Author Topic: Police brutality, looting and racism  (Read 51147 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #35 on: August 12, 2014, 06:09:25 PM »
And out of curiosity, would your brother be willing to, let's say stretch the rules just a tiny bit, in deference to the greater good?

I'm trying to give you as honest an answer as I can.  I don't know.   I think it depends on what you mean by "stretch the rules", which I know (and I would argue too) is not an answer of degrees.  You either do or you don't.   

I do know this:   he had an opportunity to get a job for the son of one of his friends.   A son he knows to have had a history of drug issues but claimed to be clean.  He told the kid up front to disclose his history and to make sure he was clean for the next "x" days because he could be called in at any time for a test. 

When my brother was given the application on which he was to affix his recommendation, he realized the kid didn't disclose all.  The kid also popped on the test.  My brother withdrew his recommendation, calling the kid out for lying (though you could argue it was self-serving, knowing that if he didn't and the kid popped, he would look bad).   Not the same circumstance you are going for, I know, but data nonetheless.   I don't profess to say my brother is perfect or a saint; I know he is not.   But he does take his job seriously, and he doesn't let his personal demons drive his behavior (i.e. his job is not a paid therapy session for him to get his agressions out) like many of the posts here imply.
First off, and I might have explained this to you before, I don't think the majority of cops are looking to take out their aggressions on others. There are certainly some, but it's the exception not the rule. I also think most of them get into the business for valid reasons. However, I also think the nature of the job turns them away from that more often than not. Simply put, most people who become cops aren't assholes, but the job has a tendency to turn them into just that for a variety of reasons.

Now, you're correct that bending the rules is a binary thing (I was actually thinking the opposite, BTW--there are degrees of bending, but since it's a replacement for breaking rules, it is in fact quite binary). Something else that is quite binary is corruption. Corruption need not be bad acting. Somebody here posted a story in my "cop stories" thread about a cop not citing him for speeding because he recognized him as the guy who served him pizza. This pissed me off since I don't have a job that affords me the regular opportunity to make nice with cops to catch a break down the line. Giving a break to somebody because you like him is no different than extorting a blowjob from some prostitute; they're both corruption. It's letting your personal feelings, motivations or perspectives influence how you do or do not carry out your job. This is something that happens more often than not in law enforcement. If your brother pulled you over for driving 80 in a 65 would he write you for it? Would he write me for the same thing?

This is at the heart of my problem with cops. To varying degrees their personal feelings and motivations will always dictate how they do their job. I would have to call that exploiting one's authority. Moreover, if you spend all of your time dealing with certain types of people, you're going to develop opinions on them that will further influence how you do your job. All of this is basic human nature and the surprising part would be if it weren't the case. As others here can attest, I look like a doper. Isn't it likely that when Johnny sees me he might make such an assumption. Isn't it also the case that he might look for any reason to pull me over? And then any reason to toss my car? A friend and I were pulled over because "we didn't look like we belonged in the neighborhood" (2 blocks from his home). We then had the car completely tossed because a baseball bat was in the backseat. All bullshit, honestly, and not an isolated event. Nobody I know hasn't had numerous instances of such things happening.

From there, is it really such a stretch to go onto beating somebody for five minutes because he brushed up against you and then proceeded to try and protect his face? All of this stems from discretionary practices, and cops have the benefit of many highly discretionary laws. Disorderly conduct down here. That's the catchall crime for anything that doesn't have a penal code number. Resisting arrest for any use of force. You've certainly seen many instances of people "resisting arrest" by covering their face while somebody is pummeling it. I'm not saying that all cops are waiting to get all The Hitcher on you (You just spit on my hand, boy. Wipe it off!), but they're afforded a great deal of leeway in their actions and those actions are in a large way influenced by their attitude.

Also, if you think about it, isn't trying to get a family friend hired on in a position you know him to be unqualified for also an example of corruption? Departments will generally tolerate dopers and drunks, but they will never hire them. Past drug use is almost always an immediate DQ.

And I want to assure you, I'm not slagging on your brother in any way. In fact, the reason I'm using him as an example here is that as your brother I'm assuming he's a perfectly good and fair cop. Yet, even in his case there's now some question as to fairness and his use of discretion.

I can also believe that he might work for a good department; I know they certainly exist. There's actually a department down here that I fully trust and respect. They're such monumental hardasses that they made national news for taking a 93 year old woman to jail in handcuffs for driving without her license. While most people were outraged, I defended them and considered it proof that they were willing to treat every single person the same. Those are the only cops around I'd trust not to tazer me to death for expressing my opinions.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #36 on: August 12, 2014, 07:08:31 PM »
Quote
The race of officers should not matter as long as their work is fair and professional, said Dave Klinger, a former police officer and criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

"If the officer behaved inappropriately, we've got to sanction the officer and figure out what it is that led him to do what he did," Klinger said. "Was he poorly trained? Was there a pattern in this agency?"
Or maybe was he an asshole? Part of the problem I have with cops (this is turning into my Fuck the Police thread, sorry) is that they're seemingly so incapable of finding fault in each other. There are no bad cops. Only poorly trained ones or victims of all of us who "don't know what it's like." That's part of the reason the "us against the world" mentality bugs me so much. Makes defensiveness and solidarity paramount to the exclusion of all else.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25822
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #37 on: August 12, 2014, 10:30:38 PM »

To be a criminal, you must commit a crime. A crime is a legal construct we make, based upon our morality. For you to consider someone a criminal, you must consider what they did to be morally reprehensible.

Someone who goes 36 in a 35 is breaking the law and could be punished as such. By the strict definition, that person is a criminal. Do you consider someone going 36 in a 35 to be a criminal? I sure don't. I distinguish between performing a criminal act and being a criminal.

I don't consider going one mile over the speed limit to be morally reprehensible.  I cannot say the same about those people who were looting and rioting the other night.  Feel free to disagree and make excuses for the looters.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9461
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2014, 07:39:45 AM »
Wow.  I do believe I have not commented ONCE on the cops actions in this case. The only even slight reference I gave to this case was to say it may not even be a good example for this kind of thing, in and of itself. But nice snotty attitude and good job pigeonholing me.

Not meant to be snotty, and if it struck you that way, then I apologize.   I hate that a kid died, no doubt, but I hate the witch hunt even more.   


