Posted on 08/26/2016 12:12:00 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Until that moment on Fox News, Jessica Disu hadn't considered herself a police abolitionist. But on July 11, she was on national television, surrounded by 29 other people convened by Megyn Kelly to discuss the recent killings of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and several Dallas police officers.
"I was under the impression that it would be a robust and productive conversation, even though it was Fox News," says 27-year-old Disu, who identifies herself as a "humanitarian rap artist and peace activist" and is involved with various organizations serving youth on the south side. She prepared her message before going on the show: "It should be against the law for an officer to shoot a civilian," she says. "That was what my message was supposed to be."
Disu was seated in the front row, wearing a green dress, black blazer, and gold hoop earrings, her braids pulled up in a bun. Next to her was Ron Hosko, a former assistant director of the FBI. Also present at the forum: several retired NYPD officers, a "conservative voter," a black pastor from Baltimore active with Black Lives Matter, a black pastor from Los Angeles who said Black Lives Matter was "worse than the KKK," a civil rights attorney, a civil rights movement leader, a white woman who referred to Newt Gingrich's "beautifully" spoken comments on race relations, a black Trump supporter, a "Second Amendment advocate," and several unidentified others.
The discussion quickly turned raucous, with panelists shouting over each other as Kelly called on participants to answer polemical questions in quick succession....
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagoreader.com ...
To summarize, “the law be rayciss” ...
Yes. THEYRE the only kind of groups that would admit to being aligned with BLM ...right?
They're more than just aligned with Black Lives Matter, they're a major organizer of the movement.
Maybe Kurt Russell could do another Snake Pliskin movie...
Back in the 1970's in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the police went on strike at one point. Crime went DOWN. The citizens started patrolling their neighborhoods with their guns, and the criminals understood that the citizen patrols were not taking prisoners.
The people who call for abolishing the police refuse to understand that the result will be a return of lynching.
Abolishing the police only makes sense if you have an ethnically homogenous, naturally low crime (i.e. white) population (after all, we didn’t have police departments until the mid 19th century anywise, and then it was mostly in large cities). You could successfully not have police if the USA was basically all-white and much more rural or suburban than it is now. In such a case, the old “hue-and-cry” system would probably be quite successful.
However, with the massive population of Dindunuffins and Hispanic gangs in our cities, abolishing the police is not a creditable plan made by people who are actually interested in freedom, etc. It’s just a way for the Dindus and Hispanics to be able to run wild without having to worry about whitey’s laws getting in the way.
Once the chaos starts and the good People decide to weigh in, it will be ugly and bloody and many troublemakers will no longer be around to incite violence....6 months and the cops can be reinstated and they and we will be safer than ever....
This seems to have been a theme from Obama for the last several years.
#BLM are Obama’s organized red guards, permitted, advised and guided by the DOJ for the purpose of street agitation and pushing an agenda. That should be clear to everyone from the start.
So I asked myself, what is their target? I realized a main target is the independence of local police forces. Look at the coordinated efforts to control police through civil rights enforcement, training, funding, etc... in the wake of Ferguson.
I’d certainly consider replacing police with elected, pro-2nd amendment, constitutional sheriffs. Elected sheriffs are accountable to the people via the ballot box. Police chiefs are not.
Criminals want fewer police! Stop the presses!
I agree. Sheriffs are accountable. I had some serious negative interactions with power hungry fed cops from the Dept of Interior a few years back. Zero accountability since they did not have a LEO chain of command. That’s when I started comparing fed cops to the others.
Feds are accountable to someone appointed by the political party in charge which is a bad situation. Proof is Hillary being let off by the FBI.
I would gladly trade all police protection for the right to defend myself and my family with any and all means at my disposal.
Police do not protect you from crminals they clean up after them.
Now I will say this. I believe the true answer is to let all Americans defend themselves with any and all means at their disposal, and drastically reduce the police force.
Due to the fact that police can take ones freedom, police necessarily need to be very moral and just. The fact of the matter is that very few have the morals to be a true justice of the peace. Therefore their numbers need to be small and their vetting process massive.
A well armed citizenry, allowed to justly defend itself, can lead to a small enough police force, that it can be filled only with the good people and throw out the bad immediately.
“Abolishing the police only makes sense...”
...to one who is a criminal.
Yep. Our own version of the Reichstag fire.
I think that the effect of abolishing police in the cities might not be ss bad as one might think. In the cities, police are just as likely, if not more so, to arrest a law abiding citizen exercising his 2nd Amendment rights for a “gun crime” as they are to arrest a murderer, robber etc. Remove the police and you get rid of “gun crimes”. Hence more law abiding citizens will be armed, effectively INCREASING police presence.
After all, what is a police officer? When discussing crime and gun control liberals like to talk as though policemen are some magical solution as in “You don’t need a gun; call the police.” Of course police officers are really nothing more than law abiding citizens carrying guns. They are highly trained to do what they do, and they certainly have my respect for doing it, but that’s really what they are. Creating larger numbers of law abiding citizens with guns certainly would be a positive development.
These anarchists are already engaged in street justice. If another pusher invades your territory and competes for your drug customers, blow them away. It is no different than KKK lynching in the old days.
One of the things these idiots forget is that the police are there to protect THEM.
With no police, the law-abiding would get tired of crime, notice a common factor in perpetrators, and take appropriate action, which might be unfortunate for certain communities.
If she expects people to take her seriously, she should at least stop lying.
The first municipal police forces in the United States:
Boston - 1838; New York City - 1845; Albany - 1851; Chicago, 1851
None of these cities had need of a "slave patrol" - so there was obviously some other non-slave-related reason for organizing paid police forces.
Note to race-baiters: Not EVERYTHING is about race.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.