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 June 08 2015 09:40 zlefin wrote: Bullet shields certainly aren't something I'd want the police to default to in every call; but for some calls, where it's specified that the offender has a gun, like for that kid, having a shield would give them more leeway.
Why all the hate on shields? Is it just because they tend to be used during times of unrest?
Because coming out with that kind of protection basically says that you're expecting to be shot at.
It takes what could be a completely non-hostile situation, and creates a presumption of imminent violence.
On June 08 2015 09:40 zlefin wrote: Bullet shields certainly aren't something I'd want the police to default to in every call; but for some calls, where it's specified that the offender has a gun, like for that kid, having a shield would give them more leeway.
Why all the hate on shields? Is it just because they tend to be used during times of unrest?
Because coming out with that kind of protection basically says that you're expecting to be shot at.
It takes what could be a completely non-hostile situation, and creates a presumption of imminent violence.
I don't know if we're talking in general or this specific case because if it's between a shield and a gun pointing at me I'll take the shield and pay for it happily.
Frankly I'd feel safer if I didn't have to worry about the cop thinking I was reaching for a gun after he asks me to provide him with information that I have to reach for.
A shield would make me a hell of a lot less nervous than the cop putting his hand on his gun ready to draw, or the typical felony stop where they make me get out on the ground at gunpoint.
Hillary Clinton surprised more than 1,200 low-wage fast food workers from around the nation on Sunday morning to tell them she backs their push for a $15 minimum wage.
“I want to be your champion," Clinton said in a phone call to those gathered in Detroit for a fast food worker's convention this weekend. "I want to fight with you every day. I’m well aware that the folks on top already have plenty of friends in Washington, but we together will change the direction of this great country.”
Clinton also voiced support for unions and collective bargaining while urging workers who built the "Fight For 15" movement to keep their "important" work going.
“I hope that every one of you will continue to raise your voices until we get all working Americans a better deal,” Clinton said.
On June 08 2015 09:40 zlefin wrote: Bullet shields certainly aren't something I'd want the police to default to in every call; but for some calls, where it's specified that the offender has a gun, like for that kid, having a shield would give them more leeway.
Why all the hate on shields? Is it just because they tend to be used during times of unrest?
Because coming out with that kind of protection basically says that you're expecting to be shot at.
It takes what could be a completely non-hostile situation, and creates a presumption of imminent violence.
I don't know if we're talking in general or this specific case because if it's between a shield and a gun pointing at me I'll take the shield and pay for it happily.
Frankly I'd feel safer if I didn't have to worry about the cop thinking I was reaching for a gun after he asks me to provide him with information that I have to reach for.
A shield would make me a hell of a lot less nervous than the cop putting his hand on his gun ready to draw, or the typical felony stop where they make me get out on the ground at gunpoint.
If the police ever ask you to remove your hands or withdraw something from your body/clothing, they'll put a lot of emphasis on doing it slowly. And that's only if they've got guns out...if they're just asking for ID, they're not going to have a twitchy trigger finger (or at least shouldn't).
And if they suspect you of having a weapon, they're going to ask you to stay still with your hands plainly visible, and then search you for the weapon (or ask you where it is and then remove it).
And seeing the words "typical felony stop" tells me your law enforcement climate has a lot more issues that needed sorting out in general. Hell, even the argument that riot shields would be standard issue for police raises much larger issues.
On June 08 2015 09:40 zlefin wrote: Bullet shields certainly aren't something I'd want the police to default to in every call; but for some calls, where it's specified that the offender has a gun, like for that kid, having a shield would give them more leeway.
Why all the hate on shields? Is it just because they tend to be used during times of unrest?
Because coming out with that kind of protection basically says that you're expecting to be shot at.
It takes what could be a completely non-hostile situation, and creates a presumption of imminent violence.
I don't know if we're talking in general or this specific case because if it's between a shield and a gun pointing at me I'll take the shield and pay for it happily.
Frankly I'd feel safer if I didn't have to worry about the cop thinking I was reaching for a gun after he asks me to provide him with information that I have to reach for.
A shield would make me a hell of a lot less nervous than the cop putting his hand on his gun ready to draw, or the typical felony stop where they make me get out on the ground at gunpoint.
If the police ever ask you to remove your hands or withdraw something from your body/clothing, they'll put a lot of emphasis on doing it slowly. And that's only if they've got guns out...if they're just asking for ID, they're not going to have a twitchy trigger finger (or at least shouldn't).
