George Floyd Protest – police brutality videos on Twitter(docs.google.com)
docs.google.com
George Floyd Protest – police brutality videos on Twitter
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1YmZeSxpz52qT-10tkCjWOwOGkQqle7Wd1P7ZM1wMW0E/htmlview?pru=AAABcql6DI8*mIHYeMnoj9XWUp3Svb_KZA
843 comments
I’ve reached the point where the problem is more than just the equipment, it’s the culture.
There are way too many cases where a cop provokes a confrontation, often by stopping to allow someone else nearby to run into them, and every other cop in the group responds by beating anyone nearby and shoving back anyone with a camera.
You don’t get coordinated responses like that without planning and practice.
There are way too many cases where a cop provokes a confrontation, often by stopping to allow someone else nearby to run into them, and every other cop in the group responds by beating anyone nearby and shoving back anyone with a camera.
You don’t get coordinated responses like that without planning and practice.
>I’ve reached the point where the problem is more than just the equipment, it’s the culture.
This is absolutely true, but the problem goes much deeper than just the police force itself. We seem to want to solve every imaginable social problem with police/courts/prisons. Drug abuse needs to be viewed as a public health problem, not a criminal problem. Homelessness as a housing and mental health problem, not a criminal one. Many other issues as economic problems not criminal ones. Address the root cause, rather than sending people with badges and guns. I realize this is easier said than done, but it's clear the old approach is no longer acceptable to society.
This is absolutely true, but the problem goes much deeper than just the police force itself. We seem to want to solve every imaginable social problem with police/courts/prisons. Drug abuse needs to be viewed as a public health problem, not a criminal problem. Homelessness as a housing and mental health problem, not a criminal one. Many other issues as economic problems not criminal ones. Address the root cause, rather than sending people with badges and guns. I realize this is easier said than done, but it's clear the old approach is no longer acceptable to society.
Maybe "the right not to be prosecuted for a victimless crime" should be an amendment. Then homelessness/drugs-whatevers/prostitution can no longer have laws against them.
"Address the root cause", exactly, and the root cause is the unjust laws. Though cops pretty much never being found guilty for unjust use of violence is a big one too, and I wonder what law changes can solve that issue.
"Address the root cause", exactly, and the root cause is the unjust laws. Though cops pretty much never being found guilty for unjust use of violence is a big one too, and I wonder what law changes can solve that issue.
The problem is the notion of victimless.
There are crimes that put people at risk but don't always create a victim. Do we allow for crimes that have a risk of a victim even if there isn't a direct victim?
There are crimes where we say that someone is a victim despite their own feelings of being victimized or having suffered a crime. Do those stay as well?
We have crimes where there isn't someone physically hurt and not a direct theft, but there is a reduction in value of items. Do those crimes stay?
Take zoning laws. Is violating a zoning law victimless? If I open a foul smelling poultry factory in the middle of a downtown commercial zone, it could greatly negatively impact that commercial zone to the point where businesses would not be able to afford to stay open. But if that makes it a victim crime, then what about when homeless people living in that same area also drive away customers to the point it no longer functions as a commercial zone?
As for drugs, what happens when companies start selling direct to users? Antibiotics and opioids without needing a doctor's prescription. We already have seen the problems even when doctor prescriptions are required, imagine what happens if drugs are declared a victimless crime and no longer prosecuted.
I think the notion that some crimes are victimless is based on looking at specific incidents that don't have victims and not considering it at scale. Which is to say that the example by the other poster of drunk driving might be a much more fairer comparison than what people originally took it as, because while the relation between the risk and possible victim is easier to understand, the question is if such a relationship is consistently used to justify a victim, not if the relationship is easy to understand.
There are crimes that put people at risk but don't always create a victim. Do we allow for crimes that have a risk of a victim even if there isn't a direct victim?
There are crimes where we say that someone is a victim despite their own feelings of being victimized or having suffered a crime. Do those stay as well?
We have crimes where there isn't someone physically hurt and not a direct theft, but there is a reduction in value of items. Do those crimes stay?
Take zoning laws. Is violating a zoning law victimless? If I open a foul smelling poultry factory in the middle of a downtown commercial zone, it could greatly negatively impact that commercial zone to the point where businesses would not be able to afford to stay open. But if that makes it a victim crime, then what about when homeless people living in that same area also drive away customers to the point it no longer functions as a commercial zone?
As for drugs, what happens when companies start selling direct to users? Antibiotics and opioids without needing a doctor's prescription. We already have seen the problems even when doctor prescriptions are required, imagine what happens if drugs are declared a victimless crime and no longer prosecuted.
I think the notion that some crimes are victimless is based on looking at specific incidents that don't have victims and not considering it at scale. Which is to say that the example by the other poster of drunk driving might be a much more fairer comparison than what people originally took it as, because while the relation between the risk and possible victim is easier to understand, the question is if such a relationship is consistently used to justify a victim, not if the relationship is easy to understand.
To most of these I'd say: make 'm offenses not crimes. As I see it: crimes make it punishable by jail time, offenses not.
But doesn't this then introduce the problems with fines? They can be disproportionate and can also be viewed as a tax. Making them proportionate has other issues, such as effectively making it a non-punishment for some people who can optimize around it (people working under the table) and can easily lead to situations where corporations can structure themselves so they don't have to pay any significant fine with caught.
I agree that fines are not ideal, and I think these are interesting discussions we need to be having to think of better solutions, but I also want to be clear that fines are several orders of magnitude better than jailing people (and I think it goes without saying, even more orders of magnitude better than summary execution).
I do think there's potential for more mandated community service as a response to antisocial behavior. Structure it so people don't have to miss work.
A very large amount of the crimes we prosecute people for are either drug crimes or crimes because of poverty/economic inequality, and these are best addressed with public health and investment.
Even some of the remaining economic crimes - like selling untaxed cigarettes (what Eric Garner was killed for) if they still happen probably don't need public enforcement. Give those that pay the taxes standing to sue those who don't pay the taxes. If those who are paying it aren't bothered enough to pay for enforcement, I don't see why others should be.
Most of what we do in the name of policing is deal with problems that we'd be better off preventing or dealing with by someone other than a man with a gun. This is the low hanging fruit we should pursue immediately, and when we see what's left the opportunities and alternatives for further improvement should become clearer.
I do think there's potential for more mandated community service as a response to antisocial behavior. Structure it so people don't have to miss work.
A very large amount of the crimes we prosecute people for are either drug crimes or crimes because of poverty/economic inequality, and these are best addressed with public health and investment.
Even some of the remaining economic crimes - like selling untaxed cigarettes (what Eric Garner was killed for) if they still happen probably don't need public enforcement. Give those that pay the taxes standing to sue those who don't pay the taxes. If those who are paying it aren't bothered enough to pay for enforcement, I don't see why others should be.
Most of what we do in the name of policing is deal with problems that we'd be better off preventing or dealing with by someone other than a man with a gun. This is the low hanging fruit we should pursue immediately, and when we see what's left the opportunities and alternatives for further improvement should become clearer.
Fines that are not income/wealth dependent are discriminating against those with less money, whom are overrepresented, and should thus logically be forbidden in a functioning democracy. I guess little proper functioning democracies according to my standards.
Good point.
Good point.
That's reasonable, but how do we punish (or otherwise deter) offenses?
The most obvious answer seems to be to fine the offenders, but really, how do you fine a homeless person?
The most obvious answer seems to be to fine the offenders, but really, how do you fine a homeless person?
Good question. But note that the status quo answer has been proven to be woefully suitable.
Fining the homeless seems silly, and unlikely to serve as either a deterrent or as workable compensation for society at large.
Throwing them in a jail is even worse; it is unlikely to deter (part of the problem is that there are mental issues at work which are likely going to make _any_ deterrence ineffective, you need complete solutions for individual cases, or systems in place that reduce the incidence of homelessness and the mental issues strongly correlated to it) - and it is a giant cost to society, not a gain.
There are _NO_ easy answers, that's part of the problem. We can point at the elephant all day, but the current plan of 'lets squawk like a bird loudly' has proven ineffective at chasing the elephant out of the room and also makes no logical sense as to why that should lead to the desired result either. It makes sense to stop the squawking like a bird immediately, even if there isn't yet a plausible plan in place to chase the elephant out.
Fining the homeless seems silly, and unlikely to serve as either a deterrent or as workable compensation for society at large.
Throwing them in a jail is even worse; it is unlikely to deter (part of the problem is that there are mental issues at work which are likely going to make _any_ deterrence ineffective, you need complete solutions for individual cases, or systems in place that reduce the incidence of homelessness and the mental issues strongly correlated to it) - and it is a giant cost to society, not a gain.
There are _NO_ easy answers, that's part of the problem. We can point at the elephant all day, but the current plan of 'lets squawk like a bird loudly' has proven ineffective at chasing the elephant out of the room and also makes no logical sense as to why that should lead to the desired result either. It makes sense to stop the squawking like a bird immediately, even if there isn't yet a plausible plan in place to chase the elephant out.
In the case of homelessness there have been pilot programs that actually show the cost of just giving chronicly homeless people permanent housing and psychological counseling to be dramatically less expensive to society than our current solutions. By providing housing in these cases we reduce the prison population, which is much less expensive than counseling and a small living space. Counseling and access to preventative medical services is dramatically less expensive than the frequent cost of deploying ambulances and treating more severe, advanced and frequent infections/injuries they acquire while homeless.
Additionally, giving them homes has strongly correlated with a reduction in drug trafficking. These programs did not require the participants to stay drug free or to join any programs, but often they were buying/selling for reasons that were addressed by the basic provisions of the programs.
These programs aren't meant for everyone that's homeless. Many people are only homeless temporarily and the existing shelter programs handle those cases somewhat acceptably, but the major contrasting factor with the issues we're currently discussing is that these programs had zero involvement of the police. The police were told explicitly to leave its participants alone and not only did the homelessness issues go away, but their state budgets decreased overall.
You make good points about not being able to fully decriminalize certain things, but there are nuances specific to circumstances that make treating many societal problems as crimes to be less effective and more expensive than properly implemented social programs.
Additionally, giving them homes has strongly correlated with a reduction in drug trafficking. These programs did not require the participants to stay drug free or to join any programs, but often they were buying/selling for reasons that were addressed by the basic provisions of the programs.
These programs aren't meant for everyone that's homeless. Many people are only homeless temporarily and the existing shelter programs handle those cases somewhat acceptably, but the major contrasting factor with the issues we're currently discussing is that these programs had zero involvement of the police. The police were told explicitly to leave its participants alone and not only did the homelessness issues go away, but their state budgets decreased overall.
You make good points about not being able to fully decriminalize certain things, but there are nuances specific to circumstances that make treating many societal problems as crimes to be less effective and more expensive than properly implemented social programs.
It often goes unremarked in the current discourse about police brutality, but the USA passes an abundance of unnecessary laws. And when you pass a law you are backing it up with the threat of force, which can result in death.
As Americans, perhaps we should be calling for:
1/ Limits on the power of police to protect bad officers and change prosecutorial discretion.
2/ Limits on the number of interactions between the police and citizenry, which means passing fewer laws.
Look at what led to Eric Garner's death. A politician put a tax of $5.85 on a pack of cigarettes, driving smokes underground. When the police enforce this overcrimininalization, it exposes poor people to unnecessary interactions with cops and potentially violent confrontations.
As Americans, perhaps we should be calling for:
1/ Limits on the power of police to protect bad officers and change prosecutorial discretion.
2/ Limits on the number of interactions between the police and citizenry, which means passing fewer laws.
Look at what led to Eric Garner's death. A politician put a tax of $5.85 on a pack of cigarettes, driving smokes underground. When the police enforce this overcrimininalization, it exposes poor people to unnecessary interactions with cops and potentially violent confrontations.
You might start by providing them with a home.
This is indeed the right thing to do.
But I can easily imagine that out of 8 million people living in New York City, a certain number does not want to live at home and actually prefer staying outside.
But I can easily imagine that out of 8 million people living in New York City, a certain number does not want to live at home and actually prefer staying outside.
This is an issue about which I happen to have some direct knowledge. I once made a documentary film about homelessness:
http://graceofgodmovie.com/
And you're right, there are some people who are homeless by choice, but they are a tiny, tiny minority, probably less than 1% of the homeless population.
http://graceofgodmovie.com/
And you're right, there are some people who are homeless by choice, but they are a tiny, tiny minority, probably less than 1% of the homeless population.
So, I've just checked the HUD report [1] and apparently in NY about 5% of homeless are what they call "unsheltered".
I sincerely wonder why.
My "off-the-top" theory would be that these people are either indeed homeless by choice or they are such assholes that not a single shelter would tolerate them.
How wrong am I?
[1] https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5948/2019-ahar-part-1-...
I sincerely wonder why.
My "off-the-top" theory would be that these people are either indeed homeless by choice or they are such assholes that not a single shelter would tolerate them.
How wrong am I?
[1] https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5948/2019-ahar-part-1-...
> How wrong am I?
Very. Did you actually read the report? The answer is right there:
"On a single night in 2019, roughly 568,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States. Nearly two-thirds (63%) were staying in sheltered locations—emergency shelters or transitional housing programs—and more than one-third (37%) were in unsheltered locations such as on the street, in abandoned buildings, or in other places not suitable for human habitation."
So being unsheltered has nothing at all to do with being voluntarily homeless. These are completely orthogonal matters. In fact, the HUD report does not deal with voluntary homelessness at all, almost certainly because the number of such people is so small that they can be safely discounted for public policy purposes.
It is also really hard to assess whether someone is voluntarily homeless. My film was shot in Santa Monica, CA. One of the subjects I interviewed had reliable income, enough to pay the rent somewhere, but not in Santa Monica. Given the choice between being on the street in Santa Monica and being in a low-rent apartment in some random place far from home, he chose to stay in Santa Monica. But all else being equal he would have preferred to be inside. Is that person "voluntarily homeless"?
Very. Did you actually read the report? The answer is right there:
"On a single night in 2019, roughly 568,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States. Nearly two-thirds (63%) were staying in sheltered locations—emergency shelters or transitional housing programs—and more than one-third (37%) were in unsheltered locations such as on the street, in abandoned buildings, or in other places not suitable for human habitation."
So being unsheltered has nothing at all to do with being voluntarily homeless. These are completely orthogonal matters. In fact, the HUD report does not deal with voluntary homelessness at all, almost certainly because the number of such people is so small that they can be safely discounted for public policy purposes.
It is also really hard to assess whether someone is voluntarily homeless. My film was shot in Santa Monica, CA. One of the subjects I interviewed had reliable income, enough to pay the rent somewhere, but not in Santa Monica. Given the choice between being on the street in Santa Monica and being in a low-rent apartment in some random place far from home, he chose to stay in Santa Monica. But all else being equal he would have preferred to be inside. Is that person "voluntarily homeless"?
What you're describing here are negative externalities. From an Economics perspective (I was an Econ major) the solution is neither to ignore them (as many libertarians do) nor to ban the activities, but rather to regulate them in such a way that you force the party creating the externalities to internalize the costs that they are imposing on others. Typically through some form of Pigouvian Tax, Cap and Trade scheme, or insurance requirement.
Homelessness/drugs/prostitution has splash and fallout damage to people directly involved and others such as disease-spreading, burgleries, and mental/physical damage. Having laws against them is just one way mitigate or minimize that damage, but of course dealing with the underlying cause should work better, but our country is not sympathetic to that kind of social spending.
So we have a continual cycle of crime-punishment that doesn't mitigate enough, simply because the underlying problems remain, until our country stops with the "you're on your own" mentality and starts supporting social programs better.
So we have a continual cycle of crime-punishment that doesn't mitigate enough, simply because the underlying problems remain, until our country stops with the "you're on your own" mentality and starts supporting social programs better.
> splash and fallout damage
So what? (Two) adults choose to have some interaction that all parties are happy with? Who are us outsiders to claim that their freedoms should be reduced?
The best reason is "splash and fallout" damage? I dont know if you've seen how weed has been used to put people in cages. People in cages! And you come with "splash and fallout" damage as a justification... You lost me.
So what? (Two) adults choose to have some interaction that all parties are happy with? Who are us outsiders to claim that their freedoms should be reduced?
The best reason is "splash and fallout" damage? I dont know if you've seen how weed has been used to put people in cages. People in cages! And you come with "splash and fallout" damage as a justification... You lost me.
> the right not to be prosecuted for a victimless crime
So if I'm driving drunk, then I'm not prosecuted until there's a victim?
Hm...
So if I'm driving drunk, then I'm not prosecuted until there's a victim?
Hm...
I wouldn't necessarily say that DUI is a victimless crime. you might not hurt anyone, but you've exposed everyone on the road to excess risk, which could be argued is a type of harm. I'm not sure jail time is necessary for DUI. having your license suspended is already a severe punishment in places where you really need a vehicle to get around. requiring an interlock whenever the person is allowed to drive again also mitigates the risk to others in the future. of course, then you would have to decide what to do with people who just drive a friend's car or drive on a suspended license...
I think this might be a good example of a larger structural problem. culturally, we accept that going to a bar with friends or having a few glasses of wine at a restaurant is a reasonable thing for an adult to do. but a large portion of the US is set up in a way that bars and restaurants are not within walking distance of homes, and the public transit is poor or nonexistent. if I, a 145 lb male, have a cocktail and a glass of wine at dinner, I'm pretty likely to be above the legal limit by the time I leave. I don't do this; I either drink less or arrange a different way to get home, but I do think the combination of law, culture, and (lack of) infrastructure pushes people towards committing a crime here.
I think this might be a good example of a larger structural problem. culturally, we accept that going to a bar with friends or having a few glasses of wine at a restaurant is a reasonable thing for an adult to do. but a large portion of the US is set up in a way that bars and restaurants are not within walking distance of homes, and the public transit is poor or nonexistent. if I, a 145 lb male, have a cocktail and a glass of wine at dinner, I'm pretty likely to be above the legal limit by the time I leave. I don't do this; I either drink less or arrange a different way to get home, but I do think the combination of law, culture, and (lack of) infrastructure pushes people towards committing a crime here.
Well, here we step on a slippery slope of defining a "victimless" crime.
Many illegal drugs have a potential of causing harm.
Should the harm be purely physical?
Homelessness is a public nuisance, which we can choose to ignore, but so is walking naked in a school yard, which will be seen as a much more controversial subject.
Many illegal drugs have a potential of causing harm.
Should the harm be purely physical?
Homelessness is a public nuisance, which we can choose to ignore, but so is walking naked in a school yard, which will be seen as a much more controversial subject.
> Many illegal drugs have a potential of causing harm.
To the user, which is a risk they chose to take.
Now you could argue that the illicit trade is causing harm, but that's the direct result of criminalization and not of people choosing to consume substances.
To the user, which is a risk they chose to take.
Now you could argue that the illicit trade is causing harm, but that's the direct result of criminalization and not of people choosing to consume substances.
Totally agree. Making victimless behavior to be crimes creates the trade wars. Those laws cause so much harm on society, they are also the reason a significant group is locked up (especially when counting violence resulting from trade as well).
sure illegal drugs only affect users. and the user affected by illegal drugs don't loose any notion of right/wrong and can harm other people
tbh, I'm in favor of treating DUI more as a liability thing (ie, automatic fault in the case of an accident and multiplied damages) rather than a crime itself, but that's a pretty controversial position that I didn't want to bring into the debate. plus it has its own issues; liability is not much of a deterrent for someone with minimal assets and/or income.
Making DUI a liability thing is such a simple, clean and straightforward thing to do that I wish it worked.
But: - for it to work people should estimate the risks correctly - most people caught DUIing apparently are quite bad in understanding the risks involved
But: - for it to work people should estimate the risks correctly - most people caught DUIing apparently are quite bad in understanding the risks involved
I agree that DUIs and speeding are not victimless and should be punishable, to deter that behavior. It is also well studied to be "risk inducing" and "fixes with fines".
Drugs, prostitution and being homeless (a.k.a. being poor/ in need of support). Should never've been even considered for crimes. Hence I proposed to have those laws made unconstitutional by some amendment.
Drugs, prostitution and being homeless (a.k.a. being poor/ in need of support). Should never've been even considered for crimes. Hence I proposed to have those laws made unconstitutional by some amendment.
This isn't too far afield of the status quo.
I mean, if you've had a few drinks and get in your car, you're not going to be automatically stopped and ticketed. Instead you're weighing the risk that a cop is going to just happen to catch you.
If the laws are changed so that driving drunk isn't presumptively a crime, but rather that if you're in a crash and found to have high levels of alcohol in your blood, then the crash is assumed to be your fault and will have extremely high penalties, then the difference is just in the details. You'd be balancing a lower risk, but of a much higher cost.
That might not work as well because of some people having poor skills at discounting future risks, but it's not obvious that's the case. It deserves further investigation.
I mean, if you've had a few drinks and get in your car, you're not going to be automatically stopped and ticketed. Instead you're weighing the risk that a cop is going to just happen to catch you.
If the laws are changed so that driving drunk isn't presumptively a crime, but rather that if you're in a crash and found to have high levels of alcohol in your blood, then the crash is assumed to be your fault and will have extremely high penalties, then the difference is just in the details. You'd be balancing a lower risk, but of a much higher cost.
That might not work as well because of some people having poor skills at discounting future risks, but it's not obvious that's the case. It deserves further investigation.
DUI is mostly deterred with civil penalties. This argument is not fully applicable to the question of victimless crimes.
This! In my country there was a push back by teacher unions because the expectations on teachers has grown over the years. Laws now prohibit many forms of punishment, some schools now have metal detectors at the gate to stop students coming in with knives.
Who holds police accountable? The DA and IAB are supposed to, but they don't. Instead, other police hold them accountable for having each other's backs through social pressure, professional pressure, and some less-than-legal means. Police back each other up because they're responding to these incentives.
"You don’t get coordinated responses like that without planning and practice."
I disagree. That's what makes this so much more difficult. If it required planning and practice, we could find the meeting place and itinerary and correct it.
This is much more subtle. This is the kind of thing you can get when you group like minded individuals together and give them power. Without directly orchestrating, they pick up cues and work together.
It's like when a company hires a new person and there's no rule explicitly saying they have to work overtime, but they see everyone else doing it and soon they are too.
I disagree. That's what makes this so much more difficult. If it required planning and practice, we could find the meeting place and itinerary and correct it.
This is much more subtle. This is the kind of thing you can get when you group like minded individuals together and give them power. Without directly orchestrating, they pick up cues and work together.
It's like when a company hires a new person and there's no rule explicitly saying they have to work overtime, but they see everyone else doing it and soon they are too.
It’s both. Some police officers study “killology” and “how to be a predator” way more than de-escalation.
I pseudo-randomly sampled 30 videos...
Almost all of them had outright wrong, or heavily misleading titles and/or descriptions with contradictory claims in the comments - and almost none of them provided context to the police actions.
This list is really more about stoking emotions than providing evidence of anything.
I mean look at this one...
https://twitter.com/jayjanner/status/1267111893753307137
A large volume of misleading hyperbolic claims by a biased collector/poster don't get more meaningful through volume of posts.
Almost all of them had outright wrong, or heavily misleading titles and/or descriptions with contradictory claims in the comments - and almost none of them provided context to the police actions.
This list is really more about stoking emotions than providing evidence of anything.
I mean look at this one...
https://twitter.com/jayjanner/status/1267111893753307137
A large volume of misleading hyperbolic claims by a biased collector/poster don't get more meaningful through volume of posts.
This is why any footage of an incident used in court must include the entire interaction. Police body cam footage can be rejected as evidence if it does not start with the officer stepping out of his vehicle. This is why so many iPhone recordings from bystanders gets thrown out in trial.
Are there instances where police abuse their power? Yes. Absolutely. But it doesn't help anyone when people are cherry picking instances where escalation of force was warranted, but they do not show the full context leading up to that escalation.
I would like to see meaningful police reform as much as anyone else. But we need to be pragmatic about any examples we cite as "abuse of force". Let's create a list of absolutely cut-and-dry instances of police brutality, then move from there.
Are there instances where police abuse their power? Yes. Absolutely. But it doesn't help anyone when people are cherry picking instances where escalation of force was warranted, but they do not show the full context leading up to that escalation.
I would like to see meaningful police reform as much as anyone else. But we need to be pragmatic about any examples we cite as "abuse of force". Let's create a list of absolutely cut-and-dry instances of police brutality, then move from there.
Handcuffing a lifeless freshly shot body is more than enough. I’ve seen it over and over. Why is that a policy?
Second, why shoot to kill and not to incapacitate? Shoot to kill is a policy. Why is that a policy?
The police rule by fear. I’ve never broken the law and yet Im really affraid of cops in the US. I know I should not have a reason to but can’t help but be intimidated by their tactics, their orders, their demeanour. And I act like a scared ghost anytime I get stopped by them: I am afraid that if any answer I’d give them might make them punish me with one more more tickets.
Second, why shoot to kill and not to incapacitate? Shoot to kill is a policy. Why is that a policy?
The police rule by fear. I’ve never broken the law and yet Im really affraid of cops in the US. I know I should not have a reason to but can’t help but be intimidated by their tactics, their orders, their demeanour. And I act like a scared ghost anytime I get stopped by them: I am afraid that if any answer I’d give them might make them punish me with one more more tickets.
It's obvious that you've never even shot a gun before. Pistols aren't particularly accurate in a shooting range even if you take lots of time to aim. With a moving target, adrenaline, and all the other factors in an actual situation, you're going to be lucky if all your shots even make contact with the target.
Where do you aim if you want to "shoot to incapacitate"?
No such place exists on the body. Even using small, low-powered rounds like a .22 rimfire short carry extreme risk of death no matter where you aim.
The answer is more simple. Don't pull out that gun unless what the person is doing warrants death. I don't know that attempting to apprehend a DUI is worth killing someone over. If you're responding to a domestic violence situation where someone's running around with a knife though, it's likely that a gun isn't a terrible consideration.
I think the real issue is getting in the competitive zone. "I'm not going to let this pero beat me" instead of considering if the cure is worse than the disease.
Where do you aim if you want to "shoot to incapacitate"?
No such place exists on the body. Even using small, low-powered rounds like a .22 rimfire short carry extreme risk of death no matter where you aim.
The answer is more simple. Don't pull out that gun unless what the person is doing warrants death. I don't know that attempting to apprehend a DUI is worth killing someone over. If you're responding to a domestic violence situation where someone's running around with a knife though, it's likely that a gun isn't a terrible consideration.
I think the real issue is getting in the competitive zone. "I'm not going to let this pero beat me" instead of considering if the cure is worse than the disease.
I assume you're referring to the death of Rayshard Brooks with your DUI comment. In that specific case, the police officer only shot once Brooks shot at him with the stolen taser. At that point, I suspect the argument he'd make is that he believed (rightly or wrongly) that his life was in imminent danger and he was ending that threat. I doubt he shot to apprehend the fleeing suspect, which would go against his training and is in fact illegal under such circumstances.
There's a larger issue, though. All laws ultimately are enforced by people with guns who will do violence up to and including death if people don't comply. Some laws are less likely than others to result in death (e.g. drug laws vs. securities fraud), but "is this law worth killing for?" is a question we all should ask when considering what the law should be.
There's a larger issue, though. All laws ultimately are enforced by people with guns who will do violence up to and including death if people don't comply. Some laws are less likely than others to result in death (e.g. drug laws vs. securities fraud), but "is this law worth killing for?" is a question we all should ask when considering what the law should be.
You cannot incapacitate multiple people with a taser (once the rounds are in the first person it's unavailable to be fired again) and there were multiple cops there.
If the threat of a taser is a threat that warrants lethal force in self defense, the police are reaching for them far too quickly when they deal with people who are non-compliant. It takes very little provocation for most police officers to deploy their taser. I believe they are almost always used against unarmed people (armed people get shot, not tased).
If the threat of a taser is a threat that warrants lethal force in self defense, the police are reaching for them far too quickly when they deal with people who are non-compliant. It takes very little provocation for most police officers to deploy their taser. I believe they are almost always used against unarmed people (armed people get shot, not tased).
Americans certainly know more than western/northern Europe about shooting people, but police here is trained to shoot to incapacitate, and it generally seems to work, as the fatality rate of police shootings is only about half as high as in the US.
"...but police here is trained to shoot to incapacitate, and it generally seems to work."
I've never heard of this practice, and the opposite is regularly taught to various armed forces around the world. I'm curious to read about it, do you have any info or sources to share?
I've never heard of this practice, and the opposite is regularly taught to various armed forces around the world. I'm curious to read about it, do you have any info or sources to share?
You really need a citation for the notion that police in any part of the world are trained to shoot to incapacitate rather than kill. Firearms are deadly weapons. Shots aimed at any part of the body can easily be fatal because there are arteries everywhere.
Half seems insignificant since in America the shootings are more commonly two sided, which warrants more deadly use of force. You wouldn't stop with the first bullet if your target had a gun in their hand(as opposed to a knife).
If the target has a gun in their hand no doubt they represent a threat. Use the body cam to prove that and you're good in the eyes of the law. But, I've seen plenty of people fleeing being shot and that is just so wrong, the said cop being the justice and the executioner, with a decision which they have taken in blink. And I've seen cases where the cop got away with it and that is what hot buttoned the protesters.
Police in Europe is more trained in general. Something like 9 months of training to become a police officer in the US vs two or three years in western/northern Europe.
"Second, why shoot to kill and not to incapacitate? Shoot to kill is a policy. Why is that a policy?"
Most armed folks are taught that when you draw a gun it's to neutralize a threat. To neutralize is to completely eliminate the threat.
Has anyone here heard similar sentiments while getting a concealed carry license?
Something like 'Don't pull your gun out and point it at someone unless you intend to shoot and kill them. Anything less than that needlessly escalates the severity of a situation by introducing a weapon.'
The idea being that if you pull out a gun and don't use it, all of the sudden you have increased the potential for violence, exposed yourself as armed and willing, lost the element of surprise, and given potential assailants the idea/opportunity to match your use of force. Thus, "shoot to kill."
One problem is that guns are tools for a task, and when you pull out a tool, you want to leverage it as efficiently as possible. Maybe the answer isn't to use the tool differently, but use a different tool entirely.
Most armed folks are taught that when you draw a gun it's to neutralize a threat. To neutralize is to completely eliminate the threat.
Has anyone here heard similar sentiments while getting a concealed carry license?
Something like 'Don't pull your gun out and point it at someone unless you intend to shoot and kill them. Anything less than that needlessly escalates the severity of a situation by introducing a weapon.'
The idea being that if you pull out a gun and don't use it, all of the sudden you have increased the potential for violence, exposed yourself as armed and willing, lost the element of surprise, and given potential assailants the idea/opportunity to match your use of force. Thus, "shoot to kill."
One problem is that guns are tools for a task, and when you pull out a tool, you want to leverage it as efficiently as possible. Maybe the answer isn't to use the tool differently, but use a different tool entirely.
Has anyone here heard similar sentiments while getting a concealed carry license?
Absolutely, I was taught this in my self-defense shooting class. The question of kill or not kill doesn't enter into it at all. We were trained to neutralize the threat, full stop. The effect on the future health of that threat doesn't enter into it.
And this makes sense when you understand that gunfights don't happen the way you see on TV. There, when someone is hit with a bullet they fall down and stop being a threat. This is not how the world works. In the real world, unless their circulatory system or nervous system is taken offline, they will continue to be a threat. Even if they've been hit through the aorta or femoral artery or something that is likely to be fatal, it'll take a minute or two at least for the effect to occur, and in the meantime, they're going to keep trying to kill you.
Absolutely, I was taught this in my self-defense shooting class. The question of kill or not kill doesn't enter into it at all. We were trained to neutralize the threat, full stop. The effect on the future health of that threat doesn't enter into it.
And this makes sense when you understand that gunfights don't happen the way you see on TV. There, when someone is hit with a bullet they fall down and stop being a threat. This is not how the world works. In the real world, unless their circulatory system or nervous system is taken offline, they will continue to be a threat. Even if they've been hit through the aorta or femoral artery or something that is likely to be fatal, it'll take a minute or two at least for the effect to occur, and in the meantime, they're going to keep trying to kill you.
Are we talking war combat here? Because in a civilian case shooting legs and taking cover might just as well do it.
The real reason they shoot to kill is because they don’t want the victim to sue. A dead man never sued, their families have a lower chance of getting anything though that has started to change with so much footage.
The real reason they shoot to kill is because they don’t want the victim to sue. A dead man never sued, their families have a lower chance of getting anything though that has started to change with so much footage.
"shooting legs"
No, you can't just shoot someone in the leg to disable them. You have very high chances of hitting main arteries anywhere (arms and legs).
Shooting a human being is not like it is in Hollywood movies. Once an officer pulls out his/her firearm and use it they know it means killing the person. That's why they go through other means of less lethal force before drawing.
Edit: Spelling
No, you can't just shoot someone in the leg to disable them. You have very high chances of hitting main arteries anywhere (arms and legs).
Shooting a human being is not like it is in Hollywood movies. Once an officer pulls out his/her firearm and use it they know it means killing the person. That's why they go through other means of less lethal force before drawing.
Edit: Spelling
I am completely in support of the idea that these videos show unnecessary police brutality, I have no argument with the message here.
I just want to answer your question about shooting to kill vs incapacitate.
The first part of the answer is that nobody should shoot anyone who they don’t reasonably believe is trying to kill them. This applies to citizens or police. Generally it is the standard applied in citizen self-defense scenarios.
The second part is that shooting isn’t that easy or effective. Certainly not how it appears in the movies. It is hard to hit a 6” moving target in a stressful situation, even at relatively close range, and would require training and practice that simply isn’t available to cops. Added to this, there is no reliable place to shoot someone that will incapacitate them without also being likely to kill them. Surprisingly many people will continue to fight after being shot, so even if the cop had the ability to ‘shoot them in the leg’, for example, they would still be at risk of being killed by an aggressive adversary.
In addition, any responsible use of firearms has to take into account the environment. Handgun bullets are still lethal hundreds of meters from where they are fired. When cops miss their targets, bullets can and do kill bystanders, or ricochet or fragment and cause injury to people not even in the line of fire.
So the guidance to anyone using a gun in self defense is generally to shoot for the ‘center of mass’. This is primary because hitting the central nervous system or vital organs is the only reliable way to stop someone, but also because it’s impractical and unsafe to aim anywhere else.
None of this is meant to justify police shootings. Quite the opposite. I am just explaining why every gun use is necessarily a lethal encounter.
If a politician suggests “shooting them in the leg”, the one thing you can be certain of is that they are completely incompetent on this topic, and can not be trusted to improve matters.
I just want to answer your question about shooting to kill vs incapacitate.
The first part of the answer is that nobody should shoot anyone who they don’t reasonably believe is trying to kill them. This applies to citizens or police. Generally it is the standard applied in citizen self-defense scenarios.
The second part is that shooting isn’t that easy or effective. Certainly not how it appears in the movies. It is hard to hit a 6” moving target in a stressful situation, even at relatively close range, and would require training and practice that simply isn’t available to cops. Added to this, there is no reliable place to shoot someone that will incapacitate them without also being likely to kill them. Surprisingly many people will continue to fight after being shot, so even if the cop had the ability to ‘shoot them in the leg’, for example, they would still be at risk of being killed by an aggressive adversary.
In addition, any responsible use of firearms has to take into account the environment. Handgun bullets are still lethal hundreds of meters from where they are fired. When cops miss their targets, bullets can and do kill bystanders, or ricochet or fragment and cause injury to people not even in the line of fire.
So the guidance to anyone using a gun in self defense is generally to shoot for the ‘center of mass’. This is primary because hitting the central nervous system or vital organs is the only reliable way to stop someone, but also because it’s impractical and unsafe to aim anywhere else.
None of this is meant to justify police shootings. Quite the opposite. I am just explaining why every gun use is necessarily a lethal encounter.
If a politician suggests “shooting them in the leg”, the one thing you can be certain of is that they are completely incompetent on this topic, and can not be trusted to improve matters.
> would require training and practice that simply isn’t available to cops
Generally agree apart from this - if cops don't have training to be expert (or at least above-average good) shooters, then that's a failure. We've read tons of articles about militarization of US police. If they have budget for armored vehicles, for sure they have budget for (very cheap but quality basic) 9mm ammunition for practice.
Generally agree apart from this - if cops don't have training to be expert (or at least above-average good) shooters, then that's a failure. We've read tons of articles about militarization of US police. If they have budget for armored vehicles, for sure they have budget for (very cheap but quality basic) 9mm ammunition for practice.
Exactly. They apply a double standard when they need it. They got so stubborn about it up until it got to this point. Now they will loose a lot of their perks. Good! Better learn from this
In Long Island a higher ranked cop would retire after 20 years with a pension of 500k, and in Long Island they really don’t do anything. While that, a new recruit in the Bronx would start at salary of 40k with poor training and lots of headaches. Seems like we need to reform the police!
Discussions about these things just started popping up on NPR and other sources. They brought it up on themselves.
In Long Island a higher ranked cop would retire after 20 years with a pension of 500k, and in Long Island they really don’t do anything. While that, a new recruit in the Bronx would start at salary of 40k with poor training and lots of headaches. Seems like we need to reform the police!
Discussions about these things just started popping up on NPR and other sources. They brought it up on themselves.
There are good reasons for police to receive a lot more firearms training and practice than they do, but no amount of training will change the need for them to shoot to ‘kill’.
Even the best handgun shooters in the world are unlikely either to be reliably be able to shoot to incapacitate.
It just isn’t a capacity that handguns have in realistic use cases.
The primary reason police need more training with firearms is so that they become less afraid of them and more generally competent and confident.
That will give them more capacity to exercise better judgement in when they actually need to shoot.
Of course it depends a lot on the training and whether it is aimed at increasing or reducing their fear levels.
Even the best handgun shooters in the world are unlikely either to be reliably be able to shoot to incapacitate.
It just isn’t a capacity that handguns have in realistic use cases.
The primary reason police need more training with firearms is so that they become less afraid of them and more generally competent and confident.
That will give them more capacity to exercise better judgement in when they actually need to shoot.
Of course it depends a lot on the training and whether it is aimed at increasing or reducing their fear levels.
1) Because "freshly shot lifeless" bodies can and have come back to kill people.
2) Because there is no such thing as shoot to wound. If you've gotten to the point where you're shooting at someone they need to be dead. Any bullet holes in your body are potentially fatal. Especially the famous leg shot; damage to your femoral artery will kill you extremely quickly.
2) Because there is no such thing as shoot to wound. If you've gotten to the point where you're shooting at someone they need to be dead. Any bullet holes in your body are potentially fatal. Especially the famous leg shot; damage to your femoral artery will kill you extremely quickly.
Yikes. No. If you don’t get threatened with a gun or another weapon you don’t shoot period.
Some people have mental issues and normally they twitch a lot. And cops claim they were afraid for their lives, it’s the easy license to kill. I find that barbaric and no wonder we see so much backlash against the police force!!!
Some people have mental issues and normally they twitch a lot. And cops claim they were afraid for their lives, it’s the easy license to kill. I find that barbaric and no wonder we see so much backlash against the police force!!!
It doesn't take a weapon to kill someone. A blow to the head can be fatal. And as we recently saw in the case of George Floyd, positional asphyxiation and/or choking can be fatal, too.
When considering whether or not the use of deadly force was justified in a given situation, the lack of a weapon isn't the trump card indicating the force was not justified that many people think it is.
When considering whether or not the use of deadly force was justified in a given situation, the lack of a weapon isn't the trump card indicating the force was not justified that many people think it is.
> Second, why shoot to kill and not to incapacitate? Shoot to kill is a policy. Why is that a policy?
Because there is no place to shoot that will simply incapacitate everyone. The policy is generally shoot to stop the threat not to kill per se. There are many instances where a person will take many rounds in potentially fatal spots and continue like nothing has happened.
> In this free-for-all, the assailant had, in fact, been struck 14 times. Any one of six of these wounds – in the heart, right lung, left lung, liver, diaphragm, and right kidney – could have produced fatal consequences, “in time,” Gramins emphasizes.[1]
[1] https://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/why-one...
Because there is no place to shoot that will simply incapacitate everyone. The policy is generally shoot to stop the threat not to kill per se. There are many instances where a person will take many rounds in potentially fatal spots and continue like nothing has happened.
> In this free-for-all, the assailant had, in fact, been struck 14 times. Any one of six of these wounds – in the heart, right lung, left lung, liver, diaphragm, and right kidney – could have produced fatal consequences, “in time,” Gramins emphasizes.[1]
[1] https://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/why-one...
1. Simple. People go into shock look incapacitated, then come out of it. People get pumped with a dozen rounds and keep fighting.
2. Have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever shot a pistol? Now to simulate the Andrenaline dump run few sprints then try again. You CAN NOT shoot to disable this is not a Hollywood movie, it does not work. Most people can’t hit anything past few meters away with a pistol.
Gun is not a taser or a nightstick. It is a lethal weapon and should only be employed when you have a reason to kill.
2. Have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever shot a pistol? Now to simulate the Andrenaline dump run few sprints then try again. You CAN NOT shoot to disable this is not a Hollywood movie, it does not work. Most people can’t hit anything past few meters away with a pistol.
Gun is not a taser or a nightstick. It is a lethal weapon and should only be employed when you have a reason to kill.
Then they shouldn't have a gun at all
So they should allow innocent people to be killed?
That doesn't follow in the slightest. Lethal force is not the only way to protect - de-escalation is how you protect without destroying lives.
Can you de-escalate when there are innocent bystanders? And if a bystander is harmed while you are attempting to de-escalate, doesn't that make the officer negligent?
Sure, if there's someone hanging out by themselves then de-escalate and do whatever. The moment there are innocent people in harms way though, that calculus changes.
De-escalation is a great catch phrase, but it's not a universal solution. It's one tool of many, and it has a time and place.
Sure, if there's someone hanging out by themselves then de-escalate and do whatever. The moment there are innocent people in harms way though, that calculus changes.
De-escalation is a great catch phrase, but it's not a universal solution. It's one tool of many, and it has a time and place.
> Can you de-escalate when there are innocent bystanders?
Sure you can, it's what the vast majority of police forces in developed countries are doing all the time [0].
That way they also don't end up shooting innocent bystanders, which is apparently quite a common thing in the US [1] [2]
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/ge...
[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/12/06/785561122/4-dead-after-armed-...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/nyregion/firing-at-man-in...
Sure you can, it's what the vast majority of police forces in developed countries are doing all the time [0].
That way they also don't end up shooting innocent bystanders, which is apparently quite a common thing in the US [1] [2]
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/ge...
[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/12/06/785561122/4-dead-after-armed-...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/nyregion/firing-at-man-in...
> Sure, if there's someone hanging out by themselves then de-escalate and do whatever. The moment there are innocent people in harms way though, that calculus changes.
No, it's not that simple. Police escalation itself can put innocent people in harms way. The police can shoot, miss, and kill innocent bystanders. Escalation can provoke a criminal to start shooting and kill innocent bystanders or police. That's not to mention the now better-documented situations where the police escalate against someone who's not a threat and murder them in the process.
No, it's not that simple. Police escalation itself can put innocent people in harms way. The police can shoot, miss, and kill innocent bystanders. Escalation can provoke a criminal to start shooting and kill innocent bystanders or police. That's not to mention the now better-documented situations where the police escalate against someone who's not a threat and murder them in the process.
Cops kill about 1600 people total (justified and non-justified combined) per year in the US. There are about 16,000 murders per year in the US. Out of the ~1550 people killed by police in 2019, about 40 were unarmed.
You should be much more concerned about a criminal harming you than a police officer.
You should be much more concerned about a criminal harming you than a police officer.
> Cops kill about 1600 people total (justified and non-justified combined) per year in the US. There are about 16,000 murders per year in the US. Out of the ~1550 people killed by police in 2019, about 40 were unarmed.
> You should be much more concerned about a criminal harming you than a police officer.
There's a lot wrong with your comment, and one issue is your conclusion obviously does not follow from your (unsourced) statistics. If you want to reason from statistics, they have to be measuring comparable situations, which yours are not. Being killed by police is more like being murdered by a stranger, which is much less common than being murdered by anyone including people known to you [1].
Another issue being armed does not justify a police shooting, which you kind of imply. For instance, Philando Castile was armed, but clearly should not have been shot by police.
[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
> You should be much more concerned about a criminal harming you than a police officer.
There's a lot wrong with your comment, and one issue is your conclusion obviously does not follow from your (unsourced) statistics. If you want to reason from statistics, they have to be measuring comparable situations, which yours are not. Being killed by police is more like being murdered by a stranger, which is much less common than being murdered by anyone including people known to you [1].
Another issue being armed does not justify a police shooting, which you kind of imply. For instance, Philando Castile was armed, but clearly should not have been shot by police.
[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
They should not kill innocent people. If a possible criminal gets away as a result, so be it.
> Police body cam footage can be rejected as evidence if it does not start with the officer stepping out of his vehicle. This is why so many iPhone recordings from bystanders gets thrown out in trial.
That's nonsense. Evidence is never excluded because it doesn't tell the whole story. If that were the case, admitting any evidence at all would be a rare occurrence. Rather, each side in a case tries to piece together their version of the story with the evidence that is available to them. Generally speaking, evidence is only excluded if it's unreliable (e.g. hearsay) or irrelevant.
That's nonsense. Evidence is never excluded because it doesn't tell the whole story. If that were the case, admitting any evidence at all would be a rare occurrence. Rather, each side in a case tries to piece together their version of the story with the evidence that is available to them. Generally speaking, evidence is only excluded if it's unreliable (e.g. hearsay) or irrelevant.
"Are there instances where police abuse their power? Yes. Absolutely."
That's really all we need to know to demand radical changes to police culture, if not the entire concept of ubiquitous armed police forces.
That's really all we need to know to demand radical changes to police culture, if not the entire concept of ubiquitous armed police forces.
That isn't a logical conclusion to draw.
Are there instances where doctors negligently kill their patients? Absolutely.
That does not mean we need to "radically" change doctor culture, if not the entire concept of doctors performing surgeries with sharp objects.
The RATE is abuse is more important than the mere existence of abuse.
These emotional comments have lost touch with logical thinking. The media is driving people crazy.
Are there instances where doctors negligently kill their patients? Absolutely.
That does not mean we need to "radically" change doctor culture, if not the entire concept of doctors performing surgeries with sharp objects.
The RATE is abuse is more important than the mere existence of abuse.
These emotional comments have lost touch with logical thinking. The media is driving people crazy.
Doctors aren't granted a monopoly on violence by the state, so that comparison makes no sense.
"The RATE is abuse is more important than the mere existence of abuse."
So what's an acceptable rate for the murder of PoC due to ongoing systemic racism and abuse of authority at the hands of the Police?
So what's an acceptable rate for the murder of PoC due to ongoing systemic racism and abuse of authority at the hands of the Police?
So, for the example you provide the only contradictory claims come from accounts that have very few followers. The few posts saying "she was throwing things" have fewer than 10 followers.
But, also, rubber bullets are less lethal, not non lethal, and so they should be reserved for situations where life is at risk. If she wasn't throwing molotov cocktails or bricks they shouldn't have used rubber bullets on her.
