FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To me, I can't let "a messaging problem" stop me from doing what I think is right. When weighed against the strength of the message, the significance of the problem - the messaging problem falls behind those. And that's especially, especially true when I /know/ that part of the "messaging problem" is coming from bad actors trying to discredit the message, those who benefit from the system as is or want to make it worse.

My premise (see another posted chart) is there is 30% of Americans that are undecided or did not respond to a poll of pro/con BLM. I do think part of the solution is to train up police better and get rid of the bad apples. However, another part is winning the 30% public.

Right-or-wrong, I am guessing many of the 30% associate BLM with "here we go again, some more riots and looting" and the original messaging gets lost. Additionally, I perceive lack of BLM leadership, there isn't one/few leadership voices. If there are, its not readily apparent through MSM and stopping the rioting & looting.

So a brainstorming option I tossed out was Biden bringing his "good friend Barack/Michele" to help with overall leadership, organization, messaging etc. of BLM or similar.

I believe* I have kept all of my instances to a single post, a single list. BUT IT IS A LONG LIST. And it was a very dark day for me, mentally, as I was compiling that list because I didn't want to believe it. Like I said in the previous post, last week, I absolutely believed "bad apples" (again, I think being white, male, and suburban helps that a lot).

*I'm not be 100% certain - I haven't gone back through all of my posts - but I'm pretty sure I'm not the one you're talking about here

That was not directed at you, it was another poster.

I try to not pepper with questions as I feel that's not arguing in good faith and more sea lioning. But, going back to George Floyd, how many of those 4 cops fit into your 5%? Is it just Chavin for killing him? Or is it all 4 because the other 3 just watched?

The statistic I swagged was based on approx 800K LEOs and another report that said approx 80K had incidents filed against them over a 10 year period. It also said of the 80K, many of them were repeat offenders. So I just swagged 5% bad apples.

To answer your question, unless the other 3 have a pattern (Chavin apparently did), I would give them the benefit of doubt and send them through retraining, desk job etc. So no, I would not put them into the 5% based on what I know.

It's looking like the problem is more complex than 95% good apples and 5% bad apples. Even what I'm about to say is oversimplified but I need buckets. So how about we split this into: actively bad cops, passively bad cops (think the posse of the bully who will help but won't be the instigator), neutral cops (they wouldn't do anything bad generally but they'll led bad stuff happen), and good cops (i.e. they would intervene in a bad situation).

How would you split those buckets up and how would you deal with each?

1. Good cops are good cops and we need more- I think we can agree on that.

2. Bad cops are bad cops and should be off the beat and/or in jail. Is that the 5%? That's probably too high. If you mix in the "passively bad cops" with the "bad cops" - I dunno - that 5% sounds reasonable. Basically the actively bad ones, the ones you think of in cop shows who plant evidence and rough up informants and steal drugs and money /and/ their co-conspirators. That's 5%? I hope it's lower than that but I have a feeling that it's in that ballpark or higher, maybe up to 10%, depending on the city.

I did some googling and was not able to find a report other than what I noted above on how I came to the 5% swag. I can concede it may be 10%+ depending on the city but taken as a nation, I'm thinking more 5% unless there is a report that says otherwise.

3. Now we get to the neutral cops. That seems to be the huge problem. Time after time after time in these videos, you see a police officer do something wrong. We all objectively know it's wrong - no matter what context and no matter how much video parsing you want to do. And there's no one there to drag him off the guy he's beating or bench the guy who shoots at a credentialed reporter with pepper spray - they just keep right on going. There needs to be more cops during this saying "knock it off" to the ones doing something wrong. I've never been in law enforcement, but I've been in management and if you let people get away with bad habits then you see the whole team suffer - the star performers burn out, the middle ground sinks because there's nothing to keep them up, and the bottom people are basically running (ruining) a team.* If they can't stop or call out the bad cops then their complicit silence makes them part of the bad cops and those bad cop numbers swell to an unmanageable number.

Yes, there is twitter evidence that much of what you say happened. However, my thought is much of what twitter said happened (1) did not have the proper context (2) what preceded the event or (3) different interpretations.

I do agree that cops should be trained to hold themselves accountable for their partner's actions. The camera should be on at all times for sure.

The whole point being - this is not isolated. This is just not a couple of provocateurs with out of context videos. This is a systemic problem in literally dozens of cities across the country. This isn't some organized attempt to discredit the police. Are there a few? I'm sure there are! But, by and large, this looks like a bunch of tired, pissed off people who are appalled at what they're living with and seeing.

The police are under extreme pressure right now and they probably believe they are being portrayed unfairly right now on twitter and social media. So if they did pepper spray during these times, I lean towards giving them a pass.

An example of this is one pepper spray incident with the pink umbrella and twitter said it was cause by the cop who pulled the umbrella and then sprayed the woman/crowd. What I saw was protesters leaning against the barricade and the cops (likely) telling them to stay back. The cop probably thought the woman with the pink umbrella didn't take them seriously enough so yanked it. Nevertheless, I don't consider that peaceful demonstration at all although I suspect twitter will say it was.

An example of a peaceful demonstration is the one with Ben's friend. Even with that example, I ask myself why would the black cop take that black kid away (with all due respect to Ben)? Occam's razor tells me odds there was a reason.

But you and others on this board are right. There is definitely inappropriate police actions happening right now. I just don't think its as frequent as all those negative twitter feeds because they may not (1) provide the proper context (2) what preceded the event or (3) different interpretations.

