Way to pretend I don’t understand exactly what you’re saying and am effectively countering your avoidance techniques so that you can avoid addressing the flaws in your arguments I pointed out and don’t have to admit you don’t have a leg to stand on here.
It doesn’t even engage with what I said, it dismisses it out of turn.
To break it down for anyone else bothering to read this:
The natural conclusion to the points about HOAs and Gestapo is thus:
You don’t have to change the police system if it doesn’t exist. Why fix broken, when we can tear it down, see what we need and don’t need, and rebuild something else in its place.
This point has been entirely ignored. I didn’t think I had to spell it out entirely, but there we go. I’m done with this entirely. Good day.
I love it that you think finally explaining your actual argument is tantamount to “spelling it out”.
“You don’t have to change the police system if it doesn’t exist”.
Yeah, and if qualified immunity didn’t exist then it would be easier to prosecute police officers.
Unfortunately, that dreamscape, along with your own, is currently irrelevant since qualified immunity is still a reality.
Hardly seems worth bringing up, wouldn’t you agree?
So let’s get to what you’ve been trying to say by tiptoeing around the tulips this whole time:
“Why fix broken, when we can tear it down, see what we need and don’t need, and rebuild something else in its place.”
Because we know how to fix it. Because there is evidence and historical precedent that fixing it works. Because what suggestions I have heard so far for a rebuilt law enforcement, amounts to “fixing” The system now by adding more support services and increasing regulations and training. Because tearing it down takes a lot of time, and how long do you want there to be no law enforcement? Do you do it in stages?
Because, you saccharine dreamer, fixing broken windows is a heck of a lot easier and more responsible than burning your house down and starting from scratch.
Way to miss the point like you have this whole thread.
Way to pretend I don’t understand exactly what you’re saying and am effectively countering your avoidance techniques so that you can avoid addressing the flaws in your arguments I pointed out and don’t have to admit you don’t have a leg to stand on here.
It doesn’t even engage with what I said, it dismisses it out of turn.
To break it down for anyone else bothering to read this:
The natural conclusion to the points about HOAs and Gestapo is thus:
You don’t have to change the police system if it doesn’t exist. Why fix broken, when we can tear it down, see what we need and don’t need, and rebuild something else in its place.
This point has been entirely ignored. I didn’t think I had to spell it out entirely, but there we go. I’m done with this entirely. Good day.
I love it that you think finally explaining your actual argument is tantamount to “spelling it out”.
“You don’t have to change the police system if it doesn’t exist”.
Yeah, and if qualified immunity didn’t exist then it would be easier to prosecute police officers.
Unfortunately, that dreamscape, along with your own, is currently irrelevant since qualified immunity is still a reality.
Hardly seems worth bringing up, wouldn’t you agree?
So let’s get to what you’ve been trying to say by tiptoeing around the tulips this whole time:
“Why fix broken, when we can tear it down, see what we need and don’t need, and rebuild something else in its place.”
Because we know how to fix it. Because there is evidence and historical precedent that fixing it works. Because what suggestions I have heard so far for a rebuilt law enforcement, amounts to “fixing” The system now by adding more support services and increasing regulations and training. Because tearing it down takes a lot of time, and how long do you want there to be no law enforcement? Do you do it in stages?
Because, you saccharine dreamer, fixing broken windows is a heck of a lot easier and more responsible than burning your house down and starting from scratch.