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.
^^ It's already been proven that blacks aren't killed more often by police and that the vast majority within law enforcement aren't racist.
However, If you want to talk about blacks being "killed with impunity", you need look no further than other blacks (it's the #1 cause of death among black males ages 15-34, nearly 50% of all deaths in that category is murder at the hands of their peers).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
^^ It's already been proven that blacks aren't killed more often by police and that the vast majority within law enforcement aren't racist.
I suspect in terms of absolute numbers the former is probably true but is it true when you weight it against national population demographics?
I have no idea how you would prove the latter to a worthwhile standard. Its not like they would admit it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
^^ It's already been proven that blacks aren't killed more often by police and that the vast majority within law enforcement aren't racist.
Then those good cops should have no difficulty condemning the bad ones. If you can't, then you're not really a good one, rather you're just kidding yourself. If the system at large can't condemn bad cops caught on video, then the system at large is not really a good one.
This isn't merely bad behavior. It's not wage discrimination, and it's not graft. It's murder. This century there's a lot of internet-tough-guy-itis going around, over relatively minor issues (who can use what bathroom, or whether the middle class is as super-awesome as ever), but murder is just a whole different ballgame. Once can't take a position that this isn't an issue that matters, or that it's appropriate to weigh the inconveniences of the winners against those of the losers.
However, If you want to talk about blacks being "killed with impunity", you need look no further than other blacks (it's the #1 cause of death among black males ages 15-34, nearly 50% of all deaths in that category is murder at the hands of their peers).
Not impunity. When they're caught, they see justice. Not so when cops get caught doing it (on video!). This double-standard is not acceptable.
I have no idea how you would prove the latter to a worthwhile standard. Its not like they would admit it.
Pollsters are pretty savvy with questions these days, hammering the same ones worded in different ways. Variation tends to show the person doesn't believe what they're initially saying or they have an opinion that isn't quite kosher.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Then those good cops should have no difficulty condemning the bad ones.
They do, if you followed Sheriff David Clarke from Milwaukee you'd see it, but the media doesn't cover that. Much like how they rarely cover blacks condemning other blacks instigating police shootings, or Muslims condemning other Muslims, because it either: A. Doesn't fit the Narrative, or 2. They want to keep tensions high for more clicks.
The great thing about the internet is you can turn a PC off, or you can simply stop going to a certain site, or on a more granular level you can just block/mute/ignore certain posters. In the real world you can't do that, obviously.
Not impunity. When they're caught, they see justice. Not so when cops get caught doing it (on video!). This double-standard is not acceptable.
When 52% of murder cases in major cities go unsolved, and an even greater number counted simply as missing persons, since no body is ever found, that's closer to impunity than a cop shooting someone in a traffic stop gone bad.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
At best that study you cited is an outlier. Especially considering the fact that it wasn't even a nationwide study. Hence why it's described as "controversial". Historically study after study shows that blacks are disproportionately likely experience the use of force by police compared to whites. Whether engaged in criminal activity or not. .
But see here for the rebuttal to this specific study ...
Does a new study really show that there’s no racial bias in police shootings?
That’s how the New York Times reported Harvard economist Roland Fryer’s new study, which analyzed data from several police departments across the country to measure racial differences in police use of force. Quoctrung Bui and Amanda Cox reported:
A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.
But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
But diving deeper into the study, those conclusions are based on some fairly shaky ground. Specifically, the data the study uses only looks at racial biases after a police officer engages with a suspect. That excludes a key driver of racial biases in policing: that police are more likely to stop black people in the first place, producing far more situations in which someone is likely to be shot. The study also looks at a fairly limited number of police departments, meaning its findings may not apply nationwide.
For one, the study is looking at a very limited pool of police departments in terms of shootings: 10 jurisdictions in three states in the first data set, and just Houston in the second data set. The study even acknowledges that there are questions about whether the data is nationally representative.
Worse, the data runs into a big problem with selection bias. For police shootings, the researchers looked at data that police departments gave up willingly. A few, including New York City, didn’t hand over their shooting data to the researchers. It’s possible the police departments that refused did so because their data would confirm racial biases. We just don’t know. The Houston data — the second data set used for police shootings — is also built on police reports of what police claim are arrests in which lethal force was warranted. But given the video evidence we’ve seen in the past couple of years, there’s good reason to not take police at their word. How many of those reports were written to suggest a black suspect was justifiably shot when he in fact wasn’t, just because the officer may have feared drawing scrutiny?
