Black Opinions Don't Matter

[Gospel]

Well, yes, black opinions don't seem too matter much, apparently. At least to the far left loonies in charge of big cities who want to defund the police to, uh, support black people...or something? :


https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx

These results correspond with Gallup's previously reported findings showing that only 22% of Black Americans favor abolishing police departments. However, the vast majority believe reform is needed, with upward of 90% favoring specific reforms aimed at improving police relations with the communities they serve and preventing or punishing abusive police behavior.

Hmm, I wonder why such a large percent of Black people support the Black Lives Matter movement. Could it be there is a minority of people in the Black Lives Matter movement that hold a different opinion than that of the majority in the movement? I mean, we aren't talking about the Borg in Star Trek right? People gonna people yo.

 

[laughing dog]

Racism is just one way that the rich and powerful use to divide the workers against themselves. The rich and powerful would applaud you for projecting black superiority as a goal of BLM. This is exactly what they want you to do. Blacks have suffered from racism for hundreds of years. There is no way that they would subject anyone to the pain from something as irrational as racism.

It's also used as a route to power by those who aren't rich.

Keep preaching that "your" people are victims of racism and you'll do something about it and you get support. The reality of the situation is irrelevant to this.

And denying racism exists is a route to maintain power for your people.

 

[Rhea]

I have repeatedly said it's a cultural problem, not a genetic one. Urban poor environments are a hotbed of criminality and they have far more blacks than average.

That isn't cultural, that is economic.

Cultural--you see a different dynamic in the rural poor.

What cultural difference is that, now?

I live among the rural poor (population density 50 people per square mile, below average income for state, 15% true poverty). They are not paragons of virtue. They act as many poor people do. Making bad decisions (humans are known to make worse decisions when they are poor), breaking the law more (humans are known to care less about the law when the law doesn’t help them), being socially disruptive (humans are known to care less about society when society hasn’t done anything for them).

They use their gang signs (confederate flags), they fight, they kill, they steal, they drive drunk, they make meth, they beat their spouses and their children, they destroy their own environment (trash heaps in their yards), they have sky-high teen pregnancy rates, and on and on and on.

“What?” You say? “Not all of them”? Of course not. Same as the poor who are not rural. But this claim of yours that rural poor are somehow not as susceptible to a criminality culture is flat out wrong. You may think that the criminality culture - the anti-society culture - is not present in rural areas because you don’t see it on the news. But PER CAPITA the criminality of the rural areas is not different from urban. They just have less police brought on them to control it.

Your bias is showing.

 

[KeepTalking]

It's not pedantic to point out what a word actually means. Meaning of words is important.

In any case, defunders have a wide range of demands

That is correct, which is why it is incorrect to stick to a narrow definition of "defund".

and most are certainly not benign.

You have in no way established that the above is the case, and I do not accept it to be true.

This Rashawn Ray is full of shit in his apologetics.

I am relatively sure that he would think the same of your apologetics.

Take AOC. She thinks the already deep cuts to NYPD do not go too far enough [apologies to Futurama].
Ocasio-Cortez dismisses proposed $1B cut: 'Defunding police means defunding police'

Ocasio-Cortez said that cutting the police budget is not effective if it does not result in the reduced presence of law enforcement.

“It does not mean counting overtime cuts as cuts, even as NYPD ignores every attempt by City Council to curb overtime spending and overspends on overtime anyways,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “If these reports are accurate, then these proposed ‘cuts’ to the NYPD budget are a disingenuous illusion. This is not a victory. The fight to defund policing continues.”

Why should anyone think that cutting police overtime is a good faith effort to make the kind of cuts to the NYPD budget that are being called for? If overtime is necessary to do the job then it is necessary, and if it is not necessary, and being abused, then it should be cut, but that is an entirely separate issue, and not one that BLM is focused on.

But it gets even worse.
Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

People like me who want to abolish prisons and police, however, have a vision of a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation. What would the country look like if it had billions of extra dollars to spend on housing, food and education for all? This change in society wouldn’t happen immediately, but the protests show that many people are ready to embrace a different vision of safety and justice.

