|
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 October 16 2015 09:42 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 07:44 notesfromunderground wrote:On October 16 2015 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 16 2015 04:37 Mercy13 wrote:
Aren't you guys terrified at the thought of having the current incarnation of the GOP in charge of all three branches of government though? Clinton is far from an ideal candidate, and I wouldn't expect her to get much more done than Obama has, but at least with her in the presidency we wouldn't have to worry about Trump negotiating with the Chinese, or Carson setting environmental policy... Sometimes you need to burn down the forest so that new trees can grow. Pretty much. Give us Sanders or we push the button. I'm way more scared of Hillary Clinton than I am of anyone riding in the clown car. They are incompetent, corrupt, buffoonish, and evil. She is competent, corrupt, smarmy... and utterly, utterly evil. It's funny, I think one of my seminar papers this quarter is going to be about forest burn zones (which I spent a lot time hiking/driving through this summer). So I'm very glad to see you employ this metaphor  I agree with your premise - not with the conclusion. Speaking as a social democrat - yes hillary is terrible. She will continue the trend of massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the goldman sachs brass, while paying lip service to the idea of social mobility - maybe with some talk about education for all. But that doesn't mean that a hillary victory (which is, lets face it, the by far most likely outcome of this election) would be the end. The winds ARE changing. The inexorable shift of the political "middle" to the "right" (meaning fewer people to have a larger share of society's output) that started with the Thatcher/Reagan era and led to right wing moderates like Clinton and Blair being elected as representatives of the left seem to finally be challenged. In the US Obama Care survived 2 presidential elections and a number of supreme court cases. The conservative elite in the US are terrified of the white working class understanding the benefits of government assisted healthcare - to the point where conservative states are deliberately denying their poor access to it by refusing federal funding for the program or better yet, by making it illegal to even inform people of their new options http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/florida-bans-obamacare-navigators_n_3913979.html . Because the day when the american white working class sees the benefits of "socialism" is the day when the conservative power base vaporizes over night. And to add salt to that wound there is now a self described social democrat making actual noise in the dem primaries. Meanwhile in the UK Millibrand may have lost, but labour didnt go back to a right wing moderate, they went further left and found an intellectual leftist radical. I really do believe the winds are changing, and another Clinton victory wont mean a reversal, only a slowdown.
A couple of points:
1) a Clinton victory is worse than a republican victory as it means we have to wait 8 more years to nominate another democrat rather than 4.
2) Obamacare is a terrible law and is pretty much worse than nothing at all since it can be presented as a "fix". I think it might not be possible to design a worse healthcare reform than this one
but I do agree.. the times they are a changin' 
|
On October 16 2015 10:00 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 09:40 Gorsameth wrote:
American police does not have some of the basic training police have in other area's of the world.
Things like de-escalation tactics, situational awareness and how to act to minimize risk to both yourself and others.
As an Englishman you (Kwark) know how police can and should act in a way that is safe for everyone involved, the problem is Americans have no idea there is even another way. They have never seen it and all they know is the 'wrong' way.
It should be noted, that police officers in most of those countries do not have to assume Random Joe carrying a weapon within reach. In Germany a cop just pulling his weapon is already causing an internal investigation. Not even talking about pointing it at someone or using it. But I can understand that this is certainly not feasible in the US for reason of self protection. And thus the US officer has to guard himself against much worse than his european counterpart when approaching someone. And this sets the tone for the following scene. Surely, most citizen getting in contact with the police would prefer them to use a European "style". But sadly I'm quite sure, that those officers would not last 10 years before getting shot to the face.
It isn't tho. The fact that guns are more common should lead to less police aggression, not more.
When you suspect someone has a weapon you don't want him to get in a situation where they feel the need to use it, while still doing your job as a police officer of course. That means de-escalating potentially violent situations and not acting in a way that forces those situations and puts the officer, the suspect and potential people nearby under threat.
|
On October 16 2015 10:00 mahrgell wrote:
It should be noted, that police officers in most of those countries do not have to assume Random Joe carrying a weapon within reach. In Germany a cop just pulling his weapon is already causing an internal investigation. Not even talking about pointing it at someone or using it.
