[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I also happen to be of the mind that there should be minimum age for being a cop (exempted for military vets/ reserve members) of approximately 25 or so - or at least in a use-of-force decision making capacity.

Not sure it would be wise exempting vets in this instance since their experience of deciding to use force is going to be predominantly to always use force. In practical terms of course I doubt there are too many ex vets turned cops who are under the age of 25 anyway are there? I would expect most to be older than that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I would start from the question: What do citizens want their police to be like?

Meaning, like I did right here...

Originally Posted by subego 

I used "should" in the statement to indicate it is not limited by what is, and is instead a reflection of what is desired.

In the very post being replied to. The one supposedly asking the wrong question.

The purpose behind my (if I do say so myself, most excellent) question was not so I could "continue by probing examples which are borderline", but precisely what I stated, to find a reflection of what is desired.

I picked the example I did because to make it relatable to the case at hand, but that is by no means a requirement. The knife example is equally acceptable.

What I will do with that example is the following: ask how this desire should be translated into law. I fully agree with the proposition its preferable to have the police disarm a knife-wielding suspect rather than shoot them. How will this be achieved without punishing the police who don't?

If punishing the police is the mechanism, then a scenario has been created where a citizen may respond to a knife with deadly force, but a police officer may not.

Ignoring the probable violation of the 14th Amendment, how does one even begin to sell the proposition those charged with engaging violent felons are given less authority to use violence than an ordinary citizen?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Not sure it would be wise exempting vets in this instance since their experience of deciding to use force is going to be predominantly to always use force.

My understanding is most soldiers operate under a far more stringent set of rules.

Soldiers who mess up not only take someone's life, they risk precipitating an international incident.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

The purpose behind my (if I do say so myself, most excellent) question was not so I could "continue by probing examples which are borderline", but precisely what I stated, to find a reflection of what is desired.

I picked the example I did because to make it relatable to the case at hand, but that is by no means a requirement. The knife example is equally acceptable.

What I will do with that example is the following: ask how this desire should be translated into law. I fully agree with the proposition its preferable to have the police disarm a knife-wielding suspect rather than shoot them. How will this be achieved without punishing the police who don't?

By training police differently, so that their first instinct isn't to reach for the gun. If taking down someone with a knife without a weapon isn't part of your training, I can't blame you for not trying. And by trying to recruit different types of people, e. g. to try and hire more people with college degrees. Not all changes necessarily need to be done by changing laws, especially when existing laws aren't enforced consistently.

Originally Posted by subego 

If punishing the police is the mechanism, then a scenario has been created where a citizen may respond to a knife with deadly force, but a police officer may not.

Punishing the police isn't and should not be the most important mechanism here. Laws should be applied more consistently, and more bad cops convicted, but I don't think this can be the primary means to motivate cops to stay honest and do their job well. You're right that this will create scenarios where cops have to respond with less force. I would say that is a risk of doing the job, and if you don't want that risk, become a member of the military or a mall cop.

Originally Posted by subego 

Ignoring the probable violation of the 14th Amendment, how does one even begin to sell the proposition those charged with engaging violent felons are given less authority to use violence than an ordinary citizen?

In exactly the way that I did in my post: if you want to become a police officer, your primary job is to protect citizens and life — including the lives of the perpetrators. The job comes with risks, and the state will train you appropriately and remunerate you accordingly.

[subego]

I'm all for training cops better, and giving them the funding for it, however this is not holding them to the standard. They won't be held to the standard unless there's a consequence for them not living up to it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

My understanding is most soldiers operate under a far more stringent set of rules.

Soldiers who mess up not only take someone's life, they risk precipitating an international incident.

I'd like to think shooting an innocent civilian during a raid would provoke an incident but if airstrikes can kill dozens without raising a fuss it seems likely the odd one or two mishaps on the ground can be just as easily glossed over.

[subego]

The potential for mishaps, which it's true are judged differently, are one of the big reasons for strict rules of engagement.

I've heard examples where soldiers were only allowed to shoot back. This is far more strict than what's allowed by the police, or ordinary civilians for that matter.

These were troops presumably involved in "nation building". Ones tasked with capturing a hill probably have more leeway.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm all for training cops better, and giving them the funding for it, however this is not holding them to the standard. They won't be held to the standard unless there's a consequence for them not living up to it.

Of course it is, because training imbues cops with the values the people would like to see on the street, and these values set the standard. Values which of course must be upheld by their superior officers. But that must start way, way before incidents become worthy of a criminal investigation. Laws and rules will need to be changed along the way, but I think it is important to start with the training and more stringent enforcement of existing rules.

[BadKosh]

Same ol' Same ol'.

August most violent month in Chicago in nearly 20 years - Chicago Tribune

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...829-story.html

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Same ol' Same ol'.

August most violent month in Chicago in nearly 20 years - Chicago Tribune

Well, to be fair, if it was the "same ol'", we'd be comparing it to something more recent than 1996.

