FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

Police Brutality Is Not An ISSUE In The Black Community! - YouTube

So, I'll take a stab at some of what he's saying.

1. He's taking the same approach that others have: It hasn't affected me, so it doesn't exist. That's too simplistic for me. I have had similar experiences with the cops. However, that doesn't mean I don't think there is a problem.

2. I agree totally with the point about all of the corporate statements that are being made. It's too early to say what their motivations are, but some are protecting their bottom line more than anything.

3. I disagree with his point about Reddit considering a Black person for the board. While I think the best person possible is the right thing, how many people are considered that aren't in a set group so the same voices and ideas are circulating from company to company? How many people with limited experience that are White are brought onto the boards? How many Black, Asian, or other minority are brought on? To consciously consider a Black person doesn't mean hire someone who isn't qualified. It means consider someone that you may not have before who has potential and may not have had the chance to succeed in that kind of role.

[thesloppy]

In another video in a different thread that same dude likened antifa to the brownshirts, the as-of-yet-entirely-undefined-Minnesota-alternative-to-the-police-force to the SS & the Minnesota government to the Nazi party, all working in concert. Clearly he's a voice of clarity & reason.

[RainMaker]

He's a grifter who knows there is good money in being the black guy who makes racist white people feel good about his beliefs. He's got stuff up about how the Confederates were good, the Union was bad, Robert E Lee was great, and so on.

There's a whole debate on YouTube where he argues blacks were better off as slaves.

Maybe he's too far down the rabbit hole and believes that stuff, but doing what he does is a good grift if you have no other discernible talent.

[rjolley]

Ok....yeah...for me, he's got other issues. Won't even go further with that.

[CrimsonFox]

here's seattle again. This time 6 cameras in one view

https://www.facebook.com/brandon.fro...xUHziSwESXgfjo

[Arles]

https://twitter.com/ortiz4congress/s...319635457?s=21

Sources are reporting that NYPD Commissioner and Chief Of Department are resigning and between 300 and 800 officers are retiring immediately.

Sounds like change is coming to NY

[RainMaker]

Protesting works.

[CrimsonFox]

something about a guy walked up to cops in seattle or up to protesters and started shooting or something. Not sure.

i think this guy captured it

https://www.facebook.com/shane.wahlu...zcxMzM4NTMyMg/

[CrimsonFox]

ah here is the shooting

https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/sta...39412055216128

edit: here's the original

https://twitter.com/chaseburnsy/stat...33325440462848

i think

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

https://twitter.com/ortiz4congress/s...319635457?s=21


Sounds like change is coming to NY

I know this sounds glib, but it's serious: are these predominantly the "good cops" retiring in protest, a cleaning out of the "bad cops", or just an "early retirement" so they can say they cleaned stuff up but it was more arbitrary than anything?

SI

[tarcone]

Can someone explain this defunding of police forces? Would that mean a private police force? If so, doesnt that sound like that would be a lot more corrupt?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

https://twitter.com/ortiz4congress/s...319635457?s=21


Sounds like change is coming to NY

There's a faction of law enforcement that doesn't believe in civilian oversight.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Can someone explain this defunding of police forces? Would that mean a private police force? If so, doesnt that sound like that would be a lot more corrupt?

dola

If it's like Camden, NJ, it's basically a way to get around the union. In Camden they disbanded their force, then they created a new county force with much different rules around force, among other things.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

If it's like Camden, NJ, it's basically a way to get around the union. In Camden they disbanded their force, then they created a new county force with much different rules around force, among other things.

Do you have any insight on the impact of doing this has had on crime, community relations, etc?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

If it's like Camden, NJ, it's basically a way to get around the union. In Camden they disbanded their force, then they created a new county force with much different rules around force, among other things.

Didnt realize the Democratic party was into Chris Christie union busting. Strange times make strange bed fellows I guess. Will have to do a FOFC search of you praising this move when it happened.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Do you have any insight on the impact of doing this has had on crime, community relations, etc?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ice-department

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Didnt realize the Democratic party was into Chris Christie union busting. Strange times make strange bed fellows I guess. Will have to do a FOFC search of you praising this move when it happened.

The secret is the right search terms. Don't give up even if it takes all day.

