| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
bite someone in the junk during a drunken brawl you started by jumping someone alley who backed up their friend's decision to refuse to sleep with you? Paid vacation!That one needs time before its insanity. You can't realistically have cops getting suspended without pay every time something happens, making police TOO hesistant to use force is just as bad as having them use it too often.
except he wasn't on duty, was drunk, and assaulting a female who was refusing to have sex with him. He then proceeded to assault someone who tried to keep him from forcing himself on that woman. if that doesn't cost him his job, what should?
Lots of evidence here on this one, including...ah...saliva.
I would rather things proceed apace here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@TBone: You haven't given any indication that your alternative is any less stupid though.
I dont see how "don't chase and detain innocent people" is stupid. It does put the onus on the state to actually make a case against someone before removing their freedom (even for a short while.) I dont particularly care if that means that a slim percentage of additional crimes go unpunished. I am a fervent believer in the axiom, "let 10 guilty men go free to keep a single innocent man from having his freedom taken."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree with that axiom so much as I have a problem with a police force that can declare anything illegal and run anyone in for anything with no real consequences.
@TBone: You haven't given any indication that your alternative is any less stupid though.I dont see how "don't chase and detain innocent people" is stupid.
But you also don't see how "don't chase and detain guilty people" is stupid too.
You can't really prove guilt unless you have a suspect to charge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't really prove guilt unless you have a suspect to charge.
THIS line of reasoning is what is wrong with the police system in this country.
You shouldn't find a "suspect" and then try to prove them guilty. You should review evidence, THEN determine if that evidence indicates a suspect.
You can't really prove guilt unless you have a suspect to charge.THIS line of reasoning is what is wrong with the police system in this country.
You shouldn't find a "suspect" and then try to prove them guilty. You should review evidence, THEN determine if that evidence indicates a suspect.
Which is what happens. Then the suspect is detained for questioning. Then, potentially, is charged and taken to court, where he is proven guilty (or remains innocent).
Except you're against that second part. Which is an essential prerequisite for the third part.
You can't really prove guilt unless you have a suspect to charge.THIS line of reasoning is what is wrong with the police system in this country.
You shouldn't find a "suspect" and then try to prove them guilty. You should review evidence, THEN determine if that evidence indicates a suspect.
Which is what happens. Then the suspect is detained for questioning. Then, potentially, is charged and taken to court, where he is proven guilty (or remains innocent).
Except you're against that second part. Which is an essential prerequisite for the third part.
I just disagree that the only way to prove someone is guilty is to get them to confess (which someone is allowed to obstain from currently). You can collect evidence without having someone locked up in the mean time.
ALSO, you shouldn't get a suspect and then go about proving them guilty. You should collect evidence and go where it leads you.
You can't really prove guilt unless you have a suspect to charge.THIS line of reasoning is what is wrong with the police system in this country.
You shouldn't find a "suspect" and then try to prove them guilty. You should review evidence, THEN determine if that evidence indicates a suspect.
Which is what happens. Then the suspect is detained for questioning. Then, potentially, is charged and taken to court, where he is proven guilty (or remains innocent).
Except you're against that second part. Which is an essential prerequisite for the third part.
I just disagree that the only way to prove someone is guilty is to get them to confess (which someone is allowed to obstain from currently). You can collect evidence without having someone locked up in the mean time.
ALSO, you shouldn't get a suspect and then go about proving them guilty. You should collect evidence and go where it leads you.
But there's only so far evidence can lead you without actually talking to someone who might know what happened or was potentially involved. Evidence very rarely speaks for itself. It needs a context.
But there's only so far evidence can lead you without actually talking to someone who might know what happened or was potentially involved. Evidence very rarely speaks for itself. It needs a context.You can't really prove guilt unless you have a suspect to charge.THIS line of reasoning is what is wrong with the police system in this country.
You shouldn't find a "suspect" and then try to prove them guilty. You should review evidence, THEN determine if that evidence indicates a suspect.
Which is what happens. Then the suspect is detained for questioning. Then, potentially, is charged and taken to court, where he is proven guilty (or remains innocent).