[BadKosh]

Why doesn't anyone address this? Is this what you expect?

[subego]

Surprising as it may sound, this is a recentish development. This year has been off-the-hook.

[BadKosh]

The trend has been deepening every year, and neither the MSM or anyone else seems to care how many die. Hypocrites.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Why doesn't anyone address this? Is this what you expect?

It's absolutely to be expected. Take the most segregated, impoverished communities in Chicago where the #1 employer is the underground economy. Flood it with firearms from areas outside of Chicago that have much more lax gun laws. Lock up all the "O.G's" with long sentences on drug trafficking charges so there is no one on the streets to enforce any kind of "code" among the younger gang members (e.g. not shooting indiscriminately into a crowd of civilians trying to get one rival gang member). And then we act "surprised" when the large, organized street gangs start breaking down into rival factions killing each other over territory and social media beef?

Chicago's Murder Problem - NYTimes.com

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Perhaps I misconstrued, but I understood the statement "opening a garage door while black" as presenting a case for the shooting being an example of racial bias.
...
Is the gun a pertinent detail to the determination of whether the finger can be pointed at racial bias?
...
It was intended to rebut the claim I supposedly made of the gun having relevance to the shooting's justifiability.
...
I wasn't making this claim. If this scenario is correct I feel a case can be made for me being confused by a sudden change of subject.
...
Likewise, am I mistaken in placing the goalposts for the gun's relevance to the question of racial bias differently than I place those for the gun's relevance to the justifiability of the shooting?

Any conclusion about the shooting's justifiability would answer the question of racial bias, and vice versa. They are not different questions. They are mutually exclusive, and they are the only plausible theories of the crime. Either it's one or it's the other (or there is a very creative alternative theory still being cooked up that hasn't seen the light of day yet).

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Any conclusion about the shooting's justifiability would answer the question of racial bias, and vice versa. They are not different questions. They are mutually exclusive, and they are the only plausible theories of the crime. Either it's one or it's the other (or there is a very creative alternative theory still being cooked up that hasn't seen the light of day yet).

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. There are a ton of factors that go into that decision making process and you've named but one factor - racism.

You can be racist yet still be involved in a justified shooting, even though your racial bias led to a decision. Just because a shooting is justified under the law does not mean your decision making process was free of racism.

And vice versa

You can be the opposite of racist and be involved in a bad shoot. Perhaps the cop who shot first doesn't have a racist bone in his body, yet still made the decision prematurely before properly evaluating the scenario. He would be just as guilty as a racist cop in a bad shoot, and the homeowner would be just as dead.

My personal opinion: the shooting was wrong for the wrong reasons. Racial bias likely did play a role, and that the cop who shot first should be indicted for manslaughter.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. There are a ton of factors that go into that decision making process and you've named but one factor - racism.

You can be racist yet still be involved in a justified shooting, even though your racial bias led to a decision. Just because a shooting is justified under the law does not mean your decision making process was free of racism.

And vice versa

You can be the opposite of racist and be involved in a bad shoot. Perhaps the cop who shot first doesn't have a racist bone in his body, yet still made the decision prematurely before properly evaluating the scenario. He would be just as guilty as a racist cop in a bad shoot, and the homeowner would be just as dead.

My personal opinion: the shooting was wrong for the wrong reasons. Racial bias likely did play a role, and that the cop who shot first should be indicted for manslaughter.

I was talking about the Carl Williams case, and you don't seem to be narrowing your remarks to that case (for example, Williams is still alive). Other mitigating factors are possible, in general, but in this case it's pretty clear that there aren't any.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

My personal opinion: the shooting was wrong for the wrong reasons. Racial bias likely did play a role, and that the cop who shot first should be indicted for manslaughter.

I think that racial bias will be hard to prove in court — especially if the racial bias is unconscious or of a more subtle variety. Nevertheless, I don't think you need to prove racial bias to convict the cop IMHO.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Any conclusion about the shooting's justifiability would answer the question of racial bias, and vice versa. They are not different questions. They are mutually exclusive, and they are the only plausible theories of the crime. Either it's one or it's the other (or there is a very creative alternative theory still being cooked up that hasn't seen the light of day yet).

It is not possible for the shooting to be unjustified, but free of racial bias?

Or am I misunderstanding?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's absolutely to be expected. Take the most segregated, impoverished communities in Chicago where the #1 employer is the underground economy. Flood it with firearms from areas outside of Chicago that have much more lax gun laws. Lock up all the "O.G's" with long sentences on drug trafficking charges so there is no one on the streets to enforce any kind of "code" among the younger gang members (e.g. not shooting indiscriminately into a crowd of civilians trying to get one rival gang member). And then we act "surprised" when the large, organized street gangs start breaking down into rival factions killing each other over territory and social media beef?

What you said is true but the statistics of homicides and gun related crimes was not necessarily better when the city had only 3 or 4 major street gangs. It was merely more limited to gang members and the people who hovered around them.

