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 August 15 2016 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote: If cops were just honest like this ex-cop we would make 1,000,000x the progress we could make if every BLM protester was a world class orator and scholar.
Also on Milwaukee:
Heard this guy in an interview and he was saying some wild bullshit too. If you think legalizing every drugs is a good solution, you're nuts and don't know shit about what you are talking about.
On August 15 2016 03:55 TheDwf wrote:
On August 15 2016 03:25 WhiteDog wrote:
On August 15 2016 03:20 TheDwf wrote:
On August 15 2016 03:15 WhiteDog wrote:
On August 15 2016 03:04 TheDwf wrote:
On August 15 2016 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Doesn't look like the government is putting a thing on the table.
Why aren't all those cops (and George Zimmerman since we are at it) in jail for a start? In France a cop kills someone and it's straight to cour d'assise
If only… But impunity is the rule in France as well. Both family members and various NGOs say the same thing for years. Until the ACAT [http://www.acatfrance.fr/] published some report a few months ago, there wasn't even some official record of people killed during police interventions.
After long procedures, the responsible cops mostly get nothing or derisory sanctions (non-lieu, sursis). The IGPN and justice mostly cover. Even when there's a solid case with proofs, etc., it's very rare to get the appropriate punishment. See for instance the recent Amine Bentounsi case: shot in the back + overwhelming evidence of lies from fellow cops to hide the mistake? Still relaxe.
Authorities opted for the same “CYA” attitude in France regarding cases of police brutality.
Yeah I hear this and at the same time it's full of shit if you actually look at numbers and compare reality.
Just to give some context - according to Mediapart there have been 412 people killed by the police in France in the last 50 years. In the US I think it's around 1200 in 2015 alone.
The fact that there are considerably less police crimes in France has nothing to do with how they're handled, so your answer is fairly off-topic.
So let's disregard facts.
What I am saying is it is not comparable, not that everything is okay. But people overblow things without any kind of objectivity. I myself almost got into a fight with cops from the "BAC" when I was younger ; so I can completly agree that those guys are bastards. But saying "Our police kill" is ridiculous.
Can you read what I write instead of answering on autopilot? I talked about the way authorities handle the problem, not about the amount of people shot by police each year. I am fully aware that less people die because of police in France; thank you. But the few who do (~10-15 per year) rarely get justice, unlike what the poster I was responding to was claiming.
Yeah sure, or maybe you should understand what I am saying.
Yeah I'm not asking them to be policy wonks, just be honest and stop trying to sell us a BS story that we and they know is total fantasy. His opinions on drug policy don't mean a whole lot to me. + Show Spoiler +
other than our current policy is quite obviously crap and it's hard to say with any certainty that bringing other substances into the fold like alcohol would be worse than what we have now. We're way past the point where it's safe to say this system is broken and we can try anything we don't know will definitely make it worse while we work on an even better solution, but I don't know what comments you're specifically referring to.
Anybody who argues that there is no problem whatsoever with cops in the US is either a very heavy drug user
logically this demographic is more likely to find an issue with cops, not less
my point i guess is that i find your lazy rhetorical techniques distasteful and pointless
This had a very interesting interview with a former NYPD officer about the state of policing in the US today. There's a transcript there if you don't want to listen to the full 10 minute interview, here's a bit of it quoted :
EUGENE O'DONNELL: What we have here, which is a crisis, unreported, is, in large cities, 80 percent of violent crime is not solved. The police now, presented with homicide cases, are giving black people, in the main, some Latino people, condolences. And I find that unacceptable.
Now, I could tell you forever how, how bad jail is, prison is, but we need something to incapacitate people that are a danger to the community. And if you walk in the City of Chicago, street by street, the South Side, the West Side, this is what the people in the neighborhood actually want. The one thing the country absolutely does not need is a rerunning of law and order-
[BROOKE LAUGHS]
- versus the new paradigm, which is the system is racist, let’s hit the shutdown button. The common thread is that poor people lose in both those conversations and have lost now for 30 years. It’s not a national crisis. The Republicans are talking junk, of course. The country is more safe, by and large, than it has been but in the inner cities we’ve got real serious issues, and they’re not just people shooting. How many African-American middle class people left Chicago, in the South Side, the West Side, in large part because of public safety, because their needs were being ignored?
Now, we have in Chicago now a police department in name only. They get there when they get there and, if you hear the cops talk, they say, be fetal, stay fetal, don't do anything at all, which is cruel because in the African-American community this has been a dual complaint. The cops are either brutal or feckless, there’s no in between. And that's where the conversation needs to be.
