Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > "_____" while black

"_____" while black (Page 9)
Thread Tools
MacNNFamous
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2021, 06:51 PM
 
Good. ACAB. **** the police.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2021, 09:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Chauvin jury is about to deliver their verdict.
I'm glad to see that at least this time justice has been served. I hope this indicates a change in trends.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2021, 02:25 AM
 
Somebody pointed out that this is accountability, not justice.

It’s a start.
     
MacNNFamous
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2021, 03:25 PM
 
So.... that chick who got blasted in Columbus, I'm calling it right now, no racial anything, use of violence was justified, cop was totally in the right and saved someone's life. Crazy chick had a chef knife and was running at another lady about to stab her.

https://youtu.be/Fpnibt9RQ2U?t=397

Actually legit impressed with the quick reaction time and accurate shots by the officer. Sucks for everyone involved but he saved a life.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2021, 04:07 PM
 
Whats sad and more complicated about this is that the person with the knife is the person who called for police help. So before the police arrived, the other girls might have been the instigators. Or this person might have had mental issues.

Would a taser have done the job?
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2021, 04:20 PM
 
Or, y’know, shoot to disable? Like every other western nation trains their police?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2021, 07:18 PM
 
Let's keep in mind that Ma’Khia Bryant was a 16 year old girl. Shot not once or twice but 4 times by the police she called for help according to her family. Immediately. On sight. No attempt to de-escalate the situation whatsoever. No attempt at non-lethal force. She definitely had a knife in the midst of an altercation. The 911 caller said people were outside "trying to fight and stab her and others" Clearly the situation is fluid but don't be surprised if it turns out that the knife belonged to one of the other girls fighting Ma'Khia and she took it from her. But looking at the video the responding officer didn't even appear to try to verbally stop the fight or take command of the scene. Just shoot first ... and ask questions later.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2021, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Or, y’know, shoot to disable? Like every other western nation trains their police?
The argument against this is if disabling someone is an acceptable option then the incident hasn’t met the requirements for use of lethal force in the first place.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2021, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Somebody pointed out that this is accountability, not justice.
Good point worth thinking about more.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2021, 07:58 PM
 
I think it was Bernie who said that.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2021, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The argument against this is if disabling someone is an acceptable option then the incident hasn’t met the requirements for use of lethal force in the first place.
You’re taking the position that a firearm can only be used in a lethal manner, which is nonsense. The problem is that US cops aren’t trained to use the option to disable.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2021, 08:20 PM
 
Well, there’s the standard a firearm shouldn’t be used unless lethal force is called for, and whether it can be used non-lethally.

Which of these is being addressed? Both?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2021, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, there’s the standard a firearm shouldn’t be used unless lethal force is called for, and whether it can be used non-lethally.

Which of these is being addressed? Both?
Of course, both. The more important one, though, is to shift emphasis in training from firearms training to deescalation. I remember reading that the ratio currently can be 20:1 in favor of firearms training. IMHO that is a big deal, because ideally training automates how you react to a certain stimulus. Given the bias towards lethal force, this is something that needs to be revisited.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2021, 10:08 PM
 
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but lowering the standard for when it’s okay to shoot is contrary to focusing on deescalation, no?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2021, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but lowering the standard for when it’s okay to shoot is contrary to focusing on deescalation, no?
Who said anything about lowering the standard? I certainly did not. Focussing on both, de-escalation and less lethal ways of using force are not mutually exclusive. You should use force more rarely, and even when you do, try to use non-lethal force first.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
MacNNFamous
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2021, 02:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Let's keep in mind that Ma’Khia Bryant was a 16 year old girl. Shot not once or twice but 4 times by the police she called for help according to her family. Immediately. On sight. No attempt to de-escalate the situation whatsoever. No attempt at non-lethal force. She definitely had a knife in the midst of an altercation. The 911 caller said people were outside "trying to fight and stab her and others" Clearly the situation is fluid but don't be surprised if it turns out that the knife belonged to one of the other girls fighting Ma'Khia and she took it from her. But looking at the video the responding officer didn't even appear to try to verbally stop the fight or take command of the scene. Just shoot first ... and ask questions later.

