|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 14 2015 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 09:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 09:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all. i have not seen a report to a higher authority. all i have seen is a fast track to the DoJ. This is totally ridiculous. You mean the racist, corrupt, lying, police chief, didn't report it up the chain.... Shocker... Get real with this nonsense. How can this not be obvious as shit? the chief doesnt report it up the chain, the enlisted man does. the fuck. This is mind boggling. You think because you haven't seen the reports of people reporting the abuse that they didn't happen or that they didn't just stop when they got to someone corrupt? I don't believe you don't see how that directly contributes to perpetuating the problem. i dont think that. Well let me ask it this way.... Show nested quote +i have not seen a report to a higher authority. all i have seen is a fast track to the DoJ. What does that have to do with anything? What you have seen doesn't mean shit.
he asked me a question. i was answering his question. why are you so angry?
|
On March 14 2015 09:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 09:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all. i have not seen a report to a higher authority. all i have seen is a fast track to the DoJ. This is totally ridiculous. You mean the racist, corrupt, lying, police chief, didn't report it up the chain.... Shocker... Get real with this nonsense. How can this not be obvious as shit? the chief doesnt report it up the chain, the enlisted man does. the fuck. The cop reports racism to his racist chief, The chief ignores it. The cop reports racism to the chiefs superior who is also racist. The superior alerts the chief, the cop gets fired. The next cop doesn't bother. He likes to have a job.
and now we have a lawsuit to address the problem, which is why we have courts. that is where this stuff should be dealt with.
just as an fyi, as i sourced above, there currently is a class action lawsuit to address the debtor's prison issue. there is recourse without screaming for mommy (the highest authority).
|
On March 14 2015 09:14 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:07 farvacola wrote:
After doing a bit of research, it would seem that the state of Missouri's apparatus for dealing with complaints of institutionalized racism, particularly those directed at government authorities, is severely lacking in a number of ways. The designated committee appears slow to react, the process for getting complaints seems unnecessarily complicated, and the statute itself looks poorly written and poorly understood by the legislators themselves. That's where I'd want the Feds to focus their attention. So you want the Feds to fix this problem, which I agree should be fixed in relatively short order. And then wait for the entire process in Ferguson to restart and reach said apparatus again? No, they should not wait for that imo. Part of a federal solution could include a process through which those who had been harmed by the state of Missouri's unconstitutionally insufficient protection of their 14th Amendment rights are provided with a legal cause of action and an according set of remedies.
So you want the feds to investigate what happened, who it happened to and deal with the issue.
Kinda like you just complained they did.
hm.
|
On March 14 2015 09:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:14 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 09:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all. i have not seen a report to a higher authority. all i have seen is a fast track to the DoJ. This is totally ridiculous. You mean the racist, corrupt, lying, police chief, didn't report it up the chain.... Shocker... Get real with this nonsense. How can this not be obvious as shit? the chief doesnt report it up the chain, the enlisted man does. the fuck. The cop reports racism to his racist chief, The chief ignores it. The cop reports racism to the chiefs superior who is also racist. The superior alerts the chief, the cop gets fired. The next cop doesn't bother. He likes to have a job. and now we have a lawsuit to address the problem, which is why we have courts. that is where this stuff should be dealt with. just as an fyi, as i sourced above, there currently is a class action lawsuit to address the debtor's prison issue. there is recourse without screaming for mommy (the highest authority).
Because the legal system is reliable in a case where multiple superiors (who are also cops) are willing to testify against the actions of the ex-cop.
Yeah.... sorry for not having a lot of faith in that path,
|
On March 14 2015 09:13 Paljas wrote:Thoughts about this? U.S territories dont have full voting rightsShow nested quote +"More than four million people live in U.S. territories, more than 98 percent of them are racial or ethnic minorities, and the more you look into the history of why their voting rights are restricted, the harder it is to justify," Oliver said.