The city was better off when the housing projects were still up. The shootings were still up there in number but their concentration was contained. Once that populace was dispersed and given rent vouchers shooting victims who were no party to gang and drug feuds increased and we saw working class black neighborhoods suffer a spike in violent crime thanks to the new arrivals.

And lest we not to mention the cultural component to the disparity in whom perpetuates the gun crime here.

The hispanic population is just slightly smaller by percentage in Chicago but produces 1/5th the shootings in comparison to black neighborhoods. Bad schools, gangs, racial segregation all impact them in a comparable manner but yield different results.

Asking why no one has addressed this is a valid question but looking to government is futile as all they succeeded in was diluting the problem around a larger part of the city. Add to that what can only be described as a hamstrung police force who finds it more prudent to pull back rather than pursue shooters and the numbers we've seen this summer is what you get.

The only solution, if anyone wants it to be found, will only ever come from the communities and its residents where the crime is happening.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

It is not possible for the shooting to be unjustified, but free of racial bias?

Or am I misunderstanding?

Of course it's possible, but is it plausible, especially in this particular case? I can think of countless other relatively innocent non-racial causes for a hypothetical bad shooting by police, but in this case we have a verified fact (the victim was black) and we have a verified pattern of police shooting first and asking questions later, but only at blacks, and in this case in order to even ask about other non-racial explanations we would have to invent hypothetical evidence to do so. On top of that, there is only about 3 seconds of the timeline in which to insert those hypothetical evidences. If one has to bend over backwards to invent a reason to exclude the blatantly obvious racial motivation (and even after doing so one has little to show for it; only questions, no answers, not even flimsy ones), one is edging into racist territory oneself.

[BadKosh]

Those all important and oft times repeated DEMOCRAT TALKING POINTS and the associated agenda.

DCCC On BLM | The Smoking Gun

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Of course it's possible, but is it plausible, especially in this particular case? I can think of countless other relatively innocent non-racial causes for a hypothetical bad shooting by police, but in this case we have a verified fact (the victim was black) and we have a verified pattern of police shooting first and asking questions later, but only at blacks, and in this case in order to even ask about other non-racial explanations we would have to invent hypothetical evidence to do so. On top of that, there is only about 3 seconds of the timeline in which to insert those hypothetical evidences. If one has to bend over backwards to invent a reason to exclude the blatantly obvious racial motivation (and even after doing so one has little to show for it; only questions, no answers, not even flimsy ones), one is edging into racist territory oneself.

I'm making the (perhaps incorrect) assumption even in an open carry/castle doctrine state, the police being mistaken for perps is a low probability event.

The lower the probability of this event, the more probable the following becomes: the officer rejected the conclusion it was Williams based on the unlikelihood of it being the correct conclusion.

The more this reasoning accounts for the officer's behavior, the less it can be accounted for by racial bias.


Beyond the missing variables, is this proposition broken? Honest question. Take it apart.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm making the (perhaps incorrect) assumption even in an open carry/castle doctrine state, the police being mistaken for perps is a low probability event.

The lower the probability of this event, the more probable the following becomes: the officer rejected the conclusion it was Williams based on the unlikelihood of it being the correct conclusion.

The more this reasoning accounts for the officer's behavior, the less it can be accounted for by racial bias.


Beyond the missing variables, is this proposition broken? Honest question. Take it apart.

I don't think I'm following you, so let me try to paraphrase you so you can tell me if I'm close...

1. you assume that the homeowner should/would trust the police, so he would disarm before meeting them
2. you assume that the police have utter faith in (1)
3. because of (2) the police can safely assume anyone armed was not the homeowner, and therefore was the intruder, and therefore should be shot on sight
4. you assume that (3) would still happen if the other party was white

If any of the above is a miss, just let me know and ignore the below.

itemized responses:
1. Criminals impersonate the police. The local news here warned me a few days ago about this scam (the first several on that site), advising everyone to be skeptical of police interaction and not to obey blindly. Obviously this thread is also full of other more violent reasons to be cautious of police, and there are many others out there involving the overlap of impersonation and violence. I know you will argue that this is all the more reason not to escalate by being armed, but it still contradicts "police won't be mistaken for perps."
2. Police know better than any of us that the people they encounter aren't likely to act like rational emotionless robots. How could they possibly think everyone would make the "right" decision, on the night when their home was invaded?
3. This is where the open carry comes in. If the point of open carry is that you carry openly, everywhere, then the police shouldn't be making disparaging conclusions about someone based only on the fact that they are carrying.
4. Reports are that this was a nine-year veteran on the force. How many white perps did he shoot within 3 seconds of laying eyes on them? How many guns has he seen that he didn't shoot at? I think if this happened to a white homeowner, it would still make the news, don't you?

To me, your analysis makes 4 assumptions (unlikely ones, IMO, with no basis from the reported evidence) that have to ALL line up, just in order to clear the officer of the rather obvious racial suspicion.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think that racial bias will be hard to prove in court — especially if the racial bias is unconscious or of a more subtle variety. Nevertheless, I don't think you need to prove racial bias to convict the cop IMHO.