I'm honestly not sure if this is supposed to be serious, and I don't intend to offend. You just defended something not being moral... by pointing out how they're moral... rights are moral claims. to say you are protecting anyone rights is to make a moral claim. It is your morality that says it is someone's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

No, actually in this context, that is not accurate.  The inalienable right that I noted is a fundamental component of our rule of law as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, the blue print for the entire system.  "Morals" are of man; the notion of "inalienable" and "under God" in this context is meant to say that no man (specifically, in context, a monarch) can take those rights away from any person.  That is not a "moral" qualification here, that is a notion of where power originates.   Certainly there are laws with a moral component, and there are laws that have BOTH a moral and a practical rationale.  There might even be some laws that are just morally based - off the cuff I would suggest marriage laws and perhaps obscenity laws, but you'll note that most of those are falling rather quickly (as to whether that is right or not is a debate for another day).

Quote
Yes, the legal system can "objectively" execute the law, but the law itself is subjective to the will of the people, based upon their morality. In the purely legal sense, you are correct. The legal definition of a criminal is purely one of administrative bureaucracy, and seeks to ignore the moral opinions of the people executing the laws. However, the legal definition is not THE definition, and if you would go look it up in the dictionary, you'll notice it means several things, and is somewhat convoluted.

Either way, the concept of a criminal is most certainly a moral concept based upon morality and what we consider appropriate behavior.

Your first sentence is nominally correct, up until the phrase "based upon their morality".  Again, I'm not saying you are totally off base, since many laws serve both a practical purpose and a moral one.   As for the second, well, we can debate this (in a friendly way; I apologize again for any "snottiness", it was purely unintended), but the only one that matters is the legal definition.   Nothing else is binding on any citizen of the United States.   You don't know me from a row of assholes, but I'm not big at all on letting society decide shit, and especially when it comes to things based on morality.  In my humble opinion, we only seem to get in trouble when we DO legislate morality, and while this is not a critique of our Supreme Court, I will throw out there that they are a better court than the extremists (of either side) would have you believe, primarily because they do such a good job of keeping morals out of it (as proof I note that since Roe v. Wade in '73, the Chief Justice of the Court has only ever been a Republican President appointee, and the Court has, in that time, had some of the most Conservative leaning justices in its history, and yet Roe v. Wade has never even once been seriously in danger of being overturned). 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9461
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2014, 07:44:49 AM »
Quote
The race of officers should not matter as long as their work is fair and professional, said Dave Klinger, a former police officer and criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

"If the officer behaved inappropriately, we've got to sanction the officer and figure out what it is that led him to do what he did," Klinger said. "Was he poorly trained? Was there a pattern in this agency?"
Or maybe was he an asshole? Part of the problem I have with cops (this is turning into my Fuck the Police thread, sorry) is that they're seemingly so incapable of finding fault in each other. There are no bad cops. Only poorly trained ones or victims of all of us who "don't know what it's like." That's part of the reason the "us against the world" mentality bugs me so much. Makes defensiveness and solidarity paramount to the exclusion of all else.

I don't want to go off on a tangent, or contradict anything I might say in response to your longer post, but the "us against the world" mentality DOES exist (i.e. the "thin blue line") but it is as much reactionary as it is proactive.  Not defending it, but look at St. Louis: the only people even asking for any kind of fairness (not even going so far as to defend him) are other cops.   And even you have to admit that at this point in time, we don't have information enough to draw any meaningful conclusions beyond "we need more information". 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9461
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #40 on: August 13, 2014, 08:10:58 AM »
First off, and I might have explained this to you before, I don't think the majority of cops are looking to take out their aggressions on others. There are certainly some, but it's the exception not the rule. I also think most of them get into the business for valid reasons. However, I also think the nature of the job turns them away from that more often than not. Simply put, most people who become cops aren't assholes, but the job has a tendency to turn them into just that for a variety of reasons.

Now, you're correct that bending the rules is a binary thing (I was actually thinking the opposite, BTW--there are degrees of bending, but since it's a replacement for breaking rules, it is in fact quite binary). Something else that is quite binary is corruption. Corruption need not be bad acting. Somebody here posted a story in my "cop stories" thread about a cop not citing him for speeding because he recognized him as the guy who served him pizza. This pissed me off since I don't have a job that affords me the regular opportunity to make nice with cops to catch a break down the line. Giving a break to somebody because you like him is no different than extorting a blowjob from some prostitute; they're both corruption. It's letting your personal feelings, motivations or perspectives influence how you do or do not carry out your job. This is something that happens more often than not in law enforcement. If your brother pulled you over for driving 80 in a 65 would he write you for it? Would he write me for the same thing?

This is at the heart of my problem with cops. To varying degrees their personal feelings and motivations will always dictate how they do their job. I would have to call that exploiting one's authority. Moreover, if you spend all of your time dealing with certain types of people, you're going to develop opinions on them that will further influence how you do your job. All of this is basic human nature and the surprising part would be if it weren't the case. As others here can attest, I look like a doper. Isn't it likely that when Johnny sees me he might make such an assumption. Isn't it also the case that he might look for any reason to pull me over? And then any reason to toss my car? A friend and I were pulled over because "we didn't look like we belonged in the neighborhood" (2 blocks from his home). We then had the car completely tossed because a baseball bat was in the backseat. All bullshit, honestly, and not an isolated event. Nobody I know hasn't had numerous instances of such things happening.

Let me say that we've had this conversation before, yet this is a very different (in a positive way) version.  :)

I think now that we're down to definitions, we're on to something.  As you can guess, I am more than willing to give cops the benefit of the doubt.  I don't think they should get special treatment, but I don't think they deserve half (most?) of the abuse they get.  Having said that, I don't actually disagree with much that you wrote there.  When I hear "corruption" I immediately think "NYC in 1974", not "letting the guy that delivers my pizza off with a verbal warning".   I will send your head into convulsions here, but I, in a very real way, do not have to worry about a speeding ticket ever again (though I don't take advantage of it).   I have had this conversation in some form or fashion at least three times (incidentially, in three different states) in the last five years: 
"Here's your ticket, the response date is on the bottom.  You need to..."
"I know what I need to do; I've been here before.  Thanks for your service, and I don't mean that sarcastically; my brother is on the job too.  He's a traffic cop in [insert City]."
"Dude... you should have told me before I put it in the system.  I can't do anything now I called it in, but I wouldn't have written you if I had known." 

