|
hepatizon posted:The obviousness of that fact might have clued you in that it wasn't the point. The point is that police and gangs both perpetrate a massive amount of harm against people. Gang violence kills about 2000 people a year, police shootings kill about 1100. However, once you include other forms of harm -- e.g. the 0.7 million drug arrests per year -- the scale tips a lot further toward police. Are you taking legit shootings into account? And saying things like "0.7 million" is a lovely media tactic to inflate numbers.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:If they wanted to argue the sum total of systemic harm by either then fine, there is an argument that can be made. But instead they cited one useless comparative statistic on the "certainty that gangs are less dangerous to innocent people" and then called it a day. SedanChair brought up drug arrests to point out that there are certain forms of harm -- really important ones! -- that only police can commit. If you seriously thought SedanChair meant drug arrests are the only form of harm that matters, that is a ridiculous bad-faith interpretation. Cole posted:Are you taking legit shootings into account? And saying things like "0.7 million" is a lovely media tactic to inflate numbers. No, I'm looking at total harm because the a) statistics on justifiability are murky for police violence and nonexistent for gang violence, and b) we were talking about whether people are more endangered by police or gangs. Whether that endangerment is justified is a separate question. I'm happy to say 700,000 or 693,482 if you find those easier to read. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Booourns posted:You're a bad moderator Source? . . . That's what I thought.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Pictured: 40 cops in hoods You're an idiot, thats the loving point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:SedanChair brought up drug arrests to point out that there are certain forms of harm -- really important ones! -- that only police can commit. If you seriously thought SedanChair meant drug arrests are the only form of harm that matters, that is a ridiculous bad-faith interpretation. Which is fine but the statistic he posted was in response to this: Grem posted:What data do you have to support your certainty that gangs are less dangerous to innocent people. It's about as effective as saying: Wars committed by lions: 0 Wars committed by humans: (Some number higher than 1) Who are the real animals?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You're an idiot, thats the loving point. No you posted a pic of the Klan while talking about ignoring the law. The Klan was the law, they had police and politicians as members and the police let them do what they did. Woozy may be an idiot, the thread may be bad, but that was a naive as gently caress post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Which is fine but the statistic he posted was in response to this: You seem more interested in meta-debate than understanding and addressing people's arguments. If this is the case, please gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Posting the Klan as people who defied police in a thread about institutional racism in the police force is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:You seem more interested in meta-debate than understanding and addressing people's arguments. If this is the case, please gently caress off. If calling out bullshit statistics is meta-debating then yep, that's me. Edit: Here, I'll fix their post: SedanChair posted:Number of people arrested by police for a marijuana law violation in 2013: 693,482
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Pictured: 40 cops in hoods Jarmak posted:You're an idiot, thats the loving point. Was the post you quoted not factually accurate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:No you posted a pic of the Klan while talking about ignoring the law. The Klan did not operate within law, they were an instrument if those who felt morally justified in breaking the law in order to protect the status quo. This is precisely important because people in this thread are saying the cops should effectively break the law if they feel it's justified and let protesters block the highway, and this is horribly naive if we look at the history of what happens when we give cops the leeway to just break laws they don't agree with. Its also horribly disingenuous to pretend I'm referencing the second clan, which was all but gone by 1930, when I'm posting a picture in response to a civil rights era photograph.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The Klan did not operate within law, they were an instrument if those who felt morally justified in breaking the law in order to protect the status quo. This is precisely important because people in this thread are saying the cops should effectively break the law if they feel it's justified and let protesters block the highway, and this is horribly naive if we look at the history of what happens when we give cops the leeway to just break laws they don't agree with. I'm trying to follow a chain of you posting sarcastic loaded questions that goes back 3 pages and honestly I have no idea what your point is anymore. Best I can tell is you making a slippery slope argument that highway blockages lead to lynchings. And that's a bad argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I'm trying to follow a chain of you posting sarcastic loaded questions that goes back 3 pages and honestly I have no idea what your point is anymore. Actually his point is pretty clear, you just don't agree with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I'm trying to follow a chain of you posting sarcastic loaded questions that goes back 3 pages and honestly I have no idea what your point is anymore. My point is that wishing for the police to selectively enforce the law based on their own moral judgement is both itself morally reprehensible and horrendously naive. For one, I hope I don't have to go into the reason why the government deciding whose rights get protected based on the content of their speech is 'not good'(tm). And secondly anyone who looks at history and thinks that when the cops start looking the other way on crimes and taking extrajudicial actions its going to be to the benefit of #blacklivesmatter is hopelessly naive. The KKK was simply providing a mirrored example to the poster who decided to act like the laws against blocking the interstate are on the same moral level as the jim crow south.