I have been listening to the discussion in regards to the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police, as we saw last week in MN. Tonight was the first time I heard someone get to the heart of the matter. Accidents happen, people panic, people make bad moves... there are many reason why bad things happen. But not all abuses or deaths are accidents. While the percentage of police who abuse innocent people may be small, the percentage of cops who see these abuses and don't speak up is much larger. It is the blue wall of silence - the brotherhood. This is the true core of the problem. Would you want to rat out someone on whom your life may depend, tomorrow? Or if you are surrounded by racist cops, would you want to speak up and makes enemies of all? This is why I believe that unalterable body cams that cannot be turned off should be mandatory on all officers. I heard today that the Gov of Georgia just passed a law, or will soon, prohibiting the videos from police encounters from being released to the public without special procedures; and presumably only if they want it released.
Yea the body cams are needed, since we have the technology. In my local departments they have them, but they have to be turned on by the officer which is a problem, even if the officer genuinely forgets to due to adrenaline or something they would immediately be attacked for it. And overall i think they would protect the officer from false accusations.
That will probably happen a lot, too. But one of the other things that's going to happen will cause police to complain. What's going to happen when the police officer writes in the incident report, "Suspect became belligerent without provocation", and the cam footage shows the officer repeatedly being rude, accusing, and unprofessional? What's going to happen when the cam footage reveals just how distorted incident report accounts actually are? These reports are signed under penalty of perjury, and even when they are proven false we generally don't hold the police accountable, instead making excuses about presupposing good faith. This is going to happen a lot. It's why departments are slow to pick up on the technology, and why police and government are scrambling to make the data more difficult to access.
WaPo: Black people shot dead by police in the State of IL (2015) = 13 Chicago Tribune: Opening week of January, in just the city of Chiraq alone, the number of people killed was 100+ (mostly blacks killing other blacks) and this, in only the first 10 days of this year. Now, of course, if police are being called into violent Government-run "Welfare" ghettos, where over 100 people are sometimes killed by other blacks in little over a week, well, I'm surprised only 13 people were killed by police in the entire State of IL in an entire year. Particularly given that, relative to other minorities (Asians for example), black Americans far over-represent themselves in violent crime stats. Now, this is the thing: This isn't a White -vs- Black problem or a Police -vs- Black problem, it's a Police -vs- Violent Criminal problem. And get this, when Police are called into a neighborhood to deal with violent criminals, yes, they will in all likelihood end up shooting someone from time to time. Most of the time, warranted. But, of course, this doesn't fit with the "Narrative". Note: Prior to 'minimum wage' laws, blacks were the go-to blacksmiths, mechanics and carpenters. Blacks were some of the most skilled workers in America. Much like the modern day Chinese, they produced superior products for a much cheaper price. I know, hard to believe now isn't it, given the unemployment stats? Back then, Blacks also had a lower divorce rate compared to Whites as well. Family used to be the core of the Black community. This is how 'Progressive Socialism" destroys a community. I do not think ANY community could withstand the onslaught of such cheap and 'free' governmental services. A distorted price-mechanism would destroy ANY community, not just the blacks in America (see Communist China for another example). Bigoted White Democrats passed "MINIMUM" wage laws to prevent black Americans from so-called 'under cutting' middle class White American laborers. This is how Government 'solved' the black problem. What happened? Well, without the ability to compete on labor price, blacks were left with less work as bigoted Americans no longer sent work their way. What did the Government do next? Did it repeal it's bigoted minimum wage laws (and it should be noted, the politicians KNEW full-well how minimum wage laws would disenfranchise Black Americans)? No, instead they came up with this little solution called: The "Welfare Project". You know, where wonderful Government is going to take care of you - how "Progressive" of them. Welcome to Chiraq, the end result following 50+ years of "Democratic" Socialism. It's a literal shit-hole. Almost as bad as modern day Socialistic Venezuela.
So are you denying this to be be the case? It sounds that way. That is a simple yes or no question actually.
"Police" is not some amorphous blob that 'abuse' some other abstraction (in this case Black Americans). Some individual Police Officers of the State, do indeed abuse their State-given power against Black Americans. The Statistics show that, contrary to the claim this is common, that it's actually very rare - particularly given the prevalence of Black Americans perpetrating violent crimes (which means Police will spend more time in contact with Black Americans - yet the number of incidences where some Black Americans are shot is low, and the number that is unwarranted, is extremely low). The real story here is about a very small number of violent criminals who happen to be black that are shot (most of the time warranted) by police. A deeper discussion would involve the role of Progressive Socialists, mainly in the guise of Democrats, in destroying the Black community. And by 'destroy' I mean obliterate the Black community in a manner not even Slavery was able to do. Raze to the ground the Black family. This is what Socialism does to society (see: Modern day Venezuela for another example).
