Print

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

[Rolepgeek]

I don't think I am, Frumple. By and large, I do not see people who have a real support of the police. I'd like to support them, and I think they're mostly good guys, but I think that there's some serious issues, too. Mind you, this is recently, and it's not a topic I see brought up all that often irl.

Mate, if you don't see real support of the police, you have not watched TV once in the last three decades. Or read the news, or listened to the radio, or been somewhere besides under a rock. They are supported to the point that people, millions of them, try to blow off some sketchy as hell shit. To the point they functionally don't see legal repercussions, that they get sodding millions in grassroots donations, and more, and more, and more. This has been constant for the extent of my life. It is still constant, for all some people are starting to get slightly pissed that support is being taken advantage of, and even among them the majority message is "reign in" not "hate".

You practically have to be trying to miss this stuff.

And yeah, you were misinterpreting like the buggery with what you quoted. MSH was the only one that came even close to anything approaching hate, and even that was in relation to a believed excess of support. And MSH basically does hate the police.

Folks don't dislike the police, by and large. They hate it's reached the point they have solid ground to be fucking terrified of them, and everything related to that. Cops get a shitton of respect even with that, and there's friggin' piles of folks that have basically zero concern over how cops have been acting for the last long while. There's already been examples of that in this particular discussion, too.

To be fair, I don't watch TV very often. Most of the support I've seen for police has been from the school when talking about the police officer who works with them, and second-hand. I've seen people say more or less the things I'm saying, but not 'police are totally justified in what they do'. I understand intellectually it's out there, and I have understood it. Odds are I'm overinflating the amount of actual opposition to the police, and conflating fear and the like with it. Apologies.

Also my dad lives in Baltimore and I visit him a lot, and tensions there are high to put it lightly, so that may have skewed things somewhat.

Until you have better data, you use the data you have.

Only to the extent you can use it.  Look dude, you need to stop with the strawman arguments already.  Just because someone says that we are too quick to trust the cops doesn't mean they say we should hate them.  Just because someone tells you your data is shit doesn't mean they hate the concept of data.  Stop making bullshit false dichotomies.

I'm not trying to. Were you saying something else, that wasn't 'that data isn't very good, so we shouldn't use it'? Because that's what I got out of it. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I don't think you hate the concept of data, I think you have a very hard time backing down from an argument, as do I. If I found a better data source, that did show that America had more crime, what would your response be, mainiac? Because I don't know if I've ever seen you even admit to the possibility that you could be wrong, whilst in an argument with someone taking an opposite position. It's not about disliking you. It's about the way human psychology works as it relates to debate.

[x2yzh9]

No, but it's what we got.

That is a very dangerous way to think about data.

Why?

Until you have better data, you use the data you have. You don't just throw your hands up in the air and say 'it's a mystery! we'll never know, so we may as well assume it's some other thing unrelated to the data!' Poor data > No data. You want to get the best data you can. Don't run off a cliff with it, but when it lines up with similar, more reliable data, and you don't have anything else, there ya go.

We could always not use it. And then there's no data to support for or against the idea that America has higher crime rates. You claimed it was special pleading to do so. I'm not certain how, at this point. It actually seems like it would be to not use the data. I'm not ignoring other data. I asked specifically for it, and would love to have it and use it instead. I don't know where it happens to be. And judging from logical reasoning, the USA having a higher crime rate is not an unexpected outcome. More ethnic diversity leads to more strife between ethnic groups. Cycles of poverty and crime start up where there's enough localized inequality and absence of economic opportunity. A history of racism that results in law enforcement being a threat as much or more than it is a security to minority populations, which creates systemic distrust and rejection of the existing system. Glorification of individualized violence causing rash decision-making to leap to that as one of the first answers at hand when being impulsive. A massive prison system working to keep as many people criminals as possible, and incubating rather than rehabilitating inmates.

What more do you need, mainiac?

It's not whether or not you use the data, it's how you use it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In which way do you propose they be put into their place?

The list drags on and on.

- Overturn multiple Supreme Court decisions, including but not limited to: having to declare your action of silence, the police not being obligated to protect the public, the entire general standard of hearsay and testimony for the police vs others, and the standard of reasonable suspicion.
- End and reverse militarization, ban the DoD from ever giving them equipment again.
- Ban civil forfeiture, or otherwise reform it so radically that it doesn't exist in its current format.
- Establish greater powers for Internal Affairs, try to find some way to break the esprit de corps.
- Eliminate unnecessary SWAT programs (a city of 100,000 needs SWAT, a town of 5,000 does not).
- Completely scrap and recreate police academy training to emphasize non-escalation, and get rid of these lines that every cop in the USA uses ("detected the sent of marijuana", "I'm a nice guy I don't cite if people just give up their drugs", "I'll call in the dogs if you don't consent to a search").
- Disarm patrolmen in certain circumstances, very peaceful areas don't need gunmen with badges, they can call it in.
- Completely end kickbacks for not just civil forfeiture sales, but also fines and local fundraising. Only allow a direct line from the state or federal government.
- Universal body and patrol cameras that transmit to public archive.
- Stricter warrant standards; magistrates currently give them out on basically nothing. Eliminate no-knock warrants entirely.
- Mandatory timing of all jailed people, and legal protections for their jobs and responsibilities while being held. No more "oops we forgot to release you" and "oops I fired you when you vanished for a week".

