Cops Are The Worst

[verb_to_trust]

A lot of really ignorant people cite Camden as if Camden has no policing. Sorry guys, they have policing in Camden.

[96583UP]

So what is the run-down of proposals? serious question. want to consider tangible goals / next steps and not just be consumed by complaining.

Someone break the options down:

1) Police Immunity: is this real, is this the problem. they don't second guess killing because they can't be prosecuted (when). Eliminate this

2) Community Policing: Softer-touch, de-militarized 'policing'. get to know the community. more there to help than there to hurt. Implement this

3) Eliminate police unions: but i thought leftists loved unions. but they also contain MSG, which is bad.

4) Eliminate Policing: That way everyone can watch their elderly parents get gang-raped every day by trolling packs of thugs like it's the soviet liberation of poland. This seems extreme but the sacrifice might be worth it.

5) ???????

maybe we can take a breather from getting triggered on the twitter re-feed of the last 10 years' worth of police abuse cases and consider the solutions (or do both)

i don't see a lot of discussion of possible solutions in the agenda-setting media. just a lot of descriptions of events and how people are 'feeling'

#4 doesn't seem practical to me but curious if successful examples exist. A lot of things make sense on a classroom chalkboard that don't work out in the real world due to entropy. But if we have to accept a certain amount of Indian-style rape gangs as part of the trade-off; or convince ourselves that Camden, NJ is a desirable place to live - then perhaps that conversation should be a short one.

The article was about your #1, fella.

I see, you didn't include that in your quote there though, so how should i know? now, let's argue about the use of links as bibliographical necessity to substantiate the quote (my typical approach) vs. use of the quote as a teaser with an implied requirement to click the link and read in it's entirety

spoiler:

Spoiler: show

the argument ends with me burning down a Carl's Jr.

[96583UP]

A lot of really ignorant people cite Camden as if Camden has no policing. Sorry guys, they have policing in Camden.

i know a cop who used to tell people to just drive through red lights if they were in Camden. Don't stop, because then you could get carjacked. the police won't stop you for running a red light. just make sure you don't get in an accident - and just drive right on through

maybe things changed since then

[96583UP]

Maybe change can come from all this, even if justice is 7 years and counting for Wayne Jones:

https://theintercept.com/2020/06/12/qua ... yne-jones/

This makes sense to me.

but the Senate would have to approve, yes? that sucks

But I would def support #1 and see how it goes and if it doesnt make a change after X amount of time support exploring other measures

[96583UP]

so we agree on next steps and can lock this thread down for now

thanks to everyone for playing

looking forward to a happy and healthy NBA season 2020 coming soon to a TV near you

[96583UP]

and NFL season

[96583UP]

these aren't the droids you're looking for

[Higgs]

Would trade some cops getting curb-stomped every so often for fewer dead civilians with absolutely zero hesitation.

disgusting.

It's interesting though... I see the video as clearly showing the types of violence that police have to deal with everyday even when they approach the situation acting completely professionally and I would go further to say that the pretzel logic reactions to this here and other places... pretending that a intoxicated person who is willing to fight cops and has a stolen weapon from them is not an eminent danger to uninvolved civilians (not just the involved ones you gleefully excuse murder to protect) is disturbingly shortsighted. I would go even further to say these reactions and the lionization of the violent suspects who use physical violence to resist during an arrest will encourage an increasing number of people to fight cops escalating the tragic cycle we find ourselves in now.

This is like a master class on collapsing important differences to provide cover for the police, who just as a first principle should be held up a higher standard than your average civilian. Did I, at any point in this thread, imply that he's not potentially a threat? No, of course not. But he's not a lethal threat to the police, and it's either naive, stupid, or something much worse to assume that someone resisting arrest is also going to be violent towards other civilians who are not trying to arrest him. A drunk man fleeing across a parking lot with a stolen tazer most likely poses a greater risk to himself than anyone else. But there's a whole range of responses to his behavior that fall between "let him go" and "execute him." I certainly think you forfeit your claim to "acting professionally" when you fire on a fleeing civilian. And if you interpret "he shouldn't have been killed" as "lionizing," or think that the major takeaway from outrage about his murder is going to be *more* people resisting arrest, I honestly don't know what to tell you--that's the kind of logic you can only access once you've built an terra-cotta army of straw-men.