The other claim is that she was pregnant and thus shouldn't have gone. This is incoherent: we want protests to be non-violent, so we want pregnant women and children to be able to attend.
But, also, rubber bullets are less lethal, not non lethal, and so they should be reserved for situations where life is at risk. If she wasn't throwing molotov cocktails or bricks they shouldn't have used rubber bullets on her.
The other claim is that she was pregnant and thus shouldn't have gone. This is incoherent: we want protests to be non-violent, so we want pregnant women and children to be able to attend.
As a rule of thumb, coming from my dad who served in the German federal police and was sent to every single castor transport (nuclear waste to be stored in Germany, quite a controversial topic) up to 2007/8, countless fottball games and G8/20, NATO conferences, demonstrtions decrease in violence with increasing numbers of children, women and older people. Applies to both sides, except for the children of course.
The worst thing they ever used, as far as I remember, was water cannons and riot shields.
The worst thing they ever used, as far as I remember, was water cannons and riot shields.
German police is trained to deescalate if possible and for riot or protest control, use of lethal weaponry is rarely authorized if riot control is necessary at all. Water cannons can still hurt people but they're massively less lethal than any type of bean bag rounds or rubber bullets.
Notably, the German police is also trained for much longer, three to four years at minimum. They're trained with guns to aim for parts of the body that make it less likely to kill a target instantly or quickly and instead incapacitates them (of course, with a gun you can never know but you can alter the odds) and to only use guns as the very last resort of stopping someone. Every bullet a german police officer fires in the line of duty is accounted for (54 in 2018) and every person killed is investigated by police officers from a different precinct (11 killed in 2018). From what I've experienced and seen, guns seem to be treated as the first weapon of choice for the police officer in the US, which is the wrong mentality.
Notably, the German police is also trained for much longer, three to four years at minimum. They're trained with guns to aim for parts of the body that make it less likely to kill a target instantly or quickly and instead incapacitates them (of course, with a gun you can never know but you can alter the odds) and to only use guns as the very last resort of stopping someone. Every bullet a german police officer fires in the line of duty is accounted for (54 in 2018) and every person killed is investigated by police officers from a different precinct (11 killed in 2018). From what I've experienced and seen, guns seem to be treated as the first weapon of choice for the police officer in the US, which is the wrong mentality.
" They're trained with guns to aim for parts of the body that make it less likely to kill a target instantly or quickly and instead incapacitates them (of course, with a gun you can never know but you can alter the odds) "
This is the third time I've read this in the comments but I can't seem to find any info on "shoot to incapacitate" online. I'm not doubting it, I'm just looking to collect information regarding the topic to share with others. Do you have anything to corroborate this training method?
This is the third time I've read this in the comments but I can't seem to find any info on "shoot to incapacitate" online. I'm not doubting it, I'm just looking to collect information regarding the topic to share with others. Do you have anything to corroborate this training method?
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_in_... This page is a good intro if you use Google Translate. The main keyword is "Final and Fatal Shot" (Finaler Rettungsschuss) which is what the police is trained for to only use as a last resort and gets schooled on when it's legally acceptable.
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finaler_Rettungsschuss> Details this a bit better; most shots fired by the german police aim to incapacitate an opponent or are fired in a perceived or real emergency situation, the prevention of crimes and prevention of getaway.
The difference between the mentioned cases and the "final and fatal shot" is that the later is used by the police officer with the express and only intent to kill. There are various requirements, mainly that it must be the only viable way to prevent lethal or extensive harm to others.
Please note that the english pages are not as extensive or talk about the US situation so they're less useful.
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finaler_Rettungsschuss> Details this a bit better; most shots fired by the german police aim to incapacitate an opponent or are fired in a perceived or real emergency situation, the prevention of crimes and prevention of getaway.
The difference between the mentioned cases and the "final and fatal shot" is that the later is used by the police officer with the express and only intent to kill. There are various requirements, mainly that it must be the only viable way to prevent lethal or extensive harm to others.
Please note that the english pages are not as extensive or talk about the US situation so they're less useful.
Thak you! That was the one I had in mind!
From top of my head, what I was told from officers (my dad and others), police isn't conditioned to ai I'm for the center of mass. They rather aim for the legs and such. SWAT being an exception, of course, depending on circumstances.
It is still shooting at people, so potentially deadly. But less so than putting 6 bullets into someone's chest.
It is still shooting at people, so potentially deadly. But less so than putting 6 bullets into someone's chest.
>The few posts saying "she was throwing things" have fewer than 10 followers.
What does the number of followers have to with whether a statement is true or not? That's absurd. Donald Trump and Elon Musk have tens of millions of followers on Twitter; I have very few. Does that make me a liar?
What does the number of followers have to with whether a statement is true or not? That's absurd. Donald Trump and Elon Musk have tens of millions of followers on Twitter; I have very few. Does that make me a liar?
A large number of new accounts with few followers all posting the same thing points to disinformation.
But let's assume it's true: unless she was throwing bricks or petrol-bombs police should have used some other method to stop her.
But let's assume it's true: unless she was throwing bricks or petrol-bombs police should have used some other method to stop her.
> This list is really more about stoking emotions than providing evidence of anything.
Yet lists like that is all we have to actually quantify the problem because there are literally zero attempts of doing it on a federal level [0].
In that context, I always consider it quite fascinating how the federal US government is allegedly very informed how many protesters are killed by security forces in countries like Iran, yet the same federal US government couldn't tell you how many of its citizens are killed each year by their own police.
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-year-after-ferguson...
Yet lists like that is all we have to actually quantify the problem because there are literally zero attempts of doing it on a federal level [0].
In that context, I always consider it quite fascinating how the federal US government is allegedly very informed how many protesters are killed by security forces in countries like Iran, yet the same federal US government couldn't tell you how many of its citizens are killed each year by their own police.
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-year-after-ferguson...
> lists like that is all we have to actually quantify the problem
That's obviously not the case. We have mountains of data on the problem.
That's obviously not the case. We have mountains of data on the problem.
>>pseudo-randomly sampled 30 videos...
same here. I saw a couple out of 20 that looked like gratuitous police brutality. many were labeled as such and didn't seem likely. The deluge of irrelevant examples and confusing commentary confuses the point.
same here. I saw a couple out of 20 that looked like gratuitous police brutality. many were labeled as such and didn't seem likely. The deluge of irrelevant examples and confusing commentary confuses the point.
>"the militarization and use of force tactics of US law enforcement are not a problem" then I'd like to hear why you think so given this evidence.
Just to play devils advocate, can't I conclude there is a problem without that problem being the "militarization" of the police force. In other words aren't I allowed to conclude there was a problem prior to the militarization of the police force, and really what we are seeing proliferation of video recordings that are now making us think these acts are new, when the reality is they happened in mass occurred prior to militarization of police...and as scary as it sounds accountability is increasing because of the video?
Then on the extreme end of devils advocate, lets say we all watched 100 videos that made us sick to our stomach...how many millions of police interactions have we not seen that might suggest the bad acts is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall data. Not unlike maybe a few bad actors that have looted or committed arson, or committed murder during the BLM protests, do those acts suggest the entire culture of BLM movement is tainted?
One of the things that really makes me sick about the George Floyd death which doesn't get a lot of attention is that the prosecutors/state attorneys originally swept it under the rug and refused to bring charges. Thank god for the video, even though it didn't stop the act, we all see the tragedy we see the victim we see the cop and attach names and faces...but who knows the names of the prosecutors who watched this video and said "no, nothing wrong here, no charges?" Nameless, faceless people protecting the officers behind the scene enabling offices to act any way they want knowing they will be protected...and maybe if we corrected that problem and officer didn't feel they could act in any fashion they wanted and receive protection perhaps we would see officers act a little differently in the streets.
Just to play devils advocate, can't I conclude there is a problem without that problem being the "militarization" of the police force. In other words aren't I allowed to conclude there was a problem prior to the militarization of the police force, and really what we are seeing proliferation of video recordings that are now making us think these acts are new, when the reality is they happened in mass occurred prior to militarization of police...and as scary as it sounds accountability is increasing because of the video?
Then on the extreme end of devils advocate, lets say we all watched 100 videos that made us sick to our stomach...how many millions of police interactions have we not seen that might suggest the bad acts is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall data. Not unlike maybe a few bad actors that have looted or committed arson, or committed murder during the BLM protests, do those acts suggest the entire culture of BLM movement is tainted?
One of the things that really makes me sick about the George Floyd death which doesn't get a lot of attention is that the prosecutors/state attorneys originally swept it under the rug and refused to bring charges. Thank god for the video, even though it didn't stop the act, we all see the tragedy we see the victim we see the cop and attach names and faces...but who knows the names of the prosecutors who watched this video and said "no, nothing wrong here, no charges?" Nameless, faceless people protecting the officers behind the scene enabling offices to act any way they want knowing they will be protected...and maybe if we corrected that problem and officer didn't feel they could act in any fashion they wanted and receive protection perhaps we would see officers act a little differently in the streets.
I see your example of the extreme end a lot, and while I understand why people arrive at it, I think it's useful to question some of the underlying premises.
Oftentimes, I think people say things like "I don't think a few bad police officers ruin policing just like I don't think BLM is evil because of a few violent actors" because they have empathy for police officers who don't do horrible things, and it's sort of a knee jerk reaction against broadly characterizing people.
The problem, however, is that the two groups aren't equivalent. If we granted every person who identified with the BLM movement the same authority as we do police officers, the presence of violent actors inside BLM protests would be an issue. But we don't.
Police officers are given the utmost authority and deterrence in America. They have particular legal protections, they are authorized by the government to give legally enforceable orders to other citizens, etc. Even if the bad acts are a "drop in the bucket," would that be acceptable? And isn't the fact that these bad acts are persistent—regardless of frequency relative to good acts—at the very least suggestive of systemic issues?
In other words, consistent bad acts—even if infrequent—are a bigger deal when the actor is in such a position of authority. Protest groups are clearly not in such a position—hence their protests.
Oftentimes, I think people say things like "I don't think a few bad police officers ruin policing just like I don't think BLM is evil because of a few violent actors" because they have empathy for police officers who don't do horrible things, and it's sort of a knee jerk reaction against broadly characterizing people.
The problem, however, is that the two groups aren't equivalent. If we granted every person who identified with the BLM movement the same authority as we do police officers, the presence of violent actors inside BLM protests would be an issue. But we don't.
Police officers are given the utmost authority and deterrence in America. They have particular legal protections, they are authorized by the government to give legally enforceable orders to other citizens, etc. Even if the bad acts are a "drop in the bucket," would that be acceptable? And isn't the fact that these bad acts are persistent—regardless of frequency relative to good acts—at the very least suggestive of systemic issues?
In other words, consistent bad acts—even if infrequent—are a bigger deal when the actor is in such a position of authority. Protest groups are clearly not in such a position—hence their protests.
>Even if the bad acts are a "drop in the bucket," would that be acceptable?
No, I believe injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. Also, I agree with you the injustice is worse when committed by people in positions of authority acting in that official capacity.
That said I don't condemn everyone based on the acts of one or some, that goes for police and BLM.
>And isn't the fact that these bad acts are persistent—regardless of frequency relative to good acts—at the very least suggestive of systemic issues?
Yes, part of why I am happy about the proliferation of video and want to shine a light on the nameless, faceless prosecutors making decisions behind the scenes to sweep these tragedies under the rug to protect the officers. Again no one talks about it, no one knows the name of the prosecutor who initially watched the video and refused to bring the charges against George Floyd's murder(s), that helps fuel the systemic issues. Video will help with accountability, but that is only helpful for what happens on the streets, we need to also focus on behind the scenes on the nameless, faceless people protecting bad actors.
No, I believe injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. Also, I agree with you the injustice is worse when committed by people in positions of authority acting in that official capacity.
That said I don't condemn everyone based on the acts of one or some, that goes for police and BLM.
>And isn't the fact that these bad acts are persistent—regardless of frequency relative to good acts—at the very least suggestive of systemic issues?
Yes, part of why I am happy about the proliferation of video and want to shine a light on the nameless, faceless prosecutors making decisions behind the scenes to sweep these tragedies under the rug to protect the officers. Again no one talks about it, no one knows the name of the prosecutor who initially watched the video and refused to bring the charges against George Floyd's murder(s), that helps fuel the systemic issues. Video will help with accountability, but that is only helpful for what happens on the streets, we need to also focus on behind the scenes on the nameless, faceless people protecting bad actors.
I want you to know that this is exactly my position as well, and I am glad to see someone else on the web bring it up - I haven't seen this come up enough when the false equivalence between a mass of unorganized citizens vs. the police is being argued.
I've watched 30 clips. ALL of them were 30 second clips with no context. All of them from one Twitter thread as well, so not sure why that was not linked instead.
On the other hand, all of the instances of so-called police brutality with context which I've seen elsewhere occur after the police calmly order the protestors to leave a particular area, or to go home because of a curphew order or something else and the protests refuse in a less-than-calm manner.
My question is this: is the police using force to manage a crowd always unjustified in your view?
On the other hand, all of the instances of so-called police brutality with context which I've seen elsewhere occur after the police calmly order the protestors to leave a particular area, or to go home because of a curphew order or something else and the protests refuse in a less-than-calm manner.
My question is this: is the police using force to manage a crowd always unjustified in your view?
As a non American I am not getting this at all. In many US cities/towns sheriff is elected. In all other cases city mayor is elected. How it happens that all those mayors and sheriffs are still in the office if police brutality is such a big issue?
Does this mean that people just do not care, or there is only some minority who thinks that the police is too violent and the rest is ok with that?
Does this mean that people just do not care, or there is only some minority who thinks that the police is too violent and the rest is ok with that?
One answer is law enforcement is largely a bureaucracy of career civil servants, so they're not as subject to the whims of a mayor or elected officials.
On top of that they're a fairly politically active group, so they have an outsized influence on policies, including those that affect them.
But the biggest issue, as you note, is the sheer disparity in who interacts with the police at all.
From a 2015 Bureau of Justic Statistics report
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp15.pdf
Only about 10% of Americans had police-initiated, non-traffic stop contacts.
So 9 out of 10 Americans never see the police, much less have insight as to whether they're too violent.
Blacks 50% more likely than Whites to be subjected to a street stop by police.
Blacks 120% (!) more likely than Whites to be subjected to police force.
And, every single respondent who indicated they were Tasered by police felt it was "excessive" force.
So, yes, fundamentally this is a "rights of the minority" problem - and the minority in this case are younger, poorer, less politically connected, and therefore are underrepresented in discussions about police brutality, effective law enforcement, police training, and other policies which impact them.
On top of that they're a fairly politically active group, so they have an outsized influence on policies, including those that affect them.
But the biggest issue, as you note, is the sheer disparity in who interacts with the police at all.
From a 2015 Bureau of Justic Statistics report
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp15.pdf
Only about 10% of Americans had police-initiated, non-traffic stop contacts.
So 9 out of 10 Americans never see the police, much less have insight as to whether they're too violent.
Blacks 50% more likely than Whites to be subjected to a street stop by police.
Blacks 120% (!) more likely than Whites to be subjected to police force.
And, every single respondent who indicated they were Tasered by police felt it was "excessive" force.
So, yes, fundamentally this is a "rights of the minority" problem - and the minority in this case are younger, poorer, less politically connected, and therefore are underrepresented in discussions about police brutality, effective law enforcement, police training, and other policies which impact them.
Police unions have considerable influence to block reform even when the elected politicians support it: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapo...
The efforts to "defund police" would solve some of the same problems that police currently address through other means. This would weaken the influence of police unions. For example, spending more to treat drug addiction as a disease rather than paying police to address possession as a crime.
The efforts to "defund police" would solve some of the same problems that police currently address through other means. This would weaken the influence of police unions. For example, spending more to treat drug addiction as a disease rather than paying police to address possession as a crime.
Instead of "defund", maybe a better word, then, is "reform", or "reorganize"? Or maybe define that it is "police unions" who should be defunded, not the entire bucket called "police"?
I am just curious at this choice of word that seems to be the clarion call, which means entirely different in the dictionary than what is being implied! :-/
I am just curious at this choice of word that seems to be the clarion call, which means entirely different in the dictionary than what is being implied! :-/
No because the goal is to have public safety organizations that don't have any of the personnel, historical lineage or goals of the police. By poor analogy, the goal isn't to clone facebook its to make a twitter,Instagram,telegram,etc. Different orgs with different goals with different people ultimately focused on public safety.
So the new org should have all new personnel, new goals that do not overlap with those of the police ("serve and protect", from what I understand), yet focused on public safety.
I am now genuinely curious to know how this is to be achieved, and what safeguards/guarantees are to be encoded so the new org does not devolve into the existing police.
I am now genuinely curious to know how this is to be achieved, and what safeguards/guarantees are to be encoded so the new org does not devolve into the existing police.
So lets take one example lets say you have a late night restaurant devoted to providing drivers who would possibly drive drunk a place to sober up and people who are homeless a hot breakfast. Let's call this place "Waffle House". How exactly would those people become police as currently constituted. How exactly would an organization dedicated to providing satisfying justice without prisons become the police as currently constituted? The police as currently created barely solve crimes(30% clear rates) and don't really appear to be interested in justice. You seem to think its hard to imagine an organization dedicated to public safety that's not like them. They're so bad at it I ask the other question how could an organization dedicated to public safety ever be like the police.
Because "Divert police funds" isn't as catchy. Just like "Black Lives Matter" doesn't imply "other lives don't" - when it comes to shorthand political phrases in America, it's best to look at what the common usage is.
(BTW some people actually do want to eliminate the police)
"Defund the police" in the 'mainstream' such as there is one, means to reduce funding for law enforcement and shift that funding to public health, social workers, and community programs, in a way that reduces the scope of calls police will get, and reduce the number of calls police are required to respond to.
Police Unions are not publicly funded, so defunding them doesn't make sense. Renegotiating collective bargaining agreements with unions does. "Smash Police Unions" has a nice ring to it.
(BTW some people actually do want to eliminate the police)
"Defund the police" in the 'mainstream' such as there is one, means to reduce funding for law enforcement and shift that funding to public health, social workers, and community programs, in a way that reduces the scope of calls police will get, and reduce the number of calls police are required to respond to.
Police Unions are not publicly funded, so defunding them doesn't make sense. Renegotiating collective bargaining agreements with unions does. "Smash Police Unions" has a nice ring to it.
[deleted]
A Minneapolis City Councilman (who ran on a campaign of police reform) explains it pretty well here:
https://time.com/5848705/disband-and-replace-minneapolis-pol...
https://time.com/5848705/disband-and-replace-minneapolis-pol...
Voter disenfranchisement and suppression is a pretty big problem here.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/poll-pr...
> Does this mean that people just do not care, or there is only some minority who thinks that the police is too violent and the rest is ok with that?
Yeah, basically. Especially that last part.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/poll-pr...
> Does this mean that people just do not care, or there is only some minority who thinks that the police is too violent and the rest is ok with that?
Yeah, basically. Especially that last part.
I suggest looking for articles in major US publications starting with NPR's site. There's just too much to cover in a comment.
Just as a synopsis, systemic racism became a more subtle segregation. POC (People or Person of Color) were systematically made to appear more violent and criminal-like over time. Combine that notion with an idealized notion of the police as hero figures and you have a recipe for rationalizing violence against POC.
Mobile phone videos allowed us to see from the victim's perspective just how brutal police have become.
"How it happens that all those mayors and sheriffs are still in the office if police brutality is such a big issue?"
To this point, you need to understand about voting districts and how POC voting power has been diluted and prevented over decades.
Just as a synopsis, systemic racism became a more subtle segregation. POC (People or Person of Color) were systematically made to appear more violent and criminal-like over time. Combine that notion with an idealized notion of the police as hero figures and you have a recipe for rationalizing violence against POC.
Mobile phone videos allowed us to see from the victim's perspective just how brutal police have become.
"How it happens that all those mayors and sheriffs are still in the office if police brutality is such a big issue?"
To this point, you need to understand about voting districts and how POC voting power has been diluted and prevented over decades.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I did that yesterday, more than 100 of the videos.
Eventually I saw a pattern, surprising since it was common in major cities all across the US and as if there were some single, central training materials. Apparently:
(1) Police are taught to be in control of any contact with a citizen. Recently the police have been taught to act nice initially, but, once it is clear some actual law enforcement is to be involved, be in control.
Being in control can mean that the citizen has been intimidated and made submissive so that they won't resist. Part of this is to demand that a citizen DO some little things, e.g., stand with feet apart, move back 10 feet, or tolerate being falsely accused of something, e.g., "weaving" in the road, being too close to the officer, etc. The officers are looking for things, even trivial, fake things, to object to so that they can object. It's like Captain Sobel in the 101st Airborne training in the series Band of Brothers -- "find some" infractions so that can complain about them and force the soldiers to accept being falsely accused so that they will be more compliant -- the police seem to have borrowed this tactic.
If the citizen does not look submissive, then the officer provokes a defensive reaction from the citizen so that they can arrest the citizen or threaten to arrest them.
Then, finally, maybe arrested, the citizen has been subdued and is submissive, which is what the police wanted to begin with.
(2) The police like to teach citizens, to change their attitude, and do this by hurting them, e.g., hitting them with a club, bending their arms, throwing them to the ground and putting a knee on their neck, spraying them with pepper spray, etc. They regard good police work as meting out "cruel and unusual punishment", with pain and maybe serious injury, without "due process". So, the police want to be absolute dictators on the streets.
(3) In a confrontation with a citizen, the police want some result where they successfully took some law enforcement action, a ticket or an arrest. E.g., in Atlanta, at first they didn't want merely to leave the citizen alone or, if the citizen was drunk, let him call a cab and (ii) later wanted to make sure the citizen was not able just to run away. The reaction to a citizen running away?
"Shoot them and kill them. Gee, they might 'get away'; can't permit that; that would violate due respect for the police; so, shoot the citizen." -- or some such.
(4) The expected, usual approach to an arrest is to throw the citizen to the ground, hold them down with a knee to their neck, their arms behind their back, and put on handcuffs.
From the 100 or so videos I watched, it appeared that (1)-(4) are so standard that they have been taught from some standard source. E.g., in all of that, some semi-bright guy had the idea that it was good to put a knee on a neck, and it appears that that is now standard.
Apparently part of (1)-(4) is the associated support for it from the Blue Line, e.g., police unions, Police Benevolent Associations, liability insurance cities buy for their police, the norm of police sticking together, local prosecutors, DAs, and judges who work daily with police and want to cooperate, politicians who want safe streets, etc. And at times maybe there has been more to police power, e.g., confiscating cash, shakedowns, payoffs, etc.
I'm sure that changing (1)-(4) can be done but won't be easy.
Eventually I saw a pattern, surprising since it was common in major cities all across the US and as if there were some single, central training materials. Apparently:
(1) Police are taught to be in control of any contact with a citizen. Recently the police have been taught to act nice initially, but, once it is clear some actual law enforcement is to be involved, be in control.
Being in control can mean that the citizen has been intimidated and made submissive so that they won't resist. Part of this is to demand that a citizen DO some little things, e.g., stand with feet apart, move back 10 feet, or tolerate being falsely accused of something, e.g., "weaving" in the road, being too close to the officer, etc. The officers are looking for things, even trivial, fake things, to object to so that they can object. It's like Captain Sobel in the 101st Airborne training in the series Band of Brothers -- "find some" infractions so that can complain about them and force the soldiers to accept being falsely accused so that they will be more compliant -- the police seem to have borrowed this tactic.
If the citizen does not look submissive, then the officer provokes a defensive reaction from the citizen so that they can arrest the citizen or threaten to arrest them.
Then, finally, maybe arrested, the citizen has been subdued and is submissive, which is what the police wanted to begin with.
(2) The police like to teach citizens, to change their attitude, and do this by hurting them, e.g., hitting them with a club, bending their arms, throwing them to the ground and putting a knee on their neck, spraying them with pepper spray, etc. They regard good police work as meting out "cruel and unusual punishment", with pain and maybe serious injury, without "due process". So, the police want to be absolute dictators on the streets.
(3) In a confrontation with a citizen, the police want some result where they successfully took some law enforcement action, a ticket or an arrest. E.g., in Atlanta, at first they didn't want merely to leave the citizen alone or, if the citizen was drunk, let him call a cab and (ii) later wanted to make sure the citizen was not able just to run away. The reaction to a citizen running away?
"Shoot them and kill them. Gee, they might 'get away'; can't permit that; that would violate due respect for the police; so, shoot the citizen." -- or some such.
(4) The expected, usual approach to an arrest is to throw the citizen to the ground, hold them down with a knee to their neck, their arms behind their back, and put on handcuffs.
From the 100 or so videos I watched, it appeared that (1)-(4) are so standard that they have been taught from some standard source. E.g., in all of that, some semi-bright guy had the idea that it was good to put a knee on a neck, and it appears that that is now standard.
Apparently part of (1)-(4) is the associated support for it from the Blue Line, e.g., police unions, Police Benevolent Associations, liability insurance cities buy for their police, the norm of police sticking together, local prosecutors, DAs, and judges who work daily with police and want to cooperate, politicians who want safe streets, etc. And at times maybe there has been more to police power, e.g., confiscating cash, shakedowns, payoffs, etc.
I'm sure that changing (1)-(4) can be done but won't be easy.
I think that you've noticed a very important piece of the puzzle. I spent a decade as a Marine, received quite a bit of training alongside police and other law enforcement. The mandate to "acquire situational control" is inherent throughout that training. A few points that have stuck with me:
Police are expected to acquire control of any situation they are called to through seizing initiative. This means that they don't wait for anyone to take any action, but immediately take verbally or physically dominating actions.
It is nearly impossible to acquire control of US civilians without violating the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Once someone has violated the law, the police are protected in terms of this violation, but because they are trained to acquire immediate control, they most often are violating the rights of people who've broken no laws.
Police are expected to acquire control of any situation they are called to through seizing initiative. This means that they don't wait for anyone to take any action, but immediately take verbally or physically dominating actions.
It is nearly impossible to acquire control of US civilians without violating the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Once someone has violated the law, the police are protected in terms of this violation, but because they are trained to acquire immediate control, they most often are violating the rights of people who've broken no laws.
I don't have anything to add, but I just want to give you a shout out because this seems to be the most specifically constructive post in the whole thread.
This is a clear attempt to manipulate opinion, I don't know why HN leaves it up. You could watch 100 videos of disgusting malpractices in restaurant kitchens and begin to think you should never eat in a restaurant again. If after watching carefully select and cut videos on a Twitter propaganda account you believe the police has a systemic issue, you're falling for the same trap. It's the same way media manipulate you with their carefully chosen "interviews" with random people on the street.
This is a straw man argument.
If you watched 100 videos of kitchen malpractice within restaurants in which:
- The acts of malpractice had broadly consistent characteristics
- The restaurants in question were all owned under the same organizational umbrella
- That organizational umbrella had the authority and exclusive control of the US government
And then drew the conclusion that maybe there were systemic problems that lead to these remarkably consistent issues, you'd be completely rational.
As for your other comparison between this and "the media" curating street interviews, I don't see the parallels at all.
A news outlet using a random interview with a person on the street as evidence that people are "divided over climate change" is clearly manipulative. In this case, a person is saying "Police are routinely using military equipment and force tactics against US citizens in disturbing ways. Here are 700 videos of it as evidence."
If you watched 100 videos of kitchen malpractice within restaurants in which:
- The acts of malpractice had broadly consistent characteristics
- The restaurants in question were all owned under the same organizational umbrella
- That organizational umbrella had the authority and exclusive control of the US government
And then drew the conclusion that maybe there were systemic problems that lead to these remarkably consistent issues, you'd be completely rational.
As for your other comparison between this and "the media" curating street interviews, I don't see the parallels at all.
A news outlet using a random interview with a person on the street as evidence that people are "divided over climate change" is clearly manipulative. In this case, a person is saying "Police are routinely using military equipment and force tactics against US citizens in disturbing ways. Here are 700 videos of it as evidence."
Except that there are rules and regulations and laws about food safety, and restaurants regularly do get shut down by the health inspector if they fail to pass muster, and customers have plentiful ways to share their bad experiences and other customers will take them seriously and the restaurant will lose business as a result of their shoddy practices. In other words, there is no comparision: this system actually works decently well, all things considered. Regular folks can have high trust that, either they are eating at a clean establishment, or if it's not clean, then it will be dealt with.
Compare that to the opaqueness of police misconduct/brutality internal investigations, or how frequently even the bad actors that are known to have done wrong, are still granted their pensions. Where is the equivalent payout for a restaurant owner who doesn't follow health rules? Where do you see other restaurant owners banding together to defend a restaurateur who's had their misconduct exposed? Where do you see something equivalent to "qualified immunity" for the food industry?
In other words, this is a great example of a reasonably well-functioning market. If regulating the police behaved much more like regulating the food industry, that would actually be fantastic. In many ways, that is exactly the goal of the protests, to bring a similar level of transparency and accountability and high standards to policing, as most people already expect and has long been standard for the food industry (in developed countries).
Compare that to the opaqueness of police misconduct/brutality internal investigations, or how frequently even the bad actors that are known to have done wrong, are still granted their pensions. Where is the equivalent payout for a restaurant owner who doesn't follow health rules? Where do you see other restaurant owners banding together to defend a restaurateur who's had their misconduct exposed? Where do you see something equivalent to "qualified immunity" for the food industry?
In other words, this is a great example of a reasonably well-functioning market. If regulating the police behaved much more like regulating the food industry, that would actually be fantastic. In many ways, that is exactly the goal of the protests, to bring a similar level of transparency and accountability and high standards to policing, as most people already expect and has long been standard for the food industry (in developed countries).
“Restaurants” are not a single institution with centralized authority. If you saw a 100 videos of the systematic malpractice in a single restaurant chain, you can bet that company would be shut down.
“Restaurants” are not a single institution with centralized authority. If you saw a 100 videos of the systematic malpractice in a single restaurant chain, you can bet that company would be shut down.
Police don't have a centralized authority. And it really depends on how big the chain restaurant is if 100 videos would have it shut down.
The better argument is that each one of those restaurants would be exposed and either they would put in enough effort to show they have improved or people would stop eating there. You can't boycott your local police.
Police don't have a centralized authority. And it really depends on how big the chain restaurant is if 100 videos would have it shut down.
The better argument is that each one of those restaurants would be exposed and either they would put in enough effort to show they have improved or people would stop eating there. You can't boycott your local police.
>You could watch 100 videos of disgusting malpractices in restaurant kitchens and begin to think you should never eat in a restaurant again.
What's the analogous conclusion from this to police brutality videos? You watch 100 and begin to think you should never talk to a cop again?
Sure you can post up a bad conclusion to draw and then attack it. I'm pretty sure there's a name for this sort of thing.
What's the analogous conclusion from this to police brutality videos? You watch 100 and begin to think you should never talk to a cop again?
Sure you can post up a bad conclusion to draw and then attack it. I'm pretty sure there's a name for this sort of thing.
> What's the analogous conclusion from this to police brutality videos? You watch 100 and begin to think you should never talk to a cop again?
You can do better than this rhetoric question. The analogous conclusion would be that there is a systemic issue with the police and you'd prefer not to deal with them again, by defunding or dissolving the police force (seems to be a current wish by many).
> Sure you can post up a bad conclusion to draw and then attack it. I'm pretty sure there's a name for this sort of thing.
Sure you can pretend it's a bad conclusion when it's about the effect of watching selected videos and how drawing any conclusions from that is naive.
You can do better than this rhetoric question. The analogous conclusion would be that there is a systemic issue with the police and you'd prefer not to deal with them again, by defunding or dissolving the police force (seems to be a current wish by many).
> Sure you can post up a bad conclusion to draw and then attack it. I'm pretty sure there's a name for this sort of thing.
Sure you can pretend it's a bad conclusion when it's about the effect of watching selected videos and how drawing any conclusions from that is naive.
>You could watch 100 videos of disgusting malpractices in restaurant kitchens and begin to think you should never eat in a restaurant again.
If you did that, and then decided we needed either better laws concerning food safety, or better enforcement of existing laws... where is the logical issue? If someone was to make the argument that a certain tolerance of bad food handling is to be allowed, then we would need to know the rate to know if we needed to make changes, but if the view point is that no restaurant should be engaging in that behavior then I don't particularly see the issue.
If you did that, and then decided we needed either better laws concerning food safety, or better enforcement of existing laws... where is the logical issue? If someone was to make the argument that a certain tolerance of bad food handling is to be allowed, then we would need to know the rate to know if we needed to make changes, but if the view point is that no restaurant should be engaging in that behavior then I don't particularly see the issue.
> You could watch 100 videos of disgusting malpractices in restaurant kitchens and begin to think you should never eat in a restaurant again
What about just thinking that restaurants need serious reform and accountability?
What about just thinking that restaurants need serious reform and accountability?
It would be stupid. No restaurant reform can prevent employees from doing something bad, unless you want to mandate robotic "employees". The sane way to react to such videos would be to confront the employers, using a lawsuit if necessary, so they can fix the situation. All required laws already exist AFAICT.
> No restaurant reform can prevent employees from doing something bad, unless you want to mandate robotic "employees".
No of course not, but there are measures you can take to reduce bad practices, which is why we do those measures for restaurants! Let's make police accountable for their crimes the same way we make restaurant owners and employees accountable for e.g. food safety issues.
No of course not, but there are measures you can take to reduce bad practices, which is why we do those measures for restaurants! Let's make police accountable for their crimes the same way we make restaurant owners and employees accountable for e.g. food safety issues.
as someone who used to work in a restaurant, I would really want the police to be more accountable than a restaurant owner or employee.
I'd place a $1000 bet that you are either a Republican, or you have a close friend or family member in law enforcement.
The police are uniquely powerful against normal citizens. Not only are these videos clearly representative of a large number of abuses, but their colleagues rarely try to stop those abuses. Few of them will be held accountable. The police are almost always above the law, if not outright immune.
In "cop vs. citizen" when it's just words, cops will always win. Even when there is video, it is difficult to get justice. A cop unjustly hitting someone and a citizen unjustly hitting someone are two different crimes, in my opinion, and the cop committed the far worse of the two.
The fact that everyone watching George Floyd get murdered in slow motion was too scared to tackle that cop is proof enough of the power to kill with impunity that cops have.
The police are uniquely powerful against normal citizens. Not only are these videos clearly representative of a large number of abuses, but their colleagues rarely try to stop those abuses. Few of them will be held accountable. The police are almost always above the law, if not outright immune.
In "cop vs. citizen" when it's just words, cops will always win. Even when there is video, it is difficult to get justice. A cop unjustly hitting someone and a citizen unjustly hitting someone are two different crimes, in my opinion, and the cop committed the far worse of the two.
The fact that everyone watching George Floyd get murdered in slow motion was too scared to tackle that cop is proof enough of the power to kill with impunity that cops have.
> I'd place a $1000 bet that you are either a Republican, or you have a close friend or family member in law enforcement.
You lost that bet.
You lost that bet.
Hm. I don't see people defending the State's violent arm beating and oppressing its peaceful citizens unless they have a sympathetic ear to the profession.
>You could watch 100 videos of disgusting malpractices in restaurant kitchens and begin to think you should never eat in a restaurant again
Yeah there's no reason to make a fuzz about it. It becomes a bit different when the food and safety inspection routinely comes in and says yeah that's alright, keep going.
Perhaps not at a national level if there's no clear unison there but at least at a local level. Like, for example it doesn't get to me much that Philip Brailsford killed a guy. I've been desensitized much by the internet. The fact that he was rehired to get a lifelong 2500$ a month tho gives a different message about accountability in that area.
Living there would make me look differently at the taxes I pay and make me fearfull and distrustfull of police.
Yeah there's no reason to make a fuzz about it. It becomes a bit different when the food and safety inspection routinely comes in and says yeah that's alright, keep going.
Perhaps not at a national level if there's no clear unison there but at least at a local level. Like, for example it doesn't get to me much that Philip Brailsford killed a guy. I've been desensitized much by the internet. The fact that he was rehired to get a lifelong 2500$ a month tho gives a different message about accountability in that area.
Living there would make me look differently at the taxes I pay and make me fearfull and distrustfull of police.
I don't think society is looking for police to be an average good. That is, we're not looking to optimize on the statistical mean of police interactions. We are concerned particularly about the tails. The outliers are the problem, particularly when they're not as uncommon as we expect them to be. You may call them propaganda, but that's a strange thing to post on an enumerated list of recorded evidence.
I agree, but also, calling them "outliers" is exactly the foregone conclusion that people in the streets are questioning.
[deleted]
> We are concerned particularly about the tails.
That's not my impression when people are openly calling for defunding or disbanding police departments. Those who are concerned with the tails are the sane voices drowning in a sea of insanity these days.
I agree that the outliers are the problem, but how uncommon they are cannot be determined in this way.
That's not my impression when people are openly calling for defunding or disbanding police departments. Those who are concerned with the tails are the sane voices drowning in a sea of insanity these days.
I agree that the outliers are the problem, but how uncommon they are cannot be determined in this way.
Don't get too caught up on the definitions of words. What they are arguing is that many things have been attempted to rein in the tails, and they have all failed. An engineer has to look at a series of failures and find new solutions, not the same old ones that keep failing. Sometimes that means redesign from scratch.
You seem to be saying disgusting restaurant malpractice is fine, as is police brutality, as long as we don’t look at it.
As is any opinion piece ever written and cherished by the HN community. And many "just reporting the facts" articles.
At least this one comes clearly labelled and backed by some evidence.
At least this one comes clearly labelled and backed by some evidence.
This is an outrageous comment. It makes no sense, you seem to think nothing should improve.. If you see a single food system causing disease over and over, like what happened with mad cow disease, we should stop it.
If you see a single restaurant chain use horrible ingredients for humans, trans fats, far too many preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, over and over, you should never eat there again. I've personally cut out mcdonalds, and the fast food garbage restaurants. It doesn't mean every restaurant is bad, it means some restaurant models are bad. I still eat shawarma, I still eat indian and thai, and my family still owns an italian restaurant where we also don't try to poison our customers with horrible ingredients.
If you're comparing police to restaurants, then let me ask you, then on a scale of Taco Bell to El Buli, where does the current american system police system lie on the scale? I'd argue it's more like at the dumpster outside of your local mcdonalds.
If you see a single restaurant chain use horrible ingredients for humans, trans fats, far too many preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, over and over, you should never eat there again. I've personally cut out mcdonalds, and the fast food garbage restaurants. It doesn't mean every restaurant is bad, it means some restaurant models are bad. I still eat shawarma, I still eat indian and thai, and my family still owns an italian restaurant where we also don't try to poison our customers with horrible ingredients.
If you're comparing police to restaurants, then let me ask you, then on a scale of Taco Bell to El Buli, where does the current american system police system lie on the scale? I'd argue it's more like at the dumpster outside of your local mcdonalds.
I watched 10. The first 10, not selected 10. Why do I need to watch 100 to find what is claimed - "brutality"? If there are 7 cases of real police brutality make a list of 7, not 700.
The entire point of something like this is to be a gish gallop. If you want to refute it you have to look through 700 or so videos, and even if you do by the time you are done going through and checking everyone has moved on. Trying to refute some does not invalidate the entire list and you will be attacked for downplaying the problem.
And also people like lists.
And also people like lists.
Even one is blatantly unacceptable.
Can we begin with the fact that this isn't even remotely in the same universe as a peer reviewed study? There's nothing to compare it to, there's no data on what the timeline is, there's no meta analysis of the different cases, what sparked the incidents, the outcomes, or how often non-violent confrontations or de-escalations happen, etc.
Basically you're looking at a single specific dataset, like "number of children strangled", and deciding to extrapolate from that whatever you feel like, like "a systemic and perpetual abuse of mothers and babysitters power by evil matriarchs".
Honestly, I credited this crowd with more brains. Horror porn is not an intellectual argument.
Basically you're looking at a single specific dataset, like "number of children strangled", and deciding to extrapolate from that whatever you feel like, like "a systemic and perpetual abuse of mothers and babysitters power by evil matriarchs".
Honestly, I credited this crowd with more brains. Horror porn is not an intellectual argument.
> "number of children strangled"
At least in that case you wouldn't have people arguing that the kids deserved it.
> Horror porn is not an intellectual argument.
This isn't porn, this is filming reality as it happens. I know we're all a bit numbed, but this reminds me of the decisions by the Allied forces to document Auschwitz as well as possible when it was overrun, or how the BBC footage of the Ethiopian famine sparked Live Aid. The act of filming has a habit of cutting through all the pseudo-intellectual bullshit from those arguing in favour of the brutality.
At least in that case you wouldn't have people arguing that the kids deserved it.
> Horror porn is not an intellectual argument.
This isn't porn, this is filming reality as it happens. I know we're all a bit numbed, but this reminds me of the decisions by the Allied forces to document Auschwitz as well as possible when it was overrun, or how the BBC footage of the Ethiopian famine sparked Live Aid. The act of filming has a habit of cutting through all the pseudo-intellectual bullshit from those arguing in favour of the brutality.
> At least in that case you wouldn't have people arguing that the kids deserved it.
Damn. Well that's the best rebuttle I'm going to see this week.
> This isn't porn, this is filming reality as it happens. I know we're all a bit numbed, but this reminds me of the decisions by the Allied forces to document Auschwitz as well as possible when it was overrun, or how the BBC footage of the Ethiopian famine sparked Live Aid. The act of filming has a habit of cutting through all the pseudo-intellectual bullshit from those arguing in favour of the brutality.
To add to this sentiment; this is literally what's going on in the USA right now. Obviously it isn't every cop in every city, or protesters would be exercising their 2nd amendment rights en masse. But these actions documented here are inarguably immoral, and IF they are legal, the law needs to be changed immediately. It's absolutely disgusting, and if seeing these videos of police brutality doesn't invoke that feeling in you, take some time to imagine it's you or your loved one getting beaten, maced, tear gassed. These forms of crowd control are immensely painful, pain that a lot of us have never felt, and they leave lasting damage.
Damn. Well that's the best rebuttle I'm going to see this week.
> This isn't porn, this is filming reality as it happens. I know we're all a bit numbed, but this reminds me of the decisions by the Allied forces to document Auschwitz as well as possible when it was overrun, or how the BBC footage of the Ethiopian famine sparked Live Aid. The act of filming has a habit of cutting through all the pseudo-intellectual bullshit from those arguing in favour of the brutality.
To add to this sentiment; this is literally what's going on in the USA right now. Obviously it isn't every cop in every city, or protesters would be exercising their 2nd amendment rights en masse. But these actions documented here are inarguably immoral, and IF they are legal, the law needs to be changed immediately. It's absolutely disgusting, and if seeing these videos of police brutality doesn't invoke that feeling in you, take some time to imagine it's you or your loved one getting beaten, maced, tear gassed. These forms of crowd control are immensely painful, pain that a lot of us have never felt, and they leave lasting damage.
You can be massively misleading even if you're filming reality as it happens. The first of the recent Atlanta shooting videos to air left out the part where you see the suspect point a taser at the police. Ie the video appears he was shot in the back, but security cam footage shows the full story.
Autopsy says shot in the back twice.
He pointed a taser at the police behind him in pursuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbf0x_K9i54
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbf0x_K9i54
Wow, first time I've seen this video. I don't want that man as a cop in my USA. Absolutely disgusting. This is more aggressive than we treat enemy combatants in Afghanistan. Deadly force as a response to a fleeing individual shooting a non-lethal, short ranged weapon over his shoulder? Disturbing.
Tasers are nonlethal weapons, and also don't work at that range anyways, or the police would've tased him. Multiple other cops had tasers.
Some questions to be answered in the 1 second he points it at you:
+ How do you know your partner is behind you?
+ How do you know he won't take your gun after he uses the taser on you?
+ How do you know it was a taser?
+ Are you confident enough in those answers to miss your daughter's next birthday?
+ How do you know your partner is behind you?
+ How do you know he won't take your gun after he uses the taser on you?
+ How do you know it was a taser?
+ Are you confident enough in those answers to miss your daughter's next birthday?
Have you seen the video? The cop drops his own taser and draws his firearm as the victim runs away. Why would he do that? Because he knows his taser is out of range, won't reach the victim.
So he knows his taser has the stopping power of a nerf gun at that point. The corollary is that he knows the taser in the hands of the victim is also out of range, also has the stopping power of a nerf gun. After this is known, because it is known, he drops his taser and draws his pistol, which does have the range.
So he knows his taser has the stopping power of a nerf gun at that point. The corollary is that he knows the taser in the hands of the victim is also out of range, also has the stopping power of a nerf gun. After this is known, because it is known, he drops his taser and draws his pistol, which does have the range.
Sounds like you aren’t sure that this represents a problem, and want a peer reviewed study to prove that to you. Is that correct?
Is your comment an intellectual argument?
It reminds me of vegan documentaries, who think compilations of animal abuse are an argument.
The fact that is even possible is insane. Imagine there being over 700 videos of pilots messing up in one month, 700 crane operator mishaps in a month, 700+ food poising by a chain in a month. The also imagine you believe there's no problem.
This is Ba Sing Se levels of delusion for some people.
This is Ba Sing Se levels of delusion for some people.
They don't see it as a mistake.
In fact, there are plenty of commentators downthread who don't see it as a mistake either. Years of demonisation and propaganda has gone into supporting the belief that as soon as somebody steps out of line it's necessary to beat them back into line, or shoot them if they do not comply. It's no more a mistake than the millions of people in US prisons: it's policy.
In fact, there are plenty of commentators downthread who don't see it as a mistake either. Years of demonisation and propaganda has gone into supporting the belief that as soon as somebody steps out of line it's necessary to beat them back into line, or shoot them if they do not comply. It's no more a mistake than the millions of people in US prisons: it's policy.
As a complete outsider to US reality, to me looking in, it seems like there is a real issue of training regarding de-escalating techniques.
US police forces seem to have a very short training which, as far as I understand is not centrally vetted by any federal organism? And considering the short training time it seems to be mostly focused on tactical and firearm training.
Compare that with European forces and you see a completely different reality. In Europe the police is generally seen as peace-keepers, force is absolutely a last resort (probably not so true for crowd control units but certainly true for daily policing).
US police forces seem to have a very short training which, as far as I understand is not centrally vetted by any federal organism? And considering the short training time it seems to be mostly focused on tactical and firearm training.
Compare that with European forces and you see a completely different reality. In Europe the police is generally seen as peace-keepers, force is absolutely a last resort (probably not so true for crowd control units but certainly true for daily policing).
> US police forces seem to have a very short training
Correct; some states have laws mandating training hours for barbers that are longer than that mandated for police [0].
> not centrally vetted by any federal organism
As with many things in the US, these rules are mostly state-based (read: 50 different, often overlapping but also often contradictory systems) but with a patchwork of federal oversight.
For example, in 2012, the federal government stepped in with a judicial document called a "consent decree" aimed at reforming the Seattle police department after "a pattern or practice of excessive force that violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law" [1].
That's an example of federal oversight, but it only happens after problems have already occurred; it only applies to the city of Seattle; and it's temporary. Only a month ago [2] the city was in court petitioning for "we're all better now, federal oversight can end".