Don't they test for that with FMRI scans these days?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't think I'm following you, so let me try to paraphrase you so you can tell me if I'm close...

1. you assume that the homeowner should/would trust the police, so he would disarm before meeting them
2. you assume that the police have utter faith in (1)
3. because of (2) the police can safely assume anyone armed was not the homeowner, and therefore was the intruder, and therefore should be shot on sight
4. you assume that (3) would still happen if the other party was white

If any of the above is a miss, just let me know and ignore the below.

itemized responses:
1. Criminals impersonate the police. The local news here warned me a few days ago about this scam (the first several on that site), advising everyone to be skeptical of police interaction and not to obey blindly. Obviously this thread is also full of other more violent reasons to be cautious of police, and there are many others out there involving the overlap of impersonation and violence. I know you will argue that this is all the more reason not to escalate by being armed, but it still contradicts "police won't be mistaken for perps."
2. Police know better than any of us that the people they encounter aren't likely to act like rational emotionless robots. How could they possibly think everyone would make the "right" decision, on the night when their home was invaded?
3. This is where the open carry comes in. If the point of open carry is that you carry openly, everywhere, then the police shouldn't be making disparaging conclusions about someone based only on the fact that they are carrying.
4. Reports are that this was a nine-year veteran on the force. How many white perps did he shoot within 3 seconds of laying eyes on them? How many guns has he seen that he didn't shoot at? I think if this happened to a white homeowner, it would still make the news, don't you?

To me, your analysis makes 4 assumptions (unlikely ones, IMO, with no basis from the reported evidence) that have to ALL line up, just in order to clear the officer of the rather obvious racial suspicion.

1. My understanding is Williams mistook the police for the perp. Williams chose to engage what he thought was an armed criminal on his property, as is his right in Indiana. Not only is he (to my mind) 100% legally justified in being himself armed, I would question his sanity were he not armed.

In other words, I'm not arguing against the possibility of the police being mistaken for the perp, I'm arguing that's precisely what happened. This scenario has a probability of occurrence. The case in question is an example, so the probability is quite pointedly non-zero.

2. What informs the officer's instincts will be the probability of the scenario from (1).

3. For an officer operating on instinct, the lower the incidence rate of the scenario from (1), the more inclined they are to shoot. Unless the officer has been trained to override them, those instincts will play a large role in how the officer behaves.

4. This is an excellent question. I don't want to dodge it, but things have diverged enough it may be better to hold off for a post.



Appendix 1a. The probability of occurrence for (1) can also include the other circumstances in which an officer encounters an innocent with weapon in hand at the scene of a crime. Whether it be someone greeting the officer, or some as of yet to be discussed scenario. I left this to the appendix so as not to distract from my clarification.

Appendix 1b. In terms of the assumptions I need to have line up, I feel the primary one is the probability of occurrence for (1) + (Appendix 1a). I fully admit the higher this probability, the weaker my argument.

If (1) + (Appendix 1a) is a low probability event, I think it's fair to argue the behavior in question displayed by the officer may have been him treating it like a low probability event. This is term (2), which to me doesn't appear to add extra requirements to the argument

The requirement for term (3) is there must not be some force countering the officer behaving on instinct, such as training. How likely this is I feel can also be tied to the probability of (1) + (Appendix 1a).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

1. My understanding is Williams mistook the police for the perp. Williams chose to engage what he thought was an armed criminal on his property, as is his right in Indiana.

You're making it sound like he raised his weapon at (what turned out to be) the police. If this is true, that certainly would change things drastically. But did he? I didn't see the slightest mention of that in any of the reports. If this is the detail that it takes to dispel suspicion of racism, and this detail has to be invented from whole cloth, then the accusations of racism are pretty strong.

In other words, I'm not arguing against the possibility of the police being mistaken for the perp, I'm arguing that's precisely what happened.

I didn't get that at all from your previous post. Sorry about that.

3. For an officer operating on instinct, the lower the incidence rate of the scenario from (1), the more inclined they are to shoot. Unless the officer has been trained to override them, those instincts will play a large role in how the officer behaves.

The same could be said about blatant racism. If the officer's instincts are that black-man-with-gun or black-man-at-crime-scene are villains, and it causes him to be more likely to shoot, then that's just racism. It's no justification at all.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're making it sound like he raised his weapon at (what turned out to be) the police. If this is true, that certainly would change things drastically. But did he? I didn't see the slightest mention of that in any of the reports. If this is the detail that it takes to dispel suspicion of racism, and this detail has to be invented from whole cloth, then the accusations of racism are pretty strong.


I didn't get that at all from your previous post. Sorry about that.



The same could be said about blatant racism. If the officer's instincts are that black-man-with-gun or black-man-at-crime-scene are villains, and it causes him to be more likely to shoot, then that's just racism. It's no justification at all.

