The problem is police in bad areas have a s*## job constantly dealing with criminals and angry people with little pay.Hagerstown is 76% white and 99% yuppie.
From the video it appears that at least three police cars, an ambulance, and a freakin' fire truck showed up... for a bicycle crash.
We aren't talking about the 'mean streets' here.
So no, the dangers of policing are not the problem. BAD policing is the problem.
also, this.
Something else happened here. Not sure what. But that isnt the response for a bike crash. At all.
It is the response for trying to leave the scene of an accident that you caused. Or may have caused. I've seen a biker intentionally ram himself into the side of my friend's car when we were carpooling home from work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared
Again, I point to a portion of the civilian populace who are for the most part UNARMED and have to worry about being murdered for no reason by the police. And a lack of empathy by the general population at large
for the murdered persons because of perceived affiliation with criminality because of skin color.Police may be stressed, tense and scared, but they are also armed and protected by not only each other but by general public opinion that they are justified in killing whoever they want as long as they are of a certain skin color.
I apologize if my words dismissed the victims' pain. It is not my intent
What I find very dangerous is scared people with weapons who feel justified in using them
Also I am not sure that general public opinion backs such killings. I am under the impression that the judicial system's response is a greater culprit here
I hope my words express my thoughts adequately. I feel very unsure as a non-native speaker about how people might understand them. Please point it out if I hurt people's feelings. It is really not my intent :-(
I didnt think that you were being dismissive at all nor did I intend to come across like that. Apologies.
It is the response for trying to leave the scene of an accident that you caused. Or may have caused. I've seen a biker intentionally ram himself into the side of my friend's car when we were carpooling home from work.The problem is police in bad areas have a s*## job constantly dealing with criminals and angry people with little pay.Hagerstown is 76% white and 99% yuppie.
From the video it appears that at least three police cars, an ambulance, and a freakin' fire truck showed up... for a bicycle crash.
We aren't talking about the 'mean streets' here.
So no, the dangers of policing are not the problem. BAD policing is the problem.
also, this.
Something else happened here. Not sure what. But that isnt the response for a bike crash. At all.
Again, it's that they were required by law to detain her.
People don't understand that sometimes, police are required to hold you, "For your own protection." Especially in situations involving minors.
The police in this situation followed the law by preventing her from leaving.
"Protecting" her? Not so much...
The easiest way to reconcile the situation is to imagine a 6'5", 300-pound linebacker who'd been involved in an accident and who was behaving erratically (refusing medical help, being belligerent towards police, etc.). The duty of the officers on the scene is to ensure that the man does not hurt himself and does not hurt others. They are also required to ensure he does not leave the scene in case he might cause damage elsewhere.
The problem arises when said belligerent linebacker refuses to stay put, and the police have to decide what level of force is "reasonable" to keep him in one place.
The problem goes up several orders of magnitude when it's not a linebacker, but a 100-pound girl, and the force used by police is obviously ludicrously excessive.
But the whole question of, "What crime did she commit?" is pointless, and distracting.
She did not have to commit a crime in order for police to have a legal obligation to detain her.
It's really that simple.
It is the response for trying to leave the scene of an accident that you caused. Or may have caused. I've seen a biker intentionally ram himself into the side of my friend's car when we were carpooling home from work.The problem is police in bad areas have a s*## job constantly dealing with criminals and angry people with little pay.Hagerstown is 76% white and 99% yuppie.
From the video it appears that at least three police cars, an ambulance, and a freakin' fire truck showed up... for a bicycle crash.
We aren't talking about the 'mean streets' here.
So no, the dangers of policing are not the problem. BAD policing is the problem.
also, this.
Something else happened here. Not sure what. But that isnt the response for a bike crash. At all.
Again, it's that they were required by law to detain her.
People don't understand that sometimes, police are required to hold you, "For your own protection." Especially in situations involving minors.
The police in this situation followed the law by preventing her from leaving.
"Protecting" her? Not so much...
The easiest way to reconcile the situation is to imagine a 6'5", 300-pound linebacker who'd been involved in an accident and who was behaving erratically (refusing medical help, being belligerent towards police, etc.). The duty of the officers on the scene is to ensure that the man does not hurt himself and does not hurt others. They are also required to ensure he does not leave the scene in case he might cause damage elsewhere.
