Law Enforcment
The city fathers of
San Jose, CA, have come up with a plan to help the police department stretched thin by budget restraints.
The noisy garbage trucks that lumber down San Jose streets every week could soon pick up more than just trash -- they might also scan your license plate and all your neighbors' tags, too, in a proposed city-wide sweep for stolen vehicles that has civil libertarians crying foul.
Mayor Sam Liccardo and Councilmen Johnny Khamis and Raul Peralez proposed that the city consider strapping license plate readers to the front of garbage trucks, allowing them to record the plates of every car along their routes. The data would be fed directly to the Police Department from the privately operated trash trucks, prompting an officer to respond to stolen vehicles or cars involved with serious crime.
~snip~
While license plate readers are increasingly being used by police across the Bay Area, some are alarmed that San Jose is considering turning the garbage collector into an agent of law enforcement. Councilman Chappie Jones was opposed to what he called an "extreme" policy, evoking the "Big Brother" government of George Orwell's dystopian 1949 novel "1984."
Chappie Jones? Harrumph, probably the spawn of some long haired Jesus freaks in a chartreuse microbus. :crone:
Civil rights advocates said the unusual plan raises "significant concerns" and could invade the privacy of San Jose residents because of how the data is collected, stored and analyzed.
"The idea is they would also collect the location of cars as they drive down the street," said Chris Conley, a policy attorney for ACLU of Northern California who said he has not heard of any other city gathering license plate records in such a way. "If it's collected repeatedly over a long period of time, it can reveal intimate data about you like attending a religious service or a gay bar. People have a right to live their lives without constantly being monitored by the government."
If you're an upstanding, god fearing patriot, doing nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.
While most residents may not know it, six San Jose police cars already are fitted with license plate readers that scan car tags every day while out on patrol. This year's budget pegged an additional $68,400 to pay for two more plate readers.
Maybe the NSA, in return for all that data, will part with some of the $52 Billion they spend every year, to help San Jose fight terrorism.
The police can report back to the trash companies, in return for their service, where their trucks are, how long they stop, and how long it took to do each street. After all, Jeff Bezos says that's the best way to streamline operations, and weed out the deadwood.
My former employer is now using license plate readers to make sure people are parking correctly on a university campus. Guess it became too much for them to get out of their cars to check the stickers. Also, you can't back into a spot now, as Kansas doesn't issue front plates, hence defeating the purpose of the readers.
The NYPD Tactical Force are the guys they call when it's to much for the beat cops, or in this case the detectives, to handle.
Note the level of equipment, compared to the cops you've seen on TV during the last couple years. How things have changed.
Now I wouldn't deny cops personal protection, but I wonder how much the current designed to intimidate outfits, actually serve to escalate?
It is possible to police in a less violent and militaristic way.
[YOUTUBE]IV332q9yH0s[/YOUTUBE]
I think the wider culture plays a huge role though, in terms of what people expect and accept. There is an element of American culture that wants its cops to be warriors. The tonal difference between the television portrayal of police work in America versus the portrayal in Britain is stark. You can see it in the reality tv shows that follow police about.
This is a clip from a show that follows CO19 - the armed response unit of the London Met.
[youtube]pksB5y-jj4U[/youtube]
I should clarify, I am not holding up the British police as paragons of virtue. We have many similar issues here of institutional racism, little hitlers using their uniform to justify overbearing behaviour, a 'them and us' attitude between police and community in some inner city areas, and cases of police brutality. There are occasional police shootings - and there have been shootings of unarmed black suspects (just much fewer). And there are downsides to not having them routinely armed and waiting on armed response, for instance, in the US the gun-wielding gang member would not still be at large this long after firing his weapon.
Sometimes they be sneaky. Futility Closet tells me...
I watched a Seattle PD uniformed officer (white woman) and a black man and a some other guy completely covered with motorcycle leathers helmet still on push a stalled Cadillac out of traffic the other day.
All is not lost.
Ref the Russian Television reporting on the shooting. The suspect was emotionally disturbed with a knife in his right hand. It was held in an over-hand grip (idiot broadcaster thought thought meant knife overhead). The suspect was within the 21 foot danger zone. Law enforcement officers are taught a person with a knife can cross a distance of 21 feet and stab you before you can draw and engage. Legally justifiable. I ask any of you, what would you do if an emotionally disturbed person with a knife in his hand was approaching you and was within 5 or 6 feet?
Truth be told, I truly would have preferred the officers to have parked farther away and used a non-lethal device. However, very few departments are issued extended range Tasers and only have one rated to be used within the 21 foot range against a person with a non-lethal weapon. The suspect had a knife (lethal weapon). I sincerely doubt the officers are pleased with this event and it will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
Point the gun at him and if he charges blow him away. Of course that's a no-no if he's running the other way. It doesn't make sense to try a Bruce Lee grab his wrist and subdue him while drinking tea with the other hand. That's movie stuff a takes years and years of specialized training
Naaaah, shoot the knife out of his hand and when he turns to retrieve it shoot the buckle off his belt so his trousers fall down around his ankles and trips him. After he falls to the ground, knock him out by conking him on the noggin with the butt of your pistol while holding a cup of COFFEE in the other hand. That's the 'merkin way.
Are you a screenwriter, or maybe sleazy paperbacks. :lol2:
Training officers to shoot first, he will answer questions later.
WASHINGTON — The shooting looked bad. But that is when the professor is at his best. A black motorist, pulled to the side of the road for a turn-signal violation, had stuffed his hand into his pocket. The white officer yelled for him to take it out. When the driver started to comply, the officer shot him dead.
The driver was unarmed.
Taking the stand at a public inquest, William J. Lewinski, the psychology professor, explained that the officer had no choice but to act.
“In simple terms,” the district attorney in Portland, Ore., asked, “if I see the gun, I’m dead?”
“In simple terms, that’s it,” Dr. Lewinski replied.
When police officers shoot people under questionable circumstances, Dr. Lewinski is often there to defend their actions. Among the most influential voices on the subject, he has testified in or consulted in nearly 200 cases over the last decade or so and has helped justify countless shootings around the country.
His conclusions are consistent: The officer acted appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person. Even when shooting someone in the back. Even when witness testimony, forensic evidence or video footage contradicts the officer’s story.
The police do a hard, dangerous, necessary job that I don't want to do. Thank you, police, for stepping up to do the work, thank you.
I, we, give the police license, authority to take many actions that are prohibited to the general public, notably the legal use of force. At this time, the police also has the hearts at minds of the majority of the public. Witness all the judgements in favor of the police where the actions of the officer are deemed "justifiable".
But I fear that the police's halo effect is diminishing, largely through their own doing. When we give them this additional power and authority, that comes with higher expectations, especially in the area of restraint, calmness, diplomacy, de-escalation. I'm not suggesting that police officers fail to defend themselves. I am saying that excessive force, deadly force, while providing self defense, has a cost in public trust. Cops' lives matter, but the cops' lives will be at greater risk as their stature as fair, public servants diminishes.
We all know the unequal impact negative examples have compared to positive examples. It doesn't take many bad, or even bad appearing incidents of police behavior to outweigh the good and necessary (and largely underappreciated) work they do. I believe it is good for our civil society and
in the personal best interests of every police officer to do all they can to avoid deadly and excessive force, in an effort to rebuild the public trust.
The thing is - the majority of police officers do not shoot people. The overwhelming majority never kill anybody - but they routinely face the same threats their fellow officers face when they shoot someone.
The natural, and probably necessary given their job, brothers in arms mentality means that people who are temperamentally unsuited to a job in which they are entrusted with the right to apply armed force, don't get shuffled out of the system once that becomes apparent. At a local and organisational level they present a united front - which pitches them, as an organisation, in opposition to those criticising them: the public.
They need to get their fucking house in order if they want public support and therefore legitimacy to continue. This goes for many police forces, including the british police. The problem of a them and us attitude and closing ranks when criticised is common to this kind of organisation. But there is something particular going on with police forces in the US. There are many countries with routinely armed police where deaths from police shootings are nowhere near as common.
snip--
The natural, and probably necessary given their job, brothers in arms mentality means that people who are temperamentally unsuited to a job in which they are entrusted with the right to apply armed force, don't get shuffled out of the system once that becomes apparent. At a local and organisational level they present a united front - which pitches them, as an organisation, in opposition to those criticising them: the public.
--snip
Very well put!
You crystallized the thought I had but could not perfectly express. It's in the best interest of everyone involved, the police and the public, for unsuitable individuals to be removed from such service.
Murder rates spike in US cities in 2015 after decades of decline
At least 35 US cities have witnessed a sharp rise in homicides this year compared to 2014, with Milwaukee, St Louis, Baltimore and Washington showing significant increases. No expert can say with certainty what’s caused the rise in the murder rate.
It simply can't be explained by any modern trend or phenomenon of our time.
According to the NYT, some senior police officials now tend to put blame for the violence spike on criminals who now fear police less, because law enforcement officers are now under greater scrutiny over their actions.
...
But opinions differ, as other experts put blame on affordable gun ownership, street gangs and general tendency of young people choosing weapons to settle issues with each other more often now.
Nobody will commit to an explanation. Of course, in our modern day, committing to an explanation might be committing Twitter-cide. There's nothing to gain by it. I'm sure we can figure it out since we understand crime and policing so well
According to the NYT, some senior police officials now tend to put blame for the violence spike on criminals who now fear police less, because law enforcement officers are now under greater scrutiny over their actions.
I suppose they never considered the criminal doesn't fear arrest as much as being beaten to death or shot, so figure they have nothing to lose by going down fighting.
...so figure they have nothing to lose by going down fighting.
