US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1249

On August 23 2014 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I think it's dead on. You're telling me that I can share an experience because I'm white and middle class. I doesn't even matter that I used to work with a lot of minorities. I'm white, so I need to shut up.

A few pages back it was "white Americans don't even want to talk about this!" Now it's - "shut up, you're opinion doesn't count."

On August 23 2014 07:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Here's the post I was replying to:


My reply was that, where I grew up, that kind of stuff DID happen. It was not a claim that it happened where I live, and therefore it happened everywhere. If you think that's the claim I was making, it's either because you can't read or you have some huge issue with bias.

On August 23 2014 07:21 Crushinator wrote:


There was some degree of genuine interest to my question, if for some reason you frequently talked about the police with people in the relevant communities, then your experience deserves no mockery. If you worked at a starbucks in the bad side of town, or whatever, it does atleast a little.

Also, my view isn't that you can't offer an opinion unless you have personal experience, only that some peoples personal experience are not very relevant. I would obviously shoot myself in the foot a bit otherwise.

On August 23 2014 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well I am not sure about others but I certainly never suggested that that wasn't the case for people and places like you describe. That's a huge part of the problem. That people who live in communities like you describe cant relate to communities like Ferguson. As a result they develop all sorts of opinions based off of THEIR experience and fail to realize how terribly irrelevant they are to places like Ferguson.

The point is that it is like you say in places like you describe (I don't know anyone who disputes that), so it seems terribly unrelated to the communities we were discussing in any other way than as I described before.

On August 23 2014 07:54 Wolfstan wrote:


It is understood that those relationships aren't applicable to Ferguson, but is implementing them possible? Bring in classes to the station and not preach at them but show them fingerprinting, bomb bots, and the other cool stuff in there. Show them cops aren't the bad guys, offer it as a prospective career and what the force is looking for in character attributes.

Having the department represent the community shouldn't be about reaching a certain minority quota but actually geographically living in the community and using the other services. Why not focus on having 95% of the staff live in Ferguson regardless of colour rather than say having 50% blacks on the force if most of those black officers live in St Louis?

On August 23 2014 07:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

If your question was genuine, I apologize. It came off as sarcastic, especially with what everyone else was saying. I worked at a retailer in Springfield, which has a high crime rate and a lot of minorities living there. Many locals were sick of the crime - we had to do crazy crap like lock up deodorant because it was a high theft item, which people complained about constantly. Putting security tags on Tide is the new thing, apparently + Show Spoiler +.

We had frequent complaints from customers, who were mostly locals, that other locals were behaving badly and making them want to shop elsewhere. Examples included asking for change past dark (it scared women), crowding in the parking lot (made it hard to park, sometimes intimidating), using the store dumpster as their own (trash went everywhere).

We kept an off duty officer by the door at night on the weekends. Some were pretty social (others not so much) and we never had any complaints about it and sales never seemed to take a hit because of it. Our employees (maybe half minorities?), were far more vigilant when it came to shoplifters than I was and no one complained that we were too aggressive in reporting shoplifters to the police.

Edit: I'm also going to add that where I grew up I had zero problems with the police, but my brother had a lot of problems with them. He certainly thinks that he was picked on, but if you ask me, it was because he was a bag of dicks

On August 23 2014 07:54 Wolfstan wrote:


It is understood that those relationships aren't applicable to Ferguson, but is implementing them possible? Bring in classes to the station and not preach at them but show them fingerprinting, bomb bots, and the other cool stuff in there. Show them cops aren't the bad guys, offer it as a prospective career and what the force is looking for in character attributes.

Having the department represent the community shouldn't be about reaching a certain minority quota but actually geographically living in the community and using the other services. Why not focus on having 95% of the staff live in Ferguson regardless of colour rather than say having 50% blacks on the force if most of those black officers live in St Louis?

On August 23 2014 09:36 zlefin wrote:
That places are allowed to exist in the US where it's unsafe to walk the streets is a travesty. Especially with so much military spending which could do better good in policing (though policing systems also need a lot of reforms).

On August 23 2014 08:50 radiatoren wrote:

Living within the community can be difficult. I know a cop who lived in a bad neighborhood. He didn't dare carry any of his official gear, including socks home in fear of getting beaten. That neighborhood is relatively multicultural and not as bad as some of the worst ghettos. Living within the community you serve in can be dangerous in certain neighborhoods. And that is in a relatively peaceful country like Denmark. I can't even imagine how the police is going to control the worst neighborhoods in Harlem and East St. Louis. I imagine there are certain places police officers never appear if they can avoid it since the gangs can become pretty agitated when they see po-po!

Police can always do more to interact with the communities and I don't think they can really overdo it. I know a guy from the local police had a single job of visiting families in the worst ghetto in this little town and it has done wonders in getting the families to help prevent crime. But most really bad neighborhoods are far beyond a level where that is even possible. Especially when gangbangers run it. I don't think there are any specific solution for the police at that point other than trying to break up the gangs and hope other sides of society can help them turn the situation around.

Part of the problem for police here is that their education is only happening in a single city and it takes years. There are several tests excluding certain personalities and often you find people are more likely to come in clumps from certain areas. After education they will often try to stay and certain areas are just not hot picks for them. The chance of a police officer originating from the area he ends up serving in is not that good.

A coalition of lawyers filed a lawsuit Friday against federal immigration authorities, claiming detainees fleeing Central American violence and being held at a New Mexico detention center aren't getting proper legal representation.

“These mothers and their children have sought refuge in the United States after fleeing for their lives from threats of death and violence in their home countries,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrant Rights Project, adding: “U.S. law guarantees them a fair opportunity to seeks asylum. Yet the government’s policy violates that basic law and core American values — we do not send people who are seeking asylum back into harm’s way.”

The ACLU and three other rights groups announced they had filed the federal lawsuit to get U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to change policies that quickly deport immigrants without attorneys.

The rights groups say a lack of due process for Central American women and children detained in the isolated town of Artesia, New Mexico isn't allowing them to present their cases for asylum. They say the Artesia center has turned into a "deportation mill" because of the barriers in place that stop immigrants from having lawyers.

The plaintiffs include a mother who fled El Salvador with her 10-month old son because of threats from rival gangs. One of the gangs tried to convince the woman to become an informant on the other gang’s activities. When she refused, they told her she and her infant son would be killed unless she left.

“Any mother will do whatever it takes to make sure her children are safe from harm’s way,” said Karen Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center. “Our plaintiffs are no different: they have fled their homes to protect their children, only to find that the U.S. deportation system is intent upon placing them back in the dangerous situations they left.”

On August 23 2014 12:28 Wegandi wrote:
Wow....instead of decriminalizing drugs and repealing no-victim laws to reduce crime and eradicate violent gangs people advocate spending even more money on Police and militarizing them even more. I can't even...never mind violent crime statistics have been plummeting since the early 1990s. The last thing the Government needs is more power, especially when the 'problems' they're called on to ameliorate, they created in the first place. Typical Government MO.

On August 23 2014 15:17 Danglars wrote:
True. On the subject of militarizing them even more, I remember the situation, back before any of these efforts had gotten underway, when the police were literally outclassed. I know from local media I'm not alone recalling when we all were scared for police safety and public safety when criminals could easily fend off police. Maybe I just want a happy medium between Iraq humvees and full military getup and cops with pea-shooters getting seriously injured and killed in the line of duty from rioters or armed criminals (or as you say, violent gangs).

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Newly released court documents include excerpts from emails showing that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's recall election campaign team told him to instruct donors to give to a key conservative group that would run ads for Walker and distribute money to other conservative groups backing him.

The documents released Friday by a federal appeals court also show that prosecutors believe Walker personally solicited donations for conservative group Wisconsin Club for Growth to get around campaign finance limits and disclosure requirements as he fended off the recall attempt in 2012.

Aides told Walker to tell donors that they could make unlimited donations to Wisconsin Club for Growth without having the gifts publicly disclosed. Wisconsin Club for Growth then funneled the money to other conservative groups that advertised on Walker's behalf.

"As the Governor discussed ... he wants all the issue advocacy efforts run thru one group to ensure correct messaging," Walker fundraiser Kate Doner wrote to campaign adviser R.J. Johnson in April 2011, a little more than a year before the recall election. "We had some past problems with multiple groups doing work on 'behalf' of Gov. Walker and it caused some issues ... the Governor is encouraging all to invest in the Wisconsin Club for Growth."

It's not clear whether Walker followed the instructions from his team. But the documents say millions of dollars later moved from donors he was set to speak with to Wisconsin Club for Growth, which in turn funded groups backing Walker in the recall election.

On August 23 2014 16:00 Wegandi wrote:


Of course it is tragic when innocents are killed, but that doesn't mean that you should turn what are supposed to be 'keepers of the peace', into paramilitary Gendarmes for local jurisdictions, never mind the insanity that are SWAT teams. You think you're going to give them all this power and equipment and for them to not use it and/or use it for its intended purpose? Less than 4% of all warrants carried out by SWAT are for 'its intended purpose' (e.g. hostage, heavily armed assailants, etc.). What makes this level of Government any more benevolent than its other appendiges? In fact, given the power that Police all ready have, you'd think erring on the side of restraint even more would be the wise choice. What we've essentially done not only through Federal incentivization and our Foreign Military Adventures (aka rain of death and hegemony for money and power) is to create our very own Stasi. Between the see something say something, report your neighbors, paranoia about 'guns', rational thinking and discussions have been long since tossed aside. Liberty, freedom, property rights...how antiquated.

Also, the question is begged - who is 'we' in your general statement? This myth about police being your protectors and servants needs to be quelled quickly. Even the Supreme Court has upheld that the police have no obligation to 'protect', 'serve', or otherwise help anyone. Police have always been and always will be the enforcement arms of local Governances - to carry out the petty edicts of county and municipal officials, mostly in enriching themselves. Has anyone even bothered to address the heinous asset forfeiture programs throughout the country? If anything police resemble the local Mafia, more than anything else. At least gangs don't have ideology and propaganda stations to brainwash people into accepting their violence and lawlessness. Ferguson merely espouses what happens daily in this country.

Oh, and as far as the dangers that cops face...being a cop isn't even in the top 15 most dangerous jobs in America. (That would go to logging and fishing)

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131230/15411225716/number-officers-killed-line-duty-drops-to-50-year-low-while-number-citizens-killed-cops-remains-unchanged.shtml

If you check those statistics even more you'll see that half of the ~100 killed were by their own volition via traffic accidents. I'm sorry, but one incident doesn't give any jurisprudence to the idea of creating paramilitary power-driven immunized goons 'in the name of their safety'. Speaking of....qualified immunity, and the tax payers paying for individual cops rights abusing citizens needs to end. They need to get and pay for their own bonds if they want to be cops - so they pay for their own transgressions.

Police have always been and always will be the enforcement arms of local Governances - to carry out the petty edicts of county and municipal officials, mostly in enriching themselves.

Ferguson merely espouses what happens daily in this country.

On August 24 2014 03:33 Danglars wrote:
If its tragic when innocents are killed, is it simultaneously unavoidable that SWAT teams with rifles and body armor will abuse their newfound protection and firepower? Please also view what I was saying in the context of my recent comments too.

I caution against instinctive backlash that will take away rifles, body armor, anything that looks black and threatening. The southern border's wide open, illegal gun smuggling is open season. Terrorists, gangs, even criminal elements present that may be armed in future encounters. I want them to have peers in weaponry. Don't strip down police swats till they have 9MM and defensive riot gear to deal with automatic weaponry (as happened in LA, as held down police for an hour even while being small and disorganized).

The "we" comment was discussions on local radio because locals in my area have not forgotten a demilitarized police force wounded and praying for divine help with one robbery. You go WAY too far casting police as the true criminals Law and order and petty edicts means petty edicts and self enrichment first, law and order afterthought. I suggest police department reform is the better answer. What prejudice, honestly though. I wonder if personal anecdotes fuel this mafia accusation.
Cops don't daily face riots. Cops do daily make split second decisions when their lives may be in peril. If you buy into one narrative, cops don't daily shot unarmed black teenagers with their hands up. The myth is a police force as corrupt as Mexico, as Russia, as Pakistan.

Leadership, training, professionality. Don't let the bad apples stain the credibility of police around the country. No tanks, no petty crime SWAT raids, and not too much to ask. Bring political pressure to bear on SWAT team abuse. Fire leaders that can't lead, revert back to proven uniformed police procedures, retrain. Anybody believe the outcry won't lead to police cruiser cameras in Ferguson? Let the peaceful reforms and not prejudice lead the way in department reform. I don't know if you believe citizens having no power in banding together to change how their local police do their business. Others already covered principles deadly force protecting themselves, yes EVEN subhuman police officers, from grievous injury and death. Others already posted statistics on police brutality and police shootings.

On August 23 2014 15:17 Danglars wrote:
True. On the subject of militarizing them even more, I remember the situation, back before any of these efforts had gotten underway, when the police were literally outclassed. I know from local media I'm not alone recalling when we all were scared for police safety and public safety when criminals could easily fend off police. Maybe I just want a happy medium between Iraq humvees and full military getup and cops with pea-shooters getting seriously injured and killed in the line of duty from rioters or armed criminals (or as you say, violent gangs).

On August 24 2014 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:

Your just going to hate me for this but yes taking away weapons now can have bad results but it should never have come this far!
Police shouldn't have to fight gangs running around with assault weapons. But the American belief that everyone should have access to guns has created an arms race between gangs and law enforcement that is unheard of in the first world.

Also you want peaceful reforms? What reforms. The entire system appears to be corrupt down to the core, there will never be reforms without massive public outcry, this shit has been happening for years and years and it only appears to be getting worse. How many more need to get murdered before the general public actually takes a stand?

Wyoming looks like it might be the latest Republican-run state to come around on Obamacare's Medicaid expansion.

The Associated Press reported this week that Gov. Matt Mead (R) and the state's top health official had met with federal officials to discuss a possible deal to expand the low-income insurance program under the law. Mead will present the options early next year the state legislature, which has thus far rejected the expansion, according to the AP.

The news agency did not report any details of what a possible deal between Wyoming and the Obama administration might look like. But the administration has already shown some willingness to meet GOP officials halfway to get them to participate in the Medicaid expansion, a key piece of Obamacare.

Mead acknowledged that the state is sending tax dollars out of state to pay for other states that have expanded Medicaid while receiving nothing in return.