FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't understand the people that say, What if Floyd were white? I mean, that's awful, too. Cops shouldn't kill people, regardless of race.

I view it the same as the 'imagine if a Democrat did XYZ' in the Trump thread. They're saying that treatment of a white suspect would be handled differently. I think they're mostly wrong about that and have already discussed why, but I think a lot of this depends on where you are on the continuum of this being a systemic racism vs. police violence issue. If you see it as mostly being racism, then you probably think that's a really good argument.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by rjolley

Exactly. I have not once heard anyone with BLM say that the police reforms should only impact the way the police interact with Black people, but continue to harm everyone else. The reform is meant to help everyone.

But then you take away the ability to say "it's all the black guy's fault" (that he was beaten/shot/whatever) if you apply to everyone.

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I view it the same as the 'imagine if a Democrat did XYZ' in the Trump thread. They're saying that treatment of a white suspect would be handled differently. I think they're mostly wrong about that and have already discussed why, but I think a lot of this depends on where you are on the continuum of this being a systemic racism vs. police violence issue. If you see it as mostly being racism, then you probably think that's a really good argument.

These are generally people arguing it's the fault of the victims, not the police.

[Brian Swartz]

Huh, that's not the side I've been hearing it from. From that POV I agree with you; it's an exceedingly stupid thing to say.

[sterlingice]

Good news, everyone! Using legal tear gas is great for COVID:
Using Tear Gas At Protests Helps Spread Virus, Worsens COVID-19 : Shots - Health News : NPR

Oh, wait- no, it's not. It's stupid to use and increases spread of diseases like COVID.

So, yeah, let's keep using it on our citizens even though it's banned in wartime:
Tear gas has been banned in warfare. Why do police still use it? | The World from PRX

SI

[thesloppy]

"The entire Buffalo Police Department Emergency Response Team has resigned after the department suspended two officers without pay when a video surfaced showing them pushing over a 75-year-old protestor."

That's the hill these folks want to die on?

I am not at all shocked that we have a bunch of individual LEO acting poorly in heated situations, it's sad but also part of basic human nature, and at least aligns with my expectations for the country....but I have been shocked by the responses by some police & political organizations & politicians (probably a vocal minority, to be fair), given all the time in the world to reflect, and then choosing to double down. I had assumed and expected better, my mistake I guess.

[Kodos]

If I can get suspended for pushing an old man over and making him bleed from his head, I don't want to do this job anymore. That's just a bridge too far.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

"The entire Buffalo Police Department Emergency Response Team has resigned after the department suspended two officers without pay when a video surfaced showing them pushing over a 75-year-old protestor."

That's the hill these folks want to die on?

Cops continue to do nothing but show that the protests are valid and police reform is necessary.

[ISiddiqui]

Exactly. Any form of reasonable restrictions or suspensions are met with this sort of indignation among the police. It's almost surreal. Like these police organizations are really the bad guys in an action movie.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

"The entire Buffalo Police Department Emergency Response Team has resigned after the department suspended two officers without pay when a video surfaced showing them pushing over a 75-year-old protestor."

That's the hill these folks want to die on?

I am not at all shocked that we have a bunch of individual LEO acting poorly in heated situations, it's sad but at least aligns with my expectations for the country....but I have been shocked by the responses by some police & political organizations & politicians (probably a vocal minority, to be fair), given all the time in the world to reflect, and then choosing to double down. I had assumed and expected better, I guess.

So, wait? If you suspend 2 police officers who did obvious wrong, the swat teams that really aren't necessary (except in much rarer cases than they are used) will also resign?

Also, any bets on how soon these guys will go back on the force? I'm guessing this is all for show and there's already an agreement in place.

SI

[rjolley]

Seems like every couple of hours over the last couple of weeks, something happens that has me shouting out "What in the HELL is going on? This has to be staged."

Unfortunately, it hasn't been staged over 70% of the time.

[JPhillips]

They didn't resign from the force, just the Emergency Response Team.