Residents of America's island territories can't vote because the Supreme Court found in a series of early 20th century decisions that they belonged to the United States but were "not a part" of the United States. The decisions also found the territories were inhabited by "alien races" who might not be able to understand Anglo-Saxon laws, so the U.S. Constitution didn't have to apply. The lead decision in one of the rulings was written by the justice who wrote the "separate but equal" decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Henry Billings Brown, and was intended to be temporary. I am afraid I dont know enough about the status of the terrotories to understand what exactly is going on there, but it seems kinda strange to me
I'm not sure that's the reasoning they don't have regular votes; the basic system is congressional seats are given out to states, until something becomes a state it doesn't have those seats. And the presidential system uses those seats to determine electoral college.
The reason Puerto rico doesn't have the vote is that they've voted to not become a state (which would have given them votes in congress).
Once you take Puerto rico out of the mix, the remaining territories have a small amount of total people (iirc < 200k) which is too small for a state; not sure why something hasn't been arranged yet, or what the feel amongst the local populace is.
|
On March 14 2015 09:14 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 09:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 09:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 09:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all. i have not seen a report to a higher authority. all i have seen is a fast track to the DoJ. This is totally ridiculous. You mean the racist, corrupt, lying, police chief, didn't report it up the chain.... Shocker... Get real with this nonsense. How can this not be obvious as shit? the chief doesnt report it up the chain, the enlisted man does. the fuck. This is mind boggling. You think because you haven't seen the reports of people reporting the abuse that they didn't happen or that they didn't just stop when they got to someone corrupt? I don't believe you don't see how that directly contributes to perpetuating the problem. i dont think that. Well let me ask it this way.... i have not seen a report to a higher authority. all i have seen is a fast track to the DoJ. What does that have to do with anything? What you have seen doesn't mean shit. he asked me a question. i was answering his question. why are you so angry?
Mostly because thinly veiled racism rarely gets called what it is here. Frankly, I'm sick of it. Looks like I'll just have to add TL to the list of places racism is mostly tolerated by the community. Albeit more well meaning and pretentious than most.
EDIT: i
|
On March 14 2015 09:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:14 farvacola wrote:On March 14 2015 09:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:07 farvacola wrote:
After doing a bit of research, it would seem that the state of Missouri's apparatus for dealing with complaints of institutionalized racism, particularly those directed at government authorities, is severely lacking in a number of ways. The designated committee appears slow to react, the process for getting complaints seems unnecessarily complicated, and the statute itself looks poorly written and poorly understood by the legislators themselves. That's where I'd want the Feds to focus their attention. So you want the Feds to fix this problem, which I agree should be fixed in relatively short order. And then wait for the entire process in Ferguson to restart and reach said apparatus again? No, they should not wait for that imo. Part of a federal solution could include a process through which those who had been harmed by the state of Missouri's unconstitutionally insufficient protection of their 14th Amendment rights are provided with a legal cause of action and an according set of remedies. So you want the feds to investigate what happened, who it happened to and deal with the issue. Kinda like you just complained they did. hm.
Nope, a lot of the times in which states were found to be in violation of statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the state was required to carry out and provide the remedy, with the Feds merely making sure that they did it appropriately. I think a similar solution is due here not only because its efficient but also because it has a greater chance of making permanent rather than palliative changes.
|
On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all.
I've only briefly skimmed the DOJ's report, but most of what's in there seems to be documenting disparate impact, which may or may not be illegal. The state of Missouri also documented disparate impact in many other districts (traffic stops data), but in many cases it's justified. So if you want to get somewhere with your complaint you need to be able to counter any of the justifications.
