|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I was sincere when I said that cop is a bad man. Holy poo poo dude what is your problem with NYC? It's not even an outlier in regards to police abuse.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
CheesyDog posted:And CPS workers generally have a college degree with requirements for a Master's degree to advance. And have an average salary of maybe $35,000, around $22,000 less than the average police salary. And are not allowed to carry weapons. And have to drive their own cars for work. And are mostly women who walk into potentially dangerous situations on a daily basis. And have to file documentation of every single professional conversation and phone call that they make. I know this is from further back, but THIS. My gf is a social worker and if you think cops have a "dangerous job," look up "case management" in community mental health (she's been subsequently promoted and is in a different aspect of community mental health now). This is an ENTRY level position in the field so you get fresh college students who then have to use their own cars to ferry the absolute least desirable people around the city for hours getting them their money, get them to appointments, find them housing, get them in and out of jail/hospitals/court, etc. They're exposed to weapons, drugs, drug deals, the "literal" worst places in the city, IV needles (a coworker just got pricked by two needles in a client's bag and now probably has hep and maybe HIV, you never know right?), etc. They get paid poo poo, no one appreciates them or their work, they get burnt out in droves and head off for the private sector, and can lose their licenses/jobs for incredibly stupid asinine reasons. And they want to make this entry level job require a masters and a license. How did cops get it so good? I mean, they have it pretty loving good. Why lower requirements for a job that requires you to go the same places as a social worker and interact with the same people, and have control over their life and death? edit: basically where is the low level cop job that requires a post-grad degree and professional licensing (including tons of supervision). RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:So I guess cops should protect crowds of the majority who organize to block minorities from getting to work. lol if cops really worked that way, it would be the worst poo poo ever. Protecting one group does not preclude protecting another, you present a false dichotomy. Also, peoples voices are more important than working.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Tell that to the millions who lose a day of work and potentially with it their rent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Tell that to the millions who lose a day of work and potentially with it their rent. Surely a protest movement like occupy wallstreet, wouldn't help these people at all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Well what do you do when someone breaks into a business? In theory the police come and arrest them, that has nothing to do with a protest, you also don't need "advanced tactics" in order to arrest an individual who is destroying property. Are you saying there's no place for an organized police group who's specifically trained in dealing with large, uncontrollable group situations? Isn't one of the main complaints in this thread that the police don't have good/proper/sufficient/humane training and that helps leave their decision making open to nebulous and unreliable judgement? If handled properly, which it probably won't be, you could have a group that doesn't panic under those situations and knows more or less exactly what to do without escalating things or resorting to brutality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Surely a protest movement like occupy wallstreet, wouldn't help these people at all? You know it doesn't work like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Faffel posted:Are you saying there's no place for an organized police group who's specifically trained in dealing with large, uncontrollable group situations? Isn't one of the main complaints in this thread that the police don't have good/proper/sufficient/humane training and that helps leave their decision making open to nebulous and unreliable judgement? Hmm should federally funded counter insurgency program "the police" have trained dissent suppression squads I just don't know
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Hmm should federally funded counter insurgency program "the police" have trained dissent suppression squads I just don't know I would trust the American police with unbridled military power. You don't need to have them armed any more heavily than they are, though. Faffel fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Faffel posted:Are you saying there's no place for an organized police group who's specifically trained in dealing with large, uncontrollable group situations? Isn't one of the main complaints in this thread that the police don't have good/proper/sufficient/humane training and that helps leave their decision making open to nebulous and unreliable judgement? Since no such group has ever had a positive effect on either public order or freedom of expression, it seems equally reasonable to demand they not exist, as it is to demand they somehow become better. Especially since we have no template for making them better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