The problem arises when said belligerent linebacker refuses to stay put, and the police have to decide what level of force is "reasonable" to keep him in one place.
The problem goes up several orders of magnitude when it's not a linebacker, but a 100-pound girl, and the force used by police is obviously ludicrously excessive.
But the whole question of, "What crime...
Except they are required by law to take her to a hospital, which they didn't do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A requirement to detain is not the question for me, its the activities taken after they had her in the car. The pepper spraying after the door was closed was beyond the pale of what anyone could call acceptable.
She wasn't even particularly combative.
I didn't say their behavior once they detained her was proper.
I just see a lot of questions centered around, "What right did they have to detain her in the first place?"
I'd like to move past that, because exactly as both of you (Caineach and Abraham Spalding) just said, their behavior AFTER they decided to detain her is what merits discussion (and, IMO, condemnation).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say their behavior once they detained her was proper.
I just see a lot of questions centered around, "What right did they have to detain her in the first place?"
I'd like to move past that, because exactly as both of you (Caineach and Abraham Spalding) just said, their behavior AFTER they decided to detain her is what merits discussion (and, IMO, condemnation).
Well I think the discussion certainly has room for questioning why the police felt she had to be detained as that certainly colors all further conversation about expectations from the police. This merely confirms if they were in the wrong from the start or not.
Added to this the fact that their stated cause fails in that their actions after that point do not meet the requirements placed upon them by that cause means their motives are suspect as well.
As such while their initial reasoning was sound the fact they failed to follow up on the obligations they saw for themselves followed by their actions against the person in question leads me to conclude not only did they do wrong by her but they also were negligent in their duty as well.
One or the other would be bad enough, but combined their treatment of the girl is well beyond the limits of what is acceptable.
So I guess I should have said:
A requirement to detain is not the question for me, its the activities taken after they had her in the car and the fact they failed in their stated duties towards the girl. The pepper spraying after the door was closed, and then failing in a duty they placed upon themselves willingly, is beyond the pale of what anyone could call acceptable
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, there's been all kinds of allegations of mistreatment at Gitmo.
Google search "Guantanamo" and "torture" and you'll find some articles.
Just so you know I'm not avoiding an unpleasantness; I accept that allegations have been raised and it is my hope and desire that the truth of these allegations is established and any wrongdoing is appropriately punished.
Well I think the discussion certainly has room for questioning why the police felt she had to be detained as that certainly colors all further conversation about expectations from the police. This merely confirms if they were in the wrong from the start or not.
Unfortunately, it's black-and-white here. "Minor in an accident = police MUST detain her."
They had no choice. She's a minor, so they are required by law to detain her.
There's no misconduct nor room for error here. Once the police arrive on a scene and discover a minor who has been in an accident, that minor is stuck with them until someone with authority to "take possession" of the minor arrives, or until they bring her to someone with that authority.
(In other words, their job is to either hand her over to her parents or take her to the hospital. That they failed at both is where the problems begin...)
One thing to note is that the girl was charged, along with some other charges, with marijuana possession. It is very likely that probably played into why she tried to get away from law enforcement. She may have ended up being charged with possession anyways if she had stayed and cooperated, and the police or EMTs ending up finding the drugs on her.
From watching the video it seemed like she simply wanted to get away; and things kind of escalated from there.Who knows how often someone flees from an officer or even chooses NOT to call the police after being the victim of a crime, because they are afraid that the real issue might end becoming the dime bag in their pocket or backpack?
The only thing that would change is that she was guilty of a crime from the getgo. But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Police may be stressed, tense and scared, but they are also armed and protected by not only each other but by general public opinion that they are justified in killing whoever they want as long as they are of a certain skin color.In fairness, US cops usually get away with murdering white people too. The big disparity is in how much more often they murder members of minority groups.
Basically... it's not just the racism. There's an element of fascist totalitarianism in there too.
More often, but not in larger numbers - not that 1,000 - 1,200 people/year being killed by the polizei is any excuse. Nor am I excusing anyone being killed in this manner.