If that's corruption, then I agree with you.  And I can't and won't defend it except to say that I do STRONGLY disagree that it is a "short hop" (my words) to beating someone.   I respect you for having your principles in that regard (seriously) but that level of corruption is systemic in all walks of life, not just cops.   We can debate whether cops should (or even can) be different, but I guarantee you people in service industries like that do this all the time.  How many times have you seen people walk into a bar and drink for free, if not all night, then at least a round or two?   Be it because they played softball for the bar, or did some work on the side for the bar, or whatever.  Quid pro quo (or in economic terms, "transfer payments"). 

Quote
Also, if you think about it, isn't trying to get a family friend hired on in a position you know him to be unqualified for also an example of corruption? Departments will generally tolerate dopers and drunks, but they will never hire them. Past drug use is almost always an immediate DQ.

Well, in this case (and I am not adjusting the facts to argue. :)  he was qualified (it was not an officer position, but admin in the Department) and would not have been DQ'd for the drug use.  He was DQ'd because he lied on the forms (even the pop was because it proved that he lied on the forms, though if the app went further it could have been enough to disqualify him).   My bro didn't do anything against policy in that instance; if he helped cover it up to help a "friend", he would have.

As for "what you look like", well, that is a different discussion, no?   I get the notion - the somewhat idealist notion - that we should all be judged by the "content of our character" not the metaphoric in this case "color of our skin", but is that again indemic only to cops?   I look like a right and proper WASP now, but I had long(er) hair back in the day, and fit in nicely at the Dio and Maiden shows I frequented in my youth, and I do notice a difference.  Is that bad?  Honest question: what responsibility do I have in how I am perceived?   This is somewhat of a metaphysical discussion, but isn't it part of our DNA to perceive our situations and assess danger in any way we can?  Why are cops different in this regard?   Are you familiar with the study that "tested" for "gaydar"?   People can tell - with up to 80% accuracy (which is VERY high when you consider that gay males only make up about 2% of the overall population) http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/05/16/study-finds-gaydar-up-to-80-percent-accurate-on-sexuality   (In fairness, this is not the only study; I know of one other that somewhat contradicts this, in that the rate was about 70%, wasn't limited to sexuality, and said MALE gayness was more accurate than lesbianism (which was about the same as random chance).  The only other "group" that had a better rate of detection was....can you guess?)

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #41 on: August 13, 2014, 08:12:04 AM »
Quote
The race of officers should not matter as long as their work is fair and professional, said Dave Klinger, a former police officer and criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

"If the officer behaved inappropriately, we've got to sanction the officer and figure out what it is that led him to do what he did," Klinger said. "Was he poorly trained? Was there a pattern in this agency?"
Or maybe was he an asshole? Part of the problem I have with cops (this is turning into my Fuck the Police thread, sorry) is that they're seemingly so incapable of finding fault in each other. There are no bad cops. Only poorly trained ones or victims of all of us who "don't know what it's like." That's part of the reason the "us against the world" mentality bugs me so much. Makes defensiveness and solidarity paramount to the exclusion of all else.

I don't want to go off on a tangent, or contradict anything I might say in response to your longer post, but the "us against the world" mentality DOES exist (i.e. the "thin blue line") but it is as much reactionary as it is proactive.  Not defending it, but look at St. Louis: the only people even asking for any kind of fairness (not even going so far as to defend him) are other cops.   And even you have to admit that at this point in time, we don't have information enough to draw any meaningful conclusions beyond "we need more information".
I agree completely that the mentality is reactionary and have said so many times. Again, I think it's being a cop that makes cops bad. That doesn't make it any less of a problem or bad thing. Also, plenty of people are cutting Johnny slack at this point, myself included. I've pretty much defended the cop in this situation in lieu of facts contradictory to his story.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9461
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #42 on: August 13, 2014, 08:19:00 AM »
Again, I think it's being a cop that makes cops bad.

Honest question:  is it "being a cop" or "facing the reaction to being a cop" that makes cops bad?  Do you see the difference I'm trying to make?  In other words, if the world was perfect, and we all treated each other with respect, would cops still go bad?  Or does it take the odd dynamic we have these days to do it?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #43 on: August 13, 2014, 08:37:21 AM »

I think now that we're down to definitions, we're on to something.  As you can guess, I am more than willing to give cops the benefit of the doubt.  I don't think they should get special treatment, but I don't think they deserve half (most?) of the abuse they get.  Having said that, I don't actually disagree with much that you wrote there.  When I hear "corruption" I immediately think "NYC in 1974", not "letting the guy that delivers my pizza off with a verbal warning".   I will send your head into convulsions here, but I, in a very real way, do not have to worry about a speeding ticket ever again (though I don't take advantage of it).   I have had this conversation in some form or fashion at least three times (incidentially, in three different states) in the last five years: 
"Here's your ticket, the response date is on the bottom.  You need to..."
"I know what I need to do; I've been here before.  Thanks for your service, and I don't mean that sarcastically; my brother is on the job too.  He's a traffic cop in [insert City]."
"Dude... you should have told me before I put it in the system.  I can't do anything now I called it in, but I wouldn't have written you if I had known." 
Yeesh, those fucking PBA cards.  :lol

Interestingly, this is the one and only time I ever saw cops argue with each other over at Officer.com. PBA cards are entirely and East coast thing, and all cops further West were outraged by the whole idea. Now, those same outraged cops would still cut friends and family plenty of slack, but the idea of codifying it into the system that the Easterners have was pretty offensive to them. Quite honestly, they preferred their corruption to be more discreet.