Fine.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

They didn't resign from the force, just the Emergency Response Team.

Fine.

And in two weeks, they'll all be reassigned to something called the "Emergency Response Force"

SI

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

They didn't resign from the force, just the Emergency Response Team.

Fine.

Oh, geez. Please don't let this turn into some kinda clusterfuck where half of them insist it was an act of protest in solidarity with the old dude.

[whomario]

Re: Buffalo.

Can someone explain the Police Unions actions here ?

57 members of Buffalo police riot response team resign – The Buffalo News

Also, how the hell do they not get it is not what they were doing(clearing the square) but HOW they were doing it. This whole "whatever gets the result" line of thinking ...

And so now basically with their "resignation" they are saying: we want to get paid still but not do that job unless we can do it with impunity ?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So, wait? If you suspend 2 police officers who did obvious wrong, the swat teams that really aren't necessary (except in much rarer cases than they are used) will also resign?

Also, any bets on how soon these guys will go back on the force? I'm guessing this is all for show and there's already an agreement in place.

SI

They only resigned from the SWAT team, not the police force. The union told its members that it will not protect SWAT members from lawsuits.

Yet they could be asked at any time to do tasks that could very well lead to lawsuits if they make the simplest mistake or wrong decision in an highly adrenalinized environment.

Would you stay in that position?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

"The entire Buffalo Police Department Emergency Response Team has resigned after the department suspended two officers without pay when a video surfaced showing them pushing over a 75-year-old protestor."

That's the hill these folks want to die on?

I am not at all shocked that we have a bunch of individual LEO acting poorly in heated situations, it's sad but also part of basic human nature, and at least aligns with my expectations for the country....but I have been shocked by the responses by some police & political organizations & politicians (probably a vocal minority, to be fair), given all the time in the world to reflect, and then choosing to double down. I had assumed and expected better, my mistake I guess.

Just a few bad apples though.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

They only resigned from the SWAT team, not the police force. The union told its members that it will not protect SWAT members from lawsuits.

Yet they could be asked at any time to do tasks that could very well lead to lawsuits if they make the simplest mistake or wrong decision in an highly adrenalinized environment.

Would you stay in that position?

It's interesting (only to me) that I understand the whole union angle of potentially conflicting/redundant command entirely through the distorted lens of a couple of mail-carrier friends who have told me years & years worth of all kinds of horror stories about the postal union, and otherwise I wouldn't have any grasp on that part at all.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

They only resigned from the SWAT team, not the police force. The union told its members that it will not protect SWAT members from lawsuits.

Yet they could be asked at any time to do tasks that could very well lead to lawsuits if they make the simplest mistake or wrong decision in an highly adrenalinized environment.

Would you stay in that position?

Simplest mistake, in this case being, "shoving an elderly man to the ground" while surrounded by dozens of officers?

SI

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Simplest mistake, in this case being, "shoving an elderly man to the ground" while surrounded by dozens of officers?

SI

Pretty much yes. Do you think the cop spends his spare time beating up old men? Personally I don't think the cop was trying to harm the guy. The cop was ordered to clear the square. The old guy didn't want to move. Shit like that is going to happen.

How would you have handled the situation if you were in the cops boots?

[Jas_lov]

How about calmly talking to the old man. Sir, please clear the area. Put your hand on his back and guide him out of the square.

[JPhillips]

There looked to be about five cops per civilian in the square. There was no need to shove anyone.

Now I do think the people giving orders should be held accountable as well.

[Jas_lov]

And the cops #1 job should be to protect the public, which is the old man. He's no threat to society. That should have been handled a lot better. The cop should be fired and the entire force retrained.

[rjolley]

How about showing some compassion for the elderly man lying on the ground and attending to him, at least until a medic gets there? Or allowing whomever was with him to come to his side? There were more than enough officers in the area to contain any threat.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

How about calmly talking to the old man. Sir, please clear the area. Put your hand on his back and guide him out of the square.

