|
What do you guys have in the way of policy preferences? I'll cross-post mine from this month's politics thread. --- For policy, in broad strokes, I like:
I've gotten some solid feedback in that thread about centralization, which was a concern about magnifying the effects of lovely state government on statewide policing, and about rotations, which was a concern about disrupting the ability of individual officers to really engage, and become known and trusted to, their communities. Shown Below: Cop engaging the community  And the thinking behind increased funding is that it would allow for more cops to be hired and compensation to be increased. I'm always reading and hearing about how they never have time for smaller crimes and that we could do with higher quality personnel.
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
meat sweats posted:If you're just going to admit that symbolic gestures in support of "union power" are more important to you than civil liberties and racial equality, then you are part of the problem. Then keep the discussion to police unions rather than public sector unions writ large as others are doing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:All public sector unions should be illegal because they exist solely to thwart the will of the voters and break the law Maybe in your head. You read any of the many recent articles about how, as measured by policy influence, the US is already a plutocracy? How can you be assuming capital's a non-factor regarding public unions?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Oh I didn't know that your Scientifically Accurate Plutometer had proven that allowing police to sodomize blacks with impunity is the only thing standing between the U.S. and a Hunger Games-esque dystopia (p > 0.05). That does change things. A scourge of which we shall never be free until so long as teachers and postal workers are unionized Let no man call himself free until the corporations hold all the cards Edit: You know what? Let's just stop talking about Police Reform. Let's talk about how the first step to ending police abuse is smashing teachers unions and smashing the Post Office.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Edit: Ahh, gently caress it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Why is "police should stop abusing people, drugs should be legal, there should be fewer people in prison, and racism is bad" a "bullshit policy" supported by "conservatives?" It's your transparent attempt at packaging neoliberalism in terms salient to the left. "Destroying the unions? It's about stopping ~child-rapist cops~ and nothing else! Nothing else!" Or, in other words: 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Pohl posted:And the left is not demonizing the police in order to strengthen the police. I just don't even know what to say to that. You tell him his rhetoric's incompetent, his poo poo's all retarded and he talks like a fag. Miltank posted:Police could have all the union they wanted if they had meaningful extradepartmental oversight. That's the impression I get. I'm disappointed that this thread is flat loving retarded because I hoped we'd get something cops or people affiliated with law-enforcement might end up posting in. I'd love an inside perspective on oversight.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
SrgMagnum posted:I'm against civilian oversight boards because in my experience they're nothing more than a chance for "community activists" to exert their own authority on people they view as oppressors. How were the ones you dealt with set-up? Like, anything you remember about their powers, their purview, how was membership determined, etc. And if civilian oversight were non-optional, do you have opinions on how you'd want it set-up? Or at least on specific issues you'd like to avoid? Also, you mentioned being in support of officer-mounted cameras. Anything else immediately come to mind as Good Ideas?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:What do you suggest? Your requirements seem to be that there not be any actual humans involved and that no one have any authority whatsoever lest it inevitably corrupt them. I mean, I suppose we could just go back to trial by combat and let God decide, but that seems like a step backward. People aren't generally good at things so we have schooling and training and so on. Maybe generalized anti-corruption programs/agencies could be a thing? Accretionist fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Yes, he was twirling it around and holding it in cool poses, almost like he was emulating cool characters that he might've seen on TV / in films. I don't think I'd recognize this as fake at a glance.  This is not to say the shooting wasn't a gently caress-up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Then I really don't understand your reply to SedanChair. This issue reminds me of the Heinz Problem, which is basically, "Dude steal medicine for wife. He can't afford it and the druggist is charging 10x cost." There's no wrong answer. Answers are merely rated according to what kind of moral reasoning is used. As pertains to this, it sounds like Jarmok and SedanChair (and you) just differ on the degree to which Stage 4 (law-and-order) is superseded by Stage 5 (human rights) or Stage 6 (universal human ethics) on this issue. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
This discussion has me wondering what the effects of barring employers from inquiring about criminal records would be?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
"Now watch this drive..."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
This might explain the Cleveland shooting: That cop's an idiot. Maybe we need tighter psychological screenings? quote:CLEVELAND, Ohio — The Cleveland police officer who shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice had issues with handling guns during his brief tenure with a suburban police department. ascii genitals posted:A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, but never a whole pig. Better flow.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:Associating "having a degree" with "being a better quality person" was a really nice little twist there at the end, but overall this just isn't incendiary to stir up more than a quarter page of argument. I rate it 3 trollfaces out of five. You don't think people benefit from education?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:You've shifted the goalposts from 'a degree' to education. I'm going to argue the original point. Nope, a degree certifies education. "Do you think the benefits of education would benefit police?," is where I wanted this to go. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:So the NYPD is forming a new Anti-terrorism squad that will also be used to suppress protests. There was a hubbub a few years ago when it turned out DoD training materials and examinations considered protests to be "low-level terrorism." Institutionally, they're considered the same problem. How those two got linked, gently caress if I know.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:It actually makes sense if you think of it as a spectrum of "civil unrest" With tunnel vision, though. You can't think of Law & Order solely in the context of upholding the law and preserving order. You've got to think of it in a broader context which accounts liberty, privacy, rights, etc.. Otherwise, fascism and police states are logical, too. And failing to think of it in terms of everything else will also make it harder to see, and easier to forget, the difference between varying grades of civil unrest and straight up terrorism, and what we've wrapped up in how we respond to 'terrorism.' Edit: I forgot to add a last paragraph where I say I think this is what's happening. As alluring as conspiracy explanations are, I think this kind of phenomena is a conflux of bog standard military-industrial-congressional profiteering and institutional tunnel vision, because the thinking is solely in the context of upholding law and preserving order, without accounting for everything else, like civil rights or privacy. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 20:30
|
|