If you think this is some well funded, well organized attempt by the Dems to - well, shit, I should just stop right there because I said "well organized" and "Dems" in the same sentence. But I was going to make some joke about how I have some Soros bucks to send you.

Nope, don't believe that for the peaceful protests nor the riots/looting.

Nor do I believe white supremacist groups, paramilitary groups and like are causing the rioting and looting. Are there some incidents likely so. But the rioting and looting are done by thugs and opportunistic folks that can't resist the tempatation.

But the meat of that quote is where I think we're going to differ substantially. People are allowed to lawfully assemble. We might also have some disagreements about what that entails.* But people meeting in parks or, gasp, blocking traffic - at most they should be getting jaywalking tickets. Instead, their own police and their own military are pelting them with paint, rubber bullets, and beating them with batons and shields. In LOTS of those cases, the police are the instigators. They are escalating and that's a significant problem.

I agree with this. I think there are lots of cases where police are instigators but where we differ is some people on this board would have us believe it was happening in the majority of situations with no good reason. I once again give the benefit of doubt of police.

Let's take the example of the cop shooting paintballs at the homeowner. I honestly would be pissed if that was me being shot at in front of my own home. However, I was told to go inside and I didn't.

I go back and forth on this, especially now. On the one hand, we're all at very high levels of stress and we should be able to allow for a mistake to not cost someone their entire life. But it also depends on the level of the mistake and, yes, a lot of it involves situation and judging intent.

I agree with this, it does depend on severity/degree of the infraction, the intent etc.

And I have no sympathy for a lot of these instances where a situation was otherwise peaceful and the LEO was the aggressor. I have no issues with harsh penalties. A protest in the middle of the day where people were chanting and there were no punches or provocations around? If the police start scuffling there with batons or bikes or pepper spray or worse - they need to be relieved and not allowed to serve until this is over. Because clearly they cannot handle this situation.

I agree with this in general. I think where we differ possibly is I tend to believe there would be provocations for many of those actions whereas you and others on this board would disagree.

No riot is making it out to suburban Houston. There's more space than people.

Our suburb even held a prayer vigil Sunday night that attracted /hundreds/ of people. It was solemn and peaceful. It was organized by one of the former city council members who is running for mayor (so, yes, there may have been some political motivations). The Chief of Police spoke as did various religious leaders. Despite it being at 7:30 at night, it was peaceful and a lot of people came away with some semblance of healing, of peace. Yet, for some reason, there was an armored truck and close to a dozen police cars stationed around the neighborhood. For a prayer vigil. And, no, it wasn't just police who were attending the vigil - there were people stationed in a number of those cars not participating. All in case a little prayer vigil in an affluent suburb got out of hand. There were no riots here. There was never any danger of riots here. But there were police ready in case there were and that's scary to me. That's not protection, that's a display of force.

I do agree that your example was a show of force. I wasn't there so maybe I'm missing something, my take is I would be reassured they were there as a show of force to prevent any non-peaceful activities. I'm okay with that.

And that's just local police for a suburb of 120K. Now we're talking about sending the US military to go after US citizens on US soil. I'm sure we'll be told that it will only be "limited" and will only be "the bad guys". And, yeah, soldiers are probably better trained than our police forces. BUT NONE OF THAT SHOULD MATTER. We should have just had a full stop at "sending the US military to go after US citizens on US soil". But here we are.

Thanks for the discussion.

Just to kinda summarize and tie things together.

1) We agree there are inappropriate police actions happening now. Where we differ is I lean towards giving the police the benefit of doubt and I don't believe those bad actions are happening as much as they are being portrayed by twitter because it does/may not (1) provide the proper context (2) what preceded the event or (3) different interpretations.

2) We agree there is a systemic problem in the police force. Neither of us are sure what the % of bad apples are. I swag it at 5% or so

3) I believe without better BLM messaging/organization, it won't win over the 30%. In fact, it'll turn more of them away as they will right-or-wrong associate BLM with "riots & looting". I say give it to "my good friend Barack/Michele"

4) I have more faith, trust, confidence etc. in the other 95% of police than I think you do. I am reassured by police presence whereas you were not in your example. It may be that I have 2 LEO in-laws and that gives me that confidence?

[sterlingice]

dola (EDIT: hey, not a dola anymore)

But, hey, the Mayor lit up City Hall in Floyd's memory, our Chief of Police told off Trump to a national TV audience, and some police joined the peaceful march earlier today so it's ALL FUCKING HUNKY DORY HERE. Goddammit. I can't even begin to articulate how both fearful and pissed this makes me (sorry, POC - I know you've been dealing with it for much longer - some of us are just stupidly late to the party) and lord knows I have tried the last couple of days. I've written half a book here, trying or organize my thoughts.

But this shit, THIS PRECISE SHIT, is why I don't care how many "there are good cops, too" (sorry, BYU 14) or "there were cops putting down their shields to march" (sorry, Edward) stories make the news. IT MEANS NOTHING.

By all accounts, this is supposed to be a decent police force here. And yet this was so utterly predictable and so utterly avoidable. These were not rioters looking to steal stuff - sure, there might have been a couple of opportunists in the crowd. BUT LOOK AT THEM. LOOK AT THEM. They're mostly fucking kids just trying to do the right thing and stand up for what they think is right, just as like we've told our kids to do.