Except you're against that second part. Which is an essential prerequisite for the third part.
I just disagree that the only way to prove someone is guilty is to get them to confess (which someone is allowed to obstain from currently). You can collect evidence without having someone locked up in the mean time.
ALSO, you shouldn't get a suspect and then go about proving them guilty. You should collect evidence and go where it leads you.
Then, as a public servant, cops should try politely asking people. If people don't want to talk to you, then they don't have to.
Also, we are way outside the context of beat cops again.
You can't really prove guilt unless you have a suspect to charge.THIS line of reasoning is what is wrong with the police system in this country.
You shouldn't find a "suspect" and then try to prove them guilty. You should review evidence, THEN determine if that evidence indicates a suspect.
Which is what happens. Then the suspect is detained for questioning. Then, potentially, is charged and taken to court, where he is proven guilty (or remains innocent).
Except you're against that second part. Which is an essential prerequisite for the third part.
I just disagree that the only way to prove someone is guilty is to get them to confess (which someone is allowed to obstain from currently). You can collect evidence without having someone locked up in the mean time.
ALSO, you shouldn't get a suspect and then go about proving them guilty. You should collect evidence and go where it leads you.
I would think that the first step should be to determine that a crime had actually been committed. Absent any knowledge that a crime has been committed then there should be no reason to start the process. However, once it has been determined that a crime has been committed then one can go gather evidence. If the evidence indicates that so and so is a suspect, then a warrant can be obtained for them. Otherwise one is left with a scenario where anybody can potentially be rounded up and interrogated for any reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But there's only so far evidence can lead you without actually talking to someone who might know what happened or was potentially involved. Evidence very rarely speaks for itself. It needs a context.You can't really prove guilt unless you have a suspect to charge.THIS line of reasoning is what is wrong with the police system in this country.
You shouldn't find a "suspect" and then try to prove them guilty. You should review evidence, THEN determine if that evidence indicates a suspect.
Which is what happens. Then the suspect is detained for questioning. Then, potentially, is charged and taken to court, where he is proven guilty (or remains innocent).
Except you're against that second part. Which is an essential prerequisite for the third part.
I just disagree that the only way to prove someone is guilty is to get them to confess (which someone is allowed to obstain from currently). You can collect evidence without having someone locked up in the mean time.
ALSO, you shouldn't get a suspect and then go about proving them guilty. You should collect evidence and go where it leads you.
Then, as a public servant, cops should try politely asking people. If people don't want to talk to you, then they don't have to.
Also, we are way outside the context of beat cops again.
So in your ideal world, the police have no authority and investigations are done solely at the whim of random people fully cooperating with the police?
I imagine many people would tell the police to politely go f@+% themselves just because they CAN, nevermind people who actually are involved in criminal activity reveling in their newfound ability to simply say "I don't wanna talk to you" and be immune to interrogation forever.
Its not a newfound ability. Its the law in the white parts of america. The cops need reasonable suspicion to detain you, even momentarily. You CAN tell the police to go perform anatomically impossible acts on themselves and leave.
Gun shots + running with gun is enough reason to detain. Running is a bit more questionable.
I think you missed the part where TBone wanted to throw out "reasonable suspicion" as a reason to detain and question someone.
I think you missed the part where TBone wanted to throw out "reasonable suspicion" as a reason to detain and question someone.
I see where you are coming from rynjin, but in my experience, the color of one's skin is enough to determine reasonable suspicion.
No, I'm not saying all cops are bigots. I'm saying that a lot of cops are tired.
Police work is a job that can make you jaded quickly. As a fellow public servant working with a specialized population, I know what the long hours, little pay, and general disrespect can do to someone. unlike myself, cops can't just punch a clock and call it a day (at least not where I live) and even the best cops get ground down after a while. So after a while, the us vs them attitude becomes a coping mechanism, and everyone starts to look like a suspect. After a long while, everyone doesn't just look like a suspect, they are a walking talking promotion/day off/raise, and you are going to look for ways to make work easier for yourself by interpreting the law in a way that gets you what you need to bring the finish line closer. Reasonable suspicion is the hammer in that tool box, and one I have been subjected to often.
