They mean what they say!
Moderate democrats tried to run away from it but the crazies on the radical left have reiterated that they continue to stand for defunding the police that ensure our safety. Rep. Cori Bush left no doubt while telling critics to "suck it up" that she has spent thousands of dollars on private security even though she wants local police departments defunded:
“I’m going to make sure I have security. Because I know I have had attempts on my life, and I have too much work to do,” she told CBS on Wednesday. " There are too many people that need help right now for me to allow that. So, if I end up spending 200,000, if I spend ten more dollars on it, you know what, I get to be here to do the work. So, suck it up. And defunding the police has to happen. We need to defund the police and put that money into social safety nets. Because we’re trying to save lives."
Hard to believe you say?
What about the safety of her constituents who voted for her?
Could it be that progressives found her a way to win a primary and the sheep voted for the candidate with a (D) following her name? Or did they vote via identity or worse?
If anything can be made out of that rant it is that Cori Bush wants to be safe so that she can keep her constituents unsafe.
Here is the incoherent anti-police rant:
When asked about the idiotic rant, White House press secretary Jen Psaki weaseled her way out with this:
"I think we shouldn't lose the forest through the trees here, which is that a member of Congress—an elected official—is concerned that her life is threatened. That's disturbing that any elected official would have to suffer death threats and fear for their life, so I'm not going to comment of course on their security arrangements."
It's another day in Joe Biden's America.
Tags
Who is online
469 visitors
She is a freshman representative from St Louis, who spent $70,000 on private security in just the past few months.
And?
There is no "and." To the rational mind the sentence makes a valid point.
To be clear, what point is that Vic?
You know, the OBVIOUS ONE, that being the hypocrisy of an elected representative spending vast sums on personal protection, while calling for the defunding of local police departments.
Her hypocrisy is made very clear from her unhinged rant against the police.
She's saying, I got mine, but y'all can provide for your own security.
Stupid thinking like that on the part of so called leaders tend to cause people to buy more guns to protect themselves.
Oh the one that I refuted by citing the FACT that 'local police departments' have NO duty to provide 'personal protection'.
Hey I get it Vic, acknowledging the nuance of issues like redistributing police funding isn't part of your ideology.
Carry on.
That's a false equivalency.
First you didn't refute anything.
Second the idea that police should act as bodyguards is not under discussion here. They exist to ensure public safety, which is the opposite of what democrat mayors had them do last year.
Oh but I DID Vic:
That refutes your claim that ' the police ensure our safety'. They don't.
I await your comment explaining that to Greg and Charger.
They don't Vic. They are reactive rather than proactive.
Easy now.
In most cases yes. We are there to enforce the law and begin the process of punishment when it is violated. We cannot, without MASSIVE constitutional violations, preemptively enforce the law in 99% of scenarios.
She makes only $174,000/year. I wonder who really paid that $70,000.
Asked and answered.
Most likely our tax dollars!
I do not want to see her die or wish her any harm. I just want to see her hypocritical racist body disappear from politics and the political scene! I find her and her views to be reprehensible and disgusting!
That is a noble desire. She did mention her body being placed on this earth (and what a body it is!/ s), but she should take it back to the riots she participated in.
She thinks she is so important she deserves personal guards but wants to take police protection away from average citizens and limit our ability to defend ourselves.
There is no such thing as 'police protection'.
The Court ruled that NO specific legal duty exists between the police and an individual.
The Constitution does not provide for the safety of American citizens?
You must have the progressive constitution.
Do you have anything to contribute other than strawman fallacies Vic?
I do - I submit the radicalism of Cori Bush
Are you claiming that spending her own funds for PROACTIVE personal protection is radical Vic?
Clearly I defined it as "hypocrisy."
That's non-responsive Vic. Why are you avoiding my question?
I did answer. You want to conflate my point on hypocrisy with her also being a radical?
You failed.
[Deleted]
No, you didn't Vic.
So then differentiate them Vic. What did she do that exemplifies 'radicalism' and what exemplifies hypocrisy.