There are also political routs. Yeah, you can move out (or not move in). You can also vote. People in poor areas are also pretty terrible at filing official complaints and making the bad decision to give random cops are hard time instead.
|
On March 14 2015 09:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:14 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 09:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all. i have not seen a report to a higher authority. all i have seen is a fast track to the DoJ. This is totally ridiculous. You mean the racist, corrupt, lying, police chief, didn't report it up the chain.... Shocker... Get real with this nonsense. How can this not be obvious as shit? the chief doesnt report it up the chain, the enlisted man does. the fuck. The cop reports racism to his racist chief, The chief ignores it. The cop reports racism to the chiefs superior who is also racist. The superior alerts the chief, the cop gets fired. The next cop doesn't bother. He likes to have a job. and now we have a lawsuit to address the problem, which is why we have courts. that is where this stuff should be dealt with. just as an fyi, as i sourced above, there currently is a class action lawsuit to address the debtor's prison issue. there is recourse without screaming for mommy (the highest authority). Because the legal system is reliable in a case where multiple superiors (who are also cops) are willing to testify against the actions of the ex-cop. Yeah.... sorry for not having a lot of faith in that path,
in that case, i can see why you think it should be shortcutted to the federal government. i feel the courts are more than capable of handling this type of situation.
|
On March 14 2015 09:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:16 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:14 farvacola wrote:On March 14 2015 09:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:07 farvacola wrote:
After doing a bit of research, it would seem that the state of Missouri's apparatus for dealing with complaints of institutionalized racism, particularly those directed at government authorities, is severely lacking in a number of ways. The designated committee appears slow to react, the process for getting complaints seems unnecessarily complicated, and the statute itself looks poorly written and poorly understood by the legislators themselves. That's where I'd want the Feds to focus their attention. So you want the Feds to fix this problem, which I agree should be fixed in relatively short order. And then wait for the entire process in Ferguson to restart and reach said apparatus again? No, they should not wait for that imo. Part of a federal solution could include a process through which those who had been harmed by the state of Missouri's unconstitutionally insufficient protection of their 14th Amendment rights are provided with a legal cause of action and an according set of remedies. So you want the feds to investigate what happened, who it happened to and deal with the issue. Kinda like you just complained they did. hm. Nope, a lot of the times in which states were found to be in violation of statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the state was required to carry out and provide the remedy, with the Feds merely making sure that they did it appropriately.
I'm not convinced that asking the problem to fix itself is a good way to bring about long term change.
I will add that the federal government should work together with the state while fixing the situation.
|
On March 14 2015 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all. I've only briefly skimmed the DOJ's report, but most of what's in there seems to be documenting disparate impact, which may or may not be illegal. The state of Missouri also documented disparate impact in many other districts (traffic stops data), but in many cases it's justified. So if you want to get somewhere with your complaint you need to be able to counter any of the justifications. There are also political routs. Yeah, you can move out (or not move in). You can also vote. People in poor areas are also pretty terrible at filing official complaints and making the bad decision to give random cops are hard time instead.
"It's justified to stop more black people then white people." Sorry but this is where we get back to my opinion that this is a deep routed problem through America (and yes we have our own issues like this in Europe).
As for the other routs? I remember we talked before in this thread about how "just move" is not a viable solution for poorer portions of the population.
And do you vote for your police chiefs in the US? if you mean national and state politics then you would have to look at the big picture, the people in Ferguson could all vote for 1 man and it may not have any effect on election results. Its a little to deep in for me to check that, sorry.
Yes there are issues with filing complaints. Just like there is a feeling of defeat when those complaints that do get sent are ignored because the people who read them either don't care or are part of the problem.
|
On March 14 2015 09:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:20 farvacola wrote:On March 14 2015 09:16 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:14 farvacola wrote:On March 14 2015 09:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:07 farvacola wrote:
After doing a bit of research, it would seem that the state of Missouri's apparatus for dealing with complaints of institutionalized racism, particularly those directed at government authorities, is severely lacking in a number of ways. The designated committee appears slow to react, the process for getting complaints seems unnecessarily complicated, and the statute itself looks poorly written and poorly understood by the legislators themselves. That's where I'd want the Feds to focus their attention. So you want the Feds to fix this problem, which I agree should be fixed in relatively short order. And then wait for the entire process in Ferguson to restart and reach said apparatus again? No, they should not wait for that imo. Part of a federal solution could include a process through which those who had been harmed by the state of Missouri's unconstitutionally insufficient protection of their 14th Amendment rights are provided with a legal cause of action and an according set of remedies. So you want the feds to investigate what happened, who it happened to and deal with the issue. Kinda like you just complained they did. hm. Nope, a lot of the times in which states were found to be in violation of statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the state was required to carry out and provide the remedy, with the Feds merely making sure that they did it appropriately. I'm not convinced that asking the problem to fix itself is a good way to bring about long term change. I will add that the federal government should work together with the state while fixing the situation.