I strongly suspect the same thing happens with "Three strikes and you're out" laws.
... especially those high-speed car chases and nighttime jumping-the-backyard-fences you see on TV News at 11.
I think you're right, the more to lose, the less cooperative, more combative they're likely to be.
Excellent of the police acting the way they should, as most do.
http://highoctanehumor.com/armed-black-mans-facebook-post-about-traffic-stop-goes-insanely-viral/
I’m a black man wearing a hoodie and strapped. According to certain social movements, I shouldn’t be alive right now because the police are allegedly out to kill minorities.
Maybe…just maybe…that notion is bunk.
Maybe if you treat police officers with respect, they will do the same to you.
Police officers are people, too. By far and large, most are good people and they’re not out to get you.
I’d like to thank those two officers and TPD in general for another professional contact.
We talk so much about the bad apples who shouldn’t be wearing a badge. I’d like to spread the word about an example of men who earned their badges and exemplify what that badge stands for.
But if some bad apple in their department DID murder someone, would those exemplary officers work to remove their badge?
That's the true problem. You can't prevent the occasional bad apple, but you need to get rid of them to prevent them spoiling the barrel.
I agree, the #1 problem with police is that code. But I also agree with my link's point, that not every cop is an asshole and not every cop is out to fuck with black people.
Cops are sensitive, maybe hypersensitive, to any perceived challenge to their authority because everyone they approach is an unknown. Someone with an attitude is likely to cause them to escalate quickly until they perceive to be in control again. Because of the code, everyone with half a brain is aware the cop can go as far as he wants with no consequences, so to challenge him is stupid. You can, with time and money, challenge the charges, but can never ever challenge the cop.
I agree, the #1 problem with police is that code. But I also agree with my link's point, that not every cop is an asshole and not every cop is out to fuck with black people.
But that's not a point against anything that groups like Black Lives Matter are saying. Making that point, especially in the way he does, seems to be an attempt to make it seem like they ARE saying that every cop is a racist asshole (though he's coy about it... "certain social movements"), when they aren't making that claim at all. They are saying that too many of them are, and when racist asshole cops kill people, they aren't punished.
A counterexample is only a good argument against a universal rule. He seems to be trying to attribute a rule "all cops kill all black people" to BLM, so his counterexample of "I wasn't murdered" is relevant. Except the rule is a strawman, so the counterexample isn't meaningful.
Additionally, the rule that if you want to be safe, do absolutely nothing that might annoy cops might be good for your well being, but it does not reflect well on cops. It sounds like the same advice that cops give to avoid getting killed by a mugger.
A true example of exemplary policing is a cop talking down an agitated, potentially dangerous person. There are many examples of that, but this is not one of them. If not getting murdered during a traffic stop is an event to be celebrated, that is an argument that supports the "certain social movements" that he was attempting to refute.
They are saying that too many of them are, and when racist asshole cops kill people, they aren't punished.
Cops unnecessarily killing people without repercussions is not news, this has always existed for everyone. When they say black lives matter, they're saying mine doesn't, so their message is about black people and cops, of which I am neither.
It does concern the black man quoted, and evidently the message you hear and the message he hears is not the same. I don't doubt what you hear is accurate, however the message received(perceived?) by others doesn't necessarily agree. What we've got here is failure to communicate.
When they say black lives matter, they're saying mine doesn't,
No they aren't. They're saying that the deaths of black people are unfairly treated as less important by societal institutions.
You're adding an "only" that isn't there.
snip-- When they say black lives matter, they're saying mine doesn't,--snip
Got to be the most wrong thing you've ever posted.
No they aren't. They're saying that the deaths of black people are unfairly treated as less important by societal institutions.
I never heard them say that. If that's what they want me to hear, then that's what they should say.
You're adding an "only" that isn't there.
I'm not adding anything, They say black lives matter, that leaves me out.
Got to be the most wrong thing you've ever posted.
Would you care to clarify?
How about a white lives matter campaign, don't tell me I wouldn't get a ration of shit over that politically incorrect faux pas.
Because your life, assuming you don't have a black life, and a black life are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure you're familiar with this idea.
A coin with only two sides, each is mutually exclusive. It is impossible for the coin to be heads AND tails, it can only be heads OR tails. Or, to put it like you put it, When they say HEADS matter, they're saying TAILS doesn't. That would be consistent, that would be valid. But your life and a black life aren't arranged that way. They're not mutually exclusive.
Let me put it another way.
You're implying that YOUR life matters. Therefore, you're saying all our lives don't matter.
That's exactly the same logic, the same flaw. Even *IF* you did "say" that, you'd still be wrong.
Clear now?
No, not a coin, a paper bill. We were all on the same side until they folded it. All lives do matter, they are the ones excluding the rest of us. That campaign is about blacks vs cops, and whites, yellows, reds and little green men have no dog in the hunt.
Happy Monkey said the point is...
They're saying that the deaths of black people are unfairly treated as less important by societal institutions.
If that's the intention, the real message, then that makes it even more a black only crusade.
'Black lives matter as much as white lives do' doesn't fit as easily, or as snappily for a campaign name. But I've always thought the rest of the sentence is implied.
Black people, and young black men in particular, are at a a very particular risk of fatal police violence. White people are at a much lower risk of fatal police violence. At the same time, the culture in which this is happening has tended, in many ways, to treat the deaths of innocent young black men at the hands of police as some sort of unfortunate, but understandable, side effect of modern policing.
The media in the US and I think probably in Britain too, has a serious problem with how it reports on violence against black people. It cuts across many aspects of crime - there is much less of a media storm when a little black girl goes missing compared to the 24 hours of constant updates when a little white girl is abducted. And young black men and women victims of violence are routinely subject to a full-on character assassination in the reporting of that violence. And a lot of that comes from the police services involved. How many times have the initial police reports on these cases made the victim out to be adrug dealer, or a gang member when they had nothing to do with any of that. It is their standard defensive operating procedure, and since we have a cultural tendency to view black males as inherently more violent and threatening that message falls on receptive ears.
At the same time, most of us who experience policing as white people, whilst we may have experiences all manner of police shennanigans, we are unlikely to have experienced quite that level of permanent underlying threat. It is difficult to comprehend - surely, if we just cooperate and don't give the police officer any resistance, we'lll be ok right. Except if you're a young black man offering zero resistance, you still may get the shit kicked out of you. And if you are offering a calm explanation, you may still be treated as if you are resisting. Even if you comply, with everything, you still might find yourself on the ground with four or five officers bundled onto you being punched and tasered.
Seriously, getting angry at the Black Lives Matter people for excluding you as a white person from their message is a bit fucked up imo. The whole thing is a conversation that needs to be had. The slogan and campaign name is just that, a slogan, an easily identifiable and memorably snappy way to get across the message that it is not ok that so many young black lives are ended in this way. That it is not ok for the police to racially profile to a lethal extent. It is not ok that the law offers little or not protection for victims of lethal police violence, most of whom are black, and it is not ok that large chunks of society are in denial of the racially directed violence being perpetrated by those who police it.
And the #notallpolice argument just doesn't fly either. Any more than #notallmen is any kind of response to the problems of domestic abuse in society. Of course not all police. It's a profession and there are good and bad, competant and incompetant, dedicated and jaded in every profession. The difference between the #notallpolice defence and the #notallmen defence, however, is that all police are accountable, to a degree, for the way their profession conducts itself. Yes, they are brave men and women who risk their lives everytime they pull over a car at a traffic stop. And some of them are compassionate defenders of the publlic peace. But some of them are bullies with a badge and a gun, and some are fearful, inadequately trained incompetents with a chip on their shoulder and a headful of prejudice, reacting with lethal force to perceived rather than actual threats.
But the brave men and women who risk their lives on the traffic stops also protect and provide automatic cover for the bullies with guns. The entire organisation operates with a siege mentality and the uniform confers brotherhood to the extent of cover-up.
I never heard them say that. If that's what they want me to hear, then that's what they should say.
Have you ever listened to them? They say it on every TV interview they do.
I'm not adding anything, They say black lives matter, that leaves me out.
You added the "only". You are claiming that they are saying "Only black lives matter".
The phrase "noun verbs" does not imply that "noun" is the only "noun" that "verbs".
The only way to be left out of their crusade is if you believe that black lives don't matter.
Yes, I've heard them interviewed, and all they say is the rogue cops are killing blacks, predominately men and boys, indiscriminately. I've yet to hear them bitch about anyone else being targeted.
Have you heard them say that it's OK for cops to kill white people indiscriminately?
'Black lives matter as much as white lives do' doesn't fit as easily, or as snappily for a campaign name. But I've always thought the rest of the sentence is implied. ...
... Seriously, getting angry at the Black Lives Matter people for excluding you as a white person from their message is a bit fucked up imo. ...
The phrase is race-centric. It's a phrase of exclusion. It's political spin.
Black Lives Matter Too would be a phrase that's inclusive. To extrapolate the actual phrase in use to mean inclusiveness of other lives is a red herring imHo:
Black Lives Don't Matter [COLOR="White"]Any less Than Anyone Else's[/COLOR]
Black Lives Don't Matter [COLOR="White"]Any less Than Anyone Else's
[/COLOR]Black Lives Don't Matter [COLOR="white"]Any less Than Anyone Else's[/COLOR]
Black Lives Don't Matter [COLOR="white"]Any less Than Anyone Else's
[/COLOR]Black Lives Don't Matter [COLOR="white"]Any less Than Anyone Else's[/COLOR]
Black Lives Don't Matter [COLOR="white"]Any less Than Anyone Else's[/COLOR]
Black Lives Don't Matter [COLOR="white"]Any less Than Anyone Else's[/COLOR]
All soundbyte rhetoric. Which cops are doing their jobs and which are adults still acting like children?