Unless there's tangible, concrete, systemic change - this is what we have. And it's only going to get worse.

SI

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So if I almost drive over people, it's cool if I'm "frustrated"...

I thought everyone on social media the past few days was condoning breaking the law when people are frustrated.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

By all accounts, this is supposed to be a decent police force here. And yet this was so utterly predictable and so utterly avoidable. These were not rioters looking to steal stuff - sure, there might have been a couple of opportunists in the crowd. BUT LOOK AT THEM. LOOK AT THEM. They're mostly fucking kids just trying to do the right thing and stand up for what they think is right, just as like we've told our kids to do.

Unless there's tangible, concrete, systemic change - this is what we have. And it's only going to get worse.

They've been exposed. Public sentiment is turning against them and their egos are bruised. These protesters are making them look bad each and every night. They're lashing out and resorting to brutality.

There are some systemic changes that can be made like removing qualified immunity and abolishing police unions. But it also takes strong Mayors to make changes. Not many out there willing to do that.

Houston is one of my favorite cities. Ate at a place called Pinkertons last time I was there and it was one of the best meals I've ever had in my life. I just can't deal with that weather year round.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Pretty sure the previous generation is responsible for that one.

My point wasn't to do the generational blame game. I wouldn't assess that exactly the same way you do, esp. since if you read my post, most of the people and experience I am talking about is from when Trump wasn't president. It's Clinton/Bush/Obama era observations I'm talking about. I do definitely blame the previous generation though for how those coming of age now were raised among other things.

The larger point though is just that we can't survive this many interlocking blows as a society. Whose responsible is kind of beside the point - we either fix it or spiral downwards, leaving a massive power vacuum and taking a significant part of humanity down with us.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Based on our mutual FB friends for him and his mom, odds are high that he's from a solid family. (Well, and it's extremely likely that they're related to or ancestors were owned by my wife's family...or BOTH!)

FWIW some additional context to that twitter feed. This is what was reported about that incident (think it was the same one).

Police arrest 35 people on Sunday in connection to protests in Charleston

CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) - Officials with the Charleston Police Department say a total of 35 people were arrested on Sunday in connection to protests in downtown Charleston.

Arrests began early Sunday afternoon when police responded to Marion Square for what they said was an illegal gathering. The arrests began shortly after authorities gave warnings that arrests would begin if protesters did not disperse.

Pictures and videos from the scene showed several people being taken into custody. Police said protesters were illegally gathering on the square.

City of Charleston spokesman Jack O’Toole said the protesters did not have a permit to assemble on the square, making their gathering illegal. Police ordered them to disperse and when protesters did not do so, police began arresting them for disorderly conduct.

Should the police have given some leeway even though there was no permit, warnings given etc. and allowed a peaceful protest to continue? Arguably yes because what was the harm and it let the community get things off their chest ... but this was apparently the reason.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

An example of this is one pepper spray incident with the pink umbrella and twitter said it was cause by the cop who pulled the umbrella and then sprayed the woman/crowd. What I saw was protesters leaning against the barricade and the cops (likely) telling them to stay back. The cop probably thought the woman with the pink umbrella didn't take them seriously enough so yanked it. Nevertheless, I don't consider that peaceful demonstration at all although I suspect twitter will say it was.

Wait, what?

You are saying that peaceful demonstration doesn't cover

** leaning against a barricade
** extending a pink umbrella over it

Seriously? That's totally absurd. Neither of those actions are remotely violent.

Originally Posted by Edward64

The police are under extreme pressure right now and they probably believe they are being portrayed unfairly right now on twitter and social media. So if they did pepper spray during these times, I lean towards giving them a pass.

No, just no. I think they are being portrayed somewhat unfairly on twitter and social media. That's not remotely close to one-tenth of an excuse for pepper-spraying protesting civilians. Their job is to defuse situations and keep the peace, not instigate and escalate. You don't get a pass for pepper-spraying unless it is necessary to maintain order. People saying things that are unfair or not nice to/about you does not even begin to get close to that level.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But this shit, THIS PRECISE SHIT, is why I don't care how many "there are good cops, too" (sorry, BYU 14) or "there were cops putting down their shields to march" (sorry, Edward) stories make the news. IT MEANS NOTHING.

By all accounts, this is supposed to be a decent police force here. And yet this was so utterly predictable and so utterly avoidable. These were not rioters looking to steal stuff - sure, there might have been a couple of opportunists in the crowd. BUT LOOK AT THEM. LOOK AT THEM. They're mostly fucking kids just trying to do the right thing and stand up for what they think is right, just as like we've told our kids to do.

100% with your second paragraph here. On the first, the truth always matters. It is always crucial to be balanced and accurate in one's assessments. One of the many ways we can make this even worse is by responding to these outrages in a broad-brush, inquisition-style way that chases a lot of good police out of the profession. There's virtually nobody that really wants the level of chaos, violence, and disorder that would result from that.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Nope, don't believe that for the peaceful protests nor the riots/looting.

Nor do I believe white supremacist groups, paramilitary groups and like are causing the rioting and looting. Are there some incidents likely so. But the rioting and looting are done by thugs and opportunistic folks that can't resist the tempatation.

You guys need to get better at calling Edward out on this bullshit. Pretty sure he's done it in at least 4 or 5 posts in this thread. Especially when describing "types" of people. If you're a nazi or a KKK member, you're a "white supremacist" - and, btw, probably not the problem. If you're a bad scary black man, you're a "thug", and YOU'RE the problem. Understood.