And if they suspect you of having a weapon, they're going to ask you to stay still with your hands plainly visible, and then search you for the weapon (or ask you where it is and then remove it).
And seeing the words "typical felony stop" tells me your law enforcement climate has a lot more issues that needed sorting out in general. Hell, even the argument that riot shields would be standard issue for police raises much larger issues.
You can see in the video he commands him to remove his hands (doesn't say slowly) and when he does he shoots and it was ruled justified.
Your description just isn't what happens.
I've had an officer say if I put my hands in my pockets again he'll shoot me. That was when I was like 14 and he had already searched me for weapons and I was just nervously putting my hands in my hoodie.
On June 08 2015 09:40 zlefin wrote: Bullet shields certainly aren't something I'd want the police to default to in every call; but for some calls, where it's specified that the offender has a gun, like for that kid, having a shield would give them more leeway.
Why all the hate on shields? Is it just because they tend to be used during times of unrest?
Because coming out with that kind of protection basically says that you're expecting to be shot at.
It takes what could be a completely non-hostile situation, and creates a presumption of imminent violence.
That... makes no sense. You're saying a shield is going to make the situation hostile.
A shield.
A SHIELD.
Even if it makes you think they expect to be shot at, why on earth would that escalated anything? Because they think they're going to be shot at, people are going to be more inclined to be aggressive towards them? How dare they think I'm going to be violent, now I really be that violent! (But wait, how do I get through that shield...?)
You know what the alternative to them pulling out a shield is? Pulling out a gun. I can assure you, poll whoever you want, they should all say they would feel more threatened by a gun than a shield.
On June 08 2015 09:40 zlefin wrote: Bullet shields certainly aren't something I'd want the police to default to in every call; but for some calls, where it's specified that the offender has a gun, like for that kid, having a shield would give them more leeway.
Why all the hate on shields? Is it just because they tend to be used during times of unrest?
Because coming out with that kind of protection basically says that you're expecting to be shot at.
It takes what could be a completely non-hostile situation, and creates a presumption of imminent violence.
I don't know if we're talking in general or this specific case because if it's between a shield and a gun pointing at me I'll take the shield and pay for it happily.
Frankly I'd feel safer if I didn't have to worry about the cop thinking I was reaching for a gun after he asks me to provide him with information that I have to reach for.
A shield would make me a hell of a lot less nervous than the cop putting his hand on his gun ready to draw, or the typical felony stop where they make me get out on the ground at gunpoint.
If the police ever ask you to remove your hands or withdraw something from your body/clothing, they'll put a lot of emphasis on doing it slowly. And that's only if they've got guns out...if they're just asking for ID, they're not going to have a twitchy trigger finger (or at least shouldn't).
And if they suspect you of having a weapon, they're going to ask you to stay still with your hands plainly visible, and then search you for the weapon (or ask you where it is and then remove it).
And seeing the words "typical felony stop" tells me your law enforcement climate has a lot more issues that needed sorting out in general. Hell, even the argument that riot shields would be standard issue for police raises much larger issues.
You can see in the video he commands him to remove his hands (doesn't say slowly) and when he does he shoots and it was ruled justified.
Your description just isn't what happens.
I've had an officer say if I put my hands in my pockets again he'll shoot me. That was when I was like 14 and he had already searched me for weapons and I was just nervously putting my hands in my hoodie.
I agree. But mostly disagree with the notion that cops should have shields. It is really the police force's job to deescalate situations first. Plus, someone is vastly overstating the risk of police being shot, and vastly understating that the risk of being injured is why they exist and regular people don't just march felons to the county jail.
I think the distinction is that it is possible to carry around a gun unobtrusively, and without it being obvious that you intend to use it any time soon. (Carry as in have it in your posession, not carry it in your hand.)
A riot shield cannot be carried around unobtrusively. The fact that you are taking the time to carry around this big heavy object makes a statement.
I mean, obviously if it gets to the stage where one or the other is being pointed at someone, the shield is less provocative... but that is not the only stage in an interaction. At least, in theory. The argument that carring around a riot shield will make an interaction more likely to reach that stage is not without merit.
On June 08 2015 09:40 zlefin wrote: Bullet shields certainly aren't something I'd want the police to default to in every call; but for some calls, where it's specified that the offender has a gun, like for that kid, having a shield would give them more leeway.
Why all the hate on shields? Is it just because they tend to be used during times of unrest?
Because coming out with that kind of protection basically says that you're expecting to be shot at.
