|
wateroverfire posted:If we want to argue policy instead of whether police are assholes or dirty loving assholes we'll probably find we agree on a lot (though not everything, of course). There are several things that seem like they'd help moderate use of force without putting cops in an untenable situation vis a vis excessive oversight. Deescalation training would be huge. For some reason, our police seem to have a practice of escalating, although that probably is a result of the secure-a-conviction pipeline. I would also add dealing with mentally ill people to dealing with animals, probably with higher priority.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
Real crime rates would go way way down if we had decent mental healthcare available to everyone in the country yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Deescalation training would be huge. For some reason, our police seem to have a practice of escalating, although that probably is a result of the secure-a-conviction pipeline. I think it's also the thing about having to get situation "under control" for "officer safety," apparently meaning that wherever you pass, every single living thing within a several-dozen-meter radius must be completely immobilized at all times. And also the idea that cops can't EVER not appear to "win." So basically the mindset is not to solve problems, but to neutralize them. Guy is pinned to the ground and motionless but won't present his hands for cuffing? The answer is clearly not simply to grab his drat wrists, but to beat/taser him into unconsciousness. Plus the idea that anyone making any kind of motion ever could be trying to grab your gun. Turning any interaction into a possible threat to your life, and justifying lethal force in response to absolutely any provocation. So basically just carrying a gun into a situation practically OBLIGATES you to dispense violence! Pretty neat, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:I think it's also the thing about having to get situation "under control" for "officer safety," apparently meaning that wherever you pass, every single living thing within a several-dozen-meter radius must be completely immobilized at all times. And also the idea that cops can't EVER not appear to "win." So basically the mindset is not to solve problems, but to neutralize them. Guy is pinned to the ground and motionless but won't present his hands for cuffing? The answer is clearly not simply to grab his drat wrists, but to beat/taser him into unconsciousness. And you'd think also that less than lethal options would be treated carefully. After all, it's not totally non-lethal, its 'less than lethal'. Someone allergic to pepperspray could choke and die, a heart patient could go into cardiac arrest from a tazer. These are weapons, perhaps less likely to kill than a gun, but still able to. Thus we must use them carefully, and not haphazardly use them in place of the ability to talk things out or try and find another way. Nope. Pepper spray for anything. Tazers for confusion. Hell, pepper spray is now basically considered the first thing you do to anyone whom you think is going to be an issue. Or isn't going to be an issue. Or you just don't particularly like.  http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/family-sues-after-police-fatally-taser-95-year-old-man-n138966 http://rt.com/usa/159280-ron-hillstorm-washington-taser/
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Real crime rates would go way way down if we had decent mental healthcare available to everyone in the country yeah. Your argument stops one step short and ends up blaming the sick for their illness. The problem here - as it almost always is with crime - is simply poverty. People don't have mental healthcare available because they can't afford it. Meanwhile, crime rates would evaporate overnight if we decriminalized nonviolent drug offenses. Yeah if you're robbing people to feed your meth addiction, that's a proper crime. But if you're just smoking weed with other adults at home, there's really no justification for sending in a SWAT team. Stretching that out further - the problem is that the War on Drugs and Police Militarization are basically synonymous. We pour enormous amounts of money into fighting that War on Drugs but what does that *mean* - it means we give kickbacks and funding to police departments who make drug-related arrests. Which means that police departments now have more motivation to make drug related arrests(rather than, say, actually policing the community) as well as having additional funding to spend on things like armored vehicles and assault rifles and if you've got the money, you have to spend it, right? And once you've got armored vehicles and assault rifles it would look really awful if they never got used, so we need to justify having them by using them, and so we close the loop by kicking down doors, flashbanging sleeping children, and shooting family dogs - all over an ounce of pot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I didn't mean physically gone. I meant you've checked out of the conversation since you promptly ignored the stories you asked for and went on to low effort mockery and name calling. He probably had to go sit at the bottom of a hill somewhere to meet his ticket quota for the week.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:He probably had to go sit at the bottom of a hill somewhere to meet his ticket quota for the week. It must be hard to be a traffic cop in the mid-west where there are no hills.  . I guess there is always that spot where it goes from 55 to 45 right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:Your argument stops one step short and ends up blaming the sick for their illness. The gently caress? "How does, if the mentally ill had access to treatment for their illness, there would be less crime." translate into me hating people with mental diseases?