|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 10 2020 03:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 03:03 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Imagine a world where the community polices itself... Just like these BLM protests are policing themselves since you know, the actual police are brutalizing them. Police *is* the community policing itself. Or at least it's supposed to be. It isn't an army controlled by the state. You even elect your sheriffs! However you threw all oversight out the window and decided they were above the law. And hey, it turns out that power corrupts. So now you have an armed force who do whatever the hell they want under the pretense of upholding the law.
If the judiciary arm lets the executive arm run loose and the legislative arm doesn't care about anything but themselves, you have a malfunctioning system.
In my opinion the fish stinks from the head. This administration is the epitome of corruption, nepotism and misinformation. In truth Trump doesn't give a damn about what happened he's just fishing for the next term, but not in the social justice pond.
|
Getting rid of judicial conservatives is definitely part of the equation, in a couple years maybe I’ll be able to do my part to fix that 
|
On June 10 2020 03:38 farvacola wrote:Getting rid of judicial conservatives is definitely part of the equation, in a couple years maybe I’ll be able to do my part to fix that
Probably someone in the legislative part will be making sure you keep the status quo in place. You don't tend to climb without political favours, or agreeing to become blackmailable nowadays.
|
On June 10 2020 03:03 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Imagine a world where the community polices itself... Just like these BLM protests are policing themselves since you know, the actual police are brutalizing them.
It doesn't seem that complex? Especially with the practical example of the immediate juxtaposition of how Seattle's east precinct was protected by the police vs the peer-to-peer mitigation strategies employed when the police abandoned the station.
|
On June 10 2020 03:03 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Imagine a world where the community polices itself... Just like these BLM protests are policing themselves since you know, the actual police are brutalizing them.
It's not really the cure it's made out to be because usually when this happens those communities just start reproducing the exact same problems and hierarchies they tried to get rid of only worse because now it's sort of tribal and informal and there's nobody from the outside to keep a check on things.
|
It also doesn't address the issue of the prevailing gun issues in some communities as well. If everyone agrees to be good actors, then possibly. But the one with the most power (guns) will have control of an entire community. But this is all speculation until we get some kind of real world data to derive from it. If Camden is any kind of example, it could work out great.
|
|
|
On June 10 2020 04:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It also doesn't address the issue of the prevailing gun issues in some communities as well. If everyone agrees to be good actors, then possibly. But the one with the most power (guns) will have control of an entire community. But this is all speculation until we get some kind of real world data to derive from it. If Camden is any kind of example, it could work out great.
Camden didn't replace the police department with anarchism. They replaced the police department with a different police department.
|
On June 10 2020 04:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 04:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It also doesn't address the issue of the prevailing gun issues in some communities as well. If everyone agrees to be good actors, then possibly. But the one with the most power (guns) will have control of an entire community. But this is all speculation until we get some kind of real world data to derive from it. If Camden is any kind of example, it could work out great. Camden didn't replace the police department with anarchism. They replaced the police department with a different police department.
Of course. I meant that the interim between disbanding and restructuring it. With the way people here are talking, they want it all gone immediately. I should caveat that some understand the slow transition something like this would need to take otherwise it is anarchism and it does no good whatsoever. I favor the slow transition of course, where the services required to replace the functions the police do are built up and deployed when they are ready and capable.
|
A good read: An essay about police culture from a former officer. Gives an insight for those who don't believe it's structural problems, and how the training is excessively focused on violence and how the 'don't snitch' culture starts at the academy.
link
Here's a small part where he makes a case that a lot of current police work should ideally not be done by police.
The question is this: did I need a gun and sweeping police powers to help the average person on the average night? The answer is no. When I was doing my best work as a cop, I was doing mediocre work as a therapist or a social worker. My good deeds were listening to people failed by the system and trying to unite them with any crumbs of resources the structure was currently denying them.
It’s also important to note that well over 90% of the calls for service I handled were reactive, showing up well after a crime had taken place. We would arrive, take a statement, collect evidence (if any), file the report, and onto the next caper. Most “active” crimes we stopped were someone harmless possessing or selling a small amount of drugs. Very, very rarely would we stop something dangerous in progress or stop something from happening entirely. The closest we could usually get was seeing someone running away from the scene of a crime, but the damage was still done.
And consider this: my job as a police officer required me to be a marriage counselor, a mental health crisis professional, a conflict negotiator, a social worker, a child advocate, a traffic safety expert, a sexual assault specialist, and, every once in awhile, a public safety officer authorized to use force, all after only a 1000 hours of training at a police academy. Does the person we send to catch a robber also need to be the person we send to interview a rape victim or document a fender bender? Should one profession be expected to do all that important community care (with very little training) all at the same time?