OAW
Did you even watch the video? He showed up, total chaos, fighting people land at his feet in the first 10 seconds, and like 5 seconds after that, the chick is trying to stab someone with a chef knife.

like... I haaaaattteeeeeeeee cops but he made a judgement call and I agree with him. If he had done nothing, that other girl would have been filleted. THere was literally no time to descalate.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2021, 04:21 AM
 
I've said it before but if your cops didn't have to (or have the luxury of) assume that everyone else has a gun, they'd have the freedom to use theirs less and differently.
Shooting to kill when a suspect has a gun is understandable, someone shot in the leg can shoot back. Shooting to kill when the suspect has a knife seems a lot less necessary from a certain difference. The problem there is that legs are a smaller target. You shouldn't have to shoot people with knives at all if you are a safe distance and no-one is moving fast. Clearly that was not the case here.

4 shots in the back does seem a lot. Especially given how close she was to the other girl. He definitely had no time to ascertain if she was a victim turning the tables or the perpetrator, I don't think he can be faulted for assuming the opposite if that was the case.
I wonder if a warning shot might have garnered sufficient attention to make her pause, but he clearly shouted an instruction, she saw he was there and ignored him. This video is all sorts of reasons to change the way cops are trained but I can't see this officer being found guilty of anything.

Do cops get any medical training? It seems bizarre to me that two others just stand over the girl and look at her instead of trying to apply pressure to stop the bleeding or anything like that.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2021, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Who said anything about lowering the standard? I certainly did not. Focussing on both, de-escalation and less lethal ways of using force are not mutually exclusive. You should use force more rarely, and even when you do, try to use non-lethal force first.
I think the discussion may have gotten tangled. Let me rewind this.

Should the police be allowed to shoot to disable or disarm, or should they only be allowed to shoot to kill?

I posit the more circumstances we allow the police to shoot people, the more people who will get shot. If we want to minimize people getting shot, we want to minimize the number of situations where we say the police are allowed to shoot someone.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2021, 07:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I posit the more circumstances we allow the police to shoot people, the more people who will get shot. If we want to minimize people getting shot, we want to minimize the number of situations where we say the police are allowed to shoot someone.
I don’t think this fits what I wrote at all.

Giving police additional non-lethal violent options is part of the solution, but far, far less important than non-violence. The reason I say both is that we should not rule out any avenue in advance. If you are only trained to shoot-to-kill then that’s all you can do. You are right that if done wrongly, giving police the option to shoot-to-wound, which, let’s be honest, can quickly escalate to shoot-to-kill (or be an accidental death, you tried to shoot-to-wound, but ended up killing the person).

The primary issue is that police in the US is taught to resort to any sort of violence too quickly. They seem badly trained and police seems to attract people who are trigger happy and/or quickly afraid (which is bad, because they lose the ability to think rationally). So primarily, police officers should simply resort to less force overall, and the majority of their training should be focussed on this. Perhaps some types of cops should (at least in certain circumstances) not be armed with firearms at all. Do you really need them for traffic violations? Or when you are in a difficult neighborhood trying to improve community relations? Do you need to execute search warrants deep at night when you could stop by during the day or in the evening, knocking on the door, guns holstered? Should the federal government offer and subsidize the sale of old military equipment to the police? Can you put regulations in place that would make police officers think two, three times about the use of force? For example, German police has to write a lengthy report every time they draw a weapon. Just the practice (and nuisance) of writing that puts the kabosh on using a firearm like a squirt gun. Plus, it makes LEOs think about the exact circumstances again.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2021, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don’t think this fits what I wrote at all.
Neither do I, which is why I said there’s miscommunication going on.

Let’s momentarily just focus on the question part. Should the police be allowed to shoot to disable disarm?

I think you’re saying “yes”, but I honestly don’t want to put any words in your mouth.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2021, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think you’re saying “yes”, but I honestly don’t want to put any words in your mouth.
The problem is not yes or no, the problem is that I’d put 95 % on the emphasis on changing training and procedures to emphasize de-escalation and non-lethal ways to disarm without LEOs drawing their gun or taser. And the remaining 5 % on exploring whether it makes sense to give police less lethal options when they have already drawn their firearm. If done wrongly, this can make things worse, I agree. I just don’t want to rule out any option in advance. The important thing is to shift the balance from escalation and use of force in favor of giving more de-escalating and non-lethal options.

Focussing on the 5 % first is the wrong approach.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2021, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Did you even watch the video? He showed up, total chaos, fighting people land at his feet in the first 10 seconds, and like 5 seconds after that, the chick is trying to stab someone with a chef knife.

like... I haaaaattteeeeeeeee cops but he made a judgement call and I agree with him. If he had done nothing, that other girl would have been filleted. THere was literally no time to descalate.
Cops have disarmed people with guns when they seem to be motivated. In other countries like Britain they are trained to handle people with knives, too. I don’t think this interaction had to end this way. I agree that this time it is not an egregious case of excessive use of force. But when you step back, I think also this death was preventable.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2021, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The problem is not yes or no, the problem is that I’d put 95 % on the emphasis on...
Okay. I think I’m zeroing in on the misunderstanding. We’re coming at this from different angles.

