snipUm, I'm not sure why you responded to something I never said. I was reaponding to Fergie's belief that veterans are dangerous crazy people ready to violently snap and kill us all.
Um, you did say it.
Saturday, 4:46pm (emphasis mine)
Correlation does not equal causation Fergie, and you haven't even shown that. Just as many, heck, more violent crimes have been committed by civilians.
Also, there are massive differences in kind between those three events that make linking them together ridiculous.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are losing the forest for the trees.
The problem isn't the specifics of Michael Browns case. The problem is that we should also be reviewing the details of 107 other killings in August. And the details of the 78 killings in September. And 53 killings in October.
That's 239 killings (including Michael Brown) just from August 1st to October 31st. Now, some of that includes suicides and not in the line of duty shootings, but it's a lot of cases to review.
While specifics of Michael Browns case may or may not be troubling, the real problem is the number of people killed and how few police receive even a slap on the wrist for their involvement.
Thinking of another solution: civil court. A good option would be to make it easier for people to sue the law enforcement agency (or it's controlling governmental body) for a wrongful death. It shouldn't be that ALL deaths should result in a successful lawsuit, but if the police can be shown to do something inappropriate (such as using a wrestling move that the police department has put in rules to against) that some level of responsibility is made clear. Putting that financial burden on the city/local government would increase the incentive of police departments to crack down on this behavior and work harder to prevent civilian deaths.
Officers who repeatedly cost a city millions of dollars probably aren't going to get promoted, which might help change the culture of law enforcement agencies.
The communities that are suffering these deaths need a form of recourse to feel like they get a chance at something that feels like justice. Changing the rules so that they have at least a fair chance of winning a case like this might be one way to do that.
Doesn't civil court, in this case, often require some kind of clear-cut evidence that a wrongdoing happened in order to get a conviction when suing police/cities/governments?
Or am I all wet on this one?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While you guys seem bogged down in race - The central core of the matter is why is it so acceptable for police in the US to kill so many Americans?
Why so many Americans?
You are at war with yourself...
From the Economist "British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period."
If you are interested, Comrade Dwarf, I think this book does a pretty good job of explaining why the rampant brutality of estadounidense police is rooted in race even when its victims are white:
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness
Here is a summary on ESPN of all places, but I haven't watched it yet, just saw it while I was googling: Why black folks can't breathe by Jason Whitlock
Mrs. Comrade, through the powers of the internet, has gotten into contact with a bunch of young black comrades in Chicago and I am supposed to give another class on The New Jim Crow in two weeks. Which is kinda weird, seeing as how New Hampshire is a 95% white state.
Finish the Civil War!
For black liberation through socialist revolution!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just taking race out of this - 1000's of US citizens are being killed each year by their own police. 1000s
Then you distract yourselves from the issue by going around in circles focusing on race and not on the death toll.
It's shocking - each one of you is 100 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than an English person.
Instead of arguing about the minutiae you should be talking to your politicians abot the numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They get away with it because of the reinforced racial divisions in the estadounidense working class, as these threads amply demonstrate over and over.
It's also why we don't have a Labo(u)r party.
Yeah. Read the whole thing again. I used those words but I did not say what you replied to.
You absolutely did. I not only read the whole thing, I quoted (above, not in my original message) your entire response to Fergie. The bolded part is exactly what I replied to. I don't get where you think you're being misquoted, taken out of context or whatever.
Just taking race out of this - 1000's of US citizens are being killed each year by their own police. 1000s
Then you distract yourselves from the issue by going around in circles focusing on race and not on the death toll.
It's shocking - each one of you is 100 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than an English person.
Instead of arguing about the minutiae you should be talking to your politicians abot the numbers.
This whole mess involving Ferguson... didn't we go through this same exact thing back in 1992 after what happened to Rodney King? And yet, the death toll from police taking lives was not affected one single bit. Nor, given what African Americans have to say, has the racism from police.
I find that interesting, personally.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
While you guys seem bogged down in race - The central core of the matter is why is it so acceptable for police in the US to kill so many Americans?
Why so many Americans?
You are at war with yourself...
From the Economist "British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period."
Just taking race out of this - 1000's of US citizens are being killed each year by their own police. 1000s
Then you distract yourselves from the issue by going around in circles focusing on race and not on the death toll.
It's shocking - each one of you is 100 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than an English person.
Instead of arguing about the minutiae you should be talking to your politicians abot the numbers.