Yep. If your take-away from this situation is that he effectively "got what he deserved for running with a stolen tazer" then you are part of the problem here. No way was any "uninvolved civilian" in any danger here until the cop opened fire - then whomever was about the place suddenly becomes in danger from bullets and ricochets etc. What I essentially hear Bi_3 saying is that if you are under arrest and you don't fully comply, no resistance whatsoever, you take your chances. If the cops think you are resisting then you are fair game?

What sort of fucked up situation is that? The cops have way way way too much power and almost zero threat of repercussion. This has to change.

(Side-note - you see dime posted that video of the English guy running away from the policeman, down the jetty, pushed him into the water and then ran off? That happens in America and that guy is likely shot fucking dead - assaulting a cop, resisting arrest. For sure he ends up face down with a bullet in his back. In England though it ends up as a funny video with an embarrassed cop who cops some shit from his mates. The dude will still get arrested for sure BUT NO ONE DIES. Amazing how that can happen).

Here's the vid if you haven't seen it:

Spoiler: show

Meanwhile in England. I watched this five times. Howling every time. It’s hysterical.

[knee tunes]

Would trade some cops getting curb-stomped every so often for fewer dead civilians with absolutely zero hesitation.

disgusting.

It's interesting though... I see the video as clearly showing the types of violence that police have to deal with everyday even when they approach the situation acting completely professionally and I would go further to say that the pretzel logic reactions to this here and other places... pretending that a intoxicated person who is willing to fight cops and has a stolen weapon from them is not an eminent danger to uninvolved civilians (not just the involved ones you gleefully excuse murder to protect) is disturbingly shortsighted. I would go even further to say these reactions and the lionization of the violent suspects who use physical violence to resist during an arrest will encourage an increasing number of people to fight cops escalating the tragic cycle we find ourselves in now.

This is like a master class on collapsing important differences to provide cover for the police, who just as a first principle should be held up a higher standard than your average civilian. Did I, at any point in this thread, imply that he's not potentially a threat? No, of course not. But he's not a lethal threat to the police, and it's either naive, stupid, or something much worse to assume that someone resisting arrest is also going to be violent towards other civilians who are not trying to arrest him. A drunk man fleeing across a parking lot with a stolen tazer most likely poses a greater risk to himself than anyone else. But there's a whole range of responses to his behavior that fall between "let him go" and "execute him." I certainly think you forfeit your claim to "acting professionally" when you fire on a fleeing civilian. And if you interpret "he shouldn't have been killed" as "lionizing," or think that the major takeaway from outrage about his murder is going to be *more* people resisting arrest, I honestly don't know what to tell you--that's the kind of logic you can only access once you've built an terra-cotta army of straw-men.

Yep. If your take-away from this situation is that he effectively "got what he deserved for running with a stolen tazer" then you are part of the problem here. No way was any "uninvolved civilian" in any danger here until the cop opened fire - then whomever was about the place suddenly becomes in danger from bullets and ricochets etc. What I essentially hear Bi_3 saying is that if you are under arrest and you don't fully comply, no resistance whatsoever, you take your chances. If the cops think you are resisting then you are fair game?

What sort of fucked up situation is that? The cops have way way way too much power and almost zero threat of repercussion. This has to change.

(Side-note - you see dime posted that video of the English guy running away from the policeman, down the jetty, pushed him into the water and then ran off? That happens in America and that guy is likely shot fucking dead - assaulting a cop, resisting arrest. For sure he ends up face down with a bullet in his back. In England though it ends up as a funny video with an embarrassed cop who cops some shit from his mates. The dude will still get arrested for sure BUT NO ONE DIES. Amazing how that can happen).

Here's the vid if you haven't seen it:

Spoiler: show

Meanwhile in England. I watched this five times. Howling every time. It’s hysterical.

I'm on same page with higgs 200%

There is no real argument otherwise unless like M said , "straw men"

[Bi_3]

Yep. If your take-away from this situation is that he effectively "got what he deserved for running with a stolen tazer" then you are part of the problem here. No way was any "uninvolved civilian" in any danger here until the cop opened fire - then whomever was about the place suddenly becomes in danger from bullets and ricochets etc. What I essentially hear Bi_3 saying is that if you are under arrest and you don't fully comply, no resistance whatsoever, you take your chances. If the cops think you are resisting then you are fair game?