Better statistic is that if you murder someone you have roughly a 50/50 proposition of being charged with that murder after everything. Go further then that and you see the huge database of arrest warrents that aren't fulfilled beacuse the police don't have the resources to go after them in their own cities let alone outside of their county.
So me I could take a few of my friends and go over to Chicago and rob a bunch of stuff from a store and as long as I'm able to get over to minnesota I'm pretty clear and free because theres no way chicago is going to pay for transporting us that far for a simple non violent robbery.
The whole system is broken and no one has any real solutions to fix it.
Yeah, he gets into some a little later on but the whole thing ends on a really bleak note when it gets into the solution side of things - regardless of whether there's any solutions, people aren't even trying to talk about them because they know they would never be implemented.
EUGENE O'DONNELL: You know, in the ten cities in the country that are most heavily affected with this, how do we take off our partisan hats and come up with solutions - job training, you know, improvement in the schools? I mean, the picture is bleak, and the decline in the labor movement, the decline in middle-class jobs, the postal service, public transit. I mean, there were so many places where people, white and black, had access to employment. They were homeowners. They were able to pay the bills. They were able to retire someday. This is not lost on the younger generation. They know there's no plan for them at all, not even a pretense, neither party.
You know, we’re talking about the inner city but increasingly it’s well documented here, this is a white and black issue also. And real reform, I think, has to be premised on the notion the police role’s got to be shrunk. It’s going to have to be shrunk just because of the numbers, but it also has to be shrunk because we’re overtasking the police, over asking the police. And something like deadly force, it’s really hard to simultaneously send the cops into harm’s way and micromanage their interactions. It’s just a very hard fix.
And this is where Black Lives Matter - I get Black Lives Matter because as a prosecutor I investigated police shootings, and it was always a concern. We wanted to make sure that the police are only shooting when there is no other choice. And there are definitely shootings that are legally justifiable but are not necessary. That might sound bizarre, but under our system –
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Mm-hmm.
EUGENE O'DONNELL: - because the police have so much power, they can shoot even though it's not absolutely necessary. So what does that tell you? Well, I understand the black community, if you look that all the victims seem to be black, that that doesn't seem to equate to their lives mattering in the justice system.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Where you and Patrisse seem to entirely agree is that the focus has to be on those neighborhoods, on those schools, on the housing, jobs that offer you a handhold into the middle class.
EUGENE O'DONNELL: But that conversation is dead on arrival. The notion of a government job program, that the government has some responsibility, I don't see Mrs. Clinton doing that. That's off the table. Congress is not going to do that. And I don't think this has to be terribly expensive, but we have eight or ten cities, we should make it a laboratory. How do we find those programs that work the best and replicate them where they’re most needed?
And the other thing that just is so obvious here, the federal government has to have a role, and that’s what's been missing. You cannot say to Camden, New Jersey or even Philadelphia, you know, go fix this. There has to be federal money on the table. And, again, the depressing thing is it's not seeable. And, and what's also further depressing, you know, I can say it because the Republicans are saying it at their convention, there’s this apocalyptic 1968 the-cities-are-going-to-burn rhetoric hanging right out there. And when you had that the last time, that scared people into acting. This was self-preservation. That, I don't see now at all.
[BROOKE LAUGHS]
You almost get the impression some people wouldn’t mind a, a great unraveling.
Russia has tried hard in recent years to tug Europe to its side, bankrolling the continent’s extremist political parties, working to fuel a backlash against migrants and using its vast energy resources as a cudgel against its neighbors. Two-and-a-half years into the Ukraine crisis, Obama administration officials say that the Kremlin may now be engaging in similar trickery in the U.S. presidential campaign in an effort to boost Russia-friendly Republican nominee Donald Trump.
The alleged effort would be an unusually blunt challenge to the U.S. political system, but one familiar to Europe, where officials and analysts see Russian fingerprints on a wide spectrum of initiatives designed to split Western unity and encourage acceptance of Kremlin policies. European leaders say Russia has been involved in such actions as an April referendum in the Netherlands that rejected a European Union trade deal with Ukraine and the strengthening of cross-border bonds among Euroskeptic parties.
I'm pretty anti-DWS now, but good god Canova is an idiot. I'd support him if he were a half decent candidate, but he's a complete amateur.