You should take a look at Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era in US history. I think you'll get a better sense of why someone like myself, a staunch Federalist who thinks that the national government is too weak, would think it better to saddle the states with more of the enforcement side of things. I mean, think about it; there are literally dozens upon dozens of towns like Ferguson throughout the US, and racism is alive and well in most if not all of them. I'm of the belief that there are literally millions of people who are simply not being appropriately served by their state government, but even that sobering a thought doesn't enable the Feds to take on police powers that are, by a matter of sheer geography, better administered through a state or local apparatus. It is not as though the Federal Government doesn't have ways to compel states to comply with its directives; most if not all of the states with poor records on civil rights are also the most dependent on federal dollars, and there's reason to think that the Roberts Supreme Court would relish a chance to differentiate its stance on conditioned federal-to-state dollars since the Sibelius decision.
|
On March 14 2015 09:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all. I've only briefly skimmed the DOJ's report, but most of what's in there seems to be documenting disparate impact, which may or may not be illegal. The state of Missouri also documented disparate impact in many other districts (traffic stops data), but in many cases it's justified. So if you want to get somewhere with your complaint you need to be able to counter any of the justifications. There are also political routs. Yeah, you can move out (or not move in). You can also vote. People in poor areas are also pretty terrible at filing official complaints and making the bad decision to give random cops are hard time instead. "It's justified to stop more black people then white people." Sorry but this is where we get back to my opinion that this is a deep routed problem through America (and yes we have our own issues like this in Europe). As for the other routs? I remember we talked before in this thread about how "just move" is not a viable solution for poorer portions of the population. And do you vote for your police chiefs in the US? if you mean national and state politics then you would have to look at the big picture, the people in Ferguson could all vote for 1 man and it may not have any effect on election results. Its a little to deep in for me to check that, sorry. Yes there are issues with filing complaints. Just like there is a feeling of defeat when those complaints that do get sent are ignored because the people who read them either don't care or are part of the problem.
we vote for city council and they appoint police chiefs, generally.
they have issues with people not voting in ferguson for local elections.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-lack-diversity-goes-way-beyond-its-cops
|
On March 14 2015 09:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:23 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:20 farvacola wrote:On March 14 2015 09:16 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:14 farvacola wrote:On March 14 2015 09:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:07 farvacola wrote:
After doing a bit of research, it would seem that the state of Missouri's apparatus for dealing with complaints of institutionalized racism, particularly those directed at government authorities, is severely lacking in a number of ways. The designated committee appears slow to react, the process for getting complaints seems unnecessarily complicated, and the statute itself looks poorly written and poorly understood by the legislators themselves. That's where I'd want the Feds to focus their attention. So you want the Feds to fix this problem, which I agree should be fixed in relatively short order. And then wait for the entire process in Ferguson to restart and reach said apparatus again? No, they should not wait for that imo. Part of a federal solution could include a process through which those who had been harmed by the state of Missouri's unconstitutionally insufficient protection of their 14th Amendment rights are provided with a legal cause of action and an according set of remedies. So you want the feds to investigate what happened, who it happened to and deal with the issue. Kinda like you just complained they did. hm. Nope, a lot of the times in which states were found to be in violation of statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the state was required to carry out and provide the remedy, with the Feds merely making sure that they did it appropriately. I'm not convinced that asking the problem to fix itself is a good way to bring about long term change. I will add that the federal government should work together with the state while fixing the situation. You should take a look at Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era in US history. I think you'll get a better sense of why someone like myself, a staunch Federalist who thinks that the national government is too weak, would think it better to saddle the states with more of the enforcement side of things. I mean, think about it; there are literally dozens upon dozens of towns like Ferguson throughout the US, and racism is alive and well in most if not all of them. I'm of the belief that there are literally millions of people who are simply not being appropriately served by their state government, but even that sobering a thought doesn't enable the Feds to take on police powers that are, by a matter of sheer geography, better administered through a state or local apparatus. It is not as though the Federal Government doesn't have ways to compel states to comply with its directives; most if not all of the states with poor records on civil rights are also the most dependent on federal dollars, and there's reason to think that the Roberts Supreme Court would relish a chance to differentiate its stance on conditioned federal-to-state dollars since the Sibelius decision.
