Truck Drivers Say They Won’t Deliver To Cities with Defunded Police Departments

originally posted by: Identified
a reply to: new_here

You don't know whose going to show up now, if at all and how well they are trained either. Don't kid yourself.

Besides my response was regarding this:

If they were trained to handle it, then they would just be the police, except unpaid. 

I was highlighting that OP was saying virtually the same thing because we already have a 100% volunteer police force who can choose to respond or not. The pay issue seemed to be the main sticking point.

Yes, people generally want to get paid for their trouble, especially if they may be putting their life on the line. I don't know about you, but if I have a serious situation and need to call for help, I don't want the extra worry that people "can choose to respond or not."

So you're saying the 'community cops' would be no different than the current cops in terms of knowing how well they're trained. Why jump thru hoops to change the status quo then? Reform, don't Replace with the same (or worse) issues.
You haven't seemed to convince anybody how your way is superior to the current way.

a reply to: SolAquarius
Once again listening to mainstream media makes you look like a fool again,there is and has been a shutdown of independants,who will haul anywhere or anything,your tuned into the wrong channel

originally posted by: Identified
a reply to: Blaine91555

How will a shooting be dealt with? Probably better than it is now or do you think cops showing up 5 minutes later, sitting outside, discussing how to enter, calling for an mrap or bearcat to bust through a wall, throw in some flash bangs and then stand around bodies is a good way to do it.

Police were only ever needed for people who were unwilling or unable to do the arresting themselves but have now morphed into revenue generating daddies who can't follow simple Constitutional laws.

I'm not sure why you think a paid full time police force is needed when if people voluntarily become police officers then people will voluntarily respond to issues where arrest and possibly firearms are needed.


It is easier to cut out the cancer than it is to rub salve on the wound and hope tomorrow it gets better.

You would rather have a group of untrained vigilante's respond to save your children. OK.

Unpaid volunteers having police powers is safer? You still end up with police, volunteers or not, except with no direct supervision or formal training. Even people from the military are not qualified. Stuff happens and somebody has to deal with the monsters and truly bad people among us. The worst possible sort of people would be front and center to volunteer.

Anarchy is difficult to champion, because it's completely untenable. Marxism is just as difficult to defend and history gives us good examples with people like Che Guevara who just kill anyone in their way and put themselves in charge, and then use imprisonment, torture and political courts under their control, to force people to obey. By the time people figure out their folly, they are under the boot of dictators. Dictators who live like kings while their subjects barely survive.

Che said "Man truly achieves his full human condition when he produces without being compelled by the physical necessity of selling himself as a commodity" before he took control and crushed anyone who disagreed, both figuratively and literally. Look how many he fooled and still fools.

a reply to: Identified

Perhaps fixing that aspect of this is a better idea than just taking the zero and scrapping it all. Just a thought.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
How is it about money when the damages far exceed the potential profit?

When/if that happens let me know, right now it's all speculation.

originally posted by: face23785
Sampling is a well-established and sound method. That's not why polls wind up being inaccurate. Polls wind up being inaccurate because of pollster bias.

Then you trust them, I don't.

And it still doesn't minimize my point, people are going to take the money if someone else doesn't.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Speculation?

How many OTR miles have you driven? I'm at a little over a million. 43 of the 48 contiguous states, plus Canada.

The speculation is all in your mind. It already happens in some places.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

How many trailers have been robbed in the cities that everyone is wringing their hands over? How much have insurance rates gone up?

Oh, wait...just speculation.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You also have a disconnect with the National Institute of Justice as well then.

It is the certainty of being caught that deters a person from committing crime, not the fear of being punished or the severity of the punishment. Effective policing that leads to swift and certain (but not necessarily severe) sanctions is a better deterrent than the threat of incarceration. In addition, there is no evidence that the deterrent effect increases when the likelihood of conviction increases. Nor is there any evidence that the deterrent effect increases when the likelihood of imprisonment increases.

nij.ojp.gov...

I a!ready said different towns should be allowed to determine their own way of doing this. If they choose to defund then that is on them. Why complain when another town is choosing to do something? Let the people of that town decide what they want to do. Or do you think people should have no say over how their local govt operates? If a truck driver is unsafe then he doesn't deliver and soon the town will realize this and they will do something to address it.