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Getting into a pissing match about magnitude isn't the point*. The point is that for some strange reason, people who assemble planes or manufacture drugs are held responsible for killing people, but cops with guns aren't. It actually isn't a pissing contest, greater threats to public safety and health should face increased regulation in order to minimize threats. We heavily restrict access to explosives for a similar reason, and there's only been a handful of murders with them in the past decade. Solkanar512 posted:As the former group should be held responsible for unjustly killing people, so should the latter. I'm not talking about general gun control or anything like that, I'm specifically talking about the idea that if a cop shots someone, there should be a good reason why. Agreed, though good reason why is a bit subjective. Solkanar512 posted:Having a mother lift her head and ask about her kids is not a good reason why. Solkanar512 posted:Sleeping in a crib is not a justifiable reason for taking a flashbang to the chest. And so on. Solkanar512 posted:Accountability means direct acknowledgement that people were murdered in their homes, that the perpetrators were punished as normal people would be punished and meaningful measures are taken to ensure that sort of thing never happens again. I think we're in general agreement here. Yeah, I agree, but I do have a question. If a police officer is cleared by a grand jury or inquest, what does that mean to you? There's little chance for a successful prosecution, and I don't think prosecutors are in a habit of pushing for unwinnable convictions. You did cite a case where there was accountability to civilian oversight (though the effectiveness may be in question) and insinuate that there was no accountability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Untagged posted:It must be hard to be a traffic cop in the mid-west where there are no hills. It is if your township has a freeway and likes shiny new squad cars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:The gently caress? "How does, if the mentally ill had access to treatment for their illness, there would be less crime." translate into me hating people with mental diseases? Because it implies that IF ONLY WE DEALT WITH THE CRAZIES. When that's not the fundamental problem at all. That fundamental problem is poverty and wealth inequality creating the sort of society in which problems - healthcare amongst them - nourish crime. Again, the state of policing in america is largely driven by drug policy. The drug industry is driven, in large part, by the money it generates. A major reason why people get involved in the drug industry is for financial reasons. As such, I say "fix the economic policies of this country and alleviate poverty." rather than focusing on symptomatic issues generated downstream of this poo poo, like the mentally ill not being able to afford healthcare, which potentiates illnesses that can render them violent. Alleviating the symptoms won't cure the disease!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:It actually isn't a pissing contest, greater threats to public safety and health should face increased regulation in order to minimize threats. We heavily restrict access to explosives for a similar reason, and there's only been a handful of murders with them in the past decade. Are you arguing the police isn't a threat to public safety? Your police isn't regulated heavily enough and it's having drastic consequences on your society. We can't blame the cops for the prison industrial complex, that's on politicians and judges. What we can blame them for is the rampant abuses, the lack of follow-up and gross mis-use of the tools they've been provided as part of the war on drugs and the war on terror.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:I agree that it is unjustifiable to throw flashbacks in cribs, though I disagree with the insinuation that it was done in malice. Call me naive if you must. I would have used the term callous disregard rather than malice. ayn rand hand job posted:Yeah, I agree, but I do have a question. Absolutely, but would you not agree that there's a lot of room between there being no workplace discipline and a murder conviction? The standard of proof to get me fired is a lot lower than it is to get me convicted of criminal negligence, much less a crime of malice. Why do we keep insisting on holding police to a lower standard than everyone else?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I would have used the term callous disregard rather than malice. To be fair to the officers, there is no way they could have known the door was being blocked by an occupied crib. Who would reasonably expect that? KernelSlanders posted:Deescalation training would be huge. For some reason, our police seem to have a practice of escalating, although that probably is a result of the secure-a-conviction pipeline. I would also add dealing with mentally ill people to dealing with animals, probably with higher priority. I think cops mostly try to deescalate within the bounds of what they think is possible. If a situation looks like it could be dangerous they're going to secure everyone so that officers are not at risk rather than try to talk it out and maybe get hurt. Egregious stories get a lot of press but there are probably tens of thousands of police interactions every year that we never hear about because they were handled well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:To be fair to the officers, there is no way they could have known the door was being blocked by an occupied crib. Who would reasonably expect that? That is a huge problem in of itself. No confirmation of the situation, no visual, nothing. If police are given the green light to act in such a violent and forceful manner they better have concrete info of what they are getting into int he first place and not just "Oops!" The War on Drugs has para-militarized the police to the point of turning homes into potential kill zones. quote:
If we get to the point where it makes news that cops didn't abuse/torture/maim/kill someone today then we REALLY have a loving problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:To be fair to the officers, there is no way they could have known the door was being blocked by an occupied crib. Who would reasonably expect that? Because that's the phrase the DA would use if I deployed a weapon through a door without visualizing what was on the other side in a home in a residential neighborhood. I think the term is pretty apt. I've never accused the police of malice in that particular case. Rather I've suggested that they were operating in a culture in which the people living in neighborhoods like that are somehow less human and exhibited negligible concern for their well being while driving around with military surplus equipment and live ammo. wateroverfire posted:I think cops mostly try to deescalate within the bounds of what they think is possible. If a situation looks like it could be dangerous they're going to secure everyone so that officers are not at risk rather than try to talk it out and maybe get hurt. Egregious stories get a lot of press but there are probably tens of thousands of police interactions every year that we never hear about because they were handled well. That certainly hasn't been my experience. I think the "take charge of the situation" tends to win out over "deescalated the situation." If you're aware of some department in the U.S. that has a policy of deescalation or even better a training program in deescalation techniques, I'd be very interested to hear about it and encourage it's spread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:I can't believe no mention in this thread of the jersey city cop killer shrine This was a tragedy. My family and Melvin's are very close (his older cousins were like my younger siblings growing up), he used to play with my godson who was the same age.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:To be fair to the officers, there is no way they could have known the door was being blocked by an occupied crib. Who would reasonably expect that? I don't think that it's outside the bounds of reason to anticipate children being in a house. And like KernelSlanders says, certainly that defence wouldn't get any traction with a judge if the roles were reversed. These police are trying to treat minor drug convictions as grounds for a military assault - but even if that were reasonable or desirable, the reality is that police lack the training and oversight to perform competently in that role.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:That said, if anyone has any questions about a criminal defense attorney or a public defender's experiences with cops, in court, I'm game. This sounds absolutely fascinating and you should probably just start an Ask/Tell thread about it. I'm certain it would do well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Deescalation training would be huge. For some reason, our police seem to have a practice of escalating, although that probably is a result of the secure-a-conviction pipeline. I would also add dealing with mentally ill people to dealing with animals, probably with higher priority. The bad poo poo is learned on the street.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Or at the station more likely. When there's pressure to have more arrests, the incentive to deescalate decreases dramatically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:To be fair to the officers, there is no way they could have known the door was being blocked by an occupied crib. Who would reasonably expect that? loving christ, I already addressed this poo poo. Why the gently caress do you keep ignoring it? Yeah, no loving way they could have looked or anything. Nope, the only solution is to use a flashbang right then and there. Who the gently caress cares if you nearly kill a kid anyway, right? For the third loving time: Solkanar512 posted:No, I'm acting like one of the most fundamental rules when it comes to things like firearms and munitions is being sure of your target and what is behind it. Seven year olds understand this poo poo, why don't a bunch of cops with specialized training? I don't even own guns and I know what the four fundamental rules are. Do you not know what the four fundamental rules are? Here's a refresher, because somehow this material is too difficult to remember. 1. Treat every weapon as if it is loaded. 2. Never point a weapon at something you're willing to destroy. 3.  ALWAYS BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEHIND IT. 4. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are on target and ready to fire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:It actually isn't a pissing contest, greater threats to public safety and health should face increased regulation in order to minimize threats. We heavily restrict access to explosives for a similar reason, and there's only been a handful of murders with them in the past decade. You keep saying it's a greater threat to public safety, but you're absolutely wrong. You have major accidents world wide every few years, but that's it. How many people have died at the head of an officer in just the past month? Bring on the numbers or quit making the claim. quote:If a police officer is cleared by a grand jury or inquest, what does that mean to you? There's little chance for a successful prosecution, and I don't think prosecutors are in a habit of pushing for unwinnable convictions. I didn't insinuate anything, I came out and said it. The idea that the case was unwinnable is silly. There's still no accountability, because there is no official acknowledgement that the mother should not have died, no apologies, and no measures to ensure it will never happen again. It's just business as loving normal. Why should I have to put up with this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
1. Show off your gun to elementary school students 2. Point your gun at suspects during arrests, sights are optional 3. Keep your finger inside the trigger guard because you don't want to lose a quarter second of CRITICAL REACTION TIME 4. Optional: have some sense of your target and what could reasonably be expected to be behind it in the majority of circumstances
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:2. Never point a weapon at something you're willing to destroy.  Isn't that the whole idea?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
he meant "never point a weapon at something you aren't willing to destroy"