More signaling that we're not arguing or discussing in good faith here.


Also:

If one bad cop commits a hate crime, and 9 other cops see this and say nothing and stand behind the one bad cop so he can keep his job, badge, and gun... you have 10 bad cops. But yeah, I'm also curious if 3% or 5% of cops are "bad".

This second point is really agreeing hardcore with SterlingIce and ISiddiqi here when talking about fundamental, systemic problems that need massive reform from the top down and bottom up. Massive de-funding so the police are not militarized. If you give people toys, they get used even when they aren't needed.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Wait, what?

You are saying that peaceful demonstration doesn't cover

** leaning against a barricade
** extending a pink umbrella over it

Seriously? That's totally absurd. Neither of those actions are remotely violent.

Here's their side of the story reportedly. I have consistently said that we should not quickly judge by a twitter feed as we may not have the context, what preceded or different interpretations.

Seattle mayor, police chief vow to review tactics amid continuing protests | Q13 FOX News

Earlier in the day Seattle’s police watchdog agency said it would investigate the use of pepper spray Monday night to break up a fourth consecutive day of large protests over the George Floyd killing.

The department insisted that demonstrators threw fireworks and tried to storm a barricade near a police station. Police Chief Carmen Best said one officer was struck in the face with a chunk of concrete.

But video posted on Reddit and Facebook showed that in the moments before the chaos began, an officer grabbed a pink umbrella that a demonstrator was holding just across a barricade as a shield against a potential application of pepper spray. Other officers nearby then began spraying chemicals and firing flash-bangs at the crowd.

“It was a beautiful, beautiful march for hours,” the mayor said. “We know the end was not how it was meant to be, and the chief and I have talked about it. We’re going to look at it.”

If there was an earlier attempt to "threw fireworks and tried to storm a barricade near a police station. Police Chief Carmen Best said one officer was struck in the face with a chunk of concrete" does that make it a peaceful protest if it was the same group?

It doesn't explicitly tie the event at the police station to this but don't really know how close it is or not. My point is let's not condemn by twitter feed alone unless it is self-evident. And that is the crux, I require more rigor than twitter commentary and yes, maybe to a fault, I'll give the police the benefit of doubt.

See above post re: Charleston. Is it so unreasonable for police to arrest Ben's friend based on what was reported? Taking the twitter commentary alone, people would think it was extremely unreasonable. Based on what was reported, I certainly don't think so although I admit some leeway could have been given.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Radii

You guys need to get better at calling Edward out on this bullshit. Pretty sure he's done it in at least 4 or 5 posts in this thread. Especially when describing "types" of people. If you're a nazi or a KKK member, you're a "white supremacist" - and, btw, probably not the problem. If you're a bad scary black man, you're a "thug", and YOU'RE the problem. Understood.

More signaling that we're not arguing or discussing in good faith here.


Also:

If one bad cop commits a hate crime, and 9 other cops see this and say nothing and stand behind the one bad cop so he can keep his job, badge, and gun... you have 10 bad cops. But yeah, I'm also curious if 3% or 5% of cops are "bad".

This second point is really agreeing hardcore with SterlingIce and ISiddiqi here when talking about fundamental, systemic problems that need massive reform from the top down and bottom up. Massive de-funding so the police are not militarized. If you give people toys, they get used even when they aren't needed.

I would respond to your personal attack but know Ben would not like it. Do not consider my lack of response as a concession to your accusations.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But this shit, THIS PRECISE SHIT, is why I don't care how many "there are good cops, too" (sorry, BYU 14) or "there were cops putting down their shields to march" (sorry, Edward) stories make the news. IT MEANS NOTHING.

My reality isn't the stereotypical response that people who live comfortably behind their white picket fence spout off as a way to dismiss police brutality. It is based on truth and it is not mutually exclusive to either support police or be an ally to and supportive of the black community.

I support both because I have the perspective of knowing truths on both sides. You may not and that's fine, but to me it all means something. Hopefully it does to you someday too.

I am not going to have my son in law enforcement be marginalized by folks that demonize all cops (not saying you do) any more than I would let my other son be marginalized by anybody that thinks all blacks are thugs.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

My reality isn't the stereotypical response that people who live comfortably behind their white picket fence spout off as a way to dismiss police brutality. It is based on truth and it is not mutually exclusive to either support police or be an ally to and supportive of the black community.

I support both because I have the perspective of knowing truths on both sides. You may not and that's fine, but to me it all means something. Hopefully it does to you someday too.

I am not going to have my son in law enforcement be marginalized by folks that demonize all cops (not saying you do) any more than I would let my other son be marginalized by anybody that thinks all blacks are thugs.

I appreciate that. And I also want to be clear - I don't think all cops are bad and I don't want to paint with that broad brush either. And I don't even think, say, a majority are. I knew full well the parallels that could be drawn when I was making the statements last night: "most cops are good cops but it's those (epithet) that make things bad for all of them and they just need to fix it" or if I had said "but I have cop friends". Though I would argue they are fundamentally different*

However, it appears to me that even with the plethora of good cops out there, there are more than enough bad ones, especially in positions of leadership, that it has made so many of the individual departments in this country well below the standard that we should expect. There needs to be drastic, concrete, systemic change or this is going to keep getting worse.