Perhaps the biggest problem with the study, however, is that it only looks at potential biases after police have initiated an encounter. So the study found that police aren’t more likely to shoot an unarmed black suspect over a white one once the suspect was stopped — but it didn’t look at whether an unarmed black suspect is more likely to be stopped in the first place.
That’s a big deal: It’s possible that racial disparities in police shootings are driven by how often police stop black people. We know, for instance, that black Americans are disproportionately likely to be pulled over in traffic stops.If police are really equally likely to shoot anyone, regardless of race, in traffic stops, then it would make sense that the people who are pulled over more end up getting shot more often.
Thankfully, we actually have four data sets — from the FBI, the Washington Post, the Guardian, and Fatal Encounters — to see whether black people are truly shot more often without trying to erase the potential racial disparity in stops. These data sets are clear: There are big racial disparities in police’s lethal use of force.
A black behavioral therapist who works in a group home was trying to calm down an autistic man who was having a fit in the street. The police were called. He explained to them who he was and what was going on. He got the autistic man to sit down and he laid down on the ground himself. The "officer" shot him in the leg anyway after he did everything to be as compliant and non-threatening as possible. When the guy asked this "officer" why he shot him he reportedly said "I don't know." But some around here still don't want to believe that fat meat is greasy.
The video shows a man lying in the street, holding his hands in the air.
"All he has is a toy truck," the man shouts. "I am a behavior therapist at a group home."
Charles Kinsey said the footage, released by his attorney, shows the moment Monday when he tried to convince North Miami police not to harm his patient, a 23-year-old with autism who was sitting on the ground beside him.
"I was more worried about him than myself," Kinsey told CNN affiliate WSVN-TV in Miami.
"As long as I've got my hands up, they're not gonna shoot me, that's what I'm thinking," Kinsey said. "Wow, was I wrong."
Now Kinsey is hospitalized with a gunshot wound.
North Miami police said an officer opened fire after attempting to negotiate. Kinsey and his attorney said that explanation doesn't add up. State authorities say they're investigating.
A 911 call about an armed man threatening suicide drew officers to the scene just after 5 p.m. Monday, North Miami police Chief Gary Eugene told reporters.
"Our officers responded to the scene with that threat in mind. We had witness statements that there was a gun. We had a 911 call with that same information," Eugene said Thursday. "However, I want to make it clear, there was no gun recovered."
Kinsey told WSVN that his patient was holding a toy truck, not a firearm. He said he tried to explain the situation to officers, then asked his patient to be still and lie down.
Cell phone video released by Kinsey's attorney shows part of that exchange.
"Please be still ... get down ... lay on your stomach," Kinsey says in the video.
The man beside him rocks back and forth.
Another video released by the attorney shows a different perspective of the scene. In that video, Kinsey is lying in the road, on his stomach and handcuffed.
So far, attorney Hilton Napoleon II said, video of the shooting itself hasn't surfaced.
Kinsey was hit in his right leg after two or three shots were fired, according to his attorney.
Kinsey told WSVN he was flipped over and handcuffed after the shooting. According to Napoleon, Kinsey was on the ground for 20 minutes before an ambulance arrived.
Kinsey said he was stunned by the shooting, like when a mosquito bites unexpectedly.
"When he hit me, I'm like, I still got my hands in the air," he said.
"I'm like, 'Sir, why did you shoot me?' " Kinsey said he asked the officer.
Pollsters are pretty savvy with questions these days, hammering the same ones worded in different ways. Variation tends to show the person doesn't believe what they're initially saying or they have an opinion that isn't quite kosher.
I would think you'd have to give them a polygraph test or show them pictures while they are in an MRI scanner to get anything worth considering assigning value to.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
At best that study you cited is an outlier. Especially considering the fact that it wasn't even a nationwide study. Hence why it's described as "controversial". Historically study after study shows that blacks are disproportionately likely experience the use of force by police compared to whites. Whether engaged in criminal activity or not. .