That's why I said a while ago that the problem isn't that the policy is armed to heavily or too corrupt or too racist, the problem is that the government does not have a monopoly on force. It's not corruption or racism, There are many countries that are way more corrupt or oppressive than the United States with a much lesser degree of government violence.
People need to forfeit their right to exercise force, both culturally and legally, until that hasn't happened you'll have Wild West situations all over the place. Society can't work without trust and their can't be trust if everybody can potentially go on a killing spree.
|
On October 16 2015 10:05 notesfromunderground wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 09:42 KlaCkoN wrote:On October 16 2015 07:44 notesfromunderground wrote:On October 16 2015 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 16 2015 04:37 Mercy13 wrote:
Aren't you guys terrified at the thought of having the current incarnation of the GOP in charge of all three branches of government though? Clinton is far from an ideal candidate, and I wouldn't expect her to get much more done than Obama has, but at least with her in the presidency we wouldn't have to worry about Trump negotiating with the Chinese, or Carson setting environmental policy... Sometimes you need to burn down the forest so that new trees can grow. Pretty much. Give us Sanders or we push the button. I'm way more scared of Hillary Clinton than I am of anyone riding in the clown car. They are incompetent, corrupt, buffoonish, and evil. She is competent, corrupt, smarmy... and utterly, utterly evil. It's funny, I think one of my seminar papers this quarter is going to be about forest burn zones (which I spent a lot time hiking/driving through this summer). So I'm very glad to see you employ this metaphor I agree with your premise - not with the conclusion. Speaking as a social democrat - yes hillary is terrible. She will continue the trend of massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the goldman sachs brass, while paying lip service to the idea of social mobility - maybe with some talk about education for all. But that doesn't mean that a hillary victory (which is, lets face it, the by far most likely outcome of this election) would be the end. The winds ARE changing. The inexorable shift of the political "middle" to the "right" (meaning fewer people to have a larger share of society's output) that started with the Thatcher/Reagan era and led to right wing moderates like Clinton and Blair being elected as representatives of the left seem to finally be challenged. In the US Obama Care survived 2 presidential elections and a number of supreme court cases. The conservative elite in the US are terrified of the white working class understanding the benefits of government assisted healthcare - to the point where conservative states are deliberately denying their poor access to it by refusing federal funding for the program or better yet, by making it illegal to even inform people of their new options http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/florida-bans-obamacare-navigators_n_3913979.html . Because the day when the american white working class sees the benefits of "socialism" is the day when the conservative power base vaporizes over night. And to add salt to that wound there is now a self described social democrat making actual noise in the dem primaries. Meanwhile in the UK Millibrand may have lost, but labour didnt go back to a right wing moderate, they went further left and found an intellectual leftist radical. I really do believe the winds are changing, and another Clinton victory wont mean a reversal, only a slowdown. A couple of points: 1) a Clinton victory is worse than a republican victory as it means we have to wait 8 more years to nominate another democrat rather than 4. 2) Obamacare is a terrible law and is pretty much worse than nothing at all since it can be presented as a "fix". I think it might not be possible to design a worse healthcare reform than this one but I do agree.. the times they are a changin'
on your point 2)
"we should let people die in the streets if they cant afford healthcare until our nation, that is increasingly divided on the most basic of issues, can come to an agreeable solution, aka never".
yeah that sure is a reasonable view of things. lol
|
The idea that Obamacare is all that's standing in the way of huge numbers of people falling over dead in the street is hyperbolic and silly. It's a sweetheart deal for the Big Pharma, end of story.
