*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

Hmm 2nd degree murder can be as a result of negligent or reckless behaviour, even if there's no intent to kill. Ok with that in mind, I can see how he's guilty of that too.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I didn't follow the trial. Trials are boring. I'm not familiar with the arguments made by either side.

I do remember those videos at the time, and that people on the sidewalk were shouting at Chauvin that he was killing Floyd, that Floyd was not struggling, and eventually that he was not responsive. I remember Chauvin grabbing his pepper spray and threatening those witnesses at the suggestion.

I was scared that our BS legal system that protects cops under all circumstances would let him go. So the fact that it didn't is a plus in an otherwise tragic tale.


Meanwhile, a lot has changed on paper, but it's not really clear if any of it will make a difference. Many states and cities passed laws regarding the use of choke holds by police, but many of those leave loop holes. Some efforts were made in a few places to provide protections for whistleblowers. But I'm still hearing about black people being killed by police fairly regularly. The recent 2 cops to do so were both "Oops. I thought I had my tazer in my hand, but I had my gun in my hand." Which... if that's your problem, you have no business holding either, IMO.

Anyway... I'm glad that a person caught murdering on many cameras was found guilty of murder. I'm still concerned that it took multiple cameras and a national outcry to affect that outcome.

[oskar]

His defence seemed to be that he didn't kill Floyd, the drugs did, which was torn apart by doctors. Weak as fuck defence.

The defense was embarrassing. Chauvin pleaded the 5th. The expert witness they dragged out was a white South African who sounded like they just had him change out of his Boer uniform seconds before taking the stand, and who was previously an expert witness in a strikingly similar case.
If you have a go-to guy for when your white cop murders an unarmed black man, maybe try to do better than a 70 year old white South African... incomprehensible decision, but then American cops are not known for their big brain moves.
They completely lost it when they filed a motion for mistrial because of something Maxine Waters said. You're basically telling the jury you know you're fucked and you're looking the get off through a technicality.

[oskar]

Hmm 2nd degree murder can be as a result of negligent or reckless behaviour, even if there's no intent to kill. Ok with that in mind, I can see how he's guilty of that too.

Very confusing because it's also different from state to state. Apparently in Minnesota it can be either.

[oskar]

I was scared that our BS legal system that protects cops under all circumstances would let him go. So the fact that it didn't is a plus in an otherwise tragic tale.

I did not expect guilty on all charges. iirc after the tapes came out officials were on the fence whether any charges were going to be brought against Chauvin, forget about murder charges. I don't think if at that point American patriots had failed to react appropriately by setting the country on fire, I don't think it would have ever ended the way it did.

I am hoping that this will bring a wave of police reform around the world.

[boost]

I didn't follow the trial. Trials are boring. I'm not familiar with the arguments made by either side.

I do remember those videos at the time, and that people on the sidewalk were shouting at Chauvin that he was killing Floyd, that Floyd was not struggling, and eventually that he was not responsive. I remember Chauvin grabbing his pepper spray and threatening those witnesses at the suggestion.

I was scared that our BS legal system that protects cops under all circumstances would let him go. So the fact that it didn't is a plus in an otherwise tragic tale.


Meanwhile, a lot has changed on paper, but it's not really clear if any of it will make a difference. Many states and cities passed laws regarding the use of choke holds by police, but many of those leave loop holes. Some efforts were made in a few places to provide protections for whistleblowers. But I'm still hearing about black people being killed by police fairly regularly. The recent 2 cops to do so were both "Oops. I thought I had my tazer in my hand, but I had my gun in my hand." Which... if that's your problem, you have no business holding either, IMO.

Anyway... I'm glad that a person caught murdering on many cameras was found guilty of murder. I'm still concerned that it took multiple cameras and a national outcry to affect that outcome.

On choke hold bans, check out Sam Harris' podcast Making Sense #246 with Rener Gracie. I'm pretty hard in the camp of "we've tried reform and additional training (increase police funding) time and again, and we just get more militarized thugs with badges" camp-- that said, while I think Harris is off on some points (the responsibility of the untrained public to behave adequately in the presence of an armed and trained agent of the state), or is weighting his values in a way I don't agree with (continuity and order vs the risk of drastic change), I think Harris and his guest, Gracie, make a very strong case that chokehold and other body restraint bans are a misstep that will have awful ramifications.

[Poopadoop]

I did not expect guilty on all charges.

Call me a cynic, but I did not expect guilty on ANY charges. I don't remember a white policeman ever being convicted of murdering a black suspect, even though it seems to happen on a fairly regular basis.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It was the first time in Minnesota that it happened.

I was relieved to hear the verdict, but FFS, a 13 yo black girl was killed by cops in the past week, and she was the one who called the cops in the first place.

That's on top of the 2 "Oops. Thought is was my tazer." shootings in the past month.

It's still a rate of about 1 black person killed by a cop every 3 days in the US over the past year, so it's not like a huge amount of progress is being made.


We need more (peaceful) protests. We need this to keep being raged at. We need to address the absolute shitstorm that is the US view on crime and punishment as a whole. The system is literally designed to strip the right to vote by black Americans by turning black culture into felony offenses. It's designed to keep poor people poor and to marginalize certain groups. It's designed to isolate those poor and marginalized people from the greater society and make it nearly impossible for them to re-enter.

I mean: What is it about Americans that makes us need to imprison such a vast swath of our people? Is it our freedom? Do we really believe in freedom? Do we?

[Poopadoop]

The US legal system is clearly broken.

[boost]

It was the first time in Minnesota that it happened.

I was relieved to hear the verdict, but FFS, a 13 yo black girl was killed by cops in the past week, and she was the one who called the cops in the first place.

That's on top of the 2 "Oops. Thought is was my tazer." shootings in the past month.

It's still a rate of about 1 black person killed by a cop every 3 days in the US over the past year, so it's not like a huge amount of progress is being made.


We need more (peaceful) protests. We need this to keep being raged at. We need to address the absolute shitstorm that is the US view on crime and punishment as a whole. The system is literally designed to strip the right to vote by black Americans by turning black culture into felony offenses. It's designed to keep poor people poor and to marginalize certain groups. It's designed to isolate those poor and marginalized people from the greater society and make it nearly impossible for them to re-enter.

I mean: What is it about Americans that makes us need to imprison such a vast swath of our people? Is it our freedom? Do we really believe in freedom? Do we?

I agree with the sentiment. Though I do think it's absurd (at least after the body cam video came out) for people to be treating Ma'khia Bryant's killing as equivalent to George Floyds. It for sure was an absolute tragedy. Part of the tragedy being that she was in fact the one who called police for help because she was allegedly being attacked by the other girls. On a systemic level, this is troubling and a sign that things need to change-- but that cop made a tough call in the moment, and I just don't see how anyone can understand what the word murder means and think that applies here.

Also I bolded her age-- I don't know if this is a cynical move on the part of people who want to embellish an anti cop narrative (as if there's a need for that..), but I've seen 12, 13, 14, 15, and her actual age, according to her foster mom, 16. In actuality a very young person lost their life, and that's terrible, but in the narrow reality of whether it was a justified shooting, calling her a child is disingenuous and an attempt to smear the cop as a child killer.

btw, I'm pretty fucking anti cop, but what this cop did is simply not the same as what Chauvin was just convicted of.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I didn't use the word murder.
I appreciate that you may be arguing against a sentiment in other public spaces that I did not put forth.
Just wanted to be clear that I'm not equating Chauvin's actions to other situations.

Well... I am insofar as police violence against blacks is a cultural problem that is not changing fast enough.


Sorry about getting Ma'khia Bryant's age wrong. I wasn't trying to make a point with the age, just trying to attach a minimal piece of information to convey the situation I'm talking about, but I didn't actually look into the facts; I just repeated what I'd heard.

[Poopadoop]

The "I thought it was my taser" defense strikes me as about equivalent to running someone over in your car then saying "I meant to put my foot on the brake instead of the gas." That's a pretty gigantic brain fart there. Not sure that would really be allowed to cut it as an excuse, either; pretty sure you'd be facing charges if that happened.

[oskar]

Call me a cynic, but I did not expect guilty on ANY charges. I don't remember a white policeman ever being convicted of murdering a black suspect, even though it seems to happen on a fairly regular basis.

It certainly helped that the defense faceplanted at every junction.

I know jurys arent supposed to watch the news, but it would have been hard to miss a number of police killings in the week leading up to the verdict. I imagine that might have helped as well.

It's not justice, this is no substitute for reform, but its nice to win one.

[oskar]

[Poopadoop]

It certainly helped that the defense faceplanted at every junction.

I know jurys arent supposed to watch the news, but it would have been hard to miss a number of police killings in the week leading up to the verdict. I imagine that might have helped as well.

It's not justice, this is no substitute for reform, but its nice to win one.

I suppose he couldn't really use the usual defense of saying "I thought my life was in danger, it was a split second decision, blah blah blah."

[boost]

I didn't use the word murder.
I appreciate that you may be arguing against a sentiment in other public spaces that I did not put forth.
Just wanted to be clear that I'm not equating Chauvin's actions to other situations.

Well... I am insofar as police violence against blacks is a cultural problem that is not changing fast enough.


Sorry about getting Ma'khia Bryant's age wrong. I wasn't trying to make a point with the age, just trying to attach a minimal piece of information to convey the situation I'm talking about, but I didn't actually look into the facts; I just repeated what I'd heard.

Yeah, I was just kinda using your post as a starting point-- I should have clarified that more.

And agreed, the institution of American policing is deeply sick. It's evolved to exacerbate the worst tendencies inherent in policing and minimize the best. This is what gets me onboard with "abolish" in the sense that starting from scratch is probably easier and possibly the only viable option.

[boost]

The "I thought it was my taser" defense strikes me as about equivalent to running someone over in your car then saying "I meant to put my foot on the brake instead of the gas." That's a pretty gigantic brain fart there. Not sure that would really be allowed to cut it as an excuse, either; pretty sure you'd be facing charges if that happened.

Well, this is why we have all different degrees of murder and manslaughter. It would appear that Kim Potter, the cop who shot Dante Wright, really did have a tragically consequential brain fart. When you think of the number of cops out there with a gun and a tazer, the number of interactions with the public these cops have, if we put our probability intuition caps on, it's not shocking that these errors would show up.

[Poopadoop]

Well, this is why we have all different degrees of murder and manslaughter. It would appear that Kim Potter, the cop who shot Dante Wright, really did have a tragically consequential brain fart. When you think of the number of cops out there with a gun and a tazer, the number of interactions with the public these cops have, if we put our probability intuition caps on, it's not shocking that these errors would show up.

Yup, I don't doubt it was inevitable any more than it's inevitable that if enough people drive cars that have a brake and gas pedal next to each other, some of them are going to press the wrong one at the wrong time.

