office who not only have the courage to go these lengths but are willing to deal with the inevitable push-back from the police and other institutions. With over 120 people killed by police since George Floyd, it's clear the police will fight tooth and nail to retain that power, so disbanding may be the only way. I really do love Camden for what they did, and as a New Jersey guy it's a shining example a fix that may not yet be perfect but the right sentiment in the right ways. Camden still has a long way to go but it's had marked drops in crime on almost every level and is transforming from easily a top 10 most dangerous city on the east coast, if not the entire US, to a place that is on track for a tremendous resurgence. I fully understand that the resurgence is also possible because of promise zones, the Sixers, Campbell Soup, and Rutgers University but those are initiatives that can happen simultaneous and over some years time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
Man wrongfully arrested and who spent a year in jail for no good reason still rescues a cop from a burning car. HERO! https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/man-wronged-by-police-saves-officer-from-burning-car/2443019/
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
CocoaNuts posted:Man wrongfully arrested and who spent a year in jail for no good reason still rescues a cop from a burning car. HERO! This is the problem with being an empathetic good person. You do good and treat others how you expect to be treated, in return you are taken advantage of, treated poorly and see no rewards for being good. Society rewards those that help themselves, cops, are constantly trained and told to worry about themselves first and foremost. They are called heroes for it. American society is built on self interest and it will never reward empathy, and good behavior. The reason liberals "compromise" and let "conservatives" do as they will is because of self interest, at most we're going to see some token promises to get things back to status quo and the liberals will cheer "we did it!".
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:This is the problem with being an empathetic good person. You do good and treat others how you expect to be treated, in return you are taken advantage of, treated poorly and see no rewards for being good. I am fairly certain most people here would rescue someone from a burning car if they could, even if it was someone they hated. Good people do that. It's not really relevant if they represent a thoroughly corrupt institution. It takes a really broken person to watch someone die and not do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Nurge posted:It takes a really broken person to watch someone die and not do anything about it. Bad news about good cops then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ElyssaCherney/status/1275080862615261189?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Bad news about good cops then. Not really the point I was trying to make, but there are plenty of good cops out there. It doesn't matter though because the institution is thoroughly broken. It needs to get torn down and started anew from better foundations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
I doubt most goons who could do something about would watch Chauvin burn into his cop car during an accident, even if they’d knew what he has done. People want to do good, and be good. Helpong lovely people avoid violence or accidents is still objectively good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 23:12
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I doubt most goons who could do something about would watch Chauvin burn into his cop car during an accident, even if they’d knew what he has done. What makes you believe this? It might just be the situation the world finds itself in right now, but I know of at least a few here that I'd guess would watch a cop burn to death if they got the chance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:What makes you believe this? It might just be the situation the world finds itself in right now, but I know of at least a few here that I'd guess would watch a cop burn to death if they got the chance. Maybe they would but I still stand by my statement that they're very broken people. It's easy to say kill all pigs on the internet or even yell it at your starbucks, but actually seeing it is not something most people could stomach, for a good reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
Kelowna RCMP officer conducting a "wellness check": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXXdjvajruI A lawsuit has been filed. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/kelowna-rcmp-surveillance-video-wellness-check-lawsuit-1.5623215
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
CocoaNuts posted:Kelowna RCMP officer conducting a "wellness check": Holy gently caress. How did they not alert the EMTs when they found her unconscious with no other hazards in the apartment? That's some heinous bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 23:56
|
|