I'm not understanding all the hysteria over some self-governance, requiring govt accountability, and trying something new.

originally posted by: Identified
I'm not understanding all the hysteria over some self-governance, requiring govt accountability, and trying something new.

That's my main problem with Conservatism, the total inflexibility when it comes to change, even if it's 100% correct and needed.

a reply to: new_here

Police a!ready choose to respond or not. Have you been paying attention?

Not sure if you realize when a cop does something they are doing it under the authority of the govt. When individual does it they are doing it as an individual. Individuals do not have the same legal protection that govts have given themselves. So a cop acting on behalf of the govt can legally get away with murder whereas an individual can not. And that is entire issue at play here.

If the status quo soothes you then vote to keep it. I haven't seen any evidence yet that change is going to make anything so drastically worse in the meantime that cities who want to change it up shouldn't be allowed to if their residents so choose. I certainly don't subscribe to the theory we should just keep banging our head against a rock because that's what we did yesterday and if we stop today we might have a headache tomorrow. I choose to stop banging my head and wait and see what happens.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Identified
I'm not understanding all the hysteria over some self-governance, requiring govt accountability, and trying something new.

That's my main problem with Conservatism, the total inflexibility when it comes to change, even if it's 100% correct and needed.

In this case, everyone has put the cart before the horse.

You're all wanting change for the sake of change.

YAWRRRR! POLICE BAD! ABOLISH POLICE!

And I've seen nothing about what will replace that except teams of social workers or simply foisting the duty off to the county, meaning the sheriff and state troopers pick up all the duties that the police do and likely hire on most of the same cops y'all claim to hate so much to do the exact same job. In the end, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

We conservatives aren't opposed to changes, but you need to lay out what the change will be and why it will actually be better than what we had. I'm not seeing it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm amazed at the amount of fear coming from folks who claim not only are they conservative but also claim they are suspicious of the govt. Being this a conspiracy site and all.

It shows most people, regardless of their supposed politics, are perfectly fine with whatever BS the govt is doing to someone else somewhere else so long as their life isn't bothered by it.

a reply to: ketsuko

Change doesn't come with a damn guarantee.

Thomas Jefferson: Hello Colonists, here's your Declaration of Independence.
Colonists: Where's my damn Guarantee?
Ben Franklin: Well, we can't guarantee it's going to be all sunshine and lollypops anytime in the foreseeable future but we don't think the status quo is particularly brilliant.
Colonists: Nah, I'll keep bowing down to the King then because I need a guarantee.

Does that sum up the American Spirit?

originally posted by: ketsuko
YAWRRRR! POLICE BAD! ABOLISH POLICE!

Hmmm, where did I say that? Do you have a quote?

originally posted by: Identified
I'm amazed at the amount of fear coming from folks who claim not only are they conservative but also claim they are suspicious of the govt. Being this a conspiracy site and all.

Yeah, this.

Here's a chance to potentially eliminate a public union that hampers holding its members accountable in many cases and go with a better model, but the alleged small government 'Conservatives' immediately resist due to emotional reasons. I say do the same with all public unions, get rid of them and put something with more public accountability in their place.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Eliminating the public union isn't eliminating the police. We're talking about the latter in this discussion. And that is where it is because nearly every public official has had to start walking that back to defund recently because almost no one except that radicals want the police gone. But the radicals are running the show right now because no one will stop them from rioting or looting. The cops are the ones who traditionally do that, and if they look crosswise at a "mostly peaceful protester" the politicians fire them.

Doesn't seem like anyone will admit the truth.

The cops aren't the problem with society. Sure they aren't perfect, no one said they are. The justice system should (and does most of the time) take care of that.

The people breaking the laws ARE the problem.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Society as a whole is the problem.

We're looking at a systemic lack of discipline. No one knows how to control themselves or even attempts to in some cases. It's pervasive and it's all over.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Eliminating the public union isn't eliminating the police. We're talking about the latter in this discussion.

You're assuming, like you just did with me, that everyone is thinking/wanting that.

Reforming the police department does not equal eliminating police. The former is required.