 Hey everybody, tonight we're debating Black Lives Matter and policing, and we're starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. Want to let you know if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, at this channel, we have a goal, a vision. We want to give everybody their fair shot to make their case on an equal playing field. And that's people from any walk of life. Christian, atheist, conservative, liberal, you name it. We're glad you're here, and this is hopefully a neutral platform for everybody. So we are going to get started for tonight's debate. Want to let you know it's going to be a tag team debate, and our guests who are taking the affirmative, defending Black Lives Matter and their position on policing in particular, namely Ninetales Cosmic Fox and Kaz, pictured at the left. They will actually be getting the ball rolling, and want to let you know as well. Before that, we are very excited to mention as well, their links are in the description. So if you would like to hear more from our guests, all four of them, including Ninetales and Kaz, who we'll introduce first, those links are down in the description waiting for you. So with that, do want to give you a chance, both Ninetales and Kaz, if you want to just let people know what they could expect to find at your links, which are in the description, we're thrilled to have you here. Thanks for coming back. Hi, Jeff. Want to go ahead, Kaz? No, you go ahead. Okay. Hi, I'm Ninetales Cosmic Fox. You can find me on YouTube under Ninetales Cosmic Fox, or I guess in the description. I'm also on Twitter at the letter M, the number nine, then Scarlet with two T's. I mostly do debates right now. I have a little comedy skit I'm working on getting published. So if you thought the whole Ben Shapiro WAP thing was funny, you probably will enjoy that. And I want to do video essays pretty soon. I have one in the works, but I guess I'm a little more focused on debating right now. And yeah, I hope you enjoy my content if you wind up checking it out. You got it. Thanks so much. Appreciate that Ninetales and Kaz. Excited to hear from you as well on what people can find at your links. Kaz, can you hear me? I think Kaz is working on technical difficulties. We'll kick it over to Smokey and Richard and come back to Kaz in just a moment. But Smokey, glad to have you back. Richard glad to have you back as well. It's been quite a while. If you guys want to let the audience know what they could expect to find at your links, the floor is all yours. Sure. Absolutely. Appreciate it, James. And thanks for having us once again. Good to see you. Yeah, you've just been taking a break from the debate sphere. It's always guest moderators. I never get to see you anymore, it seems. So good to have you tonight. Glad you're here. Thanks so much for that. That's Smokey saying, I don't think I need a whole lot of extra introduction. If you all know me, you probably hate me at this point on this channel. So feel free. Come by my channel if you'd like some extra triggering beyond what you deal with tonight. So yeah, absolutely. I do live shows all the time. People are welcome to come in, challenge me on perspectives of culture, philosophy, theology, whatever it is they like. So come by and take a look at my channel. Come participate. It's a good time. You've got it. Thanks so much. And Richard, glad to have you back. If you want to let the audience know what they could expect to find at your links. Glad to be back. I'm Richard Desheed. You can call me Dick. You can find me on Twitter, YouTube. Winks will be in the description. I'm just a college student. I wean right. I'm not even I wouldn't even class my class by myself as a conservative, but I find it almost impossible to have real discussion on the college campus that I go to. So I said, screw it, let's dip our toes in the water on YouTube and get into the nonsense that this world is. Gotcha. Thanks so much, Richard. And we'll kick it back to Kaz. Kaz, thrilled to have you back. If you want to share with the audience and find it, your links. Well, if you can hear me, we still can't quite hear you. Let me see. You can't hear me. I could hear it. Is it just me? I can hear him. I can hear him. Oh, perfect. Thanks so much. OK, so, yeah, I'm Kaz. My links. Well, I'm the founder of the Factionalist Network. My Facebook page has a bunch of memes that I create, and I share my debates and discussions. I like to have conversations with people about anything. And I'm looking to just, you know, connect with people and try to promote a debate culture. You've got it. Yeah. Thank you, Kaz. And with that, we will kick it off with Kaz and Ninetales for their opening statement. The floor is all yours. All right, I'll go first. So hello, everyone. Again, I'm Kaz. I believe in facts and I want to form a coalition of people who share my belief and wish to fashion our society from its basis. If you hate bias, especially your own, then you are like me and we can build together. So send me an email and let's network. The fact is, according to the study by doctors, Sarah DeGue, at all, while victims of police shootings were majority white, this is from a study in 2012, I believe. I could be wrong. I'll correct myself. While victims of police shootings were majority white, 52 percent. With the fatality rate, I'm sorry, let me start over. While the victims of police shootings were majority white, they are 72 percent of the population, but disproportionately black, 32 percent with a fatality rate of 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites. However, black victims were more likely to be unarmed, 14.8 percent than white 9.4 percent and Hispanic 5.8 percent victims. If you look at a Prager U video put out four years ago, attempting to debunk the claim that police are, in fact, racist, looking into their sources, you see that every single one of them explicitly state that they found evidence of racial bias in policing. One of those was a study done by at Washington State University and it stated that 96 percent of nearly all white officers demonstrated implicit racial bias with 78 percent strongly or moderately associating blacks with weapons and 0 percent associating whites with weapons. As I see it, law enforcement in this country has a rich history of racial bias and prejudice. It is clear from the research that African Americans here suffered oppression from our government and law enforcement, and this is nothing new. Our position in the global economy was purchased with a sweat and blood of slaves. For hundreds of years, we exploited black labor and grew our GDP. When finally our nation underwent a forced moral awakening and slavery was outlawed, it was and still is permitted under the loophole of criminal conviction, which lawmakers exploit with what is termed black codes back in the Jim Crow era. African Americans were legally stripped of their freedom of assembly of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to bear arms, to conduct commerce freely, to seek out education, to vote and own property. In a contemporary era, this tradition continued with marijuana prohibition in the drug war, redlining, stop and frisk and anti-gang legislation. All of these laws developed to inhibit the constitutionally protected rights of black citizens, they have and continue to be infringed upon under a thinly veiled pretense of law and order. This evil has colegated over generations and could only have one result, disproportionate criminality in black communities. Many of the southern vagrancy laws remained in force until the Supreme Court's, I can't say this name, somebody versus Jacksonville in 1972. We have not had even one single generation of truly free blacks in this country. When a population spends centuries being purposefully excluded from the ranks of law abiding citizenry, can we really lay blame at the feet of those who choose to embrace that destiny forced upon them and their ancestors? Any claim that the disparity in policing is due to criminality of black people in America is hollow and myopic. If you refuse to or cannot make the connection between all of these laws and the message Black Lives Matter, we can simply ask the police themselves. According to Pew Research, roughly six in 10 white cops and 58 percent of Hispanic cops say that minorities and whites are treated about the same. But if you look at the flip side of that coin, that means that 39 percent of white and 32 percent of Hispanic cops will tell you straight up to your face that there is white privilege in policing. So I don't even know if I really need to go on after that. All of this is to say it's not to lay blame at the feet of all the cops or at all white people. It is not to say that all white people do not suffer as collateral results of these laws. The past is the past and it cannot be changed, but the systemic issues that our nation has created cannot be alleviated simply by changing the wording in some abstract law books or pretending that the concept of race doesn't exist anymore. The inequality under the law that has plagued the African-American community for centuries must be remunerated. If you want peace, produce justice. Either fairness is one of our shared values or it isn't. The fact is every single person killed by police was innocent by definition. In America, we are innocent until proven guilty. There is no excuse for the wanton use of lethal force in our country. No matter what color you are, be aware that that's simply because you are not currently the target of such nefarious government action. There is nothing stopping you from becoming that target as long as these systemic issues go unaddressed. If you truly love America and the freedom that we purport recognize that black lives haven't mattered to our government for far, far, far too long of our history. Let us take a truly conservative stand together against tyranny. Like every human, our founding fathers were hypocrites. But on some level, they understood that when the people fear their government, there is tyranny. But when the government fears the people, there is liberty. I'll