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:I agree that it is unjustifiable to throw flashbacks in cribs, though I disagree with the insinuation that it was done in malice. Call me naive if you must. Again, and I re-iterate : A position of authority over the general populace means that 'whoops, our bad!' is not an acceptable answer. Throwing a flashbang into a crib because you willfully did not look where you were throwing it is purely negligent abuse of the use of force, and clear violation of everything anyone is ever trained regarding the use of weapons. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Hell, Texas of all places is getting poo poo right for a change : Some justice in Texas: The raid on Henry Magee TL;DR version : An informant lied to the local police as usual, told them Magee had several 'over six-foot' pot plants, a vicious guard dog, and multiple guns (one stolen from that very PD) at his rural home. The police staged a no-knock raid, and the startled homeowner shot and killed a deputy as they were attempting to force their way in unannounced in the middle of the night. What they found was two pot seedlings under 6" tall, less than an ounce of dry weed, and four guns. Three were locked securely in his gun safe. The 'vicious' dog barked at officers, but never attacked even when its master was on the ground in cuffs. Magee was arrested and charged with capital murder and possession. A grand jury recently returned a 'no-bill' verdict on the capital murder charge, finding that Magee had acted in self-defense. He is still being prosecuted for possession. I, personally, think this is a great step in the right direction. If police are going to treat every warrant service as a no-knock violent entry, then the occasional one that gets shot in the face by a homeowner who thinks they are being burgled is an acceptable price to pay. If they don't like it, they can change their procedure. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Hell, Texas of all places is getting poo poo right for a change : The grand jury displayed some rare wisdom there, but it looks like the prosecutors are pivoting and instead intending to prosecute the pot charge as an armed felony with a 10-year sentence. So a little column-A, column-B. edit: Also, the prosecutor's attempt to defend a "knock and announcement" that happened simultaneously with the door being breached and flashbangs going off is completely ridiculous. That doesn't even come close to meeting the paltry Supreme Court requirement of ~15-20 seconds. And certainly my reaction time to answer someone knocking on my front door in the middle of the night is going to be longer than that. Sorry lady, if a raid doesn't meet the minimum legal definition of a knock-and-announcement raid then it's a no-knock raid. And don't even get me started about trying to portray a couple of small plants as a commercial grow-op. She's completely unrepentant and negligently out-of-touch. The only thing I half-believed from her statement was that she and the sheriff have a "great relationship" - as if there was any district attorney that wasn't in lock-step with their local law enforcement. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Sadly, the ~15-20 seconds thing isn't a hard minimum. It's specifically a 'reasonable number, although shorter times may be reasonable'. IE it doesn't mean poo poo. Also, per the Supreme Court, the exclusionary rule doesn't apply, so even if the entry was determined to be illegal due to knock & announce violations, the prosecutor can still use information found on the illegal search. Just an update, here's what a kid who has a flashbang go off in their face looks like when they get out of the hospital. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Sadly, the ~15-20 seconds thing isn't a hard minimum. It's specifically a 'reasonable number, although shorter times may be reasonable'. IE it doesn't mean poo poo. Also, per the Supreme Court, the exclusionary rule doesn't apply, so even if the entry was determined to be illegal due to knock & announce violations, the prosecutor can still use information found on the illegal search. Yeah I know, but of course if she thought that exemption would apply to the raid then she'd have successfully argued that in court. If anything, the context of the event (night-time, no expectation that evidence could be hidden, overriding lack of evidence) would have required an even longer duration. But as someone with a real fascination and interest in constitutional law and Supreme Court cases, it's completely frustrating to see how the Rehnquist and Roberts courts have methodically torn apart good law for vague reasons. The idea that a court would defend knocking on the door a moment before battering it down as constituting enough time for a resident to respond and a fulfillment of 4th Amendment requirements, is offensive to democracy. And their encouragement of police to gather evidence despite breaking laws is downright corrupting. It's tantamount to revoking the knock-and-announce requirement entirely, and unsurprisingly police have treated it as such. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:Because it implies that IF ONLY WE DEALT WITH THE CRAZIES. When that's not the fundamental problem at all. That fundamental problem is poverty and wealth inequality creating the sort of society in which problems - healthcare amongst them - nourish crime. Yeah man, saying "Mentally ill people should be able to get treatment so they don't commit crimes." is the exact same thing as saying CRAZY PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CRIME EVER ARGLEBARGLEBARGLE. No poo poo poverty is the fundamental problem. If you think me saying mentally ill people should be able to get healthcare means I somehow hate mentally ill people and blame them for crime existing, then maybe you should seek out a mental healthcare professional yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Yeah man, saying "Mentally ill people should be able to get treatment so they don't commit crimes." is the exact same thing as saying CRAZY PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CRIME EVER ARGLEBARGLEBARGLE. Statistically speaking, most inmates are Black. Statistically speaking, most inmates are in on drug offenses. Arguably, people turn to drugs due to lack of better opportunities. One might say "Real crime rates would go way way down if we had decent jobs available to blacks." But saying that is pretty blatantly offensive because everyone sees the tacit racism. Now it's probably not inaccurate. Neither is your statement about the mentally ill. I'm not arguing the factual nature of your claim. I'm calling you out because by targeting these derivative issues you're actually distracting from the real debate that needs to be had. If a medical patient has a broken bone, it's 100% true to say "if we just give him some painkillers, he'll feel better"; but until you set the bone, you haven't solved the actual problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