[panerd]

So the St. Louis County police department is largely white (10% black) while the St. Louis police department has a much higher percentage of black officers (34% black). If something similar happened here as in Minneapolis wouldn't this just be exacerbating the problem? Without looking up the numbers I am going to assume Minneapolis is similar though I am happy to be proven wrong or maybe I am misunderstanding who is taking over. Are they going to Booby-like no weapon police?

[whomario]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

In another video in a different thread that same dude likened antifa to the brownshirts, the as-of-yet-entirely-undefined-Minnesota-alternative-to-the-police-force to the SS & the Minnesota government to the Nazi party, all working in concert. Clearly he's a voice of clarity & reason.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He's a grifter who knows there is good money in being the black guy who makes racist white people feel good about his beliefs. He's got stuff up about how the Confederates were good, the Union was bad, Robert E Lee was great, and so on.

There's a whole debate on YouTube where he argues blacks were better off as slaves.

Maybe he's too far down the rabbit hole and believes that stuff, but doing what he does is a good grift if you have no other discernible talent.

It's the same thing as when there are scientists claiming SarsCov2/Climate Change/whatever is no big deal/a hoax/conspiracy/whatever and people, who normally wouldn't believe a Scientist, are suddenly parading him around and claiming that he's the scientist in the know and not to afraid to speak the truth.
Whereas all the other scientists are of course wrong, because of course they are and how can you not see that ?

Every good conspiracy theory has 'expert' witnesses where upon close inspection you see that the 'expert' really isn't one (because he works in a different field, stopped working 15 years ago, gets paid by someone to say what he says etc, etc). I mean, the same logic applies in the courtroom. Give a prosecutor a close relative or co-worker to testify against the defendant (or vice versa) and he'll have to supress a grin and a victory dance.

I have no idea what his thing is, but even if he has no 'thing' it is a dissenting opinion and not "proof" .

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Can someone explain this defunding of police forces? Would that mean a private police force? If so, doesnt that sound like that would be a lot more corrupt?

I think while a private police force sounds on the surface like exactly the kind of thing that anarchists would be fighting against, the big selling point is that when a law enforcement officer working for a private company does something wrong, they can be immediately disciplined/fired/held responsible, whereas that has become nearly impossible to do effectively within the current model of a police force.

[whomario]

It might not even mean dissolving. Just that you build a new budget from scratch rather than adjusting it in bits and pieces. Going from there this could mean branching out services differently (remember that one problem is police handling stuff they should not have to handle) or for the core police services going the route Camden took:

Camden County Police Department - Wikipedia

I literally have no idea how any of this will shake out, but there is a world of alternatives between the Status Quo and "no police". I don't think the idea is to do away with policing or having a police presence, but with "the police" as is currently constructed as some sort of one-size-fits-all response to whatever you fail to solve in terms of underlying problems.
The idea is that a lot of crime might not happen if there is less need for it rather than due to (even more) fear of punishment.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by panerd

Didnt realize the Democratic party was into Chris Christie union busting. Strange times make strange bed fellows I guess. Will have to do a FOFC search of you praising this move when it happened.

How about we simply don't pretend that a call to question police unions necessarily extends anywhere beyond that easily defined boundary?

[Arles]

From what I've read, the idea of "de-funding the police" is basically breaking up policework into normally non-violent situations (dealing with homeless/mental health, car accidents, etc) and having a different group of trained medical/mental health professionals to deal with them (usually unarmed).

In theory, I think there is some merit to breaking up police actions. My fear with this is I think you really need a good plan if you do it. Even if I could wave a wand and create a team of perfect social/mental health professionals to handle homeless/accidents/mental issues calls - what's the protocol when a homeless person is violent/on drugs or when a car accident victim gets aggressive or when a mental issues call is armed with a gun and your mental health team is unarmed?

I agree that having a SWAT cop in full riot gear handling a non-violent mental health issue isn't the best idea - but the reverse isn't great either. So, I'm open to these kind of ideas - I would just like to see a clear plan on who gets hired to deal with what and the protocol for situations that are in the grey areas for cops/"new cops".

My fear is this decision was made mostly out of emotion/fear of protest and not a clear plan for the transition of the police department into something better. I hope I'm wrong because changes do need to be made - I'm just not sure we are ready for this level yet. You don't want a 6-8 month period where you de-fund and then try to create the needed infrastructure. Not only would it endanger citizens - but it would also give critics ammunition to say how it doesn't work. As with most bold reforms, the first few need to be done as buttoned up as possible.