yield my time. We'll kick it over to Ninetales. Hi, yeah. So you're going to see a hybrid here of a written intro and an unwritten part. So first of all, I like to thank Kaz, my opponents, Smokey and Richard, and of course, James and the moderators in chat for doing such a great job. And to the audience, thank you for joining us. I hope tonight I can demonstrate the benefits which defining the police offers to communities. If you sample a portion of Black Lives Matter protestors, you find that while a select few might actually support the police or wish to reform the policing system, just just and that's just it. The vast majority want to either defund or abolish the police. For those who think they are the same thing, let me assure you they are not. Defunding implies realking funds and resources to agencies and professionals who are better trained to deal with things like conflict funds or like conflict or crisis, for example, mental health intervention and help. My debate partner Kaz has already laid the foundation for the notion that systemic racism and policing are difficult to separate. And so I'm going to I'm going to lay the foundation for sorry. I'm going to contribute to this debate topic by talking about the alternatives to policing, which BLM is proposing. Before a deep dive, I'd like to note two things. First is that BLM as a movement is not the first to make these assessments or suggest these alternatives. Second, abolition is the extreme form of action here. It's not just reallocating resources and funds. It's getting rid of the need for the police. It's delegitimatizing them. But its methods and alternatives show a better chance of actual of actually removing the roots of the problem and not just the weeks. For a deep dive, let's first take a look at the history of the police. The most relevant parts of the policing in America are the British philosophers who had are both the British philosophers who had influence on the ideology of how policing should be done and the actual timeline of how policing developed in America. Two notable names are worth talking about. Utilitarian Jeremy Bentham, who called for a strong, centralized, but politically neutral police force for the maintenance of social order and for the protection of people from crime into act as a visible deterrent to urban crime disorder. And there is Sir Robert Peel, who based a lot of his ideologies on Bentham's found principles. He was twice Prime Minister of the UK, but when he put forth his famous doctrine, he was Home Secretary in 1822. Peel tried to make the police as distinct from the military as possible. So as to quam public fears of authoritarian rule, but also had several other principles he espoused. One, every police officer should be issued a warrant card with a unique identification number to assure accountability for their actions, whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the deterrence. And that's number two, number three is above all else and effective authority figures, no trust and accountability are paramount. Hence, Peel's most often quoted principle is that the police are the public and the public are the police. Later, some of the higher ranking officials drafted an extended list. And those instructions were given to each new officer of the Metropolitan Police Force, that's UK, starting in 1926. The list once as follows. To prevent crime and disorder at well, this is what they're supposed to do as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment to recognize always at the power of the police, this is number two, is to fulfill their function and duties, which is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. To number three is to recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of public means also securing the willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws. Number four, to recognize that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured, secured diminishes proportionally the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. Number five, to seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law and complete independence of and complete independence of policy and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing by ready exercising of courtesy and friendly good humor and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. I'm not used to this old English grammar. Six, to use physical force only when to exercise only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order and to use only the minimum degree of physical force, which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. Number seven, to maintain all at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties, which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of the community, welfare and existence. Number eight, to recognize always the need for strict adherence to police executive functions and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individual rules or the states and of authoritatively judging guilt or punishing the guilty. Number nine, to recognize always that the test of the police efficiency is the absence of crime disorder and not the visible evidence of police actions and dealing with these crimes. What I would like the audience to note is that the modern police as testified to by the entire BLM movement is not Peleon that those are the nine principles we just talked about in its application, perhaps some history on what early policing looked like in America, which shed light on to why this is. In British North America, policing was initially provided by local elected officials. For instance, the New York Sheriff's Office was founded in 1626 and the Albany Company Sheriff's Department in the 1660s and the colonial period. Policing was provided by elective sheriffs and local militias. So we can see here that even this is British, so that probably started with the Peleon principles, but we're already getting to local militias. So we're getting away from that. In the 1700s, the province of Carolina, later North and South Carolina, established slave patrol patrols in order to prevent slave rebellions and enslaved people from escaping. For example, by the 1785, the Charleston Guard and Watch had a distinct chain of command, uniforms and sole responsibility for police. Policing salary, authorized use of force and a focus on preventing crime. In 1789, the United States martial service was established, followed by other federal services, such as the US Parks Police and the US Mint Police. The first city police services were established in Philadelphia in 1751. Richmond, Virginia in 1807, Boston in 1838 and New York in 1845. The US Secret Service was founded in 1865 and was for some time the main investigative body for the federal government. In the American Old West, law enforcement was carried out by local sheriffs, rangers, constables, federal marshals. There were also town marshals responsible for serving civil and criminal warrants, maintaining the jails and carrying out arrests for petty crime. Now, the police are clearly oriented to demand. Oh. There was a brief moment in time where Peelian principals had a chance and and they fell to the wave side due to many other forms of police are rising around the same time, not always founded on those ideals. It seems like the police are clearly oriented not to simply serve the public, but to demand compliance and generate revenue. A study of three police departments in Sacramento, Maryland and New Orleans found the police spend their time doing the following. At least one third of their time was spent responding to non-criminal calls. Thirteen to nineteen percent was spent doing traffic work. Seven to nineteen percent was was committed to what the study calls other crime. Twelve to fourteen percent was for property crime. Seven to eighteen percent was for proactive policing, which is problematic. Maybe we'll get to that. And seven to nine was responding to medical emergencies, which includes mental health crime. Only four percent was responding to actual violent crime. Sorry. So with police budgets taking up about typically about 40 percent of the city's budgets and and so much time and energy being put into solving crimes that aren't even criminal. It seems that at the very least, effective funding is a viable method for getting people with real expertise on those various fields to actually deal with the problem instead of somebody who's not only trained, but are not only equipped, but sometimes trained to escalate situations. And that is my time. Gotcha. Thanks so much. We will kick into the opening statements from the opposition. You could say the critics, Smoky and Richard, the floor is all yours. Hey, Smoky, I'm going to be pretty quick for my opening. Do you care if I just take? Yeah, no, absolutely. By all means, Dick, go right ahead. So I want to make a two-pronged argument here. Basically, first things first is BLM as an organization. The organization started, I believe, in 2013. The organization itself is a Marxist, a Marxist-based, basically just anarchy, a bunch of raging, anarchy-filled leftists who don't have any idea what they're talking about. They tend to conflate actual black issues with, I don't know, everything from LGBTQ issues to class issues to stuff that involves white people. There are white LGBTQ people that need protection and their lives matter just as much. But for some reason, this organization wants to exclude people. And it's going to inevitably alienate a portion of the population. And what BLM is doing is driving a wedge between black and blacks and whites in this country for no reason. All under the guise of black lives to push some Marxist agenda. It's just ridiculous. Demonizing the police is not going to help anyone. If anything, black communities need more police, need, well, let me state, I am not saying that the police, as they are currently, are perfect by any means. I can't wait to go into all the ideas that I have about police reform. But the idea that all cops are bastards, ACAB, which is a slogan, like they might as well put it on banners for BLM, is is