|
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. |
This might sound silly, but I don't really know how policing works in US. Does the FBI have influence over police brutality in law enforcement?
|
The federal Department of Justice, which includes the FBI among other tasked sub-entities, has pretty broad authority to create investigatory task forces, pursue legal claims against unconstitutional police actions, and/or coordinate with state/local authorities when it comes to police operating practices. That said, the feds are relatively limited when it comes to involuntary interventions outside pretty narrow legal claim circumstances and as you may know, there are no federally mandated data collections with regards to the vast majority of quantifiable police enforcement statistics. Thus, unless a police department willingly subjects itself to DoJ investigation or runs afoul of the relatively lenient constitutional laws surrounding police actions, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
This could change with legislation empowering the FBI to take on more aggressive measures when problems are suspected, but that will never pass with Republicans in power (or many Democrats, for that matter).
|
Thanks for the information farvacola. In that case I think that this is firmly a case of misplaced protest, especially since the speaker in question has had limited or no powers to investigate, and was fired from his role in law enforcement and presumably has no role in it whatsoever anymore, unless reinstated in some capacity.
|
On September 23 2017 05:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 04:08 Leporello wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/protesters-disrupt-former-fbi-director-comeys-speech-at-howard-university/2017/09/22/ae75d1c8-9fae-11e7-9c8d-cf053ff30921_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_comey-nhp-2pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.5fecf0ed0c84Comey's first public appearance since his Senate testimony was GreenHorizoned by a unique, incredible, historical display of a small-group of self-important moron college students chanting "no justice no peace" for the 1000th time. Not just a seldom-heard figure at the center of an amazing controversy of historical implications, Comey is also just a really good speaker. But, who cares about that? I might be a young man enrolled in college in the wealthiest country in the world, but I'm going to act like the most oppressed, important person you've ever met. I'll knock over a starving Somalian to scream at you about those racist cops. I just wish people would get over their outrages-du-jour. Yes, black Americans continue to get the shaft. But, um, nuclear threats, democratic-interferences, foreign-relations plummeting, global warming, nuclear-treaties, etc., etc., etc. There's actually other things in the world that are bigger than your outrage, and if you can't respect that, then no one's going to give a shit about your all-important problem. Not shocked that any form of protest is now objectionable. Even if you get the attention of the speaker, they listen and politely respond and then you listen, it is still objectionable because you were rude. The reason I am not shocked, people didn’t approve on non-violent sit ins and bus boycotts during the civil rights movement. Those tactics were seen as divisive.
I mean compared to Hoover, Comey was a regular black panther. Hoover probably would have accused him of being a commie sympathizer. That said, he also tried to explain away racist policing without ever addressing how police rarely face legal consequences for egregious violations of people's rights.
He also acted shocked/disappointed what he thought as the best source for police shooting civilians (the FBI database) was total shit and mostly useless as a data point. Which years later, still hasn't been fixed.
I'm not a Comey fan, but he's probably the least racist person that's ever run the FBI (not exactly a high bar). But he's right that racism is part of the American heritage, wrong in not understanding why people take it more seriously when it's among not just their peers, but law enforcement, kinda like how mugging someone is bad, but a cop mugging you is exponentially worse.
On September 23 2017 05:47 farvacola wrote:
The federal Department of Justice, which includes the FBI among other tasked sub-entities, has pretty broad authority to create investigatory task forces, pursue legal claims against unconstitutional police actions, and/or coordinate with state/local authorities when it comes to police operating practices. That said, the feds are relatively limited when it comes to involuntary interventions outside pretty narrow legal claim circumstances and as you may know, there are no federally mandated data collections with regards to the vast majority of quantifiable police enforcement statistics. Thus, unless a police department willingly subjects itself to DoJ investigation or runs afoul of the relatively lenient constitutional laws surrounding police actions, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
This could change with legislation empowered the FBI to take on more aggressive measures when problems are suspected, but that will never pass with Republicans in power (or many Democrats, for that matter).
Comey knows that's tenuous, he even cited the example of the difference in reaction from the FBI regarding Emmett Till (who by the way was completely innocent before being tortured and murdered) vs the Lindbergh baby. He also acknowledges the violations against MLK jr. If the FBI wanted the data they could have it and put it in their reports, like the two kids, the FBI is making a choice to do a bad job, it's not beyond their control.
On September 23 2017 05:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Thanks for the information farvacola. In that case I think that this is firmly a case of misplaced protest, especially since the speaker in question has had limited or no powers to investigate, and was fired from his role in law enforcement and presumably has no role in it whatsoever anymore, unless reinstated in some capacity.