It also completely reduces the entire notion of "insurance" to a reductio ad absurdum. It's no longer insurance, it's a healthcare protection racket.
|
United States43877 Posts
On October 16 2015 10:00 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 09:40 Gorsameth wrote:
American police does not have some of the basic training police have in other area's of the world.
Things like de-escalation tactics, situational awareness and how to act to minimize risk to both yourself and others.
As an Englishman you (Kwark) know how police can and should act in a way that is safe for everyone involved, the problem is Americans have no idea there is even another way. They have never seen it and all they know is the 'wrong' way.
It should be noted, that police officers in most of those countries do not have to assume Random Joe carrying a weapon within reach. In Germany a cop just pulling his weapon is already causing an internal investigation. Not even talking about pointing it at someone or using it. But I can understand that this is certainly not feasible in the US for reasons of self protection. And thus the US officer has to guard himself against much worse than his european counterpart when approaching someone. And this sets the tone for the following scene. Surely, most citizen getting in contact with the police would prefer them to use an European "style". But sadly I'm quite sure, that those officers would not last 10 years before getting shot to the face.
Those deaths are not the ones that make the news though. The ones that make the news are the ones where two assholes get into a dick measuring competition and then one of them executes the other and is excused because he did it on behalf of the state. And then the American public cries "he shouldn't have been an asshole to a cop, he deserved death".
You should be able to read a situation pretty early on and work out if it's going to go smoothly or if you're going to need to reach into the toolbox. Ignoring the situation, losing all control over it and then resorting to deadly force isn't justifiable.
|
On October 16 2015 10:15 notesfromunderground wrote:
The idea that Obamacare is all that's standing in the way of huge numbers of people falling over dead in the street is hyperbolic and silly. It's a sweetheart deal for the Big Pharma, end of story.
is it? You said no healthcare system at all is better then Obamacare.
That means the ER is somewhat bound to help you if your going to die in the next few minutes but that's all they will do. And when they do you end up paying for it a whole hell of a lot more then you do now because someone has to pay for it when the government helps.
Brake a limb and your life is pretty much over because you cant afford to get it fixed and you cant work anymore.
And lets not even talk about surgery for any of a million things that could happen entirely outside your own ability to influence. Your not paying for a medical bill in the tens of thousands on your own.
And ofc that's ignoring the ability of whatever private insurance you get to dump you the moment you actually need to pay for something like they could do before the ACA.
Complain about hyperbole all your want, your statement is utterly ignorant of what would happen if you really didn't have health insurance as a nation.
Edit: Protection racket? Have you listened to yourself?
If you don't understand the basic principles of shared burden then don't even begin to discuss the subject.
|
The federal government issued a report (PDF) on Thursday urging families and therapists to abandon the use of “conversion therapy,” or attempting to change sexual orientation or gender identity, on youths.
The government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) said it created the report to help parents and mental health practitioners decide how to best help adolescents who discover that they may be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
The authors, who are psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers from SAMHSA and the American Psychological Association said there is no credible evidence that “conversion therapy” has any effectiveness in changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The practice has been promoted by some religious groups but is widely panned as harmful by medical and psychological groups, including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“Conversion therapy perpetuates outdated views of gender roles and identities as well as the negative stereotype that being a sexual or gender minority or identifying as LGBTQ is an abnormal aspect of human development,” the authors wrote in the report released Thursday. “Most importantly, it may put young people at risk of serious harm.”
The report said LGBT youths face increased risk of depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts and victimization from their peers when they are not accepted or supported by their families and communities. Any therapy or treatment that attempts to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity may contribute to those risks, the report added.
Instead, children do best when their sexualities and identities are affirmed. “Supportive families, peers and school and community environments are associated with improved psychosocial outcomes for sexual minority youth,” the report said.
Source
|
On October 16 2015 10:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 10:00 mahrgell wrote:On October 16 2015 09:40 Gorsameth wrote:
American police does not have some of the basic training police have in other area's of the world.
Things like de-escalation tactics, situational awareness and how to act to minimize risk to both yourself and others.