According to this article the number of persons confirmed killed by race, so far in 2016, is staggering:
Out of 708 confirmed for 2016
- 173 African-American (24.4%)
- 325 white (45.9%)
- 111 Hispanic (15.7%)
- 27 'other'
- 72 'unknown' - just how do you not know the epidermal coloring of gunshot victims ... it isn't like that many of the bodies were incinerated afterwards by the shooting officers... (hopefully)...
There is also an inherent sexism in police shootings - most of the victims are male. 679 out of 708 (95.9%).
Last year was no picnic either. 990 deaths by police shooting, of which
- 258 African-American (26%)
- 494 white (49.9%)
- 172 Hispanic (17.4%)
- 66 'other'/undetermined
- 948 males (95.8%)
Jesus.
Minor aside, for the black lives matter movement demonstrators (there were some with a sign outside the gaming convention this weekend) is there the equivilant of honking your horn to show support?
27 'other'72 'unknown' - just how do you not know the epidermal coloring of gunshot victims ... it isn't like that many of the bodies were incinerated afterwards by the shooting officers... (hopefully)... I'd assume it's just that race wasn't reported in the sources they used to compile the report.
I'm thinking maybe of the races being easily confused to inexpert eyes as another possibility. Indians (Asia) are apparently often confused with Middle Eastern and so forth. One hopes that the forensics people would be able to have sussed this out in decent order though, especially for these particular victims.
Since there's no actual formal compilation of this data, they're pulling it from new stories and various other reports. Which is why I suspect it's more just not reported than actually couldn't be determined.I'm thinking maybe of the races being easily confused to inexpert eyes as another possibility. Indians (Asia) are apparently often confused with Middle Eastern and so forth. One hopes that the forensics people would be able to have sussed this out in decent order though, especially for these particular victims.27 'other'72 'unknown' - just how do you not know the epidermal coloring of gunshot victims ... it isn't like that many of the bodies were incinerated afterwards by the shooting officers... (hopefully)... I'd assume it's just that race wasn't reported in the sources they used to compile the report.
Makes sense. Thanks!
|
I agree with this, better pay means more competition which would give agencies more impetus to get rid of bad cops.The only thing you would get by increasing the salary of bad policemen is better paid bad policemen. The principles for how you should do such an important job are so central that if you are willing to ignore them because you aren't paid enough to care, more pay isn't going to make you follow them.You don't pay the bad cops, you fire them. With a high enough salary there will be a hundred guys lining up to take the spot. And with that big budget you can get them the training and equipment they need while holding them to a higher standard.
Well... in general I agree, but that's ignoring all of the issues with firing police officers due to their unions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is brownies help me get over my sadness.
Pepper spray doesn't.
173 African-American (24.4%)
325 white (45.9%)
111 Hispanic (15.7%)
27 'other'
Compared with the general population
African American 12.3 ~200% of their portion of the population.
White 75.1 = 60% of their portion of the population.
Hispanic 12.5 126% of their portion of the population.
This is very complicated though. African americans disproportionately live in urban areas with high concentrations of police and are disproportionately involved in the types of crimes you call the police for. It's very hard to tell how much of this is cops/americans are racist and how much is from increased interactions with the police.
But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.
Please clarify.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.Please clarify.
It's very simple if and when it comes out that the woman was trying to conceal drug posession by resisting police, that fact won't matter to the man who makes his living by raising a ruckus. Look up the Tiwana Brawley case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's very simple if and when it comes out that the woman was trying to conceal drug posession by resisting police, that fact won't matter to the man who makes his living by raising a ruckus. Look up the Tiwana Brawley case.But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.Please clarify.
So let me see if I'm understanding your point correctly.
You are justifying the treatment of this 15 year old girl who had just been in an accident, who may have been hurt and or in shock, afraid of the police. With a false accusation of rape and the ensuing bruhaha / fallout of that.
I'm asking flat out if the fact that she may have had a dime bag on her warranted her treatment at the hands of these officer, yes or no?
EDIT: has anyone even mentioned Al Sharpton in regards to any of these cases? Or is that just the usual alt-right response to everything involving black people and police brutality. Because I honestly havent heard a peep from Sharpton concerning any of these cases and I'm IN NYC.
It's very simple if and when it comes out that the woman was trying to conceal drug posession by resisting police, that fact won't matter to the man who makes his living by raising a ruckus. Look up the Tiwana Brawley case.But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.Please clarify.So let me see if I'm understanding your point correctly.