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:My point is that wishing for the police to selectively enforce the law based on their own moral judgement is both itself morally reprehensible and horrendously naive. I don't think giving police leeway to decide when to break the law with impunity(as if they don't already have that to an extent) is a good idea, but I didn't get that from looking through the post chain leading up to the Klan picture, so my mistake then. I don't disagree with that, I don't trust police with any leeway whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Relevant to thread, Gawker published opinion piece(waaaaaa I know), but not bad and contains several useful links: http://justice.gawker.com/police-reform-is-impossible-in-america-1683262551/+jparham
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I don't think giving police leeway to decide when to break the law with impunity(as if they don't already have that to an extent) is a good idea, but I didn't get that from looking through the post chain leading up to the Klan picture, so my mistake then. I don't disagree with that, I don't trust police with any leeway whatsoever. I think you're reading my posting as a condemnation of the protesters, it wasn't/isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Relevant to thread, quote:Because the truth is that there can be no "community policing" in black communities without engaging the community, without engaging black people and our distortion in the American imagination. Really? An entire article for the thesis that community policing requires engaging the community? Don't give Gawker traffic, for god's sake. If the article has good links, just post the links.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Really? An entire article for the thesis that community policing requires engaging the community? Don't give Gawker traffic, for god's sake. If the article has good links, just post the links. I took it's thesis that current "reform" ignores structural/institutional racism in both the public and the force and that "community policing" is a meaningless buzzword that glosses over the actual problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I took it's thesis that current "reform" ignores structural/institutional racism in both the public and the force and that "community policing" is a meaningless buzzword that glosses over the actual problems. That would be great if the article had something to offer instead, but it just trades "community policing" for the equally meaningless buzzword "engage black people." It namedrops a bunch of outrageous incidents to make that petty rhetorical shift seem momentous. In short, it's Gawker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:That would be great if the article had something to offer instead, but it just trades "community policing" for the equally meaningless buzzword "engage black people." It namedrops a bunch of outrageous incidents to make that petty rhetorical shift seem momentous. In short, it's Gawker. I never said it's the best article in the world, but you essentially read the last sentence and said "hurrrrrr gawker". I'm not going to spend a page defending it or trashing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Really? An entire article for the thesis that community policing requires engaging the community? Don't give Gawker traffic, for god's sake. If the article has good links, just post the links. I think the point was until we confront the facts of racism, biased policing and Americans' objectively false beliefs about black people and crime, White House initiatives for community policing are putting the cart before the horse, or just setting a cart there with no horse in evidence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I never said it's the best article in the world, but you essentially read the last sentence and said "hurrrrrr gawker". I'm not going to spend a page defending it or trashing it. I read the entire thing. That sentence was the closest thing to a coherent thesis. If you want to show I'm wrong, show I'm wrong. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:That would be great if the article had something to offer instead, but it just trades "community policing" for the equally meaningless buzzword "engage black people." It namedrops a bunch of outrageous incidents to make that petty rhetorical shift seem momentous. In short, it's Gawker. Zeitgueist posted:I'm not going to spend a page defending it or trashing it. I will because there is absolutely a functional and meaningful difference between "community policing" and "engaging black people", although I would argue that both are necessary. Now, the problem this article's author sees is that the idea of community policing is seen as a solution when it can be an entirely empty action assuming that it doesn't change the national view that is essentially racist. Having cops walk out in the street and see the people not as adversaries but as people on the same side doesn't change how large swaths of the 300 million people in the US still see a black man as a scary hulk bogeyman. The problem is the author suggests engaging black people and you ignore the entire sentence after that phrase. The rest of the sentence suggests changes to the rest of the community and the way the nation's perceptions, due to racism or fear or ignorance or whatever, are a giant roadblock to eliminating systemic bias(which is also