The thing is, this isn't just an issue of shootings. It's an issue of the entire policing approach in America. That policing approach does have racial issues, such as the fact that it tends to be blacks stopped and frisked much moreso than whites. Blacks don't use more pot than whites, but blacks are WAY more likely to actually get arrested for it. Where I live, a white or Asian kid or light-skinned latino is caught with pot? Probably just gets it confiscated if he isn't selling. This is urban California. It's not that big a deal. A black kid? Not getting the same chance, because suddenly it's a problem that needs to be addressed because Broken Windows Theory, and every offense has to be slammed on. It's like having two totally different policing standards. Available data suggests a stop of a black man is 21 times more likely to end with him shot than a stop of a white man. Once you get into the justice system, that continues. A black man and a white man arrested for a first drug offense on the same substance? The black man often gets a harsher sentence. This is absolutely a problem that has a strong racial component.
I'm note sure how I feel about #CrimingWhileWhite (I've heard it said it's taking focus away from dehumanization of blacks to focus on whites doing dumb s%@# and getting away with it), but the tag has a point when it comes to fairness in policing. Here's some info, with stats:
Simply put, we're bogged down in race because we have gigantic racial problems in our policing methods.
My reasonings:
1. Some people are just jerks that want to have power so they can "use" it.
2. Working in a crappy field where you get to see the dregs of society day in and day out leads not just to burn out but to something even worse -- cynicism. That point where you just can't believe good of people. This leads to assumptions outside of what the actual circumstances might lead a reasonable person to think.
3. The pay isn't great. Don't get me wrong it's not minimum wage. But when you are supposed to be one of the upstanding (and kept to a higher standard) and people regularly treat you like crap and you get paid crap too... it's just not a good situation.
4. An "Us versus Them" attitude. On both sides of the divide. Dehumanization is a huge problem for people as a whole.
5. An easy solution and oversimplification of the outcome of using that 'easy solution'.
6. A lack of clear and direct leadership with outcomes for the force and individuals being directly tied to the actions of the individuals in question.
**************************************************************
Basically it's all the things military forces do their damnest to inoculate themselves from.
I'm not saying the police are a military force -- they are not. However any workforce can suffer from the same issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't civil court, in this case, often require some kind of clear-cut evidence that a wrongdoing happened in order to get a conviction when suing police/cities/governments?
Or am I all wet on this one?
Criminal case: beyond a reasonable doubt
Civil case: a preponderance of evidenceThe difference being that with a criminal case, the goal is for verdicts to be 100% certain. With a civil case, it need only be more likely that one thing happened instead of another.
A great example is OJ Simpson. He survived criminal court, because it couldn't be proved with absolute certainty that he committed the crime. On the other hand he lost when the families brought a civil suit against him, because it was found that he was most likely responsible for the deaths.
There are a couple of reasons why civil courts are more lax in their burden of proof.
1) The consequences tend to be monetary, which is generally regarded as less. You can't be sent to jail for a civil suit, nor can you be sentenced to death. Because the stakes are higher in a criminal court, you have more protections.
2) The judgement against you can vary by both the severity of your actions and the likelihood that you did it or were responsible for the outcome. If you are only partially responsible, you might need only pay a portion of the damages.
There are a lot of protections for government officials. For example you can't sue the President because he signed a law that cost you money. You can sue the government to fight the law, but you can't sue the individuals themselves.
I would envision these lawsuits being brought against the government agency responsible, not the individual. It would be up to the agency to determine internally how to handle disciplinary measures to prevent actions that cause them to be sued.
The other benefit is that it would fall outside the purview of the prosecutor's office, which would probably not play a major role in defending the city/state/etc from such lawsuits, other than being witnesses or processing evidence from law enforcement to the civil courts.
The thing is, this isn't just an issue of shootings. It's an issue of the entire policing approach in America. That policing approach does have racial issues, such as the fact that it tends to be blacks stopped and frisked much moreso than whites. Blacks don't use more pot than whites, but blacks are WAY more likely to actually get arrested for it. Where I live, a white or Asian kid or light-skinned latino is caught with pot? Probably just gets it confiscated if he isn't selling. This is urban California. It's not that big a deal. A black kid? Not getting the same chance, because suddenly it's a problem that needs to be addressed because Broken Windows Theory, and every offense has to be slammed on. It's like having two totally different policing standards. Available data suggests a stop of a black man is 21 times more likely to end with him shot than a stop of a white man. Once you get into the justice system, that continues. A black man and a white...
Woah, Mama Kelsey, I like the way you're developing! Influence of college, life, or your anti-slavery halfling paladin?
Either way, [hands Mama Kelsey a back issue of the paper and some leaflets]
Vive le Galt!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, as is, this method is woefully lacking in it's ability to achieve change in all but a few handful of cases. It would require strengthening and improved access for poor plaintiffs to truly start putting police supervisors in fear for their jobs.
Edit: and I'll agree with Kelsey, race is an integral part of this issue, as well as class.