It takes what could be a completely non-hostile situation, and creates a presumption of imminent violence.
I don't know if we're talking in general or this specific case because if it's between a shield and a gun pointing at me I'll take the shield and pay for it happily.
Frankly I'd feel safer if I didn't have to worry about the cop thinking I was reaching for a gun after he asks me to provide him with information that I have to reach for.
A shield would make me a hell of a lot less nervous than the cop putting his hand on his gun ready to draw, or the typical felony stop where they make me get out on the ground at gunpoint.
If the police ever ask you to remove your hands or withdraw something from your body/clothing, they'll put a lot of emphasis on doing it slowly. And that's only if they've got guns out...if they're just asking for ID, they're not going to have a twitchy trigger finger (or at least shouldn't).
And if they suspect you of having a weapon, they're going to ask you to stay still with your hands plainly visible, and then search you for the weapon (or ask you where it is and then remove it).
And seeing the words "typical felony stop" tells me your law enforcement climate has a lot more issues that needed sorting out in general. Hell, even the argument that riot shields would be standard issue for police raises much larger issues.
You can see in the video he commands him to remove his hands (doesn't say slowly) and when he does he shoots and it was ruled justified.
Your description just isn't what happens.
I've had an officer say if I put my hands in my pockets again he'll shoot me. That was when I was like 14 and he had already searched me for weapons and I was just nervously putting my hands in my hoodie.
I agree. But mostly disagree with the notion that cops should have shields. It is really the police force's job to deescalate situations first. Plus, someone is vastly overstating the risk of police being shot, and vastly understating that the risk of being injured is why they exist and regular people don't just march felons to the county jail.
Shields, tactics, something, I don't care what it is, but I'm tired of fearing for my life every time I "fit the description" and I'm tired of seeing people shot when they need help or needed not to be stopped in the first place.
The police are screwing up on a scale so epic and disastrous I can't believe it's even a debate in this country. It's not all individual officers fault though, the system has been molded to be a shit show.
On June 08 2015 09:40 zlefin wrote: Bullet shields certainly aren't something I'd want the police to default to in every call; but for some calls, where it's specified that the offender has a gun, like for that kid, having a shield would give them more leeway.
Why all the hate on shields? Is it just because they tend to be used during times of unrest?
Because coming out with that kind of protection basically says that you're expecting to be shot at.
It takes what could be a completely non-hostile situation, and creates a presumption of imminent violence.
I don't know if we're talking in general or this specific case because if it's between a shield and a gun pointing at me I'll take the shield and pay for it happily.
Frankly I'd feel safer if I didn't have to worry about the cop thinking I was reaching for a gun after he asks me to provide him with information that I have to reach for.
A shield would make me a hell of a lot less nervous than the cop putting his hand on his gun ready to draw, or the typical felony stop where they make me get out on the ground at gunpoint.
If the police ever ask you to remove your hands or withdraw something from your body/clothing, they'll put a lot of emphasis on doing it slowly. And that's only if they've got guns out...if they're just asking for ID, they're not going to have a twitchy trigger finger (or at least shouldn't).
And if they suspect you of having a weapon, they're going to ask you to stay still with your hands plainly visible, and then search you for the weapon (or ask you where it is and then remove it).
And seeing the words "typical felony stop" tells me your law enforcement climate has a lot more issues that needed sorting out in general. Hell, even the argument that riot shields would be standard issue for police raises much larger issues.
You can see in the video he commands him to remove his hands (doesn't say slowly) and when he does he shoots and it was ruled justified.
Your description just isn't what happens.
I've had an officer say if I put my hands in my pockets again he'll shoot me. That was when I was like 14 and he had already searched me for weapons and I was just nervously putting my hands in my hoodie.
I agree. But mostly disagree with the notion that cops should have shields. It is really the police force's job to deescalate situations first. Plus, someone is vastly overstating the risk of police being shot, and vastly understating that the risk of being injured is why they exist and regular people don't just march felons to the county jail.
Shields, tactics, something, I don't care what it is, but I'm tired of fearing for my life every time I "fit the description" and I'm tired of seeing people shot when they need help or needed not to be stopped in the first place.
The police are screwing up on a scale so epic and disastrous I can't believe it's even a debate in this country. It's not all individual officers fault though, the system has been molded to be a shit show.
Yeah, it's this kind of hyperbolic talk that basically just kills all discussion.
If it's 100% true that police are entirely out to shoot you, then your country is a legitimate police state and the only solution is a revolution.
