"Rather than thinking of abolition as just getting rid of police, I think about it as an invitation to create and support lots of different answers to the problem of harm in society," @progressagent writes:
(Maybe it’s time to stop publishing the “ending Stop and Frisk will be destroy NYC” and “there is a literal war on cops” lady)
@YossiGestetner They explicitly state that they made an inference/declared a finding that their data didn't support/that they didn't study. Read the retraction itself
@YossiGestetner And here's the part directly before that. Being careless in describing your own research resulting in people believing it supports something it does not...is certainly retraction worthy. They made claims about probability of fatal encounters when their data...didn't measure that
What if we lived in a world where the officers would just order Rayshard Brooks an uber to make sure he got home safely?
Reminder: the debate at the core of all of this is anti-racist protesters saying police commit acts of violence with impunity and the police saying “no we don’t.” Judging by what you’ve seen in the last week, which side of the debate appears to you to be telling the truth?
something that occurs to me about the “police targeting journalists” narrative: protesters’ right to speech/assembly is the exact same — from the same amendment — as that of the press. Both groups should have the exact same protections under the First Amendment