The good news is that there's some hope out of Colorado, for instance: Colorado Democrats to introduce police accountability bill | FOX31 Denver

SI

*Though if someone wants to get pedantic about it and try to compare racism to discrimination against cops, you might want to consider the difference between being born a particular race and choosing a profession that has organized ethical codes of conduct and paid for by taxpayer funding. The choice part is fundamentally different (and I think part of why those who mistakenly think "being gay" is a choice leads them to be less toleranat) and the higher standards of being a citizen vs enforcing law should also be strongly considered.

[miami_fan]

Reading BYU_14's posts has me interested in knowing how many people have a relationship with active police officers and what those relationships look like. I am not just talking about family ties as in his case. Just something closer than love/hate/ the institution. Despite the cliche, I do know police officers. I know a couple of police officers pretty damn well enough to call me on my shit if they believe I am wrong about their profession but also let know that when I am right based on their experiences. I don't know of any close relatives that are police officers though which is kind of weird as I think about it more given the size of my family.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

However, it appears to me that even with the plethora of good cops out there, there are more than enough bad ones, especially in positions of leadership, that it has made so many of the individual departments in this country well below the standard that we should expect. There needs to be drastic, concrete, systemic change or this is going to keep getting worse.

100% agree my friend and I am glad that more than ever we not only have a large part of a nation seeing this, but many leaders in the Police community stepping up to acknowledge it. I only hope action follows words and Colorado has gotten it off to a good start for sure.

[sterlingice]

So, some folks tried to get #WhiteLivesMatter and #WhiteOutWednesday trending on Twitter. It did not go as planned. It's been taken over by K-pop videos (and pictures of white out).

This after what they did a couple of nights ago:
K-pop stans overwhelm app after police ask for images and videos of protesters - The Verge

That's... well, that's pretty funny.

SI

[Arles]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned here or not, but there's an interesting movement called #8cantwait. They have basically compiled a list of 8 policies that can decrease police violence by 72%. I don't know the specifics on each, but a few look good on first inspection:

8 Can't Wait

1 Ban chokeholds and strangleholds
2 Require de-escalation
3 Require warning before shooting
4 Exhaust all other means before shooting
5 Duty to intervene
6 Ban shooting at moving vehicles
7 Require use of force continuum
8 Require comprehensive reporting

You can also check your city and I checked Phoenix - we currently have steps 3, 5, 7 and 8 as laws already (bolded above). I would think we could get 1, 2 and 4 passed in a somewhat bi-partisan manner (at least I would hope). The one I'm not sure about is the shooting at moving vehicles. 'm not sure about the repercussions of that one.

[HomerSimpson98]

Originally Posted by Radii

You guys need to get better at calling Edward out on this bullshit.

Thats because Edward says the exact same thing and it doesnt look too much like bullshit to me:



This message is hidden because Edward64 is on your ignore list.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned here or not, but there's an interesting movement called #8cantwait. They have basically compiled a list of 8 policies that can decrease police violence by 72%. I don't know the specifics on each, but a few look good on first inspection:

8 Can't Wait

I understand this isn't helpful in terms of specific actions, but for me, the issue is often using force as punishment. That should always be wrong for police officers. I understand that force is required at times to subdue subjects, but video after video shows force being used as punishment and the police should not be handing out punishment.

[Arles]

Yeah, I think that's a good point. "Punitive policing" is another that should be a big no-no. I'm pretty sure it is already illegal, but we need more awareness and clear definition of how to handle cops who do it.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If there was an earlier attempt to "threw fireworks and tried to storm a barricade near a police station. Police Chief Carmen Best said one officer was struck in the face with a chunk of concrete" does that make it a peaceful protest if it was the same group?

They're not talking about different events, they're talking about the same one. The barricade in question is the one near the police station. There's two (or more) versions of what happened, but the video doesn't support the police version. It's too far to tell if anyone was throwing anything, but it's obvious nobody was storming the barricade.

Throwing things at the police is wrong and it definitely doesn't constitute a peaceful protest. Way too much of that is happening. But there's nothing in the video that gets close to justifying pepper spray.

Re: the Charleston thing -- I think that's clearly a justified arrest if accurate. But here as in so many other places, we're talking about a situation where there's video evidence against the police position. As in shooting things at people just standing by and observing. Arresting reporters for no reason. Etc. When there's video of them doing these things, we aren't talking about competing accounts.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned here or not, but there's an interesting movement called #8cantwait. They have basically compiled a list of 8 policies that can decrease police violence by 72%. I don't know the specifics on each, but a few look good on first inspection:

8 Can't Wait


You can also check your city and I checked Phoenix - we currently have steps 3, 5, 7 and 8 as laws already (bolded above). I would think we could get 1, 2 and 4 passed in a somewhat bi-partisan manner (at least I would hope). The one I'm not sure about is the shooting at moving vehicles. 'm not sure about the repercussions of that one.

Cheers for the link

As for the bolded part:
Are warning shots and especially shooting for the legs not frowned upon (or prohibited even ?) because of it not being effective and practical due to the high risk of a bullet bouncing/hitting an unintended target and the low chance of hitting and stopping the suspect ? (at least from a bit of reading up i did yesterday that is a big part of the argument)
How is hitting a moving car different in terms of risk assessment ?

What are they told to aim for exactly btw ? (honestly asking)

EDIT: Also read it as fleeing vehicle, see BYU 14s response. Of course it's different when it is used as a weapon, same as it is different when a subject has drawn a gun or even fired it already.