Have you heard them say that it's OK for cops to kill white people indiscriminately?
Nope, don't even mention white, yellow, red, or plaid, at all.
[YOUTUBE]eaEeEbP16Wg[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]eaEeEbP16Wg[/YOUTUBE]
Thank you.Black lives don't matter [COLOR="White"]any less than anyone else's.[/COLOR]
No lives matter... unless they want your vote.
Sandra Bland committed suicide in her cell after assaulting a cop. After a few days, video evidence proved it. But at the time, people were really hungry for examples to be outraged about, and here was this hanging...
So now she's crowbarred into the narrative every time. Facts don't matter. Actually they do and the game is to pick the facts that support your narrative and just avoid the facts that don't. Pretty soon you "just know what happened" and the facts don't actually matter to anyone.
Y'all eat that shit up. Enjoy. I know it tastes great and you get to feel that oh so self-righteous satisfied feeling of being on the right side and being a part of it all. You care harder.
And that's good, and important. Empathy is in short supply in the world. But it's not the only thing that's good and important.
"Close your eyes, close your ears young man
You've seen and heard all an old man can
Spread the facts on the floor like a fan
Throw away the ones that make you feel bad"
-- Ben Folds "Bastard"
[YOUTUBE]eaEeEbP16Wg[/YOUTUBE]
Bull shit. Inflammatory bull shit. Crap like this is what helps escalate the racial divide in our country.
Sandra Bland committed suicide in her cell after assaulting a cop. After a few days, video evidence proved it. But at the time, people were really hungry for examples to be outraged about, and here was this hanging...
Video evidence did not prove either of those things. The claimed assault occurred after he moved her out of camera view, and
the motion controlled camera wasn't pointed in her cell.
Now, it's entirely possible that she did kick him off camera, and I consider it extremely likely that she did commit suicide, but your strong claim that video evidence proved it makes your next sentence a bit ironic.
So now she's crowbarred into the narrative every time. Facts don't matter. Actually they do and the game is to pick the facts that support your narrative and just avoid the facts that don't. Pretty soon you "just know what happened" and the facts don't actually matter to anyone.
Whereas you discount the entire video after finding one way that you interpret the facts differently from Vi.
Bull shit. Inflammatory bull shit. Crap like this is what helps escalate the racial divide in our country.
And you didn't even bother to do that.
It's a propaganda piece that takes 9 minutes 41 seconds to mix truths with half truths trying; but, FAILING to rationalize using a race-centric phrase that in itself causes divisiveness. Stupid is as stupid does.
I was able to accomplish what it failed to do, rationalize a race-centric phrase that in itself causes divisiveness, without using propaganda technique and with just 5 words: Black lives don't matter [COLOR="White"]any less than anyone else's.
[/COLOR]
It took the Doctor 6 words to depose Prime Minister Harriet Jones ... amateur.
Victoria Hart is a mathematician known for making educational videos. She isn't a sociologist, anthropologist, or even experienced criminal justice professional. Let us break down her video.
Her claims the Black Lives Movement have concrete plans are ludicrous. I have heard everything espoused from having only black police officers to patrol urban areas to no police presence in some neighborhoods. These are the same groups that have called for the removal of body armor from police. BTW, which BLM group do we listen to? Who is there leader? Is it Shaun King who has clearly been identified as a white male pretending to be African-American?
Hart brings up George Zimmerman and stated if he was held responsible for his actions, there would be no BLM. Excuse me! He was tried in a court of his peers and found not guilty. The DOJ investigated Zimmerman for 3 years and it was concluded there was not sufficient evidence of a federal hate crime. Are we supposed to throw this guy in jail because internet warriors don't like the verdict? Food for thought, Zimmerman is a registered Democrat and a Hispanic. What the fuck does this have to do with white police officers???????????
Video evidence did not prove either of those things.
Read my post again. I did not intend to state both things were proven by video. Video evidence proved that she wasn't lynched.
Whereas you discount the entire video after finding one way that you interpret the facts differently from Vi.
Yes I do. If someone claims a lynching, and there was none, I absolutely stop and do not trust anything else they say.
I encourage everyone to do this too. Once you positively identify narration where the intent is to present a limited set of facts, in an emotional way, you may stop right there.
The death of Eric Garner - Garner was a big man and was resisting arrest. He died as a result of position asphyxiation and compression of the neck with contributing factors of asthma and heart disease. Note the autopsy found no damage to the windpipe or neck bones. Yes it was ruled a homicide, but that is a legal term. If you shoot someone in self defense and kill them, it is a homicide. Did you know that if you kill yourself, it is still a homicide under UCMJ reporting?
Bottom line is the grand jury chose not to indict. Are we again supposed to throw out our legal system because those privy to all of the evidence believed a crime had not been committed.
Yes. To take that last bit a step further, the video is angry, and people are angry, that each of these cases did not result in an indictment. (She writes NO INDICTMENT! in red each time)
So is there a problem with racist policing; or is it far worse, a racist breakdown of rule of law? Like not only are the cops in on it, but... like... everybody's in on it?
John Crawford III died in Walmart. Hart needs to check her facts. Crawford picked up a .177 caliber pellet rifle in sporting goods and walked around the store swinging it and gesturing it. The encounter with police occurred in the pets department. Police order him to drop the rifle and get on the floor. He drops the rifle and runs, but sees another officer and runs back to the rifle. There is a 17:41 video showing everything. How many of these social justice idiots have taken the time to see it or listen to the 911 dispatch tapes? Hart still thinks it is a toy gun. Anyway, the grand jury said no true bill. There was not evidence of a crime. Once again does a certain minority group want us to throw out our legal system when the verdicts don't suit them.
The shooting of Michael Brown was a mistake made by bad police and allowed by our justice system? It has already been established that the hands up don't shoot crap never happened. Brown committed a strong armed robbery minutes before he was confronted by Officer Wilson. A large part of the physical confrontation took place in the patrol car when Brown attacked Wilson as proven by forensics. An exhaustive investigation by the DOJ exonerated Officer Wilson.
Once more Hart and her buddies want us to throw out the legal system because they aren't happy with the verdicts. If the verdicts don't match some narrative they've heard on the internet, then white officers must be conspiring?
Happy Monkey - Do you need me to continue to break down each incident? Hart does nothing but try to spin partial facts and trigger words.
Video evidence proved that she wasn't lynched.
...
Yes I do. If someone claims a lynching, and there was none, I absolutely stop and do not trust anything else they say.
Vi did not claim a lynching, and video evidence did not prove anything, but it indirectly supports suicide.
Bottom line is the grand jury chose not to indict. Are we again supposed to throw out our legal system because those privy to all of the evidence believed a crime had not been committed.
If a grand jury doesn't indict, it's usually because the prosecutor didn't want them to; as per
Sol Wachtler's ham sandwich.
So is there a problem with racist policing; or is it far worse, a racist breakdown of rule of law?
More of an insufficient buildup of rule of law. You can't break down what wasn't there to begin with.
John Crawford III died in Walmart. Hart needs to check her facts. Crawford picked up a .177 caliber pellet rifle in sporting goods and walked around the store swinging it and gesturing it. The encounter with police occurred in the pets department. Police order him to drop the rifle and get on the floor. He drops the rifle and runs, but sees another officer and runs back to the rifle. There is a 17:41 video showing everything. How many of these social justice idiots have taken the time to see it or listen to the 911 dispatch tapes? Hart still thinks it is a toy gun. Anyway, the grand jury said no true bill. There was not evidence of a crime. Once again does a certain minority group want us to throw out our legal system when the verdicts don't suit them.
I didn't find the 17:41 video, but I found
a 42 minute one, and one
synced to another camera and the 911 call, and it appears that "swinging" might be somewhat accurate, since it was in one hand, and he wasn't actively pointing it at anything, but "gesturing"?
And the time between "drop your weapon" (which he does), and shots fired was less than 2 seconds.
Happy Monkey - Do you need me to continue to break down each incident? Hart does nothing but try to spin partial facts and trigger words.
Sarge, that's a lot of excusing and rationalizing you've done there.
If a grand jury doesn't indict, it's usually because the prosecutor didn't want them to; as per Sol Wachtler's ham sandwich.
More of an insufficient buildup of rule of law. You can't break down what wasn't there to begin with.
Wachtler made an off the cuff crack that was used in a book of fiction. That's your evidence the American jurisprudence system is rigged on use of force cases involving white officers and black suspects? Have you served on a grand jury or presented cases before a grand jury?
I didn't find the 17:41 video, but I found a 42 minute one, and one synced to another camera and the 911 call, and it appears that "swinging" might be somewhat accurate, since it was in one hand, and he wasn't actively pointing it at anything, but "gesturing"?
And the time between "drop your weapon" (which he does), and shots fired was less than 2 seconds.
You are a police officer and dispatched to the scene of a man armed with a rifle. You order the suspect to drop the weapon and get on the ground. He drops it and runs away and then turns and runs back to the weapon and toward you, the officer, the weapon is at his feet. What do you do? You have a micro-second to decide where to engage on the use of force continuum. Guess wrong and you could die.
Sarge, that's a lot of excusing and rationalizing you've done there.
Hart is espousing the idea our legal system is rigged because a minority faction is unhappy with some verdicts. Plus, she doesn't seem to care about facts in cases.
Hart is espousing the idea our legal system is rigged because a minority faction is unhappy with some verdicts. Plus, she doesn't seem to care about facts in cases.
Or there's systemic/institutional bias. Possible, no?