No worries about any miscommunication!

I'm definitely not claiming Williams raised his gun. As there has been no evidence to the contrary (which if it existed I imagine the police would be very happy to provide) one has to assume his gun hand was at rest. Similarly, as I said in the appendix, it is fair to include every scenario which involves an innocent with a weapon in hand. One would hope only the tiniest sliver of these scenarios involve the weapon being directed at the police.


Perhaps I am mistaken, but I feel the bar my argument is being held to is one of soundly defeating the accusation of racism. It doesn't, and I'm not claiming it does. As was argued above, the officer's instincts may have been black man with a gun. That's unquestionably racist. That there is a potential it was something else does not disprove the possibility it was racially motivated.

What I'm arguing is my scenario has enough potential it is inappropriate to place zero qualifications on the accusation of racism.

The statement "opening a garage door while black" does not merely assert a high probability to racism, it asserts a high enough probability the fact a gun was involved isn't even worthy of mentioning.

This is what I took issue with. I'd argue it's more likely than not this was racist, but not so likely the correct course is to ignore the gun entirely when one is making the accusation.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I feel the bar my argument is being held to is one of soundly defeating the accusation of racism.

I can't speak for other posters, but my perspective is that I expect a counter-argument to have at least as much evidentiary support as the argument preceding it. IMO the racism theory of this crime has more evidence behind it than the gun-agitation theory (notably, the police side has not mentioned it, only you have).

That's unquestionably racist. That there is a potential it was something else does not disprove the possibility it was racially motivated.

The nature of racism is that it will be very unlikely we will ever prove or disprove it for a particular racist. But this shooting is part of a long (documented, now at least) pattern of abuse, and we can't keep letting it slide on through just because it's an easy crime to cover up.

The statement "opening a garage door while black" does not merely assert a high probability to racism, it asserts a high enough probability the fact a gun was involved isn't even worthy of mentioning.

The victim also had a penis, but that wasn't mentioned. Does the deafening silence on the penis factor invalidate anything said regarding other factors? According to my amateur sleuthing, 10% of Indianans are black, 39% own guns, and 50% have penises (citation needed) (also 2% are postal workers like Williams is). Being male also increases the likelihood of being shot by police, but failure to mention it doesn't seem very special to me.

There is a pattern connecting most of the UNjustified police shootings, and that pattern is not carrying a gun, it's race. How many people need to be shot before that pattern is strong enough for you to count it as evidence?

This is what I took issue with. I'd argue it's more likely than not this was racist, but not so likely the correct course is to ignore the gun entirely when one is making the accusation.

I think this whole sub-topic was blown way out of proportion to the initial comment and its intent

[The Final Dakar]

The Houston pd chief is retiring which is a shame as he genuinely cared about making the police better.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The Houston pd chief is retiring which is a shame as he genuinely cared about making the police better.

Don't you mean Dallas?

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How many people need to be shot before that pattern is strong enough for you to count it as evidence?


I think this whole sub-topic was blown way out of proportion to the initial comment and its intent

Do you think Dakar knows we're talking about him?

The question quoted from your above leads me to think what communication skills I have are utterly failing me.

The pattern of racism is strong enough not only do I count it as evidence, there is enough evidence I would assert there being a very high probability of this case being an example.



Like with the question of what would happen were Williams white, I don't want to avoid any of the arguments I edited out, but I'm doing such a lousy job explaining the fundamentals of my position, a discussion of the details would only serve to further confuse. As I have dropped so much at this point, please feel free to take total control of where the discussion should go.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Don't you mean Dallas?

OAW

Probably. Will check later.

[BadKosh]

Chicago - 500+ Killed this year. All you hear is silence from the BLM clowns. They do not have any credibility.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Chicago - 500+ Killed this year. All you hear is silence from the BLM clowns. They do not have any credibility.

Perhaps that's because BLM is actually in the streets trying to affect meaningful change as opposed to worrying about a conservative media narrative that won't be changed by factual information anyway?

The block club also collaborated with organizers of Black Lives Matter Chicago, who helped plan and promote the event as a way of starting "conversations around what safety looks like through the lens of empowerment," according to the group's Facebook page.

Especially during a weekend when police make it clear they can't be everywhere at once, activists said community building was the only permanent response to gun violence.

"Violence is cyclical. Trauma is cyclical," said Kofi Amedola, a lead organizer with Black Lives Matter Chicago. "So if you don't begin to see value in each other, to start thinking about cooperation versus competition, then you can't be in that process of stopping violence."

That's why Black Lives Matter runs programs like "Our Story Chi," which connects young people to local education programs and community service projects in Bronzeville, Amedola said.

Outdoor events and grassroots activism are all part of "challenging the narrative" that Chicagoans don't protest violence in their own communities, he said.

"The issue we're trying to address is young people not having love for themselves, coming from generation after generation of broken families," Amedola said. "It's what happens when you don't have spaces to be safe and get to know each other. That's why we're here."