I am absolutely, unequivocally not saying that... and that statement is what a strawman actually is: a misrepresentation of a position in order to make it more easily dismissable. And, you seem like a reasonable dude, so let's first run down what happened in case you are missing some of the facts:

1.) drunk driver is so intoxicated he passes out in the drive thru of a junk food place ( he was not 'sleeping in his car')
2.) cops spend nearly 30 minutes calmly and professionally talking to him and administer field sobriety test
3.) cops determine he should be arrested and explain to him that an arrest is going to occur
4.) as they attempt to handcuff him, he initiates a fist fight with them causing both of the cops and himself to fall to the ground
5.) in the course of the fight, initiated by the suspect, one of the cops fires his taser at the suspect
6.) the suspect grabs one of the cops tasers and begins to flee
7.) both cops begin chase
8.) the suspect continues to flee and fires the stolen taser at one of the cops and misses
9.) the cop shoots the suspect
10.) the suspect later dies at the hospital

That appears to be a justified shooting under the law. I am not suggesting that the law is good or bad or that it should not be changed. I am not, in any way saying he got what he deserved. I am in no way at all implying or hinting that police abuse of power is not a significant issue in certain communities. But anyone, including a cop, must be judged on the facts of the situation of the offense and in this specific case under these specific circumstances, this shooting appears justified based on the facts available right now (15.June at 8:20am EST). If the suspect, who had already initiated a violent confrontation and assaulted two cops and stolen a weapon from one of them, had hit the cop with the taser he would have access to a very lethal weapon and he had literally just proven he was willing to take and use a cop's weapon and had no issue with violently attacking them.

And I think too many of you are ascribing the behavior of a rational actor to the suspect in this case. He passed out and blocked traffic at a fast food place after drunk driving, was so wasted he didn't know where he was while the cops questioned him, and then was so fearful of arrest he fought with two cops and stole a weapon. Do you really think that person is going to behave in the manner in which you suggest or will that person do whatever is in their power to escape?

[Higgs]

Yep. If your take-away from this situation is that he effectively "got what he deserved for running with a stolen tazer" then you are part of the problem here. No way was any "uninvolved civilian" in any danger here until the cop opened fire - then whomever was about the place suddenly becomes in danger from bullets and ricochets etc. What I essentially hear Bi_3 saying is that if you are under arrest and you don't fully comply, no resistance whatsoever, you take your chances. If the cops think you are resisting then you are fair game?

I am absolutely, unequivocally not saying that... and that statement is what a strawman actually is: a misrepresentation of a position in order to make it more easily dismissable. And, you seem like a reasonable dude, so let's first run down what happened in case you are missing some of the facts:

1.) drunk driver is so intoxicated he passes out in the drive thru of a junk food place ( he was not 'sleeping in his car')
2.) cops spend nearly 30 minutes calmly and professionally talking to him and administer field sobriety test
3.) cops determine he should be arrested and explain to him that an arrest is going to occur
4.) as they attempt to handcuff him, he initiates a fist fight with them causing both of the cops and himself to fall to the ground
5.) in the course of the fight, initiated by the suspect, one of the cops fires his taser at the suspect
6.) the suspect grabs one of the cops tasers and begins to flee
7.) both cops begin chase
8.) the suspect continues to flee and fires the stolen taser at one of the cops and misses
9.) the cop shoots the suspect
10.) the suspect later dies at the hospital

That appears to be a justified shooting under the law. I am not suggesting that the law is good or bad or that it should not be changed. I am not, in any way saying he got what he deserved. I am in no way at all implying or hinting that police abuse of power is not a significant issue in certain communities. But anyone, including a cop, must be judged on the facts of the situation of the offense and in this specific case under these specific circumstances, this shooting appears justified based on the facts available right now (15.June at 8:20am EST). If the suspect, who had already initiated a violent confrontation and assaulted two cops and stolen a weapon from one of them, had hit the cop with the taser he would have access to a very lethal weapon and he had literally just proven he was willing to take and use a cop's weapon and had no issue with violently attacking them.

And I think too many of you are ascribing the behavior of a rational actor to the suspect in this case. He passed out and blocked traffic at a fast food place after drunk driving, was so wasted he didn't know where he was while the cops questioned him, and then was so fearful of arrest he fought with two cops and stole a weapon. Do you really think that person is going to behave in the manner in which you suggest or will that person do whatever is in their power to escape?