A shame really, but should be easy to minimise the chance of it happening to a cop from an ergonomic pov. Just make the taser have a completely different grip, or colour it orange or w/e you need to do to make sure it's obvious to someone whether something their holding is a taser or a gun.

[spoonitnow]

Before I get into this, I should probably mention that I'm generally on the anti-cop side of the fence. I grew up in a very redneck environment out in the middle of nowhere in the Southeastern US, and probably 1/2-2/3 of the guys I grew up with and male members of my family had gotten into a fight with a cop at some point. That "thin blue line" shit doesn't really fly with me.

My thoughts on the whole thing, in no particular order:

• Derek Chauvin is a massive piece of shit. His history and the shit he's pulled is why people hate cops like they do. I'm glad that he's going to seemingly be locked up for a long time because the last thing he needs to be doing is carrying out his profession of being a cop.
• George Floyd was a massive piece of shit. While it's tragic that he died the way he did, and extrajudicial killings should absolutely not happen in an ideal world, society is probably better off with him dead.
• Nancy Pelosi is a fucking moron. "Thank you George Floyd for sacrificing your life for justice." I'm pretty sure he'd rather be alive you dumbfuck.
• There will be plenty of room for appeals, so this whole thing isn't over just yet. Maxine Waters didn't help the situation with her dumb shit (for international readers, this is absolutely grounds for a mistrial), but it's pretty much par for the course with her. Outside of that, this is still going to be a long, drawn-out ordeal.

On a somewhat related note, I very much support a complete and total overhaul of police training. In particular, I think they should be training a significant percentage of the hours they are paid for working each week. Moreover, I think the training involved to become a cop in the first place should be increased by a substantial amount.

Removing cops from the equation simply isn't going to work in the long run. The only option that leaves is reform.

[Poopadoop]

Nancy Pelosi is a fucking moron. "Thank you George Floyd for sacrificing your life for justice." I'm pretty sure he'd rather be alive you dumbfuck.

lol, that was my first thought too. What a stupid thing to say.

Maxine Waters didn't help the situation with her dumb shit (for international readers, this is absolutely grounds for a mistrial), but it's pretty much par for the course with her.

Before I go google what she did, I'ma take a wild guess it was something along the lines of publicly supporting a conviction while the trial was still going on. brb.

Edit: Yeah I figured. The bit about confronting the justice system if the verdict was not guilty was a nice touch.


For people who supposedly make a living out of knowing how to read a room, these two are really out to lunch.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I haven't heard any sensible person call for a removal of police. "Defund the police" is a bad catch phrase in that it leads people to assume "defund" is the same as "abolish." It's not (at least, not to any sensible person). The call is to redirect some funding from the police to create a new public service that addresses mental health issues - something police have been begging for for decades.

When someone calls 911 over a mental health issue, the police come. They don't want to do that, and people saying "defund the police" are simply calling for the change the police themselves have requested. The phrase just sucks.


***
I think it's worth your while to research the history of policing in America. Having an organized, permanent police force is a relatively new invention, and not a staple of human civilization, not even in the US.

I am not drawing or implying direct links from the origins of US policing and any currently alive police officer. I am encouraging everyone to actually look into the history of policing in the US, because the popular view that civilized people must have police is simply false. There are other reasons we need police in modern societies, and that's worth exploring. The fact that having a police force is not (in all cases) necessary to a functioning society is noteworthy.

And it's well worth exploring that perfectly non-racist police are enforcing blatantly racist laws - often unaware of the historical racism that put the laws in place. The people doing the work didn't choose the work itself. They chose to uphold an ideal of service to their community - in most cases.
My point is that reforming the police is kinda another "criminalize the symptoms while you spread the disease" approach. Yes, we need reform in our policing, but we also need dramatic reform on the laws behind the criminal justice system.

Why do we have so many of our own citizens in our own prisons? Is it that our freedom makes us criminals? Or is it that the laws are broken?
Are Americans just fundamentally more criminal than the rest of the people in the world? Wouldn't that be something to be ashamed of?

[spoonitnow]

The New York Times: Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/o...nd-police.html

[oskar]

Op-ed piece. The literal opposite of editorial.

I'd have no problem with abolishing the police. I don't think it's helpful as an agenda because it's just not going to happen. I'd take reform over nothing.

[Poopadoop]

Do you not think, on the balance, the police prevent far more crime than they cause? What is the idea behind abolishing them?

[oskar]

Do you not think, on the balance, the police prevent far more crime than they cause?

no

What is the idea behind abolishing them?

I'm not aware of any statistics that show that policing prevents crime. Police react to crime. It's like that joke: If there's no police and your house gets robbed, who's going to show up and shoot your dog?

Traffic cops: not real cops. Should be a different agency. Don't need to be armed.
Drug enforcement: not needed, not wanted. Just get rid of them.
Welfare checks/domestic/homeless/mental health: hire social workers.

Counter terrorism, homicide, organized crime: already a different department.

I think in some countries reform can work, but when I see shit like this:



This cannot be reformed.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The New York Times: Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/o...nd-police.html

I said "sensible."


I haven't heard of her or her organization until I read the article.
There's never going to be any widespread support for that position. It's simply not a sensible position.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think oscar made some good points, there.


I think it's good to ask if first responders need to be armed. Or if the first responders who are armed should be the ones in charge of the response.


But again, while I'm in favor of divesting some funding from the police to address issues that they have been begging us to address, I don't think that's the root of the problem. I think the root of the problem is that racist old assholes have confessed to the clever ways they've criminalized black culture and other counter cultures through insidious means. I think the root is that the systematic stripping of adult black men from their right to vote is intentional. I think the root is that when these assholes have publicly confessed to their racist motivations in penning these laws, the laws were not immediately scrubbed off the books - or ever.

Sure I'd guess that there are the same ratio of racist police as there are racist Americans overall. They're just people.
But that's not the real issue. The real issue is that whether or not the police are racist themselves, the laws they are made to enforce were designed to be insidiously racist.


I can see why police get immediately defensive when someone says all police are racist. I can see why someone might have life experiences that lead them to perceive all police as racists. I think there's everything to be gained in addressing that there's a reason for this dichotomy.

[spoonitnow]

lol...

[MadMojoMonkey]

lol at what?

[OngBonga]

lol at what?

Probably at this...

I think oscar made some good points, there.

I mean...

I'm not aware of any statistics that show that policing prevents crime.

It's kinda hard to believe someone needs statistics to understand that an active police force acts as a deterrent.

Traffic cops: not real cops. Should be a different agency. Don't need to be armed.

This is a reasonable position. But your traffic cops still need to be police, they still need to be under the authority of the state, as opposed a private agency. We can't have agents motivated by profit pulling people over for not indicating.

The argument that they don't need to be armed, I wish I agreed, but we're talking about USA here where every third person is armed. It's difficult to have any authority when you're clearly weaker.

Drug enforcement: not needed, not wanted. Just get rid of them.

Certainly drug laws need reforming big time, but even I don't think we can just allow anyone to manufacture and sell hard drugs. That would be incredibly dangerous. So there has to be laws against such business practise, and there has to be enforcement. I would agree you don't need a drug agency for this purpose, but you do need armed enforcement. Even in the UK, big drug busts will be done by armed cops, because drugs barons are more likely to be armed themselves.

Welfare checks/domestic/homeless/mental health: hire social workers.

Again, much more complex in a country with 40% gun ownership.

Counter terrorism, homicide, organized crime: already a different department.

These agencies are still police. I think what oskar is actually saying is abolish street cops, which might be a more reasonable argument. But without street cops, there will be an increase in street crime, as people think they have a greater chance of getting away with their crimes.

Armed cops should be thoroughly trained. If you can't tell the difference between a taser and a gun, you're not qualified to use either. Cops should also be regularly vetted to ensure they are mentally stable, and doing their job responsibly. If they aren't up to the job, either find a different role for them or fire them, and replace them with someone who is fit for the job. People entrusted by the state to uphold law by armed force should be extremely disciplined, and be of the highest moral standard. Currently they are not. That's the problem.

[spoonitnow]

lol at what?

It's just cute. There's a reason people shouldn't ask fish for advice about fishing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's just cute. There's a reason people shouldn't ask fish for advice about fishing.

Are you saying that the laws aren't racist, but Black people (and other marginalized groups) just keep saying the laws are racist?
'Cause if you are, that's a problem that can be solved.

There are many ex-politicians and political advisors who have openly confessed that they knew they couldn't directly criminalize being black, so they criminalized black culture. There are people who have admitted that the laws they passed were designed to systematically strip the right to vote from adult black men.

The list of actual conspiracies that have been openly admitted to on this topic is appalling. These laws are still on the books. The people who wrote them admitted they were designed to persecute American citizens, and the laws are still on the books. It's intentional and it's systemic.

[oskar]

It's kinda hard to believe someone needs statistics to understand that an active police force acts as a deterrent.

If that were so, you'd think crime statistics would support that, but they don't. Time and time again an increase in policing does not lead to a reduction in crime and a reduction in policing does not lead to an increase in crime

Certainly drug laws need reforming big time, but even I don't think we can just allow anyone to manufacture and sell hard drugs.

A number of countries have drug testing places where you can go in and check the purity of what you have and get clean needles. This already helps to reduce the worst side effects of drug use. From there it's not a giant step to supply drugs legally, disrupting the supply chain of illegal drugs.

These agencies are still police. I think what oskar is actually saying is abolish street cops, which might be a more reasonable argument. But without street cops, there will be an increase in street crime, as people think they have a greater chance of getting away with their crimes.

https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%...ad15772e01.pdf

This is a case study where an increase in police presence has lead to a decrease in crime... at the exact location of the police presence, proving that criminals are people with eyes and a brain who will do crime where police is currently not present.
Unless you can cast a net of total police presence, policing is not a cost effective way to deal with crime.

I agree with the rest.

[Poopadoop]

How often as you go about your daily life do you run into a cop?

Now let's say you're a burglar. Do you worry about a cop walking into the backyard of a place you're trying to break into? I'm guessing not, you worry about a neighbor seeing you and calling the cops. So what good is the cop on the beat?

Sure, if there was a cop walking down every street it'd be a deterrent to crime. But there isn't and there can't be. So yeah patrolling cops are a waste; mostly they just harrass people who they think look "suspicious."

Also agree there's countries that legalized drugs and crime went down, not up. Portugal and Netherlands come to mind.

[Poopadoop]

Basically, people are going to do drugs whether they're legal or not. It's not like a country legalizes a drug and suddenly it's full of addicts.

Also worth noting the opiod crisis in America was fuelled by prescription narcotics. It became (more) dangerous when people went out on the streets to buy illegal drugs, 'cause there's no way of knowing what you're getting until you wake up the next morning or not.