You know that you probably could have picked a better name for your organization when at least 141,000 people think it should be labeled a "terror group." :lol:
[SIZE="4"]WH responds to petition to label Black Lives Matter a "terror" group[/SIZE]
After days of violence and heightened racial tensions in the U.S., the White House responded this week to an online petition asking the federal government to formally label the Black Lives Matter movement as a "terror group." ...
...Because the online document received at least 100,000 signatures --at the time of this reporting, it had garnered over 141,000 names -- the White House was automatically prompted to respond. ...
Or there's systemic/institutional bias. Possible, no?
If there is this bias, let us prove it out. What we have are selected anecdotes about incidents, which are heartbreaking in every way. But not really proof.
I just heard of one that happened two miles from my home town, just last year. As kids, we rode bikes right near where this happened.
The following is a true story. It is an anecdote. It proves nothing:
This cop pulls a guy over for an expired inspection sticker:
two months out of inspection.
The guy is age 59, and there's 6 inches of snow on the ground... but he gets out of the car and starts to try to run. For no reason at all, with no evidence at all, the cop decides he has a gun. The cop tasers him, and he lands face down in the snow. He lands with his hands up, but the cop continues to taser him, over and over and over, and he goes into convulsions; and, naturally, his hands drop down. At that point, the cop shoots him. In the back.
He didn't have a gun. And his jacket was zipped up, so it would have been tricky to reach for one.
In this case, they prosecuted the cop; but you know a central Pennsylvania jury would not convict a police officer. The cop even decided to go back to work - and would have - until the community got together and fought it.
Had you heard of this? I hadn't heard of it until today. Why haven't we heard of this?
Cos the full story doesn't affect the current narrative, so it's not interesting. So people don't care and so it doesn't make national news.
Full story is here.
You may watch the bodycam footage if you like that sort of thing. It's pretty frickin' horrible. But like the nature videos, sometimes you have to see and acknowledge what life is. Especially if you wish to speak to it.
Or there's systemic/institutional bias. Possible, no?
Throughout the whole US with African Americans actively participating in said bias? Don't forget these juries and prosecutor offices have African American serving on them.
If there is this bias, let us prove it out. What we have are selected anecdotes about incidents, which are heartbreaking in every way. But not really proof.
I just heard of one that happened two miles from my home town, just last year. As kids, we rode bikes right near where this happened.
The following is a true story. It is an anecdote. It proves nothing:
This cop pulls a guy over for an expired inspection sticker: two months out of inspection.
The guy is age 59, and there's 6 inches of snow on the ground... but he gets out of the car and starts to try to run. For no reason at all, with no evidence at all, the cop decides he has a gun. The cop tasers him, and he lands face down in the snow. He lands with his hands up, but the cop continues to taser him, over and over and over, and he goes into convulsions; and, naturally, his hands drop down. At that point, the cop shoots him. In the back.
He didn't have a gun. And his jacket was zipped up, so it would have been tricky to reach for one.
In this case, they prosecuted the cop; but you know a central Pennsylvania jury would not convict a police officer. The cop even decided to go back to work - and would have - until the community got together and fought it.
Had you heard of this? I hadn't heard of it until today. Why haven't we heard of this?
Cos the full story doesn't affect the current narrative, so it's not interesting. So people don't care and so it doesn't make national news. Full story is here.
You may watch the bodycam footage if you like that sort of thing. It's pretty frickin' horrible. But like the nature videos, sometimes you have to see and acknowledge what life is. Especially if you wish to speak to it.
I'm not comfortable with that shooting, but I'm not ready to throw out our jurisprudence system over it. Because she was acquitted, was there any rioting and looting in the streets? Did they assassinate any police officers over this verdict?
If there is this bias, let us prove it out. What we have are selected anecdotes about incidents, which are heartbreaking in every way. But not really proof.
--snip.
What constitutes proof of bias?
I want to have an idea of what you consider the finish line is. Evidence of systemic, institutional racial bias in our society *abounds*, but you choose your words carefully, you have very high standards. You insist on "proof" before you'll accept that it exists.
You tell me what your snipe looks like, and I'll go hunting for it.
Evidence of systemic, institutional racial bias in our society *abounds*
OK well first, we'll have to agree on what to prove!
Is ^ that it?
You insist on "proof" before you'll accept that it exists.
This is the most complimentary thing you've ever said about me. Thank you!
Had you heard of this? I hadn't heard of it until today. Why haven't we heard of this? Cos the full story doesn't affect the current narrative, so it's not interesting. So people don't care and so it doesn't make national news.
The people who value human life care. The people who expect those with authority to not abuse it care. "Why haven't we heard of this?" Because the group that is publicizing cops killing blacks is publicizing cops killing blacks. Cops misbehaving can be publicized by another group. FWIW, I remember that when it was reported.
Throughout the whole US with African Americans actively participating in said bias? Don't forget these juries and prosecutor offices have African American serving on them.
Black cops can have institutional bias against black citizens.
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562077/police-racism-implicit-bias
I'm not comfortable with that shooting,
Well, it's refreshing to see that you don't just blindly defend ...
but I'm not ready to throw out our jurisprudence system over it.
Oop - there it is.
Because she was acquitted, was there any rioting and looting in the streets? Did they assassinate any police officers over this verdict?
I guess White Lives Matter™ isn't doing their job very well, are they?;)
When (insert special group here) are killed by cops in the proportion that young black men are, that group will react in a similar way. Jews avenged the Holocaust, the French Resistance fought Vichy France, Palestinians fight Israel, etc. When a group feels oppressed, they lash out. I'm not condoning it.
The Police position can be A - "we're justified in what we've done and will continue" (and kill even more young black men as they crack down), B - "we've made mistakes and will take steps to correct our behavior" (and kill fewer black men, or at least penalize cops who are doing it wrong), or C - "we're going to stop doing our job - see how you like society with no policing". I hope they choose B.
"you have very high standards. You insist on "proof" before you'll accept that it exists"
This is as it should be, don't you think?
When life or livelihood is at stake, shouldn't the bar be set high? Shouldn't evidences be offered that are indisputable, that can't be widely (mis)interpreted?
If Joe, a black man, is accused of murder, is it not the obligation of the accuser to 'prove' it?
If Joe, the cop, is accused of bias, accused of abusing his lent power, it s not the obligation of the accuser to 'prove' it?
If institutional bias is claimed, is it not the obligation of the claimant to, in the least, offer sumthin' compelling, unambiguous, and direct as evidence?
There are bad cops, bad whites, bad blacks, bad asians, bad dems, bad repubs, bad christians, bad jews, bad muslims, bad atheists, and on and on...comes down to this: there's seven billion people on the planet and a sizable chunk of them are dumbasses, jackasses, and nutjobs...bad eggs who do bad things...such folks cobble together reasons for doin' what they do (race, religion, politics, money, land, sex, and on and on) but these are just the justifcations...strip those away and the dumbasses, jackasses, and nujobs will still do the bad things.
It's a mistake on the part of well-intentioned folks to give weight to cobbled together reasons (justifications)...doin' that opens the door to givin' dumbasses, jackasses, and nutjobs an out...it's the equivelent of trying to understand or advocate for a rabid dog instead of just identifying it then shooting it.
It's a mistake on the part of well-intentioned folks to give weight to cobbled together reasons (justifications)...doin' that opens the door to givin' dumbasses, jackasses, and nutjobs an out...it's the equivelent of trying to understand or advocate for a rabid dog instead of just identifying it then shooting it.
Question is not about one example. A systematic bias clearly exists against one class of people - more specifically hispanics and blacks. If you deny that bias exists, then say so. Address the topic with numbers.
Completely irrelevant here is whether people riot, whether the judicial system must be scrapped, or that many bad people exist. Relevant question is about a persistent and one side bias against some people who are colored differently. Fact say it exists - significantly. If you dispute this, then what facts dispute this? Does this bias exist? Yes or no - with facts.
Henry Louis Gates in 2009 demonstrated a problem that statistics confirm. An emotional bias that news reports now demonstrate are widespread. Do you disagree with the existence of that problem? Does all of law enforcement have a larger problem? Or do some bad apples more than make all others look bad? Does law enforcement use a blue mask to ignore a problem in their ranks? That some are corrupted by the power they possess.
Statistics clearly demonstrate a problem exists. Or do you deny it?
That is obviously not you as in henry quick. That obviously is you as in everyone who reads this. Or did 'you' assume something different? An example about what creates bias.
Please, some one, post those stats, and the source of those stats.
Here are some stats from the dailywire we can all mull over. Some support my viewpoint, some support yours.
1. Cops killed nearly twice as many whites as blacks in 2015. According to data compiled by The Washington Post, 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black. The majority of these victims had a gun or "were armed or otherwise threatening the officer with potentially lethal force," according to Mac Donald in a speech at Hillsdale College.
Some may argue that these statistics are evidence of racist treatment toward blacks, since whites consist of 62 percent of the population and blacks make up 13 percent of the population. But as Mac Donald writes in The Wall Street Journal, 2009 statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties.
"Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force," writes MacDonald.
MacDonald also pointed out in her Hillsdale speech that blacks "commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime" in New York City, even though they consist of 23 percent of the city's population.
"The black violent crime rate would actually predict that more than 26 percent of police victims would be black," MacDonald said. "Officer use of force will occur where the police interact most often with violent criminals, armed suspects, and those resisting arrest, and that is in black neighborhoods."
2. More whites and Hispanics die from police homicides than blacks. According to Mac Donald, 12 percent of white and Hispanic homicide deaths were due to police officers, while only four percent of black homicide deaths were the result of police officers.