Quote
If that's corruption, then I agree with you.  And I can't and won't defend it except to say that I do STRONGLY disagree that it is a "short hop" (my words) to beating someone.   I respect you for having your principles in that regard (seriously) but that level of corruption is systemic in all walks of life, not just cops.   We can debate whether cops should (or even can) be different, but I guarantee you people in service industries like that do this all the time.  How many times have you seen people walk into a bar and drink for free, if not all night, then at least a round or two?   Be it because they played softball for the bar, or did some work on the side for the bar, or whatever.  Quid pro quo (or in economic terms, "transfer payments"). 
Well, in this very thread you're arguing (quite correctly) about the role of morality in CJ. You're approaching it from a strict and legal viewpoint of how the law works. From that viewpoint, you have to recognize that cops and pizza guys have a very different obligation when it comes to the role of discretion in their work. Hell, I do work for friends/family for free on occasion. I'm sure you would as well. Neither of us are in a job where we're supposed to be strictly impartial, though. I granted that it's human nature for cops to let their feelings affect how they do their job, but that doesn't make it a good thing with regards to the role they're supposed to play in society.

And while there is a big step from giving somebody a pass on a ticket to tazing them to death, it's still part of the continuum when you're letting your emotions affect your work. Many cops interestingly have a real issue with any written use of force continuum. Yet such policies actually have lines marked on the ruler telling them how far to go and when. These cops that object are of the opinion that it should be their feeling or instinct that determines when things escalate. That bothers me and it seems to be the way LE is handled nowadays.

Quote
As for "what you look like", well, that is a different discussion, no?   I get the notion - the somewhat idealist notion - that we should all be judged by the "content of our character" not the metaphoric in this case "color of our skin", but is that again indemic only to cops?   I look like a right and proper WASP now, but I had long(er) hair back in the day, and fit in nicely at the Dio and Maiden shows I frequented in my youth, and I do notice a difference.  Is that bad?  Honest question: what responsibility do I have in how I am perceived?   This is somewhat of a metaphysical discussion, but isn't it part of our DNA to perceive our situations and assess danger in any way we can?  Why are cops different in this regard?
That's an interesting question, but as it applies to law enforcement, I'm not sure it matters. Isn't every person your brother interacts with innocent? Yes, I've made a conscious decision to not look like Mr. Law And Order, and there are plenty of circumstances where I put up with the ramifications (security following me around inside Target, for example), and now that you mention it I suppose I'm obligated to do so based on that decision. There are also instances where I expect people to do their damn job and do it professionally. Inventing RS and PC to give me a hard time because I look like I'm a doper doesn't qualify.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #44 on: August 13, 2014, 08:46:34 AM »
As you can guess, I am more than willing to give cops the benefit of the doubt.
Why? Do you think that's fair in the society we've agreed to live in where there is a steadfast presumption of innocence?

I'm not saying to automatically take the word of the accused over the cop, but at the same time, in the absence of evidence I don't the cop should automatically be taken at his word which is how the system works now. This is another of my core problems with cops and CJ in this country. Juries tend to automatically take their word. Judges do, as well, despite being quite outspoken to the fact that cops are professional liars when it comes to courtrooms. The laws offering qualified immunity give great protection to cops based on how they might have perceived a situation or felt while it was happening.

Interestingly, in the "debate" on body cameras over at O.com, one of the key concerns is that cops would lose their "testimonial authority" if video were to become commonplace. They know that anything they say will probably be believed on the stand, and if every cop had video of every encounter it would undermine that. I found this rather repugnant.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 10:44:18 AM by El Barto »
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #45 on: August 13, 2014, 08:48:14 AM »
Again, I think it's being a cop that makes cops bad.

Honest question:  is it "being a cop" or "facing the reaction to being a cop" that makes cops bad?  Do you see the difference I'm trying to make?  In other words, if the world was perfect, and we all treated each other with respect, would cops still go bad?  Or does it take the odd dynamic we have these days to do it?
In the world you describe I can't see any need for cops. I would say that as long as there's a role for cops to play, then there will be an impetus towards corruption. Cops have power and power corrupts.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #46 on: August 13, 2014, 09:46:41 AM »

To be a criminal, you must commit a crime. A crime is a legal construct we make, based upon our morality. For you to consider someone a criminal, you must consider what they did to be morally reprehensible.

Someone who goes 36 in a 35 is breaking the law and could be punished as such. By the strict definition, that person is a criminal. Do you consider someone going 36 in a 35 to be a criminal? I sure don't. I distinguish between performing a criminal act and being a criminal.

I don't consider going one mile over the speed limit to be morally reprehensible.  I cannot say the same about those people who were looting and rioting the other night.  Feel free to disagree and make excuses for the looters.

I consider the act morally reprehensible, I do not consider the person morally reprehensible, and that's where you're getting confused about my position.

Also, you did not say they were criminals because they were out there, you said they're out there because they're criminals. Big difference.

All I'm doing is trying to evoke empathy. That does not excuse, but it does soften the dialogue and lead to actual positive results.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9461
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #47 on: August 13, 2014, 11:33:42 AM »
Yeesh, those fucking PBA cards.  :lol

Interestingly, this is the one and only time I ever saw cops argue with each other over at Officer.com. PBA cards are entirely and East coast thing, and all cops further West were outraged by the whole idea. Now, those same outraged cops would still cut friends and family plenty of slack, but the idea of codifying it into the system that the Easterners have was pretty offensive to them. Quite honestly, they preferred their corruption to be more discreet.

I forgot about those!   :D  Well, I wasn't really talking about anything so institutionalized and formal.   I meant it in a more discreet way. 

And full disclosure (though you have no real reason to believe me on this other than my word), I would be as pissed as you if a cop let me or anyone else get away with something because they were or are closely related to a cop, and then further down the road they hit a kid on a bike or something.   I mean, you do this with the full knowledge of the risk and an acceptance of the consequences.  I'm relying (a little) on the disctinctions that I think it was Scheavo noted earlier.   In other words I wouldn't expect a cop to give me a pass if I blow a .15 on a breathalyzer. 

Quote
And while there is a big step from giving somebody a pass on a ticket to tazing them to death, it's still part of the continuum when you're letting your emotions affect your work. Many cops interestingly have a real issue with any written use of force continuum. Yet such policies actually have lines marked on the ruler telling them how far to go and when. These cops that object are of the opinion that it should be their feeling or instinct that determines when things escalate. That bothers me and it seems to be the way LE is handled nowadays.

