Jump to content

[Police brutality] American injustice, yet again.


Ragitsu
 Share

Recommended Posts

2012 Republican presidential nominee and current United States Senator Willard Mitt Romney(R-UT), marching with protesters in DC and saying the words "black lives matter" may not seem like a big deal, but it's a hell of a signal as to where the country has moved.  It's not all bad news folks.  Minneapolis is heading towards disbanding their municipal police department and replacing it with a new model.  If that works out, police unions around the country are going to have some tough decisions ahead of them.  I'd recommend that they change their policies in order to let the "bad apples" all go.  But that's just me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, megaplayboy said:

2012 Republican presidential nominee and current United States Senator Willard Mitt Romney(R-UT), marching with protesters in DC and saying the words "black lives matter" may not seem like a big deal, but it's a hell of a signal as to where the country has moved.  It's not all bad news folks.  Minneapolis is heading towards disbanding their municipal police department and replacing it with a new model.  If that works out, police unions around the country are going to have some tough decisions ahead of them.  I'd recommend that they change their policies in order to let the "bad apples" all go.  But that's just me.  

 

I see that... I hope the replacement works.  Because I know the people involved (within the government itself) aren't invested in making it work... They are, though, interested in looking the other way about stuff like using the military in urban cities in the US...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Romney invented Obamacare, he's been a commie for decades.  :winkgrin:

It is fascinating how "liberal" Republicans have completely disappeared in my lifetime(they're all "centrist" or "conservative" Democrats now), and now "moderate-to-conservative" Republicans have become an endangered species.  The base is now either hardline/hardcore conservative or some flavor of "conservative with libertarian views" or "libertarian with conservative views".  That's great for them, I suppose, but it doesn't get you to overall majority support in the nation at large.  Instead you're stuck at 40-45% or so.  It doesn't seem like a formula for long-term political success(at least not in a functioning democratic republic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

It doesn't seem like a formula for long-term political success(at least not in a functioning democratic republic).

 

I believe I've identified the problem there....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

2012 Republican presidential nominee and current United States Senator Willard Mitt Romney(R-UT), marching with protesters in DC and saying the words "black lives matter" may not seem like a big deal, but it's a hell of a signal as to where the country has moved.   

 

Naturally, some people here in Utah are criticizing that action, saying that it's just Mitt Romney looking for a camera to stand in front of.

 

My response is, "At least Senator Romney didn't have to gas a bunch of people at a church for his photo-op."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority”

 

And sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person” And they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay." - flyingpurplepizzaeater on tumblr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One point I've seen repeatedly raised recently, is that contemporary police departments in America have expanded in large measure because they're often used to deal with people and situations that could probably be more effectively handled by other services with different training: domestic disputes, drug addicts, the homeless, the mentally ill. Funds and resources for those activities could be diverted to social services and health care, reducing the number of police by focusing them on tasks they're better suited for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

One point I've seen repeatedly raised recently, is that contemporary police departments in America have expanded in large measure because they're often used to deal with people and situations that could probably be more effectively handled by other services with different training: domestic disputes, drug addicts, the homeless, the mentally ill. Funds and resources for those activities could be diverted to social services and health care, reducing the number of police by focusing them on tasks they're better suited for.

True.  You could have a "social work force", a "regulatory force" and a "serious crime investigation force".  Only the last one would need to be armed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Greywind said:

Doubtful since domestic disputes turn violent, drug addicts can turn violent, etc. Which is why police are sent into those situations armed.

 

They should be sent in if and when those disputes turn violent, not as a first response. Evidence has shown repeatedly that most violent incidents of that type escalate after police start threatening or using force themselves. Most American police are either untrained in de-escalation strategies, or don't take them seriously.

 

I'm reminded of recent social media postings from American police about renewed proposals to remove "qualified immunity," which makes them not personally liable to legal action over their conduct. The gist of what the police are posting is that if that is taken away, they'll only respond if it's an actual emergency or if there's a victim. To which I reply, Yes! Please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

It is fascinating how "liberal" Republicans have completely disappeared in my lifetime(they're all "centrist" or "conservative" Democrats now), and now "moderate-to-conservative" Republicans have become an endangered species.  The base is now either hardline/hardcore conservative or some flavor of "conservative with libertarian views" or "libertarian with conservative views".  That's great for them, I suppose, but it doesn't get you to overall majority support in the nation at large.  Instead you're stuck at 40-45% or so.  It doesn't seem like a formula for long-term political success(at least not in a functioning democratic republic).

 

I'm left to wonder exactly what you think libertarians believe.  Libertarians have been against police abuse of power since there have been libertarians.  They aren't just another flavor of Republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Armory said:

 

I'm left to wonder exactly what you think libertarians believe.  Libertarians have been against police abuse of power since there have been libertarians.  They aren't just another flavor of Republican.

There are libertarians of all stripes, yes, but in practice they either vote Republican or Libertarian.  They don't generally pull the lever for Democrats, in my experience.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, BNakagawa said:

if your first response to a potentially violent situation is a police officer whose default response to conflict is violence, then you're just creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

You're making a lot of assumptions that aren't true.

 

Due to a series of unfortunate events, I'm running on about three hours of sleep at the moment, so I'm not going to attempt a lengthy response, but I'll say this much for now:

 

If you think that your intervention teams can call for the police after a violent encounter starts and have your people be safe, you are naive at best. This is the assumption I was addressing in the post you quoted. It's simply wrong, and defies all logic.

 

Also, I've worked with social workers from hospital staff, to county, to city crisis intervention team members. By "work," I mean I stand watch over them as they do interviews to prevent them from being harmed. I work healthcare security in a large city. I can unequivocally state that our Seattle PD officers are far better as a group than any of these folks at de-escalation. This is because they are better trained, and because they are constantly practicing their skills. If you think social work in any way entails extensive training in de-escalating people who are both violent and psychotic, you're wrong. They aren't the same as workers who are employeed by in patient psychiatric facilities.

 

If a department has a problem with de-escalation skills, then you raise their standards. And there are many out there who do need to improve. But you don't send people into a volatile situation without protection of some kind. You'll just end up with dead and injured social workers, and shortly thereafter a shortage of people in a field that's already seriously short staffed.

 

You can't make blanket statements about the scope of work of another person unless you've done the same work, in the same environment. Suggesting we replace police with civilians for the types of calls outlined above is shortsighted at best. Seattle has started intervention teams of social workers and police officers working together, and this has been effective in bringing help to people with the lowest possible risk to all involved. You should probably start looking at solutions already working within the system before talking about tearing the system down wholesale.

 

Snark doesn't help improve things. Thought experiments without first hand knowledge doesn't help things. Shouting for change without an informed plan doesn't solve things. There are real safety concerns here that need to be considered -- and I'm talking about from all sides, from the public, to the subjects of police calls, to social, medical and other support services, to the police themselves -- before running off half-cocked. You can't burn everything to the ground then claim a victory for equity because everyone's now living in ashes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...