About the current riots

[spotanjo3]

Hey I never said that it was good. Just listen to Rumsfeld, he likes it. He thinks its just societies becoming more free.

Sorry for explaining stuff to you. Back to trolling.

No, you never said that but I just want to say it in my own word. I am not listen to Rumsfeld. He likes it and that's his problem and he think it is becoming more free but it is not absolutely becoming more free at all. Therefore he is 87 years old and he need to retire. SMH!

You are forgiven. Dont go back to trolling!

 

[notimp]

No the problem is, that you are a fundamentalist, that doesnt want to look at nuance.

Anyone that doesnt preach your gospel, is bad in your mind. Even if they were the conservative Secretary of State of the US at one time.

You want to establish a Disney level story ideal of whats good, and whats bad. Without looking at human nature. Without looking at crowd behavior. Without looking at strange actions that should be the result of agent provocateurs being used on peaceful protesters, to make them more violent to get legitimacy (in the form of public consent), to move against them more forcefully.

The president in the US is stated to be all in on a 'law and order strategy' and you are copying that, without looking at what is happening at all.

You are just picking up violent acts, selectively, saying that they are wrong, because they are violent - and aiding to the narrative, that force has to be used on your own citizens to stop it.

You are currently the problem.

Because you would stand for forceful moves against protesters, at the first glimps of hearing that they smashed a window. Because you are promoting videos of violence against state forces, or shop owners, to induce more violence on citizens to stop it.

You are a hypocrite - that wants the world first and foremost, to be easy. You are putting people to sleep.

Currently you are entitled to your opinion of course.


The issue here is, that in about two weeks time, the government will shift onto your line of thought publicly, and declare the use of more violence 'needed' to shut all of this down. At which point you can start your 'I've always said it' gloating. But currently you are helping them setting that up, by telling the world, that you know wrong from right, by simply looking at it - and to stay away, with any argument that doesnt support your moral knowledge.

People that prey on moral superiority, also hold bibles high, after having moved peacefull protesters out of an area by force.

None of this is simple or easy.

 

[FAST6191]

Oh, look, here is a simple thing it turns out that can be done!

Ban the police from using chokeholds.

Minneapolis leaders vote in favor of police reforms; ban choke holds
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/202...e-reforms-ban-choke-holds/6301591359171/?ls=1

I mean, this one is really complicated. Who could have thought of such a thing?!

Those simple solutions in the US really have to be brought out by having days of riots and protest in streets, because otherwise, its so difficult to think of potential concessions and things to do to better the situation of police killing citizens...

We had a guy in here that tried to argue for, this statistically is a non issue, so nothing much can be done about it really, right? Turns out, US hasnt done the simplest of things. (Since the last three times it happened.) Like reform police training, and make it illegal to kneel on a suspects throat.

Thats your model democracy right then and there. Your shining image of what it brings to the world.

Was it not already illegal in that circumstance (a cuffed and several minutes complying non violent suspect with backup on scene and managed crowd) and contrary to training? Dude caught a straight murder charge in short order and I doubt it was for optics either (many other things equally unambiguous seem to take their sweet time to have a full investigation as well, not to mention the several days for the others to have anything done where optics would surely have demanded more there).

There might be some scope to debate whether the "reform" there removes a useful tool of police in some circumstances (again any restraint, martial arts, threat assessment, medic or the like will tell you messing with someone's neck is a bad plan if you don't want to seriously risk death and serious injury, though usually less than 2 in the body and one in the head) but I don't see it as bothering anything here. Now the guy in new york selling cigarettes some time back is a different matter but hey.

Also where did someone argue it was statistically a non issue? I have been reading the thread and missed that one and generally like to take on stats based debates.

 

[notimp]

Was it not already illegal in that circumstance (a cuffed and several minutes complying non violent suspect with backup on scene and managed crowd) and contrary to training? Dude caught a straight murder charge in short order and I doubt it was for optics either (many other things equally unambiguous seem to take their sweet time to have a full investigation as well, not to mention the several days for the others to have anything done where optics would surely have demanded more there).

Obviously it was not. Dude caught a murder charge (third degree), after a public video surfaced, and after the prosecutor, who was known to spring police men free under similar charges in the past (please double check before you quote me on this, I just caught the rumor) did a little song and dance for two days, while riots were going on.

Regardless. The point I'm making is about perception.