Black Lives Matter Brings 'Peace Surge' To Battered Bronzeville Block

Chicagoans Actually DO Protest Violence In Their Communities All The Time

OAW

[BadKosh]

So what about all those chants seen on TV all over this country about killing police etc. Your BS just doesn't play with reality. WHO is killing those 500? I guess nobody is actually responsible?

[OAW]

Moving the goalposts much?

Originally Posted by BadKosh

Chicago - 500+ Killed this year. All you hear is silence from the BLM clowns.

Originally Posted by OAW

Links to articles showing this claim is demonstrably false.

Originally Posted by BadKosh

So what about all those chants seen on TV all over this country about killing police etc. Your BS just doesn't play with reality.

OAW

[Chongo]

I thought there was supposed to be a delay. They streamed this dude getting shot up.
https://www.facebook.com/12news/vide...4605367424015/
Scub to the end

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Perhaps that's because BLM is actually in the streets trying to affect meaningful change

Frequently by burning their own neighborhoods.

[OAW]

One of the leaders of the Ferguson protests has been found murdered in a car that was set on fire.

A Missouri activist who led protests over the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson was found dead inside a burning vehicle, police said.

The St. Louis County Police Department said police are treating the death of Darren Seals as a homicide.

Seals, 29, described himself as a "fighter, leader" and "un-apologetically black" on his Twitter feed. He helped lead weeks-long protests over Brown's Aug. 9, 2014 killing by a white police officer in the St. Louis suburb.

Tributes poured out on social medias as news of his death spread.

"Heartbroken by the news of the death activist and Ferguson leader #DarrenSeals," local pastor Cassandra Gould wrote on Twitter.

Police did not suggest a possible motive or name any suspects in announcing Seals' death.

The force said in a statement that officers were called to a vehicle fire in the Riverside area of St. Louis just before 2 a.m. Tuesday. When the fire was extinguished, they found a man dead inside with a gunshot wound, the statement added.

It said "the incident is being investigated as a homicide" and later identified the dead man as Seals.

Darren Seals, Ferguson Protest Leader, Found Fatally Shot in Burning Vehicle - NBC News

If I had to bet money I'd contend that the police will never "suggest a possible motive or name any suspects". Especially in light of the fact that Darren Seals had been pulled over 27 times this year and this very ominous post that he put on Twitter just this past July.



OAW

[OAW]

Another sickening example of the abuse of police power ....

Prosecutors have charged seven current and former San Francisco Bay Area police officers in a sexual misconduct scandal involving a teenager.

Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley announced the charges Friday at a news conference in Oakland.

The wide-ranging scandal surfaced when a teenage woman who described herself as a prostitute said she had sex with about 30 law enforcement officials throughout the region.

The now 19-year-old said she had sex with four of the officers before she turned 18 and sometimes traded sex for protection from arrest or tips about planned prostitution stings.

The Associated Press generally doesn't identify people who say they are victims of sex crimes.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said disciplinary action has begun against a dozen officers, including dismissal proceedings against four.

The Latest: Prosecutors charge 7 officers in sex scandal

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you're claiming that treating the symptoms is a bad decision, then only one counter-example is sufficient to disprove such a generalization. There are far more that one, of course.


Being too lazy to control one's irrational prejudices is not an acceptable justification for murder, nor for defending murderers who wear the same uniform as you. If you think that a nebulous "fear" of a category of people is an acceptable reason to shoot a member of that group, then you will agree that a nebulous "fear" of police is an acceptable reason to shoot at any particular member of the police. You don't, do you?


And by defeating the protection granted by the immoral counter-system, we can defeat the immoral counter-system itself.



I haven't heard any proposals about how to fix it. Do you have one?
I surmise that the main reason no proposals have been made to fix the system, is that the existing system is functional (it functions for non-black-male demographics). So those who have the power to replace the entire system (and btw who are those people?) don't see a point in doing so.

Frigging finally.

Forgive my likely bad Latin, but the current system essentially answers the question of qui custodiet ipsos custodes with custodes ipsos custodes. This is the most fundamental problem in my opinion. As luck would have it, from a conceptual standpoint it has a simple fix.

The entity which prosecutes the police should be separated from the entity which works with the police to prosecute civilians.

The next most important problem is the Thin Blue Line. This is exponentially more difficult. If my belief is correct, one of the things which makes it so is it's the unintended consequence of good policy. With reasoning similar to that which underlies Blackstone's formulation, the system (on paper) attempts to put severe constraints on the police, and gives them little leeway for failure. I support this inclination here, just as I support it with regards to convicting the innocent in court.

The impression I get, and this could be utterly mistaken, is this has led to a situation where not only has every cop done something which would lose them their job (or worse) were the on paper system enforced, most of them do such things regularly. Those most would consider good cops included.