After saying in court they were reformed and would no longer use excessive force, Seattle PD used so much tear gas in a residential neighborhood that it seeped into peoples' homes [3]. Then they announced a 30 day ban on use of tear gas [4]. Then about 48 hours later they used tear gas anyway (after using "blast balls" containing "pepper spray gas" the previous night and insisting it didn't count as tear gas). Finally a federal judge stepped in [5] and issued a 14 day ban on its use - another example of our federal oversight being reactive and not proactive.
Oh, and did I mention Seattle PD shot a "less-lethal" grenade round directly at a protester, causing enough blunt force trauma to stop her heart and require life-saving CPR? [6] That was on the same night they used tear gas after promising not to.
And they threw flashbang grenades at the medics who were trying to save her life. [7]
(in case it's not obvious, I'm a Seattle resident and I'm pissed)
Another example of how complicated our justice system can be that might surprise people from other countries is all the levels of police forces we have - city police / county sheriff / state police (plus federal law enforcement - FBI, TSA, border patrol, and so on). Especially in rural areas the county sheriff often wields a tremendous amount of power [8].
0: https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/us/jobs-training-police-trnd/...
1: http://www.seattlemonitor.com/overview
2: https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2020/05/08/city-of-seattle-fi...
3: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2020/06/04/43840246/seattle...
4: https://crosscut.com/2020/06/seattle-issues-30-day-ban-tear-...
5: https://www.kuow.org/stories/federal-judge-in-seattle-bans-u...
6: https://www.kuow.org/stories/this-26-year-old-died-three-tim...
7: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gywxhz/folks_i_nee...
8: https://theappeal.org/the-power-of-sheriffs-an-explainer/
Correct; some states have laws mandating training hours for barbers that are longer than that mandated for police [0].
> not centrally vetted by any federal organism
As with many things in the US, these rules are mostly state-based (read: 50 different, often overlapping but also often contradictory systems) but with a patchwork of federal oversight.
For example, in 2012, the federal government stepped in with a judicial document called a "consent decree" aimed at reforming the Seattle police department after "a pattern or practice of excessive force that violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law" [1].
That's an example of federal oversight, but it only happens after problems have already occurred; it only applies to the city of Seattle; and it's temporary. Only a month ago [2] the city was in court petitioning for "we're all better now, federal oversight can end".
After saying in court they were reformed and would no longer use excessive force, Seattle PD used so much tear gas in a residential neighborhood that it seeped into peoples' homes [3]. Then they announced a 30 day ban on use of tear gas [4]. Then about 48 hours later they used tear gas anyway (after using "blast balls" containing "pepper spray gas" the previous night and insisting it didn't count as tear gas). Finally a federal judge stepped in [5] and issued a 14 day ban on its use - another example of our federal oversight being reactive and not proactive.
Oh, and did I mention Seattle PD shot a "less-lethal" grenade round directly at a protester, causing enough blunt force trauma to stop her heart and require life-saving CPR? [6] That was on the same night they used tear gas after promising not to.
And they threw flashbang grenades at the medics who were trying to save her life. [7]
(in case it's not obvious, I'm a Seattle resident and I'm pissed)
Another example of how complicated our justice system can be that might surprise people from other countries is all the levels of police forces we have - city police / county sheriff / state police (plus federal law enforcement - FBI, TSA, border patrol, and so on). Especially in rural areas the county sheriff often wields a tremendous amount of power [8].
0: https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/us/jobs-training-police-trnd/...
1: http://www.seattlemonitor.com/overview
2: https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2020/05/08/city-of-seattle-fi...
3: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2020/06/04/43840246/seattle...
4: https://crosscut.com/2020/06/seattle-issues-30-day-ban-tear-...
5: https://www.kuow.org/stories/federal-judge-in-seattle-bans-u...
6: https://www.kuow.org/stories/this-26-year-old-died-three-tim...
7: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/gywxhz/folks_i_nee...
8: https://theappeal.org/the-power-of-sheriffs-an-explainer/
you're entirely warranted to be pissed about tear gas use, but it's misguided to expect quick and accurate federal redress, as the executive function intentionally doesn't cover state or local jurisdictions.
states run themselves, and the federal judiciary basically only steps in when state/local governments don't follow their own rules (the presumed expression of the will of the people) or violate the constitution. the constrained executive response follows from the judiciary (and sometimes the legislature).
and that's the way it should be. you want power local and limited, not consolidated and far away. that would only make things like use of force worse.
so the immediate appeal to authority should be to the local, and then state, judiciary and legislature stepping in with corrective actions. the feds aren't of much use here. they're intentionally a line of last (and slow) resort.
states run themselves, and the federal judiciary basically only steps in when state/local governments don't follow their own rules (the presumed expression of the will of the people) or violate the constitution. the constrained executive response follows from the judiciary (and sometimes the legislature).
and that's the way it should be. you want power local and limited, not consolidated and far away. that would only make things like use of force worse.
so the immediate appeal to authority should be to the local, and then state, judiciary and legislature stepping in with corrective actions. the feds aren't of much use here. they're intentionally a line of last (and slow) resort.
Why would people want power local and limited? Noting the sordid history of local, "States Rights", Jim Crow style policies that exist at the local level. Especially when the issue concerns US policing which is the ideological descendant of slave patrols.
Sheriffs date back to the early 1300s. Even up until the 1970s, small communities had local militias and army reserves when things got beyond what a sheriff could handle. Most of these places switched to policing in the late 70s and 80s. How, precisely is that "the ideological descendent of slave patrols"?
> "Why would people want power local and limited?"
it's worse if we had the same sordid problems at a state or national level. it's rolling the dice once or 50 times vs. rolling them ~50,000 times.
it's worse if we had the same sordid problems at a state or national level. it's rolling the dice once or 50 times vs. rolling them ~50,000 times.
I'm generally for states' rights, but the federal government stepping in to enforce civil rights in the face of local corruption has a long and storied history. Furthermore, the consent decree was already in place, so yes, enforcement should have been pretty quick and should actually have teeth to get these criminals prosecuted.
> you want power local and limited, not consolidated and far away. that would only make things like use of force worse.
Maybe in your country but in many, many places in the world this is demonstrably not the case.
Maybe in your country but in many, many places in the world this is demonstrably not the case.
> "Maybe in your country but in many, many places in the world this is demonstrably not the case."
as with markets, idiosyncratic conditions like sociopathy can lead to pockets of undue concentrations of power, no doubt.
but it would be even worse if those same conditions were concentrated on and elevated to wider populations. by distributing power, you can more effectively pit one against the other, and have some chance of bettering conditions over time. those chances decrease with power concentration.
as with markets, idiosyncratic conditions like sociopathy can lead to pockets of undue concentrations of power, no doubt.
but it would be even worse if those same conditions were concentrated on and elevated to wider populations. by distributing power, you can more effectively pit one against the other, and have some chance of bettering conditions over time. those chances decrease with power concentration.
County sheriff is essentially a mini executive branch in rural areas, and I believe is often an elected position.
Thanks for laying out some of that context on Seattle PD.
Thanks for laying out some of that context on Seattle PD.
European forces do not police cities where 18 people get killed in a day(Chicago just set a new record).
Normal summer weekend you have at least couple dozen people shot(not by cops, so you never hear about them)
Normal summer weekend you have at least couple dozen people shot(not by cops, so you never hear about them)
This is a really important point and you are right that the level of gun violence is abysmally higher in the US.
Nevertheless, a large percentage of situations can be de-escalated by police forces. What is even less acceptable, is that in many cases the escalation is originating from police officers. Which is why, to me, de-escalation and conflict management training is lacking among these officers.
Going back to your point, it is a really complex issue and I am not going to claim a deep understanding of US society.
There is a huge percentage of GDP spent on welfare in most EU countries, the welfare and safety nets put in place are (mostly) accepted in the EU because of a sense of solidarity and dignity and a mutual understanding that _anyone_ can be caught in a situation where they are facing social/family/health/finacial issues. Being misfortunate should not be punished with falling through the cracks of society. I get the impression that in the US this type of belief would be an outlier.
However, putting aside the humanitarian values, there is a very practical and utilitarian aspect to EU welfare and social benefits programs, they actually detract people from marginal behaviour because it stops them from being pushed into a corner.
There is a lot of evidence that social welfare safety nets reduce crime. Equally, there is evidence that insufficient welfare correlates with crime rise. [0]
And this I think, is a huge cultural shift. The outrage in the US would be huge if we tried to rationalize that we have to take tax money from everyone, to give free-money to people on the fringes of society, in order to reduce gun violence. However, all the EU policies for the past 40 years confirm this reasoning.
[0] Social determinants of health in relation to firearm-related homicides in the United States: A nationwide multilevel cross-sectional study, D. Kim, 2019 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...
Nevertheless, a large percentage of situations can be de-escalated by police forces. What is even less acceptable, is that in many cases the escalation is originating from police officers. Which is why, to me, de-escalation and conflict management training is lacking among these officers.
Going back to your point, it is a really complex issue and I am not going to claim a deep understanding of US society.
There is a huge percentage of GDP spent on welfare in most EU countries, the welfare and safety nets put in place are (mostly) accepted in the EU because of a sense of solidarity and dignity and a mutual understanding that _anyone_ can be caught in a situation where they are facing social/family/health/finacial issues. Being misfortunate should not be punished with falling through the cracks of society. I get the impression that in the US this type of belief would be an outlier.
However, putting aside the humanitarian values, there is a very practical and utilitarian aspect to EU welfare and social benefits programs, they actually detract people from marginal behaviour because it stops them from being pushed into a corner.
There is a lot of evidence that social welfare safety nets reduce crime. Equally, there is evidence that insufficient welfare correlates with crime rise. [0]
And this I think, is a huge cultural shift. The outrage in the US would be huge if we tried to rationalize that we have to take tax money from everyone, to give free-money to people on the fringes of society, in order to reduce gun violence. However, all the EU policies for the past 40 years confirm this reasoning.
[0] Social determinants of health in relation to firearm-related homicides in the United States: A nationwide multilevel cross-sectional study, D. Kim, 2019 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...
> de-escalation and conflict management training is lacking
Hiring and firing by this metric is also lacking.
Hiring and firing by this metric is also lacking.
[deleted]
Yes and no.
IMO, the issue is that the US Police are not one organization. There are over 10,000 police departments in America. In some towns, the Sheriff + Deputies are less than 10 people.
Some towns have a Sheriff who is democratically elected. This leads to massive lack of accountability, because there's no chance the Sheriff could be fired before the next election.
Under such a system, why would a Sheriff, or their deputies, ever get deescalation training?
-------------
Washington DC serves as a great example of how confusing this gets when you start actually tracing the power structures.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/politics/trump-church-protest...
The shear amount of "blame shifting" going on for the Lafayette Park clearing is staggering.
> More than a half-dozen officials from the National Guard, federal law enforcement and public safety agencies have challenged the Trump administration's narrative that the clearing of peaceful protesters outside the White House earlier this month was unrelated to President Donald Trump's subsequent walk to a nearby church for a photo-op, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
...
> But officials told The Post they weren't warned that US Park Police planned to push the perimeter or that force would be used.
...
> The US Secret Service issued a statement Saturday admitting that an agency employee used pepper spray on June 1 during efforts to secure Lafayette Square and clear protesters.
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/investigations/tear-gas-g...
> US Park Police, Arlington Police, DC Metro Police and the Secret Service have all denied using any kind of chemical irritants in Lafayette Square Monday evening. But WUSA9 crews were there, witnessed tear gas being deployed and collected the canisters afterward.
So at a minimum, there are ~5 Police Forces, each with different accountability structures, involved in the Lafyette Square clearing. It probably was only ONE Police Force that messed up (probably US Park Police??) that was the site of the brutal beatdown.
But all the different organizations get the blame, even if the officers are of completely different organizations.
------------
US Citizens typically have to deal with ~3 police organizations per location. The city (or county) police, the state police, and finally the federal police.
And the Feds are organized into multiple different police: DEA, ATF, FBI, and ICE.
There's a "weak" culture... the "thin blue line" where Police Officers do stand to protect each other, even if they are from different organizations. But when it comes to accepting the blame, they actually shift the blame between each other a lot. So you need to be very knowledgeable about your local police structure before you can even cast blame in a proper manner.
Even if some organizations are considered good (ie: FBI generally has a very good reputation), other organizations (ie: ICE) have a pretty negative reputation in unwanted use of force.
------
Finally, a little example for how confusing this can get.
-- If you have a Sheriff, your only means of accountability is the election next year. A Sheriff and their deputies can pretty much do whatever they want. Any issues must be taken up with the Sheriff themselves in the meantime. If the Sheriff is uncooperative, you're left with voting them out next election (which is surprisingly difficult, because no one pays attention to local politics in America).
-- A Police "Chief" is typically a position that is held accountable by the Mayor. You can ask the Chief for police reforms, but traditionally people complain to the Mayor instead. IMO, this is a bit better than the Sheriff positions, since the Mayor can run on a platform of police reform in theory.
-- A Police Commissioner is held accountable by the City's Board. You need to convince a majority of the board member that there is a problem. Even if you convince your local board member that there's a problem, they will hold no power unless you convince the majority of the board.
-- Some municipalities, such as NYPD, have a citizen complain board, who are the dedicated organization to hear complaints. They'll issue lawyers to citizens who complain about issues to individually represent citizens in court. In these municipalities, the best action you'll get is from the citizen review board.
IMO, the issue is that the US Police are not one organization. There are over 10,000 police departments in America. In some towns, the Sheriff + Deputies are less than 10 people.
Some towns have a Sheriff who is democratically elected. This leads to massive lack of accountability, because there's no chance the Sheriff could be fired before the next election.
Under such a system, why would a Sheriff, or their deputies, ever get deescalation training?
-------------
Washington DC serves as a great example of how confusing this gets when you start actually tracing the power structures.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/politics/trump-church-protest...
The shear amount of "blame shifting" going on for the Lafayette Park clearing is staggering.
> More than a half-dozen officials from the National Guard, federal law enforcement and public safety agencies have challenged the Trump administration's narrative that the clearing of peaceful protesters outside the White House earlier this month was unrelated to President Donald Trump's subsequent walk to a nearby church for a photo-op, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
...
> But officials told The Post they weren't warned that US Park Police planned to push the perimeter or that force would be used.
...
> The US Secret Service issued a statement Saturday admitting that an agency employee used pepper spray on June 1 during efforts to secure Lafayette Square and clear protesters.
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/investigations/tear-gas-g...
> US Park Police, Arlington Police, DC Metro Police and the Secret Service have all denied using any kind of chemical irritants in Lafayette Square Monday evening. But WUSA9 crews were there, witnessed tear gas being deployed and collected the canisters afterward.
So at a minimum, there are ~5 Police Forces, each with different accountability structures, involved in the Lafyette Square clearing. It probably was only ONE Police Force that messed up (probably US Park Police??) that was the site of the brutal beatdown.
But all the different organizations get the blame, even if the officers are of completely different organizations.
------------
US Citizens typically have to deal with ~3 police organizations per location. The city (or county) police, the state police, and finally the federal police.
And the Feds are organized into multiple different police: DEA, ATF, FBI, and ICE.
There's a "weak" culture... the "thin blue line" where Police Officers do stand to protect each other, even if they are from different organizations. But when it comes to accepting the blame, they actually shift the blame between each other a lot. So you need to be very knowledgeable about your local police structure before you can even cast blame in a proper manner.
Even if some organizations are considered good (ie: FBI generally has a very good reputation), other organizations (ie: ICE) have a pretty negative reputation in unwanted use of force.
------
Finally, a little example for how confusing this can get.
-- If you have a Sheriff, your only means of accountability is the election next year. A Sheriff and their deputies can pretty much do whatever they want. Any issues must be taken up with the Sheriff themselves in the meantime. If the Sheriff is uncooperative, you're left with voting them out next election (which is surprisingly difficult, because no one pays attention to local politics in America).
-- A Police "Chief" is typically a position that is held accountable by the Mayor. You can ask the Chief for police reforms, but traditionally people complain to the Mayor instead. IMO, this is a bit better than the Sheriff positions, since the Mayor can run on a platform of police reform in theory.
-- A Police Commissioner is held accountable by the City's Board. You need to convince a majority of the board member that there is a problem. Even if you convince your local board member that there's a problem, they will hold no power unless you convince the majority of the board.
-- Some municipalities, such as NYPD, have a citizen complain board, who are the dedicated organization to hear complaints. They'll issue lawyers to citizens who complain about issues to individually represent citizens in court. In these municipalities, the best action you'll get is from the citizen review board.
Washington DC is unusual because it's not a state, and in practice it's the only place where the President can order the police about directly.
You would expect directly elected police to increase accountability, but the question as always is: to whom? If the local electorate is racist, they're going to support racist violence from the police.
The very large number of police organisations produces some stupidities, like a tiny "city" that's mostly funded by stopping people going 1 mile over the speed limit on the nearby highway, but almost all the big problems are the big unitary police forces of the big cities: New York, Chicago, LA, etc.
You would expect directly elected police to increase accountability, but the question as always is: to whom? If the local electorate is racist, they're going to support racist violence from the police.
The very large number of police organisations produces some stupidities, like a tiny "city" that's mostly funded by stopping people going 1 mile over the speed limit on the nearby highway, but almost all the big problems are the big unitary police forces of the big cities: New York, Chicago, LA, etc.
> You would expect directly elected police to increase accountability
I don't. I have a sheriff and I barely keep up with the issue between elections. And to be honest, local police in my area are a non-issue, I've never had issues with them personally. (IMO: this is because I live in a richer suburban area. Police are well paid, college-educated, and low-stress compared to the city police)
Between the county council, my city's mayor, the state governor, the state representative, the state senator, my US Senator, my US Representative, the President, the School superintendant, roughly 4 or 5 different judges, and the sheriff... I'm frankly leaving most of my election sheet blank during elections.
Besides, the Sheriff has been running unopposed for the last decade. Even if there was an issue, its not like there's even another guy for me to vote for.
I'd have much more trust in a Chief or Commissioner setup. I at least know the name of my county executive and somewhat keep up with what my county executive does.
But the only way you can convince me that my local police, that I'm voting for directly, has any issue, is if protests erupted in my local neighborhood. A lot of these videos that are being posted online do not apply to me or my vote.
> The very large number of police organisations produces some stupidities, like a tiny "city" that's mostly funded by stopping people going 1 mile over the speed limit on the nearby highway, but almost all the big problems are the big unitary police forces of the big cities: New York, Chicago, LA, etc.
Is it really? Think about it. The NYC officers who shoved the man were fired pretty quickly. While its basically impossible to fire a Sheriff.
Hypothetically, how would you convince me or raise awareness if my local sheriff was a problem? No major protests were in my neighborhood.
And I'm somewhat connected and informed about these matters. I've got friends who are fully ignorant, or are even 100% on the police side on this issue. How do you expect to convince them to vote for a new sheriff?
I don't. I have a sheriff and I barely keep up with the issue between elections. And to be honest, local police in my area are a non-issue, I've never had issues with them personally. (IMO: this is because I live in a richer suburban area. Police are well paid, college-educated, and low-stress compared to the city police)
Between the county council, my city's mayor, the state governor, the state representative, the state senator, my US Senator, my US Representative, the President, the School superintendant, roughly 4 or 5 different judges, and the sheriff... I'm frankly leaving most of my election sheet blank during elections.
Besides, the Sheriff has been running unopposed for the last decade. Even if there was an issue, its not like there's even another guy for me to vote for.
I'd have much more trust in a Chief or Commissioner setup. I at least know the name of my county executive and somewhat keep up with what my county executive does.
But the only way you can convince me that my local police, that I'm voting for directly, has any issue, is if protests erupted in my local neighborhood. A lot of these videos that are being posted online do not apply to me or my vote.
> The very large number of police organisations produces some stupidities, like a tiny "city" that's mostly funded by stopping people going 1 mile over the speed limit on the nearby highway, but almost all the big problems are the big unitary police forces of the big cities: New York, Chicago, LA, etc.
Is it really? Think about it. The NYC officers who shoved the man were fired pretty quickly. While its basically impossible to fire a Sheriff.
Hypothetically, how would you convince me or raise awareness if my local sheriff was a problem? No major protests were in my neighborhood.
And I'm somewhat connected and informed about these matters. I've got friends who are fully ignorant, or are even 100% on the police side on this issue. How do you expect to convince them to vote for a new sheriff?
Sounds to me like your sheriff might be doing a good job and the system might be working. Now if you had a sheriff that were a real problem and still couldn't get voted out, then you'd have an example of a broken system.
Most sheriffs in USA are unopposed. Even if they do a bad job, you don't really have a choice in the vote.
Its not really a system I'm a fan of. The voting population only can pay attention to so many issues, we should have our representatives pick (and hold accountable) more positions.
Its not really a system I'm a fan of. The voting population only can pay attention to so many issues, we should have our representatives pick (and hold accountable) more positions.
I'm not sure your interpretation is required or adds value. Those with first hand experience have been protesting for over 100 years and have been very clear. Law enforcement needs more August Vollmers.
>This is Ba Sing Se levels of delusion for some people.
A reference I never expected to see on HN.
It's insane, but then you realize that a significant portion of the US population _still_ only watches television news media and refuses to spend extra time looking at other sources, like Twitter.
A reference I never expected to see on HN.
It's insane, but then you realize that a significant portion of the US population _still_ only watches television news media and refuses to spend extra time looking at other sources, like Twitter.
Neither you or the parent poster explained what "Ba Sing Se" is. I quickly discovered that it is a reference to a city in "The last Airbender" [0].
I don't want to watch three seasons of it just to understand the reference. A very obscure reference might deserve an explanation to make the remaining 99.9% of the readers able to understand what you mean.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender#Ba_...
I don't want to watch three seasons of it just to understand the reference. A very obscure reference might deserve an explanation to make the remaining 99.9% of the readers able to understand what you mean.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender#Ba_...
It's a city where the entire population lives in ignorance of a global 100-year war, due to corruption in the government (even king does not know).
https://avatar.fandom.com/wiki/Conspiracy_of_Ba_Sing_Se
https://avatar.fandom.com/wiki/Conspiracy_of_Ba_Sing_Se
“There is no war in ba sing se” is the equivalent of the older phrase “we were never at war with Eurasia”. Which is now more obscure but likely better understood on HN.
OP is saying you’d need to be incredibly delusional to deny police are brutal and there’s a problem.
OP is saying you’d need to be incredibly delusional to deny police are brutal and there’s a problem.
With all due respect, 1984 has a much higher cultural impact and awareness than ATLA. The show isn't that well known outside of current 20-30 year olds.
Frankly... among my generation of roughly 30 year olds, I'd expect Avatar the Last Airbender to have higher cultural impact than 1984 (which was written in 1949).
Most of us were forced to read 1984 and didn't really enjoy it. ATLA however, is something that we organically grew up with through high-school / college and actually paid attention to.
My group of friends would be aware of 1984 concepts... such as "Big Brother is Watching" (phrases / concepts which have escaped the book and become a thing of their own). But I don't think we'd recognize the phrase "At War with Eurasia".
Honestly, the only reason why I remember "At War with Eurasia" is because I was a quiz-bowl player and was forced to memorize key phrases from many books I barely read. Even if I did read 1984 in my high school classes, it never actually stuck with me.
Most of us were forced to read 1984 and didn't really enjoy it. ATLA however, is something that we organically grew up with through high-school / college and actually paid attention to.
My group of friends would be aware of 1984 concepts... such as "Big Brother is Watching" (phrases / concepts which have escaped the book and become a thing of their own). But I don't think we'd recognize the phrase "At War with Eurasia".
Honestly, the only reason why I remember "At War with Eurasia" is because I was a quiz-bowl player and was forced to memorize key phrases from many books I barely read. Even if I did read 1984 in my high school classes, it never actually stuck with me.
Among your generation _where you live_ maybe.
1984 is a very popular and influential book.
I fairly confident that if you asked the authors of Avatar The Last Airbender they would tell you straight that they’d based that idea on 1984.
I’d be willing to bet people will be quoting 1984 long after ATLA has been forgotten.
1984 is a very popular and influential book.
I fairly confident that if you asked the authors of Avatar The Last Airbender they would tell you straight that they’d based that idea on 1984.
I’d be willing to bet people will be quoting 1984 long after ATLA has been forgotten.
Either way, I'm able to connect with the root comment here about Ba Sing Se more readily than "We're at war with Eurasia".
The original two posters in this thread were also intimately familiar with Ba Sing Se / Avatar the Last Airbender. So multiple people here are fully aware of the reference and are in good communication.
I probably wouldn't reach for a reference to ATLA myself. But, apparently its popular enough that plenty of different posters in this very discussion are aware of it and able to explain to other people here the concept.
The original two posters in this thread were also intimately familiar with Ba Sing Se / Avatar the Last Airbender. So multiple people here are fully aware of the reference and are in good communication.
I probably wouldn't reach for a reference to ATLA myself. But, apparently its popular enough that plenty of different posters in this very discussion are aware of it and able to explain to other people here the concept.
Possibly routed through Babylon 5, where Earth and Mars were kept unaware of a galaxy-wide war that had been going for a couple years.
Either you're generalizing a bit too much or I'm weird as I'm mid 30's now, and I have definitely read 1984 but have never seen Avatar. In fact when I read "Avatar" I think of blue space aliens before I think of the anime.
If you're in your mid 30s now you'd be in your early 20s when Avatar the Last Airbender originally aired. Since it's a children's show (Nickelodeon), you wouldn't have been in the target demographic, so I don't think that's unusual.
I'm your age and I never even heard of Avatar the Last Airbender. I'm sure my younger cousins know about it.
I'm your age and I never even heard of Avatar the Last Airbender. I'm sure my younger cousins know about it.
The claim was that "Frankly... among my generation of roughly 30 year olds, I'd expect Avatar the Last Airbender to have higher cultural impact than 1984 (which was written in 1949)." - if you and I would have been early 20's, that would have made that cohort late teens, so I still find the demographics weird.
Fun fact: as a kid in 8th grade or so, we were supposed to read and summarise a book for English class Most picked easy books, I picked 1984, probably out of a desire to be edgy. Little did I know that my level of English at the time was not enough for that book. The result is that, since I never went back and re-read the book, I kind of only half-read it because half of it I didn't really understand. :D I think I got the general idea of it though.
Here's a great summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIr_v3a5T-s
The phrase is "we've always been at war with Eastasia", and it is known because it resumes the core theme of the book. 1984 was written in 1948. There's a reason why it is in the school curricula, but sadly to be forced to read a book obviously creates a bad predisposition.
Good books that philosophically shed light on human nature are timeless.
> 1984 has a much higher cultural impact and awareness than ATLA
My anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise, but I’d love some real data - how are you measuring that?
My anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise, but I’d love some real data - how are you measuring that?
Me too as my anecdotal evidence is completely opposite of you, neither myself or anyone I know would get a reference to ATLA, I vaguely know about it because of the anime being broadcasted in some channel.
These are all late 20s, early 30s people, Brazilians, Scandinavians, Germans, Dutch and so on, 1984 would immediately be known by most, quite a few have read it, none (even if they know about ATLA, what many don't) would get the reference.
Interesting I can cite a conversation I had not long ago with them to act as anecdotal data, I'm really interested to see what is the split here.
These are all late 20s, early 30s people, Brazilians, Scandinavians, Germans, Dutch and so on, 1984 would immediately be known by most, quite a few have read it, none (even if they know about ATLA, what many don't) would get the reference.
Interesting I can cite a conversation I had not long ago with them to act as anecdotal data, I'm really interested to see what is the split here.
> I vaguely know about it because of the anime being broadcasted in some channel.
Since it was American made, that makes it a cartoon and not an anime.
Since it was American made, that makes it a cartoon and not an anime.
Anime can be made in other countries than Japan, it's a genre not an origin.
"Anime" as a word isn't even a genre. Its... incredibly ill-defined.
Actual genres would be "Shonen" (Dragonball Z, Full Metal Alchemist, My Hero Academia), "RomCom" (Ah My Goddess, SNAFU), "Magical Girl" (Sailor Moon, Pretty Cure), Mecha (Gundam), "Sci Fi" (Cowboy Bebop, Ghost in a Shell), "Mindfuck" (Evangeleon, Paprika, Paranoia Agent), or "Isekai" (Overlord, Sword Art, Slime)
And a few shows are blend between genres. Both Inuyasha and Kenshin are Shonen + RomCom blends for example. There are a few shows I can't pin down exactly (Little Witch Academia doesn't seem to follow any genre rules... too many action scenes / stress to be Iyashi. Not enough transformation scenes to be magical girls. Not cute enough to be a moe. Too much supernatural to be slice of life)
---------
Each genre of anime has its own art style, expectations, and writing style. Avatar would probably be a Shonen if I were to pin it to a specific genre (Child protagonist, action scenes aimed primarily at young male audiences... a "Shonen" or young male demographic). Avatar's artstyle is reminiscent of Shonen as well.
Paprika is definitely an "anime", but look at Paprika's art style: https://i.imgur.com/Sf0jtn0.png
Or "Night is short, Walk on Girl": https://i.imgur.com/Tz7w9bo.png
Both Paprika and "Night is short..." are anime and considered anime by the whole community. But stylistically, they are no where close to Avatar, DBZ, Full Metal Alchemist.
--------
The most consistent definition of anime is Japanese origin, or at least "Eastern" cartoons. "Anime-style" describes Avatar, Teen Titans, and RWBY. But its not really acceptable in the community to call those shows "anime". But I guess if we want to get technical about genres and definitions, "Anime" is a word that's too ill-defined to really be useful in these kinds of discussions.
Actual genres would be "Shonen" (Dragonball Z, Full Metal Alchemist, My Hero Academia), "RomCom" (Ah My Goddess, SNAFU), "Magical Girl" (Sailor Moon, Pretty Cure), Mecha (Gundam), "Sci Fi" (Cowboy Bebop, Ghost in a Shell), "Mindfuck" (Evangeleon, Paprika, Paranoia Agent), or "Isekai" (Overlord, Sword Art, Slime)
And a few shows are blend between genres. Both Inuyasha and Kenshin are Shonen + RomCom blends for example. There are a few shows I can't pin down exactly (Little Witch Academia doesn't seem to follow any genre rules... too many action scenes / stress to be Iyashi. Not enough transformation scenes to be magical girls. Not cute enough to be a moe. Too much supernatural to be slice of life)
---------
Each genre of anime has its own art style, expectations, and writing style. Avatar would probably be a Shonen if I were to pin it to a specific genre (Child protagonist, action scenes aimed primarily at young male audiences... a "Shonen" or young male demographic). Avatar's artstyle is reminiscent of Shonen as well.
Paprika is definitely an "anime", but look at Paprika's art style: https://i.imgur.com/Sf0jtn0.png
Or "Night is short, Walk on Girl": https://i.imgur.com/Tz7w9bo.png
Both Paprika and "Night is short..." are anime and considered anime by the whole community. But stylistically, they are no where close to Avatar, DBZ, Full Metal Alchemist.
--------
The most consistent definition of anime is Japanese origin, or at least "Eastern" cartoons. "Anime-style" describes Avatar, Teen Titans, and RWBY. But its not really acceptable in the community to call those shows "anime". But I guess if we want to get technical about genres and definitions, "Anime" is a word that's too ill-defined to really be useful in these kinds of discussions.
I don't think you speak for the entire community. In the anime communities I frequent, it is perfectly acceptable to call ATLA an anime and nobody will bat an eye.
1984 was standard school reading in America for a very long time (maybe still is?). That’s definitely going to make it more well known than a cartoon.
While I get your point, there are a myriad of things I don’t understand that get posted and commented on here. Usually if I don’t know something, then it’s a good chance to look it up and learn something new.
I think it’d be counter-productive if everyone who didn’t understand a reference or technical concept on here wrote a comment asking for a shortcut explanation rather than maybe five minutes Googling and maybe watching a quick YouTube video (in this case).
I think it’d be counter-productive if everyone who didn’t understand a reference or technical concept on here wrote a comment asking for a shortcut explanation rather than maybe five minutes Googling and maybe watching a quick YouTube video (in this case).
Avatar: The Last Airbender is one of the greatest series ever made which also has the benefit that it can be understood by kids, so it's worth investing 3 seasons in anyway.
I guess I'm in favor of obscure references, I think even if I hadn't understood I would think that must mean something really delusional.
I guess I'm in favor of obscure references, I think even if I hadn't understood I would think that must mean something really delusional.
I will second this. Even at 27, it's one if my favorite shows, I've watched it all the way through multiple times. It has everything you could want, with the side benefit of being incredibly wholesome and having a wonderful message.
[deleted]
Not really very obscure. It's an incredibly popular show and I would be willing to bed that at minimum 50% of coworkers would understand the reference.
I don't think it's very difficult to use context to understand what's being said by the commenter.
I don't think it's very difficult to use context to understand what's being said by the commenter.
> at minimum 50% of coworkers would understand the reference
Quick spot check in my company's Slack channel -- One person in our team of 12 knew what the reference met.
Quick spot check in my company's Slack channel -- One person in our team of 12 knew what the reference met.
I have never heard of it either - I am from Germany and probably the wrong age group. Ask me for any Muppet Show references :)
I never heard of it. Like, this forum today is the first time I heard that show exists or reference.
Twitter is probably the worst medium for developing a balanced, well-educated view of anything. Americans don't need more fast-paced social media, they need quality education and journalism that covers all sides of these issues.
But of course that's not going to happen. For modern people with attention span of a goldfish it's too much of an effort to read long texts - thus they'll just keep watching the news, or reading short, one-sided tweets full of hate.
But of course that's not going to happen. For modern people with attention span of a goldfish it's too much of an effort to read long texts - thus they'll just keep watching the news, or reading short, one-sided tweets full of hate.
> refuses to spend extra time looking at other sources, like Twitter.
I don't blame them, Twitter is it's own special hell and widely regarded as a bubble.
I don't blame them, Twitter is it's own special hell and widely regarded as a bubble.
Agreed, but it's not like cable TV isn't a bubble of its own.
So the absolute truth is on Twitter? How significant is the portion of uninformed Americans? If an American watches TV news and reads Twitter are they half informed? WTF is your point: blame others, hate others, downvoting to remove a disparaging opinion. Do you feel powerful? You might be the cop.
>refuses to spend extra time looking at other sources, like Twitter.
Twitter as another resource was an example. But yes, you can look on Twitter and find many different perspectives about a topic. I would think someone who knows how to spend some time understanding multiple perspectives of an issue knows how to look in many different places for them.
As far as the rest of your comment, I think you're going way off-base here. Sorry.
Twitter as another resource was an example. But yes, you can look on Twitter and find many different perspectives about a topic. I would think someone who knows how to spend some time understanding multiple perspectives of an issue knows how to look in many different places for them.
As far as the rest of your comment, I think you're going way off-base here. Sorry.
Twitter as some source of truth, really?
What is the value in going on Twitter and actively looking for information that confirms your bias? This is what most people, of all political inclinations, are doing.
It seems like you're suggesting mainstream news sources are somehow different? Personally I prefer the explicit bias of individuals on Twitter, than the implicit bias of mainstream news sources.
Mainstream media's bias is no more implicit than that of many individuals on Twitter (e.g. celebrities) and at least my time is better spent reading about a subject on selected media that span a wide political spectrum. But there is a risk: you might get the impression that mainstream media reporting is disturbingly inaccurate, on all sides.
Twitter!? That cesspool is full of bots and trolls.
Why unexpected? The Last Airbender is as mainstream as NCIS today.
Not sure that helps much; I’ve never heard of NCIS.
Some people just don’t spend their time watching TV.
Some people just don’t spend their time watching TV.
That's fine but considering NCIS is the most watched TV show of 2019 I'm sure it holds as a reference for "mainstream".
Edit: I know downvote edits are frowned up but... I need to ask: why are people downvoting this? Do you not think NCIS is good example of a mainstream show?
Edit: I know downvote edits are frowned up but... I need to ask: why are people downvoting this? Do you not think NCIS is good example of a mainstream show?
Due to the glut of content available today, viewership is fractured. It doesn't take much to be the "most watched TV show" any more, just like it doesn't actually take many sales to top the music charts. Something can hold a record for viewership while still being something that most of the population (or most of a subculture like us here) remain oblivious to.
Also, HN is a global community, and even though many television shows are watched internationally, their impact on pop culture overall can be drastically different. So, you can't assume a major show in your country will be readily recognized by your fellow nerds in another country.
Also, HN is a global community, and even though many television shows are watched internationally, their impact on pop culture overall can be drastically different. So, you can't assume a major show in your country will be readily recognized by your fellow nerds in another country.
Even if that is true wouldn't you agree that NCIS is mainstream? If it's not mainstream I don't know what is. Feel free to give a better example.
Let me remind you that the whole discussion started by me highlighting the popularity of The Last Airbender (due to Netflix, as someone pointed out) by comparing it to a mainstream show. I could have taken any popular show but thought taking the one topping the charts would be enough to illustrate it. Apparently not, and in the future I must carefully review the viewing habits of the whole HN community in order to make a point and not offend anyone.
So let me revise the comment: The Last Airbender is as mainstream as any other popular show today.
Let me remind you that the whole discussion started by me highlighting the popularity of The Last Airbender (due to Netflix, as someone pointed out) by comparing it to a mainstream show. I could have taken any popular show but thought taking the one topping the charts would be enough to illustrate it. Apparently not, and in the future I must carefully review the viewing habits of the whole HN community in order to make a point and not offend anyone.
So let me revise the comment: The Last Airbender is as mainstream as any other popular show today.
Is that for one show, or the entire franchise? There's three shows; the original (16 years old and still going, wow!), Los Angeles and New Orleans.
https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/most-popular-tv-shows-highe...
Looks like the original show only (at #2, after NFL). New Orleans is at #22 and Los Angeles at #28.
Looks like the original show only (at #2, after NFL). New Orleans is at #22 and Los Angeles at #28.
In fairness, that happened for many quickly over the past month or two as it hit Netflix. A good deal of people still don't know much/anything about ATLA.
Given that TV ratings and audiences are easy to discover, it's weird you'd make this easily disprovable assertion.
What do you mean? Is there a legal definition of "mainstream"? The Last Airbender is topping the charts on Netflix. That surely must be enough for me to be allowed to call it mainstream and that a reference to it is not obscure.
If you read the sibling comments they are trying to say NCIS is not mainstream at all since TV ratings mean nothing, making the opposite point of yours. You guys are impossible.
If you read the sibling comments they are trying to say NCIS is not mainstream at all since TV ratings mean nothing, making the opposite point of yours. You guys are impossible.
It's a question of scale. Many more people watch NCIS.
I’m not sure about the comparison to NCIS, but TLA is in the top ten on Netflix currently, it’s quite popular.
To be fair you are comparing an adversarial job with a cooperative one. A crane operator won't feel unsafe, or confronted by someone he calls hostile. This is no excuse whatsoever for the multitude of outraging problems in the system, but the comparison isn't straightforward.
Quite the opposite. The adversarial job should have higher standards of conduct, not lower.
This is exactly how I think about the police issue in the US. If someone has more power, as in, they are allowed to carry guns and arrest people if they need to, then those people also cannot expect it to be a "normal" job where they matter more than who they are working with (the public).
The standards of conduct need to be draconially high, because a police officer has the power to ruin a person's life.
The standards of conduct need to be draconially high, because a police officer has the power to ruin a person's life.
Unfortunately, criminals aren't going to have higher standards of conduct, even if they "should". That's why we call them criminals. And the police have to deal with these people all day long--there's no easy comparison to other jobs.
Peaceful protestors are by definition not criminals.
People whose rights are violated by the police? Often not criminals as well!
In fact, you cant really call someone a criminal until they've been convicted of a crime - cue the video of the cops being called by the black store owner, punching him in the face and breaking his jaw while the white thief leaves.
In fact, you cant really call someone a criminal until they've been convicted of a crime - cue the video of the cops being called by the black store owner, punching him in the face and breaking his jaw while the white thief leaves.
> you cant really call someone a criminal until they've been convicted of a crime
This is a technical nicety not available to a policeman in a real situation. If someone points a gun at them, that someone is a criminal, even if they are "technically" not.
This is a technical nicety not available to a policeman in a real situation. If someone points a gun at them, that someone is a criminal, even if they are "technically" not.
Right but when you start throwing rocks and glass bottles, when you start blocking ambulances and firetrucks on highways, well then you aren't a peaceful protestor anymore.
How about this child shot in the face with a mace canister? Peaceful or violent protestor?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/15/outrage-vide...
It is extremely hard to react with anything but EXTREME vitriol to comments like yours - police are using excessive force deliberately, and then arresting people with no cause who post videos of their crimes.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/15/outrage-vide...
It is extremely hard to react with anything but EXTREME vitriol to comments like yours - police are using excessive force deliberately, and then arresting people with no cause who post videos of their crimes.
Yeah, that sucks. Your description makes it sound like their face was impacted by a metal canister, but looking at the picture, they seem to have simply been maced.
Without more context, I'm guessing their parents took them to a protest and acted illegally. If so, I think that's rather poor parenting.
There doesn't seem to be a link to the full video (or any video), so take that with a grain of salt.
Without more context, I'm guessing their parents took them to a protest and acted illegally. If so, I think that's rather poor parenting.
There doesn't seem to be a link to the full video (or any video), so take that with a grain of salt.
Again, we have data on that. Police do not have to deal with violent or dangerous criminals very much, especially during traffic stops.
The problem is that only occasionally getting killed during a traffic stop isn't enough. No sane person would take such a job.
But the comment wasn't saying the behaviour is fine, just that the job is more likely to produce this sort of content.
Even countries with less violent police corps often have episodes like this.
To keep it out of political rallies, just think of police vs hooligans in Europe.
Even countries with less violent police corps often have episodes like this.
To keep it out of political rallies, just think of police vs hooligans in Europe.
The comment mentioned fairness, which is different than simply what we would predict.
Or police vs tekno dancers (remember CzechTek 2005?)
I was there. This is why I left the rotten country. They were using it as some free for all practice complete with tear gas grenades and a water cannon truck. They even brought a tank to show off.
All places seem to be similarly bad today. Where did you go?
You will laugh. UK. I value the respect of law that penetrates their society noticeably deeper than in Czechia.
Didn't know about this event, very interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CzechTek#CzechTek_2005
All humans, not just jobs, should have higher standards of conduct, don't you think?
Where are you going to get the humans who are able, wanting and willing to live up those higher standards is my question for you.
Last I checked, anyone can decide at any moment to be completely broke, a drug addict, a criminal, an alcoholic, a piece of shit, have an unlimited number of children and everyone else has to support them for some reason.
What kind of standard of conduct is that?
You won't ever get people to conduct themselves properly if ignore evolution and pretend you can magically educate people into not being animals. Americans don't even bother with trying to live up to the education myth, given how much they pay school teachers. They think they can just import people with higher standards of conduct when they have to and outsource the rest. It's more profitable this way you see, to ignore reality, fund bogus economics, manufacture consent and have this planet go to shit. It's more profitable this quarter you see.
Where are you going to get the humans who are able, wanting and willing to live up those higher standards is my question for you.
Last I checked, anyone can decide at any moment to be completely broke, a drug addict, a criminal, an alcoholic, a piece of shit, have an unlimited number of children and everyone else has to support them for some reason.
What kind of standard of conduct is that?
You won't ever get people to conduct themselves properly if ignore evolution and pretend you can magically educate people into not being animals. Americans don't even bother with trying to live up to the education myth, given how much they pay school teachers. They think they can just import people with higher standards of conduct when they have to and outsource the rest. It's more profitable this way you see, to ignore reality, fund bogus economics, manufacture consent and have this planet go to shit. It's more profitable this quarter you see.
If you can’t find someone to fill a position as a police officer, I would suggest increasing the compensation or leaving the position unfilled before simply accepting anyone who might want to be a cop with no standards whatsoever.
Similar logic would apply to a position for a crane operator or a pilot. If an airline had a pattern of pilot errors, and their excuse was “if we required all our pilots to have adequate pilot training and meet stringent skill requirements, it would be very difficult to hire pilots,” would you accept that?
Similar logic would apply to a position for a crane operator or a pilot. If an airline had a pattern of pilot errors, and their excuse was “if we required all our pilots to have adequate pilot training and meet stringent skill requirements, it would be very difficult to hire pilots,” would you accept that?
I've thought of a shorter way to answer your question.
> If you can’t find someone to fill a position as a police officer, I would suggest increasing the compensation or leaving the position unfilled before simply accepting anyone who might want to be a cop with no standards whatsoever.
Let's say we decide to pay police officers 1 million/year and really raise their standards. Great! We did it!
Why don't we just do that across the board? The answer is - we have a limited number of highly capable people.
I see the shortage of highly capable people as a problem. My previous post was a way of highlighting that. One would have to think big picture to understand the point I was making.
Regarding leaving positions unfilled - I'm not sure you've thought this through. Imagine we have a shortage of doctors and your appendix burst. Would you rather a medical student try and save your life at say, an estimated 50% success rate, or simply die?
> If you can’t find someone to fill a position as a police officer, I would suggest increasing the compensation or leaving the position unfilled before simply accepting anyone who might want to be a cop with no standards whatsoever.
Let's say we decide to pay police officers 1 million/year and really raise their standards. Great! We did it!
Why don't we just do that across the board? The answer is - we have a limited number of highly capable people.
I see the shortage of highly capable people as a problem. My previous post was a way of highlighting that. One would have to think big picture to understand the point I was making.
Regarding leaving positions unfilled - I'm not sure you've thought this through. Imagine we have a shortage of doctors and your appendix burst. Would you rather a medical student try and save your life at say, an estimated 50% success rate, or simply die?
I generally disagree with the impression alexashka is conveying that we can’t have higher standards ‘because humans‘. There is plenty we can do.
However, it is worth pointing out that there are around 750,000 police officers in the US. It is hard to deny that finding and or training 750,000 highly capable people is a very difficult problem.
However, it is worth pointing out that there are around 750,000 police officers in the US. It is hard to deny that finding and or training 750,000 highly capable people is a very difficult problem.
[deleted]
You disagree with a straw-man version of my argument while agreeing with my actual argument :)
There has to be a limit to 'higher standards' humans can live up to, I hope we can agree on that. If you agree, you can't deny that we can't have higher standards indefinitely.
We can have higher standards a little bit and we can fake achieving higher standards a lot by moving highly capable people from one set of jobs to another (from jobs X, Y, Z to police officer by paying them 1 million/year) and doing a marketing campaign that convinces the ignorant masses that real progress has been made.
My previous posts were pointing out that wanting higher standards and not having any standards for the people who create and raise new humans, are incompatible and have to be reconciled if you want to actually have higher standards, not fake higher standards via re-distribution of highly capable people.
There has to be a limit to 'higher standards' humans can live up to, I hope we can agree on that. If you agree, you can't deny that we can't have higher standards indefinitely.
We can have higher standards a little bit and we can fake achieving higher standards a lot by moving highly capable people from one set of jobs to another (from jobs X, Y, Z to police officer by paying them 1 million/year) and doing a marketing campaign that convinces the ignorant masses that real progress has been made.
My previous posts were pointing out that wanting higher standards and not having any standards for the people who create and raise new humans, are incompatible and have to be reconciled if you want to actually have higher standards, not fake higher standards via re-distribution of highly capable people.