As an Englishman you (Kwark) know how police can and should act in a way that is safe for everyone involved, the problem is Americans have no idea there is even another way. They have never seen it and all they know is the 'wrong' way.
It should be noted, that police officers in most of those countries do not have to assume Random Joe carrying a weapon within reach. In Germany a cop just pulling his weapon is already causing an internal investigation. Not even talking about pointing it at someone or using it. But I can understand that this is certainly not feasible in the US for reasons of self protection. And thus the US officer has to guard himself against much worse than his european counterpart when approaching someone. And this sets the tone for the following scene. Surely, most citizen getting in contact with the police would prefer them to use an European "style". But sadly I'm quite sure, that those officers would not last 10 years before getting shot to the face. Those deaths are not the ones that make the news though. The ones that make the news are the ones where two assholes get into a dick measuring competition and then one of them executes the other and is excused because he did it on behalf of the state. And then the American public cries "he shouldn't have been an asshole to a cop, he deserved death". You should be able to read a situation pretty early on and work out if it's going to go smoothly or if you're going to need to reach into the toolbox. Ignoring the situation, losing all control over it and then resorting to deadly force isn't justifiable.
I agree with you 100% here.
But at the same time I realize, that there will always be negative outliers in any group of people. Potential negative outliers among the "suspects" are the reason the "average procedure" in the US is much harsher than in Europe. And thus negative outliers among the police officers deviating from this "average" end much worse, than they would in Europe.
|
On October 16 2015 10:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 10:15 notesfromunderground wrote:
The idea that Obamacare is all that's standing in the way of huge numbers of people falling over dead in the street is hyperbolic and silly. It's a sweetheart deal for the Big Pharma, end of story. is it? You said no healthcare system at all is better then Obamacare. That means the ER is somewhat bound to help you if your going to die in the next few minutes but that's all they will do. And when they do you end up paying for it a whole hell of a lot more then you do now because someone has to pay for it when the government helps. Brake a limb and your life is pretty much over because you cant afford to get it fixed and you cant work anymore. And lets not even talk about surgery for any of a million things that could happen entirely outside your own ability to influence. Your not paying for a medical bill in the tens of thousands on your own. And ofc that's ignoring the ability of whatever private insurance you get to dump you the moment you actually need to pay for something like they could do before the ACA. Complain about hyperbole all your want, your statement is utterly ignorant of what would happen if you really didn't have health insurance as a nation. Edit: Protection racket? Have you listened to yourself? If you don't understand the basic principles of shared burden then don't even begin to discuss the subject.
Calm down son. I am talking about why Obamacare is a very bad law and is far inferior to what we should have, which is single payer healthcare. I am not denying like, the need for medical services. Chill out.
Obamacare is like when you have a gaping wound and then somebody comes along and gives you a bandaid and says "if you complain I will take the bandaid away!!"
If you threaten people with a penalty for not having health insurance, it's not insurance. It's a protection racket. It complete vitiates the entire idea of "insurance." There's a real, legitimate reason that people dislike this law.
So to the extent that Obamacare delays or can be used by corporatist Dems as an excuse to avoid implementing real, substantive healthcare reform in this country, then yes, I think it is worse than not having Obamacare.
|
A US tank has forced its way into the shell of the Afghanistan hospital destroyed in an airstrike 11 days ago, prompting warnings that the US military may have destroyed evidence in a potential war crimes investigation.
The 3 October attack on the Médécins sans Frontières (MSF) hospital in Kunduz killed 10 patients and 12 staff members of the group.
In a statement on Thursday, the medical charity, also known as Doctors Without Borders, said they were informed after Thursday’s “intrusion” that the tank was carrying investigators from a US-Nato-Afghan team which is investigating the attack.
“Their unannounced and forced entry damaged property, destroyed potential evidence and caused stress and fear,” MSF said.