I agree with everything you say when it comes to police doctrine.

On the specific issue of shooting to disarm or disable, this is a question of firearms doctrine. At least it will be in the US, where the doctrine summarily rejects it. Shooting to disarm or disable is a felony pretty much everywhere here, for both cops and civilians alike.

So, we can put changing that on the table, but it will inherently go beyond the question of just the police, and it’s a can of worms the legislatures in this country have collectively insisted should remain closed.


If we change our current doctrine to allow disarming and disabling, we would be expanding the acceptable use of firearms. That seems to run contrary to the goal of having less people be shot.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2021, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I agree with everything you say when it comes to police doctrine.
Yeah, this is the big one.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
On the specific issue of shooting to disarm or disable, this is a question of firearms doctrine. At least it will be in the US, where the doctrine summarily rejects it. Shooting to disarm or disable is a felony pretty much everywhere here, for both cops and civilians alike.
I claim no knowledge of US law here. Although I reckon that shooting-to-kill is also against the law currently, and that there are exceptions for selfdefense or the defense of others. Am I correct?

Besides, it seems that actual punishment of cops in criminal court is exceedingly rare, even when they commit crimes on tape (such as planting evidence).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, we can put changing that on the table, but it will inherently go beyond the question of just the police, and it’s a can of worms the legislatures in this country have collectively insisted should remain closed.
Sure, and like any big problem where you don't have one simple fix, preferably one that hurts nobody, society (just like individuals) drags its feet. I think the first question is what society wants policing to look like. That's easier if only a small share of the population is impacted and you don't feel any of the impact of current policing. Then society needs to overcome the resistance of law enforcement as it is. The change will take 2 generations, I'd say. Essentially, all the dinosaurs need to have retired and preferably all the people educated by dinosaurs need to retire. Mistakes will be made along the way, too.

But simply not trying because the solution is hard and murky is not a good justification for not trying.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If we change our current doctrine to allow disarming and disabling, we would be expanding the acceptable use of firearms. That seems to run contrary to the goal of having less people be shot.
No, because I include and would prioritize other less violent options such as using your bare hands and/or a baton to disarm someone with a knife. Of course that is assuming that de-escalation was not an option or had failed.

I think you focus too much on me being ok to explore the option of using a firearm in a less lethal manner. Like I wrote previously, I completely agree with your concerns. A firearm, used lethally or less lethally, should be the very last resort and firearm use should be discouraged, because it is overused.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2021, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Shooting to disarm or disable is a felony pretty much everywhere here, for both cops and civilians alike.
That’s simply not true, at least not for cops.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2021, 02:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Did you even watch the video? He showed up, total chaos, fighting people land at his feet in the first 10 seconds, and like 5 seconds after that, the chick is trying to stab someone with a chef knife.

like... I haaaaattteeeeeeeee cops but he made a judgement call and I agree with him. If he had done nothing, that other girl would have been filleted. THere was literally no time to descalate.
Of course I watched it. He made a “judgment” that the 3 other cops on the scene did not. Also, the family has already said she was the one who called 911 as I mentioned before. They’ve also said the other two fighting her weren’t girls but grown women who jumped a child and she was just defending herself. So as I said the situation is fluid and we’ll see which accounts hold up to scrutiny. My only point is that there were other options in between “doing nothing” and pumping four rounds into the chest of a 16 year old girl. But as is all too often the case with white cops and black citizens lethal force is the first choice and not the last resort.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2021, 03:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
That’s simply not true, at least not for cops.
You are totally correct. My (huge) mistake.

It does seem really frowned upon, though. I think at least my claim that it’s counter to US doctrine is accurate.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2021, 03:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It does seem really frowned upon, though. I think at least my claim that it’s counter to US doctrine is accurate.
I admit that I do not know current US doctrine, but I am sure that on paper it also states that police should not kill people unnecessarily. I think an integral part of any doctrine is to enforce that it is followed. And this makes our discussion more complicated, because I am sure that even having police actually follow current doctrine strictly would be an improvement. In fact, I'd say that making sure law enforcement adheres to the rules agreed upon by the people (who they are supposed to serve and for whom they work), is an indispensable part of any reform. If you don't have this, you can set the best policies and doctrines and it won't matter.

