|
Cpt_Obvious posted:The point is that no agent of violence should show up at all. If this is really a noise complaint problem, there is no need for violence or threats. Just be adults and talk it out. This is absurdly naive. Have you seriously never dealt with someone who refuses a request even when asked nicely?
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:This is absurdly naive. Have you seriously never dealt with someone who refuses a request even when asked nicely? Um, yes. Like a lot. I’ve lived in apartments where people have raucous parties all the time. And sometimes I ask them to turn it down cuz it’s midnight on a Monday, and sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. I have never, ever, resorted to threats of violence or violent authorities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 14:35
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Um, yes. Like a lot. I’ve lived in apartments where people have raucous parties all the time. And sometimes I ask them to turn it down cuz it’s midnight on a Monday, and sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. I have never, ever, resorted to threats of violence or violent authorities. And let’s say they don’t. Why should they be allowed to continue to inflict their behaviour on their neighbours without recourse? Isn’t that just allowing a new power structure to take hold once they realise that nothing they do will have consequence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 14:37
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:And let’s say they don’t. Why should they be allowed to continue to inflict their behaviour on their neighbours without recourse? Isn’t that just allowing a new power structure to take hold once they realise that nothing they do will have consequence? In no way is "loud parties" a new power structure. God, I regret taking you off ignore and engaging in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 14:39
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:In no way is "loud parties" a new power structure. Why should someone be allowed to do what they want with no consequence, if it negatively impacts their neighbours? I don’t know about you but saying “well, guess I tried, I’ll go back to my apartment/house and try to sleep while my neighbour blasts music until daylight because they can” sounds like a loving nightmare. You’ve clearly never had kids. CelestialScribe fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 14:43
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Why should someone be allowed to do what they want with no consequence, if it negatively impacts their neighbours? There are non-violent consequences for breaking the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
Gort posted:There's a difference between, "No consequences" and "Agents of violence attack you". Right - so I’m asking, what would those be? How would that situation play out?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 14:59
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Right - so I’m asking, what would those be? How would that situation play out? In the UK the first point of call for a noise complaint is the local council, none of whom are armed or authorised to use even non-lethal force. Police wouldn't be involved at all, unless the situation became heated or violent, and even then they wouldn't show up with lethal force.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
gently caress's sake, okay let's look at this stupid loving scenario more closely. Let's say we live in a world where the police don't exist, threats of force backed by the state are not on the table at all in this scenario, not for situations like a noise complaint. Step one would be the people who are bothered contacting the people making the noise and asking them to stop, with some exceptions such as parties on like Saturday night or something, in which case the "victims" are probably out of luck, the problem stops there because most people in the real world tend to be fairly reasonable when approached calmly. Note I said most, and tend to, this one is an exception, I would guess that in this scenario you are picturing someone with skin a few shades darker than mine, because that is the stereotype, but I'll eliminate race for the purposes of this and say it is some white redneck type really into blasting their pop country until the wee hours, they may even drink moonshine or something I dunno. The point is they are not willing to stop the singing and picking for anything and god help anyone who asks. Most people probably give up at this point and hope it doesn't happen every night, and it probably doesn't, but let's say it does, these are nocturnal partying hillbillies, the worst. Let's say they are also homeowners so any recourse to their landlord is also off the table. Without cops, and in our ideal world where we have put another system in place, we call, I dunno, let's just call them the department of minor problems, a group of people who don't have guns but are empowered by the state to write a ticket, they send a team out to have a chat with our redneck friends. The rednecks refuse, they are ornery and have banjo to practice, they stop for nothing, they are also pretty drunk. Our well trained state officials realize this, they could perhaps just write a ticket then and there, but what would be the point? The rednecks won't stop either way. They leave a written warning or something, and make a note to follow up the next day after the neighbors sober up. The come back the next day, hopefully the same officials but it's been an entire night after all so maybe someone else. They manage to rouse somebody in the house and have a conversation with them over coffee. They are not in the moment, it's the light of day, no one is intoxicated(hopefully) They explain that their neighbors are all inconvenienced by this and more complaints might end up generating a fine, they aren't saying don't hang out and