Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[nenjin]

Well, it's more like the racism was generally pushed out of minds of normal people, but instead it concentrated in the minds of policemen.

Notice how all the big outcries are because of how police deals with black people?

I don't think racism stopped existing in the mind of the average citizen. It's that we've come to a point in law enforcement and social media where there are penalties for average people acting on their racially motivated impulses. Police, however, have power and the means to try and say what's illegal or not.

Put another way. Put any person in a uniform and give them a badge, and a whole host of unpleasant behaviors emerge....and not necessarily just racial animus and fear.

[Sergarr]

Well, it's more like the racism was generally pushed out of minds of normal people, but instead it concentrated in the minds of policemen.

Notice how all the big outcries are because of how police deals with black people?

I don't think racism stopped existing in the mind of the average citizen. It's that we've come to a point in law enforcement and social media where there are penalties for average people acting on their racially motivated impulses. Police, however, have power and the means to try and say what's illegal or not.

Put another way. Put any person in a uniform and give them a badge, and a whole host of unpleasant behaviors emerge....and not necessarily just racial animus and fear.

The bolded part is the problem. Police should have no say about what's illegal or not. Only judges and lawmakers should have this sort of power.

[Loud Whispers]

And there should be judges who judge the judges whilst the people hold the judgers of judges accountable for their inspecting, thus ensuring no one sole party can screw the other over.

[GavJ]

Another solution to most of this would just be inventing (or maybe something already exists) a tool with the same range as a handgun that safely incapacitates people.

Then police only get those and no guns.

[Bauglir]

I'm not sure such a tool is actually possible at our level of technology, given the amount of damage you can do to somebody just by knocking them down via taser. And wrapping somebody in foam or some other soft material is bound to cause suffocation risks.

[alway]

Well, it's more like the racism was generally pushed out of minds of normal people, but instead it concentrated in the minds of policemen.

Notice how all the big outcries are because of how police deals with black people?

I don't think racism stopped existing in the mind of the average citizen. It's that we've come to a point in law enforcement and social media where there are penalties for average people acting on their racially motivated impulses. Police, however, have power and the means to try and say what's illegal or not.

Put another way. Put any person in a uniform and give them a badge, and a whole host of unpleasant behaviors emerge....and not necessarily just racial animus and fear.

The bolded part is the problem. Police should have no say about what's illegal or not. Only judges and lawmakers should have this sort of power.

On the contrary; that's always been the case. Police can't perfectly enforce every law and statute. Most of our legal system is set up the way it is specifically for that reason. Punishments outsized relative to the crime to deter those who may not be caught, and so on. That's why everyone hates speed cameras and other forms of automated policing. If laws could be perfectly enforced, we would need to enact a massive overhaul of the laws simply because they were not created with that in mind. As it is, laws exist in their current form with the implicit assumption that best judgement will be used in allocation of resources in order to protect people from danger while being very lax about things like people speeding 5 mph over the limit. So there is a ton of wiggle room given for police judgement; though it should be reined in to some extent now, since newer methods of policing are allowing for it to be more thorough.

[Loud Whispers]

Another solution to most of this would just be inventing (or maybe something already exists) a tool with the same range as a handgun that safely incapacitates people.

Not going to ever happen for a long while.

[EnigmaticHat]

And for whatever reason, cops are incredibly unwilling to throw their bad apples under the bus, and very much willing to shit all over everybody that tries to do just that. So you've got a lot of mitigating factors when it comes to large-scale public coverage of police fuckery. Y'get the occasional big ticket stuff, like what's going on in ferg, but as Gryph notes major news stations spin that shit like a carnival ride of rapidly oscillating gyroscopic dicks.

I can think of three major potential reasons that would apply:
1) Experience: They may not be the cleanest, but at least they do their job for the most part, or they know how to go about performing specific areas very well.
2) Connections: They know people who would make it an utter pain to continue on without the bad apple.
3) Hard to Replace: Even if they don't fall into the other two categories, they might not be wanted to get rid of due to the fact that there might not be a person to replace them with.  Attitude might be enforced by the general unwillingness to cooperate with the police that many people exhibit, and the general disdain given to them.