How is that worse? That people can see a better world where police and prisons are not necessary is not a bad thing. The quote I reference from Brookings even provides an example of police abolishment in Camden, New Jersey that actually worked. There is much talk about rural vs urban crime in this thread. Guess what, many (likely even most, but I don't care to look up the stat right now) rural municipalities do not have a police force, as they are much too small to be able to afford one. Yet the rural conservatives are the first to freak out when BLM says "defund the police". Here's a new flash, redneck, they won't be defunding the police department that you don't have.

It's completely unrealistic, of course, and would lead to chaos, but activists like Mariame Kaba really want to eliminate police and prisons and believe investing in housing etc. and a collectivist society will magically make crime disappear.

It is not unrealistic, look at Camden, New Jersey. Look at the thousands of rural towns that have no police force.

 

[Rhea]

Guess what, many (likely even most, but I don't care to look up the stat right now) rural municipalities do not have a police force, as they are much too small to be able to afford one. Yet the rural conservatives are the first to freak out when BLM says "defund the police". Here's a new flash, redneck, they won't be defunding the police department that you don't have.

This is absolutely, 100% accurate. In my town, we have one cop, who is part time. We have a group of about a dozen vocal “radical constitutionalists” who have been trying to “defund” his position for 10 years.

And guess who is the first to shout that the BLM call to “defund the police” is scary and wrong?
You guessed right. The very same folks who want to defund their local police (and also their local ambulance and library)

It's completely unrealistic, of course, and would lead to chaos, but activists like Mariame Kaba really want to eliminate police and prisons and believe investing in housing etc. and a collectivist society will magically make crime disappear.

It is not unrealistic, look at Camden, New Jersey. Look at the thousands of rural towns that have no police force.

Data shows that it does not lead to chaos.
And - to be fair - you have to admit that having lots of prisons and lots of police hasn’t made crime disappear, either, so it’s not like you can claim to have results on your side.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Ya'll keep replying to derec, et. al. as if facts matter.

 

[southernhybrid]

That is correct, which is why it is incorrect to stick to a narrow definition of "defund".



You have in no way established that the above is the case, and I do not accept it to be true.

This Rashawn Ray is full of shit in his apologetics.

I am relatively sure that he would think the same of your apologetics.

Take AOC. She thinks the already deep cuts to NYPD do not go too far enough [apologies to Futurama].
Ocasio-Cortez dismisses proposed $1B cut: 'Defunding police means defunding police'

Ocasio-Cortez said that cutting the police budget is not effective if it does not result in the reduced presence of law enforcement.

“It does not mean counting overtime cuts as cuts, even as NYPD ignores every attempt by City Council to curb overtime spending and overspends on overtime anyways,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “If these reports are accurate, then these proposed ‘cuts’ to the NYPD budget are a disingenuous illusion. This is not a victory. The fight to defund policing continues.”

Why should anyone think that cutting police overtime is a good faith effort to make the kind of cuts to the NYPD budget that are being called for? If overtime is necessary to do the job then it is necessary, and if it is not necessary, and being abused, then it should be cut, but that is an entirely separate issue, and not one that BLM is focused on.

But it gets even worse.
Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

People like me who want to abolish prisons and police, however, have a vision of a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation. What would the country look like if it had billions of extra dollars to spend on housing, food and education for all? This change in society wouldn’t happen immediately, but the protests show that many people are ready to embrace a different vision of safety and justice.

How is that worse? That people can see a better world where police and prisons are not necessary is not a bad thing. The quote I reference from Brookings even provides an example of police abolishment in Camden, New Jersey that actually worked. There is much talk about rural vs urban crime in this thread. Guess what, many (likely even most, but I don't care to look up the stat right now) rural municipalities do not have a police force, as they are much too small to be able to afford one. Yet the rural conservatives are the first to freak out when BLM says "defund the police". Here's a new flash, redneck, they won't be defunding the police department that you don't have.

It's completely unrealistic, of course, and would lead to chaos, but activists like Mariame Kaba really want to eliminate police and prisons and believe investing in housing etc. and a collectivist society will magically make crime disappear.

It is not unrealistic, look at Camden, New Jersey. Look at the thousands of rural towns that have no police force.

