The problem is that Ben doesnt provide exactly what he wants the government to do to decrease the crime. Of course the police will be more cautious in the dangerous neighborhoods than the safe neighborhoods. However, when it comes to crime, u cannot force the neighborhood to work together to make the crime rate go down. If the bad people want to commit a crime, then go ahead and the police should catch them, that doesnt make it okay to crack down on people who have not done anything wrong, which is what police brutality focuses on. This is a case of individualism, where u only go after certain people aka the bad ones, and not the entire group.
How do you avoid a run in with the cops when they approach you for absolutely no reason!? Ben is usually a very articulate speaker with some logic, but he missed the mark on this one
Oh come on, Ben. You know damn well that 2 other significant things happened: These groups you mentioned either moved their butts to the suburbs, or the regional police force changed to include many folks of their own background. Community-based policing is important. I'm sure you're familiar with the differences in police-interaction-outcomes between places where the police also live in the places they're patrolling, and when they commute in and patrol more like an occupying force.
does anyone know where I can find a schedule of his speeches? if he ever comes to Minnesota and I miss it i'll cry. link please? book signing anything xD
The problem is that in a country that puts the rights of the private citizen above all else, the onus to stop police brutality should rest with the cops themselves.
Since when was a low crime rate an inherent prerequisite for combating police brutality. the rate of crime between various constituencies should be completely irrelevant to the extent of brutality occurring in a specific constituency. There should be no excuses for government workers violating the parameters of their office, especially when it directly effects the integrity of our foundational cival liberties.
I agree Ben. I appreciate your position that there are responsibilities on both sides of the issue. I have come across to many that are on one side only and completely disregards the other side. To many people who fully support police no matter what they do wrong and those who support citizens who commit crimes regardless of the crime.
One cannot expect ben shapiro, to have every answer - in this case he clearly did not. There are at least three things needed - 1) remove all victimless crimes from the books. 2) end qualified immunity. 3) union contracts need renegotiation to allow easy dismissal of police, even if that means disbanding and rebuilding entire police forces at a time.
If you want to tackle things on a systematic level , you have to redefine crime as an act that consists of infringing on somenone's rights to life , liberty and property. Any action that doesn't infringe on someone's rights should not be defined as a crime.
The problem is that Ben doesnt provide exactly what he wants the government to do to decrease the crime. Of course the police will be more cautious in the dangerous neighborhoods than the safe neighborhoods. However, when it comes to crime, u cannot force the neighborhood to work together to make the crime rate go down. If the bad people want to commit a crime, then go ahead and the police should catch them, that doesnt make it okay to crack down on people who have not done anything wrong, which is what police brutality focuses on. This is a case of individualism, where u only go after certain people aka the bad ones, and not the entire group.
How do you avoid a run in with the cops when they approach you for absolutely no reason!? Ben is usually a very articulate speaker with some logic, but he missed the mark on this one
Next up: Shapiro tells us just how wet water can be.
What lecture is this from? is there a full version?
The issue is also the overwhelming amount of criminalization. From traffic to jay walking, so yeah, it is on the cops a little and people who let them
Oh come on, Ben. You know damn well that 2 other significant things happened: These groups you mentioned either moved their butts to the suburbs, or the regional police force changed to include many folks of their own background. Community-based policing is important. I'm sure you're familiar with the differences in police-interaction-outcomes between places where the police also live in the places they're patrolling, and when they commute in and patrol more like an occupying force.
what speech was this?
does anyone know where I can find a schedule of his speeches? if he ever comes to Minnesota and I miss it i'll cry. link please? book signing anything xD
Make a video on Tomi Lahren saying she is pro-choice
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
The problem is that in a country that puts the rights of the private citizen above all else, the onus to stop police brutality should rest with the cops themselves.
Damn!! Its that stuff.. you know.. common sense!!
If common sense were common we wouldn't need people like Ben.
Since when was a low crime rate an inherent prerequisite for combating police brutality. the rate of crime between various constituencies should be completely irrelevant to the extent of brutality occurring in a specific constituency. There should be no excuses for government workers violating the parameters of their office, especially when it directly effects the integrity of our foundational cival liberties.
I agree Ben. I appreciate your position that there are responsibilities on both sides of the issue. I have come across to many that are on one side only and completely disregards the other side. To many people who fully support police no matter what they do wrong and those who support citizens who commit crimes regardless of the crime.
I’m scared being a young black 15 year old like actually please someone help me
One cannot expect ben shapiro, to have every answer - in this case he clearly did not. There are at least three things needed - 1) remove all victimless crimes from the books. 2) end qualified immunity. 3) union contracts need renegotiation to allow easy dismissal of police, even if that means disbanding and rebuilding entire police forces at a time.
If you want your phone to keep working. Stop falling in the pool.
any sources?
If you want to tackle things on a systematic level , you have to redefine crime as an act that consists of infringing on somenone's rights to life , liberty and property. Any action that doesn't infringe on someone's rights should not be defined as a crime.