not going to help, you know, heal this racial divide in America. And lastly, policing. Police in America, one, police in America did not originate from slave catchers. I want to make that clear. Policing there. The first police departments were established in Boston and New York. When was slavery ever happening in New York or Boston? So. It just it startles me that there's this false narrative that just gets driven day in and day out by members of BLM and I'm just I want to refute as much of it as I can. And that's my time. Floor is all yours, Smokey. Awesome. Appreciate it. Thank you, James, and thank you, Dick. Thanks for that. All right. Well, good evening all and thank you for being here. Not that I needed to give leftists another reason to want to cancel me. But here I am to tackle another socially controversial topic. I hope that it is enlightening and thought provoking to all thanks to both my partner and our opponents for their participation in this important talk. Since this is a tag team debate and one I agreed to do on relatively short notice with minimal preparation, I will try to keep my base case streamlined. BLM activists have made it a priority to tell us that the biggest threat to unarmed black men in this country is the result of institutional racism repressive policing. I am certainly one of those that has hoped for many years to come to see reform in law enforcement. And with the tragedy of George Floyd, I was expecting this important conversation to take place and that we would all use our rationality to push for the most common sense solution to the perceived issues of police enforcement. And that would be what I would call transparency. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is transparency that breeds accountability. And this is what is needed across the board. No one can seem to see behind the thin blue line for many years. And this is bread distrust and public animosity. The feeling of us versus them has been reinforced by both proactive and passive narratives on both sides of this debate. And I personally think this is really muddied the waters of communication on this vital topic. To me, based upon the statistics of ridiculously increased crime and death in the urban centers, since the quote unquote defund the police narrative was pushed, it has been simple to see that BLM has done far from bringing any policy changes that have actually helped save innocent black lives, constantly pushing the narrative of police violence while ignoring the deluge of non-police violence is like worrying about the mouse in the kitchen while the elephant destroys the living room. The narrative pushed by BLM is that police are the reason so many African Americans have increased police contact. The narrative never considers if the crime statistics show that African Americans have a higher propensity of police contact due to a higher propensity to commit violent crimes. And because of this, the conversation is always focused around the problem solvers instead of the problems themselves, which I believe come from a severe deviation of cultural moral norms where deviance and social disrespect is both normative and encouraged. It is no fallacy than in all the areas where there has been a decreased police present, a crime skyrockets are these cities and urban centers more safe for black lives since BLM has pushed it to defund the police narrative. I hardly think so. Increases in shootings and deaths as much as 150% in some areas and people dying as police are afraid to even show up to calls lest they face personal or legal retribution for simply trying to do their jobs. The atmosphere that BLM has ushered into the social sphere is both dangerous and toxic for everyone, even innocent, honorable black men like David Dorn. The number of unarmed black men shot by police in a year is not only far less than the number of unarmed whites shot by police every year. Even though the African American racial demographics shows a statistical disproportionate tendency to violent crimes. Aside from this, one could argue that many deaths happen in custody that aren't shootings, fair enough, but try to use this vague anecdote to back this argument is flawed from the start. There is something that is normative enough in the law enforcement and medical field where it has been given a name and it has much to do with how the actions of police officers and medical professionals can be perceived. This thing and also might I add is pretty intrinsically essential in digesting the controversial case of George Floyd himself. This thing is called sudden custody death syndrome. This is something that is known in the medical and law enforcement field and is even part of preparatory training for many of those entering public service. In short, this is a real situation where those who are contacted and restrained by police or medical professionals can undergo instant death in custody to summarize from medic ed.com incorporated on this subject who provides accredited courses for medics in the field. This states causes of sudden custody death syndrome, a growing body of documented experiences, autopsy results and data compiled by various sources supports the theory that many in custody deaths are not the result of a single cause, but a cascade of multiple factors that is often set in motion long before law enforcement ever gets involved. Physicians and medical examiners have ascribed these tragedies to cocaine intoxication, restraint slash positional asphyxia and metabolic acidosis, positional or restraint asphyxia, the most common type of sudden death in custody deaths and excited delirium syndrome. When does sudden death, sudden custody death syndrome occur? When a subject encounters a violent police encounter, a subject is restrained during the violent encounter while also under the influence of psychiatric medication, alcohol or illicit drugs. The simple fact is, if you put yourself in a position where you are under the influence of heavy narcotics in public, you run a high risk of instigating contact with law enforcement. And if that happens, you already have a higher propensity of death from warped biochemistry added to stress and restraint. You are very much taking your life into your own hands with this public behavior, yet oddly, it always seems to be the responders that are being blamed. And this is one of the things that we rarely consider or factor into our consideration of how complex the digestion of these situations should be. And with that, I yield. We will kick it into open discussion mode, want to let you know a quick announcement. Folks, if you have not seen it, all of our debates are also on podcasts. So if you can't find us on your favorite podcast app, let us know we'll work hard to get on there so that you can listen to debates there, two debates there as well. And also forgot to mention, if you have a question, feel free to fire it into the live chat. We'll do roughly 50 minutes of open conversation and then go into the Q&A. So the floor is all yours, everybody. Thanks so much. So, yeah, thanks, everybody, for those introductions. I just wanted to ask first and foremost, citation that BLM is Marxist at all. The co-founder, I think her name is Petrie, what is it? Patrice, yeah, Patrice Cullers. She said in an interview openly, we are trained Marxists. We are trained organizers. This is bigger than police brutality against African-Americans. This is it's bigger than that for them. And so, like, you're sure that this is an exact quote? 100 percent. I mean, I can go find you that exact quote from the. I can argue it anyways. So do you think that she was saying that they're like they're using Marxism to guide BLM ideology? Or do you think she was just saying that, you know, they tend to be Marxist because they're on the left? They are trained. I mean, yes, you could argue that you're saying that what you're saying is the leaders themselves as individuals are Marxist, the organization as a whole does not have to be Marxist because they are. There's no Marxist ideology instilled in what Black Lives Matter does even. Where is the Marxism? The bigger the bigger picture, though, is a Marxist. They envision a a Marx never really talked about this stuff. He talked about how the police are like an enforcement for the arm of capitalism, but that's about it. So, yeah, but exactly. Their their aim is to bring down the American like foundation or the American structure and the American economy, which they perceive as an evil. I don't think that that's likely. I think it's way more likely that people were formed a grassroots organization for the reasons that most people make grassroots organizations, which is that but is it a grassroots organization? It's being heavily finished. It's it's people who see a problem as a community. It's a collective agreement of what the problem is. And they collectively want a solution and they seem to collectively agree that trying to be peaceful wasn't working for them since 2015. If I may interject, it's bizarre to me because, like, isn't the idea of pushing for a Marxist type of system would be to have a non centralized or non government enforced police structure would be rolled by the people, basically be a militia, which seems to be what they're pushing and what you're also pushing, which seems to be just because there are parallels against the authoritarian measures, but if that's what we're using to say it's Marxist, I don't know why you're having an issue with it being called Marxist, because it's because it's because that's not even that's not even Marxism, that's just having the same end goals that by chance. There's no Marxist ideology actually influencing the problem is, I'm just using their words. It doesn't matter what I do and applying a lot of conjecture to it. Like typically speaking, it's way more plausible that a bunch of people are coming together for an organic grassroots reason than the conspiracy that's more convenient to you. May I interject real quick? I mean, it's it's not a conspiracy. It's their mission statement. May I just say something real quick? Isn't the