On June 08 2015 09:40 zlefin wrote: Bullet shields certainly aren't something I'd want the police to default to in every call; but for some calls, where it's specified that the offender has a gun, like for that kid, having a shield would give them more leeway.
Why all the hate on shields? Is it just because they tend to be used during times of unrest?
Because coming out with that kind of protection basically says that you're expecting to be shot at.
It takes what could be a completely non-hostile situation, and creates a presumption of imminent violence.
I don't know if we're talking in general or this specific case because if it's between a shield and a gun pointing at me I'll take the shield and pay for it happily.
Frankly I'd feel safer if I didn't have to worry about the cop thinking I was reaching for a gun after he asks me to provide him with information that I have to reach for.
A shield would make me a hell of a lot less nervous than the cop putting his hand on his gun ready to draw, or the typical felony stop where they make me get out on the ground at gunpoint.
If the police ever ask you to remove your hands or withdraw something from your body/clothing, they'll put a lot of emphasis on doing it slowly. And that's only if they've got guns out...if they're just asking for ID, they're not going to have a twitchy trigger finger (or at least shouldn't).
And if they suspect you of having a weapon, they're going to ask you to stay still with your hands plainly visible, and then search you for the weapon (or ask you where it is and then remove it).
And seeing the words "typical felony stop" tells me your law enforcement climate has a lot more issues that needed sorting out in general. Hell, even the argument that riot shields would be standard issue for police raises much larger issues.
You can see in the video he commands him to remove his hands (doesn't say slowly) and when he does he shoots and it was ruled justified.
Your description just isn't what happens.
I've had an officer say if I put my hands in my pockets again he'll shoot me. That was when I was like 14 and he had already searched me for weapons and I was just nervously putting my hands in my hoodie.
I agree. But mostly disagree with the notion that cops should have shields. It is really the police force's job to deescalate situations first. Plus, someone is vastly overstating the risk of police being shot, and vastly understating that the risk of being injured is why they exist and regular people don't just march felons to the county jail.
Shields, tactics, something, I don't care what it is, but I'm tired of fearing for my life every time I "fit the description" and I'm tired of seeing people shot when they need help or needed not to be stopped in the first place.
The police are screwing up on a scale so epic and disastrous I can't believe it's even a debate in this country. It's not all individual officers fault though, the system has been molded to be a shit show.
Yeah, it's this kind of hyperbolic talk that basically just kills all discussion.
If it's 100% true that police are entirely out to shoot you, then your country is a legitimate police state and the only solution is a revolution.
It's your hyperbolic interpretation that kills discussion. No one said "the police are entirely out to shoot you", I specifically said I don't think that's the case.
But the comment describes my reality, might be hard for you to imagine, but one would think all the recent videos would be enough for people to get off the "they are exaggerating" kick.
On June 08 2015 09:40 zlefin wrote: Bullet shields certainly aren't something I'd want the police to default to in every call; but for some calls, where it's specified that the offender has a gun, like for that kid, having a shield would give them more leeway.
Why all the hate on shields? Is it just because they tend to be used during times of unrest?
Because coming out with that kind of protection basically says that you're expecting to be shot at.
It takes what could be a completely non-hostile situation, and creates a presumption of imminent violence.
I don't know if we're talking in general or this specific case because if it's between a shield and a gun pointing at me I'll take the shield and pay for it happily.
Frankly I'd feel safer if I didn't have to worry about the cop thinking I was reaching for a gun after he asks me to provide him with information that I have to reach for.
A shield would make me a hell of a lot less nervous than the cop putting his hand on his gun ready to draw, or the typical felony stop where they make me get out on the ground at gunpoint.
If the police ever ask you to remove your hands or withdraw something from your body/clothing, they'll put a lot of emphasis on doing it slowly. And that's only if they've got guns out...if they're just asking for ID, they're not going to have a twitchy trigger finger (or at least shouldn't).
And if they suspect you of having a weapon, they're going to ask you to stay still with your hands plainly visible, and then search you for the weapon (or ask you where it is and then remove it).
And seeing the words "typical felony stop" tells me your law enforcement climate has a lot more issues that needed sorting out in general. Hell, even the argument that riot shields would be standard issue for police raises much larger issues.
You can see in the video he commands him to remove his hands (doesn't say slowly) and when he does he shoots and it was ruled justified.
Your description just isn't what happens.