A reasonable crane operator would hopefully call for help and not push it to the limit.
Personally, I’m not convinced cops need to go for a 100% apprehension rate all the time no matter what with 100% control of every situation.
Mostly because of the rate at which crimes happen without a cop around and then go unresolved.
Personally, I’m not convinced cops need to go for a 100% apprehension rate all the time no matter what with 100% control of every situation.
Mostly because of the rate at which crimes happen without a cop around and then go unresolved.
I agree, but the more I hear about the defund the police narrative the more an agree. Some of these interaction have 0 reason to be adversarial.
For example the Rayshard brooks shooting. Why was a gun needed to wake a man sleeping in a car. Why are guns needed to hand out speeding tickets.
I get that guns are needed if a bank is being robbed. But this is glorified customer service work. Imagine your car breaks down and the AAA guy who came to fix it had a gun. Like y tho?
For example the Rayshard brooks shooting. Why was a gun needed to wake a man sleeping in a car. Why are guns needed to hand out speeding tickets.
I get that guns are needed if a bank is being robbed. But this is glorified customer service work. Imagine your car breaks down and the AAA guy who came to fix it had a gun. Like y tho?
Hmm, let me see. Why might the police need guns to hand out speeding tickets?
Perhaps it's because at least some of the people they stop, for speeding or other possible offences, won't take kindly to being stopped and in many parts of the USA, those in the vehicle may be permitted to carry guns of their own...
Glorified customer service work? Far from it
Perhaps it's because at least some of the people they stop, for speeding or other possible offences, won't take kindly to being stopped and in many parts of the USA, those in the vehicle may be permitted to carry guns of their own...
Glorified customer service work? Far from it
But we actually have data on this. Traffic stops are not particularly dangerous for police in the United States. There are laws in place about how legal gun owners must notify law enforcement during traffic stops. In fact, there is no shortage of video of law-abiding citizens in the US notifying law enforcement that they have a legal firearm in the vehicle and receiving a disproportionate response. But you don’t even need to look that closely. There are also video clips of police stops where police tell someone to get their ID, and then immediately murder the person for reaching for their ID.
> There are laws in place about how legal gun owners must notify law enforcement during traffic stops.
Isn't the issue with laws that those breaking them don't usually care about laws? I'm sure you have laws in place against murder, and murder still happens. "But there's a law against burglary, why would you want additional protection and have a strong door" isn't a good argument.
There are good arguments (and the whole issue is a good gun control argument in general), but that really isn't one.
Isn't the issue with laws that those breaking them don't usually care about laws? I'm sure you have laws in place against murder, and murder still happens. "But there's a law against burglary, why would you want additional protection and have a strong door" isn't a good argument.
There are good arguments (and the whole issue is a good gun control argument in general), but that really isn't one.
It doesn't matter about the law, it matters that traffic stops aren't particularly dangerous. So the gun serves as elephant repellent in Manhattan.
The comment before mine mentions that people being stopped by police are permitted to have guns. That’s what I was addressing.
Sure, there are also some people who violate gun laws. But those people could be a threat to everyone, not just cops, yet surely we wouldn’t justify everyone to preemptively have their guns drawn in all human interactions.
Sure, there are also some people who violate gun laws. But those people could be a threat to everyone, not just cops, yet surely we wouldn’t justify everyone to preemptively have their guns drawn in all human interactions.
> Sure, there are also some people who violate gun laws. But those people could be a threat to everyone, not just cops, yet surely we wouldn’t justify everyone to preemptively have their guns drawn in all human interactions.
Not necessarily drawn, but isn't that pretty much the reason you have public carry laws in the first place? Surely even the worst of cars does provide sufficient protection against roaming coyotes and mountain lions. The only predator left to fear is another human.
Not necessarily drawn, but isn't that pretty much the reason you have public carry laws in the first place? Surely even the worst of cars does provide sufficient protection against roaming coyotes and mountain lions. The only predator left to fear is another human.
So just compare It to police officers in other Western countries...
There's a dead comment in reply to this. I disagree with it as strongly as anything I've seen on HN. I think it racist. I don't think it should be hidden. It highlights a mentality that needs to be known about and considered including any possible sensible response to it.
Also I've seen it before here not many year ago with comments like "can only compare US to Brazil not any Europen country"
To what extent do these, not uncommon - even here, sets of beliefs contribute to the problems of violence in policing? Not something that seems to me like a good idea to pretend does not exist or is minor or fringe.
Also I've seen it before here not many year ago with comments like "can only compare US to Brazil not any Europen country"
To what extent do these, not uncommon - even here, sets of beliefs contribute to the problems of violence in policing? Not something that seems to me like a good idea to pretend does not exist or is minor or fringe.
> Also I've seen it before here not many year ago with comments like "can only compare US to Brazil not any Europen country"
Can you explain why you feel that's terribly unfair? I don't know why somebody would pick Brazil specifically, but you might easily say "compare the US to countries with a similar income inequality". Take the gini coefficient for simplicity [1] and compare the US to Côte d'Ivoire, Argentina, Haiti, and Malaysia or Mexico, Madagascar, El Salvador, and Rwanda, depending on whether you take the CIA's numbers or the World Bank's. If you look at the list, you'll see that the European countries are closer together and in a different area of the list, the US isn't in their group.
Wouldn't that be a better indicator for "similar countries" than average internet speed or NATO membership status?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
Can you explain why you feel that's terribly unfair? I don't know why somebody would pick Brazil specifically, but you might easily say "compare the US to countries with a similar income inequality". Take the gini coefficient for simplicity [1] and compare the US to Côte d'Ivoire, Argentina, Haiti, and Malaysia or Mexico, Madagascar, El Salvador, and Rwanda, depending on whether you take the CIA's numbers or the World Bank's. If you look at the list, you'll see that the European countries are closer together and in a different area of the list, the US isn't in their group.
Wouldn't that be a better indicator for "similar countries" than average internet speed or NATO membership status?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
Nations also interact, muddying the “compare” waters further.
Where I live, we drive cars, but we don’t fight the overseas oil wars. We’ve outsourced all that brutality to the US. That lets us smugly reap the benefits and point fingers at Americans for the violent, backwards, gun-toting culture.
Where I live, we drive cars, but we don’t fight the overseas oil wars. We’ve outsourced all that brutality to the US. That lets us smugly reap the benefits and point fingers at Americans for the violent, backwards, gun-toting culture.
I don't know that the US would need to have a violent society to be a military super power. China is on its way, and so far at least they seem to have managed to avoid that, so maybe those things are not related.
The point is that the study participants interact; it’s misleading to compare nations by the stat. The extent to which China is a military superpower interplays with other participants.
> The point is that the study participants interact; it’s misleading to compare nations by the stat.
So what though? Do European countries like the UK (that are usually with the US when it's time to bomb somebody in the Middle East) outsource their domestic violence?
Really, you need to provide some evidence for "we have less crime, less murders, less police violence because the US has more". "The US has more income inequality because it has to fight wars for the European countries" doesn't follow either, so please don't.
So what though? Do European countries like the UK (that are usually with the US when it's time to bomb somebody in the Middle East) outsource their domestic violence?
Really, you need to provide some evidence for "we have less crime, less murders, less police violence because the US has more". "The US has more income inequality because it has to fight wars for the European countries" doesn't follow either, so please don't.
Yes, my belief is that 1) nations outsource violence to the superpower 2) the superpower’s military prowess comes at the cost of a warlike culture at home.
Your belief is (?) that the US aggregate violence/whatever is in no meaningful way confounded with the levels you measure in (say) EU nations: any confounding is small enough to make no difference?
We have a population of 200 (nations) of very diverse size and age, all related by historic and present competition and cooperation. Is there any fair shot at comparing apples to apples?
What sort of “evidence” would you reasonably concede to?
Your belief is (?) that the US aggregate violence/whatever is in no meaningful way confounded with the levels you measure in (say) EU nations: any confounding is small enough to make no difference?
We have a population of 200 (nations) of very diverse size and age, all related by historic and present competition and cooperation. Is there any fair shot at comparing apples to apples?
What sort of “evidence” would you reasonably concede to?
> Yes, my belief is that 1) nations outsource violence to the superpower 2) the superpower’s military prowess comes at the cost of a warlike culture at home.
But that only works for super powers? Why is there no trend visible for countries like Switzerland who are traditionally neutral and never fight wars with neighboring countries like France who or Germany who have a larger active military, do engage in NATO wars etc? Why aren't the Chinese shooting each other on a similar scale? Why weren't the Germans during the early 20th century when they were very militaristic? Why were the US already at similar levels in the first half of the 20th century, before becoming a global super power that others may have "outsourced" their wars to?
> What sort of “evidence” would you reasonably concede to?
Minimum requirements: has some sort of rule that allows predictions that can be falsified other than "it's only true in this super specific narrow case of the USA in last 5 decades of human history, but not in any other place or during any other time".
It feels like looking for super complicated reasons that require American Exceptionalism (as in "does not apply to any other country") to explain something that is explained by well-studied phenomena that do not require US citizens to function fundamentally different than other humans in other places or other times.
But that only works for super powers? Why is there no trend visible for countries like Switzerland who are traditionally neutral and never fight wars with neighboring countries like France who or Germany who have a larger active military, do engage in NATO wars etc? Why aren't the Chinese shooting each other on a similar scale? Why weren't the Germans during the early 20th century when they were very militaristic? Why were the US already at similar levels in the first half of the 20th century, before becoming a global super power that others may have "outsourced" their wars to?
> What sort of “evidence” would you reasonably concede to?
Minimum requirements: has some sort of rule that allows predictions that can be falsified other than "it's only true in this super specific narrow case of the USA in last 5 decades of human history, but not in any other place or during any other time".
It feels like looking for super complicated reasons that require American Exceptionalism (as in "does not apply to any other country") to explain something that is explained by well-studied phenomena that do not require US citizens to function fundamentally different than other humans in other places or other times.
My overarching point here is that it’s pointless to debate Switzerland v Germany as if they exist in some sort of vacuum without interaction. Without Germany, there is no Switzerland. Without Switzerland, there is not Germany.
A theory where every nation is a data point can’t get you anywhere. All the nations interact meaning we should reason about the system as a whole.
I say something about a nation, you expect me to back it up with other nations. But there are very few data points, and they are interconnected, and the problem has a huge number of dimensions.
It’s like I claim opposable thumbs are good for tool making and you ask me to show five other body parts where that applies.
A theory where every nation is a data point can’t get you anywhere. All the nations interact meaning we should reason about the system as a whole.
I say something about a nation, you expect me to back it up with other nations. But there are very few data points, and they are interconnected, and the problem has a huge number of dimensions.
It’s like I claim opposable thumbs are good for tool making and you ask me to show five other body parts where that applies.
The rationale for Brazil was explicitly the same one in the dead comment.
But yeah, that's pretty radical what you're saying too. Maybe it's fair that you should only compare the richest nation on earth with much poorer developing nations with a short track record of democracy. Not sure I'd agree.
But yeah, that's pretty radical what you're saying too. Maybe it's fair that you should only compare the richest nation on earth with much poorer developing nations with a short track record of democracy. Not sure I'd agree.
> Not sure I'd agree.
Why? Income inequality is correlated with crime rate, why wouldn't you use that to find comparable countries? Seems useful to me, similarly to comparing diabetes rates in countries with similar levels of obesity, not based on average hair color or amount of trees per square mile.
> the richest nation on earth
You'll need to define what "richest" means, I guess. The highest GDP? Largest military spending? Does that mean a lot to somebody that is poor in the US? Would that person possibly be better off in a European country with public health insurance, a vast social safety net, high welfare etc, even though it's not "the richest country on earth" by your standards?
Why? Income inequality is correlated with crime rate, why wouldn't you use that to find comparable countries? Seems useful to me, similarly to comparing diabetes rates in countries with similar levels of obesity, not based on average hair color or amount of trees per square mile.
> the richest nation on earth
You'll need to define what "richest" means, I guess. The highest GDP? Largest military spending? Does that mean a lot to somebody that is poor in the US? Would that person possibly be better off in a European country with public health insurance, a vast social safety net, high welfare etc, even though it's not "the richest country on earth" by your standards?
The USA can /afford/ to be better. Comparison with other wealthy nations seems to me to be the right benchmark.
I mean the richest nation on earth bar none. The amount of wealth in the nation. Literally that. The USA cannot plead poverty as an excuse for why anything is worse there than any other nation. Do you see it now?
I mean the richest nation on earth bar none. The amount of wealth in the nation. Literally that. The USA cannot plead poverty as an excuse for why anything is worse there than any other nation. Do you see it now?
Put like that, I agree. If the US fundamentally changed their culture towards being less individualist and more collectivist, a lot of things would change with it.
I don't think US-citizens by and large want that change bad enough to accept restrictions upon their freedoms and an end to low taxes, European-level wealth redistribution does not seem to be popular in the US. I suppose they'd like the result without doing it. Unfortunately that's like wanting to be great at tennis without wanting to put in the training: understandable, but not happening.
I don't think US-citizens by and large want that change bad enough to accept restrictions upon their freedoms and an end to low taxes, European-level wealth redistribution does not seem to be popular in the US. I suppose they'd like the result without doing it. Unfortunately that's like wanting to be great at tennis without wanting to put in the training: understandable, but not happening.
I'm not suggesting there is one and only one solution to any given problem at all. That's the scoreboard. How does the USA do compared to other rich countries with long established democracies. My read on it is most americans want to be first on that scoreboard. Badly want it. Most americans can't and don't believe how badly they're going in certain benchmarks. These are the benchmarks. This is the story. Americans can fix it, of this I have no doubt. I'm sure that it can be fixed without embracing socialism in /any/ way if that's how americans choose to go. All they need to do is say "Here is the scoreboard - let's get fixed. Let's try something and if that doesn't work let's try something else and not rest until we get it done in a way that works with our views as Americans and preserves all the stuff we hold dear."
I have no doubt that American can-do and talent will get it done.
None.
Just decide what it is, what the scoreboard looks like and get it done as Americans the American way.
I have no doubt that American can-do and talent will get it done.
None.
Just decide what it is, what the scoreboard looks like and get it done as Americans the American way.
Most of what a good police force should be doing isn't adversarial. The police should be trained like peacekeepers.
And this document uses a very liberal definition of police brutality to say the least. In this document, a lot of references to "police arrests someone", "police pushes back a crowd or clears a street", etc...
700+ food poisoning actually sounds doable.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I recommend the latest Sam Harris podcast on this subject, he makes a ton of nuanced points that many people miss when talking about "police brutality".
As Noam Chomsky said, when asked about what he believes about people considering Sam Harris as an intellectual:
"Unfortunately we get the intellectuals we deserve".
"Unfortunately we get the intellectuals we deserve".
I'm not neccessarily considering him an intellectual, I just find the points he makes about the instinctual reaction to be outraged compelling (and pretty common sense). What he's saying on the subject is not deep, but the current discourse is so off the rails that we need someone to pause and talk about the basics (realities of arrests, police violence statistics, how people interpret videos etc.)
Any source on that quote? A quick google search trying to relate that sentence to Chomsky and Harris only gives this thread as a result.
There are ~10 million arrests per year in the US. That google doc includes non-US cases as well (but is also limited by what’s caught on camera). Still, 0.0007% of arrests leading to a case like this doesn’t seem as horrible as the raw total in isolation.
There is one UK example which is actually a counter example where the police allowed a statue to be destroyed instead of intervening and creating a potentially dangerous altercation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Edward_Colston
The statue of a slaver and mass murderer had been controversial for the past 30 years. I wonder if things would have gone differently if the "recontextualisation" plaque had been allowed.
There has, predictably, been a backlash. Resulting in this fiasco where a guy came from Essex to defend some statues he didn't understand ended up urinating on a monument he didn't notice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53040301
The statue of a slaver and mass murderer had been controversial for the past 30 years. I wonder if things would have gone differently if the "recontextualisation" plaque had been allowed.
There has, predictably, been a backlash. Resulting in this fiasco where a guy came from Essex to defend some statues he didn't understand ended up urinating on a monument he didn't notice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53040301
Symbols are more powerful than words. Statues have always existed to project values. A plaque adding context won’t actually achieve the goal.
> a guy came from Essex to defend some statues he didn't understand ended up urinating on a monument he didn't notice
That article doesn't say much about the guy who urinate, how do you know what he knew/understood, or where he came from?
That article doesn't say much about the guy who urinate, how do you know what he knew/understood, or where he came from?
The police did that in Portsmouth, VA ie. stood back and allowed a mob to pull down a statue which struck a man causing what is probably a life long injury.
So they allowed a mob to circumvent the legislative/democratic process of monument removal and it's an example of a "good" action?
Mobs are not the law.
Mobs are not the law.
The alternative would be intervening and things possibly getting violent. The well-being of a statue isn't worth the possibility of causing harm to someone.
I suppose then I could organize a mob to vandalize anything I want because the police should prioritize the well being of the mob over that of property?
Seems like that would embolden mobs to destroy whatever they want. Doesn't seem like an intelligent or sustainable strategy.
Seems like that would embolden mobs to destroy whatever they want. Doesn't seem like an intelligent or sustainable strategy.
The mob may leave after the destruction, but that doesn't mean that the police don't later conduct investigations, arrests, etc based on tracking/video of the members of that mob.
I'm curious how many protestors or rioters keep their phones on them (with location/COVID apps or otherwise.) Even if they don't, plenty of others are taking the videos.
I'm curious how many protestors or rioters keep their phones on them (with location/COVID apps or otherwise.) Even if they don't, plenty of others are taking the videos.
Risk management. Allowing htem to tear it down vs. intervening with force to safe a piece of metal on a piece of rock. The latter can be put back up. The former carrers quite a risk for everyone involved. Sunds like a reasonable call to me.
If this were a one-time event, I suppose that might be true.
...but the unfortunate reality is that allowing mobs to destroy property become a feedback loop because they then realize that mobs can destroy anything they like with impunity.
That's no way to run a civilization.
...but the unfortunate reality is that allowing mobs to destroy property become a feedback loop because they then realize that mobs can destroy anything they like with impunity.
That's no way to run a civilization.
Safely allowing protests to take place and let people have their say without fear of rubber bullets in their faces is a fantastic way to run a civilization.
[deleted]
Oh yeah, we should just let the rioters destroy public property. If the police just didn’t enforce the laws, there’d be no problems!
That's right. Depending on the law and the context, if the police don't enforce it then there are fewer problems. That's pretty much what Superintendent Andy Bennett said in the video.
are you comparing a year timeframe (10 mil) to that of incidents recorded in the scale of a few days/weeks?
That's one in 30 being arrested in the US every year. How does that compare to other countries? Is that something that could be improved? It sounds like a lot.
Exactly. I genuinely don't think US police are individually that much worse than they are in other industrial nations (though obviously they have abusable tools available that many other regimes don't). But the US does an extraordinarily large amount of policing. On average, a US resident is far, far more likely to be confronted by police in routine circumstances where they would be ignored in the rest of the world.
Which at the end of the day is what BLM is about, not so much the individual abuses. All that extra policing isn't distributed fairly. There are some communities in the US where the police are the kind of hands-off/come-only-when-called benefactors people expect, and there are some communities where they act more like a street gang controlling their territory, stopping and confronting anyone who seems likely to challenge their authority.
Which at the end of the day is what BLM is about, not so much the individual abuses. All that extra policing isn't distributed fairly. There are some communities in the US where the police are the kind of hands-off/come-only-when-called benefactors people expect, and there are some communities where they act more like a street gang controlling their territory, stopping and confronting anyone who seems likely to challenge their authority.
Given that's not going to be evenly distributed, there will be a chunk of people who are never arrested in their lives and another group of people who get arrested all the time.
> The fact that is even possible is insane. Imagine there being over 700 videos of pilots messing up in one month,
You would easily get this from doctors in one month if they were filmed.
Considerably more in fact. Some studies say medical errors contribute to more than 250,000 deaths per year or even more. That's just deaths, not maiming.
You would easily get this from doctors in one month if they were filmed.
Considerably more in fact. Some studies say medical errors contribute to more than 250,000 deaths per year or even more. That's just deaths, not maiming.
>Imagine there being over 700 videos of pilots messing up in one month,
In one month where the world is filled with hurricanes and every airstrip is flooded.
In one month where the world is filled with hurricanes and every airstrip is flooded.
To be fair there's way more people filming the police right now than any of those professions so I wouldn't expect the number of mishaps on video to be comparable.
Which makes these even more egregious because it means there are still more cases that weren't recorded. These are just the ones we know about!
I agree we can be almost certain that there are violations that aren't being captured on video and therefore the true number of violations is actually higher (assuming all the instances presented are violations). What matters is how the true number compares to the total number of interactions and if that ratio is acceptable to society. The absolute number of violations caught on video and the comparison of that number to similar numbers in other professions doesn't really say anything.
> What matters is how the true number compares to the total number of interactions and if that ratio is acceptable to society.
I think it’s pretty clear at this point that the communities directly impacted by this behavior find the abuse unacceptable no matter how muddied the “but maybe there isn’t enough abuse yet.” crowd wants to dilute the issue.
And honestly, I live a fairly cushy life, and I find the officers in my city to be stand-offish and aggressive, I can only imagine how utterly horrified Id be if they behaved the way we’re seeing. There is no way anyone in my community would have been as patient if we were subjected to the same level of treatment.
And also, it’s probably important to point out, it isn’t only the physical abuse, the day to day attitude of an overbearing police force can drastically impact your own day to day quality of life.
I think it’s pretty clear at this point that the communities directly impacted by this behavior find the abuse unacceptable no matter how muddied the “but maybe there isn’t enough abuse yet.” crowd wants to dilute the issue.
And honestly, I live a fairly cushy life, and I find the officers in my city to be stand-offish and aggressive, I can only imagine how utterly horrified Id be if they behaved the way we’re seeing. There is no way anyone in my community would have been as patient if we were subjected to the same level of treatment.
And also, it’s probably important to point out, it isn’t only the physical abuse, the day to day attitude of an overbearing police force can drastically impact your own day to day quality of life.
But osha I'd assume would have those number. I doubt they are this high.
The delusion is on your side if you believe pilots, crane operators or any other profession is as much under surveillance as the police and as active dealing with risky situations that could escalate. Are you just trying to fool yourself with these comparisons or everybody?
If a pilot has a crash, the crash is reviewed by the NTSB, and the FAA. Pilots are under a huge amount of scrutiny. There are voice recorders in the cockpit, blackboxes to capture flight parameters, etc etc.
There's no delusion on his side - there's additionally the acknowledgement that police have a much higher burden for said situations - and the videos show that they are not qualified to manage them.
"Oh well I guess its just really hard." Is NOT an answer.
"Oh well I guess its just really hard." Is NOT an answer.
> "Oh well I guess its just really hard." Is NOT an answer.
Why are you distorting my answer?
Look, I can rephrase it for you: it's also not surprising that there aren't 700 videos of scientists molesting women on arctic research stations.
Why are you distorting my answer?
Look, I can rephrase it for you: it's also not surprising that there aren't 700 videos of scientists molesting women on arctic research stations.
How about 2,300 vehicular deaths a month? Or 2,300 gun deaths a month? Because those numbers have been consistent for decades.
Oh, but those aren't the same thing, so they're irrelevant? That's fine, because the examples you gave (pilots, crane operators, fast food chains) also have nothing to do with one another. Not the same number of operators, not the same jobs, not the same safety systems, not the same number of potential cases, not the same risk probability, not the same variables. But why be rational about what we can just get emotional over?
The United States has 330 Million people. To come up with 700 cases of police violence, all you have to do is find 700 people out of 330 Million who are being arrested for something. Find the number of arrests, find the number where people resisted, compare it to the number of cases of police arresting or detaining people without incident. You can't find that data in video clips or the news because nobody reports calm arrests, or non-arrests. I'd be very surprised if anyone cared to find out what the 700 number actually means in context.
This whole document is just horror porn to use for firing up people so they'll get angry and not use their brains. It's a very smart thing to do if you want to push a particular outcome. And I'm not saying that's even a bad thing under the circumstances. But it's quite clearly propaganda.
Oh, but those aren't the same thing, so they're irrelevant? That's fine, because the examples you gave (pilots, crane operators, fast food chains) also have nothing to do with one another. Not the same number of operators, not the same jobs, not the same safety systems, not the same number of potential cases, not the same risk probability, not the same variables. But why be rational about what we can just get emotional over?
The United States has 330 Million people. To come up with 700 cases of police violence, all you have to do is find 700 people out of 330 Million who are being arrested for something. Find the number of arrests, find the number where people resisted, compare it to the number of cases of police arresting or detaining people without incident. You can't find that data in video clips or the news because nobody reports calm arrests, or non-arrests. I'd be very surprised if anyone cared to find out what the 700 number actually means in context.
This whole document is just horror porn to use for firing up people so they'll get angry and not use their brains. It's a very smart thing to do if you want to push a particular outcome. And I'm not saying that's even a bad thing under the circumstances. But it's quite clearly propaganda.
> How about 2,300 vehicular deaths a month? Or 2,300 gun deaths a month? Because those numbers have been consistent for decades.
Those are 'real' accidents; and if some are not, like DUI, there are laws against them that are enforced. If tomorrow, society stops charging DUI offenders people would protest too.
That's not the case with police brutality. We have seen again and again the police face no consequences for their brutality. That's what the people are protesting against. If every one of these cops were appropriately fired, charged and jailed, this wouldn't be a big of an issue. That simply does not happen.
The second point being, theoretically people trust cops to keep law and order and to ensure safety. So it is rightly expected for them to have higher standard of conduct and the fact that this does not happen is a systemic failure.
Those are 'real' accidents; and if some are not, like DUI, there are laws against them that are enforced. If tomorrow, society stops charging DUI offenders people would protest too.
That's not the case with police brutality. We have seen again and again the police face no consequences for their brutality. That's what the people are protesting against. If every one of these cops were appropriately fired, charged and jailed, this wouldn't be a big of an issue. That simply does not happen.
The second point being, theoretically people trust cops to keep law and order and to ensure safety. So it is rightly expected for them to have higher standard of conduct and the fact that this does not happen is a systemic failure.
If those numbers have been consistent for decades despite the police being given harsher and harsher tools for dealing with them, perhaps those tools aren't doing anything but resulting in harm to people who are not committing those crimes.
> 2,300 gun deaths a month? Because those numbers have been consistent for decades
This is also a stupid, unnecessary, ongoing tragedy that America insists cannot be avoided despite being the only country where mass shootings happen anything like as regularly.
This is also a stupid, unnecessary, ongoing tragedy that America insists cannot be avoided despite being the only country where mass shootings happen anything like as regularly.
When one 737 Max crashed, some pointed the finger at the pilots.
When a second one crashed, the focus quickly shifted.
It is a common attitude in aviation that even pilot error is really a systems fault. Perhaps opposing buttons are too close together, or some control requires attention to be diverted at the wrong time, or pilots are allowed to fly too many hours without adequate rest, or plenty of other things that could contribute to predictable human failure.
It seems obvious that we can predict human failure in current policing. If two incidents with a 737 lead to an indefinite grounding, what's the right number for this situation?
In the case of the airplane, grounding does not create a public safety issue. And there are, of course, many alternatives that can keep the overall system up and running in the meantime. The solution to police brutality requires much more thought.
When a second one crashed, the focus quickly shifted.
It is a common attitude in aviation that even pilot error is really a systems fault. Perhaps opposing buttons are too close together, or some control requires attention to be diverted at the wrong time, or pilots are allowed to fly too many hours without adequate rest, or plenty of other things that could contribute to predictable human failure.
It seems obvious that we can predict human failure in current policing. If two incidents with a 737 lead to an indefinite grounding, what's the right number for this situation?
In the case of the airplane, grounding does not create a public safety issue. And there are, of course, many alternatives that can keep the overall system up and running in the meantime. The solution to police brutality requires much more thought.
The natural follow up to your analogy shows exactly why these protests targeted at police might be a good solution.
A new system, like the design of a whole new plane requires a lot of political will, funding and time. On the other hand, the solution people are more likely to get is minor adjustments to the design of the plane or system to make it compliant, so the 737 Max can fly again, in some capacity.
Changing the demographic of the police forces to eradicate the choke hold of trigger happy white supremacists on it, will take decades. On the other hand, laws for police accountability and monitoring can be enacted faster, and help put the police system back into place in a format that is a bit more functional.
It doesn't solve the core problem. But, it's a start. It makes it so that fewer people will face police brutality for the next few decades, while longer term efforts to reform law enforcement can take hold in the US.
> The solution to police brutality requires much more thought.
a 100%. It goes deep into the American conception of good and bad, punishment and rehabilitation.
A new system, like the design of a whole new plane requires a lot of political will, funding and time. On the other hand, the solution people are more likely to get is minor adjustments to the design of the plane or system to make it compliant, so the 737 Max can fly again, in some capacity.
Changing the demographic of the police forces to eradicate the choke hold of trigger happy white supremacists on it, will take decades. On the other hand, laws for police accountability and monitoring can be enacted faster, and help put the police system back into place in a format that is a bit more functional.
It doesn't solve the core problem. But, it's a start. It makes it so that fewer people will face police brutality for the next few decades, while longer term efforts to reform law enforcement can take hold in the US.
> The solution to police brutality requires much more thought.
a 100%. It goes deep into the American conception of good and bad, punishment and rehabilitation.
> Changing the demographic of the police forces to eradicate the choke hold of trigger happy white supremacists on it, will take decades. On the other hand, laws for police accountability and monitoring can be enacted faster, and help put the police system back into place in a format that is a bit more functional.
There's also the approach that Minneapolis appears to be taking, disbanding their police department. That works pretty much immediately.
There's also the approach that Minneapolis appears to be taking, disbanding their police department. That works pretty much immediately.
US police-caused deaths seem to run at the rate of several airliner's worth of people a year. The problem seems to be the exact opposite of a safety culture: there is no systematic review of what happens, what factors led up to it, what could have been done differently. The police routinely lie about events with no consequences, even when contradicted by video or other evidence.
We cannot even get the police to agree that the deaths represent failures: they will usually dig up or even fabricate anything negative about the victim to imply that he or she deserved to die. You can see this happening in the comments here too.
It is not suprising that people want to ground the police.
We cannot even get the police to agree that the deaths represent failures: they will usually dig up or even fabricate anything negative about the victim to imply that he or she deserved to die. You can see this happening in the comments here too.
It is not suprising that people want to ground the police.
I don't mean to be snarky but what police are doing is what humans everywhere do. Network guys always deny it is the network causing the the issue. DBA? It is a hard problem to solve.
Interestingly I was having a conversation about police before George Floyd. I had wondered whether policing should be one of those rotational civic duties. All able bodied people spend some time being a policeman. I think spending years only being called when things go bad makes police less sensitive.
Interestingly I was having a conversation about police before George Floyd. I had wondered whether policing should be one of those rotational civic duties. All able bodied people spend some time being a policeman. I think spending years only being called when things go bad makes police less sensitive.
[deleted]
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
Its a cycle we already saw so many times, I believe with so many movements asking for rights, that this is "weak men" part creating hard times.
Mexico did a while ago what so many people is asking for, disband a security corp, result? The Zetas.
Why people is ignoring statistics? People kill people of the same race.
Many of that videos is just a bunch of violent people being put as victims by others people agenda. Is like your big brother hits you, then you hit back and just you are punished.
Be careful and thoughtful in your judgments. If possible try to look back in history and search an alike situation outcome.
Mexico did a while ago what so many people is asking for, disband a security corp, result? The Zetas.
Why people is ignoring statistics? People kill people of the same race.
Many of that videos is just a bunch of violent people being put as victims by others people agenda. Is like your big brother hits you, then you hit back and just you are punished.
Be careful and thoughtful in your judgments. If possible try to look back in history and search an alike situation outcome.
I don't think any reasonable person is suggesting we fully defund or disband the police. They are suggesting that by giving police military style gear it incentivizes them to use it.
Instead of giving the police this crazy gear, we should redirect that money into training for the police. Or maybe some of it should go to schools.
Instead of giving the police this crazy gear, we should redirect that money into training for the police. Or maybe some of it should go to schools.
There is a pretty good argument around fully disbanding the police; and it appears to be the stance that Minneapolis is taking.
The idea being that for the roles you'd traditionally want police to cover (response to violent crime), they've successfully received case law that doesn't require that to be one of their duties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia And nearly everything else is better handled by social worker like positions addressing the root issues. Police shouldn't be mental health professionals. It's just cheaper to give homeless housing than constantly fine and jail them. The war on drugs has been a policing failure, just like alcohol prohibition was. Low level traffic infractions tend to just be an extra revenue generation scheme aimed at the poor. etc.
We've also got data on the idea that the policing causes crime, from when the NYPD went on strike 2014-2015, and the crime rate plummeted. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0211-5
And we've spent decades trying to reform in place, without much progress, because structurally they don't want reform and kneecap the reforms at every opportunity. Better to dump the whole system and it's nomenclature, and rebuild what pieces we want with new roles.
The idea being that for the roles you'd traditionally want police to cover (response to violent crime), they've successfully received case law that doesn't require that to be one of their duties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia And nearly everything else is better handled by social worker like positions addressing the root issues. Police shouldn't be mental health professionals. It's just cheaper to give homeless housing than constantly fine and jail them. The war on drugs has been a policing failure, just like alcohol prohibition was. Low level traffic infractions tend to just be an extra revenue generation scheme aimed at the poor. etc.
We've also got data on the idea that the policing causes crime, from when the NYPD went on strike 2014-2015, and the crime rate plummeted. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0211-5
And we've spent decades trying to reform in place, without much progress, because structurally they don't want reform and kneecap the reforms at every opportunity. Better to dump the whole system and it's nomenclature, and rebuild what pieces we want with new roles.
No, Minneapolis city council has unanimously voted to completely disband the police and are rethinking public safety from scratch. Reform clearly hasn't worked.
The Zetas weren't the result of disbanding, they openly defected from state security to choose crime!
I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Your comparison would be more accurate if all humans were law abiding citizens. I don't think you could put blame on pilots if airplanes could sabotage flights at will.
Of course if all humans are law abiding citizens there would be no issue to begin with. I think every society with lower crime has significantly smaller police brutality issue with some rare exceptions like Hong Kong.
Of course if all humans are law abiding citizens there would be no issue to begin with. I think every society with lower crime has significantly smaller police brutality issue with some rare exceptions like Hong Kong.
> I think every society with lower crime has significantly smaller police brutality
Crime-rates do not correlate with police brutality and mass incarceration.
Canada locks up way fewer people, has way less harsh sentencing than the US, yet Canadian crime rates are not that different from those of the US [0].
It's also really weird to evoke HK in this discussion when the current police response in the US is way worse than anything reported out of HK. Particularly in the context that for the longest time the HK police actually had a rather splendid international reputation [1].
While US police had a "Dirty Harry" like reputation for several decades now, something that's reached its current peak with the whole "blueline" mentality and the glorification of comic vigilantes like the Punisher as a symbol for law enforcement.
As such a whole lot of this is rooted very deeply in policing and incarceration culture and not some countries being inherently "more criminal" than others.
[0] https://youtu.be/wtV5ev6813I
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/world/asia/24iht-hkpolice...
Crime-rates do not correlate with police brutality and mass incarceration.
Canada locks up way fewer people, has way less harsh sentencing than the US, yet Canadian crime rates are not that different from those of the US [0].
It's also really weird to evoke HK in this discussion when the current police response in the US is way worse than anything reported out of HK. Particularly in the context that for the longest time the HK police actually had a rather splendid international reputation [1].
While US police had a "Dirty Harry" like reputation for several decades now, something that's reached its current peak with the whole "blueline" mentality and the glorification of comic vigilantes like the Punisher as a symbol for law enforcement.
As such a whole lot of this is rooted very deeply in policing and incarceration culture and not some countries being inherently "more criminal" than others.
[0] https://youtu.be/wtV5ev6813I
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/world/asia/24iht-hkpolice...
You claim that law enforcement culture differs in the countries which you are comparing and that is indeed true. But is the crime culture the same? Or is that not a factor worth considering?
Police are institutions with standardization, their culture isn't some random construct, it's something that's actively decided on, that's codified in legislation and training.
Criminal culture is not, it's something that emerges way more naturally, usually as a direct response to the culture set by police and punishments established by law.
If, for example, the punishment for certain crimes is so high by default that the criminal would rather die than get a sentence that would equal death, then you have taken any and all motivation from that criminal to look for a more reasonable way out, instead preferring to "go out in a blaze of glory" on their own terms.
That's why this whole "tough on crime" approach mostly leads to an escalation on both ends: Cops treat criminals more harshly, criminals respond by acting more harshly themselves because acting more reasonable wouldn't gain them anything anyway so they might as well completely live out their destructive urges.
This is further reinforced through a prison system that's not aimed at rehabilitation, but generally seen as a form of "revenge", as "punishment" and as such victimizes its inmates, which leads to even more resentment, while leaving them utterly unprepared, and with quite a grudge, when they get released back into society.
Which leads to the outcome that it usually won't take long until they get into trouble again [0] because their time in prison taught them nothing except "might makes right" and how sadistic cruelty is a valid way of interaction with other people when you are the one in a position of power.
[0] https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/may/3/long-term-re...
Criminal culture is not, it's something that emerges way more naturally, usually as a direct response to the culture set by police and punishments established by law.
If, for example, the punishment for certain crimes is so high by default that the criminal would rather die than get a sentence that would equal death, then you have taken any and all motivation from that criminal to look for a more reasonable way out, instead preferring to "go out in a blaze of glory" on their own terms.
That's why this whole "tough on crime" approach mostly leads to an escalation on both ends: Cops treat criminals more harshly, criminals respond by acting more harshly themselves because acting more reasonable wouldn't gain them anything anyway so they might as well completely live out their destructive urges.
This is further reinforced through a prison system that's not aimed at rehabilitation, but generally seen as a form of "revenge", as "punishment" and as such victimizes its inmates, which leads to even more resentment, while leaving them utterly unprepared, and with quite a grudge, when they get released back into society.
Which leads to the outcome that it usually won't take long until they get into trouble again [0] because their time in prison taught them nothing except "might makes right" and how sadistic cruelty is a valid way of interaction with other people when you are the one in a position of power.
[0] https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/may/3/long-term-re...
> If, for example, the punishment for certain crimes is so high by default that the criminal would rather die than get a sentence that would equal death, then you have taken any and all motivation from that criminal to look for a more reasonable way out, instead preferring to "go out in a blaze of glory" on their own terms.
Yep. That is what happens in most cases. Which is why I reject the idea that most cops which shoot black people are racist. Sometimes, as is the case of George Floyd, the individual officer is at fault (even if that does not _necessarily_ mean he is racist), however, in the vast majority of police shootings, the victim is trying to reach for the cop's gun, assaulting the officer, or in some other way is putting the officer's life in danger. So you can not blame the individual shooter in such cases.
You can, however, blame the systems which cause the erratic behavior, that's true. However, we need to have an honest conversation about what the causes actually are.
The gang culture in prisons is indeed a problem, but making prisons less tough would not solve this problem - it would only exacerbated, as gangs would have increased influence over the prison. Of course, in reality many gangs are in cahoots with the prison staff, which is a corruption problem which needs to be solved.
Another problem the article correctly points is non-violent offenders becoming violent as a result of their time in the prisons.
That said, the gang culture in prisons is only an extension of the gang culture outside of prisons. And you can not blame that on tough sentencing, as the gang culture exists in many other places around the world - in the UK grooming gangs, in Sweden's no-go zones, in Romania's gypsy gangs and so on, all countries without harsh sentencing.
Yep. That is what happens in most cases. Which is why I reject the idea that most cops which shoot black people are racist. Sometimes, as is the case of George Floyd, the individual officer is at fault (even if that does not _necessarily_ mean he is racist), however, in the vast majority of police shootings, the victim is trying to reach for the cop's gun, assaulting the officer, or in some other way is putting the officer's life in danger. So you can not blame the individual shooter in such cases.
You can, however, blame the systems which cause the erratic behavior, that's true. However, we need to have an honest conversation about what the causes actually are.
The gang culture in prisons is indeed a problem, but making prisons less tough would not solve this problem - it would only exacerbated, as gangs would have increased influence over the prison. Of course, in reality many gangs are in cahoots with the prison staff, which is a corruption problem which needs to be solved.
Another problem the article correctly points is non-violent offenders becoming violent as a result of their time in the prisons.
That said, the gang culture in prisons is only an extension of the gang culture outside of prisons. And you can not blame that on tough sentencing, as the gang culture exists in many other places around the world - in the UK grooming gangs, in Sweden's no-go zones, in Romania's gypsy gangs and so on, all countries without harsh sentencing.
The thing that really makes things worse is that the police are causing most of these protests and riots with their violent, unwarranted behavior.
This triggers riots and protests, which require the police to work overtime.
They get paid for causing all these problems, and well paid. Their overtime costs must be tremendous. And who ends up paying? We do.
We should claw back police overtime pay for any protests or riots that are caused by the police themselves. I think that's fair and equitable.
This triggers riots and protests, which require the police to work overtime.
They get paid for causing all these problems, and well paid. Their overtime costs must be tremendous. And who ends up paying? We do.
We should claw back police overtime pay for any protests or riots that are caused by the police themselves. I think that's fair and equitable.
Over the last week I have been starting to realize that what you said is true in general, and not just of protests. It seems that police inflame and instigate most of the violent situations they are involved in. We are literally paying to be abused. We shouldn't be trying to get that money back; we shouldn't even be paying it in the first place.
One example is civil asset forfeiture. Police can and do stop people at random, see if they have “suspicious” valuables or a little too much money, and seize it. It’s virtually impossible to fight the case and it’s literally free money with zero consequence to the police. If you try to deny them their free money, they just arrest you. It’s legally condoned robbery.
I’ve had friends who’ve been pulled over while passing through Illinois and asked to hand over their wallets just so the cops can count their money. They only had a few bucks and were let go, but I’m sure if it was a little too much, the cops would’ve claimed it was drug money and taken it. The cops didn’t mention speeding or any sort of crime, so their reason for pulling them over was pretty clear. They probably target non-local people because nobody is going to come back just for a hundred bucks or so, and if they need to make up a ticket on the spot, few people will bother to fight it.
I’ve had friends who’ve been pulled over while passing through Illinois and asked to hand over their wallets just so the cops can count their money. They only had a few bucks and were let go, but I’m sure if it was a little too much, the cops would’ve claimed it was drug money and taken it. The cops didn’t mention speeding or any sort of crime, so their reason for pulling them over was pretty clear. They probably target non-local people because nobody is going to come back just for a hundred bucks or so, and if they need to make up a ticket on the spot, few people will bother to fight it.
It actually exceeds non-police theft these days: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-... ( https://outline.com/UX7nfW ).
> It’s virtually impossible to fight the case and it’s literally free money with zero consequence to the police.
This is a problem that could be easily greatly improved with legislation (and without requiring the more radical and controversial step of abolishing civil forfeiture entirely) - each state could legislate that civil forfeiture proceeds are to be paid into the general state budget not kept by the local police forces. This would remove much of the incentive for overuse of civil forfeiture.
This is a problem that could be easily greatly improved with legislation (and without requiring the more radical and controversial step of abolishing civil forfeiture entirely) - each state could legislate that civil forfeiture proceeds are to be paid into the general state budget not kept by the local police forces. This would remove much of the incentive for overuse of civil forfeiture.
Even worse is seizing vehicles that are still not paid off.
The police department will determine if it is worth ‘paying off’ the remaining loan amount, so they can seize the car and sell it at auction.
The police department will determine if it is worth ‘paying off’ the remaining loan amount, so they can seize the car and sell it at auction.
What’s also bizarre is that it’s probably funding their local department and not some general state account, further skewing incentives.
It’s like the Police has a letter of Marque to do piracy. [0] Except that means they are at war with you, not a foreign country.
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
It’s like the Police has a letter of Marque to do piracy. [0] Except that means they are at war with you, not a foreign country.
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
A 2500-year-old quote still relevant today:
"When a nation hoards weapons, troubles arise from within and from without.
When its leaders try to be cunning and clever, the situation spins further out of control.
When they try to fix things by passing more laws, they only increase the number of outlaws."
民多利器、國家滋昏。
人多伎巧、奇物滋起。
法令滋彰、盜賊多有。
"When a nation hoards weapons, troubles arise from within and from without.
When its leaders try to be cunning and clever, the situation spins further out of control.
When they try to fix things by passing more laws, they only increase the number of outlaws."
民多利器、國家滋昏。
人多伎巧、奇物滋起。
法令滋彰、盜賊多有。
Very clever, but given the benefit of history I disagree with the first line. Weakness invites trouble, but strength is not the solution to every problem.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
LOL. Confucius strikes again.
I have this idealised vision of a police force that are more like monks. Their main training is mental, meditation, mindfulness, situational awareness, sensitivity training, de-escalation training. They are also extremely well trained in combat and self defence but almost never use it. When they do they can quickly disarm and subdue violent perps without struggle. They exist just to keep the peace between people. People could grow to trust and respect them in a way that they can't for cops.
It would have to be a lifelong pursuit like a real monk, without much financial incentive. The problem is without trust and respect it wouldn't work since no one would enlist. I'm not sure how you would bootstrap something like that.
It would have to be a lifelong pursuit like a real monk, without much financial incentive. The problem is without trust and respect it wouldn't work since no one would enlist. I'm not sure how you would bootstrap something like that.
Jedi don't scale...
What would you suggest instead of police, when the goal is to maintain a civilization of diverse people?
I think "just don't pay them for the time" is not reasonable or realistic, and thinking you can get consensus on what caused a riot is naive under the best of circumstances.
On the flip side I'd like to point out that this increased OT often has downstream effects as well, most notably in pensions which are typically based on your last n months of pay. Some contracts include OT in this and some do not. So soon-to-be-retired officers could literally be increasing their pay for the rest of their lives based on increased pay due to working a riot.
On the flip side I'd like to point out that this increased OT often has downstream effects as well, most notably in pensions which are typically based on your last n months of pay. Some contracts include OT in this and some do not. So soon-to-be-retired officers could literally be increasing their pay for the rest of their lives based on increased pay due to working a riot.
I think that their continued behavior is putting the pensions at risk, since those depend on continuous taxpayer contributions.
It’s not wise to tear gas the people who are going to pay for your retirement.
It’s not wise to tear gas the people who are going to pay for your retirement.
Based on this comment it's not clear how much experience you have with public sector unions generally or LEO contract negotiations specifically, or how public sector pensions typically work. Barring conviction of a crime (and sometimes even in spite of conviction, depending on the offense), your pension is generally set based on your hire date, and is a percentage of your salary based on the average over some period of time (last 3 years is pretty common). About half the time these pensions are exempt from municipal bankruptcies. It would take legislation to dismantle these pension systems that would almost certainly be litigated and spend years in court, during which time they would still have to be paid out.
They're not putting their financial future at risk.
They're not putting their financial future at risk.
The individual officer is guaranteed access to the pension, but there is no guarantee that the public ever bothered to fully fund said pension.
> the police are causing most of these protests and riots
Free will is a thing, and the police cannot make you go out and commit vandalism, mayhem, and murder.
