Jump to content

[Police brutality] American injustice, yet again.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm not going to try to get into an argument on this.  I'm just going to state things as I see them.  It will be kinda long.  I am a defense attorney and was a public defender for nearly a decade.  So

I'm glad we have a police viewpoint in here.  One of the scoutmasters in our troop is a long time cop, and he has the best stories.  He's also apologetic for the bad apples and "bad shoots" that we us

My point is that it shouldn't matter if the boys in blue are chatting up Beelzebub out for a Sunday stroll; the actions of the person being questioned/stopped are what ought to matter. Putting that as

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

This is not how violence works.

 

Yes! There is a racism problem in policing in the US, and there is also a violence problem. I was on reddit, and a New Zealander was commenting on a video where a cop was getting yelled at for having had his hand on his weapon as he approached a vehicle. The New Zealander commented that in his country, the police keep their weapons in their cars until they think they need them. I told him, in the US, we shoot a lot more cops than they do. Take a look at the correlations between police shooting people, people shooting police, and the general murder rate:

1376264653_PoliceViolence1.jpg.fbf5e9d97101546da630649235d672cb.jpg

 

again, it's pretty easy to crunch numbers and show that violence is applied in a racially prejudiced way. Even so, we can't fix the US police violence problem until we figure out the US violence problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, csyphrett said:

Word is coming in that the police are shooting at providers of first aid at the protests. Good job, police. I thought you were supposed to give first aid, not block it.

CES

 

 

I haven't heard about shooting, but I know they vandalized some first aid stations.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

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!

 

If they get sent in if and when those disputes turn violent, it could already be too late for whoever is already in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

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.

 

Now see, that makes a lot of sense. Division of labor, cooperation, people with complementary skill sets backing each other up. I'm very glad the Seattle police have been making that a policy. But recent events have shown that's very much the exception in America today.

 

I apologize if I gave the impression I want police to completely stay away from situations with the potential for violence. I guess the parallel I had in mind was more what we see today with a major fire, or a medical emergency. Police are there to back up, assist, control crowds; but firefighters or EMTs have primary responsibility for dealing with the situation unless and until more force is needed. Too often when police are called in for first response, aggression and force are the only tools in their chest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Too often when police are called in for first response, aggression and force are the only tools in their chest.

 

I should add that we now have evidence that there are many, many cops in service today, who have shown they're unwilling or unable to go beyond that mindset. "Retraining" has probably gone as far for them as it can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

I should add that we now have evidence that there are many, many cops in service today, who have shown they're unwilling or unable to go beyond that mindset. "Retraining" has probably gone as far for them as it can.

 

They need to both clean house and change their initial academy and departmental training to properly indoctrinate their officers with a focus on their places as members and protectors of their community.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Greywind said:

I see them paying for a lot of tires in the near future.

 

Unfortunately the other day I saw video of a news helicopter overhead camera shot of advancing police forces, where they appear to have smashed in a car window... for no reason I can possibly conceive of.  Was the glass too tinted to see in or something?  It looked like a back window, so I couldn't see how that would help much...

 

If I find it, I'll share it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

A cop gets fired for NOT shooting someone (civilian gets shot by cops anyways).

 

“I Don’t Want to Shoot You, Brother”

 

I remember that story. The cop sued and won.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/12/stephen-mader-west-virginia-police-officer-settles-lawsuit

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

It's something I keep hearing from interviews with police. So many cops seem to be convinced that their job is to keep themselves alive. It's not a win if they come home alive. It's a win if everyone comes home alive.

 

A lot has to do with our culture, I'm certain.  Access to guns, death rate of cops... but keep in mind, there are many other jobs that have a much higher fatality rate...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sociotard said:

Yes! There is a racism problem in policing in the US, and there is also a violence problem. I was on reddit, and a New Zealander was commenting on a video where a cop was getting yelled at for having had his hand on his weapon as he approached a vehicle. The New Zealander commented that in his country, the police keep their weapons in their cars until they think they need them. I told him, in the US, we shoot a lot more cops than they do. Take a look at the correlations between police shooting people, people shooting police, and the general murder rate:

 

  

8 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

A lot has to do with our culture, I'm certain.  Access to guns, death rate of cops... but keep in mind, there are many other jobs that have a much higher fatality rate...

 

In the first 50 weeks of 2019, 38 police officers were shot and killed in the line of duty. That doesn't include officers off duty, or killed by "friendly fire."

 

Also in 2019, 1,003 people were shot and killed by police.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

A lot has to do with our culture, I'm certain.  Access to guns, death rate of cops... but keep in mind, there are many other jobs that have a much higher fatality rate...

 

not from violence. "Risk from Violence" gets calculated differently from "Risk from Accident" or "Risk from Disease" by our monkey brains. Farmers and construction workers have a higher workplace mortality, but from accidents. Police and soldiers are at higher risk of death by violence (although I think nurses have a higher rate of getting assaulted). (I don't think prostitutes get logged on those stats)

 

It's not that ACAB, nor that all cops are heroes. Cops are human. Cops want to live. We don't get heroes. We have to make policies and procedures (and really a civilization) that make it less likely those humans will feel the need to kill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

not from violence. "Risk from Violence" gets calculated differently from "Risk from Accident" or "Risk from Disease" by our monkey brains. Farmers and construction workers have a higher workplace mortality, but from accidents. Police and soldiers are at higher risk of death by violence (although I think nurses have a higher rate of getting assaulted). (I don't think prostitutes get logged on those stats)

 

I agree, though some of it was definitely related to 'violence in other positions'.  A cop's job is to be confrontational, which is part of the difficulty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Police are there to back up, assist, control crowds; but firefighters or EMTs have primary responsibility for dealing with the situation unless and until more force is needed. Too often when police are called in for first response, aggression and force are the only tools in their chest.

 

In the United States of America, more emphasis is assigned to marksmanship over diplomacy.

 

  

2 hours ago, Sociotard said:

It's not that ACAB, nor that all cops are heroes. Cops are human. Cops want to live. We don't get heroes. We have to make policies and procedures (and really a civilization) that make it less likely those humans will feel the need to kill.

 

We do know that the notion they are heroes is - despite protestations to the contrary - consistently pushed, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Old Man said:

...and they're not great at marksmanship.

 

In a strange way, even the Constitution is slanted to support force over reason; the First Amendment says nothing about using that right for the goal of interpersonal peace (there are limits we later established, such as not being able to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but that isn't the same thing) while the Second Amendment is all about owning firearms for defense (or ostensibly so...some people push the definition of defense to justify their barely restrained aggression). When this mentality is a fundamental part of the nation's makeup, is it any wonder why the police don't behave much better than John Q?

Link to post
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...