Since I conflated NOTHING, NOPE.
It depends on a lot of factors and specifically what type of intervention you are talking about.
I am talking about the many Court opinions that ruled that police have no duty to provide personal protection to individuals.
As you and I well know, not even a 'protective order' is worth the paper it's written on. A study in 2008 showed that 20% of women obtaining a protective order were killed within 2 days, 30% within a month. Considering our culture, I can't imagine it's gotten any better.
We can't arrest someone until they break the law or reasonably appear to be in the process of breaking the law. All the protective order does is tell an individual "if you do x, y is going to happen." We cannot detain someone unless we have a reasonable suspicion or they have demonstrated probable cause.
My purpose for mentioning protective orders is to illustrate that police, even after a KNOWN threat is documented in the courts, have NO duty to protect an individual.
That is not entirely accurate. We have a duty to protect when a crime has been committed or is in the process of being committed. We HAVE to intervene at that point. That being said, in the instance of protective orders, unless we are specifically ordered to provide personal security for an individual then no, we are not under any obligation to sit outside their house or shadow them wherever they go. I mean, that is simply impractical. 330 million people in this country and only about 750,000 law enforcement officers at al levels.
It wasn't her own funds. It was campaign funds.
Do you think her donors are happy that she is using their money for protection when she, and they, want any type of police abolished.
Would not surprise me if they start asking for their money back.
And before you start screaming "where's your proof"?
Her campaign funds ARE her own funds in relation to security.
I stated as much 6 HOURS ago in this very seed.
EVERY fucking person in Congress uses campaign funds to pay for their security bugsy so save the outrage.
Progressives have none. They want to eliminate the existing one and replace it with some document generated around 60 years or so ago.
They once called it a "living Constitution." It is a kind of a make the rules as you go along thing.
Yet the second someone filed a suit against his department, his legal team would have cited the court rulings that I mentioned.
Silence ensues...
Why am I not surprised by your utterly unfounded interpretation of that term?
But He did not get sued
Yet THAT isn't the point, is it?
BTFW, it was 'a long time ago', today his department would be much more likely to be held more accountable.
She is the black community's version of AOC and Pelosi.
DO you think that the 'black community' is monolithic?
Do you think the "black community" votes in the 90% range for one political party?
Your comment illustrates confusion about the definition of 'monolithic. Vic.
Not really. The "black community" does vote like a single block. I think you need to check the definition.
So your posit is that 90% equates to 'intractably indivisible and uniform', Got ya.
I know you're trying hard. Try this:
Shall we conclude that LBJ was right?
From YOUR link:
2: (of an organization or system) large, powerful, and intractably indivisible and uniform
Please refrain from obtuse replies.
And 90 + % for one party year in and year out qualifies.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Only for those who deny the actual definition of monolithic Vic.
I'm not a big fan of Cori Bush, she is a street politician elevated to the national legislature and I think she's a little out of her element.
As far as "defunding the police" , what she said is that some police should be replaced by "social workers" , the idea being that in some instances a confrontation between a first responder (law enforcement) and the citizen would be better served if the responder didnt view the scene from a "hammer-nail" perspective. Cori Bush is hardly the one only who has expressed that viewpoint.
Cori Bush is a progressive activist and clearly will try and advance those positions, and people who oppose progressivism will try and say she's an idiot. Ho hum.
So if someone was trying to kick in your front door, your first thought would be to call a social worker?
You call 911 and the dispatchers decide who the first responders would be.
The first thing a social worker would want is a cop to go with them. We have extended rights to the criminally insane. We are paying for that.
What percentage of 911 calls involve the criminally insane?
I have no idea, do you?
Do you use the subway, John?
Please cite the era in the US when 'the criminally insane' were denied Constitutional rights Vic.
If I call 911 for an emergency police response, I want a cop with a gun so I don't have to use mine
I used to, fairly often.
What do you want to do, close down subways now?