"If we’re going to have a 'Lives Matter' anti-police movement, it would be more appropriately named "White and Hispanic Lives Matter,'" said Mac Donald in her Hillsdale speech.
3. The Post's data does show that unarmed black men are more likely to die by the gun of a cop than an unarmed white man...but this does not tell the whole story. In August 2015, the ratio was seven-to-one of unarmed black men dying from police gunshots compared to unarmed white men; the ratio was six-to-one by the end of 2015. But Mac Donald points out in The Marshall Project that looking at the details of the actual incidents that occurred paints a different picture:
The “unarmed” label is literally accurate, but it frequently fails to convey highly-charged policing situations. In a number of cases, if the victim ended up being unarmed, it was certainly not for lack of trying. At least five black victims had reportedly tried to grab the officer’s gun, or had been beating the cop with his own equipment. Some were shot from an accidental discharge triggered by their own assault on the officer. And two individuals included in the Post’s “unarmed black victims” category were struck by stray bullets aimed at someone else in justified cop shootings. If the victims were not the intended targets, then racism could have played no role in their deaths.
In one of those unintended cases, an undercover cop from the New York Police Department was conducting a gun sting in Mount Vernon, just north of New York City. One of the gun traffickers jumped into the cop’s car, stuck a pistol to his head, grabbed $2,400 and fled. The officer gave chase and opened fire after the thief again pointed his gun at him. Two of the officer’s bullets accidentally hit a 61-year-old bystander, killing him. That older man happened to be black, but his race had nothing to do with his tragic death. In the other collateral damage case, Virginia Beach, Virginia, officers approached a car parked at a convenience store that had a homicide suspect in the passenger seat. The suspect opened fire, sending a bullet through an officer’s shirt. The cops returned fire, killing their assailant as well as a woman in the driver’s seat. That woman entered the Post’s database without qualification as an “unarmed black victim” of police fire.
Mac Donald examines a number of other instances, including unarmed black men in San Diego, CA and Prince George's County, MD attempting to reach for a gun in a police officer's holster. In the San Diego case, the unarmed black man actually "jumped the officer" and assaulted him, and the cop shot the man since he was "fearing for his life." MacDonald also notes that there was an instance in 2015 where "three officers were killed with their own guns, which the suspects had wrestled from them."
4. Black and Hispanic police officers are more likely to fire a gun at blacks than white officers. This is according to a Department of Justice report in 2015 about the Philadelphia Police Department, and is further confirmed that by a study conducted University of Pennsylvania criminologist Greg Ridgeway in 2015 that determined black cops were 3.3 times more likely to fire a gun than other cops at a crime scene.
5. Blacks are more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops. This is according to FBI data, which also found that 40 percent of cop killers are black. According to Mac Donald, the police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black than a cop killing an unarmed black person.
Despite the facts, the anti-police rhetoric of Black Lives Matter and their leftist sympathizers have resulted in what Mac Donald calls the "Ferguson Effect," as murders have spiked by 17 percent among the 50 biggest cities in the U.S. as a result of cops being more reluctant to police neighborhoods out of fear of being labeled as racists. Additionally, there have been over twice as many cops victimized by fatal shootings in the first three months of 2016.
Anti-police rhetoric has deadly consequences.
This article has been modified to correct Greg Ridgeway's name.
Here's the Economist on it. It's in this week's edition so, tw, perhaps it is in the mail.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21702219-are-black-americans-more-likely-be-shot-or-roughed-up-police-quantifying-black-lives?frsc=dg%7Cd
Black Harvard prof (who is not Dr. Gates) studies the problem in depth in Houston. First, he removes his own bias:
AS A teenager, Roland Fryer had “unpleasant” run-ins with police. Officers pointed guns at him six or seven times. Even now, the youngest African-American to get tenure at Harvard wonders why police shout loudly at him as soon as he forgets to indicate when driving. But when the economist began researching racial differences in the use of force by police officers, he did not want his own experience to prejudice his findings. To understand how cops work he joined them on the beat in New Jersey and Texas.
Impressive! Key bits:
Based on the raw data, blacks and Hispanics were more than 50% more likely to encounter police force than whites...
...Blacks were 17.3% more likely to incur use of force after controlling for the characteristics of the civilian (such as age) and the encounter (such as if they ran away, complained or hit an officer)...
...blacks who were reported by cops as being perfectly compliant with police instructions during their interactions were still 21.1% more likely than whites to have some force used against them...
BUT THEN when it came to use of deadly force:
What shocked Mr Fryer was when he looked in detail at reports of police shootings. He got two separate research teams to read, code and analyse over 1,300 shootings between 2000 and 2015 in ten police departments, including Houston and Los Angeles. To his surprise, he found that blacks were no more likely to be shot before attacking an officer than non-blacks. This was apparent both in the raw data, and once the characteristics of the suspect and the context of the encounter were accounted for.
Mr Fryer dug deeper into the data. He combed through 6,000 incident reports from Houston, including all the shootings, incidents involving Tasers and a sample in which lethal force could have justifiably been used but was not. What he found was even more startling: black suspects appear less likely to be shot than non-black ones, fatally or otherwise.
So, Houston via the Economist, same as the WaPo: Blacks more likely to have to deal with police, more likely to have bad dealings... and less likely to be shot at.
Well Undertoad, that was quite a zinger you threw in the ring of facts. How will TW and others counter counter that last fact?
To me the real problem is around the number of "policing" interactions people seem to be having with officers vs a more humanizing day to day interaction. My question is do we have cops doing too many things? DWI checkpoints, stops for bulbs out, black market arrests, pot arrests... I get that broken windows policing may make a more aesthetically pleasing neighborhood but once that neighborhood turns on its cops, everybody is screwed.
*24 hour news channels have a shit ton to answer for as well
Blacks more likely to have to deal with police, more likely to have bad dealings... and less likely to be shot at.
Good summary.
Maybe the Black Lives Matter movement has such wide support because blacks have experienced that non-lethal bias and when they see the lethal bias on tv or youtube, it resonates with them. It fits with their experiences.
Maybe we need to try to eliminate that non-lethal racial bias.
Here's the Economist on it. It's in this week's edition so, tw, perhaps it is in the mail.
Read that article long before posting. It was part of that earlier response. Interesting especially when combined with other researchers and reporters.
Black and whites were just as likely to be shot ... when they attacked police. That is secondary. Problem occurs when blacks, et al do not attack police. For example, the kid who is waving around a toy gun. Or the man who does not resist until after being arrested. These were conditions that create controversy. These events are separate from others where the victim first attacked police.
Prof Gate did not attack police. But he suffered an 'excessive' police response only because he was trying to break into his own house. And even after properly identifying himself. We are only seeing more example of this 2009 example maybe because we are finally looking for it. Or because cameras now recored what has long been acceptable behavior among a minority.
Another reporter also spent (if I remember) most of a year riding with police in Newark. One fact remained apparent after enough observation. A major distrust exists between these police and citizens. Eventually he noticed a pattern. Police were always 'challenging' everyone. Constantly demanding an answer to "Why did you run?". Or "Come here." There was no cooperative interplay between these cops and citizens. The underlying bias of these cops was a constant "Everyone is a suspect."
Critical to cooperation between cops and citizens is the interplay where a cop and citizen can talk like friends. That program was instituted with success in Philadelphia. Among these Newark cops, everyone was distrusted. And so citizens routinely distrusted the cops. This was even observed with young kids. This would explain why some cops were more prone to use unnecessary violence and why emotions cause so much confrontation - both by police and citizens.
A man with a gun is always quick to make decisions based upon his biases - his emotions. That is why the NRA has been so quiet about tihis. That is why we want people with guns (more power) to be extra trained - to learn how to control those inevitable emotions. Still, some cops do not get it. We see that in recent videos including a lady cop in UT's Hummelstown PA video.
Some cops resort to excessive violence when not attacked. That is irrelevant to the other situation (described in the Economist) where a cop is attacked. Complaint is that some cops tend to be more (excessively) violent with a people who have a unique external characteristic when the citizen is not even violent.
The topic is not citizens who attack police. The topic is citizens who do nothing or only complain - and suffer an excessive police response. We know that is happening - apparently with a minority of officers whose training did not suppress their bias (emotions). And we know many who have these biases may even be unaware of their biases.
Black and whites were just as likely to be shot ... when they attacked police. That is secondary. Problem occurs when blacks, et al do not attack police.
Maybe read the article again
...he found that blacks were no more likely to be shot before attacking an officer than non-blacks.
...he found that blacks were no more likely to be shot before attacking an officer than non-blacks.
Completely unrelated are people who *never* attack an officer. Major difference.
Move on to why this apparently exists. Many want to cast blame. Only fewer are proposing solutions based in identifying potential reasons for a problem. Some cops are professionally trained or acting as if everyone is a suspect. As a result, everyone is potential perp - not a friendly citizen. That attitude results in citizens treating cops as adversaries - to act as if a copy is a threat - not as friends or protectors. An attitude of both cop and citizen that caused violent confrontations when a citizen NEVER attacks a cop.
Not 'before' - never. A major difference exists in those two scenarios.
We are not discussing what a majority of cops do - ie less likely to shoot someone. A problem apparently lies with a minority who are likely to be violent when not even attacked. Their emotions perceive a threat that did not exist. Ie and again - your Hummelstown PA video. Where is an attack that justified a shooting? Before or Never?
Please do not combine what are two completely different scenarios. What a majority of cops do is apparently unrelated to what a minority of cops do - too often.
Dude, the category "blacks who were shot before attacking an officer" is describing those who did not attack an officer at all. That's precisely what this category indicates.