According to a friend in the NYPD, the task force is being trained on the use of various types of high-powered weapons, but those weapons are not to be used for protest situations or basically ever appear in public outside of potential terror targets like New Year's Eve in Times Square or the NYC Marathon. I'd rather see a dedicated task force than watch every precinct increasingly militarize itself individually, but I guess we have no choice but to wait and see how this plays out. The NYPD's approach towards protesters, like most urban PDs, has been callous at best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Since no such group has ever had a positive effect on either public order or freedom of expression, it seems equally reasonable to demand they not exist, as it is to demand they somehow become better. Especially since we have no template for making them better. The entire concept of a riot large enough to warrant an organized, specially trained reaction is a bit of a jerk-off fantasy for militarists anyway. But Vancouver is an example of a riot that didn't have any political reasoning and was surprisingly violent, so it's not utterly impossible. It didn't require a specialized police force to stop, though. E: Also the chances of that potential gargantuan riot resulting from a protest are slim to none. Faffel fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Faffel posted:It didn't require a specialized police force to stop And there's the answer to your question: Faffel posted:Are you saying there's no place for an organized police group who's specifically trained in dealing with large, uncontrollable group situations? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
SedanChair, are you calling for the police as a whole to not exist or for them simply to not show up to protests? I find both ideas to be fairly juvenile, but I wouldn't want to misrepresent your position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
Jerob posted:SedanChair, are you calling for the police as a whole to not exist or for them simply to not show up to protests? I find both ideas to be fairly juvenile, but I wouldn't want to misrepresent your position. No to both, I am specifically talking about special units trained to respond to demonstrations. That's all we've been talking about for several pages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
On the actual police reform front, Radley Balko recently wrote up a good analysis of two bills in Georgia and Utah that aim to change how SWAT-style raids are conducted. Basically, he concludes that the Georgia law is half-assed because it just changes the standard for no-knock raids from "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause." But the knock-and-announce standards on those raids are mostly just a formality; they gotta tap the door and say something before they apply the battering ram -- really not much of a difference than just blasting through to begin with. The Utah law, he says is much more effective. quote:The bill would eliminate no-knock raids for the preservation of evidence. It would require the police to show that a suspect poses a risk to their safety for any forced-entry raid (not just a no-knock raid), and it raises the standard of evidence to probable cause. It would require raiding cops to wear uniforms with large, conspicuous lettering indicating that they are police, and it would require all raiding cops to wear a body camera. Incredibly, in Utah (and quite a few other places) the warrants for these raids can be issued by magistrates and justices of the peace who have no training in criminal law. The new bill would end that, too. Most interesting, the Utah bill would statutorily override the Supreme Court’s decision in Hudson v. Michigan. In that case, the court found that even when the police clearly violate the knock-and-announce rule, any evidence they find in the subsequent search can still be used against the suspect in court. Under this bill, such evidence would be inadmissible in Utah. The Utah bill hasn't passed yet, though, so expect a lot of bitching and negotiating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No to both, I am specifically talking about special units trained to respond to demonstrations. That's all we've been talking about for several pages. No there are posters who have been arguing that police should simply not even respond to protests at all. And they are wrong. At least they are so far removed from how the world works that they can be ignored.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:We only use experienced attorneys to defend the more skillful police abuse. That's not what I was saying. Where did you get defending out of that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's not what I was saying. Where did you get defending out of that? I was mostly being flippant rather than making a proper argument, so I'll retract the statement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:No there are posters who have been arguing that police should simply not even respond to protests at all. And they are wrong. At least they are so far removed from how the world works that they can be ignored. I'm not sure what this preening exercise is but it must be for somebody else's benefit. You can say that, but we don't have to agree with it. There are many protests that do not require the firm, guiding presence of Mr. Policeman, and if you disagree you are so far removed from how the world works that you can be ignored.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:There are many protests that do not require the firm, guiding presence of Mr. Policeman, and if you disagree you are so far removed from how the world works that you can be ignored. This is, again, a thing that I agree with. The specific argument I was calling out as stupid is that there should be no recourse from cops when protesters take over public space for an extended period of time and that cops should not show up at all during protests where there is violent crime being committed and instead dispatch cops purely in a responsive manner then try to find the handful of jerks who started smashing in windows rather than already being nearby and watching protesters so that, IF someone becomes violent, they can be more proactive. Not controversial stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
"Already being nearby" often seems to translate to "infiltrate leftist or minority groups before they even protest."