This doesn't mean that all cops are racist, but rather that their daily interactions are deeply impacted by our countries history of race relations. Of course, some are also actually racists.
Woop woop!
Because I wasn't talking about police shootings vs civilian shootings. I was pointing out that Fergie's evidence for the his claim that military veterans are dangerous crazies waiting to snap was ridiculous.
My point was that Vets had a higher percentage of problems then the civilian population, and thus may needed special assistance merging back into civilian life. Most vets probably do just fine, have no issues, and everything is great, but that is not the case for all of them. Given their military training and experience, we have an obligation to help them.
It's all there in Rambo - First Blood.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes it feels like the cops in the US are being trained to be utterly sociopathic machines of war.
The way they can dehumanize their fellow human beings (as shown by the high death rates by cop) is rather baffling.
Doesn't civil court, in this case, often require some kind of clear-cut evidence that a wrongdoing happened in order to get a conviction when suing police/cities/governments?
Or am I all wet on this one?
Criminal case: beyond a reasonable doubt
Civil case: a preponderance of evidenceThe difference being that with a criminal case, the goal is for verdicts to be 100% certain. With a civil case, it need only be more likely that one thing happened instead of another.
A great example is OJ Simpson. He survived criminal court, because it couldn't be proved with absolute certainty that he committed the crime. On the other hand he lost when the families brought a civil suit against him, because it was found that he was most likely responsible for the deaths.
There are a couple of reasons why civil courts are more lax in their burden of proof.
1) The consequences tend to be monetary, which is generally regarded as less. You can't be sent to jail for a civil suit, nor can you be sentenced to death. Because the stakes are higher in a criminal court, you have more protections.
2) The judgement against you can vary by both the severity of your actions and the likelihood that you did it or were responsible for the outcome. If you are only partially responsible, you might need only pay a portion of the damages.There are a lot of protections for government officials. For example you can't sue the President because he signed a law that cost you money. You can sue the government to fight the law, but you can't sue the individuals themselves.
I would envision these lawsuits being brought against the government agency responsible, not the individual. It would be up to the agency to determine internally how to handle disciplinary measures to prevent actions that cause them to be sued.
The other benefit is that it would fall outside the purview of the prosecutor's office, which would probably not play a major role in defending the
This does happen. The NYPD has paid out millions in recent years for civil rights violations and excessive force cases. It doesn't seem to have any real long term effect. Generally the payouts come years later. The costs are passed on to the tax payers, which is particularly problematic in smaller, poorer areas, like Ferguson - especially ones that derive a good deal of their revenue from harassment, fines and penalties on the local population.
There may be a way to tighten the link so that departments actually respond to such suits but changing policies, but it doesn't seem to have happened so far.
In many cases there isn't even a demerit on the officer's record.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because I wasn't talking about police shootings vs civilian shootings. I was pointing out that Fergie's evidence for the his claim that military veterans are dangerous crazies waiting to snap was ridiculous.
My point was that Vets had a higher percentage of problems then the civilian population, and thus may needed special assistance merging back into civilian life. Most vets probably do just fine, have no issues, and everything is great, but that is not the case for all of them. Given their military training and experience, we have an obligation to help them.
It's all there in Rambo - First Blood.
* Facepalm.
Rambo? Seriously?
First, the name of the movie is First Blood. Second while it is a serious movie as opposed to the ridiculousness of 2 and 3 (and 4 depending on who you talk to), you should have used The Deer Hunter or Taxi Driver if you were really wanted to use a movie there.
I'm sorry to disagree. First blood did a good job of showing how vets are sometimes treated upon their return and what can sometimes happen as a result.
Yeah, all the praise they get when they go to war kinda gets forgotten when they come back crippled both physically and mentally.
It won't make the traumas go away. It also won't make you feel any less expendable, not to mention betrayed when you get tossed aside.
It's worth noting that in David Morrell's source novel, the veteran protagonist is shot to death at the end.
It's worth noting that in David Morrell's source novel, the veteran protagonist is shot to death at the end.To be fair, he was a lot less 'traumatized good guy' in the novel...
agreed. This is often forgotten.
I do wonder what would happen if the movie was closer to the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget, if they bleed on you after you've beaten them, you can charge them with destruction of government property.
I think that despite the amount of material that has come out, that still remains the single most messed up incident that I've heard of over there. Everything about it from beginning to end.
Don't forget, if they bleed on you after you've beaten them, you can charge them with destruction of government property.I think that despite the amount of material that has come out, that still remains the single most messed up incident that I've heard of over there. Everything about it from beginning to end.
I think the most disturbing thing about that case is that they were not charged with assault or perjury after admitting to both.
Even with all that said, there are some who defend the actions of those cops.