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the reported intrusion, which came as new evidence emerged that US forces operating in the area at the time of the attack knew that the facility was a hospital.
US special operations analysts were gathering intelligence on the hospital days before the attack, because they believed a Pakistani operative was using it as his base, according to areport by the Associated Press citing an unnamed former intelligence official.
The analysts had mapped the area and drawn a circle around the hospital, the official was quoted as saying. The Pakistani man, described both as a Taliban suspect and as a worker for the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence directorate, was killed in the attack, the official told the AP.
Source
|
On October 16 2015 10:05 notesfromunderground wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 09:42 KlaCkoN wrote:On October 16 2015 07:44 notesfromunderground wrote:On October 16 2015 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 16 2015 04:37 Mercy13 wrote:
Aren't you guys terrified at the thought of having the current incarnation of the GOP in charge of all three branches of government though? Clinton is far from an ideal candidate, and I wouldn't expect her to get much more done than Obama has, but at least with her in the presidency we wouldn't have to worry about Trump negotiating with the Chinese, or Carson setting environmental policy... Sometimes you need to burn down the forest so that new trees can grow. Pretty much. Give us Sanders or we push the button. I'm way more scared of Hillary Clinton than I am of anyone riding in the clown car. They are incompetent, corrupt, buffoonish, and evil. She is competent, corrupt, smarmy... and utterly, utterly evil. It's funny, I think one of my seminar papers this quarter is going to be about forest burn zones (which I spent a lot time hiking/driving through this summer). So I'm very glad to see you employ this metaphor I agree with your premise - not with the conclusion. Speaking as a social democrat - yes hillary is terrible. She will continue the trend of massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the goldman sachs brass, while paying lip service to the idea of social mobility - maybe with some talk about education for all. But that doesn't mean that a hillary victory (which is, lets face it, the by far most likely outcome of this election) would be the end. The winds ARE changing. The inexorable shift of the political "middle" to the "right" (meaning fewer people to have a larger share of society's output) that started with the Thatcher/Reagan era and led to right wing moderates like Clinton and Blair being elected as representatives of the left seem to finally be challenged. In the US Obama Care survived 2 presidential elections and a number of supreme court cases. The conservative elite in the US are terrified of the white working class understanding the benefits of government assisted healthcare - to the point where conservative states are deliberately denying their poor access to it by refusing federal funding for the program or better yet, by making it illegal to even inform people of their new options http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/florida-bans-obamacare-navigators_n_3913979.html . Because the day when the american white working class sees the benefits of "socialism" is the day when the conservative power base vaporizes over night. And to add salt to that wound there is now a self described social democrat making actual noise in the dem primaries. Meanwhile in the UK Millibrand may have lost, but labour didnt go back to a right wing moderate, they went further left and found an intellectual leftist radical. I really do believe the winds are changing, and another Clinton victory wont mean a reversal, only a slowdown. A couple of points: 1) a Clinton victory is worse than a republican victory as it means we have to wait 8 more years to nominate another democrat rather than 4. 2) Obamacare is a terrible law and is pretty much worse than nothing at all since it can be presented as a "fix". I think it might not be possible to design a worse healthcare reform than this one but I do agree.. the times they are a changin'
I agree that in practice obama care is a transfer of public money to private profit and in that sense abhorent. However the idea of the the government on a national level being involved at all is very powerful, and I really do believe that idea can be used as a lever to shift political discourse back towards the left.
|
On October 16 2015 09:40 Gorsameth wrote:
American police does not have some of the basic training police have in other area's of the world.
Things like de-escalation tactics, situational awareness and how to act to minimize risk to both yourself and others.
As an Englishman you (Kwark) know how police can and should act in a way that is safe for everyone involved, the problem is Americans have no idea there is even another way. They have never seen it and all they know is the 'wrong' way.
are you seriously implying that that our police force are not as competent as the ones in Netherlands? LOL
i honestly don't want to crucify the stupidity of the comment you just made, but before you speak about another country's competence, you might want to try becoming a cop in america and live in the ghetto neighborhoods.