Maybe they're just assholes who are bad at their jobs.

There's a reason for everything but it doesn't need to be a good reason.  I really doubt that all or even most bad apples are held on because they're a net benefit to the force.

Well, it's more like the racism was generally pushed out of minds of normal people, but instead it concentrated in the minds of policemen.

Notice how all the big outcries are because of how police deals with black people?

I don't think racism stopped existing in the mind of the average citizen. It's that we've come to a point in law enforcement and social media where there are penalties for average people acting on their racially motivated impulses. Police, however, have power and the means to try and say what's illegal or not.

Put another way. Put any person in a uniform and give them a badge, and a whole host of unpleasant behaviors emerge....and not necessarily just racial animus and fear.

The bolded part is the problem. Police should have no say about what's illegal or not. Only judges and lawmakers should have this sort of power.

Police don't technically have any authority over what's illegal.  The problem is that there are a lot of broad laws that can be interpreted, and if you take a generous enough view of those laws then it becomes a "everyone is breaking the law, so you can arrest whoever you want" kind of thing.

[SalmonGod]

I think the real problem is somewhat different from the current discussion of police authority. 

It harkens back to the problem of the warrior cop mentality:  it's that police are too often thinking of themselves as judge, jury, and executioner, and behaving as if it's their job to identify criminals and punish them.  Their job is supposed to be to identify and apprehend suspects, whose guilt and appropriate punishments are then determined in court.  Even if police witness a crime in progress, they don't know all of the circumstances behind what they're witnessing (mental issues, duress, etc), so should not have any authority to treat anyone harshly based on their own judgments.  They should be restricted to an absolute minimum of force at all times, preferably only risking harm to a person when they are posing an immediate danger to others, and should be prepared to accept moderate risk to themselves before risking harm to suspects or bystanders.  Anything beyond this turns police into a more pervasive and dangerous entity than any criminal.  You can at least attempt to defend yourself against a criminal that wishes you harm, without invoking the full wrath of the entire society you live in.

[GavJ]

Another solution to most of this would just be inventing (or maybe something already exists) a tool with the same range as a handgun that safely incapacitates people.

Not going to ever happen for a long while.

Well actually I overstated the requirements. All you really need is a weapon that reliably incapacitates and does so MORE safely than guns. With a good chance of survival. Give it the same rules for usage as guns, and the survival rate would make cops much less likely to attack people under trumped up circumstances, due to the risk of them testifying as to your complete incompetence and illegality.

[Lord Shonus]

The closest to that that is possible with current technology (and quite possibly possible period) is the taser, which kills people all the time while failing to supress other people for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to body mass, impact points, individual electrical resistance, and pure adrenalin. There's been some interesting work done with flashing light and lasers, but these carry a high chance of severe brain damage or death to a significant percentage of the population. A magic sleep gun DOES NOT and CAN NOT exist.  Even if it did, the majority of police brutality cases are beatings or excessive use of tasers, pepper spray, or other "Limited Lethality" weapons (in fact, the introduction of such tools seems to have increased, not decreased, brutality cases by reducing the threshold for use of force); not firearm shootings.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, the problem with guns, if there is one, seems to be in the psychological aspect - encouraging the warrior cop mentality.

EDIT: And, also, I think there are better ways to combat that, although if you want to get into guns specifically I think we need to find a way to disentangle them from the machismo and liberty associations they seem to have. A good start would be repealing the 2nd amendment but ahahahahahahahahaha

FURTHER EDIT: That's not to say I want some kind of gun ban, but that there's a lot of cultural weirdness that comes from privileging weapons that way, and it's that aspect of culture that I think contributes to warrior cops, by contributing to a general "guns = warrior = blood and honor" mindset. I'd have it replaced with something more general, if I had my way, but I never will and it's pretty off topic to get into that.