To test Canova's knowledge of South Florida, debate moderator Jim DeFede asked Canova if he knew the name of the mayor of Southwest Ranches, in the heart of the district he's seeking to represent. Southwest Ranches was the location of a now canceled immigration detention center, an issue Canova has used to criticize Wasserman Schultz.
"I'm not going to play that game," Canova said, before conceding he didn't know.
Wasserman Schultz interrupted. "Jeff Nelson. He's also the assistant principal of Cypress Bay High School."
Time and again Canova missed opportunities to press his case against Wasserman Schultz. Given the fairly easy question on how he would attempt to pass a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, Canova spoke briefly about building a coalition with labor and then seemed stymied, before finally turning to DeFede, the moderator, and asking: “You tell me how do we get to $15 an hour minimum wage?” Without missing a beat, Wasserman Schultz jumped in: “I’d be happy to tell you.”
A number of points need to be addressed and seriously thought about and fixed before you can go on: 1. Why is a disproportionate amount of black people involved in crime in the USA? 2. Follow-up: is it wrong for cops to do racial profiling when they have (and knowledge of) these statistics? 3. Why is there such a lax attitude towards using (potential) deadly force in the police force? 4. How rigorous is the training? 5. How intense are the streets they are patrolling?
numbers added to questions for easier reponding 1. unknown. It's not just a result of being more likely to be poor, as studies have checked for that. It's likely a complex cultural dynamic that has had interplay over a long period of time with many factors. The deterioration of black families has certainly made it more of a problem. Long term effects of discrimination can lead to poor economic situations and greater cultural insularity, which causes more tribalism and a greater willingness to victimize "outsiders" (who counts as outsider can of course vary widely). Related dynamics have occurred elsewhere such as the Roma (I assume you already know enough about them), the Japanese Burakumin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34615972)
3. I wouldn't call it truly lax; but there's a real willingness to use it certainly. It's still the case that the majority of officers go their whole career without ever firing their weapon. But they all train for the possibility that they might have to. The typical lack of consequences beyond minor administrative penalties probably contributes to it; as does the lack of strong, independent oversight. Stricter fire discipline could be used certainly. There's a common fear amongst police families of the officer not surviving; and given the risks of the job many officers and policies make a strong effort to ensure the officer makes it home alive at the end of the day. An understandable goal, but it can also lead to things that are less safe for others. America is a large and moderately violent country; and cops hear about all the ways that things have gone wrong, so they can get a bit overdefensive. fbi study on cop deaths: http://files.policemag.com/design-elements/fbi-in-the-line-of-fire.pdf a shorter thing which has some of the data on conclusions and notes from that: http://www.theppsc.org/Archives/DF_Articles/Officers-Killed/Fed-Stats/1992_FBI_Study.htm
4. fairly rigorous, for the shooting and when to shoot. but there's often not enough training in de-escalation techniques which might prevent the need for a shooting. It varies also by state/jurisdiction, and some places may not have as much training as they should (I don't know).
5. most aren't that dangerous; a few are. There's a few places where the murder rate exceeds 30 per 100,000 annually. The fact that 1/3 americans have guns, and criminals can easily get them, means a higher rate of caution is used than might apply in places where there's less risk of someone having a concealed gun. but even in non-dangerous areas, there's always a risk of things turning very bad very quickly; which is something they always try to stay aware of (and may contribute to them being a bit too willing to fire). Especially in traffic stops (which might otherwise seem routine) or domestic violence situations (which are very common, and can turn very ugly fast)
if you had other questions you wanted answered, state them, and I'll see what I can say.
nuked -> No, it's not, which means you either didn't read the question properly, or don't know what you're talking about remotely, given how complex the sourcing of social issues is. you also wouldn't get banned for being generically not pc.
so your statement is simply ignorant nonsense. and if you think you know the answer, you should post it.
On August 15 2016 08:57 zlefin wrote: nuked -> No, it's not, which means you either didn't read the question properly, or don't know what you're talking about remotely, given how complex the sourcing of social issues is. you also wouldn't get banned for being generically not pc.
so your statement is simply ignorant nonsense. and if you think you know the answer, you should post it.
Its not complex at all.
Does telling someone hes ignorant make you feel above him? I can respect that. I like the word.
On August 15 2016 08:57 zlefin wrote: nuked -> No, it's not, which means you either didn't read the question properly, or don't know what you're talking about remotely, given how complex the sourcing of social issues is. you also wouldn't get banned for being generically not pc.
so your statement is simply ignorant nonsense. and if you think you know the answer, you should post it.