The consequences of one's actions often outlast their ability to correct them, that doesn't excuse them from rebuke.
|
On September 23 2017 05:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Thanks for the information farvacola. In that case I think that this is firmly a case of misplaced protest, especially since the speaker in question has had limited or no powers to investigate, and was fired from his role in law enforcement and presumably has no role in it whatsoever anymore, unless reinstated in some capacity.
The students also have limited ability to protest the justice department and FBI. They are normally non-political departments and don’t really speak at universities.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On September 23 2017 00:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 00:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 23 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:On September 23 2017 00:07 Yurie wrote:On September 23 2017 00:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 23 2017 00:00 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2017 23:58 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2017 23:51 Velr wrote:On September 22 2017 23:31 LegalLord wrote:
In her book, Hillary talked a bit about the way she went to small towns. She went in, generally to unfriendly crowds, barely did anything, and went away with a mindset of "they don't understand how good I am for them." That's a message that I suspect our European folk are particularly sympathetic towards but that won't, and shouldn't, get you elected. Why would exactly would europeans be sympathetic towards this? The Europeans who frequent this thread, specifically. That's an answer to who, not why. And second the question. I would love to hear why. Dunno. The hard-on for big cities and catastrophic demographics among our specific crop of Europeans is a head-scratcher to me. I suspect 70%+ of y'all live in megacities and think everyone should (megacity worship by its inhabitants is a worldwide phenomenon). But I don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity#Largest_citiesThe US has much more of them than the EU does, at least large ones. So going to them for votes would seem more reasonable in the US than here. The same divide between rural and big city life happens everywhere. Different problems, more people in cities, easier to tackle their problems in many cases due to higher tax base connected to it and so on. I would assume a maximum of 2/10 of European posters on this site live in megacities. Personally I live in a city with below 100k population. That assumes a fairly representative sample of Europeans in our midst, which is very likely not the case. I suppose I use "megacity" too loosely if you want to define it as >10m. Throw in some European capitals and second/third largest cities. Why is it very likely not the case? Like, is Oslo a megacity in your view? Birmingham? Cologne? Dunno, never been to those. It's less a question of how big it is than a mentality. LA, SF, NY, Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Paris, London, Berlin, all have that mentality. Mid-size cities such as Denver and Philadelphia are borderline. Cities like Phoenix and Houston are not despite being significantly larger than previously mentioned cities. And I mention it because a lot of folk here have the same mentality I see among those who are obsessed with staying in "the center of culture and innovation" and for example would never dream of moving to Texas or Siberia or some random ass European country. I am aware I'm playing fast and loose with definitions here. It might be that everything tends to be much closer in Europe than in the US, it might be a more leftward bend, it might be the language barrier (I've noticed that most conservatives come from English-native countries on this board), and it might be any number of things that I have not considered. But it's quite clear that among the Europeans who post on this board, people tend not to understand what people hate so strongly about Hillary. And that manner is very akin to the precise lack of understanding I see from people from NY/LA/SF and the like.
If you think 70% of the western european posters here live in paris, london or berlin or any comparable city then you are extremely mistaken..
|
On September 23 2017 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 05:23 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 04:08 Leporello wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/protesters-disrupt-former-fbi-director-comeys-speech-at-howard-university/2017/09/22/ae75d1c8-9fae-11e7-9c8d-cf053ff30921_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_comey-nhp-2pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.5fecf0ed0c84Comey's first public appearance since his Senate testimony was GreenHorizoned by a unique, incredible, historical display of a small-group of self-important moron college students chanting "no justice no peace" for the 1000th time. Not just a seldom-heard figure at the center of an amazing controversy of historical implications, Comey is also just a really good speaker. But, who cares about that? I might be a young man enrolled in college in the wealthiest country in the world, but I'm going to act like the most oppressed, important person you've ever met. I'll knock over a starving Somalian to scream at you about those racist cops. I just wish people would get over their outrages-du-jour. Yes, black Americans continue to get the shaft. But, um, nuclear threats, democratic-interferences, foreign-relations plummeting, global warming, nuclear-treaties, etc., etc., etc. There's actually other things in the world that are bigger than your outrage, and if you can't respect that, then no one's going to give a shit about your all-important problem. Not shocked that any form of protest is now objectionable. Even if you get the attention of the speaker, they listen and politely respond and then you listen, it is still objectionable because you were rude. The reason I am not shocked, people didn’t approve on non-violent sit ins and bus boycotts during the civil rights movement. Those tactics were seen as divisive. I mean compared to Hoover, Comey was a regular black panther. Hoover probably would have accused him of being a commie sympathizer. That said, he also tried to explain away racist policing without ever addressing how police rarely face legal consequences for egregious violations of people's rights. He also acted shocked/disappointed what he thought as the best source for police shooting civilians (the FBI database) was total shit and mostly useless as a data point. Which years later, still hasn't been fixed. I'm not a Comey fan, but he's probably the least racist person that's ever run the FBI (not exactly a high bar). But he's right that racism is part of the American heritage, wrong in not understanding why people take it more seriously when it's among not just their peers, but law enforcement, kinda like how mugging someone is bad, but a cop mugging you is exponentially worse. Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 05:47 farvacola wrote:
