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.

Chappie Jones? Harrumph, probably the spawn of some long haired Jesus freaks in a chartreuse microbus. :crone:
If you're an upstanding, god fearing patriot, doing nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.
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.




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.





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.

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.

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

It simply can't be explained by any modern trend or phenomenon of our time.

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

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.

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-bla...nsanely-viral/

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.

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.

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.

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.

Got to be the most wrong thing you've ever posted.

I never heard them say that. If that's what they want me to hear, then that's what they should say.
I'm not adding anything, They say black lives matter, that leaves me out.

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... 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.

Have you ever listened to them? They say it on every TV interview they do.
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?

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 Any less Than Anyone Else's
Black Lives Don't Matter Any less Than Anyone Else's
Black Lives Don't Matter Any less Than Anyone Else's
Black Lives Don't Matter Any less Than Anyone Else's
Black Lives Don't Matter Any less Than Anyone Else's
Black Lives Don't Matter Any less Than Anyone Else's
Black Lives Don't Matter Any less Than Anyone Else's

All soundbyte rhetoric. Which cops are doing their jobs and which are adults still acting like children?

Nope, don't even mention white, yellow, red, or plaid, at all.

Brilliant video.

Black lives don't matter any less than anyone else's.

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"

Bull shit. Inflammatory bull shit. Crap like this is what helps escalate the racial divide in our country.

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.
Whereas you discount the entire video after finding one way that you interpret the facts differently from Vi.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 any less than anyone else's.


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???????????

Read my post again. I did not intend to state both things were proven by video. 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.

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.

Vi did not claim a lynching, and video evidence did not prove anything, but it indirectly supports suicide.

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.

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.

Sarge, that's a lot of excusing and rationalizing you've done there.

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?

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.

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?