The category is not describing "blacks who were shot and then attacked the officer". We assume THAT number would be too low to be statistically interesting.
:lol:
Tw needs a new user title: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."
Tw IS the Cellar jester. :biggrinje Thus is the fate of in-your-face developmentally impaired, tw.
"before attacking an officer" implies that eventually they do attack an officer. It's a poor choice of words. They should have said "without" attacking an officer. I was confused by that too. Should I be mocking the Harvard prof or the Economist? It's unclear from the article who came up with that phrase.
Yep, no matter the issue, there are plenty of folks lookin' to spread blame far and wide, ropin' in as many folks as possible, never mind that most of those slathered with blame are blameless.
An anecdote some of you can appreciate...
When I worked for Stennis way back when, every one had ready and open access to the net...some dumbass took advantage and made a habit of enjoying porn sites...Stennis management, in it's profound wisdom, severely restricted all net access and did not fire the dumbass.
Slather that blame, spread the consequence, every one guilty till proven innocent.
More sensibly: can the dumbass and leave every one else alone; punish the cops who abuse their lent power and leave the rest alone; punish jackasses who shoot up malls, schools, whatnot, and leave the rest alone.
Each one innocent till proven guilty.
Institutional and unconscious bias is horse manure.
If Joe does crap hold Joe responsible, not Sam.
Toss 'we' and 'them' and (re)install 'I' and 'you' and 'him' and 'her'.
Should I be mocking the Harvard prof or the Economist? It's unclear from the article who came up with that phrase.
First, the Economist study is about all cops. We are not discussing all cops. We are discussing a minority who are a problem. How large is that minority? No statistics provided. The Economist study does not address that issue.
Second, UT's Hummelstown video demonstrates a problem. (And the victim was white.) Some cops have an adversarial attitude. We know people with more power (ie guns) are easily corrupted by that power - are quicker to make conclusions from their emotions rather then based in facts. A problem that the NRA does not want discussed. And yet that is the issue.
People with guns must be trained to become and remain more responsible. To act logical; not emotional. Apparently some venues still have a Mayor Daley or Mayor Rizzo attitude. Which then implies biases are imposed fastest on those one does not like.
How many cops have this attitude? How many venues spend more time in making friends of all citizens rather than let or encourage cops regard all as suspects? Unfortunately no quantitative statistics exist. Neighborhood policing was an example of how to avert a bad mindset.
Plenty of examples exist including Harvard Professor Gates confrontation with Sgt Crowley. And UT's Hummelstown video. Blacks have long complained about this double standard. Philando Castile's killing on livestream video in MN demonstrates that this problem clearly exists. As an excited cop yells at others after he shot Philando for no apparent reason (other than fear and emotion).
The Economist notes a completely different scenario. "Black lives matter" stems from other police confrontations where an officer was the only aggressor. As demonstrated by a reporter who followed Newark police for most of a year. Confrontation because those cops treated every person as a potential perp rather than a citizen to protect. How many officers have that attitude? The Economist study would say if it addressed that problem. Meanwhile, top cops in Newark disbanned that police unit after the reporter's video demonstrated that problem.
How many cops are trained in or have this bad attitude? We don't know. Statistics do not exist. We know the problem exists since complaints exist in all states. Including intentional profiling of blacks by NJ State Troopers on the NJ Turnpike as encouraged by top department management. We do not even know how many of those complaints are justified. We only know that a flurry of videos now demonstrate a problem is widespread. And probably has existed long before Professor Gates was arrested because he broke into his own house.
A situation escalated due to emotions by both men. Ironic that both men had a history of teaching for better inter-racial relations. And that both Gates and Sgt Crowley are distant cousins. But facts were irrelevant during the confrontation. Emotions and assumptions based in misinformation dominated that confrontation. In other situations, a guy with more power jumped to conclusions, in some cases, because power is a corrupting influence. Gun used when no threat justified that action. How often? No statistics exist.
UT's Hummelstown video is a damning example. Any reply cannot ignore a problem demonstrated by that video. How widespread is the problem? The Economist study does not address that issue. How many departments train their officers to not be confrontational to everyone. No facts exist. Economist does not ask. It was not the subject of their study.
How large is a minority of officers who jump to conclusions as 'wanna be' cop Zimmerman did by shooting Martin for no reason. Another example of a problem created when someone has too much power (ie a gun) and insufficient training (or mindset) to think logically. "He looks different. So he must be evil." A problem made worse when top management encouraged it as in the case in Newark and by State Troopers on the NJ Turnpike.
There are many adults who react like children - as demonstrated in that damning Hummelstown video.
"before attacking an officer" implies that eventually they do attack an officer. It's a poor choice of words. They should have said "without" attacking an officer. I was confused by that too. Should I be mocking the Harvard prof or the Economist? It's unclear from the article who came up with that phrase.
"Without" would imply that he never was going to attack the officer. We all know he was planning on it, but got shot before he could carry out his evil plan.:rolleyes:
tw: "Question is not about one example... Address the race topic with numbers."
ut: "Here are your statistics."
tw: "These statistics do not address the topic of racial injustice."
ut: "They do, but you have misinterpreted them."
tw: "The topic is not racial injustice. Here is one example that shows a problem. There are no statistics on this."
Come on now.
ut: "Here are your statistics."
A blank line is your statistics? That is the point. Relevant statistics do not exist. Again, the Economists does not discuss a minority who apparently are the problem. What the other overwhelming majority do is irrelevant. And what one obvious problem is - cops who use excessive force (ie gun fire) when no threat exists. And cops who regard everyone as a perp.
The Economist does not distinguish between shooting of unaggressive suspects verse others who are aggressive. Your (what I can only assume you are citing) statistics do not apply to many events that even "Black lives matter" complain about.
Please stop being so emotional. Please return to an adult frame. If you posted a relevant number, then recited which number is relevant - so that logical discussion can continue. An obviously emotional reply makes honest discussion impossible. One can only *assume* which number you believe is relevant.
Explain why your Hummelstown video is irrelevant. Every post references your refusal to discuss it. Logical is to explain why that is irrelevant - since it demonstrates the problem. Was that Hummelstown policewoman shooting justified or not? An example of a problem embedded in "Black lives matter" protests.
And again today, another innocent (not an aggressor) man shot because a cop thought a mentally retarded man playing with a truck was a threat. Another example of a shooting because neither suspect *never* did and *never* was going to threaten a cop. Another shooting and the complaint was irrelevant to an Economist study. And not defined any of your numbers.
So calm down Sherlock. Answer in an adult and unemotional attitude. Posted are logical questions. Please answer them without so much irrational animosity. Start with what is obviously relevant - the Hummelstown shooting. Why are your still unknown numbers relevant?
Emotion attached to contempt for "Black lives matter" makes no logical sense.
And that's our interaction for 2016. See you next year.
We all know he was planning on it, but got shot before he could carry out his evil plan.
Harvard professor shots cop who is a family member. Interesting. I never saw that headline.
And that's our interaction for 2016. See you next year.
Would that be calendar year; or, fiscal year? 'Cause, you know, October 1st isn't that far away and we all know how much you miss getting your annual tongue lashings.
Nope. No problem here. Move along.
[YOUTUBE]LGT7LJmSg4Y[/YOUTUBE]
But you see, the police chief for that department explained it: the officer actually MEANT to shoot the white disabled guy. So, you know, aside from still being wrong and firing when it was uncalled for, he ALSO has shitty aim.
The therapist lived, thank God. And they are already offering settlement money.
It would go a long way for a law enforcement representative to say " yeeeaaah, we fucked up. Sorry". But the Blue Brotherhood has solidarity.:mad:
It would seem that civilians need a means to protect themselves from the people they hire to protect themselves. When civilians have the means to protect themselves, they can be more discerning about those they hire to watch their backs. Until then, you're at their mercy.
It would be beyond stupid for me to carry when I work. We don't have a too few guns problem. We do have a problem with poorly trained, scared, and maybe PTSDed cops who don't seem to know how to de-escalate situations safely. We civilians want cops who are on our side and assess situations well under pressure. We get that it is a tough job and thankless in some neighborhoods but you can't excuse the gun first mentality we've hammered into our cops.
Who said anything about guns? I said "means." You seem to have a one track mind.
Cops are who they are as individuals. The problem is with those hiring the wrong individuals.
"A" problem, not "THE" problem.
With regard to Law Enforcement (thread title), other problems pale in comparison to not getting the right personality types out there. Cops are beyond their formative years. Under stress, each is going to react according to his or her own value system and worry about the ramifications later. Each will have their own stress threshold. Training can modify their behavior under less stressful circumstances; but, it takes a significant emotional event to change their core values which is what presents when they're overstressed. Unfortunately, that doesn't usually happen until after things go terribly wrong and they're faced with dire consequences. Then the change comes too late.
Nope. No problem here. Move along.
[YOUTUBE]LGT7LJmSg4Y[/YOUTUBE]
OK. That was a total fuck up. Write the check. Fire or reassign the officer. Total career ender
Pause and think about this. As a police officer, you have a fraction of a second to make a life or death decision. You are flooded with adrenaline. All of these people judging you are sitting at home, watching edited clips, being told a narrative by talking heads and the truth of the matter the officer took this low paying job because he wanted to help people and know he is worried if he will ever see his family again. So many people judge and cast blame, but would they do the job?
As a police officer, you have a fraction of a second to make a life or death decision. You are flooded with adrenaline.
One who has a gun must make those decisions. And not make a mistake. Responsibility means not using emotion, like a child, to make a decision. He must be properly trained to think in an adult manner. That means logical thought especially in adrenaline situations. Adults even point the gun in a safe direction so as to not make a mistake. Many have not learned how to control their emotions. Those are the worst people to carry a gun. And explain so many shooting - such as demonstrated in a Hummelstown video.