[cartman]

We used to have that kind of infrastructure in place for mental health issues before the early 1980s. That would be a good place to start to look for how to set it up.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cartman

We used to have that kind of infrastructure in place for mental health issues before the early 1980s. That would be a good place to start to look for how to set it up.

I'm not sure how excited I am to go back to the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest world either

SI

[whomario]

Do none of the other 'agencies' in the social sector work in the field ? What about EMTs, do they seriously never work without police present ? Presumably you start by stregthening them and using their protocols. I'd imagine if someone has a history of violence you bring a pair of Police officers as backup or if something comes up you call them. Are there no incidents within agencies of irrate members of the public ? I suspect ultimately you do what any other civil servant does, doing their job and calling for help if needed.

My cousin works in what might be translated as "youth services" (might be similar to child protective services which includes housecalls to check up on kids where there is suspicion of mistreatment one way or another (f.e. voiced by a teacher or relative). She's otherwise a deskworker, not trained in any way.
The parents might be known felons, 'clan leaders', 2,10 tall Schwarzenegger wannabes or mostly just folk. They might hit their Kid or it might turn out he really does have a tendeny to get in scrapes with the kid 2 doors down. Or she might see that they have trouble navigating wellfare systen and get them in touch with an organisation that helps families fill out necessary forms.
If she had trouble at a residence before she might in very rare cases call for a police escort (actually more like a step below actual police, translates as "public order agency"). If they are refusing to cooperate she'll bring one next time. If she feels threatened, she leaves and comes back with the police. (And 2 of 3 never happened so far). But until there is sth to actually enforce, she's there to see what is up and if she might be able to help.
And on the other hand, if police notices sth off with regard to child wellfare, they call her (well, her agency) and have them figure out the facts.

But there is no point going in expecting a 0.0001% chance of something utterly insane to happen. If you are not there as enforcement, people will treat you different than they would someone that is there in his role as law enforcement, no matter how well intentioned.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Arles

My fear is this decision was made mostly out of emotion/fear of protest and not a clear plan for the transition of the police department into something better. I hope I'm wrong because changes do need to be made - I'm just not sure we are ready for this level yet. You don't want a 6-8 month period where you de-fund and then try to create the needed infrastructure. Not only would it endanger citizens - but it would also give critics ammunition to say how it doesn't work. As with most bold reforms, the first few need to be done as buttoned up as possible.

This is me. With regards to whomario's point, I think the whole 'call them if you need them' can be done in some situations but there are a lot of things that police do that you need an enforcement-type of personnel to do. I think car accidents are one of those. I do hope we can find something better than what we have, but I'm with Arles on the complications involved and I think reforming what we have gets us part of the way there as well.

[rjolley]

From what I've read so far, Defund the Police isn't a good slogan for what most people are trying to do. There are some that want to abolish the police, but most want to divert the funding of police departments to other programs to help fix the underlying problems and to implement policy changes to provide oversight.

At this time, it seems to be a messaging problem, as defund the police can be interpreted in a number of ways; in particular, in ways that benefit spreading fear about having no law enforcement.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by whomario

It might not even mean dissolving. Just that you build a new budget from scratch rather than adjusting it in bits and pieces. Going from there this could mean branching out services differently (remember that one problem is police handling stuff they should not have to handle) or for the core police services going the route Camden took:

Camden County Police Department - Wikipedia

I literally have no idea how any of this will shake out, but there is a world of alternatives between the Status Quo and "no police". I don't think the idea is to do away with policing or having a police presence, but with "the police" as is currently constructed as some sort of one-size-fits-all response to whatever you fail to solve in terms of underlying problems.
The idea is that a lot of crime might not happen if there is less need for it rather than due to (even more) fear of punishment.

Right Defund the Police basically means let's spread out all that we use policing for. Mental health experts or domestic violence experts would be the best people on the scene for those issues. Some of the unfortunate shootings have resulted from police coming across mentally ill people and not having the training to de-escalate the situation (community based policing has this in mind as well). Don't have police forces be the catch up fixers of all disturbances of the peace, but have them respond in areas where they have the training to deal with it.