[Lord Shonus]

For the most part, police misuse of their firearm is usually the result of legitimately characterizing the threat, such as mistaking an airsoft gun for a real one, or thinking someone that reached for their pocket too quickly was drawing a weapon (which is why it is wise practice to always move slowly and announce what you are doing when dealing with a cop, even the best cop makes mistakes). This is because the use of a firearm is the use of lethal force, something which both training and biology sets up a very high threshold against. Turn it into nonlethal force, and you might as well give them a Super Soaker for the level of engagement threshold they have, because the mindset becomes "it won't kill them, just make me a bit safer". You'd probably save more lives by banning the concept of a non-lethal weapon than you would by mandating them.

Obviously, this isn't always the case, as is clearly demonstrated in this incident (the subway shooting a few years ago may not qualify, as the officer in question claims he thought he was using his taser.)

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

I can think of three major potential reasons that would apply:
1) Experience: They may not be the cleanest, but at least they do their job for the most part, or they know how to go about performing specific areas very well.
2) Connections: They know people who would make it an utter pain to continue on without the bad apple.
3) Hard to Replace: Even if they don't fall into the other two categories, they might not be wanted to get rid of due to the fact that there might not be a person to replace them with.  Attitude might be enforced by the general unwillingness to cooperate with the police that many people exhibit, and the general disdain given to them.

Maybe they're just assholes who are bad at their jobs.

There's a reason for everything but it doesn't need to be a good reason.  I really doubt that all or even most bad apples are held on because they're a net benefit to the force.

I'm just stating a few that might cover potentially a sizable majority of cases combined.  Bullshit is to be expected from a government organization.

Yeah, the problem with guns, if there is one, seems to be in the psychological aspect - encouraging the warrior cop mentality.

EDIT: And, also, I think there are better ways to combat that, although if you want to get into guns specifically I think we need to find a way to disentangle them from the machismo and liberty associations they seem to have. A good start would be repealing the 2nd amendment but ahahahahahahahahaha

FURTHER EDIT: That's not to say I want some kind of gun ban, but that there's a lot of cultural weirdness that comes from privileging weapons that way, and it's that aspect of culture that I think contributes to warrior cops, by contributing to a general "guns = warrior = blood and honor" mindset. I'd have it replaced with something more general, if I had my way, but I never will and it's pretty off topic to get into that.

From what I have seen, there are two views in terms of how a culture views weaponry.  The "Sword" view is the one that is more frequently seen in the majority of the world, viewing a weapon as an extension of the person.  To develop this mindset, at the founding of a nation, soldiers taken years of training to hone their skills, essentially making use feel a part of the person.  America did not have this sort of beginning.  It instead has the "Gun" view, where the weapon empowers the person.  This mindset was established by the soldiers who founded the nation typically having a few weeks of training before entering combat, or simply entering it with skills they had learned from hunting practices of the time.

In addition, the tactics of the "Sword" mentality lead to a greater focus on the whole of the group and the long-term.  Tactics inherit in the "Gun" mentality lead to a greater focus on the self and the short-term.  There's problems in both.  For Swords wanting to hang back too much, planing too far ahead without looking at what is going on in the present, or becoming entirely focused on one thing, without paying attention to others.  Examples of the results of these problems would be both World Wars, focused treaties causing the first, and being too slow causing the second.  For Guns, it is going in too fast, planning only for the short term, not considering the long term, and trying to take everything on at once.  Examples of consequences would include the Collapse of Rome, and the American Vietnam war.  Neither is good, neither is bad, they are just one of the major core bases of cultures.

I had a point in typing this up, but now that I have finished, I cannot for the life of me remember what it was now...

[Loud Whispers]

Well actually I overstated the requirements. All you really need is a weapon that reliably incapacitates and does so MORE safely than guns. With a good chance of survival. Give it the same rules for usage as guns, and the survival rate would make cops much less likely to attack people under trumped up circumstances, due to the risk of them testifying as to your complete incompetence and illegality.

If tazers are anything to go by then you'd just get police incapacitating people with this mystery weapon and  using it readily so where before they would not have been able to incapacitate targets.