When the insane were housed in insane Asylums (now known as mental hospitals). Back then the idea was that institutionalizing mentally ill people was the correct form of treatment. I'm less interested in their treatment than the safety of the community. It was under Ronald Reagan that we began getting away from that practice. That was a mistake, a danger to the public as well as for the police who have to deal with it.
My point in asking the question was that if you do use the subway you come in contact with a complete cross section of people who live and/or work in the inner city. There is likely to be an occasion where you came across a homeless person or panhandler who was mentally ill? People have been accosted by those asking for money. If you care about the poor who depend on the subway, then you shouldn't want them to have to confront that kind of mayhem.
I don't want the mentally ill sleeping on the street or in subways or accosting people. I want them institutionalized.
That is non-responsive Vic.
The fact that insane asylums existed and STILL exist isn't proof that the 'criminally insane' are denied Constitutional rights. Try harder.
BTFW, you are conflating the 'mentally ill' with the 'criminally insane'. Stop!
The overwhelming majority of those who are mentally ill have no need to be institutionalized Vic. What they need is TREATMENT.
I will say that officers responding are often unaware of any mental health or medical history. When you show up and someone is acting irrationally you don’t know what their deal is, you don’t know if they are high, you don’t know if they are having a diabetic episode, you don’t know if they are mentally unstable, and you don’t know if they are armed.
Would you support a database that would document prior encounters with mentally ill people that gave you that information?
Would you support a mental healthcare practitioner joining you in a 911 call if it's about someone who is mentally ill?
I would absolutely support a database that could tell us that as we are heading to a scene, if you could find a way to avoid HIPAA violations of course. If dispatch could run a person's name and relay to us that "the suspect is a diabetic" that would be EXTREMELY helpful in letting us prepare for what we are about to walk into. Now use of force may still be required depending on the situation, but it lets us know that we are probably not approaching a lunatic, but someone who is just having a bad episode.
Adding a mental health practitioner is something that a lot of departments are working on. But it isn't always that easy. A)there aren't very many of them, b) how many are going to be willing to be on standby all day and night, c) are they going to be rolling around in patrol vehicles all day with officers, and d) who is going to pay for it?
When a call comes through the officer that responds is the officer who is physically closest to the location. So unless someone specifically informs the dispatcher that the person they are calling about is mentally ill it will be pretty difficult to be able to have a mental health professional on scene ASAP.
We can turn out a bunch of them within a couple three years. Until then, a mental health professional can view body cam video in real time and advise LEOs.
No need. They should be full time employees of the department.
No more than EMTs do so. They manage to respond pretty quickly.
THAT is where the redistribution of police funding comes in.
The 2012 numbers show that LEOs spend very little time actually dealing with violent crime. It's estimated as 1.36 violent crime per year per LEO. Of course, that spreads the reports evenly across the county but you get the gist.
Good luck finding that many people.
Assuming all agencies have body cams (they don't), and that they stream live (they don't), how is one professional going to keep an eye on 6,10,15,30 officers and advise them all at once? How are they going to communicate with them? And again, who is going to pay for all these upgrades (they will not be cheap).
Good luck finding those people.
Depends. In a city, sure, they can be on scene in a few mins. But what about Sheriffs Deputies? They could be 45mins away from the nearest hospital or medical center. Their closest back up could be a half hour away. What are they going to do?
Mad respect to the deputies BTW, they have a lot on their shoulders when they hit the road.
What are you going to take away from?
True. Most of it is spent on all y'alls stupid bullshit. If you think LEOs are wasting their time, look in the fucking mirror. YOU ALL CALL US.
Is this about an all or nothing proposition? That isn't my posit.
l didn't say anything about the number of professional OR the number of officers. As for '6,10,15,30', that sounds like an outbreak from a mental hospital.
Again, you seem to be making an all or nothing argument. Why?
That will be up to the bean counters to figure out.
Actually, if you would have read my link, you'd have learned that taking petty crime reports and filing paperwork is what talks them off the streets.