To put this another way: I made double the salary most social workers made to do a fraction of what they could do to mitigate the causes of crimes and desperation. I can count very few times my monopoly on state violence actually made our citizens safer, and even then, it’s hard to say better-funded social safety nets and dozens of other community care specialists wouldn’t have prevented a problem before it started.
|
I read the Bloomberg Camden N.J article. Do people read articles anymore? What they actually did:
+ Show Spoiler +www.bloomberg.comThe new county force is double the size of the old one, and officers almost exclusively patrol the city. (They were initially nonunion but have since unionized.) Increasing the head count was a trust-building tactic, says Thomson, who served as chief throughout the transition: Daily, noncrisis interactions between residents and cops went up. Police also got de-escalation training and body cameras, and more cameras and devices to detect gunfire were installed around the city. While many departments define “reasonable” force in the line of duty vaguely, Camden’s definition is much clearer. The department adopted an 18-page use-of-force policy in 2019, developed with New York University’s Policing Project. The rules emphasize that de-escalation has to come first. Deadly force—such as a chokehold or firing a gun—can only be used in certain situations, once every other tactic has been exhausted.
1) They doubled the head count.
2) Patrolled the city.
3) De-escalation training, including rules on the use of deadly force.
4) Body cameras and "An officer who sees a colleague violating the edict must intervene; the department can fire any officer it finds acted out of line"
5) "cameras and devices to detect gunfire were installed around the city"
Result:Homicides in Camden reached 67 in 2012; the figure for 2019 was 25.
Reports of excessive force complaints in Camden have dropped 95% since 2014.
Obviously those are cherry picked, but I'm sure people get the idea.
Is that abolishing the police? No it isn't; they doubled the police department. This is what an effective police reform looks like.
|
There are lessons that can be learned from Camden. But imitating it is not an effective strategy at all. Doubling police nationwide is an obviously bad idea, as they rally around the guy/s that assaulted that elderly man, and are committing hundreds of incidents of brutality regularly and throwing fits like this.+ Show Spoiler +It didn't even broach several of the systemic issues that need to be addressed immediately as well, like community oversight for one.
Camden has had a lot of other issues, not the least of which is an increased reliance on domestic surveillance.
|
On June 10 2020 04:21 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 03:03 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Imagine a world where the community polices itself... Just like these BLM protests are policing themselves since you know, the actual police are brutalizing them. It's not really the cure it's made out to be because usually when this happens those communities just start reproducing the exact same problems and hierarchies they tried to get rid of only worse because now it's sort of tribal and informal and there's nobody from the outside to keep a check on things.
Anyone who's ever had to deal with a homeowner's association knows everything they need to about a community policing itself, imo.
I feel like the left has a tendency to fetishise "the community" the same way the right fetishises small business and the nuclear family. All the same problems are still there and your local community probably contains all the same racists and petty tyrants, just waiting for the power to do something about it.
|
On June 10 2020 06:38 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 04:21 Nyxisto wrote:On June 10 2020 03:03 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Imagine a world where the community polices itself... Just like these BLM protests are policing themselves since you know, the actual police are brutalizing them. It's not really the cure it's made out to be because usually when this happens those communities just start reproducing the exact same problems and hierarchies they tried to get rid of only worse because now it's sort of tribal and informal and there's nobody from the outside to keep a check on things. Anyone who's ever had to deal with a homeowner's association knows everything they need to about a community policing itself, imo. I feel like the left has a tendency to fetishise "the community" the same way the right fetishises small business and the nuclear family. All the same problems are still there and your local community probably contains all the same racists and petty tyrants, just waiting for the power to do something about it.
The problems you're talking about are related to social and economic nurturing. While we can't eliminate aberrant behavior altogether (the typical Utopian charge is aimed at this misconception) there is a wide and scientific basis for ML theory regarding mitigating aberrant behavior. It's also important to note how ineffective police are. People don't appreciate just how many criminals (the kind they think we need police for) are not caught (despite us leading the world in incarceration).
|
Northern Ireland25648 Posts
On June 10 2020 02:17 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2020 11:47 Wombat_NI wrote:On June 09 2020 09:04 Dan HH wrote:On June 09 2020 08:23 Sent. wrote:On June 09 2020 08:14 Erasme wrote:On June 09 2020 06:56 Dan HH wrote:On June 09 2020 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Just as a matter of clarification there's a lot of cooption taking place on what is actually being called for. Now there's a lot of liberal and 'progressive' folks all over the chart but a brief synopsis of what "Defund the police" means can be found here: Reject any proposed expansion to police budgets.