Thanks for acknowledging my "reasonableness". I am indeed a reasonable mother fucker.

I get your point more now - you aren't advocating for it but rather arguing the law as it stands and that these cops can be argued to have been acting appropriately given the facts.

But still, your whole last paragraph plays exactly to my own main point on all this. The guy was drunk and was not a threat that required deadly force. If the cop didn't have a gun, that guy lives.

It was 2 cops remember, against a fully drunk single bloke. Lethal force was not required but was used as it was an available option.

I'm not suggesting cops shouldn't carry btw. I get that gun culture is so I grained having police unarmed is a hard thing to envisage. But how about changing the culture at the root. Every bullet to be accounted for. You use your gun you are bloody well going to have to fully justify it. Every bullet, no working (at some level of base pay) until the shots are cleared. And they have to face criminal prosecution for misuse like any other permit holder.

It's crazy that this guy just passed out at a Wendy's and doesn't get to go home. He ran and shouldn't of, but no way was the officer pulling out a gun and shooting a man running away justified. If the law as it currently stands allows this then that must change.

[elliseamos]

I see, you didn't include that in your quote there though, so how should i know? now, let's argue about the use of links as bibliographical necessity to substantiate the quote (my typical approach) vs. use of the quote as a teaser with an implied requirement to click the link and read in it's entirety

I figured you'd see the link and understand. I'll lower my bar for you and...

Spoiler: show

cite this better next time.

[tree_]

Coleman Hughes is the best. Probably the most sane voice I've heard on this topic.

[B]

1.) drunk driver is so intoxicated he passes out in the drive thru of a junk food place ( he was not 'sleeping in his car')
2.) cops spend nearly 30 minutes calmly and professionally talking to him and administer field sobriety test
3.) cops determine he should be arrested and explain to him that an arrest is going to occur
4.) as they attempt to handcuff him, he initiates a fist fight with them causing both of the cops and himself to fall to the ground
5.) in the course of the fight, initiated by the suspect, one of the cops fires his taser at the suspect
6.) the suspect grabs one of the cops tasers and begins to flee
7.) both cops begin chase
8.) the suspect continues to flee and fires the stolen taser at one of the cops and misses
9.) the cop shoots the suspect
10.) the suspect later dies at the hospital

That appears to be a justified shooting under the law.

If the law justifies the use of lethal force against a person causing a non-lethal threat, then I have a problem with the law.

That being said, I'm having a hard time building up sympathy for a father who was driving around Atlanta absolutely sauced.

[B]

Also, I had a friend who got caught driving drunk in college. When the cops confronted him and were taking down his information, he ran.

They showed up at his door a couple of hours later with his driver's license, a bill for towing his car, and a summons to court.

That's what happens when the drunk driver is white.

[tree_]

Police need to do what's necessary to prevent a hostile person from stealing their guns. They're not superheros. They're usually not even great at hand to hand combat. That's why they have guns.

[tree_]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/ ... shootings/

A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demolishes the Democratic narrative regarding race and police shootings, which holds that white officers are engaged in an epidemic of racially biased shootings of black men. It turns out that white officers are no more likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot black civilians. It is a racial group’s rate of violent crime that determines police shootings, not the race of the officer. The more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that members of that racial group will be shot by a police officer. In fact, if there is a bias in police shootings after crime rates are taken into account, it is against white civilians, the study found.

The authors, faculty at Michigan State University and the University of Maryland at College Park, created a database of 917 officer-involved fatal shootings in 2015 from more than 650 police departments. Fifty-five percent of the victims were white, 27 percent were black, and 19 percent were Hispanic. Between 90 and 95 percent of the civilians shot by officers in 2015 were attacking police or other citizens; 90 percent were armed with a weapon. So-called threat-misperception shootings, in which an officer shoots an unarmed civilian after mistaking a cellphone, say, for a gun, were rare.