Actually, Camden, NJ does have a fairly large police department. Look it up. What Camden did was fire all of their police officers and then quickly replaced them. They even rehired some of the police who were initially fired, but with better training. They also made their police officers interact with the members of the community so that they would see them as individual human beings, instead of stereotyping them as criminals.

And, it's true that rural communities don't have many police but most do have some sherif and some also use the state police to help with crime. At least that is true in Georgia.

We don't need to get rid of the police. We just need to change the attitude that the people are the enemies, and instead reinforce to them that they are there to protect and serve the people. We don't need anarchy. That would probably makes things a lot worse. We need police who are more educated, better paid, and more humane. We need police who aren't biased or racist. But, we do need police.

I don't care what AOC says. I like her, but she is often very naive in what she believes. Hopefully in time, she will become more realistic. I am not aat all conservative, but I, like most of my liberal friends, understand that we do need some type of effective law enforcement.

Prisons need to be reformed. They need to be more humane. They need to be for rehab, not for punishment. Only the most violent prisoners are probably beyond help. Some non violent criminals should simply do community service time, or in some cases kept at home to serve out their sentences. Todays' prisons are horrendous, but there are some violent people who simply need to be taken off of the streets for the protection of the rest of us.

But there are even some non violent criminals who have exploited people to such an extent that they probable do need to be kept away from the rest of us, or at best, kept at home with an ankle monitor etc. Prisons should never be privatized either. That is how many of them became horrible inhumane places that don't even provide the basics to the inmates. It's complicated.

 

[KeepTalking]

That is correct, which is why it is incorrect to stick to a narrow definition of "defund".



You have in no way established that the above is the case, and I do not accept it to be true.



I am relatively sure that he would think the same of your apologetics.

Take AOC. She thinks the already deep cuts to NYPD do not go too far enough [apologies to Futurama].
Ocasio-Cortez dismisses proposed $1B cut: 'Defunding police means defunding police'

Ocasio-Cortez said that cutting the police budget is not effective if it does not result in the reduced presence of law enforcement.

“It does not mean counting overtime cuts as cuts, even as NYPD ignores every attempt by City Council to curb overtime spending and overspends on overtime anyways,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “If these reports are accurate, then these proposed ‘cuts’ to the NYPD budget are a disingenuous illusion. This is not a victory. The fight to defund policing continues.”

Why should anyone think that cutting police overtime is a good faith effort to make the kind of cuts to the NYPD budget that are being called for? If overtime is necessary to do the job then it is necessary, and if it is not necessary, and being abused, then it should be cut, but that is an entirely separate issue, and not one that BLM is focused on.

But it gets even worse.
Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

People like me who want to abolish prisons and police, however, have a vision of a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation. What would the country look like if it had billions of extra dollars to spend on housing, food and education for all? This change in society wouldn’t happen immediately, but the protests show that many people are ready to embrace a different vision of safety and justice.

How is that worse? That people can see a better world where police and prisons are not necessary is not a bad thing. The quote I reference from Brookings even provides an example of police abolishment in Camden, New Jersey that actually worked. There is much talk about rural vs urban crime in this thread. Guess what, many (likely even most, but I don't care to look up the stat right now) rural municipalities do not have a police force, as they are much too small to be able to afford one. Yet the rural conservatives are the first to freak out when BLM says "defund the police". Here's a new flash, redneck, they won't be defunding the police department that you don't have.

It's completely unrealistic, of course, and would lead to chaos, but activists like Mariame Kaba really want to eliminate police and prisons and believe investing in housing etc. and a collectivist society will magically make crime disappear.

It is not unrealistic, look at Camden, New Jersey. Look at the thousands of rural towns that have no police force.

Actually, Camden, NJ does have a fairly large police department. Look it up. What Camden did was fire all of their police officers and then quickly replaced them. They even rehired some of the police who were initially fired, but with better training. They also made their police officers interact with the members of the community so that they would see them as individual human beings, instead of stereotyping them as criminals.

And, it's true that rural communities don't have many police but most do have some sherif and some also use the state police to help with crime. At least that is true in Georgia.

We don't need to get rid of the police. We just need to change the attitude that the people are the enemies, and instead reinforce to them that they are there to protect and serve the people. We don't need anarchy. That would probably makes things a lot worse. We need police who are more educated, better paid, and more humane. We need police who aren't biased or racist. But, we do need police.