You are justifying the treatment of this 15 year old girl who had just been in an accident, who may have been hurt and or in shock, afraid of the police. With a false accusation of rape and the ensuing bruhaha / fallout of that.
I'm asking flat out if the fact that she may have had a dime bag on her warranted her treatment at the hands of these officer, yes or no?
Her treatment was justified by the fact that she was attempting to leave the scene of an accident she caused and was in defiance of the orders of a police officer. Her posession of contraband if true, only leads to background context. If a policeman gives you an order, you're supposed to obey.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Her treatment was justified by the fact that she was attempting to leave the scene of an accident she caused and was in defiance of the orders of a police officer. Her posession of contraband if true, only leads to background context. If a policeman gives you an order, you're supposed to obey.It's very simple if and when it comes out that the woman was trying to conceal drug posession by resisting police, that fact won't matter to the man who makes his living by raising a ruckus. Look up the Tiwana Brawley case.But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.Please clarify.So let me see if I'm understanding your point correctly.
You are justifying the treatment of this 15 year old girl who had just been in an accident, who may have been hurt and or in shock, afraid of the police. With a false accusation of rape and the ensuing bruhaha / fallout of that.
I'm asking flat out if the fact that she may have had a dime bag on her warranted her treatment at the hands of these officer, yes or no?
So by that logic they would have been justified in shooting her dead for resisting yes?
Here's the problem that I have with this scenario. She's just been in accident. She ran through an intersection and hit someone's car. Fine. Doesnt change the fact that she'd just been in an accident. The fact that she refused medical attention and just wanted to go home may or may not have had anything to do with the weed found on her. She just may have been in shock and SCARED and just wanted to go home. And the police are not a reassuring, de-escelating force they are to be feared and AVOIDED. So I'm sure that probably played a part in her frantic need to get away as well.
But I hear what youre saying, none of that other stuff matters. It's very black and white. Obey. and nothing bad will happen to you. Except THAT'S NOT TRUE either. Complying with the police will get you beaten or just as dead as if you would comply.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a policeman gives you an order, you're supposed to obey.
This is not true. It is not a law.
Well, she wasn't technically resisting arrest. She was just behaving so erratically that the poor armed police officers had no choice but to pepper-spray her to remove the symptoms of brain trauma, I guess?
If a policeman gives you an order, you're supposed to obey.This is not true. It is not a law.
They are the enforcers of the law, that's why they can do things such as put up barriers that read Police Line Do Not Cross.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was probably just an accident. I'm sure they were actually trying to pepper spray somebody else and just got her by mistake. That's a valid excuse now, right?
Sure.
Like this case where the police shot a black medical caregiver who was lying on his back with his empty hands straight up in the air.
It was all good though because they explained that they were actually trying to shoot the white autistic man who was playing with his toy truck nearby.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was probably just an accident. I'm sure they were actually trying to pepper spray somebody else and just got her by mistake. That's a valid excuse now, right?Sure.
Like this case where the police shot a black medical caregiver who was lying on his back with his empty hands straight up in the air.
It was all good though because they explained that they were actually trying to shoot the white autistic man who was playing with his toy truck nearby.
This time I read the banner, and it's from the Miami Herald, not the Onion! #thecomeback
They are the enforcers of the law, that's why they can do things such as put up barriers that read Police Line Do Not Cross.If a policeman gives you an order, you're supposed to obey.This is not true. It is not a law.
Can you cite the "Obey Police Officers" law? I don't think we have that law here in Oregon.
Police enforce the law. They don't make the law.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are the enforcers of the law, that's why they can do things such as put up barriers that read Police Line Do Not Cross.If a policeman gives you an order, you're supposed to obey.This is not true. It is not a law.
Key word. "Enforcer".
They have many powers when enforcing the law.
None when they are not.
If a police officer tells you to vacate your home so their buddies can party there, you do not have to comply. If they tell you to vacate your home so they can have a little poke around, see if you're hiding something, you do not have to comply. It's a warrant that gives them that power.
In this case, they had the power to detain. Their detainee is an injured teenager. Injured people don't tend to think straight. Teenagers don't tend to think straight. People who think they've done something wrong don't tend to think straight. People who are afraid (say, of people in blue suits who have a history, especially recently, of murdering people who look like you) don't tend to think straight.