Free will is a thing, and the police cannot make you go out and commit vandalism, mayhem, and murder.
Free will is questionably a thing. If you are trapped, hungry, thirsty, threatened, and you see your neighbors beaten for minor infractions, then some kind of "mayhem" is not an unreasonable choice. Or would you rather they quietly took the abuse and had their next-of-kin file a complaint that will be summarily ignored?
BTW these are all things that protesters experience, as the police as trained in "crowd control" techniques which involve kettling and provoking masses of people so they can exert force to teach them a lesson.
BTW these are all things that protesters experience, as the police as trained in "crowd control" techniques which involve kettling and provoking masses of people so they can exert force to teach them a lesson.
Mayhem is always an unreasonable choice. And it certainly won't feed you if you're hungry.
And judging by the pictures, very few of the protesters were desperate, tired, hungry, downtrodden, etc. For most, it's an opportunity to virtue signal for a day or two, and then go back to their relatively affluent lives and forget about all of this.
Hardly a one would be caught dead tutoring some inner city kid with their algebra. Far more fun to taunt cops in an impossible position.
And judging by the pictures, very few of the protesters were desperate, tired, hungry, downtrodden, etc. For most, it's an opportunity to virtue signal for a day or two, and then go back to their relatively affluent lives and forget about all of this.
Hardly a one would be caught dead tutoring some inner city kid with their algebra. Far more fun to taunt cops in an impossible position.
Additionally, the civil rights suits later brought against them get paid by taxpayers, not the offending officers.
Their abuse is literally publicly subsidized.
Lawsuit settlements for the police committing human rights abuses should come out of the police pension fund.
Their abuse is literally publicly subsidized.
Lawsuit settlements for the police committing human rights abuses should come out of the police pension fund.
> Lawsuit settlements for the police committing human rights abuses should come out of the police pension fund.
No, they should come out of taxpayer funds. The principal is responsible for the actions of their agents.
If the public authority doesn't properly screen, train, supervise, and discipline police to protect civil rights, it is their responsibility and the responsibility of the public who chooses that authority.
Absolving the public authority and the public of responsibility just means that there is reduced incentives to address systemic problems.
No, they should come out of taxpayer funds. The principal is responsible for the actions of their agents.
If the public authority doesn't properly screen, train, supervise, and discipline police to protect civil rights, it is their responsibility and the responsibility of the public who chooses that authority.
Absolving the public authority and the public of responsibility just means that there is reduced incentives to address systemic problems.
> supervise, and discipline police to protect civil rights
I'm pretty sure that that's what I just proposed, by causing the results of supervision and discipline to trigger negative consequences.
I'm pretty sure that that's what I just proposed, by causing the results of supervision and discipline to trigger negative consequences.
Not really. It doesn't create negative consequences for the individual wrongdoers, or even the police collectively except perhaps extremely indirectly. It is symbolic collective punishment, but substantively it's just a way for the public authority to defer its own consequences so they are distant from the problem, since a pension fund is literally just the fund out of which the public authority pays it's pension obligations to retiring police before having to resort to using other funds. Depleting the fund for unrelated purposes doesn't reduce the public authority’s contractual obligations to each retiring officer.
You may be mistakenly assuming that exhausting the pension fund directly cuts pensions for those covered, which would still be remote just in targeted individuals and time, but there is no necessary relationship there. It just makes it more likely that the public authority would be forced to declare bankruptcy because it can't meet it's pension obligations, at which point it might be able to shed pension obligations for employees (not just those covered by the fund, if the police have a distinct fund!) as part of the bankruptcy, but that could happen as a result of direct settlement payments, as well.
In the fairly common case where the police don't even have even have their own pension fund but contribute to a common fund with other employees, perhaps not even from the same local jurisdiction (e.g., California local governments where often both police and other employees are covered by CalPERS), taking it out of the fund would even lack the symbolic sense that it has in the more simple case.
If you want direct liability for the people doing the immediate wrong, you want an end to, or limitations on, qualified immunity, not redirecting public authoriry liability to pension funds. That, of course, would make the public authority not responsible, but to would mean that individual cops would also be responsible on civil suits.
You may be mistakenly assuming that exhausting the pension fund directly cuts pensions for those covered, which would still be remote just in targeted individuals and time, but there is no necessary relationship there. It just makes it more likely that the public authority would be forced to declare bankruptcy because it can't meet it's pension obligations, at which point it might be able to shed pension obligations for employees (not just those covered by the fund, if the police have a distinct fund!) as part of the bankruptcy, but that could happen as a result of direct settlement payments, as well.
In the fairly common case where the police don't even have even have their own pension fund but contribute to a common fund with other employees, perhaps not even from the same local jurisdiction (e.g., California local governments where often both police and other employees are covered by CalPERS), taking it out of the fund would even lack the symbolic sense that it has in the more simple case.
If you want direct liability for the people doing the immediate wrong, you want an end to, or limitations on, qualified immunity, not redirecting public authoriry liability to pension funds. That, of course, would make the public authority not responsible, but to would mean that individual cops would also be responsible on civil suits.
When driving through other jurisdictions with speed traps etc, I certainly do want to blame those taxpayers for enabling their local gang to be attacking me. But if I take a look at the jurisdictions I am party to, I am powerless. Blaming voters is a fallacy of late-stage Democracy.
The deep seated issue is the principle agent problem around elected officials. The police threaten the politicians, who don't want to rock the boat, to get a lopsided contract that makes them virtually immune to any oversight. This is why we're literally at "defund the police" - citizens are finally crying uncle and demanding that their city's entire contract be thrown away and redesigned.
The deep seated issue is the principle agent problem around elected officials. The police threaten the politicians, who don't want to rock the boat, to get a lopsided contract that makes them virtually immune to any oversight. This is why we're literally at "defund the police" - citizens are finally crying uncle and demanding that their city's entire contract be thrown away and redesigned.
You've made a common mistake, and that's confusing people on social media for the majority.
Most people don't want to defund their police. Per the latest Monmouth poll, about 60% favor the police (compared to ~11% for congress) and most people see the police as their protectors.
Police don't get a lopsided contract by threatening politicians and that's a grossly inflammatory claim. Contracts are negotiated like any other, and given that most people don't want to spend their time being spit on and attacked, it turns out you get to ask for a fair bit of protection in that contract.
> Blaming voters is a fallacy of late-stage Democracy
Blaming anyone else is a fundamental misunderstanding of Democracy. Everyone pretends to like Democracy until they realize not everyone shares their opinion, and then all of a sudden pull out the insults and attacks on fellow voters.
Most people don't want to defund their police. Per the latest Monmouth poll, about 60% favor the police (compared to ~11% for congress) and most people see the police as their protectors.
Police don't get a lopsided contract by threatening politicians and that's a grossly inflammatory claim. Contracts are negotiated like any other, and given that most people don't want to spend their time being spit on and attacked, it turns out you get to ask for a fair bit of protection in that contract.
> Blaming voters is a fallacy of late-stage Democracy
Blaming anyone else is a fundamental misunderstanding of Democracy. Everyone pretends to like Democracy until they realize not everyone shares their opinion, and then all of a sudden pull out the insults and attacks on fellow voters.
Police generally have contracts where they have weaseled out of criminal, civil, and even administrative sanctions, allowing them to break the law with impunity. If you don't see this as extreme corruption, then you don't actually believe in the rule of law.
> Per the latest Monmouth poll, about 60% favor the police (compared to ~11% for congress) and most people see the police as their protectors
Unfortunately this instance of corruption is a tough nut to crack. The sheer majority of people will never be victims of the police, just as most people will never be victims of any violent criminal. Hence the focus on video evidence and actually discussing the issue now that it has the spotlight, getting more people to care about these unaccountable criminal gangs calling themselves police. It's called solidarity and the rule of law - caring about what is right even when it does not affect you personally.
>> Blaming voters is a fallacy of late-stage Democracy
> Everyone pretends to like Democracy until they realize not everyone shares their opinion
You just seem to be going on a tangential rant here. I was referring specifically to this tendency to ascribe a democratically-chosen action as the responsibility of everyone who was given a chance to vote. I personally do not hold up Democracy as some sort of ideal, but rather Liberty.
> Per the latest Monmouth poll, about 60% favor the police (compared to ~11% for congress) and most people see the police as their protectors
Unfortunately this instance of corruption is a tough nut to crack. The sheer majority of people will never be victims of the police, just as most people will never be victims of any violent criminal. Hence the focus on video evidence and actually discussing the issue now that it has the spotlight, getting more people to care about these unaccountable criminal gangs calling themselves police. It's called solidarity and the rule of law - caring about what is right even when it does not affect you personally.
>> Blaming voters is a fallacy of late-stage Democracy
> Everyone pretends to like Democracy until they realize not everyone shares their opinion
You just seem to be going on a tangential rant here. I was referring specifically to this tendency to ascribe a democratically-chosen action as the responsibility of everyone who was given a chance to vote. I personally do not hold up Democracy as some sort of ideal, but rather Liberty.
> Police generally have contracts where they have weaseled out of criminal, civil, and even administrative sanctions
No, they don't. You can't contract out of criminal sanction, for one thing. You could be indemnified from civil sanction, but QI makes that mostly moot anyway.
And, to the extent they do, those contracts are negotiated with and approved by local elected officials. Work—and, yes, this takes convincing others—to change those officials minds or change the officials, and you change what contracts get negotiated, or even of the police department continues to exist. Cf. Minneapolis (especially, but not exclusivelt) right now, Camden in 2012, etc.
The idea that citizens don't have control of local police through local government is wrong. Normally, local citizens are between actively approving and tacitly tolerating the behavior of police rather than actively seeking change, but they absolutely do have the power should they choose to exert it.
No, they don't. You can't contract out of criminal sanction, for one thing. You could be indemnified from civil sanction, but QI makes that mostly moot anyway.
And, to the extent they do, those contracts are negotiated with and approved by local elected officials. Work—and, yes, this takes convincing others—to change those officials minds or change the officials, and you change what contracts get negotiated, or even of the police department continues to exist. Cf. Minneapolis (especially, but not exclusivelt) right now, Camden in 2012, etc.
The idea that citizens don't have control of local police through local government is wrong. Normally, local citizens are between actively approving and tacitly tolerating the behavior of police rather than actively seeking change, but they absolutely do have the power should they choose to exert it.
> You can't contract out of criminal sanction
You're just nitpicking the word "contract". The arrangement with the cities generally result in public prosecutors do not bring charges against the police. That's part of the de-facto contract, even if it is not written down.
> The idea that citizens don't have control of local police through local government is wrong. Normally, local citizens are between actively approving and tacitly tolerating the behavior of police rather than actively seeking change, but they absolutely do have the power should they choose to exert it.
I've been caring about unaccountable police for well over a decade, so forgive me if I don't see myself as having much power to change anything. The vast majority of people will never be victims of the police, so as long as police keep up the illusion of providing safety, they will continue to be supported by the masses.
For what I was referencing specifically, look at Minneapolis city council members' descriptions of what happened to their districts when they previously tried to reign in the police. Yes, those same council members are now at a breaking point where enough is enough, and do actually have the power to act in concert and change things. This doesn't invalidate my description of where the vast majority of cities are with respect to the police unions. And the police unions know this, which is why their instinct is to start riots when citizens protest.
You're just nitpicking the word "contract". The arrangement with the cities generally result in public prosecutors do not bring charges against the police. That's part of the de-facto contract, even if it is not written down.
> The idea that citizens don't have control of local police through local government is wrong. Normally, local citizens are between actively approving and tacitly tolerating the behavior of police rather than actively seeking change, but they absolutely do have the power should they choose to exert it.
I've been caring about unaccountable police for well over a decade, so forgive me if I don't see myself as having much power to change anything. The vast majority of people will never be victims of the police, so as long as police keep up the illusion of providing safety, they will continue to be supported by the masses.
For what I was referencing specifically, look at Minneapolis city council members' descriptions of what happened to their districts when they previously tried to reign in the police. Yes, those same council members are now at a breaking point where enough is enough, and do actually have the power to act in concert and change things. This doesn't invalidate my description of where the vast majority of cities are with respect to the police unions. And the police unions know this, which is why their instinct is to start riots when citizens protest.
> You're just nitpicking the word "contract". The arrangement with the cities generally result in public prosecutors do not bring charges against the police. That's part of the de-facto contract, even if it is not written down.
It's not part of a contract, which is binding and enforceable, and which once and while in place, citizens have very restricted ability to change via the political process. It's part of the policy of the existing elected officials, which is very much amenable to public pressure and elections. Given the context of the discussion is whether or not citizens have the power to effect these things through the political process, pointing out this difference is not “nitpicking”, as the difference is on the exact question being discussed.
It's not part of a contract, which is binding and enforceable, and which once and while in place, citizens have very restricted ability to change via the political process. It's part of the policy of the existing elected officials, which is very much amenable to public pressure and elections. Given the context of the discussion is whether or not citizens have the power to effect these things through the political process, pointing out this difference is not “nitpicking”, as the difference is on the exact question being discussed.
I was responding to the obtuse claim that "contracts are negotiated like any other", which opens up a wider scope that the contract itself. I probably should have used the word "arrangement" for the general situation.
Examining the problem constructively, then each aspect does have different details to pay attention to. But they also have similar shapes with momentum and indirection. Civil and administrative penalties need to be fixed through the explicit contract, which takes a contract cycle and can be derailed behind the scenes by corrupt officials. Criminal penalties need DAs willing to uphold the law, which takes an election cycle and can be derailed behind the scenes by corrupt officials. Analogously to what you said - once a DA is in place, "citizens have very restricted ability to change via the political process".
The biggest issue is that a small chance of a twenty million dollar payout in case of an egregious murder isn't worrisome to a municipality, and specifically to its politicians who's liability is limited to possibly losing their job. Meanwhile if they do advocate for reigning in the police, the union will most certainly make them lose their job at the next election. So while we can talk about municipalities being responsible for the paramilitary forces they're creating in the abstract, this is clearly not an effective mechanism for reigning them in.
Examining the problem constructively, then each aspect does have different details to pay attention to. But they also have similar shapes with momentum and indirection. Civil and administrative penalties need to be fixed through the explicit contract, which takes a contract cycle and can be derailed behind the scenes by corrupt officials. Criminal penalties need DAs willing to uphold the law, which takes an election cycle and can be derailed behind the scenes by corrupt officials. Analogously to what you said - once a DA is in place, "citizens have very restricted ability to change via the political process".
The biggest issue is that a small chance of a twenty million dollar payout in case of an egregious murder isn't worrisome to a municipality, and specifically to its politicians who's liability is limited to possibly losing their job. Meanwhile if they do advocate for reigning in the police, the union will most certainly make them lose their job at the next election. So while we can talk about municipalities being responsible for the paramilitary forces they're creating in the abstract, this is clearly not an effective mechanism for reigning them in.
> Police generally have contracts where they have weaseled out of criminal, civil, and even administrative sanctions
That's false. Qualified immunity is a result of a supreme court decision and not part of police contracts. The only thing in most contracts is that police officers who are fired get a chance at mediation for firing disputes.
Police officers do get legal protections, the same way you and I get them. You can't release private records of a police officer, you can't sacrifice them publically to appease an angry group, etc etc.
That's false. Qualified immunity is a result of a supreme court decision and not part of police contracts. The only thing in most contracts is that police officers who are fired get a chance at mediation for firing disputes.
Police officers do get legal protections, the same way you and I get them. You can't release private records of a police officer, you can't sacrifice them publically to appease an angry group, etc etc.
Qualified Immunity just sets the default and is mostly a red herring (not that it shouldn't be addressed). A city could easily declare that an officer acted outside their explicit government duties when committing a crime. Furthermore, this could be straightforwardly clarified in their contract.
In general you're repeating talking points about fragments of what I said, while ignoring my substantive points. For instance, explaining QI doesn't address how the police have also been able to weasel out of criminal and administrative penalties - eg why haven't Breonna Taylor's killers been charged and put in jail, or at the very least quickly fired? There are obviously mundane procedural answers for these, but added up it's a very lopsided contract allowing the police to play Rambo with impunity.
In general you're repeating talking points about fragments of what I said, while ignoring my substantive points. For instance, explaining QI doesn't address how the police have also been able to weasel out of criminal and administrative penalties - eg why haven't Breonna Taylor's killers been charged and put in jail, or at the very least quickly fired? There are obviously mundane procedural answers for these, but added up it's a very lopsided contract allowing the police to play Rambo with impunity.
> why haven't Breonna Taylor's killers been charged and put in jail, or at the very least quickly fired?
Because they are "innocent until proven guilty". It's not as if they've been going on calls and continuing to kick in doors - the investigation was handed to the FBI (a federal body) and the officers were put on leave until that investigation is finished.
If they are fired and it turns out they were acting lawfully, then the people who fired them will get sued and lose.
> In general you're repeating talking points about fragments of what I said
I'm addressing specific cases and claims you make. We can argue loudly about whether or not the police play Rambo but that's not a productive thing we can debate. I can make specific claims about what is in police contracts versus what it is not and falls under QI or other federal law which supersedes local authority.
The issue is that you feel you are correct, and to that end you're making broad unspecific claims that aren't factual - literally not a matter of true or false but fundamentally so vague so as to not have meaning.
> There are obviously mundane procedural answers for these, but added up it's a very lopsided contract allowing the police to play Rambo with impunity.
That's a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. We have to care about mundane procedural answers. We can't just sacrifice someone to appease the angry mob.
Because they are "innocent until proven guilty". It's not as if they've been going on calls and continuing to kick in doors - the investigation was handed to the FBI (a federal body) and the officers were put on leave until that investigation is finished.
If they are fired and it turns out they were acting lawfully, then the people who fired them will get sued and lose.
> In general you're repeating talking points about fragments of what I said
I'm addressing specific cases and claims you make. We can argue loudly about whether or not the police play Rambo but that's not a productive thing we can debate. I can make specific claims about what is in police contracts versus what it is not and falls under QI or other federal law which supersedes local authority.
The issue is that you feel you are correct, and to that end you're making broad unspecific claims that aren't factual - literally not a matter of true or false but fundamentally so vague so as to not have meaning.
> There are obviously mundane procedural answers for these, but added up it's a very lopsided contract allowing the police to play Rambo with impunity.
That's a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. We have to care about mundane procedural answers. We can't just sacrifice someone to appease the angry mob.
> The issue is that you feel you are correct, and to that end you're making broad unspecific claims that aren't factual
No, I made general claims about a larger pattern. If you don't agree that police have managed to weasel out of most accountability, then there's really no discussion to be had. Yet you jumped in anyway to push some police-justifying nonsense ("Contracts are negotiated like any other") that grossly contradicts the events under discussion.
>> why haven't Breonna Taylor's killers been charged and put in jail, or at the very least quickly fired?
>Because they are "innocent until proven guilty".
The first step is charging someone, which has not been done. Everyone in jail is innocent - guilty people go to prison. Once again, procedural details that sound sensible while adding up into a constructively corrupt system. The case has been turned over to the FBI precisely due to the local corruption.
As you are implying some alternative justice path for cops, I'll be explicit: To evaluate how well the rule of law is working, you only have to ask yourself what would happen to a non-cop who performed the exact same actions. Specifically, what would have happened to a group of non-cops that committed a home invasion resulting in murder?
No, I made general claims about a larger pattern. If you don't agree that police have managed to weasel out of most accountability, then there's really no discussion to be had. Yet you jumped in anyway to push some police-justifying nonsense ("Contracts are negotiated like any other") that grossly contradicts the events under discussion.
>> why haven't Breonna Taylor's killers been charged and put in jail, or at the very least quickly fired?
>Because they are "innocent until proven guilty".
The first step is charging someone, which has not been done. Everyone in jail is innocent - guilty people go to prison. Once again, procedural details that sound sensible while adding up into a constructively corrupt system. The case has been turned over to the FBI precisely due to the local corruption.
As you are implying some alternative justice path for cops, I'll be explicit: To evaluate how well the rule of law is working, you only have to ask yourself what would happen to a non-cop who performed the exact same actions. Specifically, what would have happened to a group of non-cops that committed a home invasion resulting in murder?
> Because they are "innocent until proven guilty".
That...doesn't stop people from being arrested. Proof of guilt is required before imposing sentence, but arrest happens way before that.
That...doesn't stop people from being arrested. Proof of guilt is required before imposing sentence, but arrest happens way before that.
>Qualified Immunity just sets the default and is mostly a red herring (not that it shouldn't be addressed). A city could easily declare that an officer acted outside their explicit government duties when committing a crime
QI is irrelevant to crimes, it applies to torts. And when carrying out their explicit duties, police are performing ministerial tasks for which government employees, including police, have absolute immunity; it is only outside that space where they enjoy qualified immunity, and whether the requisite nexus to their official duties for QI exists is a legal question for the courts, not a matter which the city can declare dispositively after the fact.
> For instance, explaining QI doesn't address how the police have also been able to weasel out of criminal and administrative penalties
That's not contract, especially for criminal penalties, it's prosecutorial discretion which is entirely a matter of what the public looks for in choosing the (almost invariably locally elected) head public prosecutor who sets prosecutorial policy.
When the most important fact voters weigh in electing a DA is police union endorsements, they literally have no one else to blame but themselves for police impunity before criminal law.
QI is irrelevant to crimes, it applies to torts. And when carrying out their explicit duties, police are performing ministerial tasks for which government employees, including police, have absolute immunity; it is only outside that space where they enjoy qualified immunity, and whether the requisite nexus to their official duties for QI exists is a legal question for the courts, not a matter which the city can declare dispositively after the fact.
> For instance, explaining QI doesn't address how the police have also been able to weasel out of criminal and administrative penalties
That's not contract, especially for criminal penalties, it's prosecutorial discretion which is entirely a matter of what the public looks for in choosing the (almost invariably locally elected) head public prosecutor who sets prosecutorial policy.
When the most important fact voters weigh in electing a DA is police union endorsements, they literally have no one else to blame but themselves for police impunity before criminal law.
Where I live, the police costs half my cities budget. And that’s not even including contributions to the pension, to my knowledge.
It does not appear that this is money well spent.
It does not appear that this is money well spent.
Expect the push for more funding of the police to be the eventual narrative. This is to allow for more training and putting more officers where they are needed.
Simply put, the defund the police slogans are damaging to the DNC outlooks in November and three major unions basically read the riot act to the DNC and members in Congress that no talk that can come back to collective bargaining being a reason police get away with so much abuse is allowed. Instead it must be that they lack training, the security of their pension system raises anxiety among the forces, and lack of officers incurs overtime furthering anxiety. So the only solution is more money for training, propping up their pension systems, and more money for community policing.
just put it this way, when that was dropped on me from a relative as their new marching orders I thought they were joking.
tl;dr the whole defund the police calling is poison in November and the big influences in politics has called their party to the carpet to change the direction of the debate
Simply put, the defund the police slogans are damaging to the DNC outlooks in November and three major unions basically read the riot act to the DNC and members in Congress that no talk that can come back to collective bargaining being a reason police get away with so much abuse is allowed. Instead it must be that they lack training, the security of their pension system raises anxiety among the forces, and lack of officers incurs overtime furthering anxiety. So the only solution is more money for training, propping up their pension systems, and more money for community policing.
just put it this way, when that was dropped on me from a relative as their new marching orders I thought they were joking.
tl;dr the whole defund the police calling is poison in November and the big influences in politics has called their party to the carpet to change the direction of the debate
That is neither fair, feasible nor practical to be honest. You want to judge them as a group while basically complaining against their practices of profiling.
A department is a group, one that they voluntarily joined.
The comment accused the police as a whole for inciting protest. In this case a police officer probably failed his duties and the police gets accused as a whole. You should accuse government, it would be more believable.
Do the police not like being profiled? Maybe they can take their own advice.
Don't throw all police officers into one bucket.
You have some outliers that are violent and the rest just does their job - keeping the city more safe.
Also don't assume all cases of police officer shooting a person are cases of police brutality - this is for court to prove.
You have some outliers that are violent and the rest just does their job - keeping the city more safe.
Also don't assume all cases of police officer shooting a person are cases of police brutality - this is for court to prove.
The NYPD challenge coins tell a very different story: https://researchdestroy.com/nypd-challenge-coins.pdf
"The 81st Precinct covers Bedford-Stuyvesant and Stuyvesant Heights. The NYPD Tapes were secret recordings made by whistleblower officer Adrian Schoolcraft in 2008-2009 proving widespread corruption and abuse in the precinct. After voicing his complaints internally, he faced harrassment by fellow officers. High-ranking NYPD officials eventually ordered an illegal SWAT raid on his apartment, physically abducting him and involuntarily committing him to a psychiatric facility for six days. The license plate “54-EDP” references a “10-54 EDP” call, in which a so-called “emotionally disturbed person” is taken to a hospital via ambulance. The quote is the Deputy Chief ’s recorded order to remove “rat” Schoolcraft to the hospital."
NYPD have made it very clear that if you're a "good" cop, the rest of the cops will destroy you.
"The 81st Precinct covers Bedford-Stuyvesant and Stuyvesant Heights. The NYPD Tapes were secret recordings made by whistleblower officer Adrian Schoolcraft in 2008-2009 proving widespread corruption and abuse in the precinct. After voicing his complaints internally, he faced harrassment by fellow officers. High-ranking NYPD officials eventually ordered an illegal SWAT raid on his apartment, physically abducting him and involuntarily committing him to a psychiatric facility for six days. The license plate “54-EDP” references a “10-54 EDP” call, in which a so-called “emotionally disturbed person” is taken to a hospital via ambulance. The quote is the Deputy Chief ’s recorded order to remove “rat” Schoolcraft to the hospital."
NYPD have made it very clear that if you're a "good" cop, the rest of the cops will destroy you.
If this would be the case, the rest would report the violent ones, would testify against them and violent ones would be removed. This would happen in cases where is no video and no public outcry.
That it does not seem to be happening unless there is video and public outcry suggest the issue is cultural and institutional, not just individual. The good cop is not reporting bad cop and is not testifying against him. Maybe the good cop would be retaliated against, maybe nothing would be done, and all of those are reasons why bad cops are empowered.
That it does not seem to be happening unless there is video and public outcry suggest the issue is cultural and institutional, not just individual. The good cop is not reporting bad cop and is not testifying against him. Maybe the good cop would be retaliated against, maybe nothing would be done, and all of those are reasons why bad cops are empowered.
Would you report your fellow in company that e.g. goes late to work? Or uses corporate assets (printer, laptop) for personal things?
This is similar, if you know someone you have less incentive to report on one.
The better you know them, the higher is the bar for reporting.
This is similar, if you know someone you have less incentive to report on one.
The better you know them, the higher is the bar for reporting.
No, someone showing up late to work and someone else violently beating or murdering a citizen is not the same thing. At all.
Those two scenarios are so far apart, attempting to draw a comparison is disturbing.
Those two scenarios are so far apart, attempting to draw a comparison is disturbing.
OK, let me make it more clear.
Let's assume two cases:
1. A programmer, his work involves programming (obvious), going to meetings, printing some reports/codes etc.
The biggest problem he can do is introduce bugs in code by mistake (yes, lives can be lost that way), would you expect his peers to tell on him that he was the guy that introduced a bug that killed 300 people in a plane crash?
2. A cop, his job involves preventing crimes, event violent ones, so he sometimes need to use his gun to prevent some of it, and sometimes he has to shoot a criminal.
His mistakes might be killing innocent person. Same thing can happen to his colleagues, so they protect him (just like any sane community would, like your family) - at least unless he turns out to be some sick sociopath.
Do you see relevance now? If you play with code you can just break code, if you play with guns you can break lives.
A side from that I don't get it why there are so many people that trash cops, but don't say a bad word about looters.
Cops protect us from crimes, small and big. They provide order, there are always black sheep, but there are less of those than you think - good guys also make mistakes.
Without a force that provides protection from crimes we would turn into vendetta like justice - have you been to countries that just went out of war? e.g. after the fall of Yugoslavia, there was no police there only tribe and vendetta justice.
Each utopia turns into dystopia sooner or later (CHAZ).
Let's assume two cases:
1. A programmer, his work involves programming (obvious), going to meetings, printing some reports/codes etc.
The biggest problem he can do is introduce bugs in code by mistake (yes, lives can be lost that way), would you expect his peers to tell on him that he was the guy that introduced a bug that killed 300 people in a plane crash?
2. A cop, his job involves preventing crimes, event violent ones, so he sometimes need to use his gun to prevent some of it, and sometimes he has to shoot a criminal.
His mistakes might be killing innocent person. Same thing can happen to his colleagues, so they protect him (just like any sane community would, like your family) - at least unless he turns out to be some sick sociopath.
Do you see relevance now? If you play with code you can just break code, if you play with guns you can break lives.
A side from that I don't get it why there are so many people that trash cops, but don't say a bad word about looters.
Cops protect us from crimes, small and big. They provide order, there are always black sheep, but there are less of those than you think - good guys also make mistakes.
Without a force that provides protection from crimes we would turn into vendetta like justice - have you been to countries that just went out of war? e.g. after the fall of Yugoslavia, there was no police there only tribe and vendetta justice.
Each utopia turns into dystopia sooner or later (CHAZ).
Your example excludes intent.
If I thought my coworker had deliberately introduced a bug that killed 300 people, I would absolutely turn them in. There is absolutely no question in my mind that I would do that.
But cops do not turn in their own when they deliberately abuse their power. They in fact resign in protest when their own are investigated (Buffalo, NY), and turn out in support when their own are arraigned for abuses of power (Philadelphia, PA).
If I thought my coworker had deliberately introduced a bug that killed 300 people, I would absolutely turn them in. There is absolutely no question in my mind that I would do that.
But cops do not turn in their own when they deliberately abuse their power. They in fact resign in protest when their own are investigated (Buffalo, NY), and turn out in support when their own are arraigned for abuses of power (Philadelphia, PA).
Intent is not obvious, unless you have evidence and that is to court to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Intent to kill is something a sociopath does, do you think police force has more of them than the rest of society?
There was a time when vigilant justice didn't need court, but I don't think we want that to return (witch hunts in middle ages or lynching in 19th and early 20th century USA).
Intent to kill is something a sociopath does, do you think police force has more of them than the rest of society?
There was a time when vigilant justice didn't need court, but I don't think we want that to return (witch hunts in middle ages or lynching in 19th and early 20th century USA).
> Intent to kill is something a sociopath does, do you think police force has more of them than the rest of society?
Actually, yes, they are filled with sociopaths. It's well known that lower-intelligence people become police. The police actively reject candidates with higher intelligence because the theory is that they become bored.
Also, it's well known that the occupation attracts bullies, who love the idea of bullying people and having power over regular citizens.
What you end up having is a group of low-IQ bullies, and they control the entire police force, because the "good" cops don't want to rock the boat. The stupid, boisterous bullies are the ones that create the culture of silence and complicity, and ultimately violence. I believe that cops love the idea that they are at war against the common citizen, which is why they draw their guns and escalate situations even before anything has happened.
Actually, yes, they are filled with sociopaths. It's well known that lower-intelligence people become police. The police actively reject candidates with higher intelligence because the theory is that they become bored.
Also, it's well known that the occupation attracts bullies, who love the idea of bullying people and having power over regular citizens.
What you end up having is a group of low-IQ bullies, and they control the entire police force, because the "good" cops don't want to rock the boat. The stupid, boisterous bullies are the ones that create the culture of silence and complicity, and ultimately violence. I believe that cops love the idea that they are at war against the common citizen, which is why they draw their guns and escalate situations even before anything has happened.
> It's well known that lower-intelligence people become police.
Any data?
> Also, it's well known that the occupation attracts bullies, who love the idea of bullying people and having power over regular citizens.
Again, data? Isn't it easier to become crook? More pay, less control, more freedom.
I know they are not PhDs but come on.
What you are doing is exactly the same what others do to different races/genders/nationalities, just replace "police" in your sentences with "black", "yellow", "women", "jewish" etc.
Hate against whole occupation, thousands of people. People start poisoning them (have you seen what happened in NY?), their children are bullied at schools.
Pure and simple hate crime.
Any data?
> Also, it's well known that the occupation attracts bullies, who love the idea of bullying people and having power over regular citizens.
Again, data? Isn't it easier to become crook? More pay, less control, more freedom.
I know they are not PhDs but come on.
What you are doing is exactly the same what others do to different races/genders/nationalities, just replace "police" in your sentences with "black", "yellow", "women", "jewish" etc.
Hate against whole occupation, thousands of people. People start poisoning them (have you seen what happened in NY?), their children are bullied at schools.
Pure and simple hate crime.
I would report someone in my company who attacked someone else with no provocation. Or murdered someone.
I don't think this comparison is as good as you think it is.
I don't think this comparison is as good as you think it is.
Would you tell on your loved one, good friend, and/or favorite cousin if they attacked someone? What if you could rationalize what they did? What if you told on them and that meant turning your back on the rest of your family and them all shunning you, or hurting and harassing you?
I think we need some massive overhauling of how accountability works in police situations and I think that will have to start with shit rolling uphill.
I think we need some massive overhauling of how accountability works in police situations and I think that will have to start with shit rolling uphill.
Oh no, I fully agree with you - in a normal organisation that respects operating according to the burden of responsibility placed on it, reporting these things would be a duty. As things stand, it is seen as betrayal of the 'brotherhood' which is why it needs to be brought down.
We agree. I was pointing out how it is different than if you saw it at the office. The brotherhood term is very relevant. Not sure why I was downvoted.
This is the problem. The family should reject the violent individual and turn in the person as a collective.
If the police were genuinely "good", they would act as a unit and reject the bad ones. In fact, the opposite happens, and they keep silent when bad cops commit crimes, and they reject the good ones who try to actually try to be good.
This is the culture that needs to be destroyed and rebuilt.
If the police were genuinely "good", they would act as a unit and reject the bad ones. In fact, the opposite happens, and they keep silent when bad cops commit crimes, and they reject the good ones who try to actually try to be good.
This is the culture that needs to be destroyed and rebuilt.
> Would you report your fellow in company that e.g. goes late to work? Or uses corporate assets (printer, laptop) for personal things?
If I reported that someone is using corporate assets (printer, laptop) for personal things, my manager would consider me crazy. If I reported someone being bit late, it would be the same.
That is exactly the culture thing. The corporate printer or laptop being used is not being seen as an issue by me, you or anybody else, regardless of what official rules say.
If I reported that someone is using corporate assets (printer, laptop) for personal things, my manager would consider me crazy. If I reported someone being bit late, it would be the same.
That is exactly the culture thing. The corporate printer or laptop being used is not being seen as an issue by me, you or anybody else, regardless of what official rules say.
Watch the videos and pay attention to what the other police do when their colleagues misbehave. They can commit these crimes because no one will stop them.
Why don’t the good ones arrest the bad ones then? Or even testify in court?
The world is not black and white.
There is some evil that is done by good guys, and a tribe/community protects them. This is normal human behavior.
Sociopaths are a minority.
Would you protect your child if he/she did a hit&run? Would you report him/her right away?
There is some evil that is done by good guys, and a tribe/community protects them. This is normal human behavior.
Sociopaths are a minority.
Would you protect your child if he/she did a hit&run? Would you report him/her right away?
I would turn in a colleague if they did a hit and run, which is much closer to what we’re talking about. That appears to be something cops are incapable of doing.
This is difficult when police literally have a union. If the union were acting in good faith they would be eager to learn & fire. Instead we get the “blue wall of silence” & turn otherwise “good” cops into ones indistinguishable from “bad” cops.
I mean there’s even a “good cop/bad cop” trope that’s got to be the best example of this kind of behavior—I can’t count how many times police are complicit with straight up torture and abuse of rights on Law & Order.
I mean there’s even a “good cop/bad cop” trope that’s got to be the best example of this kind of behavior—I can’t count how many times police are complicit with straight up torture and abuse of rights on Law & Order.
[deleted]
> The thing that really makes things worse is that the police are causing most of these protests and riots with their violent, unwarranted behavior.
We've had children "protesting" here in the UK too despite the police not generally participating in brutality.
We've had children "protesting" here in the UK too despite the police not generally participating in brutality.
I know politics isn't the usual HN topic, but I think this goes beyond politics at this point. Until I saw this list, I had no idea how out of control this situation has gotten here.
I'm saddened for my country and hope that this can be a turning point for all of us.
I'm saddened for my country and hope that this can be a turning point for all of us.
I believe strongly that George Floyds death and the reactions thereafter are to a majority of the nation, the same as the 16th Street Church Bombing was in 1963, its a turning point in making people aware of the real costs of our problems with policing.
The fact is, I'm a white dude in my mid-30's, I make a tech salary, and I'm afraid of the police, because an officer with a hair up somewhere could ruin my life for a period of time, if not for good.
The fact is, I'm a white dude in my mid-30's, I make a tech salary, and I'm afraid of the police, because an officer with a hair up somewhere could ruin my life for a period of time, if not for good.
Same here. When I see police, I just think, don't go near them or bother them at all. I actively avoid police if I can unless there are a bunch of other people around (concert, sporting event etc.).
The fear I think is more along the lines that police can detain you, arrest you and so on. So I just figure, why chance it? I optimize for lowest risk and I view police as an unnecessary risk.
The fear I think is more along the lines that police can detain you, arrest you and so on. So I just figure, why chance it? I optimize for lowest risk and I view police as an unnecessary risk.
One of the threads that was eye-opening for me was Greg Doucette's (a lawyer in North Carolina among other things) ongoing Twitter thread with Pics/Video of police brutality as it relates to peaceful protesters/bystanders.
It's currently at 500+ instances of police brutality. https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1272306977872453634
It's currently at 500+ instances of police brutality. https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1272306977872453634
[deleted]
ars(4)
[deleted]
Is it out of control though? The police has 700K members in the US. Millions of daily interactions with people of all kinds. All you could find is 400 cases from ALL the years. And I guess the claim is brutality wasn't justified in every single case. In reality there are not 400 cases on that list, and in many cases the violence was justified.
I'm not saying the police doesn't do wrong, they absolutely do. We have examples of rapes, unjustified murders and beatings, entrapment. They are extremely rare. I think last year the police in the US killed 9 unarmed black men and 21 unarmed white men.
I'm not saying the police doesn't do wrong, they absolutely do. We have examples of rapes, unjustified murders and beatings, entrapment. They are extremely rare. I think last year the police in the US killed 9 unarmed black men and 21 unarmed white men.
> All you could find is 400 cases from ALL the years.
These aren't from all the years, they're from approximately May 26th of this year. It's 400 cases in the last 3-4 weeks.
That is a startlingly high number, made worse once you actually start digging into the individual incidents, because you realize they're not just isolated. A lot of these videos aren't, "a single police officer does something shifty", they're, "an entire police unit starts firing tear gas at protestors who are kneeling on the ground." And then you start to read the responses from police unions, some of which outright lie about the incidents or contradict the videos. This isn't a problem with individual officers, it's a problem with high-level commanders and police union leaders -- it's a problem that spans entire units.
I personally went through about 200 incidents for a separate project I was working on, some more in-depth than others. I think people are looking at these lists and thinking, "oh sure, but if you zoom in and examine each incident, it gets better." It really doesn't. It didn't take me long to get accustomed to seeing people tear-gassed, those videos don't even make me blink now. But even with that, I was regularly shocked while I was combing through videos with incidents that I wasn't prepared for.
"Tear gas, tear gas, tear gas, holy heck that police officer just body slammed a protestor! Tear gas, tear gas, holy crap they just punched a reporter in the face!"
And again, 4 weeks. Not years. I would challenge anyone who's saying that these are extremely rare or over-dramatized to sit down and devote an evening to just watching the videos in series. It weighs on you. And it quickly becomes obvious that these are not individual rogue officers, these are police units operating in an environment where they know they will not face consequences for hurting protestors.
These aren't from all the years, they're from approximately May 26th of this year. It's 400 cases in the last 3-4 weeks.
That is a startlingly high number, made worse once you actually start digging into the individual incidents, because you realize they're not just isolated. A lot of these videos aren't, "a single police officer does something shifty", they're, "an entire police unit starts firing tear gas at protestors who are kneeling on the ground." And then you start to read the responses from police unions, some of which outright lie about the incidents or contradict the videos. This isn't a problem with individual officers, it's a problem with high-level commanders and police union leaders -- it's a problem that spans entire units.
I personally went through about 200 incidents for a separate project I was working on, some more in-depth than others. I think people are looking at these lists and thinking, "oh sure, but if you zoom in and examine each incident, it gets better." It really doesn't. It didn't take me long to get accustomed to seeing people tear-gassed, those videos don't even make me blink now. But even with that, I was regularly shocked while I was combing through videos with incidents that I wasn't prepared for.
"Tear gas, tear gas, tear gas, holy heck that police officer just body slammed a protestor! Tear gas, tear gas, holy crap they just punched a reporter in the face!"
And again, 4 weeks. Not years. I would challenge anyone who's saying that these are extremely rare or over-dramatized to sit down and devote an evening to just watching the videos in series. It weighs on you. And it quickly becomes obvious that these are not individual rogue officers, these are police units operating in an environment where they know they will not face consequences for hurting protestors.
And not just in recent weeks, also with cameras trained on them and during a protest specifically trying to draw awareness in part to police brutality. My jaw dropped at so many of them.
>These aren't from all the years, they're from approximately May 26th of this year. It's 400 cases in the last 3-4 weeks.
But... aren't there riots everywhere right now? This isn't exactly a normal situation.
But... aren't there riots everywhere right now? This isn't exactly a normal situation.
What does the existence of riots have anything to do with these instances of police brutality on _peaceful_ protestors?
Everything is connected to everything. If you have riots everywhere then people, including police, are on the edge.
Also, are you suggesting that the riots are peaceful?
Also, are you suggesting that the riots are peaceful?
> Also, are you suggesting that the riots are peaceful?
So apparently you haven't watched any of the videos, huh?
Guess what? The problem is that police are frequently "on edge" in their normal jobs, and as a result innocent people are seriously injured or die. And worse, police are "on edge" far more around blacks than whites, meaning far more blacks are injured by police than whites.
It doesn't matter what the cause is, it's a problem and is has to stop.
So apparently you haven't watched any of the videos, huh?
Guess what? The problem is that police are frequently "on edge" in their normal jobs, and as a result innocent people are seriously injured or die. And worse, police are "on edge" far more around blacks than whites, meaning far more blacks are injured by police than whites.
It doesn't matter what the cause is, it's a problem and is has to stop.
>So apparently you haven't watched any of the videos, huh?
Yes, I watched a few from this link, and that admittedly small sample didn't show a single peaceful protester being abused by cops. I suppose you watched more of them?
>Guess what? The problem is that police are frequently "on edge" in their normal jobs, and as a result innocent people are seriously injured or die. And worse, police are "on edge" far more around blacks than whites, meaning far more blacks are injured by police than whites.
Could there be a reason for some of that that is not linked to racism? Are only white policemen more on-edge around black people?
>It doesn't matter what the cause is, it's a problem and is has to stop.
I can agree with that certainly.
Yes, I watched a few from this link, and that admittedly small sample didn't show a single peaceful protester being abused by cops. I suppose you watched more of them?
>Guess what? The problem is that police are frequently "on edge" in their normal jobs, and as a result innocent people are seriously injured or die. And worse, police are "on edge" far more around blacks than whites, meaning far more blacks are injured by police than whites.
Could there be a reason for some of that that is not linked to racism? Are only white policemen more on-edge around black people?
>It doesn't matter what the cause is, it's a problem and is has to stop.
I can agree with that certainly.
> Yes, I watched a few from this link, and that admittedly small sample didn't show a single peaceful protester being abused by cops.
TGD #1 shows a woman standing with a sign being run over by a horse. That's absolutely peaceful.
TGD #2 shows a woman who was walking backwards in front of a police officer being shoved so hard she flies several meters back and hits her head on the curb. She was in the officer's face, but she certainly wasn't doing anything close to rioting.
I'll watch more later, but so far that's 2/2 at the top of the list showing peaceful protesters being abused.
> Could there be a reason for some of that that is not linked to racism? Are only white policemen more on-edge around black people?
Depends on what you mean by "racism". There was a series of studies a few years ago that put people in classic "shoot / no shoot" scenarios that police are trained on (i.e., you go through a scenario and have to shoot someone before they shoot you, but only if there's actually a gun). They randomly changed the color of the skin of the people involved. Civilians shot far more blacks than whites in "no-shoot" scenarios. Police shot about the same, but there was a longer delay: meaning, their impulse was to shoot blacks faster, but their training allowed a secondary impulse to come in and moderate the first one. (Sorry I can't find a link just now.)
But there are a host of other issues as well.
TGD #1 shows a woman standing with a sign being run over by a horse. That's absolutely peaceful.
TGD #2 shows a woman who was walking backwards in front of a police officer being shoved so hard she flies several meters back and hits her head on the curb. She was in the officer's face, but she certainly wasn't doing anything close to rioting.
I'll watch more later, but so far that's 2/2 at the top of the list showing peaceful protesters being abused.
> Could there be a reason for some of that that is not linked to racism? Are only white policemen more on-edge around black people?
Depends on what you mean by "racism". There was a series of studies a few years ago that put people in classic "shoot / no shoot" scenarios that police are trained on (i.e., you go through a scenario and have to shoot someone before they shoot you, but only if there's actually a gun). They randomly changed the color of the skin of the people involved. Civilians shot far more blacks than whites in "no-shoot" scenarios. Police shot about the same, but there was a longer delay: meaning, their impulse was to shoot blacks faster, but their training allowed a secondary impulse to come in and moderate the first one. (Sorry I can't find a link just now.)
But there are a host of other issues as well.
>There was a series of studies a few years ago that put people in classic "shoot / no shoot" scenarios that police are trained on (i.e., you go through a scenario and have to shoot someone before they shoot you, but only if there's actually a gun). They randomly changed the color of the skin of the people involved. Civilians shot far more blacks than whites in "no-shoot" scenarios. Police shot about the same, but there was a longer delay: meaning, their impulse was to shoot blacks faster, but their training allowed a secondary impulse to come in and moderate the first one. (Sorry I can't find a link just now.)
That sounded interesting, so I tried to find some.
First one I found was this https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235256692_Results_f...
-- the conclusion seemed to be exactly counter to what the research you were talking about showed. "In addition, where errors were made, participants across experiments were more likely to shoot unarmed White suspects than unarmed Black or Hispanic suspects, and were more likely to fail to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White or Hispanic suspects."
That sounded interesting, so I tried to find some.
First one I found was this https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235256692_Results_f...
-- the conclusion seemed to be exactly counter to what the research you were talking about showed. "In addition, where errors were made, participants across experiments were more likely to shoot unarmed White suspects than unarmed Black or Hispanic suspects, and were more likely to fail to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White or Hispanic suspects."
[deleted]
How come the police get to be on edge but not the people? You’d probably be on edge too after centuries of oppression in every aspect of society.
> Is it out of control though? The police has 700K members in the US. Millions of daily interactions with people of all kinds. All you could find is 400 cases from ALL the years. And I guess the claim is brutality wasn't justified in every single case. In reality there are not 400 cases on that list, and in many cases the violence was justified.
400 ... where there are videos. We know that until a video emerges these get swept under the rug, so I'm willing to bet that there are a fair few more than 400 examples of police brutality.