Responsible applies to anyone who carries a gun - not just cops. That responsibility is why officers are trained. And why civilians must also have a similar adult mindset to be responsible as only as adult can be. Only children or adults who are still children let their emotions control their decisions. Their pre-frontal cortex has not let learned to control a child's emotions. Those have no business carrying a gun.
Why did the officer state he did not know why he fired? Apparently he did not control his emotions. His logical (adult) brain had no idea what his emotional (child) brain was thinking. So he had no business carrying a gun. Responsible adults do not let fear control them. Adults control their fears.
Why is the NRA so quiet? This concept called responsible threatens sales.
Pause and think about this. As a police officer, you have a fraction of a second to make a life or death decision. You are flooded with adrenaline. All of these people judging you are sitting at home, watching edited clips, being told a narrative by talking heads and the truth of the matter the officer took this low paying job because he wanted to help people and know he is worried if he will ever see his family again. ...
There are people who break the law under the similar circumstances and go to jail.
But, Ok, let's say that's true. If a cop does it wrong, he should, minimally, be put in a position where he cannot do it wrong again. He failed the ultimate test. And there are times when he should be prosecuted.
What Are Policemen Made Of? By Paul Harvey
Don't credit me with the mongrel prose: it has many parents-at least 420,000 of them: Policemen.
A Policeman is a composite of what all men are, mingling of a saint and sinner, dust and deity.
Gulled statistics wave the fan over the stinkers, underscore instances of dishonesty and brutality because they are "new". What they really mean is that they are exceptional, unusual, not commonplace.
Buried under the frost is the fact: Less than one-half of one percent of policemen misfit the uniform. That's a better average than you'd find among clergy!
What is a policeman made of? He, of all men, is once the most needed and the most unwanted. He's a strangely nameless creature who is "sir" to his face and "fuzz" to his back
He must be such a diplomat that he can settle differences between individuals so that each will think he won.
But...If the policeman is neat, he's conceited; if he's careless, he's a bum. If he's pleasant, he's flirting;if not, he's a grouch.
He must make an instant decision which would require months for a lawyer to make.
But...If he hurries, he's careless; if he's deliberate, he's lazy. He must be first to an accident and infallible with his diagnosis. He must be able to start breathing, stop bleeding, tie splints and, above all, be sure the victim goes home without a limp. Or expect to be sued.
The police officer must know every gun, draw on the run, and hit where it doesn't hurt.He must be able to whip two men twice his size and half his age without damaging his uniform and without being "brutal". If you hit him, he's a coward. If he hits you, he's a bully.
A policeman must know everything-and not tell. He must know where all the sin is and not partake.
A policeman must, from a single strand of hair, be able to describe the crime, the weapon and the criminal- and tell you where the criminal is hiding.
But...If he catches the criminal, he's lucky; if he doesn't, he's a dunce. If he gets promoted, he has political pull; if he doesn't, he's a dullard. The policeman must chase a bum lead to a dead-end, stake out ten nights to tag one witness who saw it happen-but refused to remember.
The policeman must be a minister, a social worker, a diplomat, a tough guy and a gentleman.
And, of course, he'd have to be genius....For he will have to feed a family on a policeman's salary.
That's a good piece Mr. Quirk. Paul Harvey was great. I miss his lunch hour news broadcasts, and The Rest of the Story.
Sometimes I make my computer say "Paul Harvey...Good day." when I power down.
I miss Paul Harvey.
I'm not surprised.
I doubt they meant to kill him. Just teach him a lesson. Rough him up a little. His death was accidental. They were responsible for his welfare, and they wound up killing him. Since it was a group, each individual can say "not my fault" and there isn't enough evidence to convict any one of them individually.
So many on here are quick to judge based upon what they "think" happened. So many of the social justice warriors should watch the "Ox-Bow Incident".
[YOUTUBE]watch?v=VBPl6W0QrYQ[/YOUTUBE]
I often agree with the sentiment that you shouldn't attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. The cops were either incompetent at keeping him safe, or they intended to rough him up a little to teach him a lesson. It's either malice or incompetence that caused him to die in their care.
In this case I think it's unlikely that the cops were incompetent. He was being a dick to them and they were pissed off at him. They didn't have a discussion about it or anything like that. It was just their attitude about him. "Scumbag resisted arrest, I'm gonna stomp on the gas a little as I pull away from the curb."
It's very hard for most people to take being hit without being allowed to hit back. My son went through a time of physically injuring me. Even with him being a kid, my own kid, a kid I knew really honestly didn't mean me any malice... there were a few times where the self-defense instinct rose up and some lizard-brain part of me wanted to hit back.
I still didn't, obviously, but it was surprising to learn how close under the surface that instinct was. Our officers have to be trained better, and applicants have to be screened better in the first place. "It's a hard job" doesn't begin to describe it, but it's not an excuse, either.
It's like teachers: if you paid the individuals more, instead of spending more money on tools (i.e. nationwide testing as a metaphor for tanks and SWAT armor,) then talented candidates would be more willing to attempt the job.
... His death was accidental...
The coroner ruled it a homocide
Sure, but they didn't mean to kill him. You don't think they meant to kill him, do you?
Sure, but they didn't mean to kill him. You don't think they meant to kill him, do you?
I don't. Bu it doesn't really matter what I think, the coroner determined it to be homicide - "the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder".
You seem to be experiencing tunnel vision when looking up definitions...
"Homicide occurs when one person causes the death of one other person. Homicides can be divided into many overlapping types, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war, euthanasia, and execution, depending on the circumstances of the death."
BIG TERM, EIGHT SYLABLES - involuntary manslaughter.
I don't. Bu it doesn't really matter what I think, the coroner determined it to be homicide - "the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder".
Let us not forget that suicide is also homicide. There is also the theory Freddie Gray self inflicted his injuries
Let us not forget that suicide is also homicide. There is also the theory Freddie Gray self inflicted his injuries
That reminds me of policing in the UK during the 70s and 80a, when the police quite seriously, and with straight faces claimed that a man in their custody died whilst falling up the stairs.
So many quick to judge and say these officers are guilty. Yet, 3 have been found not guilty in a court of law and charges against the other 3 are dismissed. So many cry they must be guilty and I ask where is your proof? What evidence do you have to declare these men guilty and condemn law enforcement?
Let us not forget that suicide is also homicide. There is also the theory Freddie Gray self inflicted his injuries
Reminds me of the Firesign Theater (I think) parody of The Lone Ranger.
"he fell on his knife
six times
backwards"
So many quick to judge and say these officers are guilty. Yet, 3 have been found not guilty in a court of law and charges against the other 3 are dismissed. So many cry they must be guilty and I ask where is your proof? What evidence do you have to declare these men guilty and condemn law enforcement?
And the prosecutor is crying foul, and it's difficult to convict a law enforcement agent.
Sarge, did you watch "Making a Murderer"?
The prosecutor who brought this case without evidence is crying foul?
I was worried there were going to be riots in Baltimore again when the charges were dropped against the rest of them, but apparently enough time has passed, or something.
I read that the cops are suing the prosecutor. Maybe people are afraid the cops will sue rioters too.
The prosecutor who brought this case without evidence is crying foul?
No, the prosecutor who was not provided with evidence by the cops who didn't want their brethren prosecuted. That one.
Were there body cameras in the Freddie Gray case? I can't remember.
They only wear body cams in police vans when they're doin' carpool karaoke.
Sarge, did you watch "Making a Murderer"?
I am somewhat familiar with the case, but I haven't watched the series.
Spexxvet - I see you still continue to cry foul. Please gift us with the evidence you have that illustrates criminal actions by these officers.
In three trials, Judge Williams, who is black and who successfully prosecuted cases of police misconduct for eight years in the justice department of the United States, questioned the assumption that the officers’ actions constituted criminal activity. He ruled each time that the criminal allegations were not supported by the evidence: in contrast to a shooting or stabbing, either of which would produce an obvious wound, Mr Gray's neck injury was internal and hidden from view, making it difficult for police to recognise. Like the case of Schrödinger’s ill-fated cat in the box, there is no telling exactly what happened to Mr Gray inside the police van, only speculative and “equally plausible scenarios.” And there is no proof that any of the officers meant to endanger or harm Mr Gray, nor that they knowingly denied him necessary medical care.
Spexxvet - I see you still continue to cry foul. Please gift us with the evidence you have that illustrates criminal actions by these officers.
Just putting him in a van, handcuffed, without restraint is criminal
ETA: Can you imagine if a civilian did that to an off duty cop?
Just putting him in a van, handcuffed, without restraint is criminal
ETA: Can you imagine if a civilian did that to an off duty cop?
Please state the criminal statute and the punishment for said offense. I want to see what you is driving your desire to ruin these officers' lives, wreck the criminal justice system, and cause civil unrest.
Here's Freddie Gray's arrest record. I don't have his prison, probation, and parole periods.
March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault
January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing
January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute
December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute
December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance
August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing
January 25, 2014: Possession of marijuana
September 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second-degree escape
April 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probation
July 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute
March 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
March 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distribute
February 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance
August 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probation
August 28, 2007: Possession of marijuana
August 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
July 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (2 counts)
I know this is 3 posts in a row for me, but I need to put this out. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't be friends. I realize we've grown up in different parts of the country, have different life experiences, and different levels of education. If I huff and puff in here, it doesn't mean I don't like you. Heck, I really respect and like Dr Dana even though I think she is liberal without a clue of what is really going on over here. Dana, no disrespect intended you were simply a quick liberal reference
Bringing up oppo research on the victim seems like a justification for injuring him, rather than support for the claim that there was no intent to injure him.