The federal Department of Justice, which includes the FBI among other tasked sub-entities, has pretty broad authority to create investigatory task forces, pursue legal claims against unconstitutional police actions, and/or coordinate with state/local authorities when it comes to police operating practices. That said, the feds are relatively limited when it comes to involuntary interventions outside pretty narrow legal claim circumstances and as you may know, there are no federally mandated data collections with regards to the vast majority of quantifiable police enforcement statistics. Thus, unless a police department willingly subjects itself to DoJ investigation or runs afoul of the relatively lenient constitutional laws surrounding police actions, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
This could change with legislation empowered the FBI to take on more aggressive measures when problems are suspected, but that will never pass with Republicans in power (or many Democrats, for that matter). Comey knows that's tenuous, he even cited the example of the difference in reaction from the FBI regarding Emmett Till (who by the way was completely innocent before being tortured and murdered) vs the Lindbergh baby. He also acknowledges the violations against MLK jr. If the FBI wanted the data they could have it and put it in their reports, like the two kids, the FBI is making a choice to do a bad job, it's not beyond their control. Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 05:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Thanks for the information farvacola. In that case I think that this is firmly a case of misplaced protest, especially since the speaker in question has had limited or no powers to investigate, and was fired from his role in law enforcement and presumably has no role in it whatsoever anymore, unless reinstated in some capacity. The consequences of one's actions often outlast their ability to correct them, that doesn't excuse them from rebuke.
The FBI can't get data that literally doesn't exist, though if you're reading what I said to mean that the FBI can't really do more or couldn't under Comey, you're mistaken. The feds can ALWAYS do more.
|
On September 23 2017 06:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 05:23 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 04:08 Leporello wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/protesters-disrupt-former-fbi-director-comeys-speech-at-howard-university/2017/09/22/ae75d1c8-9fae-11e7-9c8d-cf053ff30921_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_comey-nhp-2pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.5fecf0ed0c84Comey's first public appearance since his Senate testimony was GreenHorizoned by a unique, incredible, historical display of a small-group of self-important moron college students chanting "no justice no peace" for the 1000th time. Not just a seldom-heard figure at the center of an amazing controversy of historical implications, Comey is also just a really good speaker. But, who cares about that? I might be a young man enrolled in college in the wealthiest country in the world, but I'm going to act like the most oppressed, important person you've ever met. I'll knock over a starving Somalian to scream at you about those racist cops. I just wish people would get over their outrages-du-jour. Yes, black Americans continue to get the shaft. But, um, nuclear threats, democratic-interferences, foreign-relations plummeting, global warming, nuclear-treaties, etc., etc., etc. There's actually other things in the world that are bigger than your outrage, and if you can't respect that, then no one's going to give a shit about your all-important problem. Not shocked that any form of protest is now objectionable. Even if you get the attention of the speaker, they listen and politely respond and then you listen, it is still objectionable because you were rude. The reason I am not shocked, people didn’t approve on non-violent sit ins and bus boycotts during the civil rights movement. Those tactics were seen as divisive. I mean compared to Hoover, Comey was a regular black panther. Hoover probably would have accused him of being a commie sympathizer. That said, he also tried to explain away racist policing without ever addressing how police rarely face legal consequences for egregious violations of people's rights. He also acted shocked/disappointed what he thought as the best source for police shooting civilians (the FBI database) was total shit and mostly useless as a data point. Which years later, still hasn't been fixed. I'm not a Comey fan, but he's probably the least racist person that's ever run the FBI (not exactly a high bar). But he's right that racism is part of the American heritage, wrong in not understanding why people take it more seriously when it's among not just their peers, but law enforcement, kinda like how mugging someone is bad, but a cop mugging you is exponentially worse. On September 23 2017 05:47 farvacola wrote:
The federal Department of Justice, which includes the FBI among other tasked sub-entities, has pretty broad authority to create investigatory task forces, pursue legal claims against unconstitutional police actions, and/or coordinate with state/local authorities when it comes to police operating practices. That said, the feds are relatively limited when it comes to involuntary interventions outside pretty narrow legal claim circumstances and as you may know, there are no federally mandated data collections with regards to the vast majority of quantifiable police enforcement statistics. Thus, unless a police department willingly subjects itself to DoJ investigation or runs afoul of the relatively lenient constitutional laws surrounding police actions, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
This could change with legislation empowered the FBI to take on more aggressive measures when problems are suspected, but that will never pass with Republicans in power (or many Democrats, for that matter). Comey knows that's tenuous, he even cited the example of the difference in reaction from the FBI regarding Emmett Till (who by the way was completely innocent before being tortured and murdered) vs the Lindbergh baby. He also acknowledges the violations against MLK jr. If the FBI wanted the data they could have it and put it in their reports, like the two kids, the FBI is making a choice to do a bad job, it's not beyond their control. On September 23 2017 05:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Thanks for the information farvacola. In that case I think that this is firmly a case of misplaced protest, especially since the speaker in question has had limited or no powers to investigate, and was fired from his role in law enforcement and presumably has no role in it whatsoever anymore, unless reinstated in some capacity. The consequences of one's actions often outlast their ability to correct them, that doesn't excuse them from rebuke. The FBI can't get data that literally doesn't exist, though if you're reading what I said to mean that the FBI can't really do more or couldn't under Comey, you're mistaken. The feds can ALWAYS do more.