DailyMail: California police have released harrowing new bodycam footage which shows unarmed teen Dylan Noble being shot dead by officers last month. Note: In the link above, there is a video, in that video you will see a boy shot dead. If you do not want to see a person killed, do not watch the video attached to the article. Incidentally: U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets. Oh, and it's legal to own a rifle. So, I'm not quite sure why the police need to be involved when someone reported a man with a rifle. Why was this kid stopped - other than he looked like a law abiding Citizen OF the State and owned a rifle? When a concerned Citizen called reporting a kid with a rifle, shouldn't the police have said, If he's not threatening anyone, piss off.
This is a bit like Republicans telling women and gays, "At least you're not in ____". Iran? Saudi Arabia? As many conservatives and libertarians remind when bawling in worship of their guns, criminals are criminals. Trying to defend the police by saying at least they're not as bad as the criminals just doesn't work. We tell those conservatives about Iran and Saudi Arabia: "Yes, but this is America. Aim higher." We might simply remind, then, that you're talking about law enforcement. Not as bad as the criminals simply isn't good enough. There is a difference between acknowledging human frailty and exploiting it; between accounting for it and hiding behind it. Police departments all over the country hide behind human frailty. I live in a place where we can catch a cop perjuring the incident report after shooting someone to death, and he can even leave a partial thumbprint while apparently manipulating the evidence, and we won't charge him; the state sees no reason to file charges, and the U.S. attorney didn't think she could overcome the burden of presumed good faith, thus he wasn't even charged with perjury or obstruction because, well, he lied in good faith. Yeah, you know what? Crooked cops are killing fewer people than everyday violent criminals who don't have badges. This doesn't change the fact that the crooked cops are cops. Nor is it just about killing black people. Nor even just about killing. Last year: We don't need to look far for a chief with a track record of fully exercising that power. King County sheriff John Urquhart's office is in downtown Seattle, right down the block from O'Toole's. In the past year alone, according to public records, the sheriff has fired seven of his deputies, out of a force of 684—dismissing about 1 percent of his sworn personnel. So far, O'Toole has presided over the sudden ends of the careers of three officers, out of a total of about 1,300. One of those officers, Peter Leutz, was fired for hitting on women using information he'd gleaned from investigations. Another officer, Eric Smith, resigned after being indefinitely suspended when he was charged with child molestation. And parking enforcement officer Jamaal Sommer resigned "in lieu of termination" after being charged with incest. If you count all of these cases as "firings," that's a firing rate for O'Toole of 0.2 percent. Urquhart, who campaigned on a platform of rooting out bad cops and corruption at the sheriff's department, relishes the chance to talk about his disciplinary process. (He's elected, unlike O'Toole, who's appointed.) "The culture of an organization reflects whoever's at the top," Urquhart said gruffly in an interview. "I want this process to reflect me and what I think is important. Since I was elected, I get to make the rules." That culture, Urquhart said, is one that doesn't "tolerate BS." He's fired officers for dishonesty, racist and homophobic text messages, and improperly using parking passes. He said he knows the firings tend to piss off the union that represents the rank-and-file officers and may affect morale. But what's worse, in his view, is having a substandard employee get away with stuff and drag down other cops and the department as a whole. Urquhart said when he makes a decision to fire someone, "it doesn't concern me whether I lose or win at arbitration." Many of the officers he's fired throughout his term so far can still appeal—some of them are doing so, in fact—and possibly win their jobs back. But that's a risk he's willing to accept head-on. (Herz↱) It's a start. Seattle PD Chief O'Toole is at least trying, but in either case their problem is the officers themselves. But hey, when committing a felony under color of law isn't sufficient to warrant firing a police officer, what does anyone expect? And, you know, the license to murder just doesn't help. Not as bad as the criminals without badges simply isn't good enough. ____________________ Notes: Herz, Ansel. "Time to Get Rid of the Seattle Police Department's Bad Cops". The Stranger. 1 July 2015. TheStranger.com. 20 July 2016. http://bit.ly/2aaQc1D
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The police killed 13 people (across the State) including while being called into very dangerous high violence Government-run Welfare ghettos. The first 10 days of the year over 100+ people were killed in one city alone. If anything, I'm wondering why their numbers are so low. One would expect, if they were doing their jobs properly, and actually ridding the city of violent criminals, they'd have killed more of them. It does make you wonder.....