You know, you can only call something an "outlier", with regard to the use of lethal force, if there are a large number of other studies to refute it. I'll fully admit that I believe that officers are more likely to rough-up a suspect up in black communities, due to those communities being much more violent and lawless to begin with and subsequently are much more difficult to police. When black cops are more likely to handle blacks more harshly than white cops, you can't say racism is the predominant issue.
See how they purposely ignore the race of the officers? I do. I wonder why? Maybe because it doesn't fit the Narrative?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"Hands Up ... Don't Shoot!" was never just about Mike Brown.
... which didn't happen in the first place.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You know, you can only call something an "outlier", with regard to the use of lethal force, if there are a large number of other studies to refute it.
Well the article I cited listed four of them. Did you not see it?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
See how they purposely ignore the race of the officers? I do. I wonder why? Maybe because it doesn't fit the Narrative?
No .... it's because that's NOT the issue. We've covered many times in this thread that blacks are more likely to be subject to the use of force by "police" ... not just "white police". The only one who doesn't seem to get that is you.
You say that yet despite numerous challenges you've still never explained these eyewitness reactions in real-time. And we all know you won't. Because your denial about these issues runs so deep and is so pathological that you will convince yourself that these multiple witnesses who were captured on video seconds after the shooting were suffering from some sort of shared hallucination.
Then those good cops should have no difficulty condemning the bad ones. If you can't, then you're not really a good one, rather you're just kidding yourself. If the system at large can't condemn bad cops caught on video, then the system at large is not really a good one.
First of all, good to see you here again brother. Second of all, as a supporter of the police in general, I cannot agree with you more here. We cannot assume a badge magically makes you beyond reproach. Good and honest cops will then be far easier to identify and support, where bad ones will have less "benefit of the doubt" to hide behind.
This isn't merely bad behavior. It's not wage discrimination, and it's not graft. It's murder. This century there's a lot of internet-tough-guy-itis going around, over relatively minor issues (who can use what bathroom, or whether the middle class is as super-awesome as ever), but murder is just a whole different ballgame. Once can't take a position that this isn't an issue that matters, or that it's appropriate to weigh the inconveniences of the winners against those of the losers.
For each seen & egregious example of murder, there are undoubtedly several times as many injustices perpetrated by those entrusted to prevent them. The problem, in my estimation, is how to incentivize good cops to police their own ranks. As of now, it seems that they'll protect each other no matter what. They're supposed to be protecting us from criminal behavior, not protecting each other from the consequences of criminal behavior. It's a tough job, no doubt.
Not impunity. When they're caught, they see justice. Not so when cops get caught doing it (on video!). This double-standard is not acceptable.
I think we could start in the courts, and obliterate the judges' tendency to take a cops word at face value in court. A police officer's word should mean no more than another witnesses (provided that witness is not discredited), otherwise there is no way to maintain the impartiality of the court.
Well the article I cited listed four of them. Did you not see it?
No .... it's because that's NOT the issue. We've covered many times in this thread that blacks are more likely to be subject to the use of force by "police" ... not just "white police". The only one who doesn't seem to get that is you.
OAW
They're also much more likely to commit crimes - so there's your correlation. Being black is not the causative factor, but I believe socio-economic factors are (which disproportionately affects black people).
OAW, can a black cop be racist against black people? Is it possible?
They're also much more likely to commit crimes - so there's your correlation. Being black is not the causative factor, but I believe socio-economic factors are (which disproportionately affects black people).
Not really. As I've already stated this phenomenon is the case whether a crime is involved or not. See the previous situation I just posted as an example.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
OAW, can a black cop be racist against black people? Is it possible?
In a systemic sense? No. In an individual attitude sense? Absolutely. Happens all the time. From the 1988 hip hop classic "F*ck tha Police" ...
Originally Posted by N.W.A
But don't let it be a black and a white one

Cause they'll slam ya down to the street top 
Black police showing out for the white cop
The reason that song resonated so much way back then and still does today is documented throughout this thread. As I've said before this stuff has been going on for decades. The only thing that's new is that everybody has a smart phone to capture it on video.
Not really. As I've already stated this phenomenon is the case whether a crime is involved or not. See the previous situation I just posted as an example.