But the data does exist, just not voluntarily reported from the police departments. That's what the "I" in FBI is there for. If they wanted the data and to report it they could, they choose not to.
|
On September 23 2017 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:22 farvacola wrote:On September 23 2017 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 05:23 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 04:08 Leporello wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/protesters-disrupt-former-fbi-director-comeys-speech-at-howard-university/2017/09/22/ae75d1c8-9fae-11e7-9c8d-cf053ff30921_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_comey-nhp-2pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.5fecf0ed0c84Comey's first public appearance since his Senate testimony was GreenHorizoned by a unique, incredible, historical display of a small-group of self-important moron college students chanting "no justice no peace" for the 1000th time. Not just a seldom-heard figure at the center of an amazing controversy of historical implications, Comey is also just a really good speaker. But, who cares about that? I might be a young man enrolled in college in the wealthiest country in the world, but I'm going to act like the most oppressed, important person you've ever met. I'll knock over a starving Somalian to scream at you about those racist cops. I just wish people would get over their outrages-du-jour. Yes, black Americans continue to get the shaft. But, um, nuclear threats, democratic-interferences, foreign-relations plummeting, global warming, nuclear-treaties, etc., etc., etc. There's actually other things in the world that are bigger than your outrage, and if you can't respect that, then no one's going to give a shit about your all-important problem. Not shocked that any form of protest is now objectionable. Even if you get the attention of the speaker, they listen and politely respond and then you listen, it is still objectionable because you were rude. The reason I am not shocked, people didn’t approve on non-violent sit ins and bus boycotts during the civil rights movement. Those tactics were seen as divisive. I mean compared to Hoover, Comey was a regular black panther. Hoover probably would have accused him of being a commie sympathizer. That said, he also tried to explain away racist policing without ever addressing how police rarely face legal consequences for egregious violations of people's rights. He also acted shocked/disappointed what he thought as the best source for police shooting civilians (the FBI database) was total shit and mostly useless as a data point. Which years later, still hasn't been fixed. I'm not a Comey fan, but he's probably the least racist person that's ever run the FBI (not exactly a high bar). But he's right that racism is part of the American heritage, wrong in not understanding why people take it more seriously when it's among not just their peers, but law enforcement, kinda like how mugging someone is bad, but a cop mugging you is exponentially worse. On September 23 2017 05:47 farvacola wrote:
The federal Department of Justice, which includes the FBI among other tasked sub-entities, has pretty broad authority to create investigatory task forces, pursue legal claims against unconstitutional police actions, and/or coordinate with state/local authorities when it comes to police operating practices. That said, the feds are relatively limited when it comes to involuntary interventions outside pretty narrow legal claim circumstances and as you may know, there are no federally mandated data collections with regards to the vast majority of quantifiable police enforcement statistics. Thus, unless a police department willingly subjects itself to DoJ investigation or runs afoul of the relatively lenient constitutional laws surrounding police actions, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
This could change with legislation empowered the FBI to take on more aggressive measures when problems are suspected, but that will never pass with Republicans in power (or many Democrats, for that matter). Comey knows that's tenuous, he even cited the example of the difference in reaction from the FBI regarding Emmett Till (who by the way was completely innocent before being tortured and murdered) vs the Lindbergh baby. He also acknowledges the violations against MLK jr. If the FBI wanted the data they could have it and put it in their reports, like the two kids, the FBI is making a choice to do a bad job, it's not beyond their control. On September 23 2017 05:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Thanks for the information farvacola. In that case I think that this is firmly a case of misplaced protest, especially since the speaker in question has had limited or no powers to investigate, and was fired from his role in law enforcement and presumably has no role in it whatsoever anymore, unless reinstated in some capacity. The consequences of one's actions often outlast their ability to correct them, that doesn't excuse them from rebuke. The FBI can't get data that literally doesn't exist, though if you're reading what I said to mean that the FBI can't really do more or couldn't under Comey, you're mistaken. The feds can ALWAYS do more. But the data does exist, just not voluntarily reported from the police department. That's what the "I" in FBI is there for. If they wanted the data and to report it they could, they choose not to.