[OngBonga]

If that were so, you'd think crime statistics would support that, but they don't. Time and time again an increase in policing does not lead to a reduction in crime and a reduction in policing does not lead to an increase in crime

This isn't much of a surprise, but we're not talking about reducing policing here, we're talking about abolishing it. I'd counter that if there is no policing at all, crime will inevitably go up. Who are the supermarkets going to call when some thieving little bastard robs some gin? Feds? Who's going to go and deal with twats fighting outside a pub? SWAT? You need goons.

A number of countries have drug testing places where you can go in and check the purity of what you have...

This is great but you still need to regulate the market, and you need to enforce regulation.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's kinda hard to believe someone needs statistics to understand that an active police force acts as a deterrent.

There have been many studies that show increasing policing has no effect on overall crime rates. Others show increasing punishments for crimes has no statistically significant effect on the rate of those crimes being committed.

It's one of the reasons I encourage people to investigate the history of policing (specifically in the US, but around the world). The notion that a society needs a standing police force is a relatively recent human invention. Throughout most of human history, people lived in societies without police forces. This was a surprise to me when I learned it last summer, and it's spurred a lot of thought on my end about what the actual purpose of a police force is - both in intent and realization - and what it could or should be.

I'm not claiming to have any answers about what a "perfect" police force would look like, but many assumptions about what role it actually fills in our society are simply false. The presence of police, on the whole, does not have any effect on crime rates. The severity of legal consequence for a crime has little to no bearing on someone's willingness to commit that crime.

Given that the police are paid with tax money, and that the primary functions we all assume they perform are false, I think it's appropriate to consider that we are not getting what we think we're paying for. I think it's important to question whether the effect we're trying to buy is in fact even viable, given human nature.

[OngBonga]

Now let's say you're a burglar. Do you worry about a cop walking into the backyard of a place you're trying to break into? I'm guessing not, you worry about a neighbor seeing you and calling the cops. So what good is the cop on the beat?

They're first respondents. You want them spread around the city, not all hanging around at the station playing snooker or whatever they do in USA. And yes, they have snooker tables at police stations in England, I played on one once during an identity parade which I didn't take part in but still got paid for. Best half an hour of work I ever did. I digress. Regular cops when on duty can either be sat around doing fuck all, or patrolling the city. The latter seems better to me. They're primed for response, and act as a visual reminder to people that the police exist.

[OngBonga]

There have been many studies that show increasing policing has no effect on overall crime rates.

Like I said to oskar, we're not talking about reducing police here, we're talking about abolishing. Are there any case studies where the police completely disappeared off the streets and crime did not go up? That's what we're looking at here. An increase or decrease having no effect doesn't tell us if the police presence itself is important, it only tells us that it's not linear.

[OngBonga]

It's one of the reasons I encourage people to investigate the history of policing (specifically in the US, but around the world). The notion that a society needs a standing police force is a relatively recent human invention.

Sure, as populations expand, and with it things like poverty and crime.

The notion that a society needs a standing police force is a relatively recent human invention.

As populations increased, relative poverty and the crime that comes with it become more prevalent. Considering human nature, I think it's an improvement to enforce law and order.

The severity of legal consequence for a crime has little to no bearing on someone's willingness to commit that crime.

I mean this is crazy. I can tell you what stops me turning my house into a weed factory... the threat of going to prison for it. Also the threat of being robbed by horrible bastards who might cut me up. But mostly fear of prison.

Consequences act as a deterrent for the vast majority of people. Nobody is perfect, pretty much everyone is capable of some kind of petty crime. Most people don't want to get caught and face the consequences. Even those that give no fucks still don't want to get caught.

Given that the police are paid with tax money, and that the primary functions we all assume they perform are false, I think it's appropriate to consider that we are not getting what we think we're paying for.

I have no argument against this sentiment. I just fear that abolishing the police would lead to a breakdown in law and order.

I think it's important to question whether the effect we're trying to buy is in fact even viable, given human nature.

Left to our own devices, humans are assholes. We kill, rape, torture, steal, we do war, ethnic cleansing, genocide, holocaust, nuclear weapons, apartheid, even human sacrifice, satanic death cults, the depravity is endless. This is human nature. This is why, despite considering myself an anarchist because I pretty much reject authority in my own life, I fear anarchism and am glad that authority exists. It's a strange ideological place to be.

No police is a step towards anarchism. Are you ready for that? Oskar probably is.

[CoccoBill]

Consequences act as a deterrent for the vast majority of people. Nobody is perfect, pretty much everyone is capable of some kind of petty crime. Most people don't want to get caught and face the consequences. Even those that give no fucks still don't want to get caught.

The last part is correct. Harsher sentencing doesn't reduce crime, criminals gonna criminal. Most of them don't do it for fun, it's what they see as their best or only option. Severe punishments create more violent crimes, because the criminals risk losing more if they get caught. It makes sense to do less but bigger heists, and using violence or the threat of it has a lower threshold, because you're possibly risking life in prison or a poison needle. Harsher sentencing creates more dedicated and dangerous criminals, who are willing to go further to not get caught.

[spoonitnow]

I see a lot of people never learned about elastic vs inelastic ranges here.

[spoonitnow]

This isn't much of a surprise, but we're not talking about reducing policing here, we're talking about abolishing it.

I'm glad someone gets it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Like I said to oskar, we're not talking about reducing police here, we're talking about abolishing.

No, I'm not. I'm not talking about irrational nonsense that will never happen. I am saying that the assumption that people need police to have law and order is factually not born out by any view of the history of jurisprudence.

I'm talking about the facts I've learned after a year of research into these topics. I'm asking questions about what the problems are - on multiple levels of governance - and encouraging others to stop just answering questions based on gut feelings and to look at the wealth of research into these topics.

I looked into my assumptions (which were in line with yours) and I was surprised to find that not only is there research, there's a wealth of compelling research that indicates I was and you are wrong about things.

Sure, as populations expand, and with it things like poverty and crime.

No, not for those reasons. The notion that a standing police force is a "normal" thing that people need in order to live in a lawful society is only about 150-ish years old. Humans have lived in civilized societies supporting tens of thousands of people for many thousands of years.

As populations increased, relative poverty and the crime that comes with it become more prevalent. Considering human nature, I think it's an improvement to enforce law and order.

You'd think, but no. It's not as if poverty or crime are inventions of the last 200 years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of law and order, but there's a modern view that either you have police and law and order or you have no police and no law and no order, but historically, it just doesn't bear out that way.

I mean this is crazy. I can tell you what stops me turning my house into a weed factory... the threat of going to prison for it. Also the threat of being robbed by horrible bastards who might cut me up. But mostly fear of prison.

Consequences act as a deterrent for the vast majority of people. Nobody is perfect, pretty much everyone is capable of some kind of petty crime. Most people don't want to get caught and face the consequences. Even those that give no fucks still don't want to get caught.

The thing about you saying the punishment deters you from growing weed in your home is that... you didn't specify the length of prison sentence which deters you. The mere presence of a prison sentence is enough. It doesn't matter if it's 1 year or 5 years or whatever, any prison sentence is enough to deter you.

I'd guess that if the standards and punishments in our society were different, then you'd find another excuse to follow the rules. (Kinda like it's not only the threat of prison, but also the threat that you would not have the usual legal support if another criminal robbed you.)

Because you're not a hardened criminal, you will find a reason to not commit crimes. Because you are not an asshole, you will find reasons to not treat people you meet like shit. This is what psychology indicates. Honest people find reasons to be honest. Dishonest people find reasons to be dishonest. Criminals find reasons to criminal and the rest of us find reasons to not criminal.

I have no argument against this sentiment. I just fear that abolishing the police would lead to a breakdown in law and order.

That's your response to this,
"Given that the police are paid with tax money, and that the primary functions we all assume they perform are false, I think it's appropriate to consider that we are not getting what we think we're paying for."
?

Your response to the suggestion that we consider the actual cost-benefit analysis of a government program is that you're afraid that you might conclude to abolish that program - which makes you uncomfortable, so you'd rather not even look at it?

What?

...

What?

Left to our own devices, humans are assholes. We kill, rape, torture, steal, we do war, ethnic cleansing, genocide, holocaust, nuclear weapons, apartheid, even human sacrifice, satanic death cults, the depravity is endless. This is human nature. This is why, despite considering myself an anarchist because I pretty much reject authority in my own life, I fear anarchism and am glad that authority exists. It's a strange ideological place to be.

No police is a step towards anarchism. Are you ready for that? Oskar probably is.

Sure, but left to our own devices, we also form loving families, build community works and projects, create monuments and amazing works of art, build cities and mass infrastructure to allow more of us to do more with our lives.

Humans are complicated. We're a lot of things. We were not simply savages with no love when we lived in a time before police. There were other consequences to not having police. I'm not suggesting there is no benefit. I'm merely suggesting that the benefit that is most widely assumed by the vast majority of people is very conclusively false. The benefit we think we get, we do not get. That is the fact. So, I'm asking, "what benefits do we get for the cost?" I'm not asking it ironicaly or hypothetically. I'm asking it for real.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm glad someone gets it.

Sidestepping the conversation because the nuclear option is stupid is intellectually bereft, man.

[Poopadoop]

Regular cops when on duty can either be sat around doing fuck all, or patrolling the city. The latter seems better to me.

Either way they're doing fuck all until someone calls them, or they happen ass-backwards onto a crime taking place (which practically never happens).

Why pay someone to walk or drive around aimlessly? I'm sure you would need a lot fewer police if none of them were busy patrolling.

They're primed for response

What do you mean "primed?" Are cops only ready to act if they're out in a patrol car or wandering around the streets? When a cop shows up at the station in the morning is he/she not primed yet? That only happens when they start their patrol?

and act as a visual reminder to people that the police exist.

Everyone knows the police exist. I don't go a few days without seeing a cop and think "oh gee I wonder if they dissolved the police and didn't tell anyone?" And, if I only ever saw a cop car when it was going somewhere with its lights on or parked somewhere answering a call, I'd feel just as safe as the status quo, where most of the time I see one it's a couple of cops wandering around aimlessly.

[OngBonga]

No, I'm not. I'm not talking about irrational nonsense that will never happen.

Well we're talking about different things then. I don't expect the police to be abolished, but oskar has basically suggested he supports it. So it's a discussion.

I am saying that the assumption that people need police to have law and order is factually not born out by any view of the history of jurisprudence.

I don't doubt it. Let me ask... do you think society is better today than it was 1000 years ago? Do you think that enforcing law and order on the street plays an important role in shaping our society into one where we are, for the most part, safe? Do you think without enforcement, we would be as safe as we are?

I looked into my assumptions (which were in line with yours) and I was surprised to find that not only is there research, there's a wealth of compelling research that indicates I was and you are wrong about things.

I don't doubt I'm wrong about things, and I'm not bothered enough about that to research something that only interests me enough to talk about.