police already a socialist organization inherently? No. Are you saying just because it's publicly funded? It's a it's a social. Come on, wasn't it? Stop. OK, explain to me, why not? Explain to me, why not, please? It's a very juvenile way of looking at. So is the military a socialist organization as well? Of course, yes. Go ahead, Smoky. Well, no, I was in the military. It functions very socialistically. Well, I mean, in the sense that I'm not sure where you're drawing that comparison, because to me, like that would be require the people to have kind of the controlling authority over the system, as opposed to it being controlled by Ovidist or bureaucrats like like people like we do have instances where we vote sheriff's, but we don't vote every person in position in the police force, like it's not like it's democratically controlled. At that point, I might yield to it of being more of a socialistic perspective. But if you're trying to be against that, would you be against that? Yeah, I think that's against the people. What about like a referendum? I don't think the majority of the public is equipped to be making those types of specific decisions of who should serve. That's going to turn that into a political type of position when it should be earned upon merit. We could all agree that police reform is something that's been essential in this country. The question is whether or not the narratives that's been pushed has actually been helpful. I contend it absolutely has not. I say it's been toxic and dangerous. Marxist. Well, that was, well, I'm going to let him talk about really quick. I'm just I'm just curious. Their executive director, who is Patrice Colors, is the one who stated we are trained Marxists. They have the executive director that I heard you say this. So I just want to I'm their effective director of all BLM, or is it just a specific chapter of BLM of the Black Lives Matter? I believe they call them so. It's the Black Lives Matter Network, the World Network or whatever it is. The official organization that's not even like that's not the Black Lives Matter Global Network. The private. The Black Lives Matter Global Network where all of the money that gets donated from all of these companies goes to that is the organization I am talking about the one that funds all of the projects that the 22 chapters of Black Lives Matter around the country does. Yeah, so like that's definitely not the Black Lives Matter movement that you're seeing on the ground at all. And you definitely can't point to any specifically Marxist inspired demands or ideologies that are driving Black Lives Matter. You have this one anecdote and a bunch of conjecture you're trying to make because you can't actually prove this in all reality. I think decentralizing the police force is definitely a Marxist demand. I'm sorry, you just want to say, well, it happens. When did Marx ever call for that? When I'm saying decentralization of any type of police network is very Marxist, that's just your conjecture. That's just something you're attributing to Marxism at your own convenience. You keep saying it's conjecture, but you're not. You already agree with that. You're making an A plus B equals equals. Now you're back peddling because earlier you said it aligned. But as you said, well, it's causational. Well, that doesn't necessarily just happens to be the case. No, it's coincidental. It's not even causational. OK, so you agree. It's something that ends up being pushed with a not that specific thing. The criticism of police, by the way, why are we focusing on this? Why don't we I'm sorry, I didn't mean for this to be the focus. Believe me, I want to get into the police. Let's talk about the idea that maybe you guys are pushing for a militia based enforcement agency. Why don't you guys maybe elaborate on that a little bit for us to look into? My understanding is that the idea of defunding the police is more about coming up with alternatives, not not just some militia or some mob type enforcement, but more just things that are specifically geared towards mental health calls, specifically geared towards. Any I can't even think of anything else. But mental health is a great example when you have a person who's having a mental health crisis being confronted with people with guns isn't probably going to be the best way to de-escalate that situation. When you agree, is that the typical situation? Is that the M.O. I can I can actually testify to that. That's that makes that's a very unsettling thing when you know that you're unstable and vulnerable at that moment. OK, so how do they know when they're supposed to send the armed men and when they're supposed to send the unarmed men? And what is the difference in saying that they had to be unarmed? I'm not saying that people should be in their cars. Then they're cops. So what's the difference then? So what's their training can be different? Their training can be more geared to why can't the cops just have that same training? Yeah, I don't know. Why can't we? Why have you so many years? Why have we had so many years, so many deaths, so much drama and destruction before somebody says, oh, yeah, let's train the cops to do something other than shoot people? Can I buy one more thing? Is that like what a mental health professional, whether or not they have a gun is trained to do is to deal with mental health, not deal with nonviolent crime, not to do traffic stops, not do all these other things. They have that gun to protect them, not even to coerce people into cooperating like the police do. It's simply there in case things do get violent. And frankly, there's no reason that that social worker couldn't then call a police officer who is there for the violent situations. So if the violent they get there and the violent situation is happening, then they have to call someone else and wait for someone else to arrive because they notice it's a violent situation. So the person who's there to possibly solve the violent situation is one step behind, which means the violent situation will most likely transpire. So how in the living actual hell is that they get a call for a mental health crisis, considering that only 4 percent of the calls police get are about violent crimes, they can assume it's probably not going to be violent unless there are other things that maybe might be different signs that might arrive. Yes, it's it's a it's a vales statistic from where? Four percent Washington Post. It's titled or I bet you a million dollars. It's it's that they're charged that at the end of it all, they are charged with a violent crime. What are you talking about? I'm saying that the statistic sounds insane is what I'm saying. And I think I would need a little more clarification on that reference of exactly what that what that source is saying, because that sounds off. So I have to bring it up again. I didn't keep it up in my tabs. Can you restate it? So maybe I miss her. Well, it was in my introduction. So let me let me just. So the step that you did. OK, yeah, only four per only four percent of police across the three cities that were studied, which were Sacramento, Maryland and New Orleans were responding to actual violent crime. And this was for a period of instance. So the Tamir Rice case like you heard the 911 call. The the the person who called the police even described the situation as possibly being a toy gun, probably not being that big of an issue. And yet the police rolled up on him and shot him within seconds. Yeah, poor communication, I agree. It was terrible. I was horrendous. That was awful. And that was a failure. That was absolutely a justified point of a failure of policing. And that's an example where we can train the cops to do something other than but coming in, bro, you can't change the entire social, you know, policy system based upon an anecdotal instance. If we were doing this point on we were doing that for everyone in every racial demographic, we would we would basically have no police. The fact of the matter is we cannot expect a perfection of these people. And this is what you guys are basically saying. The problem, the problem isn't solved until every accountability appears. Yes. I agree. And how do we get that transparency, bro? All right, Smokey, let's be sure to get everybody. Can I yield? I yield. I'll give up. Smokey and Richard, do you think that with greater power demands greater responsibility for those people with the power? 100 percent. We're not saying it doesn't. We're we do want police and the ones that are that failed to do their jobs to be held accountable. But your definition of, you know, failing at their jobs is often quite often incorrect. Well, actually, there's another statistic that shows, and I'm going to have to find that, too, that shows that like for even something like homicides, only 60 percent are solved and most other like less severe crimes have even worse rates. So I really would like to see you show that. You know why that is? Well, let me just remind you of their underfunded. The Peelian principle I refer to in my introduction specifically stated not to measure the police based on how many interactions they have, but by the amount of crime and the lack of it. So I personally wouldn't try to argue that they're not doing a great job unless I could show that, you know, there's an increase in crime, which there seems to be. Would you guys agree that in order to live in a free society and maintain that freedom and deter tyranny that we should give we should not give benefit of the doubt to the people who have the power to abuse us? Again, bro, I like you heard you were in my opening. You heard me say this in my opening that I think the key factor, the key thing to push for to actually solve part of this issue is the thing that's been the problem the whole line. It's this issue of transparency with the thin blue line that the us versus them, the cops, the cops saying to the bad cops, we want to protect the bad cops when they make a mistake because we want to give them the benefit of the doubt. The society doesn't because of this division that's been caused by