I agree completely. The Federal government shouldn't have to do this but I also believe the situation warranted their intervention.
|
On March 14 2015 09:37 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:32 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all. I've only briefly skimmed the DOJ's report, but most of what's in there seems to be documenting disparate impact, which may or may not be illegal. The state of Missouri also documented disparate impact in many other districts (traffic stops data), but in many cases it's justified. So if you want to get somewhere with your complaint you need to be able to counter any of the justifications. There are also political routs. Yeah, you can move out (or not move in). You can also vote. People in poor areas are also pretty terrible at filing official complaints and making the bad decision to give random cops are hard time instead. "It's justified to stop more black people then white people." Sorry but this is where we get back to my opinion that this is a deep routed problem through America (and yes we have our own issues like this in Europe). As for the other routs? I remember we talked before in this thread about how "just move" is not a viable solution for poorer portions of the population. And do you vote for your police chiefs in the US? if you mean national and state politics then you would have to look at the big picture, the people in Ferguson could all vote for 1 man and it may not have any effect on election results. Its a little to deep in for me to check that, sorry. Yes there are issues with filing complaints. Just like there is a feeling of defeat when those complaints that do get sent are ignored because the people who read them either don't care or are part of the problem. we vote for city council and they appoint police chiefs, generally. they have issues with people not voting in ferguson for local elections. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-lack-diversity-goes-way-beyond-its-cops
Maybe because when they did vote, nothing changed?
It creates a rather depressing situation when those who are in charge of helping and protecting you are more or less oppressing you and when action appears pointless people stop trying to change it and focus on just surviving.
Could the people of Ferguson have done more? Entirely possible but I also believe many tried and saw nothing come of it so they stopped trying.
|
On March 14 2015 09:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:32 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all. I've only briefly skimmed the DOJ's report, but most of what's in there seems to be documenting disparate impact, which may or may not be illegal. The state of Missouri also documented disparate impact in many other districts (traffic stops data), but in many cases it's justified. So if you want to get somewhere with your complaint you need to be able to counter any of the justifications. There are also political routs. Yeah, you can move out (or not move in). You can also vote. People in poor areas are also pretty terrible at filing official complaints and making the bad decision to give random cops are hard time instead. "It's justified to stop more black people then white people." Sorry but this is where we get back to my opinion that this is a deep routed problem through America (and yes we have our own issues like this in Europe). As for the other routs? I remember we talked before in this thread about how "just move" is not a viable solution for poorer portions of the population. And do you vote for your police chiefs in the US? if you mean national and state politics then you would have to look at the big picture, the people in Ferguson could all vote for 1 man and it may not have any effect on election results. Its a little to deep in for me to check that, sorry. Yes there are issues with filing complaints. Just like there is a feeling of defeat when those complaints that do get sent are ignored because the people who read them either don't care or are part of the problem. we vote for city council and they appoint police chiefs, generally. they have issues with people not voting in ferguson for local elections. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-lack-diversity-goes-way-beyond-its-cops Maybe because when they did vote, nothing changed? It creates a rather depressing situation when those who are in charge of helping and protecting you are more or less oppressing you and when action appears pointless people stop trying to change it and focus on just surviving. Could the people of Ferguson have done more? Entirely possible but I also believe many tried and saw nothing come of it so they stopped trying.