No, not for those reasons. The notion that a standing police force is a "normal" thing that people need in order to live in a lawful society is only about 150-ish years old. Humans have lived in civilized societies supporting tens of thousands of people for many thousands of years.

Poverty plays a role. There are more people living in poverty today than existed in the world 150 years ago. I haven't fact checked that but I'd put serious money on that statement. But you're right, it's not for those reasons alone. There are countless reasons.

You'd think, but no. It's not as if poverty or crime are inventions of the last 200 years.

Of course not, it's just more of a problem as population increases. There are so many things that are different compared to 200 years ago that we can't even look back that near into our history to compare civilisations. Just having access to a vehicle makes it a great deal easier to commit crime. Also guns. Computers and technology. Crime evolves as we evolve.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of law and order, but there's a modern view that either you have police and law and order or you have no police and no law and no order, but historically, it just doesn't bear out that way.

I'm not disputing this. I'm saying you can't use this as evidence that we don't need police today in our society. I think we've reached a point where law and order does need to be enforced.

The thing about you saying the punishment deters you from growing weed in your home is that... you didn't specify the length of prison sentence which deters you. The mere presence of a prison sentence is enough. It doesn't matter if it's 1 year or 5 years or whatever, any prison sentence is enough to deter you.

Kind of. If I knew I could get away with three months in a low security prison with fraudsters and thieves then that wouldn't concern me as much as doing six months plus with nonces and terrorists. But yeah, prison for any length of time is a deterrent.

I'd guess that if the standards and punishments in our society were different, then you'd find another excuse to follow the rules.

I doubt it.

I mean, I've grown weed before. Living with the constant paranoia is not easy. You're worried about the neighbours catching a smell, the landlord paying a visit, you're curtain twitching when you hear a car. I doubt I'd even go to prison for a first offence, based on the scale I worked at. But I don't just have that to worry about. I have eviction too, and there's a constant fire risk when you're using that much electricity. The threat of prison isn't all that stops me. But if I was certain that I could get away with it, then of course I would grow.

Because you're not a hardened criminal, you will find a reason to not commit crimes.

I don't see growing weed as committing a crime. I know it is, but it doesn't feel like it because it's not something I consider to be immoral. For the most part, my morals correlate with law, that's why I'm not a hardened criminal. It's not due to respect of law, it's because I haven't got the balls to rob a bank, and haven't got the heart to rob an individual.

Your response to the suggestion that we consider the actual cost-benefit analysis of a government program is that you're afraid that you might conclude to abolish that program - which makes you uncomfortable, so you'd rather not even look at it?

I'm still arguing that we shouldn't abolish the police. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't reform the police, or reconsider their budget and what value we get from it.

Humans are complicated. We're a lot of things. We were not simply savages with no love when we lived in a time before police.

Of course we're not. But it only takes a few bad people to turn our society into one that isn't a nice place to live. Our western societies are wonderfully safe compared to some places in the world. I don't really want to fuck with that.

I'm merely suggesting that the benefit that is most widely assumed by the vast majority of people is very conclusively false. The benefit we think we get, we do not get. That is the fact. So, I'm asking, "what benefits do we get for the cost?" I'm not asking it ironicaly or hypothetically. I'm asking it for real.

I don't think it is conclusively false. You're making this determination based on incomparable times in history. Before police, there were other mechanisms in place to maintain law and order. Lynch mobs (lol), kingsmen, historically people tend to be bonded by common religion and so sinners become outcasts, banned from the church, shunned by the community. There were still consequences to being an asshole. These consequences aren't so relevant today, in modern society. People aren't going to be deterred by that.

The benefit we get from the police is law and order. Does every society need it? Probably not, but I sincerely believe my society does, and yours too. Without it, serious social crime like burglary will increase, and petty crime like shoplifting. I can't support that with figures because there are no examples I'm aware of where a large western society has completely taken police off the streets. But it seems like common sense to me. If burglars know there will be no quick response to calls, they will feel emboldened.

[OngBonga]

Why pay someone to walk or drive around aimlessly? I'm sure you would need a lot fewer police if none of them were busy patrolling.

Visible presence. Some people find it reassuring, a reminder they live in a safe society. Other people find it unnerving, usually because they're up to no good. But also because you want cops to be able to respond to any area of the city quickly.

What do you mean "primed?"

I mean already out and about, rather than enjoying a nice cup of tea in the station. Putting your coat on, going to the car, how long does that take? A minute? Two minutes? That's response time wasted.

Everyone knows the police exist.

Yes, fine, but it's a reminder to anyone thinking about crime that there are people out there who have the authority to take action. I can tell you from past experience living in a shithole town that Friday and Saturday night when pubs are closing, I'm happy to see police about because it means any dickheads looking for a fight or someone to mug will reconsider their plans.

[MadMojoMonkey]

do you think society is better today than it was 1000 years ago?

IDK. We do different things now. We have better tech. Better medicine.
In terms of civil rights, I think yes.
In terms of access to a variety of nourishing foods, yes.
In terms of the rise of technology and all that entails, I just think it's mostly different, not better.

In terms of our ability to organize and control a society, I think the same. The dominant religions of the world certainly haven't changed in the past 1000 years, and the popular forms of government haven't changed, either.

Do you think that enforcing law and order on the street plays an important role in shaping our society into one where we are, for the most part, safe? Do you think without enforcement, we would be as safe as we are?

First of all. I want to be clear that I've never once said or implied that I'm opposed to enforcing laws.

Yes. I believe that enforcing social norms is part of maintaining a society.

What I question is if the form of enforcement we currently employ is remotely optimal - or if it is in fact antithetical to its own stated purposes. If it is antithetical to reducing crime, and is in fact increasing crime - even if only in some areas - that is definitely a problem to solve.

In my understanding, various communities are persecuted by police - for reasons that may not be fully the police's choice or intent.
This is a problem.
Not being persecuted by the police should not be a privilege; it should be a right.

Do you think without enforcement, we would be as safe as we are?

IDK. It's a difficult question because safety has a cost. Ben Franklin famously said something akin to "Those who would trade freedom for security will lose both and deserve neither." Safety is a spectrum, too.

To give you an answer, some enforcement is necessary, but the current form of enforcement is flawed.

I'm asking how we can all work together to get better outcomes when it comes to law enforcement.

[OngBonga]

What I question is if the form of enforcement we currently employ is remotely optimal - or if it is in fact antithetical to its own stated purposes. If it is antithetical to reducing crime, and is in fact increasing crime - even if only in some areas - that is definitely a problem to solve.

It's difficult to imagine someone committing a crime just because police exist. How does police increase crime? It might increase detection and prosecution of crime, but being a direct cause of an increase in crime? I don't see how this happens. I don't see how a police force acts as an incentive.

The police don't make the laws, they enforce them. If law is giving us more criminals, that's not the police's fault.

In my understanding, various communities are persecuted by police.

This is no reason to abolish the police. This is reason to reform the police. Why are communities persecuted? Why is it allowed to happen? It doesn't happen here in the UK, as much as that might come as a shock to some people. We of course have dickhead policemen who are just bullies, the job attracts that kind of person, but in nearly every case of a copper being a dickhead, it's a response to the citizen being a dickhead.

This seems like a USA problem to me. Why is this part of your culture?

for reasons that may not be fully the police's choice or intent.

If police are upholding unfair laws, it's not the police doing the persecuting. It's the state, the body that makes laws. The police are doing their job. I think it's important to make this distinction. I don't think we can have individual police officers deciding which laws to uphold.

It's not easy to accidentally persecute someone.

To give you an answer, some enforcement is necessary, but the current form of enforcement is flawed.

I don't disagree, but I don't think it's an easy thing to fix. I most certainly do not want to see private agents enforcing law. The police must be civil servants, they must be under the direct employment and authority of the state.

I'm asking how we can all work together to get better outcomes when it comes to law enforcement.

For me, it's making sure police officers are sufficiently trained and competent, holding police officers accountable for the behaviour, and making sure law is fair. That's the solution.

[Poopadoop]

Visible presence. Some people find it reassuring, a reminder they live in a safe society. Other people find it unnerving, usually because they're up to no good.

Or because they tend to face a lot of harrassment from the police.

But also because you want cops to be able to respond to any area of the city quickly.

That's great if someone is very slowly committing a murder or whatever.

I mean already out and about, rather than enjoying a nice cup of tea in the station. Putting your coat on, going to the car, how long does that take? A minute? Two minutes? That's response time wasted.

Again, this is only important if they actually can arrive in time to affect the outcome. Most crimes are either over by the time the cops get there, or they aren't urgent. The cops getting to a burglary in a hurry doesn't happen whether they're out in patrol cars or not, for example.

I can tell you from past experience living in a shithole town that Friday and Saturday night when pubs are closing, I'm happy to see police about because it means any dickheads looking for a fight or someone to mug will reconsider their plans.

I'm talking about regular patrols, not crowd control. Sure if you have a mass of drunken people pouring out of the pubs at closing time, or out of a football match, have some cops around. The rest of the time, nah.

[Poopadoop]

For me, it's making sure police officers are sufficiently trained and competent, holding police officers accountable for the behaviour, and making sure law is fair. That's the solution.

I think that's a big step. Maybe they could use some of that time they spend now aimlessly wandering around town to get some continuing training instead.

[OngBonga]

Or because they tend to face a lot of harrassment from the police.

You know, if you are regularly hassled by police, you can complain about it. Most people have absolutely no interaction with police in a normal day. People get pulled over for whatever reason, the vast majority of people are compliant and, while probably slightly annoyed, don't consider this to be an unacceptable breach of freedom. The vast majority of people who attract regular police attention tend to deserve that attention. Those that don't, here's a useful link... https://policeconduct.gov.uk/complai...make-complaint

That's great if someone is very slowly committing a murder or whatever.

This is deliberately naive. The vast majority of calls for cops are going to be non-murder crimes, where being there in two minutes is possible, and better than being there in five minutes. Not sure why you're trying to belittle this point. Having a spread of cops around a city is obviously efficient policing when it comes to rapid response. And you surely understand that rapid response is important.

Most calls they get are probably for accidents. They ned to be there fast to close roads, secure the crash scene, breathalise people before they fuck off, perhaps provide first aid. We've had two accidents outside our house in the last six months, on both occasions the same cop turned up within two minutes. It's not like they'r useless when on patrol.

Most crimes are either over by the time the cops get there, or they aren't urgent.

I don't think this is true. Not in a city. I'm in the countryside and still see response times of two minutes to a accident. My friend, a taxi driver, witness an incident in town where some guy seemed to be brandishing s shotgun. Withing two minutes again, there were armed police on the scene. Armed fucking police in a small town in two minutes. I think we're near a base, but the point is, police are regularly able to respond to urgent calls in good enough time to intervene. And the fact they are sometimes not able to respond fast enough, that's no reason to say "well sit at the station instead of driving around". Even if they only react to 20% of crimes in fast enough time, that's better than 0%.