GH, I’m with fav on this one. There might be data out there, but I’m 100% sure it is either bad, poorly collected or simple absent. I know FL was recently put on blast for not even tracking the use of force by police as a whole.
|
On September 23 2017 06:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 06:22 farvacola wrote:On September 23 2017 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 05:23 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 04:08 Leporello wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/protesters-disrupt-former-fbi-director-comeys-speech-at-howard-university/2017/09/22/ae75d1c8-9fae-11e7-9c8d-cf053ff30921_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_comey-nhp-2pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.5fecf0ed0c84Comey's first public appearance since his Senate testimony was GreenHorizoned by a unique, incredible, historical display of a small-group of self-important moron college students chanting "no justice no peace" for the 1000th time. Not just a seldom-heard figure at the center of an amazing controversy of historical implications, Comey is also just a really good speaker. But, who cares about that? I might be a young man enrolled in college in the wealthiest country in the world, but I'm going to act like the most oppressed, important person you've ever met. I'll knock over a starving Somalian to scream at you about those racist cops. I just wish people would get over their outrages-du-jour. Yes, black Americans continue to get the shaft. But, um, nuclear threats, democratic-interferences, foreign-relations plummeting, global warming, nuclear-treaties, etc., etc., etc. There's actually other things in the world that are bigger than your outrage, and if you can't respect that, then no one's going to give a shit about your all-important problem. Not shocked that any form of protest is now objectionable. Even if you get the attention of the speaker, they listen and politely respond and then you listen, it is still objectionable because you were rude. The reason I am not shocked, people didn’t approve on non-violent sit ins and bus boycotts during the civil rights movement. Those tactics were seen as divisive. I mean compared to Hoover, Comey was a regular black panther. Hoover probably would have accused him of being a commie sympathizer. That said, he also tried to explain away racist policing without ever addressing how police rarely face legal consequences for egregious violations of people's rights. He also acted shocked/disappointed what he thought as the best source for police shooting civilians (the FBI database) was total shit and mostly useless as a data point. Which years later, still hasn't been fixed. I'm not a Comey fan, but he's probably the least racist person that's ever run the FBI (not exactly a high bar). But he's right that racism is part of the American heritage, wrong in not understanding why people take it more seriously when it's among not just their peers, but law enforcement, kinda like how mugging someone is bad, but a cop mugging you is exponentially worse. On September 23 2017 05:47 farvacola wrote:
The federal Department of Justice, which includes the FBI among other tasked sub-entities, has pretty broad authority to create investigatory task forces, pursue legal claims against unconstitutional police actions, and/or coordinate with state/local authorities when it comes to police operating practices. That said, the feds are relatively limited when it comes to involuntary interventions outside pretty narrow legal claim circumstances and as you may know, there are no federally mandated data collections with regards to the vast majority of quantifiable police enforcement statistics. Thus, unless a police department willingly subjects itself to DoJ investigation or runs afoul of the relatively lenient constitutional laws surrounding police actions, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
This could change with legislation empowered the FBI to take on more aggressive measures when problems are suspected, but that will never pass with Republicans in power (or many Democrats, for that matter). Comey knows that's tenuous, he even cited the example of the difference in reaction from the FBI regarding Emmett Till (who by the way was completely innocent before being tortured and murdered) vs the Lindbergh baby. He also acknowledges the violations against MLK jr. If the FBI wanted the data they could have it and put it in their reports, like the two kids, the FBI is making a choice to do a bad job, it's not beyond their control. On September 23 2017 05:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Thanks for the information farvacola. In that case I think that this is firmly a case of misplaced protest, especially since the speaker in question has had limited or no powers to investigate, and was fired from his role in law enforcement and presumably has no role in it whatsoever anymore, unless reinstated in some capacity. The consequences of one's actions often outlast their ability to correct them, that doesn't excuse them from rebuke. The FBI can't get data that literally doesn't exist, though if you're reading what I said to mean that the FBI can't really do more or couldn't under Comey, you're mistaken. The feds can ALWAYS do more. But the data does exist, just not voluntarily reported from the police department. That's what the "I" in FBI is there for. If they wanted the data and to report it they could, they choose not to. GH, I’m with fav on this one. There might be data out there, but I’m 100% sure it is either bad, poorly collected or simple absent. I know FL was recently put on blast for not even tracking the use of force by police as a whole.