Its not complex at all.
Does telling someone hes ignorant make you feel above him? I can respect that. I like the word.
if you have the answer, provide it; otherwise you got nothing.
On August 15 2016 08:57 zlefin wrote: nuked -> No, it's not, which means you either didn't read the question properly, or don't know what you're talking about remotely, given how complex the sourcing of social issues is. you also wouldn't get banned for being generically not pc.
so your statement is simply ignorant nonsense. and if you think you know the answer, you should post it.
Its not complex at all.
Does telling someone hes ignorant make you feel above him? I can respect that. I like the word.
if you have the answer, provide it; otherwise you got nothing.
I have the answer but i would get banned if i provided it.
On August 15 2016 08:57 zlefin wrote: nuked -> No, it's not, which means you either didn't read the question properly, or don't know what you're talking about remotely, given how complex the sourcing of social issues is. you also wouldn't get banned for being generically not pc.
so your statement is simply ignorant nonsense. and if you think you know the answer, you should post it.
Its not complex at all.
Does telling someone hes ignorant make you feel above him? I can respect that. I like the word.
if you have the answer, provide it; otherwise you got nothing.
I have the answer but i would get banned if i provided it.
if it was an actual sound answer you wouldn't. Therefore I conclude you have nothing. Pretending you have an answer when you don't doesn't mean much. You got nothing, and are just lying and/or trolling.
On August 15 2016 08:57 zlefin wrote: nuked -> No, it's not, which means you either didn't read the question properly, or don't know what you're talking about remotely, given how complex the sourcing of social issues is. you also wouldn't get banned for being generically not pc.
so your statement is simply ignorant nonsense. and if you think you know the answer, you should post it.
Its not complex at all.
Does telling someone hes ignorant make you feel above him? I can respect that. I like the word.
if you have the answer, provide it; otherwise you got nothing.
I have the answer but i would get banned if i provided it.
Sheriff of milwaukee already answered this question. Single parent households, terrible parenting, terrible schools and overall lack of personal accountability in the community. As to why black people commit crime disproportionately, it's a cultural thing that many of them are trapped in. Hard to escape though, if you have no dad, and no adequate schooling.
On August 15 2016 08:57 zlefin wrote: nuked -> No, it's not, which means you either didn't read the question properly, or don't know what you're talking about remotely, given how complex the sourcing of social issues is. you also wouldn't get banned for being generically not pc.
so your statement is simply ignorant nonsense. and if you think you know the answer, you should post it.
Its not complex at all.
Does telling someone hes ignorant make you feel above him? I can respect that. I like the word.
if you have the answer, provide it; otherwise you got nothing.
I have the answer but i would get banned if i provided it.
Sheriff of milwaukee already answered this question. Single parent households, terrible parenting, terrible schools and overall lack of personal accountability in the community. As to why black people commit crime disproportionately, it's a cultural thing that many of them are trapped in. Hard to escape though, if you have no dad, and no adequate schooling.
Lack of personal accountability led to some of the most extreme segregation in the nation?
On August 15 2016 08:57 zlefin wrote: nuked -> No, it's not, which means you either didn't read the question properly, or don't know what you're talking about remotely, given how complex the sourcing of social issues is. you also wouldn't get banned for being generically not pc.
so your statement is simply ignorant nonsense. and if you think you know the answer, you should post it.
Its not complex at all.
Does telling someone hes ignorant make you feel above him? I can respect that. I like the word.
if you have the answer, provide it; otherwise you got nothing.
I have the answer but i would get banned if i provided it.
Sheriff of milwaukee already answered this question. Single parent households, terrible parenting, terrible schools and overall lack of personal accountability in the community. As to why black people commit crime disproportionately, it's a cultural thing that many of them are trapped in. Hard to escape though, if you have no dad, and no adequate schooling.
Lack of personal accountability led to some of the most extreme segregation in the nation?
lol
Obviously not, but regardless of your circumstances you should be held accountable to make the right choice and at the bare minimum follow the law. This is taught by having good role models, most importantly parents and teachers. In these ghetto communities there is a lack of both, so that has to be fixed first. Fund schools but I'm not sure how to stop single motherhood as it is a cultural thing.
On August 15 2016 08:57 zlefin wrote: nuked -> No, it's not, which means you either didn't read the question properly, or don't know what you're talking about remotely, given how complex the sourcing of social issues is. you also wouldn't get banned for being generically not pc.
so your statement is simply ignorant nonsense. and if you think you know the answer, you should post it.