I'm talking about regular patrols, not crowd control. Sure if you have a mass of drunken people pouring out of the pubs at closing time, or out of a football match, have some cops around. The rest of the time, nah.

Ok, but crime happens at any time, accidents happen at any time, I'm talking about cities here where there are hundreds of thousands of people. Even small towns like mine need rapid response.

I think that's a big step. Maybe they could use some of that time they spend now aimlessly wandering around town to get some continuing training instead.

Sure, but if they're at training, they're not able to respond to calls.

[oskar]

Sidestepping the conversation because the nuclear option is stupid is intellectually bereft, man.

Though I do agree, I want to point out the irony of calling a figurative nuclear option stupid while thinking private citizens should be allowed to own actual nukes.

I said it's not a worthwhile agenda. I think it would be fine to abolish police, but you can count yourself lucky if they decrease funding by 20% of the next decade, so any talk of abolishing is a waste of everyone's time.

[Poopadoop]

You know, if you are regularly hassled by police, you can complain about it. Most people have absolutely no interaction with police in a normal day. People get pulled over for whatever reason, the vast majority of people are compliant and, while probably slightly annoyed, don't consider this to be an unacceptable breach of freedom. The vast majority of people who attract regular police attention tend to deserve that attention. Those that don't, here's a useful link... https://policeconduct.gov.uk/complai...make-complaint

I'm not talking about people getting pulled over for running a red light. I'm talking about DWB and the like.

Just the other day I heard about a black man who bought a nice new car (legitmately) and started getting pulled over by the police on a regular basis. In the UK. The cops had a range of excuses for stopping him that were all obv. bullshit.

And you think if he complains something is going to happen? You are living in a dreamworld.

I'm in the countryside and still see response times of two minutes to a accident. My friend, a taxi driver, witness an incident in town where some guy seemed to be brandishing s shotgun. Withing two minutes again, there were armed police on the scene. Armed fucking police in a small town in two minutes. I think we're near a base,

You're making my argument for me here. They came from the base. Or do you think the SAS are patrolling your streets just in case?

Ok, but crime happens at any time, accidents happen at any time, I'm talking about cities here where there are hundreds of thousands of people. Even small towns like mine need rapid response.

Traffic cops can deal with accidents. I don't have any problems with having police specifically out giving speeding tickets or responding to accidents. I have a problem with cops driving around aimlessly bored out of their minds just so it looks to us like they're doing something.

Sure, but if they're at training, they're not able to respond to calls.

They are if you're training them locally. They're also better able to respond because they're better trained.

[Poopadoop]

It's the cops who are out driving around bored looking for an excuse to accost someone who are causing a lot of the problems imo.

Edit: Speaking mainly about America here, but I'm sure it applies to a lesser extent to the UK as well.

In the US, cops are specifically trained to look for excuses to pull people over. Driving with out of state plates? Hmm, that's not normal, better pull him over. Black man driving in a white neighborhood, better see what he's up to. Etc.

[OngBonga]

I'm talking about DWB and the like.

We've spoken about this before, but to clarify, I really don't think this is a problem in the UK. You're much more likely to be judged by the model of car you're driving than the colour of your skin. I found it really difficult to determine a driver's race from behind, I could only do it in 30 zones where we're right up their ass. I just don't think cops in this country think "this guy is black, let's pull him", not unless they're actively looking for a black man driving a similar car.

DWB might well be a problem in USA. It does seem so, but I really can't tell from this side of the pond whether it's just people playing the R-card. It's pretty much a reflex now for many black people to assume or pretend that any police interaction is racism. Remember Ali G doing the "is it 'cause I is black?" That was astute social satire.

Just the other day I heard about a black man who bought a nice new car (legitmately) and started getting pulled over by the police on a regular basis. In the UK. The cops had a range of excuses for stopping him that were all obv. bullshit.

And I'm willing to bet the police didn't know he was black until after they pulled him. Of course we'll never know, but perhaps it was the car itself that caught the police's attention.

And you think if he complains something is going to happen? You are living in a dreamworld.

Probably not the first time. In fact almost certainly not, because the first time you complain, it probably won't be considered harassment until there's a record of it happening again. But the second time, the third time, after a while you have sufficient grounds to approach a lawyer. The law does actually protect people from harassment from the police, you just have to stand up to them lawfully. If you don't complain, you've no right to call it harassment.

You're making my argument for me here. They came from the base. Or do you think the SAS are patrolling your streets just in case?

I mean that example I gave was more anecdotal than relevant. I'm sure we all agree here that a society needs an armed response police force of some kind. We're pretty close to an SAS base, plus the last short wave radio station in the UK, which I kid you not broadcasts USA propaganda to Russia. So it's no surprise to me that we're also two minutes away from the nearest armed response unit.

Traffic cops can deal with accidents.

So what, reassign street cops to traffic cops? They'd do exactly the same job only with a different job title. Without beat cops, traffic cops would fill that void, being first respondents to supermarkets to pick up shoplifters.

We only have traffic cops here on major routes like motorways. Most towns and cities, traffic cops are beat cops.

They are if you're training them locally. They're also better able to respond because they're better trained.

Depends how local. Granted in some cases this will be feasible, in other cases though not so much.

It's the cops who are out driving around bored looking for an excuse to accost someone who are causing a lot of the problems imo.

I don't think there are all that many cops who actively cause problems so they can arrest or bully people. I think this is largely your imagination. Maybe I'm wrong when it comes to USA though.

In the US, cops are specifically trained to look for excuses to pull people over. Driving with out of state plates? Hmm, that's not normal, better pull him over. Black man driving in a white neighborhood, better see what he's up to. Etc.

These two reasons are not good enough alone. But let's imagine you're looking for a black man from out of state while patrolling a white neighbourhood. If you only look at one reason or the other, then it's unacceptable. Both together, well now we're legitimately policing.

[Poopadoop]

We've spoken about this before, but to clarify, I really don't think this is a problem in the UK. You're much more likely to be judged by the model of car you're driving than the colour of your skin. I found it really difficult to determine a driver's race from behind, I could only do it in 30 zones where we're right up their ass. I just don't think cops in this country think "this guy is black, let's pull him", not unless they're actively looking for a black man driving a similar car.

You don't think it because it hasn't happened to you. In your mind, black people are what, just making these stories up?

So I guess you believe that gov't report that says there's no systemic racism in the UK too? The same one the UN commission said was bullshit?

These two reasons are not good enough alone. But let's imagine you're looking for a black man from out of state while patrolling a white neighbourhood. If you only look at one reason or the other, then it's unacceptable. Both together, well now we're legitimately policing.

That's not what I said. Sure if someone reports a black man with Arizona plates robbed a liquor store in Kansas, and you spot a black man driving a car with AZ plates, pull him over. But if they didn't, and you pull him over just because he's black and/or from out of state, you're doing the very opposite of legitimate policing. You're just harrassing someone.

[OngBonga]

You don't think it because it hasn't happened to you. In your mind, black people are what, just making these stories up?

No. That isn't what I'm saying. I don't think it's necessarily dishonest. It's just a tendency for people to assume racism. In some cases I think it is dishonest, but that'll be people with something to hide. Those with nothing to hide, they think it's racial profiling, racism, whatever, but it's just police doing their job.

It doesn't happen to me because I don't drive, I don't drink myself stupid in public, I don't hang around in parks with my mates... it's not because I'm white, it's because I don't find myself in situations where police are active.

So I guess you believe that gov't report that says there's no systemic racism in the UK too?

I haven't read it.

The same one the UN commission said was bullshit?

I haven't read their counterevidence either.

But if they didn't, and you pull him over just because he's black and/or from out of state, you're doing the very opposite of legitimate policing. You're just harrassing someone.

Certainly the former. If you pull someone over for nothing other than the colour of their skin, that's harassment. Yes. Pulling someone from out of state? Depends on the context, such as location and time of day. I can understand why they might go as far as to scan the plate number.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's difficult to imagine someone committing a crime just because police exist. How does police increase crime? It might increase detection and prosecution of crime, but being a direct cause of an increase in crime? I don't see how this happens. I don't see how a police force acts as an incentive.

The Rayshard Brooks case is a clear example.
A black man was drunk and passed out in the driver's seat of his car in a Wendy's drive through lane in Atlanta. The police showed up and interrogated this man for an hour - an hour interrogating a drunk man - not arresting, not technically in custody, but detained for an hour. To what end?
Rayshard eventually had a fight or flight response, and he chose both. He wrestled a tazer from one of the cops and disengaged himself from their wrestling holds. While running away, he flung his arm behind him and randomly fired the tazer at a range and direction that was in no way a threat to the police. The police gunned him down on the spot. Then walked over and kicked his body.

That tazer was a single-shot weapon, and the police use them because they are considered non-lethal. Everything about that situation was police causing a crime, and using that caused crime as a reason to kill a man.

Should Rayshard have been drunk in the driver's seat of a car in a drive-though? No absolutely not.
Should he have resisted arrest? No.
Should he have taken the tazer? No.
Should he have run? No.
Should he have fired the tazer? No.

A drunk guy made a whole host of bad decisions.
Should that have resulted in his death? No.

Should we, the citizens of this society, be outraged that the police response to a benign situation (the guy was literally asleep when they arrived) resulted in death? Yes.

***
The communities that are persecuted by police are in fear of their lives with every police interaction. That puts them in the psychological position to assume they have the choice to die in police custody or to maybe live if they can get away from that situation.
The presence of police is creating crimes because the police are a threat in and of themselves, and people will commit crimes to extricate themselves of that threat.

The police don't make the laws, they enforce them. If law is giving us more criminals, that's not the police's fault.

Exactly my greater point.

The police need reform, as the function we think they serve is demonstrably not a function they serve. We need to explore the actual functions they serve and reorganize our funding and expectations to suit.

But the greater problem - the root of the problem - is the systematic criminalization of black culture and other counter cultures by the legislature. This is where we can achieve the greatest progress with the least effort. Simply repealing the laws that we know for a fact are designed to persecute Americans will go a long way.

This is no reason to abolish the police. This is reason to reform the police. Why are communities persecuted? Why is it allowed to happen? It doesn't happen here in the UK, as much as that might come as a shock to some people. We of course have dickhead policemen who are just bullies, the job attracts that kind of person, but in nearly every case of a copper being a dickhead, it's a response to the citizen being a dickhead.

If you insist on reading my questions and explorations as though I'm trying to trick you into saying abolish the police, then you're going to fail to see my actual point.

I'm trying to get to the heart of what the police want and what we as a society want from the police. I am inherently assuming that we do want police and that we should be listening to them tell us what we can do to help them police better.

This seems like a USA problem to me. Why is this part of your culture?