The knee-jerk response is to note this is evidence of an unfair system, and the solution is to make the system more fair. While I think the observation the system is unfair is correct, merely making it fair isn't acceptable. A fair solution isn't the goal, a 10:1 unfair solution is the goal. I don't have a pat proposal to address this like I do with prosecutors, however I would argue there's a moral obligation to exhaustively "think tank" the phenomenon before resorting to assassination.

There are other policies which are peripheral, but would have a major impact if changed. Prohibition of vice is the most obvious. A less obvious one is throwing money at the police, which would attract better people, justify asking more risk be taken, reduce risk by allowing for more officers, and pay for the legal maximum of heavy-duty psychotherapy. I argue most government solutions are broken. That can usually be overcome to some extent by spending enormous amounts of money.


With regards to the question of nebulous fear, my response may come as surprising. While the field upon which police and civilians play can likely not be level, I argue for it being as level as possible.

One of the things which really bothers me is there is almost no leeway given to a civilian who is being violently manhandled by the police. The expectation a person should just let that happen is preposterous.

Unless I can think of an argument it shouldn't, this should get extended out to guns. If someone thinks they're about to be murdered by a cop, maybe they should be able to defend themselves with deadly force. That's the field the police play on (see: Williams opening his garage). That's the field civilians play on unless they're dealing with a cop. The civilians play on that field and then are told "nope, sorry... you need to accept this social construct now and let yourself get murdered".

If being in fear for one's life is the bar for using deadly force, for a black person, the police have certainly given reason for themselves to be more quickly considered as having met that bar

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

The entity which prosecutes the police should be separated from the entity which works with the police to prosecute civilians.

This! This! And all the way This!

Originally Posted by subego 

If being in fear for one's life is the bar for using deadly force, for a black person, the police have certainly given reason for themselves to be more quickly considered as having met that bar

Absolutely.

OAW

[OAW]

And this perfectly illustrates the problem in that is all too pervasive in US police departments. Shoot first and ask questions later.

In May, Weirton police officer Stephen Mader was confronted with a man waving a gun and decided not to fire, because he concluded after assessing the situation that the man was trying to commit what is called “suicide by cop.”

“I saw then he had a gun, but it was not pointed at me,” Mader, who is Marine-trained, said in recalling the incident for the first time publicly. He said that upon seeing the man, he “began to use my calm voice.”

“I told him, ‘Put down the gun,’ and he’s like, ‘Just shoot me.’ And I told him, ‘I’m not going to shoot you brother.’ Then he starts flicking his wrist to get me to react to it,” Mader recalled of the confrontation with Ronald D. “R.J.” Williams Jr. “I thought I was going to be able to talk to him and deescalate it. I knew it was a suicide-by-cop” situation.

However, two other officers arrived on the scene and saw that Williams was waving the gun, which was unloaded, between Mader and the other officers. One of them fired and hit Williams fatally in the back of the head.

While Mader believes that his fellow officers were justified in the shooting because they did not have the same information he did, he says that he is baffled by the behavior of his chief.

Weirton Police Chief Rob Alexander called him in after the incident to tell him, “We’re putting you on administrative leave and we’re going to do an investigation to see if you are going to be an officer here. You put two other officers in danger.”

“Right then I said to him: ‘Look, I didn’t shoot him because he said, ‘Just shoot me,’” Mader recalled. However, despite his explanation, Mader was fired in June on the grounds that he “failed to eliminate a threat.”

Mader sought out attorneys after his termination, though one told him that it would be better for him to ask to resign rather than fight the termination.

“But I told [the attorney] ‘Look, I don’t want to admit guilt. I’ll take the termination instead of the resignation because I didn’t do anything wrong,’ ” Mr. Mader said. “To resign and admit I did something wrong here would have ate at me. I think I’m right in what I did. I’ll take it to the grave.”

Now, Mader is going to school to get a commercial truck driving license, though he said that he would not rule out a law enforcement job if one became available.

West Virginia officer fired for not shooting at armed man | theGrio

This guy was fired for behaving like a peace officer is supposed to.

OAW

[OAW]

Choke an unarmed black man to death on video. Get assigned to desk duty and a massive pay increase.

Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD officer who killed Eric Garner with a deadly chokehold, saw a sizable pay increase while assigned to desk duty.

The cop, who was not charged in the controversial death of the Staten Island father of six, reportedly earned $119,996 from the department in fiscal year 2016, reports the New York Daily News. That’s $20,000 more than he earned before he was placed on modified duty after Garner’s death in July 2014.

Pantaleo also saw a significant pay raise in 2015, which began just weeks before Garner was killed during an arrest over selling loose cigarettes.

That year, Pantaleo made $105,061 with overtime, according to reports.

In fiscal year 2014, his base pay was reportedly $76,488, but made a total of $99,915 with overtime while working undercover.

Garner’s daughter, Erica Garner, slammed the city and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio over the revelation, including the city’s refusal to release disciplinary records for Pantaleo.

“This seems like movies. A bad one. No justice, no records, mayor tells me all lives matter. Pantaleo gets a bonus,” she tweeted.