It seems to have a marked impact in Camden, and that seems to be the example that Minneapolis is using (because their police force has been rotten for quite some time).

John Oliver actually did a very good job explaining this (towards about 3/4th of the way in the video):

Police: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) - YouTube

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is me. With regards to whomario's point, I think the whole 'call them if you need them' can be done in some situations but there are a lot of things that police do that you need an enforcement-type of personnel to do. I think car accidents are one of those. I do hope we can find something better than what we have, but I'm with Arles on the complications involved and I think reforming what we have gets us part of the way there as well.

Are car accidents part of the discussion ? That is done by police here as well, but so low key i really don't see much problems it could bring (and lived for a few years at a road notorious for minor accidents), it's more about taking down the facts from both parties and securing the area with regards to coordinating traffic etc. I mean, they are not there to enforce anything.

Btw we also have some sort of 'municipal police' (actual police is state wide with local branches), although "police" is the wrong term, that handles stuff like parking Tickets, a bar illegally operating, animal welfare and stuff like that. Or currently businesses not following guidelines for Covid protection. That's not handled by regular police unless they are called to the scene.

[ISiddiqui]

Here's another good article on Defund the Police by a Professor at Georgetown Law School (this isn't necessarily a new topic, FWIW):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-really-means/

Some good paragraphs:

To fix policing, we must first recognize how much we have come to over-rely on law enforcement. We turn to the police in situations where years of experience and common sense tell us that their involvement is unnecessary, and can make things worse. We ask police to take accident reports, respond to people who have overdosed and arrest, rather than cite, people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill. We call police to roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps, resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike, and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue.

Police themselves often complain about having to “do too much,” including handling social problems for which they are ill-equipped. Some have been vocal about the need to decriminalize social problems and take police out of the equation. It is clear that we must reimagine the role they play in public safety.

Defunding and abolition probably mean something different from what you are thinking. For most proponents, “defunding the police” does not mean zeroing out budgets for public safety, and police abolition does not mean that police will disappear overnight — or perhaps ever. Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need. It means investing more in mental-health care and housing, and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs.

[RainMaker]

Officers slashed tires on vehicles parked amid Minneapolis protests, unrest | Star Tribune

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Officers slashed tires on vehicles parked amid Minneapolis protests, unrest | Star Tribune

still?

[thesloppy]

Portland's police chief stepped down/back and asked a specific black lieutenant to take over the role:

Jami Resch steps down as Portland police chief, asks African American lieutenant to fill the job - oregonlive.com

She had only been on the job for six months......I hope she enjoyed the multiple once-in-a-generation crises in that time? I imagine a part of her is probably happy to not be in charge anymore.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by whomario

Are car accidents part of the discussion ? That is done by police here as well, but so low key i really don't see much problems it could bring (and lived for a few years at a road notorious for minor accidents), it's more about taking down the facts from both parties and securing the area with regards to coordinating traffic etc. I mean, they are not there to enforce anything.

I'm glad for you that you've never been in an accident that wasn't low-key, but that's decidedly not always the case and I think it's logical that it wouldn't be; tempers run high when people realize the loss they've suffered, and that's if nobody got injured or worse which again, isn't always the case.

[panerd]

.3 Libertarian Tips for the #DefundPolice Movement – Reason.com

[Arles]

Yeah, pensions are the dirty secret for trying to move money away from the police. If you reduce the sources of income, that will have to come from the state's budget (and potentially take away from schools, hospitals, mental health facilities, roads, etc). As I said earlier, there would need to be a clear plan of how things would get paid before (and the infrastructure setup) before a real solution could work. I think it's possible, but a lot more thought has to go into this.

[Arles]

As a dola, I also want to say this is a very good conversation to have. My point is it isn't as simple as many of the BLM protestors might believe it to be - nor is it as scary/daunting as many that oppose it think. It just has to be done right and my fear in all this is public pressure will force some rash decisions with unfortunate consequences that could have been avoided with a little more planning.

[whomario]

If that much of a budget depends on fines, sth is wrong fundamentally. I really don't see how adding up wrong on wrong is sustainable. Maybe there needs to be a good look at what is spent too much on on the national level. And without wanting to start sth, an analog to the police does come to mind.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm glad for you that you've never been in an accident that wasn't low-key, but that's decidedly not always the case and I think it's logical that it wouldn't be; tempers run high when people realize the loss they've suffered, and that's if nobody got injured or worse which again, isn't always the case.