Prohibit private-public innovation schemes that profit from temporary technological fixes to systemic problems of police abuse and violence. These contracts and data-sharing arrangements, however profitable for technologists and reformists, are lethal.
Reduce the power of police unions.
Until the police are fully defunded, make police union contract negotiations public.
Pressure the AFL-CIO to denounce police unions.
Prohibit city candidates taking money from police unions and stop accepting union funds.
Withhold pensions and don’t rehire cops involved in use of excessive force.
Demand the highest budget cuts per year, until they slash police budget to zero.
Slash police salaries across the board until they are zeroed out.
Immediately fire police officers who have any excessive force complaints.
No hiring of new officers or replacement of fired or resigned officers.
Fully cut funding for public relations.
Suspend the use of paid administrative leave for cops under investigation.
Require police, not cities, to be liable for misconduct and violence settlements.
Abolish asset forfeiture programs and laws. www.8toabolition.comIt's a good hub for a lot of other useful information about related movements as well. Doritos Deray put a more centrist version and tacked on the word "abolish" later but that's just sheepdog shit imo. Do you support that list? I find quite a few of those lines to be antithetical to basic worker rights. Which ones ? If you're thinking about the unions ones, police unions don't work the same way in the US as in the EU. I would pick those: Withhold pensions and don’t rehire cops involved in use of excessive force.
Slash police salaries across the board until they are zeroed out.
Immediately fire police officers who have any excessive force complaints.
Suspend the use of paid administrative leave for cops under investigation. Those were immediate red flags for me as well. Some very quick explanations: Whatever pension you've accrued until dismissal was already yours, not the holder's. Around these parts slashes/freezes are done for all public workers across the board in times of crisis. To single out police as the only public workers that can never get a raise sounds like it should break about 50 different laws. I'm sure we can agree that justified complaints are somewhere below 100%. You can be immediately fired for a complaint, but to have a rule that requires immediate firing upon a complaint is another thing entirely. If the investigation goes the way of the cops, assuming it was in good faith, they lost wages through no fault of their your own. Sure, you can pay them back but for all you know they could have been evicted or defaulted on a loan in that time, this opens up a can of worms. All in all, to me that list reads more like something aimed at prawns in District 9 than at people that eat and pay their bills with their labor. And this is coming from someone that finds police culture in the US outrageously toxic. What laws would it break? Public sector workers the world over get shafted on below inflation pay rates all the time, including nurses in the U.K. Not getting good pay raises? How generous are the raises vast swathes of minimum wage private sector workers get? People who are paid so badly the state has to subside their wages? Oh that’s legal? I would have an issue with the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ aspects of this, and that’s about it. It’s worth bearing in mind that police are the only ‘employees’ of the state that have the powers of initial legal enforcement and the monopoly on employing state-sanctioned violence. If they genuinely care about serving their communities, as some do, or merely want the odd extra blowjob after flashing the badge at the very least they should be held to higher standards than almost any other basic profession there is out there. As it stands the opposite is true, indeed the active resistance and abject failure to self-regulate may lead, in the current political climate to over/regulation. And who cares really at this point? Had enough time to clean house. We can split hairs on legality but you have a job that doesn’t even need a college degree, gives you legitimate force in employing violence for the state AND if you overdo it you’re effectively protected and immune from consequences. Surely you notice the gargantuan difference between not getting a raise and codifying that the wages of a specific profession within the public sector can only go down. I agree with the rest of your post, but I don't see any of that reflected on the list of demands. What I see is the design of a special caste for a 'lesser profession', and that should be called out especially on this forum where the ideological inconsistencies of conservatives never fail to get ridiculed. They can raze police and redistribute their duties to their heart's content as far as I'm concerned, but demanding them to stay on as not-true workers undeserving of basic rights is some feudal bullshit, all in the name of social equality.
Ok that is fair. I don’t really think they should be singled out in that specific domain in the way you laid out, agreed there.
|
Northern Ireland25648 Posts
On June 10 2020 06:38 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2020 04:21 Nyxisto wrote:On June 10 2020 03:03 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Imagine a world where the community polices itself... Just like these BLM protests are policing themselves since you know, the actual police are brutalizing them. It's not really the cure it's made out to be because usually when this happens those communities just start reproducing the exact same problems and hierarchies they tried to get rid of only worse because now it's sort of tribal and informal and there's nobody from the outside to keep a check on things. Anyone who's ever had to deal with a homeowner's association knows everything they need to about a community policing itself, imo. I feel like the left has a tendency to fetishise "the community" the same way the right fetishises small business and the nuclear family. All the same problems are still there and your local community probably contains all the same racists and petty tyrants, just waiting for the power to do something about it.