I could go on or expand into prison and greater judicial reform, but all of the above would be an acceptable time to revisit having respect for the police.

[Powder Miner]

I actually agree with you on most of that, though that really is less of a "fuck you police" than "putting them in their place" made me think.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Don't get me wrong, I hate the pigs and all that. You can't just willingly join an organization like that and even tolerate the kind of things most police do on the regular even if you avoid it yourself without taking on moral responsibility. That just doesn't inform the actual method of making them not be bastards.

[Max™]

Just to be safe, I'm going to ask everyone to answer these questions:

1) What is your name?
A series of symbols or sounds which allow myself and others to tell when I am the subject of interest.

2) What is your quest?
To say fuck all that grail shit and take Saber as the waifu to my waifu on the condition that she can play with my woman, who can play with my sword, and I can play with the awesome doomblade of explosioning.

3) What is your favorite color?
The result of elecromagnetic oscillations with a wavelength of around 455 nm being absorbed by structures in my eye, triggering a signal transfer which ends up as a nice soothing sense of aesthetic purity in my brainbox region.

[Powder Miner]

Well, huh. I may not at all agree with your outlook, but I definitely have to respect much of what you propose, if perhaps not every single thing -- I'm not sure about disarming since we are very much an armed population, even in many relatively peaceful areas (and I'm not even much of a gun control guy), and I think banning local fundraising doesn't make a lot of sense.

I DO certainly agree with things like patrol cameras transmitting to public archive so they aren't mysteriously not working or off, and I suuuuuure as hell can agree with removing civil forfeiture. Fuuuuuck civil forfeiture.

[Max™]

Well I'm glad to see you agree that I should get to play with that awesomesword, the neat invisible sheath too! I swear to be totally responsible with it, and only blow up previously depopulated areas mostly.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not sure about disarming since we are very much an armed population, even in many relatively peaceful areas (and I'm not even much of a gun control guy),

This is a situational thing. The general armed-ness of the US becomes irrelevant in eligible areas, since they're the ones least likely to pack heat in the first place. You might recall how back in the NYPD strike the violent felony rate ended up going down while they weren't patrolling. Fancy that.

If your job is to stand around looking pretty in broad daylight and tell off skateboarders, you don't really need a gun. In fact, it becomes a detriment, because people know you have it and it puts them and the cop on edge. I'm reminded of a CIA memoir about how they hated carrying a gun while on assignment, because it "burned a hole in their pocket". It's hard to stop thinking about lethal weapons.

and I think banning local fundraising doesn't make a lot of sense.

It's important because of what form "fundraising" actually takes. This isn't John Q. Public cheerfully supporting his local police department, these are the modern equivalent of buying a ticket to the policeman's ball. Some even give out bumper stickers to donators. That you can put on your car. Telling anybody who sees it that you give the police department a lot of money. I think the issue is rather obvious from there.

I DO certainly agree with things like patrol cameras transmitting to public archive so they aren't mysteriously not working or off

A less expensive alternative might be an inviolable "lose the tape, lose your case" rule, but something like that already exists and apparently doesn't work very well.

[Powder Miner]

This is a situational thing. The general armed-ness of the US becomes irrelevant in eligible areas, since they're the ones least likely to pack heat in the first place. You might recall how back in the NYPD strike the violent felony rate ended up going down while they weren't patrolling. Fancy that.

If your job is to stand around looking pretty in broad daylight and tell off skateboarders, you don't really need a gun. In fact, it becomes a detriment, because people know you have it and it puts them and the cop on edge. I'm reminded of a CIA memoir about how they hated carrying a gun while on assignment, because it "burned a hole in their pocket". It's hard to stop thinking about lethal weapons.

Perhaps you make a point here. I suppose disarming would be acceptable for certain areas, but there'd have to be some pretty conservative guidelines for it.

It's important because of what form "fundraising" actually takes. This isn't John Q. Public cheerfully supporting his local police department, these are the modern equivalent of buying a ticket to the policeman's ball. Some even give out bumper stickers to donators. That you can put on your car. Telling anybody who sees it that you give the police department a lot of money. I think the issue is rather obvious from there.