Are you saying the count from a publication like WaPo is based on "bad, poorly collected, or absent" data? Is it worse than than the FBI's?
|
What do you think data collection looks like? Many rural police departments still haven't even fully implemented computers, not to mention any sort of automated data collection that runs alongside normal operations. Many of the departments most likely to garner attention also take take routine haircuts these days as budget-scared local electorates push them towards traffic tickets as revenue generators and state legislators vote away their state revenue sharing allotment. The FBI could show up in a few trouble spots, yeah, but getting ahold of solid, reliable numbers underpinning use of force, firearm discharge rates, arrest/charging rations, etc. takes way more manpower than you seem to understand.
|
On September 23 2017 06:32 farvacola wrote:
What do you think data collection looks like? Many rural police departments still haven't even fully implemented computers, not to mention any sort of automated data collection that runs alongside normal operations. Many of the departments most likely to garner attention also take take routine haircuts these days as budget-scared local electorates push them towards traffic tickets as revenue generators and state legislators vote away their state revenue sharing allotment. The FBI could show up in a few trouble spots, yeah, but getting ahold of solid, reliable numbers underpinning use of force, firearm discharge rates, arrest/charging rations, etc. takes way more manpower than you seem to understand.
I'm thinking if some publications can muster up more accurate numbers than the FBI the FBI is failing at their job.
EDIT: But you're right that the FBI would have to prioritize it if they wanted better information on arrests and generic use of force statistics, and it will not be accurate until data collection and reporting is mandated by law, because law enforcement doesn't prioritize it on their own.
|
On September 23 2017 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:32 farvacola wrote:
What do you think data collection looks like? Many rural police departments still haven't even fully implemented computers, not to mention any sort of automated data collection that runs alongside normal operations. Many of the departments most likely to garner attention also take take routine haircuts these days as budget-scared local electorates push them towards traffic tickets as revenue generators and state legislators vote away their state revenue sharing allotment. The FBI could show up in a few trouble spots, yeah, but getting ahold of solid, reliable numbers underpinning use of force, firearm discharge rates, arrest/charging rations, etc. takes way more manpower than you seem to understand. I'm thinking if some publications can muster up more accurate numbers than the FBI the FBI is failing at their job.
The FBI can't force police departments to fork over data they are not collecting and keeping in easily accessible places. Or they would lie or deny the FBI the information. Or not give them all of it.
This is what it would look like:
FBI requests data from rural part of Florida. Rural part of Florida says they don't have it. FBI demands it Rural part of Florida says nope. FBI attempts to force them. Lawsuit by Florida AG for overreach or some garbage. And a whole lot of "Federal war on local police".
And remember that the FBI needs to work with local police to do their normal job. Congress needs to demand this data, not the FBI.
|
Dude you're shooting the cause in the foot, even relatively well curated data from publications like WaPo is going to severely understate most of the juicy stuff aside from straight up weapon discharge homicides, the likes of which are only prominent because of the work of BLM and the like. This shit is literally the tip of the iceberg without federal collection mandates and accompanying funds.
|
On September 23 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 06:32 farvacola wrote:
What do you think data collection looks like? Many rural police departments still haven't even fully implemented computers, not to mention any sort of automated data collection that runs alongside normal operations. Many of the departments most likely to garner attention also take take routine haircuts these days as budget-scared local electorates push them towards traffic tickets as revenue generators and state legislators vote away their state revenue sharing allotment. The FBI could show up in a few trouble spots, yeah, but getting ahold of solid, reliable numbers underpinning use of force, firearm discharge rates, arrest/charging rations, etc. takes way more manpower than you seem to understand. I'm thinking if some publications can muster up more accurate numbers than the FBI the FBI is failing at their job. The FBI can't force police departments to fork over data they are not collecting and keeping in easily accessible places. Which is the problem. This is what it would look like: FBI requests data from rural part of Florida. Rural part of Florida says they don't have it. FBI demands it Rural part of Florida says nope. FBI attempts to force them. Lawsuit by Florida AG for overreach or some garbage. And a whole lot of "Federal war on local police".