400 ... where there are videos. We know that until a video emerges these get swept under the rug, so I'm willing to bet that there are a fair few more than 400 examples of police brutality.
> 400 ... where there are videos. We know that until a video emerges these get swept under the rug, so I'm willing to bet that there are a fair few more than 400 examples of police brutality.
And those videos have uncovered many instances the the police blatantly lying about their own misconduct in official reports, which is further evidence that the videos are only the tip of the iceberg.
And those videos have uncovered many instances the the police blatantly lying about their own misconduct in official reports, which is further evidence that the videos are only the tip of the iceberg.
I agree that there are more than 400, we know that just by the number of people getting shot.
Now, how many are unjustified? That's the important question.
Now, how many are unjustified? That's the important question.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de... just under 1000 police involved shootings each year. Can't find the source, but of these only about 47 were un-armed and most of those involved protecting someone else from a physical attack.
Those figures are for fatal police shootings, not for all police shootings. Police shootings and police brutality do not necessarily result in death.
You keep avoiding the question. How many are unjustified?
You're looking at a giant list of videos that people think are unjustified. You can go through and weed out videos that you think don't belong there. You can even submit pull requests to more organized compilations to remove unsubstantiated claims.
Your use of "unjustified" is entirely subjective. I don't know what your specific threshold is for justified violence against peaceful protestors, and it's a waste of time to try and guess what that threshold is. It's a waste of time for us to filter the data, only for you to then point out two videos you disagree with and ask everyone to repeat the same work over and over again.
All of the raw data is available to you in a list format. If you think there are errors, then fork the repo, file a pull request, or create an issue. Make your own list that demonstrates your point.
https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality/issues
Your use of "unjustified" is entirely subjective. I don't know what your specific threshold is for justified violence against peaceful protestors, and it's a waste of time to try and guess what that threshold is. It's a waste of time for us to filter the data, only for you to then point out two videos you disagree with and ask everyone to repeat the same work over and over again.
All of the raw data is available to you in a list format. If you think there are errors, then fork the repo, file a pull request, or create an issue. Make your own list that demonstrates your point.
https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality/issues
Ignoring the land mine that is defining "unjustified," why is somebody else obligated to answer your question?
> Can't find the source, but of these only about 47 were un-armed and most of those involved protecting someone else from a physical attack.
This is wrong.
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed lists 1ists at least 104 unarmed black people alone killed by police in 2015.
I went though the first 20, and maybe 8 could have been accidents (one was hit by a car) or otherwise explained (2 pointed toy guns at police).
This is wrong.
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed lists 1ists at least 104 unarmed black people alone killed by police in 2015.
I went though the first 20, and maybe 8 could have been accidents (one was hit by a car) or otherwise explained (2 pointed toy guns at police).
Just pulling some of these randomly out, there's quite a few that are clearly not caused by the police: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/may/13/jail-inmate-di...
> Officers arrested the man for violating a domestic violence no contact order and unlawful possession of a firearm
> the man went into cardiac arrest during processing.
> Correction officers began resuscitation immediately, police said, and the man was transported to the hospital while he still had a pulse. He later died at the hospital.
https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2015/07/10/Physical-...
> Ms. Harris declined to comment through an Allegheny County Jail Health Justice project spokeswoman, but she has said that her son took an anti-seizure medication twice daily and called her from the jail to ask for help getting health care workers there to give him the medication
> He died of acute peritonitis due to colon perforation, and the death was ruled natural.
> Our records indicate that within ten minutes of Mr. Smart’s arrival at medical intake, our staff ordered the medications he said he needed, and he received those medications as prescribed. During an emergency event later that evening, our records show that our staff administered additional treatment to Mr. Smart and that he responded to the medical care provided.
This is an extremely misleading website and not a reliable source.
> Officers arrested the man for violating a domestic violence no contact order and unlawful possession of a firearm
> the man went into cardiac arrest during processing.
> Correction officers began resuscitation immediately, police said, and the man was transported to the hospital while he still had a pulse. He later died at the hospital.
https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2015/07/10/Physical-...
> Ms. Harris declined to comment through an Allegheny County Jail Health Justice project spokeswoman, but she has said that her son took an anti-seizure medication twice daily and called her from the jail to ask for help getting health care workers there to give him the medication
> He died of acute peritonitis due to colon perforation, and the death was ruled natural.
> Our records indicate that within ten minutes of Mr. Smart’s arrival at medical intake, our staff ordered the medications he said he needed, and he received those medications as prescribed. During an emergency event later that evening, our records show that our staff administered additional treatment to Mr. Smart and that he responded to the medical care provided.
This is an extremely misleading website and not a reliable source.
First of all, you're pulling old data. Try last year.
But even then, half of the cases sound like accidents, out of 104. The remaining is pretty close to 47.
But even then, half of the cases sound like accidents, out of 104. The remaining is pretty close to 47.
I don't know where to get last years data in such detail.
There are plenty of sites that count the number of killings, but this is one of the few that looks for unarmed ones. If you are aware of better or more recent stats (for example the source of this 47 number) I'd love a link.
> half of the cases sound like accidents, out of 104. The remaining is pretty close to 47.
I find it mind-boggling that killing 52 unarmed people by accident is somehow the best case scenario here.
There are plenty of sites that count the number of killings, but this is one of the few that looks for unarmed ones. If you are aware of better or more recent stats (for example the source of this 47 number) I'd love a link.
> half of the cases sound like accidents, out of 104. The remaining is pretty close to 47.
I find it mind-boggling that killing 52 unarmed people by accident is somehow the best case scenario here.
Why the hell would it matter if they were accidents?
An important question, and a simple answer: all cases of police misconduct and brutality are unjustified.
That's blatantly false.
How do you stop someone pointing a gun at the police officer without brutality?
How do you stop someone attacking a police officer?
How do you stop someone going for their gun?
How do you stop someone going around shooting innocent people?
etc, etc, etc.
How do you stop someone pointing a gun at the police officer without brutality?
How do you stop someone attacking a police officer?
How do you stop someone going for their gun?
How do you stop someone going around shooting innocent people?
etc, etc, etc.
Is there a term for the type of response that, instead of furthering the discussion, just tries to overwhelm you with questions?
Gish gallop[1]? Although that includes arguments, not just questions.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
"Gish gallop" is the correct term, but "buffer overflow" would also work in this case.
So you can't answer 4 simple questions. So you pretend to be overwhelmed. Got it.
The answer to your questions is that those are not examples of police brutality, so long as the police respond with reasonable force.
Along with reading your other comments here, I viewed these 4 questions as a bad faith attempt at steering the conversation off topic. When people complain about police brutality, we are not talking about the times when police have to legitimately defend themselves or disarm someone. This thread is specifically about the hundreds of clearly documented examples of unprovoked violence by police in the US over the last few weeks, many of them against journalists, elderly people, kneeling protestors and so on. Please engage with that and don't try to change the subject again.
Along with reading your other comments here, I viewed these 4 questions as a bad faith attempt at steering the conversation off topic. When people complain about police brutality, we are not talking about the times when police have to legitimately defend themselves or disarm someone. This thread is specifically about the hundreds of clearly documented examples of unprovoked violence by police in the US over the last few weeks, many of them against journalists, elderly people, kneeling protestors and so on. Please engage with that and don't try to change the subject again.
"Bad faith" is the copout people use when they don't have a good counterargument.
I just gave you a counterargument and an opportunity to turn this around and respond in good faith to the issue at hand. You didn't take it. That's why I'm saying you're arguing in bad faith. You refuse to accept fault or engage with the real issue here, instead resorting to logical phallacies to try and derail the conversation, as most people on the far right do these days. Try again. Can you respond to the issue at hand, ongoing police brutality in the BLM protests?
> unjustified
Every municipality has different rules for officer's conduct. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Part of the Federal US Department of Justice), there are 17,985 US police agencies, of which 15,400 departments govern the 39,044 distinct local governments and municipalities. These are further divided into autonomous administrative districts often referred to as precincts.
The rules for officer misconduct change in each municipality as reactions to prior conduct or complaints. The rules are based on edicts from the state, as well as interpretations of those edicts by the local police department which create internal policy. The level of compliance with creating and updating internal policies varies. No civilian is able to know or predict the various rationale an officer may use or is able to use to behave any particular way. Civilians learn after they have had a bad encounter with an officer, or are in jail or dead. Juries learn on the spot with prosecutor instructions, sometimes those instructions themselves are misleading or incorrect. The public does not necessarily ever learn what the standards were, and the media learns after the fact and only has a patchwork of "isolated incidents" that occurred in frankly different governing systems. When put together, this fuels discontent with police as an amorphous entity, an interpretation which fuels a growing divide of non-solutions.
So the term "justified" and "unjustified" means nothing because it is different and changing everywhere and is a term that only matches your pre-existing worldview, or your predilection to appeal to authority in counties and states you have never set foot in, let alone participate in.
Every municipality has different rules for officer's conduct. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Part of the Federal US Department of Justice), there are 17,985 US police agencies, of which 15,400 departments govern the 39,044 distinct local governments and municipalities. These are further divided into autonomous administrative districts often referred to as precincts.
The rules for officer misconduct change in each municipality as reactions to prior conduct or complaints. The rules are based on edicts from the state, as well as interpretations of those edicts by the local police department which create internal policy. The level of compliance with creating and updating internal policies varies. No civilian is able to know or predict the various rationale an officer may use or is able to use to behave any particular way. Civilians learn after they have had a bad encounter with an officer, or are in jail or dead. Juries learn on the spot with prosecutor instructions, sometimes those instructions themselves are misleading or incorrect. The public does not necessarily ever learn what the standards were, and the media learns after the fact and only has a patchwork of "isolated incidents" that occurred in frankly different governing systems. When put together, this fuels discontent with police as an amorphous entity, an interpretation which fuels a growing divide of non-solutions.
So the term "justified" and "unjustified" means nothing because it is different and changing everywhere and is a term that only matches your pre-existing worldview, or your predilection to appeal to authority in counties and states you have never set foot in, let alone participate in.
The number of distinct police forces might already be a problem in itself.
Germany has 16 state level and one federal, plus customs (not legally a police force with a lot less jurisdiction)
France has two, Police national and Gendamerie.
Obviously a slight oversimplification when counting stuff like the BKA / LKA (maybe the German equivalent to the FBI?) as seperate bodies. But roughly across Europe you have two levels,local and federal. Both are reporting, one way or the other, to the respective Ministeries of the Interior. Quite adifference compared to the US, where the highest authority can be a mayor. or none, if I understood the thing with local Sherrifs correctly.
Germany has 16 state level and one federal, plus customs (not legally a police force with a lot less jurisdiction)
France has two, Police national and Gendamerie.
Obviously a slight oversimplification when counting stuff like the BKA / LKA (maybe the German equivalent to the FBI?) as seperate bodies. But roughly across Europe you have two levels,local and federal. Both are reporting, one way or the other, to the respective Ministeries of the Interior. Quite adifference compared to the US, where the highest authority can be a mayor. or none, if I understood the thing with local Sherrifs correctly.
Just imagine you or a beloved one is the victim of police brutality in one of these cases. Take a second to think about it, and see if you're still on the same ground.
There needs to be a psychology study done with cops to understand why they act the way they do. I believe there's an underlying problem in how they are trained or something else because police brutality is kind of a global phenomenon. When someone kills or severely hurts the people they are supposed to protect, it seems like there's something else going on. I've been in a few protests and I can easily say that I have never seen more hatred in someone's eyes other than the cops that were beating up people.
> because police brutality is kind of a global phenomenon
No it's not. Police in Europe is, on average, very kind. When they stop you, you don't have to be afraid of anything, and more often than not you stop them to ask for help, even if it's just to ask for directions.
No it's not. Police in Europe is, on average, very kind. When they stop you, you don't have to be afraid of anything, and more often than not you stop them to ask for help, even if it's just to ask for directions.
You don't have to worry about getting killed, even though that's changing slowly [0][1], but many of them are authority abusive pieces of shit that have no place in the police.
I've been stopped on my motorcycle for no reasons by officers in an unmarked car, they kept me 30 min on the road under full summer sun and didn't provide me any reason for stopping me whatsoever. "don't do crimes and the police will leave you alone" doesn't exist
My dad got a ticket for using his mobile phone in a stopped car (engine off, parked) even though he didn't own a mobile phone. I can't come up with a single good interaction me or any member of my family had with the police and as far as I can tell I'm far from the only one.
A quick look at the yellow vests protest will tell you that French riot police are just the same as the American one. They killed a grandma by shooting a tear gas canister into her 4th floor flat [2].. Dozen lost hands, eyes, & c. The only reason it isn't worse is because they're less equipped and have more legal constraints
Potentially nsfl, lost of yellow vests injuries with pics: http://lemurjaune.fr
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Adama_Traoré
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lexpress.fr/actualite/socie...
[2] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.leparisien.fr/amp/faits-div...
I've been stopped on my motorcycle for no reasons by officers in an unmarked car, they kept me 30 min on the road under full summer sun and didn't provide me any reason for stopping me whatsoever. "don't do crimes and the police will leave you alone" doesn't exist
My dad got a ticket for using his mobile phone in a stopped car (engine off, parked) even though he didn't own a mobile phone. I can't come up with a single good interaction me or any member of my family had with the police and as far as I can tell I'm far from the only one.
A quick look at the yellow vests protest will tell you that French riot police are just the same as the American one. They killed a grandma by shooting a tear gas canister into her 4th floor flat [2].. Dozen lost hands, eyes, & c. The only reason it isn't worse is because they're less equipped and have more legal constraints
Potentially nsfl, lost of yellow vests injuries with pics: http://lemurjaune.fr
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Adama_Traoré
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lexpress.fr/actualite/socie...
[2] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.leparisien.fr/amp/faits-div...
I've got stopped close to midnight by Swiss border police once, coming from rock climbing session over the border. You would expect Swiss politeness and correctness, right?
I got held at the (utterly empty otherwise) border for 40 minutes. They went through my whole backpack (just wet stinking climbing clothing equipment), did some obscure exercises like taking out all my cash & cards from wallet, counting it, putting into envelope and then back to me and so on.
I was super thirsty, when I asked them for a cup of water they repeatedly ignored it. They yelled at me and were generally super unfriendly, treating me like a criminal. I cross normally (non-covid times) that border several times a week, never anything similar. You can't do much, they have all the power, and they make you feel it.
This is Swiss, don't hold your breath for other european places. There are sane normal policemen, just like everywhere, but there are also fucked up power tripping assholes. They just can be more trigger-happy in places like US.
I got held at the (utterly empty otherwise) border for 40 minutes. They went through my whole backpack (just wet stinking climbing clothing equipment), did some obscure exercises like taking out all my cash & cards from wallet, counting it, putting into envelope and then back to me and so on.
I was super thirsty, when I asked them for a cup of water they repeatedly ignored it. They yelled at me and were generally super unfriendly, treating me like a criminal. I cross normally (non-covid times) that border several times a week, never anything similar. You can't do much, they have all the power, and they make you feel it.
This is Swiss, don't hold your breath for other european places. There are sane normal policemen, just like everywhere, but there are also fucked up power tripping assholes. They just can be more trigger-happy in places like US.
jpxw(2)
You and your Dad are not statistically relevant. My experience is very different, and it is backed up by data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
United States is between Congo and Iraq when sorted by rate per 10 mil. people.
The first european country is way down that list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
United States is between Congo and Iraq when sorted by rate per 10 mil. people.
The first european country is way down that list.
I know it's tempting to do the whole ”oh that's a problem over in terrible USA” (a very common european way of thinking) but I'd be careful about it.
Granted I think european police is less violent than US (a low bar), but to say that we don't have a problem with this at all is pretty naive. Just look at how french or swedish police have responded to black lives matters protests for example.
Granted I think european police is less violent than US (a low bar), but to say that we don't have a problem with this at all is pretty naive. Just look at how french or swedish police have responded to black lives matters protests for example.
What are you referring to? I live in Sweden, and have not seen news regarding police brutality during the BLM protests.
I believe Sweden requires a bachelors degree and 2.5 years of training to become a cop. In the US it's just a high school diploma and 4 to 6 months of training depending the state.
Right now the French police is protesting against their own boss (minister of the interior, Castaner) because he went with the BLM narrative and basically called them racist.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53022073
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53022073
Back during Sarkozy'sreign as President,there were riotscaused by the death of a coupe of youth being persued by police. So yeah, they have a problem in France. One that should be addressed.
I don't think thats the right angle to look at it.
It's not a problem of policeman brutally beating/killing people (its a issue alright but). Its about the organisation protecting and turning blind eye on their misdeeds.
There will be bad apples in any organisation. Be it police fore or church. The problem starts when the perpetrators are protected insted of being ousted.
That emboldens other to do similar and openly advertises to anyone 'Join our org and you can to X, Y, Z with no repercussions'.
It's not a problem of policeman brutally beating/killing people (its a issue alright but). Its about the organisation protecting and turning blind eye on their misdeeds.
There will be bad apples in any organisation. Be it police fore or church. The problem starts when the perpetrators are protected insted of being ousted.
That emboldens other to do similar and openly advertises to anyone 'Join our org and you can to X, Y, Z with no repercussions'.
.. if you're of the "native" white ethnicity or a white tourist, yes. The London BLM protests aren't just copycats, there's a long history of poor race relations from the Met.
People aren't being killed left right and centre by the police in the UK of any ethnicity, their main gripes seem to be stuff like stop and search which already has dramatically declined over the last few years.
Maybe the met does have "poor race relations" historically but it isn't anything remotely close to the US police.
Maybe the met does have "poor race relations" historically but it isn't anything remotely close to the US police.
The scale is very different, yes. The UK kills much, much fewer people. But it still happens occasionally, and when it does we see the same problems of poor accountability. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/11/black-deaths...
Well, you are correct. The average officer outside of the US is not scary. Especially European cops. The first time I visited the US after living in Australia for years, was quite a shocker for me. But when I said "kind of" I meant that there are countries that make an exception but other than western Europe and Australia, most countries have a police brutality problem. But that's only one side of the police force. When protests break out and the big guys come out, even the European cops are quite brutal. Protests in Germany, France can be a good example of that. So, maybe I can rephrase my comment as Police brutality is a global phenomenon but it extends to the average officer in the US which makes it a bigger problem there.
> Police in Europe is, on average, very kind.
I generally agree. "The left" in Germany does disagree completely, though, so I think it's pretty controversial and not really as simple as you make it out to be.
I generally agree. "The left" in Germany does disagree completely, though, so I think it's pretty controversial and not really as simple as you make it out to be.
Nobody in the left in Germany will claim police brutality is at any level near what America is facing as that's completely absurd.
However, people do acknowledge police is authoritative, profile racially, and abuse their power at times.
I think you can acknowledge both without being inconsistent.
However, people do acknowledge police is authoritative, profile racially, and abuse their power at times.
I think you can acknowledge both without being inconsistent.
> Nobody in the left in Germany will claim police brutality is at any level near what America is facing as that's completely absurd.
And that's not what I said. They certainly won't agree that police in Europe is "on average, very kind".
> However, people do acknowledge police is authoritative, profile racially, and abuse their power at times.
That's an overly euphemistic way of describing "ACAB", which is very common and not controversial on the left.
And that's not what I said. They certainly won't agree that police in Europe is "on average, very kind".
> However, people do acknowledge police is authoritative, profile racially, and abuse their power at times.
That's an overly euphemistic way of describing "ACAB", which is very common and not controversial on the left.
Extreme left. I don't think this sentiment is popular on the left as a whole.
That's hard to say, of course.
There's little rejection in left wing parties and German trade unions (with the exception of the police unions, obviously) with regards to ACAB and similar messages, although you won't find anybody running for chancellor embracing it. As they will march with the Black Bloc on ocassion, I don't think you can draw a clear line.
The parties' youth organizations are generally significantly further left, so that's a different story entirely, but that's probably true for any youth organization.
There's little rejection in left wing parties and German trade unions (with the exception of the police unions, obviously) with regards to ACAB and similar messages, although you won't find anybody running for chancellor embracing it. As they will march with the Black Bloc on ocassion, I don't think you can draw a clear line.
The parties' youth organizations are generally significantly further left, so that's a different story entirely, but that's probably true for any youth organization.
It really isn’t like this everywhere, not at all.
I lived for a number of years on a caribbean island–modern, mix of people, pretty crowded, but a police force that was just cool af. They just didn’t get aggressive unless it was absolutely, positively, unquestionably a life or death situation. They weren’t invisible, but they weren’t anywhere near as pervasive as we see in US cities.
And I never felt unsafe there. I would walk through the worst parts of the cities at night and no one bothered you. Sure, there was crime, but basically the same shit you see in US cities where the cops everywhere and hyper-aggressive.
There is something going on with our cops and it’s a large and very deep cultural problem.
Other places have police who are drastically scaled back and the quality of life is so much better.
I’m guessing unless we alter our policing structures to where our police understand they need to make the overall community’s day to day quality of life better, these massive cracks are going to continue to widen.
Again, there were far less police and the world did not fall apart, the daily quality of life was significantly higher.
One of the major hurdles we need to get over is the rather large amount of people (and many of the police also belong to this group) who just don’t understand that people have different interests. A bad analogy, but this is a group of people who rage out when someone has pink or green hair. It’s not enough for them to personally choose to have a buzzcut, they’re furious that everyone else doesn’t also have one.
I could probably come up with a better analogy, but I think one of the answers is in there. I’m not sure how we convince those people to live and let live, because at the heart of our policing emergency is that thought process.
I lived for a number of years on a caribbean island–modern, mix of people, pretty crowded, but a police force that was just cool af. They just didn’t get aggressive unless it was absolutely, positively, unquestionably a life or death situation. They weren’t invisible, but they weren’t anywhere near as pervasive as we see in US cities.
And I never felt unsafe there. I would walk through the worst parts of the cities at night and no one bothered you. Sure, there was crime, but basically the same shit you see in US cities where the cops everywhere and hyper-aggressive.
There is something going on with our cops and it’s a large and very deep cultural problem.
Other places have police who are drastically scaled back and the quality of life is so much better.
I’m guessing unless we alter our policing structures to where our police understand they need to make the overall community’s day to day quality of life better, these massive cracks are going to continue to widen.
Again, there were far less police and the world did not fall apart, the daily quality of life was significantly higher.
One of the major hurdles we need to get over is the rather large amount of people (and many of the police also belong to this group) who just don’t understand that people have different interests. A bad analogy, but this is a group of people who rage out when someone has pink or green hair. It’s not enough for them to personally choose to have a buzzcut, they’re furious that everyone else doesn’t also have one.
I could probably come up with a better analogy, but I think one of the answers is in there. I’m not sure how we convince those people to live and let live, because at the heart of our policing emergency is that thought process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
The rate of police killings is vastly higher in the US than any other Western country. So something is going on there that is not a universal phenomenon.
The rate of police killings is vastly higher in the US than any other Western country. So something is going on there that is not a universal phenomenon.
People in US have too many guns. Cops are afraid for their life and use preventive violence.
Yet police have one of the safer jobs in the USA. Loggers, fisherman, roofers, truckers, farmers, and construction workers all hold more dangerous jobs than police. A police officer is more likely to die in an accident (car or otherwise) than by violence.
And despite this, it's continually hammered home into their heads that they have a very, very dangerous job. Yeah, you're correct, it's fear from the lies told to them.
And despite this, it's continually hammered home into their heads that they have a very, very dangerous job. Yeah, you're correct, it's fear from the lies told to them.
I really think it is this simple. When any random person on the street can be concealing a firearm, it seems almost natural that police are going to develop a culture of adversity and fear. This of course leads to civilians having the same feelings towards the police.
Switzerland has a lot of guns yet we don't have this police issue here.
Aren't those Swiss guns mostly rifles, rather than handguns?
How many police are killed in Switzerland per year?
What's your argument here ? Police brutality is ok because US police officers are more prone to being killed ? By now there are thousands of videos clearly showing people not resisting, sometimes not even participating in any crime, being beaten and/or killed by the police, it's not normal and no one should defend that.
Gun violence in the US is the symptom of very deep problems, you can't consider it just by itself while disregarding the societal issues being it.
Gun violence in the US is the symptom of very deep problems, you can't consider it just by itself while disregarding the societal issues being it.
No one said that police brutality is OK, just that it can be partially explained by the fact that police in the US are more likely to be killed than in other countries.
The total murder rate in Switzerland appears to be less than 200 per year; you're welcome to try to find more stats in this if you speak German: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home.assetdetail.11147486.ht...
They don't openly carry handguns.
This page has inaccurate data. I checked for my country and the listed number disagrees with the linked source next to it!
I was very surprised to hear a cop in the US only gets 3-6 months of training.
Here in the Netherlands _basic_ education is 3 years; and then you have another few years to specialize into a specific topic (abuse, fraud, forensics, narcotics..).
Here in the Netherlands _basic_ education is 3 years; and then you have another few years to specialize into a specific topic (abuse, fraud, forensics, narcotics..).
Yup, same here in Finland. You get an undergrad degree when going to the police academy.
I recently learned of Dave Grossman and his police training courses that appear to encourage murder[0]. I'm not sure how prolific his teaching is, but it says a lot about the fearful mindset these officers have.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Grossman_(author)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Grossman_(author)
Big part is probably the training. Search for Dave Grossman / Killology on youtube for some videos.
Here is a bit more info:
https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2020/06/05/killology-is-not-a-...
Here is a bit more info:
https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2020/06/05/killology-is-not-a-...
My theory is that they are bored. Violent crime is rapidly declining in both the US and Europe. To few real criminals to act out on so they take out their anger on peaceful protestors instead. Like what would developers do if there was no bugs to fix or features to implement? They would refactor the shit out of the code base.
[deleted]
> brutality is kind of a global phenomenon
I am afraid that it is not limited by police. You can see it everywhere. For example, downvoting a post with an alternative opinion and trying to have one opinion is a sign that you will be a good policeman. People like diversity only if it is a minor deviation which in this sense only confirm the dominance of one opinion. And this behavior is visible almost everywhere: police, governments, protests against police, forum moderation etc.
I am afraid that it is not limited by police. You can see it everywhere. For example, downvoting a post with an alternative opinion and trying to have one opinion is a sign that you will be a good policeman. People like diversity only if it is a minor deviation which in this sense only confirm the dominance of one opinion. And this behavior is visible almost everywhere: police, governments, protests against police, forum moderation etc.
Especially compared to other countries, the US police seem to show quite the restrained considering most countries do not allow to carry weapons. It is a significant risk for safety of course. But if you look at the data, the often believed stereotype of US police being glorified cowboys seems to be quite untrue.
Frankly I am a bit cynical about politicians declaring the need for police reform. In my country protests are regularly "subdued" with excessive violence but the decision to handle it this way comes from the top, not from police officers.
I think clearer legal rules would help. Also maybe teaching people how to behave in case law enforcement conducts a search. The ability for surveillance and raiding homes should certainly be under intense scrutiny. Because I think the fear of decision makers is the main driver we might see some problems.
> I've been in a few protests and I can easily say that I have never seen more hatred in someone's eyes other than the cops that were beating up people.
That can be true for protesters and criminals too. I am aware of the irony of mentioning them in the same sentence. But the "psychology" study should show, that police is just often required to just do the dirty work and some might adjust to the crime they see in their daily routines. The systematic problems are programs like war on drugs or excessive militarization.
Frankly I am a bit cynical about politicians declaring the need for police reform. In my country protests are regularly "subdued" with excessive violence but the decision to handle it this way comes from the top, not from police officers.
I think clearer legal rules would help. Also maybe teaching people how to behave in case law enforcement conducts a search. The ability for surveillance and raiding homes should certainly be under intense scrutiny. Because I think the fear of decision makers is the main driver we might see some problems.
> I've been in a few protests and I can easily say that I have never seen more hatred in someone's eyes other than the cops that were beating up people.
That can be true for protesters and criminals too. I am aware of the irony of mentioning them in the same sentence. But the "psychology" study should show, that police is just often required to just do the dirty work and some might adjust to the crime they see in their daily routines. The systematic problems are programs like war on drugs or excessive militarization.
> considering most countries do not allow to carry weapons
Imagine being legally allowed to own and carry a gun and getting killed because you legally own and carry your gun. How is that logic?
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/06/22/philando-castil...
Imagine being legally allowed to own and carry a gun and getting killed because you legally own and carry your gun. How is that logic?
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/06/22/philando-castil...
Also Breonna Taylor: Kentucky is a "castle doctrine" state, where it's legal to shoot intruders. So the police arrived at her home to serve a no-knock warrant, her boyfriend shot at the intruders, and the police returned fire and killed her.
> Especially compared to other countries, the US police seem to show quite the restrained
There have been multiple instances where the us police shot someone and fired more bullets in this situation than the while german police in a whole year. And i don't mean big standoffs but shooting a single person.
/edit: in 2018 the german police fired a total of 54 bullets on persona killing 11.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_i...
There have been multiple instances where the us police shot someone and fired more bullets in this situation than the while german police in a whole year. And i don't mean big standoffs but shooting a single person.
/edit: in 2018 the german police fired a total of 54 bullets on persona killing 11.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_i...
I agree that police violence and brutality is at unacceptable levels. However, number of bullets fired may not be a good statistic. My understanding is US police officers are trained to fire the whole magazine of rounds.
> My understanding is US police officers are trained to fire the whole magazine of rounds.
No, this is incorrect. Police are trained to stop a threat. Handguns despite what you see in movies are actually quite poor at doing this, so the accepted and common doctrine is “at least 5-6 rounds center mass”.
This is in life or desth situations where that person must be stopped or someone else will die.
If police were trained for one and reassess, they would shoot one. Trained for two; and they’ll a lot two regardless if they have a good sight picture after the first shot or not.
So the training is “stop the threat”, be prepared to shoot 5 rounds center mass as quickly as possible, move, maintain a sight picture, do all the things you need to do but focus on the target first and gun and number of bullets second.
No, this is incorrect. Police are trained to stop a threat. Handguns despite what you see in movies are actually quite poor at doing this, so the accepted and common doctrine is “at least 5-6 rounds center mass”.
This is in life or desth situations where that person must be stopped or someone else will die.
If police were trained for one and reassess, they would shoot one. Trained for two; and they’ll a lot two regardless if they have a good sight picture after the first shot or not.
So the training is “stop the threat”, be prepared to shoot 5 rounds center mass as quickly as possible, move, maintain a sight picture, do all the things you need to do but focus on the target first and gun and number of bullets second.
> Especially compared to other countries, the US police seem to show quite the restrained considering most countries do not allow to carry weapons.
Not most. Ireland, Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Maldives have police officers work unarmed. Are there others?
Not most. Ireland, Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Maldives have police officers work unarmed. Are there others?
That wasn't expressed clearly, I meant civilians not generally being allowed to carry weapons. If you can expect people to be unarmed, you have a lot less tension in police interactions.
There's also a Github repo [1] which was posted a while ago containing various instances of police brutality as well as other sites using said data to better illustrate the problem.
[1] https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality
[1] https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality
[deleted]
Some ideas:
- Less immunity, and discharge without pension for blatant violations, for example being caught on camera hiding a badge, or deliberately bumping into someone to be able to argue that they were "assaulted".
- Longer police traning. A 6-12months is how long you should train to be an unarmed mall security guy. Two or three years for a policeman seems like a minimum if you want qualified officers.
- Federal overview of all police and common frameworks for what is allowed and expected by police officers.
- Only qualified policemen should be allowed to be managers anywhere in the hierarchy (e.g. running for a Sheriff should require police traning and N years of experience).
- More training focus on deescalation, dialog and avoiding dangerous situations.
- Mental health screening. You don't want anyone who would become violent when in the wrong situation.
- Less immunity, and discharge without pension for blatant violations, for example being caught on camera hiding a badge, or deliberately bumping into someone to be able to argue that they were "assaulted".
- Longer police traning. A 6-12months is how long you should train to be an unarmed mall security guy. Two or three years for a policeman seems like a minimum if you want qualified officers.
- Federal overview of all police and common frameworks for what is allowed and expected by police officers.
- Only qualified policemen should be allowed to be managers anywhere in the hierarchy (e.g. running for a Sheriff should require police traning and N years of experience).
- More training focus on deescalation, dialog and avoiding dangerous situations.
- Mental health screening. You don't want anyone who would become violent when in the wrong situation.
All great, but the problem with police is the same reason we don't use the military as our law enforcement agency. If all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail.
-Traffic cops, patrolmen, and escort/guard details do not need to carry guns. They should not be pulling people over to fish for reasons to search and detain, they should not be arresting people. It's simply not necessary, and we should not use the same people that do SWAT raids for everyday things.
Aside from mass shootings and hostage situations, there are very situations in which shooting is reasonable. Let the criminals get away with the diamonds- imagine you're on the highway when a UPS truck flies past you and the air is suddenly filled with bullets. You're terrified; any one of those could end your life. Then you realize the police are the ones endangering you. Police should be trying to get to safety and get others to safety when guns are fired.
Dominance and submission have zero place in policing and should be legally punishable. The whole concept assumes that criminality is a single entity that will stop doing crimes if the police are dominant enough. It's ludicrous; the police should never be using law as a weapon.
-Traffic cops, patrolmen, and escort/guard details do not need to carry guns. They should not be pulling people over to fish for reasons to search and detain, they should not be arresting people. It's simply not necessary, and we should not use the same people that do SWAT raids for everyday things.
Aside from mass shootings and hostage situations, there are very situations in which shooting is reasonable. Let the criminals get away with the diamonds- imagine you're on the highway when a UPS truck flies past you and the air is suddenly filled with bullets. You're terrified; any one of those could end your life. Then you realize the police are the ones endangering you. Police should be trying to get to safety and get others to safety when guns are fired.
Dominance and submission have zero place in policing and should be legally punishable. The whole concept assumes that criminality is a single entity that will stop doing crimes if the police are dominant enough. It's ludicrous; the police should never be using law as a weapon.
Add to that a concept of shit rolling uphill. My CEO is very serious about SOX compliance because if his subordinates mess up, he can go to prison. If cops have a history of malfeasance and are not removed, their superior should be removed. If systemic issues exist, the top should be removed. Then we will see some changes because incentives start to align.
In Germany there is a job called "Bäckereifachverkäuferin", which basically is a person specially trained to sell bread at a bakery. The training takes 3 years. This is not a joke.
I'll add one I forgot: outlaw any incentives to do "more policing" or more incarceration than nacessary. Fines should never end up in the hands of a local department. Any benefits provided by e.g. private prison companies to local police departments should be investigated as organized crime.
If there is an incentive program doing measurements it must never be measurements of "number of arrests" or similar. It should be measurements of job approval instead.
If there is an incentive program doing measurements it must never be measurements of "number of arrests" or similar. It should be measurements of job approval instead.
I would also like to see either a narrowing of the scope of the kinds of things the police are expected to handle or a broadening of the kinds of professionals employed as police.
There are plenty of calls where a mental health professional should either handle the situation entirely or at least be the one calling the shots.
There are plenty of calls where a mental health professional should either handle the situation entirely or at least be the one calling the shots.
Yes. And this is quite the opposite of the current “defund the police” initiative. We actually need to fund them more to get the above to happen.
I think people are sick of departments getting more funds and buying mine protected vehicles instead of sending officers to deescalation refresher classes.
Most of those military vehicles are actually extremely cheap, they are given to the police by the military when the military no longer needs them. I think this was partially as a response to the north Hollywood shooting, where two bank robbers outgunned the police and injured a couple dozen officers and civilians before being killed.
Repeal of laws commonly used to drum up charges on civilians.
We might not be able to agree about everything, but can we at least agree that it's in everyone's best interest to have an increasing amount of the world have a generally secure, stable, unconditional personal access to food, housing, education, healthcare, and a labor market and can lives in a society with reasonable laws that they can practically obey?
Even if we don't contribute to that personally, can we at least agree to try to avoid doing things to other countries that get in the way of doing that, in really obvious ways like not randomly bombing them and pretending? Can we just admit to ourselves that a lot of global military expenditure is just a certain kind of make work? As Americans, can we then really not think of a slightly more efficient way to allocate the $7.3T that the American government raises every year from tax revenue, much of which we just light on fire policing things parts of people's lives unnecessarily?
Come on. I'm sure we can. This is like taking your hand off the literal stove. I know how horrible this all looks, and it is horrible, but it's also really easy to propose a solution to it. Divest and reinvest. It could be so many flavors of divest and reinvest, and still be a good enough improvement over how things are right now that it would be the most impressive piece of legislation for probably a 100 year span of time if not 200 years. There has to be an opportunistic, ambitious K-street lobbyist or two reading this, right? Wanna take credit for bringing America out of the dark ages? Come on...you know you want to. Now's your chance.
The bar is at the floor. You could write the dirtiest honker of a bill you've ever seen that it could make the ACA look clean. As long as it achieves the right divestments (global windmill fighting) and reinvestments (domestic production infrastructure), you're on the right track. You don't even have to get it completely right the first time. Perfect is the enemy of done here. Just something major and timely, which lets you evangelize divest and reinvest. You can even rebrand it as "digital transformation" if you really want. I would promise to never judge it as management consultant grifting again.
Because if not...I don't know how long this situation will hold. Those riots are just a taste of unease to come, and eventually, the federal branches of the government will understand how much more powerless they are with dislocation of their local constituencies. Someone is going to figure out how to relocate those constituencies.
Even if we don't contribute to that personally, can we at least agree to try to avoid doing things to other countries that get in the way of doing that, in really obvious ways like not randomly bombing them and pretending? Can we just admit to ourselves that a lot of global military expenditure is just a certain kind of make work? As Americans, can we then really not think of a slightly more efficient way to allocate the $7.3T that the American government raises every year from tax revenue, much of which we just light on fire policing things parts of people's lives unnecessarily?
Come on. I'm sure we can. This is like taking your hand off the literal stove. I know how horrible this all looks, and it is horrible, but it's also really easy to propose a solution to it. Divest and reinvest. It could be so many flavors of divest and reinvest, and still be a good enough improvement over how things are right now that it would be the most impressive piece of legislation for probably a 100 year span of time if not 200 years. There has to be an opportunistic, ambitious K-street lobbyist or two reading this, right? Wanna take credit for bringing America out of the dark ages? Come on...you know you want to. Now's your chance.
The bar is at the floor. You could write the dirtiest honker of a bill you've ever seen that it could make the ACA look clean. As long as it achieves the right divestments (global windmill fighting) and reinvestments (domestic production infrastructure), you're on the right track. You don't even have to get it completely right the first time. Perfect is the enemy of done here. Just something major and timely, which lets you evangelize divest and reinvest. You can even rebrand it as "digital transformation" if you really want. I would promise to never judge it as management consultant grifting again.
Because if not...I don't know how long this situation will hold. Those riots are just a taste of unease to come, and eventually, the federal branches of the government will understand how much more powerless they are with dislocation of their local constituencies. Someone is going to figure out how to relocate those constituencies.
> Can we just admit to ourselves that a lot of global military expenditure is just a certain kind of make work?
Being the imperial power has vast benefits, do you think Rome ruled its provinces just so they had a way to spend money? Being the global power is literally worth money. It's hard to say how much, but I'm pretty sure it's larger than your military expenses.
That said, I'd love to see the US cut back, because your benefit comes at somebody else's cost.
If the net benefit to the US is positive however, do you believe the majority of people would be happy to work more to have the same standard of living, or the majority of well-off Americans would be happy to pay European level taxes to redistribute wealth within the US? I have sincere doubts on both fronts.
Being the imperial power has vast benefits, do you think Rome ruled its provinces just so they had a way to spend money? Being the global power is literally worth money. It's hard to say how much, but I'm pretty sure it's larger than your military expenses.
That said, I'd love to see the US cut back, because your benefit comes at somebody else's cost.
If the net benefit to the US is positive however, do you believe the majority of people would be happy to work more to have the same standard of living, or the majority of well-off Americans would be happy to pay European level taxes to redistribute wealth within the US? I have sincere doubts on both fronts.
While I agree it's worth money, I'm skeptical that the average American sees any of that money.
All the money made being an imperial power just lines the pockets of the rich.
All the money made being an imperial power just lines the pockets of the rich.
From what I understand, all of these people are breaking curfew and ignoring instructions to leave the area, and in some cases are acting belligerent when confronted, and this is happening at scale.
Is the expectation that curfew is an order that should not be enforced in the strictest sense?
From what I could see on the news, parts of your country were being burned down and looted by some rogue elements who used the cover of peaceful protests to spring into action. To protect the lives and livelihoods of those affected, a curfew was imposed, which was then violated. If I lived in those areas I would have liked to see the curfew enforced as harshly as possible because if it is not enforced then I will lose the local businesses who I depend on to live in that area.
What is the expected approach to law enforcement when extreme measures like curfew orders are not obeyed, particularly during a pandemic?
A lot of these videos seem to be omitting the all-important context. In my country I would want the police to beat the ever loving expletive out of people who do go out in large crowds during a pandemic. I would want the police to use all measures available at their disposal to injure and dissuade people from breaking a curfew and unwittingly providing cover for criminals.
Perhaps in first world countries life has become soft and comfortable so there is some expectation of civil behavior from everyone in society, but clearly that has not happened in the USA and many other countries.
Many of the protests are peaceful, and a lot of anger can be easily empathized with, I can't imagine anyone who was not furious after seeing these horrible videos of police inflicted killings. Under no circumstances can I be convinced that looting and rioting is an acceptable outcome. If protesters know that their peaceful assembly is being hijacked by criminals who go out and loot and riot under the cover they provide, and they go out and protest more, then they are complicit in the rioting.
Perhaps these are cultural differences, but coming from a police where the police are infinitely more barbaric, corrupt, rude and ruthless than the USA, I find the police doing the best they can to manage the absolute mess that the citizens are creating.
You all live in a country where many police wear body cameras. That is privileged beyond anything I can hope to imagine for my country. It's weird to empathize with you when you have it so good.
Is the expectation that curfew is an order that should not be enforced in the strictest sense?
From what I could see on the news, parts of your country were being burned down and looted by some rogue elements who used the cover of peaceful protests to spring into action. To protect the lives and livelihoods of those affected, a curfew was imposed, which was then violated. If I lived in those areas I would have liked to see the curfew enforced as harshly as possible because if it is not enforced then I will lose the local businesses who I depend on to live in that area.
What is the expected approach to law enforcement when extreme measures like curfew orders are not obeyed, particularly during a pandemic?
A lot of these videos seem to be omitting the all-important context. In my country I would want the police to beat the ever loving expletive out of people who do go out in large crowds during a pandemic. I would want the police to use all measures available at their disposal to injure and dissuade people from breaking a curfew and unwittingly providing cover for criminals.
Perhaps in first world countries life has become soft and comfortable so there is some expectation of civil behavior from everyone in society, but clearly that has not happened in the USA and many other countries.
Many of the protests are peaceful, and a lot of anger can be easily empathized with, I can't imagine anyone who was not furious after seeing these horrible videos of police inflicted killings. Under no circumstances can I be convinced that looting and rioting is an acceptable outcome. If protesters know that their peaceful assembly is being hijacked by criminals who go out and loot and riot under the cover they provide, and they go out and protest more, then they are complicit in the rioting.
Perhaps these are cultural differences, but coming from a police where the police are infinitely more barbaric, corrupt, rude and ruthless than the USA, I find the police doing the best they can to manage the absolute mess that the citizens are creating.
You all live in a country where many police wear body cameras. That is privileged beyond anything I can hope to imagine for my country. It's weird to empathize with you when you have it so good.
>In my country I would want the police to beat the ever loving expletive out of people who do go out in large crowds during a pandemic.
Maybe in your country blind, extrajudicial violence is not a no-no. This is not the case in democratic countries.
>To protect the lives and livelihoods of those affected, a curfew was imposed, which was then violated.
This is a) a slippery slope (a corrupt government would declare a curfew every time it wanted to stop protests) and, b) it prioritizes material wealth over a movement that wants to achieve social change (in the grand scheme of things, decreasing racism is much more valuable that the stores of some neighborhoods).
>Under no circumstances can I be convinced that looting and rioting is an acceptable outcome.
Really? Under no circumstances? Social equality movements have produced riots since time immemorial. Do you denounce the acts of Spartacus? The peasants revolt? The French revolution?
People who claim this are usually ignorant about how social change is made.
Maybe in your country blind, extrajudicial violence is not a no-no. This is not the case in democratic countries.
>To protect the lives and livelihoods of those affected, a curfew was imposed, which was then violated.
This is a) a slippery slope (a corrupt government would declare a curfew every time it wanted to stop protests) and, b) it prioritizes material wealth over a movement that wants to achieve social change (in the grand scheme of things, decreasing racism is much more valuable that the stores of some neighborhoods).
>Under no circumstances can I be convinced that looting and rioting is an acceptable outcome.
Really? Under no circumstances? Social equality movements have produced riots since time immemorial. Do you denounce the acts of Spartacus? The peasants revolt? The French revolution?
People who claim this are usually ignorant about how social change is made.
> Maybe in your country blind, extrajudicial violence is not a no-no. This is not the case in democratic countries.
Police all around the world use non-lethal force when the law is being broken and the perpetrator is not cooperative. This is absolutely not blind or extra-judicial. The whole point of this is to deter this kind of behaviour, and police are equipped with batons etc. for this reason.
> This is a) a slippery slope (a corrupt government would declare a curfew every time it wanted to stop protests)
I would agree if this was the case in this instance but this is not the case - there was a very obvious need for a curfew given the breakdown of law and order. Death, destruction of property, theft, loss of livelihoods. This is not what one expects in a civilized place.
Material wealth is a disingenuous framing. Someone's grocery shop is not accurately categorised as material wealth - it is their source of livelihood and it is a resource for the neighborhood. As President Obama pointed out in his letter, we all watched that poor old lady sobbing about the fact that she had nowhere else to go to buy groceries. To dismiss this kind of destruction as loss of material wealth is not at all accurate.
> Social equality movements have produced riots since time immemorial. Do you denounce the acts of Spartacus? The peasants revolt? The French revolution?
I denounce anyone who sets the shop of a small storekeeper or restauraunteur on fire, destroying their livelihood. You can go out into the streets and protest but this kind of behaviour is unconscionable and wrong. Setting fire to low income housing? How does this behavior help anyone? It's despicable. Your country can afford to build actual homes for low income folks while millions live in abject poverty and some rioter burns it down, and others justify it as a legitimate protest.
You can enact social change through all sorts of violence but it is most certainly not something that decent and civilized people ought to support. Everyone is rightfully furious at the incident that sparked this entire ordeal. The police presence on the streets was essential given the degree to which people were misbehaving and committing crimes.
Police all around the world use non-lethal force when the law is being broken and the perpetrator is not cooperative. This is absolutely not blind or extra-judicial. The whole point of this is to deter this kind of behaviour, and police are equipped with batons etc. for this reason.
> This is a) a slippery slope (a corrupt government would declare a curfew every time it wanted to stop protests)
I would agree if this was the case in this instance but this is not the case - there was a very obvious need for a curfew given the breakdown of law and order. Death, destruction of property, theft, loss of livelihoods. This is not what one expects in a civilized place.