Actually, I'm not quite sure what your question is. Do some individual police officers abuse their positions of power? Yes. Do some individual police officers abuse their positions of power and target black Americans? Yes. The data seems to suggest most do not do so. No. Really, to answer your question, you (a) have to define what you are asking (abuse, for example, is too vague) and (b) then look up the Statistics. You can probably answer your question yourself in such a manner as to form a cogent strong argument (say, alpha 0.95). In this way, anyone wanting to argue against you would have a place to start. Or, more likely, just agree to that particular conclusion within those parameters.
Remember, Michael is a) focusing on the deaths of black people at the hands of police officers so that you will ignore all the other indignities that police officers in the USA visit upon minorities, and b) believes that drivers licenses should not be requisite for driving. While only a) is relevant here, b) means that he can't be taken seriously.
Why is it we never see whites, Native Americans, Indians, Asians or blue people being killed by police? Why do we only see blacks every single time? This is the media trying to stir the pot with the blacks to cause them to riot and kill police as well as other peoples. Before anyone can take the time to understand what was actually going on the media broadcasts its filth and disgrace to disturb the black community. Why doesn't the media show black on black crime and report about it? More black lives are lost to violence brought about by their own ethnic people than police shootings. I do hope that one day the black community starts killing the gang bangers and dope dealers that are destroying their community instead of police who mostly try to help the black community.
That is a false narrative. You are implicitly claiming that violent crimes committed by the police are okay as long as it's a small percentage of all violent crime. Note: The cops are here to protect and serve, not kill innocent people. That is the difference between cops and criminals. Maybe this gets confusing. No, it isn't. It is about unarmed black men who pose no threat being killed and abused by the police. But I realize that doesn't fit your narrative that some killing of innocent black men by cops is okay as long as there are criminals. This is total nonsense and you have no evidence to back it up. Minimum wage laws were passed to help create a minimum standard of living. That discrimination exists does not suggest that basic wage laws are responsible for cops killing blacks! That is essentially what you are trying to argue. That is one highly convoluted line of nonsense you have cooked up. The was on drugs has been the most damaging federal policy. It has played a large role in making the cities war zones and creating a sense of hopelessness among the impoverished. And it has made drugs more valuable than gold.
Michael is saying black lives don't matter because black people also shoot black people, a typical racist trope. Martin Luther King got the same kind of hate mail. So, nothing new. Also that progressive, socialist, pro-union, anti-globalist, anti-free trade policies are responsible for the loss of manufacturing jobs.
I guess you are as clueless as michael. Police are accountable to the people. Criminals do what they want. And by the way, the violence in a community has no correlation to the violence of police reactions. MLK's hate mail: http://fusion.net/story/184032/black-lives-matter-martin-luther-king-hate-mail/
Well, because there are no blue people. We see whites killed by police quite frequently. Native Americans less so because there are fewer of them. Because that's all you are looking for. Read all the reports, not just the ones on your favorite political outrage page. Same reason they don't show white on white crime very much. A drug kingpin killing one of his dealers, or a competitor, just isn't that newsworthy, since it happens fairly frequently - and often isn't discovered until well after the shooting actually took place. So "the black community" should start killing the white dope dealers? What other targets of your race war should there be?
a) Death by Police shootings make up 0.04% of shooting deaths of black Americans. This isn't the BLM narrative. Which is what I addressed. b) I did not say driver licenses should not be requisite for driving, I said it is unconstitutional for the State to force private citizens to obtain a State licence to drive on a public road. Sorry if the nuance passed you by, but given the Supreme Court heard the argument and agree with me, it actually is an important legal point. It also says something about how the State use the Police to enforce licensing scams that are unconstitutional. As you may or may not know, Government licences medical practitioners. This is known as regulatory capture. The rent-seekers who capture the State regulated-market, generally make a lot of money while providing very very very low quality products or services. In the USA, 480,000+ Americans died each year due to medical error in our hyper-regulated Government licensed health 'care' / disease care system. Another 3 - 5 MILLION suffer life altering injuries, for life. But hey, 13 violent criminals died by police shooting in IL - almost all of whom were shot while actively shooting at police. I am no fan of the Police State, the Police are not the Police State, which is in fact the Government. c) Michael is independent of Michael's argument. If you care to address the argument cogently, I'd suggest a strong attempt define 'abuse' at 95% shooting deaths. As of now, violent criminals are killed at 0.04%, and these are violent criminals and deserve to be shot at - and it is still a far cry from 95%.
A commentary on The War on Cops - By Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University July 2016 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's because the police are doing it to people who aren't threatening anyone's life. Criminals shooting criminals is surely a problem, but morally less of an issue.