a narrative on both sides. Yeah, bro, we got lots of problems. That's why we need to have these conversations. That's why I said in my opening, the big way to solve this, the big first step for me is not defund the police. It's transparency. It's body cams everywhere. People knowing exactly what they're doing. And it seems like we have a lot more. We have a lot more common ground than I thought before we came into this debate. And I think that if we could just calm ourselves and just kind of be a little bit less contentious, that's fair. I get why I've had some more productive discussion because like that statement that you just made sounds pretty damn reasonable to me. And I just can I comment towards why Black Lives Matter is not settling for reform, typically? For them, like if we say that like reform works, that's fine. But who it works for and how quickly is going to very greatly across different racial groups. So reforming for police is probably going to help everybody at about the same rate. I can't really analyze it that well to say how it's going to work. But it contrasts to abolition and defunding, which would help Black communities more, especially the defunding, because ideally social programs are what are needed in place of whatever problems are keeping these communities and the problems that they're stuck in. So the reason that like Black Lives Matter is the slogan is because they're saying the rate at which these Black Lives are dying is what necessitates something better than reform. They waited between 2015 and 2019 for reform. They protested relatively peacefully, considering how things are now. And they prove that they don't have time for peaceful protests. The change isn't going to come fast enough to actually save Black Lives. Really quick. Their biggest contention is with unarmed Black men being shot by police. Can you tell me how many unarmed Black men were shot by police in 2019? That's just like the biggest source that's cited to justify what's wrong. The one that justifies all the riots. I'm just curious to find all the riots. The riots, if anything, are people who are angry. I'm just curious, can you tell me the riots are not funded by statistics or facts? They're funded by anecdotes. OK, you can't fund it by anything. You get an excuse. Yes, they are. Excuse me. You get a narrative thrown out into the public that's propagated by the media, which of course also leans left, which I'm sure you people love. And it happens to always push this type of narrative that this this instance that occurred, oh, look how horrible all of the police are because of this anecdotal monstrous instance that just occurred with very limited data and perspective of what actually occurred. And all of a sudden, everyone's just running with the narrative. And this is what happens. OK. Yes, the data does you really quick. You do understand that George Floyd was an anecdote. Yeah, we do. You do understand that, correct? OK, if I could if I could respond, if I could finish what I was going to say originally about the riots, like riots are an organic thing that people do when they're mad and there's nothing they can do about that anger, whether or not the riots are happening, does not reflect on the ideology of the whole agency. But to answer your question, Richard, but where have you seen somebody saying sorry, I was going to answer Richard's question. Fourteen point eight percent of the black people that were shot by police. No, no, no, how many compared to I don't have the exact number. I just have that statistic here. This is from a study. I don't have the number, the physical, the per capita number or anything like that. Just 14 point eight percent, which is more than the nine point four percent of the white people, the five point eight percent of the Hispanic. And really quick, in those nineteen, most of those almost all were justified shoots still. So I'm just I'm curious as to how this is such an epidemic and it deserves that we justify rioting. Yeah, that's that's the problem. You're strong in their man movements. You're strong in the entire movement because it's not just that. That is what people are rallying around. That is what make is making people mad enough to mobilize. But they are actually a madabout is the systemic violence and the fact that they're constantly being targeted by police. Why are those other talking points? That's not happening. That's nonexistent. Why is no one mad about five convenient to you? Why is no one mad about five hundred murders in Chicago to date this year? Right now, that's a different subject. They are. How is it different for people shot last weekend? Sixty four people shot last week. Wait, that's a different subject. No, no, it's exactly the living room. While you guys are yelling about the mouse in the kitchen. Yeah, I know it's a different topic. That's what you guys always say. Yeah, no, it's an issue. It shows a permenance here. Let's hear from Ninetales and Kaz just because the fact is every American citizen is innocent until proven guilty. Every time a policeman shoots anybody, they're killing an innocent person. That's something to be outraged because we live in a country where liberty is tantamount. So you're saying when someone's pointing a gun at you, they're innocent at that point, saying like they're ready to shoot you and that's innocence to you. Yes, yes, that is the fact of our Constitution. We talk about this. This is the cops supposed to be hitting the boy. Do you think that nobody has ever impersonated a police officer before? Do you think that nobody's ever impersonated a police officer? You just I'm afraid that I have I have they can't hear you, friends. I have muted you. So what we are going to do is we're going to reset. Just take a deep breath. You're still muted. I'm so sorry. One sec is a let's kick it over to I think this time we'll go over to Smokey and Richard and if you can keep it short and pithy smokey just because I know that sometimes you talk fast and a lot is said and everybody has to be able to respond to all the points. So we'll kick it over to Smokey and Richard. The floor is all yours. I'll let I'll let Dick chime in here. I know I really just don't know what to say it to for you to believe that police for you to believe that police officers do not have the right to defend their lives when a someone threatens them with a gun, a lethal weapon of any kind, or by reaching for that police officer's gun, I don't know how you expect to keep the wall in order in a society without the enforcers being able to like protect themselves. The problem would be protect themselves because I got to ask you something. I got to ask you. Yes, we are talking about protecting themselves. We're okay with them. Protect themselves. Because I just said, go ahead. Because OK, so so I got to I got to make this a little bit personal with respect to you and of course to your family. But I imagine if you had someone break into your home and hold a knife to one of your family members' throats and police officer came in because you had called that there was something violent happening in your house and the police officer shot that person, would you say, oh, how dare you police officer you shot an innocent man? Can I please please answer that, Kaz? Go ahead. Yeah, so like, this isn't an issue of whether or not the criminal is actually a criminal or as to whether or not killing is the only way to get rid of them. The issue is that the police in these situations have all the power to kill people. They have backup. They have all the things that the person that they're supposedly afraid of doesn't. They have a lack of accountability, which I guess we've already agreed needs to change. But in all of these things that surround the details of that of that murder is what they're actually mad about. Like Black Lives Matter isn't coming out and saying the police are literally never justified in shooting anybody. I don't think I've ever heard any of that. Although I will point out that if we defund the police and put them in less situations where they might say escalate things with their presence or sometimes their controlling behavior, then maybe this would happen less just organically. Statistical fact, defunding the police increases Black people's deaths. That's just that's just how it is. Yes, you people are pushing for more on spot of death. You have a study on that. I have multiple sources I could pull and send you guys who do not have them on me right now. But yes, I believe there's been there's been increases. There's been increases in death shootings and murders. If just look at from between 2019 and 2020, that's that. Can I can I finish, please? But that's the problem with this already. Can I finish, please? Because I'm about to give you a stat that people keep asking me for. OK, settled on. Hold on. You're just a bit loud. So you're you're close to bumping up on the top of the volume. We're going to kick it over to our smokey. But smokey, I need you to be short and sweet. And then we're going to go over to Nineteals and Cas for a while. 