True, but many times the police do not consider whether a crime is involved or not when interacting with people of any color. This to me is the extent of the "racism" involved - it's inadvertent for the vast majority of cops.
In a systemic sense? No. In an individual attitude sense? Absolutely. Happens all the time.
OAW
Is any criticism of black people racism? I don't see how you can criticize a group you belong to and be considered bigoted.
Edit: Let me expand - I'm not saying they can't be discriminatory, I'm just saying that when I criticize white people as a group, I don't feel like I'm discriminating solely based on skin color. Does this follow?
True, but many times the police do not consider whether a crime is involved or not when interacting with people of any color. This to me is the extent of the "racism" involved - it's inadvertent for the vast majority of cops.
Indeed. I've stated numerous times in this thread that these situations are more often the result of implicit bias than racism of the "white sheet" variety.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Is any criticism of black people racism? I don't see how you can criticize a group you belong to and be considered bigoted.
Edit: Let me expand - I'm not saying they can't be discriminatory, I'm just saying that when I criticize white people as a group, I don't feel like I'm discriminating solely based on skin color. Does this follow?
No. But you didn't ask me about "criticism". When I said "in an individual attitude sense" above I mean "discriminatory" as you just indicated.
You say that yet despite numerous challenges you've still never explained these eyewitness reactions in real-time. And we all know you won't. Because your denial about these issues runs so deep and is so pathological that you will convince yourself that these multiple witnesses who were captured on video seconds after the shooting were suffering from some sort of shared hallucination.
OAW
Your homie Eric Holder and the DOJ must be an extreme disappointment to you.
Washington Post Fact Checker
‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ did not happen in Ferguson https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-in-ferguson/
I've already addressed that report earlier in the thread. Which, for the record, I actually read so I'm not just going by the headlines in newspapers. Suffice it to say it doesn't actually say that it didn't happen. What it says is that there was conflicting testimony. So the "credibility" of witnesses comes into play. And legally if anything doesn't check out ... including statements made well after the fact ... then everything a witness has said is deemed to be "not credible". Combine that with the fact that police officers are given an incredible amount of latitude absent incontrovertible proof ... such as a video of Mike Brown with his hands in the air before being shot ... and then the Justice Department has no grounds to charge Darren Wilson with violating his civil rights. The same standard doesn't apply to a police officer. The benefit of the doubt always goes to the cop ... not eyewitnesses ... even if he has made statements that don't pan out as well.
Again I'm not talking about this as a matter of law. I'm making a point on the basis of simple logic and common sense. Because we've already established in numerous instances in this thread that what is legal is not necessarily what is just. In this situation you have multiple witnesses seconds after the shooting saying he had his hands up. 2 outside and one inside. Contemporaneously. In the moment. As an example, the white guy was legally deemed "not credible" because by the time investigators got around to interviewing him ... days perhaps even weeks later ... he got the count wrong on how many police officers were on the scene when the shooting took place. Studies show that the mind starts to "fill in the blanks" as it processes traumatic events. Which is why one has to be careful with eyewitness testimony after the fact. But I'm not talking about a scenario where the mind has had the opportunity to start playing tricks on you. I'm talking about the initial reactions captured on video as soon as it all went down. Not one guy. Not two guys. At least 3 different individuals in this video alone. And let's set aside other witnesses not on this video who said the same thing. So I ask again. Are you saying all these people in this particular video were suffering from a shared hallucination in that very moment? If so explain how that makes any kind of sense.
Last time I checked it took a lot more than one study to convince you of things.
I'm willing to look at others... if there were any (because academics just assumed cops were bigots in the first place).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You say that yet despite numerous challenges you've still never explained these eyewitness reactions in real-time.
"Real-time" as in after the fact, as it says in the video itself. "Moments after", which was actually more than a minute after. They were just repeating what the black guy running up was saying after the shots were fired, because they weren't even within sight of what happened, as the USDoJ concluded. Seriously man, WTF?
And we all know you won't.
Because you're a prophet?!
Because your denial about these issues runs so deep and is so pathological that you will convince yourself that these multiple witnesses who were captured on video seconds after the shooting were suffering from some sort of shared hallucination.