I don't care what AOC says. I like her, but she is often very naive in what she believes. Hopefully in time, she will become more realistic. I am not aat all conservative, but I, like most of my liberal friends, understand that we do need some type of effective law enforcement.

Unlike Derec, you seem to understand that there is nuance when people call for defunding police. Please correct me if I am wrong.

By reading the things that Derec posts, it is apparent that to him "defund" only means "abolish", and "abolish" only means there will be no law enforcement whatsoever going forward. Camden, New Jersey is still the perfect example, as they did "abolish" their police force, yet, as you observe, there is still law enforcement there. There may be a tiny fraction of the voices in BLM who actually do have anarchy as their ultimate goal, but even with the term "anarchy" there is nuance involved.

One poster in this forum has been advocating for anarchy for years now, but I don't think what they mean by anarchy fits with the lawlessness you imagine. That, however, would be a topic for another thread.

 

[Derec]

And denying racism exists is a route to maintain power for your people.

The only people who deny that racism among a certain group exist are those who claim that black people can't be racist by virtue of their skin color.
And of course, that asinine claim is used to maintain power for their people, such as this fucking racist (not to mention a homophobe):

But unlike white supremacists, this black supremacist is not shunned. Quite the contrary - his racist views are seen as completely acceptable, even "progressive" and "woke" ....

Contrary to all that, Loren and I do acknowledge that racism and racists exist, and that they exist in every group.

 

[Derec]

That is correct, which is why it is incorrect to stick to a narrow definition of "defund".

It's not a narrow definition, it's what the word actually means.
I am not terribly impressed by the "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less" Humpty Dumpty nonsense.

You have in no way established that the above is the case, and I do not accept it to be true.

I indeed have, even if you refuse to admit it.

I am relatively sure that he would think the same of your apologetics.

It's not apologetics, just reality, but I would be very disappointed if he didn't.

Why should anyone think that cutting police overtime is a good faith effort to make the kind of cuts to the NYPD budget that are being called for?

Why should anyone think that the kind of cuts to the NYPD budget that radicals like AOC call for are in any way sensible? If even a lefty like BdB thinks this is going way too far, maybe the Left needs to pump the breaks lest they go off the cliff!

If overtime is necessary to do the job then it is necessary, and if it is not necessary, and being abused, then it should be cut, but that is an entirely separate issue, and not one that BLM is focused on.

Overtime offers flexibility in staffing levels. It is pretty obvious that you don't need the same level of police presence at all times equally.
At the same time, #BLM is focused on attacking police for the sake of attacking police. Even when police does nothing wrong, #BLMers still call a police shooting "murder". I have not seen any reasonable proposals for reform come from the trained Marxists at #BLM!

How is that worse?

Mariame Kaba wants to abolish police and prisons altogether, not just severely defund police like AOC is proposing.

That people can see a better world where police and prisons are not necessary is not a bad thing.

Think again. Prisons and police will be necessary at least for the foreseeable future, if not forever. What is the alternative?

The quote I reference from Brookings even provides an example of police abolishment in Camden, New Jersey that actually worked.

Are you even serious right now? Police wasn't "abolished" in Camden. They still have police. It's just run by the county, not the city. They have a website and everything. Doesn't look very "abolished" to me!

There is much talk about rural vs urban crime in this thread. Guess what, many (likely even most, but I don't care to look up the stat right now) rural municipalities do not have a police force, as they are much too small to be able to afford one.

That doesn't mean there isn't a police force of course. It may be a county police department. It may be the county sheriff's department, especially in rural areas. And they can be assisted by the state police if needed. So there most definitely IS policing.

Yet the rural conservatives are the first to freak out when BLM says "defund the police". Here's a new flash, redneck, they won't be defunding the police department that you don't have.

That may be the stupidest comment I have ever read by you. Not every municipality has to have their own police department for there to be police that has jurisdiction in that municipality. I guess you think there is no police in Scotland because it's all been consolidated into one single country-wide department in 2013?

It is not unrealistic, look at Camden, New Jersey. Look at the thousands of rural towns that have no police force.