Another, related aspect is that policies should not just follow the letter of the law, but the spirit. Just imagine I knock once on your door at 3 am while you are in deep sleep, I say “Police!” once and then storm in as soon as the words have left my mouth. Is that a qualitative improvement over executing a no-knock warrant? I think not. If policy or the law changes regarding no-knock warrants, you might still not see any qualitative improvement.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2021, 09:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think you focus too much on me being ok to explore the option of using a firearm in a less lethal manner.
I understood the claim not to be it’s worthy of exploration, but the fact this isn’t already our doctrine is nonsense.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 24, 2021 at 09:17 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2021, 09:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I understood the claim not to be it’s worthy of exploration, but the fact this isn’t already our doctrine is nonsense.
I’m not an expert in policing, so I don’t want to rule out avenues too early. But to be clear, initially the main focus must be on creating incentives for cops to de-escalate and give them the proper training on how to — and by actually punishing those who are too trigger happy and/or violent*. Exploring less lethal interactions with firearms is way, way, way down the road after implementing the more important measures.


* It seems that Chauvin might have had a pattern of excessive violence and keeping people in choke holds for too long. The DOJ is thinking about charging him for an incident in 2017. Even if you think these are just a few bad apples, you actually have to remove them to prevent spoiling the bunch.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2021, 09:46 PM
 
That’s all reasonable, and I want to be clear, I don’t even take issue with exploring it now. I’m only challenging the idea the exploration’s been had, and the anti-shoot to disarm position lost (i.e., it’s nonsense).

Edit: to put it another way, No argument from me our system is ****ed nine ways to Sunday, but the doctrine of not shooting to disarm/disable isn’t some conspiracy to maintain the status quo. The doctrine exists in good faith, and there are good faith arguments for it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2021, 02:00 PM
 
Because in America an unarmed black man can be shot 10 TIMES while on the phone with 911 calling for help.

A police shooting in Northern Virginia, where a Black man was shot 10 times, is now the focus of a state police investigation. Isiah Brown, 32, is in critical condition after he was shot while making a 911 call in the middle of the night.

A sheriff's deputy can be heard saying "drop the gun" on the body camera footage, but an attorney for Brown and his family said the sheriff's deputy who fired the shots mistook a cordless house phone for a gun. His family also said the same deputy had assisted Brown a short time before the shooting.

Brown's lawyer said the 32-year-old is now fighting for his life after "completely avoidable errors" by the police and 911 dispatch, CBS News chief justice and homeland security correspondent Jeff Pegues reports.


The Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Office released the 911 call Brown made on April 21 at around 3:18 a.m. over what appears to be a domestic dispute between Brown and his brother. Brown told the dispatcher, "My brother won't let me get in my mom's room."

"Give me the gun," Brown is heard saying.

"I'm not playing, bro," his brother says.

The dispatcher then asks Brown what the problem is.

"I'm about to kill my brother," Brown says.

"Don't kill your brother," the dispatcher says.

"Somebody needs to come here real quick," Brown says.

Brown can be heard repeatedly telling the dispatcher that he does not have a weapon on him before police arrive on the scene.

"You need to hold your hands up. Hold your hands up," the dispatcher tells Brown.

Police also released body camera video showing the tense 20 seconds after a sheriff's deputy arrived.

"Drop the gun," a deputy shouts.

"He's got a gun to his head," another deputy says.

The first deputy yells again, "drop the gun now." Gunfire can then be heard in the video.

"Show me your hands! Drop the gun! Drop the gun! Let go of the gun!" the deputy yells.

Moments later, body camera footage shows Brown on the ground after having been shot. The sheriff's deputy can be seen giving medical assistance.

Less than an hour earlier, the same deputy had given Brown a ride to his mother's house — where the shooting happened — after Brown's car broke down at a nearby gas station.

"I'm just lost. Somebody's reaching out for help, regardless of what the help is, they come to help and then to end up like this," Brown's sister Yolanda said. "You know, the fact that it's the same person who spent 15, 20 minutes plus getting to know my brother to bring him home. You know, you build that trust."

"So for him to have did the good deed to do that," she said. "He was absolutely let down by everyone."

Brown's attorney David Haynes said his client complied with the officer's orders.

"Isiah did everything as instructed by the dispatch officer, raise your hands up in the air," he said. "And for the officer to make this terrible leap that this was somehow a gun."

"We know that 10 shots tragically did hit his body," Haynes said. "But that's just a totally preventable situation."