How in the world is it tacit racism to say that black people should be able to get good jobs?  By your logic, the rest of the thread is actually pro-police brutality because they think the police shouldn't shoot unarmed people and want it to stop, because they aren't addressing the underlying issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:How in the world is it tacit racism to say that black people should be able to get good jobs? No, the tacit racism by proposing crime reduction by targeting specific, largely vulnerable populations. "If american jobs paid better crime would go down" is not tacitly racist. "If blacks had better jobs crime would go down" makes a tie between these things in a way that suggests specific correlation. The language is targeting a specific population and correlating 'fixing' its problems as a means to reduce crime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:No, the tacit racism by proposing crime reduction by targeting specific, largely vulnerable populations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:No, the tacit racism by proposing crime reduction by targeting specific, largely vulnerable populations. Hmm, yes, I can see how giving aide to a group historically shat upon by a racist society, thus helping to relieve the poverty that causes some of them to turn to crime, is racist. I wait no I can't because that's loving retarded. Do you think reparations would be racist as well? paragon1 fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Hmm, yes, I can see how giving aide to a group historically shat upon by a racist society, thus helping to relieve the poverty that causes some of them to crime, is racist. You guys are talking past each other. It's racist because it's implying that blacks are responsible for most crime. e: relieving poverty and helping marginalized groups is something that should be done too and nobody is saying that it isn't. Cichlid the Loach fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:I would be interested to hear about your experiences with prosecutors and judges. When such a focus is on cops (understandably since that's the majority of peoples' experiences), it's pretty easy to forget the other potential flaws in the facets of the justice system. Have you experienced motivations that are more about prestige, political careers, and moving on to being high-priced and high profile, than justice? That is a huge problem. Depending on jurisdiction or state, judges will either be appointed or elected. In either case, the pressure on them is always to be "tough on crime." There is simply no political will or voting agency to pressure judges (whether directly or through the delegates who appoint them) to be "soft on crime." There is no political will to make judges reasonable towards the mentally ill, or lenient to defendants who are merely addicts. So you have a system whereby there is enormous pressure to be harsh towards shoplifters, people who drive on suspended licenses, the mentally, ill, and so on, but no countervailing force to push them to anything better or saner. Prosecutors...they're a weird breed of people. A lot of them are just politicos in their larval stage, who are only slightly and tangentially interested in criminal justice. Many are just doing this gig so they can leverage it out into political office. That's in part why you see the overwhelming majority of legislators who have actual criminal justice backgrounds are just former prosecutors. That, too, leads to an unfortunate echo chamber mentality. I have had tremendously mixed experiences with prosecutors. I have worked cases with many who are genuinely good and civic-hearted people. I have worked cases with many who are profoundly sheltered, useless little trust fund brats. And I have worked cases with many who were just there until they could become judges or state legislators and genuinely couldn't give two fucks. It's a very mixed bag. When I was driving to work today, I heard a really interesting story on NPR from the former chief of police from Seattle. He presided over the police during a sort of anniversary of the 1999 WTO riots. And he sent his cops out in regular uniforms, no helmets, no gas masks, just sent them out to be people at the demonstrations. And everything was fine. A couple people got drunk and got carted off to the drunk tank, but there was no vandalism or rioting or any of that bad stuff. But after the fact, the police union or guild or whatever bitched him out for sending their officers out unprotected, so the next time there was a big public scene, a Mardis Gras celebration, he sent everyone out in full riot kit. And it was a clusterfuck. A man died, a woman was raped, there was damage and death everywhere. What I really liked about his interview was how candid he was that he hosed up, that he should have stuck to his guns. He allowed that if he had, then maybe poo poo would not have gone south. Because a man wearing a gas mask with a riot baton at the ready can't just casually tell a dude he's too drunk to remain on scene. He can just bash heads. You can't talk to folks behind a mask and a riot helmet face shield. At some point, more people need to realize that riot gear is a profound incentive to riot -- that the presence of stormtroopers inspires a response to the presence of stormtroopers. Randbrick fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
This conversation reminded me of when I last lived in Seattle several years ago. I saw news that the FBI had audited the police there and found them greatly lacking in many areas (as I imagine they would to almost any police department), and the SPD's first response was to negotiate with the FBI about which areas they would reform and which were just too hard. What was THAT poo poo? Also, I never heard the end of it, I wonder if they actually reformed anything?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 00:40
|
|