If it is taught to police officers that this behavior (kneeling on a guys throat for 8 minutes) is fine - which obviously it is - because none of the bystanding - what three? - police officers said anything, stuff like this is prone to happen.

Since in the US after the first three killings that way it didnt catch legal scrutiny, obviously a protest was needed, to make that more visible.

Thats the good thing about a state government backpadling so hard, you see them scramble per press release, you also see the stuff that was overlooked, that now is pulled as appeasement.

And we all know how policework works. What counts as excessive force is subject to debate, until you kneel on a guys throat for 8 minutes.

If you catch me two days from now, I might be less animated about it.

 

[FAST6191]

Obviously it was not. Dude caught a murder charge (third degree), after a public video surfaced, and after the prosecutor, who was known to spring police men free under similar charges in the past (please double check before you quote me on this, I just caught the rumor) did a little song and dance for two days, while riots were going on.

Regardless. The point I'm making is about perception.

If it is taught to police officers that this behavior (kneeling on a guys throat for 8 minutes) is fine - which obviously it is - because none of the bystanding - what three? - police officers said anything, stuff like this is prone to happen.

Since in the US after the first three killings that way it didnt catch legal scrutiny, obviously a protest was needed, to make that more visible.

Thats the good thing about a state government backpadling so hard, you see them scramble per press release, you also see the stuff that was overlooked, that now is pulled as appeasement.

And we all know how policework works. What counts as excessive force is subject to debate, until you kneel on a guys throat for 8 minutes.

If you catch me two days from now, I might be less animated about it.

Why be animated? Dispassionate analysis gets far more done.

I have no idea what the failure of thought was for the guys in question here but
"If it is taught to police officers that this behavior (kneeling on a guys throat for 8 minutes) is fine - which obviously it is [taught]"
I have very serious doubts that any police officer or trainer anywhere at any time anybody is alive to remember (much less still be any kind of active) would make that claim, and at the same time all would also be able to articulate that should they have wandered up to a scene and seen that then that would be a person engaged in using lethal force.

What was the lag between the killing, the video, the suspensions and the charge? What is the typical lag time (courts are generally not noted as being fast affairs, and you do also want to do your due diligence).
As for rumours then going to need more than half remembered things in passing here. Prosecutorial records (do also make sure it is the same DA), previous incidents within the jurisdiction (or any they previously covered if they moved around the state), any police use of force independent review boards and the like all being public record. I have not read the most articles about this but none seem in a hurry to say "over the last ? years in this area we have seen..." and I would like to believe a pattern like that would be picked up upon.

I will return to the stats though. Two thirds of a million with an average of many interactions and incidents per day. You will get a screw up eventually. As long as things are properly investigated and prosecuted/sanctions levied where fault is found, and failures learned from, then that is as much as I can really hope for. Actions allowed, equipment used, techniques employed, manuals and whatnot can all vary by location and be subject for debate (policing is not an easy action after all).
Incoherent protesting turning into riots is going to accomplish little from where I sit and as such I do have to condemn the riots and ask the protestors to get me some kind of well thought out demands. There are certainly great failings in both the police and outside factors that in turn feed into what the police have to deal with.

 

[notimp]

Why be animated? Dispassionate analysis gets far more done.

Thats why I'm worthless for every elite I ever met. Because I'm emotional. Not stupidly so - but emotional.

Thereby I understand your point.

And you still loose, because you dont understand people.

(Just a rhetorical play - I dont hate you, I think you are correct, .... really. )

What was the lag between the killing, the video, the suspensions and the charge? What is the typical lag time (courts are generally not noted as being fast affairs, and you do also want to do your due diligence).

Lag time for a police officer to actually be arrested after a murder? About a week or so...

(Prosecution still publicly did that song and dance, before announcing the charges. The entire process went pretty fast, all things considered - you are correct on that.)

 

[FAST6191]

There is scope for me to further understand people (it is a minor hobby rather than something I delve into as much as other things I do) but I would like to believe I do it well enough -- if I can see things both overt and covert, predict things given a set of initial parameters and manipulate things accordingly for most situations I encounter then I figure that is good enough.

