ZG

[Dale Eastman]

I won't defend the polices' actions. I'm no fan of the current police, and I have long argued there needs to be dramatic reforms for the police. You might say that I've been advocating for the same things BLM claims to believe in since before BLM was an organization. End qualified immunity. End no knock warrants. End the war on drugs. End over-policing. Weaken police union power.

But that doesn't justify anything like these actions, and pretending that he was killed by the police is dishonesty at this point. Fuck, I probably would have even been fine with the riots if they had just targeted federal buildings like the police office and whatnot, and left innocent private people alone.

Greetings.
It has been my experience that when I challenge certain "errant" notions... a few, ahem, allegedly "identified thinkers" don't.
So I have limited my participation...

But this one was low hanging fruit; A pitch over the plate in that over the fence sweat spot; A perfect set for the V-ball spike.

➽ I have long argued there needs to be dramatic reforms for the police.
I'll touch upon reforms at the bottom.

⚠ DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989):
A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. ⛔

⚠ Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. ⛔

⚠ Statutory Law
California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.
Stated in California Code 845:
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.

Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals.

Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service. ⛔

Do you still believe that the police force exists to protect you?
Congrats on being indoctrinated. Political law is a politician's opinion that carries the penalty of death. Proof upon discussion.
Dramatic reforms? End the police and teach people that it is okay to protect themselves.

[Dale Eastman]

There will never be a policeless period, and more than that, support for this movement has rightly imploded as it's plainly violent, savage, irrational, hateful, murderous nature has shown itself on full display. Once again, instead of proving the superiority of anarchy, anarchists have proven their objective inferiority as a movement and ideology, their beliefs lay shattered upon the massive violent crime explosions in every state attempting to appease the savages.

If you think that government is supposed to protect us from bad guys, who is going to protect us from a government filled with bad guys?

This is not what I think, this is a strawman.

I'm not sure what our miscommunication is about.
First, I am fully aware that police have no duty to protect any member of the public at large, nor their property.
Statutory Law
California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.
Stated in California Code 845:
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.
Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals.
Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.
Do you still believe that the police force exists to protect you?
More here: http://www.synapticsparks.info/p

I said nothing about a miscommunication (although, I believe there is an intentional one on your part). I said you are pushing a strawman.

Please explain.

No where have I said anything at or along the lines of "the police exist to protect you" or "the government exists to protect you." I believe absolutely nothing of the sort, and my post cannot possibly have been taken that way. Now, kindly fuck off with your strawmen, because I'm not interested in talking further with someone who is either this stupid or acts with this much bad faith.
Libertarian cage-stagers are the fucking worst.

Wow. What emotionalism.
What you did write is:
➽ There will never be a policeless period.
Did I misinterpret you claiming there will always be police?
➽ [...] support for this movement has rightly imploded as it's plainly violent, savage, irrational, hateful, murderous nature has shown itself on full display
With the original topic no longer available and my Boomer CRS, "this movement" could be defund the police or it could be "anarchy, anarchists [...] as a movement and ideology, their beliefs"
Now if it was about defunding the police, I've just pointed out to you that the have no duty to protect. So why keep them?
If it was about anarchy and anarchists, your prejudice based upon the co-opting of the word anarchy as a stand in for terrorist, rioter, or vandal, tells me you don't have any clue as to what Liberty anarchists actually want.
➽ [...] their beliefs lay shattered upon the massive violent crime explosions in every state attempting to appease the savages.
It was the archists, the government, the cops, the rulers, the tyrants that let the property destruction happen. Contrary to the PR BS about cops protecting anything.
So if you dare, for the audience and myself, please explain to me just which of my "beliefs" "lay shattered upon the massive violent crime explosions in every state"
You ➽ I said you are pushing a strawman.
Me ➽ Please explain.
Your explanation of what you meant ➽ ""
Bad faith? If you say so.

Yes, literally all of your post was in bad faith, and you've only made it worse. Nothing here defends your previous strawmen, anywhere, so that still remains exactly what I said it was.

As for this:

Yes, as I did not say there will always be police. I said there will always be policing, because there always has and always will be. The form it has taken has varied, but it has always existed. Back to the Chief's right and left-hand men, up to the local constables, to modern day police.

The purpose of the police is not to protect you. It's very function objectively shows that wasn't it's purpose, so discovering that it doesn't do what it was never intended to do isn't a reason to abandon them. And since, once again, no one has claimed their purpose is to . On a side note, it's actually fallacious conflation to assert that because the police's purpose is not to protect you, police therefore do not protect people. They regularly do. If need, I can flood this thread with examples, but even asking for proof of something that common fucking knowledge is itself an act of bad faith. Which is why I'm expecting it from you.

And no, claiming anyone other than the savages doing the burning were the ones doing the burning is bad faith. It's disgusting gaslighting at it's worst. Same with the emotionalism comment.

So, unless you can come back with something that isn't just more fallacies, this conversation is done.

➽ Yes, literally all of your post was in bad faith, [...]

If you say so.

➽ [...]and you've only made it worse.

If you say so.

Lemme explain them words: I recognize that you have posted your opinion. Have you got any facts to back them up?

➽ Nothing here defends your previous strawmen, anywhere, so that still remains exactly what I said it was.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".Wikipedia

Have you got any facts to back up your opinion that I was straw manning what you stated?
Like explaining exactly what you meant that you are accusing me of straw manning?

➽ I said there will always be policing, because there always has and always will be.

I acknowledge your opinion. I also acknowledge its flaws.
➽ because there always has [been policing]

Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing
“I [patroller’s name], do swear, that I will as searcher for guns, swords, and other weapons among the slaves in my district, faithfully, and as privately as I can, discharge the trust reposed in me as the law directs, to the best of my power. So help me, God.”
-Slave Patroller’s Oath, North Carolina, 1828.
https://lawenforcementmuseum.org/2019/07/10/slave-patrols-an-early-form-of-american-policing/

➽ because there always has [been policing]

A police force in England was formed in London in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel. (Policemen were called Bobbies or Peelers after him. Sometimes they were called coppers from the old English word cop, meaning to grab or seize hold of).
http://www.localhistories.org/police.html

➽ The purpose of the police is not to protect you. It's very function objectively shows that wasn't it's purpose, so discovering that it doesn't do what it was never intended to do isn't a reason to abandon them.

Okay then. What's the purpose of police?

➽ They regularly do [protect people]. If need, I can flood this thread with examples, but even asking for proof of something that common fucking knowledge is itself an act of bad faith.

So you're clairvoyant eh? You know what I know because you can read my mind? You know where I've been? You know what I've read? You know what I've studied?

Show me the law that says cops are under a duty to protect the general public. You can't because they're not. Two degrees of separation, a county cop in the county I live was asked about their legal duties. Only three items were listed and none were to protect people.

➽ And no, claiming anyone other than the savages doing the burning were the ones doing the burning is bad faith.

So if it was not the savages doing the burning then who was it?