Earlier studies have also disproven the idea that white officers are biased in shooting black citizens. The Black Lives Matter narrative has been impervious to the truth, however. Police departments are under enormous political pressure to hire based on race, despite existing efforts to recruit minorities, on the theory that doing so will decrease police shootings of minorities. Buttigieg came under fire from his presidential rivals for not having more black officers on the South Bend force after a white officer killed a black suspect this June. (The officer had responded to a 911 call about a possible car-theft suspect, saw a man leaning into a car, and shot off two rounds after the man threatened him with a knife.) The Obama administration recommended in 2016 that police departments lower their entry standards in order to be able to qualify more minorities for recruitment. Departments had already been deemphasizing written exams or eliminating requirements that recruits have a clean criminal record, but the trend intensified thereafter. The Baltimore Police Department changed its qualifying exam to such an extent that the director of legal instruction in the Baltimore Police Academy complained in 2018 that rookie officers were being let out onto the street with little understanding of the law. Mr. Biden’s criminal-justice plan would require police hiring to “mirror the racial diversity” of the local community as a precondition of federal funding.

This effort to increase minority representation will not reduce racial disparities in shootings, concludes the PNAS study, since white officers are not responsible for those disparities; black crime rates are. Moreover, lowered hiring standards risk bad police work and corruption. A 2015 Justice Department study of the Philadelphia Police Department found that black officers were 67 percent more likely than white officers to mistakenly shoot an unarmed black suspect; Hispanic officers were 145 percent more likely than white officers to mistakenly shoot an unarmed black suspect. Whether lowered hiring standards are responsible for those disparities was not addressed.

The persistent belief that we are living through an epidemic of racially biased police shootings is a creation of selective reporting. In 2015, the year the PNAS study addressed, the white victims of fatal police shootings included a 50-year-old suspect in a domestic assault in Tuscaloosa, Ala., who ran at the officer with a spoon; a 28-year-old driver in Des Moines, Iowa, who exited his car and walked quickly toward an officer after a car chase; and a 21-year-old suspect in a grocery-store robbery in Akron, Ohio, who had escaped on a bike and who did not remove his hand from his waistband when ordered to do so. Had any of these victims been black, the media and activists would probably have jumped on their stories and added their names to the roster of victims of police racism. Instead, because they are white, they are unknown.

The “policing is racist” discourse is poisonous. It exacerbates anti-cop tensions in minority communities and makes cops unwilling to engage in the proactive policing that can save lives. Last month, viral videos of pedestrians in Harlem, the Bronx, and Brooklyn assaulting passive New York Police Department officers showed that hostility toward the police in inner-city neighborhoods remains at dangerous levels.

The anti-cop narrative deflects attention away from solving the real criminal-justice problem, which is high rates of black-on-black victimization. Blacks die of homicide at eight times the rate of non-Hispanic whites, overwhelmingly killed not by cops, not by whites, but by other blacks. The Democratic candidates should get their facts straight and address that issue. Until they do, their talk of racial justice will ring hollow.

[E.H. Ruddock]

welp

[digster]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/white-cops-dont-commit-more-shootings/

The authors, faculty at Michigan State University and the University of Maryland at College Park, created a database of 917 officer-involved fatal shootings in 2015 from more than 650 police departments. Fifty-five percent of the victims were white, 27 percent were black, and 19 percent were Hispanic. Between 90 and 95 percent of the civilians shot by officers in 2015 were attacking police or other citizens; 90 percent were armed with a weapon. So-called threat-misperception shootings, in which an officer shoots an unarmed civilian after mistaking a cellphone, say, for a gun, were rare.

.

According to the U.S. Census:

% of Americans who are white: 76.5
% of Americans who are black: 13.4

Also, here's the byline on the piece; I'm sure someone who wrote The Diversity Delusion has no skin in the game whatsoever.

HEATHER MAC DONALD is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of THE DIVERSITY DELUSION.

[tree_]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/white-cops-dont-commit-more-shootings/

The authors, faculty at Michigan State University and the University of Maryland at College Park, created a database of 917 officer-involved fatal shootings in 2015 from more than 650 police departments. Fifty-five percent of the victims were white, 27 percent were black, and 19 percent were Hispanic. Between 90 and 95 percent of the civilians shot by officers in 2015 were attacking police or other citizens; 90 percent were armed with a weapon. So-called threat-misperception shootings, in which an officer shoots an unarmed civilian after mistaking a cellphone, say, for a gun, were rare.

.

According to the U.S. Census:

% of Americans who are white: 76.5
% of Americans who are black: 13.4

Also, here's the byline on the piece; looks like someone without any skin in the game whatsoever.

HEATHER MAC DONALD is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of THE DIVERSITY DELUSION.

Stats are stats. I don't care who wrote it if it's true. The point is that it's not white people killing black people because they're racist. It's all skin colors killing black people in areas where black people commit more crime.