An injured, afraid, teenager who was afraid she'd might have done something wrong, and was afraid of the people standing around her is not going to think straight.
So when she's a little uncooperative, I can understand being a little rough with her. The kid you're detaining won't quite sit where you can do your job, I can see getting a little shovey, a little grabby, tying them down, etc. It's regrettable, but you need to get them where you need to get them, because it's your job.
Using pepper spray on the kid is equivalent to poking them in the eyes repeatedly and then choking them until they stop moving. That's more than "a little rough", and being a police officer doesn't excuse you from committing child abuse.
But that won't play with the Al Sharpton crowd.
Al Sharpton a fine fellow! He has been standing up for civil rights for as long as I can remember, against serious and brutal opposition. I can't think of many other people who have been as dedicated as he has, for as many years.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are the enforcers of the law, that's why they can do things such as put up barriers that read Police Line Do Not Cross.If a policeman gives you an order, you're supposed to obey.This is not true. It is not a law.
As Sundakan notes, that doesn't mean they get to order people around outside the very narrow confines of their job. In short, people are very rarely obligated to obey them.
If the police haven't arrested you and order you to go with them, you basically don't have to listen. Now, as a purely practical matter, not listening isn't the best plan, but being a Police Officer, even an on-duty Police Officer trying to do your job, doesn't actually mean people have to obey you in all regards. At all.
That's not how the law works, nor how it should work. That's what's called a 'Police State' and is a seriously bad thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly for a very long time I was a believer in the "thin blue line" and as a concept I still believe it has merit and value.
However as a concept compared to the modern practice I have several worries in how it is being executed.
I pointed out before and I will again how it seems just having a weapon and being black is grounds for police to treat you as a hostile force. I do not see how the NRA can abide by that at all if they are honest in their mission.
We have people that will state as their sincerely held belief that merely disobeying a police officer is grounds for summary execution. This is not an exaggeration; the idea that a police officer is allowed to use lethal force in order to illicit compliance with his orders is giving him carte blanche to perform summary executions to those who offend him by not complying.
The fact that we as a society seem comfortable with the idea that someone can be arrested only for resisting arrest is unfathomable to me.
I cannot be punished in the military simply for existing. I cannot be ordered to confinement and restricted rations simply as a course of action.
I must confess it worries me that behavior that is unacceptable in a war zone seems to be acceptable for the defenders of the public.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brownies?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
A couple of cops brutalized a black child?
Color me surprised.[/sarcasm]
Anyway, I don't see why this thread has so many pages.
By the way, are you all familiar with acrostics?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I pointed out before and I will again how it seems just having a weapon and being black is grounds for police to treat you as a hostile force.
I think that "just having a weapon OR being black is grounds for police to treat you as a hostile force" is even MORE accurate and worrisome considering the number of unarmed black men and women who have been murdered by the police. Several people in this thread alone seem just fine with this mode of thought. A poster upthread even referred to this 15 year old girl as a WOMAN instead of what she actually is, a teenager and a minor. That's a way that makes it easier for people to criminalize her and feel justified in whatever treatment she receives from LE.
It's a commonplace tactic that's used especially in regards to black children. Reduce or eliminate empathy for black children by referring to them and treating them as adults, reduce empathy for black adults by thinking of them as sub human or in some case super human beasts.
It's definitely how LE and their supporters view black people in the US.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Brownies?
OMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOM.... *dribbles brownie crumbs all over the thread*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brownies?OMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOM.... *dribbles brownie crumbs all over the thread*
Sad...no more brownies....
Plus side, Happy Turin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brownies?OMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOM.... *dribbles brownie crumbs all over the thread*Sad...no more brownies....
Plus side, Happy Turin.
They're troll brownies (delicious baked good template). They regenerate from crumbs. Only total ingestion will finish them off. ... nummehz ...
Not troll brownies. I never use Troll. At least not as a food substitute...
They're troll brownies (delicious baked good template). They regenerate from crumbs. Only total ingestion will finish them off. ... nummehz ...Where can I get some of these? Eat most of them, let them regenerate, you've still got all your brownies!
You have to grind up forum trolls, but they're sooooo gooooood ...