On an entirely different note addressing the police killing scenario there are a bunch of things that fuel their decision outside the portion of police officers being corrupt.
1. Hollywood
- lots of movies and television shows depict cops as corrupt, your average joe who continually watches too much of this will start to believe it.
2. Media
- it doesn't help police that news outlets portray them in a very negative light. all news is pretty much negative, i honestly doubt you'll get a news report about a cop admirably helping someone in comparison to everytime they kill someone. this is also probably why you'll start to see cops start interacting with kids nowadays to quell the anger and distrust.
- really dumb people / celebrities who are outspoken with ties to crime are allowed to have strong opinions in the media and put them on blast. this fuels even more idiotic people to thus support their belief. your favorite rapper or musician should basically be denied any credible say on the matter but that's not how this world works.
- this media also makes for peer pressure in that anyone who supports cops is going to be seen in their group of friends as a snitch. we literally have formed a culture of promoting criminals in the media under the guise of free speech.
3. Ignorance / gang affiliation
- some cops are actually corrupt, and are power tripping and are trigger happy the only good thing is now that's almost nullified entirely.
- it's sad to say but the ignorant masses outweigh the ignorant police officers. why do you think there is such a concept as "no snitchin"? the concept is to brain wash idiots to fall in line so that criminals can continue doing what they're doing without getting caught. they basically outlined a code of conduct and made it popular to keep the sheep in line. younger children who want social approval with their more idiotic peers are basically taught the unspoken language of not affiliating with cops or "popo" it's in the media, it's embedded into music.
- until we actually start investigating people who say heinous things in music and media about what they will do to another person for so and so reason, gangs will continue to misguide the youth. if these people are dumb enough to actually admit they did so and so act on a music track or a music video, i see no reason why we can't look into it.
4. racism
- sad to say but if you're a white cop? and you actually are innocent? you're going to get scrutinized even for 1 mistake.
- it's not just that there are racist cops, i'd argue there are more racist criminals and followers of those who support them that actually start these riots. i'm more than willing to bet that every outspoken person you see on the news who cries BLACKLIVESMATTER, if you approach these same people a week later asking them to help solve a case, do you think they will comply? a lot of it is ignorance or fear to comply but it's also mixed in with racism and a negative stigma conditioned into them by culture.
|
On police,
1) They should all definitely be wearing body cameras while on duty. If officer Darren Wilson was wearing a body camera, his life might not be ruined right now. It could have backed up his version of the events even better than the forensic evidence did and we wouldn't have had these riots. Or, we would see that he did something wrong and he'd be punished accordingly without the need for mass protests. Or, if he did something wrong, maybe he wouldn't have if he knew he was being filmed. Either way, the result of the situation would have been better.
2) They should be trained in deescalating situations if not already receiving that training. The Eric Garner case was a blatant example of a police officer escalating the situation rather than deescalating it. Eric didn't want to be arrested, but he wasn't psychotic. He could be reasoned with and talking him down would have kept him alive. I'm not against choke holds in violent situations, but that one was completely unnecessary and that officer should at a minimum be off the force.
3) They are often put in really crappy situations. Sometimes shooting an unarmed person is justified. The human body itself is a deadly weapon. I could smash in a persons head or rip at their throat and kill someone. If I'm actively attacking a police officer, I think he has the right to pull out his gun and shoot me because I could kill him. However, I'd rather that he had a taser and shot me with that first.
On "actively attacking", pushing/punching him and then walking away does not constitute an active attack; however, charging at him does. So if I punched an officer and then walked away, I think he has the right to pull his gun and demand that I get down on the ground. If I run, I don't think he should have the right to shoot me, except with a taser. If I turn around and charge at him, I think he does have the right.
|
United States43877 Posts
On October 16 2015 11:00 saocyn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 09:40 Gorsameth wrote:
American police does not have some of the basic training police have in other area's of the world.