Or they just vet the already existing counts they can find on the internet?
On September 23 2017 06:39 farvacola wrote:
Dude you're shooting the cause in the foot, even relatively well curated data from publications like WaPo is going to severely understate most of the juicy stuff aside from straight up weapon discharge homicides, the likes of which are only prominent because of the work of BLM and the like. This shit is literally the tip of the iceberg without federal collection mandates and accompanying funds.
I'm not sure what you're arguing? "Shooting my cause in the foot" wtf? I think you are thinking I meant something I didn't. Otherwise, I really can't see what you're arguing against?
|
|
|
On September 23 2017 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 06:32 farvacola wrote:
What do you think data collection looks like? Many rural police departments still haven't even fully implemented computers, not to mention any sort of automated data collection that runs alongside normal operations. Many of the departments most likely to garner attention also take take routine haircuts these days as budget-scared local electorates push them towards traffic tickets as revenue generators and state legislators vote away their state revenue sharing allotment. The FBI could show up in a few trouble spots, yeah, but getting ahold of solid, reliable numbers underpinning use of force, firearm discharge rates, arrest/charging rations, etc. takes way more manpower than you seem to understand. I'm thinking if some publications can muster up more accurate numbers than the FBI the FBI is failing at their job. The FBI can't force police departments to fork over data they are not collecting and keeping in easily accessible places. Which is the problem. This is what it would look like: FBI requests data from rural part of Florida. Rural part of Florida says they don't have it. FBI demands it Rural part of Florida says nope. FBI attempts to force them. Lawsuit by Florida AG for overreach or some garbage. And a whole lot of "Federal war on local police". Or they just vet the already existing counts they can find on the internet?
Against what? They can't get the data from the states, so they have no ability to vet the information. They have no base line.
Again, I completely agree with you that we should have this data for the public. But the FBI is not the group to demand it. The executive branch isn't the part of goverment that can demand it. You're fight is with congress.
|
On September 23 2017 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 06:32 farvacola wrote:
What do you think data collection looks like? Many rural police departments still haven't even fully implemented computers, not to mention any sort of automated data collection that runs alongside normal operations. Many of the departments most likely to garner attention also take take routine haircuts these days as budget-scared local electorates push them towards traffic tickets as revenue generators and state legislators vote away their state revenue sharing allotment. The FBI could show up in a few trouble spots, yeah, but getting ahold of solid, reliable numbers underpinning use of force, firearm discharge rates, arrest/charging rations, etc. takes way more manpower than you seem to understand. I'm thinking if some publications can muster up more accurate numbers than the FBI the FBI is failing at their job. The FBI can't force police departments to fork over data they are not collecting and keeping in easily accessible places. Which is the problem. This is what it would look like: FBI requests data from rural part of Florida. Rural part of Florida says they don't have it. FBI demands it Rural part of Florida says nope. FBI attempts to force them. Lawsuit by Florida AG for overreach or some garbage. And a whole lot of "Federal war on local police". Or they just vet the already existing counts they can find on the internet? Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:39 farvacola wrote:
Dude you're shooting the cause in the foot, even relatively well curated data from publications like WaPo is going to severely understate most of the juicy stuff aside from straight up weapon discharge homicides, the likes of which are only prominent because of the work of BLM and the like. This shit is literally the tip of the iceberg without federal collection mandates and accompanying funds. I'm not sure what you're arguing? "Shooting my cause in the foot" wtf? I think you are thinking I meant something I didn't. Otherwise, I really can't see what you're arguing against?
You said that if the FBI wants the data, it can get it. I am suggesting that this misses the more fundamental problem, that being a lack of resources and political will underlying the national effort needed should we want to know what police departments are doing outside the top 50 metropolitan areas (and even among the top 50, many departments do an absolutely shit job of record keeping).
Short and sweet, police departments must be forced to start collecting/reporting data throughout the nation and this requires more than increased oversight by the FBI, as important as that may be independently.
|
On September 23 2017 06:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 06:32 farvacola wrote:
What do you think data collection looks like? Many rural police departments still haven't even fully implemented computers, not to mention any sort of automated data collection that runs alongside normal operations. Many of the departments most likely to garner attention also take take routine haircuts these days as budget-scared local electorates push them towards traffic tickets as revenue generators and state legislators vote away their state revenue sharing allotment. The FBI could show up in a few trouble spots, yeah, but getting ahold of solid, reliable numbers underpinning use of force, firearm discharge rates, arrest/charging rations, etc. takes way more manpower than you seem to understand. I'm thinking if some publications can muster up more accurate numbers than the FBI the FBI is failing at their job. The FBI can't force police departments to fork over data they are not collecting and keeping in easily accessible places. Which is the problem. This is what it would look like: FBI requests data from rural part of Florida. Rural part of Florida says they don't have it. FBI demands it Rural part of Florida says nope. FBI attempts to force them. Lawsuit by Florida AG for overreach or some garbage. And a whole lot of "Federal war on local police". Or they just vet the already existing counts they can find on the internet? Against what? They can't get the data from the states, so they have no ability to vet the information. They have no base line. Again, I completely agree with you that we should have this data for the public. But the FBI is not the group to demand it. The executive branch isn't the part of goverment that can demand it. You're fight is with congress.