Because the police are viewed as antithetical to justice in persecuted communities, and superfluous to justice in non-persecuted communities.
There's a divide of respect.

(as though my answer is even remotely likely to be correct)

If police are upholding unfair laws, it's not the police doing the persecuting. It's the state, the body that makes laws. The police are doing their job. I think it's important to make this distinction. I don't think we can have individual police officers deciding which laws to uphold.

It's not easy to accidentally persecute someone.

That's one of the most astoundingly incorrect things you've ever said.

I don't disagree, but I don't think it's an easy thing to fix. I most certainly do not want to see private agents enforcing law. The police must be civil servants, they must be under the direct employment and authority of the state.

Agreed. It's not easy to fix. IMO, the first step is to get on the same page as far as the history and data we have collected. Let's let go of our assumptions of what the world "should" be and look at what it is and think of ways to make it better.

Better for everyone, police, too.

For me, it's making sure police officers are sufficiently trained and competent, holding police officers accountable for the behaviour, and making sure law is fair. That's the solution.

Exactly.

[OngBonga]

Should we, the citizens of this society, be outraged that the police response to a benign situation (the guy was literally asleep when they arrived) resulted in death? Yes.

I agree. This is cause for outrage. But don't punish society by making the streets less safe. Take the badges off these cops, prosecute them if necessary. Send the message that they won't get away with being irresponsible and trigger happy. But police still need to be able to deal with someone drunk at the wheel of the car. In the UK, that's grounds for arrest. If they simply arrested him, let him sleep it off in a cell, and dealt with him in the morning, this would be no problem.

The communities that are persecuted by police are in fear of their lives with every police interaction.

If I were a cop in USA, I'd live in fear of my life with every interaction with the public. Guns are the problem here. If the population is armed, then the police need to be.

That puts them in the psychological position to assume they have the choice to die in police custody or to maybe live if they can get away from that situation.

I find it hard to believe this is a common occurrence. Most people if they fear for their lives will simply comply, act very passively, they're not going to leg it or fight armed cops. People shouldn't be afraid of police, assuming they are not criminals, and if they are then that is a problem that needs addressing. But as I said before, it can't come at the cost of taking police off the streets altogether. That doesn't make people safer. Most people who get shot by police needed shooting because they were a serious threat to other people. The police should be doing everything possible to ensure people who don't deserve to be shot don't get shot. Sometimes it will inevitably happen, and when it does, it gets massive media attention.

As you describe that incident, then there is no way this man should have been shot. He should have been quickly arrested and left in a cell overnight. So the policing here seems very much lacking in competence. That needs addressing, no question.

But the greater problem - the root of the problem - is the systematic criminalization of black culture and other counter cultures by the legislature.

You refer to this a lot, and while I'm not arguing with you, all I'm aware of is cannabis, which is no longer treated with the same degree of gravity in USA (for the most part, best I can tell). What other racist laws exist? I'm almost certain this is not a problem in the UK. Cannabis laws here discriminate against a fuck ton of white people as well as black people. Weed isn't really black culture, it's human culture.

Law should be easier to change than the behaviour of individual police.

If you insist on reading my questions and explorations as though I'm trying to trick you into saying abolish the police, then you're going to fail to see my actual point.

I appreciate you're not saying abolish the police, oskar said that, and that's why we're talking about it. You seem to be saying things that I agree with... reform. Where we disagree is the need for an active police force. You were the one who pointed out ancient civilisations didn't have police forces. I've argued you can't compare civilisations. I'm saying we need a police force, and I can't really figure out if you agree or disagree because you're so defensive when I mention the word "abolish".

I'm trying to get to the heart of what the police want and what we as a society want from the police.

We should all want the same thing... law and order, public safety, a civilised society.

That's one of the most astoundingly incorrect things you've ever said.

I mean it's like blaming soldiers for the atrocities of war. The crimes are committed by those pulling the strings, not the puppets.

[Poopadoop]

I mean it's like blaming soldiers for the atrocities of war. The crimes are committed by those pulling the strings, not the puppets.

I think that defense was tried at Nurenberg. It didnt' work.

[OngBonga]

I think that defense was tried at Nurenberg. It didnt' work.

Nazis are the extreme example of following orders. I'm not sure how responsible an individual can be for his actions when under the command of a brutal dictatorship. It's difficult to take a moral position on this either way. I'm not a big fan of dragging 100-year old men from their care homes to see out their last days in court. That isn't justice, it's an inhumane waste of time and money. This should have happened a long time ago if it's something that has to happen.

[Poopadoop]

Difference is cops take on their job voluntarily I suppose. No-one is forcing them to be complicit in the system.

[Poopadoop]

It's difficult to take a moral position on this either way. I'm not a big fan of dragging 100-year old men from their care homes to see out their last days in court. That isn't justice, it's an inhumane waste of time and money. This should have happened a long time ago if it's something that has to happen.

It depends. If they were just drafted along into it then yeah leave them alone. That could happen to anyone. But if they volunteered for it, or they were sadistic bastards, then fuck 'em I don't have a problem with dragging them into court no matter how long ago it was.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I agree. This is cause for outrage. But don't punish society by making the streets less safe. Take the badges off these cops, prosecute them if necessary. Send the message that they won't get away with being irresponsible and trigger happy. But police still need to be able to deal with someone drunk at the wheel of the car. In the UK, that's grounds for arrest. If they simply arrested him, let him sleep it off in a cell, and dealt with him in the morning, this would be no problem.

I'm not talking about punishment. I'm talking about taking a clear-eyed stock of what we have and how we got here. I'm talking about understanding the perspectives on all sides and listening to responsible adults describe their problems with the current system.

Taking badges from the cops is near impossible in the US, which is a solution gone out of hand. The solution being that police serve a particular function that puts them in position to make life-or-death decisions, and that stress must be allowed some leeway in interpreting things like murder.

I agree that police need some protection and understanding when it comes to prosecuting their in-the-moment decisions. I agree that cops need to be allowed leeway. In life-and-death situations, one must act fast and that can mean less consistently "correct" results. I do want cops to feel empowered to react in ways that end threats to society.

However, the US doctrine of "qualified immunity" has been pushed way too far. In effect, a police officer cannot be prosecuted for actions taken in the line of duty unless an (in practice) identical case has been successfully prosecuted. In effect, the way these laws are treated today is that there is always enough different for the defense to note that there is not direct legal precedent to prosecute and the case is thrown out.

Some regions have made subtle changes to this over the past year, but system-wide, it's mostly the same.

If I were a cop in USA, I'd live in fear of my life with every interaction with the public. Guns are the problem here. If the population is armed, then the police need to be.

I agree.
I do question if everyone who arrives on the scene needs to be armed, though.
I question if having an unarmed person on the scene, trained in conflict deescalation, who is in primary charge of the situation would help get fewer violent outcomes.

I agree that having "combat" trained police is essential to an effective police force. I question whether the ones with primarily combat training should be the ones in charge in all first-response situations.

Question. I'm not making assumptions one way or the other. I'm brainstorming, here.

I find it hard to believe this is a common occurrence. Most people if they fear for their lives will simply comply, act very passively, they're not going to leg it or fight armed cops. People shouldn't be afraid of police, assuming they are not criminals, and if they are then that is a problem that needs addressing.

Over the year of 2020 people died by being shot by police at a rate of about 2 per day in the US.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...olice-by-race/

I wish it was uncommon, but it's not.

Note that ~12% of the US population is black, but the ratio of blacks killed in this way is well above that.

But as I said before, it can't come at the cost of taking police off the streets altogether. That doesn't make people safer. Most people who get shot by police needed shooting because they were a serious threat to other people. The police should be doing everything possible to ensure people who don't deserve to be shot don't get shot. Sometimes it will inevitably happen, and when it does, it gets massive media attention.

Unfortunately, it happens every day and the media attention just isn't there unless there's massive external coverage. Like with George Floyd, there were multiple non-police controlled cameras on the incident that went public. What we all saw on those videos was unmistakable. It was clear cut.

The fact that that's what it took to get the first police officer convicted of murder in the state of Minnessotta is antithetical to your assumption that police abusing their power will get media attention at all, let alone massive media attention.

If there were no cameras on that situation, 100% of the time, Chauvin walks. 100% of the time, their initial police report is taken as fact, and their assertion that he was resisting arrest and continuing to struggle while restrained would have been the reported news.

As you describe that incident, then there is no way this man should have been shot. He should have been quickly arrested and left in a cell overnight. So the policing here seems very much lacking in competence. That needs addressing, no question.

So we agree that there are reasons that certain groups of people in the US might view the police as a threat to their freedom, and even their life?

Not saying those groups are right, or that the actions by these 2 cops in Atlanta is what all cops would have done in that situation.

Just that these situations are not isolated incidents, and that there are reasons people could interpret this pattern of incidents as a threat to their freedom and livelihood. Rational people. Honest, non-criminal, loving, hard-working people.

If I may inject a shitty metaphor:
If you can't tell which mushrooms are poisonous, you fear all unknown mushrooms.

You refer to this a lot, and while I'm not arguing with you, all I'm aware of is cannabis, which is no longer treated with the same degree of gravity in USA (for the most part, best I can tell). What other racist laws exist? I'm almost certain this is not a problem in the UK. Cannabis laws here discriminate against a fuck ton of white people as well as black people. Weed isn't really black culture, it's human culture.

Law should be easier to change than the behaviour of individual police.

Marijuana was boosted to a schedule 1 drug by the Nixon administration to oppress Nixon's opposition - hippies. The example that using a law to persecute Americans is right there, just this one wasn't targeted at blacks. This kind of law-making has a long, long history in the US.

A brief history of the systemic denial of the right to vote by colored communities:
https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...can-democracy/

Or here's a tiny snapshot of why understanding the history is vital to understanding the present.


The point is that this level of insidious division and unequal treatment is everywhere in the US. Racist law makers realized they couldn't use the N-word, so they found other ways to deny privileges to black people and other culturally marginalized groups.

The isolation of wealth from certain communities is still a monumental factor in the wealth depravity of many inner-city communities of various marginalized groups. Banks continued to use racist practices in giving loans for decades after the whole red-line stuff in that video I linked. That's semi-tangential to the legal side of things, but indicative that this insidious racism that we'd all love to write off as a conspiracy theory is a conspiracy, but it's very real, and well documented.

I appreciate you're not saying abolish the police, oskar said that, and that's why we're talking about it. You seem to be saying things that I agree with... reform. Where we disagree is the need for an active police force. You were the one who pointed out ancient civilisations didn't have police forces. I've argued you can't compare civilisations. I'm saying we need a police force, and I can't really figure out if you agree or disagree because you're so defensive when I mention the word "abolish".