Over 60% of the population of Ferguson is African American, even if everyone else was racist against AAs they could still elect a completely non-racist against AA city council/other government officials.
|
On March 14 2015 09:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:32 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all. I've only briefly skimmed the DOJ's report, but most of what's in there seems to be documenting disparate impact, which may or may not be illegal. The state of Missouri also documented disparate impact in many other districts (traffic stops data), but in many cases it's justified. So if you want to get somewhere with your complaint you need to be able to counter any of the justifications. There are also political routs. Yeah, you can move out (or not move in). You can also vote. People in poor areas are also pretty terrible at filing official complaints and making the bad decision to give random cops are hard time instead. "It's justified to stop more black people then white people." Sorry but this is where we get back to my opinion that this is a deep routed problem through America (and yes we have our own issues like this in Europe). As for the other routs? I remember we talked before in this thread about how "just move" is not a viable solution for poorer portions of the population. And do you vote for your police chiefs in the US? if you mean national and state politics then you would have to look at the big picture, the people in Ferguson could all vote for 1 man and it may not have any effect on election results. Its a little to deep in for me to check that, sorry. Yes there are issues with filing complaints. Just like there is a feeling of defeat when those complaints that do get sent are ignored because the people who read them either don't care or are part of the problem. we vote for city council and they appoint police chiefs, generally. they have issues with people not voting in ferguson for local elections. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-lack-diversity-goes-way-beyond-its-cops Maybe because when they did vote, nothing changed? It creates a rather depressing situation when those who are in charge of helping and protecting you are more or less oppressing you and when action appears pointless people stop trying to change it and focus on just surviving. Could the people of Ferguson have done more? Entirely possible but I also believe many tried and saw nothing come of it so they stopped trying.
what makes you think they voted and nothing changed? blacks are a majority; they could vote in all blacks or at least vote out all whites with ease. they still can do this.
|
On March 14 2015 09:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all. I've only briefly skimmed the DOJ's report, but most of what's in there seems to be documenting disparate impact, which may or may not be illegal. The state of Missouri also documented disparate impact in many other districts (traffic stops data), but in many cases it's justified. So if you want to get somewhere with your complaint you need to be able to counter any of the justifications. There are also political routs. Yeah, you can move out (or not move in). You can also vote. People in poor areas are also pretty terrible at filing official complaints and making the bad decision to give random cops are hard time instead. "It's justified to stop more black people then white people." Sorry but this is where we get back to my opinion that this is a deep routed problem through America (and yes we have our own issues like this in Europe). As for the other routs? I remember we talked before in this thread about how "just move" is not a viable solution for poorer portions of the population. And do you vote for your police chiefs in the US? if you mean national and state politics then you would have to look at the big picture, the people in Ferguson could all vote for 1 man and it may not have any effect on election results. Its a little to deep in for me to check that, sorry. Yes there are issues with filing complaints. Just like there is a feeling of defeat when those complaints that do get sent are ignored because the people who read them either don't care or are part of the problem.
It CAN be, and insisting otherwise is ignorant. If men commit more rape than women you can absolutely arrest more men than women for that crime. The same applies to any other group and for any other crime.
Blacks moved into Ferguson. If you cannot be simultaneously able and unable to move. No one has suggested moving to be the penultimate solution, but please do not pretend that moving is an impossibility reserved only for the top 1%. The average american moves something like 11 times in their lifetime.