I mean death certificates seem like one place to start. Or hell, just put an asterisk next to the number. I mean you guys are being pretty silly about this?
On September 23 2017 06:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 06:32 farvacola wrote:
What do you think data collection looks like? Many rural police departments still haven't even fully implemented computers, not to mention any sort of automated data collection that runs alongside normal operations. Many of the departments most likely to garner attention also take take routine haircuts these days as budget-scared local electorates push them towards traffic tickets as revenue generators and state legislators vote away their state revenue sharing allotment. The FBI could show up in a few trouble spots, yeah, but getting ahold of solid, reliable numbers underpinning use of force, firearm discharge rates, arrest/charging rations, etc. takes way more manpower than you seem to understand. I'm thinking if some publications can muster up more accurate numbers than the FBI the FBI is failing at their job. The FBI can't force police departments to fork over data they are not collecting and keeping in easily accessible places. Which is the problem. This is what it would look like: FBI requests data from rural part of Florida. Rural part of Florida says they don't have it. FBI demands it Rural part of Florida says nope. FBI attempts to force them. Lawsuit by Florida AG for overreach or some garbage. And a whole lot of "Federal war on local police". Or they just vet the already existing counts they can find on the internet? On September 23 2017 06:39 farvacola wrote:
Dude you're shooting the cause in the foot, even relatively well curated data from publications like WaPo is going to severely understate most of the juicy stuff aside from straight up weapon discharge homicides, the likes of which are only prominent because of the work of BLM and the like. This shit is literally the tip of the iceberg without federal collection mandates and accompanying funds. I'm not sure what you're arguing? "Shooting my cause in the foot" wtf? I think you are thinking I meant something I didn't. Otherwise, I really can't see what you're arguing against? You said that if the FBI wants the data, it can get it. I am suggesting that this misses the more fundamental problem, that being a lack of resources and political will underlying the national effort needed should we want to know what's happening outside the top 50 metropolitan areas. Short and sweet, police departments must be forced to start collecting/reporting data throughout the nation and this requires more than increased oversight by the FBI, as important as that may be independently.
Yeah, okay. I was referring to the justifiable homicide list mentioned earlier in the post, and of course we need a national effort. I was merely pointing out the FBI could easily be doing more than they are with current legislation and they are making a choice not to.
|
On September 23 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:41 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 06:32 farvacola wrote:
What do you think data collection looks like? Many rural police departments still haven't even fully implemented computers, not to mention any sort of automated data collection that runs alongside normal operations. Many of the departments most likely to garner attention also take take routine haircuts these days as budget-scared local electorates push them towards traffic tickets as revenue generators and state legislators vote away their state revenue sharing allotment. The FBI could show up in a few trouble spots, yeah, but getting ahold of solid, reliable numbers underpinning use of force, firearm discharge rates, arrest/charging rations, etc. takes way more manpower than you seem to understand. I'm thinking if some publications can muster up more accurate numbers than the FBI the FBI is failing at their job. The FBI can't force police departments to fork over data they are not collecting and keeping in easily accessible places. Which is the problem. This is what it would look like: FBI requests data from rural part of Florida. Rural part of Florida says they don't have it. FBI demands it Rural part of Florida says nope. FBI attempts to force them. Lawsuit by Florida AG for overreach or some garbage. And a whole lot of "Federal war on local police". Or they just vet the already existing counts they can find on the internet? Against what? They can't get the data from the states, so they have no ability to vet the information. They have no base line. Again, I completely agree with you that we should have this data for the public. But the FBI is not the group to demand it. The executive branch isn't the part of goverment that can demand it. You're fight is with congress. I mean death certificates seem like one place to start. Or hell, just put an asterisk next to the number. I mean you guys are being pretty silly about this?
I track down death certificates as part of my job, they are not super easy to get a lot of the time. And they are not something you request on mass. Most states freak out when you request them on mass and want to know what the hell you are doing.
And you want the FBI to publish inaccurate data and then what? Have people ignore the data that they admit is inaccurate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