They were victims of a guy spreading bullshit, lying about what actually happened. Where are their comments about seeing the shooting? Surely the press would get them on camera, talking about such a great miscarriage of justice, right? RIGHT?? Why weren't they subpoenaed by Holder? Where were all these "hands up" people during that investigation? Was Holder covering for Wilson? Was Obama? Do you even bother to think this shit through, or do you automatically just jump to any conclusion pushed by the media that fits your agenda and stick to it, regardless of what the Justice Dept's own investigation, headed by black man, concluded? Talk about denial...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Really? Because 'proven' is a strong word to use for one study with highly specific limitations and qualifications.
Within the parameters of the study it was proven, but again, I'm willing to read others on the same matter.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
They do, if you followed Sheriff David Clarke from Milwaukee you'd see it
Maybe I'm missing your reference. Has he effected substantive punishment for murders committed by officers?
Come to think of it, I probably wasn't very clear. What I meant was, 5% or even 50% good cops is nothing to crow about, because that still means there are 50% or 95% bad ones. How many good cops would it take to prevent a murderer in blue from finding enough others to aid and abet him out of a conviction? I posit that a level of systemic corruption is evident when we can't bring a murder caught on video to a conviction. Isolated examples of condemnation notwithstanding.
When 52% of murder cases in major cities go unsolved, and an even greater number counted simply as missing persons, since no body is ever found, that's closer to impunity than a cop shooting someone in a traffic stop gone bad.
It's a spurious analogy to compare "unsolved" with "unpunished." A more honest analysis would be to compare cases of "other blacks" who were identified, videotaped, or confessed, and still acquitted or not even tried.
Maybe I'm missing your reference. Has he effected substantive punishment for murders committed by officers?
That's not what you asked about, you asked who is condemning the actions of bad cops.
Come to think of it, I probably wasn't very clear. What I meant was, 5% or even 50% good cops is nothing to crow about, because that still means there are 50% or 95% bad ones. How many good cops would it take to prevent a murderer in blue from finding enough others to aid and abet him out of a conviction? I posit that a level of systemic corruption is evident when we can't bring a murder caught on video to a conviction. Isolated examples of condemnation notwithstanding.
Looking at much less than 1%, TBH. Any bad cop is a dangerous thing, but the situation isn't getting any better if, due to the shortage of officers (because veterans are sick of being shit on and the anti-police rhetoric day-in and day-out), inexperienced police are put on the streets where they quickly make huge mistakes, like in the Charles Kinsey case. Ironically, the worst corruption is in the most Liberal cities, usually under the authority of minority elected officials. I'm not saying they cause, or even ignore, the corruption, but if even gifted black politicians and city leaders can't reign in all this "rampant" corruption, then maybe it all has a lot more to do with the citizens they're protecting making their jobs a lot harder than they ever should be.
It's a spurious analogy to compare "unsolved" with "unpunished."
How so? If a case is never solved the perp got away with it, scot-free. That's the very definition of unpunished (aka. impunity).
A more honest analysis would be to compare cases of "other blacks" who were identified, videotaped, or confessed, and still acquitted or not even tried.
Free is free. If detectives are overwhelmed with murder cases, which is all too often the situation, then the citizens who have actively created that lawless environment are responsible. That's a much worse situation than the rare shooting by even a shady cop. Young black men in Chicago murder more people each year than our entire nation of officers (unjustified homicides). Does that mean we don't go after bad cops? Hell no. But, the broad brush that's being used by the media, BLM, and other Social Justice types, is splashing the honorable ones in the process, and that only makes matters much worse.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
That's not what you asked about, you asked who is condemning the actions of bad cops.
No, I made an admittedly clumsy reference to the fact that I'm sure 99.9% of cops think of themselves as good ones, but many/most of those are kidding themselves because they still can't go so far as to condemn the killings and punish the killers. In retrospect I can see how that might not have been clear.
How many good cops would it take to prevent a murderer in blue from finding enough others to aid and abet him out of a conviction?
Looking at much less than 1%, TBH.
Is that what you meant? 1% good would be sufficient to prevent what we're currently seeing, which is a system that largely condones and protects killer cops? I'm not sniping, just honestly asking for a clarification.
substance:
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
How so? If a case is never solved the perp got away with it, scot-free. That's the very definition of unpunished (aka. impunity).