I've had an officer say if I put my hands in my pockets again he'll shoot me. That was when I was like 14 and he had already searched me for weapons and I was just nervously putting my hands in my hoodie.
I agree. But mostly disagree with the notion that cops should have shields. It is really the police force's job to deescalate situations first. Plus, someone is vastly overstating the risk of police being shot, and vastly understating that the risk of being injured is why they exist and regular people don't just march felons to the county jail.
Shields, tactics, something, I don't care what it is, but I'm tired of fearing for my life every time I "fit the description" and I'm tired of seeing people shot when they need help or needed not to be stopped in the first place.
The police are screwing up on a scale so epic and disastrous I can't believe it's even a debate in this country. It's not all individual officers fault though, the system has been molded to be a shit show.
Yeah, it's this kind of hyperbolic talk that basically just kills all discussion.
If it's 100% true that police are entirely out to shoot you, then your country is a legitimate police state and the only solution is a revolution.
It's your hyperbolic interpretation that kills discussion. No one said "the police are entirely out to shoot you", I specifically said I don't think that's the case.
But the comment describes my reality, might be hard for you to imagine, but one would think all the recent videos would be enough for people to get off the "they are exaggerating" kick.
The media is notoriously exploitative about running with these kinds of issues. It's the same reason why children are granted far less freedom by parents despite decreasing levels of kidnappings, or women thinking they can't go anywhere without getting murdered or raped despite decreasing levels of those crimes even with increased reporting of those crimes.
Saying that there are problems that could be fixed is one thing.
Being rampantly paranoid is another thing entirely.
I won't dispute that the USA has a number of issues with crime and law enforcement that seem foreign to most other 1st world nations. At the same time, it also seems the US also has a hostility towards law enforcement that is completely disproportionate with the actual problems, and an obsessive need to take safety into your own hands (which is usually displayed through your 2nd Amendment).
Why all the hate on shields? Is it just because they tend to be used during times of unrest?
Because coming out with that kind of protection basically says that you're expecting to be shot at.
It takes what could be a completely non-hostile situation, and creates a presumption of imminent violence.
I don't know if we're talking in general or this specific case because if it's between a shield and a gun pointing at me I'll take the shield and pay for it happily.
Frankly I'd feel safer if I didn't have to worry about the cop thinking I was reaching for a gun after he asks me to provide him with information that I have to reach for.
A shield would make me a hell of a lot less nervous than the cop putting his hand on his gun ready to draw, or the typical felony stop where they make me get out on the ground at gunpoint.
If the police ever ask you to remove your hands or withdraw something from your body/clothing, they'll put a lot of emphasis on doing it slowly. And that's only if they've got guns out...if they're just asking for ID, they're not going to have a twitchy trigger finger (or at least shouldn't).
And if they suspect you of having a weapon, they're going to ask you to stay still with your hands plainly visible, and then search you for the weapon (or ask you where it is and then remove it).
And seeing the words "typical felony stop" tells me your law enforcement climate has a lot more issues that needed sorting out in general. Hell, even the argument that riot shields would be standard issue for police raises much larger issues.
You can see in the video he commands him to remove his hands (doesn't say slowly) and when he does he shoots and it was ruled justified.
Your description just isn't what happens.
I've had an officer say if I put my hands in my pockets again he'll shoot me. That was when I was like 14 and he had already searched me for weapons and I was just nervously putting my hands in my hoodie.
I agree. But mostly disagree with the notion that cops should have shields. It is really the police force's job to deescalate situations first. Plus, someone is vastly overstating the risk of police being shot, and vastly understating that the risk of being injured is why they exist and regular people don't just march felons to the county jail.
Shields, tactics, something, I don't care what it is, but I'm tired of fearing for my life every time I "fit the description" and I'm tired of seeing people shot when they need help or needed not to be stopped in the first place.
The police are screwing up on a scale so epic and disastrous I can't believe it's even a debate in this country. It's not all individual officers fault though, the system has been molded to be a shit show.
Yeah, it's this kind of hyperbolic talk that basically just kills all discussion.
If it's 100% true that police are entirely out to shoot you, then your country is a legitimate police state and the only solution is a revolution.
It's your hyperbolic interpretation that kills discussion. No one said "the police are entirely out to shoot you", I specifically said I don't think that's the case.
But the comment describes my reality, might be hard for you to imagine, but one would think all the recent videos would be enough for people to get off the "they are exaggerating" kick.