Freddie Gray's arrest record
Is it interesting to note that, if there is no war on drugs, this is reduced to (if not further)
March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault
January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing
August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing
September 28, 2013: Second-degree assault, second-degree escape
If there is no war on drugs he is sentenced and serves realistically for these crimes, since that's what society then focuses on, and he is not around to be arrested again.
I know this is 3 posts in a row for me, but I need to put this out. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't be friends. I realize we've grown up in different parts of the country, have different life experiences, and different levels of education. If I huff and puff in here, it doesn't mean I don't like you. Heck, I really respect and like Dr Dana even though I think she is liberal without a clue of what is really going on over here. Dana, no disrespect intended you were simply a quick liberal reference
I still love ya, ya big panda
Please state the criminal statute and the punishment for said offense.
I don't know statutes. How about attempted murder? Gross negligence?
I want to see what you is driving your desire to ruin these officers' lives, wreck the criminal justice system, and cause civil unrest.
I don't desire that. I desire the end to killing people that shouldn't be killed. I also desire accountability.
Here's Freddie Gray's arrest record. I don't have his prison, probation, and parole periods.
Prior behavior does not mean someone is guilty of current accusations. You should know that.
I don't know statutes. How about attempted murder?
I doubt they intended for him to die, but he did, which is the opposite of attempted murder So negligent homicide or manslaughter would be more appropriate.
Bringing up oppo research on the victim seems like a justification for injuring him, rather than support for the claim that there was no intent to injure him.
I think it shows he was a thug.
Whether he was a thug or not doesn't matter unless you're trying to justify intentionally injuring him, which you claim didn't happen.
Without further detail, that arrest record could mean anything. Drug possession isn't thuggish, "intent to distribute" is meaningless. There don't appear to be any charges for actually distributing. Trespassing isn't particularly thuggish , fourth degree burglary could be anything from trespassing to B&E, and 2nd degree assault is assault without injury.
Or, they could be more serious. You can't tell from the arrest record, and, like I said, it doesn't matter anyway.
Not to mention an arrest is not the same as a conviction. You can't assume guilt from arrest.
Hmm, I see 5 possessions with intent to distribute. True, I don't have the convictions, but we can surmise with the gaps in the arrest records and the 2 arrests for violation of probation. They don't put you on probation for sitting on the front pew of church.
Spexxvet - You need to check the Maryland statute for second degree assault.
In Maryland, second-degree assault is defined as causing someone physical injury. This excludes minor injuries. Although less serious than first-degree assault, second-degree assault still comes with a fairly stiff penalty. In fact, if convicted, you can face up to 10 years in prison and a $2,500 fine
Sarge,
You do your arguments a disservice when you clearly imply threat/intent/suspicion based on elements completely disconnected to the events at hand, going well outside the letter of the law, and then in the next breath, stand by the officers requiring the people on the other side of the argument to supply tangible, actionable, admissible evidence, by law, to support their claims, or stfu.
Pick one or the other. A strict legalistic perspective of guilt and innocence and culpability, or a more holistic perspective that includes hunches and tendencies and histories and other subjective measures to justify your conclusions. When you try to have it both ways, you just look inconsistent.
The very bedrock of our civil society depends on a predictable, systemic, shared expectation of our mutual respect for the rule of law. Let's face it, the police are outnumbered and outgunned. Why are they not all dead then? Because we, as a group, respect the system. It's not right to measure the actions of the different sides or groups by different standards. That's a recipe for trouble, for anarchy.
BigV - You are correct. I need to focus. I get caught up in prior bad acts being admissible if they show a pattern. Everyone knows I am biased. I truly can't help it. It is based upon my experiences. That is what frustrates me. How many of you have dealt with Freddie Grays in the real world? If you had to interact with him daily, how you deal would with a career criminal with a history of beating people and dealing drugs????????
It is very easy easy for you to sit in your ivory towers of justice. I challenge you to post what you did for minorities in your area and the minorities in your area.
Spexxvet - You need to check the Maryland statute for second degree assault.
Might you have meant to address Happy Monkey?
...2nd degree assault is assault without injury.
"Everyone knows I am biased."
Don't sweat it...each and every one of us is biased.
Might you have meant to address Happy Monkey?
Apologies to Spexxvet. Apologies to all with that crazy ivory tower statement. I don't even remember posting it. That last sentence is really bizarre.
It's a fair question. Difficult question that we are mostly not allowed to ask.
BigV - You are correct. I need to focus. I get caught up in prior bad acts being admissible if they show a pattern. Everyone knows I am biased. I truly can't help it. It is based upon my experiences. That is what frustrates me. How many of you have dealt with Freddie Grays in the real world? If you had to interact with him daily, how you deal would with a career criminal with a history of beating people and dealing drugs????????
It is very easy easy for you to sit in your ivory towers of justice. I challenge you to post what you did for minorities in your area and the minorities in your area.
I've taught some of the Freddie Grays of this world. In terms of criminality and violence, not in terms of minorities. Some of the people in my literacy class were serial offenders bouncing about institutions and the judicial system, unemployed and forced, under threat of loss of benefits, to attend classes with us to improve their literacy and numeracy. All the tutors in that place carried personal alarms whilst working.
They were a small percentage of the people we taught, but they were there. Granted they were likely to behave differently with us than with a police officer in the process of trying to arrest them, but we had our moments.
I also spent much of my teens and early 20s among a fairly drug-soaked and occasionally criminal set of people, some of whom I absolutely would describe as thugs. And some of whom I would class as dangerous. Again, as an unemployed twenty year old living in that environment and friends with them they would have acted differently with me than they would with a police officer trying to arrest them. But then I was one of them in my own way.
You accuse people here of living in ivory towers, and not having seen or encountered people like this guy - and you're right that we won't have seen them the way a police officer would see them - but then you won't have seen them the way I have seen them. There wasn't a single one of our circle, myself included, who hadn't been arrested at least a couple of times. And a man J snd I both counted as one of our best mates was an out and out thug and criminal. He was a dangerous man. He was in and out of prison for drug and violence offences. He had little, self-done swastika tattoos on his hand - which he was pretty ashamed of by the time we knew him, having done them very young. I know of at least two people that he beat the shit out of during the time we were friends with him. One of them was a friend of who kept stealing from him - he shattered his cheek bone and orbital socket. Bizarrely they remained friends after that.
He was also very kind in his own way - funny, charming, self-aware. Also a drug dealer, drug addict and severely mentally ill. He could barely read, but had a sharp intelligence and philosophical bent. He was the product of an upbringing that included extreme violence, long periods of state care, and psychiatric treatment including ECT at the age of 14.
He was the most extreme example - but most of the people we hung out with were criminal in one way or another and there was violence. We were all unemployed and on benefits, trying to scrape by and pretty much distanced from the world of regular work and stability. Generally in an adversarial relationship with the job centre and other representatives of authority. Most of us took, and many sold drugs. There were at least two thieves in the group - shoplifting and burglary mainly.
But for me, they were just my mates. They were individuals, characters, human. I don't doubt to the police officers who encountered them, along with the various other authority figures who encountered them (and us) they were just faceless scrotes, druggies, benefits scroungers and thugs.
Apologies to Spexxvet. Apologies to all with that crazy ivory tower statement. I don't even remember posting it. That last sentence is really bizarre.
Saw this after I posted, sorry sarge.
Dana, you made a good point.
I'm biased too. Against all the Freddie Grays out there. And for them. Definitely. Spend some time, you know. I hoped for redemption for everyone.
The pawn shop never felt better than when the cops were visiting. Never felt worse than when a thug was selling a broken charm bracelet. Where, on one hand, you had to do the math of how much is this worth in 14k gold? And on the other hand, you had to do the math of how does this guy come to have a charm bracelet, and is it broken because it was literally ripped off some girl's arm?
I always made sure the thugs were paid shit, and they were too dumb to even know anyway; that's what I did for that community.
Apologies to Spexxvet. ...
Thanks, but not necessary.
Might you have meant to address Happy Monkey?
Apologies to Spexxvet. Apologies to all with that crazy ivory tower statement. I don't even remember posting it. That last sentence is really bizarre.
Apologies from me as well; I had looked up the definition of second degree assault in Maryland, and then misread it.
Folks, we've had some lively discussion. As much as I hate to admit it, I have looked at somethings in a different light. I probably won't change, but I do think about the points you have made.
Big Sarge, working in the public defenders office, I see so much crap. Mostly I'm tired of thieves. Get your own job and buy your own shit. I got jaded, after being a lifelong bleedin heart. So your points are understood.
"I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd. " -Jules Winnfield
Enforkment
The act of spearing a sausage with a fork.
The act of spearing a sausage with a fork.
Is that legal? 😏
Another care of some damn cop butting in and saving someone's life. :rolleyes:
Man, don't ya hate it when they get all lifesavey?
Just in case we forget what they deal with:
[YOUTUBE]LW-0XfLTCrA[/YOUTUBE]
Douglas County, Colorado deputy, btw.
Just in case we forget what they deal with:
[YOUTUBE]LW-0XfLTCrA[/YOUTUBE]
Douglas County, Colorado deputy, btw.
Listen to the changes in the deputy's voice from the first shot to the last sentence heard. That's stress!!!
That video is a perfect example of how watching a video on a pc and hitting the "k" key to pause and the "<" and ">" keys to go backwards and forward frame by frame is really a useful tool.
The driver was probably one of those who believes a person doesn't need a driver's license. They can be assertive.