I find myself amazed that pointing out discrepancy of police action, in response to the racial component of the use of excessive and/or lethal force, is deemed unsuitable - yet flagging victim-blaming meets with remarkable amounts of laissez faire.
I suppose we have to settle for illustrating the culture that pervades.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find myself amazed that pointing out discrepancy of police action, in response to the racial component of the use of excessive and/or lethal force, is deemed unsuitable - yet flagging victim-blaming meets with remarkable amounts of laissez faire.
I suppose we have to settle for illustrating the culture that pervades.
If there's a flag/post you think we've overlooked or that we've made a mistake, please let us know by pinging our team at community@paizo.com. We're human here and the forums are fast paced and it's possible for us to miss posts on occasion (though we really try not to).
I find myself amazed that pointing out discrepancy of police action, in response to the racial component of the use of excessive and/or lethal force, is deemed unsuitable - yet flagging victim-blaming meets with remarkable amounts of laissez faire.
I suppose we have to settle for illustrating the culture that pervades.
A lot of times it has to do with the way things are said, and if it comes across as a directed insult at another person on the forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of times it has to do with the way things are said, and if it comes across as a directed insult at another person on the forum.I find myself amazed that pointing out discrepancy of police action, in response to the racial component of the use of excessive and/or lethal force, is deemed unsuitable - yet flagging victim-blaming meets with remarkable amounts of laissez faire.
I suppose we have to settle for illustrating the culture that pervades.
those cops should be fired.
I vehemently object to his earlier statement that "Vets ARE more dangerous and crazy then the general population," followed up by three random famous criminals who were veterans.That followed by his use of First Blood as evidence of anything makes it all very suspect.
Sorry to offend Krensky. I should have chosen my words more carefully, as I did NOT intend to say that all, most, or even the vast majority of vets are dangerous and crazy. My point was that vets are much more likely then the civilian population to suffer from addiction, PTSD and similar mental problems (as well as physical injuries). They are also likely to have trouble dealing with the phoneyness and tedium of modern life after being in a warzone. Vets are also trained in a way that makes them highly dangerous to the enemy, and if those skills are used in inappropriate situations, the results could be catastrophic.
I brought up First Blood to break the tension, but also because the ending scene is very apt to this discussion, and I thought Stallone did a great job of conveying the emotion of the scene.
" Trautman: You did everything to make this private war happen. You've done enough damage. This mission is over, Rambo. Do you understand me? This mission is over! Look at them out there! Look at them! If you won't end this now, they will kill you. Is that what you want? It's over Johnny. It's over!
Rambo: Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don't turn it off! It wasn't my war! You asked me, I didn't ask you! And I did what I had to do to win! But somebody wouldn't let us win! And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting. Calling me baby killer and all kinds of vile crap! Who are they to protest me? Who are they? Unless they've been me and been there and know what the hell they're yelling about!
Trautman: It was a bad time for everyone, Rambo. It's all in the past now.
Rambo: For *you*! For me civilian life is nothing! In the field we had a code of honor, you watch my back, I watch yours. Back here there's nothing!
Trautman: You're the last of an elite group, don't end it like this.
Rambo: Back there I could fly a gunship, I could drive a tank, I was in charge of million dollar equipment, back here I can't even hold a job *parking cars*
Civil case: a preponderance of evidence
(Highly educational comments removed to avoid wall-of-text)
Ah! Thank you!
Hopefully, such a solution would work if the number of lawsuits went up. Not certain it would; might have adverse affects due to sheer number and causing delays long enough to make any effort to seek justice impractical.
Which is at the exact same time as the UE rally. :(
|
It also helps that, in general, when the National Guard is deployed for civilian missions their weapons are not loaded.
When I was in an NG unit in Austin back in the college days (around the first Gulf War) we weren't even given the bolts for our rifles if we did protest duty. The rifle was just for show, we were to use our mere presence and charm to keep things chill.
|
Part of crowd/riot control and crowd dispersal is the uniform appearance of force with the idea that when the formation moves the crowd will break. The idea would be to break (or start to break) the crowd in the first 3 seconds due to: appearance, mask, color of armor, cadence, shock, intimidation, surprise, etc.
The guard serve a dual purpose that they are not directly from the region and that they of course operate on multiple levels as a cohesive unit vs. local police - which can be a mixed bag. LAPD = quasi/para - military operating and looking units, other places ...could look more like a mix of Barney Fife and Chief Wiggum from the Simpsons.
And as another fyi - the guard were given live ammo in the '92 LA riots. Not all the way through, but they did have ammo.
Using the threat of indiscrimate violence against civilians for political reasons... Hmmm, what is that called when it isnt the US doing it?