But i gotta admit, i have no idea what the policy is over here, not like shots are fired often anyway.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned here or not, but there's an interesting movement called #8cantwait. They have basically compiled a list of 8 policies that can decrease police violence by 72%. I don't know the specifics on each, but a few look good on first inspection:

8 Can't Wait


You can also check your city and I checked Phoenix - we currently have steps 3, 5, 7 and 8 as laws already (bolded above). I would think we could get 1, 2 and 4 passed in a somewhat bi-partisan manner (at least I would hope). The one I'm not sure about is the shooting at moving vehicles. 'm not sure about the repercussions of that one.

I think 6 would get better support if it was worded to say shooting at fleeing vehicles. You cannot reasonably expect an officer to not fire at a moving vehicle headed directly at him/her.

Edit: In terms of number 1, I advocated for better restraint tactics in another forum and will add it here. I think all police in major urban areas should have ongoing training in BJJ. I know people look at that and think well that includes chokes and other submissions, but there are so many effective ways to control a suspect that does not require lethal force in that art. Side control that can be combined with an Americana to neutralize an arm, seatbelt control, full mount with double underhooks, etc. Institute this type of training and ditch that stupid Warrior training ,which is basically designed to kill and maim.

[tarcone]

For whatever reason I cannot post twitter threads on here, so I will relay this story. It was a tweet from Iowa RB Toren Young.

He is staying at house with a man named Keonte Furdge. Seems the house is a former coach of his. He is a black man who was sitting on the fornt porch in his PJs in broad daylight. A neighbor called the police. They arrived and broke into the house without a warrant or permission, 5 deep with guns drawn. They then detained Furdge until they found he belonged there.

This happened yesterday.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I understand this isn't helpful in terms of specific actions, but for me, the issue is often using force as punishment. That should always be wrong for police officers. I understand that force is required at times to subdue subjects, but video after video shows force being used as punishment and the police should not be handing out punishment.

Originally Posted by Arles

Yeah, I think that's a good point. "Punitive policing" is another that should be a big no-no. I'm pretty sure it is already illegal, but we need more awareness and clear definition of how to handle cops who do it.

There's an officer I know in the Atlanta area who I met when he was playing football for Tucker. He FIRMLY believes that citizens often "need to be taught a lesson" and the police officer is the only one able to do it in many cases. Specifically, if you recall the 14ish-year-old black girl in a swimsuit (maybe in Dallas?) a few years ago who was slammed to the ground by the barrel-rolling cop, he was arguing vehemently on FB that it was just fine because she was being so disrespectful, (iirc, she was following the command to disperse, but was talking trash to the officer as she was walking away and her grabbed her and threw her to the ground.) He argued that a teenager that disrespectful to an adult clearly hadn't been taught well enough to respect adults, so it was a necessary reaction. This discussion went on for maybe 45 minutes or so....right up until the moment the police chief issued a statement--while the back-and-forth on FB was still happening--that the officer's actions were unacceptable. He then pivoted to something along the lines of, "well, police chiefs are influenced by politicians. This got so much publicity that I'll bet he was forced to say that by some politician. Just because he was fired doesn't mean the officer wasn't in the right."


So, uh. yeah. I would not be in the least bit surprised if the day comes when we're discussing him by name in this thread.

[Arles]

Yeah, I was thinking a situation where a car was coming at them or even an armed robbery and 2-3 people in a moving vehicle were shoot at them (or civilians). Still, I think that's something that could be worded to cover those rare situations.

I've been reading a lot about the data they've analyzed at 8cantwait. Some of it is pretty jarring. Things like having a "community-based police force" or "sensitivity training on race" make virtually no impact on police violence. That shows me that we really need these policy changes and a whole new outlook on how we police.

[Ben E Lou]

1 Ban chokeholds and strangleholds--If someone is truly resisting, I don't have a problem with the officer using every option in his arsenal. But if there are multiple cops there, LET GO WHEN HE IS HANDCUFFED.
2 Require de-escalation--Makes sense.
3 Require warning before shooting--I assume this means if not fired upon first, right?
4 Exhaust all other means before shooting--Again, see #3. I don't really know what this means if a cop is fired upon first.
5 Duty to intervene-Ab-so-freaking-lutely.
6 Ban shooting at moving vehicles--...unless the vehicle is heading directly at a citizen or cop.
7 Require use of force continuum--Yup
8 Require comprehensive reporting--Yup

[tarcone]

Why not also teach them to respect the To serve and protect statement. Or teach them what that means.

[Butter]

Just wanted to thank BYU 14 and most others for their perspective and honest conversation here. It's awesome to read even if I don't have anything constructive to add.

[Arles]

Yeah, I would think any of these rules apply in a situation where a cop isn't fired upon. Once that happens, their rights fly out the window.

I also wonder if you could have "tiers" of support. Meaning if you get called to car accident or missing person case - do you really need a holstered weapon? I'm sure this wouldn't be loved by cops, but we may need to start small and have protocol be for cops to leave their weapons locked in the car for smaller calls/issues.

[JPhillips]

I know I've told the story here before, but when I was in grad school my wife got sick and I was looking for an ER (I was young and stupid and didn't know where to go). I turned around in a nursing home lot that I had thought was a hospital and a cop turned on his lights. As I was sitting and talking to my extremely dehydrated wife I heard a knock on the window and when I turned there was a gun pointed at my head.

[JPhillips]

This kind of petty bullshit needs to be checked by Chiefs and mayors.