Just clicked onto an NYPD Salary and Benefits page and it appears that they start out the door of Police Academy with a base pay of $44k and go up to $90somethingk within 5.5 years. (By comparison, La Principessa is in the $80k range after 15 years in the school system.)
Not making any larger point, just saying that doesn't strike me as "little pay."
Woops, that spinning badge confused me: both numbers are total compensation, not base pay.
Another woops (better drink some coffee), that doesn't include benefits. Anyway, there's the link.
Just clicked onto an NYPD Salary and Benefits page and it appears that they start out the door of Police Academy with a base pay of $44k and go up to $90somethingk within 5.5 years. (By comparison, La Principessa is in the $80k range after 15 years in the school system.)
Not making any larger point, just saying that doesn't strike me as "little pay."
Woops, that spinning badge confused me: both numbers are total compensation, not base pay.
Another woops (better drink some coffee), that doesn't include benefits. Anyway, there's the link.
a lot of that extra pay is heavily dependent on arrests and other activity, which is why I said people become walking talking promotions and raises.
I'm just saying that it isn't "little pay". Doubt any NYPD officers are moonlighting AND editing genre erotica to make ends meet.
Actually a lot of cops do moonlight. As far as I'm aware, no city provides patrol officers to places like liquor stores and bars. Uniformed officers are hired by the establishment in their off-hours to provide security. Because they wear their uniform they are still bound by all rules of the police department, but it isn't time paid by the city. I don't know how common this is everywhere, but here in south Minneapolis I see quite a few of them doing this, mostly liquor stores.
Actually a lot of cops do moonlight. As far as I'm aware, no city provides patrol officers to places like liquor stores and bars. Uniformed officers are hired by the establishment in their off-hours to provide security. Because they wear their uniform they are still bound by all rules of the police department, but it isn't time paid by the city. I don't know how common this is everywhere, but here in south Minneapolis I see quite a few of them doing this, mostly liquor stores.
some cops around here do, but they are not allowed to wear a uniform. most places just hire bouncers who work in private security.
I think you missed the part where TBone wanted to throw out "reasonable suspicion" as a reason to detain and question someone.
I think you missed the part where nobody has to talk to the police in the current system. Literally, nobody has to talk to the state short of being granted blanket immunity. Yet, people do it all the time.
Why is it you think that you *must* detain someone to ask them questions? Also, why is it in your head that everyone who has information is guilty? You seriously need to examine your belief system.
Actually a lot of cops do moonlight. As far as I'm aware, no city provides patrol officers to places like liquor stores and bars. Uniformed officers are hired by the establishment in their off-hours to provide security. Because they wear their uniform they are still bound by all rules of the police department, but it isn't time paid by the city. I don't know how common this is everywhere, but here in south Minneapolis I see quite a few of them doing this, mostly liquor stores.some cops around here do, but they are not allowed to wear a uniform. most places just hire bouncers who work in private security.
A bit old, but roughly half of the NYPD works private security on the side.
Counterpunch article on the NYPD Paid Detail Unit
I'm guessing the practice is still in place. NYPD forums, officers discussing details of how soon after joining the department you can start on paid detail and other questions someone has about it, in 2013.
There was a bill in the NY state assembly a couple years ago (after the Barney's and Macy's racial profiling news cycle in 2013) that would have put limitations and required greater reporting from the Paid Detail Unit, but it never passed as far as I can tell.
Yes, but do they also edit (proofread?) steampunk porn?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you missed the part where TBone wanted to throw out "reasonable suspicion" as a reason to detain and question someone.I think you missed the part where nobody has to talk to the police in the current system. Literally, nobody has to talk to the state short of being granted blanket immunity. Yet, people do it all the time.
Why is it you think that you *must* detain someone to ask them questions? Also, why is it in your head that everyone who has information is guilty? You seriously need to examine your belief system.
Because there has to be some sort of leverage. If there is no consequence for impeding an investigation, many people will just take the easier route.