BTFW, my father was a Chicago Police officer for 14 years. I still have the 'scrap book' of all of his citations, awards and news clippings that had his picture and/or mentioned him by name.
So just a useless bit of throat garbage.
I am not, if they are riding around with me and we get called to a burglary, what is the person next to me going to do? If they aren't with me when I get called to an OD then what is their point?
Yeah, that is what I said.
I would think that a OD call would include those EMTs that I mentioned. What is YOUR point on an OD call? A mental health pro can easily acquire the same minimum CPR training as the academy provides. Hell, I am a civilian, I have and I have actually used it twice to save a life.
Well, sounds like you got it all covered. You take care of it. I'll provide scene security.
Fact of the matter is when 911 gets a call the dispatcher often is not given any history on the suspect. The only thing they are able to relay to responders is a description, location, and the actions (thus far) of the suspect. For the officers sake they have to approach the situation as though this person can lose their shit at the drop of a hat. America is the gun country, you never know when some asshole is going to decide that a $200 ticket is crossing a line or some meth addict would rather die than go to jail.
Granted I am still learning, only a few weeks into the academy, but it has definitely been an eye opener this far. The job is hard, and you never know who you are going to get on any particular day. I do know that “defund the police” is a loser 100%.
Seems like many conservatives have been saying that all along.
But some Democratic dumbfucks just can't help themselves.
I wonder where she is getting all this money from?
From Campaign funds, the same place that all of the others in Congress get their security funding.
Campaign funds more than likely like this guy and several more...........
Many Freshman elected officials spend more in their first year to install security systems in their homes/offices.
Our culture has caused many elected officials to spend on security because of documented threats. That fact is documented in FEC filings that show big increases in spending this year over others.
BTW:
Sen. Romney spent $43,633 in February alone.
Sen. Toomey spent over $65,000 in March alone.
Their prior filings prove that to be unusual and probably based on threats because of their votes.
BTW not one of the politicians you mentioned is trying to defund the police or infringe upon the rights of individuals to protect themselves; so you have no point.
A review of the comments in the seed should help you see that many members haven't even mentioned the 'defunding of the police' part.
I am going through the academy as we speak and am probably the only liberal there. I have one piece of advice for people like Bush when it comes to the police, shut the fuck up about “defund the police”. It is a loser through and through.
Good for you, I think you will do good. It is an interesting, important and underappreciated job
I know I have talked a lot of shit in the past in regards to law enforcement, and I figured the only way to know for sure if it was justified is to find out. That’s one of my reasons for joining. But yeah, it has definitely been a wake up call to how hard and dangerous the job really is. And super under appreciated.
I certainly regret a lot of why I have said before, I was wrong. Some cops fuck up big time, that’s for sure, but a lot of the other stuff we see we aren’t seeing the whole situation. And as I have said, you have no idea what is going through a persons mind when you show up. You have to be ready for them to go off the deep end at any second and be prepared to use overwhelming force to protect any bystanders and yourself.
And thanks for the vote of confidence lol. Should have done this years ago, my knees would have thanked me.
Are you being trained how to de-escalate those with mental illness?
De-escalating a situation is always the preferred method. 99.7% of police encounters start and end with words. A lot of it depends though on the danger they pose to the public. If it is just someone having a bad day and they are alone in a room then you have plenty of time to just talk. If they are out in the middle of the street or in a public setting or especially if they have a weapon of some kind you will still use words, but you have to start preparing to take things to the next level.
If they refuse to move out of the road then after a short time you will have to make them move because they are presenting a danger to others. If they have a knife or something and refuse to put it down, you need to be ready to disarm them should they start moving towards yourself or someone else. There is a lot of gray area and every situation is unique.
I think you will be an awesome officer.
That sums it up very well.
She doing great work to ensure Republicans recapture the House.
She's an idiot.
So, if I end up spending 200,000,...
Clever choice of words. They lead people to believe that she spent her own money .
Facts: Bush didn't spend her personal money.
It seems like campaign donors (taxpayers) paid.