To protect and serve #protests2020 pic.twitter.com/HSCYSPfkR6

— Marshmellow (ACAB/BLM) (@Youngdaggerdrip) June 1, 2020

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Why not also teach them to respect the To serve and protect statement. Or teach them what that means.

The reality is that to serve and to protect means different things to different people. Especially when you add law enforcement on top of that. Given the number of laws that we have in the country, those two concepts can sometimes be mutual exclusive. I remember a 60 minutes report about marijuana use in Ann Arbor when I was a kid. At the time, it costs more than twice as much in man hours to do the paperwork for a citation for marijuana use than to pay the fine for the citation for marijuana use. It was better to protect and serve the public by not enforcing the marijuana law.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Butter

Just wanted to thank BYU 14 and most others for their perspective and honest conversation here. It's awesome to read even if I don't have anything constructive to add.

Thank you and this is why I come to this board for discussion on things like this. Mature adults, who for the most part are civil, respectful and passionate in their views. So many people on other platforms come looking for a fight, most here come looking for understanding.

[Edward64]

This is one grandma you do not want to piss off. Telling it as it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Arles

I also wonder if you could have "tiers" of support. Meaning if you get called to car accident or missing person case - do you really need a holstered weapon? I'm sure this wouldn't be loved by cops, but we may need to start small and have protocol be for cops to leave their weapons locked in the car for smaller calls/issues.

I have mixed opinions on a lot of the suggestions voiced so far. This one strikes me as a good thought but really bad in practice. Cops have been killed in these kinds of situations. A car accident for example is a good one where it's likely people's tempers are going to run relatively high.

This is how I think about the militarization thing as well. I think it's good to try to defuse tensions any way you can, but there's no such thing as a safe call. You never know what's going to happen and you need to prepare for anything. I'm for demilitarization but I don't think it helps much, and I think the whole 'if they have it they will use it' concept is absurd. No, they need to be trained and required to use restraint. Without restraint, any equipment is too much and with it, they need the availability of effective tools.

Required intervention, asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, mandatory de-escalation where possible, and so on; I'm all for those. I haven't read or heard anything though that convinces me we have real steps to resolution until there's a cultural sea change - which I earnestly hope will happen - to the point where we're willing to convict flagrant offenders. I think there's still too many by far who want order at any price .02

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm for demilitarization but I don't think it helps much, and I think the whole 'if they have it they will use it' concept is absurd.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

the receipt of more military equipment increases both the expected number of civilians killed by police (β = 0.055; p = 0.016) and the change in civilian deaths (β = 0.017; p = 0.082). Given the difficulty of interpreting the substantive effect of a logged independent variable, we rely on the predicted value graph in Figures 2 and 3. As shown in Figure 2, receiving no military equipment corresponds with 0.287 expected civilian killings in a given county for a given year, whereas receiving the maximum amount corresponds with 0.656 killings. In other words, moving from the minimum to the maximum expenditure values, on average, increases civilian deaths by roughly 129%.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I think 6 would get better support if it was worded to say shooting at fleeing vehicles. You cannot reasonably expect an officer to not fire at a moving vehicle headed directly at him/her.

This makes sense on the surface, but isn't backed as being effective by data nor is it something promoted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The problem is conventional firearms often fail to penetrate safety glass and are almost entirely ineffective against a moving vehicle to the point where bystanders are at far greater risk than the driver. Even in the event that the bullet does penetrate the safety glass or the vehicles body it isn't stopping immediately and is now out of control and further risk to officers and bystanders in the area.

[Arles]

Yeah, I think you could train cops on not firing into moving vehicles. But I think it would be a hard "punishment" to lay on a cop who nearly got run over and shot at the driver to protect himself. I don't like having unenforceable policies as that leads into what we have now ("I know it says no choke holds, but the guy was really disrespectful so I think an allowance needed to be made to teach a lesson"). So, for an actual policy that is enforced by punishment, I would think making an allowance for a vehicle driving at the cop is OK. At the end of the day, it's doubtful that would ever be penalized. If you write these properly, they can almost be no tolerance style situations where cops can't really get out of them.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Without restraint, any equipment is too much and with it, they need the availability of effective tools.

But effective tools for what, exactly ? If the Police is repurposing equipment not even actually designed for their needs or their use, how effective are they actually for the job ?
And how is that effectiveness measured ? If it had a supression/imtimidation effect for example, that should show in the numbers. If it doesn't, you imo have to look long and hard if the answer is even more 'upgrades' or using of tools in more of certain situations, not less.

And does that added effectiveness (if it exists) outweigh the problems it creates in terms of perception among the people looking on with whome you then have to interact with in the future ? The anger and frustration (not to mention fear) it invokes ? Maybe the extra hardware that criminals or normal citizens buy ? Or the effect it has on officers atiitudes and possibly the type of applicants it draws ?

To me it seems the problem isn't improving the 'hardware' towards more quality and effectiveness (i mean, of course that is the goal in every field/job), the problem seems blindly assuming (not you per se !) it is an upgrade because what works/is needed in the military will of course improve the quality of policing and safety of police officers. And if increased availability doesn't naturally lead to increased use in more and more situations. Most tools in any trade have a very specific purpose for a reason. And for many tools you need an extraordinary amount of aditional training to use it effectively and responsibly for everyones safety. Is that effort being made here ?