As-is "get detained for 24 hours" is much harder than "Answer some simple god damn questions". Conversely "F@$& off" is much EASIER than "Answer some simple god damn questions".
And where did I say everyone who has information is guilty?
I just have very little faith in the inherent goodness of mankind. Most people will take the path of least resistance. Generally speaking, that means following the laws (at least the big important ones, because killing people and stealing things takes effort), and not going out of their way to help anyone they don't know.
If it's easier to just answer the police's questions? They'll answer the question. If not, and they have no vested interest in seeing the criminal caught (they were the victim, or were friends and family of the victim)...well then it gets iffy.
Remember that we're talking about "if the system was used properly" here. There's nothing wrong with there being a potential consequence for not cooperating with the police, even if in the grand scheme it's pretty much just an inconvenience.
It f#@~ing up when people get involved that like to twist things for their own interests doesn't make the system bad. Flawed, yes, but better than the presented alternatives.
I think you missed the part where TBone wanted to throw out "reasonable suspicion" as a reason to detain and question someone.I think you missed the part where nobody has to talk to the police in the current system. Literally, nobody has to talk to the state short of being granted blanket immunity. Yet, people do it all the time.
Why is it you think that you *must* detain someone to ask them questions? Also, why is it in your head that everyone who has information is guilty? You seriously need to examine your belief system.
Because there has to be some sort of leverage. If there is no consequence for impeding an investigation, many people will just take the easier route.
As-is "get detained for 24 hours" is much harder than "Answer some simple g#& d!!n questions". Conversely "F#*$ off" is much EASIER than "Answer some simple g+* d~&n questions".
And where did I say everyone who has information is guilty?
I just have very little faith in the inherent goodness of mankind. Most people will take the path of least resistance. Generally speaking, that means following the laws (at least the big important ones, because killing people and stealing things takes effort), and not going out of their way to help anyone they don't know.
If it's easier to just answer the police's questions? They'll answer the question. If not, and they have no vested interest in seeing the criminal caught (they were the victim, or were friends and family of the victim)...well then it gets iffy.
Remember that we're talking about "if the system was used properly" here. There's nothing wrong with there being a potential consequence for not cooperating with the police, even if in the grand scheme it's pretty much just an inconvenience.
It f+#!ing up when people get involved that like to twist things for their own interests doesn't make the system bad. Flawed, yes, but better than the presented alternatives.
I think getting evidence that attaches someone to a crime is a far better method than creating a dubious witness that you have already punished and are threatening with further punishment if they don't tell you what you want to hear.
we are supposed to be heading towards a more perfect union, not coming up with excuses for existing flaws.
I just have very little faith in the inherent goodness of mankind.
They why are you willing to trust the cops with increased power and authority to f%~+ with you?
They why are you willing to trust the cops with increased power and authority to f@*& with you?
I just have very little faith in the inherent goodness of mankind.
Who's talking about increased power and authority? At best, I've said not to reduce their power (at least in such a way as it doesn't impede their jobs), not to increase it.
There's no changes you can make that will stop people from abusing their power. You want to end police abuse and you're throwing around wishes that are never going to happen anyway, why not dream of the day that the abusers are actuall PUNISHED for their crimes like everyone else?
I mean as-is we have police officers caught on camera committing crimes and getting off scot-free. What's the point of changing a few regulations at the bottom in light of that?
That's not going to stop unless you start the change at the top somehow. Remove and replace the people who are just fine with the police getting away with shit because it either benefits them in some way, or doesn't bother them.
From a logical perspective that's why the protests make sense. It makes things inconvenient for people in charge if they have to settle down the populace every time some a**~@*@ kills a guy. And, in keeping with my theory that people are lazy, if it ever becomes more inconvenient to maintain good PR than it is to throw some officers under the bus, that's what'll start to happen.
Unfortunately, at least IMO, that's part of the reason why the riots are counter productive.
1.) You turn the rest of the populace (or large swathes of it) against you, especially the ones who are directly victimized.
2.) It's a hell of a lot easier to send in the Guard to spray water hoses at people rioting than it is to justify to your superiors and the general populace why you're sending in the guard to spray water hoses at peaceful protesters.