present in law enforcement). So yeah you're just mad because you dun read good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:I read the entire thing. That sentence was the closest thing to a coherent thesis, and my analysis was correct. If you want to show I'm wrong, show I'm wrong. SedanChair posted:I think the point was until we confront the facts of racism, biased policing and Americans' objectively false beliefs about black people and crime, White House initiatives for community policing are putting the cart before the horse, or just setting a cart there with no horse in evidence. The best part about this is I even anticipated the whining about Gawker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think the point was until we confront the facts of racism, biased policing and Americans' objectively false beliefs about black people and crime, White House initiatives for community policing are putting the cart before the horse, or just setting a cart there with no horse in evidence. Policing will never be the answer. Armed guards occupying impoverished areas, throwing the locals in jail, and further ostracizing them from society will not solve poo poo. Social workers are far closer to what a police force should be doing to improve the community. Drug rehab programs. Public works projects, funding community rejuvenation programs (and hiring locals). Getting children and their parents educated. Proper sexual health education, free condoms, free birth control, free abortion. All that can help. But there will never be a way to figure out how to convict a 17 year old of a felony for drug possession in a positive manner, or how to get a woman off the streets by publishing her prostitution arrest in the police blotter. In fact, the Coast Guard Auxiliary exists because the coast guard figured this poo poo out already. The coast guard aux sees a violation? Friendly reminder, free boat inspections, patrols to let people know they're doing something illegal/dangerous. IF the coast guard proper were to witness that stuff, it's fines and armed boarding. Shockingly enough, boaters like seeing the aux. It's fun, rather than threatening. DARPA fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think the point was until we confront the facts of racism, biased policing and Americans' objectively false beliefs about black people and crime, White House initiatives for community policing are putting the cart before the horse, or just setting a cart there with no horse in evidence. "We confront the facts of racism" is still in buzzword territory, and I didn't see anything in the article to substantiate the claim that reform requires it. There are tons of police reforms (e.g. badge cams) that don't require it. joeburz posted:I will because there is absolutely a functional and meaningful difference between "community policing" and "engaging black people", although I would argue that both are necessary. Now, the problem this article's author sees is that the idea of community policing is seen as a solution when it can be an entirely empty action assuming that it doesn't change the national view that is essentially racist. Either of those actions can be completely empty. Police departments would claim that they're "engaging black people" already. Labels are nothing, concrete proposals are everything. Guess which one this article focuses on. joeburz posted:The rest of the sentence suggests changes to the rest of the community and the way the nation's perceptions, due to racism or fear or ignorance or whatever, are a giant roadblock to eliminating systemic bias(which is also present in law enforcement). Thanks, Gawker, for the cutting insight that it's hard to eliminate systematic bias without eliminating systematic bias. I'm sure they'll detail how to accomplish that in their next Pulitzer-winner. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
DARPA posted:
Except the loving CG Auxiliary is still enforcement. What do you think they do? They enforce a law. They just can't enforce it all the way given some resistance. They are still law enforcement and if their enforcement is not enough, around comes the full time Guard with guns. All these "hey we could have this and that that is like nicer and friendlier and this and that instead of the police" ignores the fact that the Meter Maid enforces the law and when he can't enforce it anymore, someone else proceeds with the enforcement until the laws get enforced. The enforcement of laws, at some point, has to have a threat of violence. There are no societies where the enforcement lacks violence. As long as the Meter Maid or the Auxiliary Coast Guardsman can enforce the law without violence, all is well. But if they try to ticket someone who then proceeds to not take the ticket or who decides to drive away, the enforcement doesn't just stop. You guys are practicing literal "Feel good" thinking, forgetting that all these "options" are actually just part of the system. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
I think that is DARPA's point, that they go friendly at first and a show of force comes way later, if at all.hepatizon posted:"We confront the facts of racism" is still in buzzword territory, and I didn't see anything in the article to substantiate the claim that reform requires it. There are tons of police reforms (e.g. badge cams) that don't require it. Gosh I don't think it's a buzzword or buzz phrase or whatever. It's not like we are so advanced in admitting to explicit and implicit racism that "confronting the facts" is airy or inchoate in any way. We would need individual police officers, for example, not to turtle up and pretend ignorance when we suggest that they have treated a black person differently than they would a white, Hispanic or Asian person. We would need Americans to understand why they call the cops on black men because they are standing around. These are basics that need to be covered. The article didn't go into detail about them, but it's pretty obvious that is the intended meaning. I think the level of detail in the piece was totally appropriate for its length.