Things like de-escalation tactics, situational awareness and how to act to minimize risk to both yourself and others.
As an Englishman you (Kwark) know how police can and should act in a way that is safe for everyone involved, the problem is Americans have no idea there is even another way. They have never seen it and all they know is the 'wrong' way.
are you seriously implying that that our police force are not as competent as the ones in Netherlands? LOL i honestly don't want to crucify the stupidity of the comment you just made, but before you speak about another country's competence, you might want to try becoming a cop in america and live in the ghetto neighborhoods.
I'm gonna go with yes. The American police force has normalized a level of violence and abuse towards the American public that would be unacceptable in any other nation. They've become just one gang among many with next to no accountability from a public who spend half the time cheering the violence on as if it's a movie.
|
Body cameras are a no-brainer. I don't think a single study hasn't shown they significantly reduce violence both ways and complaints against the police (which right now go nowhere and is a HUGE part of the problem).
I don't think there's any serious doubt that the reason they haven't been implemented is the implicit acknowledgment that tons of violations by police forces are going unreported/unresolved and if there was video evidence the cops would be in the wrong a significant portion of the time.
Unfortunately that doesn't jive with the police explanation as to why so many complaints against the police go nowhere.
On October 16 2015 11:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 11:00 saocyn wrote:On October 16 2015 09:40 Gorsameth wrote:
American police does not have some of the basic training police have in other area's of the world.
Things like de-escalation tactics, situational awareness and how to act to minimize risk to both yourself and others.
As an Englishman you (Kwark) know how police can and should act in a way that is safe for everyone involved, the problem is Americans have no idea there is even another way. They have never seen it and all they know is the 'wrong' way.
are you seriously implying that that our police force are not as competent as the ones in Netherlands? LOL i honestly don't want to crucify the stupidity of the comment you just made, but before you speak about another country's competence, you might want to try becoming a cop in america and live in the ghetto neighborhoods. I'm gonna go with yes. The American police force has normalized a level of violence and abuse towards the American public that would be unacceptable in any other nation. They've become just one gang among many with next to no accountability from a public who spend half the time cheering the violence on as if it's a movie.
We also have some of the lowest standards (particularly around education) of most first world countries for police.
|
We also have some of the lowest standards (particularly around education) of most first world countries for police.
What are the job requirements as a cop? Anyone?
edit:
- sad to say but if you're a white cop? and you actually are innocent? you're going to get scrutinized even for 1 mistake.
There's no such thing as being innocent after making a mistake. Just saying.
|
On October 16 2015 11:30 m4ini wrote:
There's no such thing as being innocent after making a mistake. Just saying.
Then we've got lots of guilty cops running around.
|
On October 16 2015 11:30 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +We also have some of the lowest standards (particularly around education) of most first world countries for police.
What are the job requirements as a cop? Anyone? edit: Show nested quote +- sad to say but if you're a white cop? and you actually are innocent? you're going to get scrutinized even for 1 mistake.
There's no such thing as being innocent after making a mistake. Just saying.
Citizen 19y.o.+, GED/HS diploma (not always a requirement), clean background check (you haven't been caught), 0-18ish weeks (full-time) of training, and 2 multiple choice tests, is about it for most departments in the US. It can be more or less depending on the size of the department, desirability, etc...
To put that in perspective that's less than it takes to be a plumber or manager at McDonald's nowadays.
|
On October 16 2015 11:30 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +We also have some of the lowest standards (particularly around education) of most first world countries for police.
What are the job requirements as a cop? Anyone? edit: Show nested quote +- sad to say but if you're a white cop? and you actually are innocent? you're going to get scrutinized even for 1 mistake.
There's no such thing as being innocent after making a mistake. Just saying.
care to elaborate or are you being sarcastic? if it involves a death yeah someone was clearly in the wrong but without all the facts i doubt anyone ever gets to the bottom of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