364 deaths as of last year, 2019. Now up to 500 deaths. This is just a stat from Chicago. Number of shootings and deaths in Minneapolis up 140 to 150 percent recently, which is also the result of systemic racism. Go ahead. I yield. I'm just curious. Do you really? Can you provide me any study that shows that there's a reduction in crime when police are removed from an area? Well, that's the whole basis to which experts advocate for it. Like they literally talk about how when you just defund the police, but you kind of just give that money back to the council and don't tell them to do anything with it. You do get that increase in murders and stuff like that. But when you allocate, reallocate those resources to social services and then actually get them to be the people who are responding, it's different. I actually can't find the study. I tried looking for it earlier today that I saw that said this. It was more like an article that went. It was more like a meta analysis. But yeah, experts routinely cite the fact that when the funding is done properly, it helps avoid these situations. So that's what I had. That's a problem I had with Smokey's study is that he need to vouch for the fact that the stuff that that what that the samples taken actually followed the demands that Black Lives Matter has, which is not just to defund the police. It's to defund the police and reallocate those resources to better responses. Yeah, but you know, the problem is that throwing it up in the air of quote unquote, better responses, when no one can actually put a name on what that is or what you guys, you guys haven't even been. I already have one thing he says guns. You say no guns. You say special training. He says special training. That's fine. Just saying having all agreed to special training. Well, yeah, dude. But the thing is everything you've mentioned is something that cops already are already implored to do. And the only thing you can present and that's why they're overworked and the only thing you both can present is an extra layer of separation between the people that are potentially armed and the ones that aren't, which is great. So hold on, which is just to get a lot of killed, man. Let me finish. I want to ask you a question. Just so you have the chance to let the violent thing have more opportunity, more time to actually transpire while we're waiting for the second layer of responder to arrive. Who's actually able to deal with it? All you guys are doing is creating a nightmare social situation of increased risk for the sake of what you guys haven't even really described it well enough to me. Go ahead and say one thing before and I'll make sure you get to ask your question. Good. Yeah. Considering that again, 4% of police respond responses are to violent crime and that way more are to like mental health calls. I think it just cleanly makes sense. It's just obvious common sense that maybe it's better for mental health professionals who aren't trained in various war like tactics to deal with these people because their job is to de-escalate rather than, you know, leaving that up to people who are trained to be violent. Sorry, Kaz. I'm curious. I'm curious. How do you draw a content? What is the connection between guns and the Black Lives Matter killings that are touted in the news? Which of these which of these victims of police shootings were armed? Were any of them armed of the one that sparked these riots? Yeah, of all the ones that sparked the riots. Who is Jacob? Right. It's a toy gun. Jacob Blake. Oh, you want to do. Oh, do you want to do all of these? Because we can do all of these. Yeah, Tamir Rice was also, I believe, a toy gun. 511. He was 511 6 2 with a toy gun that looked real. So that makes it. Pointed at the cop. And no, but we live in a country where carrying guns is legal. It looks like a grown man. Kerry is legal. He was shorter than the cop car. I saw this. He pointed it at the cop. What do you do? Because I didn't see that in the video. I didn't see that in the video. What? What? He turns around at the gun with the gun. What is the crime when they rolled up on him from nowhere? It doesn't my word. It does not matter if somebody points a gun at a police officer. The police officer is not does not have to wait for them to shoot him or them or her. This narrative is going to to bolster the anti gun people out there that wanted to outlaw weapons. For the general citizenry, you're bolstering that position. I hope you know that. Smokey, can I ask you a question? Yeah, so like if if whenever the cops say somebody has has a weapon, do you just take that for granted because it's more convenient to you? Or do you actually like try to discern if that person actually had a weapon? You know, is it do you just like the boots right off the bat? It doesn't matter that we were allowed to have weapons in America because we're Americans. What's happening? Yeah, no, sure. We're allowed to have weapons. And I think that the idea of some receiving a call of someone with a weapon. Yeah, it needs to be taken seriously. Didn't even go after the right person. They went after the wrong person. So how does that call really to him? Well, OK, remind me, I'm sorry, we must be talking about a very specific and what are we going to do again, which is, of course, the foundation of this entire stinking debate. So which anecdote do you really want to die on the hill of Jacob Blake? I mean, planting evidence and weapons on on suspects is very common for the police. So I think it's something worth talking about. There were there were maybe like 18 people around when that happened. OK, they were just they threw a knife down there on the four boards. He was screaming. Wait a minute. So he had a weapon in his hands or what? What do you have a weapon? What was the weapon? He had he either had a weapon on him or it was on his the four board of the driver's side. And he was he didn't have it. I'm going to get my knife. You can hear him say I'm going to get my knife. Well, I'm no, you might have heard that in your head. But no, we know it in my own head. I'm yeah, I'm just making up facts. I'm yeah, I'm curious, I'm curious. Did he know what? Why was Jacob Blake there? So actually, I have a better question. If Jacob Blake is going to get his knife, let me know. I have a much better question. If Jacob Blake was going to get his knife, why didn't the cops just stay the fuck away from him? If they did that, then they wouldn't have had to shoot him out of self-defense because there were three kids in the back seat of that vehicle. He wasn't going to stab his own kids. I didn't say they were going to stab him. I didn't say that he was going to stab him. The cops had no reason to shoot him that way. He would get in his car and drive away. He was one on the cops can follow him. They don't want to shoot him to force him to comply. He had a felony warrant. So can I ask you something? He had a felony warrant. That's why they were... How did they wouldn't have known that? They had no way of knowing that. Yes, they did know that. So they just read his line and knew he had a warrant. That's amazing. How did they do that? No, oh my word. Do you have no understanding of policing? How did they know he had a warrant? Can I explain to you how this works, then, if you really don't understand? There was a 911 call. The dispatcher relays it to the responding unit. That dispatcher told them the name Jacob Blake. How did the dispatcher know the name? Hold on, we've got to let him do this. Because the 911 caller was the woman that Jacob Blake had just sexually assaulted. Sexually assaulted? I thought you just said it was a weapons call. Or were you referring to something else? No, what was it a weapon? You don't know the facts of this case. Well, we were talking with the Jacob Blake. You don't know the facts. I said, what if it's a weapons call? So I figured, you know, anyways... No, hold on. No, no, no. So they're talking out of your ass. You don't know anything about Jacob Blake. That guy wasn't even the guy they were after. How are you forgetting this? They went after the wrong person when they got there. What are you, no, they didn't. Yes, they didn't. They got a call for Jacob Blake, who had just sexually assaulted a woman. Prove it that they got a call for Jacob Blake. I dare you to prove that. Good luck. We have maybe five to 10 minutes before Q&A. I really can't believe you're trying to defend Jacob Blake and then also trying to have this discussion when you clearly have no idea the facts of that case. The cops clearly could have retreated and followed him. No, they couldn't have. No, let me finish. They tried to pace him twice. Let me finish. The police don't get to shoot somebody just because they're not compliant, okay? So just because Jacob Blake had a warrant and just because he might have been going for a weapon, doesn't mean that they got to shoot him. He could have driven away. They could have followed him. They actually do this. Quite a bit in there. They endanger the lives of those kids, yeah. They weren't endangered. Let's hear from Kaz soon. Okay, I wanna just kind of take a second here because when this whole thing started, when I heard your opening statements, there were some points that made me think that we could have some kind of agreement here and maybe do something constructive here. So I wanna ask you guys, are you in favor with mandating police body cams? Yes, 100%. Absolutely 100%. Okay, so that's something that we can totally solidly agree on. No more discussion on that. Okay, would you agree that there should be some kind, what would be the accountability or the punishment for a policeman who's found turning off his body cam or doing something else to deliberately inhibit our ability to see what happens? Case by case scenario. But worst case scenario, what would you say should happen? Well, what, where someone ended up dying because of it? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, then there's gonna have to be prosecution investigation, stuff like that. That's a, just let it handle it like any other murder. Yeah, exactly. Would you guys be in favor of some kind of educational minimum for police officers? Of course. They already have that. Yeah, they already have that. They already have that and we're all for looking at ideas where increasing the, I would say, tolerable threshold of who's chosen to take the position. And I would even agree that perhaps the standards, yeah, well, perhaps the standards of what's required of them haven't quite been aligned properly for many years. And so maybe there is a necessity for things that have been missing from the equation. I'm willing to discuss that. Things like personal counseling or making sure that there's regular psychiatric evaluations, things like this that maybe aren't necessarily normative, I think are absolutely feasible and justifiable. This defund the police in general, because we just want something better but we can't tell you what it is. This is just pure softest garbage. Okay, would you be in favor of taking some of that funding that we already give the police and using that to specifically train cops to de-escalate situations first? Absolutely, but they already have that focus that. Yeah, they focus on that all the time. Yeah, should police that fail in that based upon reviews of body cam footage be put up to reprimand and retraining based upon that exact type of scenario? Yes, absolutely. If they show a lack of an ability to de-escalate situations or they're noticed by their sergeant or commanding officer to do so, yes, bro. And these are the types of conversations we should be having, not what's been being pushed in the narrative. And this is why it's toxic and it's dangerous and it's endangering all of us. And this is why we need to evolve this conversation or we're all screwed. Well, the conversation evolves when you pretend that reform is an actual solution for black communities. I'm pretty sure they would be fine with that if that actually worked, but they've kind of gone from suggesting that to more recently suggesting defunding because it didn't work for them. Yeah, well, defunding isn't working either. See, if I can really quick, one, they are calling for one, some of them are calling for the abolishment of the police across the board, which I won't straw man you, but there are some people that are calling for the abolishment. That's even more ridiculous. But okay, really quick, the defund the police movement, the problem with it is all of the police reforms that I would advocate for require more funding for these police departments. So by screaming at the top of your lungs, defund the police, whether or not there's nuance to that, whether or not there's nuance to that, you are not helping the movement or helping the cause. I have really great news because when you defund the police and give them fewer jobs that they have to respond to, they get to, you don't need as many police. You don't need as many money put into training them. You don't need as many money put into investigating and reprimanding their misactions. You now have, now you've actually taken a huge chunk of the budget put into policing costs and reallocated it somewhere else. So these extra costs that might come to the reforms that are needed afterwards are totally viable. Okay, I want to test one more point of agreement. Crime increase that is going to happen when you remove these costs. You can't say for sure it's going to happen. Oh, I 100% can. I'll point you to a Princeton study. And so with the methodology specifically, yeah, and I'm just going to tell you right now, I've seen this study with the methodology, didn't specifically follow defunding actions that followed the advice of actually reallocating it and making responders into social workers and stuff like that. So the fact that they just look at broad defunding doesn't actually speak to what Black Lives Matter is demanding. Okay, I want to test one more point of agreement. Do you guys agree that we should end the drug war? Yes. Okay, because if we end the drug war, then a lot of funding that we use for policing drugs would no longer be necessary for that. And we could use it for other things. Yep, I agree with you and I would be 100% on board with like decriminalization of drugs or most drugs that way we're not backlogging police with petty crimes such as drug use. Well, I've got three points of agreement for you guys. I feel like we won all of us, so. I mean, hold on, but the problem is that no, because all the stuff that you guys want requires money. I'm not saying you lost, I'm saying all of us won. In that respect. Literally just explained how there would be less money, how there would be less police you have to pay for if you do fund the police properly. So have fun with that talking point. I'm sorry, what we are spending right now on policing, you would consider too much and it is considerably too low. And it's considerably too low. Right now in Ohio, for instance, you only have to have like 737 hours of training before you can get out onto the streets. That's the police academy. That's the police academy and the police departments. So that's why it's better that we have fewer police to train. Again, that doesn't fix the issue of what, that doesn't fix the issue of when these cops that are still left, because you're saying that are still going to be cops. Yeah, we'll have more money for them. To actually put into their training and stuff. There will be more money available per police officer to put into their training. Here's the issue though. What are you going to do about the increase in crime? You have still not pointed to anything that would indicate. You're just assuming a magic increase of crime. You can't actually. And you're just assuming magically that people will no longer commit crime when everything says that they will obviously continue to commit crime. No, not everything. Especially if you were on the case per case basis instead of just responding to all of it with armed thugs. We're going to move into the Q and A pretty quick here. I think this might be a fine time to transition in. Want to say thanks for your questions, folks. All of our guests are linked in the description. That way if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I like that, Kaz. Or hmm, I want more of Richard. Well, all of our guests, all four, are in the description box so that you can hear more from them. So we really do appreciate all of you, Ninetales, Kaz, Smokey, and Richard for this lively debate. Thank you for hosting it. Appreciate you, James. Thank you. Appreciate it. My pleasure and we'll jump into these questions. The first one coming in from Merlin72001 says to the people on the right until you give an exact dictionary definition of Marxism, stop calling everyone on the left a Marxist. We all know you're using it as a smear. No one is impressed. Again, I'm just using their words. They're authoritative. They want to remove the capitalist structure that has brought America to the forefront and provided all of these fuckin' weak, weak-minded, young liberals. It's just giving them an excuse. It's not part of the... We're going to move to the next question. I, given that the original Superjet challenged Richard, I gotta give him the last word on that. Tony Tebb, thanks for your, says a little support. Appreciate that support. And John Maddox says, don't miss the after-show kickoff in five minutes after the debate ends. Open mic also smash that like button people. So thanks for that, John. Mark Reed says, smokey. Would you equate criminals in Chicago killing people to police who are sworn to protect killing people? Namely, not that they're sworn to... Okay. Shouldn't the police have a higher standard than murderers? Of course, absolutely. And they do by method that they're training. And this follows through with our claim that an increase in transparency and accountability is part of the solution of the problem here. And finding when there are bad hires, which bad hires are going to happen in any industry, having methods to actually locate them. And I believe a lack of transparency behind the thin blue line has been part of the problem that's instigated and catalyzed a lot of these issues that we believe are flowing over into the social circle. Next, thanks so much for your question coming in from Spart344. Says, I got myself a VPN. Take my dirty, dirty Jay Schmeckles. I don't know what that means. Next, they say open question. How about the statement, no lives matter by iced tea? Next, hey, I don't know. You're a nine lesson. Are you guys... We all have at least one point in our life, right? It's pure nihilism. That's amazing. Sunflower, thanks for your question. Says, the stat about 4% of calls being violent doesn't include domestic disputes or house alarms going off. Those often involve violence or breaking and entering. Well, maybe the first one. Yeah, the highest, by the way. Hold on, I do have to let one of our nine tails respond. Apologies. And yeah, I'm just, I have yet to see that specifically, but it seems to be like you kind of have to deal with those categorizations because sometimes I can just be people yelling at each other, which isn't inherent. What about all the calls where they don't know the situation? I hate to do this. I'm gonna give nine tails a quick chance to respond, but then I've gotta go to the next question. I just wouldn't know what answering that would actually accomplish, so whatever. Gotcha. And Tioga is in the house. She has the war paint on. She's in the live chat and she says, Michigan armed protesters took over a capital building and threatened police. No one was shot. Why? They were threatening their lives. They were pointing guns. They were not pointing guns, but okay. Next, Gabrielle Kaye. Thanks for your question. Says, why don't you enter service and make a difference? Oh, it's easy to bash people when it's not your life on the line. I've already put my life on the line once and I'm not gonna do it again. I'm good. Gotcha. Yeah, sorry, go ahead. Let's see. I wasn't even sure who that was for. I must have missed that part. Yeah, probably for us. Yeah, I would have assumed. I would have assumed the other side there. Fair. Let's see. Unless nine tails, if you wanna respond, it sounds like you had something. Otherwise, we'll go to the next one. Just a little bit. Like, yeah, like it's not just about risking your life. It's about trying to change things we're from within and we've already had one of our opponents point out that that's not exactly a reasonable thing to expect. So. Gotcha. There's that. And part 344 says for nine tails, followed Jacob Blake to where? Why should they risk people's lives with a high-speed pursuit? Well, we don't even need a high-speed pursuit. Like, that might happen, but then you just kind of scale back in. A lot of these cities, especially the ones with their crazy, huge policing systems that are hard to hold accountable, have helicopters. We can follow them. Cars run out of gas. You know, I don't really think a father is going to put their family into a hushed scenario. Maybe. He already did. Richard. No, he didn't. I have to let Melania, or I'm sorry, nine tails, I have to