Advocates and local officials also criticized the department for the officer’s overtime surge.

“It’s the epitome of an insult to New Yorkers in general, and particularly those of us who have stood by the Garner family,” said Rev. Al Sharpton. “I’m not only concerned about this raise. I’m concerned why is he even on the force?”

Cop earns $120K on desk duty since chokehold death of Eric Garner | theGrio

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Frigging finally.

Forgive my likely bad Latin, but the current system essentially answers the question of qui custodiet ipsos custodes with custodes ipsos custodes. This is the most fundamental problem in my opinion. As luck would have it, from a conceptual standpoint it has a simple fix.

The entity which prosecutes the police should be separated from the entity which works with the police to prosecute civilians.

That would be great, but we don't have such an entity. It would also be great if we had an almighty all-knowing entity who would reach down from the heavens to shield the righteous and smite the wicked. But we don't have that either. Push-back by the armed populace is not nearly as good, but it at least exists, and has been integral to the nation's structure from the first (of course, we could still choose to remove it from both sides, and have the same non-lethal forms of corruption that other nations currently enjoy).

The next most important problem is the Thin Blue Line. This is exponentially more difficult. If my belief is correct, one of the things which makes it so is it's the unintended consequence of good policy. With reasoning similar to that which underlies Blackstone's formulation, the system (on paper) attempts to put severe constraints on the police, and gives them little leeway for failure. I support this inclination here, just as I support it with regards to convicting the innocent in court.

The impression I get, and this could be utterly mistaken, is this has led to a situation where not only has every cop done something which would lose them their job (or worse) were the on paper system enforced, most of them do such things regularly. Those most would consider good cops included.

The knee-jerk response is to note this is evidence of an unfair system, and the solution is to make the system more fair. While I think the observation the system is unfair is correct, merely making it fair isn't acceptable. A fair solution isn't the goal, a 10:1 unfair solution is the goal. I don't have a pat proposal to address this like I do with prosecutors, however I would argue there's a moral obligation to exhaustively "think tank" the phenomenon before resorting to assassination.

There is no moral obligation to keep think tanking while people are being killed. Homicide is a different issue than other forms of corruption, regarding the thin blue line as in all other contexts. Other forms or corruption can be remedied afterwards, but there's no bringing the dead back to life. I argue that it's an inaccurate and dangerous logic to mingle the thin blue line of graft with the thin blue line of homicide. The latter should not be allowed to ride the coat tails of the former, not in our minds and not in theirs.

With regards to the question of nebulous fear, my response may come as surprising. While the field upon which police and civilians play can likely not be level, I argue for it being as level as possible.

One of the things which really bothers me is there is almost no leeway given to a civilian who is being violently manhandled by the police. The expectation a person should just let that happen is preposterous.

Unless I can think of an argument it shouldn't, this should get extended out to guns. If someone thinks they're about to be murdered by a cop, maybe they should be able to defend themselves with deadly force. That's the field the police play on (see: Williams opening his garage). That's the field civilians play on unless they're dealing with a cop. The civilians play on that field and then are told "nope, sorry... you need to accept this social construct now and let yourself get murdered".

If being in fear for one's life is the bar for using deadly force, for a black person, the police have certainly given reason for themselves to be more quickly considered as having met that bar

Many a fearful mistake would be reversible if not for all the guns. I agree with you that the prohibition issue is obvious. Why is the gun-culture issue not just as obvious?

[BadKosh]

Its THE culture , not a gun culture.

Ask yourself what 99.999999% of gun owners do with their guns. NOT SHOOTING OTHER PEOPLE. Duh!

Put some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY into the mix. Where are the friends of wack jobs with guns? Where are the parents, and family? Why don't folks warn the authorities about the wack jobs with guns/immature gang members/troubled kids??? Do you think the police depts became this way in a vacuum? NO. They got this way in response to the increasing violent crimes in the inner cities.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Its THE culture , not a gun culture.

Ask yourself what 99.999999% of gun owners do with their guns. NOT SHOOTING OTHER PEOPLE. Duh!

Put some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY into the mix. Where are the friends of wack jobs with guns? Where are the parents, and family? Why don't folks warn the authorities about the wack jobs with guns/immature gang members/troubled kids??? Do you think the police depts became this way in a vacuum? NO. They got this way in response to the increasing violent crimes in the inner cities.

You can dismiss all the officers named in this thread as mere "whack-jobs?"

Everyone has a moment of whack-job from time to time. Everyone. That's why a tool that takes only a moment to use causes so many more mistakes than a tool that takes more than a moment in order to work.

[BadKosh]

Sometimes you don't have the luxury of lots of time.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Its THE culture , not a gun culture.

Ask yourself what 99.999999% of gun owners do with their guns. NOT SHOOTING OTHER PEOPLE. Duh!

You left out gang members, that's exactly why they buy (or steal) guns. In fact, our gun homicide rates would be cut by ~80% without gang statistics added to them.