The essential difference is whether the system itself is friend or foe. For a killer to evade punishment with the endorsement of the system is a world of difference from a killer who evades punishment despite the best efforts of the system. If the system itself is an enemy of the people who live under that system, well, that brings us back to my initial thesis. **** that system.
Free is free. If detectives are overwhelmed with murder cases, which is all too often the situation, then the citizens who have actively created that lawless environment are responsible. That's a much worse situation than the rare shooting by even a shady cop. Young black men in Chicago murder more people each year than our entire nation of officers (unjustified homicides). Does that mean we don't go after bad cops? Hell no. But, the broad brush that's being used by the media, BLM, and other Social Justice types, is splashing the honorable ones in the process, and that only makes matters much worse.
I would like to suggest that you and yours (are you still an LEO? I'm sorry I don't want to presume) are running afoul of precisely the same folly. I'll try to present this in a succinct way...
Your claim:
berate police --> fewer quality police and insufficient resources --> more carelessness and tragic outcomes
My claim:
protect bad police --> system rightfully seen as enemy of populace --> attack police and other institutions of oppression
The lynchpin of keeping a healthy alliance between law enforcement and the citizenry is demonstrating that the police are capable of policing other police. It is of paramount importance that murderous cops are not permitted leniency. There exists a limited grace period during which the system can show that it works. After enough of these "oops you're dead" moments pass without a demonstration that the system is who polices the police, then who is left to do it? Uprising is really the only backstop after that first options fails, so that's why it's so important for the system to demonstrate that it is not a failure.
... shortage of officers ... sick of being shit on ... the anti-police rhetoric day-in and day-out ... splashing the honorable ones in the process ...
I have an enormous respect for peace officers, and that is why they would have to do something unconscionably heinous for that respect to falter, something so repugnant that I wouldn't even believe it were true without physical evidence of the crime. Something so evil as killing innocent people they're sworn to protect, not just a few times but to make a habit out of it, and to target a certain race whether consciously or unconsciously, and to not even have the human decency to be disgusted by it when it is revealed, disgusted enough to actually follow through and punish those offenders proven to have participated.
I sympathize with the logistic and emotional difficulties of working though this situation. But the other side of this coin is being killed, and you're talking about honor splashing. That is not even remotely comparable.
(
Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Jul 23, 2016 at 10:49 AM.
)
^^^ What's essential is to realize that you can't properly police an area that wants only lawlessness. If you put the soft-hearted, nice cops in most black neighborhoods, they end up dead (or quit on the first day). The only people who will patrol them are typically assholes or worse. That's the truth no one in the media will talk about.
To quote Alexis de Tocqueville, "People get the government they deserve".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
If you put the soft-hearted, nice cops in most black neighborhoods, they end up dead (or quit on the first day). The only people who will patrol them are typically assholes or worse.
Who said anything about soft-hearted or nice? All I asked for is that they face the same deterrence that the rest of us assholes (or worse) face. That when they kill an innocent person their trial will find them guilty of doing exactly that. If cops realized that they are not above the law, then self-preservation would keep these tragedies to a minimum. The core breakdown is that the law doesn't seem to want to apply to cops, and that is not acceptable.
To quote Alexis de Tocqueville, "People get the government they deserve".
So they deserved to get killed? Are you sure you want to tip your hand like that?
The problem, in my estimation, is how to incentivize good cops to police their own ranks...I think we could start in the courts, and obliterate the judges' tendency to take a cops word at face value in court.
I've been thinking about this since you said it. Judging the judges seems like even more opaque a process than policing the police. Is there even a mechanism to investigate judges for poor judging performance (as opposed to corruption)? Elections, I guess, but that's an awfully blunt tool, and not all judges are elected.
All I can think of, and I'm not comfortable with it at all, is that if a judge thinks he is protecting an otherwise good police in his courtroom, maybe that inclination will be counterbalanced if he believes that a bald-faced counterfactual ruling will likewise endanger other police like what happened in Dallas, on the heels of the public outrage from the ruling.
I presume there is, but it doesn't seem particularly effective.
I really ****ing hate prosecutors, but the system makes unreasonable enough demands it would be a problem even if they weren't utter scumbags.