let nine tails have the last answer and then we'll. But either way, like, they can get their guy in the end. I'm not saying that, like, it'd be like the Haas situation is great, but then they can not let the people die. Next, we have one from John Maddox, who says, you guessed it, don't miss the after show and send those superjazz people, help teams keep this amazing channel growing. Appreciate that support, John, and want to let you know folks, we're working on big, like, no joke. In the next several days, a, an event will pop up that you'll be like, James, are you serious? They're really going to be on modern day debate. So we're working on setting up some cool stuff. And so we are, we appreciate that support. We're putting your superjazz to good use. And, Gabriel. Such a tease. Huh? You're such a tease. Wait, I mean, it's exciting. I almost put it on today, but I, it's a, I'm really pumped. We've got, honestly, for real, it's just such an exciting time for modern day debate. I am pumped. And I can't thank you guys enough. You, you really, you're the lifeblood of the channel. The folks, I got to tell you, like, the, the debaters make it happen. And so I just want you to know, we appreciate them so much. They're linked in the description in case you want to hear more. And so for real, we do appreciate you. You try to keep it lit for you, James. That's nice of you. And next, Gabriel Kay, thanks for your, Superjet said, so you're advocating harm to unarmed social workers? No, no, obviously they would de-escalate things and avoid harm. Like, we only wish the police could learn to do. Gotcha. And the police aren't the only armed people in America that are, you know, officials. Other officials are armed. Probation officers. Smokey. They don't respond to, they're not responding to crimes though. Sometimes. Next up, thanks for your question, so hopefully, let me know if I mispronounce. Vorskla says, why does property crime, monetary crimes and cop, quote unquote, self-defense crimes seem to be punishable by death sometimes? Cops can have backup and have max pros. I'm not sure what max pros means. Qualified immunity, maybe? I'm not sure. Yeah, I'm not sure. What they're going with that? Yeah. Although, I would like to hear your, oh, okay, I was gonna say if you could comment on what you think about qualified immunity. Qualified immunity. Yeah, it should probably be narrowed and it is very broad right now and you could probably take a look at it, but the people that say just get rid of qualified immunity do not understand the civil liability risks that would come to police officers if that happened. Gotcha, and thanks for your question. This one comes in. It's actually John Maddox once again who says, after show, we'll be short. Big one after the second debate. That's right, we are having two debates. It's a double header tonight. We are having Oliver Janich. I think I'm pronouncing it right. He will be on debating Tom Jump after this and whether or not the, let's see, C-O-V-I-D numbers are exaggerated. So that should be interesting and we hope you make it. That should be a juicy one. Spartans that really look pretty freaking and no wonder you're rushing us here in these questions, man. Next up, our sports before four says, modern day debate, Richard, please respond. I think that they were referring here to when they asked, oh, okay, so they're saying Richard, what is your response to when they asked like why to nine tails, they asked why should a high speed pursuit have to happen here? And they're saying like, Richard, what's your response to that? What nine tails had said? I'm just curious as to when would we inevitably, like we're inevitably going to have to have a situation where the police confront the suspect and it's who's to say it's not going to be an even more violent situation than or he's not going to get people harmed in between them. James, may I? Yep. Well, this is done in all over Europe all the time. This is how de-escalating policing is done. So you can raise that concern, but it doesn't seem to be a problem for those places. He had just committed sexual assault. Allegedly. We are going to go to the standard question list. Oh, fear. Thanks for your patience. For some reason this didn't seem to make it through in the live chat, but they said question for the team supporting BLM. They said, is this quote from BLM site Marxist? And then the quote is, we disrupt the Western prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and quote unquote villages. They're disrupting a requirement. They're not trying to change everything. They're just saying that this shouldn't be required anymore. Gotcha. And Jay from the live chat asks, question for Ninetales. Jacob Blake assaulted the mother of his kids and stole her keys. Is it really okay to let him get inside a car he didn't own and drive away with kids he didn't have custody of? I haven't heard that yet. I have no interest in defending Jacob Blake specifically. I would rather we stick to the entire movement in general. There are many other examples. We can focus in on one and have a debate on that if you'd like. And I might have a totally different opinion, but Jacob Blake specifically is not Black Lives Matter. I would like to just take issues. You guys brought nothing but anecdotes to the debate. That's an amazing thing to hear. Yes. Was it Ninetales or Richard that had something to say or did you both? I just wanted to take an opportunity. Richard, do you want to go first and I'll just wrap it up. No, no, you can go. Just go, just go. Okay, yeah. So like I'll admit that with the Jacob Blake thing I was rather understudied and I mostly was dealing with what I'd heard about at the time. The funny thing about Jacob Blake is that every other murder before this I'd pretty much looked into it as much as I could, but this one, it's just becoming too much. It's too much emotion and stuff like that. So I was probably wrong about some details, but I think my point stands they could have deescalated rather than doing what they did. Was that maybe fake news? Was that maybe fake news? Let's hear from Richard one to see something. If BLM was to put, if they were putting the actual cases where police fucked up, such as Walter Scott, such as Philando Castile, we could then I would be more inclined to agree with BLM and to support it, but they don't. They get behind people like Jacob Blake and Michael Brown. Like I'm sorry, it's just they choose the wrong hills to die on. We are going to go to the final question, SPART 344. Let me think of, I'm trying to remember the last question. You should actually respond to that since I think that question was from me anyways. Can't remember who it was for. I think, Because it was about Jacob Blake. Yeah, I think it was for you, Nintel. So go ahead, because it came in from J, remember that? Yeah, BLM isn't inherently saying that Jacob Blake was right. They're saying that he was a victim of policing issues that need to be solved soon or rather than later. Next, this one comes in from SPART 344. Patreon question says, the point is that these people are being propped up as victims before the full story is released. I think they're talking about Jacob Blake. Can you repeat that? They are victims, they are innocent until proven guilty. So they're saying, quote, the point is that these people are being propped up as victims before the full story is released. Yeah, people like Jacob Blake. Oh, it was for Nintel's. Okay, but yes, thank you. Yeah, yeah, so we know that capital punishment is already pretty much looked down upon over most of society. Some places still have it, but it's becoming obsolete because we're just evolving as a species. And so, police should be avoiding acting as an arm of the law that way. And certainly, whatever people claimed he was shouting afterwards does not justify any of that. All right, and want to say thanks so much to everybody for your questions. I need to wrap it up, and that is, believe it or not, we have run out of questions. I think you guys have solved the issue. That's what that means. So everybody, it's a- Certainly. We want to say we appreciate our guests. Like I said, they're the lifeblood of the channel. We really do appreciate them. And their links are below if you'd like to hear more folks. So one last thanks to Nintel's, Kaz, or also known as Factionalist Network and Smokey and Richard. We appreciate you guys being with us. And thank you for your super hard work, James. Yeah, thank you, James. You're great. Thanks, Smokey. Appreciate it, guys. Thanks everyone for the debate. Good time. Thanks so much. And yes, we will be back with Tom Jump. By the way, no joke, it is Tom Jump's birthday today. So you might as well show up to wish him a happy birthday. And also, that'll be a fun one. And so yeah, it's a pump though. Tomorrow we will have, for the first time Rose, she will be defending the Flat Earth Model against Mark Drizdale. And so that should be really fun. And then- She has a model? Huh? She has a model? Like an actual model? I've always wanted one. Oh, a Flat Earth Model. I don't know if she does. I've never heard any Flat Earthers with an actual model. It'll be juicy. I promise you that. And- Wouldn't that just ruin it? We might Sunday night have Trump versus Biden as a topic. It depends on if I get a hold of Jeff or we might have someone, an old guest who hasn't been on the channel for about a year may come on and take that spot. So Gabrielle Kay sends in a last minute question saying, Kaz, are you okay to cast your ballot for a racist boomer? No BS to reflect to our president. She's talking about- I think they're accusing Biden of being- Biden. What do you- Well, the whole white kids and poor kids comment was pretty bad, so. I'm, oh man, you can ask me that question. Come on my Discord after the show and we'll talk about it. There you have it. So thanks so much, folks. We hope you keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable, take care and we will hopefully see you for that last half of tonight, that double header. And so with that, thanks so much for being here.