Honest question here:  this comes up when talking about teachers too, and is HIGHLY dependent on which side of the tracks you are looking from.  The "standards" and "continuum" make sense when you're talking about a line in the sand working to dial back a cop.   What about those instances - if they exist - that the line in effect says to the cop, "you probably would have stopped here, at 5, but you know, you COULD go to 7!".  Just like the standardized tests that are designed to be a bar for all to aspire to, but have worked out in many cases to reign in teachers from shooting for the moon and end up just teaching the bare minimum to pass the tests. 

Quote
That's an interesting question, but as it applies to law enforcement, I'm not sure it matters. Isn't every person your brother interacts with innocent? Yes, I've made a conscious decision to not look like Mr. Law And Order, and there are plenty of circumstances where I put up with the ramifications (security following me around inside Target, for example), and now that you mention it I suppose I'm obligated to do so based on that decision. There are also instances where I expect people to do their damn job and do it professionally. Inventing RS and PC to give me a hard time because I look like I'm a doper doesn't qualify.

Well, it is interesting and I recognize it goes both ways; one would think (and here I think we might even agree) that perhaps cops should be held to a higher standard; protect your life and well-being, but in a way that recognizes that "long hair" doesn't equal "criminal".   I recognize that this is not equivalent to an old lady crossing the street because the three kids in front of her have hoodies on at night and shirts that have the Insane Clown Posse on the front.  She has no duty to them. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #48 on: August 13, 2014, 11:40:23 AM »
The cop might say that it is his duty to the little old lady that would cause him to pay a little more attention to the ICP guys.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9461
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #49 on: August 13, 2014, 11:44:50 AM »
As you can guess, I am more than willing to give cops the benefit of the doubt.
Why? Do you think that's fair in the society we've agreed to live in where there is a steadfast presumption of innocence?

I'm not saying to automatically take the word of the accused over the cop, but at the same time, in the absence of evidence I don't the cop should automatically be taken at his word which is how the system works now. This is another of my core problems with cops and CJ in this country. Juries tend to automatically take their word. Judges do, as well, despite being quite outspoken to the fact that cops are professional liars when it comes to courtrooms. The laws offering qualified immunity give great protection to cops based on how they might have perceived a situation or felt while it was happening.

Interestingly, in the "debate" on body cameras over at O.com, one of the key concerns is that cops would lose their "testimonial authority" if video were to become commonplace. They know that anything they say will probably be believed on the stand, and if every cop had video of every encounter it would undermine that. I found this rather repugnant.

I do, and I think it goes all ways.   There is no more reason to assume a cop is corrupt than there is to assume a black man walking the street at night is looking for a gas station to boost.   Unless and until one of them does something to change that assumption. 

Let me say straight up that although "repugnant" isn't the word I would use, I am in agreement with you on the last paragraph.  I see the other point:  that one or two cops whose testimony differs from the video will spoil the entire lot (how much of the general suspicion of cops is based on ONE precinct of ONE police department that made some pretty bad missteps in the mid 90's?  You know what I'm talking about.)     

Not sure why anyone would not want corroborating evidence IF they are acting as they believe is in the right.  Having said that, you and I have talked about this and we differ on the motivations.  I firmly believe there is far more incentive for the accused to lie than the cop.  There is no upside to the cop lying, at least not as compares to that of the accused.   Plus there is the general human aversion to "punishment" that the cop is not seeking to avoid with his testimony.  It is not a minor point that generally speaking, in a crime situation, the cop is not the actor (I know this thread is about a situation where the cop IS an actor, and by the way, I don't know that I would extend my "benefit of the doubt" to this case either, because the cop DOES have something to gain by lying).   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9461
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #50 on: August 13, 2014, 11:47:49 AM »
Again, I think it's being a cop that makes cops bad.

Honest question:  is it "being a cop" or "facing the reaction to being a cop" that makes cops bad?  Do you see the difference I'm trying to make?  In other words, if the world was perfect, and we all treated each other with respect, would cops still go bad?  Or does it take the odd dynamic we have these days to do it?
In the world you describe I can't see any need for cops. I would say that as long as there's a role for cops to play, then there will be an impetus towards corruption. Cops have power and power corrupts.

Not sure where that was going; I can certainly envision a world that needs cops but that doesn't instantly hate cops because they are cops.   Again, another discussion for another time, but I absolutely do not believe a totally peaceful society with no conflict can ever exist.  Even if the cops are only around to handle the "outliers", there will always be a subset of our society that are sociopaths, and whether they are "functioning" or not, there will always be situations where the general empathy required to toe the line won't be there.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #51 on: August 13, 2014, 12:06:20 PM »

Let me say straight up that although "repugnant" isn't the word I would use, I am in agreement with you on the last paragraph.  I see the other point:  that one or two cops whose testimony differs from the video will spoil the entire lot (how much of the general suspicion of cops is based on ONE precinct of ONE police department that made some pretty bad missteps in the mid 90's?  You know what I'm talking about.)     
Plenty of good points, and I'll be giving them some thought before cranking out another long-winded reply.

I do want to address this, though, as it wasn't really the point they were making. From the cop's perspective, cops never lie. They're not concerned about his testimony not matching what's on video (and according to at least one court it doesn't matter anyway as the testimony trumps video to the contrary). What they're concerned about is that it'll be the video that creates the perception of truth, and not Johnny's testimony. As it stands now, their badge and demeanor are what make them honest and truthful. Their concern is about that being undermined by ubiquitous video. At some point if he busts somebody off camera or the camera isn't working his word will no longer be good enough based solely on his badge and demeanor (as it should be, IMO).
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9461
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #52 on: August 13, 2014, 02:04:40 PM »
Plenty of good points, and I'll be giving them some thought before cranking out another long-winded reply.

I do want to address this, though, as it wasn't really the point they were making. From the cop's perspective, cops never lie. They're not concerned about his testimony not matching what's on video (and according to at least one court it doesn't matter anyway as the testimony trumps video to the contrary). What they're concerned about is that it'll be the video that creates the perception of truth, and not Johnny's testimony. As it stands now, their badge and demeanor are what make them honest and truthful. Their concern is about that being undermined by ubiquitous video. At some point if he busts somebody off camera or the camera isn't working his word will no longer be good enough based solely on his badge and demeanor (as it should be, IMO).