To that end I understand that people that believe they are in some way oppressed, and the police (themselves racist agents of some authority responsible for the oppression that run around with impunity) are agents of said same, and have just had a serious financial and social blow that most in general are ill equipped to withstand, that tensions can run high and lashing out is a course of action that will relieve that.
Wind in some other actors with various agendas and levels of awareness and some others that just fancy getting themselves some cool shit and you get yourself a riot.
At that point things important to the areas riots are taking place in are broken, will likely not get fixed any time soon (and the time lag in and of itself is an issue) and the issues under protest are if not non issues then wildly miscategorised possibly as a mistake or possibly as a deliberate ploy.

To that end I can happily condemn destruction, condemn the event that purportedly sparked this, analyse and condemn historical events to see if there is a pattern, condemn those stoking further destruction, attempt to detect and condemn false narratives, attempt to detect and condemn poor use of analysis/stats/logic and possibly suggest solutions and further causes to look into and more quite happily. Can also do all that quite happily without having to go with the idea that the pigs are a bunch of jackbooted racist thugs that murder, nay kill as it is legally sanctioned, with wanton abandon in support of a system that wants to keep the darkies down and consider such narratives both false, unlikely to ever produce a good outcome (and even if it does be 100 times slower than going after actual causes), and dangerous to boot.

 

[notimp]

Chill. I just pushed your buttons a little.

 

[smf]

That is bullshit logic on guns. If you support guns you are responsible for every death? What the hell. I support cars does that make me responsible for every car death from drunk driving? No it doesn't. Only the people that kill are responsible for their own actions.

No, but if you drink drive then you do support killing people.
Just because you happen to have been lucky to not kill someone, doesn't let you off the hook.

If you support having guns in public it's because you support people using them in the heat of the moment when your logic is impaired. You don't get a do-over, the person is dead because you felt scared for subjective reasons. If nobody had a gun, then you'd also be able to remove "I'm scared because he might have a gun".

And if ending the senseless killings aren't enough. Guns are a sign of weakness, everyone laughs at you. You can either get more guns in a misguided attempt to try to rescue your low self esteem or do something that shows great strength.

 

[notimp]

I'm astonished.

Trump just announced, that he will retract the national guard from Washington D.C., (while the NYC major has just canceled the curfew.) They are de-escalating.

Trump insists, that he did it, because numbers are getting smaller already. Which might be true.

src: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/us/politics/trump-military-troops-protests.html

Meanwhile, the pretty insane proposition to disband police and bet on community policing has reached minneapolis city council members (oh, boy... (symbolic actions, much)).
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...-announce-intent-to-disband-police-department

 

[Captain_N]

yeah the answer is to loot and cause as much violence as possible that always fixes things doesn't it? your just making yourselves look like asses in front of the whole world. and if trump does bring in the military it's never going to be the same ever again afterwards there is no doubt going to be new laws, restrictions and curfews. we have black people here too protesting but at least they are peaceful they are standing out in the freezing cold all night but at least they aren't going around wrecking shit they are a lot smarter than you are they know violence and destruction will only make things worse. but that's ok as long as you can go around stealing shit it doesn't matter right?!

There are activist groups behind the violence that want to see America fundamentally transformed.

 

[notimp]

There are activist groups behind the violence that want to see America fundamentally transformed.

No.

Judging from the demands of the activist groups, imho they dont know what they want, several of their demands were just 'designed to fail' (more for virtue signaling on social media than for anything else, imho (community policing sounds good - until you think about it)), but because of the protests they now get a platform and a possibility to enact some of their demands.

I'll bet you 'community policing' will not become a standard within even one major city in the US, and funding community projects will not be tied to defunding police departments. (Those are Black lives matters demands, as of right now.)

Other than that, the public protests are sincerely lacking in the 'demands' department. (The protest has no leaders, so far, not much of an internal organization structure...)

The actual actions that should result from this are - maybe a nationwide ban on police chokeholds, and police training reforms.

Thats not radical transformation.

edit: In Minneapolis, the police department might be dismantled and a new one might be designed from the ground up. More for symbolic action, than that this would spread throughout the nation.

 

[JoeBloggs777]

Abacaba have just put this video of Police killings in the US and the UK, 2009-2020 on youtube

shocking difference in the figures

 

[notimp]

shocking difference in the figures

123 times higher (already adjusted for population differences)

 

[notimp]

Rate of gun related killings is roughly 4.4 times higher in the US than in the UK. So there is a specific 'policing' issue here as well (not just culture).

edit: Bad comparison. Need to compare with overall homicide numbers.
edit2: Done:
US: p.a. 15.500
UK: p.a. 700

Adjusted for population differences, US homicide rate is 4.4x higher.

This makes the 123x value above very much a policing issue.

 

[FAST6191]

Do we expect population parity?

Is not accounting for justified vs unjustified in the graphic worth it?

What are the relative police numbers? What are the relative numbers per unit area?

Back to parity does population density, healthcare (UK has free and generally pretty good mental health controls, the US not so much), weapon ownership (and ease thereof, nature of carry as well), measurements of poverty, education quality and more not merit consideration?
To my mind those all look like far more viable points to look at than "OMG the filth are violent racist thugs get rid of them".

 

[Taleweaver]

Abacaba have just put this video of Police killings in the US and the UK, 2009-2020 on youtube

shocking difference in the figures

Whoa...I knew US police was more trigger happy than in Belgium, but this is just insane. So there's police brutality EVERY FREAKING DAY FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS???



@notimp: you've made your point on why you think communal service is a bad idea (or madness, as I remember you describing it). But really...with these numbers you've got to admit there's some logic that people don't feel safe around the police in that country.

 

[notimp]

No, no - communal service (edit: not the same as policing) is a good idea, imho.

More financing for communal service is also a good idea. (Just dont chain it to the inverse of police force spending and you are good (how one is connected to the other is not immediately obvious, why link them 1:1 (like in the demands) - was my point).)

Community policing, should become problematic in large cities (where people largely dont tend to know each other, and the police force has a hard time to get to know 'a community').

It depends on what is meant by the term though, when I read through the wiki article, it largely seemed to be a 'feel good' initiative (being capable of reducing petty crime), that listed the 'broken windows' theory as a reference point for why total crime might go down as well. Meaning, probably not a way you could run a police force in a larger city. (At least not exclusively.)

I'm also in favor of recruiting more police out of the community it is policing, whenever possible. (Stated that a few pages back already.)

 

[FAST6191]

Community policing, should become problematic in large cities (where people largely dont tend to know each other, and the police force has a hard time to get to know 'a community').

Have you been to American suburbs?
Nobody knows anybody else there either -- they just get in their car, drive to wherever, drive back (possibly directly into a garage) and sit by themselves.
It is generally seen as one of the big failings of suburbs.

 

[notimp]

Have you been to American suburbs?
Nobody knows anybody else there either -- they just get in their car, drive to wherever, drive back (possibly directly into a garage) and sit by themselves.
It is generally seen as one of the big failings of suburbs.

Wiki has the problematic aspects spelled out pretty well already:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_policing

Criminologists have raised several concerns vis-a-vis community policing and its implementation. On the broadest conceptual level, many legal scholars have highlighted that the term "community," at the heart of "community policing," is in itself ambiguous.[49] Without a universal definition of the word, it is difficult to define what "community policing" should look like.[50][51]

The term "community policing" came into use in the late 20th century[13] and, then, only as a response to a preceding philosophy of police organization.[14]

In the early 20th century, the rise of automobiles, telecommunications and suburbanizationtransformed how the police operated.[15] Police forces moved to using a reactive strategy versus a proactive approach, focusing on answering emergency calls as quickly as possible and relying on motor vehicle patrols to deter crime.[16] Some police forces such as the Chicago Police Departmentbegan rotating officers between different neighborhoods as a measure to prevent corruption,[17][18]and, as a result, foot patrols became rare. These changes significantly altered the nature of police presence in many neighborhoods.

Those are proper arguments.

Activists demands to replace one with the other are - as critics would say, a 'romantic delusion'.

Spoiler

in 1984 Peter Waddington cautioned that the "largely uncritical acceptance with which [the notion of community policing] has been welcomed is itself a danger. Any proposal, however attractive, should be subjected to careful and skeptical scrutiny."[52] In particular, Waddington voiced concern that community policing was merely a restoration of the "bobby on the beat" concept, which had nostalgic appeal because it was less impersonal than the officer "flashing past" in a police car. He said that the former was a "romantic delusion", because "there was never a time when the police officer was everyone's friend, and there will never be such a time in the future." He also believed that order could only be maintained by the community itself, and not by the police alone.

Or as I would say - a point crafted to mainly attract social media attention towards activist groups, not an actually viable demand.

(Also yes, it doesnt seem to work in cities _and_ suburbs.)