The media is notoriously exploitative about running with these kinds of issues. It's the same reason why children are granted far less freedom by parents despite decreasing levels of kidnappings, or women thinking they can't go anywhere without getting murdered or raped despite decreasing levels of those crimes even with increased reporting of those crimes.
Saying that there are problems that could be fixed is one thing.
Being rampantly paranoid is another thing entirely.
I won't dispute that the USA has a number of issues with crime and law enforcement that seem foreign to most other 1st world nations. At the same time, it also seems the US also has a hostility towards law enforcement that is completely disproportionate with the actual problems, and an obsessive need to take safety into your own hands (which is usually displayed through your 2nd Amendment).
I sincerely doubt you would call it 'rampant paranoia' after having been threatened and put on the ground at gunpoint several times.
The anger against the criminal justice system only seems disproportionate to someone who doesn't have to experience the abuses. Although some people do take it too far, it's far more than a little issue. The police are the CSR's for the criminal justice system so they get the front line flak as a result.
I sincerely don't think people from other countries (plenty right here too) have a real grasp around some of the messed up stuff police get away with.
Just a little peek:
SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) — Convicted of extortion and illegal gambling, Savannah's former police chief will continue to collect a pension worth nearly $130,000 a year while he serves 7 ½ years in federal prison.
Then, as I said, if your city or state or country is seriously at a point where huge subsets of the population are being regularly searched at gunpoint for absolutely no reason, then you're at a point where "something has to be done" becomes completely meaningless, and mass civil uprising is really the only feasible solution (peaceful or otherwise).
On June 08 2015 12:52 WolfintheSheep wrote: Then, as I said, if your city or state or country is seriously at a point where huge subsets of the population are being regularly searched at gunpoint for absolutely no reason, then you're at a point where "something has to be done" becomes completely meaningless, and mass civil uprising is really the only feasible solution (peaceful or otherwise).
What do you think Baltimore was? People are desperate. They need police protection, instead they got abused by police. When they point out they are getting abused the police say "tough, it's this abuse or we stop doing our jobs" and people still blame the people holding police responsible for the police's childish tantrums.
Also, a lot of those cities are too large to be managed by one police force. And some parts need 1 officer per hundred thousand, while others need 1 per 100.
On June 08 2015 12:52 WolfintheSheep wrote: Then, as I said, if your city or state or country is seriously at a point where huge subsets of the population are being regularly searched at gunpoint for absolutely no reason, then you're at a point where "something has to be done" becomes completely meaningless, and mass civil uprising is really the only feasible solution (peaceful or otherwise).
What do you think Baltimore was? People are desperate. They need police protection, instead they got abused by police. When they point out they are getting abused the police say "tough, it's this abuse or we stop doing our jobs" and people still blame the people holding police responsible for the police's childish tantrums.
There's a big difference between picketing or planned protests (or rioting) and actual civil uprising.
On June 08 2015 12:52 WolfintheSheep wrote: Then, as I said, if your city or state or country is seriously at a point where huge subsets of the population are being regularly searched at gunpoint for absolutely no reason, then you're at a point where "something has to be done" becomes completely meaningless, and mass civil uprising is really the only feasible solution (peaceful or otherwise).
What do you think Baltimore was? People are desperate. They need police protection, instead they got abused by police. When they point out they are getting abused the police say "tough, it's this abuse or we stop doing our jobs" and people still blame the people holding police responsible for the police's childish tantrums.
There's a big difference between picketing or planned protests (or rioting) and actual civil uprising.
I didn't say they were good at it. Just pointing out plenty of people already feel the need for revolution but no one has been able to turn it into a solidified movement.
Not an easy job to fill when you consider what America (and other countries) have done with those people in the past, even when the revolution they pushed was of the least violent possible.
It's hard to get the kind of authority to do the radical changes that can be necessary to fix a broken system; as the authority is often spread out over several offices; and may be spread amongst multiple jurisdictions as well.
So even if they came up with a coherent plan to fix the problems (which they really should), getting the authority to implement it would likely be near impossible.
On June 08 2015 13:26 zlefin wrote: It's hard to get the kind of authority to do the radical changes that can be necessary to fix a broken system; as the authority is often spread out over several offices; and may be spread amongst multiple jurisdictions as well.
So even if they came up with a coherent plan to fix the problems (which they really should), getting the authority to implement it would likely be near impossible.
Especially when the most basic things like "Hey, tell us if you shoot/kill someone" get push back from the Police unions and politicians on the right, as if that's far too much to ask for.
EPT