Yeah, I don't get that logic.   I believe you, but I don't understand it.   Isn't that already the case?  That generally speaking hard evidence (video, a fingerprint, a recording...) has more "credibility" than a witness?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #53 on: August 13, 2014, 03:08:15 PM »
Plenty of good points, and I'll be giving them some thought before cranking out another long-winded reply.

I do want to address this, though, as it wasn't really the point they were making. From the cop's perspective, cops never lie. They're not concerned about his testimony not matching what's on video (and according to at least one court it doesn't matter anyway as the testimony trumps video to the contrary). What they're concerned about is that it'll be the video that creates the perception of truth, and not Johnny's testimony. As it stands now, their badge and demeanor are what make them honest and truthful. Their concern is about that being undermined by ubiquitous video. At some point if he busts somebody off camera or the camera isn't working his word will no longer be good enough based solely on his badge and demeanor (as it should be, IMO).

Yeah, I don't get that logic.   I believe you, but I don't understand it.   Isn't that already the case?  That generally speaking hard evidence (video, a fingerprint, a recording...) has more "credibility" than a witness?
Cops have a great deal of credibility on the stand. Unless you're in Compton or Camden juries trust them. Judges know they lie but let it slide since calling them out would be more trouble than they want. Any time one precedes a statement with "because of my training and experience I was able to discern" then damn near anything that follows will be presumed true unless proven false. That's what they're afraid of losing, and why I dislike, the presumption of innocence on their part so much (although I'm actually a bit flustered by something you said earlier on that point which I've yet to get to).
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25822
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #54 on: August 13, 2014, 10:59:16 PM »
It's still very ugly in the city of Ferguson, and the cops arresting two reporters tonight (who were quickly released) for simply being in their way in a McDonald's is proof that they have lost control of the situation.  Reinforcements need to be brought in by the feds.  This is awful.  :(

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19217
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #55 on: August 14, 2014, 07:12:26 AM »
Yeah. This is getting ugly. This is going to sound horrible, but in a sick way I want it to get way worse. I want a war to erupt down there. I want the country to realize what's actually happening here.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25822
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #56 on: August 14, 2014, 07:30:04 AM »
Considering I live about 40 minutes from where all of this is happening, I'd rather not see that.  A selfish attitude, sure, especially when it's involving such an important issue, but I doubt most would want this kind of thing in their own neighborhood.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #57 on: August 14, 2014, 08:37:15 AM »
The cop might say that it is his duty to the little old lady that would cause him to pay a little more attention to the ICP guys.
He has a duty to them both, actually.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #58 on: August 14, 2014, 08:47:40 AM »
I firmly believe there is far more incentive for the accused to lie than the cop.  There is no upside to the cop lying, at least not as compares to that of the accused.   Plus there is the general human aversion to "punishment" that the cop is not seeking to avoid with his testimony.  It is not a minor point that generally speaking, in a crime situation, the cop is not the actor (I know this thread is about a situation where the cop IS an actor, and by the way, I don't know that I would extend my "benefit of the doubt" to this case either, because the cop DOES have something to gain by lying).


Which is it? 


I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and speculate that keeping himself out of prison for violating someone's civil rights is most definitely an incentive for the cop to lie.  There are more and more people coming forward in this case and confirming that this kid had his hands up in the air and was more than 20' away from the cruiser when he was shot.  I've yet to hear or read a compelling refutation of this.  Right now it's an allegation and while it may not yet be a "fact" by the criminal justice definition of such, at the very least this cop would appear to have demonstrated a serious lack of critical thinking.  We can slice it and dice it all we want, but if what the witnesses are saying is proven to be true, that cop should do time in the joint. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19217
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #59 on: August 14, 2014, 08:53:05 AM »
My town just got one of these (this is the exact one. Photo taken at the police station).


Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #60 on: August 14, 2014, 09:00:57 AM »
And full disclosure (though you have no real reason to believe me on this other than my word), I would be as pissed as you if a cop let me or anyone else get away with something because they were or are closely related to a cop, and then further down the road they hit a kid on a bike or something.   I mean, you do this with the full knowledge of the risk and an acceptance of the consequences.  I'm relying (a little) on the disctinctions that I think it was Scheavo noted earlier.   In other words I wouldn't expect a cop to give me a pass if I blow a .15 on a breathalyzer. 
Well letting the possible drunk go on to cause an accident is certainly one example. I was approaching it from the opposite direction. I'm more annoyed that I'm part of the 50% that doesn't have anything to earn me extra slack; a pizza maker, a relative, another cop, etc. I'm happy that MetalJunkie didn't get a ticket, but annoyed with the realization that I would have.

And while you probably wouldn't get off after blowing a .15 (unless it was your brother, and I mean no disrespect towards either of you for that), other cops almost always will. They get rides home. The instances of cops actually being arrested are few and far between and mostly limited to those really uptight departments like I referred to earlier.

This is something else that pisses me off. From Johnny's perspective, a cop driving drunk is a sad consequence of his job and and not something to be exploited for federal grant money.

Honestly, the us against the world mentality reminds me of all of the depressed people on the thread I started elsewhere. If you're not one of them then you have no basis whatsoever for comment because you could never, ever understand. There are certain groups of people intolerant of criticism by outside members (no matter how rational and logical my argument is, if I disagree with a die-hard feminist it can only possibly be because I hate women). This is the attitude that a lot of cops have and something that I think is a consequence of their job.

Quote
Honest question here:  this comes up when talking about teachers too, and is HIGHLY dependent on which side of the tracks you are looking from.  The "standards" and "continuum" make sense when you're talking about a line in the sand working to dial back a cop.   What about those instances - if they exist - that the line in effect says to the cop, "you probably would have stopped here, at 5, but you know, you COULD go to 7!".  Just like the standardized tests that are designed to be a bar for all to aspire to, but have worked out in many cases to reign in teachers from shooting for the moon and end up just teaching the bare minimum to pass the tests.
In the case of the use of force continuum, there's nothing set in stone and none of it is actually codified. They're general guidelines. After any use of force there are going to be questions and inquiries, and I suspect the standard to generally be that a person does what's necessary to get the situation under control, but nothing more. This is contrary to the way I see it for civvies, who I feel have less obligation to an attacker, but the police have numerous advantages that most civvies do not. This is not to say that I expect Johnny to get shot slowly moving step by step along the continuum, but I also don't expect him to jump straight to the strongest means. In essence, if he goes to seven when most would stop at five I don't really have a problem with it if there was a valid reason to do so. 