Perhaps just talking would've worked. Perhaps putting your hand on his back and guiding him would've worked. Or maybe he would've tripped we would've had the same tragic result.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Pretty much yes. Do you think the cop spends his spare time beating up old men? Personally I don't think the cop was trying to harm the guy. The cop was ordered to clear the square. The old guy didn't want to move. Shit like that is going to happen.

How would you have handled the situation if you were in the cops boots?

I would have talked to the elderly man and if necessary moved him off to the side like a non-psychopath.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

And the cops #1 job should be to protect the public, which is the old man. He's no threat to society. That should have been handled a lot better. The cop should be fired and the entire force retrained.

It should've been handled better, but when these situations happen over and over again there will be mistakes.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I would have talked to the elderly man and if necessary moved him off to the side like a non-psychopath.

"Moved him" how exactly? And what if he didn't want to be moved?

[whomario]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Perhaps just talking would've worked. Perhaps putting your hand on his back and guiding him would've worked. Or maybe he would've tripped we would've had the same tragic result.

Or maybe he would have tripped 3 weeks from now in his home, right ? That's fate, guys ! Why bother influencing the odds, just accept the inevitable !

Congratulation on perfectly displaying the attitude preventing change in so many areas. Why even bother trying when there is no guarantee ?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

They only resigned from the SWAT team, not the police force. The union told its members that it will not protect SWAT members from lawsuits.

Well, I'm glad that these police officers are going to make it a bit easier for Buffalo to de-militarize it's police force by reducing funding for the SWAT team.

More incentive for Amash's bill to pass!

[whomario]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

"Moved him" how exactly? And what if he didn't want to be moved?

Then you go to whatever is Plan B or step up the force you use. That lack of progression and just starting at Option 3 or 4 is a big part of the problem. Same as assuming everybody is out to get you.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

"Moved him" how exactly? And what if he didn't want to be moved?

It's a 75 year old man. There are ways of doing it without cracking his skull open. You can handcuff him and move him aside.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by whomario

Then you go to whatever is Plan B or step up the force you use. That lack of progression and just starting at Option 3 or 4 is a big part of the problem. Same as assuming everybody is out to get you.

Right. When Plan B is shove him down and don't make sure he's ok, then that's just proof we have a massive systemic issue in policing.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Right. When Plan B is shove him down and don't make sure he's ok, then that's just proof we have a massive systemic issue in policing.

If only it was Plan B ...

What i mean is that too often there is no attempt being made at a non-violent resolution and then no attempt being made for a 'least-violent' resolution. It goes straight to whatever should come after those attempts and is deemed justified by the officers involved. They either ignore other solutions out of convenience, out of fear or because they assume (!) they would not work.
Again, part of the problem seems to me that there is a different standard written into the legal language than for example in most european countries. Even if the man would just jump straight up without a scratch and then leave this would be deemed unnecessary use of force over here because you could and should without any doubt expect a group of trained officers to achieve the same result with less risk of injury with no force or less force 99 out of 100 times.

Let's even ignore the bad outcome for a second or the despicable reaction (likely no coincidence imo that a national guardsman comes to his aid as they are not out there to prove a point):

Why do you have trained police when they use methods anybody could use ? Any bunch of random people could have fullfilled that order (clear the area) by pushing that guy around until he scrambles out of the way. You have police and train them so they can achieve the same result with less potential for injury !

[AlexB]

Not that it justifies the videos over the last few days, but it’s easier for our UK & European police to show restraint when you can be 99% sure you are dealing with a person/crowd without guns.

I cannot imagine how skittish you would be if you were obliged to try and apprehend people who are likely armed with guns.

However, even to the untrained eye, most of the victims in the widely shared videos are clearly unarmed and non-threatening, which suggests in this last week there must have been a directive from high that officers must appear to be strong, and this has been taken as a license to be militia-esque.