3.) It makes you a hypocrite.
Or, I could be pulling all this out of my ass. I never claimed to be a philosopher.
If there's nowhere to go but up you don't lose anything by rioting.
If there's nowhere to go but up you don't lose anything by rioting.
You don't really gain anything either. And you do, in many cases, lose the sympathy vote if nothing else.
It solidifies that whole Us vs Them thing, except other people start to think of themselves as "Us" in relation to the people who aren't "Them" (you) instead of the opposite.
It doesn't seem like the sympathy vote was doing them a whole lot of good... :(
Maybe, but it's generally better to have people "not on your side" than "actively against you".
Granted riots are generally more an emotional thing than a logic driven one, so I can understand the "F$+! you and the horse you rode in on" attitude from it, but I think it really is counter productive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is evidence that the riots ARE accomplishing something. Without them, it would be business as usual; another African American youth murdered by police, no notice at all by anyone except his immediate family/associates. After the riots, the whole country knows what happened yet again, especially following so soon after the unrest in Ferguson, for the same reason. Get enough of these riots back-to-back, in different cities, and at some point it will penetrate even the thickest of skulls that there is a real problem somewhere.
Cracked article on why they think cops go wild with the murdering. (or get away with it anyway.)
This thread is evidence that the riots ARE accomplishing something. Without them, it would be business as usual; another African American youth murdered by police, no notice at all by anyone except his immediate family/associates. After the riots, the whole country knows what happened yet again, especially following so soon after the unrest in Ferguson, for the same reason. Get enough of these riots back-to-back, in different cities, and at some point it will penetrate even the thickest of skulls that there is a real problem somewhere.
It seemed to be getting pretty solid coverage just from the protests already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is evidence that the riots ARE accomplishing something. Without them, it would be business as usual; another African American youth murdered by police, no notice at all by anyone except his immediate family/associates. After the riots, the whole country knows what happened yet again, especially following so soon after the unrest in Ferguson, for the same reason. Get enough of these riots back-to-back, in different cities, and at some point it will penetrate even the thickest of skulls that there is a real problem somewhere.It seemed to be getting pretty solid coverage just from the protests already.
They were getting shit coverage before the riots. Even after the riots, the coverage has been crap, but at least there.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, as usual, there are multiple interlocking problems, none of which are easy to solve.
(1) Easiest. The cultural attitude of, "The police are our enemy," is a vast contributor to the issue, yet is never addressed.
Back in the 1980's, I was a punk rocker. I had a black friend. We both suffered the, "You look different so we're going to stop you and question you every time you go out at night" syndrome. One evening, we were together when we were stopped. As usual, I answered all of the officers' questions politely and truthfully. I let them search my bag when they asked. They let us go in under 3 minutes. My black friend called B.S. and said if he'd been alone, they'd NEVER have let him go that easy. I told him, "Behave EXACTLY as I did, and see what happens."
Sure enough, the next week he came back to me, swearing up a storm. I asked, "So, what happened?"
"I got stopped again, and I did what you said."
"And?"
"It worked perfectly! They let me go after like 2 minutes!"
The only times I've had trouble with officers (held at gunpoint, handcuffed, detained more than 10 minutes) has been when one of my 'brilliant' friends insisted on his 'rights', and that 'you can't do that!' As I posted in another thread, get the badge number, get the name, document the events, and get home safely. THEN file the complaint. Don't start a confrontation on the streets at night when it's your word vs. the cops.
This was true in the 1980's, so I didn't address current issues. However, last weekend I was chaperoning a bunch of 14-year-olds at Great America and one of them ended up with a counterfeit $10 bill.
Again, I saw the same old, same old. The kids took a confrontational attitude with security. Security returned the attitude and started taking a threatening stance. I intervened, talked with security, and asked, "OK, so I assume your protocol is to do x, y, and z. How can I help get that moving so we can get this poor guy back to the park?"
Suddenly, everything flowed smoothly.
Cops are human beings with human flaws. Treat them as such, and you'll get a heck of a lot farther with them.