Not even ancient civilizations. I don't know of a civilization 200 years ago or prior that had a standing civilian-regulating militia.
We can talk about the Spanish inquisition and other historically short-lived movements, but those are different enough to set them apart, IMO.
The Romans had soldiers stationed in major cities, but they were largely there for defense of the place, and not for regulating the civilians, though they would step in when needed. This is more common throughout history.

The reason I point it out is to spur the notion that the assumption that - of course in order to have law and order in a civilization, you have to have police - is simply not a fact. It's only come into prevalence in the past ~150 years or so.

My point isn't to say that modern societies definitely don't need police. My point is to break the implicit assumption that we do. My point is to open the door to investigate why we made this change, and what we can learn upon a reflection of the past 150 years of its implementation.

Societies evolve. Technology changes. Population pressures change. I don't suspect that the presence of a well-trained police force is a negative change. Quite the opposite.

We should all want the same thing... law and order, public safety, a civilised society.

I believe that policing in some form is necessary for societies of modern scale to function smoothly.
A lot of what was happening prior to formal police forces was vigilantism, without formal courts or even normalized laws, let alone equal enforcement. I'm not trying to suggest it was the good-old-days. I'm just saying we should examine what we get for our money.

That hints at what I suspect we get - a normalized implementation of law - but I suspect it's much more than that.

It's just that this normalized implementation is a privilege (in the US) afforded to certain groups and not others, so ineffective on the greater scale of public support, IMO.

I mean it's like blaming soldiers for the atrocities of war. The crimes are committed by those pulling the strings, not the puppets.

That depends a great deal on the specifics.
What were the exact orders? What were any implicit orders? Did anyone violate international war crimes? Who?

[OngBonga]

I agree that police need some protection and understanding when it comes to prosecuting their in-the-moment decisions. I agree that cops need to be allowed leeway. In life-and-death situations, one must act fast and that can mean less consistently "correct" results. I do want cops to feel empowered to react in ways that end threats to society.

Agree 100%

However, the US doctrine of "qualified immunity" has been pushed way too far.

It seems so. So why do these legal protections remain in place regardless of who's in power? Each case should be judged on its own merit, with precedent a guide and nothing more.

I do question if everyone who arrives on the scene needs to be armed, though.

It's difficult to take a position on this either way. I'm lucky I live in a country where guns are, for the most part, not a problem in society. I say I'm lucky, I won't feel that way if society collapses, because then I'll be vulnerable, but in a civilised world, yes it's a plus. In USA, you kind of have to assume everyone is potentially armed. So anyone who is putting themself in a potentially violent situation as a mediator or figure of authority probably does need to be armed.

I question if having an unarmed person on the scene, trained in conflict deescalation, who is in primary charge of the situation would help get fewer violent outcomes.

One day, one of these unarmed responders gets shot dead. And then we're back to square one.

I agree that having "combat" trained police is essential to an effective police force. I question whether the ones with primarily combat training should be the ones in charge in all first-response situations.

Again, this is complicated a great deal when we have an armed population.

Over the year of 2020 people died by being shot by police at a rate of about 2 per day in the US.

So around 700 in a country of 350 million people, 200 million of whom are armed? I don't think that's all that alarming to be honest. In Brazil, their police killed a similar number of people in the first half of 2020 in Rio alone.

Note that ~12% of the US population is black, but the ratio of blacks killed in this way is well above that.

This doesn't necessarily imply racist motives in the cops. It's an indication that black people suffer from poverty, on average, more than white people, and are therefore more likely to engage in crime. Maybe there's systematic racism at player here, coupled with cultural factors. But I'd be very surprised if the cops are more likely to shoot black people purely because of the racist feelings of the cop, excluding the occasional bad apple of course.

If there were no cameras on that situation, 100% of the time, Chauvin walks.

This is fixable by legislation. They have body cams. Make it a legal requirement for them to be used. If they have a gun, they have their body cam on at all times.

So we agree that there are reasons that certain groups of people in the US might view the police as a threat to their freedom, and even their life?

Certain groups of people? Yes, sure, like criminals. But anyone can do what this guy did, ie fall asleep drunk, get police attention, and get into a confrontation with them. We can all drink too much and act like a twat. Did this happen because the guy is black? I'm unaware of any evidence to assume this.

Just that these situations are not isolated incidents

"isolated" is a subjective terms and is probably best measured as a percentage rather than a clear figure. How many times when police draw their gun does someone get shot? If we're under 1% then I'd call it "isolated" when it does happen.

I don't know of a civilization 200 years ago

Still a vastly different society.

My point isn't to say that modern societies definitely don't need police. My point is to break the implicit assumption that we do

I don't consider it to be an implicit assumption. It's an opinion I consider to be, on the balance of probabilities, correct. I would fear putting that opinion to the test.

My point is to open the door to investigate why we made this change, and what we can learn upon a reflection of the past 150 years of its implementation.

I guess we made the change because as populations increased, public safety became more of an issue.

It's just that this normalized implementation is a privilege (in the US) afforded to certain groups and not others, so ineffective on the greater scale of public support, IMO.

Equality in law is fundamental to a democratic society. It should be written into your constitution. I should be considered un-American to treat people differently in law.

That depends a great deal on the specifics.What were the exact orders? What were any implicit orders? Did anyone violate international war crimes? Who?

It wasn't the best analogy. My point was simply to remind you that it's not for individual police to decide what laws are and are not justified. They are contractually obliged, and probably by oath, to uphold the law.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It seems so. So why do these legal protections remain in place regardless of who's in power? Each case should be judged on its own merit, with precedent a guide and nothing more.

I'm guessing the answer to your first question is the separation of powers.
Once a bill gets through the 3 branches to become a law, it never goes away - unless another law passes which repeals the first law.

For anything that there's no law directly saying otherwise, if a court rules something, that precedent is tantamount to law - the precedents never go away, either.

Who's in power has almost no say over or ability to change what has been done before them.
POTUS can't unilaterally repeal laws of their predecessors - except they can change prior Presidential orders, which are like laws, but not laws.
The current congress still has to come to agreement to do anything and getting enough of them to agree to repeal a law is not a common thing that happens.

SCOTUS has this power, but a case has to make it through the system to them, they have to choose to hear it, and they have to rule against the precedent. This is called Judicial Activism - when the laws change due to appointed judges and not elected officials.

The history of Judicial Activism goes back to the first SCOTUS when it effectively ruled that Alexander Hamilton's interpretation of the Constitution (that Hamilton wrote) wasn't the interpretation of the court - specifically the court made a huge power grab and Hamilton was the lawyer arguing against that, and SCOTUS just told one of history's great orators, "Your words don't mean what you think they mean."
(Note that this power grab is widely regarded by history as a good thing.)

It's difficult to take a position on this either way. I'm lucky I live in a country where guns are, for the most part, not a problem in society. I say I'm lucky, I won't feel that way if society collapses, because then I'll be vulnerable, but in a civilised world, yes it's a plus. In USA, you kind of have to assume everyone is potentially armed. So anyone who is putting themself in a potentially violent situation as a mediator or figure of authority probably does need to be armed.

Negotiators in hostage situations are not armed - as it really sends the wrong message when the negotiator is trying to get a peaceful outcome.

When the police chief arrives on the scene of something, they're not necessarily armed. There are already a dozen or more armed police there by the time the head honcho shows up. The head honcho may or may not be armed, depending on their own personal style.

One day, one of these unarmed responders gets shot dead. And then we're back to square one.

This seems hyperbolic. You're serious, though, yeah?

It's certainly going to be the case that those people would get shot. The thing is that while they themselves are not armed, they have at least 2 combat trained officers backing them up. If your argument is that the threat of being shot back if a criminal shoots is what stops the criminal from shooting - I don't see how that changes just to have a different person shoot you than the one you shot.
Can you explain that to me?

Again, this is complicated a great deal when we have an armed population.

Keep in mind that the police themselves have been complaining for years that they are not trained to respond to mental health calls, and yet they are the ones sent to respond to mental health calls. They've repeatedly said they are not trained for these things, and expecting someone to be simultaneously trained in combat and in interpersonal relations and deescalation is a recipe for disaster. That's too big a switch to flip on and off in stressful situations.

I'm suggesting that unarmed police be the first on the scene with an armed entourage. I'm not suggesting that only unarmed cops should be sent anywhere.

So around 700 in a country of 350 million people, 200 million of whom are armed? I don't think that's all that alarming to be honest. In Brazil, their police killed a similar number of people in the first half of 2020 in Rio alone.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, here. I know nothing of the crime problems nor the corruption if any in Brazil or Rio.

Whether or not other people have it worse than I has no bearing on my desire to better myself.

This doesn't necessarily imply racist motives in the cops. It's an indication that black people suffer from poverty, on average, more than white people, and are therefore more likely to engage in crime. Maybe there's systematic racism at player here, coupled with cultural factors. But I'd be very surprised if the cops are more likely to shoot black people purely because of the racist feelings of the cop, excluding the occasional bad apple of course.

We totally agree, here. Except for "maybe there's systematic racism."
There's systematic racism.

I've tried to keep the links to a minimum and to find short and concise links to give you because I know your interest in the links is about 0. The video I linked above is a comedy group explaining just one way the systematic racism in community development has created black (and other minority) poverty. The policies literally created this poverty and then clamped it down. From federal policies that opened the doors to community developers taking that ball and running with it, to the banks just treating it like it's "normal" to deny loans to poor neighborhoods while knowing full well that those poor neighborhoods were predominantly non-white by design.

Seriously. Anyone who is denying that there is systemic racism in the US is simply not even looking to see whether or not the history bears that out. Might as well be a flat-Earther, IMO. There's infinite nuance in all of this. There's criticism and counter-criticism and counter-counter-criticism of just about every aspect in popular discourse. I'm trying to avoid those as much as possible and only cite things which are cut-and-dry.

This is fixable by legislation. They have body cams. Make it a legal requirement for them to be used. If they have a gun, they have their body cam on at all times.

I agree this would be a good step. Many police departments already have a policy at least like this in place and I do not know of any widespread pushback from the police themselves. By and large police like body cameras. They just don't necessarily like the public having access to them. Using them to get many more eyes on a crime scene has proven invaluable. Using them as diagnostic tools to find where there are gaps in training or recruitment is much appreciated.

They just don't like it when a "bad apple" gets their cam exposed and that's the imagery in the public eye of who police are and what they do.

(after 5 minutes of research, tops. grain of salt)

Certain groups of people? Yes, sure, like criminals. But anyone can do what this guy did, ie fall asleep drunk, get police attention, and get into a confrontation with them. We can all drink too much and act like a twat. Did this happen because the guy is black? I'm unaware of any evidence to assume this.

This is always the case. We can't know what the cop was thinking. Only what they did.

It's like radiation poisoning. After Chernobyl, let's say that 25% of all cancers to happen in the affected area are due to the radiation leak. Which 25% of all the cancers were the Chernobyl ones? We can't know. We only know that the statistics bear out this discrepancy.