Camden has police. As do the thousands of rural towns policed by county police or sheriff's departments. And yes, in absence of a separate police department, policing duties are exercised by the sheriff's departments. It may be called differently, but if you have armed personnel empowered to enforce the law, it is a distinction without a difference as far as "police abolition" movement is concerned!

Again, do you think that police in Edinburgh was "abolished" in 1975 when it was consolidated into "Lothian and Borders Police" and again in 2013 when it was consolidated countrywide into "Police Scotland"?

 

[Derec]

This is absolutely, 100% accurate.

You misspelled "asinine" ....

In my town, we have one cop, who is part time. We have a group of about a dozen vocal “radical constitutionalists” who have been trying to “defund” his position for 10 years.

And guess who is the first to shout that the BLM call to “defund the police” is scary and wrong?
You guessed right. The very same folks who want to defund their local police (and also their local ambulance and library)

I assume these people want to consolidate the policing with the rest of the county because a separate police force for a small town is not very (cost) effective. That is VERY different than trying to abolish police altogether.
Police departments in the US are very fragmented compared to most other countries. In most places you don't have every county and many (or most) incorporated cities have their own law enforcement department. Geographic consolidation is NOT the same as defunding/abolishing police as radical anti-police activists are demanding and you and KT pretending that it is is not a good faith debating tactic.

Data shows that it does not lead to chaos.

Replacing a dysfunctional city police department with a better-run county level department, as decreed by the state government (led by one Chris Christie) does not lead to chaos. Correct. What does that have to do with police/prison abolition as demanded by the likes of Mariame Kaba?

And - to be fair - you have to admit that having lots of prisons and lots of police hasn’t made crime disappear, either, so it’s not like you can claim to have results on your side.

Be honest: if you could snap your fingers Q-style and abolish all police and prisons in the US (meaning all prisoners are immediately released) do you think we would have more of less crime?

 

[Derec]

Unlike Derec, you seem to understand that there is nuance when people call for defunding police. Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong in that I ALSO understand that there are different things that different people/groups mean when they call for "defunding" police.
What you fail to appreciate is that it is precisely the fact that there are disparate opinions all described with singular signifier "defunding" which makes the whole concept nonsensical. If you want reform, have some courage and actually call it "reform". If you want abolition, likewise call it that. Do not hide behind a term that has become a catch-all for disparate views!

By reading the things that Derec posts, it is apparent that to him "defund" only means "abolish", and "abolish" only means there will be no law enforcement whatsoever going forward.

You misunderstood. I did not say that. What I have pointed out, is that there is a significant police abolition/prison abolition movement on the Left. Others may not go that far, but still call for significant reduction in police budgets to the extent that it would significantly impede the functioning of police (that view is most accurately called "defund police"). I think AOC is in that category. Others have more modest demands for budget cuts (Mayor Jenny, BdB and others) coupled with reform proposals of varying utility. All have at times used the "defund" label, which is infuriating since they are so very different from each other!

So yes, I understand that there is a spectrum of views.

Camden, New Jersey is still the perfect example, as they did "abolish" their police force, yet, as you observe, there is still law enforcement there.

That was a reorganization, a restructuring, not abolishing.
The City of Camden made a dog's breakfast of running the department and the state stepped in and reorganized the department under the County of Camden, which is not coterminous with the City of Camden.

There may be a tiny fraction of the voices in BLM who actually do have anarchy as their ultimate goal, but even with the term "anarchy" there is nuance involved.

I think #BLM is a radical movement. They may not be anarchsists in the technical sense (the #BLM leaders describe themselves as "Marxists" instead) but I think they are definitely interested in overthrowing the current order in the US, just like the Black Panthers wanted to do in the 60s.

One poster in this forum has been advocating for anarchy for years now, but I don't think what they mean by anarchy fits with the lawlessness you imagine. That, however, would be a topic for another thread.

That is true. But that does not mean that radical movements do not seek chaos and lawlessness as means to their goal of overthrowing the US system.

 

[KeepTalking]

It's not a narrow definition, it's what the word actually means.
I am not terribly impressed by the "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less" Humpty Dumpty nonsense.

You are wrong in that I ALSO understand that there are different things that different people/groups mean when they call for "defunding" police.