It's skeevy to be sure, the whole bumper sticker thing, but that one sort of behavior cannot fully represent all local fundraising, and disallowing all local fundraising because of it sounds like a bit of a knee-jerk to the behaviors of specific departments -- and is a bit of a breach of the First Amendment. (Keep in mind, I agree with the Citizens United ruling, as I loooove the First Amendment, so that should tell you where I stand on that.)

A less expensive alternative might be an inviolable "lose the tape, lose your case" rule, but something like that already exists and apparently doesn't work very well.

Body cameras weren't introduced to not be viewed. They're being completely circumvented as is, and the reason for their existence perverted. I strongly agree with you that there needs to be change here.

[Orange Wizard]

I made an attempt at laying it out two posts before that one -- gun crime in Switzerland wasn't characterized by gangs shooting people up with illegal guns, but it sure as hell is here. Ot's what makes up the vast majority of gun crime. If you're trying to focus on countering, like, 2nd Amendment rural folk or just legal gun buyers in general like the Switzerland sort of thing would accomplish, you're doing it wrong.

Making guns harder to obtain legally makes it harder to obtain them illegally. Gangs, generally, obtain guns illegally.

Consider New Zealand, country with the highest gang membership rate in the world, moderately restrictive firearms laws, but minimal gang violence. When there is gang violence, it's with knives and bats, not handguns. Combine this with a decently-trained police force and gang violence becomes much, much rarer.

[Powder Miner]

New Zealand's also a small island country (no borders) with less population than Alabama, just less size than Colorado, and that is in the most out of the way part of the world. The US has absolutely none of these conditions, which makes it infinitely harder to just shut it down like that.

[martinuzz]

I don't see this particular shooting as much of a sin from the police -- the guy was holding a loaded handgun, and was in fact warned to drop his gun. Is the cop supposed to wait until he starts getting shot? When you're saying that cops need to risk their lives more rather than using force if someone's got a deadly, loaded weapon, it's like you're expecting them to be some sort of martyrs -- someone really can be shot just like that, and if they're holding a loaded gun and not dropping it, it's a pretty damn significant chance they're gonna get shot, not just some vague "worry". Cops are people too, it's ridiculous to expect them to willingly put their lives out there to get ended any more than they have to.

Yeah, what I said earlier.

[Orange Wizard]

New Zealand's also a small island country (no borders) with less population than Alabama, just less size than Colorado, and that is in the most out of the way part of the world. The US has absolutely none of these conditions, which makes it infinitely harder to just shut it down like that.

Very well, then, let me point you to the European Union. Admittedly the eastern half is kinda crappy, but the west? Low gun violence. Capable police. Population more than double that of the United States. More borders than North America could dream of. They're even criticised for poor border control and yet the existing policies do a better job of keeping gun crime in check than those of the States.

[Rolan7]

In which way do you propose they be put into their place?

The list drags on and on.

- Overturn multiple Supreme Court decisions, including but not limited to: having to declare your action of silence, the police not being obligated to protect the public, the entire general standard of hearsay and testimony for the police vs others, and the standard of reasonable suspicion.
- End and reverse militarization, ban the DoD from ever giving them equipment again.
- Ban civil forfeiture, or otherwise reform it so radically that it doesn't exist in its current format.
- Establish greater powers for Internal Affairs, try to find some way to break the esprit de corps.
- Eliminate unnecessary SWAT programs (a city of 100,000 needs SWAT, a town of 5,000 does not).
- Completely scrap and recreate police academy training to emphasize non-escalation, and get rid of these lines that every cop in the USA uses ("detected the sent of marijuana", "I'm a nice guy I don't cite if people just give up their drugs", "I'll call in the dogs if you don't consent to a search").
- Disarm patrolmen in certain circumstances, very peaceful areas don't need gunmen with badges, they can call it in.
- Completely end kickbacks for not just civil forfeiture sales, but also fines and local fundraising. Only allow a direct line from the state or federal government.
- Universal body and patrol cameras that transmit to public archive.
- Stricter warrant standards; magistrates currently give them out on basically nothing. Eliminate no-knock warrants entirely.
- Mandatory timing of all jailed people, and legal protections for their jobs and responsibilities while being held. No more "oops we forgot to release you" and "oops I fired you when you vanished for a week".

I could go on or expand into prison and greater judicial reform, but all of the above would be an acceptable time to revisit having respect for the police.

Huh, that's a very good list!  Reasonable and constructive.  I think I agree with everything on there except the SWAT teams.  SWAT teams have the equipment and training to save lives when regular police can't.  But, maybe we can't afford that luxury in some small towns.

Anyway, with a plan like that you can "hate the pigs" all you want as far as I'm concerned.  Doesn't really do your position justice though!