I just want to restate that I have repeatedly said that fixing racist laws is the easiest way to address these issues. I'm not blaming cops for enforcing insidiously racist laws.
No one is enforcing openly racist laws. So the laws that are left are sneaky little fuckers. I'm sure some cops are whip smart, but as a group, they're not exactly known for their intellects. We shouldn't blame good people for being tricked into doing bad things by sneaky politicians.

"isolated" is a subjective terms and is probably best measured as a percentage rather than a clear figure. How many times when police draw their gun does someone get shot? If we're under 1% then I'd call it "isolated" when it does happen.

That's a dumb metric. The metric should be, "how many unarmed, nonviolent people have been shot by police?" When the statistics bear out this is non-0, that's a problem.

How much of a problem and what it will cost to affect change is a balance to be discussed. I am interested in the discussion at least for now.

Still a vastly different society.

Agreed. My point isn't to reminisce about the good old days. My point is to look at the actual facts that got us to where we are. This is important because the widely accepted assumptions about those facts are false.

I don't consider it to be an implicit assumption. It's an opinion I consider to be, on the balance of probabilities, correct. I would fear putting that opinion to the test.

A thought experiment is not dangerous.

The history that got us here is fraught with racism. The modern police forces in the US were literally groups of self-appointed slave chasers being racist assholes chasing runaway slaves with no legal authority to do so. When that fell out of popular favor, they rebranded themselves as police departments.

I want to be explicitly clear that I'm not drawing any direct parallels between the origin of US police (~150 years ago) and modern police officers. I do think it's illustrative to look at how appallingly corrupt the origins are and to examine how much of that heinous history is wiped out. Is it all gone? Or are there still long-dying repercussions that are also insidiously oppressing good people?

I guess we made the change because as populations increased, public safety became more of an issue.

Exactly the false assumptions that need to be explored for what they are.

Humans have lived in densely populated cities for thousands of years. Human morality hasn't changed in that time. The human genome has been relatively stable for tens of thousands of years - maybe hundreds of thousands. So the genetic propensity for crime and immoral behavior hasn't changed. The environmental pressures by-and-large haven't changed.

Public safety (as response to criminal and immoral behavior - not technology related safety) among human populations with numbers in the tens of thousands hasn't changed in at least tens of thousands of years. The vast majority of America (by area) is still populated by communities on those scales or smaller.

Equality in law is fundamental to a democratic society. It should be written into your constitution. I should be considered un-American to treat people differently in law.

Totally agreed.

So when we see the unequal treatment in law - when we hear the people who penned the laws admit that they designed the law to persecute Americans - that's a problem. A serious problem. A threat to democracy problem.

A problem well worth exploring with all our patience and open mindedness, IMO.

It wasn't the best analogy. My point was simply to remind you that it's not for individual police to decide what laws are and are not justified. They are contractually obliged, and probably by oath, to uphold the law.

Agreed. No reminder necessary.

It is fundamental to my point that I'm not blaming police for anything. I'm trying to understand how there are these vastly different world-views about what the police are and what we as a society get for having them. I'm trying to bridge the gaps in understanding why so many good people and fellow citizens feel like they're enemies.

[OngBonga]

I'm not gonna lie I'm at the point where I see a wall and I'm like "whew". I know my posts are walls too, it's become quite intense.

I don't think we disagree on a great deal. I'm gonna skim through your post (I have read it in full) and respond to a couple of bits in the hope our posts aren't so huge and intimidating!

The way law works in your country, it seems strange. We vote people in, they have the power to make laws. If a law changes, if something that wasn't illegal becomes illegal, you can't use it your defence "other people got away with it before it was illegal".

A party should be able, in theory, to come into power on the promise of changing a certain law. They should be able to live up to this promise. This is how you make sure law is fair. If it's not, it can be changed at the ballot.

Negotiators in hostage situations are not armed

Later you say this...

I'm suggesting that unarmed police be the first on the scene with an armed entourage. I'm not suggesting that only unarmed cops should be sent anywhere.

Ok, fine, I'm cool with this. I was going to make the point that hostage negotiators have armed support, but I don't need to.

This seems hyperbolic. You're serious, though, yeah?

I was making this comment on the presumption that an unarmed first respondent was alone. The first time it happens, immediately we're asking questions of how different it would have been had they been armed. But if we';re talking about armed support, it's different. The criminal is still under the gun, and if he is going to shoot, it's highly unlikely he goes for the only unarmed person.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, here. I know nothing of the crime problems nor the corruption if any in Brazil or Rio.

I was making the point that USA as a whole is comparable to half a city. Considering USA is an armed nation, politically divisive, with a history of school shootings and domestic terrorism, 700 people shot dead by cops in a year isn't huge.

Of course we want that number to be lower, but we're being somewhat naive if we think that figure can be zero. How low can it realistically be? For sure lower than 700 because there are clearly people getting shot that didn't need to be, for example our drunk sleepy guy, but can we really expect a much lower number? There's a lot of fuck ups in USA.

Seriously. Anyone who is denying that there is systemic racism in the US is simply not even looking to see whether or not the history bears that out.

Why aren't people like Biden doing more to fix the systemic racism? Nobody expected Trump to, but what's the point of Biden if he can't fix this? What the fuck was Obama doing? How can it ever change in USA if Presidents can fix it? At the very least they can speak out about it. I don't ever remember hearing Obama telling the world how institutionally racist the American system is. If he can't change the law himself, he must put pressure on elected officials in the Senate or wherever laws get repealed.

How can it ever change if even a black President doesn't even try to fix this?

They just don't like it when a "bad apple" gets their cam exposed and that's the imagery in the public eye of who police are and what they do.

This is the only way to win public confidence. Nobody expects the police to be able to get their recruitment and training absolutely 100% tip top. People expect accountability when they do get it wrong, and that means prosecuting the bad apples, firing the incompetent, and bosses resigning when they make bad decisions. If the police know their bodycam footage is available to the public on demand, they will be much more likely to act with restraint and professionalism. It would be a huge step in the right direction.

This is already turning into a wall.

I'll just nod my head along until this...

Exactly the false assumptions that need to be explored for what they are.

I'm not so sure it is a false assumption.

Humans have lived in densely populated cities for thousands of years. Human morality hasn't changed in that time. The human genome has been relatively stable for tens of thousands of years - maybe hundreds of thousands. So the genetic propensity for crime and immoral behavior hasn't changed. The environmental pressures by-and-large haven't changed.

The cities of the past (200 years plus) are incomparable to the cities of today. Our societies are completely different. The most obvious difference is money. Also drugs. Mental health. Wealth inequality. Guns. These are important factors when we talk about crime.

I know these things aren't completely new to our times, but with larger populations it becomes a larger problem. Of course there is much more crime now than in the past. Without law enforcement, you have vigilantism. Of course civilised societies have evolved to have a police force. I don't think it's ridiculous to assume the alternatives would be more unpleasant.

So when we see the unequal treatment in law - when we hear the people who penned the laws admit that they designed the law to persecute Americans - that's a problem. A serious problem. A threat to democracy problem.

Well clearly you don't have democracy. You can't change anything by voting.

I'm trying to understand how there are these vastly different world-views about what the police are and what we as a society get for having them.

I'm obviously heavily skewed by what I observe in the UK. The police here, they can be dickheads of course, but if you don't piss them off, you're not going to have a problem. The only people who really have to worry about the police are criminals. That makes society safer. So we get value from them. Is that value optimal? Highly doubtful. But I understand where the value comes.

[OngBonga]

Still a wall.

[boost]

Sure, but if they're at training, they're not able to respond to calls.

I got tired of the walls of text, but this has to be the quote of the last few pages. IF YOU TRAIN THE COPS, THEY'LL BE TRAINING, AND IF THEY'RE TRAINING THEY CAN'T BE COPPING!!

Edit: not gonna go searching for the quote, but just a bit further up thread you conclusively said you think they need more funding for better training, lol

[CoccoBill]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...-reform-341685

[OngBonga]

I got tired of the walls of text, but this has to be the quote of the last few pages. IF YOU TRAIN THE COPS, THEY'LL BE TRAINING, AND IF THEY'RE TRAINING THEY CAN'T BE COPPING!!

Edit: not gonna go searching for the quote, but just a bit further up thread you conclusively said you think they need more funding for better training, lol

How incredibly disingenuous of you.

Obviously I ma not saying they should not be trained at all, and obviously mojo is not saying they should be trained 100% of the time. It's somewhere in between and we're discussing if we agree if that balance is right.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Re. walls of text
I get it and I might do the same, but the problem is that there is a huge, huge amount of information pointing at very real conspiracies that have been perpetuated for decades designed to persecute American citizens by American politicians and businesses.

That's a BIG claim, and it requires big proof.

My opinion on the matter wasn't easily swayed. There are counter arguments and counter-counter arguments ad nauseum in all of this. A lot of information is not verifiable, single witness accounts or sound like numerology at how far they stretch.

So there's a lot to say, and it's a big deal to understand it.

The entire world joined in a single-voiced protest about a year ago. That's never happened before in human history.
It's not something anyone should forget, or shrug off, IMO.

***
Obama said at least a couple times that he was sensitive to avoid race issues throughout the entirety of his presidency because as the first black president, he didn't want it to be 100 years until there was a next black president. He said that he felt his place in history was to demonstrate that a black president was just a president, not a black anything. I think it was a mistake on his part, but I respect his political acumen, and it is what it is.

Also note that the most a president can do to change laws is say he wants a law and to sign or not sign what Congress gives him.
POTUS can make presidential orders - which are basically laws unless an actual law says otherwise. Or until a later POTUS repeals it.


***
Why doesn't Biden do something about it?

The Democratic party was getting their asses kicked in just about all levels of elections about 30 years ago. The Republicans candidates just had to promise to be "tough on crime" and that seemed to be all it took to get votes. So they got in office and made all kinds of stricter punishments on laws and criminalized non-violent behaviors. Then Clinton came along and realized he needed to change the game if he was going to win - enter his Rock the Vote campaign and a stance to be tough on crime.

Yada, yada, yada. All this time has passed, and "tough on crime" has been getting people elected for decades and now our prisons are overflowing and run by private companies and whether or not a police officer arrests you is a matter of whether or not they choose to enforce any of the uncountably many laws on the books.

I mean... that can't be the whole story, but it's a prominent thread of the past 30 years of US politics.

[boost]

How incredibly disingenuous of you.

Obviously I ma not saying they should not be trained at all, and obviously mojo is not saying they should be trained 100% of the time. It's somewhere in between and we're discussing if we agree if that balance is right.

He literally suggested more of their paid time should be time training, and you responded with "BUT THEN THEY CAN'T BE DOING COP STUFF!"

disingenuous? wtf are you even talking about?