Material wealth is a disingenuous framing. Someone's grocery shop is not accurately categorised as material wealth - it is their source of livelihood and it is a resource for the neighborhood. As President Obama pointed out in his letter, we all watched that poor old lady sobbing about the fact that she had nowhere else to go to buy groceries. To dismiss this kind of destruction as loss of material wealth is not at all accurate.
> Social equality movements have produced riots since time immemorial. Do you denounce the acts of Spartacus? The peasants revolt? The French revolution?
I denounce anyone who sets the shop of a small storekeeper or restauraunteur on fire, destroying their livelihood. You can go out into the streets and protest but this kind of behaviour is unconscionable and wrong. Setting fire to low income housing? How does this behavior help anyone? It's despicable. Your country can afford to build actual homes for low income folks while millions live in abject poverty and some rioter burns it down, and others justify it as a legitimate protest.
You can enact social change through all sorts of violence but it is most certainly not something that decent and civilized people ought to support. Everyone is rightfully furious at the incident that sparked this entire ordeal. The police presence on the streets was essential given the degree to which people were misbehaving and committing crimes.
>Police all around the world use non-lethal force when the law is being broken and the perpetrator is not cooperative. This is absolutely not blind or extra-judicial. The whole point of this is to deter this kind of behaviour, and police are equipped with batons etc. for this reason.
a) That it happens around the world (which by the way it does not, protesters broke curfew laws in e.g. Germany and there was not nearly as much violence), does not make it right and b) there was a lot of indiscriminate violence against non-violent (just breaking curfew is non-violent) protesters. The police have in no way the right to act violently upon just because you have broken the law, the bar is much higher than that.
>I would agree if this was the case in this instance but this is not the case...
Do you understand what "slippery slope" means? This time it was maybe not the case.
>Death, destruction of property, theft, loss of livelihoods. This is not what one expects in a civilized place.
While police stepping on the throat of an innocent civilian until he dies is expected in a civilized place? Those riots did not spring up spontaneously from nothing, they are a reaction to a situation.
>Material wealth is a disingenuous framing. Someone's grocery shop is not accurately categorised as material wealth - it is their source of livelihood and it is a resource for the neighborhood.
So... Material wealth. I don't see where I was disingenuous. Societal progress is much more valuable than any shop.
>I denounce anyone who sets the shop of a small storekeeper or restauraunteur on fire, destroying their livelihood.
So you do denounce all those things I mentioned. You understand that by not having those things we would still live in a pre-feudal society, right? There is no such thing as non-violent change, read a history book.
Should we be happy that a small storekeeper lost his shop? Absolutely not. But we should see it from a historical perspective that this is how change sometimes looks like.
>How does this behavior help anyone?
Again, read a history book. No one is focusing on the poor Roman store owner who had his store burned down by rioting slaves in 70 B.C. No one is focusing on some restaurant being burned down during the Watts riots in 1965. Those are transient events that impact the few (as devastating as they might be for the owners, they are but a drop in the ocean for society as a whole).
>You can enact social change through all sorts of violence but it is most certainly not something that decent and civilized people ought to support.
Until you invent a better way, I will support social change by any means necessary. You focus on the 10 owners who had their stores burned down once. I focus on the millions who are repressed and killed every day.
a) That it happens around the world (which by the way it does not, protesters broke curfew laws in e.g. Germany and there was not nearly as much violence), does not make it right and b) there was a lot of indiscriminate violence against non-violent (just breaking curfew is non-violent) protesters. The police have in no way the right to act violently upon just because you have broken the law, the bar is much higher than that.
>I would agree if this was the case in this instance but this is not the case...
Do you understand what "slippery slope" means? This time it was maybe not the case.
>Death, destruction of property, theft, loss of livelihoods. This is not what one expects in a civilized place.
While police stepping on the throat of an innocent civilian until he dies is expected in a civilized place? Those riots did not spring up spontaneously from nothing, they are a reaction to a situation.
>Material wealth is a disingenuous framing. Someone's grocery shop is not accurately categorised as material wealth - it is their source of livelihood and it is a resource for the neighborhood.
So... Material wealth. I don't see where I was disingenuous. Societal progress is much more valuable than any shop.
>I denounce anyone who sets the shop of a small storekeeper or restauraunteur on fire, destroying their livelihood.
So you do denounce all those things I mentioned. You understand that by not having those things we would still live in a pre-feudal society, right? There is no such thing as non-violent change, read a history book.
Should we be happy that a small storekeeper lost his shop? Absolutely not. But we should see it from a historical perspective that this is how change sometimes looks like.
>How does this behavior help anyone?
Again, read a history book. No one is focusing on the poor Roman store owner who had his store burned down by rioting slaves in 70 B.C. No one is focusing on some restaurant being burned down during the Watts riots in 1965. Those are transient events that impact the few (as devastating as they might be for the owners, they are but a drop in the ocean for society as a whole).
>You can enact social change through all sorts of violence but it is most certainly not something that decent and civilized people ought to support.
Until you invent a better way, I will support social change by any means necessary. You focus on the 10 owners who had their stores burned down once. I focus on the millions who are repressed and killed every day.
Sorry things in your country are worse.
Few issues with the straightforward narrative you present.
Cops will slowly corral protestors as curfew draws near by setting up blockades or raising drawbridges. Peaceful protestors want to go home but can't. They're confused, and then curfew hits and police begin loading them into wagons. It's not as simple as get home by curfew.
Cops will infiltrate and instigate protests using a variety of tactics, the goal being to escalate tension, and justify the amount of force the cops wish to use.
Similar to your stated preference, they can't wait to be able to justify beating citizens with an overwhelming show of force. It's the fastest way back to status quo. A status quo you admit is broken, but worth using violence to return to. There's a catch-22 in your reasoning here you might be able to poke at.
Body cams and other forms of accountability do not work because the disciplinary board is not independent and not impartial.
Perhaps our countries aren't so different.
Few issues with the straightforward narrative you present.
Cops will slowly corral protestors as curfew draws near by setting up blockades or raising drawbridges. Peaceful protestors want to go home but can't. They're confused, and then curfew hits and police begin loading them into wagons. It's not as simple as get home by curfew.
Cops will infiltrate and instigate protests using a variety of tactics, the goal being to escalate tension, and justify the amount of force the cops wish to use.
Similar to your stated preference, they can't wait to be able to justify beating citizens with an overwhelming show of force. It's the fastest way back to status quo. A status quo you admit is broken, but worth using violence to return to. There's a catch-22 in your reasoning here you might be able to poke at.
Body cams and other forms of accountability do not work because the disciplinary board is not independent and not impartial.
Perhaps our countries aren't so different.
The status quo was broken in that there was occasional misbehavior by the police with no negative consequences.
It was not broken to the degree that there is rampant arson, theft, violence and murder.
In fact, until it became politically incorrect to say it - the narrative amongst the media and civil society was that people should stay home and stay safe because of the coronavirus pandemic. That was the immediate status quo.
There had been protests by groups who wanted to reopen their businesses to feed their kids, but those protests were met with warnings and lectures about how it is dangerous to do so.
Shortly after, people went out in droves, with no regard for public health or safety or law and order and looted businesses as some perverse act of protest and this seems to be glossed over.
There has obviously been a problem with policing in your country for a long time, and body cams were an attempt to improve the status quo. In fact, body cam footage will be used as evidence the case of the officers who murdered George Floyd. The officers were charged in the average number of days that it takes to do so. They will face a jury, not a disciplinary board.
It was not broken to the degree that there is rampant arson, theft, violence and murder.
In fact, until it became politically incorrect to say it - the narrative amongst the media and civil society was that people should stay home and stay safe because of the coronavirus pandemic. That was the immediate status quo.
There had been protests by groups who wanted to reopen their businesses to feed their kids, but those protests were met with warnings and lectures about how it is dangerous to do so.
Shortly after, people went out in droves, with no regard for public health or safety or law and order and looted businesses as some perverse act of protest and this seems to be glossed over.
There has obviously been a problem with policing in your country for a long time, and body cams were an attempt to improve the status quo. In fact, body cam footage will be used as evidence the case of the officers who murdered George Floyd. The officers were charged in the average number of days that it takes to do so. They will face a jury, not a disciplinary board.
> If I lived in those areas I would have liked to see the curfew enforced as harshly as possible because if it is not enforced then I will lose the local businesses who I depend on to live in that area.
In Chicago the curfew didn't start until 9pm. The impression I had during that first week was the curfew was to get most of the law-abiding citizens off the street ("essential workers" were excluded), so the police had less uncertainty to deal with - they were just completely overwhelmed by the amount of rioters and looters.
> Perhaps in first world countries life has become soft and comfortable so there is some expectation of civil behavior from everyone in society, but clearly that has not happened in the USA and many other countries.
Rather agreed here; if anything that week has me leaning towards needing more police, not defunding them.
Quick edit: It seems they're also now on 12-hour days with no time off, apparently expecting more chaos in the coming days.
In Chicago the curfew didn't start until 9pm. The impression I had during that first week was the curfew was to get most of the law-abiding citizens off the street ("essential workers" were excluded), so the police had less uncertainty to deal with - they were just completely overwhelmed by the amount of rioters and looters.
> Perhaps in first world countries life has become soft and comfortable so there is some expectation of civil behavior from everyone in society, but clearly that has not happened in the USA and many other countries.
Rather agreed here; if anything that week has me leaning towards needing more police, not defunding them.
Quick edit: It seems they're also now on 12-hour days with no time off, apparently expecting more chaos in the coming days.
A lot of the time the police are simply acting in an unreasonable way, it’s not like the make a request and then attack after it’s not been complied with, no they just run and attack with no questions asked.
I've seen this apparently happen in a few videos but we don't know what transpired before filming. It's entirely possible that the officer and civilian met somewhere else 5 min earlier and the civilian was asked to go home.
That being said, I am 100% sure that what you are describing also happens, but I'm not so easily convinced that this is the vast majority of the cases captured on video.
For every murder, robbery, rape, etc. that has resulted in a conviction in the USA, there have been policemen involved to arrest and apprehend the criminals. In all of these instances the police have done their jobs and protected innocent civilians from dangerous criminals.
In many other cases, police officers have apparently abused their power and used excessive force on civilians, resulting in all kinds of trauma and often death.
This latter group is either unfit to do the job properly, or has made serious mistakes, or has intentionally inflicted harm on the public.
It feels like the conversation in the USA is being exaggerated to depict all police as brutish thugs with no regard for the welfare of the communities they are sworn to protect. That ironically is the same type of bigotry that many accuse the police of displaying towards some groups.
That being said, I am 100% sure that what you are describing also happens, but I'm not so easily convinced that this is the vast majority of the cases captured on video.
For every murder, robbery, rape, etc. that has resulted in a conviction in the USA, there have been policemen involved to arrest and apprehend the criminals. In all of these instances the police have done their jobs and protected innocent civilians from dangerous criminals.
In many other cases, police officers have apparently abused their power and used excessive force on civilians, resulting in all kinds of trauma and often death.
This latter group is either unfit to do the job properly, or has made serious mistakes, or has intentionally inflicted harm on the public.
It feels like the conversation in the USA is being exaggerated to depict all police as brutish thugs with no regard for the welfare of the communities they are sworn to protect. That ironically is the same type of bigotry that many accuse the police of displaying towards some groups.
Disgusting. After things settle down, in addition to all the systematic reform that will hopefully take place, I hope we can look back at these videos and put all of these officers in jail for violating the constitution and betraying their oath to protect and serve their communities.
It's finally time to put all that facial recognition tech to good use.
It's finally time to put all that facial recognition tech to good use.
Is there any effort being made to archive these videos? They're actual history, and given the ephemeral nature of data on online platforms, most will probably disappear in a few years without effort to preserve them.
This repo has a nice data API and multiple different video download archives + an open source download tool for the data
https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality
https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality
It would be good to stick these videos somewhere where they can't be taken down.
This seems like the perfect place to use InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) (https://ipfs.io/). You can store and distribute files (including videos) using IPFS without worrying that someone could remove them. The only thing missing is a "UTube" front-end, and I'm not completely certain that there isn't already such a thing.
Maybe this type of project would be the thing that gets IPFS off the ground and exposing it to a more mainstream audience.
Maybe this type of project would be the thing that gets IPFS off the ground and exposing it to a more mainstream audience.
This repo has a tool that supports IPFS!
https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality/tree/master/tools...
https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality/tree/master/tools...
Suggestions? It seems like anyone that is able to provide a service to host video would be just as likely to remove them for the same pressure. P2P torrent with enough people seeding them to make it impossible to remove them is the only thing that comes to mind.
You could probably use an .onion site (or multiple of) as a backup or reference approach too, to retain anonymity.
Yeah I was thinking a torrent too - seems like the only way to guarantee it stays up.
> Yeah I was thinking a torrent too - seems like the only way to guarantee it stays up.
I'm up for helping, we did the same thing during HKs police brutality videos, please consider seeding this as well; let me know how I can help.
https://torrentz2.eu/9b85dd223c8f92c923f516ed77bbdfcb770f4dd...
Oh, also worth noting the HKPF/PLA just used the same knee-to-neck choke hold on an unarmed female protestor during the 1 year Anniversary protests on June 12th [1].
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxDKfxFrEuY
I'm up for helping, we did the same thing during HKs police brutality videos, please consider seeding this as well; let me know how I can help.
https://torrentz2.eu/9b85dd223c8f92c923f516ed77bbdfcb770f4dd...
Oh, also worth noting the HKPF/PLA just used the same knee-to-neck choke hold on an unarmed female protestor during the 1 year Anniversary protests on June 12th [1].
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxDKfxFrEuY
This repo (linked in this spreadsheet) has both a similar listing + a downloader tool here:
https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality/tree/master/tools...
https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality/tree/master/tools...
honestly... the biggest problems with the police is unions. you de-unionize the police you will see all this stop in no time. over my life i have witnessed personally numerous times when an officer should have been fired for brutality or another offense, but the union used their negotiation power and saved their job. cops know that as long as they have the power of the union legal team behind them, that 99% of the time there will be no punishment or it will be minimal.
cops are entitled because unions make them this way. take away their safety net and you seeing more terminations and less bullies and entitled people applying for the job.
cops are entitled because unions make them this way. take away their safety net and you seeing more terminations and less bullies and entitled people applying for the job.
HN should stay away from this garbage.
Most of these videos are carefully edited to show one side of the story. Others are stories sharing only their side of the story.
Protester brutality far exceeds police brutality. Criminal brutality faaar exceeds police brutality. Yet the extremist leftists are calling to defund the police, which leads to complete chaos and anarchy. Pathetic reasoning from a stone-age, low-IQ perspective.
Most of these videos are carefully edited to show one side of the story. Others are stories sharing only their side of the story.
Protester brutality far exceeds police brutality. Criminal brutality faaar exceeds police brutality. Yet the extremist leftists are calling to defund the police, which leads to complete chaos and anarchy. Pathetic reasoning from a stone-age, low-IQ perspective.
Try building an app around it with glideapps.com for easier consumption by journalists, activists, etc., I tried to add it to my drive so I could build it but your settings will not allow me to do it
You can understand why a document like this would need to be pretty locked down I hope. While you might think an app is required, I'm pretty sure just about anyone on a computer can read a spreadsheet. Also, I'd rather not need an app to present the data in a spreadsheet in a manner the developer thinks is useful. Just present the data, let the viewer consume it as they see fit.
There are lots and lots of mishaps in many professions, sometimes with deadly consequences. The United States is a country of 330 million people. Suppose an event is so unlikely it only has 1 in a billion chance of happening--it will happen once ever 4 days on average!
Medical errors, for example, are estimated to cause as many as 250,000 deaths per year [1].
There are millions and millions of daily interactions between police and civilians every year. Sadly, there will be some mistakes, some of which will be caught on camera.
It's important to be aware that what the media can be random, and media coverage is not always correlated with how important or prevalent a problem is.
[1] Johns Hopkins: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_su...
Medical errors, for example, are estimated to cause as many as 250,000 deaths per year [1].
There are millions and millions of daily interactions between police and civilians every year. Sadly, there will be some mistakes, some of which will be caught on camera.
It's important to be aware that what the media can be random, and media coverage is not always correlated with how important or prevalent a problem is.
[1] Johns Hopkins: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_su...
That medical error study is awful. It categorizes any treatment that is given but doesn't work as an error. That only makes sense in a world in which a correct treatment that could cure a patient always exists and that correct option should be known ahead of time by the people treating the patient. Reality doesn't work like that. Here[1] is a write up on the issues in that study.
[1] - https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/09/medical-errors-deaths-bm...
[1] - https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/09/medical-errors-deaths-bm...
Sure, I think that's fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that there are 250,000 cases a year where a heart transplant is performed to cure pneumonia.
But of those 250,000, some will be small mistake, and some will be epic fuck ups (see [1]).
Similarly, the police shoot around 1,000 people per year. Of those, many are justified, some are are questionable, and a few are epic fuck ups. If you just look at the epic fuck ups, you may believe that policing is completely broken in America. If you look at it in context, you'd probably conclude that the system works well in some cases, not well in other cases, and that there are lots of tradeoffs and no easy answer.
I'd recommend Peter Moskos's blog and podcast (www.copinthehood.com and www.qualitypolicing.com) to get a more even handed perspective than you'd find in the media. I'm not defending every single police shooting, but I think the recent shift in public opinion is not based on a good understanding of policing in America.
[1] https://www.mdlinx.com/article/jaw-dropping-medical-mix-ups/...
But of those 250,000, some will be small mistake, and some will be epic fuck ups (see [1]).
Similarly, the police shoot around 1,000 people per year. Of those, many are justified, some are are questionable, and a few are epic fuck ups. If you just look at the epic fuck ups, you may believe that policing is completely broken in America. If you look at it in context, you'd probably conclude that the system works well in some cases, not well in other cases, and that there are lots of tradeoffs and no easy answer.
I'd recommend Peter Moskos's blog and podcast (www.copinthehood.com and www.qualitypolicing.com) to get a more even handed perspective than you'd find in the media. I'm not defending every single police shooting, but I think the recent shift in public opinion is not based on a good understanding of policing in America.
[1] https://www.mdlinx.com/article/jaw-dropping-medical-mix-ups/...
>I didn't mean to imply that there are 250,000 cases a year where a heart transplant is performed to cure pneumonia.
Then why link to that study and specifically cite that 250,000 number?
One of the main differences with doctors is when they truly do have an epic fuck up they are personally sued and can potentially lose their medical license. How many of the epic fuck ups by police in the linked Google doc will lead to the officer being sued? How many will lead to them being forced to switch to a different profession? Why do we allow these police to epicly fuck up in ways that we don't allow other professions like doctors? Does tolerating these epic fuck ups among police make them more likely to epicly fuck up in the future?
Then why link to that study and specifically cite that 250,000 number?
One of the main differences with doctors is when they truly do have an epic fuck up they are personally sued and can potentially lose their medical license. How many of the epic fuck ups by police in the linked Google doc will lead to the officer being sued? How many will lead to them being forced to switch to a different profession? Why do we allow these police to epicly fuck up in ways that we don't allow other professions like doctors? Does tolerating these epic fuck ups among police make them more likely to epicly fuck up in the future?
People aren't just interested in how questionable the incidents are in isolation. They believe the system is set up such that there are more incidents than there could be. This is what they "defund" part is about. The belief that society would be healthier if some part of money today spent on police, is better spent elsewhere.
Stop spouting general abstract resistance and go watch the videos and see with your own eyes that something is horribly wrong in your country.
> Suppose an event is so unlikely it only has 1 in a billion chance of happening--it will happen once ever 4 days on average!
Ok, the EU has 445M citizens[1] which means, by your logic, there should statistically be 40% more police "mistakes" than the US. Except there isn't. It is radically lower[2] (1536 for the USA in 2019 vs 51 for the EU in 2018/19).
[1] https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/figures/living_en [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
Ok, the EU has 445M citizens[1] which means, by your logic, there should statistically be 40% more police "mistakes" than the US. Except there isn't. It is radically lower[2] (1536 for the USA in 2019 vs 51 for the EU in 2018/19).
[1] https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/figures/living_en [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
That's an interesting and valid point.
First, a disagreement. Your base assumption that police activity should scale linearly with population. This is just obviously not correct. There are huge, huge differences in countries and crime rates. You can look at differences in homicide rate, for example [1]. The united states has a pretty shockingly high homicide rate for a developed country (4.96 per 100k). This is 5x higher than France or Germany. On the other end you have Japan, which is about 5x lower than France or Germany (25x lower than United States).
But that aside, the important question is: is crime driving police activity, or are the police widely malicious and corrupt? I'll admit that I'm not knowledgable enough to give a good answer to this question, but I'm very skeptical of jumping to a conclusion based on selective evidence on social media or recent news coverage.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
First, a disagreement. Your base assumption that police activity should scale linearly with population. This is just obviously not correct. There are huge, huge differences in countries and crime rates. You can look at differences in homicide rate, for example [1]. The united states has a pretty shockingly high homicide rate for a developed country (4.96 per 100k). This is 5x higher than France or Germany. On the other end you have Japan, which is about 5x lower than France or Germany (25x lower than United States).
But that aside, the important question is: is crime driving police activity, or are the police widely malicious and corrupt? I'll admit that I'm not knowledgable enough to give a good answer to this question, but I'm very skeptical of jumping to a conclusion based on selective evidence on social media or recent news coverage.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
You can also ignore cops in the US killing people and note the police have about 40 million black people in the US living in fear.
There are lots and lots of mishaps in many professions, sometimes with deadly consequences. The United States is a country of 330 million people. Suppose an event is so unlikely it only has 1 in a billion chance of happening--it will happen once ever 4 days on average!
I think the issue people are rioting about is that it's not a 1 in a billion chance for everyone. It's more like 1 in a quintillion for a rich white person, and 1 in a million for a person of color. That inequality stems from systemic racism in the police force. What you're saying is that it would be less of a problem if the deaths were evenly distributed across the population. That may be true, but I don't think many people would suggest it as a viable solution to the problem.
I think the issue people are rioting about is that it's not a 1 in a billion chance for everyone. It's more like 1 in a quintillion for a rich white person, and 1 in a million for a person of color. That inequality stems from systemic racism in the police force. What you're saying is that it would be less of a problem if the deaths were evenly distributed across the population. That may be true, but I don't think many people would suggest it as a viable solution to the problem.
This cannot be backed up by data. When I travel with a black friend in Europe, I actually get checked occasionally. That never happens when traveling alone. There seem to be issues with profiling here but I don't believe a diagnosis like systemic racism is in any way justified beyond populism.
There seem to be issues with profiling here but I don't believe a diagnosis like systemic racism...
Profiling is an aspect of systemic racism.
Profiling is an aspect of systemic racism.
I profoundly disagree with that definition. Racism needs animosity and distrust doesn't qualify as that. You can make a case that this is the accepted academic nomenclature but I would add that the reasoning behind it is not very sophisticated. I would argue that it could even elevate racial tensions if applied to practical problems. Even beyond factoring in the common scholar diagnosing racism in everything.
Racism needs animosity and distrust doesn't qualify as that.
Systemic racism doesn't need animosity for it to happen. Systemic racism is a term for how a system discriminates against race - that might be something like defining how much to spend on schools based on the taxable income of residents. That's not "racist" in the sense that someone deliberately decided to give people of color get less resources, but the outcome of the decision is that people of color get less resources. That is systemic racism. There doesn't need to be any racist intent on the part of any individuals in that system for it to happen (though there often is.)
Systemic racism doesn't need animosity for it to happen. Systemic racism is a term for how a system discriminates against race - that might be something like defining how much to spend on schools based on the taxable income of residents. That's not "racist" in the sense that someone deliberately decided to give people of color get less resources, but the outcome of the decision is that people of color get less resources. That is systemic racism. There doesn't need to be any racist intent on the part of any individuals in that system for it to happen (though there often is.)
Then why draw the line on race? That just leads to divide and conquer between the poorest of a nation. Because
> that might be something like defining how much to spend on schools based on the taxable income of residents.
is purely economic discrimination. Frankly, I think the recent redefinition is lacking.
> that might be something like defining how much to spend on schools based on the taxable income of residents.
is purely economic discrimination. Frankly, I think the recent redefinition is lacking.
Then why draw the line on race?
No one is drawing the line on race. No one is saying "Let's fix race issues and ignore gender and poverty issues." All of these problems need to be fixed. People are focusing on race right now because several people have been literally killed by police officers who have been charged with their murders.
No one is drawing the line on race. No one is saying "Let's fix race issues and ignore gender and poverty issues." All of these problems need to be fixed. People are focusing on race right now because several people have been literally killed by police officers who have been charged with their murders.
> No one is drawing the line on race
Ever seen some racists pushing their views the last 5 years in the most reactionary fashion? Of course you are drawing the line on race, believe it or not. Ever noticed the talk about white privilege by some latte-slurping pseudo academics saturating any discussion on racism without necessary experience? Some people obviously did.
You can argue that there is an established academic jargon, but I would dispute its accuracy and perspective as well.
Ever seen some racists pushing their views the last 5 years in the most reactionary fashion? Of course you are drawing the line on race, believe it or not. Ever noticed the talk about white privilege by some latte-slurping pseudo academics saturating any discussion on racism without necessary experience? Some people obviously did.
You can argue that there is an established academic jargon, but I would dispute its accuracy and perspective as well.
Based on the data, deaths are relatively distributed across the population. 25% of people killed by police are black. They make up 12% of the population, so based on this it seems like they are twice as likely as normal to be killed by the police, but after normalizing for violent crime rates (for a variety of reasons including discrimination, black people commit over 50% of the homicides) police killings seem roughly similar for all races.
Funny you should mention medical errors. The US is not exactly a shining beacon in that regard either.
You have completely bastardized the meaning of statistics.
Statistics are meant to understand and bring meaning to chaotic events, like random car accidents, or randomly rolling a dice, or random mechanical failure of some complex system.
Statistics doesn’t work so well, when human interactions become involved.
And it doesn’t work well in this situation, when it comes to policing, where the officer is of the predominant ethnicity, and the victim is of a minority ethnicity.
However, you can probably infer that if the policing is done where the ethnicity of the officer and the civilian, is of a primary vs. minority ethnicity, that there will be enhanced levels of violence involved. This can be one way to infer the statistics.
At a fundamental level, there are human biases involved. There is no escaping this.
It’s possible that if you and the police officer are of the same ethnicity, then you likely have a lower chance of being assaulted or harassed by the police officer.
However, if you are a minority, or of a different ethnicity than the police officer which is of the primary ethnicity, then your probability of being assaulted or harassed by the officer goes up significantly.
The police enforcement system, is really a reflection of society.
Because it is the society that puts these police officers into positions of authority, and it is the same society that keeps them in authority.
So if the police system is corrupt, then at a fundamental level, the society is corrupt.
You can’t fix the problem, if you can’t even acknowledge that you have a problem.
It’s like Trump’s administration that recently said: There is no systemic racism in American Law Enforcement.
Thus, how can you fix something, if you can’t even acknowledge it.
Statistics are meant to understand and bring meaning to chaotic events, like random car accidents, or randomly rolling a dice, or random mechanical failure of some complex system.
Statistics doesn’t work so well, when human interactions become involved.
And it doesn’t work well in this situation, when it comes to policing, where the officer is of the predominant ethnicity, and the victim is of a minority ethnicity.
However, you can probably infer that if the policing is done where the ethnicity of the officer and the civilian, is of a primary vs. minority ethnicity, that there will be enhanced levels of violence involved. This can be one way to infer the statistics.
At a fundamental level, there are human biases involved. There is no escaping this.
It’s possible that if you and the police officer are of the same ethnicity, then you likely have a lower chance of being assaulted or harassed by the police officer.
However, if you are a minority, or of a different ethnicity than the police officer which is of the primary ethnicity, then your probability of being assaulted or harassed by the officer goes up significantly.
The police enforcement system, is really a reflection of society.
Because it is the society that puts these police officers into positions of authority, and it is the same society that keeps them in authority.
So if the police system is corrupt, then at a fundamental level, the society is corrupt.
You can’t fix the problem, if you can’t even acknowledge that you have a problem.
It’s like Trump’s administration that recently said: There is no systemic racism in American Law Enforcement.
Thus, how can you fix something, if you can’t even acknowledge it.
>It's important to be aware that what the media can be random, and media coverage is not always correlated with how important or prevalent a problem is.
Oh cool, a guy on Hacker News cited a John's Hopkins article. Pack it up protestors, racism isn't real and cops aren't tear gasing reporters in the face!
Oh cool, a guy on Hacker News cited a John's Hopkins article. Pack it up protestors, racism isn't real and cops aren't tear gasing reporters in the face!
Huh? I didn't say racism isn't real, and I also didn't say cops aren't tear gassing reporters in the face.
GP questioned how a profession can exist when it makes so many deadly mistakes. I pointed out that there is another profession, medicine, which also makes lots of deadly mistakes. Some are accidental oversights, but you can also do some searches and find some really bad medical errors. [1] but you can find lots more.
Again, what the media draws attention to, and what is going on in society on a daily basis, are not the same thing. Racism and police misconduct existed before 2020, but it just in the last few weeks really popped onto the media's attention.
And again, because of the sheer size of the United States, you have to look at statistics in addition to anecdotes when you think about policy.
[1] https://www.mdlinx.com/article/jaw-dropping-medical-mix-ups/...
GP questioned how a profession can exist when it makes so many deadly mistakes. I pointed out that there is another profession, medicine, which also makes lots of deadly mistakes. Some are accidental oversights, but you can also do some searches and find some really bad medical errors. [1] but you can find lots more.
Again, what the media draws attention to, and what is going on in society on a daily basis, are not the same thing. Racism and police misconduct existed before 2020, but it just in the last few weeks really popped onto the media's attention.
And again, because of the sheer size of the United States, you have to look at statistics in addition to anecdotes when you think about policy.
[1] https://www.mdlinx.com/article/jaw-dropping-medical-mix-ups/...
Statistics are useless because almost all police misconduct goes unreported. Police departments are designed to make oversight impossible.
> Statistics are useless because almost all police misconduct goes unreported.
This is true, and these videos help show that. There are more and more cases being uncovered where the police blatantly lied about their own misconduct in official reports. For instance, the police claimed the the Buffalo protester fell when video shows the police pushed him over, and the police report for the killing of George Floyd made no mention of holding him down by the neck. If there hadn't been video, I doubt either of those two incidents would have been counted in police misconduct statistics.
This is true, and these videos help show that. There are more and more cases being uncovered where the police blatantly lied about their own misconduct in official reports. For instance, the police claimed the the Buffalo protester fell when video shows the police pushed him over, and the police report for the killing of George Floyd made no mention of holding him down by the neck. If there hadn't been video, I doubt either of those two incidents would have been counted in police misconduct statistics.
This is in the same vein as the cross word puzzle database mentioned yesterday.
"When you get the data into a nice, clean, dense form, stuff just falls out of it" - Saul Pwanson
"When you get the data into a nice, clean, dense form, stuff just falls out of it" - Saul Pwanson
I have no idea why people discussing these protests aren't focusing more on this. How else do you capture "systemic problem" better than widespread thuggish police behavior during countrywide protests about police brutality. Of all the black civil rights activity in recent memory, this is probably one of the most powerful methods of conveying to people the gravity of the issues that black activists talk about.
Are there any videos of morons destroying private property, looting, stealing, burning?
One related issue, is that right now, in COVID times, unnecessary arrests, jailing, busing, etc. is in some abstract sense an application of potentially lethal force -- since enclosed spaces and close contact makes COVID transmission significantly more likely.
It seems important to understand how much that is happening and where. If that data, in combination with protest size/type data is available, it can help us better understand if protests or police are actually impacting COVID transmission (if either).
If we don't have that data available as case numbers come in, it makes the narrative of blaming protesters much more likely to stick, even if it turns out to be inaccurate later, and e.g. the primary cause is unnecessary police actions.
Is anyone doing this? (Does anyone want to start if not?)
It seems important to understand how much that is happening and where. If that data, in combination with protest size/type data is available, it can help us better understand if protests or police are actually impacting COVID transmission (if either).
If we don't have that data available as case numbers come in, it makes the narrative of blaming protesters much more likely to stick, even if it turns out to be inaccurate later, and e.g. the primary cause is unnecessary police actions.
Is anyone doing this? (Does anyone want to start if not?)
This is something bail funds in Philly track, and I'm guessing bails funds in other cities do too! Many cities committed to some degree at the beginning of the pandemic to reduce arrests / setting bail for minor crimes. (how well they've done that is often a matter of debate).
The situation in local jails became a big issue at the beginning of the pandemic. I would reach out to a bail fund in your city (or read more on their web page) to see if there are useful ways to help their broader mission, which will include protestors :).
Some useful context in this slate article:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/bail-funds-donat...
The situation in local jails became a big issue at the beginning of the pandemic. I would reach out to a bail fund in your city (or read more on their web page) to see if there are useful ways to help their broader mission, which will include protestors :).
Some useful context in this slate article:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/bail-funds-donat...
By that same logic protesting is also an application of lethal force, since you are crowded in with thosands of other people.
Where Covid rules apply:
Home, Banks, Retail, Restaurants, Hospitals
Yes
Jails, Police station
No
Can you sue police if get sick ?
Home, Banks, Retail, Restaurants, Hospitals
Yes
Jails, Police station
No
Can you sue police if get sick ?
I assume that is part of ‘qualified immunity’.
There is also the issue with police chiefs publicly declaring that they will not enforce the orders of their governor.
So, that is a bigger problem to me...
Deciding to only enforce the laws you ‘like’.
There is also the issue with police chiefs publicly declaring that they will not enforce the orders of their governor.
So, that is a bigger problem to me...
Deciding to only enforce the laws you ‘like’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
The US looks more like a third world country than a developed nation.
The US looks more like a third world country than a developed nation.
I opened a couple of random ones. The first one was this link:
https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1270402748895412224
Which isn't an example of police brutality.
The second one was this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsTkAOe5UTE
Basically a bunch of thugs attack random drivers. One of the thugs jumps into a random car, the car stops, police come, pull the thug out, he resists, they deal with him. I have zero sympathy for the thug.
If you want to create a list for this cause, at least make it good, make it solid. Don't fill it with random junk to inflate the numbers.
https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1270402748895412224
Which isn't an example of police brutality.
The second one was this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsTkAOe5UTE
Basically a bunch of thugs attack random drivers. One of the thugs jumps into a random car, the car stops, police come, pull the thug out, he resists, they deal with him. I have zero sympathy for the thug.
If you want to create a list for this cause, at least make it good, make it solid. Don't fill it with random junk to inflate the numbers.
In your second link:
At 0:16 a cop pushes Adam partially into the passenger window of an SUV, apparently hoping that he will fall out and be injured while the SUV is moving. When the SUV stops, Adam is mobbed by cops and beaten. The driver Bob (a victim of having a cop push someone into his window) is detained, his hands zip-tied. A bystander Charlie who doesn't seem to do anything is also zip-tied. At 1:43 a cop seems to spit in Adam's face and punch him while he's cuffed and being escorted by other cops.
Edited: In your first link:
If soldiers block enemy soldiers inside a 1-block length of street and use chemical weapons on them while preventing them from dispersing, it's a war crime. I don't really know why it should be fine for cops to do it to randoms.
At 0:16 a cop pushes Adam partially into the passenger window of an SUV, apparently hoping that he will fall out and be injured while the SUV is moving. When the SUV stops, Adam is mobbed by cops and beaten. The driver Bob (a victim of having a cop push someone into his window) is detained, his hands zip-tied. A bystander Charlie who doesn't seem to do anything is also zip-tied. At 1:43 a cop seems to spit in Adam's face and punch him while he's cuffed and being escorted by other cops.
Edited: In your first link:
If soldiers block enemy soldiers inside a 1-block length of street and use chemical weapons on them while preventing them from dispersing, it's a war crime. I don't really know why it should be fine for cops to do it to randoms.
> At 0:16 a cop pushes Adam partially into the passenger window of an SUV, apparently hoping that he will fall out and be injured while the SUV is moving.
This is the second time I've made a comment in defense of the police in a specific incident and if it's anything like last time I will be downvoted to oblivion.
Do you have any information to support your claim? (another video perhaps?) I think false claims only hurt those in support of police reform. I'm not suggesting that's your intent.
From the video in the parent post I don't understand how you reached your conclusion as I see something completely different. I see Adam attempting to enter one vehicle at 0:11 that drives off. Then he makes his second attempt with a different vehicle at 0:16 and clearly jumps into the window of an SUV. Stepping forward frame-by-frame it appears that the officer is pulling Adam's shirt[1] which would be the opposite of pushing him in. This is obviously just my opinion from that single video.
[1] https://imgur.com/a/CdEoDO9
This is the second time I've made a comment in defense of the police in a specific incident and if it's anything like last time I will be downvoted to oblivion.
Do you have any information to support your claim? (another video perhaps?) I think false claims only hurt those in support of police reform. I'm not suggesting that's your intent.
From the video in the parent post I don't understand how you reached your conclusion as I see something completely different. I see Adam attempting to enter one vehicle at 0:11 that drives off. Then he makes his second attempt with a different vehicle at 0:16 and clearly jumps into the window of an SUV. Stepping forward frame-by-frame it appears that the officer is pulling Adam's shirt[1] which would be the opposite of pushing him in. This is obviously just my opinion from that single video.
[1] https://imgur.com/a/CdEoDO9
I watched again and it looks like you're correct. Thanks.
At 0:32, Adam is apparently surrendering, a cop clubs him.
First one involves two groups of police sorrounding a group of protesters and tear gassing them.
I don't how that can be considered a valid dispersal method (They could not disperse there were police on both sides)
Also allegly firing Pepper balls above the waist which is incorrect usage. (There are marks on the walls well above head height)
If you made it practically impossable to disburse when using what are basically torture devices in that situation I don't see how it isn't brutality.
If you made it practically impossable to disburse when using what are basically torture devices in that situation I don't see how it isn't brutality.
> Basically a bunch of thugs attack random drivers. One of the thugs jumps into a random car, the car stops, police come, pull the thug out, he resists, they deal with him. I have zero sympathy for the thug.
Even when one cop punches "the thug" in the face while he's being walked away while handcuffed?
Even when one cop punches "the thug" in the face while he's being walked away while handcuffed?
aganame(7)
Re the second video, what I see is that at 0:33, the guy they're chasing starts to step out of the vehicle, and a police officer just whips out his baton and whacks him, unprovoked; and was about to whack him a second time when another officer intervenes. Furthermore, it looks like officer with the baton keeps looking for more opportunities to hit him as he's wrestled to the ground, and is only prevented by the fact that the guy is being mobbed by other officers.
EDIT Also, around 1:37 it looks like someone kicks him when he's lying on the ground, and at 1:45 someone punches him when his hands are cuffed behind his back.
That looks like an example of unnecessary force to me.
EDIT Also, around 1:37 it looks like someone kicks him when he's lying on the ground, and at 1:45 someone punches him when his hands are cuffed behind his back.
That looks like an example of unnecessary force to me.
I had the same experience. It was a video of a riot line of police with shields walking down the street, and people shooting fireworks at them. I welcome any content that shows events that the media isn't providing. But if someone is going to curate a list like this, don't sell it as something it's not.
You're probably mistaking police flash bangs for fireworks. These devices are completely inappropriate for crowd control, but routinely deployed by US police in the protests.
Very unlikely. Fireworks use against the police more common that you think. You’re just not going to see that many videos of them as it doesn’t help the narrative. A buddy of mine is a cop who had the unfortunate duty of being one of the riot police in my city and it’s not easy to keep your cool while having rocks, fireworks, and almost a Molotov cocktail tossed at you.
Don't dish out what you can't take. I've never seen an example of riots breaking out in a city before police instigate violence with rubber bullets and tear gas.
Also, if he can't keep his cool under those conditions, he has an obligation to change jobs because if he can't handle it he's just putting other people in danger.
Also, if he can't keep his cool under those conditions, he has an obligation to change jobs because if he can't handle it he's just putting other people in danger.
>I've never seen an example of riots breaking out in a city before police instigate violence with rubber bullets and tear gas.
LA Riots in 1992. Police pulled out to avoid conflict and it resulted in looting and burning for days until the National Guard showed up.
LA Riots in 1992. Police pulled out to avoid conflict and it resulted in looting and burning for days until the National Guard showed up.
You don't think police instigated violence when they killed Rodney King?
>I've never seen an example of riots breaking out in a city before police instigate violence with rubber bullets and tear gas. (emphasis mine)
[deleted]
> I've never seen an example of riots breaking out in a city before police instigate violence with rubber bullets and tear gas.
Minneapolis was burning before the police responded, not after.
Minneapolis was burning before the police responded, not after.
That's not what I saw on livestreams.
I've only seen videos of police using flash bangs against crowds, which seems to be quite common in the these protests for some reason - completely inappropriate, just like shooting gas canisters or less lethal rounds at heads, not at ground level as they are designed to be used.
Haven't seen or heard of any fireworks, which you can be sure the police would not tone down in reports (probably describing them as explosive projectiles).
It certainly isn't easy to keep your cool if things are been thrown at you, but that's the job. It's not an excuse to violently attack protesters who are not throwing things or use inappropriate methods.
Haven't seen or heard of any fireworks, which you can be sure the police would not tone down in reports (probably describing them as explosive projectiles).
It certainly isn't easy to keep your cool if things are been thrown at you, but that's the job. It's not an excuse to violently attack protesters who are not throwing things or use inappropriate methods.
Ah what is appropriate? Letting them take over entire city blocks as Seattle has done? Allowing mobs to burn down minority neighborhoods in Minneapolis?
I live basically in the CHAZ in Seattle, they haven't taken over anything. The police just abandoned the precinct building and left it unlocked and people are gathering peacefully to listen to other people speak. It's like a street festival or a farmer's market but with an explicit aim of stopping police from killing black people.
Ah what's the end game? They were forced by leadership to abandon the area. That wasn't their choice to abandon their post. What are your thoughts on the 300+ black people murdered in Chicago so far in the past year by gang violence? You think that a CHAZ in Chicago would help those lives? You think defunding the police would lead to less or more deaths there overall?
Police sure haven’t helped. Defunding and funding other areas probably helps reduce the murder rate.
The police abandoned the city blocks first. The intent was to purposefully set up a situation where cops can point to rioting in an area they intentionally vacated so riots could happen. Protestors have responded by sitting and watching documentaries about police brutality in that area.
Maybe this can set an example for the rest of the nation, then.
There have been calls to abolish the police. If Seattle can do it, maybe Atlanta and Minneapolis too.
I think that's the right answer: this should be a local decision and each community should decide the level of policing it wants (including none at all).
There have been calls to abolish the police. If Seattle can do it, maybe Atlanta and Minneapolis too.
I think that's the right answer: this should be a local decision and each community should decide the level of policing it wants (including none at all).
I downvoted you because I live in a Seattle, and this question shows a ignorance of the facts: “Letting them take over entire city blocks as Seattle has done?”
A bare assertion followed by a bare refusal isn't much help. If you would instead provide some information, that would be a big help to all those of us who do not live in Seattle.
This is a very accurate take that leads with some context before getting to the current situation: https://nostalgebraist.tumblr.com/post/620713736158724096/he...
Thanks, I appreciate it. Obviously it's hard for me to confirm things (an increasing problem) but at the very least it gives me an insight and a hook into events.
Not sure why people can't take their political hat off for HN and try to inform.
Not sure why people can't take their political hat off for HN and try to inform.
If the statement is not factual, what else is there to say?
All I know is Fox News has been caught photoshopping images and lying during their news broadcasts about these incidents.
All I know is Fox News has been caught photoshopping images and lying during their news broadcasts about these incidents.
They've taken over blocks, blocking traffic, stopping the flow of people and businesses into that area, they've disregarded state and local laws, etc. It's completely factual. Whatever Fox News has been doing to drum up hits on their website is completely irrelevant.
> If the statement is not factual, what else is there to say?
What is actually occurring, as I requested. It was a hint that the reply at least wasn't up to the standard of HN.
What is actually occurring, as I requested. It was a hint that the reply at least wasn't up to the standard of HN.
When other people have been downvoted, they complain that no reason was given.
I am doing the courtesy of telling you why I downvoted you.
If telling you why I downvoted you then also compels me to justify my position in an extended way, then I will not do it in the future. Instead I will just silently downvote when I feel it is warranted.
I am doing the courtesy of telling you why I downvoted you.
If telling you why I downvoted you then also compels me to justify my position in an extended way, then I will not do it in the future. Instead I will just silently downvote when I feel it is warranted.
That's up to you but I'm sure you could put the effort in, someone else has.
Great. Next time I'll just silently downvote and move on.
I could put the effort in, that's true. But I'm not going to be obligated to, and I'm not going to be shamed into doing the work to educate you.
I'm glad someone else did!
I could put the effort in, that's true. But I'm not going to be obligated to, and I'm not going to be shamed into doing the work to educate you.
I'm glad someone else did!
> The first one was this link: https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1270402748895412224 Which isn't an example of police brutality.
Did you click through the link that post had? It goes to https://medium.com/@Jeff_Jackson/review-of-incident-in-charl... which is pretty long, but about half way though shows an attack on protesters by police. Search for this:
Here is what it looked, sounded, and felt like from the perspective of the protesters as the second police unit quickly appeared in front of them and detonated tear gas and a flashbang
From then on it goes into a lot of depth about the tactics the police used to trap the crowd, teargas them and shot them with pepperballs.
Did you click through the link that post had? It goes to https://medium.com/@Jeff_Jackson/review-of-incident-in-charl... which is pretty long, but about half way though shows an attack on protesters by police. Search for this:
Here is what it looked, sounded, and felt like from the perspective of the protesters as the second police unit quickly appeared in front of them and detonated tear gas and a flashbang
From then on it goes into a lot of depth about the tactics the police used to trap the crowd, teargas them and shot them with pepperballs.
What's your definition, threshold for police brutality?
> Which isn't an example of police brutality.
Tear-gassing a crowd is police brutality. It'd be illegal to use tear gas in warfare; many police departments around the world have banned tear gas.
Tear-gassing a crowd is police brutality. It'd be illegal to use tear gas in warfare; many police departments around the world have banned tear gas.
> If you want to create a list for this cause, at least make it good, make it solid. Don't fill it with random junk to inflate the numbers.
What I read is: If you want to create a list for this cause, at least make it perfect and unassailable in every possible way. Because I only need to point skeptically at one thing to dismiss the whole lot.
What I read is: If you want to create a list for this cause, at least make it perfect and unassailable in every possible way. Because I only need to point skeptically at one thing to dismiss the whole lot.
I think that's not a fair reading of his comment.
Is it not legitimate to want accurate sources of data? This does not mean slightly inaccurate data is unusable, simply that it is slightly inaccurate and this to some degree impugns its legitimacy (as it should).
Is it not legitimate to want accurate sources of data? This does not mean slightly inaccurate data is unusable, simply that it is slightly inaccurate and this to some degree impugns its legitimacy (as it should).
> Is it not legitimate to want accurate sources of data?
Of course. I don't believe you honestly think that I am advocating for inaccurate sources of data.
However, finding and discussing sources of different quality among hundreds is one thing.