The sheriff's deputy is currently on administrative leave while the Virginia State Police investigates the case. Haynes said the family is also requesting the police release the dispatch audio with the sheriff's deputy leading up to the shooting, saying there was a failure to communicate that Brown was not armed.
Black man shot 10 times by Virginia sheriff's deputy who had given him a ride an hour earlier, family says | CBSNews.com

OAW
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2021, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That’s all reasonable, and I want to be clear, I don’t even take issue with exploring it now. I’m only challenging the idea the exploration’s been had, and the anti-shoot to disarm position lost (i.e., it’s nonsense).
Perhaps it has been had, I just don‘t know. Like I said, I am not an authority on the subject and the priorities should lie elsewhere anyway. If you say the discussion has been had, alright, I take you at your word.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2021, 09:21 PM
 


I said the opposite. I’m challenging the idea it’s been had. I’m saying “yes, let’s have this discussion”, as opposed to “this discussion is nonsense”.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2021, 10:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post


I said the opposite. I’m challenging the idea it’s been had. I’m saying “yes, let’s have this discussion”, as opposed to “this discussion is nonsense”.
Ah, ok, sorry about that.

Just out of curiosity, if you had your way, what changes would you implement to policing?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2021, 11:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Ah, ok, sorry about that.

Just out of curiosity, if you had your way, what changes would you implement to policing?
Give more extensive training, pay them more, and require they see a psychologist (at least) once a week.

However, I’d say the biggest problem is the way the system is set up between cops and prosecutors. They need to be sandboxed.



Edit: these are just the drums I always beat on, and are not meant to exclude other changes, though my first three are obviously in strong opposition to the “defund” strategy.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2021, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Give more extensive training, pay them more, and require they see a psychologist (at least) once a week.

However, I’d say the biggest problem is the way the system is set up between cops and prosecutors. They need to be sandboxed.
I think this is a good (incomplete) list.
However, is salary an issue in most places? I was under the impression that members of the police are, at least compared with other public employees like teachers, very well-paid.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Edit: these are just the drums I always beat on, and are not meant to exclude other changes, though my first three are obviously in strong opposition to the “defund” strategy.
I think “Defund the police.” is such a bad term on the level of marketing. What most people mean by that is police reform, and it is so easy to twist it into something sinister.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2021, 04:45 AM
 
I wouldn’t necessarily use the term “sinister”, but it certainly rates a “self-defeating”.

Police do well compared to teachers, but I think both should be paid more.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2021, 07:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Give more extensive training, pay them more, and require they see a psychologist (at least) once a week.

However, I’d say the biggest problem is the way the system is set up between cops and prosecutors. They need to be sandboxed.
I think this is a good (incomplete) list.
However, is salary an issue in most places? I was under the impression that members of the police are, at least compared with other public employees like teachers, very well-paid.
Police (at least in my neck of the woods, tend to be pretty well-paid compared to other public employees. Firefighters might be up there, too. But, I'd argue that, all things considered, the firefighters have a far more dangerous job than cops. I'm pretty sure the injury/death stats bear this out.

Agree about the pipeline between cops and prosecutors. There needs to be a hard wall between them. The issue, in most places, is that the chief city/county prosecutor tends to be an elected position, so amassing successful prosecutions ends up being their focus, rather than actual justice served.

PBS recently aired an eye-opening documentary about Philadelphia's top prosecutor who actually tried to address this issue. It's fascinating. Dude really went after the cops, their union, and the cozy (often deceitful) relationship they had with prosecutors.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2021, 08:31 AM
 
@Thorzdad
I think the comparison to fire fighters also shows something important about how the job as a police officer is supposed to work: fire fighters are paid to run into the burning building, and IMHO the same principles apply to cops. They are paid (apparently well) to take certain risks average people need not take.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2021, 11:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@Thorzdad
I think the comparison to fire fighters also shows something important about how the job as a police officer is supposed to work: fire fighters are paid to run into the burning building, and IMHO the same principles apply to cops. They are paid (apparently well) to take certain risks average people need not take.
Yet being a garbageman is a significantly more deadly job than being a police officer.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2021, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Yet being a garbageman is a significantly more deadly job than being a police officer.
Paying cops even more than what they get now may be grossly unfair, but how much I’m bothered by it is a function of the results. The more it helps the problem, the more I’m willing to let pragmatism override principle.
     