have fun, just turn the music down after ten on the weekdays alright? Heck if you really need to party late then they can recommend a guy who can soundproof your garage. I think it's fair to say most issues stop right there, but let's say the rednecks aren't having it, they don't care about fines, all of their income is under the table from their moonshine running so they can't have their wages garnished. Nothing will stop them! They continue for a time, now, for the first time we start to consider other options, now remember we have abolished the carceral system, long term prison time is a last resort second only to lethal force now, it is not on the table in virtually any circumstance. At this point it is something of a mystery what could be done, there is no real cause to escalate to violence, the rednecks aren't doing much more than being annoying right now, it probably doesn't need burly men showing up to have them spend a night in lockup. Maybe our public servants cut power to the house? Can't have super loud music without power after all. Let's say they try that, things quiet down but now the rednecks are angry and radicalized. They start threatening all passerby with old timey blunderbusses. Now it's a problem that does need to be answered, so members of a very small force authorized and trained to deal with weapons are called upon. These people don't go on patrol armed, maybe they even have jobs in other parts of the government, but they have done the trainings and passed the tests required to prove they can be responsible in the 1% of 1% of cases that need someone who can handle a gun. Even then though, drawing a weapon and using it is the very last resort for this unit. They pull up, again, during the day, not in the moment. Our noisy neighbors at this point realize they might be in poo poo, and in most cases I would imagine give up once they see the big van pull up or whatever. Maybe they don't and things go really bad, but in this scenario if it happened now under our current system could go really bad at dozens of different points much earlier. There is no cause to treat a noise complaint with the same amount of urgency as a bank robbery or domestic violence call. Threats of force do nothing but escalate situations even when people are sober. But we can also ask ourselves why do the rednecks feel the need to party so loudly every night? Are they young college kids who are just being idiots? In that case their lack of concern for the community could be out of ignorance, with more resources devoted to community organizations they might have been able to make friends with their neighbors at one of the many meet and greets or block parties that are scheduled thanks to not paying most of the city budget to an occupying army. Maybe they all work graveyard and have no choice about when to party? A dire fate indeed. Well, why do they have to work grave? Maybe with guaranteed basic income, rent controls, and increased social services funding their household wouldn't have to take poo poo jobs at the rear end end of the nighttime to make rent? Are they just huge assholes doing it on purpose? Probably not! That isn't how things work! Are they drug dealers packing product, possibly their moonshine, late at night to avoid the long arm of the law? No! We've abolished the police! They can pack their drugs in the daytime like everyone else, that is assuming what they are doing is even illegal anymore which odds are it isn't! Maybe they aren't white guys, maybe they are immigrants, legal or otherwise. They don't speak the language and keep to themselves, why is that? Perhaps with our new budget devoted to community support, we can actually employ representatives of their culture to find out? Maybe they actually do have resources to integrate into their new community, learn English if they chose, that sort of thing. MAYBE WITHOUT A MERCILESS GROUP OF ARMED GUARDS WATCHING OUR EVERY MOVE AND ABSORBING ALL OF OUR RESOURCES AND ATTENTION THE STUPID loving SCENARIOS DON'T loving HAPPEN AND WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP ADDRESSING THEM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
Quite honestly I feel like you might live on a neighborhood thah is really nice. People punch and shoot each other for noise complaints.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
Are you trying to tell me that you think most noise complaints end in violence and need an armed intermediary to be resolved? Because that's a pretty fuckin' hot take right there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
Pustulio posted:Are you trying to tell me that you think most noise complaints end in violence and need an armed intermediary to be resolved? Because that's a pretty fuckin' hot take right there. Why did you add the word 'most' there?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
So to cut through to the core of your argument it's that if the money that is spent on the current iteration of the police is instead spent on community programs then everyone will end up being community minded actors instead of self serving? Here lies the disconnect for me, I do not believe that society is made up of those who, without a credible form of coercion, (in the current system a series of increasing fines backed by the threat of incarceration for non compliance) will comply with community oriented desires. I don't see how you can look at the insane polarization of America and think that suddenly it will be kumbaya between the chuds and the sane people in the country. None of this is an argument for maintaining the police as they are today. No petty crime needs to be met with lethal force, or even officers whom are authorized and capable of doing so. My argument remains that you will still need an organization who compels people to act within the communities consensus for behavior. To focus on the noise complaint is to deliberately ignore the thrust of the argument because its easy to quibble about that in particular.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Quite honestly I feel like you might live on a neighborhood thah is really nice. 1. If that were true, then you have successfully proven that police does not prevent crime because people are not necessarily rational actors. 2. Don't pretend to know where people ITT have or have not lived. People resolve their differences all the time without violence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 15:48