Low-Key was in reference to what the police is asked to do in the first place and that that is not likely to cause tempers flaring up. I don't know what it is they are tasked with in the US on the spot of the accident, which is why i asked if that is part of the discussion re: removing that part from the agenda.
They are there to prevent that from happening or deal with it. If there presence is seen as problematic in the US (by those arguing for this shift), why is that ?

In any case i just don't see how it is sustainable to assign responsibilities (or judging quality) always based on the worst case and how one could respond in that case (with force) and not based on the aptitude/effectiveness of preventing that worst case from transpiring in the first place.
This goes for police itself as well i guess. Is there the right Balance when it comes to choosing officers and promoting them ? In training them ?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by whomario

Low-Key was in reference to what the police is asked to do in the first place and that that is not likely to cause tempers flaring up. I don't know what it is they are tasked with in the US on the spot of the accident, which is why i asked if that is part of the discussion re: removing that part from the agenda.

Depends. In some cases it is... but rather than completely divorcing it from a reconstructed police, there is a separate specifically trained group that deals with traffic accidents who may have more restricted use of force rules/less weaponry, etc. The idea is more specialization.

[thesloppy]

Just spitballing, but I wonder if there could be value in some degree of community policing as national service.

[cuervo72]

Possible problem with community policing: guys like the ones who shot Ahmaud Arbery.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Arles

As a dola, I also want to say this is a very good conversation to have. My point is it isn't as simple as many of the BLM protestors might believe it to be - nor is it as scary/daunting as many that oppose it think. It just has to be done right and my fear in all this is public pressure will force some rash decisions with unfortunate consequences that could have been avoided with a little more planning.

[whomario]

National Service outside the military really tends to mostly be support role in health/social services from what i know (it definitiv was over here) and that makes sense i'd say. Get people interested in careers out of the spotlight, give underfunded services some manpower to relieve the specialists.
Really don't see any sort of policing as sth that should be left to either volunteers or 'conscripts' (dependent on how it'd be set up), that both usually have to have more protection against liability for their mistakes, not less.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Possible problem with community policing: guys like the ones who shot Ahmaud Arbery.

For sure. Those guys were already an issue with the actually existing police too tho, right...more of a constant issue, rather than a problem with the idea.

..it kinda touches an another issue I was thinking about, which is whether there is a value to some kind of 'term limits' to police officers? I don't think I have anywhere near the knowledge needed to judge from outside, but it does seem like working in a PD for 30 years tends to make you less empathic rather than more. Of course, that also touches on the pension issue. Who would want to be a policeman if it were necessarily short term and the retirement benefits disappeared?

[Arles]

Yeah, I have a few friends who are police where I grew up. They basically said that there's about 20-30% we would rather not have on the force, but we need policemen and there isn't a robust pool of candidates to choose from. Pay keeps decreasing, long hours, everybody hates them (esp around St. Louis) and it is getting more and more dangerous. At this point, unless you have a bad record or can't lie through a psych eval - you have a good chance of being on the force.

So, I don't think cutting retirement/compensation is a good idea if you want to improve the caliber of policeman. I argued with them that maybe this gives even more reason to separate the roles and have fewer normally armed police. Have higher standards for those roles and then allow more specialized positions that aren't full Rambo. The one said that wasn't a bad idea, while the other said those spots would just end up calling for backup in half their calls and overwork the few armed guys left (and potentially cause more issues for a tired and armed cop). It's an interesting discussion and I still don't have a great answer.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Possible problem with community policing: guys like the ones who shot Ahmaud Arbery.

The cops and AG covered up that murder.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The cops and AG covered up that murder.

To be fair, the police tried to effectuate an arrest and the AG nixed it, cover up, but on the AG's part.

[illinifan999]

Chicago’s most violent day in 60 years: 18 murders in 24 hours - Chicago Sun-Times

[cuervo72]

Sure, the murder was covered up but w/o formal police departments. But in general I fear that's what you're gonna get in a lot of areas for "community policing." You're going to get vigilantes/racists (or organized crime). I mean, that may not necessarily be worse everywhere, but in some cases it may be.