Fair, especially in the age we live now where people are increasingly atomised and don’t know their neighbours.
Based on how my grandmother described her youth I could see that community rather effectively managing itself, not so the suburb I’m currently in.
|
On June 10 2020 05:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:I read the Bloomberg Camden N.J article. Do people read articles anymore? What they actually did: + Show Spoiler +www.bloomberg.comThe new county force is double the size of the old one, and officers almost exclusively patrol the city. (They were initially nonunion but have since unionized.) Increasing the head count was a trust-building tactic, says Thomson, who served as chief throughout the transition: Daily, noncrisis interactions between residents and cops went up. Police also got de-escalation training and body cameras, and more cameras and devices to detect gunfire were installed around the city. While many departments define “reasonable” force in the line of duty vaguely, Camden’s definition is much clearer. The department adopted an 18-page use-of-force policy in 2019, developed with New York University’s Policing Project. The rules emphasize that de-escalation has to come first. Deadly force—such as a chokehold or firing a gun—can only be used in certain situations, once every other tactic has been exhausted. 1) They doubled the head count.2) Patrolled the city. 3) De-escalation training, including rules on the use of deadly force. 4) Body cameras and "An officer who sees a colleague violating the edict must intervene; the department can fire any officer it finds acted out of line" 5) "cameras and devices to detect gunfire were installed around the city" Result:Homicides in Camden reached 67 in 2012; the figure for 2019 was 25. Reports of excessive force complaints in Camden have dropped 95% since 2014. Obviously those are cherry picked, but I'm sure people get the idea. Is that abolishing the police? No it isn't; they doubled the police department. This is what an effective police reform looks like.
no they don't, it's been hilarious watching everyone reference this while not even the slightest bit of understanding other than the tweet they sourced it from lol
The Dept they have absolutely does incorporate a lot of the good suggested reforms. There are way more cops now, and they're way more visible in a good way through community engagement. They also added one of the most exhaustive ROE in the nation, everyone has body cams, etc etc. The reforms they have enacted are all good
What people ignore is that is why that all happened. Camden has been broke as shit for ages because all it's tax base fled since it's been a dump for ages. Because of that, they couldn't pay their local PD, and laid off roughly half the force in 2010, and immediately had one of their highest crime years because, surprise, despite current popular thoughts, police are kind of needed.
Then Chris Christie led a GOP-spearheaded union bust because the department was too expensive, which was something he had been beating a dumb about for a while. He was trying to do it with other cities that were a drain on state funds and 100% would have tried it with teachers and fire depts too if he could have.
It's been a success because of the reforms that were put in place, but the union bust was not necessary for that. Not surprisingly, the biggest issues they have right now are police retention due to the shit job with now decreased pay (average pay is ~$60k, which is a solid 20-30k less than state average; they have unionized again since but $60 does not go very far in NJ) and they have a hard time hiring non-white Camden locals.
Camden is still Camden, but the reforms put in place minus the union bust are all good and it's backed by data now. But I'm kinda shocked at how quick everyone on both sides swept the backstory on that under the rug and pretends like the republicans won't immediately use this model to bust up any public sector union that gets too expensive.
|
They’ll definitely do that, so it’s incumbent on folks who know the difference between good and bad unions to lay out clearly what that difference is.
|
This is pretty significant given the recent discussions regarding ANTIFA. None have been cited in any court cases so far and no arrests have led to any being ID'd as being affiliated with it at all. There was one group mentioned however: a right-wing extremist group.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr has repeatedly blamed anti-fascist activists for the violence that has erupted during demonstrations over George Floyd's death, but federal court records show no sign of so-called antifa links so far in cases brought by the Justice Department.
NPR has reviewed court documents of 51 individuals facing federal charges in connection with the unrest. As of Tuesday morning, none is alleged to have links to the antifa movement.
Of the cases brought so far, 20 involve allegations related to arson; 16 involve the illegal possession of a firearm, more often than not by a felon; another eight people face charges related to inciting a riot or civil disorder.
The single instance in which an extremist group is mentioned in court documents is a case against three Nevada men. Federal prosecutors allege the trio belong to the right-wing Boogaloo movement that wants to bring about a civil war. The men have been charged with plotting violence during Las Vegas protests.
In an interview Monday with Fox News, Barr said the lack of cases against alleged antifa activists so far does not mean they haven't been involved in the violence.
"We have some investigations underway, very focused investigations on certain individuals that relate to antifa," Barr told Fox News host Bret Baier. "But in the initial phase of identifying people and arresting them, they were arrested for crimes that don't require us to identify a particular group or don't necessitate that."
Source
|
Antifa isthe new boogeyman for the right, just like Hilary and Obama are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