Me mostly asking questions is as much honestly not knowing as making a point of seeing the need to have those questions asked btw

[GrantDawg]

Just think about this for a second...

People who are out past curfew can spend up to 6 months in jail. That’s more time then Brock Turner spent for raping an unconscious girl.

— Ava💛 (@avaxfoster) June 2, 2020

[JPhillips]

Why the hell are red state governors now sending guard troops to D.C.?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

I definitely may be wrong on this issue, but my primary takeaway from this link (thanks btw) and others is that we don't have nearly enough data to form good conclusions on this.

Originally Posted by whomario

To me it seems the problem isn't improving the 'hardware' towards more quality and effectiveness (i mean, of course that is the goal in every field/job), the problem seems blindly assuming (not you per se !) it is an upgrade because what works/is needed in the military will of course improve the quality of policing and safety of police officers.

Sure, I think most of the time military-grade hardware isn't needed, and that's why I am in favor of not doing it for community relations purposes. I think you're basically correct here. I just think it also doesn't past the smell test for me that removing it makes a major difference in police violence because inherently to do their jobs they need weapons and training that facilitate the use of force. That means the lion's share of any issue with excessive force is on their comportement, restraint, and decision-making.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I definitely may be wrong on this issue, but my primary takeaway from this link (thanks btw) and others is that we don't have nearly enough data to form good conclusions on this.

I agree

We actually have very few police studies considering the obvious issues we have. Unions tend to shut them down and not cooperate.

We had studies from the 90s showing that as many as 40% had committed acts of domestic violence and it hasn't really been studied since. There was an attempt at a study in 2013 but that study even noted the lack of available data.

A couple of the key takeaways from that 2013 study:

The most common discipline imposed for a sustained allegation of domestic violence was counseling.

Only 19% of the departments indicated that officers would be terminated after a second sustained allegation of domestic violence.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Reports of 100k tonight in DC. Hopefully goes smoothly. Also looks like private military working which is insane e.

These guys said they’re with “the federal government.” pic.twitter.com/qOWdj23zJw
— Dan Friedman (@dfriedman33) June 2, 2020

Trump Has Flooded DC With Law Enforcement Officers Who Won’t Identify Themselves – Mother Jones

Apparently, these are Bureau of Prisons riot teams.

SI

[thesloppy]

Seeing ALL these cops out there in riot gear night after night only makes me wonder that they obviously all can't be trained in handling riots, right? Like there are probably just as many bike-theft, desk jockeys and fraud detectives out there, as there are hardened SWAT hardasses, right?

In these cases is it just all hands on deck, and if you collect a PD paycheck you're given a helmet, baton and shield?

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Seeing ALL these cops out there in riot gear night after night only makes me wonder that they obviously all can't be trained in handling riots, right? Like there are probably just as many bike-theft, desk jockeys and fraud detectives out there, as there are hardened SWAT hardasses, right?

In these cases is it just all hands on deck, and if you collect a PD paycheck you're given a helmet, baton and shield?

Since every department is different based on funding, staffing, etc., I can only speak to mine.

Every officer/detective/supervisor on my department goes through crowd management training during the academy. Then every year during spring in-service, everyone goes through a refresher on crowd management. Everyone is issued a gas mask, riot helmet, and riot baton.

Then you have Mobile Tactics, which is our version of a unit more specialized in crowd control. It's a collateral duty assignment, and they'll go through 3 or days of specialized crowd control training during the spring. In addition to the standard gear, they are issued the "turtle suits" and some receive additional training in chemical munitions.

Then you have the SWAT team. They are in control of the crowd management program, but in an instance of a riot; they would be the ones riding in the armored vehicles providing over watch as well as being in control of the vast majority of chemical munition usage.

[thesloppy]

Thanks for that insight, illinifan!

[RainMaker]

NYPD made up some stories today and are not having a good night.

People stuck in traffic are witnessing NYPD beat up folks on their way home. pic.twitter.com/AkUGPQQOIf

— Josh Fox BlackLivesMatter (@joshfoxfilm) June 4, 2020

Here’s the video cut to just the moment when a woman driving a car honked her support of the Black Lives Matter protest marching past Barclays.

A high-ranking NYPD official ordered her to turn the car off and hand over her keys pic.twitter.com/aGoVQY2pRL

— Noah Hurowitz (@NoahHurowitz) June 4, 2020

[thesloppy]

Some of the marches in Portland have been starting about 5 blocks from my apartment, so I went down tonight to check things out right around when 6pm when they were supposed to kick off. There were probably a couple thousand people in a field next to a local high school, with someone jabbering about nothing in particular over a PA. Lots of signs and seemed to be mostly young folks, just about everybody was wearing (covid) masks.

I quickly remembered I hate crowds and checked out. I wasn't intending to march along anyway but had convinced myself that I could somehow stand like 20 yards away and watch things kickoff...that's not really how massive crowds work.



A few blocks away that turned into this:



Who doesn't want to get jammed up on the highway bridge 5,000 deep, during a global pandemic? I am much more wired for the boycott, a protest based entirely on me not attending.

[RainMaker]

This is great news. Amash has been great in pushing this issue. Not a lot of faith it gets touched in the Senate but making this an issue at the forefront is good.

Excited to announce that @RepPressley will co-lead the bill to end qualified immunity. We’ll work relentlessly to build support within Congress for this critical legislation. Police must be held accountable when they violate people’s rights. pic.twitter.com/xgwULKmDqR

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) June 4, 2020