A prosecutor is expected to be best pals with the police 99% of the time, and then turn around and curb-stomp them like the future of the community depends on it, because it does.
A saint would **** this up. This system is fundamentally broken, and to use my favorite Uncle Skeletonism, I posit our inability to deal with bad cops stems from it. The "police culture" we want to change exists as the natural progression of an ineffective prosecutorial leash.
Prosecutors love winning. If there weren't consequences to them taking down any but the worst offenders, they'd be racking and stacking them.
Like they get to do to the proles as long as they play nice with the cops.
I presume there is, but it doesn't seem particularly effective.
I really ****ing hate prosecutors, but the system makes unreasonable enough demands it would be a problem even if they weren't utter scumbags.
A prosecutor is expected to be best pals with the police 99% of the time, and then turn around and curb-stomp them like the future of the community depends on it, because it does.
A saint would **** this up. This system is fundamentally broken, and to use my favorite Uncle Skeletonism, I posit our inability to deal with bad cops stems from it. The "police culture" we want to change exists as the natural progression of an ineffective prosecutorial leash.
Prosecutors love winning. If there weren't consequences to them taking down any but the worst offenders, they'd be racking and stacking them.
Like they get to do to the proles as long as they play nice with the cops.
Does it help at all to bring in prosecutors from another jurisdiction? Or federal? Bureaucracy generally makes my eyes glaze over...
Just 24 hours after Christopher LeDay posted video of Alton Sterling being shot and killed by Baton Rouge police officers, police arrested LeDay where he works.
...
"They never showed a warrant for an assault to my client, in fact my client was held in DeKalb County Jail for at least 26 hours and they never produced a warrant," Simmons said.
Simons told Channel 2 Action News when no one could come up with a warrant, she was told her client was being held for "unresolved traffic tickets," LeDay paid those citations before leaving DeKalb County Jail.
^^ or he's an actual criminal. Nah, couldn't be that. Funny how your link doesn't even address what he's going up for, only that he thinks someone tried to put rat poison in his food, supposedly during one of his frequent stays in Rikers. If the NYC system had such a boner for him, why were his domestic violence charges (from yet another felony case) dropped? On the contrary, if anything it sounds like they're sweet on him, letting him plead down to only 4 years for numerous drug and weapons charges, and him being a repeat offender and all.
I'm not fan of New York, but that just sounds like a lot of paranoid bullshit. Hell, if he really wanted to keep the police away he could have, oh I don't know, stopped breaking the ****ing law?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Does it help at all to bring in prosecutors from another jurisdiction? Or federal? Bureaucracy generally makes my eyes glaze over...
I imagine there are dozens of ways to fix this. I admit I haven't put effort into figuring out which would be in the running for "best practice".
I don't see the problem as a lack of potential solutions, but the current solution having entrenched supporters among cops and prosecutors. They've got a pretty sweet deal. They won't change it.
I imagine there are dozens of ways to fix this. I admit I haven't put effort into figuring out which would be in the running for "best practice".
I don't see the problem as a lack of potential solutions, but the current solution having entrenched supporters among cops and prosecutors. They've got a pretty sweet deal. They won't change it.
Well if the only problem is motivation, I guess we'll have to see how many police have to be gunned down just to reach the right level of motivation for them to take others' deaths seriously. I would have thought that number would come in around 1.
Well if the only problem is motivation, I guess we'll have to see how many police have to be gunned down just to reach the right level of motivation for them to take others' deaths seriously. I would have thought that number would come in around 1.
I see that as far more likely to generate a feedback loop.
To paraphrase Blazing Saddles, don't shoot cops, that just makes them mad.
I see that as far more likely to generate a feedback loop.
To paraphrase Blazing Saddles, don't shoot cops, that just makes them mad.
It won't though. Cops as a group aren't super-resilient to being killed off. They already have a challenge putting asses in the seats, even without being killed intentionally.
Seriously, subego, what's your fabled second amendment for, if not for a time when police are killing citizens openly and without cause? What more would it take for you as a second amendment advocate to say "this. we have an amendment for this situation"? Because if there's no reason for the second amendment then we might as well stop paying the costs of it, and if there is a reason for it then I'm having a hard time reconciling why this doesn't qualify.
. 
Top