(2) Harder. Police are being given military equipment. Think of the psychology of this. If you're sent on a raid and you're told to wear your ordinary uniform, pistol and vest, you think, "Oh, this is just a run-of-the-mill criminal." If you're handed military-level body armor and assault weapons, you're going to think, "Oh, holy carp! We're dealing with some big nasties here! I'd better shoot first and ask questions later!"
Untrained police in military-level gear are going to kill innocent civilians. Period. It's basic psychology.
(3) Hardest. Police MUST be accountable for their actions.
This is the huge d**ned elephant in the room. I said in point #1, "Get their badge number and document their behavior." What good does that do if filing the complaint is useless?
Again back in the 1980's, a friend went to police academy. He saw abuses there. He reported them to Internal Affairs. The result? He's never held a job as an officer, because he's been blacklisted as a "tattletale".
Something has to be done. Officers MUST be accountable for their actions. And it isn't happening. This is what's fomenting riots, resentment, and fear of the police.
I don't have a solution. But I sure as heck know that if #3 is true, #1 will help keep you alive.
Am I making any point about Baltimore? I'm afraid not really. I see the protest organizer saying that it's OK to burn innocent businesses because (paraphrasing), "You can fix broken glass, but you can't bring a dead man back to life."
Poetic, but stupid. Why aim your violence at the innocent? As others have said, it's because there's so much rage that it MUST find an outlet, even an inappropriate one.
So I'm all ears. Any ideas as to how to make police accountable for their actions, so recording them and filing a report is actually effective?
So, as usual, there are multiple interlocking problems, none of which are easy to solve.
(1) Easiest. The cultural attitude of, "The police are our enemy," is a vast contributor to the issue, yet is never addressed.
Back in the 1980's, I was a punk rocker. I had a black friend. We both suffered the, "You look different so we're going to stop you and question you every time you go out at night" syndrome. One evening, we were together when we were stopped. As usual, I answered all of the officers' questions politely and truthfully. I let them search my bag when they asked. They let us go in under 3 minutes. My black friend called B.S. and said if he'd been alone, they'd NEVER have let him go that easy. I told him, "Behave EXACTLY as I did, and see what happens."
Sure enough, the next week he came back to me, swearing up a storm. I asked, "So, what happened?"
"I got stopped again, and I did what you said."
"And?"
"It worked perfectly! They let me go after like 2 minutes!"The only times I've had trouble with officers (held at gunpoint, handcuffed, detained more than 10 minutes) has been when one of my 'brilliant' friends insisted on his 'rights', and that 'you can't do that!' As I posted in another thread, get the badge number, get the name, document the events, and get home safely. THEN file the complaint. Don't start a confrontation on the streets at night when it's your word vs. the cops.
This was true in the 1980's, so I didn't address current issues. However, last weekend I was chaperoning a bunch of 14-year-olds at Great America and one of them ended up with a counterfeit $10 bill.
Again, I saw the same old, same old. The kids took a confrontational attitude with security. Security returned the attitude and started taking a threatening stance. I intervened, talked with security, and asked, "OK, so I assume your protocol is to do x, y, and z. How can I help get that moving so we can get this poor guy back to the park?"
Suddenly, everything flowed smoothly.Cops are human beings with...
Yeah, except that 1 results in cops abusing their authority on a regular basis with no check, cause your complaint will result in jack shit.
Maybe read his whole post before commenting because that is literally the entire point he makes as #3.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, as usual, there are multiple interlocking problems, none of which are easy to solve.
(1) Easiest. The cultural attitude of, "The police are our enemy," is a vast contributor to the issue, yet is never addressed.
Because when the police ARE your enemy, all the kind words coming out of your mouth don't do a damn bit of good. The police don't care. Sure, being kind and respectful is a good general attitude to take with everyone you meet, but it isn't the answer to a much more serious question. It might have worked for you and your friend, but it isn't a broad solution, and you shouldn't be required to suck-up and get searched to go through life. Respect is earned, you shouldn't be required to fake it.
Taking names and filing a report is nice, but is also not the answer. When I was arrested, for less then lawful reasons, it took OVER 10 YEARS to get small compensation. Again, not a valid solution. Without leverage, appealing to authority is usually a losing proposition.