MacNNFamous
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2021, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Of course I watched it. He made a “judgment” that the 3 other cops on the scene did not. Also, the family has already said she was the one who called 911 as I mentioned before. They’ve also said the other two fighting her weren’t girls but grown women who jumped a child and she was just defending herself. So as I said the situation is fluid and we’ll see which accounts hold up to scrutiny. My only point is that there were other options in between “doing nothing” and pumping four rounds into the chest of a 16 year old girl. But as is all too often the case with white cops and black citizens lethal force is the first choice and not the last resort.

OAW
So wait... lets say some people attack me.... then they stop, and they hang out chillin, leaning on the fender of a car....

you're saying if I then went up to that person with a 6-8" chef knife, and stabbed the shit out of them, that would NOT be attempted murder, but 'defending myself'???

I'm so confused man. She was literally ignoring the cop, and running at another person with a HUGE knife. I know someone who was killed with a pocketknife.... if you stab someone, that person can die, even with a smaller blade.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2021, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Paying cops even more than what they get now may be grossly unfair, but how much I’m bothered by it is a function of the results. The more it helps the problem, the more I’m willing to let pragmatism override principle.
What's the data out there showing correlation between pay and performance?

Are you indiscriminately bumping base pay, or is there some kind of incentive program regarding results? And can the burden of lawsuits from bad policing be transferred off of the taxpayers and onto the officers themselves? If officers had to carry some kind of "malpractice" insurance in order to serve, I'd be in support of a pay bump to cover that. Of course, the corollary to that is that an officer's performance is scrutinized by an uncaring herd of actuaries that can deem an officer "uninsurable" and therefore disallowed from serving. I would hope this would reduce the amount of bad officers getting rehired after the hubbub calms down, or jumping over to a nearby precinct, or just facing no consequences at all for perpetual abuse of power.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2021, 05:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
...And can the burden of lawsuits from bad policing be transferred off of the taxpayers and onto the officers themselves? If officers had to carry some kind of "malpractice" insurance in order to serve, I'd be in support of a pay bump to cover that...
You’d necessarily have to eliminate qualified immunity laws for cops to make those changes, and I really doubt they’d sit still for that. QI is pretty much a free pass for any personal responsibility.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2021, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
What's the data out there showing correlation between pay and performance?
I don’t have the data, but I was being hypothetical. Should whether we enact the policy be based on that data, whatever it is, or should it be based on our sense of fairness?


I would argue is it’s worth going though the effort to get that data based on the following assumptions.

More pay means more applicants
More applicants means more selectivity in hiring
More selectivity in hiring means higher overall quality
( Last edited by subego; Apr 28, 2021 at 01:20 AM. )
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2021, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don’t have the data, but I was being hypothetical. Should whether we enact the policy be based on that data, whatever it is, or should it be based on our sense of fairness?


I would argue is it’s worth going though the effort to get that data based on the following assumptions.

More pay means more applicants
More applicants means more selectivity in hiring
More selectivity in hiring means higher overall quality
You forgot one assumption - the people doing the hiring want the same outcomes that we do.

We want people with integrity that will stand up for what's right and speak up when someone's legal rights are being violated. We want equitable treatment of all people regardless of skin color, gender, or any other factor. We don't want to live in fear of agents of the government using extralegal force and violence to achieve whatever goals they may personally have.

I'd argue that individual officers have no incentive to achieve the above, and that those doing the hiring are likely disincentivized from hiring officers that will adhere to the above.

If the existing hiring process is broken because the entire system was founded on racist institutions designed specifically to protect capital and NOT to ensure the safety of the public, then bringing in more applicants would not lead to more desirable policing outcomes.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2021, 11:59 AM
 
Since I presented my argument as a hypothesis to be tested, isn’t it implied there are any number of avenues by which I may be mistaken?

Should we base our decision on the data, whatever that ends up being, or our sense of fairness?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2021, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Since I presented my argument as a hypothesis to be tested, isn’t it implied there are any number of avenues by which I may be mistaken?

Should we base our decision on the data, whatever that ends up being, or our sense of fairness?
Our "sense of fairness" is colored by the society we grew up in. Which, again, was founded specifically on racist ideas and notions, and the history of our society has been one that tries its absolute hardest to uphold those ideas and notions. So I'm hesitant to draw on some nebulous notion of "fairness."

If increased pay results in better outcomes, great.

If reforming what we expect from police departments results in better outcomes for less cost, then even better.
     
MacNNFamous
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2021, 01:25 PM
 
Just make payouts to police victims come out of their pensions. Problem will solve itself.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:15 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,