Let me know when you figure out whether you understand that there is nuance in the term "defund", or that it is Humpt-Dumpty nonsense, as they seem like rather contradictory positions.

 

[Worldtraveller]

It's not a narrow definition, it's what the word actually means.
I am not terribly impressed by the "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less" Humpty Dumpty nonsense.

You are wrong in that I ALSO understand that there are different things that different people/groups mean when they call for "defunding" police.

Let me know when you figure out whether you understand that there is nuance in the term "defund", or that it is Humpt-Dumpty nonsense, as they seem like rather contradictory positions.

Right wingers in general have this 'magic word syndrome' that they literally seem incapable of nuance in words. It is, ironically on this board, just like all the xian nation idiots who say 'separation of church and state' isn't in the constitution, as if the words are some kind of magic spell. They do this with all kinds of things, and authoritarians have that same kind if blinkered narrowmindedness. Their leaders tell them what to think and they like to pretend that we are the sheep and they are the rebels. It's a particular kind of Duning-Kruger combined with authoritarianism.

 

[KeepTalking]

Why should anyone think that cutting police overtime is a good faith effort to make the kind of cuts to the NYPD budget that are being called for?

Why should anyone think that the kind of cuts to the NYPD budget that radicals like AOC call for are in any way sensible?

So you admit that AOC is correct that the NYPD cutting overtime is not the kind of cuts that BLM is calling for, and that your bringing it up is just a distraction.

If overtime is necessary to do the job then it is necessary, and if it is not necessary, and being abused, then it should be cut, but that is an entirely separate issue, and not one that BLM is focused on.

Overtime offers flexibility in staffing levels. It is pretty obvious that you don't need the same level of police presence at all times equally.

So it seems you agree that if overtime is necessary to do the job then it is necessary, and if it is not necessary, and being abused, then it should be cut, but that is an entirely separate issue, and not one that BLM is focused on.

How is that worse?

Mariame Kaba wants to abolish police and prisons altogether, not just severely defund police like AOC is proposing.

That people can see a better world where police and prisons are not necessary is not a bad thing.

Think again. Prisons and police will be necessary at least for the foreseeable future, if not forever. What is the alternative?

I do agree that police and prisons will be necessary for the foreseeable future, but I also do not see it as a bad thing that some hope for a time when they won't be

The quote I reference from Brookings even provides an example of police abolishment in Camden, New Jersey that actually worked.

Are you even serious right now? Police wasn't "abolished" in Camden. They still have police. It's just run by the county, not the city. They have a website and everything. Doesn't look very "abolished" to me!

And now we are back to exactly my point. The Camden Police Department was abolished, but that does not mean that no one is policing Camden. That is evidence that it is incorrect to say that efforts to abolish police can only lead to lawlessness, chaos, and/or anarchy.

There is much talk about rural vs urban crime in this thread. Guess what, many (likely even most, but I don't care to look up the stat right now) rural municipalities do not have a police force, as they are much too small to be able to afford one.

That doesn't mean there isn't a police force of course. It may be a county police department. It may be the county sheriff's department, especially in rural areas. And they can be assisted by the state police if needed. So there most definitely IS policing.

Also exactly my point, the lack of local police force does not mean there is no policing.

Yet the rural conservatives are the first to freak out when BLM says "defund the police". Here's a new flash, redneck, they won't be defunding the police department that you don't have.

That may be the stupidest comment I have ever read by you. Not every municipality has to have their own police department for there to be police that has jurisdiction in that municipality. I guess you think there is no police in Scotland because it's all been consolidated into one single country-wide department in 2013?

It is not unrealistic, look at Camden, New Jersey. Look at the thousands of rural towns that have no police force.

Camden has police. As do the thousands of rural towns policed by county police or sheriff's departments. And yes, in absence of a separate police department, policing duties are exercised by the sheriff's departments. It may be called differently, but if you have armed personnel empowered to enforce the law, it is a distinction without a difference as far as "police abolition" movement is concerned!

Again, do you think that police in Edinburgh was "abolished" in 1975 when it was consolidated into "Lothian and Borders Police" and again in 2013 when it was consolidated countrywide into "Police Scotland"?

Hey look, another example where abolishing local police did not result in chaos. Are you done making my point for me yet?