|
|
|
flashman posted:So to cut through to the core of your argument it's that if the money that is spent on the current iteration of the police is instead spent on community programs then everyone will end up being community minded actors instead of self serving? I mean, I am pretty sure in my giant sample scenario I described elements of at least one organization that does exactly that? My point is that we don't need the police or the carceral system to do that. You decided to read my example and get "Everyone will love each other forever" instead of "This poo poo will happen a lot less without the threat of violence hanging over everything". There will be bad actors in literally any system until we are all mind controlled by AI overlords. The fact that some bad actors will still appear under a new system and may even be harder to deal with does not take away from the fact that leaving things as they stand now is unconscionable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
There has been not one person since my first post who has suggested to leave the system as it is though so you are railing against a straw man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
flashman posted:There has been not one person since my first post who has suggested to leave the system as it is though so you are railing against a straw man. When you argue against people who are proposing change without offering any of your own, people assume you are defending the current way of things. You keep insisting that you are not, and fair enough. So what different version of the system would you like to see?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
Id like to see a complete disarment of the current police force, some further segregation of duties so that even in a small town a traffic cop has no access to a fire arm. In large metros something along the lines of the British policing system where those authorized to use deadly force and with the capacity are seperate from the public facing officers, in smaller towns this will probably have to be achieved through some sort of strict authorization of force protocols with weapons locked up as the natural state of things. In addition to this I'd like the police force to be comprised of educated individuals instead of the barely literate bullies who are drawn to the profession as it stands. A requirement for post secondary to enter a police academy seems a good start. Independent elected oversight committees for each region with an automatic step up for officers convicted of a violent crime on duty, and the elimination of qualified immunity. The entire chain of replies came from a request for clarification on the abolish position however, and if abolish was shorthand for a complete overhaul or the actual elimination of the group responsible for coercing the desires of the state. The latter I do not see as a feasible or even desirable outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 17:06
|
|
|
Going from 12,000 armed cops in Chicago to 200 would be abolition of the Chicago PD as we know it. There's also a lot to be said for getting rid of all the current members of the US police as they've allowed the rotten apples to spoil the entire barrel. Eventually there has to be coercive force of some kind on individuals insisting on breaking minor laws, but it should be reserved for people repeatedly breaking the law, or in situations where there is an imminent threat to a person's life. Gort fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
Yeah, like, I posted my big rant because people kept asking for examples of how something could be handled, noise complaints were specifically brought up in fact. I gave an example of how things could work, it is perhaps not without flaws I will admit, but so far the critiques of it seem to mostly consist of "people get shot or punched over noise complaints" or "You must live in a nice neighborhood" And then argue for points that I literally made in my post, can you see why I might assume someone is arguing against the basic concept? Gort has it right too, any major change needs to be from the ground up with an entirely new staff, no exceptions, otherwise we'll just get the same drat thing again, this is why reforms don't really work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
Don't conflate coercion with violence. A fine is a form of coercion, but it needs to be back stopped ultimately with incarceration, through violent means if neccessary. To remove this credible threat you lose all effective enforcement mechanisms. I'd suggest that the abolish viewpoint and reform are talking past each other as well and imprecise use of language the reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
flashman posted:
Just so we can all move on, this has been agreed upon for pages now - but requires that all current people who occupy this employment space must be removed and replaced with a new unit that has the some of the same functions. That is the difference between "reform" and "abolish". The abolish crowd is convinced and rightfully so that there is to much long set in stone standards and practices that it is impossible to reform in any sort of way, burn it down - start anew. flashman posted:Id like to see a complete disarment of the current police force, some further segregation of duties so that even in a small town a traffic cop has no access to a fire arm. Thank you being one of the folks to actually enumerate your point of view instead of "why this won't work''ing us to death but some thoughts. 1) Agreed on disarmament, and with 2) of a separate tactical team that deals with the more serious stuff 2) This may make things better but won't absolutely work. More education and training can be met by complete eye rolling and outright noncompliance because the current police conduct is not only encouraged, it's part of the culture of policing and always has been. Our current Police are only meant to deal with situations very narrowly, and that is with incarceration or punishment - there is no serving or protecting. I'm not sure any amount of changes what is cemented in law and culture. Add in the white supremacist terrorizing black people backdrop of policing and it's even hard to shake this off even when there are black people involved. Black officers have participated in police brutality, because the state empowers their officers to respond to all calls under those narrow guises, everything with police is an automatic escalation because they are only there to figure out who the "good" and "bad" guys are and haul them off. It's a perverted thing but the indoctrination happens immediately upon entering the force, and compounded by the economic benefit of summons and incarcerations/arrests. This all part of the fabric of America. 3) If there is a way to make oversight committees recommendations legally binding but the biggest problem we have is that likely all of these entities will be under the purview of the DOJ and if today is any indication that can be molded and employed in a fashion only beholden to that current president or party. I'm not sure how else to give these entities teeth - they would have to be at state level I guess, but then again the state you live in is going to greatly influence how good this board is. Absolutely agree on QI going, and there should be some direct way to punish bad cops criminally and civilly. Long and short of it, body cams, training/education, more "demographically sensitive" community policing and everything in between for reforms suffers from the same ultimate problem. The police force as is, is not broken, it's serving it's intended purpose and anything not starting with that as an immutable fact will not bear much fruit. *I hope those words make sense I threw it together on lunch break and I decided to not even respond to some of the other posters for the sake of my own blood pressure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
I directly asked the dude for what he wanted more detail on, he disappeared. And now he's onto noise complaints. Guys he might not be arguing in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
If we accept that we need a threat of violence to make people obey the rules of society, and I am not convinced we do but let's go with it, I think it has to be paired with a very public and strictly adhered to set of circumstances in which violence might be employed, no one should get pulled over for speeding and have to wonder if they are going to get shot. The fact that violence is implicit in every interaction with the police means that things can escalate very easily, after all if you might get killed or imprisoned for life anyway, what's stopping you from trying to shoot your way out of a traffic stop, or to try to run from the cops, which I suppose is rather more likely? If on the other hand you know for a fact that the worst thing that will happen is a fine, and maybe even more likely a stern talking to, doesn't that take most of the stress out of interacting with officials?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:Just so we can all move on, this has been agreed upon for pages now - but requires that all current people who occupy this employment space must be removed and replaced with a new unit that has the some of the same functions. I can understand some of the concerns and difficulties with operating within the purview of the US DOJ and how the independent oversight committee would work, not my area of expertise so I'm unable to craft a proposal that is realistic but it was more a desire. I don't neccessarily agree that with radical changes that the culture of the police won't change as well. It's my opinion that most of the toxic culture of the police is directly because of their unlimited authority for escalation of force in all scenarios. To remove that from officers in almost all cases will to me change the culture. That can be an area of disagreement though and not really a hill I'd die on. But to the point that everyone agrees that some sort of police will be neccessary, this was the first reply I got; Eminai posted:No, we do not need people with the authority to coerce behavior on behalf of the state to deal with noise complaints. A person trained in conflict resolution and de-escalation would be significantly better at solving noise complaints than our current system. Which I disagree with wholly and was the basis of any disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
flashman posted:Don't conflate coercion with violence. A fine is a form of coercion, but it needs to be back stopped ultimately with incarceration, through violent means if neccessary. To remove this credible threat you lose all effective enforcement mechanisms. How does that follow? You don't need the threat of incarceration backing fines for fines to be effective. If we stick with the issue of noisy neighbors and noise complaints as an example, all you need to ultimately resolve that issue is letting fines or judgments attach to real property and vehicles. The threat of foreclosure or eviction is enough force from the state without throwing jail time in the mix. Like, yeah, a civil system is going to have issues with people who are judgment proof, but that doesn't mean the solution is debtor's prisons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
How do you evict someone without force? Anyway it's pretty inconsequential I guess if you'd like to replace "prison" with "the streets" I won't quibble the difference.