I truly believe the police in the US have a more dangerous job than most European police, but at the same time they have to be better than what we have seen over the last week

[whomario]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Not that it justifies the videos over the last few days, but it’s easier for our UK & European police to show restraint when you can be 99% sure you are dealing with a person/crowd without guns.

I cannot imagine how skittish you would be if you were obliged to try and apprehend people who are likely armed with guns.

However, even to the untrained eye, most of the victims in the widely shared videos are clearly unarmed and non-threatening, which suggests in this last week there must have been a directive from high that officers must appear to be strong, and this has been taken as a license to be militia-esque.

I truly believe the police in the US have a more dangerous job than most European police, but at the same time they have to be better than what we have seen over the last week

And still our police spends 2 - 3 years preparing for the presumably easier and less dangerous job, not 5-6 months !

Of course the prevelance of guns in public and the low threshold of use is a big issue as are a plethora of other uniquely american issues. But if you use the "well, you can't expect anything better" or "you can't eliminate the problem anyway" line of thinking as an excuse to not make a concerted effort to improve things, nothing will ever change in any of those areas. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.

I have utmost sympathy for the shitty situation police in the US are in by default and won't deny it will always be harder than in Europe. But you still can influence the odds.
For example i know the UK has about 10 times as many 'knive crimes' (or less-lethal weapons in general) as Germany and no acompanying higher amount of deadly forced used by police. A US officer on the other hand is much more likely to use a deadly weapon on people openly using a less-lethal weapon like knives. (Those incidents alone are significantly higher rate per capita than total use of deadly force incidents, including people wielding guns or hostage situations, in any european country)
This can't be solely explained by them all assuming a suspect will suddenly ditch the knive/other weapon and draw his gun ...

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It should've been handled better, but when these situations happen over and over again there will be mistakes.

I accept there being mistakes. Lots of them. I accept errors in judgment to a certain degree. I don't think for the most part people are asking for perfection. But I definitely agree that as has been mentioned, there's a whole list of things you try first before injuring an elderly civilian in that kind of situation. It simply can't be acceptable not to try other things first.

[stevew]

"if he dies from that head injury they'll just say it was covid-19 at the hospital"

/trumper

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Pretty much yes. Do you think the cop spends his spare time beating up old men? Personally I don't think the cop was trying to harm the guy. The cop was ordered to clear the square. The old guy didn't want to move. Shit like that is going to happen.

How would you have handled the situation if you were in the cops boots?

I'm generally with you. Cop didn't intend to beat up the old guy but admittedly one pushed too hard and the old guy fell backwards. One cop bent down to check on him and was "pulled" back up.

Some twitter comments theorize the cop was going to further beat up on the old guy which in my opinion is ludicrous. TBH, I'm okay with the cop not trying to physically help the old guy as the cop probably didn't have the proper training and you can see another cop call someone.

The fault was the push but it was an accident. Emotions high, lots of pressure, this guy didn't want to get out of the way etc. so they pushed him out of the way and the guy fell. It was an unintentional but it happened nevertheless.

I do feel the cops were also wrong in not at least having the one doing the pushing stay with the guy immediately. Not to treat (again probably not qualified and didn't have the supplies) but if anything to try reassure the guy, hold the hand etc. until the medic got there.

So over aggressive move that wasn't necessary but injury was unintentional. Cops should be warned/reprimanded but unless there has been a pattern I wouldn't fire the one cop as he isn't what I would call a "bad apple".

[NobodyHere]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/us/bl...rnd/index.html

Originally Posted by Article

"This is a performative distraction from real policy changes. Bowser has consistently been on the wrong side of BLMDC history. This is to appease white liberals while ignoring our demands. Black Lives Matter means defund the police," the group tweeted.

Is it just me or is calling for the defunding of the police overplaying your hand just a bit?