Its not complex at all.
Does telling someone hes ignorant make you feel above him? I can respect that. I like the word.
if you have the answer, provide it; otherwise you got nothing.
I have the answer but i would get banned if i provided it.
Sheriff of milwaukee already answered this question. Single parent households, terrible parenting, terrible schools and overall lack of personal accountability in the community. As to why black people commit crime disproportionately, it's a cultural thing that many of them are trapped in. Hard to escape though, if you have no dad, and no adequate schooling.
Lack of personal accountability led to some of the most extreme segregation in the nation?
lol
Obviously not, but regardless of your circumstances you should be held accountable to make the right choice and at the bare minimum follow the law. This is taught by having good role models, most importantly parents and teachers. In these ghetto communities there is a lack of both, so that has to be fixed first. Fund schools but I'm not sure how to stop single motherhood as it is a cultural thing.
Obviously I believe in the rule of law but I can see why someone who routinely sees the systems put in place by society fail or betray the principles laid out in the social contract (like police brutality for example) would come to think that it was just another system of control put in place to force them to follow a set of rules in which they have no part in making while the makers have no accountability under the rules.
Saying "at the very least they should follow the law" assumes that they see the law in the same light that you do. If, to them, laws are some made up bullshit by people who have no idea how they live their lives or what struggles they face in order to justify the police farming them for tickets or private prisons returning them to slavery through forced prison labour, well, that's a little different.
I'm not saying they're right to dismiss the social contract, including the laws and the obedience to public officials, but I am arguing that the social contract can look very different depending upon where you're standing and what you've seen.
On August 15 2016 08:37 ticklishmusic wrote: I'm pretty anti-DWS now, but good god Canova is an idiot. I'd support him if he were a half decent candidate, but he's a complete amateur.
To test Canova's knowledge of South Florida, debate moderator Jim DeFede asked Canova if he knew the name of the mayor of Southwest Ranches, in the heart of the district he's seeking to represent. Southwest Ranches was the location of a now canceled immigration detention center, an issue Canova has used to criticize Wasserman Schultz.
"I'm not going to play that game," Canova said, before conceding he didn't know.
Wasserman Schultz interrupted. "Jeff Nelson. He's also the assistant principal of Cypress Bay High School."
Time and again Canova missed opportunities to press his case against Wasserman Schultz. Given the fairly easy question on how he would attempt to pass a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, Canova spoke briefly about building a coalition with labor and then seemed stymied, before finally turning to DeFede, the moderator, and asking: “You tell me how do we get to $15 an hour minimum wage?” Without missing a beat, Wasserman Schultz jumped in: “I’d be happy to tell you.”
On August 14 2016 13:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Hillary said she would release her transcripts when her opponents did. Her opponents released theirs, and the promise was to Democratic primary voters. We just consider it another in a long list of broken and soon to be broken promises/misleadings.
I remember when people were still sticking with the story Hillary wasn't making millions off of speeches after she knew she was running for president.
Riots and clashes with police have been reported in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, after a man was shot dead by an officer during a chase on foot on Saturday. Police say the victim was armed with a handgun.
Scores of angry African American protesters gathered near the scene of the police shooting at Sherman Boulevard. What at first seemed like a Black Lives Matter-style gathering, however, soon got out of control.
It's almost like police should have been fixing this decades ago instead of lying their asses off while letting it get worse. It's no excuse for violence, but I can't act surprised at this point.
I believe there are no transcripts because they didn't even bother with the fake speeches and that she flat out got payed.
On August 14 2016 13:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Hillary said she would release her transcripts when her opponents did. Her opponents released theirs, and the promise was to Democratic primary voters. We just consider it another in a long list of broken and soon to be broken promises/misleadings.
I remember when people were still sticking with the story Hillary wasn't making millions off of speeches after she knew she was running for president.
Riots and clashes with police have been reported in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, after a man was shot dead by an officer during a chase on foot on Saturday. Police say the victim was armed with a handgun.
Scores of angry African American protesters gathered near the scene of the police shooting at Sherman Boulevard. What at first seemed like a Black Lives Matter-style gathering, however, soon got out of control.
It's almost like police should have been fixing this decades ago instead of lying their asses off while letting it get worse. It's no excuse for violence, but I can't act surprised at this point.
I believe there are no transcripts because they didn't even bother with the fake speeches and that she flat out got payed.
That's a wonderfully cynical thought that also sounds plausible.
EPT