flashman fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
You said incarceration, not force.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
flashman posted:How do you evict someone without force? I'm not sure this is the best example, this happens every day. Not a whole lot of evictions use any force at all - the Sheriffs just padlock the door and everything in that apt or house now belongs to the landlord or land owner. Now if you are talking about those who are unwilling to leave, in my experience is that is extremely rare. It takes on average from Execution of Possession to actual 48 hours to quit notice around three to four months to get that final lockout quit notice. The majority of tenants just end up vacating on their own with a piece of paper, the Sheriffs rarely take possession. Now in the rare case that someone refused I guess I can see some response to that but at the frequency in which that happens that a decent sized metro city would have to employ a handful of people IF that to accomplish this, and none have to be armed. I believe that the Sheriff position is a bunch of BS anyway so you have no argument from me if we are arguing their existence or how easily it is to evict people and how the courts are largely in on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
flashman posted:Here lies the disconnect for me, I do not believe that society is made up of those who, without a credible form of coercion, (in the current system a series of increasing fines backed by the threat of incarceration for non compliance) will comply with community oriented desires. I don't see how you can look at the insane polarization of America and think that suddenly it will be kumbaya between the chuds and the sane people in the country. Yeah, this is totally puzzling to me. flashman posted:I'd suggest that the abolish viewpoint and reform are talking past each other as well and imprecise use of language the reason. This is partially true--a lot of people are using the word 'abolish' in a very misleading way. It is not 100% true--I think there are posters in this thread who really believe that we could live in a society with zero people employed by the state to enforce laws.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:You said incarceration, not force. Ok you are right. I need to alter my statement be coercion backstopped by incarceration or homelessness then. It seems to me a distinction without a difference though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
flashman posted:Ok you are right. I need to alter my statement be coercion backstopped by incarceration or homelessness then. It seems to me a distinction without a difference though. Driving people into homelessness will necessarily increase crime, not reduce it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Driving people into homelessness will necessarily increase crime, not reduce it. Yeah I think it's a stupid idea as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Quite honestly I feel like you might live on a neighborhood thah is really nice. If you live in a society where the only possible solution to people being noisy is to start a gunfight then that suggests you've got a pretty serious problem with your society and that an escalating arms race between the noisy and the noise elimination army is possibly not a good solution either?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
flashman posted:Ok you are right. I need to alter my statement be coercion backstopped by incarceration or homelessness then. It seems to me a distinction without a difference though. The difference being that we may or may not need to care about who is removed from the property and what alternatives are available to them. A poor family that just can't stop violating noise ordinances for some reason, to the point that they are risking homelessness, probably should be relocated to a housing option that accommodates whatever unique circumstances leave them incapable of turning the volume down, and that option doesn't have to be a cell or a cardboard box. (e: or what's going is something else under the guise of noise complaints, which is an unrelated problem to the question at hand) A wealthy family with their own alternative housing flinging money at the community because they'd rather stay annoying is a problem requiring better targeting of fines, not incarceration. And if the bar down the street can't keep it down, the state can close it down without incarcerating individuals, and I don't really care about a business that is harming the community winding up "homeless". eviltastic fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:I'm not sure this is the best example, this happens every day. Not a whole lot of evictions use any force at all - the Sheriffs just padlock the door and everything in that apt or house now belongs to the landlord or land owner. Again it's not possible to base current rates of refusal to vacate with the theoretical where there is no one employed by the state to do anything about it, which is what was being talked about. Of course most people vacate now, the cops will be happy to violently displace you if you don't. The argument was that in lieu of the threat of incarceration you could just take people's homes for non compliance though, this is what I'm responding to, not my position.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
Also just generally if the only interaction you have with wider society is people constantly telling you to stop doing X Y and Z and using force on you to make you do it, do you think it's surprising that you might become slightly belligerent about that society and start shooting people who come to hassle you? The view of other people as only ever being problems to solve by removal in some fashion is part of the reason you end up in that position to begin with. We currently live in a "stable" situation grounded on mass incarceration and police brutality, pulling down one of the means by which that is upheld will necessitate the change of other parts. Why should people be evicted at all? Why should landlords exist? Why should the cops exist to enforce the landlord's right to exract money from others for nothing? Why should we have so many prisons to hold people for crimes invented to fill prisons, increase police budgets, and satisfy racist rich rear end in a top hat politician's desire to punish "the wrong type"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
If one of your planks for police reform is the elimination of landlords you've lost the plot. Is this thread for feasible alternatives in current day America or "what ought to be"
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
You misunderstand, I said that if you remove one of the planks that hold that system up, it becomes a vehicle for the rest of the reforms. If landlords can't evict people because they can't call the cops to do it, suddenly being a landlord becomes a lot less appealing. People can stay in their homes, you have effectively given a massive boon to tenant's rights. You don't need to get rid of landlords to get rid of cops, you get rid of landlord by getting rid of cops. A new stable point is reached by attacking the stability of the old system, you knock the old one down one plank at a time until it falls. The idea of a planned, centrally controlled transition of the foundation of society is extremely ahistorical. Massive changes don't happen in a nice, calm, planned out manner, they happen because the pillars of the old system cannot be sustained any more. People won't accept the cops doing what they do because the cops are one of the most visible horrors of the society we live in, but they are also necessary to uphold the wider horror of that society, so people attack the most visible wrongs and in so doing, they attack the others too. I don't think removing the cops is gonna hurt the working class very much, especially not in relation to the benefits it brings them, so if it makes the situation of the owning classes more untenable, that's not our problem, that's their problem. But we have solutions to that, too. And it involves getting rid of that divide. They're the ones who will require them, not us. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
Yeah ok I got you, I agree with you that without police acting as agents of the state evictions would be difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2020 19:48
|
|