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think that is DARPA's point, that they go friendly at first and a show of force comes way later, if at all. Well, if that is his point, then I agree with it. Starting softly with enforcement is what a lot of American enforcement could do with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Except the loving CG Auxiliary is still enforcement. What do you think they do? They enforce a law. They just can't enforce it all the way given some resistance. They are still law enforcement and if their enforcement is not enough, around comes the full time Guard with guns. They aren't law enforcement at all. That's the entire point. They're fully civilian. Their goal is to promote safety, not to make arrests, or write tickets. Just like if you have a social worker dealing with a drug user compared to a police officer the drug user's life will fare much better dealing with unarmed person who won't be dragging him to jail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
DARPA posted:They aren't law enforcement at all. That's the entire point. They're fully civilian. Their goal is to promote safety, not to make arrests, or write tickets. Just like if you have a social worker dealing with a drug user compared to a police officer the drug user's life will fare much better dealing with unarmed person who won't be dragging him to jail. Okay, so we don't agree. News flash: non-sworn employees can enforce laws, too and they are the people who MOSTLY enforce the laws in the United States. Please don't be retarded. They are enforcing the law as one of their functions as per instructed by Congress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Do you consider crossing guards law enforcement?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Do you consider crossing guards law enforcement? In some places they are.  .
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Incoming pedantic derail over what the word "enforcement" means spotted
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Gosh I don't think it's a buzzword or buzz phrase or whatever. It's not like we are so advanced in admitting to explicit and implicit racism that "confronting the facts" is airy or inchoate in any way. We would need individual police officers, for example, not to turtle up and pretend ignorance when we suggest that they have treated a black person differently than they would a white, Hispanic or Asian person. We would need Americans to understand why they call the cops on black men because they are standing around. These are basics that need to be covered. The article didn't go into detail about them, but it's pretty obvious that is the intended meaning. I think the level of detail in the piece was totally appropriate for its length. Those goals aren't buzzwords, but absent any details on how to achieve them, they are hollow, utopian fantasies. If the article proposed mandatory prejudice awareness classes for all cops, I'd be a lot more sympathetic. Better yet an entrance exam. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
I am all for devolving community interaction onto a corps of neighborhood retirees with orange vests.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Either of those actions can be completely empty. Police departments would claim that they're "engaging black people" already. Labels are nothing, concrete proposals are everything. Guess which one this article focuses on. Yes, they can be, but they are both also two distinct things. I didn't say the article was magnificent but you got awfully feisty with a simple internet article that raises a valid point regardless of it's own flaws. hepatizon posted:Thanks, Gawker, for the cutting insight that it's hard to eliminate systematic bias without eliminating systematic bias. I'm sure they'll detail how to accomplish that in their next Pulitzer-winner. The more people that say it the better because it's not going anywhere for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The Klan did not operate within law, they were an instrument if those who felt morally justified in breaking the law in order to protect the status quo. This is precisely important because people in this thread are saying the cops should effectively break the law if they feel it's justified and let protesters block the highway, and this is horribly naive if we look at the history of what happens when we give cops the leeway to just break laws they don't agree with.  "Disingenuous" is cynically invoking the KKK of all loving things to defend your hollow legalism. Vigilantism, for one thing, is a very specific kind of rule breaking--it's the kind that occurs when someone feels a need for more, and not less, of law and order. It's not, "these rules are wrong, I cannot abide the lapse in morality required to follow them", but rather (and obviously) "if the institutions themselves won't enforce the traditional social order with an iron fist, we'll do it ourselves". The Klan is the quintessential example of right-wing terrorists who not only are treated with kid gloves by reactionary institutions like the police, but actively draw their membership and resources from powerful elites who are well connected to governing bodies and power structures. It's not a good example of what happens when people pick and choose which laws they want to obey, not least of all because their extra-legal activities are emphatically not the result of a personal sense of moral duty, but rather conducted in the service of existing social codes which behave like laws in every way except worse because they're unwritten and so demand more rigorous and theatrical methods of enforcement than the ordinary grinding of a political machine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
Woozy posted:
It was an example of when the police pick and choose what laws they're going to enforce
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:11
|
|