The solution is to get cops to fear the same laws they make us fear. Hold police accountable with real consequences. No more collusion between prosecutor and police. I think there needs to be an equivalent of the MP that police the army.
EDIT: Another solution is to get police to admit there is a problem. I don't know how to do this exactly, but yesterday Bratton, the NYPD commissioner was complaining about "anti-police sentiment" with zero admission of the fact that in many cases it is based on totally valid complaints. You can't do bad work, then say that the only problem is how you are perceived.
EDIT1: Also, create some sort of community affairs officers who deal with homeless, mentally ill, and domestic disputes. These issues require specialists whose goal (resolution) is often different then the standard police practices.
Why aim your violence at the innocent? As others have said, it's because there's so much rage that it MUST find an outlet, even an inappropriate one.
Because all the police are busy protecting the white/rich neighborhood. When buildings are burned and looting occurs, it is because the police let is happen. They have more then enough resources and personal, they just don't have the will.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is evidence that the riots ARE accomplishing something. Without them, it would be business as usual; another African American youth murdered by police, no notice at all by anyone except his immediate family/associates. After the riots, the whole country knows what happened yet again, especially following so soon after the unrest in Ferguson, for the same reason. Get enough of these riots back-to-back, in different cities, and at some point it will penetrate even the thickest of skulls that there is a real problem somewhere.It seemed to be getting pretty solid coverage just from the protests already.
I hadn't heard a single thing about the protest in Baltimore until the riots. :/
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's nowhere to go but up you don't lose anything by rioting.You don't really gain anything either. And you do, in many cases, lose the sympathy vote if nothing else.
Its an issue now at least. The cops know they're getting caught on camera now. Body cams might become a thing. They know there will be blowback if someone dies on their watch and that has a good chance of leading to changes in behavior.
It solidifies that whole Us vs Them thing, except other people start to think of themselves as "Us" in relation to the people who aren't "Them" (you) instead of the opposite.
That IS how it is. The police ARE treating black people in america like the enemy. They are treating anyone that protests that fact as the enemy. Its a myth that just because you treat someone nicely they are going to change their own behavior.
|
|
Hi all, I was wondering what you all think of groups like the Tides Foundation and the George Soros foundation funding outside agitators to go into places like Baltimore and other places that are experiencing civil unrest/rioting often for good reasons and stiring up the locals
where the locals might wind down after blowing off some steam, instead keeping the locals at a fever pitch.
If we had a real DOJ they would investigate these groups just like they are investigating the Police in those cities. The DOJ also needs to investigate the local Pols in those cities as they are Responsible for setting the patterns and practices of the police departments in their cities.
I think of groups like that as...who?
(1) Easiest. The cultural attitude of, "The police are our enemy," is a vast contributor to the issue, yet is never addressed.
Back in the 1980's, I was a punk rocker. I had a black friend. We both suffered the, "You look different so we're going to stop you and question you every time you go out at night" syndrome.
Before you mock that cultural attitude, please consider this very important fact.
Your makeup comes off.
Rolling over and showing your belly to the police is one thing once in a while. Its entirely different when its a daily fact of life. Its harder not to be inconvenienced again, and again, and again and not build up some measure of resentment to make you say "enough is enough"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all, I was wondering what you all think of groups like the Tides Foundation and the George Soros foundation funding outside agitators to go into places like Baltimore and other places that are experiencing civil unrest/rioting often for good reasons and stiring up the locals where the locals might wind down after blowing off some steam, instead keeping the locals at a fever pitch.
As linked and evidenced above, the arrest records show that the idea that these are outside agitators stirring things up is a lie.
If we had a real DOJ they would investigate these groups just like they are investigating the Police in those cities. The DOJ also needs to investigate the local Pols in those cities as they are Responsible for setting the patterns and practices of the police departments in their cities.
If stirring up a tempest in a tea pot was a crime your favorite news channel would be serving multiple consecutive life sentences
Ah. More conspiracy nut stuff. Sounded like it but I didn't want to be rude.