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
St Louis Cops are threatening a go slow if they get civilian oversight: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/st-louis-police-union-threaten-good-time-quit-slowdown-civilian-oversight-passes/quote:[St. Louis Police Officer’s Association spokesperson Jeff] Roorda announced that St. Louis police officers will quit the department or do only the bare minimum on patrol if the city creates the proposed civilian oversight board. As with the NY go slow, once the vast crowds of anti-fluoridation protesters block all major thoroughfares in St Louis leading to massive minority job losses the Police will likely get all their own way. Nonetheless the motion to create a create a seven member civilian oversight board looks certain to pass St Louis City Council later this month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
New York Cop Pulls Gun on Teens Having Snowball Fight posted:Fearing for his life, a New York cop pulled a gun on a group of teens having a snowball fight. http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/01/new-york-cop-pulls-gun-teens-snowball-fight/ What do you suppose the odds are he'll face any consequences for drawing down on kids with snowballs? Or if some folks are still more concerned about fluoride, colloidal silver supplements, and the fringe outliers who bring their crazy pet issues to others' protests, maybe you can go make a LaRouche thread or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Nonetheless the motion to create a create a seven member civilian oversight board looks certain to pass St Louis City Council later this month. Hopefully, the police will eventually get over it or forget and get back to doing their jobs just despite someone having oversight over their actions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:St Louis Cops are threatening a go slow if they get civilian oversight: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/st-louis-police-union-threaten-good-time-quit-slowdown-civilian-oversight-passes/ Are you being disingenuous or are you really just that obtuse? The point of the anti-fluoride thing is that if you say that cops should let protesters block the interstate then that means any group of a dozen or people who agree on protesting over anything can block the interstate. If you think cops should be selectively stopping protests based on the content of the message then a) you're loving retarded, and b) I don't think thats going to go the way you want it to. Also the thought of "why are cops even at protests" is childish at best, there's an extremely high potential for both crime and plain old accidents at any place where large groups of people gather. The majority of protests (you know that ones that don't end up on the news), they just loving sit there drinking coffee keeping an eye out in case poo poo gets out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Do you guys really think that the police are all that's keeping a million different civil insurgency groups from spilling into the streets, smashing windows and occupying the TV station, inflamed with passionate outrage by the issues of water fluoridation and prayer in schools?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:prayer in schools
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Do you guys really think that the police are all that's keeping a million different civil insurgency groups from spilling into the streets, smashing windows and occupying the TV station, inflamed with passionate outrage by the issues of water fluoridation and prayer in schools? I think they help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Do you guys really think that the police are all that's keeping a million different civil insurgency groups from spilling into the streets, smashing windows and occupying the TV station, inflamed with passionate outrage by the issues of water fluoridation and prayer in schools? Do you really think the reason people don't do these kind of things more often isn't because there are legal consequences?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
It's almost like it isn't a binary choice between "no police at all" and "police bust into protests specifically to smack SedanChair because they've been monitoring his Internet posting."
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I was sincere when I said that cop is a bad man. as a resident of NYC this is pretty much correct except you forgot to add that if you aren't in any of the former categories then the "blue-jacketed bullyboys" feel like an occupying force.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Do you really think the reason people don't do these kind of things more often isn't because there are legal consequences? Of course? It's because they're apathetic, or more charitably because they just want to live life as trouble-free as possible. People don't want to make a nuisance of themselves for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Of course? It's because they're apathetic, or more charitably because they just want to live life as trouble-free as possible. People don't want to make a nuisance of themselves for the most part. People don't break the law not because of the consequences but because they're too lazy to get around to breaking the law. That sounds plausible
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:St Louis Cops are threatening a go slow if they get civilian oversight: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/st-louis-police-union-threaten-good-time-quit-slowdown-civilian-oversight-passes/ How is this a bad thing? I'd WANT the cops that are so upset about oversight to quit the force. Hell fire all the cops as part of the measure then hire back a few of the "good ones" and some fresh blood. Jarmak posted:People don't break the law not because of the consequences but because they're too lazy to get around to breaking the law. If the only reason you don't break the law is because "it's the law" then you really don't have the critical thinking skills to discuss policing in society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
If you don't think that "because it's the law and I might be punished for it" factors into the decision making process you're an idiot who's contradicted by existing research. (Severity of punishment doesn't matter but probability of punishment absolutely does.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If you don't think that "because it's the law and I might be punished for it" factors into the decision making process you're an idiot who's contradicted by existing research. (Severity of punishment doesn't matter but probability of punishment absolutely does.) Man we are just white-knuckling our way through having a civilization aren't we? Every one of us is just a pirate waiting to burst forth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Man we are just white-knuckling our way through having a civilization aren't we? Every one of us is just a pirate waiting to burst forth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Are you being disingenuous or are you really just that obtuse? So you're saying police selectively enforcing the law is a bad thing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:People don't break the law not because of the consequences but because they're too lazy to get around to breaking the law. Uh, yes? Do you not murder people because you already don't want to, or just because it's illegal?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 22:18
|
|