Saying that you only looked at two of them, expressing skepticism towards those two, and then stating that the whole thing is "filled" with "random junk to inflate the numbers" is another. That doesn't seem like the interpretation of someone who's honest about their intentions.
If I read two sentences from your thesis, find issue with them, and then claim that you have clearly filled it with random junk to inflate the word count... yould you characterize my position as believing that some parts of your thesis are "slightly inaccurate and this to some degree impugns its legitimacy"?
Of course. I don't believe you honestly think that I am advocating for inaccurate sources of data.
However, finding and discussing sources of different quality among hundreds is one thing.
Saying that you only looked at two of them, expressing skepticism towards those two, and then stating that the whole thing is "filled" with "random junk to inflate the numbers" is another. That doesn't seem like the interpretation of someone who's honest about their intentions.
If I read two sentences from your thesis, find issue with them, and then claim that you have clearly filled it with random junk to inflate the word count... yould you characterize my position as believing that some parts of your thesis are "slightly inaccurate and this to some degree impugns its legitimacy"?
I didn't downvote you and I agree with many of your points.
However personally speaking I would (and do) in fact discount a reading where even two sentences are highly suspect; it makes it not worth spending the time to read the rest of it.
As another example, I work primarily in data analytics. If I produce a report where even a single number is wrong, it almost immediately calls into question all of the other reporting I produced (did they use the same unreliable source? what transformations did they apply? was any sanity checking performed?). And, as it should.
Accuracy is incredibly important to making things appear legitimate.
However personally speaking I would (and do) in fact discount a reading where even two sentences are highly suspect; it makes it not worth spending the time to read the rest of it.
As another example, I work primarily in data analytics. If I produce a report where even a single number is wrong, it almost immediately calls into question all of the other reporting I produced (did they use the same unreliable source? what transformations did they apply? was any sanity checking performed?). And, as it should.
Accuracy is incredibly important to making things appear legitimate.
Appreciate it, and I agree with many of your points.
I guess my main point -- phrased a bit more aggressively than needed -- was that if you have a huge community-sourced pile of data from multiple people in multiple parts of the country, relating to complex and chaotic situations that are unfolding as we speak, and all you need to dismiss it out of hand is finding a couple of things that you find suspect... well then you're always going to dismiss it.
Identifying, discussing and removing data points that don't belong is absolutely useful and fair. Taking a glance at a mountain of data, pointing out a couple pieces that you don't like and implying that the entire pile is rubbish is neither useful nor fair to me.
And I'm sorry for calling you dishonest, or at least heavily implying it. That was stupid and rash of me.
I guess my main point -- phrased a bit more aggressively than needed -- was that if you have a huge community-sourced pile of data from multiple people in multiple parts of the country, relating to complex and chaotic situations that are unfolding as we speak, and all you need to dismiss it out of hand is finding a couple of things that you find suspect... well then you're always going to dismiss it.
Identifying, discussing and removing data points that don't belong is absolutely useful and fair. Taking a glance at a mountain of data, pointing out a couple pieces that you don't like and implying that the entire pile is rubbish is neither useful nor fair to me.
And I'm sorry for calling you dishonest, or at least heavily implying it. That was stupid and rash of me.
Yes we are agreed. And good to see we can have a civil discussion! Appreciated as well =)
I didn't know about such stories. It is fair to ask for context of each videos. Videos are just like words, they can be taken out of context.
In what context is it OK for a policeman to assault someone in handcuffs?
Or shoot an accredited camera person in the eye with less than lethal ammunition designed to only be used by shooting at the pavement first?
Or shoot an accredited camera person in the eye with less than lethal ammunition designed to only be used by shooting at the pavement first?
You're being massively disingenuous in the second example. A 'bunch of thugs' means one person who was being chased by a group of officers and beaten while he's trying to run. He's trying to get into a car to escape (admittedly a bad idea), then when they catch up to him they beat him up, throw him to the ground AND arrest the driver.
The fact that you chose to take the video so far out of context means you're not here to argue in good faith at all. Said list isn't for people such as yourself, where no level of evidence could convince you.
The fact that you chose to take the video so far out of context means you're not here to argue in good faith at all. Said list isn't for people such as yourself, where no level of evidence could convince you.
Ok, your correction is - one guy is doing it, not a bunch. I agree with your correction.
Other than that, the point remains.
They "arrest" the driver, because he is not following the police instructions to get out of the car, and is actively resisting the police. We don't know if he was actually arrested or just detained. I got handcuffed once and then let go, it wasn't an arrest.
Other than that, the point remains.
They "arrest" the driver, because he is not following the police instructions to get out of the car, and is actively resisting the police. We don't know if he was actually arrested or just detained. I got handcuffed once and then let go, it wasn't an arrest.
Can you explain to me why the driver needed to be arrested, and why it was considered 'resisting arrest'? Try again, because you seem to still be spinning the story in a way as to try to favor the police. Even though I can agree the person running shouldn't have jumped into cars, why do you think the person driving deserve to be beaten too? If that was you in that situation, do you think you would deserve to be beaten up and arrested too?
And try not putting 'arrest' in fear quotes, because they literally yanked him out of his car, threw him against his vehicle and arrested him.
And try not putting 'arrest' in fear quotes, because they literally yanked him out of his car, threw him against his vehicle and arrested him.
We don't know if he was arrested. And if he was, and he did nothing wrong, he gets to sue the state for a nice payout.
I would not sit in the car if the police ordered me out. So I wouldn't get beaten. I don't mess with the police.
> And try not putting 'arrest' in fear quotes, because they literally yanked him out of his car, threw him against his vehicle and arrested him.
As I told you. I got handcuffed and put in the back of a police car once. But it wasn't an arrest. They let me go. As a lawyer explained to me later, an arrest is a specific procedure, not just the fact of getting detained/handcuffed.
I would not sit in the car if the police ordered me out. So I wouldn't get beaten. I don't mess with the police.
> And try not putting 'arrest' in fear quotes, because they literally yanked him out of his car, threw him against his vehicle and arrested him.
As I told you. I got handcuffed and put in the back of a police car once. But it wasn't an arrest. They let me go. As a lawyer explained to me later, an arrest is a specific procedure, not just the fact of getting detained/handcuffed.
You are probably also taking it out of context. You have no idea what has happened in that neighborhood in the last year or decade. You have no idea what those perps and officers have experienced. Right?
> in the last year or decade
> what those perps and officers have experienced
Both totally irrelevant to whether or not it's appropriate to punch a handcuffed prisoner in the face while they're not resisting.
If a cop is suffering from PTSD or stress to the point where they can't keep themselves from assaulting a handcuffed prisoner, then I am genuinely very sorry for them, but they're still in the wrong job and they still need to be let go.
> what those perps and officers have experienced
Both totally irrelevant to whether or not it's appropriate to punch a handcuffed prisoner in the face while they're not resisting.
If a cop is suffering from PTSD or stress to the point where they can't keep themselves from assaulting a handcuffed prisoner, then I am genuinely very sorry for them, but they're still in the wrong job and they still need to be let go.
If the police officer is suffering from PTSD, a mental illness, and it originated at work, the police department as their employer should look into other options first before firing the unfit officer.
Treatment combined with appropriate work should be the first option. Treatment combined with sick leave should obviously be the second.
Treatment combined with appropriate work should be the first option. Treatment combined with sick leave should obviously be the second.
I'm willing to compromise on how treatment/employment is handled, especially if the problem originated at work, but I assume we're still in agreement that the officer shouldn't be on the street making arrests?
aganame(3)
The last year or decade are irrelevant in terms of the law.
[deleted]
Here is a project set up to review each of these individual reported incidents.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GeorgeFloydUnmasked/
There will need to be a lot of discussion // more than be traced using Twitter // to solve any one of these incidents.
That's why we set up a Reddit for threaded discussion. This is Don't Fuck with Cats style.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GeorgeFloydUnmasked/
There will need to be a lot of discussion // more than be traced using Twitter // to solve any one of these incidents.
That's why we set up a Reddit for threaded discussion. This is Don't Fuck with Cats style.
Anyone thinks this is just a US issue is mistaken. This is what power does if you really challenge it. The friendly face disappears pretty quick.
I don't think the problem of police brutality is nearly as big in western Europe or other comparable places.
You maybe right but I'm just saying people would do well to remember that this is what the police are for. To control you. The idea their treatment of people is down to "the law" is obviously false. They exert the power of the state. This, brutality, this abuse of power would happen anywhere people have learnt to dehumanise each other.
I have always wished there was a platform where we could upload such videos and collect evidence on certain cases of police brutality. With the use of facial recognition software, it would also easily be possible to identify when the same cop is involved in multiple conflicts.
Watched first 10 videos with youtube links in the list:
url - description - what I see in the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4_yJjdsJ_0 - trampling a peaceful protestor with a horse - protester stepped into the horse's way without looking in that direction, nobody's fault
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suTGneu7tZU - Shoving an unarmed woman to the curb, prompting a seizure that put her in the emergency room - police pushed somebody away from them, clip is cut right at the push, we have no context on what prompted that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu1KRskL-0E - doing an intentional hit-and-run with a car door to an unarmed protestor standing in the non-vehicular bike lane - protesters standing in the street in front of emergency vehicles with their lights and sirens on, but the door hit (minor) was definitely intentional and unnecessary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOzn6rWbpwU - NYPD were just beating a variety of people earlier tonight because they could - police try to arrest some people who are resisting, some other protesters jump the police, police hit people with sticks, get them on the ground, handcuff. No unnecessary violence I can see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESAl1OK5V8Y - beating a variety of unarmed protestors for sport - line of policeman pushing protesters back, nothing more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8CPc_R5iEI - pepper-spraying a variety of unarmed protestors for sport - police pepper spray protesters who got in their face insulting them, but where not violent. Pepper spray unjustified from what I can tell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGlRSPE2lL0 - Minneapolis PD officer in an SUV indiscriminately sprays random citizens with pepper spray from his car window - yes, because people where getting in the way of police vehicles with lights/siren on in the middle of the street
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH0HPW8Eagk - detonating flashbang grenades in a docile crowd of unarmed protestors for sport - video shot from very far away, we can see nothing of what is going on there
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G0WhaqBRb0 - shooting a random protestor in the neck with a rubber bullet, then detonating more flash-bangs - people surrounding a building with policeman on top, video of low quality with fingers in front of camera, from far away, nothing I can understand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftLzQefpBvM - Police arresting CNN reportes on air - reporter gets arrested in a very peaceful manner, both him and police are very chill. No context on why.
url - description - what I see in the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4_yJjdsJ_0 - trampling a peaceful protestor with a horse - protester stepped into the horse's way without looking in that direction, nobody's fault
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suTGneu7tZU - Shoving an unarmed woman to the curb, prompting a seizure that put her in the emergency room - police pushed somebody away from them, clip is cut right at the push, we have no context on what prompted that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu1KRskL-0E - doing an intentional hit-and-run with a car door to an unarmed protestor standing in the non-vehicular bike lane - protesters standing in the street in front of emergency vehicles with their lights and sirens on, but the door hit (minor) was definitely intentional and unnecessary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOzn6rWbpwU - NYPD were just beating a variety of people earlier tonight because they could - police try to arrest some people who are resisting, some other protesters jump the police, police hit people with sticks, get them on the ground, handcuff. No unnecessary violence I can see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESAl1OK5V8Y - beating a variety of unarmed protestors for sport - line of policeman pushing protesters back, nothing more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8CPc_R5iEI - pepper-spraying a variety of unarmed protestors for sport - police pepper spray protesters who got in their face insulting them, but where not violent. Pepper spray unjustified from what I can tell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGlRSPE2lL0 - Minneapolis PD officer in an SUV indiscriminately sprays random citizens with pepper spray from his car window - yes, because people where getting in the way of police vehicles with lights/siren on in the middle of the street
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH0HPW8Eagk - detonating flashbang grenades in a docile crowd of unarmed protestors for sport - video shot from very far away, we can see nothing of what is going on there
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G0WhaqBRb0 - shooting a random protestor in the neck with a rubber bullet, then detonating more flash-bangs - people surrounding a building with policeman on top, video of low quality with fingers in front of camera, from far away, nothing I can understand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftLzQefpBvM - Police arresting CNN reportes on air - reporter gets arrested in a very peaceful manner, both him and police are very chill. No context on why.
Thanks for some summaries. Any idea of how many of these cases involved people acting illegally? (e.g., refusing to leave an area after being ordered to)
Just watched the first video. "protester stepped into the horse's way without looking in that direction, nobody's fault". This is clearly not true.
I looked at that video and I find it difficult to believe that someone could interpret it as nobody's fault. The protester in question stands there for a good while, moving slowly with the crowd when the horse shows up at an inappropriate speed and just tramples her.
And what is your interpretation of the video then?
I don't believe you are asking in good faith. I am not going to engage with you on this. I am just responding so that other people actually watch the video rather than listen to your spin on it.
[deleted]
There have been several posts in the thread advocating violence. Is that allowed here?
I've downloaded these clips and compiled them into a single video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ckSnRrOhZ4
the problem is not police violence. the problem is what they are legally allowed to do VS what they are not.
the notion of "resisting arrest" allow police to do pretty much whatever they want from the moment you said "no" to one of their asks.
Hell even getting out from your vehicle when a cop tells you to stay in it is "resisting arrest".
this is the main problem. if you give people a way to be legally violent you are responsible for the deaths. its is beyond politics, democrats or republicans allowed these laws and procedures, the neck restraints and other dangerous things for decades.
the notion of "resisting arrest" allow police to do pretty much whatever they want from the moment you said "no" to one of their asks.
Hell even getting out from your vehicle when a cop tells you to stay in it is "resisting arrest".
this is the main problem. if you give people a way to be legally violent you are responsible for the deaths. its is beyond politics, democrats or republicans allowed these laws and procedures, the neck restraints and other dangerous things for decades.
There should be psychological evaluations of those in politics/judiciary/law enforcement https://archive.vn/YXDP8
I agree with the premise but unfortunately the mental health system in America is itself prone to abuse of patients and bigotry against patients. We need to be able to hold psychologists, nurses in psychiatric wards, psychiatrists, and other licensed mental health workers with a similar set of accountability if we are to hope that they can be useful filters.
Cops shouldn't be afraid to do their jobs, and citizens shouldn't be afraid of the cops.
Polarization, scary stuff :(
elaborate please?
I think they're referring to this thread itself.
I've been lurking on hacker news for years and I've never really seen anything quite like it.
I've been lurking on hacker news for years and I've never really seen anything quite like it.
Insane
[deleted]
qwertman(1)
growlist(2)
[deleted]
tootahe45(1)
throw7373(1)
known(2)
tsurkoprt(2)
I am the CTO/co-founder at Loom (loom.com). I would like to upload these videos to my personal Loom account to be preserved. Anyone know of a location where I can download them without having to write a script to export them?
Just move to Seattle or Minneapolis for anyone that hates police so much. They won't be there anymore so you'll be safe.
Most posts on this subject keep getting pushed off of the front page by mods. It's pretty sad to watch, especially with the number of posts about coronavirus. They're both major issues, but one is nerdier than the other so it gets to stay.
Although mods do perform many such actions, generally political posts are flagged quickly by normal users, indicating that they don't want to see them either
Mods didn't touch this post, or see it, until I turned the flags off just now.
Got it, thanks. Since that's that's been a big trend recently, is there anything that can be done to make sure posts like these don't just immediately get flagged into oblivion? I can absolutely see campaigns against HN that flag these sorts of posts to get off the front page.
Not expecting the answer to be yes, but figured I'd ask.
Not expecting the answer to be yes, but figured I'd ask.
I personally don't want to see this here, and I flag this kind of subjects when I see them.
One of the great things about HN is that is manages to be an interesting website that usually keeps out of flamewar american politics.
There are plenty of those pretty much everywhere on reddit/internet, and I appreciate that this kind of 'us vs them' posts usually don't stay up long on HN.
I'm a bit disappointed dang unflagged it this time.
One of the great things about HN is that is manages to be an interesting website that usually keeps out of flamewar american politics.
There are plenty of those pretty much everywhere on reddit/internet, and I appreciate that this kind of 'us vs them' posts usually don't stay up long on HN.
I'm a bit disappointed dang unflagged it this time.
Can imagine a lot of folks simply don’t want to see these here, which is understandable, but I’m personally curious what the HN crowd thinks. Maybe once in a while is okay.
Users can't flag unless they have reached a certain threshold in karma so I doubt there's a campaign going on.
It's mostly users flagging the post as spam/inappropriate for HN that kills the post. Flagging kills a post super quickly unless it's reached critical mass.
I don't see much discussion of root causes here. But a lot of "police ought to be this or that".
Perhaps the best solution is to have more democracy or community input into policing. It seems like it's happening now in the US (it would be quite different in other countries, where the police is national and considered civil servants; in France you can't elect sheriffs, and police is beyond the responsibility of mayors).
In the end, some communities will vote for a police that's tough, and other communities will vote for a police that's less tough. There will still be issues when criminals used to non-tough cops cross into an area with tough cops, but that's life.
Perhaps the best solution is to have more democracy or community input into policing. It seems like it's happening now in the US (it would be quite different in other countries, where the police is national and considered civil servants; in France you can't elect sheriffs, and police is beyond the responsibility of mayors).
In the end, some communities will vote for a police that's tough, and other communities will vote for a police that's less tough. There will still be issues when criminals used to non-tough cops cross into an area with tough cops, but that's life.
> a police that's tough
Tough is having courage and compassion while being firm. Tough not being an insecure bully. Please don't use "tough" when relating to US police brutality.
Having a decent police force is a solved problem. Just look around for a country with a decent relationship between population and law enforcements. Look what made that happen (Was it 2-3 year police training? mental health screens? No qualified immunity? Central/federal authority governing all police forces? perrhaps ALL OF THE ABOVE?).
Tough is having courage and compassion while being firm. Tough not being an insecure bully. Please don't use "tough" when relating to US police brutality.
Having a decent police force is a solved problem. Just look around for a country with a decent relationship between population and law enforcements. Look what made that happen (Was it 2-3 year police training? mental health screens? No qualified immunity? Central/federal authority governing all police forces? perrhaps ALL OF THE ABOVE?).
Do you really think we can apply the policing methods of Iceland or Japan to the areas of Mexico where you have cartels chopping up people? Crime and violence are not homogeneous around the world, so I don't think police can be either.
See how far you go with a compassionate police in Brazil.
See how far you go with a compassionate police in Brazil.
I think this is a false dichotomy. "Police brutality" isn't when police use force when required, it's when they use more force than required.
> Crime and violence are not homogeneous around the world
It's also a bit defeatist to say that somehow the US is infested with crime and violence and that must always be the case. This isn't a problem that will be solved in just one or two generations. Attitudes take a long time to change, but perhaps Police culture is part of the propblem and not just the solution.
> Crime and violence are not homogeneous around the world
It's also a bit defeatist to say that somehow the US is infested with crime and violence and that must always be the case. This isn't a problem that will be solved in just one or two generations. Attitudes take a long time to change, but perhaps Police culture is part of the propblem and not just the solution.
One of the issues we've seen is that the police act as a political organisation. It's a message from the Police: "Look at these looters, you need us". They use their position to push for the political outcome they want. Similarly you can elect a mayor who will reform the police, but what's likely to happen is that the police just tweak their behaviour to allow an increase in crime so that come next election, the mayor's "reforms" have made his citizens less safe and you get rid of the mayor - because the police aren't accountable, the mayor is. An institutional interest has emerged and really the only way of changing that is to remove the institution and replace it.
We have already had more democracy and community input. It does nothing and gets ignored. The cops keep defending other cops from all accountability.
It's worth noting hundreds of police officers lose their life a year in the line of duty: https://www.odmp.org/search/year and many more than that receive serious injuries, even permanent spinal damage:
One cop was paralyzed from the neck down in Vegas protests: https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/06/14/police-officer-shot-...
Retired police chief killed at 77 by looters in St. Louis: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/500839-retired-st-l...
A federal agent was killed in Oakland in connection with the protests: https://patch.com/california/alameda/fbi-ids-federal-agent-4...
The one-sided narrative against cops is getting out of hand. It's an extremely dangerous job and you cannot treat gangsters with kid gloves while they pack serious weaponry. It's a joke to talk of nerfing or defunding the police for the handful of bad incidents that occur meanwhile over 15K people a year are murdered in the country. It's completely disproportionate and not aligned with statistical reality: cops often have to make split second life or death decisions and they don't get a second shot.
One cop was paralyzed from the neck down in Vegas protests: https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/06/14/police-officer-shot-...
Retired police chief killed at 77 by looters in St. Louis: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/500839-retired-st-l...
A federal agent was killed in Oakland in connection with the protests: https://patch.com/california/alameda/fbi-ids-federal-agent-4...
The one-sided narrative against cops is getting out of hand. It's an extremely dangerous job and you cannot treat gangsters with kid gloves while they pack serious weaponry. It's a joke to talk of nerfing or defunding the police for the handful of bad incidents that occur meanwhile over 15K people a year are murdered in the country. It's completely disproportionate and not aligned with statistical reality: cops often have to make split second life or death decisions and they don't get a second shot.
It’s about 100 officers a year in the U.S. About half are homicides and the other half are car accidents on the job. It doesn’t rank in the top 10 most dangerous jobs (per capita) in the U.S. according to the BLS. The number of deaths will be much higher this year, at least double, due to COVID19 deaths. The job pays well and comes with a pension. It’s nearly impossible to get fired and if you do get fired, most officers get rehired elsewhere.
https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/police-officers-2014.htm
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/05/08/the-nu...
https://www.policeone.com/coronavirus-covid-19/articles/covi...
https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/police-officers-2014.htm
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/05/08/the-nu...
https://www.policeone.com/coronavirus-covid-19/articles/covi...
mjfl(3)
Policing is not a dangerous job.
According to the FBI, which publishes the data in the Uniform Crime Reports, from 1980–2018, an average of 85 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed per year.
In 2018 there were 686,665 police in the US.
According to the FBI, which publishes the data in the Uniform Crime Reports, from 1980–2018, an average of 85 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed per year.
In 2018 there were 686,665 police in the US.
This is correct. In fact, landscaping and groundskeeping workers (among many other categories) suffered more fatalities than police officers in 2018 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0326.htm
Sorta meaningless unless you cross it against the actual count of people in the occupation (estimates in this list https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/emp-by-detailed-occupation.ht...)
I don't really want to get into the actual meat of the argument, but please use per-capita death stats so the numbers are actually comparable.
I don't really want to get into the actual meat of the argument, but please use per-capita death stats so the numbers are actually comparable.
Sure, I combined the two tables in the spreadsheet linked below, and there are many occupations that are more dangerous than police officer if we look at fatalities by per-capita occupation.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dXtv2wnutujfXWUHB9Bm...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dXtv2wnutujfXWUHB9Bm...
This sounds like one arguing that playing russian roulette isn't dangerous, because one can name more dangerous activities. The fact that deep sea fishing is ultra dangerous doesn't mean that being a cop isn't dangerous.
"It's a dangerous job" is given as a reason for why so much policy brutality occurs. Pointing out how dangerous it is relative to other professions is absolutely germane.
That's exactly my point, and no it isn't. Policing isn't less dangerous because deep sea fishing is really dangerous. If someone said "It's the most dangerous job", then it would be germane.
Here's the same logic applied elsewhere:
It's not dangerous to be a black man in America. What's really dangerous is to be a El Salvadoran living in El Salvador(the country with the highest murder rate in the world).
Here's the same logic applied elsewhere:
It's not dangerous to be a black man in America. What's really dangerous is to be a El Salvadoran living in El Salvador(the country with the highest murder rate in the world).
It's not the same logic though. A black man in America didn't choose to be a black man, and has no way to change it. Ditto for an El Salvadoran - most can't legally emigrate.
Police officers are volunteers, not conscripts. They're free at any time to choose a less dangerous profession if they so wish.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if policing was more dangerous than working in an asbestos-uranium mine on a fault line. There's no excuse for law enforcement to be breaking laws without consequence. People who can't tolerate the risks should go do something else.
Police officers are volunteers, not conscripts. They're free at any time to choose a less dangerous profession if they so wish.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if policing was more dangerous than working in an asbestos-uranium mine on a fault line. There's no excuse for law enforcement to be breaking laws without consequence. People who can't tolerate the risks should go do something else.
Not even in the top 10, apparently.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/27/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-i...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/27/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-i...
I'd be interested to see a breakdown of deaths, injuries, and trauma(PTSD and such) per capita for police officers versus various US Armed Forces MOSes as well as common civilian trades/occupations.
I imagine in general it's safer in most regards than many trades and MOSes but until I see the data I wouldn't want to make an actual assertion.
I'd put this together myself if I felt competent enough to do this properly but by no means am I a data scientist or anyone actually qualified to do this.
I imagine in general it's safer in most regards than many trades and MOSes but until I see the data I wouldn't want to make an actual assertion.
I'd put this together myself if I felt competent enough to do this properly but by no means am I a data scientist or anyone actually qualified to do this.
in 2019 there were a mere 89 deaths, and 41 one of those were vehicle accidents.
That's only a function of how good they are at what they do. They have to engage in over 10 million incidents a year. Any one of those could be a routine traffic stop that suddenly turns into a gang bust and an attempt is made on their own life. They don't have the luxury of foresight of knowing if they're coming home today or not. They know they're a target. Contrast that with your average aeron chair programmer and I'd say their job is incredibly fucking dangerous.
Edit: It's number 15 and only because 2019 was a near record low year, following decades of decline and improved equipment and training. That's a function of how good they are. And if you make them worse or non-existent, crime will go up.
While the construction industry is accidentally dangerous, cops are victims of intentional violence and hatred. They have to deal with drugged out, abusive, angry people all the time. They have to console rape victims. They have to help assess suicides, murders, deadly car accidents and all kinds of unpleasant bullshit. They see death on the job every single day. It's not a walk in the park. It causes unbelievable stress (especially in high crime districts) and it pays 1/3 of what a junior JS dev makes and they don't get stock options or grants
It's 5x more deadly than average occupation and 6x more injurious. It also causes loads of psychological and emotional stress because they have to deal with people going through some of the worst episodes of their lives...all the time.
https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/police-officers-2014.htm
Edit: It's number 15 and only because 2019 was a near record low year, following decades of decline and improved equipment and training. That's a function of how good they are. And if you make them worse or non-existent, crime will go up.
While the construction industry is accidentally dangerous, cops are victims of intentional violence and hatred. They have to deal with drugged out, abusive, angry people all the time. They have to console rape victims. They have to help assess suicides, murders, deadly car accidents and all kinds of unpleasant bullshit. They see death on the job every single day. It's not a walk in the park. It causes unbelievable stress (especially in high crime districts) and it pays 1/3 of what a junior JS dev makes and they don't get stock options or grants
It's 5x more deadly than average occupation and 6x more injurious. It also causes loads of psychological and emotional stress because they have to deal with people going through some of the worst episodes of their lives...all the time.
https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/police-officers-2014.htm
Pizza delivery drivers have to deliver over 10 million pizzas a year. Any one of those deliveries could be cut short by a drunk driver that causes a head-on collision at 60 miles per hour. They don't have the luxury of foresight of knowing if they're coming home today or not. They know they're at risk. Contrast that with your average cop issuing citations and filling out paperwork and I'd say their job is incredibly fucking dangerous.
Pizza delivery can be dangerous in certain neighborhoods, for sure. At least one or two were killed in my home town. However, let's not pretend that the emotional and mental weight and responsibility of being a pizza delivery driver is anywhere close to what a cop has to deal with on a daily basis:
"Police respond to murder-suicide in Durham" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei4D2toAHQ4
"Man shoots, kills police wearing body cam" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssARbfxqTh0
"Police respond to reported armed robbery on South Hill" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7iOelX_0kY
"Bodycam Footage Shows Woman Falsely Accused Cop of Sexual Assault | New York Post" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTv5VkX_T8o
"Police seek man who tried to rape elderly woman" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWPvXsUmZik
You let me know what pizza delivery driver has to deal with shit like that.
"Police respond to murder-suicide in Durham" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei4D2toAHQ4
"Man shoots, kills police wearing body cam" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssARbfxqTh0
"Police respond to reported armed robbery on South Hill" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7iOelX_0kY
"Bodycam Footage Shows Woman Falsely Accused Cop of Sexual Assault | New York Post" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTv5VkX_T8o
"Police seek man who tried to rape elderly woman" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWPvXsUmZik
You let me know what pizza delivery driver has to deal with shit like that.
This is bordering on the absurd. Almost all police officers go through their career without being in objective danger of dying. If they do run in to danger, they call for backup and are trained to handle it. You can find examples of death in any profession. Like it or not, policing is not one of the most dangerous jobs out there, it's just filled with scared people.
Their job is not more dangerous than a pizza delivery driver.
I'm guessing that that cop in Vegas that was just paralyzed for life by some "protester" would not agree with you.
You don't have to be killed "feloniously" to be dead. And you don't have to be killed at all to have your life destroyed.
You don't have to be killed "feloniously" to be dead. And you don't have to be killed at all to have your life destroyed.
The post is a huge list of links of police brutality on innocent protestors, bystanders, and media well within their rights. This post has nothing to do with how the police treat "gangsters", unless you mean something different by that word.
Defunding police because of police brutality is swallowing a spider to catch the fly. You do NOT want to live in a place without police.
I think it would be much more productive and realistic to have a really deep study of how policing in America is different from other countries, and what can be done to normalise it. America is pretty gun crazy, and that doesn't make a cop's life any easier. The flip side of that is that some gun crazy people become cops, and shoot people on their knees with weapons engraved with "you're fucked": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver
I think it would be much more productive and realistic to have a really deep study of how policing in America is different from other countries, and what can be done to normalise it. America is pretty gun crazy, and that doesn't make a cop's life any easier. The flip side of that is that some gun crazy people become cops, and shoot people on their knees with weapons engraved with "you're fucked": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver
> Defunding police because of police brutality is swallowing a spider to catch the fly. You do NOT want to live in a place without police.
This is a classic example of bad / misleading marketing on behalf of a reform movement. The "Defund the Police" movement has been poorly named. Yes, there are absolutely some folks on the extreme who truly want to disband the police and live in a place without police, but by and large, the major of people who are supporting this movement mean something else:
Defund == defund the CURRENT police organizational structure (militarized, etc.), reallocate funding for things like homeless support, domestic checks, etc. to other departments better suited to handle them, and KEEP a policing organization which is responsible for a much narrower scope of duty with a reformatted training program, etc.
It should be branded "Reboot the Police", not "Defund the Police"...
This is a classic example of bad / misleading marketing on behalf of a reform movement. The "Defund the Police" movement has been poorly named. Yes, there are absolutely some folks on the extreme who truly want to disband the police and live in a place without police, but by and large, the major of people who are supporting this movement mean something else:
Defund == defund the CURRENT police organizational structure (militarized, etc.), reallocate funding for things like homeless support, domestic checks, etc. to other departments better suited to handle them, and KEEP a policing organization which is responsible for a much narrower scope of duty with a reformatted training program, etc.
It should be branded "Reboot the Police", not "Defund the Police"...
If that's really what it is, calling it "Defund" is like marketing Coke by calling it "Shitty Sugar Water" and then issuing a 10 page explainer that says "Shit not included".
It's not quite that, but it does sound like cutting all funding. How about "the police have too much money"? It's not an imperative statement though. "Cut police budgets" has the same problem as "defund the police." Any better slogans? Something snappy like "we send the EU £350 million a week. let's fund our NHS instead."
Something like "Rethink" is way better. You can't sell "Abolish" or "Defund" without explaining what comes next.
The demand to defund the police the claim that policing is too much of the budget. The demand to disarm the police us the claim that not all cops need to carry a gun. Neither of these is a demand to get rid of police.
> Defunding police because of police brutality is swallowing a spider to catch the fly. You do NOT want to live in a place without police.
False dichotomy.
You can defund the police, by not sending armed, militarized police to do the bullshit parts of their jobs, while still responding to violent incidents.
For 99% of police calls, you don't need an armed gunman to show up. Of the 1% that you currently do, more often than not, that armed officer won't even show up in time.
False dichotomy.
You can defund the police, by not sending armed, militarized police to do the bullshit parts of their jobs, while still responding to violent incidents.
For 99% of police calls, you don't need an armed gunman to show up. Of the 1% that you currently do, more often than not, that armed officer won't even show up in time.
In the UK if police need guns on scene, they clear the area and call a specialized sharpshooter team.
At least where I live in the UK half the police have guns, they're just locked in their car 99.999% of the time. A lot more UK police have guns than most people think. Any car with a 5 point star (orange in my area) is an armed response vehicle.
Maybe US cops need to just leave their guns in their cars more often?
Example: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/HXD0AX/windsor-uk-27th-march-2017-...
Maybe US cops need to just leave their guns in their cars more often?
Example: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/HXD0AX/windsor-uk-27th-march-2017-...
Great idea.
When someone kills a police officer, they are basically garunteed life in prison or death.
When a cop kills someone, they almost always go unpunished, no matter how unjustified it was.
When a cop kills someone, they almost always go unpunished, no matter how unjustified it was.
They get automatic mandatory paid leave, kinda exactly like extra vacation.
I would not be shocked to see flights booked in advance.
> It's worth noting hundreds of police officers lose their life a year in the line of duty
From your own link it shows less than 200 deaths of police per year from the last five years. Hundreds as you've used it imho is misleading. Furthermore those stats include accidents which makes them even more misleading. Do you honestly think deaths from cancer related to 9/11 should "count" in the context of this debate? And yet they closely trail and sometimes even eclipse the death of cops by gunfire in the past 5 years.
I do agree that it's a dangerous job but I don't agree that they're "required" to be heavy handed because of "gangsters" with "serious weaponry". The weaponry issue is a gun control one, not a "gangsters" one. There's absolutely NO NEED for so many ARs over there. NONE WHAT-SO-EVER. And I say this as a reformed red-stater expat who had a AK under my bed as a teenager and a 40 smith in the night stand.
From my perspective I think the narrative for cops is disproportionate and out of hand. The ample, arguably overwhelming, footage of cops beating, maiming, shooting, and killing people in the past month alone is ridiculous and should be evidence enough that the police have lost their way. Instead you're in here defending them in spite of overwhelming video evidence to the contrary.
In Australia and NZ the police are legally bound to these key principles.
• Police should only use force that is reasonable, necessary, proportionate and appropriate to the circumstances.
• Police should use no more force than is reasonably necessary for the safe and effective performance of their duties.
• Individual police are accountable and responsible for their use of force and must be able to justify their actions at law
Do you think the video below is a good example of the use of proportionate force? Do you think that shooting was justified? https://twitter.com/i/status/1272177941519257600
On a related note I found this an interesting read.
https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard...
From your own link it shows less than 200 deaths of police per year from the last five years. Hundreds as you've used it imho is misleading. Furthermore those stats include accidents which makes them even more misleading. Do you honestly think deaths from cancer related to 9/11 should "count" in the context of this debate? And yet they closely trail and sometimes even eclipse the death of cops by gunfire in the past 5 years.
I do agree that it's a dangerous job but I don't agree that they're "required" to be heavy handed because of "gangsters" with "serious weaponry". The weaponry issue is a gun control one, not a "gangsters" one. There's absolutely NO NEED for so many ARs over there. NONE WHAT-SO-EVER. And I say this as a reformed red-stater expat who had a AK under my bed as a teenager and a 40 smith in the night stand.
From my perspective I think the narrative for cops is disproportionate and out of hand. The ample, arguably overwhelming, footage of cops beating, maiming, shooting, and killing people in the past month alone is ridiculous and should be evidence enough that the police have lost their way. Instead you're in here defending them in spite of overwhelming video evidence to the contrary.
In Australia and NZ the police are legally bound to these key principles.
• Police should only use force that is reasonable, necessary, proportionate and appropriate to the circumstances.
• Police should use no more force than is reasonably necessary for the safe and effective performance of their duties.
• Individual police are accountable and responsible for their use of force and must be able to justify their actions at law
Do you think the video below is a good example of the use of proportionate force? Do you think that shooting was justified? https://twitter.com/i/status/1272177941519257600
On a related note I found this an interesting read.
https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard...
I disagree. The protests and the narrative around them are about highlighting injustice.
In those examples, I’m fairly confident the perpetrators will be arrested and likely justice will be served. In the first two, arrests have already been made and they’ve been charged. Meanwhile, those that murdered Breonna Taylor are still free despite the fact that the police know exactly who the perpetrators were.
We want justice for all.
In those examples, I’m fairly confident the perpetrators will be arrested and likely justice will be served. In the first two, arrests have already been made and they’ve been charged. Meanwhile, those that murdered Breonna Taylor are still free despite the fact that the police know exactly who the perpetrators were.
We want justice for all.
It's not clear to me why "Policing is dangerous" means things like strangling handcuffed prisoners, raping detainees, attacking journalists and peaceful protestors, and stealing cash and other valuables (i.e. civil forfeiture) and so on have to be tolerated. None of these are "split second life or death decisions".
Just as crimes against police are more serious than crimes against civilians (rightly, IMO), crimes by police should also be more serious.
Just as crimes against police are more serious than crimes against civilians (rightly, IMO), crimes by police should also be more serious.
The fact that people instantly go to both-sidesing this is absolutely infuriating. This isn't some kind of red-team/blue-team dynamic bullshit sports thing. Police officers are the designated empowered representatives of the state and they absolutely must follow the law. There is no rule of law if they can beat your ass and kill you and then hide behind a wall of denial, a police union, unaccountable processes, and phalanx of defenders like this.
Police officers die in the line of duty. Yep. It's a dangerous job. You know who else dies in the line of duty? Truck drivers. Truck drivers die at 2x the rate of police officers in America. Do they get a free pass for beating the shit out of people and killing them? Hell no.
Police officers die in the line of duty. Yep. It's a dangerous job. You know who else dies in the line of duty? Truck drivers. Truck drivers die at 2x the rate of police officers in America. Do they get a free pass for beating the shit out of people and killing them? Hell no.
This is not a case of a few bad apples.
75 year old man thrown to the floor for no reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4f4dXXbfEg
Two of the officers responsible were suspended. In response, the /ENTIRE DEPARTMENT/ resigned: https://nypost.com/2020/06/05/buffalo-emergency-response-tea...
American police need to be disarmed and fired. The idea of a professional police force (especially an /armed/ police force) makes about as much sense as a professional jury service.
75 year old man thrown to the floor for no reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4f4dXXbfEg
Two of the officers responsible were suspended. In response, the /ENTIRE DEPARTMENT/ resigned: https://nypost.com/2020/06/05/buffalo-emergency-response-tea...
American police need to be disarmed and fired. The idea of a professional police force (especially an /armed/ police force) makes about as much sense as a professional jury service.
You sure about all of that?
Those 50 some police did not resign from being police. They resigned from emergency response duties because they were shown that their dept will not support them.
There is also more to that “poor 75yo man” story. He is a professional agitator with a now-deleted social media history of hating the police, despite this hatred he showed up hours early before police did with a police motorcycle helmet he wanted to return because it was the right thing to do, this stated by a Buffalo/NPR reporter who he happened to be there with, while BLM activists knew/recognized him as an agitator and told him to go home, asking him why he was there and replied a few times “just for fun”, then in the full video you can see he is using he is using his phone to scan over police radios (supposedly to skim Bluetooth advertising addresses and RSSI correlation, to get someone information to listen in on private band police traffic), all of this while not wearing a mask up until the interaction with police when suddenly he has “two” masks, one which appears mouth guard of some sorts with a mask over that.
But whatever... it’s a lot easier to just say the police beat this guy (pushed him back from an advancing police line)
https://twitter.com/ConservRachel/status/1268998560412033025...
https://twitter.com/PimpG18/status/1269328910988255232/photo...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CubkyIzygQ
https://twitter.com/Sep112001/status/1269696080230350849/pho...
Those 50 some police did not resign from being police. They resigned from emergency response duties because they were shown that their dept will not support them.
There is also more to that “poor 75yo man” story. He is a professional agitator with a now-deleted social media history of hating the police, despite this hatred he showed up hours early before police did with a police motorcycle helmet he wanted to return because it was the right thing to do, this stated by a Buffalo/NPR reporter who he happened to be there with, while BLM activists knew/recognized him as an agitator and told him to go home, asking him why he was there and replied a few times “just for fun”, then in the full video you can see he is using he is using his phone to scan over police radios (supposedly to skim Bluetooth advertising addresses and RSSI correlation, to get someone information to listen in on private band police traffic), all of this while not wearing a mask up until the interaction with police when suddenly he has “two” masks, one which appears mouth guard of some sorts with a mask over that.
But whatever... it’s a lot easier to just say the police beat this guy (pushed him back from an advancing police line)
https://twitter.com/ConservRachel/status/1268998560412033025...
https://twitter.com/PimpG18/status/1269328910988255232/photo...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CubkyIzygQ
https://twitter.com/Sep112001/status/1269696080230350849/pho...
I think it's a case of several bad departments/cities/states. The response from the San Francisco PD (for example) was very different from Seattle. Policing is very different from state to state, and police cultures are very different across departments. Treating all police in the US as a single entity doesn't make much sense.
How do you provide security and protection in absence of police?
Being a cop is less dangerous than being a pizza delivery driver, and pizza delivery guys don't get guaranteed pensions and a union to protect them when they purposefully beat the living crap out of someone because they had a bad day.
Pizza delivery driving is a dangerous profession because pizza delivery drivers are frequently racing to improve their tips and delivery numbers and drive dangerously, meaning they frequently cause their own deaths[0]:
> Of course, when a pizza delivery driver is injured in a car accident, it is not usually an isolated event; other drivers and passengers are also involved. All too often, the accident is caused by the delivery worker’s negligence. They are racing for tips, trying to uphold the company’s reputation for service, aiming for positive feedback at work, or they are simply checked out and bored because they spend so much time in the car.
Yes, cops frequently kill themselves in traffic accidents as well, but the difference is that they are usually not rushing to a place to put a few dollars in their pocket - but rushing to a place to protect or help someone who called upon them.
[0]https://southfloridainjurylawfirm.com/pizza-companies-take-r...
> Of course, when a pizza delivery driver is injured in a car accident, it is not usually an isolated event; other drivers and passengers are also involved. All too often, the accident is caused by the delivery worker’s negligence. They are racing for tips, trying to uphold the company’s reputation for service, aiming for positive feedback at work, or they are simply checked out and bored because they spend so much time in the car.
Yes, cops frequently kill themselves in traffic accidents as well, but the difference is that they are usually not rushing to a place to put a few dollars in their pocket - but rushing to a place to protect or help someone who called upon them.
[0]https://southfloridainjurylawfirm.com/pizza-companies-take-r...
Gotta chase those Civil Forfeiture tips.
I consider police to be heroes. But that's not what we're seeing here.
The sides here are decent folk (police and protesters) against the racists and the violent criminals (police and rioters and looters).
And the police agree: "Three big California police unions release national reform plan to remove racist officers" https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/3-big-California...
Their plan includes "a national database of former police officers fired for gross misconduct that would prevent other agencies from hiring them."
The sides here are decent folk (police and protesters) against the racists and the violent criminals (police and rioters and looters).
And the police agree: "Three big California police unions release national reform plan to remove racist officers" https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/3-big-California...
Their plan includes "a national database of former police officers fired for gross misconduct that would prevent other agencies from hiring them."
The police have never done anything for me, and I can't think of a time they've done anything for anyone I know. I don't really see how they are heros.
I can't even think of things they regularly do that can be called heroic? I know they do some good stuff, but nothing that comes close to the level of "hero" in my opinion.
Firefighters, EMTs, nurses, and doctors are all examples of actual heros, IMO.
I can't even think of things they regularly do that can be called heroic? I know they do some good stuff, but nothing that comes close to the level of "hero" in my opinion.
Firefighters, EMTs, nurses, and doctors are all examples of actual heros, IMO.
Isn't being the stick that causes laws to have meaning a good thing? A law is only words unless there's someone who will inflict a penalty if you don't follow it.
You're right that a 'law is only words unless there's someone who will inflict a penalty'. The question we've seen over the past few weeks however is 'who watches the watchmen?'
The answer is, apparently, nobody. The police should not be above the law they're enforcing. The only thing that's changed is that with the mass adoption of smart phones we're able to see from multiple angles how deep the corruption goes.
The answer is, apparently, nobody. The police should not be above the law they're enforcing. The only thing that's changed is that with the mass adoption of smart phones we're able to see from multiple angles how deep the corruption goes.
There are too many laws. If there are too many laws then their monopoly on violence becomes tyrannical.
The police make a mockery of the law because they get away with murder. Protesters want reasonable laws enforced for everyone regardless of race or profession.
Maybe I'm just naive and sheltered. I'm shocked by what I've seen these past weeks. There is a serious problem and it's going to be addressed.
A moment with a search engine will turn up story after story of people in uniform putting their lives on the line to help others.
Personally, I think they're heroes because they're people just like you and me who are willing to risk their lives to help other people. At least most of them are, I believe.
A moment with a search engine will turn up story after story of people in uniform putting their lives on the line to help others.
Personally, I think they're heroes because they're people just like you and me who are willing to risk their lives to help other people. At least most of them are, I believe.
Police have been systematically killing people, inciting riots, executing pets as a matter of course, and using chemical weapons of war on civilians. Many police departments have more funding than any other portion of the budget combined and they still can’t stop themselves from executing civilians, stealing their property, and lying about it. A black man is more likely to be killed by a cop than a cop is to be killed at all in the line of duty.
Law enforcement is necessary(strictly, a crime investigation unit, a force capable of handling armed/bomb situations, etc.) but something has seriously gone wrong with the way it’s been implemented in many cities, counties, and states.
Law enforcement is necessary(strictly, a crime investigation unit, a force capable of handling armed/bomb situations, etc.) but something has seriously gone wrong with the way it’s been implemented in many cities, counties, and states.
Firefighters have never done anything for me, and I can't think of a time they've done anything for anyone I know. I don't really see how they are heros.
I can't even think of things they regularly do that can be called heroic? I know they do some good stuff, but nothing that comes close to the level of "hero" in my opinion. They squirt water on hot stuff? Cool.
I can't even think of things they regularly do that can be called heroic? I know they do some good stuff, but nothing that comes close to the level of "hero" in my opinion. They squirt water on hot stuff? Cool.
Firefighting is a job that actually has significant standards for licensing and criminal history.
They also don’t have a history of killing black people at 2.5x their usual rate of killing people. (They also by and large don’t kill people, in fact they’ve killed so few people there doesn’t exist case law that prevents liability of a firefighter for killing a person. Unlike cops.)
They also don’t have a history of killing black people at 2.5x their usual rate of killing people. (They also by and large don’t kill people, in fact they’ve killed so few people there doesn’t exist case law that prevents liability of a firefighter for killing a person. Unlike cops.)
At a minimum, watch 100 videos. I did last night, only took about an hour, it's easy to find some to nitpick, some which are ambiguous ... and plenty that are totally horrifying.
If you can watch 100 videos in a row from Greg Doucette's list and say, "the militarization and use of force tactics of US law enforcement are not a problem" then I'd like to hear why you think so given this evidence.
Otherwise you're not speaking from an honest grappling with what these videos contain.