Jump to content

[Police brutality] American injustice, yet again.


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

 

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). 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?

 

I'm not sure why the goal of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" even matters. What matters is that it's peaceable, and Congress is forbidden from making any law abridging that right. Violence is contrary to the wording of the First Amendment. The Second Amendment has been interpreted and debated ad nauseum, and I don't see any benefit to revisiting that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

6 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

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

 

 

 

This is the only thing I could find from a quick google search where the police arrested doctors and first aid workers in minneapolis for breaking curfew which they were exempt from. 

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/931744

 

One of the things posted was a guy complaining that he was helping someone who had been hurt away from the protests and the police opened up with rubber bullets and shot him and the person he was helping.

CES

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

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.

 

I disagree. You can make blanket statements about the scope of work of another person without having done the same work. Everybody on the streets around the world is doing exactly that. 

 

The council of Minneapolis has expressed  the intent to explore the dissolution of the MPD entirely. 

 

Police all over the country have had countless opportunities to address the problems and universally they all close ranks, resist reform, refuse oversight and ignore any challenges to their monopoly of force. Police aren't part of the solution, they're core to the problem. The solution of Minneapolis might be some portion of a national solution. The structural problem won't go away without a large scale fix. They'll never accept incremental reform and they'll always just go back to their old ways once the heat is off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

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.

 

That training comes from the top down. It's what whole generations of police have been indoctrinated in. Without tearing down a big part of that structure, the house will never be clean.

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

I disagree. You can make blanket statements about the scope of work of another person without having done the same work. Everybody on the streets around the world is doing exactly that. 

 

The council of Minneapolis has expressed  the intent to explore the dissolution of the MPD entirely. 

 

Police all over the country have had countless opportunities to address the problems and universally they all close ranks, resist reform, refuse oversight and ignore any challenges to their monopoly of force. Police aren't part of the solution, they're core to the problem. The solution of Minneapolis might be some portion of a national solution. The structural problem won't go away without a large scale fix. They'll never accept incremental reform and they'll always just go back to their old ways once the heat is off.

 

It seems like the only people who don't see that American police as a whole have not been doing what the public asks of them, are the police. Yes, they know what the job of a cop is like. Most of them have no clue what it's like to be on the receiving end of how they do that job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have so many billionaires in the world today.  Many of these problems would go away if just one in each major city would step up and endure 10 years of intense training, invest in cutting edge gadgets and vehicles, and construct a secret lair.

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

I disagree. You can make blanket statements about the scope of work of another person without having done the same work. Everybody on the streets around the world is doing exactly that. 

 

You're moving the goal post. The discussion there wasn't about the police, it was about sending in civilians with the expectation that if things turned violent, the police could be called in after the fact.

 

The scope of work I was talking about were social workers and other similar professions, not the police. If you don't know what they deal with, you can't speak to their safety concerns.

 

I NEVER said that police reform wasn't necessary, or said that it had to be incremental, only that the solution of sending other responders into dangerous situations in their stead was foolish.

 

 

 

 

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

For my part, I already clarified my position on that point.

 

Acknowledged, and appreciated.

 

There's still the underlying issue of emotion-driven policy decisions being dangerous.

 

Tearing something down and starting over is an appealing idea, but you really need to have both a broad and deep understanding of what you're dealing with.

 

 

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

The Second Amendment has been interpreted and debated ad nauseum, and I don't see any benefit to revisiting that.

 

While I am not sure I see much benefit either, it seems like the right to firearms, generally touted as "necessary should a government become a tyranny" seems a pretty clear indicator that a violent solution is a choice which is desired, even enshrined, to be on the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

While I am not sure I see much benefit either, it seems like the right to firearms, generally touted as "necessary should a government become a tyranny" seems a pretty clear indicator that a violent solution is a choice which is desired, even enshrined, to be on the table.

Posted this in the Politics thread, seems to fit here too...

 

101546372_10159921421228502_678023332850

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the body cam footage from the above case:

 

 

The guy's lucky he didn't get shot, IMO.

 

Also, if that was actually a shoplifting instead of a robbery, as the article states, then the shop keeper was 100% in the wrong bringing the gun into play to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

This is not how violence works.

Spend a few hours on a channel like Active Self Protection and you'll quickly realize that violence often is over minutes before the police arrive.  The idea of sending a response team that then has to call for an armed response team "if" things turn violent is like sending team A out to die.

 

Just spend a few hours watching martial arts fantasy and self-defense theory melt away in the face of hundreds of real life deadly or violent encounters.  Doesn't matter if its citizens or police.  You have split seconds to react.  Not minutes.

If Team A has to call for back up they are in serious trouble or are already wounded/dead.

 

16 hours 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.

 

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.

 

Just - Thank you.  So much better than I would have said it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

There's still the underlying issue of emotion-driven policy decisions being dangerous.

 

 

I definitely appreciate the sentiment of the protest, but they require leaders with a clear and workable plan... and I'm not sure which options work in this situation.

 

OTOH, this is the largest protest I think I've ever been alive to see...

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

 

Faked his fall?

 

I don't have words for this that won't get me banned.

 

Anyone thinking it was faked, should re-listen to the audio. Sounds like a ripe melon being split open when the guy falls. I winced when I heard it.

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

Anyone thinking it was faked, should re-listen to the audio. Sounds like a ripe melon being split open when the guy falls. I winced when I heard it.

 

It's pretty awful.

 

I saw the man with a helmet and a phone in his hand, but I didn't see how a phone would cause a 'blackout'.  It looked like he was returning the helmet and was holding the phone with the intent of recording the interaction (just in case).  He never really did, or got much of a chance.

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...