I do, and I think it goes all ways.   There is no more reason to assume a cop is corrupt than there is to assume a black man walking the street at night is looking for a gas station to boost.   Unless and until one of them does something to change that assumption.     

Not sure why anyone would not want corroborating evidence IF they are acting as they believe is in the right.  Having said that, you and I have talked about this and we differ on the motivations.  I firmly believe there is far more incentive for the accused to lie than the cop.  There is no upside to the cop lying, at least not as compares to that of the accused.   Plus there is the general human aversion to "punishment" that the cop is not seeking to avoid with his testimony.  It is not a minor point that generally speaking, in a crime situation, the cop is not the actor (I know this thread is about a situation where the cop IS an actor, and by the way, I don't know that I would extend my "benefit of the doubt" to this case either, because the cop DOES have something to gain by lying).   
Yeah, this one kinda threw me. I'm obviously looking at it from the perspective of the cop being the accuser, and when it turns out that I'm the one accusing the cop of corruption it really gave me pause. Damn people challenging my beliefs. 

However, don't you think that if you're going to put people in a position of authority over everybody else, ostensibly for the purpose of protecting them, that you need to hold them to a higher standard? Furthermore, if those people are also in charge of policing themselves, doesn't that make it even more important to do so? As I've been pointing out, there are a lot of things that make the system lean in Johnny's favor. You and I would both want to approach anything the government does with a highly skeptical eye, and I think doing so with police is every bit as important. To assume that their actions are kosher in lieu of any evidence to the contrary seems pretty risky to me.

Also, cops do have reasons to lie. While the accused might have better reasons, they're there all the same. Professional pride comes to mind. If you bust some guy for having a QP in the trunk and his lawyer challenges the legality of the search, do you really want to concede that he actually was driving quite well and lose your case? As for actual incentives, depending on the crime there are incentives both financial and personal. Busting drunks and dopers makes money for your department, and that means better conditions for you. Also, one of those poorly kept secrets is that cops actually are judged on the performance of their jobs. Bungled collars are certainly not going to look great on your write-up. Seizing 100g and 8 Ferraris will probably get you a pretty nice one, though.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #61 on: August 14, 2014, 09:02:09 AM »
My town just got one of these (this is the exact one. Photo taken at the police station).


Uncle Sammy is giving those things away all the time. Drove past one of ours the other day (except it was camouflaged and and a turret on top).
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #62 on: August 14, 2014, 09:08:56 AM »
I firmly believe there is far more incentive for the accused to lie than the cop.  There is no upside to the cop lying, at least not as compares to that of the accused.   Plus there is the general human aversion to "punishment" that the cop is not seeking to avoid with his testimony.  It is not a minor point that generally speaking, in a crime situation, the cop is not the actor (I know this thread is about a situation where the cop IS an actor, and by the way, I don't know that I would extend my "benefit of the doubt" to this case either, because the cop DOES have something to gain by lying).


Which is it? 


I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and speculate that keeping himself out of prison for violating someone's civil rights is most definitely an incentive for the cop to lie.  There are more and more people coming forward in this case and confirming that this kid had his hands up in the air and was more than 20' away from the cruiser when he was shot.  I've yet to hear or read a compelling refutation of this.  Right now it's an allegation and while it may not yet be a "fact" by the criminal justice definition of such, at the very least this cop would appear to have demonstrated a serious lack of critical thinking.  We can slice it and dice it all we want, but if what the witnesses are saying is proven to be true, that cop should do time in the joint.
He'll field the "which is it" part, so I'll just say that I get what he was saying and it made perfect sense in context.

As for the facts of the case, like I said before, the reports of the witnesses mean about as much as the reports of the cop does right now. I'll also say that a lot of the witness's reports are conflicting with each other right now. Whether there's blood and a shell casing in the car, and whether the guy was shot front of back will answer most of the questions. The one good thing about this whole mess is that the accounts are so different right now that it won't be too hard to tell who's lying and who's not.

What bugs me is that right now it actually won't matter for dick. If the evidence shows that the kid was shot in the car while scuffling, would any of the rioters actually believe it? Hell, from the opposite perspective, I'm not entirely sure the state and the department wouldn't hang this cop out to dry just so they can quell the uprising by making an example out of him.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10372
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #63 on: August 14, 2014, 09:12:19 AM »


I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and speculate that keeping himself out of prison for violating someone's civil rights is most definitely an incentive for the cop to lie.  There are more and more people coming forward a couple questionble eyewitness in this case and confirming that this kid had his hands up in the air and was more than 20' away from the cruiser when he was shot. I've yet to hear or read a compelling refutation of this.  Right now it's an allegation and while it may not yet be a "fact" by the criminal justice definition of such, at the very least this cop would appear to have demonstrated a serious lack of critical thinking.  We can slice it and dice it all we want, but if what the witnesses are saying is proven to be true, that cop should do time in the joint.

I call the eyewitnesses 'questionable' because of the same reason one would question the police officers story....to avoid jail time for wrongly shooting an unarmed kid.....I question this communities 'testimony' because of the actions they've displayed since and the fact I think they'd say anything to get 'justice'.

And, the 'key' eyewitness in this case is a 22 year old kid who was arrested last year for providing a false identiy to police to try and avoid going to jail. from http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/key-witness-meets-with-authorities-to-discuss-brown-shooting/article_3a5a3a2b-96aa-50f1-b9e5-345c29dd80dc.html article:


"Johnson has revealed little about himself. He attended Lincoln University in Jefferson City for two semesters in 2011, but “wound up back here, struggling to find a job,” Bosley said.

During the summer after his first semester at Lincoln, Johnson was charged with a misdemeanor after giving police a false first name after he was arrested on suspicion of theft. He later pleaded guilty.

He was accused of stealing a package containing a backpack belonging to someone else from an apartment complex. When he was arrested in that case, he identified himself as Derrick Johnson and said he was 16.