How will this play out in the next election? Trump will obviously try to be the "Law and Order" candidate as if he ever cared about laws. But how will Biden try to play this? I may be wrong but I can't imagine most Americans will support defunding the police. How does Biden try to skirt the issue while trying to get BLM supporters to show up to the polls?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/us/bl...rnd/index.html



Is it just me or is calling for the defunding of the police overplaying your hand just a bit?

How will this play out in the next election? Trump will obviously try to be the "Law and Order" candidate as if he ever cared about laws. But how will Biden try to play this? I may be wrong but I can't imagine most Americans will support defunding the police. How does Biden try to skirt the issue while trying to get BLM supporters to show up to the polls?

It's a simple play to me, address restructuring funding to improve training and implement a standard set of rules across all PD that address police violence, while still allowing the police to police.

One thing that can't be done is take military style weapons from police forces and leave them badly outgunned. Instead focus on deescalation instead of escalation, outlaw deadly restraint and force departments to implement intervention rules.

[thesloppy]

I personally don't think defunding the police entirely is a realistic goal (especially in the nation's capitol) but consider that the mayor of DC literally painted the name of their movement on the street without consulting them as if it were some kind of concession. I can understand how it probably seemed like a genuine & righteous idea to the mayor and her team, but I can also fully understand how it could anger BLMDC.

If you were in a serious conflict with a group of people, over what you consider life-and-death issues, and one morning the person with authority over that group told you "I painted your name in the street last night, really big....we good??" wouldn't you be a little angry?

[rjolley]

Had to look up what BLM was recommending with defunding, because it sounded like they wanted to do away with the police altogether. That's not it. They are looking to defund certain areas, like purchases of military grade weapons, and redirect that money to fund enrichment programs throughout the city.

Never knew how large some of those police budgets are. A redistribution of funds would be interesting and could be effective. I could see overall crime going up but serious crimes going down, but who knows.

EDIT: Need to read about this more. Definitely sounds like it could be a case by case basis for which approach would work better.

[thesloppy]

In Portland they have already removed the police 'resource' officers from high schools in three districts, and now they are claiming that they will be defunding the transit police & the (artists formerly known as the) gang enforcement unit as well, which have both been around since the '80s as far as I remember.

That is truly significant change in a short amount of time, well beyond what I was expecting.

City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty Says Portland Will Defund Two More Police Units - Willamette Week

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by rjolley

Had to look up what BLM was recommending with defunding, because it sounded like they wanted to do away with the police altogether. That's not it. They are looking to defund certain areas, like purchases of military grade weapons, and redirect that money to fund enrichment programs throughout the city.

Never knew how large some of those police budgets are. A redistribution of funds would be interesting and could be effective. I could see overall crime going up but serious crimes going down, but who knows.

EDIT: Need to read about this more. Definitely sounds like it could be a case by case basis for which approach would work better.

Indeed, the Guardian has a good primer on this:

What does 'defund the police' mean? The rallying cry sweeping the US – explained | US news | The Guardian

[PilotMan]

As far as a basic "rallying cry" goes; that one is terrible.

[sterlingice]

Doesn't roll off the tongue, doesn't actually state what you're trying to do without a lot more explanation, sounds inherently negative. 2/10

SI

[Jukeman]

Wow...

Matthew A. Cherry (@MatthewACherry) Tweeted:
Here's the entire interview with @kimlatricejones and David Jones Media. Take a second to watch the whole thing because she makes even greater points throughout the entire interview than she does in the viral clip that is circulating. Her Monopoly comparison is spot on. https://t.co/klV5yxkqGu

[GrantDawg]

When you accidentally meme yourself. ������ pic.twitter.com/XipXjyhloH

— DoxieBabyWearsAMask (@doxiebaby) June 6, 2020

[tarcone]

The Iowa football program is getting called out big time on twitter. Former players are starting to speak out.

I knew there was a problem at Iowa. Could never understand why the white walk on started ahead of a black schollie player. We called it the try hard issue. Like the white kid was a try hard kid.

There are some very terrible things said to black players.

If you want to see it, go to James or Mike Daniels. They started it.