You can vote for the people who run your town who control the PD. In Ferguson whites are something like 3X more likely to show up for the local elections (at parity for state / fed elections).
|
On March 14 2015 09:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:42 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:32 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all. I've only briefly skimmed the DOJ's report, but most of what's in there seems to be documenting disparate impact, which may or may not be illegal. The state of Missouri also documented disparate impact in many other districts (traffic stops data), but in many cases it's justified. So if you want to get somewhere with your complaint you need to be able to counter any of the justifications. There are also political routs. Yeah, you can move out (or not move in). You can also vote. People in poor areas are also pretty terrible at filing official complaints and making the bad decision to give random cops are hard time instead. "It's justified to stop more black people then white people." Sorry but this is where we get back to my opinion that this is a deep routed problem through America (and yes we have our own issues like this in Europe). As for the other routs? I remember we talked before in this thread about how "just move" is not a viable solution for poorer portions of the population. And do you vote for your police chiefs in the US? if you mean national and state politics then you would have to look at the big picture, the people in Ferguson could all vote for 1 man and it may not have any effect on election results. Its a little to deep in for me to check that, sorry. Yes there are issues with filing complaints. Just like there is a feeling of defeat when those complaints that do get sent are ignored because the people who read them either don't care or are part of the problem. we vote for city council and they appoint police chiefs, generally. they have issues with people not voting in ferguson for local elections. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-lack-diversity-goes-way-beyond-its-cops Maybe because when they did vote, nothing changed? It creates a rather depressing situation when those who are in charge of helping and protecting you are more or less oppressing you and when action appears pointless people stop trying to change it and focus on just surviving. Could the people of Ferguson have done more? Entirely possible but I also believe many tried and saw nothing come of it so they stopped trying. what makes you think they voted and nothing changed? blacks are a majority; they could vote in all blacks or at least vote out all whites with ease. they still can do this.
That assumes you have more than 2 choices.
|
On March 14 2015 09:51 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 09:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:42 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 09:32 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 08:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
let me put this another way.
if an enlisted man suffers prejudice from his superior, he goes to his superior's superior, he doesnt go to the general or the president as commander in chief. if the superior's superior fails to act, you go up the chain. you don't skip.
ferguson should be regulated first by st. louis county then by the state of missouri, including through the courts. only after that fails should the federal government get involved.
teh federal governement should be regulating states for the most part, not small little cities before even allowing the states to fix their own mess.
edit: holy shit GH, you just posted an example proving my exact point. So you believe that in all these years no one has complained about the Ferguson P.D to any higher authority? When shit gets this bad and oversight badly then yes I think it is entirely correct for the federal government to stop in. I'm sure the people of Ferguson will be happy to wait another few decades before someone responsible actually started to give a shit. That their constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis is there own problem, they could just move somewhere else after all. I've only briefly skimmed the DOJ's report, but most of what's in there seems to be documenting disparate impact, which may or may not be illegal. The state of Missouri also documented disparate impact in many other districts (traffic stops data), but in many cases it's justified. So if you want to get somewhere with your complaint you need to be able to counter any of the justifications. There are also political routs. Yeah, you can move out (or not move in). You can also vote. People in poor areas are also pretty terrible at filing official complaints and making the bad decision to give random cops are hard time instead. "It's justified to stop more black people then white people." Sorry but this is where we get back to my opinion that this is a deep routed problem through America (and yes we have our own issues like this in Europe). As for the other routs? I remember we talked before in this thread about how "just move" is not a viable solution for poorer portions of the population. And do you vote for your police chiefs in the US? if you mean national and state politics then you would have to look at the big picture, the people in Ferguson could all vote for 1 man and it may not have any effect on election results. Its a little to deep in for me to check that, sorry. Yes there are issues with filing complaints. Just like there is a feeling of defeat when those complaints that do get sent are ignored because the people who read them either don't care or are part of the problem. we vote for city council and they appoint police chiefs, generally. they have issues with people not voting in ferguson for local elections. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-lack-diversity-goes-way-beyond-its-cops Maybe because when they did vote, nothing changed? It creates a rather depressing situation when those who are in charge of helping and protecting you are more or less oppressing you and when action appears pointless people stop trying to change it and focus on just surviving. Could the people of Ferguson have done more? Entirely possible but I also believe many tried and saw nothing come of it so they stopped trying. what makes you think they voted and nothing changed? blacks are a majority; they could vote in all blacks or at least vote out all whites with ease. they still can do this. That assumes you have more than 2 choices.
You do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