An officer found a student ID card in his sock identifying him as Dorian Johnson. Johnson told him he was carrying a friend’s ID, but two Lincoln University Police Officers recognized him as Dorian Johnson. He pleaded guilty in circuit court to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He is wanted for failing to appear in Jefferson City municipal court to answer to the theft charge, court officials said.

Johnson declined to be interviewed by the Post-Dispatch.

On Wednesday, Bosley acknowledged that Johnson told him he did “know something about that” and that he’d ask him more about it when he got the chance."




Before this blew up into the national side show that it is.....the initial incident was the police officer involved showing up in that neighborhood from a call from the very QT those residents decided to burn to the ground concerning (2) young black men matching Brown and his buddies description who had just hopped over the QT counter and taken some cigarretts.

I'm curious as to what the investigation will provide. There are reports that this police officer was/is injured from the struggle in the patrol car....that there was a shot fired in the struggle allegedly from Brown and buddy wrestling with the officer.

I don't have the distain for police officers that some of you apparently do and in cases like this that involve an officer and kids like Brown (who has 4 arrests in 6 months since turning 18) and the 'key' witness who has a questionable past as well.....I gravitate towards taking the officers word. Maybe that's a flaw of mine....who knows.

Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #64 on: August 14, 2014, 09:30:40 AM »
It's still very ugly in the city of Ferguson, and the cops arresting two reporters tonight (who were quickly released) for simply being in their way in a McDonald's is proof that they have lost control of the situation.  Reinforcements need to be brought in by the feds.  This is awful.  :(
Well, on the bright side it seems that a senator got tear gassed the other night.   :tup

The governor is getting ready to yank the St. Louis county sherrif's department out of this, but it's undecided who's going to take over crowd control. I'm not honestly sure what the best approach would be. The feds definitely shouldn't be getting involved for their own good (outside of an investigatory capacity in which they're already present). I doubt they're going to find any state or local departments that aren't essentially military organizations now, so I don't see them as any better. I'm not honestly convinced that the best option isn't to just pull out and let them do whatever the fuck they want for a couple of nights. See how that works out.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19217
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #65 on: August 14, 2014, 09:33:48 AM »
It's still very ugly in the city of Ferguson, and the cops arresting two reporters tonight (who were quickly released) for simply being in their way in a McDonald's is proof that they have lost control of the situation.  Reinforcements need to be brought in by the feds.  This is awful.  :(
Well, on the bright side it seems that a senator got tear gassed the other night.   :tup

The governor is getting ready to yank the St. Louis county sherrif's department out of this, but it's undecided who's going to take over crowd control. I'm not honestly sure what the best approach would be. The feds definitely shouldn't be getting involved for their own good (outside of an investigatory capacity in which they're already present). I doubt they're going to find any state or local departments that aren't essentially military organizations now, so I don't see them as any better. I'm not honestly convinced that the best option isn't to just pull out and let them do whatever the fuck they want for a couple of nights. See how that works out.

I'm with you. More/Greater or continued police presence isn't going to do anything in regards to lightening the mood down there. I'd say withdraw and let it ride. I wouldn't expect to see the looting start back up like it did a few nights ago. The people will feel rejoiced and happy. They'll be proud and not in the destructive mood.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10372
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #66 on: August 14, 2014, 09:47:10 AM »
I'm not honestly convinced that the best option isn't to just pull out and let them do whatever the fuck they want for a couple of nights. See how that works out.

I'm with you. More/Greater or continued police presence isn't going to do anything in regards to lightening the mood down there. I'd say withdraw and let it ride. I wouldn't expect to see the looting start back up like it did a few nights ago. The people will feel rejoiced and happy. They'll be proud and not in the destructive mood.
[/quote]

Really? I think that's a horrible idea. It's like me giving my 4 year old a gallon of chocolate ice cream and package of gummy bears after he just screamed his a$$ off and threw a temper tantrum for an hour that he wanted them.

Introduce a curfew and let the entire community know that if you are found outside after (whatever time) you're getting arrested for violation of that curfew. Add extra officers/precincts...whatever to enforce it and go from there. "Backing down" at this point IMO only would encourage future rioting...
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #67 on: August 14, 2014, 09:53:34 AM »
I'm not honestly convinced that the best option isn't to just pull out and let them do whatever the fuck they want for a couple of nights. See how that works out.

I'm with you. More/Greater or continued police presence isn't going to do anything in regards to lightening the mood down there. I'd say withdraw and let it ride. I wouldn't expect to see the looting start back up like it did a few nights ago. The people will feel rejoiced and happy. They'll be proud and not in the destructive mood.

Really? I think that's a horrible idea. It's like me giving my 4 year old a gallon of chocolate ice cream and package of gummy bears after he just screamed his a$$ off and threw a temper tantrum for an hour that he wanted them.

Introduce a curfew and let the entire community know that if you are found outside after (whatever time) you're getting arrested for violation of that curfew. Add extra officers/precincts...whatever to enforce it and go from there. "Backing down" at this point IMO only would encourage future rioting...
[/quote]How would your 4 year old feel after scarfing down a gallon of ice cream and a bag of gummy bears?

Truthfully, I don't disagree with you about the message it sends, and I'm not seeing any good moves here. Turning hardass will definitely make the situation worse (although I'm not sure that's a bad thing, either). Taking the phone off the hook and leaving them to do whatever they want sends a bad message, but will defuse the situation.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25822
  • Gender: Male
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #68 on: August 14, 2014, 10:01:39 AM »
See, since I am of the opinion that most of the looters/rioters are not protesters, but opportunistic criminals who are just looking to do their worst, pulling back altogether would only make it easier for the criminals to, to us that expression again, do their worst, and with the weekend approaching, this is not the time to allow a free-for-all.  But what they are doing now is not working either, so I don't know what the answer is.  Granted, there is no one answer that will solve everything, but there has to be a way to diffuse the situation a bit without extreme scenarios.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10372
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
« Reply #69 on: August 14, 2014, 10:08:27 AM »
Truthfully, I don't disagree with you about the message it sends, and I'm not seeing any good moves here. Turning hardass will definitely make the situation worse (although I'm not sure that's a bad thing, either). Taking the phone off the hook and leaving them to do whatever they want sends a bad message, but will defuse the situation.

There really isn't a 'right' choice.....both suck and will have horrible side effects.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind